Medical treatment carries possible side effect of limiting homosexuality

[MarieDelta]

A prenatal pill for congenital adrenal hyperplasia to prevent ambiguous genitalia may reduce the chance that a female with the disorder will be gay. Critics call it engineering for sexual orientation.

Each year in the United States, perhaps a few dozen pregnant women learn they are carrying a fetus at risk for a rare disorder known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The condition causes an accumulation of male hormones and can, in females, lead to genitals so masculinized that it can be difficult at birth to determine the baby's gender.

A hormonal treatment to prevent ambiguous genitalia can now be offered to women who may be carrying such infants. It's not without health risks, but to its critics those are of small consequence compared with this notable side effect: The treatment might reduce the likelihood that a female with the condition will be homosexual. Further, it seems to increase the chances that she will have what are considered more feminine behavioral traits.

That such a treatment would ever be considered, even to prevent genital abnormalities, has outraged gay and lesbian groups, troubled some doctors and fueled bioethicists' debate about the nature of human sexuality.

The treatment is a step toward "engineering in the womb for sexual orientation," said Alice Dreger, a professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University and an outspoken opponent of the treatment.

The ability to chemically steer a child's sexual orientation has become increasingly possible in recent years, with evidence building that homosexuality has biological roots and with advances in the treatment of babies in utero. Prenatal treatment for congenital adrenal hyperplasia is the first to test — unintentionally or not — that potential.

The hormonal treatment "theoretically can influence postnatal behavior, not just genital differentiation," said Ken Zucker, psychologist in chief of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, who studies gender identity. "Some people refer to girls with CAH as experiments of nature because you've got this condition and you can take advantage of studying it."

Complicating the situation is the fact that the daily hormone pill does nothing to treat or cure the underlying condition, caused in this case by a defective enzyme in the adrenal gland.

Full article here : http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-adrenal-20100815,0,5576220.story

[DuckiesDarling]

In reading the full story this is the part that captured my attention:



"The majority, no matter how severe, are heterosexual," said Meyer-Bahlburg, who has collaborated with New on some of the studies. "But the rate of CAH women attracted to females increases with their degree of androgen exposure during prenatal life."

Studies have not yet been conducted to examine whether the hormone treatment would reduce the rate of lesbianism, Meyer-Bahlburg said.

"I would never recommend treatment in order to take lesbianism away if that is someone's predisposition," he said. "Any treatment can be misused. That could happen here. But this is not the focus of the treatment. The focus is to make surgery unnecessary."

I agree with the focus, but as was stated anything can be misused. I can bet that it will be try to be a focus of groups on both sides who literally have no medical background. Personally, I believe this to being a little too close to "playing God", but then years ago they never dreamed they could do in utero surgery on fetuses to correct congenital defects of the heart. Who knows?

[Bluebiyou]

I think every doctor and parent that prescribes this drug for the reason of sexual orientation should be forcibly sexually reassigned.
Those who live by the sword...
Karma...
If you do it to a child, it should be done to you...

[Robinium]

"Any treatment can be misused. That could happen here. But this is not the focus of the treatment. The focus is to make surgery unnecessary."

This is the sentence which alarmed me most. Surgery is necessary for babies with a hole in their heart, or with clump feet or fused fingers as it's life-threatening or a handicap. But ambiguous genitalia, as long as the atypical plumbing works fine (urinary tract etc.), is not like that. There is a lot of debate in the medical world about how to deal with ambiguous genitalia, it's not like they all agree that surgery of infants is necessary or even useful. Plus babies can also feel it when something hurts like hell, and being put away from their parents so early... oh my. So this argument for the treatment is... er... debatable.

Now if the "anti-gay" pill really works, I wonder what will happen in the next decades. (Parents might still try to get the anti-gay pills illegally from other countries if they cannot get it prescribed in their own country.)

[Realist]

This may be a little off-track, but what Rob said reminded me of this:

When I was a young man, I had a friend who's wife was a true hermaphrodite. Her family was extremely poor and she was born at home. Even though her parents were ignorant, share-crop farmers, they were good, decent, people and accepted that she was different. But, she was not treated any different than the rest of their children.

