Society

Massachusetts Couple Announces That It Will Raise 5-Year-Old Biological Girl As A Boy In Controversial Transgender Case

Gender_differences_male_femaleWe have previously discussed the issues surrounding decisions to raise children according to their non-biological sex at a young age. Now, a Massachusetts couple has decided that their five-year-old daughter must be a boy and has decided to raise the child a such. I will readily admit that I am not an expert in this field, but as a parent of four I find such a decision to be highly troubling and premature. A five-year-old child seems far far too early to make such an extreme change. Indeed, this determination was made a year earlier.

The child is now called Jack Lemay rather than Mia Lemay. The change occurred after, at age four, the parents took the child to a family therapy team which concluded that the four-year-old was transgender.

The mother, Mimi, insisted that what she saw as a “psychological burden that I don’t think anyone should have to deal with, especially not my child.” She said that the child began early on saying that she liked boy things and saying that she was a boy. The father, Joe, said that “he was showing real signs of a lot of shame and self-hatred.” Now, as Jacob, they say that the child is thriving.

They are indeed the parents and must act according to their best judgment for their child. However, as a friend, I would have strongly discouraged such a change at such an early age.

What do you think?

Source: CBS

373 thoughts on “Massachusetts Couple Announces That It Will Raise 5-Year-Old Biological Girl As A Boy In Controversial Transgender Case”

  1. Squeeky,

    I just think that an understanding of the lowest common denominator tactics of both sides might bring us back to the days when the halls of government weren’t filled with obstinate children refusing to listen to each other; back to the days when the adults ran things.

    I also think that such an understanding would clear the way for more meaningful political discussion.

    I’m really tired of people framing facts and opponents characters simply to fit their particular narrative.

    For example:

    http://flowersforsocrates.com/2015/04/24/scott-walker-the-wisconsin-club-for-growth-dark-money-and-an-orchestrated-supreme-court-coup/#comment-38459

  2. Squeeky, I’d say your last post nailed it but I would add that pandering to the voter is a bipartisan problem. And as long as the voters remain ignorant and/or apathetic to its practice then nothing will change. If there is NO bipartisan outrage among the electorate when the Secretary of State sell’s out our national interests for personal gain; or when the Senate Majority Leader admits to lying on the floor of the Senate and is completely unrepentant, then we as a nation are no longer on a slippery slope. We are in a free fall and we’ll long for the sudden stop at the bottom.

  3. If you want to change to a proven medical treatment for your child in MA. and CPS says no, well too bad, they will suspend your parental rights. If you want to raise your biological girl as a boy simply because the 4 year ‘thinks’ they are a boy then CPS says ‘go for it’.

    More “settled science”?

  4. @Bob Stone

    Well, the left does cry wolf a lot, and I don’t think it is all just to head the conservatives off at the pass. I think they mostly do it because it works with the voters. Theoretically, the left would have to do it because of the nature of things. The old and established ways, have an inertia all of their own, and the left has to sell people a new and exciting product. Because the tendency of most people of all stripes is to just keep doing what they have been doing.

    Which if you think about, the Left has been doing its own thing for a good 50ish years now, sooo they have their own inertia built up. That is one reason why it is so difficult to get one of them to change their minds about anything, My goodness, 20% of gay men are HIV positive, about a half a million (that number is low) have died from their peculiar tendencies, and still the left is going on about gay civil rights and hypothetical unbaked cakes.

    Fifty years after Selma, the left is still dressing up and playing Freedom Rider games. They ignore the massive black gang problems, and unwed mother problem, and blather on and on about White privilege. All the while in the face of Black conservatives who are trying to tell them that they are on the wrong track.

    Some of this is inertia, and some of this is because of a massive conflict of interest between the average Democrat, and the Democratic Party leadership. The average democrat is a good person, if deluded about some issues, and pretty much just want a fair shake for poor people and the middle class. But the leadership is only interested in staying in power and feathering their own nests, so the last thing the leadership wants is upward class mobility because they rely on poor, needy people to keep them in power. If you are the party of give-aways, you have to have somebody to give free stuff away to.

    Which, is why the Democratic Party leadership is all for bringing millions of unskilled illegal aliens into the country. There is absolutely no rational economic benefit when our country already suffers from massive unemployment across all skill levels. So it takes some pretty massive crying and whining to put that nonsense over on the public, and their own party members.

    The mechanics of fear, though, work for both parties. So both parties use the techniques of the other in order to convince the voters. As for me, I would classify the Prohibitionists as “liberal-ish”, because they were trying to overturn a long and established tradition of drinking and replace it with a new social construct. Hence, all the dance hall girl-white slavery stories, and melodramas about the families where daddy is a drunk. Which doesn’t get into whether Prohibition was a good idea or a bad idea. IMO.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  5. Squeeky,

    I’d put the teetotalers of the prohibition movement in the social conservative group of today.

    As far as being overly dismissive, I think a great deal of the dysfunction comes from the left providing too much reason for the right to be dismissive in a boy who cried wolf way.

    Here’s a paragraph that better describes the alarmist/lying theme I was getting at:

    “So the left specifically chooses to feature situations in which facts are under dispute. Then leftists claim that no one could reasonably dispute the facts; the only people who would dispute facts about the occurrence of an evil are those who sympathize with the evil. Leftists craft Americans who require evidence into victimizers, simply so they can portray themselves as heroes. If you wanted evidence of racism with regard to the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, you were a fan of Bull Connor-style police brutality. If you wanted evidence with regard to Lena Dunham’s rape accusations, you stood with rapists. Leftists don’t require any evidence; they will take any allegations that support the narratives they desire at face value because that’s how seriously they take rape, racism, etc.”

