Doctor Treating Pregnant Women With Experimental Drug To Prevent Lesbianism

Wow, this is fucked up beyond belief. A few things come to mind, though.

1) What the hell are they thinking, putting anyone on dex for a reason like this? Setting aside for a brief moment the "experiment" being conducted, dex is a steroid. It has the potential for some nasty side effects for the women receiving it; depending on the dosage and the length they're on it, they could end up with some destructive long-term effects. (Bone density issues come to mind--dex and prednisone can ravage bone, although there are so, so many more side effects possible.) And what is it going to do to the eventual children? Dex and other steroids can cause growth and other abnormalities when given to children in high or prolonged doses; what's it going to do to their development if they're exposed in utero?

2) Back to the "experiment": I take a fuckload of offense at the idea that seeking a "masculine" career path, not wanting babies, and having interest in "male" hobbies is abnormal. I was raised to do whatever hobby I felt like. I played with Barbies, but I also did karate for years. I liked--no, loved--fighting. My dad is teaching me woodturning, but I can crochet and sew as well. And my field, while steadily moving forward, has been male-dominated for centuries. I'm fine with getting married eventually, but I'm not out questing to find a man or die trying. Why are we considering any of this abnormal? Why are people still so damnably backwards, and, moreover, why do they persist in trying to drag others backwards with them? (I know. There's no good answer.)

3) Continuing in that vein, how is this doctor getting away with any of this? I'm not in the sciences, but I'm wondering what ethics boards would say about any of this? Is anyone overseeing the process, and if so, what would possess them to green-light it?

I'm sure there's something I'm missing here, but I have a splitting headache from today's round of dental work, and being frustrated by trying to make sense of bullshit is just adding to it.

Huh. Just noticed they're using CAH as a reason to do this. You may recall that this was also why Dr Dix went around cutting little girls' clits and then diddling them with dildos.

It's worrying, though, that the focus of this treatment seems not to be "hey, this condition can be pretty shitty" but "OMG, your daughter might be one of those LESBIANS! She might not want BABIES! She might even want to get a job rather than stay at home looking after her husband, and we can't have that." Vomit.

ZoZo wrote:

Huh. Just noticed they're using CAH as a reason to do this. You may recall that this was also why Dr Dix went around cutting little girls' clits and then diddling them with dildos.

It's worrying, though, that the focus of this treatment seems not to be "hey, this condition can be pretty shitty" but "OMG, your daughter might be one of those LESBIANS! She might not want BABIES! She might even want to get a job rather than stay at home looking after her husband, and we can't have that." Vomit.

Besides which, from what I've heard and seen, a fair of lesbian couples have kids. So obviously a reasonable number of lesbians WANT to have children, or they (or their partner) wouldn't be going to all the trouble of in-vitro or adoption to get them.

Besides, being Lesbian doesn't result in not wanting babies. Many adopt or have foetuses implanted - or they do when America lets Lesbians have children.

God, they're acting as if we don't have enough humans on the planet and can't AFFORD to have women who are not having children. Has anybody ever told them that if anything, the Earth has a problem with OVER-population?

Rabid Badger wrote:

Besides which, from what I've heard and seen, a fair of lesbian couples have kids. So obviously a reasonable number of lesbians WANT to have children, or they (or their partner) wouldn't be going to all the trouble of in-vitro or adoption to get them.

Odd, I wouldn't go to all the trouble of in-vitro when I still have the simpler option of lying back and thinking of England... then again, I'm not a lesbian, and I'm talking out of my ass.

Re the CAH, I happen to have had my ormone levels checked years ago because of awful menstrual cramps... perfectly normal. Which might have come as a surprise to Dr. New, since I spent my youth playing with boys' toys and still spend more money on power tools than on shoes (then again, I have to wear safety boots 40+ hours per week, so I don't have many chances to wear out my suede pumps).

