Child transformed gender by his two mothers

[Psyko]

At young age, with sign language ... the boy's FIRST words ... "I am a girl"
who do you think 'taught' him those words ? The kid sure as hell didn't think it up himself.

I can't argue for or against that point. However, I should be able to 99.9% correctly assume he learned the alphabet first.

Actually ... no

They learn 'signs' not individual letters .. the old sign language is like that, the new one (latest 20 years or so) is with signs which represents complete words

individual letters come at a later stage where they use it to spell names.

Fine then, I was 99.9% wrong. My first sentence stands.

I can't argue for or against that point. However, I should be able to 99.9% correctly assume he learned the alphabet first.

When we say "learned first" i assume we are talking first words uttered? if that is the case then, as a farther of 3 boys-i can assure you Psyko with some degree of accuracy and experience...it wasn't their A B C's they learned/said first.

My eldest first word was "car" because he liked to sit on my mums lap looking out the window at the cars going by. my youngest first words were uma uma, so it's a safe bet he was trying to say "mum".
Not 100% sure with the middle one, but i think it was daddy.

All 3 of my boys were standing and trying to form words within 8 months because we spent MANY hours holding them up on their legs and talking to them. my eldest for example had a huge vocabulary for his age and was holding complete conversations with people at 2 n half.


As for sign language, every baby is different and their motor controls develop at differing ages but for at least the first 6 to 8 months their movements are completely random...i know this from the amount of slaps and kicks i received.

Nothing in the article explains if he uses words or sign language; it merely states a speech impediment.

[[KMA]Avenger]

At young age, with sign language ... the boy's FIRST words ... "I am a girl"
who do you think 'taught' him those words ? The kid sure as hell didn't think it up himself.

I can't argue for or against that point. However, I should be able to 99.9% correctly assume he learned the alphabet first.

Actually ... no

They learn 'signs' not individual letters .. the old sign language is like that, the new one (latest 20 years or so) is with signs which represents complete words

individual letters come at a later stage where they use it to spell names.

Fine then, I was 99.9% wrong. My first sentence stands.

I can't argue for or against that point. However, I should be able to 99.9% correctly assume he learned the alphabet first.

When we say "learned first" i assume we are talking first words uttered? if that is the case then, as a farther of 3 boys-i can assure you Psyko with some degree of accuracy and experience...it wasn't their A B C's they learned/said first.

My eldest first word was "car" because he liked to sit on my mums lap looking out the window at the cars going by. my youngest first words were uma uma, so it's a safe bet he was trying to say "mum".
Not 100% sure with the middle one, but i think it was daddy.

All 3 of my boys were standing and trying to form words within 8 months because we spent MANY hours holding them up on their legs and talking to them. my eldest for example had a huge vocabulary for his age and was holding complete conversations with people at 2 n half.


As for sign language, every baby is different and their motor controls develop at differing ages but for at least the first 6 to 8 months their movements are completely random...i know this from the amount of slaps and kicks i received.

Nothing in the article explains if he uses words or sign language; it merely states a speech impediment.

That wasn't in reference to the article...merely responding to your post

[Drought]

Nothing in the article explains if he uses words or sign language; it merely states a speech impediment.

The mothers say that one of the first things Thomas told them when he learned sign language aged three - because of a speech impediment - was, 'I am a girl'.

... pretty clearly written there psyko.

[Psyko]

Nothing in the article explains if he uses words or sign language; it merely states a speech impediment.

The mothers say that one of the first things Thomas told them when he learned sign language aged three - because of a speech impediment - was, 'I am a girl'.

... pretty clearly written there psyko.

D'oh. Clearly, debating at 4am without sleep is productive for me.

[Guild]

although this is a sick case, i dont think you can blanket group all gay parents together, if you look hard enough you will find a anomylie in any group.

this is just "one of those" cases

[Ashu]

It's quite the abomination, not just because the parents are gay, not because the doctors don't have half a mind or half a moral state NOT to do the operation, but because they listened to an 8 years old?! And 8 year old child, on this?! It's mind bending! The child had NO idea what it wants at 8 years old and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. The parents are clearly unfit for their roles for allowing this to happen. The doctos are out of their minds for even considering doing it and not calling child support.

Psyko, you don't have children as far as i know. Nor do i, but i know people that do. Psychologists and psychiatrists and i've asked them, they were shocked beyond belief that someone would allow this to happen and couldn't stop talking about the ramifications. How could they do this? That child has no idea what it wants, it can be manipulated by them unknowingly, by friends and so on. There's a legal age for a reason and this reason is good one.

