Transgendered discussion (split from HoS)

[Broomstick]

Well I only really read the OP here, but as someone who is transgender I can't say it surprises me very much. I live in the UK though, so things are a bit different here. The NHS will help out with things like hormone treatments and medical checkups, assuming of course you aren't stuck in the arse end of the country with only one bigoted bitch of a doctor who shrugs and smiles at the suggestion that you might kill yourself.

Oh, and the hate is just fucking fantastic. My own sister threatened to hire people to kill me if I didn't move as far away from her as possible. Considering that she married into a rich snob-tastic family, I didn't want to take the chance that she was bluffing and I moved. At least it lets you know who your real friends are. Soon as I came out none of my friends wanted to have anything to do with me anymore.

Funny thing is, compared to the rest of my family I think I'm not half bad. I don't have a gambling problem like my first sister, I'm not an alcaholic junkie like my second sister, I'm not an abusive bastard who cheated on my wife after beating the crap out of her like my dad, I'm not friends with a pedophile and a rapist like my step dad. Hell, I was the only person in a crowd who stopped to help an old lady who'd dropped the bags she was trying to carry onto the ferry. Apparently the only thing I have against me is being transgender, but it makes me far worse than any of my fucked up family.

Well I'll be damned if I'm going to kill myself. I'm going to try my best to become as successful as possible so I can give them all the finger and enjoy life as much as I can. Way I see it, it could be a lot worse. I'm not paralysed, or blind, I don't have cancer or any other kind of terminal illness. Hell if you look at it that way, I'm practically lucky.

A slight digression from transgenderism, but related to dealing with Serious Problems.

I have a long time friend who has borderline personality disorder - not an easy person to like, much less love. For her first three decades she was the sick one, the defective one, the hopeless one, and so on. In and out of hospitals. Sleeping on the street because her family wouldn't have her. Then she finally found some friends that liked her (yes, it is possible to like someone with significant mental illness) and stuck by her through her "episodes", visited her in the hospital, encouraged her, and didn't run screaming down the hallway when she'd do something incredibly fucked up like giving herself a third degree burn. Deliberately. We didn't approve, but we didn't reject her even when we didn't understand her or she did icky things.

She got her shit together, got a doctorate level education, and is now professionally successful and found an environment she is comfortable to live in. On top of that, she is now taking care of her mother, who throughout an abusive marriage and a bunch of other horseshit never wanted to admit the family had Serious Problems, and taking care of her sibling, who is a thoroughly fucked up raging alcoholic and having other mental issues and irresponsibility who would be entirely homeless were it not for her - nevermind that that kid was the "good" one the "perfect" one, the socially acceptable one.

My point? You can have a Serious Problem(s) and still have a good life if you just DO SOMETHING about the problems instead of sweeping them under the rug. If you have minor problems and let them run rampant you'll have a shitty life. My friend had serious, serious problems that would have eventually killed her if she had done nothing, but she actually dealt with her shit. She's still not normal, but she's functional and she's achieved some happiness in life. Likewise, someone transgender has a Serious Problem but if that is dealt with they can wind up being high functioning and do well - much better than chronically broke gamblers, much better than alcoholic/junkie siblings who never clean up, much better than snobbish siblings more concerned with social prettiness than mental health.

As I pointed out to my friend - in her family she is now the Normal One, despite her dire mental health diagnosis. So, Revy, let me encourage you to keep dealing with your Serious Problem. It may take awhile, but you WILL find people who are real friends who will really stick by you (I'm hoping you have some already). Also, the best revenge is living well. 25 years from now, be the one with a stable life, good people around you, and a comfortable mode of living and let the gamblers, addicts, and miserable snobs wonder how the hell you do it.

And back to the main topic - we have the current "sex change" treatments as valid treatments because those transgender people who undergo such treatment are much more likely to fall into the "living well" category than the morgue. Again, it may not be perfect but the results are an improvement in how these people function. That's the justification. Such people continue to have problems and issues, they need on going treatment like hormone therapy, but bottom line if it makes their lives better it's justified no matter how much the idea squicks out people who don't have to live with their problem. It's hardly the only medical issue with squick potential.

[Revy]

^Thanks for the support. It's not something I hear that often.

I'm taking hormone treatments myself, but because of a bad doctor and a string of unsympathetic jerk shrinks who want you to dress like the two Ronnies if you want their help, I'm having to buy the drugs myself online. Anyone with half a brain cell could tell you how dangerous and stupid that is, but I take the risk anyway because I despised being the way I was. So far I've been lucky, and they've made me feel a hell of a lot better. I fully intend to get the operation once I can afford it, and if I have any regrets at all it's that I didn't start the change sooner. Going through puberty was a bitch.

[spartasman]

Men dressing/living as women, and women dressing/living as men, have been known throughout history. While it's likely not all of those people were transsexuals quite a few of them might be. In some cases cross dressers were vilified or even killed. In others, they had ceremonial roles, like in some tribal societies. So saying that "gender identity" has been homogeneous "amongst all human cultures and societies" is debatable.

