Thursday, November 09, 2006

Dana Writes About Gender Variance

The MCPS citizens advisory committee is considering the 10th grade sexual-orientation curriculum. It's tough, arduous work, but we're plowing through it.

Last week I posted essays, I guess you'd call them, by two committee members, discussing homosexuality from two extremely differing perspectives. First, Matthew, who is gay, wrote in anticipation of some of the issues that would be coming up in the committee's discussion -- whether sexual orientation is a choice, whether being gay is "dangerous for your health," things like that. Then Peter wrote a piece expressing his conservative point of view, responding to Matthew. I posted both of those here, mostly without comment; you can scroll down to find them.

The committee also received an essay this week written by Dr. Dana Beyer about gender variance. It is important for the group to have this information as we decide what should be said in tenth grade about matters related to gender identity, and, face it, most people (like me, for instance) really don't know anything about the topic.

Dana has given us permission to publish her article here. We can use this as a kind of reference as we discuss these topics in the comments section, as well as in the citizens committee.
As an adjunct to Matt's very informative letter to the CAC, and with his support, I have written a similar essay dealing with gender variance. I have noticed at the meetings that on occasion the concepts of sex and gender are a bit confusing to some, though overall the concepts are being considered very wisely. I also personally believe that it is important that 14 year olds have at least a minimal familiarity with the concept of gender variance/transgender and gender identity. And since no one on the committee has experience with these issues I am sharing this in an effort to be of some assistance.

The definitions for your consideration are very important to prevent ongoing confusion. Generally speaking, "sex" refers to biology, while "gender" refers to psychology. When scientists and physicians speak of "sex" with respect to human sexuality, they are referring to its many aspects, both genotypic (related to genes) and phenotypic (related to physicality). So a person's sex includes:
o Chromosomes (XX, XY, XO, XXY . . .)
o Genes (SRY and over 50 regulatory genes)
o Gonads and other reproductive organs
o Genitalia
o Body habitus - size, shape, secondary sex characteristics
o Hormone levels - ratio of testosterone to estrogen
o Hormone receptor functioning
o Brain sex

Commonly all the above aspects of our sexuality line up in a seamless web and yield a male or female. When the system is working well an individual never remembers becoming aware of her sex. When any of the above manifestations are not in line with the others or are ambiguous, we have a condition called intersex, or a variation of sexual development. Hundreds of variations are known, and those of you who take in the occasional episode of House, Grey's Anatomy, or ER, are familiar with some of the more common examples. A specific example would be transsexualism, a subgroup of the umbrella transgender. In those cases brain sex is different from all the other aspects.

There are many causes for variations in sexual development, with different causes underlying different syndromes. In my personal case I am both intersex and transsexual, due to exposure in utero to the toxic drug DES, or diethylstilbestrol. This drug was given to 5 million American women between 1948-1971 in a futile attempt to prevent miscarriages, and has led to the development of cancer, infertility, urinary tract abnormalities, and gender variance. The mechanism of action is via interference with the regulatory signaling system (the WnT system) which is crucial for sexual development.

A person's "gender" is the inner sense of her sex and its social and behavioral manifestation. Brain sex underlies gender identity, one's sense of being male or female. This is a brain function; it has nothing to do with one's genitals. Individuals without genitals have gender identities, just as those with penises may identify as women and those with vaginas as men.

Gender expression is the manner in which one dresses, behaves, lives in society and expresses the entire continuum of sexuality. A person who identifies as a female and has all female sex characteristics may nevertheless be more comfortable presenting in a masculine manner, and vice versa. No one is perfectly masculine or feminine; all cultures define these terms differently, and within a culture there is a very wide spectrum. Few people are ever completely comfortable with their gender expression and attribution, and often question just how they are fitting in. This sense of discomfort is most acute with adolescents.

"Transgender" is a widely accepted umbrella term encompassing a range of gender variance. It simply refers to all those who do not fit into a given society's definition of a match between sex and gender, and choose to identify as such. Tomboys are transgender in their behavior in a very general sense, though those girls do not identify as transgender because society allows them that leeway. Feminine boys, however, are not given nearly the same space and are often teased and bullied about their behavior.

