Intersex- cause of GID?

[spacial]

-from Spacial

My problem is exactly this. This 'authoritative' manual seems to think that assigning gender must be done quickly. Are there manuals with as much authority which say do not?
-from Renard

With respect Kat, when doing research it is essential to look at a cross section of views. Excluding those with which we disagree, is professionally and accedemically, unacceptable.

When I was called upon to write reports, any notions I included needed to be backed by references. It was also necessary that I acknowledged other references that might be different, even contradictory.

The point is, an authoritive report cannot me made without a full examination of the available information, even when you may not like it.

That was why I included the quote from the consultant in Scotland. 'It's useful to check what someone else thinks!!' That someone else, being someone with whom you may disagree.

I am sorry, but in an intellectual atmosphere, not to mention a democracy, it is necessary to allow views which we disagree with.

But at the risk of repitition, I have to say, the only way for people in our situation to progress in society is with the argument of self expression.

Using apparent scientific or medical justification is going to have us and our cause, shot down in flames. Quite simply, because any apparent science has mixed views and any apparent medical or psychological arguments are, at best, weak.

[LordKAT]

With respect Kat, when doing research it is essential to look at a cross section of views. Excluding those with which we disagree, is professionally and accedemically, unacceptable.

When I was called upon to write reports, any notions I included needed to be backed by references. It was also necessary that I acknowledged other references that might be different, even contradictory.

The point is, an authoritive report cannot me made without a full examination of the available information, even when you may not like it.

That was why I included the quote from the consultant in Scotland. 'It's useful to check what someone else thinks!!' That someone else, being someone with whom you may disagree.

I am sorry, but in an intellectual atmosphere, not to mention a democracy, it is necessary to allow views which we disagree with.

But at the risk of repitition, I have to say, the only way for people in our situation to progress in society is with the argument of self expression.

Using apparent scientific or medical justification is going to have us and our cause, shot down in flames. Quite simply, because any apparent science has mixed views and any apparent medical or psychological arguments are, at best, weak.

The bolded section is part of the point. This is one view, where are others. Why is this view correct? What 'authority' made it the rule  and why? Where are the other views?

The point isn't just whether I disagree. I'm not saying no one can disagree. That never was the point nor part of my original question.

So answer the question.

[rejennyrated]

And to echo what envie says, the strange thing is that when you do that most of us do eventually choose a side of our own free will, and even if we choose a side that is ostensibly at odds with our appearance the result of having been allowed to make that choice freely is that we suffer far less confusion and trauma than most of you seem to have done.

I ended up very close indeed to my parents. So contrary to those who say that this would be harmful I think it actually helps with bonding.

[spacial]

The bolded section is part of the point. This is one view, where are others. Why is this view correct? What 'authority' made it the rule  and why? Where are the other views?

The point isn't just whether I disagree. I'm not saying no one can disagree. That never was the point nor part of my original question.

So answer the question.

It isn't necessarily correct. There is no correct. There isn't and must never be, a rule. There are only opinions.

Other points of view will be found in other sources.

As I've already said, the Merek Manual is one source, it happens to come in a handy size and be updated regularly.

It is authoritive because it is produced by professionals and peer reviewed. Not because it is the standard upon which all decisions will be based. Humans are not machines. They are variable and need to be dealt with as individuals.

[VeronikaFTH]

And Renard - I am sorry but I TOTALLY disagree. I perceive that you may be of the school that believes that gender is largely the result of nurture. Personally I would say that this is decidedly not the case. I think gender identity is hardwired into our brains from birth and I can think of nothing that anyone could say that would convince me otherwise. By the age of five I was sufficiently convinced that I was NOT male that I was willing to openly voice it and thankfully in my case I was believed.

If one does a bit of research it becomes clear that much of our behavior is biological. Parenting, and how a child is raised, matters but not to the extent that people think it does. It seems to be about 50/50.

I would agree that gender is definitely mostly hardwired into our brains. Why else would most of us exhibit transgender behaviour at a young age, not knowing anything about it at all, with no encouragement or influence from anyone?

I certainly wasn't encouraged to be feminine in any way by anyone. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true.

[regan]

Parents will bond with their child regardless of any birth defect.  Cleft pallet, missing limbs or ambiguous genital, parents will over look them all and just love their child..  So it is not necessary to gender the child right away.  You raise the child with love and attention, not based on what is between the baby's legs.

If only that were true.  Foster care is full of kids who's parents failed to bond with them.

