|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/health/child-sex-surgery-suit/index.html?sr=sharebar_facebook
(CNN) -- The adoptive parents of a child born with male and female organs say South Carolina mutilated their son by choosing a gender and having his male genitalia surgically removed.
The surgery took place when the child was 16 months old and a ward of the state, according to a lawsuit filed by the parents against three doctors and several members of the South Carolina Department of Social Services.
The child's biological mother was deemed unfit, and the biological father had apparently abandoned him, according to the suit. So others made the decision.
The child, now 8 years old, feels more like a boy and "wants to be a normal boy," said Pamela Crawford, the boy's adoptive mother."It's become more and more difficult, just as his identity has become more clearly male, the idea that mutilation was done to him had become more and more real," she said in a video released by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is assisting in the case.
"There was no medical reason that this decision had to be made at this time."
Will be interesting to see what the court decides. I wonder if there would still be litigation if the adoptive parents had chosen the surgery. I can't imagine who would advocate for it though, unless it was the child himself after he was old enough.
 
|
"There was no medical reason that this decision had to be made at this time."
I recall in my gender studies class spending almost a full month investigating case studies like this. I recall that most studies seem to converge that "its generally easier to remove things than add them on" even though gender identification is influenced most heavily by genetics. The kid will be fine, if not confused for a while. There is absolutely no reason why genitals should influence what that child feels about himself (assuming from the article, that is what he wishes to be identified with).
|
On May 23 2013 08:31 RoyGBiv_13 wrote:Show nested quote +"There was no medical reason that this decision had to be made at this time." I recall in my gender studies class spending almost a full month investigating case studies like this. I recall that most studies seem to converge that "its generally easier to remove things than add them on" even though gender identification is influenced most heavily by genetics. The kid will be fine, if not confused for a while. There is absolutely no reason why genitals should influence what that child feels about himself (assuming from the article, that is what he wishes to be identified with).
If it is difficult to add on, then why permanently remove without option to undo? I mean, is it justified in the first place to not wait for the kids input?
|
On May 23 2013 08:42 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 08:31 RoyGBiv_13 wrote:"There was no medical reason that this decision had to be made at this time." I recall in my gender studies class spending almost a full month investigating case studies like this. I recall that most studies seem to converge that "its generally easier to remove things than add them on" even though gender identification is influenced most heavily by genetics. The kid will be fine, if not confused for a while. There is absolutely no reason why genitals should influence what that child feels about himself (assuming from the article, that is what he wishes to be identified with). If it is difficult to add on, then why permanently remove without option to undo? I mean, is it justified in the first place to not wait for the kids input?
Female to male sex reassignment surgery is just as possible as male to female. The doctors very likely felt pressured to make some sort of choice, otherwise they could be sued for letting a child be both biological sexes.
|
On May 23 2013 09:26 Antylamon wrote:
The doctors very likely felt pressured to make some sort of choice, otherwise they could be sued for letting a child be both biological sexes.
i highly doubt that this is possible
|
On May 23 2013 09:50 teddyoojo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 09:26 Antylamon wrote:
The doctors very likely felt pressured to make some sort of choice, otherwise they could be sued for letting a child be both biological sexes. i highly doubt that this is possible
I'm curious as well if there's any cases of that happening?
|
Is the child genetically male or female ? I mean XX or XY ?
|
On May 23 2013 09:50 teddyoojo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 09:26 Antylamon wrote:
The doctors very likely felt pressured to make some sort of choice, otherwise they could be sued for letting a child be both biological sexes. i highly doubt that this is possible
I thought there was more pressure to leave it until the kid makes a decision.
|
On May 23 2013 11:07 endy wrote:
Is the child genetically male or female ? I mean XX or XY ?
If the child was genetically a hermaphrodite, then the answer would be both.
|
On May 23 2013 11:07 endy wrote:
Is the child genetically male or female ? I mean XX or XY ?
Doesn't say in the article. Does that change anything though if they knew? I would think that it's still something that could wait til later. The person may decide they don't want surgery at all.
|
Why not have him undergo a sex change operation ?
Also... I wasn't even aware a human can be hermaphrodite.
|
On May 23 2013 11:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 11:07 endy wrote:
Is the child genetically male or female ? I mean XX or XY ? If the child was genetically a hermaphrodite, then the answer would be both.
Just a "and now you know" thing, but nobody uses the term "hermaphrodite" to apply to humans. The term hermaphrodite implies the ability to produce functioning eggs and sperm, which is something that almost never occurs in humans, even in humans who have both sets of genitalia.
Intersex is a term that implies the presence of one of the many 'disorders of sex development' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development#Conditions). Many of these occur when strands of DNA fail to split correctly during mitosis, so the child ends up with sex chromosomes that look like XXXY or XXXX.
|
On May 23 2013 12:02 Aterons_toss wrote:
Why not have him undergo a sex change operation ?
Also... I wasn't even aware a human can be hermaphrodite.
He probably will, but what they did is basically chop off his penis at age 1 and now they have to create a new one from his female organs at age 8.
It's outrageously stupid for doctors/parents to be allowed to mutilate young children to meet their standards.
Imagine the whole circumcision debate except 100x worse. That's what this is.
|
On May 23 2013 12:10 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 12:02 Aterons_toss wrote:
Why not have him undergo a sex change operation ?
Also... I wasn't even aware a human can be hermaphrodite. He probably will, but what they did is basically chop off his penis at age 1 and now they have to create a new one from his female organs at age 8. It's outrageously stupid for doctors/parents to be allowed to mutilate young children to meet their standards. Imagine the whole circumcision debate except 100x worse. That's what this is.
