Doctor Treating Pregnant Women With Experimental Drug To Prevent Lesbianism

Comments

1
To me, this doesn't raise fears about 'stamping out teh gays,' but the old questions about 'designer babies.' If scientists came up with a way to ensure heterosexual babies, I'm sure they'd come up with a way to ensure homosexual ones as well. Are you just as stridently against that, Dan?
2
Reymont, are you part of a group that nearly half the country would love to see stamped out entirely?

If not, shut up.
3
It's quite a jump from gaining the ability to influence your unborn child's sexual orientation - and the idea that 'the man' will make one orientation mandatory for everyone, don't you think? Or would you rather just be ridiculously inflammatory, troll? Go fuck yourself.
4
So now that scientists have begun finding the actual scientific basis for homosexuality and how it's created in the womb, Dan Savage wants them to stop studying biology because it might be used against his political interests.

Dan Savage is a hypocritial hack-writer. The Mercury deserves better. Get someone who knows one fucking thing about science to comment on this topic; not this useless milksop.
5
Hey Graham, how about finding some mainstream scientists who think that "low maternal interest" is a medical condition? This article is describing a medical treatment for something that is not a medical condition, like a drug that makes people interested in baseball. It's totally inappropriate and unscientific to use experimental hormone treatments on babies without any knowledge of the long-term consequences.
6
Dan doesn't write for the Mercury, Graham. He's a nationally syndicated columnist. Does this ignorance make you a hack-poster? I think so.
7
Also, while you're at it, find me a single gay person who advocates making your children gay. Most of the gay people I know were pretty hurt by family members who forced them to deny who they were; I doubt a gay parent would want to do the same to a child.
8
@Leviethen: Dan Savage is a nationally-syndicated advice columnist. He is in no fucking way qualified to tackle anything based on science or reason. He's the Ann Coulter of blowjobs and santorum. He's a hack, regardless of how widely his column is distributed. And all that being said, this isn't even his column; this is a random fucking blogpost where Savage is just trolling for pageviews. So I guess he's succseful at that.
9
Is is telling that Graham responded to the comment in between my two comments, but didn't respond to either of mine? You be the judge.
10
@eldepeche: Is it telling that you're obsessed with getting me to comment on whatever it is you wrote? You seemed to be commenting on the content of the article. Even if you got the point of the science that the researchers were wrong; you were commenting on the article. My complaints have to do with Dan Savage being the Andy Rooney of Fag-dom.

But since you asked, the research being done has to do with in-utero hormone treatments in an attempt to cure congenital defects to female genitalia during fetal development. That is not a bad thing. Some researchers are using this hormonal treatments to test abhorrant things. It's my understanding that ethics boards and the FDA have stepped in to try and stymie this off-lable treatment.

Personally, I want researchers to find an exact medical cause for homosexuality. One that is neither preventable nor treatable. At that point, the vast weight of science, reason and law will hopefully finally create equal rights for all of God's human spawn.
11
The problem here is not with finding the cause. That would be awesome. You know, like most of us already believe, you are born with a sexual orientation. The problem is the moral issue of treating it in utero with a drug. That implies that gay people are somehow defective. You know, we use to try to cure left handedness. Should we identify a cause for that and treat it with a drug?
12
Dan is a sex and relationship columnist who is a frequent commentator on the intersection of sexuality and politics. He is here highlighting yet another instance of reactionary scumbags abusing science to forward their twisted political ends. And you criticize him, for... what exactly? Talking about a political issue that involves science?

The doctor in question admits that the variation in genital appearance has no effect on reproductive function, but rather interferes with parents' efforts to present their children as worthy of marriage.

I'm curious to know why you think that "homosexuality" would have an exact medical cause. The phrasing smacks of pathologization of difference, and seems to deny the possibility of environmental influences as well. When we find this cause, will we have a test to see exactly how gay a person is?

And what possible reason do you have to believe that when we understand the hypothetical cause of homosexuality once and for all, those who have been trying to deny rights to nonconforming individuals will stop and bow down before the weight of science? It seems like we've been throwing quite a bit of science at them for quite a while, and they show no sign of slowing down.
13
@eldepeche: Dan Savage is a dumbass. Regardless of what he normally comments on, he's a dumbass. For some reason, people listen to him. People also listen to other dumbasses like Ann Coulter and Glen Beck. He's a reactionary idiot that people of a leftist and queer ideology think they should agree with.

Savage dropped in 800 words of block quote and then offered absolutely no useful commentary on said blockquotes. Instead he generally veers off and makes claims that he admits he can't even back up ("but can't quickly find a link for").

There's some real bad and shitty science being done by Maria New. My complaints have nothing to do with eviscerating her or her research. They all have to do with Dan Savage and his trolling, awful writing.

As to your question about medical causes of homosexuality. I really don't know. I've always thought a hormonal cause in utuero would make the most sense, but I don't really have any peer-reviewed science to back up my opinion.

And your second question; there will always be bigots. We can't cause bigots to stop being bigots. I was refering to institutional and systemic homophobia and injustices. Between the ADA and 14th Amendment, homosexuals would be able to petition for and receive equal protections and rights. That's a signifigant goal. But it might not happen.

Also, Dan Savage sucks.
14
I'll make sure to tell all the bloggers not to link to or quote from any articles unless they're prepared to write as much original text as quoted text. I know I would be better off had I never read this article without a sufficient amount of accompanying commentary.
15
@eldepeche: Yes. That would be great. Thanks for agreeing with me.