That’s not fair, as Hanna Rosin at Slate will shortly point out. Pediatric endocrinologist Maria New—of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Florida International University—isn’t just trying to prevent lesbianism by treating pregnant women with an experimental hormone. She’s also trying to prevent the births of girls who display an “abnormal” disinterest in babies, don’t want to play with girls’ toys or become mothers, and whose “career preferences” are deemed to “masculine.” Unbelievable:

The majority of researchers and clinicians interested in the use of prenatal “dex” focus on preventing development of ambiguous genitalia in girls with CAH. CAH results in an excess of androgens prenatally, and this can lead to a “masculinizing” of a female fetus’s genitals. One group of researchers, however, seems to be suggesting that prenatal dex also might prevent affected girls from turning out to be homosexual or bisexual.

Much more after the jump…

Pediatric endocrinologist Maria New, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Florida International University, and her long-time collaborator, psychologist Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg, of Columbia University, have been tracing evidence for the influence of prenatal androgens in sexual orientation…. They specifically point to reasons to believe that it is prenatal androgens that have an impact on the development of sexual orientation. The authors write, “Most women were heterosexual, but the rates of bisexual and homosexual orientation were increased above controls . . . and correlated with the degree of prenatal androgenization.” They go on to suggest that the work might offer some insight into the influence of prenatal hormones on the development of sexual orientation in general. “That this may apply also to sexual orientation in at least a subgroup of women is suggested by the fact that earlier research has repeatedly shown that about one-third of homosexual women have (modestly) increased levels of androgens.” They “conclude that the findings support a sexual-differentiation perspective involving prenatal androgens on the development of sexual orientation.”

And it isn’t just that many women with CAH have a lower interest, compared to other women, in having sex with men. In another paper entitled “What Causes Low Rates of Child-Bearing in Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia?” Meyer-Bahlburg writes that “CAH women as a group have a lower interest than controls in getting married and performing the traditional child-care/housewife role. As children, they show an unusually low interest in engaging in maternal play with baby dolls, and their interest in caring for infants, the frequency of daydreams or fantasies of pregnancy and motherhood, or the expressed wish of experiencing pregnancy and having children of their own appear to be relatively low in all age groups.”

In the same article, Meyer-Bahlburg suggests that treatments with prenatal dexamethasone might cause these girls’ behavior to be closer to the expectation of heterosexual norms: “Long term follow-up studies of the behavioral outcome will show whether dexamethasone treatment also prevents the effects of prenatal androgens on brain and behavior.”

In a paper published just this year in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New and her colleague, pediatric endocrinologist Saroj Nimkarn of Weill Cornell Medical College, go further, constructing low interest in babies and men—and even interest in what they consider to be men’s occupations and games—as “abnormal,” and potentially preventable with prenatal dex:

“Gender-related behaviors, namely childhood play, peer association, career and leisure time preferences in adolescence and adulthood, maternalism, aggression, and sexual orientation become masculinized in 46,XX girls and women with 21OHD deficiency [CAH]. These abnormalities have been attributed to the effects of excessive prenatal androgen levels on the sexual differentiation of the brain and later on behavior.” Nimkarn and New continue: “We anticipate that prenatal dexamethasone therapy will reduce the well-documented behavioral masculinization…”

It seems more than a little ironic to have New, one of the first women pediatric endocrinologists and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, constructing women who go into “men’s” fields as “abnormal.” And yet it appears that New is suggesting that the “prevention” of “behavioral masculinization” is a benefit of treatment to parents with whom she speaks about prenatal dex. In a 2001 presentation to the CARES Foundation (a videotape of which we have), New seemed to suggest to parents that one of the goals of treatment of girls with CAH is to turn them into wives and mothers. Showing a slide of the ambiguous genitals of a girl with CAH, New told the assembled parents:

“The challenge here is… to see what could be done to restore this baby to the normal female appearance which would be compatible with her parents presenting her as a girl, with her eventually becoming somebody’s wife, and having normal sexual development, and becoming a mother. And she has all the machinery for motherhood, and therefore nothing should stop that, if we can repair her surgically and help her psychologically to continue to grow and develop as a girl.”

