>The most dangerous idea, and easiest to debunk with good science,
>is that sexusal identity itself is not genetic in large part. A
>good example is the number of baby boys who underwent "gender
>reassignment" when that practice was accepted. Some were boys
>who lost their penises or testes to botched circumcisions. The
>doctors surgically constructed vaginas for them and advised their
>parents to raise them as girls and give them hormone supplements
>to grow breasts and such, assuming that they would grow up as fairly
>normal (albeit infertile) women. They were wrong. Almost all of
>them had severe psychological problems with their gender identity.
>Many became transsexuals, most others just depressed, neurotic,
>badly adjusted women. Those who insist that gender is all about
>socialization would still be butchering those boys today.
I'm trying to get a picture here. These girls who use to be boys that became transsexuals. Were they dressed as girls or boys? If girls then that would be normal. If as boys, why, that would be normal too among girl in todays society. Also were these boys ever told they were realy boys and not girls and that's the reason for their psychological problems? I have an extremely hard time believing that these parents would just raise their children as nothing was wrong. As far as depressed, neurotic, badly adjusted woman are concerned-their parents didn't raise them normaly. How could they? The parents were already upset and confused. I'm sure there was intensive psychotherepy for them and the children. Well, they needed to be observed for study, right?
I'm screeming er.. here.