Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Doctor Treating Pregnant Women With Experimental Drug To Prevent Lesbianism

Posted by on Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Originally posted yesterday afternoon at 3:15 PM.

That's not fair, as Hanna Rosin at Slate will shortly point out. Pediatric endocrinologist Maria New—of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Florida International University—isn't just trying to prevent lesbianism by treating pregnant women with an experimental hormone. She's also trying to prevent the births of girls who display an "abnormal" disinterest in babies, don't want to play with girls' toys or become mothers, and whose "career preferences" are deemed too "masculine." Unbelievable:

The majority of researchers and clinicians interested in the use of prenatal “dex” focus on preventing development of ambiguous genitalia in girls with CAH. CAH results in an excess of androgens prenatally, and this can lead to a “masculinizing” of a female fetus’s genitals. One group of researchers, however, seems to be suggesting that prenatal dex also might prevent affected girls from turning out to be homosexual or bisexual.

Pediatric endocrinologist Maria New, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Florida International University, and her long-time collaborator, psychologist Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg, of Columbia University, have been tracing evidence for the influence of prenatal androgens in sexual orientation.... They specifically point to reasons to believe that it is prenatal androgens that have an impact on the development of sexual orientation. The authors write, "Most women were heterosexual, but the rates of bisexual and homosexual orientation were increased above controls . . . and correlated with the degree of prenatal androgenization.” They go on to suggest that the work might offer some insight into the influence of prenatal hormones on the development of sexual orientation in general. “That this may apply also to sexual orientation in at least a subgroup of women is suggested by the fact that earlier research has repeatedly shown that about one-third of homosexual women have (modestly) increased levels of androgens.” They “conclude that the findings support a sexual-differentiation perspective involving prenatal androgens on the development of sexual orientation.”

And it isn’t just that many women with CAH have a lower interest, compared to other women, in having sex with men. In another paper entitled “What Causes Low Rates of Child-Bearing in Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia?” Meyer-Bahlburg writes that “CAH women as a group have a lower interest than controls in getting married and performing the traditional child-care/housewife role. As children, they show an unusually low interest in engaging in maternal play with baby dolls, and their interest in caring for infants, the frequency of daydreams or fantasies of pregnancy and motherhood, or the expressed wish of experiencing pregnancy and having children of their own appear to be relatively low in all age groups.”

In the same article, Meyer-Bahlburg suggests that treatments with prenatal dexamethasone might cause these girls’ behavior to be closer to the expectation of heterosexual norms: “Long term follow-up studies of the behavioral outcome will show whether dexamethasone treatment also prevents the effects of prenatal androgens on brain and behavior.”

In a paper published just this year in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New and her colleague, pediatric endocrinologist Saroj Nimkarn of Weill Cornell Medical College, go further, constructing low interest in babies and men—and even interest in what they consider to be men’s occupations and games—as “abnormal,” and potentially preventable with prenatal dex:

“Gender-related behaviors, namely childhood play, peer association, career and leisure time preferences in adolescence and adulthood, maternalism, aggression, and sexual orientation become masculinized in 46,XX girls and women with 21OHD deficiency [CAH]. These abnormalities have been attributed to the effects of excessive prenatal androgen levels on the sexual differentiation of the brain and later on behavior.” Nimkarn and New continue: “We anticipate that prenatal dexamethasone therapy will reduce the well-documented behavioral masculinization...”

It seems more than a little ironic to have New, one of the first women pediatric endocrinologists and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, constructing women who go into “men’s” fields as “abnormal.” And yet it appears that New is suggesting that the “prevention” of “behavioral masculinization” is a benefit of treatment to parents with whom she speaks about prenatal dex. In a 2001 presentation to the CARES Foundation (a videotape of which we have), New seemed to suggest to parents that one of the goals of treatment of girls with CAH is to turn them into wives and mothers. Showing a slide of the ambiguous genitals of a girl with CAH, New told the assembled parents:

“The challenge here is... to see what could be done to restore this baby to the normal female appearance which would be compatible with her parents presenting her as a girl, with her eventually becoming somebody’s wife, and having normal sexual development, and becoming a mother. And she has all the machinery for motherhood, and therefore nothing should stop that, if we can repair her surgically and help her psychologically to continue to grow and develop as a girl.”

In the Q&A period, during a discussion of prenatal dex treatments, an audience member asked New, “Isn’t there a benefit to the female babies in terms of reducing the androgen effects on the brain?” New answered, “You know, when the babies who have been treated with dex prenatally get to an age in which they are sexually active, I’ll be able to answer that question.” At that point, she’ll know if they are interested in taking men and making babies.

In a previous Bioethics Forum post, Alice Dreger noted an instance of a prospective father using knowledge of the fraternal birth order effect to try to avoid having a gay son by a surrogate pregnancy. There may be other individualized instances of parents trying to ensure heterosexual children before birth. But the use of prenatal dexamethasone treatments for CAH represents, to our knowledge, the first systematic medical effort attached to a “paradigm” of attempting in utero to reduce rates of homosexuality, bisexuality, and “low maternal interest.”

So no more Elena Kagans, no more Donna Shalalas, no more Martina Navratilovas, no more k.d. langs, no more Constance McMillens—because all women must grow up to suck dick, crank out babies, and do women's work. And the existence of adult women who are not interested in "becoming someone's wife" and "making babies" constitutes a medical emergency that requires us to treat women who are currently pregnant with a dangerous experimental hormone. Otherwise their daughters might grow up to, um, be nominated to sit on the Supreme Court, serve as cabinet secretaries, take 18 Grand Slam singles titles, win Grammies, and take their girlfriends to prom.

And we can't have that.

Two things: Gay people have been stressing out about the day arriving when scientists developed treatments to prevent homosexuality. The preventing gay sheep freak out is here, Twilight of the Golds is here, and I recall—but can't quickly find a link for—a "fellow" at the Family Research Council or the American Family Association who backed in-utero hormone treatments to prevent homosexuality. Well, here we are—the day appears to have arrived. Now what are we going to do about it?

And will the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee invite Maria New to testify at Elana Kagan's confirmation hearings? New could argue that Kagan—childless, unmarried Kagan—is unfit to serve on our highest court because her "low maternal interest" pegs her as abnormal, well outside the "maternal mainstream." Maybe GOP senators would be mollified if Kagan knocked back a few bottles of dex during her confirmation hearings?

UPDATE: A little more about dex from Alice Dreger:

The specific drug we're talking about, dexamethasone, is not a benign drug for pregnant women, nor for the children exposed in utero. The studies we do have on the early prenatal use of "dex" are worrisome. The number of women and children missing from the follow-up studies of this drug use is more worrisome still.

This drug is unequivocally experimental and risky. That's why, back in February, I organized interested members of the Bioethics community to fight to make sure every woman offered dex for CAH knows the truth about its experimental and risky nature. (You can read about our efforts in Time magazine. And you can about the medical establishment's resultant mad scampering to make sure everyone knows this is experimental here.) Make no mistake: In spite of Dr. Maria New's outrageous FDA-regulation-flaunting claims that this off-label drug use "has been found safe for mother and child," it ain't been. New is a rogue pediatrician whom medical societies have been nudging (and sometimes yelling at) for years. Because she apparently wouldn't stop experimenting on these women and children without ethics oversight, in January I got called in to help by a few freaked-out clinicians. And I called in my colleagues to call out the feds. New just looks and sounds safe for mothers and children. Which is why she's really dangerous.

 

Comments (222) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Canuck 1
If you didn't put in the links, I'd swear you were making this stuff up.
Posted by Canuck on June 29, 2010 at 3:25 PM · Report this
theInvisibleDick 2
This research does nothing to increase the incidence of so-called lipstick lesbianisms! That's the outrageous part you fail to mention.
Posted by theInvisibleDick on June 29, 2010 at 3:27 PM · Report this
venomlash 3
Holy shitting fuck.
Posted by venomlash on June 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM · Report this
Packeteer 4
Wow they have a cure for women thinking for themselves? How are we going to continue the patriarchy if we DON'T put this in tap water.
Posted by Packeteer on June 29, 2010 at 3:33 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 5
The motivation seems appalling, but the science is interesting. Makes me wonder if they can do the opposite if, say, you wanted a softball champ.
Posted by Free Lunch on June 29, 2010 at 3:34 PM · Report this
6
Holy shit. Fuck her right in the ear.
Posted by bassplayerguy on June 29, 2010 at 3:39 PM · Report this
7
There's an upside to this: if what they say is true, and is proven true, then at least the "homosexuality is a choice" argument will be scientifically destroyed.
Posted by Judas on June 29, 2010 at 3:42 PM · Report this
Vince 8
This won't end well for anyone.
Posted by Vince on June 29, 2010 at 3:42 PM · Report this
9
Wait a minute, so if someone's genetically predisposed to be gay then that must mean it's God's Will™
Posted by go figueora on June 29, 2010 at 3:50 PM · Report this
10
Dr. Maria New's credentials need to be pulled and they need to be pulled right now! She is the abomination and what happened to not messing with God's will? MF hypocrites.
Posted by mimilefay on June 29, 2010 at 3:52 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 11
Yeah, Vince, I wonder how long it will be before we start hearing about babies being born with three heads.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on June 29, 2010 at 3:54 PM · Report this
12
@7: This is the catch-22 of that debate. If homosexuality is a choice, then it's a sin and we can just make laws to oppress them. If people are born that way, then there must be a 'cure' we can find. Either way, the LGBT community loses.

This is why I hope they never find a "gay gene".
Posted by I'm a liberal, no really on June 29, 2010 at 3:55 PM · Report this
beckysharp 13
Who the hell has ever had "daydreams or fantasies of pregnancy and motherhood?" I can understand a be-corseted spinster in the 1890s fantasizing about motherhood, but what kind of little girl obsesses over being pregnant?
Posted by beckysharp on June 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM · Report this
leek 14
becky: I never did, but there do seem to be lots of little girls who like playing with baby dolls and pushing them around in strollers and pretending to change them and shit like that. I (in spite of my fully XX anatomy) am just abnormal, I guess. GIMME THE DEX!
Posted by leek on June 29, 2010 at 4:01 PM · Report this
15
Isn't Dr. Maria New's occupation just a bit too masculine? Why isn't she home popping out babies instead of all this doctor scientist stuff? Give that doctor some of that there CAH.
Posted by Metate on June 29, 2010 at 4:03 PM · Report this
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me 16
But shouldn't what she does with her body be a woman's choice? A very private choice made in confidence with her physician?
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on June 29, 2010 at 4:04 PM · Report this
devilsmoke 17
you know, there was one thing keeping me from being all depressed while reading 'The handmaid's tale.' The belief that people who think they know what women should do and want to do, and know that better than the individuals who make up the cohort 'women,' didn't exist outside a few non-influential fundamentalist sects. Now I'm not sure I can finish the book...
Posted by devilsmoke on June 29, 2010 at 4:06 PM · Report this
onion 18
the extended application of this science to all women in general sounds totally terrible, but in case peeps aren't familiar with CAH it's a pretty serious condition with some pretty serious health complications. So while it sounds like this researcher has gone off the deep end, combating severe CAH in women with some form of treatment is a good idea.

Check it out here at NIH:
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/C…
Posted by onion on June 29, 2010 at 4:10 PM · Report this
Apocynum 19
To what degree do we embrace science as truth, and to what degree reject it? Do these decisions change when we don't agree with the results?

Also, if a trait like homosexuality were found to originate in the genes somewhere, whether this is viewed as an 'aberration' or a neutral mutation of the sort that happens all the time is a value judgement, and we're back where we started anyway. Those of you screaming to yank this doctor's PhD because she's taking her research somewhere you dislike, be careful lest you become the same self-righteous demagogues you're fighting.
Posted by Apocynum on June 29, 2010 at 4:20 PM · Report this
Shena Lee 20
i know lots of lesbians who dream about being wives and mothers, they just dream about marrying other women.
Posted by Shena Lee http://www.shenalee.com on June 29, 2010 at 4:22 PM · Report this
21
“You know, when the babies who have been treated with dex prenatally get to an age in which they are sexually active, I’ll be able to answer that question.”

This sounds like the ethics of Dr. Moreau.
Posted by Westside forever on June 29, 2010 at 4:29 PM · Report this
22
Still... if it results in fewer folk singers, is any price too high?
Posted by GeorgeFromNY on June 29, 2010 at 4:45 PM · Report this
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me 23
@22 FTW
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on June 29, 2010 at 4:45 PM · Report this
Fnarf 24
Women's sexuality has always been something that doctors need to fix medically when it goes awry, hasn't it? I mean, if the technology exists to make women into baby-making sex robots, why wouldn't you want to? That's what they're for! Amirite?
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on June 29, 2010 at 4:48 PM · Report this
25
UN.FUCKING.BELIEVABLE.
Posted by heatherly on June 29, 2010 at 4:53 PM · Report this
beckysharp 26
I guess it's not the motherhood thing that bothers me, but the whole fantasizing about actually being pregnant part. Kids play with dolls, that's cool; however, everyone I've ever met has been freaked out by those "pretend pregnancy" forms for little girls - you know, the reverse backpack style fake tummy that turns into a doll. Whatevs, the story is creepy and horrible enough, that was just a creep-plus detail.
Posted by beckysharp on June 29, 2010 at 4:54 PM · Report this
Anne in MA 27
What. The. Ever. Loving. Fuck.
Posted by Anne in MA on June 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM · Report this
emma's bee 28
This shit is wrong on so many levels and must be stopped. I have a question for the slog mind, however. What if it were shown conclusively that prenatal exposure to an environmental contaminant caused increases in the rates of CAH and ambiguous gender development among fetuses, but it caused no other adverse effects? Would it be unethical to demand the banning of the contaminant? Would people with CAH or ambiguous gender view this as an act of discrimination against them?
Posted by emma's bee on June 29, 2010 at 5:06 PM · Report this
Canuck 29
@24 You forgot cooking and cleaning, Fnarf. We need *something* to do after we've exhausted our husbands and put the baby down for a nap.... :)
Posted by Canuck on June 29, 2010 at 5:11 PM · Report this
Fnarf 30
@29, if there was a hormonal or chemical or even surgical treatment that made women not want to post comments on the internet, would it be ethical to use it? What if it was clinically proven to made women want to fuck or clean? These are the questions that science must answer, for we mere day-to-day humans, even though we may have come into contact with these unfathomable women ourselves, can't possibly answer them.

