In September of 2011, the parents of an 11-year-old boy who identified himself as a girl justified their decision to give him “treatments” to block certain hormone productions in order to delay his puberty. This controversial treatment was picked up by the media and was met with a range of reactions, from outrage to support. The main reason for the parents’ decision was that postponing the boy’s physical development would allow him to have time to come to terms with his identity before developing into a full-grown man physically, when he would feel extremely uncomfortable with a body that doesn’t reflect his psychological identity.
One of the arguments against the decision was that there are no physiological signs that the “treatment” to delay puberty should be given, and outrage from opponents mostly stems from the fact that the parents arbitrarily decided to give the boy a “sex change.” But it seems bizarre to argue that psychological disorders cannot be given physical treatments. In addition, should we really consider it a “treatment” when it’s a reversible process? The parents are not giving the boy any “sex change” since they’re not injecting female hormones or the like into his body; they’re delaying the release of hormones that stimulate the development of male secondary sexual characteristics, allowing him to remain a “boy” as opposed to a “man” for a longer time. According to an article on the Daily Mail, “His parents say the hormone treatment will give him time to figure out if he wants to fully transition to being female or go through puberty as a boy. If he chooses to stop taking the drugs, he will undergo natural male puberty at a later stage and his future fertility would not be impacted.”
Wesley J. Smith, a writer for a bioethics blog, argues against the parents’ decision, saying that children suspected of being transsexual “grow out of it.” He cites an experiment where 85 to 90 percent of “gender-variant” children grow up not wanting to be the other sex. However, Smith fails to recognize is that gender identity is a much deeper issue that people don’t simply “grow out” of. Especially for children, they need time to come to terms with their gender identity if that identity is not the same as their physical one, and delaying puberty in this case for the boy provides him with that much-needed opportunity. The problem with the cited study is that the children in it were “gender-variant,” a loosely-defined term that simply means certain aspects of their behavior don’t conform with gender norms that our society has established. Anyone, from boys who like to play house, to girls who wear pants in very traditional societies, could be considered “gender-variant” if the society wishes.
And finally, some have argued that the fact that his parents are lesbian has something to do with the whole question of whether it’s ethical or not to have given him the “treatment.” One blogger said that he should have a dad to “show him how to be a man.” But it’s unreasonable, if not offensive, to argue that the lesbian parents didn’t know how to raise the boy properly and that’s why he wants to be a girl. (In fact, he does have two older brothers). To say that he identifies as a girl because of his parents’ sexual orientation is probably just a vain attempt at stirring up more controversy.
No comments:
Post a Comment