Children of 12 to be allowed gender drugs to prepare for sex change

[femtastic]

Do you consider this to be a positive development?

Children of 12 to be allowed gender drugs to prepare for sex change

CHILDREN as young as 12 are to be allowed drugs to prepare them for changing sex.

The controversial treatment halts puberty, stunting sex organs and preventing the growth of facial hair and sperm in boys, and breasts in girls.

The injections, previously available only to over-15s with gender identity disorder, are being made available to younger people under an NHS study after pressure from families and doctors.

Doctors admit most children with the problem do not go on to have a sex change, often turning out to be gay. But blocking puberty hormones can make surgery easier if they need it.

Dr Polly Carmichael, who runs Britain?s only GID clinic in London, said several under-16s were prepared to sign up for the jabs, until now available only in the US, Holland and Germany at that age.

She said: ?The majority of our referrals are 15-plus. Of the children aged 12 and 14, there?s a number who are keen to take part.?

The study was approved by the ­National Research Ethics Service, which oversees hundreds of NHS projects.

Has anyone read April Ashley (m-f) talking about her joy at being told by a late night cab driver that he 'wouldn't mind giving her one'(or words to that effect? Does the experience in Iran (loads of sex changes, loads of gays/lesbians executed) tell us anything? The majority of m-f trans don't appear to present an overt challenge to contemporary definitions of 'femininity'

No Charitygirl and Goodegg, Dworkin is talking about transsexual as a group. Transsexual people are a subgroup within the transgender community. She is not commenting on transgendered people as a group at all. I don't understand why either of you are substituting one term for another.

Agreed re: children, dittany. And I am sure that AD would be thoroghly unimpressed by trans activism of the sort you describe. I suppose the quote just sums up what I think - there is so much about trans activism that I don't accept, but at the individual level, I'm not against adults having surgery/hormones.

I think any feminist writer should minimise the time spent on the 'trans' debate because I do not believe it to be central to feminist concerns. It is revealing, I think, how much time liberal feminists (and radical feminists tobe fair) spend talking about transphobia. I think it reveals unexamined privilege - although, gah, Ive not really thought this through...

MillyR - well, Dworkin was writing that in the 70s, and Im not sure the term 'transgender' existed then. Are you saying that Dworkin was referring only to the intersexed? I don't think anyone uses the trm 'transexual' now.

Charitygirl, why don't you read up on it? Both transgender and transsexual are in use now and mean different things. They were also both in use in the 1970s.

It is clear in that quote that Dworkin is talking about transsexual people; she is talking about people who want to change the appearance of their biological sex, so clearly those people are transsexual - they feel they should have the body of the opposite sex (although not all transsexual people who feel that way do want surgery).

Transgender is the group name for people who want to change their gender, and most of them do not want to change their sex.

You may be right, charitygirl. The fact that those who are otherwise deeply reactionary on issues of gender/feminism etc seem to find trans easy to promote/defend should tell us trans isn't very progressive politically.

So what's your point? That I'm wrong in my stance - to question many of the arguments that people who would like, or have had, realignment surgery make, but to support the right of individuals to have realignment surgery? I didn't make any claims for what Dworkin believed - just said what I got out of the quote (even if, in your opinion, I misinterpreted).

Not being combative - genuinely wondering what your point is.

It's only possible to believe a man can become a woman if you also believe the years from birth to adulthood (or even teenage) have no effect on the construction of gender and consequent privilege.

Apologies - 'reassignment'.

My point is that I find it hard to understand what point other people are making on this thread because they use incorrect terms, so I can't tell if they are opposing or defending people's desire to change their gender role or their biological sex.

The medical profession seems to be on the side of the latter but opposed to the former. As a feminist I would support those who want to have a blended gender role but take your approach to people who want to change biological sex.

I am also trying not to be combative. I apologise if 'incorrect' sound rude. I mean more that people are using the terms interchangeably, so I'm not sure what they are referring to.

i don't think being a woman is merely a feeling.

i don't think that everything i feel is because i am a woman.
does one's sex determine one's whole personality?

I've been trying to follow this and can honestly say i can see both sides and it has given me lots to think about.

But Dittany....where does it leave Transgender people...it seems to me thay are completely on the margins.

That may not sit well with feminisn..but they are people.

Is it so hard to be inclusive.?

Welcome back, sparky!

What a brave post. You rock. Hope you are starting to find some peace.

thankyou
i will never find peace in seeing people suffer and lied to-and fucked off-
i find peace in shouting out-this is my peace-even if i cry and sound mad-
i wont be shut up-i belive in people=notn patriacry/narzi bastards!
sparky x

dittany, thank you for your answer. i'm sorry i wasn't logical.

what is your own definition of a woman?
do you think that who we are is totally dependant on our sex?

sparky, shout as loud as you want

What an amazing post sparky.

Oh fgs. No one is tying people down and forcing them to have SRS. If you feel your "gender identity"* is very different to that expected for members of your sex, your choice is to find a way to live in society as it is today in your current sex, possibly fighting to change the gender expectations that exist, or to make some efforts to conform to the gender expectations associated with the other sex, possibly including SRS. Not everyone has the mindset to fight.

I completely agree the biggest problem is socety's gender expectations. Having read MillyR's posts and links I am more circumspect that offering drugs to teens with GID is appropriate, but I am not sure what should then be done to help these children in a lot of genuine pain. I worry that offering the drugs could force a child to make a choice that they feel is irrevocable at an early age. But what the hell else do you say? "It's a phase"?

• I am not sure of the correct terminology.

"....and forcing them to have SRS.........."
really?dont be blind-look deeper!!

The thread is now about adults making decisions for themselves, it has moved on from the original OP. As I understand it the arguments against allowing individuals to have surgery are:

• feminists feel that women are threatened by trans people believing they are truly women
• trans people want surgery for the wrong reasons and should be happy to live, act and dress however they want without resorting to surgery

I struggle to see that it could possibly be moral to prevent trans people having surgery if given the current gender climate, if it will make them happy. There may have been occasions where the some trans people have threatened the rights of women, but I can't see this as an argument to stop individuals living as they want.

I do see it as a nurture not nature issue that pre-pubescents should definitely be counselled away from. I don't believe in 'born in the wrong body' any more than I can believe that I am meant to be a willowy size 8 with a curvy bum and breasts (I wish!)

the kids dont need counceling-theres nothing wrong with them!
its society that needs councelling!