I do hope I've got this sarcasm thingie turned on here.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on June 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM · Report this
rob! 31
I might be mollified if the sub-rosa Faggoty Randys among the GOP knock back a few cases of testosterone to see if their balls will grow big enough to out themselves (their gay selves, not their newly enlarged testicles).
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on June 29, 2010 at 5:25 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 32
No one's brought up eugenics yet?

If we can "cure" gays of their "disease" then maybe we can also cure blacks and other "inferior" races of their "disease?"

Hell, we could use science to create an entire race of fair-skinned, blonde haired, blue eyed, obedient Nazis... er, perfect people.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on June 29, 2010 at 5:31 PM · Report this
33
This is why I could never support abortion or euthanasia. These issues have NOTHING to do with being gay, and "cross-pollination" with other groups supporting other liberal policies has not worked well in getting us what we need.

Maybe I'm not expressing myself well, but this is why I would never be a part of Planned Parenthood similar groups.
Posted by jwxford on June 29, 2010 at 5:41 PM · Report this
Canuck 34
@30 Unless, of course, they were describing your awesomeness, Fnarf, dear, then female commenting should definitely be turned on...! Hmmmm, cleaning AND fucking? Isn't that what Vodka Red Bulls are for? Remember Norma Rae? "Just bend me over the ironing board, honey, while I finish this crease..." This also reminds me of the guy who wrote to Dear Abby years ago, asking if he could get some very low-voltage shockers installed on his wife's side of the mattress, as she was having difficulty waking up early enough to fix him a proper breakfast before he headed off to work... If you find, however, a pill that would make my husband notice the skid-mark underwear that accumulates on his side of the bed, please send it to me post-haste. Gracias.
Posted by Canuck on June 29, 2010 at 5:59 PM · Report this
35
Well, maybe if they have found a drug to prevent lesbianism, that someone should be working on the reverse. I am sure many straight and gay couples would be ecstatic to have the ability to ensure their child is gay. A straight girlfriend of mine has dreams of having babies - gay babies. True story.
Posted by JEM on June 29, 2010 at 6:00 PM · Report this
36
@33

I have no fucking clue why you even brought those up. This has nothing to do with abortion OR euthanasia.
Posted by blah on June 29, 2010 at 6:01 PM · Report this
yucca flower 37
I think it's only fair Maria New gulp down some Dex so she can be cured of her career in medicine. Only men should be doctors. Women shouldn't be worrying their pretty little heads with science. Every day that woman is in the lab is a day she's not cooking, cleaning, or breeding babies.

p.s. The only people who'd be crazy enough to take this shit to "un-gay" their kid are Phelps Family nut-bag, bigots and maybe it would be best if loony toons like that didn't have gay children.
Posted by yucca flower on June 29, 2010 at 6:38 PM · Report this
Cory 38
I don't know how any pregnant woman could foolishly offer her womb up to the hands of science and risk permanently damaging her child. I pity the innocent.
Posted by Cory on June 29, 2010 at 6:43 PM · Report this
39
I thought, according to the "moral majority" that being gay was a "choice" made by deviants? Isn't she disproving that? And by “masculinizing” of a female fetus’s genitals... is she freaked out by women with large clitoris'? sad... cause that's kinda hot!
Posted by dhoff on June 29, 2010 at 6:46 PM · Report this
40
anyone else sensing an action movie here? at a lesbian wedding, "speak now or forever hold your peace"--a man runs down the aisle and injects a woman, who recoils in horror from her unnatural partner and begins kissing the injecter. a mother runs, in slow motion, towards the hospital with her young daughter, but trips and falls. The toddler plays with a hot wheels toy and must be abandoned. It is too late for her! America demands that the woman have a new, more heterosexual baby! America, where men are men and women do not play with G.I. Joes!
Posted by savagelover88 on June 29, 2010 at 7:07 PM · Report this
41
Ironic that Dan fell for Dreger's defense of J. Michael Bailey in a previous post, when Bailey has written and given talks favoring this exact practice.

Or did you really think they'd be sated just bashing the trannies, Dan?
Posted by lizdhm on June 29, 2010 at 7:12 PM · Report this
42
@33 Uh, what?
Posted by kersy on June 29, 2010 at 7:28 PM · Report this
venomlash 43
@39: At a guess, people may feel threatened by large clitorises because then men would be even more expected to be able to find it.
Posted by venomlash on June 29, 2010 at 7:35 PM · Report this
44
Par for the course for Intersexed kids. But it's not just those who could suffer.

"There is evidence from animal studies that prenatal dex treatment leads to neurotoxicity – brain cell death. Studies of children exposed to prenatal dexamethasone in utero also indicate plenty of reason for concern. Evidence from human studies indicates an increased risk to the children of problems with working memory, speech processing, and anxiety.

Because the steroid is given before the sex of the fetus can be known, and because only some of the fetuses will have CAH, 87.5 percent of the pregnant women started on dexamethasone for this use are not even carrying an affected child. (In fact, half of the fetuses started on the treatment will be males.) They will not receive the treatment past the point at which their fetuses’ sex and CAH-status are accurately diagnosed; nonetheless, for a period of fetal development (including, obviously, brain development), almost 90 percent of those fetuses are being given a steroid that might harm them and can do them no good whatsoever.

Read more: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethi…

Posted by Zoe Brain on June 29, 2010 at 7:39 PM · Report this
Delishuss 45
I read this already. Instead of being frightened and depressed about what people think they can do to children in the name of "normalcy," I choose to think about it this way: My momma managed to crank out a straight girl without CAH who has no interest in getting married or having children. So, EPIC WIN in the battle of me vs. the medical establishment! I'm going to donate my eggs to gay and lesbian couples in the hopes that they'll turn out more little girls that buck the "maternal" trend.
That is, of course, until they decide that all female babies should be treated with dex.
Posted by Delishuss on June 29, 2010 at 7:45 PM · Report this
46
What about us masculine gay guys? I mean I keep hearing all this talking about preventing men from becoming effeminate and acting girlish as boys (well I read it from crazy right wing Christian fundamentalists and see it in television broadcasts from 4 and 5 decades ago). But some of us boys grow up masculine. We don't talk with lisps, we don't swivel our hips, we don't wear dresses, we play high school sports, some of us even enjoy becoming couch potato sports fans........we just happen to be gay and proud. What about us? Well okay, I'm probably not as masculine as I claim....I admit that sometimes when no one is around and the shutters are closed, I'll dance (badly) to 70's disco and/or Cher.

But even if you could come up with a drug to remove those attributes, how would that change the fact that I am physically attracted to men and not to women and always have been? I'd ask the same of removing the masculine features of women.
Posted by SoCalLiberal on June 29, 2010 at 7:50 PM · Report this
47
Deplorable. But at least it shoots to hell the argument that orientation is a choice. If they need to "correct" a fetus, then they've admitted it's something your born with. That's half the battle. Until we can isolate and correct the "willfully ignorant" gene homophobes are born with, the other half might last a while.
Posted by Kitten on June 29, 2010 at 8:29 PM · Report this
Canuck 48
@43 They could call it the "No Excuses" clit. I'd like one, myself.

@46 Good point...ex: Gareth Thomas, out rugby player:
http://www.millwall.vitalfootball.co.uk/…
Posted by Canuck on June 29, 2010 at 8:41 PM · Report this
Aly 49
I was super "girly" as a child (I played with dolls, wore skirts, adored pink, etc.), and I've turned out to be a baby-hating, women-loving (although I'm bisexual, so I still love men), scientist-in-training lady here.
Posted by Aly on June 29, 2010 at 10:05 PM · Report this
50
My mother's doctor gave me catnip at birth and now I love to play with yarn and cannot wait to start knitting... One friend said, "My mother made me a homosexual".. I told him I'd make him one, too... It's not working Dr. Mengele... I suppose they could show us all $3 bills before they spank us the first time...
Posted by BooBoo on June 29, 2010 at 10:24 PM · Report this
51
Well, it's finally here. My first reaction was horror, but then I started to try to calm myself down. There is NO WAY, if you look around you, that prenatal androgens are the only things that turn women gay/bisexual/career-oriented (or SMART, as some people seem to be suggesting!). For example, of 3 full-blooded female children in my family, 2 are career-oriented tomboy scientists with no aspirations for kids yet and 1 (the MIDDLE one) is a more traditionally feminine liberal arts major who wants children (and ALL are very smart and ambitious). Anecdotal, but that's all we have to go on at this point and I'm sure most people know such examples. In 30 years, once there are enough of these poor little human guinea pigs of child-rearing age, we'll have a good idea of how 'straight/conventional' you can make a woman in the womb. And it will probably be a number like 30% which wouldn't inspire any thinking person to get the treatment.

Three more points for the people freaking out here: 1. Wanting children in itself doesn't equal stupidity or spinelessness. So they aren't impacting intelligence here; only levels of ambition to do certain things, at worst. And ambition to do 'feminine' things is a social concept. Medicine, for example, used to be a 'masculine' field because only men went into it, which attracted mostly men. Now more women are going into MD programs than men, so it's being seen as more of a feminine, caretaking profession (and one in which you can set your own hours and allow yourself time to raise children). So childrearing also doesn't = staying in the house. 2. There's the fairly likely possibility that women who get dex treatment over the next 10 years won't exactly be very intelligent (who else could you talk into such a thing?). So the girls treated with dex in the womb will likely have an IQ/education rate that's a few points below average. This alone will be a deterrent to many people getting the treatment in the future (although if it happens, one premature conclusion will be that feminine = stupid, which I have mixed feelings about). 3. There are ALWAYS side effects. Let's hang in there for 10 years because you know that on a certain portion of embryos, this will turn them homicidal or mentally ill or something. There's the distinct possibility that the number of people getting side effects from this treatment will be higher than the number of people 'normalized' by it.

In short, the science will tell the tale in 30-50 years -- and I imagine it will be a tale that gender, ambition, sex drive, attitudes toward children, and intelligence have many contributing causes from many different genes as well as many different developmental inputs. I personally don't think this will have an impact on intelligence at all because I really don't think intelligence is different between men/women and gay/straight/bisexual. But we will now see some data to support/refute this. We can't do anything but hang in there, wait for the results, and say a prayer for the unwilling embryonic human guinea pigs :( And do our best to minimize the suffering by keeping watch over how this is deployed.

One thought: could this be one woman's plan to 'breed-out' homophobes by appealing to their worst fears and then mutating their children in the womb? Whether or not she means to, this might be the outcome.
More...
Posted by Mel on June 29, 2010 at 10:59 PM · Report this
52
I can't believe a pregnant woman would agree to this experimental treatment - when I was pregnant five years ago, I was advised to avoid tuna fish, sushi, coffee, soft cheeses, not to mention hair dye, nail polish, etc., and the only medicines that are truly green-lighted are a couple things like Tylenol and Tums. So, with no evidence of an urgent problem (how can genital abnormality be detected that early in utero anyhow?), what expectant mother would feel comfortable tampering with her fetus like this? Plus, it so obviously reeks of eugenics. It's unethical. And @33: what the hell are you talking about? Your comment was totally off subject, and yet I couldn't help noticing that you seem to be anti-abortion AND anti-Planned Parenthood, the two of which stances are pretty much mutually exclusive. Planned Parenthood provides access to birth control and sex education, particularly for low-income and young citizens. And any fuckwit should be able to figure out that more birth control and informed use thereof will strongly correlate with fewer unintended pregnancies, and therefore, fewer....abortions. I'm getting tired of having to explain this. Folks who claim to be anti-abortion but then are also anti-Planned Parenthood need to realize that what they really are are sex-negative puritanical spoilsports who want to have their cake and eat it too, and who, by the way, don't happen to give a shit about unwanted babies.
Posted by small town housewife on June 29, 2010 at 11:06 PM · Report this
Fathmeister 53
My God. Oh, my God.
Posted by Fathmeister on June 29, 2010 at 11:15 PM · Report this
54
Seriously, fuck this lady.
Posted by planned barrenhood on June 29, 2010 at 11:37 PM · Report this
55
This is horrid. Absolutely horrid.
I am a woman with no interest in babies, or female role models, or dresses, or lipstick. And I am NOT a lesbian... well, a bit bi maybe, but I'm living with a man. And those bitches would have wanted to fix me even before I was born???
Posted by experimentals on June 30, 2010 at 12:45 AM · Report this
56
I have endometriosis. It made two years of my life hell. Being queer has lead to some uncomfortable conversations with my mother (she's detail-oriented, awkward), as well as some great sex and relationships.

If scientists are looking into female hormones, why not put more effort into decreasing the suffering of women with illnesses that affect their lives negatively? The baby thing is no excuse; I'd be at an extremely high risk of infertility if I wanted to get pregnant, and miscarriage if I ever did. Not that it would be an issue, with that pesky bisexuality interfering with my low maternal interest.
Posted by Rikki on June 30, 2010 at 1:14 AM · Report this
Sandiai 57
13. So true!
Posted by Sandiai on June 30, 2010 at 1:38 AM · Report this
58
I love the assumption that since I love another woman I am uninterested in marriage with her or bearing children. What about the women who do both? Are they abnormal also? How completely nonsensical.
Posted by Ginelle on June 30, 2010 at 4:25 AM · Report this
59
Um, wow. A bit chilling on a Wednesday morning to read that there are people who think you should have been medically edited out of existence. I actually feel kind of numb after reading this stuff.
Posted by JrzWrld on June 30, 2010 at 5:03 AM · Report this
60
This is why straight women's rights are intimately tied to gay rights. Sometimes I feel that straight women sit around with their head stuck in the sand, adhering to that old "when they came for X, I didn't speak up because I wasn't an X".