Here, i'll put the finger on the wound for you. I don't agree with same sex marriages and same sex parenting. Just because something is hip ( because it is, this whole boom is well orchestrated and i see people who are speaking against it are called all the bad things for even having an oppinion ) doesn't mean it's also good. Just because they can, doesn't mean they should.

Also, i see you don't really judge right from wrong. Just what YOU CAN DO and what YOU NEED and what YOU SHOULD HAVE.

Being gay is not "hip" to most people. Yes, some people experiment and/or follow trends due to the popularity or novelty of it, but to think that being gay is a choice for everyone is ludicrous! Gay people do not chose to live a life that singles them out from the rest of society, causes them to be bullied or threatened as children/teens, or live a life as a second-rate citizen "just because it is hip". I have friends who have gone through so many horrible things in their lives just because of the sex of who they are attracted to, and I get very upset with people who insult their integrity by claiming they chose to go through what they did, or that they deserve it for "what" they are, or any number of other ridiculous things.

It is very hip to be gay nowadays. Gay people bash other people at a glance for even glaring at the posibility of not agreeing with whateve they believe in. No one treats them as second rate citizens, or perhaps we're doing to them now what the anti-black US did to the negro population before they became free? They had a rough time for being gay? I had rough time for just being, people have attempted to kill me in high school just for breathing and being there. I'm sorry if the sympathy card doesn't pull any weight with me. Children and good men are dying in parts of the world for reasons so rediculous i can't even think about them.

So yeah, I get a little fired up with gay rights come into play. These women should not be judged as parents simply because of their sexual orientation. Fine, you can judge them by their decision to help their child figure out who he is or wants to be, that is perfectly acceptable and done all the time to parents all over the world. But to judge a couple based upon what genitalia they both possess is narrow-minded and silly.

Time and time again studies made all over the globe by numerous entities, even nature itself says there needs to be a father figure and a mother figure in play. And that's just scratching the surface. It's not norrow minded and silly to go against the trent of using so called freedom to do whatever they see fit.

Yes, I can see where there might be psychological harm to the child. Which is why I have said repeatedly that he had better be seeing a shrink on a regular basis. But physically the child has suffered no damage. No doctor would ethically be able to perform any care for a patient if they knew it could cause harm. I hardly see any reason to have the child removed from the custody of his parents. Nor do I see reason to go after the doctor(s) related to the case.

No damage? He was a male, now a female. (?!?!?!?!?!?!?!) No doctor? You mean like the doctos that harvest organs for the black market? Like the doctors that perform thousands of abortions? The doctors that don't give one thought but for the money at stake?

Then again, my opinion is not based upon my religion or a personal prejudice against any party involved in this entire case. Maybe that is what makes my opinion different from most of the people who've posted. I believe homosexuals, transsexuals, transgenders, pansexuals, asexuals, and hermaphrodites are all people who should be given the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else in this country. Too many people get wrapped up in the labels that they forget these are human beings that live, laugh, and fall in love just like they do. It's not a choice, it's not what they are, it's a part of who they are. They are cousins, brothers, sisters, aunts, sons, daughters, friends, students, teachers, bosses, employees, PEOPLE just like everyone else, and they should have the same rights as the rest of us.

I have no personal prejudice against anyone. I think they should and they do have the same rights as anyone else. You want to be the president? Do a good job and i'll be the first to vote for you! You want some sort of civil union so you can get tax breaks? I'll be the first to sign your petition! Flaunt your gayness like it's the best thing since the written word and say anyone who thinks otherwise and uses his own head is borderline retarded, then yeah, we'll have some issues. I won't change what i believe in just because some people started crying about what they can or want to do and because people are too afraid to be labeled ( just as you say the gays and whatnot were ) in so many ways. Homosexuals have existed for thousands of years, they just grew some this day and age because of the lack of true wisdon and the propagation of ignorance and downright ludicrous lack of a backbown in everyone.

That's one of the few "liberal" opinions that I have and I wouldn't change a damn thing about it.

I'm not afraid of their big mouths and condescending tones. I will not let them cowerse me into thinking it's a good thing, just because it is.
It's natural for two men to be together. It's natural for a man and an underage girl to be together, it's even happened before! If they consent, why go against their rights? Surely no one can be as dimwitted and so on as to thinking it's not a beautiful thing... NO! It's not! There's a limit to what people can basically do to themselves, to what they should be allowed to do and what is RIGHT. But of course, not everyone can be right now can they? People can be wrong. I have nothing against gay people, i have something against the modern concept of "whatever is", should be swallowed as good just "because".

