|
2003-09-27
Truly I cannot believe this. Apparently in the '50s and '60s girls whose growth was projected to be above 5'10" (as if something like that could be predicted reliably) were given estrogen to stunt their growth. Apparently it also stunted their fertility (surprise).
It also stunted their human rights. I'm completely speculating here, but if we went back in time and tried to dissuade these oh-so-well-meaning doctors away from prescribing this treatment, I bet that arguments about patient regret would not resonate nearly as much as arguments about losing fertility. Because what's the point of being attracted to men if you can't have children? Huh?
I could have sworn that once upon a time I read about a place called the Hermione Institute that claimed to provide the same service, only to adult women and by means of surgery. But I've never found another reference to it.
The fact that such treatment is even available is, I suppose, some kind of testament to the real suffering that some women experience. I myself am quite tall, but my anxiety is limited mainly to getting all eyes when I walk into the room (or step on the bus, or walk up to the counter). But my heterosexual friends who are also tall simply cannot date men who are shorter than them, and it's so limiting. Especially three or more inches shorter. (And my straight male friends who are short can't get dates to save their lives.) It really matters, even though it shouldn't.
Which is why it's very interesting that the women who participated in the study seem to concur that they'd rather not have had the treatment, even if it did manage to keep their height closer to so-called normal.
Now I'm just waiting for people to crawl out of the woodwork claiming this as evidence of a tall-person "identity" that is "genetically determined." Lordy lordy lordy.
--Melissa O, at 18:51
*
0 Comments:
|