To the straight ladies reading this article, when they ask you if you want your fetus "pre-emptively fixed", what are you going to say?

I'm one of these godawful childfree women with low maternal instinct and high career drive that supposedly these people are working to eradicate. I know some people think I'm an abomination but I never foresaw the day that a bad movie could be reality (Gattica), because I just figured we'd worry about life-threatening disabilities first. Not the fact I don't want babies.
Posted by Janusdog on June 30, 2010 at 5:20 AM · Report this
samanthaf63 61
I'm with you Janusdog, I never liked kids, even when I was one, and didn't do too much with dolls when I was a kid. I never thought it was a negative thing that I had no desire to clutter the planet with additional small beings. That said, I am still heterosexual, although no on in my circle of life would give two hoots if I wasn't, and I'm 46.

I spent many, many years trying to talk various doctors into removing my ability to procreate, finally getting my tubes tied in my late 30s. Why should it be such a struggle when men can go in and get snipped at any time?

Plus, you'd think they'd worry more about serious female illness rather than worry about whether someone does or does not want to procreate from an early age on.

Imbeciles.
Posted by samanthaf63 on June 30, 2010 at 5:53 AM · Report this
lordwinter 62
The mounting horror I felt reading this entry was like a physical vice around my chest.
Posted by lordwinter on June 30, 2010 at 6:22 AM · Report this
63
What we need is a drug that makes lesbians, you know, like sending girls  off to Brown or to be Seattle Storm players.
Posted by Slapper on June 30, 2010 at 6:48 AM · Report this
64
Ahh, watching the Loony Left fight science this time.

So sucking out a 6 month old fetus, killing it and  dumping it in the garbage: ok!

Preventing baby girls from having dicks: Bad!

Some of us are at least consistent and oppose both.
Posted by Fredd on June 30, 2010 at 7:01 AM · Report this
fannerz 65
Ugh. And I hate the implication that being a tomboy when you're little means you're a big ol' lesbian. There was never a day before prom where I wore a skirt, and I was all about the trucks and the dirt and the sports; but now I am all about the cock. Fuck them and their patriarchal assumptions.
Posted by fannerz on June 30, 2010 at 7:10 AM · Report this
66
CHRIST.
I studied behavioral endocrinology in college. CAH is mostly a problem because it can affect fertility. Women who have it tend to have symptoms that are similar to polycystic ovarian syndrome.
Yes, one outcome is "masculinized behavior" but by that they mean little girls will play with toys by moving them through space instead of nurturing them (it's called masculinized not just because little boys do it, but because male primates play that way. It's a scientific "masculinized" and not social use of the word per se).
A large amount of women who seek sex change operations turn out to have CAH as well, which is only interesting to endocrinologists because it tells us that prenatal hormones affect sexuality. This information was helpful in showing us that we can give post-op hormones and they can help the transition from FTM or MTF.
It's something you don't want your kids to get (fertility, health problems, PCOS symptoms) and so it's theoretically worth curing, but not for the sexuality reasons. And it's not worth fucking with pregnant women's hormones.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/congeni…

ALSO WORTH NOTING:
This week Dan has been talking a lot about female genital mutilation. Women with CAH are more likely to receive this type of mutilation by doctors at birth. Until around 2001, it was incredibly common (not just by quack weirdos--it was fairly par in medical training to "trim" the clitoris if it was enlarged). Because these girls are exposed to more androgens (testosterone, DHT, etc) in utero, their genitals are enlarged, sometimes so severe that it's hard to determine if they are male or female.
What's troubling is that, yes, most girls who have this would probably want to avoid the extra body hair, fertility problems and weird looking genitals. But medical solutions so far have been (i) CUTTING OFF PARTS OF THE CLITORIS and (ii) GIVING PREGNANT MOMS A BUNCH OF WHACK HORMONES and then saying it's because CAH girls are gay, which isn't not the real medical condition here.

Remember when we gave moms DES?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstil…
More...
Posted by whiskeycat on June 30, 2010 at 7:21 AM · Report this
67
One last thing--I just read some of the comments about how DEX is given before fetal sex is known. Boys can have CAH. All it does is give them more androgens and make their penis humongous.
Posted by whiskeycat on June 30, 2010 at 7:26 AM · Report this
68
Terrified as I am by this, I'm even more scared by the people I know who might conceivably agree to this treatment in the UK. If my mom ever heard about this, she'd might even wish she'd had this kind of opportunity. Ignoring all likely side-effects, a lot of expectant mothers could be easily taken in by people offering their child a normal, challenge-free life. Stupid mothers, but still.
My parents wanted a daughter who would make them grandperents. What they got was a daughter who didn't play with dolls or prams, hated other children, and now (as he's being packed off the university to do a highly competetive degree in Literature), is coming out as trans and gay as well - hot damn! So much trouble could have been saved if she'd had access to this advanced science! I bet I would have kept on going to church too.
Posted by Louis on June 30, 2010 at 7:29 AM · Report this
Fenrox 69
Oh man, Just like assholes to obsess with behavioral traits in hypothetical people. Just grow a pair and raise your fucking kid. Yes raising an intersexed lesbian trucker will be a lot harder than raising some perfect version of yourself, but you know what I class that as? Pedophilia. Manipulating the sex of children is always wrong, Just let them be and raise them nicely.

And to the people that can see the writing on the wall for the death of gays, yes we can be cured because we are born this way. We need to stop controlling kids BRAINS too. Not too many people squawk when someone mentions a cure for Autism, But Autism like being gay is just a different way of living and thinking.

Man, Gattaca should be forced viewing or banned.
Posted by Fenrox on June 30, 2010 at 7:34 AM · Report this
70
@69 Thank god for abortion eh?
Posted by You reap what you sow on June 30, 2010 at 7:41 AM · Report this
71
Can you imagine the discussion in the waiting room?

"Hey honey... how about we try a new experimental drug on our kid while you are pregnant with her to try to ensure she doesn't one day have sex without a magnificent penis in the room... cause i think it's totally normal to discuss/try to manipulate our future child's adult sex life ... See Morebefore she is born. I say we risk her health and yours to ensure that she is a slave to erections and wont want to have a job outside of the home. Perhaps we should also ask the doctor for some thalidomide for that nausea you have been having... then when you are feeling better we can discuss her sex life some more... maybe we can give her something to make sure she likes to have sex with guys with small dicks... just like you do, honey... now go fix daddy a gin and tonic... and take those damn pants off... dyke."

How is it that i have any faith left in humanity at all?
Posted by ianbnyc on June 30, 2010 at 7:42 AM · Report this
72
I am so afraid for the women and children in the hands of somebody playing god.
Posted by Berlin on June 30, 2010 at 7:48 AM · Report this
73
Why do we humans feel we have to control (and inevitably fuck up) nearly everything?
I read a book once about a pair of male twins, one of which underwent a botched circumcision, destroying the boy's penis. So you know that the fucked up doctors told the boy's grieving parents to do? Chop off what remains and turn him into a girl. Literally, lie to him and tell him he's a girl, he always will be a girl, he always was a girl. Make him wear dresses, force him to play with dolls and TAKE ESTROGEN, asking, "Why don't you bring a BOY to the prom, honey?" It's fucking bullshit. The poor boy's life was ruined, and ultimately, as a teenager his parents confessed and you know what he did? Yep, he got himself a penis and spent the rest of his life as a man.

My point is: what the hell is wrong with having a child with abnormal genitals? Aren't we taught to love our bodies? How can a parent willingly choose to destroy their child's life by attempting to control who the child is NATURALLY and without their consent?

In a morbid way, I kind of hope that these dex-treated babies turn out to be way worse than a gay or bi chick that works hard and doesn't reproduce. Fuck with Mother Nature and she'll kick your ass!
Posted by CamillaBear on June 30, 2010 at 7:54 AM · Report this
74
@71 how about this conversation:

"hey honey, why don't we ensure this kid has no sex life and get it sucked out and thrown in the trash so we can get on with our lives?"
Posted by Isn't Choice great? on June 30, 2010 at 7:54 AM · Report this
75
Rogue PIs (Principal Investigators) unfortunately exist. A potential research subject needs to read a consent form as carefully as possible and weight the benefits and risks.

Also, the word abnormal in a scientific paper has a different meaning than in other types of writing.
Posted by Gentle Suggestion on June 30, 2010 at 8:30 AM · Report this
76
I love how everyone is appalled that mothers might choose this treatment but if the same mother choses to have an abortion you'd all stand around and applaud.
Posted by I'm pro-choice, really! on June 30, 2010 at 8:36 AM · Report this
LASURFPUNK 77
Dan,

Are there numbers we can call to oppose this?

Is there a specific progay group people can join to boycott this particular doctor and hospital?

Or does one need to be formed?

Posted by LASURFPUNK http://lasurfpunkguys.blogspot.com/ on June 30, 2010 at 8:42 AM · Report this
78
Hmm at least it'll increase my chances of getting a girlfriend, which is good :-)
Posted by Imran on June 30, 2010 at 9:04 AM · Report this
79
@77

Boycott? I thought fetuses were just parasitic appendages to a female host and therefore subject to her every whim or convenience.
Posted by Pro-choice? on June 30, 2010 at 9:19 AM · Report this
80
This CFH condition is an inherited genetic abnormality. The clear answer is for people to get tested and then make their personal private choice.
Posted by lissnup on June 30, 2010 at 9:23 AM · Report this
81
If a woman chooses to abort, the fetus does not have to live with life long consequences.
We need a Facebook page against Dr. New!
Posted by jocelynna on June 30, 2010 at 9:28 AM · Report this
82
Advocates for Informed Choice is a non-profit organization advocating for the legal and human rights of children with intersex conditions or differences of sex development, like the ones in this story. We work in collaboration with bioethicists, doctors, parents, affected adults, and many others. If you are interested in taking action to help protect these children, and to be sure that possible human rights violations are investigated, please join our Facebook page at http://ow.ly/20wTY or sign up for our Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/aiclegal. You can also donate to support our work at http://aiclegal.org/we-need-your-support…
Posted by AICintern on June 30, 2010 at 9:32 AM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 83

Birds do it.
Bees do it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mam…
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com on June 30, 2010 at 9:47 AM · Report this
Puddintane 84
This use of an "anti-virilising" drug to "pre-treat" incipient lesbianism is pure quackery, since the level of "virilisation" in women has no correlation to sexual orientation other than in the depraved minds of homophobes with a fixation on crude stereotypes. Women arrive on this earth in all varieties, from delicate flowers to brawny bull wrestlers, and one can't tell by looking at them whether they're raging heterosexuals or gold-star lesbians. Period.

The drug does have legitimate obstetric uses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexamethaso…

The two legitimate reasons are, as pointed to above, to help mature the lungs of a foetus when premature delivery is imminent, and to treat CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia) which can cause anomalous virilisation of the *external* genitalia and can *also* be a life-threatening disease that can cause the death of the foetus or baby.

As the article mentions, the long-term effects on both mother and child are unknown, but the short-term effects on the mother can be severe,. Few mothers I know would hesitate to risk harm to their health for the sake of the life of their unborn child, but to take a similar risk in order to conform to religious hysteria seems profoundly silly. Of course, the one may well imply the other.
Posted by Puddintane on June 30, 2010 at 9:50 AM · Report this
Puddintane 85
This use of an "anti-virilising" drug to "pre-treat" incipient lesbianism is pure quackery, since the level of "virilisation" in women has no correlation to sexual orientation other than in the depraved minds of homophobes with a fixation on crude stereotypes. Women arrive on this earth in all varieties, from delicate flowers to brawny bull wrestlers, and one can't tell by looking at them whether they're raging heterosexuals or gold-star lesbians. Period.

The drug does have legitimate obstetric uses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexamethaso…

The two legitimate reasons are, as pointed to above, to help mature the lungs of a foetus when premature delivery is imminent, and to treat CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia) which can cause anomalous virilisation of the *external* genitalia and can *also* be a life-threatening disease that can cause the death of the foetus or baby.

As the article mentions, the long-term effects on both mother and child are unknown, but the short-term effects on the mother can be severe,. Few mothers I know would hesitate to risk harm to their health for the sake of the life of their unborn child, but to take a similar risk in order to conform to religious hysteria seems profoundly silly. Of course, the one may well imply the other.
Posted by Puddintane on June 30, 2010 at 9:50 AM · Report this
Puddintane 86
This use of an "anti-virilising" drug to "pre-treat" incipient lesbianism is pure quackery, since the level of "virilisation" in women has no correlation to sexual orientation other than in the depraved minds of homophobes with a fixation on crude stereotypes. Women arrive on this earth in all varieties, from delicate flowers to brawny bull wrestlers, and one can't tell by looking at them whether they're raging heterosexuals or gold-star lesbians. Period.

The drug does have legitimate obstetric uses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexamethaso…

The two legitimate reasons are, as pointed to above, to help mature the lungs of a foetus when premature delivery is imminent, and to treat CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia) which can cause anomalous virilisation of the *external* genitalia and can *also* be a life-threatening disease that can cause the death of the foetus or baby.

As the article mentions, the long-term effects on both mother and child are unknown, but the short-term effects on the mother can be severe,. Few mothers I know would hesitate to risk harm to their health for the sake of the life of their unborn child, but to take a similar risk in order to conform to religious hysteria seems profoundly silly. Of course, the one may well imply the other.
Posted by Puddintane on June 30, 2010 at 9:51 AM · Report this
Puddintane 87
Sorry about reposting the above. My browser got into a strange frozen state in which it seemingly wouldn't respond.

Dang!
Posted by Puddintane on June 30, 2010 at 9:53 AM · Report this
88
Pardon my ungentlemanly-language, but...

RAGE! Fuck this fucking shit! This pissed me off so much that I had difficulty skimming through the article.