I believe that the term 'gender role' fits more precisely than 'gender identity'. Cultures from Ancient Greece and Rome, to the Ottoman Empire and modern Afghanistan have histories of treating young boys like women, but I do not think that they ever declared that they were women, just catamites. In any case, such occurrences are now largely vilified, and rightly so, as child abuse.

Surgery for transsexuals is not random hacking and slashing at the body. It is done to very specific parts with the aim of improving the patient's functioning and life. If the outcome is less debility and death then the procedure is considered a success. This doesn't mean the future won't hold better treatments, just that this one is the best we have right now, and it's justified if we can show that the patients are better off with these procedures than without.

What better treatments do you speak of?

Why should the rule be applied tyrannically to the exceptions? Why not simply write an extra paragraph into the rules?

Society is what the people who live in it decide it should be; the past few hundred years have proven that beyond any possible doubt, I'd say. "The Rules" for any given thing, including gender roles, are not dictates from on high where tinkering with them at the edges leads to the fall of civilization. I mean hell, we used to believe in the divine right of kings...

So what's the point of deliberately preserving the rules in a form that punishes unusual cases simply for being unusual cases, given that they're not hurting anyone?

I never suggested that the rule should be applied to the exceptions, simply that it is the rule for the majority.

As others point out, gender identity really isn't as uniform as you think; the customs of our tribe are not the laws of the universe, and the past was in many ways a very different country.

And if you talk about the interactions of animals, it gets even worse. Go look at a tribe of hyenas and tell me gender roles exist in clearly identifiable form across species line; I'll laugh my head off.

I said nothing of gender roles, but of gender identity. Unless there are hyenas who believe themselves to be of the opposite sex, I would say that whether or not they act like the opposite sex is irrelevant.

But why should that kind of violence and hatred be 'authorized,' humored, and in practice tolerated by appeal to tradition? The idea that we can write off the fate of a group of unlucky people because the conditions of their existence make life unbearable to them under current tradition has... very bad precedents, I'd say.

You're not doing anyone any favors by trying to defend a tradition from people who are not attacking it by saying (or even implying) that the tradition is the only right way to live and that there must be something wrong with these people for existing outside it.

Once again, I never suggested that such violence should be upheld in any manner. Also, as I had said before, I do not believe gender identity to be tradition, or the result of bygone sensibilities; I believe it to be the rule.

And as I had said, I now believe transgenderism to be a harmless exception to that rule, one that does not deserve hate or disgust.

[Simon_Jester]

Men dressing/living as women, and women dressing/living as men, have been known throughout history. While it's likely not all of those people were transsexuals quite a few of them might be. In some cases cross dressers were vilified or even killed. In others, they had ceremonial roles, like in some tribal societies. So saying that "gender identity" has been homogeneous "amongst all human cultures and societies" is debatable.

I believe that the term 'gender role' fits more precisely than 'gender identity'. Cultures from Ancient Greece and Rome, to the Ottoman Empire and modern Afghanistan have histories of treating young boys like women, but I do not think that they ever declared that they were women, just catamites. In any case, such occurrences are now largely vilified, and rightly so, as child abuse.

Of course, this totally sidesteps the "men dressing/living as women" and "women dressing/living as men" points, which are really a lot more important to the matter at hand.

So what's the point of deliberately preserving the rules in a form that punishes unusual cases simply for being unusual cases, given that they're not hurting anyone?

I never suggested that the rule should be applied to the exceptions, simply that it is the rule for the majority.

Very well, then.

What are the practical consequences of a rule existing for the majority, if the rule does not apply to exceptional cases that aren't similar to the majority of cases?

If we have a rule stating "no one may wear purple" and the exception is "unless you really want to wear purple," the rule is meaningless, even if cases of people wanting to wear purple are exceptions.

For a law to mean anything, it must either prescribe (like a passage in a law book) or describe (like a law of physics). A law that prescribes must tell us how people should behave regardless of whether or not they want to follow the law. A law that describes must tell us how people do behave, as an empirical fact.

The rules you cite about gender roles are obviously not descriptive, not without major modifications, because there are people who don't fit in them.

So are they prescriptive? Do they tell people how they ought to behave? For example, I ask you:

Is it in any meaningful sense true that we can say to a female-to-male transsexual "You are a woman, so act like one?" What would acting like a woman entail for this person? Is it just for us to tell this person to do that?

As others point out, gender identity really isn't as uniform as you think; the customs of our tribe are not the laws of the universe, and the past was in many ways a very different country.

And if you talk about the interactions of animals, it gets even worse. Go look at a tribe of hyenas and tell me gender roles exist in clearly identifiable form across species line; I'll laugh my head off.

I said nothing of gender roles, but of gender identity. Unless there are hyenas who believe themselves to be of the opposite sex, I would say that whether or not they act like the opposite sex is irrelevant.

In that case you've retreated into unfalsifiable territory. We have no idea how animals perceive their own gender, since we don't know to what extent they have internal "mental life" or what form that life might take, since we can't communicate with them very meaningfully.

But why should that kind of violence and hatred be 'authorized,' humored, and in practice tolerated by appeal to tradition? The idea that we can write off the fate of a group of unlucky people because the conditions of their existence make life unbearable to them under current tradition has... very bad precedents, I'd say.

