Full Version: The Boy who was Raised as a Girl
See some people on the gay marriage issue arguing there is no fundamental difference between males and females, besides the genitalia.
From www.hisside.com
Actually I had just finished reading the book documenting the tragic upbringing of Bruce/Brenda/David. After a circumcision gone wrong (the penis was basically burned to a crisp) it was decided that Bruce should be renamed Brenda and raised as a female. The parents were led to believe, by Dr. Money, a popular feminist theory, that it was nurture, not nature, that accounted for the behavioral differences between males and females. Bruce/Brenda/David was a guinea pig to test this assertion. Despite attempts to train "Brenda" to be a girl she resisted almost from the beginning of her "training" and became worse as she approached adolescence. Eventually Brenda was told of the facts of her case and chose to revert to living as a male and chose the name David.
The book was written about 5 years ago. I just discovered David had committed suicide when researching for this post. Clearly David never recovered from the damage inflicted on him by a medical theory.
The questions
How much of gender roles are based on nature vs. nurture?
Does the previous question matter in the struggle for gender equality?
From www.hisside.com
QUOTE
The little boy that Bruce Reimer was never had a chance. As an adult, he chose suicide on May 4 rather than live in unbearable torment. Underlying his death is a theory that still impacts children across North America: that sexual identity comes from nurture not nature and, so, can be entirely determined by proper social conditioning
Actually I had just finished reading the book documenting the tragic upbringing of Bruce/Brenda/David. After a circumcision gone wrong (the penis was basically burned to a crisp) it was decided that Bruce should be renamed Brenda and raised as a female. The parents were led to believe, by Dr. Money, a popular feminist theory, that it was nurture, not nature, that accounted for the behavioral differences between males and females. Bruce/Brenda/David was a guinea pig to test this assertion. Despite attempts to train "Brenda" to be a girl she resisted almost from the beginning of her "training" and became worse as she approached adolescence. Eventually Brenda was told of the facts of her case and chose to revert to living as a male and chose the name David.
The book was written about 5 years ago. I just discovered David had committed suicide when researching for this post. Clearly David never recovered from the damage inflicted on him by a medical theory.
The questions
How much of gender roles are based on nature vs. nurture?
Does the previous question matter in the struggle for gender equality?
How much of gender roles are based on nature vs. nurture?
There are unique and exceptional people who have been influenced to behave differently than their biological gender would dictate. That being said, IMHO, they are few and far between.
But from my own experience as a father and grandfather, boys and girls are almost always different from each other in a lot of ways, so nature is the major influence.
I think that it takes a lot of un-natural nurture to overcome nature.
(try saying that rapidly 3 times in a row)
There are unique and exceptional people who have been influenced to behave differently than their biological gender would dictate. That being said, IMHO, they are few and far between.
But from my own experience as a father and grandfather, boys and girls are almost always different from each other in a lot of ways, so nature is the major influence.
I think that it takes a lot of un-natural nurture to overcome nature.
(try saying that rapidly 3 times in a row)
QUOTE
But from my own experience as a father and grandfather, boys and girls are almost always different from each other in a lot of ways, so nature is the major influence.
I'm sorry, but what validity does this argument have? We are assuming that nurturing couldn't foster a non-traditional development; which is entirely possible. But where is the evidence that nurturing isn't an element of more traditional constructions? Would David have killed himself if gender roles aren't so heavily constructed in our society. There is a tremendous stigma attached to transgendered and transexual identities, and we have no way of knowing how this stigma effected the Bruce Reimer case after the truth came out, or before. Perhaps he didn't know that he was "living a lie" (to borrow a phrase), but for all we know he was aware of the fact that something was wrong.
More to the point, Bill55AZ is making a conclusion here without ANY way of measuring the value of the nature-nurture dynamic. The last time I checked, simply saying "well, they acted differently, so nature is obviously the primary influence" is hardly conclusive. In fact, it isn't even remotely logical. There is no deduction taking place. No rational development. You are saying that since boys and girls act different from each other, then they are by their nature different. This makes no sense unless you first remove "nurturing" from the equation. How do you know that the society in which they have been raised (which DOES reinforce distinctions immedialtely upon birth) hasn't been a factor?