This is... No. Just no. This needs to be made illegal NOW.
Posted by z-kun on June 30, 2010 at 9:56 AM · Report this
89
This is SOO wrong. So, you're saying, that just because i'm one of the girls that doesn't want kids, and who likes football and "masculine" things, I'm sick? WTF
Posted by wolvesbleedink on June 30, 2010 at 9:57 AM · Report this
90
Who would consent to this?! How is that woman not being thrown out of respectable medicine?
Posted by lmno on June 30, 2010 at 10:03 AM · Report this
schmacky 91
This is part of a phenomenon I've noticed, whereby "well-meaning" parents who don't think there's anything wrong with being gay (or short, or big-clitted, or unusual in some way, etc) per se are nevertheless afraid of the "stigma" that comes with such things. After all, even though they themselves are OK with it, the outside world isn't. And they are afraid of "exposing" their child to the cruelty of other kids, and so on. Perhaps they remember their own childhoods, the pain of being taunted by some little asshole on the playground, and they just can't bear the thought of their kids going through the same thing.

So instead of sucking it up as parents and actually imparting a sense of self-worth to their child despite his or her differences, they succumb to fear and end up perpetuating the exact "stigma" they supposedly had no problem with themselves. In other words, they let the little asshole on the playground win.

Parenthood is not for the weak. If you wanna go through life with your tail tucked between your legs, that's fine. But for God's sake, don't have any fucking kids.

Posted by schmacky on June 30, 2010 at 10:06 AM · Report this
92
Becky -
I was one little girl who did have daydreams of being pregnant and having babies.

Shockingly enough, I am also a big ol' dyke.
Posted by che1 on June 30, 2010 at 10:22 AM · Report this
lifesart 93
I cannot express my horror at this. My Mom was given DES (di-ethylstilbestrol back in the late '40s early '50s to prevent miscarriages. I have had two episodes of cervical cancer which may have resulted from this, my Mom died of breast cancer and two of my sisters are survivors of breast cancer. Yet they think giving steroidal hormones to pregnant women is a viable experiment? What the hell is wrong with these people! To use this drug for these reasons, these '"medical" people should be subjected to the worst torture imaginable!

First do no harm indeed.
Posted by lifesart on June 30, 2010 at 10:23 AM · Report this
94
As a DES Daughter whose mother was prescribed this first synthetic estrogen to prevent a miscarriage of Yours Truly, I have done some research on the range in intention of doctors who pushed this eventually-recalled wonder drug that was meant to create uber-female babies. Originally introduced in 1938, recalled in 1972 (with recall finally being completed in about 1980 - when drug stores were gone and maximum profits collected??), these drug lords created a domino effect of infertility, extraordinary rates of miscarriage, physical reproductive anomalies, sky rocketing rates of all reproductive cancers, and, in my case, zero interest in reproduction - easier for my emotions given the odds I'd be working against in successfully doing so not to mention the fact that all DES effects are passed on indefinitely down the genetic line. Nice going. No matter the intention of the drug makers or those blindly prescribing them, the slope is slippery and only points downward.
Posted by agentjanie on June 30, 2010 at 10:36 AM · Report this
95
Can we say GENOCIDE?
Posted by PastorDeana on June 30, 2010 at 10:36 AM · Report this
96
Aren't most endocrinologists male? Maybe Dr. Maria New is a lesbian with low maternal instincts, since she has gravitated to a"non-traditional female role."?
Posted by ReligionWhoNeedsIt? on June 30, 2010 at 10:37 AM · Report this
97
Feminists will be up in ARMS! Because this is then not just messing with bi or lesbian women , but with women who are straight but have no intention of living there lives as mothers and homemakers.
Posted by Ammo on June 30, 2010 at 10:40 AM · Report this
98
I'd ask if this woman was insane, but the true horror is that she's sane. I wonder if she's the reincarnation of Dr. Josef Mengele?
Posted by wolfdaddy2002 on June 30, 2010 at 10:55 AM · Report this
99
@84

To be clear- we are talking only about CAH which is caused by excess androgens? Because according to wikipedia (that fountain of reliable knowledge) CAH caused by androgens can result in ambiguous genitals, infertility, puberty issues etc. whereas CAH developed from other causes can be life threatening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_…

If that is the case, then this really is all about sexuality- in terms of physical development and mental and emotional preferences, which is very hard to justify. However if androgen-caused CAH could be life threatening, it would be a very tough choice for the mother- to potentially alter the development of your child emotionally, physically, and mentally in ways that would cause her to grow up as a very different person to who she would originally have been, or to risk life threatening complications as a result of CAH.

But from my rudimentary understanding, the particular form of CAH which is being discussed in the article is specifically focused on sexual development, and is not life threatening?
Posted by Stilly on June 30, 2010 at 11:00 AM · Report this
100
This is just so disgustingly unethical. She should have her medical license revoked.
Posted by Tams on June 30, 2010 at 11:05 AM · Report this
101
So does anyone know a gay 3 year old? Because I surely dont! Thus this would mean they werent gay from birth and thus it isnt something that can be cured before birth (not that it needs to be cured anyways) I am just saying I dont see it as something people are born with. Noone is born gay! It is something that happens later in life, unless you can show me some gay three year olds.
Posted by wra1th on June 30, 2010 at 11:07 AM · Report this
102
Who on earth would sign up to be a test subject for a drug that will stop their children from being individuals? And isn't testing shit like this on un-born children kind of, you know, anti-life?

Oh, my. Let's all just hunker down to heterosex, wear dresses, and poop out litters of kids who fit their narrowly prescribed gender roles. God forbid a woman fantasize about anything else. Conformity is beautiful. Science is hard. I want a doll to play with.

Thank you, sir. May I have another?
Posted by landonewts on June 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM · Report this
103
With massive overpopulation in the world, and huge global issues like genocide, oil spills, wars, starvation, AIDS, financial recessions, etc etc etc... should anyone really be worrying about women that aren't interested in procreating?!?
With millions of wonderful, productive, intelligent, successful gays and lesbians in the world should anyone really be worrying about the possibility of more gays and lesbians being born?
This is a sick mindset, corruption as deep as it goes. Just another way for the government to eventually control the population. Frightening! Not much different than when the government was sterilizing black women without their knowledge. I'm appauled!
Posted by C Lester on June 30, 2010 at 11:14 AM · Report this
104
Shit, it's the Stepford Wife hormone! What planet am I on? What year is this? Where is Rod Serling hiding? This is nauseating. And here's something not mentioned in the article (no doubt due to lack of research and information): besides intersexed conditions, the same hormones (androgens) that cause CAH and PCOS sometimes "produce" transmen and FTMs. So it's not only lesbians and career-minded females that may be eliminated or altered. As a gay transman, this seriously concerns me. It seems it's not just the "gay gene" researchers we need to fear, it's the ones that would try to make all of us "normal".
Posted by CaptLex on June 30, 2010 at 11:15 AM · Report this
thatsnotright 105
It all sounds incredibly unethical. I wonder how she even got approval for a human subjects trial.
Dexamethasone used to be used to enhance fetal lung maturity in babies which were expected to be born prematurely but was replaced years ago by another steroid; Betamethasone, which is far more effective and has less negative side-effects.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cg…
Posted by thatsnotright on June 30, 2010 at 11:17 AM · Report this
106
I have no idea who this Dr. New is, and she may indeed be an unethical, eugenics-minded lunatic. But I feel the need to play devil's advocate and point out that her comments as quoted in the article indicate someone who is merely researching all the effects of dex. Does she anywhere openly advocate the use of this drug in order to prevent a fetus from developing into a lesbian? That fact that her research might open up the possibility of an "anti-gay" drug is alarming, but I still don't see any proof that that's why she's engaging in it.
Posted by let's calm down on June 30, 2010 at 11:28 AM · Report this
107
I dont know how she (Dr New) has the time to do all this - i.e. research and articles - surely if she believes so much in what she is doing then she should be at home with her 100 kids, doing the cleaning and washing and satisfying her husband.
Posted by MNM on June 30, 2010 at 11:32 AM · Report this
108
"that will stop their children from being individuals"

But aborting them and stopping them from even being people….let's wear a 'I had an abortion' t-shirt and celebrate that!

BWT, what about cleft lips, should we leave those alone?
Posted by I guess some choices should be illegal on June 30, 2010 at 11:37 AM · Report this
109
It's what happens when we pathologize normal variation. Some people still consider being GLBT a pathology, not a normal variant. Intersexuality is also pathologized. The Deaf community consider that they are a variant,not a pathology--though the hearing community tends to want to "cure" deafness. It's always value judgements.

But this woman is something.

“The challenge here is... to see what could be done to restore this baby to the normal female appearance which would be compatible with her parents presenting her as a girl, with her eventually becoming somebody’s wife, and having normal sexual development, and becoming a mother. And she has all the machinery for motherhood, and therefore nothing should stop that, if we can repair her surgically and help her psychologically to continue to grow and develop as a girl.”

CAh is a pathology, being gay is not... where does she draw the line?
Posted by IT on June 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM · Report this
110
Straight. Female. Celibate. Work in a university health research department.

Can't believe this. It's not science, it's not ethical, and it shouldn't even be legal.
Posted by baroquemongoose on June 30, 2010 at 12:00 PM · Report this
111
@12 the only reason homosexuality could be a sin is because people CHOOSE to assume it's unnatural. Except it happens in nature all the time. They take what is a rather neutral behavior - sex, and turn it into something ridiculously over important. Sex, is an activity and a behavior and if people weren't so hung up on religion it would be like playing soccer or driving a car. Religion is A HUMAN INVENTION. And humans are idiots.
Posted by kate_13 on June 30, 2010 at 12:18 PM · Report this
112
I've taken dex before and...it's Seriously Bad Mojo (it pissed with my autonomic functions); the thought of anybody giving this to a child is baffling. And for the record? I never once thought 'shite - I need children1!!'
Posted by LYR on June 30, 2010 at 12:21 PM · Report this
113
Dexamethasone is a corticosteroid. Will you block androgens? Yes. Will you cause a host of other issues? Hell yes. For an adult person corticosteroids (and dexamethasone is a strong one) can cause osteoporosis, adrenal insufficiency upon removing the drug, mood problems such as "roid rage", and a whole host of issues. Imagine putting that into a developing embryo whose system is far more delicate. This sickens me deeply. We don't even allow parents to slob dexamethasone cream all over the kids with eczema, it is too strong but we can give this to pregnant women and their fetuses? How sickening.
Posted by LiberalRN on June 30, 2010 at 12:25 PM · Report this
114
I found this interesting:

"CAH occurs equally often in XX and XY individuals."
(from: http://www.isna.org/faq/medical_risks/ca…)

And yet it looks as if she is only targeting XX fetuses.
Posted by Maxine on June 30, 2010 at 12:59 PM · Report this
115
101
My best friend has known she was a lesbian since age 5.
Thank you and goodnight. ;)
Posted by Katydid7 on June 30, 2010 at 1:03 PM · Report this
Vince 116
If only they could give pregnent women a drug that would guarantee the child would grow up to be rational. That would put an end to Christianity.
Posted by Vince on June 30, 2010 at 1:08 PM · Report this
117
Nice of them to prove the biological basis for homosexuality and that it is, in fact, NOT a choice.
Posted by Sparky1971 on June 30, 2010 at 1:26 PM · Report this
118
Nazis in 2010?? I thought we solved this problem!
Posted by Quinapalus on June 30, 2010 at 1:27 PM · Report this
119
@101
Ever come across a 'straight' 3 year old? Little boy having sex with a little girl?
I think not.
Sexual development occurs around puberty, and most would argue that one is developing a sexuality that is already there, but dormant. Very, very basic biology.
Posted by Louis on June 30, 2010 at 1:27 PM · Report this
120
Of course, someone might have said pediatric endocrinology was a "masculine" career choice back in the day...
Posted by GreenEyedLilo on June 30, 2010 at 1:30 PM · Report this
121
Anyone ever wonder what size a clit is ^supposed^ to be? I did, knowing that as my boyfriend puts it - I have a BBW clit. (No I'm not fat (I'm a size 6), I just have a PHAT clit). I was born as a question mark by the way - I was majorly swelled and for 2 days my mother was worried I was intersex. My sister has PCOS so it's likely that my crazy libido, big clit, bad acne, lack of maternal urge, and my general sexual preference for women are all due to a very slightly elevated androgen level.

I hope it never gets fixed! Thanks Mom for not snipping me! Best birthday gift ever!!! RIP, I love you Mom!
Posted by kate_13 on June 30, 2010 at 1:30 PM · Report this
122
Unbelievable! I can't understand why somebody would want to do that to a woman. What is wrong with women being who they are? Huh?
Posted by Angel S.W. on June 30, 2010 at 1:39 PM · Report this
Geni 123
Well, fuck her with a telephone pole. The whole goddam article is describing ME. I have zero interest in babies, never played with dollies or horsies (I wanted Hot Wheels, goddammit), I've been in a traditionally "male" field for 30 years (it's still 90% male - I'm an engineer), and I'm bisexual. So I guess I should have just gone on the goddamned compost heap at birth.

What a weird fucking thing to be working on. With all the problems the world has, people are worried about a handful of women who DON'T want to reproduce? One thing the world does not have a shortage of is people wanting to reproduce. Instead of changing a benign (possibly even beneficial) variance from the norm like this, why not spend your efforts trying to eradicate a really horrific genetic disease?

