- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I understand that when someone like Ashley can't make the decision herself, her parents must act in her best interest, while hopefully not mindlessly subverting that best interest to their own conveniences/preferences.
However - if Ashely were a boy, I wonder if they'd remove his nipples, testicles and penis? Somehow I doubt it - I think Ashton would be permitted whatever autoeroticism he could accomplish, and I don't think anyone would favor castration as a solution to the possibility that a caregiver would sexualize him.
I tend to agree with the POV that the Ashley Treatment subjugated Ashley's person hood to the convenience of her parents. That this was done in the name of love doesn't make it ethical by definition.
It's a tragic situation, that the girl won't ever have more than a 3-month old's awareness of the world. It's the risk we take when we have children - that it won't turn out the way we hope and plan. As painful as the situation is, I simply can't understand enforced mutilation to make the consequences of the decision easier to bear.
