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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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…

  5. 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!

  7. 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/…

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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/…

  12. 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’ ?

  13. 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.

  14. 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 .

  17. 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!

  18. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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

  26. 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.

  27. 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 !

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. @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.

  32. 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!

  33. 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*

  34. 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.

  35. 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!

  36. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. if lesbianism is a disease, hook me up to a million oxygen tanks and a couple hundred IV’s.

    this is ridiculous.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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….

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  50. 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.

Comments are closed.