What a waste.
Posted by Geni on June 30, 2010 at 1:41 PM · Report this
Geni 124
...also, the idea of waiting several decades to see if there are unfortunate side effects rather sickens me. Ever hear of DES? Thalidomide?
Posted by Geni on June 30, 2010 at 1:46 PM · Report this
FaerieFyre 125
Yet one more example of the criminalization of intersexuals, from the start. Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, and the ambiguous genitalia that sometimes occurs, is an intersex condition. We're already subjected to hormone treatments, surgery, and psychological attempts at "normalization" without our expressed consent as it stands, now! This crazy bitch comes along and takes all that one step further?! This is nothing short of an OUTRAGE! Funny, isn't it? That, under typical circumstances, people like this would be considered to have a particularly harmful form of Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder. However, if they run in conservative circles and serve those particularly inhumane ideals, then all is well. How can we honestly allow this any longer?
Posted by FaerieFyre on June 30, 2010 at 1:56 PM · Report this
126
What do you expect from a society that smiles upon killing a child in the womb? They are either people or not, make up your mind.
Posted by TubularEverything on June 30, 2010 at 2:00 PM · Report this
127
Josef Mengele reincarnated????
Posted by BLongn on June 30, 2010 at 2:03 PM · Report this
128
Well what IDIOT mother would allow experiments to be done???!!! As far as the pre-destination...I played with dolls..went to prom...cheerleader...even yes...stripper...I am currently in a 17 year relationship with 3 children...a LESBIAN relationship...WHOA!!! Whatever!! God doesn't make mistakes in all that He creates and those who choose to interfere seal their own fate...so I'm not too worried about this "science" progressing...People playing God will get what's coming to them...
Posted by Katt on June 30, 2010 at 2:47 PM · Report this
129
Hmmmmm but just think of what could happen if a cell of gay Terrorists got our… their hands on these drugs. We could use the hormones to create a legion of little nelly boy births!
Posted by ShadeOSG on June 30, 2010 at 2:54 PM · Report this
130
As a wife, and a mother, and a homemaker, I find this study completely fucking offensive. I chose this lifestyle for myself, without some drug dictating that I should. Does that make me "normal"? Or does that make me a person who exercised their right to free choice and decided on a course for my life?

People who aren't wives, or mothers, or homemakers are not abnormal. They simply chose a different lifestyle for themselves than I did. That makes them just as normal as I am. Just as much a person exercising their right to choose what they do with their life.

I really don't give a shit if my kids (two boys and a girl) turn out gay, straight, pansexual or asexual. As long as they're happy, I'll be content with that.
Posted by epiphling on June 30, 2010 at 3:06 PM · Report this
FaerieFyre 131
@ TubularEverything - First of all, we don't SMILE on abortion. I'm a member of the "Pro-Choice" crowd that believes that it is the woman's choice (though, hopefully, she consults the father and considers his wishes, as well) whether to have a child or not. The planet is over-populated and no child deserves to be brought up in a household where they are unwanted; nor should a woman be forced to raise a child conceived during a rape if she doesn't want to be constantly reminded of a horrible experience. However, I do not support in-utero experimentation and abortion of a child for frivolous reasons (such as the possibility the child could be intersexed, which is happening!). This attempt to heterosexualize people is just sickening! Live and LET LIVE. Whatever happened to that?
Posted by FaerieFyre on June 30, 2010 at 3:13 PM · Report this
FaerieFyre 132
@ 130 - Funny that you failed to mention possible intersexual or even transgendered when you said that. Don't misread me, though. Your statements are virtuous, nonetheless. I'd probably love being your kid. ;)
Posted by FaerieFyre on June 30, 2010 at 3:19 PM · Report this
133
How on earth can this be medically ethical? Hasn't this woman ever heard of Joseph Mengala I am not a lipstick lesbian (though I more on the femme side) nor a "butch" lesbian -- What is her explanation for women like me? I chose not to have children -- because my father beat the crap out of me and I did not want to perpetuate the cycle. I also have never had a desire to be pregnant with all the "horrors" that entails. I have no interest in taking care of a screaming baby, changing diapers, -- I admire those that do but I am selfish with my time, energy, and resources -- WHY would I subject a child to my selfishness -- we have enough straight people in the world that do that. I have always worked "pink collar" jobs nothing that would be considered outside the norm. I chose not to marry because I didn't want someone else taking my hard earned money and now the government tells me I can't. I have one baccalaureate degree and working on a second -- So according to this "doctor" (and I use that term very very very loosely) because of my independent thinking qualities I'm not a real woman -- Well F*CK you. I am happy and healthy and don't need her to say otherwise. Once again the government/doctors don't always know best and can't fix everything -- and need to stay out of a woman's reproductive system.
Posted by LesbianMary on June 30, 2010 at 3:20 PM · Report this
134
@132 I don't often run into those conditions, so I don't think about them often. That said, I do have a friend (we've lost touch somewhat, being so far apart these days) who was born a hermaphrodite, but was raised male. I didn't know about this for a long time. So it was something of a paradigm shift when he finally told me he felt like a she, and I've tried to make it as best I can. (She understands my occasional slips with pronouns, since I met her as a him. :)

How can I do less for my kids?

Intersex is not something I think I'll ever have to help my kids deal with personally. They seem to be fairly physically "normal" (though I HATE to phrase it like that, I can't think of another way). Transgendered? Maybe. But if something happens during puberty (still some years away), I'll cross that bridge when it comes. I haven't been in that situation as a parent (though I have with being a friend.) Maybe I won't handle it as well as I think I would, even though I'm a fairly liberal-minded person. But I like to think that I'd be okay with it, and help my kids as best I can to adjust and feel loved for who they are, not who everyone else thinks they should be.
Posted by epiphling on June 30, 2010 at 3:34 PM · Report this
135
"abortion of a child for frivolous reasons"

What, like you're too busy working, hanging with your friends shopping so would rather spend your money on other things?

Those all seem pretty frivolous for a human life to be taken.

"Once again the government/doctors don't always know best and can't fix everything -- and need to stay out of a woman's reproductive system."

Unless you want to murder the same fetus, then you probably want the doctor to get in the way right?
Posted by Baby vacuum on June 30, 2010 at 3:40 PM · Report this
136
For those of you who believe Homosexuality is a sin: http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosex…
Posted by By Rev. Mel White on June 30, 2010 at 3:50 PM · Report this
venomlash 137
@124: Thalidomide was a result of people not understanding chirality. One enantiomer of Thalidomide cured morning sickness, the other caused birth defects. If you have the useful form in enantiomeric excess, it's a perfectly good drug.
Here, the potential problems associated with this drug are well-known. There is no excuse.

@135: No, more like women who do not have the financial or psychological resources to raise a child, or who are not physically capable of safely carrying a child to term. Stop perverting the natural function of the anus and get your head out of there.
Posted by venomlash on June 30, 2010 at 4:31 PM · Report this
138
" like women who do not have the financial or psychological resources to raise a child"

So what about women who don't have the psychological resources to raise a gay baby, or one with Downes Sydrome, can they abort?
Posted by Choose whatever's politically convenient on June 30, 2010 at 4:48 PM · Report this
139
I guess technically this drug works.. seeing as reading this article makes me go from not wanting to have children, to wanting to have tons of little tomboys and gaybies out of spite.
Posted by Fokked on June 30, 2010 at 5:09 PM · Report this
140
@132 Since my initial shock upon reading Dan's post, I've been reading up on CAH in XX fetuses. I'm now truly surprised that nothing regarding intersexed individuals had been brought up sooner! From a 6-18-2010 Time article, "A Prenatal Treatment Raises Questions of Medical Ethics":

The early prenatal use of dexamethasone, or dex, has been shown to prevent some of the symptoms of CAH in girls, namely ambiguous genitalia. Because the condition causes overproduction of male hormones in the womb, girls who are affected tend to have genitals that look more male than female, though internal sex organs are normal. (In boys, in contrast, the condition leads to early signs of puberty, such as deep voice, body hair and enlarged penis by age 2 or 3.) But while the prenatal treatment may address girls' physical symptoms, it does not prevent the underlying, medical condition, which in some severe cases can be life-threatening, nor does it preclude the need for medication throughout life.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/…

Posted by Maxine on June 30, 2010 at 5:28 PM · Report this
141
@132 Since my initial shock upon reading Dan's post, I've been reading up on CAH in XX fetuses. I'm now truly surprised that nothing regarding intersexed individuals had been brought up sooner! From a 6-18-2010 Time article, "A Prenatal Treatment Raises Questions of Medical Ethics":

The early prenatal use of dexamethasone, or dex, has been shown to prevent some of the symptoms of CAH in girls, namely ambiguous genitalia. Because the condition causes overproduction of male hormones in the womb, girls who are affected tend to have genitals that look more male than female, though internal sex organs are normal. (In boys, in contrast, the condition leads to early signs of puberty, such as deep voice, body hair and enlarged penis by age 2 or 3.) But while the prenatal treatment may address girls' physical symptoms, it does not prevent the underlying, medical condition, which in some severe cases can be life-threatening, nor does it preclude the need for medication throughout life.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/…

Posted by Maxine on June 30, 2010 at 5:29 PM · Report this
142
If this Mengele-style "doctor" would follow her own reasoning, she wouldn't be a doctor but be at home barefoot and pushing out babies. Or, at the very best, she'd be a nurse taking orders from her misogynistic jerk of a male doctor boss who pinches her butt every time she walks by. Oh - and she'd be wearing the Halloween costume version of a nurse's uniform that has the built-in push-up bra. This is Nazi stuff, people - why isn't this woman in jail?

Oh - and for the record - this childless woman who can't stand babies or small children, and is in a traditionally "masculine" profession (oh, horror, I'm educated with a PhD, get the net) is happily married - to a man. So, one out of four isn't bad, I guess.
Posted by libsechumanist on June 30, 2010 at 5:39 PM · Report this
143
what a totally screwed up bunch of women and the Dr...also....
Posted by tsarheld on June 30, 2010 at 6:19 PM · Report this
144
@60 - say hell no!! of course. Only ignorant people are taking this drug I'll wager. No one smart would do something like that to their fetus. Oh - and though I'm straight I still fall under that umbrella - hated dolls and never daydreamed about marrying. Even wore boys clothes until I was about 22...
Posted by subwlf on June 30, 2010 at 6:49 PM · Report this
145
The appropriate medical organisations (American Academy of Pediatrics, the various endocrinology groups, and so on) have issued a statement that prenatal dexamethazone should only be given for congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH)in regulated, ethics-cleared (IRB) studies at large centers planning to do long-term (to adulthood) followup of the study patients.

Management of post-birth children with CAH has controversies, and the drug regimens are variable. To me, it would seem obvious that the major issues are dealing with the severe "salt-losing" kind of CAH, and preventing precocious puberty and the curtailed growth that results from very early puberty. Policing functional external genitalia is simply NOT medically appropriate for children and should NOT be the concern of anyone other than the adult with unusual but functional genitalia plus the capacity for true informed consent.

One question for New and Meyer-Bahlberg: CAH women have a significantly lower rate of fertility (in those heterosexual women with active partner and with adequate anatomy to allow PIV sex), and the more severe the CAH, the lower the rate. What happens if the prenatal therapy makes CAH women more "gender-normed", maternal, etc, but doesn't change the reduced fertility? The CAH women desiring children would simply face more frustration, and might envy gender-variant CAH women who are perfectly happy without children.

Short-term prenatal corticosteroids are commonly used to accelerate lung maturation in unstable situations where pre-term birth is likely. There's no question that outcomes are better in neonates with adequate lung development. There have been questions about reduced short-term memory in non-CAH recipients of short-term prenatal corticosteroids, but the advantages of good oxygenation (mature lungs), in terms of decreased brain hemorrhages and general brain development, far outweigh any possible subtle changes seen in retrospective studies.
More...
Posted by NancyP on June 30, 2010 at 7:38 PM · Report this
146
#19 wrote "To what degree do we embrace science as truth, and to what degree reject it? Do these decisions change when we don't agree with the results?"

You misunderstand. Science is fundamental research with no predetermined outcome; the goal is to expand our knowledge and understanding. This isn't science, it's technology: using a particular method to achieve a specific outcome. We accept or reject any given technology by balancing the desirability of the outcome and the severity of the risks.

Those who want to geek out on this stuff (21-hydroxylase deficiency) can read

http://tinyURL.com/26lxzuv (The Online Metabolic and Molecular Bases of Inherited Disease)

http://tinyurl.com/27343l4 (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man)

http://tinyurl.com/2fn6obr (Merck Manuals Online Medical Library)

The last of these says "Dexamethasone is used only in postpubertal adolescents and adults." They write that this drug has been associated with conditions such as adrenal suppression, immunosuppression, myopathy (problems with muscle development), problems with kidney function and salt balance, Kaposi's sarcoma, and psychiatric disturbances. A list of adverse reactions is here: http://tinyurl.com/2csp6hz.

On the website of the people who are doing these experiments, they write "Dr. New maintains contact with all children treated prenatally, and has found not permanent adverse effects of treatment on mother or fetus. Thus, with nearly 20 years’ experience, the treatment has been found safe for mother and child."

But Alice Dreger, Ellen K. Feder, and Anne Tamar-Mattis wrote "In the Q&A period, during a discussion of prenatal dex treatments, an audience member asked New, “Isn’t there a benefit to the female babies in terms of reducing the androgen effects on the brain?” New answered, “You know, when the babies who have been treated with dex prenatally get to an age in which they are sexually active, I’ll be able to answer that question.”

The Merck website says that dexamethasone has a category C pregnancy risk factor. pregnancy.org describes category C this way: "Studies in animals have shown an adverse effect but no studies have been done on pregnant women or no animal studies have been done and there are no adequate studies in pregnant women."

More...
Posted by abc on June 30, 2010 at 7:55 PM · Report this
147
You know, its interesting that she talks about the "traditional mother and housewife role" of women, when she is a doctor. Why isnt SHE home watching her kids or cooking for her husband? in fact, why doesnt she leave all this silly medical stuff to the men, who are obviously better qualified to take over this position and do this research, because women are too stupid to know these things
Posted by adamsk89 on June 30, 2010 at 8:11 PM · Report this
148
Thats it. there is no God.
Posted by Ghost Stories on June 30, 2010 at 8:56 PM · Report this
149
Now all we need to do is find a cure for Liberalism.
Posted by LibsAreTards on June 30, 2010 at 9:40 PM · Report this
Canuck 150
I remember a story from a genetics textbook where the women in this one village thought that if they drank bull's blood (ew) during their pregnancy, they'd be more likely to have a boy (which they wanted.) The high levels of testosterone affected the development of the forming genitals, and at that stage where the vulva *stays open* in a girl, the testosterone cause it to close over (as it does in a male fetus when the scrotum is formed.) So these were genetically girls, but the chemical had forced a change in the appearance of the external genitalia, making them appear to be male, although they were XY girls.