She had a vagina and a small penis; she also had both testicles, that remained inside her abdomen and ovaries, too. She seemed to be perfectly healthy and had no compunction about telling close friends that she was different. Actually, she thought it was cool. Theoretically, she could have impregnated herself. (MY conjecture!)

Other than that, she was all girl. She grew up smart, pretty, and well-adjusted, and was one of the sweetest persons I ever knew. To my knowledge, they never had children. I think they worried about genetics, but they were loving and happy.

I think that babies born that way should be left alone and, if they want a change, later, they could make their own decisions as to what to do.

[MarieDelta]

This is the important thing, IMO.


Congenital adrenal hyperplasia, caused by a defect in an enzyme called 21-hydroxylase, affects about 1 in 15,000 infants, and almost all newborns are screened for it. Undetected, the abnormality can make both male and female infants critically ill within a few weeks of birth because of an associated salt loss through the urine. The defective enzyme also causes a deficiency of the hormone cortisol, which can affect heart function, and an increase in androgens produced by the adrenal glands.


These are the red flags


In animal studies, the treatment appears to cause an increased risk of high blood pressure, plus changes in glucose metabolism, brain structure and brain function, leading to memory problems, for example. Long-term studies in humans are lacking.


Again just my opinion...

[darkeyes]

I think that babies born that way should be left alone and, if they want a change, later, they could make their own decisions as to what to do.

Yes.. unless it proves a danger to health she should make the decision when she is old enough and informed enough to do so...

[TaylorMade]

This may be a little off-track, but what Rob said reminded me of this:

When I was a young man, I had a friend who's wife was a true hermaphrodite. Her family was extremely poor and she was born at home. Even though her parents were ignorant, share-crop farmers, they were good, decent, people and accepted that she was different. But, she was not treated any different than the rest of their children.

She had a vagina and a small penis; she also had both testicles, that remained inside her abdomen and ovaries, too. She seemed to be perfectly healthy and had no compunction about telling close friends that she was different. Actually, she thought it was cool. Theoretically, she could have impregnated herself. (MY conjecture!)

Other than that, she was all girl. She grew up smart, pretty, and well-adjusted, and was one of the sweetest persons I ever knew. To my knowledge, they never had children. I think they worried about genetics, but they were loving and happy.

I think that babies born that way should be left alone and, if they want a change, later, they could make their own decisions as to what to do.

I am not one of the more sentimental types here, but your story made me smile, I think it's a great reminder that small town or country does not mean hateful, and that sometimes lack of education does not mean ignorance. That family of sharecroppers was smarter than a room full of doctors, and have a happy daughter to show for it.

And that's the important part. :)


*Taylor*

[Robinium]

This is the important thing, IMO.

Yes, the salt loss syndrome is awful, it can kill a baby in its first weeks if undiagnosed and untreated (if they survive these weeks, they will be fine afterwards though). So it is good to know it when CAH runs in your family and get your baby's metabolism checked regularly in the first couple of months. But again, this syndrome only happens with one certain subtype of CAH, not with all CAH people.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Bravo Real..peck to your handsome cheek. Now on a note I have Always been concerned about. Could a person have Had genitals removed at infantacy but still retain the urge to have sex with same sex partners? There has been a rumor in my family as far back as I can remember about a baby girl that had been born with both sets of organs. The male organs were removed, and the girl was raised female, but always had an abnormally high amount of male based hormones in her blood. She was also just as rough and tumble as her brothers, and was told she'd never be able to prodice children.... What if?
What if a woman Looked like a woman and thought like a man because she had Been born with both sets of sexual organs and still to this day never knew it, and was bi......?
Cat

[Long Duck Dong]

interesting.... they found a connection that may be related to the CAH disorder

and this is in the article

In a 2008 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, New and her colleagues administered a sexual behavior assessment questionnaire to 143 women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia who were not treated prenatally. They found that most were heterosexual, but the rates of homosexual and bisexual women were markedly higher in women with the condition — especially those with the most severe conditions — compared with a control group of 24 female relatives without congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

And, in a paper published earlier this year in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New and her colleagues reported on data from 685 pregnancies in which the condition was diagnosed prenatally, acknowledging the potential effects of the treatment for reducing traditionally masculine behavior in girls. Prenatally treated girls were more likely to be shy, they wrote, while untreated girls were "more aggressive."