You're not doing anyone any favors by trying to defend a tradition from people who are not attacking it by saying (or even implying) that the tradition is the only right way to live and that there must be something wrong with these people for existing outside it.

Once again, I never suggested that such violence should be upheld in any manner. Also, as I had said before, I do not believe gender identity to be tradition, or the result of bygone sensibilities; I believe it to be the rule.

And as I had said, I now believe transgenderism to be a harmless exception to that rule, one that does not deserve hate or disgust.

Duly noted.

Put simply, the reason I kept pushing on this is because I've seen this dance done before. People appealing to the 'law of nature' in this kind of situation are usually trying to come up with an excuse for hurting someone, or letting someone else do it for them.

"The rule" says that some group we don't like is ignorant, so there's no point teaching them or letting them vote. "The rule" says their blood is inferior so don't marry them. "The rule" says that they're best suited for menial work, so keep them there. "The rule" says that they're corrupting our youth by exposing them to ideas other than "the rule," so destroy them before they destroy our civilization.

I'm not saying that you are consciously invoking this kind of thought, or even that you buy into it when it's stated point blank. But I've seen this line of thinking before. It's dangerous and stupid and doesn't lead anywhere good.

Social laws are what we say they are; we cannot appeal to the way we have defined our own rules to tell us what our own rules ought to be.

[Broomstick]

Men dressing/living as women, and women dressing/living as men, have been known throughout history. While it's likely not all of those people were transsexuals quite a few of them might be. In some cases cross dressers were vilified or even killed. In others, they had ceremonial roles, like in some tribal societies. So saying that "gender identity" has been homogeneous "amongst all human cultures and societies" is debatable.

I believe that the term 'gender role' fits more precisely than 'gender identity'. Cultures from Ancient Greece and Rome, to the Ottoman Empire and modern Afghanistan have histories of treating young boys like women, but I do not think that they ever declared that they were women, just catamites. In any case, such occurrences are now largely vilified, and rightly so, as child abuse.

Actually, among Native American and Siberian tribes there were those tribes that treated and spoke of what we would call transwomen as women. Of course, they didn't have hormones and surgery (other than castration, which in pre-modern societies was a pretty drastic step to take, potentially lethal), but such people were allowed to dress and act like women, were addressed as women, and caused some surprises when the Europeans showed up. Part of the confusion about them is that this also overlapped how these tribes addressed homosexuality, with such people often being shamans/tribal spiritual leaders.

There is also an Eastern European country (I forget which one - I'm hoping someone else around here remembers which it is) where certain women adopted the dress, work, and social roles of men. They are treated as men. They have even been known to take wives. That goes far beyond just adopting clothes and sex - at least in the sense of being used for sex - doesn't enter into it. Again, because of cultural differences involved not all of these people may be what we'd consider transsexual, but certainly a transman could find a viable place in that society even without surgery and hormones.

(One thing I learned in the last few years is that for many transgender people genital surgery is not the most important thing - being able to live as and be treated as their internal gender is what really seems to be the priority (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on that). Even where cost and access to competent doctors is not an issue there are transgender people who opt for hormones and clothing and don't operate on their genitals. The appearance that prompts others to treat them as the gender they are in their brain seems to be much more critical that what is or isn't in their underwear)

So, while accepting transsexuals was not the norm in western societies, particularly the culture descendants of Greece and Rome, other societies have accommodated such people without prompting some sort of social disaster. I don't think anyone in those societies wanted their kid to grow up and turn out that way, but they accepted it did happen at times and such people had a place in the social order that didn't involve death, violence, or exploitation.

Surgery for transsexuals is not random hacking and slashing at the body. It is done to very specific parts with the aim of improving the patient's functioning and life. If the outcome is less debility and death then the procedure is considered a success. This doesn't mean the future won't hold better treatments, just that this one is the best we have right now, and it's justified if we can show that the patients are better off with these procedures than without.

What better treatments do you speak of?

We haven't developed them yet

IF we could positively identify in an objective manner who is transsexual before puberty that alone would be an advance. I realize that transsexuals typically know they're transsexuals in childhood, the problem is convincing everyone else. If there was an objective diagnosis then the person could start living in the more comfortable role earlier, and could avoid the "wrong" puberty. This is especially important for transwomen, as avoiding the effects of male hormones leads to a much more feminine appearance. At least one of our transwomen on this forum spent considerable money on having her facial bones restructured in order to look more feminine, and considered it important enough to put that ahead of genital surgery. It would be useful for transmen to avoid female puberty, as that would spare them a double mastectomy which is major surgery, along with more minor considerations like having hips that are less broad. Such a simple change in timing that allows people to avoid some major surgery down the line, what's not to like about that? (Assuming, of course, you're on board with transition treatments in the first place). Beyond that, transmen could really use something better than current techniques for contructing a penis which have so many drawbacks quite a few transmen never even attempt bottom surgery. Not to mention that would also benefit cis-men who have had the misfortune to suffer mutilating injuries to their genitals. For either category of transgender people, some sort of implanted hormone delivery system that more closely mimicked the natural rhythms of hormones might also be of benefit.

