General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCouple sues state over toddler's sexual-reassignment surgery
http://www.wistv.com/story/22246487/couple-sues-state-over-toddlers-sexual-reassignment-surgery?utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffer9cc35The Crawfords say the child was born with intersex condition, which means a person is not born with a sexual anatomy that doesn't fit the definition of a typical man or woman.
The suit alleges the South Carolina Department of Social Services decided to perform "dangerous and mutilating surgery" in April, 2006 on the 16-month old to make the child a girl.
The child is now 8 and self identifies as a boy.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)This is truly unconscionable.
Initech
(100,036 posts)I always thought that definition applied to 2 - 5 years old, not 8.
Response to Initech (Reply #2)
Chan790 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Child was surgically reassigned to female as a toddler and is now an 8 year old who identifies as male.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Social services decided the child was to be made into a girl at 18 months.
The child is now 8 and identifies as a boy.
politicat
(9,808 posts)Now, the child is old enough to articulate who he is.
bike man
(620 posts)"The suit alleges the South Carolina Department of Social Services decided to perform "dangerous and mutilating surgery" in April, 2006 on the 16-month old to make the child a girl."
mercuryblues
(14,522 posts)The surgery was done when he was 16 months old. The child is now eight. He was adopted a few months after the surgery, which leads me to believe he was in DCYS custody at the time of the surgery.
Initech
(100,036 posts)mercuryblues
(14,522 posts)could have been better.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)The teenage years would have been pretty bumpy but this poor kid is mutilated.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)The child was born with both male and female reproductive organs. The people in government just wanted to check this child off a list and be done with the situation. The obvious, common-sense solution was to wait to see which gender the child identified with and then do surgery.
LeftofObama
(4,243 posts)gvstn
(2,805 posts)But a family I know had the same situation and chose the surgery at a similar age. There were problems with urinating among others because neither set of reproductive organs were fully developed. They had to pick a gender to avoid further complications. Choosing female is easier.
I agree that waiting would be ideal but I'll wait to see why the doctors recommended doing it at the younger age. I know in hte case of the family I know this happened around 2007 so it may not be about attitudes to intersex children but genuine medical needs.
On Edit: I just read the article and apparently it wasn't medically necessary. My mistake. They should have waited since that is the new norm.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)it occurred to me that there might be practical medical reasons for at least some surgery (ie. the urinary tract) but I forgot to include it. I agree with your edit.
LuvNewcastle
(16,834 posts)If a baby is born and the sex is indeterminate, you should let the child decide who he or she is. Maybe the child identifies with both genders and doesn't want surgery at all, and that's just fine, too. I hope this case gets a lot of attention and this practice ends. It's a terrible tragedy when the wrong sex is chosen; I can't even imagine what this child is going through.