Sex Change Operations Turn Little Girls into Boys: Indian Parents...

1. 61

   TMMasonposted 13 years ago

   Oh My God!.. is about all I can say.
   
   
   -- Sex Change Operations Turn Little Girls into Boys: Indian Parents Think They’re Cheaper to Keep--
   
   
   "In a stunning revelation reported in The Telegraph Monday, parents in India are allegedly paying £2,000 (around $3200) to have their young daughters undergo gender reassignment surgery in order to turn them into sons — all in the hopes of dodging the added expense of raising a girl. Indian culture favors males for their income earning potential and due to the fact that unlike females, they won’t cost their families unnecessary educational expenses and wedding dowries.
   
   Currently, there are 7 million more boys than girls under age six in India and there’s clearly a reason for that. In a country where female foeticide (gender-based abortions) are commonplace, this new twist has many fearing children aren’t safe even after they are born. Madhya Pradesh state government is already investigating 300 cases in which girls have reportedly undergone genitoplasty.  The Telegraph goes on to explain:
   
   The surgery, known as genitoplasty, fashions a penis from female organs, with the child being injected with male hormones to create a boy.
   
   Dr V P Goswami, the president of the Indian Academy of Paediatrics in Indore, described the disclosures as shocking and warned parents that the procedure would leave their child impotent and infertile in adulthood.
   
   “Genitoplasty is possible on a normal baby of both the sexes but later on these organs will not grow with the hormonal influence and this will lead to their infertility as well as their impotency. It is shocking news and we will be looking into it and taking corrective measures,” he said. “Parents have to consider the social as well as the psychological impact of such procedures on the child.
   
   Ranjana Kumari, a human rights advocate who has been leading the campaign against female feoticide told The Telegraph these gender reassignments performed at such a tender age and without consent shed light on India’s increasing “social madness:”
   
   She said she despaired that education had failed to stop the growing rejection of baby girls in India.
   
   “People don‘t want to share their property or invest in girls’ education or pay dowries. It’s the greedy middle classes running after money. It is just so shocking and an outright violation of children’s rights.”---
   
   
   http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sex-cha … r-to-keep/
   
   
   --Again... Oh My God!--
   
   And I wonder what the women who have to marry these ?men? will think of this? Where are all the Women's Rights activists and NOW to defend these lil girls' Rights to be who they are?

   replyreport
   1. 82

      kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      LOL, what on earth makes you think we aren't? There are dozens of organizations - both Indian and international - trying to fight female foeticide/infanticide, dowry murders/bride burning, eve teasing, and other women's rights problems in India.
      
      NOW, by the way, is called National Organization of Women for a reason. Its primary focus is on US women's rights issues. However, it is one of the organizations trying to get CEDAW ratified.
      
      http://www.now.org/issues/global/index.html

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I have seen NOW involved in other international issues, Kirsten... if not directly then at least screaming out about them. and I am taking the "we" to mean you are a member.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know whether NOW has spoken out against the practice yet or not (assuming the article is true in the first place, which as Jeff has pointed out, it may not be) - I'm not a member - but neither do you, I would warrant, unless you genuinely think the fact that a British newspaper didn't interview a US organization for an opinion is somehow proof that they haven't.
            
            Also, Kirsten?

            replyreport
         2. 78

            kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I think the post you were replying to and highlighting was originally from kerryg. Honest mistake to make here on this whirly bird of a forum.
            
            In regards to my post I simply was trying to highlight the fact that this sort of violation of human rights against women is not new. Efforts have been going on for some time to create fundamental change in social value system at a core level, not unlike the sentiment in the US that sexism and violence against women is both shameful and criminal, there can at times be a sense that a man who harms or mistreats a woman is not a REAL man. Not a bad sentiment really
            
            Its a long uphill battle, but there is flaw in this sort of sexism in the first place. When the vast majority of young men are completely unable to find a mate and reproduce, it will become a national crisis for that country which can prompt a very fast about face in values, or the group of people die out. I will admit that when I read that china was having a national crisis because of their gender bias creating a vastly out of balance population, I just about fell about laughing
            Serves 'em right! Us women are valuable! You men couldn't survive without us!

            replyreport
            1. 82

               kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I laughed my head off, too... until I discovered that some families are making up for the shortage with trafficked women and girls kidnapped or bought from rural regions of China, Vietnam, and other countries. ~facepalm~
               
               When a culture has so little respect for women that they're willing to kill us en masse in the womb or in infancy, kidnapping brides apparently is no big deal either.

               replyreport
2. 60

   Mark Ewbieposted 13 years ago

   We did this with our daughter.  I mean we already had a load of old boys clothes and stuff like a worm collection so we just got her fixed and saved into the bargain.
   
   Only trouble was he turned gay and developed some kind of mental problem that prevented him from studying.  Now aged 26 about the only he can do unaided is vote Republican.

   replyreport
3. 59

   John Holdenposted 13 years ago

   "allegedly" and "The Telegraph".
   
