A particular kind of hormone treatment therapy to treat a rare birth defect is getting unwanted attention for one of its possible side effects — reducing the likelihood that the baby will be homosexual. The treatment is used to prevent genital abnormalities in the baby.
Normally, of course, such treatment would be unremarkable and nobody would much care. But some gay and lesbian groups seem to be outraged by this treatment, and want to turn a medical decision and medical issue into a political one.
Should such medical therapies be regulated by the government? Or should they be left to the judgment of the patient and the doctor?
Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines. The comments below begin with the oldest comments first. Click on the last comments page to jump to the most recent comments.
Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines.
Post a Comment:
Copyright © 1995-2013 Psych Central. All rights reserved.
Site last updated: 25 May 2013
|
“Normally, of course, such treatment would be unremarkable and nobody would much care. But some gay and lesbian groups seem to be outraged by this treatment, and want to turn a medical decision and medical issue into a political one.”
Well…this is exactly what the homosexual community have done for years, starting with the American Psychiatric Association in 1975 when homosexuality was removed from the DSM. Every battle is political, because any other direction would be a failing one.
The whole article is very light on the science and evidence and very heavy on political commentary. No where does the author even bother to explain what would lead anyone to believe this side effect is possible, let alone could actually manifest.
This really sounds ludicrous and can’t imagine why it is printed here. In any case, is this the begining in the creation of the perfect society?
AntigoneRisen… You’d have to read the linked-to article to get the details of the science. It is indeed not only possible, but documented as well.
I do expect readers interested in a topic will read the linked-to articles. I see no point in repeating details or facts better presented some place else.
Well, we asexuals have been dealing with this for a good long while. Asexuality isn’t a disease any more than homosexuality is; but people do still try to pathologize it, leading those of us who are doing just fine without sex (and some of us without romance entirely) to roll our eyes and say, “So what, exactly, is wrong with not wanting sex?” And the only answer I ever get is, “Well, normal people want sex,” which is of course obvious circular reasoning.
Asexuality can also be “cured” by the application of hormones to raise the sex drive. Of course, such medication brings with it side effects, some quite severe; so there’s no point in curing it because asexuality produces no distress (beyond the “aren’t you married YET?” exasperation most of us get, and the abuse some of us get when people think they can “turn us sexual” by what amounts to sexual harassment… or even, in some cases, outright rape).
Here’s the thing, though: Congenital adrenal hyperplasia is not just a condition that makes people intersexed. It also has some physical symptoms that can be dangerous or outright deadly; and as such, it needs treatment, whatever orientation the infants with the condition will end up with. Similarly, there’s a condition called “hypoactive sexual desire disorder”, in which someone who used to have a sex drive experiences a serious decline in their sex drive–which can lead to a great deal of distress when relationships have to readjust. These people weren’t born asexual; nor do they desire to be asexual. They often seek treatment.
There’s a good cause to treat congenital adrenal hyperplasia. People don’t grow up very healthy when their adrenal glands are bigger than their kidneys; and the intersexed genitalia really are only the smallest part of the problem. Similarly, there’s a good cause to help someone who has lost their sex drive to either recover it or find a way to gain intimacy without it. But neither of those things means that those treatments should be used on people who are naturally homosexual or naturally asexual.
You treat for something when it causes distress or dysfunction, and then only when the distress or dysfunction is intrinsic to the condition and doesn’t just come from a prejudiced society. Treating CAH makes sense; treating HSDD makes sense. Treating perfectly healthy fetuses in hopes that they’ll not be born gay? That’s way overstepping the bounds. Better to treat society–because society definitely isn’t healthy.
To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.
http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
http://www.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html
I didn’t know we knew what causes sexual orientation let alone how to adjust it. How do we know that these fetuses would have developed homosexuality vs heterosexuality in the first place? I hate to be simple, but logically the premise is not substantial here. I do know that we have no proof that ambiguous genitalia signifies one orientation over the other. We don’t GET sexuality any more than we get many other human conditions.
Have these scientist tried using these pills on gay people, because how would they know if these pills changes sexuality? You don’t know what someone is going to grow up to be (or born like.) They should use the pills on gay people to test it out!
No treatment is ever just between a doctor and her patient. All treatments are overseen by medical ethics boards, and committess on the safety of medicines, etc., and may be investigated by lawyers after.