From the BBC
I guess we could be wrong when we look at two year olds and conclude there is an innate biological difference between males and females. Do animals also have gender roles decided by nurture? I somehow doubt it. Dr. Diamond's tests seem to confirm a role for testosterone in animal behavior. Fortunately, ethics does not allow such scientific tests on humans. We are left with the unfortunate guinea pigs such as David. Studies on his case, and others like his, are starting to confirm that Diamond's studies on animals apply to humans.
QUOTE
MILTON DIAMOND: My immediate reaction to the thesis was it was simplistic. I thought humans were a lot more complicated than just being a product of their upbringing.
NARRATOR: Milton Diamond is a biologist. He believes that just as animals are born with an instinctive set of behaviours to act like males or females, so are humans.
MILTON DIAMOND: I saw no reason for humans to be that different. Certainly we're influenced by our society, certainly we're influenced by our leaning, but our basic inclinations, our basic framework or predispositions we have have to come from biology.
NARRATOR: Diamond had become obsessed with the idea that it was the hormone testosterone that held the key not only to our physical gender but also to our gender identity, to what makes us feel like men or women. As a student in the 50s, Diamond was involved in a series of ground-breaking experiments that began to uncover the secrets of testosterone's power. Pregnant laboratory animals were injected with testosterone. That testosterone in the mother made its way through the umbilical cord into the babies in her womb. When the litter was born the females' genitals looked almost male. The testosterone pumped into them before birth had transformed their bodies, but the big question was: would this same testosterone affect their minds, their instincts, make these females behave like males? The answer was yes. The females who had received testosterone in the womb even attempted to mate as if they were male. It seemed that testosterone had programmed these females' brains to give them the instincts and behaviour of males and it all happened before birth.
MILTON DIAMOND: So in other words here's an intervention during their embryonic life which affected their adult life, so those type of experiments showed, at least for animals, that this was possible.
NARRATOR: Milton Diamond is a biologist. He believes that just as animals are born with an instinctive set of behaviours to act like males or females, so are humans.
MILTON DIAMOND: I saw no reason for humans to be that different. Certainly we're influenced by our society, certainly we're influenced by our leaning, but our basic inclinations, our basic framework or predispositions we have have to come from biology.
NARRATOR: Diamond had become obsessed with the idea that it was the hormone testosterone that held the key not only to our physical gender but also to our gender identity, to what makes us feel like men or women. As a student in the 50s, Diamond was involved in a series of ground-breaking experiments that began to uncover the secrets of testosterone's power. Pregnant laboratory animals were injected with testosterone. That testosterone in the mother made its way through the umbilical cord into the babies in her womb. When the litter was born the females' genitals looked almost male. The testosterone pumped into them before birth had transformed their bodies, but the big question was: would this same testosterone affect their minds, their instincts, make these females behave like males? The answer was yes. The females who had received testosterone in the womb even attempted to mate as if they were male. It seemed that testosterone had programmed these females' brains to give them the instincts and behaviour of males and it all happened before birth.
MILTON DIAMOND: So in other words here's an intervention during their embryonic life which affected their adult life, so those type of experiments showed, at least for animals, that this was possible.
I guess we could be wrong when we look at two year olds and conclude there is an innate biological difference between males and females. Do animals also have gender roles decided by nurture? I somehow doubt it. Dr. Diamond's tests seem to confirm a role for testosterone in animal behavior. Fortunately, ethics does not allow such scientific tests on humans. We are left with the unfortunate guinea pigs such as David. Studies on his case, and others like his, are starting to confirm that Diamond's studies on animals apply to humans.
QUOTE(Hugo @ Jan 5 2005, 12:35 PM)
See some people on the gay marriage issue arguing there is no fundamental difference between males and females, besides the genitalia.
From www.hisside.com
Actually I had just finished reading the book documenting the tragic upbringing of Bruce/Brenda/David. After a circumcision gone wrong (the penis was basically burned to a crisp) it was decided that Bruce should be renamed Brenda and raised as a female. The parents were led to believe, by Dr. Money, a popular feminist theory, that it was nurture, not nature, that accounted for the behavioral differences between males and females. Bruce/Brenda/David was a guinea pig to test this assertion. Despite attempts to train "Brenda" to be a girl she resisted almost from the beginning of her "training" and became worse as she approached adolescence. Eventually Brenda was told of the facts of her case and chose to revert to living as a male and chose the name David.
The book was written about 5 years ago. I just discovered David had committed suicide when researching for this post. Clearly David never recovered from the damage inflicted on him by a medical theory.
