National Geographic Celebrates Transgender Children On The Cover

Ok as a kid I was a tom boy, I like playing so called boys game .. in other words I played in the mud, I built a tree fort and caught frogs and worms... etc. I was completely myself and had fun. I don't think I was even really aware of gender roles til I was 13.. if I grew up today they might just target me as transgender as a kid. I am not. Not sure why a child would be made aware of gender roles at a young age ...seems this kid has been labelled by his parent.

These treatments hormone blockers on children have irreversible effects on their fertility. I don't agree with it at all. Let the kid be who he is and embrace it all... accept it all and give him or her time to decide .. make a rational decision as to what he wants to keep and enhance as an adult. Have things gone too far?

 

Cant treat your childs seizures with cannabis, but can give them hormones to make them transgendered ..

 

"I think the respect women are supposed to honor their bodies with goes along the lines of the honor men are supposed to show towards women in not hitting them."

The respect women are supposed to honor their bodies with is indoctrinated in religious law and agendas.
If women honored their bodies this way throughout life, there'd probably be a lot less population. Because just like the animal kingdom and I know you believe in the evolutionary chain. So aren't we just animals without any honor whatsoever? Take it back to our most primal basic instincts, we have sex. Isn't that it?

Women honoring their bodies is totally a male thing, just like when I said promiscuity is only looked at bad when the female is the one being promiscuous. A women honors her own temple in whatever way she sees fit.

Or she should.

 

This goes back to the abstract quality of morality... If one is honorable, likely a key component implied is that they abide by morals. This could all very well be illusory to the extent that honor doesn't have any tangible existence "out there" beyond the cognitive sphere but nevertheless, even if it's just a construct, it's a social construct utilized by social animals, therefore qualities like morals, honor, bravery, etc. are generally deemed as beneficial to person/group/society/culture.

Perhaps the echoes of Caitlyn Jenner being portrayed as "brave" and what not is the construct that resonated with this kid for Nat Geo and family.


There very well may be less population with fewer promiscuous women and Maury Povich and Jerry Springer surely would not have television shows. I'm not sure there would be a significant decline in population, since Human Gestation and child rearing is such a long process relatively speaking, and Women usually only birth 1 or 2 children at a time. Due to this process, it may be further support why people ascribe to ideas like honor and morality.

 

If I was a parent and I wanted to make my boy a girl or a girl a boy. I could easily. Do I think Avery's parents are cuckoo? They are, not to bright either. Geez, I wonder what they would of done 100 years ago with Avery. Probably whooped his ass and told him to stop being so girly.

 

Let me be clear that I have no problems with transgender people and the way they chose to live their lives. NatGeo a well respected media company that shines light on world cultures, world geographies, and wildlife across the globe. I wouldn't have a problem with them making their cover story about transgender adults (young and old) and their mental struggles on being born with GID. However I have a problem with them saying that children who are too young to consent to sex, are old enough to change their sex. The fact that it's a cover story means they are shining light on the topic and promoting it to a certain degree.

 

I can say this much. I will not pick up another natgeo in the optometrist lounge again.

 

It's not like they are going to phone or email you asking what your opinion on the matter is before taking hormones

 

I suppose in the sense there is a dollar sign attached to the issue, it could be viewed as promoting but awareness doesn't inherently suggest celebration and it seems hasty to reach the conclusion that it's being celebrated without having read it. The first time I heard of this Avery child was in this thread and based on your opinions voiced, I'm guessing you would say you are not promoting or celebrating the issue, even by making a thread about it.

Yah, that's a good point and I likely will not read the actual issue but I read an article by NatGeo discussing it and they did seem to take a somewhat partial stance. IIRC they will expound on these particular transgender cases by appealing to science and gender roles internationally. The article also noted the divisiveness of the transgender subject and the upcoming issue in particular, which means alot of people probably feel the same way you do.

 

how is it "sickening" to state non-judgementally, that a thing that exists, exists?
it seems to me, the sick are those who would be offended by doing so.

 

Good points are being made. Is this cover and article even out already? So everything that is sickening about this is just assumed in advance. Has Nat Geo a reputation of bringing such topics (as) objective (as possible) or indeed in a bit of a celebrating way?

Very good. This will hit Natgeo in the purse.