I would think that these babies being treated by Dr. New, no matter what levels of hormones are present, are going to be "hard wired" to be a certain way, and while the DEX may affect their appearance outwardly, what evidence is there that this will be anything but a cosmetic change?
Posted by Canuck on June 30, 2010 at 10:19 PM · Report this
Vampireseal 151
Good fucking gawd, I can't believe someone actually considers this good research.
That's all we fucking need, more people telling society that childfree, non-straight women are "abnormal".

I'm a childfree, asexual woman. I've never had an interest in babies, I find kids annoying, and I'm a die-hard science lover to the core. I guess I'm a deviant in need of fixin' according to some. Shoulda neva' been born,what with my aberrant behavior.
Posted by Vampireseal on June 30, 2010 at 11:48 PM · Report this
julia09 152
So no more Elena Kagans, no more Donna Shalalas, no more Martina Navratilovas, no more k.d. langs, no more Constance McMillens—because all women must grow up to suck dick, crank out babies, and do women's work.

. . . no more Dr. News either.
Posted by julia09 on July 1, 2010 at 5:45 AM · Report this
153
Enraged. I'm not LGBT (well, maybe b, but I don't trust men), and I don't believe that it is as simple as nature vs. nurture aka genes vs. choice. Reality is so much more complex than we allow ourselves to grasp. I say this because I have clinical depression. While I wish it had not gone so far as to make suicide an attractive option, but neither would I be me without it. It fuels who I am, my art, my writing.
My sister has been the most constant, consistent positive influence on my life. Her acceptance of my condition, her being there for me when the lights went out in my soul; I can honestly say I would not be here if not for her. These people would destroy that about her as she is a lesbian. They would say that she is abnormal and must be "cured". She is in a long-term, loving relationship, raising a child, and all three are helping me to turn the lights back on. How can that be wrong? Why do they want to destroy all three of us?
In the end, it is not our sexuality, our skin-tone, our spiritual orientation, it is love that determines our humanity (for lack of a better word). Do not hate these people who would destroy love, but rather stand up for each other, reach out and hold hands with each other. Love, simply love regardless of the superficial. Please.
Posted by Number Seven on July 1, 2010 at 7:49 AM · Report this
154
As a heterosexual male who loves women of all sexual preferences, I find this completely fucking appalling - to the point it literally turns my stomach. One earlier poster stated something to the effect of "I wouldn't believe this story if it weren't as well documented." I concur & am still in shock...
Posted by mcisco on July 1, 2010 at 7:59 AM · Report this
155
i am a young lesbian who is feminine, well i enjoy wearing nice clothes and making myself look good. im not "masculine" i am just me. i think that this research is absultoley STUPID! i mean who has the right to take away someones choice... even if there is a "gay" gene then the individual still has to make the desicions as to wether or not to listen to it and follow it through.... for example many gay people get married and have kids before listening to their inner self and comming out as gay. gay women can still have children, still be housewives, and still have a normal life. me and my partner will be having kids one day. and when that happens i do hope that society will be much more accepting than this!
i wouldnt wish anyone to be gay, but it is one of those things which you either are or your not, just like you either have brown hair or blonde. being gay is hard enough as it is due to the unaccepting societies that we live in. people who try and come up with things llike this are only making homophobia in the world more prevelant.... we need to stand up and fight for our rights.... fight all the time for acceptance... whether you gay straight or not quite sure... people like this should not even be aloud to carry out this sort of research... where are the ethics commities???? societies all round the world must stand up against this, and against this type of discrimination!
Posted by jayjay1234 on July 1, 2010 at 8:39 AM · Report this
156
If only the parents of these so-called scientists had been childfree :/
Posted by Koi on July 1, 2010 at 9:49 AM · Report this
157
If parents have an earnest desire and use medical technologies to imprint upon their offspring a tendency towards, say religious notions, heterosexuality, conformity and respect for authority then the sole considerations would be - does the treatment make for happy people? Does it make for productive citizens? Does it in any way reduce reasonably plausible human capacities? Does it have side effects, and if so are these side effects potentially detrimental? Having looked at these considerations and given an answer that liberates society of the concern for child abuse then I see absolutely nothing wring with it.

And bear in mind I am a far left libertarian or anarchosyndicalist.

Likewise if I ever enjoyed the joys of pregnancy, which I won't, I'd favor my own genetic or pharmaceutical adjustments. I'd vastly increase the intelligence, aim straight for good but androgynous looks, I'd boost my offsprings sexdrives, respective ego and confidence and I'd strongly favor bisexuality. I'd actively make my offspring experimental, playful, patient, even-tempered but highly passionate. If I could further than that I'd certainly would, and yes, I'd make damn sure none of the selected qualities would be inhibitive or restrictive. My offspring would be GREAT and FUN people to know, if the only consideration were genetic predisposition.

http://khanneasuntzu.wordpress.com/2009/…

Posted by Khannea on July 1, 2010 at 9:51 AM · Report this
158
Skipped over a lot of this, so I'm sorry if there's some re-hash. A few interesting ethical issues/arguments that I anticipate:

1) "It's genocide!"
The problem is, this can be sold as a 'deathless' process if adverse effects of the drug are minimized. Anti-abortion foes will love this, since you aren't 'killing' potentially homosexual females, you're just 'changing' them. Scary.

2) "It's too dangerous!"
Dexamethasone is listed as a "Category C" drug for use in pregnancy. Category C drugs carry the following warning: 'use with caution if benefits outweigh risks.' Vague enough? The problem is that TONS of category C drugs are routinely used in pregnancy, such as albuterol (the most common asthma drug in the world) and phenergan (common anti-nausea drug for morning sickness). With a vague 'benefits outweigh risks' argument, people are going to have all the wiggle room they want to argue that the benefits of a little endocrine mayhem outweigh the 'risks' facing a homosexual child who might have a big clit to boot (antigay violence! higher suicide rates!). Of course *I* don't feel that way, but as long as Dex is a category C drug, you're going to have people spinning all kinds of arguments as to why using it is justified.

3) "My parents love me just the way I am! My life is awesome and they know it."
Yes. But before they ever met you, honestly ask yourself: would they have preferred the concept of a straight child over a gay one? It's a painful thing to think about, and I know not everyone's parents are the same, but....well, let's face it: a lot of people don't want gay kids.

The only good news in all of this is that homophobes tend to be lazy. Old-style pregnancy is usually the path of least resistance. Very few prospective parents will have their act together enough to aggressively modulate their pregnancy away from a homosexual outcome. Most will just have sex, get pregnant, hope for the best, and then act like assholes if they end up with a gay kid just like they do now. By then, it's too late to do anything effective about it.
More...
Posted by Yeek on July 1, 2010 at 10:17 AM · Report this
159
FYI- this article is only referring to treating women whose fetus has a specific mutation nthat causes classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) , which can be LIFE THREATING!!!! It can cause severe development issues in the growth of the child and ambigous genetila. I searched and could not find anything about the researcher using this drug on women carrying a fetus without the mutations that cause this disease. Although the researchers did seem preoccupieed with the child's sexual idenity as an adult, which is what needed to be discussed. If there is a genetic issue dealing with sex and gender that also has other health related issues, what should the treatment goals be? They should be most concerned with health and the happiness of the patient, but no one is trying to "cure lesbianism" here. Sure there are some stupid f**ks out there that think some aweful stuff about our LGBT community, but most scientists are not up to some evil plans. (i mean, its not easy sh*t, and who has several hours to brush up on their basic genetics, much less keeping up with all the current scientific literature that isn't doing it on a daily basis). I'm just saying don't beleive eveything you read on these sensationalist websites. They took a legitimate issue that should be discussed logically and skewed it in order to get a bunch of hits, basically helping no one. Dan, this story needed attention on its own right without skewing it so it seems like some horror scifci where in the future we will try to make all the women good little house wives.
Posted by science&truth on July 1, 2010 at 10:34 AM · Report this
160
If parents have an earnest desire and use medical technologies to imprint upon their offspring a tendency towards, say religious notions, heterosexuality, conformity and respect for authority then the sole considerations would be - does the treatment make for happy people? Does it make for productive citizens? Does it in any way reduce reasonably plausible human capacities? Does it have side effects, and if so are these side effects potentially detrimental? Having looked at these considerations and given an answer that liberates society of the concern for child abuse then I see absolutely nothing wring with it.

And bear in mind I am a far left libertarian or anarchosyndicalist.

Likewise if I ever enjoyed the joys of pregnancy, which I won't, I'd favor my own genetic or pharmaceutical adjustments. I'd vastly increase the intelligence, aim straight for good but androgynous looks, I'd boost my offsprings sexdrives, respective ego and confidence and I'd strongly favor bisexuality. I'd actively make my offspring experimental, playful, patient, even-tempered but highly passionate. If I could further than that I'd certainly would, and yes, I'd make damn sure none of the selected qualities would be inhibitive or restrictive. My offspring would be GREAT and FUN people to know, if the only consideration were genetic predisposition.

http://khanneasuntzu.wordpress.com/2009/…

Posted by Khannea on July 1, 2010 at 11:57 AM · Report this
161
@24- I don't care if the sex-robots make babies. In fact, I'd rather they didn't.
Posted by dwight moody on July 1, 2010 at 1:10 PM · Report this
162
So, if parents order a Google Sex Robot to make their baby, you will angrily jump before them and scream *NNOOOOOOO!* ?

Why exactly? Might it be ahhh 'none of your business' ?
Posted by Khannea on July 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM · Report this
Matthew 'Anc' Johnson 163
About a tenth of a percent of the population had the opposite reaction to the Dex. Their lesbionic response increased... beyond madness. They've become... they've killed most of us... not just killed, they've done... things.
Posted by Matthew 'Anc' Johnson on July 1, 2010 at 1:48 PM · Report this
164
Until we can acknowledge and embrace our humanity, with all of our flavors in tact, Science , religion, and society will look for a mirror that better reflects the image it wants to reflect.

I am a mother of four flavorful children and am quite flavorful myself.

Our world and our conscience demands that we continue to search for answers.
What will you do with this information now that you have it? Will you go on and let tomorrow's new's story supplant today's righteous outrage? Will you be vocal? act ?
The energy you generate has an outcome: how do you want it applied?

So I say :
Leave my gay straight bi trans body alone. Leave my children alone.Let them grow into the beings they will become. Within them lie the seeds of our future .
Posted by OtterGirlDances on July 1, 2010 at 2:42 PM · Report this
Geni 165
@163 - Miranda!
Posted by Geni on July 1, 2010 at 3:05 PM · Report this
166
At the foundation of this conflict is the issue of informed consent/women's rights/people's rights and the medical monetary machine. To read more visit my doula blog: http://slolaboroflovedoula.blogspot.com/….
Posted by labor of love http://slolaboroflovedoula.blogspot.com/ on July 1, 2010 at 3:58 PM · Report this
167
You know, I'm a DES baby. My mother was given diethylstilbestrol when she was pregnant with me, because they believed it would prevent a miscarriage. The experimental evidence was thin at best, and it left a generation of children with reproductive abnormalities, and increased risk of cancer. It turned out that DES did NOT prevent miscarriages.

Now they're mucking about with sex hormones in utero again, in a manner that may reduce the marvelous diversity of human nature. Especially female human nature. Or maybe not. It also may cause unknown harm in those children. This a completely unethical experiment!
Posted by Amyt on July 1, 2010 at 9:40 PM · Report this
168
Some in the Deaf community have balked at surgeries to correct their deafness.
Some refuse to learn skills that would mesh them with the hearing world, like lip-reading. The reasons why might have they chosen not to is quite a debate in itself, but one is an attachment to the life they have, and changing it would somehow shame the life they changed.

Would it be the same dynamic for gays? As gay people who have come to accept themselves and others as different conflict them with the idea that someone made them more girly or manly than they would have been- is that a hatred of homosexuality? Can you imagine heterosexual self acceptance?

I think I would have been grateful my parents tested me for birth defects with amniocentesis, taking prenatal vitamins to prevent spina bifida. I can see how these parents are having the baby's best interest in mind, although I was spooked by a GATTACA world.

By the way Dan, once years ago I read an article in which you said babies are "excreted". It made me chuckle, with my biology backround. Excretion is getting rid of the useless. Kind of ties in here somehow to the limits of your grasp of things sometimes- if anything, babies are secreted- the body producing something useful.
Posted by eppur on July 2, 2010 at 2:26 AM · Report this
169
Dude thats just messed up man. Let the people grow up to whatever they are going to be.

Lou
www.anon-surfing.at.tc
Posted by tiggysow on July 2, 2010 at 5:08 AM · Report this
170
I love you, @69.
Posted by ruth.333 on July 2, 2010 at 5:24 AM · Report this
171
you fucking nazis. eugenics.
Posted by you fucking nazi on July 2, 2010 at 5:34 AM · Report this
172
It seems like this would be an easy study to pursue without intervening in current pregnancies.

After all, there are literally THOUSANDS of women who get dexamethasone (and prednisone, and other steroids) during pregnancy. Usually this is to treat a serious medical illness, such as intractable asthma or allergic reaction or auto-immunity where the threat to the mother's life is immediate and clear.