The questions
How much of gender roles are based on nature vs. nurture?
Does the previous question matter in the struggle for gender equality?
From www.hisside.com
QUOTE
The little boy that Bruce Reimer was never had a chance. As an adult, he chose suicide on May 4 rather than live in unbearable torment. Underlying his death is a theory that still impacts children across North America: that sexual identity comes from nurture not nature and, so, can be entirely determined by proper social conditioning
Actually I had just finished reading the book documenting the tragic upbringing of Bruce/Brenda/David. After a circumcision gone wrong (the penis was basically burned to a crisp) it was decided that Bruce should be renamed Brenda and raised as a female. The parents were led to believe, by Dr. Money, a popular feminist theory, that it was nurture, not nature, that accounted for the behavioral differences between males and females. Bruce/Brenda/David was a guinea pig to test this assertion. Despite attempts to train "Brenda" to be a girl she resisted almost from the beginning of her "training" and became worse as she approached adolescence. Eventually Brenda was told of the facts of her case and chose to revert to living as a male and chose the name David.
The book was written about 5 years ago. I just discovered David had committed suicide when researching for this post. Clearly David never recovered from the damage inflicted on him by a medical theory.
The questions
How much of gender roles are based on nature vs. nurture?
Does the previous question matter in the struggle for gender equality?
Perhaps I should clarify my statements in said thread. There are no legal differences between men and women. In terms of fundamental differences between the sexes being pertinent to the institution of marriage - the differences that do exist are irrelevant to this legally defined institution. Whether men and women have differing behaviors and hormones, and whether those differences come about through nurture or nature, doesn't mean they have different sets of rights in the eyes of the law - at least not in any way that affects marriage.
How much of gender roles are based on nature vs. nurture?
I don't know, but some of both, I imagine. There are some "gender roles" which are easy to define as cultural - doing the laundry, cooking, cleaning, being meek or aggresive depending, raising children - and others where the origins are murkier.
I have not read much on this case, but raising a child it is hard to have a scientific control. What does being "raised as a girl" really mean? How was this child treated differently, other than being told she/he was female? We can't scientifically know how much of her depression was caused by simply being called female, by chemically-based depression, or by mishandling by her parents. How do we know what being raised like a girl (or like a boy, in the twin's case) means to these parents? How old was the child when she took her out in a dress that she was "trying to rip off?" She automatically concludes that this toddler is trying to take off her dress because of some ingrained "maleness?!?" How bizarre is that? I am a parent, and I can certainly say with confidence that no two year old I've ever dealt with would have been ripping off a dress because of innate male-ness! The idea is doubly ludicrous, since in history, and in various cultures, gender-defined clothing has varied immensely. Where would "nature" cause a person to reject a style of clothing??? This makes no sense! So it doesn't matter what age the child was, the very act of rejecting a dress has to be nurture. If there's a gene for men to not wear dresses, then Scottish males must be really messed up!
Since there are so many differing gender roles around the world and through history, I do feel safe in saying that almost all expressed behaviors regarding gender are cultural.
Does the previous question matter in the struggle for gender equality?
Not really. Why should it?
Obviously, the mother of the victim feels a lot of guilt over her decision. Maybe, her hindsight overemphasizes some of Brenda/David's reactions as being simply due to the fact he was born a male. What is not in question is the fact that this sex reassignment surgury failed miserably and that David is not alone.
From:
Boys Will Be Boys--even lf Raised As Girls
Amy Norton reprinted courtesy of transgendercare.com
Later in the same article
The neutrality theory is now being widely rejected as more medical evidence shows what most of us always knew. There are biologically based behavioral differences seperating the genders.
From:
Boys Will Be Boys--even lf Raised As Girls
Amy Norton reprinted courtesy of transgendercare.com
QUOTE
NEW YORK, May 16, 2000 (Reuters Health) - New research on boys who are born
without a penis suggests that the standard medical response-giving them estrogen
and raising them as girls-is unnecessary and in most cases harmful. Boys born with an extremely rare pelvic defect in which they have testicles but no penis are, in most cases, castrated and raised as girls. Doctors have used this tactic since the 1960s, under the assumption that it would allow the child to have a near-normal sexual life.
But Dr. William G. Reiner calls the procedure ''an experiment with no data.''
