Doctor Treating Pregnant Women With Experimental Drug To Prevent Lesbianism

[Soon]

Doctor Treating Pregnant Women With Experimental Drug To Prevent Lesbianism

posted by DAN SAVAGE on WED, JUN 30, 2010 at 9:05 AM


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." (Bioethics Forum link: Preventing Homosexuality (and Uppity Women) in the Womb?

Read more: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bio...#ixzz0sOSR2FXI) Unbelievable:

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?

[Manul]

Paging Dr. Mengele.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Manul

Paging Dr. Mengele.

Yeah, I am pretty disturbed. I keep reading/thinking about it -- I'm stunned and in a bit of disbelief that this is ACTUALLY occurring.

[Melissa]

The mind boggles. When I first read the headline I thought it was a joke. Even now, I keep thinking, really? Surely not? Have you tried to verify this story? I keep thinking National enquirer and Star Magazine! I mean that's how out of this world and absurd this is.

Melissa

[Jesse]

You have got to be kidding me!!!

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Doctor Treating Pregnant Women With Experimental Drug To Prevent Lesbianism

posted by DAN SAVAGE on WED, JUN 30, 2010 at 9:05 AM


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." (Bioethics Forum link: Preventing Homosexuality (and Uppity Women) in the Womb?

Read more: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bio...#ixzz0sOSR2FXI) Unbelievable:

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?

Ok, I went back to the source of the quote. Dan Savage is misquoting to a certain extent but the source article does say Maria New is labelling heteronormative behavior as "normal" and appears to be suggesting her treatment will "normalize" girls. Yikes.


Very interesting quote from this article by Alice Dreger, Ellen K. Feder, Anne Tamar-Mattis, 06/29/2010 that is alerting us to Maria New's research.


" While everyone has been busy watching geneticists at the frontier of the brave new world, none of us seem to have noticed what some pediatricians are up to. Perhaps it is because so many people are fascinated by the idea of a “gay gene” that prenatal “lesbian hormones” have slipped past public scrutiny. In any case, we think Nimkarn and New’s “paradigm for prenatal diagnosis and treatment” suggests a reason why activists for gay and lesbian rights should be wary of believing that claims for the innateness of homosexuality will lead to liberation. Evidence that homosexual orientation is inborn could, instead, very well lead to new means of pathologization and prevention, as it seems to be in the case we’ve been tracking."



Read more: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bio...#ixzz0sOmcTNRX

Melissa

[Jet]

*shaking my head*

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Melissa

The mind boggles. When I first read the headline I thought it was a joke. Even now, I keep thinking, really? Surely not? Have you tried to verify this story? I keep thinking National enquirer and Star Magazine! I mean that's how out of this world and absurd this is.

Melissa

Yeah, I had the same reaction.

It is all horrifically spelled out in this Bioethics Forum article:

Preventing Homosexuality (and Uppity Women) in the Womb?

Alice Dreger, Ellen K. Feder, Anne Tamar-Mattis, 06/29/2010

[Toughy]

The real true problem with this is that it is being done outside of Institutional Review Board oversight. No one should ever ever be involved with experimental drug trials that are not under IRB review. Experimenting on a fetus without IRB approval should be criminal.

Dexamthasone is a powerful glucocorticosteroid. It has approved uses and works damn well as an anti-inflammatory and as an immuno-suppressive drug.

[suebee]

If we can glean one small positive thing out of this - my girl's first comment was: "Well at least they seem to be agreeing that orientation is biological in nature."

[Soon]

Originally Posted by cybersuebee

If we can glean one small positive thing out of this - my girl's first comment was: "Well at least they seem to be agreeing that orientation is biological in nature."

I don't know if that is automatically a good thing as was pointed out in a quote posted by Melissa from the Bioethics article:

..."suggests a reason why activists for gay and lesbian rights should be wary of believing that claims for the innateness of homosexuality will lead to liberation. Evidence that homosexual orientation is inborn could, instead, very well lead to new means of pathologization and prevention, as it seems to be in the case we’ve been tracking."




Anyway, I take issue with sexual orientation being ALWAYS deemed a biological fact for everyone in the LGBT community. Sexual fluidity (especially in women) has been been proven and, for me, I have made some pretty solid choices as opposed to being swept along by any
predetermined biological or innate orientation.

Also, to attain equality, one shouldn't have to prove the innateness of sexual orientation.