The interesting thing is it wasn't even a parent's decision in this case, but the state of South Carolina.
|
|
|
On May 23 2013 12:08 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 11:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 23 2013 11:07 endy wrote:
Is the child genetically male or female ? I mean XX or XY ? If the child was genetically a hermaphrodite, then the answer would be both. Just a "and now you know" thing, but nobody uses the term "hermaphrodite" to apply to humans. The term hermaphrodite implies the ability to produce functioning eggs and sperm, which is something that almost never occurs in humans, even in humans who have both sets of genitalia. Intersex is a term that implies the presence of one of the many 'disorders of sex development' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development#Conditions). Many of these occur when strands of DNA fail to split correctly during mitosis, so the child ends up with sex chromosomes that look like XXXY or XXXX.
Well, not that it can't be applied to humans, more that terminology has moved forward on the matter. I know intersex is the more generalized term, but I had/have a hard time pinning down the terminology for someone that's actually physically both sexes to some degree.
|
On May 23 2013 12:08 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 11:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 23 2013 11:07 endy wrote:
Is the child genetically male or female ? I mean XX or XY ? If the child was genetically a hermaphrodite, then the answer would be both. Nobody uses the term "hermaphrodite" to apply to humans.
Let's not get carried away. While some people consider it an inappropriate term, it is both widely used and understood.
|
On May 23 2013 08:31 RoyGBiv_13 wrote:Show nested quote +"There was no medical reason that this decision had to be made at this time." I recall in my gender studies class spending almost a full month investigating case studies like this. I recall that most studies seem to converge that "its generally easier to remove things than add them on" even though gender identification is influenced most heavily by genetics. The kid will be fine, if not confused for a while. There is absolutely no reason why genitals should influence what that child feels about himself (assuming from the article, that is what he wishes to be identified with).
what???
there are plenty of people with organs that dont match how they feel interally. but if you feel like a guy and look down and see lady bits, it is gonna do a major fuckin number on your head. i am not sure why youd think that at all.
and yeah it is a lot easier to remove things than to add them on. which is why there is controversy about this because they made a choice (that did not have to happen) at a very young age, and it was totally wrong. not that i am saying that i am sure that leaving the kid with both genitals until theyre at an age to start identifying one way or another is the best option, but it is clear that what transpired is a fuck up
|
as Tyrion said in the Storm of Swords: "life is a lot simpler when you can simply f*ck yourself"
sorry bad taste lol, poor kid.
|
On May 23 2013 09:50 teddyoojo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 09:26 Antylamon wrote:
The doctors very likely felt pressured to make some sort of choice, otherwise they could be sued for letting a child be both biological sexes. i highly doubt that this is possible
In what way?
I know that people with both male and female organs are infertile. Is that what you mean?
EDIT: This guy says it better.
On May 23 2013 16:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 12:08 dcemuser wrote:On May 23 2013 11:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 23 2013 11:07 endy wrote:
Is the child genetically male or female ? I mean XX or XY ? If the child was genetically a hermaphrodite, then the answer would be both. Just a "and now you know" thing, but nobody uses the term "hermaphrodite" to apply to humans. The term hermaphrodite implies the ability to produce functioning eggs and sperm, which is something that almost never occurs in humans, even in humans who have both sets of genitalia. Intersex is a term that implies the presence of one of the many 'disorders of sex development' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development#Conditions). Many of these occur when strands of DNA fail to split correctly during mitosis, so the child ends up with sex chromosomes that look like XXXY or XXXX. Well, not that it can't be applied to humans, more that terminology has moved forward on the matter. I know intersex is the more generalized term, but I had/have a hard time pinning down the terminology for someone that's actually physically both sexes to some degree.
|
|
|
On May 23 2013 08:31 RoyGBiv_13 wrote:Show nested quote +"There was no medical reason that this decision had to be made at this time." I recall in my gender studies class spending almost a full month investigating case studies like this. I recall that most studies seem to converge that "its generally easier to remove things than add them on" even though gender identification is influenced most heavily by genetics. The kid will be fine, if not confused for a while. There is absolutely no reason why genitals should influence what that child feels about himself (assuming from the article, that is what he wishes to be identified with).
You spent a month studying cases like this and your conclusion is that the kid will be fine? Holy shit that's insensitive.
Why don't you get your penis surgically removed and give it to this kid? Oh yea.. because that would be crazy, stupid, and make you feel like shit about yourself.
"hey girl I like you and want to normal like my peers, but I don't have a penis, is that OK?" *girl is horrified and walks away*
This kid's life and long term happiness has been severely damaged.
|
On April 13 2014 08:48 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 08:31 RoyGBiv_13 wrote:"There was no medical reason that this decision had to be made at this time." I recall in my gender studies class spending almost a full month investigating case studies like this. I recall that most studies seem to converge that "its generally easier to remove things than add them on" even though gender identification is influenced most heavily by genetics. The kid will be fine, if not confused for a while. There is absolutely no reason why genitals should influence what that child feels about himself (assuming from the article, that is what he wishes to be identified with). You spent a month studying cases like this and your conclusion is that the kid will be fine? Holy shit that's insensitive. Why don't you get your penis surgically removed and give it to this kid? Oh yea.. because that would be crazy, stupid, and make you feel like shit about yourself. "hey girl I like you and want to normal like my peers, but I don't have a penis, is that OK?" *girl is horrified and walks away* This kid's life and long term happiness has been severely damaged.
You're trying to carry on a conversation from almost a year ago just so you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