In a study of 25 boys who had been "re-assigned'' as girls, and 2 children with the
condition who were not, Reiner and colleagues at Johns Hopkins children's Center in Baltimore, Maryland, found that nature was more powerful than nurture. All of the children displayed "strong'' male characteristics, such as playing sports and being attracted to girls.Moreover, their feelings of maleness were so strong that two thirds of the children,who are now aged 5 to 16, had ''re-assigned'' themselves back to being boys. This sometimes occurred even before their parents had revealed the truth to them.
without a penis suggests that the standard medical response-giving them estrogen
and raising them as girls-is unnecessary and in most cases harmful. Boys born with an extremely rare pelvic defect in which they have testicles but no penis are, in most cases, castrated and raised as girls. Doctors have used this tactic since the 1960s, under the assumption that it would allow the child to have a near-normal sexual life.
But Dr. William G. Reiner calls the procedure ''an experiment with no data.''
In a study of 25 boys who had been "re-assigned'' as girls, and 2 children with the
condition who were not, Reiner and colleagues at Johns Hopkins children's Center in Baltimore, Maryland, found that nature was more powerful than nurture. All of the children displayed "strong'' male characteristics, such as playing sports and being attracted to girls.Moreover, their feelings of maleness were so strong that two thirds of the children,who are now aged 5 to 16, had ''re-assigned'' themselves back to being boys. This sometimes occurred even before their parents had revealed the truth to them.
Later in the same article
QUOTE
Two of his team's 27 study subjects were raised as boys. Both,
according to Reiner, are better adjusted psychologically than those initially raised as girls.
according to Reiner, are better adjusted psychologically than those initially raised as girls.
The neutrality theory is now being widely rejected as more medical evidence shows what most of us always knew. There are biologically based behavioral differences seperating the genders.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Jan 5 2005, 09:24 PM)
QUOTE
But from my own experience as a father and grandfather, boys and girls are almost always different from each other in a lot of ways, so nature is the major influence.
I'm sorry, but what validity does this argument have? We are assuming that nurturing couldn't foster a non-traditional development; which is entirely possible.
More to the point, Bill55AZ is making a conclusion here without ANY way of measuring the value of the nature-nurture dynamic. The last time I checked, simply saying "well, they acted differently, so nature is obviously the primary influence" is hardly conclusive. In fact, it isn't even remotely logical. There is no deduction taking place. No rational development. You are saying that since boys and girls act different from each other, then they are by their nature different. This makes no sense unless you first remove "nurturing" from the equation. How do you know that the society in which they have been raised (which DOES reinforce distinctions immedialtely upon birth) hasn't been a factor?
I doubt that you are sorry, you just want to put down my input without having any proof of your own. Try all you want, but you won't be able to overcomplicate what is intuitively obvious to the many millions of parents who have actually raised children. We don't need to use scientific methods or instruments to measure what is already known and/or has existed for thousands of years.
Nurturing does have an effect, I said that, but nature is the predominant factor.
Nearly all children will grow up in accordance with their biologically assigned gender, sometimes in spite of the efforts of those misguided persons who think they have superior knowledge. There are thousands of people out there who have had their gender decided by doctors who end up not happy with the assignment. That is why now many parents are now waiting until the child decides before opting for surgery that once was often done without the parents being properly informed of the potential consequences.
It also appears to me that some of us cannot accept ourselves as being different from the rest, just as those who are supposedly normal often cannot accept those who are not. Acceptance of self is more important to your personal emotional well being than craving the acceptance of others.
How much of gender roles are based on nature vs. nurture?
I think both play a role and the influences of “nurture” may be more subtle and perceptual than in the case involving David.
A common personality test, “The Minnosita Multphasic Personality Inventory,” containes a controversial Masculinity-Femininity scale. The m/f or scale 5 has been modified in the MMPI 2.
http://www.mmpi-info.com/
The above link is to clinical psychologist, Robert Gordon's, MMPI homepage. It has loads of information about interpretation of the MMPI. (Versions I and II)
In other words, highly educated males have more stereotypical female interests than less educated males. This is certainly more subtle than David's case, but indicates some element of "nurture" is present.
I think both play a role and the influences of “nurture” may be more subtle and perceptual than in the case involving David.
A common personality test, “The Minnosita Multphasic Personality Inventory,” containes a controversial Masculinity-Femininity scale. The m/f or scale 5 has been modified in the MMPI 2.