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

I don't know if that is automatically a good thing as was pointed out in a quote posted by Melissa from the Bioethics article:

..."suggests a reason why activists for gay and lesbian rights should be wary of believing that claims for the innateness of homosexuality will lead to liberation. Evidence that homosexual orientation is inborn could, instead, very well lead to new means of pathologization and prevention, as it seems to be in the case we’ve been tracking."




Anyway, I take issue with sexual orientation being ALWAYS deemed a biological fact for everyone in the LGBT community. Sexual fluidity (especially in women) has been been proven and, for me, I have made some pretty solid choices as opposed to being swept along by any
predetermined biological or innate orientation.

Also, to attain equality, one shouldn't have to prove the innateness of sexual orientation.

I do think we tend to see the "gay gene" as the answer to all our problems. There is a dark side to this as the quote above states. Finding a gay gene won't bring about an acceptance of homosexuality because many will argue this gene can be fixed or changed. The social norms will trump the biological facts in many cases.

Melissa

[Manul]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

I don't know if that is automatically a good thing as was pointed out in a quote posted by Melissa from the Bioethics article:

..."suggests a reason why activists for gay and lesbian rights should be wary of believing that claims for the innateness of homosexuality will lead to liberation. Evidence that homosexual orientation is inborn could, instead, very well lead to new means of pathologization and prevention, as it seems to be in the case we’ve been tracking."




Anyway, I take issue with sexual orientation being ALWAYS deemed a biological fact for everyone in the LGBT community. Sexual fluidity (especially in women) has been been proven and, for me, I have made some pretty solid choices as opposed to being swept along by any
predetermined biological or innate orientation.

Also, to attain equality, one shouldn't have to prove the innateness of sexual orientation.

Absolutely, one should claim human right to choose one's partner in life.

[Heart]

I have been saying for YEARS that hammering on the point that orientation is purely biological is only going to lead to a Nazi-like focus on purification. Terrifying.

[Gemme]

Sad and disgusting.

[waxnrope]

Originally Posted by Manul

Paging Dr. Mengele.

Mengele? How about Jack Kavorkian! Where is Octavia Butler when we need her? Well, she's dead, but she sure could do right by a bit of her dystopian fiction with this idea. Patooey! Just abort my arse! Wait, we can go to the religious right for support!!!

[EnderD_503]

I consider sexual orientation as a whole to be biological in origin. While the biological nature of sexuality may be a piece of the puzzle as far as what spawned this research to eliminate homosexual and bisexual tendencies, I can't see any scientific basis for such an elimination to occur.

Instead of saying that people shouldn't so insistantly claim homosexuality and bisexuality as biological, - which almost seems like a form of self-oppression for the sake of self-preservation - we should be questioning what scientific basis there is for such a "cleansing," if any? Personally I can't see one, and the desire of certain scientists to limit humanity to one sexuality solely for the purpose of procreation and "normality" seems like it is far more influenced by the remnants of monotheistic religious ideology than science itself.

Edit, speaking of dystopian fiction, has anyone else just got a Handmaid's Tale flashback?

[Medusa]

Im trying to find the research but this "Doctor" is apparently known for doing ridiculous experiments??

[chefhmboyrd]

wouldn't be more productive to find the gene that causes people to kill other people over stupid bullshit.
now that would improve our overall global community..
fuckwads......

[Heart]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I consider sexual orientation as a whole to be biological in origin. While the biological nature of sexuality may be a piece of the puzzle as far as what spawned this research to eliminate homosexual and bisexual tendencies, I can't see any scientific basis for such an elimination to occur.

Instead of saying that people shouldn't so insistantly claim homosexuality and bisexuality as biological, - which almost seems like a form of self-oppression for the sake of self-preservation - we should be questioning what scientific basis there is for such a "cleansing," if any? Personally I can't see one, and the desire of certain scientists to limit humanity to one sexuality solely for the purpose of procreation and "normality" seems like it is far more influenced by the remnants of monotheistic religious ideology than science itself.

Edit, speaking of dystopian fiction, has anyone else just got a Handmaid's Tale flashback?

Well, I'm in favor of self-preservation.

On another note -- what if there isn't a biological basis for same-sex orientation? What if it is a "choice?" What's evident is that neither option is going to "solve" homophobia or legitimize queer folks.

The liklihood is that orientation is some combination of biology and choice -- like most of human sexuality.

Heart