I want to add that in spite of the best efforts of the psychiatric profession for over half a century, there is absolutely no evidence that intersex or transsex conditions are related to any kind of social, familial or experiential cause, including sexual abuse, absent fathers, overweening mothers, etc.

Also, I want to repeat that "gender identity and expression" is completely separate from sexual orientation. The former is "who you are." The latter is "whom you love." A trans man, for instance, can be gay, straight, bi or asexual, just like any non-trans person.

I hope this short essay has been of value, and I'm available to answer any questions you might have.

Dana Beyer, M.D.

27 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Wal-Mart Wishes You a Merry Christmas

By Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY

(Nov. 9) - Wal-Mart will put "Christmas" back into the holidays this year, the retailer plans to announce Thursday.

After largely leaving it out of last year's holiday season, Wal-Mart plans to promote Christmas in a big way in 2006.

A year after religious and other groups boycotted retailers, including Wal-Mart, for downplaying Christmas, the world's largest retail chain will have an in-your-face Christmas theme this year.

"We, quite frankly, have learned a lesson from last year," says Wal-Mart spokeswoman Linda Blakley. "We're not afraid to use the term 'Merry Christmas.' We'll use it early, and we'll use it often."

Wal-Mart told about 7,000 associates of the plans at a conference last month and "was met with rapturous applause. ... We know many of our customers will feel the same," says John Fleming, Wal-Mart's executive vice president of marketing.

Fleming says the retailer, which recently lowered prices on toys and electronics, will be pitching Christmas almost as much as "value" to holiday shoppers."

November 09, 2006 7:10 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Dana writes, concluding her diagnosis for the MCPS sex ed curriculum,

Also, I want to repeat that "gender identity and expression" is completely separate from sexual orientation. The former is "who you are." The latter is "whom you love." A trans man, for instance, can be gay, straight, bi or asexual, just like any non-trans person.

I hope this short essay has been of value, and I'm available to answer any questions you might have.

Dana Beyer, M.D.


Ever heard of TMI?

Orin

November 09, 2006 8:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nightmare at Franklin
By Tom Mountain
The Newton Tab
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
http://www.townonline.com/newton/opinion/view.bg?articleid=610359

Emer O'Shea knew something was wrong the minute she picked up her daughter from Franklin Elementary School. The third-grader was normally very perky upon seeing her mother and new baby sister, but this time she glanced at her mother without indicating what was wrong, except to say that the school's social worker had visited the class. But Emer soon heard from another parent about what had happened in her daughter's class that day, and she was both stunned and mortified. The next day her young daughter finally opened up with a question that would baffle most parents of an 8-year-old child, "Mommy, is it possible for a man to have an operation to become a woman?"

Transgenders and transvestites. These were the topics that a staff member at Franklin School in West Newton chose to teach to a class of third-grade children. The school's social worker described to the children that some men like to dress up as women, and yes, some men even have operations to change into women.

The opportunity for this "teachable moment" - the kind that Superintendent Jeff Young likes to portray as merely responding to some child's "random questioning"- occurred when the social worker was describing various families outside of the traditional mommy-and-daddy norm and showed the class a picture of a woman with two children, asking what they saw in the picture. A child then raised his hand to tell her (are you sitting sit down for this?) that he thought the picture was of a man who had a sex change operation and was now a woman. Apparently, the child's own father was undergoing such an operation (which he/she has since completed).

The social worker then elaborated on this "teachable moment." But this wasn't just any social worker employed by the Newton Public Schools. This was Laura Perkins, former board member of GLSEN, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network; or rather, "Laura Perkins, MSW, Franklin School and the Newton Early Childhood Program," according to the GLSEN Boston Conference, where she hosted a seminar in which the "Rationale for integrating GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender) issues in the early elementary years will be presented" and "classroom lessons demonstrated."

As a result of this particular "classroom lesson," Emer's daughter was petrified. For an 8-year-old accustomed to a child's world of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, the little girl had nightmares, and explained to her mother she was scared that her baby sister could turn into a boy.
So Emer did what any normal responsible parent would do - she demanded an explanation from the principal, Cynthia Marchand. She and several other parents from this class met with the principal who, according to Emer, responded defensively and fully backed her staff member.

