Two families, two approaches to gender preferences

This National Public Radio broadcast provides a look at the controversies surrounding how to treat gender identity concerns in childhood. Essentially dividing the field into two camps, the program follows the treatment choices of two families. One approach, represented by Kenneth Zucker, advocates making “the child comfortable with the sex he or she was born with.” The reporter elaborates further:

So, to treat Bradley, Zucker explained to Carol that she and her husband would have to radically change their parenting. Bradley would no longer be allowed to spend time with girls. He would no longer be allowed to play with girlish toys or pretend that he was a female character. Zucker said that all of these activities were dangerous to a kid with gender identity disorder. He explained that unless Carol and her husband helped the child to change his behavior, as Bradley grew older, he likely would be rejected by both peer groups. Boys would find his feminine interests unappealing. Girls would want more boyish boys. Bradley would be an outcast.

Zucker’s approach is contrasted with Oakland, CA therapist, Diane Ehrensaft’s approach. She advocates:

She describes children like Bradley and Jonah as transgender. And, unlike Zucker, she does not think parents should try to modify their child’s behavior. In fact, when Pam and Joel came to see her, she discouraged them from putting Jonah into any kind of therapy at all. Pam says because Ehrensaft does not see transgenderism itself as a dysfunction, the therapist didn’t think Pam and Joel should try to cure Jonah.
Ehrensaft did eventually encourage Joel and Pam to allow Jonah to live as a little girl. By the time he was 5, Jonah had made it very clear to his parents that he wanted to wear girl clothes full time — that he wanted to be known as a girl. He wanted them to call him their daughter. And though Ehrensaft does not always encourage children who express gender flexibility to “transition” to living as a member of the opposite sex, in the case of Jonah, she thought it was appropriate.

The whole program is intriguing, controversial and worth a review.
UPDATE – The second part of this story is out today here and a school district in Southeastern PA is confronting this issue.

Advocacy group set to sue Montgomery County, MD over transgender bill

With the passage of the transgendered recognition bill in Montgomery County, MD yesterday, a public interest law firm, Advocates for Faith and Freedom is prepared to sue the county on behalf of PFOX, a church and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union of MD. One specific concern is the lack of exemption for religious groups and organizations. Would religious groups be required to accommodate conduct or dress they ordinarily would prohibit?

The AFF legal analysis and letter to the Montgomery County, MD board is here.

No word when the suit might be filed.

Montgomery County passes transgendered bill

The Washington Post in reporting that the Montgomery County Council passed the transgendered bill 8-0 yesterday. 

According to the Post article, the locker room provision was removed prior to yesterday’s vote.

Late last week, in response to the outcry and concerns from some fellow council colleagues, Trachtenberg agreed to pull an amendment to the bill that would have specified restrooms and locker rooms as public accommodations in which an individual could choose a room based on the gender identity that the person “publicly and exclusively expressed.”

Taking out the proposed amendment, according to the county attorney’s office and council staff, would allow employers to maintain “current gender-based restrictions” on such public facilities.

I suspect a referendum might be in the offing. It would take 20,000 signatures to get a repeal on the ballot.

Montgomery County, MD votes tomorrow on gender identity ordinance

For sure, Montgomery County, MD is a hotspot for cultural change. My information is that tomorrow, the county officials there vote on whether to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity that a person expresses or asserts. Here is the paper trail on this issue with the current ordinance.

I cannot see any exemptions except perhaps for “distinctly private or personal” facilities (what are those like – is a church in that group?). Not sure what that means, but it appears children might exposed, literally, to adult nudity in public facilities.

Let’s have an open forum on this.