ray245 wrote:
I will refer you as a female of course, nor am I against who you are. And Duchess, cool down, it is much easier to think when you are calm. I am just questioning why they use this sort of reasoning instead of looking at things in a simpler manner.
Good sir, my apologies for the quickness, but you must understand that I have undertaken to explain this (each time successfully) on many occasions before, and besides, I was mostly trying to be conciliatory. I believe my reputation in occasions where I am not is, for better or worse, quite well established.
Why can't you another definition altogether then? Sometime, I find society as a whole is so caught up in the issue of definition, that it hinders our ability to reason in a calm and cool manner. If people want to call me who they want, let them be. Scientific defintion is one thing, social defintion is another thing altogether. Definition only highlight and reinforce our social insecurity why is the mental makeup, or the Sex-Inversed XY Female, or Sex-inversed XX Male more important than the physical aspect?
To wit, it is because of the legal consequences of the definition that it must be harshly policed. More to the point, you seem to still misunderstand slightly. "Sex-Inversed XY Female" does in fact precisely describe the physical aspect, because it describes physical differences in the brain of the individual in question. Physical differences in the brain are, I would submit, still physical differences.
I mean, I know scientist use this terminology to define a person, but why do scientist or biologist say that the brain is more important than the physical body? I mean using the brain as part of the definition makes sense, but I don't know why should the brain supersede the body? That is something that people did not explain to me.
It does not. The brain is a
component of the body which is a determinator of personality.
Feel free to tell me wrong, however, I hope people can really cool down before this thread was taken down and put up in the HoS section.
An analogy:
It is possible, if one really wanted to, though hardly ideal, to take a laptop hard-drive, place it inside the casing of a desktop, and make the whole contraption work. Laptop hard-drives have certain physical characteristics which place limitations on them different from those on desktop hard-drives. But the computer will nonetheless still operate. However, the laptop hard-drive would be more valuable, and useful in society, if it was placed inside of a laptop, where its virtues (compactness, etc), would be utilized, unlike in a desktop where they are not virtues at all, but instead simply add to the number of potential problems in the system.
If we were to extract this laptop hard drive from the desk top and place it in a laptop, it would therefore not merely function better, but function in its intended role. Furthermore, it would be in a role whereby its advantages could actually be utilized, instead of actually ending up as hindrances.
In the same way, a female brain in a male body means that there were numerous disadvantages, whereas most female advantages are useless. Correcting the body to match the brain rectifies this, while at the same time not violating a person's fundamental right to exist by altering them. Though in a general sense the biological differences in the brain are not strictly necessary--as long as it does not harm their social utility (and on a highly, highly overpopulated planet like Earth, transsexualism has no harm to a transexual's social utility, because we better serve our societies by NOT breeding), there should really be no restriction on physical modifications to the body if the personal satisfaction they bring improves someone's ability to function and contribute to the society in which they live.
But that is merely to answer a hypothetical question which I fancied might arise, whereas the argument for the facts has already, I do hope you see, been rather neatly settled.