Emer then went to Superintendent's Young's office with her concerns. She handed Mr. Young a written description of what happened, whereupon the superintendent promised to respond to her soon. He didn't. So after three weeks, she called to make an appointment. As Emer described it, Mr. Young remarked that the Parental Consent Law didn't apply to this situation because, he claimed, the topic of discussion was not planned for. He concluded that it was really just "a teachable moment." When I asked the superintendent via e-mail if it is the policy of the Newton schools to teach 8-year-old children about sex change operations, he responded "No").

"Arrogant" is how Emer described the superintendent's demeanor towards her. He declined to shake her hand at the meeting's end, and didn't even bother to acknowledge the baby she was holding.

The superintendent wants us to believe that just because the class was taught by a GLSEN activist who has specialized in "integrating GLBT issues in the elementary years" and even though the principal, social worker and probably half the school knew that there was a child in that very class who just happened to have a father who was undergoing a sex change operation, there is no evidence that this was planned, or rather, set up. So, in Mr. Young's convoluted logic, the state law which mandates that parents must be informed whenever anything of a sexual nature occurs in the classroom did not apply here.

It just happened, you see. A mere coincidence. Just like a few years before when a Burr School first-grade teacher chose to out himself to his first-grade class. This was a hide-from-the-media moment for the superintendent, since it was later revealed in Bay Windows, the Boston gay weekly, that the teacher had discussed this probable scenario with his principal well in advance of his proclamation to his class of 6-year-olds.

Predictably, Emer got nowhere with the school administration. She went through the typical phases that any parent who raises these issues is forced to endure. The stalling, ignoring, belittling. The attempts to isolate her, put her on the defensive, make her feel like the aggressor - the intolerant, unsympathetic, backward parent: common tactics to make parents like Emer go away. After all, Mr. Young and his cohorts now have years of experience dealing with such parents.

But Emer would not go away.

Fed up at the lack of response from the school, she raised the issue in front of a large audience of staff and parents at Franklin's curriculum night. "Can we see the social worker's curriculum for this year, as last year there was inappropriate information given to the elementary-age children?" she publicly asked Cynthia Marchand. In other words, could the principal guarantee that staff members would not teach the young children about men having sex change operations? To which the principal responded that she would speak to Emer in private about it (a preferred tactic by Newton administrators). Emer would not back down; after 10 months of being ignored she demanded an answer right then and there. But the principal wouldn't budge.

As Emer described it, afterwards Mrs. Marchand coaxed her into her office, whereupon she loudly chastised Emer for "her inappropriate behavior." She berated Emer because (you'd better sit down again for this) the Franklin School father who had a sex change operation and was now a "woman" had been sitting in the audience with his wife (they're still married) when Emer broached this highly sensitive topic. "Cindy, stop shouting at me!" Emer responded to her child's principal. (My calls to the principal and social worker for comment were not returned, but Mr. Young did respond by e-mail: "No," the social worker and principal would not be suspended or reprimanded, he wrote. He ducked my question as to whether or not he intended to apologize to Mrs. O'Shea, stating that he and other staff had already "spoken with the parent already.")

Emer had enough. She decided to pull her daughter out of the Newton Public Schools and, at great expense, send her to a private school. (Mr. Young again responded "No" when I asked if the school department would be paying for the child's private school tuition). A few days later, she walked into the Franklin office once again, this time with her now fourth-grade daughter and infant baby to inform the principal and secretary that her child would no longer be attending Franklin School. "Good," Mrs. Marchand allegedly responded, in the presence of Emer, the secretary, a teacher and Emer's daughter. The principal then turned and walked away.

Think of that. Think real hard.

November 09, 2006 9:12 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, if you look on the Internet, you'll see that this guy Tom Mountain has made a career out of writing hateful stories about the Newton Public Schools for the local paper, and then selling them to sites like Townhall and Free Republic.

it's always the same, he's always making up stuff about how the schools are forcing some liberal indocrtination on the students. The rightwing sites love it, they eat it up. Please do not pollute our site with this kind of crap, ok?