[Psyko]

It's quite the abomination, not just because the parents are gay, not because the doctors don't have half a mind or half a moral state NOT to do the operation, but because they listened to an 8 years old?! And 8 year old child, on this?! It's mind bending! The child had NO idea what it wants at 8 years old and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. The parents are clearly unfit for their roles for allowing this to happen. The doctos are out of their minds for even considering doing it and not calling child support.

Psyko, you don't have children as far as i know. Nor do i, but i know people that do. Psychologists and psychiatrists and i've asked them, they were shocked beyond belief that someone would allow this to happen and couldn't stop talking about the ramifications. How could they do this? That child has no idea what it wants, it can be manipulated by them unknowingly, by friends and so on. There's a legal age for a reason and this reason is good one.

Here, i'll put the finger on the wound for you. I don't agree with same sex marriages and same sex parenting. Just because something is hip ( because it is, this whole boom is well orchestrated and i see people who are speaking against it are called all the bad things for even having an oppinion ) doesn't mean it's also good. Just because they can, doesn't mean they should.

Also, i see you don't really judge right from wrong. Just what YOU CAN DO and what YOU NEED and what YOU SHOULD HAVE.

Being gay is not "hip" to most people. Yes, some people experiment and/or follow trends due to the popularity or novelty of it, but to think that being gay is a choice for everyone is ludicrous! Gay people do not chose to live a life that singles them out from the rest of society, causes them to be bullied or threatened as children/teens, or live a life as a second-rate citizen "just because it is hip". I have friends who have gone through so many horrible things in their lives just because of the sex of who they are attracted to, and I get very upset with people who insult their integrity by claiming they chose to go through what they did, or that they deserve it for "what" they are, or any number of other ridiculous things.

It is very hip to be gay nowadays. Gay people bash other people at a glance for even glaring at the posibility of not agreeing with whateve they believe in. No one treats them as second rate citizens, or perhaps we're doing to them now what the anti-black US did to the negro population before they became free? They had a rough time for being gay? I had rough time for just being, people have attempted to kill me in high school just for breathing and being there. I'm sorry if the sympathy card doesn't pull any weight with me. Children and good men are dying in parts of the world for reasons so rediculous i can't even think about them.

I think hip is the wrong term. People are more accepted for being gay, so it seems like there are a ton more gay people now that it's more okay than it has been in the past. Yes, some gay people bash people who have an opinion different from their own. So do straight people. So do Republicans. And Democrats. And Christians. And Mormons. Etc. PEOPLE bash people for not believing the same thing as they do.

It's fair to say that being gay gives a greater number of people a stronger excuse for hating, beating, threatening someone. Similar to the race issue. It's easier to hate those of Middle Eastern descent since 9/11. I'm not saying heterosexual teens are not bullied, beaten, or threatened ever. But there is definite prejudice against gay people in this country. Homosexuality can't be taught or explained in schools, whole school districts have experienced suicide trends due to school policies in regards to homosexuality. They can't donate blood. They can't get married, adopt, etc depending on where they live.

Yes, people die every day in all parts of the world. Some in African countries for being of a particular tribe. Some in the MIddle East for wanting regime changes. American soldiers fighting in wars (apt for a Memorial Day weekend) die each day for this country. But if we can create policies that will lessen the violence against a group of people, I feel there is a moral obligation to do so.

So yeah, I get a little fired up with gay rights come into play. These women should not be judged as parents simply because of their sexual orientation. Fine, you can judge them by their decision to help their child figure out who he is or wants to be, that is perfectly acceptable and done all the time to parents all over the world. But to judge a couple based upon what genitalia they both possess is narrow-minded and silly.

Time and time again studies made all over the globe by numerous entities, even nature itself says there needs to be a father figure and a mother figure in play. And that's just scratching the surface. It's not norrow minded and silly to go against the trent of using so called freedom to do whatever they see fit.

Given the fact that most same-sex couples cannot adopt or conceive children, I doubt most of those studies involved much of a focus group on how those families work out. Nature says there needs to be a male and female to conceive. There is nothing which states both parents need to be in the picture. Look at numerous mammal species and their breeding habits and I think you will find mom/pop couples are not prevalent in every species. So not all of nature thinks it should be limited to one man, one woman. I think it's narrow minded and silly that you think it's about doing whatever they see fit, and not about having the same rights as the rest of us.