QUOTE
(For Females) Passive, submissive, constricted and sensitive. Not correlated to any scales of psychopathology. Masculinity-Femininity reliably comes up as an independent factor of MMPI items. Mf is only slightly correlated to the new Gender Role scales on the MMPI-2. This is the weakest basic MMPI/MMPI-2 scale. Highly educated sensitive males usually score high. The new MMPI-2 norms reflect the changes in traditional sex roles since 1940. The female norm did not change, but the male norm is a whole standard deviation higher in the MMPI-2 as compared to the MMPI mean. The MMPI-2 sample is also very highly educated. What ever the reason, on the MMPI-2, Ph.D. psychologists will look less like latent homosexuals.
http://www.mmpi-info.com/
The above link is to clinical psychologist, Robert Gordon's, MMPI homepage. It has loads of information about interpretation of the MMPI. (Versions I and II)
In other words, highly educated males have more stereotypical female interests than less educated males. This is certainly more subtle than David's case, but indicates some element of "nurture" is present.
The questions for debate:
How much of gender roles are based on nature vs. nurture?
Does the previous question matter in the struggle for gender equality?
What an interesting story Hugo-- I want to read more about David.
I think that gende roles are significantly based on nature. I have no scientific proof of this obviously. Personal observation raising my daughter I have to say it is nature. Not to say nurture doesn't play some role, but I think we all have a particular inclination to begin with.
How does this matter to the "struggle for gender equality"? I don't think it matters one bit. Men and women are different. Vive la difference!
to Bill-- I couldn't agree more!!
How much of gender roles are based on nature vs. nurture?
Does the previous question matter in the struggle for gender equality?
What an interesting story Hugo-- I want to read more about David.
I think that gende roles are significantly based on nature. I have no scientific proof of this obviously. Personal observation raising my daughter I have to say it is nature. Not to say nurture doesn't play some role, but I think we all have a particular inclination to begin with.
How does this matter to the "struggle for gender equality"? I don't think it matters one bit. Men and women are different. Vive la difference!
QUOTE
Bill wrote:
I doubt that you are sorry, you just want to put down my input without having any proof of your own. Try all you want, but you won't be able to overcomplicate what is intuitively obvious to the many millions of parents who have actually raised children. We don't need to use scientific methods or instruments to measure what is already known and/or has existed for thousands of years.
I doubt that you are sorry, you just want to put down my input without having any proof of your own. Try all you want, but you won't be able to overcomplicate what is intuitively obvious to the many millions of parents who have actually raised children. We don't need to use scientific methods or instruments to measure what is already known and/or has existed for thousands of years.
to Bill-- I couldn't agree more!!
QUOTE
How much of gender roles are based on nature vs. nurture?
I, and the psych community, do not know. The problem with this question is that no controlled experiment can be done to figure it out, other than messing with lab animals. Various cultures can be studied to determine what is and is not an inherent gender trait. We can also turn to biology and determine hormonal and other body differences.
QUOTE
Does the previous question matter in the struggle for gender equality?
No, because the struggle involves legal issues, not psychological or physiological. The struggle takes into account the prejudices of society when making law. For example, do women make as much money as men? If not, are women to be given different treatment under divorce laws? Or do we approach each case individually? Should women be given the right to vote? The right to choice in abortion issues? Should only men be put into combat zones? Do men have any rights to leadership in personal relationships?
Law, by necessity, has to generalize. In the not too distant past, the generalizations worked against women (right to vote, rights in marriage, rights in general). Today, the generalizations being proposed for various issues also involve the denial of rights based on gender, and what looks to me as a strongly related thing, sexual orientation.
I've studied enough psychology and biology to know that any generalization has exceptions, and often the exceptions involve significant populations. Sometimes the generalizations are just plain wrong, based on social prejudice.
That's the tricky part with gender equality -- what laws are based on social prejudice? What laws are based on true difference? That laws should not be based on social prejudice is another issue. Some folks seem to think this is an okay way to run a country, turning back the clock hundreds if not thousands of years.
You know, the case mentioned here involves a sanctioned genital mutilation gone wrong. Still, biologically speaking, the differentiation of gender during development in the womb is sometimes not clear at birth. You end up with both sexes in one body. Does this happen often? Good question. From the literature I've seen, not often. But then I think, how many times does a doctor make a command decision and not document it?
As for boy and girl treatment, sure, lots of differences there. Lots of cross-over too. Should adolescent girls play football? Should adolescent boys take home ec?