Anyway, it appears that you didn't notice that a story about eight year olds has nothing at all to do with what we're doing here.

More of this, and I'm deleting it.

JimK

November 09, 2006 10:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CRC Theresa said, In the interest of free expression, I dare you to post Dana's letter to the committee...where he claims that tomboys are really transgenders..Theresa the tomboy is going to run out and get my sex change operation right now !


***********************

Dana actually said, Tomboys are transgender in their behavior in a very general sense, though those girls do not identify as transgender because society allows them that leeway. Feminine boys, however, are not given nearly the same space and are often teased and bullied about their behavior.


Ted

November 09, 2006 11:25 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes,

Anon, if you look on the Internet, you'll see that this guy Tom Mountain has made a career out of writing hateful stories about the Newton Public Schools for the local paper, and then selling them to sites like Townhall and Free Republic.

Boo hoo..."hateful stories"...really now, isn't the question really whether those stories are TRUE or FALSE? (I don't know either way...)

it's always the same, he's always making up stuff about how the schools are forcing some liberal indocrtination on the students. The rightwing sites love it, they eat it up. Please do not pollute our site with this kind of crap, ok?

Is it TRUE or FALSE...if you have evidence that it is false then present it.

Anyway, it appears that you didn't notice that a story about eight year olds has nothing at all to do with what we're doing here.

Actually the story out of the Newton Public Schools is quite relevant to Dr. Dana's spiel on "sex" and "gender". As I said before, TMI...that is Too Much Information. Though I can see how it would dovetail quite nicely with a liberal sex ed curriculum. Frankly, I hope you do include it as I think it will give your arch-enemies, the CRC et al, enough ammo for another lawsuit...a lawsuit you will (and MCPS) will likely lose. But hey, don't say I did not warn you...

More of this, and I'm deleting it.

Now that is liberal of you!...censoring differing viewpoints. Wow, the irony of it all is...well...stunning.

November 10, 2006 2:50 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Orin said, More of this, and I'm deleting it.

Now that is liberal of you!...censoring differing viewpoints. Wow, the irony of it all is...well...stunning.


Actually it's quite conservative of Jim and just as *stunning* as Cheney's secret energy policy meetings where differing viewpoints (such as the green perspective) were so censored they didn't even get a foot inside the door. It's also just like all those Conference Committee meetings when the minority party was not allowed in the room so that only the GOP worked on reconciling House and Senate bills.

The only irony is that now you're squawking about it.

Aunt Bea

November 10, 2006 6:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Orin is still smarting from elections all the way from Colorado.

Ted

November 10, 2006 12:57 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Anonymous (Ted?) writes,

I think Orin is still smarting from elections all the way from Colorado.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, please...do tell another joke!

Like I have already said, as a Colorado voter I pretty much got what I wanted: Musgrave re-elected, Prop. 43 passed, and Ref. I, defeated. Not to mention the local issue of a Special District (with its own tax base) for the public library here.

Oh, and less I forget, now with the Democrats in the majority in BOTH houses of Congress, I hope to hear less of the crying, whinning, moaning and complaining (except, of course, from the Angry Left) about what they would do IF only the voters would trust them.

Time to put up, or...well, I think you know the rest.

November 11, 2006 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orin then enjoy your bliss in Colorado while we enjoy ours here in Maryland

Funny how you are all up in business here.

Ted

November 11, 2006 2:52 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

This is a forum about EDUCATION. I think it's a fair assumption that when it comes to education there is no such thing as TMI. There is the question of how much in the limited time alloted, what is age-appropriate, how to put information into context, etc., but too much information? And on one of the most fundamental phenomena of being human?

My question to you, personally, would be, why do you have a problem with this information? Is it too complicated? Did I not present it clearly? Do you sense it leads to a loss of innocence?

I'm curious, because you're one of the usually rational ones here, and I'd like to do a better job.

November 13, 2006 9:27 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I’d like to respond to the Mountain article and the response it has engendered.

I don’t agree with Jim that the stories are hateful. I agree they are of a particular type, expressing radical Christianity’s absolutism, inflexibility, ignorance and refusal to learn, and its modus operandus.

