Some studies indicate that the inclination to religious belief and practice is influenced more by genetics than parental influence and formation: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002666.html

It seems that the majority of people who attempt ex-gay “conversion” are motivated by a conflict between their religious beliefs and their sexual orientation. Perhaps these people are battling two biologically-determined drives that, due to the anti-homosexual position of most religions, cannot easily be reconciled.

Of course you hadn’t, nor had I or anyone suggested as much.

Nor do I know if her status as a lesbian or as one who received artificial insemination predisposed her to be more permissive in the gender arena…

Previously you referenced parents [who] fostered patterns in children that were more of the parent’s wishes than the childs… and I have seen it reversed, much to the relief and well being of the child.

So, the earlier reference was to parental manipulation at the child’s expense, and the second to permissiveness.

Isn’t there a significant difference between redirection and permissiveness? Is there evidence to suggest that parental permissiveness about gender expression is harmful to a child? Or the prevalence of permissiveness as a precursor to abusive redirection?

Like you, I would have liked to see more details reported by CBS, such as the nature of professional support and guidance Danielle has gotten for her family, and more about how she has responded to both sons.

But CBS has also documented a bit of how Dr. Bailey was vetted for inclusion on the segment. I would expect that they spent time gathering background and history on Danielle’s family, also, hopefully including a look at whether her parenting has been based on getting reasonable amounts of professional counsel and support.

Typically, Warren, I appreciate your precision. This time, I’m not seeing it.

Maybe orientation is relevant, you suggest. Maybe non-straight parents are more permissive. Maybe the line to abusive redirection is easily crossed. Maybe CBS doesn’t vet the folks it covers effectively. Maybe all of these factors were active in this case.

At some point perhaps you can develop the topic of parental redirection from standpoint of where the evidence and your experience lie. What guidelines, resources, support are available to parents to ensure they don’t get off track? In your work, what approaches have been most effective with kids who are still gender variant after ruling out parental redirection as a contributing factor?

I’d be genuinely interested in your answers to those sorts of questions.

Ivan.

The life of David Reimer also bears witness to the harm that comes from parents and/or purported experts setting arbitrary expectations of gender expression.

It sounds like you and I would agree that the situations you’ve experienced, and David Reimer’s, involved parental abuse.

But are you suggesting that being a lesbian was relevant to the 60 minutes piece because it predisposed Danielle to commit such abuse?

I think as soon as it was mentioned the mother was a lesbian a lot of biases would kick in and many people would just assume that explained everything. The point they were making was that one child was developing one way while the other developing a different way. So unless there is some evidence that lebian mothers tend to favor one child over another, I don’t really see how it would do anything but play to the viewer’s biases.

I don’t know the details so much other than that she wanted a gay son and decided that he was the one it was going to be. I don’t know the mother and haven’t grilled either of the brothers about it so I don’t know if it went beyond encouragement of artistic efforts or a more general wishfulness on her part.

Interestingly, the ‘gay’ one is married (to an amazingly beautiful woman) and the ‘straight’ one is still sowing his wild oats. Both are sure of their own sexuality, have many close gay friends as well as straight friends, and are very comfortable in gay settings.

This is only a sample of one and certainly not useful for drawing any sort of conclusion. But it is kinda amusing and somewhat relevant.

Ivan.

Ivan.