I can understand, at best, wanting to prevent the birth of children with abnormal genitals - not as in 'ambiguous' or 'ugly', but as in 'uncomfortable to live with'. But trying to shape your baby's life before he or she is even born is beyond hideous.

[socialist rant]
It's twice as stupid since the fall in wages has pretty much dictated that both parents have to work if they want to provide their children with decent healthcare and education. You can be the perfect housewife and the most affectionate mum, but the pediatrician won't accept a meal in return for the yearly checkup.

You want to increase the number of stay-at-home moms and free position for the trouser-wearers?
Start paying everyone more.
[/socialist rant]

Lady Anne wrote:

Since this dexamethasone stuff is given before the sex of the fetus can be determined, it makes me wonder how many boys who are treated with it will wind up wanting husbands, babies, and lives spent working in "female" occupations.

Either that or they'll all -- girls and boys alike -- be mentally handicapped to varying degrees. Death of brain cells being what it is and all.

Quote :

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."

All of the above applies to me.

So....I'm basically a defective waste of space because I'm not baking cookies in a pink frou-frou dress and cooing over TEH BAYBEEZ, huh? Thanks for clearing that up.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Just before we go any further, I'm not saying I agree with all the tenets of radical feminism. A lot of it I'm on the fence about, and some of it makes sense to me but I wouldn't take it as far as the radfems propose. I'm just offering this for information.

Malganis wrote:

The problem I have with that definition is

Quote :

that are overwhelmingly represented by ‘girly’ feminists as a ‘choice’

seems to be asserting that no woman would naturally choose to have a boob job, be a nullo or have her genitals modified in a way that is deliberately painful or impairs sexual sensitivity, marry, be 'fashionable' or 'beautiful' (however you define that, by whatever standard), be porny or flirtatious, be a sub or dom, etc; that every single one of these choices are externally forced on women as a whole.

Twisty Faster can air-quote the words 'girly feminist choice' all she wants, but... um, all of those things are choices, and if they are made with the individual's full consent and understanding then they are valid ones.

Well, radical feminist philosophy has as its core belief that all of us dwell within a patriarchy - a society and culture that favours men over women - which actively oppresses women. (Pause while the usual suspects WHARRBGLE.) So broadly speaking, a woman's choices boil down to conforming to her prescribed gender role (for which she is rewarded) or not conforming (for which she may be punished).

Take boob jobs, since that's the first thing you mentioned. A cisgendered woman with healthy breasts chooses to have them surgically enlarged. And you ask her why and she says something like, "I did this to boost my confidence, I was unhappy with my body, I feel better about myself now, people pay more attention to me, people are nicer to me." At this point a radical feminist would say, "If our society, which is shaped by and focussed on the desires of (heterosexual, cisgendered) men, didn't treat women as sexual objects whose innate worth depends on how closely they conform to an arbitrary and narrow definition of beauty, a woman wouldn't feel like she needed big tits to feel confident and happy." Our hypothetical woman made a choice, sure, but a choice within the context of feeling bad because her boobs fall short of a particular standard of attractiveness imposed on women by a male-dominated society.

That doesn't mean that by the definitions of radical feminism, women who have boob jobs are traitors or weak or bad feminists. Women are an oppressed class (pause for more WHARRGBLE) and therefore do what they can to make their lives more bearable within the oppressive society in which they live. A boob job that makes a woman feel better about herself because now she's closer to what's considered not just beautiful, but acceptable, is considered an act of survival.

Like I said at the start, just throwing it out there. Doesn't mean I agree with it or that I would take it that far.

Quote :

More than a few prominent clinicians have serious reservations about prenatal dex, and have had them for years. There is evidence from animal studies
that prenatal dex treatment leads to neurotoxicity – brain cell death.

Silly Mal, women don't need brains.

When did eugenics become trendy again?

Blah blah blah, let's not go into patriarchy bullshit, which can be objectively proven wrong.

Are we discussing radical feminism and the patriarchy now? I hope so, because I find that topic a lot more palatable than the downright awful actual topic matter of this thread.