Way down the line would be some sort of treatment to allow full fertility in the transgendered, even allow transwomen to bear children. In other words, to make these people fully functional in their gender. Again, that would also provide benefits to cis-people with reproductive issues.

[spartasman]

Very well, then.

What are the practical consequences of a rule existing for the majority, if the rule does not apply to exceptional cases that aren't similar to the majority of cases?

If we have a rule stating "no one may wear purple" and the exception is "unless you really want to wear purple," the rule is meaningless, even if cases of people wanting to wear purple are exceptions.

For a law to mean anything, it must either prescribe (like a passage in a law book) or describe (like a law of physics). A law that prescribes must tell us how people should behave regardless of whether or not they want to follow the law. A law that describes must tell us how people do behave, as an empirical fact.

The rules you cite about gender roles are obviously not descriptive, not without major modifications, because there are people who don't fit in them.

So are they prescriptive? Do they tell people how they ought to behave? For example, I ask you:

Is it in any meaningful sense true that we can say to a female-to-male transsexual "You are a woman, so act like one?" What would acting like a woman entail for this person? Is it just for us to tell this person to do that?

When I say 'rule', I do not mean it as though it were a law, I simply mean that it is the most prevalent form observable. The most prevalent form of gender Identity is heterosexual without any (or any noticeable) gender identity issues; thusly, transgenders are an exception to the rule.

In that case you've retreated into unfalsifiable territory. We have no idea how animals perceive their own gender, since we don't know to what extent they have internal "mental life" or what form that life might take, since we can't communicate with them very meaningfully.

Homosexual acts amongst animals (humans included) are irrelevant when pertaining to transgenderism, as they are a result of sexual attraction, not gender identification.

Duly noted.

Put simply, the reason I kept pushing on this is because I've seen this dance done before. People appealing to the 'law of nature' in this kind of situation are usually trying to come up with an excuse for hurting someone, or letting someone else do it for them.

"The rule" says that some group we don't like is ignorant, so there's no point teaching them or letting them vote. "The rule" says their blood is inferior so don't marry them. "The rule" says that they're best suited for menial work, so keep them there. "The rule" says that they're corrupting our youth by exposing them to ideas other than "the rule," so destroy them before they destroy our civilization.

I'm not saying that you are consciously invoking this kind of thought, or even that you buy into it when it's stated point blank. But I've seen this line of thinking before. It's dangerous and stupid and doesn't lead anywhere good.

Social laws are what we say they are; we cannot appeal to the way we have defined our own rules to tell us what our own rules ought to be.

As I stated before, my use of 'rule' and your interpretation are different, so I wont go into it here.

Also, your last sentence is confusing the hell out of me, please elaborate.

Actually, among Native American and Siberian tribes there were those tribes that treated and spoke of what we would call transwomen as women. Of course, they didn't have hormones and surgery (other than castration, which in pre-modern societies was a pretty drastic step to take, potentially lethal), but such people were allowed to dress and act like women, were addressed as women, and caused some surprises when the Europeans showed up. Part of the confusion about them is that this also overlapped how these tribes addressed homosexuality, with such people often being shamans/tribal spiritual leaders.

There is also an Eastern European country (I forget which one - I'm hoping someone else around here remembers which it is) where certain women adopted the dress, work, and social roles of men. They are treated as men. They have even been known to take wives. That goes far beyond just adopting clothes and sex - at least in the sense of being used for sex - doesn't enter into it. Again, because of cultural differences involved not all of these people may be what we'd consider transsexual, but certainly a transman could find a viable place in that society even without surgery and hormones.

(One thing I learned in the last few years is that for many transgender people genital surgery is not the most important thing - being able to live as and be treated as their internal gender is what really seems to be the priority (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on that). Even where cost and access to competent doctors is not an issue there are transgender people who opt for hormones and clothing and don't operate on their genitals. The appearance that prompts others to treat them as the gender they are in their brain seems to be much more critical that what is or isn't in their underwear)

So, while accepting transsexuals was not the norm in western societies, particularly the culture descendants of Greece and Rome, other societies have accommodated such people without prompting some sort of social disaster. I don't think anyone in those societies wanted their kid to grow up and turn out that way, but they accepted it did happen at times and such people had a place in the social order that didn't involve death, violence, or exploitation.

Very well, but even in those societies you mentioned it was an exception, as I have said I believe it to be.

[Simon_Jester]

There is also an Eastern European country (I forget which one - I'm hoping someone else around here remembers which it is) where certain women adopted the dress, work, and social roles of men. They are treated as men. They have even been known to take wives. That goes far beyond just adopting clothes and sex - at least in the sense of being used for sex - doesn't enter into it. Again, because of cultural differences involved not all of these people may be what we'd consider transsexual, but certainly a transman could find a viable place in that society even without surgery and hormones.

You're thinking of Albanian "sworn virgins.", I think. I don't know the details, but yeah, it's an example of what you're talking about.

When I say 'rule', I do not mean it as though it were a law, I simply mean that it is the most prevalent form observable. The most prevalent form of gender Identity is heterosexual without any (or any noticeable) gender identity issues; thusly, transgenders are an exception to the rule.

