Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I was reading an article and came across this:
     
quoted from: http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/sec23/ch265/ch265d.html (http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/sec23/ch265/ch265d.html)

The bolded lines are where I have issue.  Does anyone think that the bond babies have with parents really affect GID? Why not wait and let a child define their own identity, especially if intersexed? What gives? Does assigning a gender really affect a parental bond? Has it ever been tried with not assigning a gender at the start? If not, how can they say it is so and if so, where and who did they try it with? What happened?  Oi! Too many ponderings for this early in the morning.

I think the issue is more the parents in cases like this; a lot of people may simply not be up to raising a child in a non-gendered manner. A baby doesn't care what's between its legs. However, people treat babies very differently based off what they perceive the child's gender to be, and a lot of this behaviour isn't even intentional. Getting rid of those biased behaviours is hard work - it basically requires constant, vigilant censorship - and my guess is that most new parents believe they have enough on their plate.
(Sorry if that sounds rambly. Hopefully it sorts of makes sense? I'm a bit rushed x3)

I recall reading about a case in Sweden(I think?) about two parents raising their child in a gender-neutral manner. Nobody besides them and their doctor, if I recall correctly, know the child's biological sex. Might be worth keeping an eye on?


EDIT - I just wanted to quickly add that I imagine instances of GID in intersex children who are not assigned genders 'quickly' would probably be the (partial) result of presumably well-meaning but misguided parents. A lifetime of conforming to gender 'norms' can't just be erased at the drop of a hat, and I assume receiving mixed messages from one's parents, or inconsistent messages, would be tough for anybody to come to terms with.

Ken, based on my own experience I would say that the exact inverse of what the morons who wrote the article suggest is true. Forcibly reassigning a baby without asking them what they feel is mutilation and assault and those who practice such  barbaric practices should have it done to them and see how they like it.

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.

To clarify, I don't think gender's one hundred percent nurture or nature - I was talking about gendered behaviour - for example, people generally speak louder when dealing with a child dressed in blue, and speak more softly and use more baby talk when speaking to a child dressed in pink. People raised on the receiving end of these treatments pass them on, often without realizing it, by treating their children the same way.

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.

Quote from: Renard on January 05, 2011, 12:54:45 PM
To clarify, I don't think gender's one hundred percent nurture or nature - I was talking about gendered behaviour - for example, people generally speak louder when dealing with a child dressed in blue, and speak more softly and use more baby talk when speaking to a child dressed in pink. People raised on the receiving end of these treatments pass them on, often without realizing it, by treating their children the same way.

Fair enough - that may be the case - although I am not sure how one would demonstrate it. I don't know how my mother treated me when I was very tiny other than from her own subsequent explanations.

She always said that she believed that she should take her cues from me - so if I had behaved in what she felt was a masculine manner she would have treated me more as a male and as in fact I was always rather sensitive, talkative and shy she probably did treat me in a rather more female manner. That however is observation after the fact and therefore is hardly scientific.

careful research shows mothers and female relatives respond to and treat female babies differently to males babies and fathers and male relatives treat and respond differently to male babies so if the only marker between babies is genitals then a TS baby will be wrongly treated right from day one.

Been there had that.

Quote from: lilacwoman on January 05, 2011, 02:00:49 PM
careful research shows mothers and female relatives respond to and treat female babies differently to males babies and fathers and male relatives treat and respond differently to male babies so if the only marker between babies is genitals then a TS baby will be wrongly treated right from day one.

Been there had that.

Very probably true - but in this thread we were really talking about babies where there is some degree of intersex condition either visible or diagnosed via testing.

In that case the question is more interesting because it may not be obvious to the parents what sex their child truly is.

For example although I was never told as a child, when I subsequently discovered in later life that I had genetic markers for a mild intersex condition I wondered what my mother may have known. As my family were wealthy they had the best available private health care in the 1960's and I know that I was tested in early childhood for all sorts of unspecified things. I never knew what, and indeed my early medical records were conveniently selectively destroyed when I was transferred to the NHS under the pretext of tidying up the file when I went up to university so I do wonder if anything was known...

Quote from: Renard on January 05, 2011, 12:54:45 PM
To clarify, I don't think gender's one hundred percent nurture or nature - I was talking about gendered behaviour - for example, people generally speak louder when dealing with a child dressed in blue, and speak more softly and use more baby talk when speaking to a child dressed in pink. People raised on the receiving end of these treatments pass them on, often without realizing it, by treating their children the same way.

