Please define what you mean by “issues”. What would be considered an issue and who would determine it? At what point would the issues become a concern and who would be concerned and how would it affect all involved?

Who would determine it, what it was? He himself of course. We’d give him guidance, advice, as best we could, but no-one knows but him.
If there were objective metrics, performance at school for example, then we have a responsibility as parents to point those out to him, and the consequences. But he’s nearly 10. Immature in many ways, but as rational as he’ll ever be in others. Inexperienced, mostly, and that we can remedy second-hand, but as for decision-making – up to him.
It’s complicated because he’s Intersex, there’s various medical issues that will arise shortly. But he’s fine with his slightly non-standard genitalia at the moment, and doesn’t want that altered. If he changes his mind, then we have the obligation to provide what financial aid and medical advice we can so he can have whatever further reconstruction he decides upon. But that’s his decision, not ours.
Similarly, if he gets distressed from his burgeoning sexuality, possibly triggered by hormones he may have to take soon, then it’s up to us to make resources available to him to deal with that. But again, his decision, not ours. We just provide what he feels he needs, and give advice about available options.
Children don’t come with manuals, alas. And they’re all different.

Zoe’s Comment:
… So I have to be open to the possibility that those with different world-views, different experiences, education in areas different from mine, and with a sexual orientation incompatible with that may try to reconcile the irreconcilable, and that sexual orientation is the one that has to give way as it is less strong. There may be no “good” solution when reality collides with the strongest of belief, but there may be a “least worst” one that is tolerable. Denial – acquisition of an encapsulated psychosis – may be a survival trait. I know all too well about that. It has a corrosive effect, at least in some (trust me on that), but if it staves off an immediate problem for 50 years before it all turns to custard, that might be the best we can achieve.
Sexual Identity vs Sexual Orientation? That might be just the degree of bisexuality one has, but even then, I’m not sure such labels describe reality accurately. The man who felt emotional attachment to women, but sexual attraction to men, for example, would seem to suggest that there are multiple mechanisms at work, we’re using one word to describe different things, related but distinct. …

Zoe, listening to the youtubes on your Blog Page of Dr. Veronica Drantz, Myth and Science of Sexuality has really been an eye-opener for me. More questions for you, of course:
1. Is it unfair to say that Dr. John Money did pretty much what Dr. George Rekers did; at least, in his misrepresentation of his own research results; and, his unwillingness to alter and rectify his propositions?
2. Of course, much, much work is left to be done and discovered regarding Sexuality within the sciences; that’s a given. But, is it irresonsible to dismiss what we have found to date? From your readings, your living in a research community and knowing intimately the good, the bad, and the ugly that exists personally and structurally within those communities … can I, as ignorant as can be about such matters, adhere with confidence to some of what Dr. Drantz presented?
I suspect my scientific bent may cloud my better judgment on this. My bias in that direction needs to be moderated by more educated minds than mine.

Richard:
Perhaps the greatest area where we do have some kind of genuine choice is with regard to whether or not we are prepared to ‘search’ and to ‘question’.

Thinking about your statement above, Richard, I’m not sure I can agree with this. The willingness to ‘search’ or ‘question’ is really out-of-bounds for a good many of us, on assorted topics, I think.
Case in point: in Dr. Drantz’s presentation on the Myth of Sexuality, she states that the ‘female’ is the default gender. We are all ‘female’ until about the 6th or 7th week of gestation. The reality she states is that men come from women, which plays into the whole Genesis story on Creation. With this in mind, Eve did not come from Adam; but, Adam came from Eve.
This idea is so revolutionary on some levels, that the first response from many of us is to declare Dr. Drantz a heretic, evil, someone with an agenda, The Powers That Be are out to get us, etc., etc. The whole framework for Genesis becomes a matter of concern, not the least of which is the dynamic of male/female relationship, and how that’s been used in all sorts of ways to the detriment of mankind.
An ‘inquiring’ mind is often the doorway to public ignominy; and, I suspect more than one reasonably unbiased scientist has left work unpublished believing the maxim: “Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread.”
Just some further thoughts, Richard. What do you think?

1. Is it unfair to say that Dr. John Money did pretty much what Dr. George Rekers did; at least, in his misrepresentation of his own research results; and, his unwillingness to alter and rectify his propositions?

Worse, I think. Money did some really fine work – but as the capstone of his career, he committed the one unpardonable scientific sin: he published fraudulent data. A flawed hero. The damage he caused, after doing so much good work… tragic.
Rekers is as mad as a meataxe IMHO. I feel the same way about flat-earthers, and dominionist cultists in general. He believes in demons and devils, but the only demons he has are within him, and of his own devising.

2. Of course, much, much work is left to be done and discovered regarding Sexuality within the sciences; that’s a given. But, is it irresonsible to dismiss what we have found to date?

I don’t think so. Much of what has been found to date without sound and objective metrics has proven to be chimeric,. It’s too easy to see what we want to see in psychological testing. It’s harder – though still possible – when it comes down to autopsy results. Interpreting what they mean still leaves us – including me – open to being misled by prejudice.
A good example is the work at CAMH with vaginal plethysmography. A very basic mistake was made, comparing 3 groups: men, women, and trans women who had had genital reconstruction. Non-transsexual women who had had genital reconstruction were not in the control group. so all the measurements regarding blood-flow and so on being closer to the male group during sexual arousal were misleading at best. When non-trans women who *had* had genital reconstruction were measured (not by CAMH), their readings were undistinguishable from the trans group.
Such a basic error is inexplicable, unless you accept that CAMH viewed trans women as “really” men in the first place. Their data about autogynephilia likewise – they didn’t include non-trans women in their control groups.

From your readings, your living in a research community and knowing intimately the good, the bad, and the ugly that exists personally and structurally within those communities … can I, as ignorant as can be about such matters, adhere with confidence to some of what Dr. Drantz presented?

I think so, yes, pretty much all of it in fact. Her views aren’t controversial amongst neuro-anatomists, though there’s much opposition from both psychologists and psychiatrists. Some is politicised a bit – the “default female” issue for example is a gross over-simplification, but I’d have to start talking about FOX2 and SOXL9 genes to say why.
For an even more politicised talk, see the one to the American Medical Association by Dr Kate O’Hanlan
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2011/02/ama-on-origins-of-sexual-orientation.html
What’s currently being taught to medical and psych students is summarised in this powerpoint presentation:
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Zoe.Brain/BGI%203.3.2.ppt

I suspect my scientific bent may cloud my better judgment on this. My bias in that direction needs to be moderated by more educated minds than mine.

Well, that leaves me out. I knew nothing about this area before 2005, all you see on my blog is from collation in my spare time since then.

What IS a “masculine identity” anyway?

Jayhuck,
I have NO idea.