Very well. What, if any, practical consequences does this have?

In that case you've retreated into unfalsifiable territory. We have no idea how animals perceive their own gender, since we don't know to what extent they have internal "mental life" or what form that life might take, since we can't communicate with them very meaningfully.

Homosexual acts amongst animals (humans included) are irrelevant when pertaining to transgenderism, as they are a result of sexual attraction, not gender identification.

...I don't understand why you replied with this.

My point is that we have no idea how animals perceive their own gender identity, or how transsexualism might manifest in an animal. It's not easy to nail down, though if you wanted a starting point you might look at frogs; there are a lot of frog species that suffer from greatly increased levels of intersex disorders because of exposure to pesticides in the water they live in.

Social laws are what we say they are; we cannot appeal to the way we have defined our own rules to tell us what our own rules ought to be.

As I stated before, my use of 'rule' and your interpretation are different, so I wont go into it here.

Also, your last sentence is confusing the hell out of me, please elaborate.

1) We collectively decide what social rules to enforce. If we want to punish something, we can; if we want to allow or reward it, we can. It is in our power to decide what the 'rules' for behavior ought to be.

2) Because we control the rules, we cannot justify keeping rules by saying "this is the way it's always been." That would be recursive- we would be saying "let us do X, because we did X last time." As an argument, that's terrible, because it totally overlooks the question of whether we should do X.

3) This is why I find arguments based on tradition to be untrustworthy. If a tradition is to continue, it must prove its usefulness, and it must be free of cruelty and injustice. It is not enough to keep doing something because we did it before, because the question of "should we continue to do what we're doing now?" is exactly the question we need to ask ourselves.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If anyone thinks treating transsexuals is a threat to traditional gender roles, they should visit Iran, where transsexuals are treated and assume the role of their brain sex, without difficulty. No exception to traditional gender roles required. While this is still Iran, so there's abuse of the system--but that comes from Mullahs forcing homosexuals into to the surgeres at effective pain of death. For the actual transsexuals, however, there's nothing incompatible with being transsexual and even the highly conservative gender roles of Iran. More to the point, the fact that people transition in IRAN, that they voluntarily give up all freedom and privilege associated with a male social identity, shows just how very intensely real transsexualism is.

[spartasman]

Very well. What, if any, practical consequences does this have?

Well, its my own personal opinion, so I suppose the practical consequence is that I do not hate transgenders.

...I don't understand why you replied with this.

My point is that we have no idea how animals perceive their own gender identity, or how transsexualism might manifest in an animal. It's not easy to nail down, though if you wanted a starting point you might look at frogs; there are a lot of frog species that suffer from greatly increased levels of intersex disorders because of exposure to pesticides in the water they live in.

There are also frogs who are naturally hermaphroditic; I'm not exactly sure animals are the most effective example here. As far as I think it really matters, transgenderism is a strictly human matter.

2) Because we control the rules, we cannot justify keeping rules by saying "this is the way it's always been." That would be recursive- we would be saying "let us do X, because we did X last time." As an argument, that's terrible, because it totally overlooks the question of whether we should do X.

I think the reasoning behind tradition is much less "because it is what we did last time," as much as it is "because it has always worked before." That is why when something comes along which invalidates the tradition there is always some form of violent backlash, because people no longer feel secure in their view of the world.

If anyone thinks treating transsexuals is a threat to traditional gender roles, they should visit Iran, where transsexuals are treated and assume the role of their brain sex, without difficulty. No exception to traditional gender roles required. While this is still Iran, so there's abuse of the system--but that comes from Mullahs forcing homosexuals into to the surgeres at effective pain of death. For the actual transsexuals, however, there's nothing incompatible with being transsexual and even the highly conservative gender roles of Iran. More to the point, the fact that people transition in IRAN, that they voluntarily give up all freedom and privilege associated with a male social identity, shows just how very intensely real transsexualism is.

Well, that is very surprising, but as I had said my opinion has since changed.

[LionElJonson]

What better treatments do you speak of?

We haven't developed them yet

IF we could positively identify in an objective manner who is transsexual before puberty that alone would be an advance. I realize that transsexuals typically know they're transsexuals in childhood, the problem is convincing everyone else. If there was an objective diagnosis then the person could start living in the more comfortable role earlier, and could avoid the "wrong" puberty. This is especially important for transwomen, as avoiding the effects of male hormones leads to a much more feminine appearance. At least one of our transwomen on this forum spent considerable money on having her facial bones restructured in order to look more feminine, and considered it important enough to put that ahead of genital surgery. It would be useful for transmen to avoid female puberty, as that would spare them a double mastectomy which is major surgery, along with more minor considerations like having hips that are less broad. Such a simple change in timing that allows people to avoid some major surgery down the line, what's not to like about that? (Assuming, of course, you're on board with transition treatments in the first place). Beyond that, transmen could really use something better than current techniques for contructing a penis which have so many drawbacks quite a few transmen never even attempt bottom surgery. Not to mention that would also benefit cis-men who have had the misfortune to suffer mutilating injuries to their genitals. For either category of transgender people, some sort of implanted hormone delivery system that more closely mimicked the natural rhythms of hormones might also be of benefit.