it rises the question of if the bisexual and lesbian females are that way cos of the condition or a existing sexuality trait, enhanced by the condition and intersexual traits..... such as the ability to preform as both sexes in a sexual situation....

as a intersex, myself, I do endorse treatment in cases that will need surgery to avoid further medical issues... such as undescended testes that have the risk of turning cancerous..... and other issues that affect intersex people

while I accept and understand the standing of allow people to make a informed choice in regards to their own bodies...... and its a valid statement..... unfortunately I also need to suggest that people that feel that way, investigate malformed intersex people and the issues they have, until they are *rebuilt * surgically so they have some resemblance to normal genitalia development....
there are some things that are best treated for the sake of the person.... and there are others that are best untreated.... the hard part is deciding what ones are what.......

[Robinium]

Could a person have Had genitals removed at infantacy but still retain the urge to have sex with same sex partners? There has been a rumor in my family as far back as I can remember about a baby girl that had been born with both sets of organs. The male organs were removed, and the girl was raised female, but always had an abnormally high amount of male based hormones in her blood. She was also just as rough and tumble as her brothers, and was told she'd never be able to prodice children.... What if?
What if a woman Looked like a woman and thought like a man because she had Been born with both sets of sexual organs and still to this day never knew it, and was bi......?
Cat

That's different things you are talking about. There are statistic correlation but they are not necessarily linked to each other. Each of them are supposed (or known) to be influenced by sex hormone levels in the womb, but at different stages of pregnancy, that's why. (I made quite some research about that topic, I don't have CAH but my mom got treated with a then new and experimental sex hormone cocktail to be able to get pregnant as she had testosterone levels so high that it made pregnancy almost impossible. She stopped the cocktail once she got pregnant. The treatment was successful, I'm the result.)

The sexual orientation is one thing, cross-gender behavior is another, and ambiguous genitalia is a third thing. (Fourth thing would be feeling like you're male or female.)

Ambiguous genitalia alone don't necessarily cause the urge to swing both ways.


it rises the question of if the bisexual and lesbian females are that way cos of the condition or a existing sexuality trait, enhanced by the condition and intersexual traits..... such as the ability to preform as both sexes in a sexual situation....

as a intersex, myself, I do endorse treatment in cases that will need surgery to avoid further medical issues... such as undescended testes that have the risk of turning cancerous..... and other issues that affect intersex people

while I accept and understand the standing of allow people to make a informed choice in regards to their own bodies...... and its a valid statement..... unfortunately I also need to suggest that people that feel that way, investigate malformed intersex people and the issues they have, until they are *rebuilt * surgically so they have some resemblance to normal genitalia development....
there are some things that are best treated for the sake of the person.... and there are others that are best untreated.... the hard part is deciding what ones are what.......

Not quite sure if you can perform as both sexes if you have ambiguous genitalia, depends on the individual I think. Oh, here's a scale of what ambiguous genitalia can look like if it's a genetical female exposed to high male hormone levels in the womb (takes a time to load):
http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/howthebodyworks/The-Prader-Scale.aspx?articleID=7715&categoryID=XS-nh4-03 (http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/howthebodyworks/The-Prader-Scale.aspx?articleID=7715&categoryID=XS-nh4-03)

Undescended testicles may turn cancerous, but it only becomes risky from the onset of puberty so you can delay the testicle removal until then in case it turns out the kid's a boy in its mind.

Your point that kids may feel embarrassed with having atypical genitalia is very valid. Depending on the intersex condition, gender identity quotas may vary a lot, so I'd suggest to decide according to the probable gender identity outcomes and to the physical situation (if you need a dozen of operation to "fix" the child etc., I'd rather opt against surgery). Unfortunately, there have been almost no studies done on that, so there's not much information. As for CAH genetic females, I know that about 10% of the transmen are affected by CAH. (Plus 50% are affected by PCOS, which causes higher testosterone levels and in general female population affects only about 5-10% of the females). My ex who felt between male and female had a very mild version or hypospadias.

Now may I ask you what kind of intersex condition you have?

[Dorian Earnest]

I have read all the posts -- all thoughtful and good responses. KUDOS.