[envie]

There are unfortunately always going to be people who should not have children in first place and the majority of abandoned children completely fit the norm and their parents for what ever reason still fail to bond with them!

[LordKAT]

There are unfortunately always going to be people who should not have children in first place and the majority of abandoned children completely fit the norm and their parents for what ever reason still fail to bond with them!

I agree that bonding isn't based on knowing a baby's gender but on whether or not that parent loves and acts like they love the child. I don't think a manual should give advice when there is nothing backing it up and studies showing it to be wrong.

Spacial seems to think otherwise.

[insideontheoutside]

I am so thankful that my parents did not have any type of corrective surgery done on me as a baby. I'm pretty certain it was "urged" by the doctor but my parents were more concerned about my health and if nothing was seriously wrong they did not want their baby operated on.

Personally, I think there is a growing movement to not "correct" ambiguous genitalia in babies if it doesn't impede things like being able to function. There are some anomalies that would make it hard to urinate for example that a small corrective surgery could actually benefit  but definitely not chopping anything off or trying to make something look more "accepted". It's like the growing movement against circumcision, which is a form of surgery as well and many now view it as genital mutilation instead of the accepted U.S. (because U.S. seems to be the main country still advocating it for this reason) viewpoint that it's somehow "healthier" or prevents disease.

So corrective surgeries on ambiguous genitalia here in the U.S. has long been viewed as "helpful" as well - helping to make sure a baby "fits in" to the appropriate gender binary of male or female (not both and not anywhere in between - because that's just freakish!  ). However, most that have had surgeries done as infants and have come out about it have pretty much struggled their whole lives with it. Either they are really resentful for someone having made that choice for them - especially if their mind does not match what their genitals were "corrected" too or they are just upset that it was all kept a secret from them. There was that one famous case of the circumcision gone wrong and they basically turned the poor guy into a girl and raised him as such because the psychologists said that as long as gender is chosen and instilled early in life and the person is brought up as that gender they will be that gender. Well that guy not only proved them wrong he took his own life because he just couldn't deal with it.

At some point, U.S. medicine has to acknowledge that not only can brain and body be different but that making a decision in that department on an individual when they're just a baby (and don't have a choice) does have consequences. 

[LordKAT]

@insideontheoutside
That was the John Money fiasco brought up earlier and also one reason I don't understand having this opinion or advice of saying a child will be what they are brought up as in Manual described as being 'authoritative'. I think that needs to be changed almost as much as the DSM needs work.

[insideontheoutside]

@insideontheoutside
That was the John Money fiasco brought up earlier and also one reason I don't understand having this opinion or advice of saying a child will be what they are brought up as in Manual described as being 'authoritative'. I think that needs to be changed almost as much as the DSM needs work.

Ah yes. Sorry I didn't read through every post. Sometimes I don't just to offer my opinion without being swayed by what everyone else has already said!

But yes, I totally agree that there's now clear evidence that that was psychological bullsh*t and it really should not be in any kind of manual as a hard and fast rule of "the way things are", because clearly in the real world it doesn't always work like how the psychologists think it should.

[spacial]

I agree that bonding isn't based on knowing a baby's gender but on whether or not that parent loves and acts like they love the child. I don't think a manual should give advice when there is nothing backing it up and studies showing it to be wrong.

Spacial seems to think otherwise.

Not sure where you get that idea.

People can't be prevented from wirting things just because we happen to disagree with them.

Because I read something, doesn't mean I agree with it.

The Merek Manual is authoritive, because it's peer reviewed, not because it is right.

Also, the term Manual, is the chosen title of the publishers, Merek, not an indication of it's importance nor accuracy.

http://www.merck.com/

[LordKAT]

Not sure where you get that idea.

People can't be prevented from wirting things just because we happen to disagree with them.

Because I read something, doesn't mean I agree with it.

The Merek Manual is authoritive, because it's peer reviewed, not because it is right.

Also, the term Manual, is the chosen title of the publishers, Merek, not an indication of it's importance nor accuracy.

http://www.merck.com/

Your answer 

With respect Kat, when doing research it is essential to look at a cross section of views. Excluding those with which we disagree, is professionally and accedemically, unacceptable.

When I was called upon to write reports, any notions I included needed to be backed by references. It was also necessary that I acknowledged other references that might be different, even contradictory.

The point is, an authoritive report cannot me made without a full examination of the available information, even when you may not like it.

did not answer my concerns but told how this merck manual was authoritative. The idea that I would not read things that I disagreed with had no bearing on what I was asking. It  also makes no sense as I was obviously reading material which I disagree with and sharing it. How is discussing that not reading the material I disagree with?