Way down the line would be some sort of treatment to allow full fertility in the transgendered, even allow transwomen to bear children. In other words, to make these people fully functional in their gender. Again, that would also provide benefits to cis-people with reproductive issues.

Personally, I'd say that when I say spartasman's comment, my first thoughts were "nanobot treatments to rebuild the body as the opposite sex right down to the intracellular level" and "growing a new body of the opposite sex in a nanofabrication tank to transfer your mind into". Seriously, until we've developed one of the two, all our treatments are basically solving a mental health issue by mutilating people's bodies, and that's horrible; it's like if we went around lopping the hands off of people with body dysmorphia.

[Serafina]

Personally, I'd say that when I say spartasman's comment, my first thoughts were "nanobot treatments to rebuild the body as the opposite sex right down to the intracellular level" and "growing a new body of the opposite sex in a nanofabrication tank to transfer your mind into". Seriously, until we've developed one of the two, all our treatments are basically solving a mental health issue by mutilating people's bodies, and that's horrible; it's like if we went around lopping the hands off of people with body dysmorphia.

Yet another idiot calling sex change procedures "mutilations". Oh, and nanowank, too

Well then, let's look at it, shall we, moron?
Do hormones mutilate the body? Absolutely not - the changes are "all natural". They merely trigger already existing receptors and do pretty much what they do during any normal puberty.
So, what about the operations? Frankly, if your reasoning allows them to call them "mutilations", you might as well call an appendix removal a mutilation. Well, i suppose it's technically correct: "Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death." However, while you are removing one function, you are adding another one. Besides, the function removed isn't even wanted, so what's bad about it?
Frankly, for a supposed transhumanist, you are amazingly opposed to body modifications.

The comparision to "lopping someones hand off" is absoltuely wrong. You do not lose anything essential to your bodies function.
But i suppose if you are as close-minded as you are, anything you don't understand deserves degrading labels.

[LionElJonson]

Personally, I'd say that when I say spartasman's comment, my first thoughts were "nanobot treatments to rebuild the body as the opposite sex right down to the intracellular level" and "growing a new body of the opposite sex in a nanofabrication tank to transfer your mind into". Seriously, until we've developed one of the two, all our treatments are basically solving a mental health issue by mutilating people's bodies, and that's horrible; it's like if we went around lopping the hands off of people with body dysmorphia.

Yet another idiot calling sex change procedures "mutilations". Oh, and nanowank, too

They are, just like those disgusting peircings that leave a massive hole in your earlobe or slicing your tongue in two lengthwise so you have two tongue-tips is. Granted, I'm a supporter of morphological freedom, so every mentally competent adult has the right to mutilate themselves, but that doesn't make it any less of a mutilation.

Well then, let's look at it, shall we, moron?
Do hormones mutilate the body? Absolutely not - the changes are "all natural". They merely trigger already existing receptors and do pretty much what they do during any normal puberty.

So is eating shit-tons of carbs and turning into a bloated fatass.

So, what about the operations? Frankly, if your reasoning allows them to call them "mutilations", you might as well call an appendix removal a mutilation. Well, i suppose it's technically correct: "Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death." However, while you are removing one function, you are adding another one. Besides, the function removed isn't even wanted, so what's bad about it?
Frankly, for a supposed transhumanist, you are amazingly opposed to body modifications.

No, you're not. You're removing one function (reproduction) and at best just changing another (sexual pleasure). Well, not unless you're counting having an extra body cavity to smuggle things in as a function. Besides, lacking the reproductive drive is likely the result of their disorder, and therefore any lack of desire can be written off as the symptom of their mental illness, since if they were healthy, they would have that desire.

The comparision to "lopping someones hand off" is absoltuely wrong. You do not lose anything essential to your bodies function.
But i suppose if you are as close-minded as you are, anything you don't understand deserves degrading labels.

As someone on the autistic spectrum, I'm well aware of what it's like to be marginalized for something you can't control. I've also got little pity for someone who refuses to learn to project a mask of normality. If you're not going to at least pretend to be normal, you don't get to whine about being persecuted for being strange. Transexuals don't get the excuse of having a brain disorder that flushes their social skills down the toilet (unless they're unfortunate to be hit with a double whammy of autism and transexualism), and if I can learn to fake normality IRL despite my disability, they can too.

[Serafina]

No, you're not. You're removing one function (reproduction) and at best just changing another (sexual pleasure). Well, not unless you're counting having an extra body cavity to smuggle things in as a function. Besides, lacking the reproductive drive is indicative of a disorder, and therefore any lack of desire can be written off as the symptom of their mental illness, since if they were healthy, they would have that desire.

As someone on the autistic spectrum, I'm well aware of what it's like to be marginalized for something you can't control. I've also got little pity for someone who refuses to learn to project a mask of normality. If you're not going to at least pretend to be normal, you don't get to whine about being persecuted for being strange. Transexuals don't get the excuse of having a brain disorder that flushes their social skills down the toilet (unless they're unfortunate to be hit with a double whammy of autism and transexualism), and if I can learn to fake normality IRL despite my disability, they can too.