I just, for a moment, want to play Devil's advocate and please don't send me hate mails. I also did some research on this topic years ago. For years the typical medical practice was to surgically convert these children to females because it was "easier." The conventional (but VERY questionable) medical reasoning was if you surgically make them female and raise them as female, they will be female. However, this did not prove out (DUH) and many of those same "girls" later requested surgery to become male as they identified as male and went through painful (physically and mentally) years trying to find themselves and "convert". There are numerous cases of this on record and the ensuing pain and anguish caused to males who were converted to women in their infancy or early childhood. Parents were convinced by "well-meaning" doctors that this practice was the best thing for their babies.

So, I just, for the sake of argument want to ask this question. Could such therapy possibly be beneficial? Not because it would "decrease the queer population" or other such ignorant reasoning which should ABSOLUTELY be rejected outright. But because it just MIGHT save those girls anguish down the line in trying to come to terms with their own sexuality. As some of you know, I have been inviting dialogue with people here and almost without exception, everyone who has responded to me has described depression and even suicidal feelings at some point in coming to terms with their "alternate sexual orientation." I have wondered how many individuals did not ever emerge from this depression and took the suicidal option. It saddens me every time I think of it. So, for that reason, I just ask, is it possible that it might -- just might -- be an advantageous treatment. Not for anyone but the unborn baby who might be "saved" that agonizing time. I also acknowledge that it will be impossible to know what might have happened to them if nothing were done. Also that the argument of waiting until these children grow up and become adult and can make up their own minds about how they identify.

As I said, just asking the question. Please don't call me ignorant or stupid or insensitive or anything else. I am not saying I advocate the treatment at all, just wondering if rejecting it outright is possibly as bad as automatically choosing it based on anti-gay stereotypes. There just MIGHT be some advantages.

I also don't deny that it comes close to "playing God" and some of the other arguments brought forward. Just think there are always more than one way of looking at an issue.

Just a thought from the for what its worth column.

[MarieDelta]

So, I just, for the sake of argument want to ask this question. Could such therapy possibly be beneficial? Not because it would "decrease the queer population" or other such ignorant reasoning which should ABSOLUTELY be rejected outright. But because it just MIGHT save those girls anguish down the line in trying to come to terms with their own sexuality. As some of you know, I have been inviting dialogue with people here and almost without exception, everyone who has responded to me has described depression and even suicidal feelings at some point in coming to terms with their "alternate sexual orientation." I have wondered how many individuals did not ever emerge from this depression and took the suicidal option. It saddens me every time I think of it. So, for that reason, I just ask, is it possible that it might -- just might -- be an advantageous treatment. Not for anyone but the unborn baby who might be "saved" that agonizing time. I also acknowledge that it will be impossible to know what might have happened to them if nothing were done. Also that the argument of waiting until these children grow up and become adult and can make up their own minds about how they identify.



There are a couple of points here that I want to bring up:

First the reason most of us go through such trauma adjusting to our "alternate sexuality" isnt the fault of the sexuality itself, but rather the society we exist in. Our culture isnt as accepting as it might be, of people who are different, no matter what their age.

Secondly its hard to say, if we remove that particular struggle, that it wouldnt be replaced by something as bad or worse. As the article says - there are no long term studies on this particular drug.

[Dorian Earnest]

There are a couple of points here that I want to bring up:

First the reason most of us go through such trauma adjusting to our "alternate sexuality" isnt the fault of the sexuality itself, but rather the society we exist in. Our culture isnt as accepting as it might be, of people who are different, no matter what their age.

Secondly its hard to say, if we remove that particular struggle, that it wouldnt be replaced by something as bad or worse. As the article says - there are no long term studies on this particular drug.

Marie, you are absolutely right about the societal issue -- did not mean to imply otherwise. Sorry if I did. Second point also well-taken. That was the problem with the surgeries to which I referred -- no long-term studies. The patients became those studies AFTER they had already been done. HUGE mistake!

[MarieDelta]

Marie, you are absolutely right about the societal issue -- did not mean to imply otherwise. Sorry if I did. Second point also well-taken. That was the problem with the surgeries to which I referred -- no long-term studies. The patients became those studies AFTER they had already been done. HUGE mistake!