Why not just follow the sexual orientation of the children born from THOSE pregnancies, instead of creating a new experiment? It is an interesting scientific question, but the ethics become very dubious when you're actively administering steroids with the fetus' future sexual orientation in mind. The experiment is performed constantly by the circumstance of saving lives - let it stay that way. If sexual orientation is changed as a 'side effect' of a life-saving treatment, that's acceptable. Otherwise, it seems hard to justify.
Posted by Yeek on July 2, 2010 at 6:51 AM · Report this
173
So what's your problem? Who the hell wants a dyke daughter? It's something parents put up with, not something they desire. If women want to abort, let them (you're the ones screaming about abortion rights; now what? going to backpedal on that one?). That ends the whole gay thing once and for all.
Posted by kitjik on July 2, 2010 at 8:29 AM · Report this
174
Dr. Mengele is alive and well and living in the sickest part of the United States, the Bible belt. Home to the highest levels of incest, divorce, pornography consumption and more. I think we may have found a use for all of those old nukes lying around.
Posted by keithdouglas on July 2, 2010 at 9:18 AM · Report this
175
I had no interest in children, or being a mother until I actually had a baby, sometimes it just happens. I can't believe we're going into this territory, Maria New is looking to get lynched by some really radical lesbians
Posted by vsanc011 on July 2, 2010 at 9:51 AM · Report this
176
Regarding the few nutjobs who come on here and BAAAW about supposed hypocrisy:

First, I know it's a huge, HUGE shock to the right-wingers, but most people actually DON'T LIKE ABORTION. Nor do we "applaud" women for having abortions (though we SUPPORT them, which is a concept you guys can't seem to get your heads around). It's both a last resort and a necessary evil. I can guarantee you that 100% of level-headed women who had abortions would, if given the choice between getting an abortion and not getting pregnant in the first place, would choose not getting pregnant.

Second, here's the funny thing: if you have an abortion, your kid doesn't have to live with the consequences. If you mess them up because you just wanted them to turn out normal, they pay the price for your mistake. See also: botched circumcision, female genital mutilation, corrective surgery for the intersexed, etc.

Now, I'm not saying that parents shouldn't be looking out for the health of their child. But being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, intersexed (with exceptions), uninterested in reproduction, or good at mathematics does not inherently damage someone's health - in fact, in the majority of these cases, the attempt to fix the deviance in question is much more harmful to their health. It is best for the child in question if these things are let be until said child is old enough to communicate any actual problems they are experiencing, and then these problems be dealt with appropriately. Unless a foetal condition is liable to kill the future child (or the parent) or to drastically impact his or her quality of life with no hope of reprieve - and hey, it sounds like CAH can do that - it's just safer for everyone concerned to LEAVE IT THE HECK ALONE.
Posted by AMouse on July 2, 2010 at 9:52 AM · Report this
177
Can Doctors spend time & money in something really important instead of something like this ... Be heterosexual or homesexual always been and always will be ... It's just being white or black , short or tall, etc. Human comes in different ways to this world... Can't be that hard to understand !
Posted by Dino Summer on July 2, 2010 at 10:21 AM · Report this
178
What happened to the feminist ideal that what a woman does with her uterus is her business and no one else's? So, a woman can kill her unborn child but she can't choose to have a daughter who is not a lesbian. Got it you are all a bunch of man-hating totalitarians who want to force women to choose what you think is right. Nice.
Posted by DrEvil on July 2, 2010 at 1:00 PM · Report this
179
You all need to learn a bit of objective thought and reading comprehension. I must have skimmed over about 100 of the comments here and EVERY SINGLE ONE took the article at face value.

The author here has put a lot of spin on the article. Sure there is a questionable aspect in the whole danger of using the drugs - perhaps even without providing proper information to the patients - but that's not the focus of the article. The focus is in the title, "Doctor Treating Pregnant Women With Experimental Drug To Prevent Lesbianism".

Now read the article again. It's about a damned scientific study, morons. It's exploring the behavioural effects of the drug and despite the absurd way in which the writer proceeded with exposition, eliminating lesbianism is not some insane agenda harboured by this doctor.

The first paragraph is written in a way to suggest that the researchers are not interested in the physiological effects of dex at all and are just concerned with the whole sexual orientation issue - an implication that even the goddamn direct quotations fail to bolster. Yes, they have a scientific interest in how the hormonal differences can sexual orientation and 'masculinization' and there is nothing wrong with that at all.

Frankly, I sure as hell would not want to be born with gender-ambiguous genitalia. I think the most contentious paragraph is the second last of the quoted section about the Q&A discussion of prenatal dex treatments. It seems that the Maria New might be implying, by suggesting that some benefits may not be quantifiable until sexual maturity, that lesbianism is inherently bad.

However, I once again stress - SCIENCE: this is a scientific study so it is instructive to consider the last paragraph like this, with strong consideration of science and statistics:

If there were some set of conditions that led to babies being born with various physical abnormalities and also resulted in a much higher percentage of them being born homosexual than in the normal population, then you could put down the increased rate of homosexuality, along with any other symptoms, down to the abnormal conditions and subsequent development. Now, if there were some treatment that removed all of the symptoms and yielded in the sample the same rate of homosexuality that is present in the normal population, it would effectively have cancelled the effects of the abnormal uterine conditions. Perhaps when the quoted scientist referred to having to wait till an age of sexual activity to determine the benefits on the brain, they meant that they would then be able to determine the degree of effectiveness in cancelling the effects of CAH in ALL respects.

Article is disingenuous, sensationalist BULL.
More...
Posted by BusterReads on July 2, 2010 at 1:31 PM · Report this
180
THIS DOCTOR? IS INSANE. SHE IS A FEMALE HITLER. HE MESSED AROUND WITH PEOPLE TRYING TO PRODUCE THE PERFECT RACE OF PEOPLE AND WE ALL KNOW HOW THAT ENDED.
IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO CHANGE SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN-VITRO, WHAT ELSE WILL THEY CHANGE. GOD MADE EVERYONE IN HIS IMAGE AND HOW HE WANTED THEM TO BE. ANYONE WHO MESSES WITH THAT IS PLAYING "GOD." THAT IS WRONG.
Posted by trekkie62 on July 2, 2010 at 2:36 PM · Report this
181
@178, granted there may be some problems with supporting the freedom to abort a baby and opposing the idea that a woman could alter her baby in utero. That said, aren't there even bigger consistency problems with opposing abortion because a baby is a living human while at the same time supporting procedures that would prevent said human being from being born gay?

Human beings die every day. But perhaps our final freedom is the freedom to be ourselves. Altering babies in the womb is arguably worse than abortion. It's a very dangerous road to follow.

@179 It may indeed be science, but it is science being practiced on pregnant women without any real understanding of what the long-term effects might be both on the women and their daughters. That's certainly scary enough for me. The article may play up the worst of that science but that hardly makes it bull.

@180 Godwin's law. Now shut up.
Posted by Sapien on July 2, 2010 at 4:51 PM · Report this
182
What the H*** kind of stupidity is this now? Are there not IMPORTANT things for "science" to find cures for? Being gay is not a disease, folks. Good grief! Disgusting!
Posted by Wiscats on July 2, 2010 at 7:46 PM · Report this
183
My wife caught wind of this on FB and had a few things to say about it and how it appeared a little out of context in the media:

J M C,
This is weird and difficult. Excuse me for a minute while the NICU nurse in me comes out.
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia is a real and potentially serious condition that can be fatal and deserves to be treated. The quote that you repeat above, Beth, is likely a result of defective synthesis of adrenal corticosteroids and only a small part of a ... See Morebigger spectrum of abnormal hormonal development, including masculinization of female genitalia, which is a result of an abnormal production of male hormones in females. However there are forms of CAH that both males and females have. And the consequences can be far-reaching for the affected, both physically and emotionally. Abnormal sexual development is not the only consequence, as I said CAH has the potential to be FATAL. One of the treatments for this condition IS corticosteroids such as Dex. Dexamethasone is not an experimental hormone, it is used all the time in pregnant women, newborns, and pretty much anyone for other reasons. It is the application of it that is experimental.
The problem I see comes in a few parts: 1) it is not possible to diagnose all forms of CAH prenatally. 2) it is not safe to administer corticosteroids for an extended period of time to anyone unless they really need them. 3) for CAH patients, their sexual development IS abnormal by definition and failure of their adrenal glands to work properly. BUT 4) is their research on the possibility of treating CAH in fetuses (a condition that deserves treatment) being co-opted by others to suggest it is a good idea to randomly give pregnant women steroids so their child will not be gay or bi? (A state of being that definitely does not deserve treatment!)
They're talking about an actual disease here and much of it is taken out of context I think. Where it crosses the line to be solely about controlling sexual development vs. treating a real hormonal imbalance is hard to say and therein lies the difficulty. Thanks for posting!
*NICU nurse retreats*
More...
Posted by mstry4u on July 2, 2010 at 9:19 PM · Report this
184
What happened to women's rights? I thought you lefties thought that the fetus was just an inviable tissue mass.

In your minds it is okay to kill a baby, but not to have it born where there is no possibility of it being homosexual. Wow, you people are sick.
Posted by Michelle Obama is a wookie on July 3, 2010 at 6:52 AM · Report this
185
So, I'm probably a lesbian, or have the potential to be one-because I had no interest in babies or having children?

HAD, being the note here. My daughter was born in October. Before I met my husband? I'd vowed never to have kids. Ever-I was born the oldest of six and had raised 2 of my brothers. The way I saw it, I had done my time.

Until I fell in love, and my husband and I decided to have that experience together-and I'm glad I waited. But if you'd of caught me two years ago and told me I'd be a mom? I'd of laughed at you.

All of that, aside from the fact-THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING BI OR HOMOSEXUAL! Forget biological imperative! Have you looked at how many people are ON this planet? These people who would make women and men out to be baby factories aren't a step above animals. WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS. NOT ENDANGERED PANDA BEARS. Let people love who they want, cause it isn't hurting anyone!
Posted by Addy on July 3, 2010 at 7:04 AM · Report this
186
Sorry Dan, your title is dangerously misleading. Nowhere in the post does it say that the doctors are actually conducting such trials. It states several times that the doctors would expect to see certain results, or anticipate that certain results would occur if such a trial were to take place.

To me, it sounds like there were discussions regarding such "treatment", not that such "treatment" has actually taken place. The post is obviously misleading.

That said, it sounds like a nightmare waiting to happen.
Posted by Approaching 40 in LA on July 3, 2010 at 7:40 AM · Report this
onion 187
thanks 183 and others like it. this thread needed a dose of reality.
Posted by onion on July 3, 2010 at 10:44 AM · Report this
188
Dan, I'm normally a big fan of yours, but this post is waaaay off base.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/20772
Posted by Brian Lynchehaun on July 3, 2010 at 1:25 PM · Report this
189
Wow, well I really can't explain my deal then, hmmm... let's see, last night I hosted a Sushi night (all lovingly home-made by my very own femmy hands) for a lovely circle of lesbian friends. Basically love my domestic life, dinner parties, cooking, and beautifying my partner's and my little home (19 years now!); I read as STRAIGHT! all over the place, lipstick lesbian here! Very feminine and curvy, double D's etc... So, feminine-check, domestically inclined-check, 100% (gold-star) lesbian-CHECK! What would DEX have done to me? I wonder! Give me a break! This kind of homophobia reeks of eugenics ala Hitler, medical arguments be damned! This is a slippery slope, that we're apparently already on.
Posted by Sara's Mar on July 3, 2010 at 1:29 PM · Report this
kristinbell 190
Aside from this being completely insane and disturbing, it would be incredibly funny if the "treatment" backfired and the babies turned out to be, for lack of a better term, SUPER LESBIANS and ULTRA MASCULINE.
Posted by kristinbell http://kristinbell.org on July 3, 2010 at 10:00 PM · Report this
191
if lesbianism is a disease, hook me up to a million oxygen tanks and a couple hundred IV's.

this is ridiculous.
Posted by i'm already out of the closet; why the hell not. on July 4, 2010 at 11:50 AM · Report this
192
Oh, sure, I don't like makeup, the thought of painful child birth, acting like a bitchy girly-girl snob, or crap like that, and they think they can just lable people like me as "abnormal".
I go both ways, but It's not cause I don't wanna "suck dick".
If I wanna be with a female, it's for anything BUT their vigina.
And, if I go for a male, it's for anything BUT their dick.
If you ask me, they apperently think little girls now days are so lustful
to the point they finger them selfs while imagining a dude getting them pregnate.
Sure, a teenager may like to imagine a dude screwing her while touching herself,
but who the **** wants to imagine getting PREGANTE at such a FRIGGIN' young age?
Arent there people who talk to children trying to KEEP them from wanting to have early sex?

The children only play with baby dolls because they want to be like mommy.
They want to be seen as a strong, beautiful, responsable(sp), girl who is seen as God in the eyes of someone younger, weaker, and needs to be taken care of.
When they can't be gentle, they will be forceful to show this.. mainly by hurting others.

.....

Thats why you get them a pet. >.>
And if that don't work, heck, their over active imgination will entertain them.
I know it did/does me.
Posted by Wool on July 5, 2010 at 6:53 AM · Report this
jgmurphy 193
My first thought was, The Stepford Wives.

This is pretty horrible. Indeed. But I also question their rather neanderthal concepts of what constitutes "masculine" and "feminine" interests. So much of that is cultural and not in any way genetic. For example: There is a gap in math scores between males and females in this country and most girls do gravitate away from math- and science-oriented careers. But in countries in the Middle and Far East, as well as eastern Europe, where math and science are not necessarily considered "guy stuff" the way they are, say, in America and the UK, female scientists and mathematicians abound. It is somewhat improbable that females in those cultures would be more genetically drawn to math and science than women here. So the gap here is obviously cultural.

