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.

More in NEWS

Local (and not-so-local) news from your favorite writers.

Suite Deal

The longest hotel strike in Washington state history is over now that workers at the downtown Embassy Suites have a contract.

222 replies on “Doctor Treating Pregnant Women With Experimental Drug To Prevent Lesbianism”

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. @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.

  5. 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…

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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).

  10. “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.
    .

  11. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. Once science figures out how gay babies are made, bible-thumpers will declare abortion of same a sacred duty.

    Beyond pathetic, this is evil.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

Comments are closed.