I think you have said enough here.
Frankly, i just want to post "grow a brain, bigot", because it's entirely accurate. I won't, despite any extra effort being wasted.


You have evidently not read a single thing about transsexuality OR gender identity. Just FYI, transsexual people are perfectly capable of functioning "normaly". We don't have to fake it either. I can function very well as a woman. So can every other transitioned transwomen i know, and the transitioned transmen i know function very well as men.

No, you're not. You're removing one function (reproduction) and at best just changing another (sexual pleasure). Well, not unless you're counting having an extra body cavity to smuggle things in as a function.

Guess what: I will still be perfectly capable of having children after my SRS. I'll leave it to your mental facilities to figure out how.

Besides, lacking the reproductive drive is indicative of a disorder

Gee, so i suppose every single man or woman who decides not to have children suffers from a mental disorder


But go ahead. Prove your assertion that transsexual people are incapable and unwilling to function normally in a society.

[LionElJonson]

No, you're not. You're removing one function (reproduction) and at best just changing another (sexual pleasure). Well, not unless you're counting having an extra body cavity to smuggle things in as a function. Besides, lacking the reproductive drive is indicative of a disorder, and therefore any lack of desire can be written off as the symptom of their mental illness, since if they were healthy, they would have that desire.

As someone on the autistic spectrum, I'm well aware of what it's like to be marginalized for something you can't control. I've also got little pity for someone who refuses to learn to project a mask of normality. If you're not going to at least pretend to be normal, you don't get to whine about being persecuted for being strange. Transexuals don't get the excuse of having a brain disorder that flushes their social skills down the toilet (unless they're unfortunate to be hit with a double whammy of autism and transexualism), and if I can learn to fake normality IRL despite my disability, they can too.

I think you have said enough here.
Frankly, i just want to post "grow a brain, bigot", because it's entirely accurate. I won't, despite any extra effort being wasted.


You have evidently not read a single thing about transsexuality OR gender identity. Just FYI, transsexual people are perfectly capable of functioning "normaly". We don't have to fake it either. I can function very well as a woman. So can every other transitioned transwomen i know, and the transitioned transmen i know function very well as men.

You know very well I mean functioning as their actual birth sex. You know, like everyone else without a mental illness. Or mental disability or neurological disorder or whatever the fuck the term you'd prefer for it is. They have to see a bunch of shrinks before

No, you're not. You're removing one function (reproduction) and at best just changing another (sexual pleasure). Well, not unless you're counting having an extra body cavity to smuggle things in as a function.

Guess what: I will still be perfectly capable of having children after my SRS. I'll leave it to your mental facilities to figure out how.

Frozen sperm doesn't count. You might be able to use frozen sperm to knock up a woman or get IVF done, but you yourself will be sterile, which should be obvious since you won't have the organs to make gametes any more.

Besides, lacking the reproductive drive is indicative of a disorder

Gee, so i suppose every single man or woman who decides not to have children suffers from a mental disorder [/quote]
Even preists don't castrate themselves; to supress such a fundamental desire to such a degree that there is no regret felt in permanently removing it implies some degree of mental disfunction, yes.

But go ahead. Prove your assertion that transsexual people are incapable and unwilling to function normally in a society.

The fact that they voluntarily mutilate themselves and then pretend to be someone of the opposite sex is obvious enough evidence of that, I think.

[Akhlut]

But go ahead. Prove your assertion that transsexual people are incapable and unwilling to function normally in a society.

The fact that they voluntarily mutilate themselves and then pretend to be someone of the opposite sex is obvious enough evidence of that, I think.

You do realize that the brain of a transsexual person more closely resembles the brain of someone with the opposite body sex, right? That is to say, a transwoman might have a male body, but her brain far more closely resembles that of a woman than that of a man. Because altering the brain sufficiently to make the transwoman a traditional male is currently impossible, whereas giving them hormone and altering their bodies to more resemble their brain-gender.

[Rye]

As someone on the autistic spectrum, I'm well aware of what it's like to be marginalized for something you can't control. I've also got little pity for someone who refuses to learn to project a mask of normality. If you're not going to at least pretend to be normal, you don't get to whine about being persecuted for being strange.

That doesn't follow at all.

Since GRS helps them feel "normalised" in cultures, going on to live full, productive lives with a reduced chance of self harm, suicide and the other signifiers of internal suffering, that would seem to be the appropriate thing to do for such cases. There's no inherent value to remaining as you are for someone whose mental self-image is all manner of fucked.

Transexuals don't get the excuse of having a brain disorder that flushes their social skills down the toilet (unless they're unfortunate to be hit with a double whammy of autism and transexualism), and if I can learn to fake normality IRL despite my disability, they can too.

When was this paper "GRS ruled totally unnecessary because one spergeron can deal, ok" published? Scumbag.

[LionElJonson]

But go ahead. Prove your assertion that transsexual people are incapable and unwilling to function normally in a society.

The fact that they voluntarily mutilate themselves and then pretend to be someone of the opposite sex is obvious enough evidence of that, I think.

