It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by centurion1211
I think you've grossly misjudged my age based off of your words, as well as my "Worldly experience", but hey, if you want to marginalize people you're talking to I won't bother trying to rebut anything you say.
If you want to be an adult and actually have a conversation, I'd be much obliged to see if you're honest enough to state what you feel about it without couching it within protectionism (As if you're looking out for the world's children).
There's a reason you respond the way you do, and it has nothing to do with other people, other people's children, children you don't know and have never met or wanting to protect children.
The same is true for all the others present who are voicing their moral outrage.
I dislike disingenuous responses, particularly when people don't even realize that is what they are doing.
Originally posted by xmotex
If you had actually read the article you'd know there was no surgery being performed.
Originally posted by apc
Yeesh... where's a lion when you need one. Hey Centurion... got a minute?
Originally posted by centurion1211
Since, no one seems to have the cojones to answer my questions/concerns, yeah I might have a minute. What's up?
Originally posted by TheRedneck
For those who say there is no difference between boys and girls until puberty, sorry, but you are totally wrong.
If a child's parents wish to make a medical decision in what is in their opinion the best interest of the child, let them. It's their call.
Summing up what people on here are saying, they all feel that Children (They use the term frequently) are incapable of making these decisions, are too impressionable, and wouldn't know what they wanted so would do what their adult peer figures want them to do.
I would argue that any parent that forces their child to go through a sex change is not a good parent whatsoever... but only because of the force issue. I've known quite a few transgendered people, so it's a touchy subject for me...
I don't think ANY Of the Christians here would do this FOR any of their children or TO any of their children. That's all fine, they're you're children and you should try and do right by them when possible. I have no say in your raising of your children.
However, that isn't enough for any of them. They need to be able to control what other people do with their children. They need to convince every other person on the face of the earth that THEIR morals are superior, and that they need to be adopted because it is God's Will.
Despite all of this, Redneck, I do respect you for at least leaving some of the vitriol out of your own response. I realize things get heated in such topics, and as I stated in another thread, this is the perfect example of how views I espouse are considered monstrous by the Evangelicals.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
I believe you must have misread my post, or perhaps you confused my point of view with earlier conversations we have had. Nowhere did I mention religion as any basis for my stance against this, although I am sure I could have easily done so. Yes, I am proud to proclaim my Christian faith, but this is not about religion. It is about simple right and wrong.
And I also did not comment about your age. Our earlier discussions have shown you to have some good points and a large degree of civility about you.
Do you disagree with this, and on what basis? You state that you have a 4 y/o. Does he/she not look up to you for guidance and (usually) attempt to obey you?
The part that concerns me is 'only because of the force issue'. I am concerned that this quack is going to harm children irreparably in order to make his name and get some money. The sanctity of life, not just of breathing and a beating heart, but of a full, free, and happy life, is not something to be sold for mere green paper. These children are going to be making a lifelong decision. The treatments may be reversible at first, as stated, but at some point they become permanent. Should one, just one, child be 'misdiagnosed' and given improper therapy, that child loses, completely, absolutely, and unconditionally. They will endure social trauma (kids can be cruel, sorry), the inability to have their own children, and quite probably severe psychological scars for the rest of their natural lives. Since you brought up religion, that sounds pretty much like dooming someone to hell.
As for adult transgender therapy, I will admit that I have a religious concern about that, but my religious rights end where another's rights begin. I have no right to deny any adult citizen the right to live their life as they see fit, within the bounds of proper law. A free citizen should be allowed to seek such therapy, and I should be allowed to say I think they're silly.
Again, you attempt to interject my religion. I assume it's just habit.
As far as controlling what other people do. Is it out of reason to allow a 'mechanic' to charge people for fixing their cars, when his method of doing so is to pour sugar in the gas tank? That is fraud. What this doctor is attempting to do is completely refuted by any neural science in existence.
So do we allow him to play around with children's sexuality when he is an obvious fraud? I say the ramifications are much greater here than in the first example, and therefore the need for restriction of the perpetrated fraud much more demanding.
Oh, you would not believe how many times I retyped that post! It has literally made me smoke heavier than usual (although two cartons a day is a bit of an exaggeration). I despise anyone who would harm a child, especially for money.
Fair warning on this subject (for all): For me, this is personal, and I may have to change my handle to 'TheBulldog' before this thread is done...
However, I can guarantee you most parents would not be taking their children to see a doctor about gender reassignment unless they knew there to be a problem. Most parents err on the side of "It's a phase". While I'm open to the idea that there are parents out there that would decide they wanted a girl rather than a boy (Terrible, but people can be terrible), I'm fairly certain that this Doctor isn't going to be seeing kids that don't already have noticeable issues with gender identity.
However, if the children have gender issues going through puberty and aren't given the option, they'll live through just as much hell as if they had to if they'd made such a mistake as choosing the wrong gender.
While I recognize your concerns for the children, your views on right or wrong also don't extend to other people's children. I know you want to protect any child from harm, though.
I've done many years of research particularly into the topic of transgenderism. There is a lot of neural science that suggests such problems are apparent well before puberty in a majority of the cases.
While I know the fear about quacks manipulating parents, it's the parents fault for allowing themselves to be manipulated rather than knowing their child.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
And I have calmed down a bit (it's amazing what mainlining nicotine can do ), so I will also thank you for your understanding during my battle with high blood pressure.
Several issues here. While I can agree that 'most' parents would no doubt err on the side of caution here, I cannot say that all of them would.
A great number would probably consider Dr. Spack as a professional who 'knows best', despite any misgivings they might have. We unfortunately live in a society where anyone with a degree is assumed to be right, no matter how absurd they may appear.
And, as I mentioned earlier, the conferring opinion of a psychiatrist (who I still believe would be loyal to Dr. Spack) would serve to increase any impression of authoritative knowledge.
I cannot speak to that, since I myself am not transgendered, but I can accept your idea as more than plausible. But if we are to choose whether a child is to be hurt by not receiving care for a condition, or hurt by receiving care for a condition they do not have, which one is more justified?
If we leave the children alone until we are certain (to a large degree anyway) of the probable outcome of such treatment(...)
However, there are some things that must extend beyond religious borders.
I also know of no absolute tests that be used to accurately determine whether or not such a situation even exists.
We have laws protecting children from all kinds of 'abuses', right down to some parents being afraid to discipline their own children. Why can we allow such a controversial/experimental procedure to be advertised this way?
The effects of these puberty-blocking drugs are reversible; that is, patients can later change their minds. Unfortunately, this is not the case with hormones. Therefore, Spack prescribes estrogen and testosterone to only a few teenagers - after months of consultation with the patient, his or her caregivers, and psychiatrists. When kids take this step, they are rewriting their own future: The hormones have a powerful, pervasive effect, changing their height, breast development, and the pitch of their voices.