Just look at this story. Like his other reports, they deal with a single parent who gets all bent out of shape, and instead of acting like a responsible parent, runs to the Christian media and legal service industry. Anyone notice a similarity to Montgomery County?

But let’s try a simple thought experiment, and ask what alternatives were available to this family that would maintain their religious convictions, protect and educate their child, and allow her to grow up as an integral part of the American community without fear. Mr. Mountain writes, “So Emer did what any normal responsible parent would do - she demanded an explanation from the principal.”

Really? If my child came home from school confused and frightened, I would try to comfort my child, understand the issue and then use it to educate her. What Orin somewhat derisively calls a “teachable moment,” but which what being a parent is all about. Most parents would agree that the best time to teach children is when they raise the question, not when the parents think the time is right and the child may be unresponsive. So she would answer the question Mr. Mountain considers “a question that would baffle most parents of an 8-year-old child: ‘Mommy, is it possible for a man to have an operation to become a woman?’”

The answer, simply put, and which I have used repeatedly with my own children and others, including adults, is “Yes. This is possible for those people who have always been girls inside but were raised as boys by mistake. Surgery simply helps repair that mistake. It is not magic; it only happens when a person really, really needs and wants to do it. It won’t happen to your brother or your father or your uncle.”

You might want to try it – kids are pretty good at understanding this, particularly since the issue is currently out there in the culture. What did Ms. Emer prefer? That her daughter’s classmate be marginalized or ostracized simply because her father was treating a medical condition? Is it really a Christian ethic to treat children that way? Is her daughter truly worse off for understanding a fact of life and learning to appreciate the life of her friend?

I know, for a fact, that this is not a part of the theology or history of Christianity. There is nothing in either the Hebrew or Christian Bibles that deal with this on any level. We bring our own ignorance to bear on this issue and simply smother it with religious platitudes, both ostensibly for comfort but more importantly for use as a political weapon.

I have noticed that no one has ever challenged me on the reality of my statements on this blog. No one has ever challenged the science, and it is only recently that Ruth Jacobs produced one (of many) case studies on gender variance. That study, like all the others, is useless and doesn’t qualify as science, like much of psychiatry these days. Psychiatrists have tried for over a half century to work out this issue using psychodynamic models and Freudian analysis, and it’s all been an utter failure. Fortunately, the science is developing, and in the very near future gender variance will be its own medical phenomenon similar to the other psychiatric categories that have succumbed to the march of science, such as schizophrenia, epilepsy, bipolar and homosexuality.

I have been honored to provide thousands of “teachable moments” over the past four years, with my family, friends, neighbors, and voters, and I am very pleased with the willingness of the American people to recognize the need to always be open to learning, and that our diversity adds to our strength.

November 14, 2006 12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fortunately, the science is developing, and in the very near future gender variance will be its own medical phenomenon similar to the other psychiatric categories that have succumbed to the march of science, such as schizophrenia, epilepsy, bipolar and homosexuality."

Even Dr. D classifies homosexuality as a mental disease. Thanks for the honesty, Dr!

November 14, 2006 6:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I am very pleased with the willingness of the American people to recognize the need to always be open to learning, and that our diversity adds to our strength."

Oh yeah, it all just adds to our strength. Did you know that the APA has removed bestiality from its list of mental disorders? We just need to learn more about it and stop being such bigots. Having all these sexual variations taught to kids just makes us all that much stronger!

Pump it up, America!

November 14, 2006 6:54 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

There you go again, just like your cohorts. I never said homosexuality (or any of the other conditions I listed) were mental illnesses. They WERE conceived as such until the science showed otherwise. Schizophrenia, epilepsy, bipolar disorder are neurological conditions, homosexuality is a variant of brain function.

November 14, 2006 9:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and what would be the difference between a variant and a disease

doesn't it all depend on your values?

November 14, 2006 10:26 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

No, it does not. Humanity is defined by its variations. You may recall that no two humans is truly identical; not even identical twins. So variation is the norm.