You are right, people can write whatever they want, but when it is in a book or whatever which is used by others as being 'athoritative'  then it ought to have been researched and written correctly. Calling out something which is wrong is necessary.


Once again, answer the question this thread is asking or debate the subject.
to save you having to look that up,

If a doctor said they could not tell which gender your child was, would you really not love them as much?

and here I am asking for anopposing view from another source

This 'authoritative' manual seems to think that assigning gender must be done quickly. Are there manuals with as much authority which say do not?

same here

Why is this view correct? What 'authority' made it the rule  and why? Where are the other views?

peer reviewed and no complaints about that statement I bolded to begin with?

So once again, stick to the subject and not whether or not this manual is so great or whether or not I will read views that I disagree with.

Now for regan

If only that were true.  Foster care is full of kids who's parents failed to bond with them.

Foster care is also full of kids who should have never been pulled from their parents and kids whose bond is strong with their parents.

I think Janet was right in saying that parents will bond without regard to birth defect.

@insideontheoutside

You are right, things don't always workout as psych people think it will. Psych people have it hard in some ways because they are dealing with things that change and there is no black and white diagram that can be made, they have to somewhat guess for a diagnosis. Much of what they 'treat' ( I use that term loosely) is subjective.

[spacial]

Your answer      did not answer my concerns but told how this merck manual was authoritative.

The Merek Manual is authoritive, because it's peer reviewed, not because it is right.

Also, the term Manual, is the chosen title of the publishers, Merek, not an indication of it's importance nor accuracy.

http://www.merck.com/

I added the information about the Merek Manual to put it, as an authoritive medical text, into context. Nothing else.

I haven't and won't participate in the discussion simply because I see little point, when the conclusion is foregone.

[LordKAT]

I added the information about the Merek Manual to put it, as an authoritive medical text, into context. Nothing else.

I haven't and won't participate in the discussion simply because I see little point, when the conclusion is foregone.

[/b]

If only you had participated instead of changing the subject. You are intelligent person and can have interesting points of view.

[Northern Jane]

When we are talking Intersex it is best (in my humble opinion) to hear what Intersex adults have to say for themselves. All of this has been discussed for YEARS in Intersex circles and some definitive positions developed. Regardless of what the medical "experts" say, the proof is in the pudding and who knows the final result better than Intersex people themselves

http://www.intersexualite.org/Index.html

As to Nurture v.s. Nature in the development of psychological gender, John Money's work is widely available on the Net, as is the work of his opponent Dr. Milton Diamond. Virtually every medical test/study on human development and function in the last 20 years has pointed toward a strong biological factor in gender and away from the Nurture theory.

As for bonding .... if a parent does not bond with an Intersex baby it has a whole lot more to do with the parent's prejudices and ignorance than the baby's medical condition. Intersex is a natural occurrence, like cleft pallet or cub foot, and if it was discussed openly as such instead of stigmatized as "a sexual disorder" these problems would not exist in the first place.

[LordKAT]

When we are talking Intersex it is best (in my humble opinion) to hear what Intersex adults have to say for themselves. All of this has been discussed for YEARS in Intersex circles and some definitive positions developed. Regardless of what the medical "experts" say, the proof is in the pudding and who knows the final result better than Intersex people themselves

http://www.intersexualite.org/Index.html

I also think that the best way to know that is to ask Intersex people themselves and is why I am grateful that one such person responded on this thread. The link is slow loading for some reason.

As to Nurture v.s. Nature in the development of psychological gender, John Money's work is widely available on the Net, as is the work of his opponent Dr. Milton Diamond. Virtually every medical test/study on human development and function in the last 20 years has pointed toward a strong biological factor in gender and away from the Nurture theory.

This is a part of why I don't think the comment about having to gender a child quickly to insure parental bonding made sense.

As for bonding .... if a parent does not bond with an Intersex baby it has a whole lot more to do with the parent's prejudices and ignorance than the baby's medical condition. Intersex is a natural occurrence, like cleft pallet or cub foot, and if it was discussed openly as such instead of stigmatized as "a sexual disorder" these problems would not exist in the first place.

Good points. I still want to know if you feel you could bond to a baby ( especially your own) if you did not know their gender. Does not knowing really make it impossible to bond or harder? Does knowledge have any affect on the bonding?

Is this really such a hard question to respond to?