Yes, I can see where there might be psychological harm to the child. Which is why I have said repeatedly that he had better be seeing a shrink on a regular basis. But physically the child has suffered no damage. No doctor would ethically be able to perform any care for a patient if they knew it could cause harm. I hardly see any reason to have the child removed from the custody of his parents. Nor do I see reason to go after the doctor(s) related to the case.

No damage? He was a male, now a female. (?!?!?!?!?!?!?!) No doctor? You mean like the doctos that harvest organs for the black market? Like the doctors that perform thousands of abortions? The doctors that don't give one thought but for the money at stake?

I think you need to re-read the article. The thread title is misleading. He is still a boy. He merely has a hormone blocker in his arm which prevents him going through puberty in the near future. There was no male-to-female transition in this child. Doctors know much better than that.

Then again, my opinion is not based upon my religion or a personal prejudice against any party involved in this entire case. Maybe that is what makes my opinion different from most of the people who've posted. I believe homosexuals, transsexuals, transgenders, pansexuals, asexuals, and hermaphrodites are all people who should be given the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else in this country. Too many people get wrapped up in the labels that they forget these are human beings that live, laugh, and fall in love just like they do. It's not a choice, it's not what they are, it's a part of who they are. They are cousins, brothers, sisters, aunts, sons, daughters, friends, students, teachers, bosses, employees, PEOPLE just like everyone else, and they should have the same rights as the rest of us.

I have no personal prejudice against anyone. I think they should and they do have the same rights as anyone else. You want to be the president? Do a good job and i'll be the first to vote for you! You want some sort of civil union so you can get tax breaks? I'll be the first to sign your petition! Flaunt your gayness like it's the best thing since the written word and say anyone who thinks otherwise and uses his own head is borderline retarded, then yeah, we'll have some issues. I won't change what i believe in just because some people started crying about what they can or want to do and because people are too afraid to be labeled ( just as you say the gays and whatnot were ) in so many ways. Homosexuals have existed for thousands of years, they just grew some this day and age because of the lack of true wisdon and the propagation of ignorance and downright ludicrous lack of a backbown in everyone.

They don't have the same rights as anyone else. That's the point. They can't get married, they can't visit their partner in the hospital, gay partners can't sign and release their dead American soldier's remains if they are killed in the line of duty, they can't give blood, they can't adopt, they can't do thousands of things everyone else has the right to do. Not every state has Civil Unions, and those that do have different rights than both marriage and the Civil Unions in other states. It's not all about tax breaks or financial gain.

On the same note as your comment about not changing your opinion because "people started crying about what they can or want to do", gay people are not going to stop being who they are or change their opinions because other people have a problem with it.

I disagree with your comment that homosexuality is growing because people have no backbone and are ignorant.

That's one of the few "liberal" opinions that I have and I wouldn't change a damn thing about it.

I'm not afraid of their big mouths and condescending tones. I will not let them cowerse me into thinking it's a good thing, just because it is.
It's natural for two men to be together. It's natural for a man and an underage girl to be together, it's even happened before! If they consent, why go against their rights? Surely no one can be as dimwitted and so on as to thinking it's not a beautiful thing... NO! It's not! There's a limit to what people can basically do to themselves, to what they should be allowed to do and what is RIGHT. But of course, not everyone can be right now can they? People can be wrong. I have nothing against gay people, i have something against the modern concept of "whatever is", should be swallowed as good just "because".

Responses in red.

[Ashu]

Gasp.
Sociatal roles versus emulating a family and trying to comfort ones self is a very intricate thing indeed. Especially for someone looking at it through the eyes of the risen masses trying to aquire normality by force and crying out bias and hatred. Like i said before, they can and should have most roles we do in out society such as any person should, but having a family and trying to incorporate the nonsense that "being gay is a great thing, because it just is and i can't turn it off" is rediculous. What school should be teaching is common sense, not the fact that gay people shouldn't be hated. Gay people, black people, different people in general seem to be a problem of sorts of society nowadays. People in Africa die, people in the Middle East die, people in wars die, but no one is as vocal for them as they are for gay people, because it doesn't sell. Being gay is hip, because society made is so, because people are so adamant to have their own ways done.

The studies which i quotes fuction on family issues being resolved while there is a mother and a father. If one is missing or suplemented by another father or mother, great problems occur. I will not reduce humanity to being a mammal. Nor I, not a gay man or woman are animals and I will never consider it as such. Gay people have existed for a long time but none one mentioned them till now because they had virtually the same issues, bled as us, died as us, were either rich or poor, minus having a family. I see tho that now, the holy grail of society is sex and pride. That's what we've reduced ourselves to. That's what we call love and what we want in life. It's such a shame it's so hard to look upwards and climb up from this spew of degeneration.