A disease must cause a defect or fault in functioning of an organism. A mental illness must cause distress in the patient and an inability to function socially. Being schizophrenic or bipolar or epileptic fit the bill; being gender variant does not. And as I pointed out we are all gender variant to some degree; some more than others. In most cases that variance causes no distress; in others it does.Functioning may not be impaired at all, or, if impaired, is often amenable to treatment, removing the dysfunction.

You are free to call anyone you want sinful; that's your business. Biology is not about sin, and we don't teach sin in biology class or sex-ed.

And, as I've pointed out before, there is absolutely nothing in your Bible that deals with these issues except for references to eunuchs, who are referred to very honorifically, both in the Torah and the Christian Bible. So what, pray tell, is your problem?

November 15, 2006 12:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, it does not. Humanity is defined by its variations. You may recall that no two humans is truly identical; not even identical twins. So variation is the norm."

Not in sexual attraction. If it's for someone of one's own gender, it's abnormal and hindering you from functioning normally.

"A disease must cause a defect or fault in functioning of an organism."

Like..uh, never mind.

"A mental illness must cause distress in the patient and an inability to function socially."

Which same gender attraction does.

"Being schizophrenic or bipolar or epileptic fit the bill; being gender variant does not. And as I pointed out we are all gender variant to some degree; some more than others. In most cases that variance causes no distress; in others it does."

Very vague but we agree in cases where it causes distress, it's amental illness. This is progress for you, Dr.

"Functioning may not be impaired at all, or, if impaired, is often amenable to treatment, removing the dysfunction."

Treatment would be for a disease.

"You are free to call anyone you want sinful;"

Thanks. Everyone's sinful.

"Biology is not about sin, and we don't teach sin in biology class or sex-ed."

Exactly. Stop using a sex-ed class to corrupt young minds.

Actually, though, Randi and I were talking about the gay agenda strategy of trying to destroy marriage by redefining it to include gays who falsely promise fidelity to one partner.

"And, as I've pointed out before, there is absolutely nothing in your Bible that deals with these issues"

If by "these issues", you mean homosexuality, this is incorrect.

"except for references to eunuchs, who are referred to very honorifically, both in the Torah and the Christian Bible. So what, pray tell, is your problem?"

Could you be more soecific?

November 15, 2006 1:58 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Wyatt, stop conflating the issues. One issue is gender/sexual identity, the other is sexual attraction. There is nothing in any Bible, including the Koran, that in any way considers any form of intersex except eunuchs, and they are spoken of honorifically (you can Google to find the citations). The Greeks understood the existence of intersex, and that was picked up by the Talmud. You have zero religious justification for hating trans persons, and the fact that you and your friends continue to lump gender and sexual orientation together is simply evidence of your ignorance on this issue and your preoccupation with anything having to do with sex.

November 15, 2006 8:52 AM  
Anonymous Tish said...

My transgender sister has lived in my home with my family for more than two years, and my children are fine, as are the next-door neighbor children who are very good friends and in and out of our house all the time. We haven't had any trouble explaining it to them when they ask, and they aren't troubled or frightened. Every once in a while, a new question comes up, and we answer it.

My sister is not a parent and didn't have daily contact with children until she came to live with us. She treats the children as though their curiosity about transgender people is normal and that all respectful questions are OK. So when the kids do ask questions, they get responses that validate the asking. We never tell them that a question is dumb or that it shouldn't be asked.

We have been really lucky to be so close to my sister during her transition.

November 15, 2006 1:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"stop conflating the issues. One issue is gender/sexual identity, the other is sexual attraction."

Actually, you seemed to be using the terms interchangeably. Being charitable, I didn't call you on it.

The whole "gender/identity" thing is mostly aesthetic. Everyone knows some girls like basketball and some guys like drama. Everyone's fine with it. It's really nothing kids need instruction in. They'll figure it out.

It's only when someone gets to the point where they want to alter their physiology that it takes the characteristics of an emotional problem. It's unusual to treat a mental disease by trying to make real the delusions of an individual.

"There is nothing in any Bible, including the Koran, that in any way considers any form of intersex except eunuchs, and they are spoken of honorifically (you can Google to find the citations)."

I don't know of any instances of scriptural reference either.