And the idea of medicine as a "guy" profession is also not universal. In Switzerland, for example, over 70% of the doctors are women. And this is a country where women didn't even get the right to VOTE until 1970. So go figure.
Posted by jgmurphy http://armadillodesigns.faceorama.com on July 5, 2010 at 9:47 PM · Report this
194
U bitches making out like you the only ones taken it up the @ss

Wake up and smell the coffee ..... this shit is goin on every where,.,,

Chemtrails.... floridization...chloride.... vacination..... trumped up wars .... enviro shit eugenics.... offsourcing jobs.... Obama change ...... labratory aids swine flus.. this is just the surface.... cfr.... global 2000...... debasing the constitution.... depopulation..... get off your whiny shit and have some coffee....
Posted by @sshole on July 5, 2010 at 10:13 PM · Report this
195
Agree with @sshole... nothing like a dick up your ass, after a cup of coffee... lol.
Posted by dom-do-little on July 5, 2010 at 10:40 PM · Report this
196
Bollocks. What a biased beat up. We have escalating numbers of gay youth, there is no cultural formula at work trying to end homosexuality, quite the opposite.
If the author rates Elena Kagan as a role model for lesbians, then I can only imagine the author lacks any serious discernment.
Gays and Lesbians relax, heterosexuality is heading into negative territory, give it a generation and you'll have a tough time locating a Hetero couple. Sit coms will appear, in which the gay community of a small town must come to accept the odd practices of a married hetero couple.
There will be set piece routines, where a lesbian couple get confused over the meaning of archaic hetero 'speak', hilarity ensues. Another running gag will be the homosexual guy misinterprets Hetero mans friendliness as a come on, after all, every one is gay deep down. Things get hot on a camping trip, but in the end, Gay guy understands the mix up, and regular transmissions resume.
What would really rock the boat is a chemical compound that encourages free speech and common sense,...now that would F**K up everything.
Posted by Fitzy on July 5, 2010 at 11:22 PM · Report this
197
Science and techonology are going to offer to change a lot of things about the human condition in the near future.
Get used to it. This is the next phase of evolution - enhancing/modifying our offspring.
Steven Hawking is all for it - in fact he thinks its our only way out of our current mess.
Think about it, if we could engineer our offspring to be free of cancer, mental illness, stupidity, etc., we would save a lot of money on health care.
Economics will eventually drive it. Sure it will have to be regulated.
And if you could treat your child during pregnancy to ensure they are not gay, what parents wouldn't. It would bring down the cost of HIV treatments in a major way.
In the end, its the choice of the parents.
And if the big pharms can make money off it, they will sell it!
I'm all for gay rights, but if I could ensure my future children wouldn't be gay, sure I would do it.
And I think most people would, too.
Posted by kevbo on July 6, 2010 at 12:15 AM · Report this
198
Science and techonology are going to offer to change a lot of things about the human condition in the near future.
Get used to it. This is the next phase of evolution - enhancing/modifying our offspring.
Steven Hawking is all for it - in fact he thinks its our only way out of our current mess.
Think about it, if we could engineer our offspring to be free of cancer, mental illness, stupidity, etc., we would save a lot of money on health care.
Economics will eventually drive it. Sure it will have to be regulated.
And if you could treat your child during pregnancy to ensure they are not gay, what parents wouldn't. It would bring down the cost of HIV treatments in a major way.
In the end, its the choice of the parents.
And if the big pharms can make money off it, they will sell it!
I'm all for gay rights, but if I could ensure my future children wouldn't be gay, sure I would do it.
And I think most people would, too.
Posted by kevbo on July 6, 2010 at 12:18 AM · Report this
199
BTW - all species go extince eventually. So do subtypes and subcultures.
Gays are not different.
Get used to it.
Posted by kevbo on July 6, 2010 at 12:19 AM · Report this
200
All women must grow up to suck dick, crank out babies, and do women's work.

Is that all a heterosexual woman is to you? Do you need a list of all the non gay women in hsitory and waht they contributed to society? I think YOU are the sick one if you think that all women who are not gay are just useless baby makers. Your MOM is one.
Posted by jakimbro on July 6, 2010 at 5:12 AM · Report this
201
I don't know how any pregnant woman could foolishly offer her womb up to the hands of science and risk permanently damaging her child. I pity the innocent.
..Posted by Cory on June 29, 2010

did you vaccinate your child, dumb sheet?
Posted by john_with_the_long_slide on July 6, 2010 at 6:08 AM · Report this
202
what does the world need with homo's anyway? the only purpose they serve is to piss everyone off. make them take the drug,or spay or neuter them and send them to antartica until they are cured.
Posted by jambo on July 6, 2010 at 7:42 AM · Report this
203
dictionary of pride:

black pride: solidarity
white pride: hate
gay pride: pride in the fact that you hump (or get humped) boys up the bungholio

seriously - that's what it's all about - gay anal sex
what's to be proud about that
gay anal sex is:
- disgusting
- dangerous (e.g. blowouts)
- unhealthy (fecal matter, etc.)

seriously, this is nothing to march in a parade about

i'm not homophobic

it's just that the thought of 1 man buggering another is just DISGUSTING

look, it's a poop shoot, not a vagina

get real
Posted by kevbo on July 6, 2010 at 9:16 AM · Report this
204
@kevbo

"I'm all for gay rights, but if I could ensure my future children wouldn't be gay, sure I would do it." so if you're all for gay rights, why not just let your children be whoever they naturally are without trying to mess with their sexuality?

"i'm not homophobic it's just that the thought of 1 man buggering another is just DISGUSTING" well I'm sorry but that sounds like homophobia to me. I find the thought of what some heterosexual couples get up to in bed disgusting as well, but I'm not disputing that they have the right to do it.

it's not "all about" gay anal sex, it's about being in love with someone and not being made to feel like that love is inferior to the love that anybody else feels. i'm a gay woman, and gay pride for me doesn't mean "pride in the fact that you hump (or get humped) boys up the bungholio". it's about being proud of who you are and who you're attracted to. it's about feeling like non-heterosexual people are worth the same as heterosexual people. and as you're "all for gay rights", I'm sure you can understand that.
Posted by snow on July 6, 2010 at 12:15 PM · Report this
205
I hate to say it, but gays and lesbians refused to find common grounds with recreational drug users, all of whom have a prevailing interest in keeping the state out of the business of controlling their private lives. Now that all the harmless drug users are locked up to create the world's biggest prison system in human history, you find yourselves lacking in broad based support. Gee wonder why? You might want to reread Pastor Niemoehller's words from the Nazi days of Germany to see where this is all heading...
Posted by A. Magnus on July 8, 2010 at 3:41 PM · Report this
206
I look forward to the day when biological defects like homosexuality can be eliminated through the use of medications. I believe that every child should have the opportunity for a normal life, and debilitating abnormalities like homosexuality lead to untold misery.
Posted by Edwardo K. on July 8, 2010 at 10:50 PM · Report this
207
So no more Elena Kagans, no more Donna Shalalas, no more Martina Navratilovas, no more k.d. langs, no more Constance McMillens—because all women must grow up to suck dick, crank out babies, and do women's work.
Sounds like a good idea to me. But we blinkered dhimmis and goy cattle will be under Sharia law before this can take place. The health care system will be so bankrupt by that time that abortion or the gallows will be the only choices.
Sue Donim
Posted by Sue Donim on July 9, 2010 at 9:38 AM · Report this
208
The past few days of comments have made me utterly lose faith in humanity.
We really are a filthy, disgusting species. Why? Because we are the only species capable of irrational hatred (as evidenced by the massive amounts of homophobic trolls who have posted lately).
Posted by 7Kate7 on July 9, 2010 at 4:33 PM · Report this
209
all women like it in the butt
Posted by yummy on July 9, 2010 at 8:49 PM · Report this
210
"All women must grow up to suck dick, crank out babies, and do women's work.

Is that all a heterosexual woman is to you? Do you need a list of all the non gay women in hsitory and waht they contributed to society? I think YOU are the sick one if you think that all women who are not gay are just useless baby makers. Your MOM is one. "

WELL SAID ALL YOU FEMINAZI'S ARE IDIOTS. IT'S NO WONDER NO MAN WANTS TO SHARE HIS LIFE WITH YOUR BUTCH HAIRCUT, TATTOO'S, AND BAD ATTITUDE SELVES. GO DRIVE YOUR CAR/MAN-TRUCK OFF A CLIFF.
.
Posted by MAN on July 9, 2010 at 8:58 PM · Report this
211
You seriously expect women with CAH to forego a treatment that could save their child from a life-threatening condition (and CAH is exactly that!) because as a side effect the treatment could prevent a female child from becoming a lesbian?

If I were pregnant with the risk of having a child with severe CAH, I could't care less about my child's future sexual orientation. But I'd care about my child not dying from salt wasting shortly after birth, I'd care about my child not having lifelong problems from insufficient cortisol levels and other hormone imbalances and yes, I'd also care about my daughter not having to cope with ambiguous genitalia and about her being able to have children if she wants them. In short: I'd care about my child not to have CAH and if I had to adjust my own CAH treatment accordingly I'd do it in a heartbeat. As a woman with CAH and with a partner who is a carrier, I wouldn't even dream of attempting to get pregnant if there wasn't the option of prenatal treatment.
Posted by yournamegoeshere on July 15, 2010 at 7:25 AM · Report this
212
The heterophobia in this article is toxic.

Posted by captain homo on July 15, 2010 at 7:09 PM · Report this
213
The point that strains New's credibility and exposes her glaring lack of ethics is revealed by her comment about being able to answer the question of the treatment's long range effects when the babies treated reach sexual maturity. She says it's safe and effective, even though she doesn't know what, how or to what extent it is effective (or damaging), and in contradiction of the empirical literature on neurological damage shown among infants treated prenatally. For that alone, her authority to advise unsuspecting parents must be revoked. Never mind the eugenics aspects. The parents' focus seems to be on birthing the perfect baby, but New's disingenuity leaves those consulted parents misinformed about the liklihood of ending up with a human being worse off than had fetal manipulation not been applied.
Posted by southpaugh on July 19, 2010 at 8:03 AM · Report this
214
Kevbo, #203
You are absolutely, unequivocally homophobic. It's merely a measure of your ignorance about the issue that proves it. You presume to define the entire subject on a narrow, black-and-white aspect which you find displeasing and of which you know nothing. Your point of view alone is comprehensively disprovable:
(1) There are many same sex couples who do not engage in anal sex whatsoever.
(2) Men who engage in anal penetration often prepare themselves hygenically for this activity, thereby mooting your concern about anal sex being unhealthy.
(3) There are many gay and bisexual men who engage exclusively in fellatio. (Some of my best friends are cock suckers, and they're good at it. If you've never expereience a really good fellatist, it's your own damned fault. You have only your attitude to blame.)
(4) You completely ignore female homosexual persons.

Your definitions of pride are simplistic and would be laughable were it not apparent that you are convinced of their accuracy. Considering that every objection to homosexuality is directly tracable to direct or indirect religious indoctrination, People who hold such unrealistic and irrational opinions would do well to examine why they feel as they do. Your opinion is based on fear of an alternative to what you've been taught, and lack of information that would challenge your indoctrination. Like it or not, you are factually and intellectually enslaved and controlled, and you fear anybody or anything that is not similarly manipulated.

There is nothing that says I or anybody else have to enable you in your magical thinking. Aside from all the other twisted busy bodies whose opinions you parrot, you're on your own. How scared would you be, then, without all your enablers and all the strength in numbers?

It is this need to control the innocent that gives rise to the mindset that makes it alright to experiment on an unsuspecting if potentially imperfect fetus. Now, THAT's the abomination. In emotional terms I'm sure you'll more likely relate with, you who would do that are monsters.
More...
Posted by southpaugh on July 19, 2010 at 8:54 AM · Report this
215
Once science figures out how gay babies are made, bible-thumpers will declare abortion of same a sacred duty.

Beyond pathetic, this is evil.
Posted by EdB on July 20, 2010 at 10:41 AM · Report this
216
Funny, how homosexuality is supposed to be "natural", when there is a higher percentage of diseases (mostly of the sexual variety, due to the nature of anal intercourse, as well as the high rate of promiscuity of most homosexuals) as well as higher rates of suicide, drug use, higher rates of mental illness, domestic abuse as well as higher divorce rates among same sex couples.

This is true even for places like the Netherlands, where homosexuality and gay marriage have been accepted longer than most other places, which rules out the argument that it is society, not the nature of homosexuality, is the sole cause of the dysfunction in relationships . As Kevbo, #203 said in his comment "It's a poopchute, not a vagina". The human body was not designed for sodomy, it has no real sexual purpose (to make babies) and caused nothing but damage and injury, yet we're forced to accept that this is completely natural and normal.

You don't need to be a scientist to figure out that homosexuality is not natural or harmless, as most activists want us to believe.

Posted by JackC on July 20, 2010 at 7:06 PM · Report this
217
I'm a married, working mother. I never played with dolls. I was a tomboy all my life, and that didn't stop me from wanting to have children.

This woman's ideas on gender roles and women are already flawed right from the get-go. She assumes that women in 'masculine' roles don't have an interest in 'feminine' things.

I wonder what would have happened in Greece if she'd of walked up to the Amazons and told them that s-ite.
Posted by Addy on July 24, 2010 at 2:47 PM · Report this
218
My husband and I have been TTC for the last 6 months. Should I get excited or wait a few more days before testing again? I took an EPT that shows it can predict your pregnancy up to 6 days before a missed period.
Pregnancy week by week
Posted by Jehnavi on August 3, 2010 at 11:46 PM · Report this
219
I can safely say that it's a very good thing I'm not reproducing. With idiots like Maria New coming up with this crap, I'm afraid to.
Posted by Zaelle on August 7, 2010 at 4:15 PM · Report this
220
Absolutely it is ethical for parents to want to prevent giving birth to homosexual children, and it is ethical for doctors to try to assist them in attaining that perfectly ethical goal. The particular drug being discussed in this instance may not be "benign", in the words of the PC-brainwashed pseudo-ethicist Alice Dreger, but we all can see that it isn't a safety issue that motivates Dreger. No, what bothers her and other PC-brainwashed "multi-cultis" is that homosexuality might be preventable, and because homosexuality is seen as a "protected culture" by PC-brainwashed multi-cultis, they're aghast.

Really, a couple wanting to take steps to avoid giving birth to a homosexual child is no different than undertaking steps to prevent or reverse any other birth defect.
Posted by Lou Bricano on October 18, 2010 at 7:40 PM · Report this
221
This is absolutely disgusting...

http://www.pregnancy.co.uk highlight drugs that can be used during pregnancy to aid the babies growth but this is definitely not one of them.

Am I not the only one to find this sort of science insulting to free will?
Posted by Per1213 on August 31, 2011 at 3:57 AM · Report this
222
Am I not the only one to find this absolute rediculas?

Http://www.pregnancy.co.uk highlights a bunch of drugs you can use during pregnancy but this definitely isn't one of them.

I find this incredibly insulting the the idea of freewill
Posted by Per1213 on August 31, 2011 at 4:01 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy