Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

obamanut2012

(26,047 posts)
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 12:37 PM Aug 2012

A future without tomboys and lesbians?

Discussions about gender expression tend to get very intense very quickly. We see it happen a lot in AfterEllen.com comments, as people react to certain words or misinterpret another comment. Frankly, the level of anger that often comes up makes me shy away from writing about certain topics.

But something recently came across my feed that is so outrageous — and so frightening — that I have to write about it. And in this case, I invite you to be outraged along with me.

Advocate.com reported the release of a new study from Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine that details some dangerous experiments in fetal engineering. Doctors have been using a synthetic steroid to prevent female babies from being born with "behavioral masculinization" — which means lesbianism, bisexuality, intersexuality, and tomboyism. (Yes, "tomboyism" is a thing.)

Let that soak in for a minute.

<snip>


http://www.afterellen.com/content/2012/08/future-without-tomboys-and-lesbians-new-study-explores-ethics-gender-difference

44 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A future without tomboys and lesbians? (Original Post) obamanut2012 Aug 2012 OP
By chance I read this while watching... Deep13 Aug 2012 #1
Which is odd since we pioneered eugenics in the US 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #11
True, and ironically it was part of the progressive movement. Deep13 Aug 2012 #17
This is totally outrageous if true. Has it been independently verified ProgressiveProfessor Aug 2012 #2
The Advocate is as legit a source as the New York Times obamanut2012 Aug 2012 #4
Link to a Northwestern page referencing this study Gormy Cuss Aug 2012 #16
This seems a total ignoring of normal study standards...just incredible ProgressiveProfessor Aug 2012 #22
Yes, it appears that Maria New ignored all normal study standards. Gormy Cuss Aug 2012 #29
Only a tiny fraction of lesbians and tomboys have the medical condition pnwmom Aug 2012 #3
Two thoughts lumberjack_jeff Aug 2012 #5
I don't believe in fetus engineering or Eugenics of any kind obamanut2012 Aug 2012 #7
What if there were a way to prevent blindness or deafness in the womb? pnwmom Aug 2012 #8
That's a little different. Deep13 Aug 2012 #18
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia can cause a multitude of symptoms, pnwmom Aug 2012 #19
Sounds serious. Deep13 Aug 2012 #25
The problem is that in some children it can be very serious, but not in all. pnwmom Aug 2012 #26
What about the 2nd part? 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #12
Nothing to do with my OP obamanut2012 Aug 2012 #13
I respectfully disagree 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #14
I think your questions have been pretty well answered by researchers already. pnwmom Aug 2012 #27
Thank you 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #31
i think behavioral modification in fetus' is a horrifying thought La Lioness Priyanka Aug 2012 #34
Horrifying. nt redqueen Aug 2012 #6
But can't they decide after they grow up to be gay anyway? FLyellowdog Aug 2012 #9
It will happen 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #10
So it's fine to abort these fetuses but not to try to treat them? pnwmom Aug 2012 #20
I never said that 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #30
I am very horrified. :( Starry Messenger Aug 2012 #15
Only a tiny fraction of lesbians and tomboys have the medical condition pnwmom Aug 2012 #21
Well, I find the whole philosophy behind it pretty spiritually bankrupt. Starry Messenger Aug 2012 #23
I don't agree with this treatment either, because the benefits don't outweigh the risks, IMO. pnwmom Aug 2012 #24
Genetically engineered "Stepford Wives"? Zorra Aug 2012 #35
A new kind of eugenics??? MrMickeysMom Aug 2012 #28
This is the way I believe the issue of LGBT is headed... MicaelS Aug 2012 #32
I've often thought that might prove to be a cruel irony 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #36
Tell them eating pork is, too obamanut2012 Aug 2012 #41
a future without butch girls, is not a future worth living in La Lioness Priyanka Aug 2012 #33
lol! Zorra Aug 2012 #37
no, really La Lioness Priyanka Aug 2012 #38
hahaha Thread Win! obamanut2012 Aug 2012 #39
I don't ever feel feminine or masculine. Neoma Aug 2012 #40
The LGBTIQ spectrum is a huge tent. Zorra Aug 2012 #42
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia FloridaJudy Aug 2012 #43
Question haikugal Oct 2012 #44

Deep13

(39,154 posts)
1. By chance I read this while watching...
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 12:42 PM
Aug 2012

...a documentary about Josef Mengele and his eugenic experiments. Any effort to engineer "better" humans invariably invites a comparison to Nazi "science."

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
11. Which is odd since we pioneered eugenics in the US
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 05:11 PM
Aug 2012

Ok I guess not that odd. We just can't be too disgusted with them without realizing we did it first.

Deep13

(39,154 posts)
17. True, and ironically it was part of the progressive movement.
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 08:39 PM
Aug 2012

But tinkering with eugenics--selective sterilization and whatnot--in this country never approached Nazi efforts. The problem is we never got over the idea that humans are improvable. Non-therapeutic cosmetic surgery, giving growth hormone to short but normal children, a potential for genetic engineering of children--selecting things like gender, height, and eye color: all these things mean people still think we can "improve" people. Now, I don't have a religious objection--let God decide--but it is pretty clear that "improving" people based on arbitrary social norms is a bad idea.

Gormy Cuss

(30,884 posts)
16. Link to a Northwestern page referencing this study
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 08:10 PM
Aug 2012
http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/news/2012/08/sex_normalization.html

and an excerpt:
The pregnant women targeted are at risk for having a child born with the condition congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), an endocrinological condition that can result in female fetuses being born with intersex or more male-typical genitals and brains. Women genetically identified as being at risk are given dexamethasone, a synthetic steroid, off-label starting as early as week five of the first trimester to try to “normalize” the development of those fetuses, which are female and CAH-affected. Because the drug must be administered before doctors can know if the fetus is female or CAH-affected, only one in eight of those exposed are the target type of fetus.

The off-label intervention does not prevent CAH; it aims only at sex normalization. Like Diethylstilbestrol (DES) – which is now known to have caused major fertility problems and fatal cancers among those exposed in utero – dexamethasone is a synthetic steroid. Dexamethasone is known – and in this case intended – to cross the placental barrier and change fetal development. Experts estimate the glucocorticoid dose reaching the fetus is 60 to 100 times what the body would normally experience.

The new report provides clear evidence that:

For more than 10 years, medical societies repeatedly but ultimately impotently expressed high alarm at use of this off-label intervention outside prospective clinical trials, because it is so high risk and because nearly 90 percent of those exposed cannot benefit.

Mothers offered the intervention have been told it “has been found safe for mother and child” but in fact there has never been any such scientific evidence.


Disgusting on every level.

Gormy Cuss

(30,884 posts)
29. Yes, it appears that Maria New ignored all normal study standards.
Wed Aug 15, 2012, 09:27 AM
Aug 2012

The authors of the Northwestern paper expose this.

pnwmom

(108,959 posts)
3. Only a tiny fraction of lesbians and tomboys have the medical condition
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 12:59 PM
Aug 2012

of congenital adrenal hyperplasia that this treatment was supposed to prevent. So the headline is misleading.

I don't support this treatment because the risks are too high and the benefits unproven. If there was a safe way to prevent babies being born inter-sex, however, I wouldn't blame parents for wanting to try it, anymore than I'd blame them for trying to correct other medical conditions, such as Down Syndrome or deafness.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
5. Two thoughts
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 01:03 PM
Aug 2012

What are your thoughts about using the same techniques to reduce aggression among males?
What does the ability to manipulate tomboyism out of a fetus suggest about inherent biological differences between boys and girls?

I'm fully with you about the inadvisability of this.

obamanut2012

(26,047 posts)
7. I don't believe in fetus engineering or Eugenics of any kind
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 01:17 PM
Aug 2012

Like Deep13 said upthread, it reminds me of Mengele.

pnwmom

(108,959 posts)
8. What if there were a way to prevent blindness or deafness in the womb?
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 02:15 PM
Aug 2012

What if there were a way to prevent hemophilia or some other serious disorder?

I'm not suggesting that CAD is equivalent to blindness. I'm questioning your broad statement about fetal engineering.

Are you truly against any and all forms of "fetal engineering"? Are you against fetal surgery, too? (Which has been used to correct fluid in the brain, for example, and prevent life-long brain damage.)

Whatever my feelings about the (I agree) inadvisable treatment for CAD as described in the OP, I think we should be considering the worth of fetal "engineering" and fetal surgery on a case by case basis.

It seems ironic to me that people who would champion a woman's absolute right to have an abortion, including when she found herself carrying a fetus with a medical condition, would object to her trying trying to treat that medical condition in the womb and to carry it to term.

Deep13

(39,154 posts)
18. That's a little different.
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 08:45 PM
Aug 2012

Those are genuine therapies or serious disorders, not arbitrary attempts to "improve" socially undesirable but non-pathological conditions.

pnwmom

(108,959 posts)
19. Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia can cause a multitude of symptoms,
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 08:58 PM
Aug 2012

in addition to causing abnormalities in the genitalia.

In babies it can cause poor feeding or vomiting, dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, and abnormal heart rhythms. In girls, it can lead to failure to menstruate.

It affects blood levels of aldosterone, renin, and cortisol; and affects bone growth.

It's not "just" a cosmetic problem.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001448/

pnwmom

(108,959 posts)
26. The problem is that in some children it can be very serious, but not in all.
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 11:14 PM
Aug 2012

Some will need lifelong treatment, and the only question is how early to start. But starting it in utero means that some babies get treatment who don't need it, including boys who don't need it and girls who wouldn't have developed it.

Maybe someday they'll have a test that can allow for treating only the babies who really need it, but they're not there yet.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
12. What about the 2nd part?
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 05:19 PM
Aug 2012

I'm curious about the consensus here.

If long-term behavior can be altered by changing the ratio of sex-hormones prior to birth doesn't that kind of imply a lot of gendered behavior is not learned but is rather innate?

If you can tell a tomboy over and over again to act like a girl and she refuses and ends up displaying male characteristics but by changing the prenatal environment you can induce more traditionally female behaviors doesn't that mean that what it is to be a boy or a girl is not entirely enforced by society.

And on the flip side: doesn't that mean efforts to get boys to stop acting like boys (fight less, share more, express more feelings, etc) are doomed from the start?

I would say that if you tried to force a tomboy to act like a more traditional girl you will fail and have behavioral problems. If you try to get boys to act more feminine (like in schools ordering them to sit quietly not fight not compete and be content to merely talk about rather than do things they learn) you will fail and have behavioral problems.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
14. I respectfully disagree
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 05:42 PM
Aug 2012

the OP involves using hormones to change the behavior of individuals (in utero) to act more "appropriate" for their gender.

Such a discussion presupposes that hormones can affect long term behavior in gendered ways does it not? The discussion isn't that such a policy is pointless since behavior is entirely social in nature. Instead the discussion on whether or not this is ok (I agree it is not). Which means that people kind of assume it works.

pnwmom

(108,959 posts)
27. I think your questions have been pretty well answered by researchers already.
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 11:17 PM
Aug 2012

Behavior is definitely affected by hormones both before and after birth.

Some researchers used to think that any boy or girl could be raised as a child of the opposite sex, because all such behavior was learned; but that theory has long since been discredited. It turned out that one of the main researchers in the field was fudging his data.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
31. Thank you
Wed Aug 15, 2012, 11:26 AM
Aug 2012

I agree entirely.

I was just checking what the opinion was around here. There is definitely a subset of the population that views behavior (especially traditionally boy or girl behaviors) as entirely learned. If you give girls fire-trucks they will grew up to act like men or if you give boys dolls they will grow up to be more nurturing. And so on.

And while there is some conditioning involved a lot of it can't be changed (like the girls who played dress up with their firetrucks or the boys who used their dolls as weapons or action figures).

FLyellowdog

(4,276 posts)
9. But can't they decide after they grow up to be gay anyway?
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 02:24 PM
Aug 2012

I thought being gay was a lifestyle choice. Now I'm confused.







 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
10. It will happen
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 05:10 PM
Aug 2012

maybe not universally and maybe not here. But once the technology is available this sort of manipulation will be done by some.

And that really scares me. First off there's nothing wrong with being a tomboy or a lesbian (or an effeminate man or a gay male). Second we really don't know what else this is going to affect. Thalidomide was a great drug . . . until we realized the long term unintended consequences.

This could very well "work" for it's intended purpose but result in some completely unexpected side-effects.

Fix real problems in utero (or abort if you choose). Like fatal child-hood diseases. Leave quirks alone.

pnwmom

(108,959 posts)
20. So it's fine to abort these fetuses but not to try to treat them?
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 09:02 PM
Aug 2012

I agree that in the case of this particular treatment, the benefits do not outweigh the risks. But I don't agree that no forms of "genetic engineering" or fetal medicine should be attempted.

By the way, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia is a mild condition in some people and severe and even life-threatening in others. It's not a "quirk."

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
30. I never said that
Wed Aug 15, 2012, 11:23 AM
Aug 2012

notice I said fix "real" problems? If your kid is going to be born with a severe physical defect that will kill him in a month or even just lead to a greatly diminished life . . . yeah go ahead and fix that. If he's maybe not going to be as tall as you'd like . . . I don't know just don't push him in to basketball.

And the article was about using this to fix tomboys, not to prevent deaths.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
15. I am very horrified. :(
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 06:18 PM
Aug 2012

LGBT people are a part of humanity and have a unique cultural and social role on the planet. And if you can mess around to the extent where even tomboyism is eliminated-what is to keep people from doing wholesale personality engineering? Make a generation of docile and passive women? Ick ick ick.

pnwmom

(108,959 posts)
21. Only a tiny fraction of lesbians and tomboys have the medical condition
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 09:04 PM
Aug 2012

that is addressed here, Congenital Adrenal Dysplasia. This is related to one type of condition that can lead to inter-sex conditions (and other symptoms), not to the vast majority of lesbians and tomboys.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
23. Well, I find the whole philosophy behind it pretty spiritually bankrupt.
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 09:14 PM
Aug 2012

I read how they gave a fetus dex pretty early on until CAH was or was not detected (or the fetus was found to be male). What if this "fix" didn't "work"--would the parents then think less of their daughter for not being genetically acceptable?

pnwmom

(108,959 posts)
24. I don't agree with this treatment either, because the benefits don't outweigh the risks, IMO.
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 09:43 PM
Aug 2012

But you are unaware of all the complications of this disease besides abnormalities in the genitals. In babies, it can cause vomiting and feeding problems, electrolyte problems, abnormal heart rhythms, and bone growth problems. It can cause older girls not to menstruate. It's not just a little "cosmetic" problem. It many cases it requires lifelong treatment; the main question is how early to begin the treatment. Unfortunately, they can't tell yet which fetuses are destined to have mild forms of the disease, and which might have severe and even life-threatening forms.

Some of the parents who opted for treatment did so instead of having an abortion. Is an abortion preferable? I wouldn't presume to make this decision for another family.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
35. Genetically engineered "Stepford Wives"?
Wed Aug 15, 2012, 12:28 PM
Aug 2012

Yikes!

"LGBT people are a part of humanity and have a unique cultural and social role on the planet."




The 'two-spirit' people of indigenous North Americans

Native Americans have often held intersex, androgynous people, feminine males and masculine females in high respect. The most common term to define such persons today is to refer to them as "two-spirit" people, but in the past feminine males were sometimes referred to as "berdache" by early French explorers in North America, who adapted a Persian word "bardaj", meaning an intimate male friend. Because these androgynous males were commonly married to a masculine man, or had sex with men, and the masculine females had feminine women as wives, the term berdache had a clear homosexual connotation. Both the Spanish settlers in Latin America and the English colonists in North America condemned them as "sodomites".