This was done with a female infant and telling people the baby  was male and people acted as the baby was male.
The reverse was also true.

As Jenny stated, this thread that makes no difference as we are talking about intersex conditions where the gender is an unknown.

The Mereck Manual is one of the standard texts that many traning colleges teach their students to use. I use it myself, regularly.

As to some of the more controversial views and opinions expressed, I will always remember a consultant phsicsian I knew in Scotland who said of the manual, 'It's useful to check what someone else thinks!!'

No serious researcher would rely upon once source. The Mereck Manual just happens to be a rather useful and authoritive source for certain types of information and approaches, contained in a small, rather handy volume.

I also have to say, that I doubt this sort of information can ever be seen as particularly important in affecting parental atitudes Much more important is the ->-bleeped-<-ure within which the parents live.

I really haven't heard of any research about raising intersex children, or assigning gender (the blue/pink baby stuff I was talking about is just standard psych textbook fodder). It would be interested to hear from some members of the forum who are intersex and either were or were not assigned a gender at birth, and their thoughts on this.

Also - Rejennyrated, your mother sounds like a good woman ^^


http://www.intersexinitiative.org/pdf/dreger-compare.pdf (http://www.intersexinitiative.org/pdf/dreger-compare.pdf)
- this has some basic information about what appear to be the two most popular models regarding intersex children and their (and I use the following term loosely) 'treatment'. It notes that intersex children experience higher rates of gender transition, like the OP's source, though it doesn't mention the parent-child bond.

Edit - This page, from the same site, has some quick info about the relation between GID and intersex - just figured it was relevant :)
http://www.intersexinitiative.org/articles/gid.html (http://www.intersexinitiative.org/articles/gid.html)

Well as I have stated as it happens I am/was intersex although I did not know it until some while after I had completed my transition and SRS. This makes me almost a control subject because I was not aware.

It seems to me that the infant child will be more likely to develop GID if their sex is (re)assigned based on chromosome tests rather than when there's a lack of bonding. I bonded plenty and now look at me. :-\

Much of the current practice regarding gender is still under the shadow of Dr. John Money (despite his spectacular failures!) and still promoted by quacks such as Dr. Ken Zucker.

The better informed practitioners are now aware of a multitude of factors but the critical factor is believed to be androgen exposure in the second trimester of pregnancy. Genital appearance is more dependant on androgen influences in the early weeks of pregnancy.  If gonads do not appear likely to be functional, the nod is generally given to genitals.

Except for a few hold-outs from the dark ages, androgen exposure during brain development is considered to be the determining factor in gender identity and generally accepted as immutable after birth.

I've met two intersexed people who had ambiguous genitalia at birth.  One had a vagina and uterus but deformed ovaries and not testicles; parents waited until kid could decide and he id'd as male, had corrective surgery in his teens, and lives as male.  The other guy also had ambiguous genitalia but I don't know the status of any potential internal organs.  His parents also let him live genderless until he told them he identified as male.  I met him in Serbia because Dr. Miro was fixing his junk.


Jay

QuoteThe Mereck Manual just happens to be a rather useful and authoritive source for certain types of information and approaches, contained in a small, rather handy volume.

-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?

QuoteIt notes that intersex children experience higher rates of gender transition

-from Renard

This would not be true if they were not assigned a gender too early. If they told themselves instead of having someone else (doctor) decide for them before they can articulate which gender is theirs.

QuoteEdit - This page, from the same site, has some quick info about the relation between GID and intersex - just figured it was relevant :)
http://www.intersexinitiative.org/articles/gid.html (http://www.intersexinitiative.org/articles/gid.html)

Actually all it says is intersex people don't want trans people to call themselves intersex and that most intersex people are happy with the gender choice made for them. The site is run by advocates of intersex people and not unbiased at all.

Quote from: Karla on January 05, 2011, 04:14:54 PM
It seems to me that the infant child will be more likely to develop GID if their sex is (re)assigned based on chromosome tests rather than when there's a lack of bonding. I bonded plenty and now look at me. :-\

While I agree with this statement , the question is why a parent would have difficulty bonding if gender is not assigned at or near birth.

@Northern Jane   What has that to do with bonding or assigning gender?

@sneakers Jay  Interesting and good stories but they were still officially assigned a gender at birth, were they not? Did that assigned gender match their true gender?

Would they have bonded with their parents if they weren't assigned at birth? and much as people try for genderless raising, I think it would be difficult to do as so many things are gendered. One thing is what restroom they used at school, what gym class, what pronouns were used at home when they were young? How were they named?