Eunuchs are quite different, however. They were usually born normal and forced to undergo mutilation in order to quell aggressiveness so they could be trusted working in the royal households. They weren't disfunctional prior to that. Scripture is non-judgmental to these victims as would be all decent people.

"The Greeks understood the existence of intersex, and that was picked up by the Talmud. You have zero religious justification for hating trans persons,"

Don't hate anybody.

"and the fact that you and your friends continue to lump gender and sexual orientation together is simply evidence of your ignorance on this issue and your preoccupation with anything having to do with sex."

Again, you're the one who keeps wanting to talk about guys who like pastel colors. I personally don't think it makes them gay and I don't care what they like. The problem is with people want to teach kids that such a situation necessitates surgery.

While the genders have different general characteristics, there is no neat line and no need for one. It's not a topic for sex ed though. Sex is.

November 15, 2006 10:23 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon, I really don't want to be rude, but you're a liar. I have never conflated gender identity and sexual orientation -- ever. Period.

Gender dysphoria is not an emotional problem, because you say so -- it is a neurological problem, a neuroendocrinologic developmental variation. That you have no idea what that means simply reflects your ignorance.

When a problem is defined one way, such as a mental disease, and all the varieties of relevant psychiatric therapies fail, then it is quite sensible for those in the reality-based community to question their assumptions. In this case, since there is a mismatch between brain and genitals, and treating the brain over the past sixty years has failed, it has only been sensible to treat the genitals. And, guess what? That works. Voila. Problem solved. That you can't deal with that is simply a consequence of your faith-based blindness. I have given other examples -- schizophrenia, epilepsy, bipolar disorder. You simply refuse to see.

Eunuchs come in several varieties -- those who entered into it by choice, and those born with the condition. The Bible was indeed judgmental, praising the individuals at issue.

Gender dysphoria doesn't necessitate anything. It is the person's choice to resolve the problem or not, and there is nothing at all wrong with teaching kids that the only effective treatment is for those individuals to live according to their brain sex and not their genital sex. If they choose surgery, that's fine, too.

Tell me, Anon, if you were a shrink, would you treat schizophrenics with Freudian talk therapy, or anti-psychotics, flawed as they may be? How about bipolar? Meds or just talk therapy? And how about epileptics? Maybe a dose of prayer and then you can let them get behind the wheel of a car. We know what works in all these cases.


The sad thing is that you and your fellow Anons really have no empathy and no imagination. You couldn't handle this either, if you were in a similar position. You not only don't get it, you don't make the slightest effort to understand. Which is why your input into the educational process is doomed to be ignored.

November 15, 2006 11:42 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at November 15, 2006 10:23 PM said "[I] Don't hate anybody".

Well, anonymous, you're not at all convincing on that - your trying to conflate bestiality with gender variation and same sex love, calling them diseases, lying and saying same gender attraction causes distress and an inability to function socially when that's caused by the social oppression of people like you, lying by saying gays falsely promise fidelity to one partner and are trying to destroy marriage, and trying to control lives other than your own by opposing transsexuals' right to have the body they want via surgery - that can't be characterized as anything but hatred.

The world would be a peaceful and loving place if it weren't for people like you. As we've seen with Ted Haggard, Jim West, Jim Mcgreevy and several others, those that project the most hatred of gays are often really hating a part of themselves they can't accept because of a bigoted society. Perhaps you're so obsessed with this hatred of gays because you are gay yourself.

November 16, 2006 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Eunuchs come in several varieties -- those who entered into it by choice, and those born with the condition. The Bible was indeed judgmental, praising the individuals at issue."

Dr, I'm not aware of these examples. Could you give some scriptural references? Gracias.

November 17, 2006 2:43 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Off-hand:
Esther 4:5
Matthew 19:12
Acts 8:26-39
Daniel 1:3-7
Isa 56:3-5

November 17, 2006 4:03 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Off-hand:
Esther 4:5
Matthew 19:12
Acts 8:26-39
Daniel 1:3-7
Isa 56:3-5

November 17, 2006 4:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, Dr. I'll check out the verses this weekend.

November 17, 2006 4:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home