laurelin
Posts: 1
Joined: Apr 2005
|
April 08, 2005 5:21 AM
|
|
Dr. McHugh's research proves what I have often suspected about transsexuality. My question is, now that so many operations have been performed, how are we, as Christians, to deal with the people who are now living in a body that is not reflective of their real identity, and even in some cases, in a marriage, which may not really be valid, if one does not believe the Church condones same sex marriages? I don't think we can recommend another operation, should one even be possible, and we must still minister to these confused believers. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
gliberty
Posts: 1
Joined: Apr 2005
|
|
April 22, 2005 2:06 PM
|
|
This was a very interesting article. However, I think that only two options were considered where there may be more than two present. The article seemed to require one of two beleifs. Either you have to beleive that gender is not biologically driven (as some psychologists clearly had believed, but which medical science has not supported in many years); or you must beleive that since it is driven biologically, thee can be no sound reason for a person to surgically change it, and that the desire for surgery must be a psychological problem.
This is a maistake. Scientists have learned, particularly with the advent of genetic science, that biological sexuality is not at all simple, nor does it happen all at once. As the article described, in utero testosterone has a large impact on male sexuality and identity - yet that is a separate (although related) process from the underlying chromosomal factors.
About 1 in 1000 babies are born with XY chromosomes and because of a missing SRY gene, develop ovaries and are born partially female. XX males would be females but for a translocated SRY gene. 15% of those with this problem have undescended testes. XX males lack spermatogenesis. There is also X;Y translocation, mutation of downstream factors and other genetic disorders that may result in partially sex-reversed births. Severe congenital adrenal hyperplasia may mean the identification of a male at bith, who is genetically female. In many of these diseases, it is possible that the sexual identity and the sexual organs are determined by different genetic factors, resulting in genitals that are just as incorrect as those created by a surgeon after the birth.
So, just as those baby boys, turned into girls by a well-meaning surgeon, have true sexual dysphoria and want to recreate their original physical identity - the same phenomenon might occur in these genetically disordered babies. Many of these disorders are not diagnosed until the person goes to a fertility clinic. It is known that some trans-sexuals may have one of these disorders, and that this may be why they have sexual dysphoria.
To assume that something is purely psychological is to blame the victim of a genetic disorder and rather than treat the disease, to treat his discomfort with the disease. We would not treat the surgically changed child this way, with palliative psychological counseling, if we have surgical techniques to reverse the mistake - should we not treat someone the same if a genetic disorder did the surgery for them? To treat them any differently is like with-holding kidney surgey from someone with a disease, and only giving it to someone who was stabbed in the kidney.
|
|
|
|
lvngembrs
Posts: 3
Joined: Jan 2006
|
|
January 25, 2006 8:10 PM
|
|
These are all familiar points for anyone studying psychology at a college or university. What believers in the field of psychology need is not a re-hash of data that genetics and hormone elicited changes in the body and the sexual development of children, but a bit of guidance on how to allow our faith into the practice of our field.
If I might take my cursory knowledge of genetics and the interaction of the nvironment to show other readers that the field of psychology, biology, and other fields dealing with evolution are quite over the whole nature/nuture dichotomy.
First of all, "innate" is not a good term, as it's Latin base says that traits are first beginning at birth, how ever empirical observations have been conducted with Mallard duck eggs showing that they do not learn to prefer the Mallard maternal call at birth, but rather in the egg, as the embryos can hear in the eggshell. So, when we talk about how traits are acquired, nothing in effect in inherited, but acquired through the individual's interaction with the environment.
Secondly, anything and everything can be an environment, even the human womb is an environment, where the experience of hormones, nutrients, and chemicals elicit changes to a child until it is born. Additionally, your internal mechanisms contribute to your environment, so that facial hair for males appears to be inherited by mere fact of being male; but it is acquired through the experience (although unobservable) of released hormones.
So, yes the experience and the process in which one's gender is determined is a gradual, graded process that is dependent upon one's environment.
But biology is not the only thing that affects gender selection, especially once outside the womb. It's true htat we cannot change one's gender (yet -- either inside or outside the womb), but the psychological and sociological environment one is exposed to plays a great role. It is sociologically that we are geared towards blue or pink, bany dolls or toy trucks. But psychology plays a role, and it is this that first attracted me to this article, as there are numerous ways in which the determined gender comes into question and is challenged by the individual. I suppose that information is for another article, as I am not about to reiterate my psychology textbooks for you on sexual/gender disorders.
As for anyone interested in the Interactionist theory I wrote of: Moore, D.S. (2001) The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of "Nature vs Nuture". Henry Holt: New York.
-------------------------
And he said unto me, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. 2 cor 12:9
|
|
|
|
Peter_Abelard
Posts: 1
Joined: Sep 2006
|
|
September 13, 2006 3:14 PM
|
|
Hi,
thanks for your fascinating article.
Please could you elaborate on a few points.
1.) You say
"The most astonishing example is the surgeon in England who is prepared to amputate the legs of patients who claim to find sexual excitement in gazing at and exhibiting stumps of amputated legs."
I would be interested in having some justification of this comment, because whilst I know of one (now retired) psychiatrist in the UK who did believe such an approach to be viable, I know of no surgeon who ever put that into practice.
2.) I fully commend your views on the management of intersex infants, and delaying decisions about genital surgery etc. until they are of an age to make their own decisions. However, you are not clear what the approach should be where such adolescents seek an assignment other than that given at birth. Are you saying that later surgery should only be confirming of the assignment decision made on their behalf as infants?
3.) As you no doubt are aware, Benjamin promoted sex reassignment because he found that the treatment then available (that would encourage people to remain in their birth-sex) was not successful. Here in the UK, evidence-based medicine is very important. I would be interested to know of the evidence base you have to support that your method of treating transsexuals is more effective than the previous one of sex-reassignment. Given that the time between Benjamin's work and yours, and from when you were in a position to start your experiment and now are roughly the same, I would have expected that to be quite substantial by now.
PA
|
|
|
|
|