Some of this has legal implications, some does not. Some is based on hormonal differences and some simply on interest. For example, it was considered less than manly to take a couple years of typing when I was in high school in the 1960s. Only secretaries needed that, and only women became secretaries. As it turned out, this training came in very handy in the computer and writing businesses.
Psychic impression? Inherent interest? Eh, doesn't matter. But why was it not manly? Only from social prejudice, and that prejudice turned out to be very wrong.
Good thing I don't think very highly of social prejudices.
Does the previous question matter in the struggle for gender equality?
AuthorMusician-- I think you hit it on the head when you say that the law should look to each case individually. The law should never treat the sexes unfairly. But that doesn't mean men and women must be treated the same.
When the difference between the gender is relevant, the laws should refect that. Women should never be drafted or put in combat zones. In divorce, alimony, child custody laws, presumptions in the law should recognize that women bear the greatest burden. But there should be equal pay for equal work.
And some of those generalizations favored women-- in marriage laws for example, women routinely were awarded ALIMONY and full custody
I think that your distinction is correct. We need to ask whether laws are based on prejudice or true differences. Although I don't understand what you refer to when you say some people wish to take the country back hundreds if not thousands of years? Please clarify.
QUOTE
No, because the struggle involves legal issues, not psychological or physiological. The struggle takes into account the prejudices of society when making law. For example, do women make as much money as men? If not, are women to be given different treatment under divorce laws? Or do we approach each case individually? Should women be given the right to vote? The right to choice in abortion issues? Should only men be put into combat zones? Do men have any rights to leadership in personal relationships?
AuthorMusician-- I think you hit it on the head when you say that the law should look to each case individually. The law should never treat the sexes unfairly. But that doesn't mean men and women must be treated the same.
When the difference between the gender is relevant, the laws should refect that. Women should never be drafted or put in combat zones. In divorce, alimony, child custody laws, presumptions in the law should recognize that women bear the greatest burden. But there should be equal pay for equal work.
QUOTE
In the not too distant past, the generalizations worked against women (right to vote, rights in marriage, rights in general).
And some of those generalizations favored women-- in marriage laws for example, women routinely were awarded ALIMONY and full custody
QUOTE
That's the tricky part with gender equality -- what laws are based on social prejudice? What laws are based on true difference? That laws should not be based on social prejudice is another issue. Some folks seem to think this is an okay way to run a country, turning back the clock hundreds if not thousands of years.
I think that your distinction is correct. We need to ask whether laws are based on prejudice or true differences. Although I don't understand what you refer to when you say some people wish to take the country back hundreds if not thousands of years? Please clarify.
QUOTE
I think that your distinction is correct. We need to ask whether laws are based on prejudice or true differences. Although I don't understand what you refer to when you say some people wish to take the country back hundreds if not thousands of years? Please clarify.
haleyanne,
First off, I wrote "a country," not "the country."
With that, the clarification: The most glaring things are the theocracies in the ME, forcing women to wear certain clothing, act in certain ways, granting men life and death power over women.
In the US, I'm thinking of fundy Christians who want women to obey their husbands, as the men are supposed to be the family leaders, under dogma that's 3 or 4,000 years old. I'm also thinking of pro-life (anti women's right to choice) types who want to undo what the women's movements have pushed for since the 1800s -- that is, control of birth. These are the types who are against all forms of birth control other than abstinence. This is also coming from ancient dogma.
Hey, if I tried to pull any of this off with Lydia, my sorry tush would be out the door in a NY minute! Also hey, working together toward common goals is a better way to do things. That's a more modern approach to relationships, one that reflects the realities of life rather than trying to change life into something that fits dogmatic fantasies.
Anyway, I don't think folks in general want to go back to the 1800s or 1,000 BC. Still, the pushers of laws that will in effect do this have their ways. I'm against that method of making law, basing it on dogma -- that's a social prejudice -- and a very potent one.
This is ironic: Our granddaughter, 1/3 Native American, will soon meet her bio father due to the work that two grandmothers have done. The males involved here, step-daddy and bio daddy, have been ignoring this thing for years. I myself had no idea how to go about bringing families together. If laws were to be passed that brought back patriarchal social prejudice, I don't think this pretty cool peacemaking would have happened. Both grandmas are matriarchal types, free to be so because dogma has not driven our laws. One is full Native and the other is Irish-American. Left to men, the silent war would have continued to go on due to, fundamentally
, ignorance.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.