   Wow, it must be really true.

   replyreport
4. 78

   kirstenblogposted 13 years ago

   This has been going on for a long time now, as a kid some 25+ years ago we were told about this in school. In countries like China the problem has gotten so bad that they are running out of women for the grown men to marry, so no women to have as wives means a ton of very lonely men with NO prospect of EVER finding a mate. Now in those countries who had these barbaric practices they have to offer special dispensations to encourage people to have and keep girls. Like where couples are only allowed one child they are allowed 2 if the first is a girl, just to encourage the growth of a female population, lest they quite frankly kill off their cultural existence. No women means No Kids, Means No population in a few short generations. Give India another generation or two and they will find themselves facing a sort of extinction, all because they have no women to bear future generations of children. Stupid men being stupid, nothing new there. (no offence to you blokes here, many of you guys are a modern breath of fresh air, some to a greater extent then others but on a whole, you lot are acceptable LOL)

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I've heard reports of infantacide, and of selective abortions, but this is the first I've ever heard of parents paying surgeons to change the sex of their already-born children.
      
      This story sounds fishy to me on a few levels.
      1) What reputable surgeon would perform a sex-reassignment surgery on an infant?
      2) If a couple can afford (and would be willing to impose) sex-reassignment surgery, they can afford multiple ultrasounds (and would probably also be willing to abort a female fetus)
      3) Where do the donated (baby) testicles come from?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Jeff, the story starts off with "allegedly". It's no more than the Torygraphs usual scaremongering.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I wonder if the "source" was the same one that "revealed" that Obama's trip to India was costing more than the Iraq war?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               It could well be.
               Either incredibly reliable or a lot dodgy, depending on your view point.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Most stories in the news contain the word, "allegedly", so get over it. It is a story i found to be rather interesting and revolting, and figured I would post it for concversation... too bad.
                  
                  You all hate the topics I post, but you all spend a lot of time in them.
                  
                  Interesting.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Very few real news stories begin with allegedly, it's a term to cover the asses of those who make up the news rather than report it.
                     
                     We spend so much time on your topics because you've taken over the forums and have an opinion on anything and everything. I'm afraid the forums are not a personal soapbox for you or anybody else.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        huh! yeah right.
                        
                        And I will talk as much as I want. I have relatively few topics on here considering just how many topics there are posted in the entire site, John. So, whatever.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Exactly, whatever, so give up your whinging about being followed round and people daring to post on the same forums as you.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              You don't follow me around. 
                              
                              And I have never complained about anyone other than one stalker who thinks insults constitute an argument that supports him. If I posted half the insults he posted against me I would be banned for another four months or more. And thats a fact!
                              
                              So again, John. Your wrong

                              replyreport
                  2. 73

                     Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     "It is a story i found to be rather interesting and revolting,"
                     
                     Well, you got that right--the idea is very revolting! If it's actually happening, it's even more so.
                     
                     But really, I wonder if it is actually happening. To do a sex change operation (on an infant!) you'd need to
                     a) Find a doctor and surgical team who are all willing to do an unethical operation
                     b) Be able to pay for it (and if you can afford this, you can afford to put your semen in a centrifuge to pre-select your kid's sex, and if it goes 'wrong,' you can afford an abortion and start over)
                     and most importantly,
                     
                     c) Where are all the implanted baby testicles coming from?

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I wonder also, Jeff.
                        
                        But the Telegraph is not the only source..
                        
                        http://www.canada.com/news/Indians+surg … story.html
                        
                        "India's gender balance has already been tilted in favour of boys by female foeticide - sex selection abortions - by families who fear the high marriage costs and dowries they may have to pay. There are now seven million more boys than girls aged under six in the country."
                        
                        ____________________________________________________________
                        
                        
                        http://www.metro.co.uk/news/867665-baby … operations
                        
                        Hundreds of girls – some as young as one – are having the procedure every year, it was claimed on Monday.
                        
                        Wealthy parents in Delhi and Mumbai are flocking to the central city of Indore to pay £2,000 for children aged up to five to have surgery known as genitoplasty.
                        
                        Some were said to have pressed for the operation despite warnings that the ‘converted’ boy would be infertile.
                        
                        
                        ____________________________________________________________
                        
                        http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Det … 0628000657
                        
                        Indian parents’ preference for sons has led to inhumane sex change operations on young girls, the Telegraph reported.
                        
                        Doctors in Indore, Madhya Pradesh are accused of conducting sex change operations on 300 girls, receiving almost $3,200 for each operation.
                        
                        The doctors insist that only girls with genital abnormalities or children with both male and female sexual characteristics were subject to operations. However, parents and doctors have allegedly misidentified children’s conditions to turn girls into boys.
                        ____________________________________________________________
                        
                        So I don't know but it is repulsive if this is occurring.