Rather than emphasising the homosexuality of these persons, however, many Native Americans focused on their spiritual gifts. American Indian traditionalists, even today, tend to see a person's basic character as a reflection of their spirit. Since everything that exists is thought to come from the spirit world, androgynous or transgender persons are seen as doubly blessed, having both the spirit of a man and the spirit of a woman. Thus, they are honoured for having two spirits, and are seen as more spiritually gifted than the typical masculine male or feminine female.

Therefore, many Native American religions, rather than stigmatising such persons, often looked to them as religious leaders and teachers. Quite similar religious traditions existed among the native peoples of Siberia and many parts of Central and southeast Asia. Since the ancestors of Native Americans migrated from Siberia over 20,000 years ago, and since reports of highly respected androgynous persons have been noted among indigenous Americans from Alaska to Chile, androgyny seems to be quite ancient among humans.

Rather than the physical body, Native Americans emphasised a person's "spirit", or character, as being most important. Instead of seeing two-spirit persons as transsexuals who try to make themselves into "the opposite sex", it is more accurate to understand them as individuals who take on a gender status that is different from both men and women. This alternative gender status offers a range of possibilities, from slightly effeminate males or masculine females, to androgynous or transgender persons, to those who completely cross-dress and act as the other gender. The emphasis of Native Americans is not to force every person into one box, but to allow for the reality of diversity in gender and sexual identities.

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
28. A new kind of eugenics???
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 11:50 PM
Aug 2012

I don't often post here (okay, never until now), but I find this highly offensive.

What ever happened to the data that coupled the most well rounded intelligence being consistent with androgynous traits?

What are we doing to ourselves by what they are doing to us?

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
32. This is the way I believe the issue of LGBT is headed...
Wed Aug 15, 2012, 12:05 PM
Aug 2012

If science ever proves there is a specific biological / genetic / hormonal basis for LGBT, then you're going to see amniocentesis based testing to determine if a fetus is LGBT. Then at the very least, you're going to start seeing abortion based on if the fetus is LGBT. India has been doing sex-selective abortion for a while.

The next step would be in utero hormonal or genetic therapy to "cure" LGBT.

You think people won't abort LGBT? I asked some religious co-workers I know, who spend a great deal of time on religious forums, about this issue. They basically said the viewpoint of the very religious is that it's a choice of two evils. Abortion is evil, but homosexuality is an "abomination". That's their word "abomination", and an "abomination" is much much worse. So LGBT will be aborted by people like themselves.

I firmly believe some people are looking for a way to edit LGBT out of the Human Genome. Things like are just the start. Brave New World, here we come.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
36. I've often thought that might prove to be a cruel irony
Wed Aug 15, 2012, 12:29 PM
Aug 2012

that the way to get fundy types to support abortion rights would be to prove that being gay isn't a choice.

And conversely you might get some LGBT types (typically solidly on the left) to now support limitations on the right to choose.

The next few decades will be interesting if nothing else.

Neoma

(10,039 posts)
40. I don't ever feel feminine or masculine.
Thu Aug 16, 2012, 12:59 PM
Aug 2012

I'll wear skirts one day, and jeans the next, but nothing about me strikes me as either. I just go with, "human."

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
42. The LGBTIQ spectrum is a huge tent.
Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:04 PM
Aug 2012

Maybe instead of calling it the "LGBTIQ spectrum", we will someday just call it the human spectrum.

FloridaJudy

(9,465 posts)
43. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia
Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:39 PM
Aug 2012

Is a horrible condition. It's not only disfiguring, it can be life-threatening. One of my patients died of it. Fortunately, it's pretty rare, unlike lesbianism, which is only life-threatening if the lesbian encounters some pretty un-evolved human beings.

I really can't imagine any ethical medical professional administering a drug to make sure girls act more feminine, though I guess there are enough right-wing doctors and nurses around that it really could be a problem. Or even more that are more concerned with making money than with the welfare of their patients: hell, look at "Octo-Mom"!

haikugal

(6,476 posts)
44. Question
Sat Oct 13, 2012, 09:01 PM
Oct 2012

I was always called a Tomboy growing up. I was always competitive with males but I was also feminine in that I liked to 'dress up' etc. What is it about being a Tomboy that makes someone gay? Am I missing something here?

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Feminists»A future without tomboys ...