It's a bit like curing the symptom, but letting the disease run rampant, In my opinion.

[jimdawg]

I have read all the posts -- all thoughtful and good responses. KUDOS.

I just, for a moment, want to play Devil's advocate and please don't send me hate mails. I also did some research on this topic years ago. For years the typical medical practice was to surgically convert these children to females because it was "easier." The conventional (but VERY questionable) medical reasoning was if you surgically make them female and raise them as female, they will be female. However, this did not prove out (DUH) and many of those same "girls" later requested surgery to become male as they identified as male and went through painful (physically and mentally) years trying to find themselves and "convert". There are numerous cases of this on record and the ensuing pain and anguish caused to males who were converted to women in their infancy or early childhood. Parents were convinced by "well-meaning" doctors that this practice was the best thing for their babies.

So, I just, for the sake of argument want to ask this question. Could such therapy possibly be beneficial? Not because it would "decrease the queer population" or other such ignorant reasoning which should ABSOLUTELY be rejected outright. But because it just MIGHT save those girls anguish down the line in trying to come to terms with their own sexuality. As some of you know, I have been inviting dialogue with people here and almost without exception, everyone who has responded to me has described depression and even suicidal feelings at some point in coming to terms with their "alternate sexual orientation." I have wondered how many individuals did not ever emerge from this depression and took the suicidal option. It saddens me every time I think of it. So, for that reason, I just ask, is it possible that it might -- just might -- be an advantageous treatment. Not for anyone but the unborn baby who might be "saved" that agonizing time. I also acknowledge that it will be impossible to know what might have happened to them if nothing were done. Also that the argument of waiting until these children grow up and become adult and can make up their own minds about how they identify.

As I said, just asking the question. Please don't call me ignorant or stupid or insensitive or anything else. I am not saying I advocate the treatment at all, just wondering if rejecting it outright is possibly as bad as automatically choosing it based on anti-gay stereotypes. There just MIGHT be some advantages.

I also don't deny that it comes close to "playing God" and some of the other arguments brought forward. Just think there are always more than one way of looking at an issue.

Just a thought from the for what its worth column.

As insensitive as this might seem-I believe that some people reject their sexual or gender identity. For such people, I believe controlled drug treatments to let them be what they want to be as opposed to who they are may be beneficial in cases where the confusion causes suicidal tendencies and what not.

However, I'd caution against usage where you don't see much of a degradation of quality of life. But even then, it should be up to the will of the legal patient. As I don't think its legal for a 16 year old to get a sex change, nor should it be legal for a 16 year old to involuntarily have his homosexuality "cured"-again, I think treatments should be only used in extreme cases...subsequently I'm against this method of "cure".

[elian]

Well the whole point of this is the "optimistic hope" that they child will be able to avoid having the higher hormonal levels that would influence their development toward "male" characteristics, including male desire..right? This unfortunately brings up the same emotions in me as the debate over circumcision. "My child could be picked on because they look "different" - I don't want to tell a parent what to do, but unless there was a CLEAR and immediately demonstrable health risk founded on proper scientific evidence I would wait and let the child make the choice.

Androgynous child must present a problem to strict parents, I mean if the child has both physical sexes how can you know which stereotypical gender role to assign it and program it with? My idea would be to give the child access to a construction playset, a chemistry lab and a doll house - and see which one it prefers...hell maybe all three? Who am I to judge, if we could only all be so well adjusted (the child wouldn't have to suffer).

..and yeah, I know this is marketing, but it fits.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDh4LKTIxq8

I know I am ignoring the "practicalities" of life but not EVERYTHING is a problem to be solved.

[æonpax]

This topic is two years old and other than the original article, such a treatment seems to have faded into obscurity. I could not find any mentions of this since the article was printed.

Having said that, there is something here that everyone has overlooked. This so-called hormonal treatment claimed to be able to alter the physical chemistry of a female in such a way that it affected the orientation of their child. Now IF such a thing were in fact true, it would be proof that sexual orientation is NOT a choice, as many claim, but a inherent natural proclivity we are born with.

I looked for any further mentions of this "treatment" (which was never mentioned by name) but found none.

[bib4u]

What little is known: http://www.bing.com/search?q=Ambiguous+genitalia&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI

[void()]

This is the important thing, IMO.