I guess I don't see parents not bonding just because a doctor didn't tell them they have a son or daughter instead of saying a healthy child. Why can the BC not be left blank until a later date such as age 16 or something?

With regards to the links I posted - I know they're unbiased, I was just trying to get some info. I did try to find some studies from medical journals, but there are very few relevant ones :/ And for the ones that I did find, I was only allowed the read the excerpts. The Merck manual doesn't cite any of its sources, by any chance, do they? I checked out the doctor who reviewed that article, and couldn't find any studies by him that seemed relevant, though I'm still looking.


And I overheard something yesterday I thought might be worth mentioning. Two university kids were talking about having a hermaphrodite child. I'm well aware that intersex =/= hermaphroditism, but their respective attitudes were what struck me. The first kid said it would be 'cool', amongst other things, and the second kid responded with 'What? It would be a nightmare!' and went on to talk about how the child would have to go through therapy, face social rejection, and so on.

Going on the second kid's views, I guess stress might be one reason the parent-child bond would be affected? Sure, some people are understanding and handle it fine, but you'd undoubtedly get some parents who would be stressed and agitated from  worrying about their child. They might subconsciously view the child as the cause of that stress, which would in turn colour their interactions with their child, and affect the bond.

Again, it's just an idea. I'm not trying to justify the manual's claim, just explain it.

That parent child bond is mostly formed within the first hours and days of  a child's life. A parents outlook could very well affect it. I think most parents know that physical aspects can be easily overcome with todays medical treatments. If a doctor said they could not tell which gender your child was, would you really not love them as much? I just don't see that.

QuoteChildren born with genitals that are not clearly male or female (see Birth Defects: Genital Defects) usually do not have a gender identity problem if they are decisively reared as one sex or the other, even if they are raised in the gender role that is opposite their biologic sex pattern. There have been some highly publicized cases, however, in which this approach has failed.

- this is also from the Merck Manual. John Money anyone? This manual , if highly regarded, needs to be changed. Doctors who  look to this need to be aware of how wrong it is much like some thoughts on the ..(brain dead but I think you know what book I mean)

People just seem to need to know at all cost who are they dealing with in regards to their gender in order to establish some connection. Something like "do I need to be cautious and afraid of you or are you potential mating partner"?.
This seems to be projected onto the relationship with the newborns which just seems so sick!

I have a daughter but I usually like to say to people that it appears to be a girl rather than it is a girl.
We are doing everything possible to not to sexualize her and raise her in gender neutral way.
She is a human, a child and there is no difference to us how to treat her in regards to her genitals. She does not have a gender that we know of yet as she is too young. We relate to her as our child and that is all we need to bond with IT and we love it more than anything in the world.

And yes, we are constantly fighting the sexualization attempts of other people who seem to be so eager to put her in one or the other drawer.
I believe we are giving our child complete palette of experiences, relationships and interactions regardless of her sex/gender wich would only make her well rounded person and help her figure out who she is on her own.

Quote from: LordKAT on January 08, 2011, 12:58:55 PM
-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.

Quote from: spacial on January 08, 2011, 07:09:29 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: LordKAT on January 08, 2011, 07:17:05 PM
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.

Quote from: rejennyrated on January 05, 2011, 12:49:02 PM
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.

Quote from: Janet Lynn on January 05, 2011, 01:01:07 PM
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.

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!

Quote from: envie on January 09, 2011, 06:04:13 PM
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.

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. 

@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.

Quote from: LordKAT on January 10, 2011, 11:26:53 AM
@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.

Quote from: LordKAT on January 10, 2011, 12:39:40 AM
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/ (http://www.merck.com/)

Quote from: spacial on January 10, 2011, 06:40:40 PM
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/ (http://www.merck.com/)

Your answer 

QuoteWith 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,

QuoteIf 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

QuoteThis '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

QuoteWhy 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

Quote from: regan on January 09, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
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.

Quote from: LordKAT on January 11, 2011, 01:03:19 AM
Your answer      did not answer my concerns but told how this merck manual was authoritative.

Quote from: spacial on January 10, 2011, 06:40:40 PM

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/ (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.

Quote from: spacial on January 11, 2011, 10:40:56 AM

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.

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 (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.

Quote from: Northern Jane on January 12, 2011, 04:35:42 AM
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 (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.

Quote from: Northern Jane on January 12, 2011, 04:35:42 AMAs 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.

Quote from: Northern Jane on January 12, 2011, 04:35:42 AMAs 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?