[Drought]

Look at numerous mammal species and their breeding habits and I think you will find mom/pop couples are not prevalent in every species. So not all of nature thinks it should be limited to one man, one woman..

That may be true ...

But I have never seen or heard a mammal support their offspring's gender chance.
I would have seen it on discovery if that were so

Also,

The boy may still have his genitals, but you can bet your butt that after or even during puberty, and by long term influence of how good a choice this kid is making coming from his two mothers, that the end goal is an actual gender changing operation.
The hormones is just preparing him for it .... and sadly, the actual hormones in that stuff isn't helping making a more sound judgement while he grows into his teens.
And snap, if he ever changes his mind (just wait till puberty strikes) ... well .. he'll be thrilled with having feminine shoulders and perhaps some odd flakey breasts.

[Angnoch]

The point is, that despite what everyone is saying he has not gone through any procedure to change his gender at this point in time. Therefore all arguments that his parents are abusing him, and influencing him are completely irrelevant as nothing major has been done to the child. He has a hormone blocker in his arm, big deal. He is trying to decide who he is, and for everyone saying he can't possibly know what he wants at eight years old, you are entirely correct but should you tell him he is not allowed to have a dream? I may not agree with his choice but it is what he thinks he wants, and he is not being harmed in the least by his parents support at this point in time. When he is old enough to make a proper decision, he will. Until then stop claiming that it is unnatural to have desires.


Any discussion on same sex couples should be taken to a proper thread and this one be left solely for the possible gender transformation discussion.

[Legendary Apophis]

"Kid is king" society that's where we are now. Which means that with the habit of being given what (s)he wants, when the parents finally say no, you get problems. As they believe they can be given what they want, many of those also act as spoiled children. This story fits perfectly within this new society scheme of "kid is king". More problematic when it's not about a new console or having a pony but when it's about the nature/health of the person.

Sooner or later we will also have mutant kids because they wanted to be so/felt uncomfortable as how they were. And don't tell me it's not the same, because that's what some kids want, and I don't see why this time kids' wish shouldn't be followed because it's exactly what this society is heading towards, fulfill the wishes of kids no matter what it is.

[Psyko]

The point is, that despite what everyone is saying he has not gone through any procedure to change his gender at this point in time. Therefore all arguments that his parents are abusing him, and influencing him are completely irrelevant as nothing major has been done to the child. He has a hormone blocker in his arm, big deal. He is trying to decide who he is, and for everyone saying he can't possibly know what he wants at eight years old, you are entirely correct but should you tell him he is not allowed to have a dream? I may not agree with his choice but it is what he thinks he wants, and he is not being harmed in the least by his parents support at this point in time. When he is old enough to make a proper decision, he will. Until then stop claiming that it is unnatural to have desires.

What I've been trying to say all along. Thanks for being more articulate than I could manage.

[Angnoch]

No problem Psyko, but to be fair your point was articulate just not succinct enough I think.


Jim I am not saying the parents should give the child whatever he or she wants, just stating that supporting their dreams is exactly what a good parent would do, in this case I think the child should be talking to a professional but the parents are not doing any harm by letting him know that his choices are not impossible. If my parents had not told me when I was younger that I could be anything I wanted, I probably never would have done a lot of the things I did.

[MEZZANINE]

Hormone Blocker, is that all ?

Hormone blocking isnt a small thing, yes less drastic than surgery but it still has a huge effect on physical and mental development especially at such a young age.

You wouldnt condone a child being given steroids ( for non medical reasons ) to make them stronger, bigger and more aggressive just because some jock parent wanted a big sporty boy, or putting him on a rack to make him grow taller, so why support lesbian parent using hormone blockers to limit a childs physical growth, making a boy smaller, physically weaker and more feminine.

Its bad enough they are indoctrinating this child to believe being what he HE naturally is is wrong, and what they are is right, something he should aspire to become. But using chemicals to interfere with his development and try and make him something he is NOT and can NEVER be regardless of future surgery to change appearance is DISGUSTING....

THESE ARE NOT FIT PARENTS AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR SEXUALITY, IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSE OF A CHILD

[Psyko]

THESE ARE NOT FIT PARENTS AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR SEXUALITY, IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSE OF A CHILD

I would probably believe this statement more if you didn't add the term "lesbian" every time you referenced the boy's parents.