In the Q&A period, during a discussion of prenatal dex treatments, an audience member asked New, “Isn’t there a benefit to the female babies in terms of reducing the androgen effects on the brain?” New answered, “You know, when the babies who have been treated with dex prenatally get to an age in which they are sexually active, I’ll be able to answer that question.” At that point, she’ll know if they are interested in taking men and making babies.

In a previous Bioethics Forum post, Alice Dreger noted an instance of a prospective father using knowledge of the fraternal birth order effect to try to avoid having a gay son by a surrogate pregnancy. There may be other individualized instances of parents trying to ensure heterosexual children before birth. But the use of prenatal dexamethasone treatments for CAH represents, to our knowledge, the first systematic medical effort attached to a “paradigm” of attempting in utero to reduce rates of homosexuality, bisexuality, and “low maternal interest.”

So no more Elena Kagans, no more Donna Shalalas, no more Martina Navratilovas, no more k.d. langs, no more Constance McMillens—because all women must grow up to suck dick, crank out babies, and do women’s work. And the existence of adult women who are not interested in “becoming someone’s wife” and “making babies” constitutes a medical emergency that requires women who are currently pregnant to be treated with an experimental hormone. Otherwise their daughters could grow up to, um, be nominated to sit on the Supreme Court, serve as cabinet secretaries, take 18 Grand Slam singles titles, win Grammies, or take their girlfriends to prom.

And we can’t have that.

Two things: Gay people have been stressing out about a day arriving when scientists developed treatments to prevent homosexuality. You can read about the preventing gay sheep freak out here, you can read about Twilight of the Golds here, and I recall—but can’t quickly find a link for—a “fellow” at the Family Research Council or the American Family Association who backed in-utero hormone treatments to prevent homosexuality. Well, here we are—the day appears to have arrived. Now what are we going to do about it?

And will the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee invite Maria New to testify at Elana Kagan’s confirmation hearings? New could argue that Kagan—childless, unmarried Kagan—is unfit to serve on our highest court because her “low maternal interest” pegs her as abnormal, well outside the “maternal mainstream.” Maybe GOP senators would be mollified if Kagan knocked back a few bottles of dex during her confirmation hearings?

Now a little more about dex from Alice Dreger:

The specific drug we’re talking about, dexamethasone, is not a benign drug for pregnant women, nor for the children exposed in utero. The studies we do have on the early prenatal use of “dex” are worrisome. The number of women and children missing from the follow-up studies of this drug use is more worrisome still.

This drug is unequivocally experimental and risky. That’s why, back in February, I organized interested members of the Bioethics community to fight to make sure every woman offered dex for CAH knows the truth about its experimental and risky nature. (You can read about our efforts in Time magazine. And you can about the medical establishment’s resultant mad scampering to make sure everyone knows this is experimental here.) Make no mistake: In spite of Dr. Maria New’s outrageous FDA-regulation-flaunting claims that this off-label drug use “has been found safe for mother and child,” it ain’t been. New is a rogue pediatrician whom medical societies have been nudging (and sometimes yelling at) for years. Because she apparently wouldn’t stop experimenting on these women and children without ethics oversight, in January I got called in to help by a few freaked-out clinicians. And I called in my colleagues to call out the feds. New just looks and sounds safe for mothers and children. Which is why she’s really dangerous.

In addition to being a nationally syndicated sex advice columnist, the author of several books, and the host of the Savage Lovecast, Savage is “a deviant of the highest order” (Daily Caller)....

15 replies on “Doctor Treating Pregnant Women With Experimental Drug To Prevent Lesbianism”

  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. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. @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.

  8. 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.

  9. @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.

  10. 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?

  11. 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.

  12. @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.

  13. 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.

Comments are closed.