These are the red flags

Again just my opinion...

Didn't get what you quoted, sorry. At any rate felt like replying due to having a congenital problem which has similar issues tossed in. The KAL1 gene was mutated for me at birth, or prior to birth. Got some little bit of webbing between my toes, not enough to be of help but noticeable if you really look. I also did not have any risk for heart disease, high blood pressure, memory loss, or lots of other ailments ... until ... treated with testosterone booster shots for two years. Had to quit taking that because of 1.cost 2. induced aggression. Now, I have high blood pressure, memory loss and even made up memories.

I took the treatments, claim responsibility for having that choice. It was mine to make. The doctor said I would have a better quality of life. In some respects he had valid points, in others, if I had known I would not have bothered. What I desire to say is this, medicine and technology are tools. Sometimes they might offer better, other times they don't help or exacerbate the problem/s. Not exactly angry at medicine or technology. Merely able to look at it in the light of thinking one should give a lot of consideration to them. You may or may not be told a full story. And it may or may not be unwittingly told.

[elian]

I took the treatments, claim responsibility for having that choice. It was mine to make. The doctor said I would have a better quality of life. In some respects he had valid points, in others, if I had known I would not have bothered. What I desire to say is this, medicine and technology are tools. Sometimes they might offer better, other times they don't help or exacerbate the problem/s. Not exactly angry at medicine or technology. Merely able to look at it in the light of thinking one should give a lot of consideration to them. You may or may not be told a full story. And it may or may not be unwittingly told.

Technology is a tool indeed. That is sort of the ultimate question isn't it, if there existed a "kill switch" that you could throw and see a whole segment of society disappear based on genetics, would you do it? ..sort of ties into your other post - "Would people even care?"

Separate question I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, If you could afford it, would you take the treatments again? That's the other problem with technology, sometimes what medical science thinks of as so "wonderful" is really a very blunt hammer.

Just remember, for all of the problems you have told us about over the last several days you were still able to treat me like I was one of the most special people in the world - I won't soon forget. Perhaps you possess more than you think you do. For all of the things that are "wrong" with you, you are still a beautiful person..I can't claim to understand what you are thinking all of the time so I won't say more than that.

[void()]

If you could afford it, would you take the treatments again?

On one hand I say no. On the other, I could enjoy becoming a hulking monster by continued use. At best describe me as wiry physically, yeah a bit of a gut. Start taking, more energy, muscle mass would build, I would actually get in shape, huge mo' fo would be me. Imagine a well toned Mike Ness and you'd see me back on 'roids. The trouble being I would be far worse in that state, anger would be a flash, I'd literally be a vicious attack dog that stayed continually blood hungry. As much as I may not like bits of me now, really didn't like the whole when on 'roids.

Scared me, scared C though she is too polite, loving, shit too great a person to admit it. Can still scare me, her and others sometimes. And I don't have to do anything, it's not a conscious effort, just there.

[elian]

Scared me, scared C though she is too polite, loving, shit too great a person to admit it. Can still scare me, her and others sometimes. And I don't have to do anything, it's not a conscious effort, just there.

Yeah, I remember - you pinned me to the bed more than one time in your sleep, restrained me pretty good actually - to the point of wondering just how I was going to move and a few other things as well but I know it wasn't because you were being intentionally malicious.

[void()]

Yeah, I remember - you pinned me to the bed more than one time in your sleep, restrained me pretty good actually - to the point of wondering just how I was going to move and a few other things as well but I know it wasn't because you were being intentionally malicious.

*blushing and chuckling* Sorry honey. Um, instinct I guess. If any constellation, I was the same with C until I grew accustomed to sharing a bed with her. She also faced me being rather 'jumpy' in sleep, would go to touch me above the waist and have to duck because I woke up like a rabid grizzly. I mellow out once used to a person being with me, takes a bit. And no, not malicious but self preserving instinct. Glad I'm off testosterone.

[Herculoid Poirot]

On the flip side, I'm on different meds for depression and during one very difficult time I ditched them all and my heterosexuality went right along with them. Two weeks on meds and my needle went right back to 50/50. It's not a trip I'd recommend taking, but it makes for a good story now.