                        replyreport
5. 60

   Stump Parrishposted 13 years ago

   lmao Mark, that was hilarious. I am beginning to think that TM is actually ladylove after one of these sex change thinga ma jiggies. Too bad all they had to make the penis out of was the tiny sliver of brains that remained after it was removed to make her a rightwing nut conservative.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Mark Ewbieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Lol.  Enjoyed it.  And yours.

      replyreport
6. 0

   Home Girlposted 13 years ago

   If I got the numbers right, I think they have in certain areas of India ratio of boys  vs girls - 1,000 to 14! Fourteen girls for thousand boys? Sounds incredible. But nothing regarding India surprises me. They have so much confusion in their heads with all that "casta" or "caste/chaste" not sure which is right thing to describe segregation. They still have untouchables. They still can kill or burn a "misbehaving" woman like a mad dog if they want to. I am not surprised at all, anything can happen there.

   replyreport
7. 76

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   As I read the article the children being reassigned to male must be to some degree intersex already, that is they need to have some or all internal organs as male or be genetically male.
   
   I have a feeling the report is pretty inaccurate and misleading.  It points to more children going male to female than female to male.  But failure to develop the genetically programmed genitalia actually occurs far more often for boys.
   
   Babies have a female-like default plan (as witness male nipples) and then boys develop secondary male characteristic (genitalia) relatively late in gestation.  If the hormone boost doesn't arrive on schedule, this development can be suppressed and they come out looking female.
   
   Thus it seems to me that this clinic may be doing what they should in developing genitalia for children who look like girls on the outside but have internal male organs and are likely to 'feel male' after puberty even though they don't look it?

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Genitalia are primary sex characteristics. You can't be male without male genitalia. Secondary sex characteristics would include a deeper voice and a beard (for men). You can have a high-pitched voice and not much facial hair, but still be a man.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I was talking about what happens first and second in utero in the literal sense.
         
         And actually, yes, you can absolutely be a male without penis and external hanging balls.  Or at the *very* least least, lacking penis and external hanging balls does not make you female, it may or may not make you intersex.  Being female is an active state, not just a lack of tackle.
         
         Making a genetically and internally male child into a girl is likely to cause you a lot more trouble than making them a penis and balls (now that we have that ability).
         
         In any case I feel that the implication being taken here that the children being made more fully male started out fully female is probably false. They seem to have started out in various intersex statuses.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "I was talking about what happens first and second in utero in the literal sense."
            Oh, I misunderstood. My bad.
            
            "And actually, yes, you can absolutely be a male without penis and external hanging balls."
            You're going to have to explain that to me, because everything I know about biology tells me you need male genitalia to be male. To be clear, I don't mean that a castrated male is no longer male; the genitalia were there and then removed. What I'm asserting is that a creature born without male genitalia cannot be said to be male, biologically.
            
            "Or at the *very* least least, lacking penis and external hanging balls does not make you female."
            Oh, absolutely! By the same token, lacking ovaries and a uterus isn't enough to make one male. Right?
            
            "Making a genetically and internally male child into a girl is likely to cause you a lot more trouble than making them a penis and balls (now that we have that ability)."
            Absolutely. Witness the case of David Reimer.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I suggest anyone delving into the complexities of gender Google 'intersex'. 
               
               And personally, if I had a friend who somehow lost his tackle I suspect I would still call him "he" and treat him fundamentally as a man.

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  " if I had a friend who somehow lost his tackle I suspect I would still call him "he" and treat him fundamentally as a man."
                  
                  I hope so would I. Loss of genitalia doesn't change one's biological sex. The lack of male (or female) genitalia at birth, however, is kind of indicative, isn't it?
                  
                  To be clear, I'm speaking purely biologically, and have no interest in making judgements of any kind about folks who choose sexual reassignment, or who are biologically female and identify as male, or vice versa, or any of the various other alternative gender identities.

                  replyreport
   2. 61

      Lisa HWposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So, assuming the story and what you've said is accurate, maybe it's really a case of pregnant Indian women not getting something (like the nutrition) they/their unborn babies need in order for for unborn babies to reach the development they should by birth - I wonder?  Or, even another possibility:  stress in an expectant mother can create problems/hormone imbalances that may affect the pregnancy itself (as with some premature deliveries, for example), or the fetus, itself.
      
      I'm not, shall we say, a big fan of the idea of this kind of surgery on children; but maybe they're doing the same kind of thing with babies as a lot of doctors/experts/parents in the US do with children (but in different ways):   Either society or parents create problems within children, and then, instead of addressing the causes of those problems, "everyone" focuses on "how to fix the child".

      replyreport
8. 76

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   My personal feeling is that children should be left physically intersex until they are old enough to contribute to decisions about their future physical form--but that is easy for me to say.  Especially when it comes to heavily gendered societies.
   
   I think that India has a large enough population that several hundred intersex children is not disproportionate, but I don't know.
   
   There was a case in the media a few years ago where a child of female appearance (genetically male) literally grew genitalia at puberty.  There may be more intersex kids out there than people know because it tends to be a private family issue.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "There was a case in the media a few years ago where a child of female appearance (genetically male) literally grew genitalia at puberty. "
      
      Wow, I bet that case study makes fascinating reading.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I have been trying to find it but can't bring up the case.  Essentially the child had been raised a girl but around puberty the genitalia apparently grew inside the body and ruptured and emerged when s/he was herding some animals, apparently wit everything in full working order.  I saw it on the BBC website and so assumed it wasn't some tabloid nonsense.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      HattieMattieMaeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      There is no ethics in this, and no morals. I don't know why anyone would do this to a child.

      replyreport