 

I admire how you stand up for your convictions

 

I don't even buy NatGeo anyway I only read them in the doctor office. So I'm already hitting their purse. unk:

 

Gender studies at universities pushing the native English that gender is a social structure. I knew a woman growing up whose son always believed his mom wanted him to be a girl... she kind of pushed him to be girly and when I was over I treated him like a boy who had energy. He played with barbies, would soak his feet in rose water for 30 minutes at the age of 6, dress like a girl and practice his runway walk... today he is grown and all male. When I saw what the mom was doing it upset me.

There is a case in Canada where a kid got his penis cut off by mistake from a doctor.., the doc convinced the parents that if they raised him as a girl he would be a girl. He ended up killing himself in the end. He had a twin brother.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

Thst kid is a suicide waiting to happen.

Hormone blockers cause impotency and will make the boy sterile.

Perhaps universities should look at actual cases where by such experiements were done on children and the catastrophic results rather than trying to prove this to be true.

Read the history of the case and the theory dr. John money had ... and the experiments he did on children, people today are still trying to prove his theory correct when all he had was failure after failure with his theory. Sick

Here is an excerpt

took him to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore in early 1967 to see John Money, a psychologist who was developing a reputation as a pioneer in the field of sexual development and gender identity, based on his work with intersex patients. Money was a prominent proponent of the "theory of Gender Neutrality"—that gender identity developed primarily as a result of social learning from early childhood and that it could be changed with the appropriate behavioral interventions.

 

If gender is a social construct, them Barack Obama could simply declare himself the first woman president just because he can.

 

Ok most of you know I have a lesbian daughter, and I love her dearly.
She was born after two sons, so you can imagine the joy!
She played with dolls, etc, and her brothers cars etc..One day she was playing in sand with her brothers, so I took off her frilly Lacey dress, and popped on an old pair of trousers of her brothers..I to this day remember how over the moon she was, probably was about 3..The boys thought it funny, I took pictures of my 3 boys! She loved those trousers, and I got her more, that's it, she played with her brothers, was better than them at footy, rugby, and to this day, can think on her feet better than most men.
But she cannot be a man, she is a lesbian, and at age 7, you cannot let them, or you make decisions about blocking hormones! They don't understand at that age, that you are who you are, you cannot be totally who you want to be.
Does Avery know at 7, that playing with dolls, dressing nicely, is good, but you won't have babies?
That you will still go bald?
That your boobs will have to be replaced?
That so many things are changed surgically..But there are some things that if you mess about with too young, we won't be able to undo?
Take away hormones, you take away a person's right to choose! No adult has that right over a child, not a parent or doctor!
No one yet knows how blocking hormones in a child, can affect them in adult .Leave alone!
That woman is a lesbian bursting to come out! So come out! But don't use your child, don't no one use their child..
Growing is easier these days..You can be, or become anything you want, all takes time..Don't rush..
Time is precious, waste it wisely!

 

Well said morrow, I hope my post did not come across as against
Lesbians, gay, trans community. I was just making a point that your daughter, me who was a tom boy, my friends son who was a girly boy to please his mom are straight today because this is how we are, It could have gone either way.

the understanding of changing gender will have on a child is not something that can totally be understood. I am sure your daughter does not want a penis and appreciates the pleasure her parts give her. Not saying that transgender people should not get a sex change, but you really need to understand all the ramifications of what will happen, what you will be losing and what this can mean in the future. Children and teens do not think beyond the next hour, let alone the next year. Instant gratification is what is thought of. The brain does not fully develop til one is 25 years old, why mess with a body that has not fully developed?

I think most agree that hormone blockers on young people will have bad side effects. Their bones won't develop properly, they will be weaker and could very possibly stunt growth....this could also effect brain development, They are given puberty blockers first at 10 or 11 which are designed to stunt the body into developing properly. Then Hormone therapy depending on which gender the individual wants to be at 13 or 14 years of age. We know side effects of this but does a 14 year old think of that!? Or even care? They won't be able to have children. These hormones cause cancer, blood clots, diabetes, impotency, heart troubles.

This kid in natgeo has not had a wet dream yet and has never ejavulated, he might find he likes it and does not want to lose the ability to do so.

I can see in 10 years from now there being commercials by lawyers asking people to come forwards and join a class action law suit again the pharmaceutical companies, doctors, and the government with regards to the effects these drugs given to children have had on their lives which were promoted and permitted.

He is an experiment. I believe .. one which is encouraged by a mother. Children like to please their parents often at any cost.