I've always felt slightly conflicted about some of the things I personally do. I'm a cisgendered woman with the kind of figure that is approaching what society deems acceptable: large breasts, a smaller waist, and large hips. Admittedly, my body fat percentage is considerably larger than those standards, but hey, I have it quite "good". I wear short skirts and low-cut tops. I consider them more comfortable than jeans (jeans are uncomfortable for me. Too stiff round the knee, and too rubby round the waist, and I have fucking short legs so it's a nightmare buying them). Then I refuse to wear make up, because I don't want to sit through painting my bloody face every day to "look right". I wear heels. But only those which are comfortable: honestly, I find those ballet pumps the most uncomfortable piece of footwear ever invented. I flirt and I fuck. Men and women. I change my approach to maximise my chances of success. I like getting laid. Some people call me a slut. The double standard pisses me the fuck off.

So it's interesting to me: I have conflicting sides. Some of me rejects the patriarchy. Some of me embraces it, because it gets me laid. I don't know if I fail feminism forever, or if I'm Doing It Right because I'm bloody happy with the way I am. I own my sexuality and my body, and surely that's what we're fighting for?

But then, have I just lapped up some patriarchy right there with my cleavage and shaved legs?

ZoZo wrote:

I don't know if I fail feminism forever, or if I'm Doing It Right because I'm bloody happy with the way I am.

I'm not the Empress of Feminism or anything but I don't think a woman can "fail" feminism unless she's a privileged Westerner coming out with hateful anti-woman bullshit. LIKE THE WOMAN WHO WANTS TO INJECT PREGNANT WOMEN WITH DANGEROUS HORMONES TO PRODUCE DUTIFUL WIVES FOR PATRIARCHS.

ps I wonder if Psy will ever actually objectively prove "patriarchy bullshit" wrong instead of just whargbling

Cyberwulf wrote:

ps I wonder if Psy will ever actually objectively prove "patriarchy bullshit" wrong instead of just whargbling

Inorite? I'm just fascinated to see what he pulls out.

P.S. Have I told you lately that I love you?

ZoZo wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

ps I wonder if Psy will ever actually objectively prove "patriarchy bullshit" wrong instead of just whargbling

Inorite? I'm just fascinated to see what he pulls out.

P.S. Have I told you lately that I love you?

Yes, babe, in the Love-Shy thread. I love you too.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Women are an oppressed class (pause for more WHARRGBLE) and therefore do what they can to make their lives more bearable within the oppressive society in which they live.

Theoretical question: do you attach any significance to the word 'class', or could it be substituted by 'sex' here? (Wondering if radical feminism ties back into marxism.)

Cyberwulf wrote:

LIKE THE WOMAN WHO WANTS TO INJECT PREGNANT WOMEN WITH DANGEROUS HORMONES TO PRODUCE DUTIFUL WIVES FOR PATRIARCHS.

Cy has a point there... holy fucking shit.

Link

Maria I. New wrote:

[Being a woman in medical school during the 1950s was...] OK. In the 1950s, in a class of one hundred at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, there were four women; I was one of the four. And it was very dramatic for me--as I went up the ladder academically and became the chairman of pediatrics at Cornell Medical School--that the class constituency changed radically. It became so that more than half the class were women, and they did very well. I never sensed at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School that there was any discrimination against the female members of the class.

So, she was one of the first female doctors, has written 500+ papers, and now she's trying to engineer female babies so they don't become, God forbid, like those women in the university she attended, who were doing very well!

Next time someone interviews her I propose the following questions:

1) If you could go back, would you still be a doctor or stay at home cooking meals and popping kids?
2) Would you like it if someone else made the above decision in your place?
3) Do you feel the hypocrisy burning?

ZoZo wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

ps I wonder if Psy will ever actually objectively prove "patriarchy bullshit" wrong instead of just whargbling

Inorite? I'm just fascinated to see what he pulls out.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You know what? No. I don't feel like wasting my time making carefully thought out posts and citing all my sources, only to deal with your shitty arbitrary amateur skepticism.