    Then again, does this circle begin with the right being so dismissive that the left feels like it has little other options than to lie?

  6. Well, speaking of imaginary friends, and kids, and mental illness. . .Whew! I am a nervous wreck. I just watched this movie I had DVR’d off of TCM, which had all of that in it, and it had me on the edge of my seat! It is an Otto Preminger film, with Laurence Olivier, Noel Coward and Carol Lyndley called “Bunny Lake Is Missing” If anybody else is interested, the whole film is on Youtube. It has like a 3-4 star rating. I am still shaking. I will never look at trampolines the same way again!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTNpPu5Zxyk

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  8. @Moderators

    Help! My answer to Bob Stone got chewed up. I tried two more time editing it for content, and it still won’t go through the filter. Any version of the three attempts is fine.

    Thank You!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  9. @Bob Stone

    I think you accurately described part of it, the being overly and automatically dismissive. For example, I am told that the more leftish folks once raised heck about children’s Saturday morning cartoons, and the sugary cereal commercials, and the more rightish people laughed at them. Now today, you have a bunch of Type2 Diabetics in the country, and a whole slew of little pudgy kids.

    But, there is a flip side even to that. Sometime in the 1950s (?) the “experts” came out with new dietary guidelines, the Food Pyramid, which heavily skewed toward carbohydrates, and away from fats. Which it turns out, was not scientific at all, and hence we have a bunch of Type2 Diabetics in the country, and a whole slew of little pudgy kids.

    Which leads to me to be cautious and deliberative about whatever I am told, and try to avoid the hoopla when I have major decisions to make and look at the issue itself, not the hype. Some of this conflict is just because of the nature of living things. IIRC, in any species, about 80% of the group is “conservative” and overly cautious and about 20% of the group is “liberal” and wants to try new things. This applies to bugs, fish, squirrels, and humans. Nature is heavily biased toward conservatism because the world is full of things that want to eat you for lunch.

    Whatever you (or any species) were doing which got you to the decision point on whether to stay with the old, or bravely go forth in a new direction, worked. If it hadn’t, you wouldn’t be at the decision point. But to confuse things even more, the other part of the right’s tendencies, other than the dismissive part, is to be just as alarmist and lying as the left, and vice versa for the left on being dismissive.

    Let’s look at the Left’s vice versa in action—How does the average Leftist, who dismisses the whole heteronormative world as an artificial construct, feel about GMOs??? Do they tend to like their food being Frankensteined by Wall Street??? Nope, There, the Left is pretty conservative, and the same folks who couldn’t get enough of some idiot from Harvard (aka an “expert”) telling them that various forms of weird sex are just the same and valuable as normal sex, curl up in a fetal ball if a scientist from Stanford (aka an “expert”) tells them that GMO food is just as good as regular old food.

    Sooo, here is a question. Were the Prohibitionists of a century ago, more accurately described as liberal, or more accurately described as conservative???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  10. bam, I’m sure Sawyer did fine. I just can’t stand her. All these TV reporters are phony, she is just @ the higher end of the scale, IMO.

  11. Nick

    Honestly, I think that Diane Sawyer handled last night’s interview in a highly professional and sympathetic manner. She conducted herself very well, given the subject manner and Jenner’s understandable uneasiness. She approached the subject matter with kindness and a sense of delicacy. I commend her.

  12. Max-1 said …

    I’m sure he’s glad to have you around.

    I am glad to have him around.

    Bruce Jenner is a media flack. Not my problem nor my concern.

    1. Aridog – when I would pick up the family show while channel surfing, I always felt sorry for Bruce. I was watching one time and one the the daughters ripped the mother because she was not treating Bruce correctly. Kardasian’s stuff was all over the place but none of Bruce’s medals, pictures, jerseys, etc. were on the family walls. I really was proud of the daughter.

  13. bam, It was never translated by my family, but “idiot” was the connotation I got when it was used.

    Thanks for the info on the always affected, and often drunk, Diane Sawyer’s reaction. She knew that was the big cross rip piece of info. Some liberals will think twice before mocking him for his politics. The angry, lonely, Scavuzza’s will have no trepidations mocking him.

  14. Nick

    BTW, does the word scavuzza mean idiot or moron in Italian? I thought that there were different words for those names. I’ve heard this expression but never knew the exact meaning. Please enlighten me. For some reason, I can’t find a translation.

  15. Nick

    Diane Sawyer’s reaction, last night, when Jenner revealed his political affiliation, was priceless. For two hours, nothing he said had anywhere near the impact on her as that revelation.

    What’s the big deal? Liberal Democrats don’t have a monopoly on mental illness. I wasn’t shocked. He’s a troubled individual. That’s all I saw.

  17. I absolutely LOVE that Jenner is a conservative Republican, that made my evening, LOL! Thanks Spinelli!

  18. He had more balls, as it were, coming out as a Republican in Hollywood.

  19. I have been LMAO the past 20 minutes reading Twitter. It seems Bruce Jenner not only came out as transgender, but also as A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. Many liberals don’t know whether to sh!t or go blind.

Comments are closed.