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. @Pogo

    Yeah, Pogo! You’re sooo stupid that you probably think there is no difference between a schizophrenic who thinks the telephone poles are talking to him, and a schizophrenic who thinks the trees are talking to him!!!

    🙄

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  2. Joan, thank you for answering.

    “Anorexia nervosa is a lethal condition.
    More correctly, Anorexia nervosa *can be* a lethal condition.
    It isn’t always. Thus the problem.

    ” If an anorexic is given food they will be better physiologically but not emotionally.

    Exactly.
    But this is no different from transgender, in that you are presuming without evidence that if a gender dysphoric is given a sex change they will be better physiologically *and* emotionally.

    Where is your evidence?
    And how is amputation and plastic surgery “better” physiologically, given the need to use prescription hormones to effect most of the changes beyond surgery?

    And anorexics have a ‘body dysmorphic disorder.’
    I agree.
    So do transgenders.
    Transgenders have ‘picked’ a less lethal one, but it is the very same problem.
    Body dysmorphia is their shared delusion.
    “I am fat.”
    “I am a girl.”
    How are they different?
    The only difference, beyond the medical risks, is that one has social acceptance among MDs, the other does not.

    1. Wow Pogo, if you can’t tell the difference between the delusion “I am fat” and the feeling “I am a girl”, I don’t have much more to add. I am a law school dropout so not as good at convoluted arguments.

  3. @Joan

    McHugh is not just stating out of the clear blue sky that, “transgender surgery is nuts” or something. He usually provides studies which tend to back him up. In addition to the studies, you also have direct testimony from people who have done this that it was the wrong choice. And common sense. And, of course, you have the corpses of those who offed themselves afterwards. It looks to me like you are somebody who just has their mind made up, and does not want to consider anything which disagrees with your opinion.And I say this NOT just because I disagree with you, but because you seem so dismissive of any alternative point of view on this.

    And my goodness, the male priests molest little boys, and you try to avoid concluding they are gay??? If you don’t mind me saying so, you have some serious denial issues.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  4. David there may not be a gay gene but it is thought that the cause is “epigenetic” probably due to in utero hormonal conditions. No one’s fault but definitely present at birth…

    1. Joan wrote: “… there may not be a gay gene but it is thought that the cause is “epigenetic” probably due to in utero hormonal conditions.”

      You are expressing speculation that fits your favorite paradigm that people are born that way. You have no more empirical evidence for this explanation than a theologian does for explaining homosexuality as being caused by demons. While it is abundantly clear that in utero hormones affect sexual development, nobody has substantiated that this actually has caused homosexuality. Monozygotic twin studies have pretty much shown that even if epigenetics are involved, it is not a significant factor. Most of the rhetoric about epigenetics is nothing more than hand waving propaganda from the gay activists.

  5. ” My opinions are based on direct medical experience as well as reading the medical literature.

    And yet to fall to the repeated use of logical fallacies, hence my query.
    I find that tendency very curious for someone educated in the sciences.

    “I don’t think adherence to the whacky statements of one elderly shrink counts quite as much…
    Ageist. Interesting.
    Does Brigham and Women’s Harvard affiliation trump Johns Hopkins? I forget the hierarchy.
    “Whacky.” Is that in the DSM?
    “Shrink.” Ah, the use of diminutive slang to belittle someone.
    Again, interesting.

  6. “that there were many, many female children who were victimized as well…No need to define that…

    Yes, of course, we define them as ‘heterosexual pedophiles.’ Some are bisexual.
    References to priests are most often in regard to the homosexual behavior, however.

    And the anorexics, Joan, what is your answer?

  7. Joan
    Know that Squeeky has a history supporting the execution/elimination of LGBT peoples… Because poo poo.

  8. “anyone who feels that the child molestation problem in the Catholic church was not due to pedophiles in the priesthood but rather because of “homosexual predation on Catholics”

    Your definition of gay versus pedophilia depends entirely on ‘age of consent.’
    NAMBLA members self-identify as gay.
    Who are you to disagree?

    Again, who gets to define a word?

    1. You know, of course, that there were many, many female children who were victimized as well…No need to define that…

  9. @Joan,

    Once again, being out of the mainstream isn’t a crime. A few years ago, being for gay marriage was out of the mainstream. A few years before that, the mainstream thought was that gays were officially a screwed up bunch of degenerates. Now, they are no longer officially “screwed up” and we all pretend that we don’t see their “degeneracy.”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    PS: If you are morbidly curious, like me, and WANT to see their degeneracy, see here:

  10. “so far out of the mainstream
    Logical fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

    Did you really go to med school?

    In any event, what of anorexia and their so-called ‘body dysmorphia’?
    Why is that any different from transgender?
    What say you?

    1. Yes Pogo, I graduated from medical school, completed a four year residency and was employed at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Harvard affiliated hospital) for many years. I went to law school before medical school but I’m a law school dropout. My opinions are based on direct medical experience as well as reading the medical literature. I don’t think adherence to the whacky statements of one elderly shrink counts quite as much…

    2. Pogo, Anorexia nervosa is a lethal condition. People die from this disease. It is an example of body dysmorphic disorder. I have treated many people with this. It is very different from gender dysphoria. If an anorexic is given food they will be better physiologically but not emotionally. If they are given what they want (your example of liposuction), they will die albeit happily.

  11. @Max-1

    Heck, we don’t even know for sure that being a transgender isn’t just a weird mental disorder. Heck, when most kids grow out of it, and the minority who don’t turn out gay or lesbian, it is mostly politics which is informing this issue, not medicine.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  12. Pogo Hears a Who

    You do realize, don’t you, that your explanations and/or comparisons, with regard to other examples found in medicine, are lost on these critics? No matter how many medical sources that you quote, or, for that matter, how many examples that you provide, will ever convince them of another point of view contrary to their own misinformed thoughts. They are all, presumably, experts in the field, and any opinion, which differs from their ill-conceived notions, is countered with the use of insults. A lost cause.

  13. Nick

    WTF was that for? I agreed with your position and you bring Hockey into it. Alright then, you grow lousy tomatoes.

  14. “believe Squeeky actually cares about the welfare of transgender children

    Indeed; primum non nocere is the sine qua non of caring in regard to medical issues.
    Here, avoiding damage to people should be the default choice, as Squeeky’s posts evince.

  15. Annie
    Are we supposed to believe Squeeky actually cares about the welfare of transgender children when she displays a lack of both information and understanding of transgender people?

  16. “You can’t have it both ways.

    Well, to be fair, leftists usually solve their cognitive dissonance by ad homs, insults, and saying ‘hater hater hater’.
    Then they feel all better.

    So you can have it both ways, at least the irrational, delusional and psychotics can.

  17. “medically accomodating to a transgender child is “like performing liposuction on an anorexic child”

    Funny, I have raised the same issue.

    If a 17 year old girl is anorexic and her BMI is only 15 (normal 18.5 – 24.9), and she nevertheless thinks she is ‘too fat’, how is that any different from a 17 year old boy with a penis who thinks he is a girl?

    That is, who are *you* to tell the young girl she is not too fat but actually too thin?
    Why is *your* perception of her body’s morphology the correct one, when you maintain I am wrong about the boy’s perception of his sex?

    This is, at its core, a battle over who gets to define the words we use.

    What is a boy? You say it’s in the mind, not the genitals.
    Then what is ‘fat’? By measured weight/BMI? Who says so? Why is it not also in the mind of the patient?

    You can’t have it both ways.

Comments are closed.