More women than men will enter and graduate from colleges and universities.

More men will commit suicides.

More women engage in non-reciprocal domestic violence (about equal on reciprocal). It's also hilarious according to society, just look at Tiger Woods SNL skit. (Making funny skits about female victims of domestic abuse is tastless, right?)

Parental equality is a myth. Women are the ones calling the shots and more likely to get custody in case of divorce.

The judicial system is so slanted towards women that men are now on marriage strike, and marriage rates have been declining for the last 20 years.

Just google it. Patriarchy is a system that favours men, right? I don't see it.

Uh, honey, most of what you just put there are:
A. Products of the patriarchy (women are weak! Women are caring!).
B. Re: universities. Find me something with a breakdown. Top page of google generally will give you very crude things.
C. Re: male suicides. Suicide attempts are distributed evenly. Men are just more successful at getting it to take.
D. POOR LITTLE MANS ON THEIR MARRIAGE STRIKE! I refer you to point A. Marriage is part of the bloody patriarchy.

Oh Psy I knew you were going to come out with this shit.

Did you look at what happens to women after they graduate? No.

Did you take into account the fact that 'blue-collar' industries are male-dominated? No.

Are you using a broad definition of violence and a study that puts a shove and being thrown down stairs on an equal footing? I bet you are.

Did you know that when men do contest custody decisions, seventy percent of the time the judge rules in their favour?
And if the judicial system is so skewed in favour of women, why are so few rapists brought to trial and convicted?

Jay - I'm not sure if radical feminism has ties to Marxism. I think class is used rather than gender to acknowledge that people are oppressed based on other criteria too.

^In addition to that, Marxist feminists identify as such. I think there's a distinction, but I always found it difficult to tease out.

Men! How many of these points can you relate to?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Jay - I'm not sure if radical feminism has ties to Marxism. I think class is used rather than gender to acknowledge that people are oppressed based on other criteria too.

Hmm. It's sort of bizarre, because class is usually used to refer to rather specific socio-economic circumstances, while gender is something that is definitely not restricted to a particular class. It seems almost like mixing metaphors to me, like calling all people with a Hispanic background 'the Hispanic class'.
Meh. Moot point. Carry on.

ZoZo wrote:

B. Re: universities. Find me something with a breakdown. Top page of google generally will give you very crude things.

He has a point with the universities. What Psy fails to take into account (because he's too busy bawwwing about perceived unfairness) is that

A) so-called blue collar trades (plumbing, electricity, auto-repair, construction) tend to be overwhelmingly populated by men, and a university or college education is not always necessary for those kinds of careers. I can't speak for the States, but here it's still very much the custom for the eldest (or favourite) son to inherit the family farm. So there's at least one extra career path for men that tends to be closed to women.

B) while more women attend and graduate from universities/colleges, their careers tend to stall, and five or ten years down the line they are typically earning less and have not advanced as far as their male classmates. FOR A GOLD STAR, CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHY

Ooh ooh ooh, is it because they're passed over in favour of the new boy who's showing promise and needs a leg up? Repeatedly? How about not getting the little favours and bits of wheel grease that their male colleagues do? The isolation that comes with not being one of the boys, and the smaller social / job-related network that results from that?

Sutremaine wrote:

Ooh ooh ooh, is it because they're passed over in favour of the new boy who's showing promise and needs a leg up? Repeatedly? How about not getting the little favours and bits of wheel grease that their male colleagues do? The isolation that comes with not being one of the boys, and the smaller social / job-related network that results from that?

Very good!

What also happens is that people start families. And because for generations men have been the breadwinners while women do the unpaid gruntwork of keeping house and rearing children, mothers inevitably wind up making all the career sacrifices while fathers' careers don't suffer. Men can "have it all" just by being men; women have to be Superwoman to "have it all". And don't forget all the wonderful guilt heaped upon working mothers.