You do realize that the brain of a transsexual person more closely resembles the brain of someone with the opposite body sex, right? That is to say, a transwoman might have a male body, but her brain far more closely resembles that of a woman than that of a man. Because altering the brain sufficiently to make the transwoman a traditional male is currently impossible, whereas giving them hormone and altering their bodies to more resemble their brain-gender.

So? It's not the brain of the person that determines their sex; it's a combination of their genitals, DNA, and following puberty, hormones and the effects thereof. All having a defective brain that thinks its a member of the opposite sex does is cause a lot of suffering; it's not even like the autistic spectrum where having alternate neurological wiring can have positive side-effects.

That doesn't follow at all.

Since GRS helps them feel "normalised" in cultures, going on to live full, productive lives with a reduced chance of self harm, suicide and the other signifiers of internal suffering, that would seem to be the appropriate thing to do for such cases. There's no inherent value to remaining as you are for someone whose mental self-image is all manner of fucked.

Encouraging their neurologically-imposed delusions is no different to telling the schitzophrenics that it's okay to listen to the voices that tell them to burn things; if we could medicate transexuals into being normal, that would be the best solution by far. The ideal solution once we reach the stage that the human mind can be uploaded and editted would probably to simply edit their mind to have the appropriate gender.

When was this paper "GRS ruled totally unnecessary because one spergeron can deal, ok" published? Scumbag.

Not a scientific paper, just my personal feelings on the matter of people who whine and demand special treatment.

[Lusankya]

So? It's not the brain of the person that determines their sex; it's a combination of their genitals, DNA, and following puberty, hormones and the effects thereof. All having a defective brain that thinks its a member of the opposite sex does is cause a lot of suffering; it's not even like the autistic spectrum where having alternate neurological wiring can have positive side-effects.

You know, there's nothing actually "defective" about a female brain.

However: if a woman has excessively masculine bodily features features - such as facial hair, for example - we, as a society not only allow women to remove said masculine features, but also encourage it, because a beard, while not being a defect on a man's face, is a defect on a woman's face. Similarly, a man who grew breasts as a side-effect of some kind of therapy would not only find ample community support for removing said breasts, but would also quite likely face strong societal pressure to remove them. This is despite breasts not being a defect when found on a woman's body. Who do you think you are to say that a woman's (or man's) brain is not defective if she (or he) wants to alter certain parts of their body that are perceived to be "too masculine (or feminine)", as long as those parts of the body aren't the genitalia?

I actually find it quite insulting the way you compare "having a female brain" as being somehow comparable to schizophrenia. Hint: it's quite normal, actually. About 50% of the population has a female brain. There is no more need to medicate a transsexual women into thinking she's a man than there is to medicate a bearded lady who wants to remove her beard into thinking that she's perfectly happy being a bearded lady.

[Simon_Jester]

Encouraging their neurologically-imposed delusions is no different to telling the schitzophrenics that it's okay to listen to the voices that tell them to burn things; if we could medicate transexuals into being normal, that would be the best solution by far. The ideal solution once we reach the stage that the human mind can be uploaded and editted would probably to simply edit their mind to have the appropriate gender.

That's absurd. Why should we edit mindstates to match bodies in an environment where both can be easily tinkered with? There's nothing magic about a particular configuration of meat.

I've already addressed this in a similar scenario, against a rather higher caliber of opponent, so I'm going to quote myself:

[Why would it make sense to treat a transsexual's body, not their mind?]

Because they want their mind-body dissonance to be resolved in favor of their mind, the part of them that is self-aware, not in favor of their body, which is basically a big chunk of meat they happen to live in. As an analogy, imagine that your arm falls off. A doctor offers you two options:

1) Have some kind of elaborate surgery allowing the installation of a prosthesis that will give you most of the function of the arm, or
2) Undergo extensive psychotherapy, medication, or brain surgery to convince you that you're supposed to only have one arm.

Most of us will opt for (1) over (2). If my arm suddenly goes missing, then something is wrong with my body, not with my image of what my body ought to be. I won't want brain surgery that "convinces" me to settle for having one arm.* I'll want my arm back.

---

So, Jonson, what's your response to this? Why does the state of the body trump that of the mind, especially when you purport to be some kind of a "transhumanist" who believes that people should be able to edit bodies and create intelligences that don't live in human bodies at all?

[Junghalli]

So, Jonson, what's your response to this? Why does the state of the body trump that of the mind, especially when you purport to be some kind of a "transhumanist" who believes that people should be able to edit bodies and create intelligences that don't live in human bodies at all?

He apparently also thinks that sex change is more acceptable as long as it's done with technology that's impossible today. Given that IIRC he's expressed social conservative opinions before I find this a little suspiciously convenient.

[Rye]

So? It's not the brain of the person that determines their sex; it's a combination of their genitals, DNA, and following puberty, hormones and the effects thereof. All having a defective brain that thinks its a member of the opposite sex does is cause a lot of suffering; it's not even like the autistic spectrum where having alternate neurological wiring can have positive side-effects.

Or more regularly, really annoying block-headedness, as in your case. The other major one is an obsession with ideal conditions that do not exist.

Encouraging their neurologically-imposed delusions is no different to telling the schitzophrenics that it's okay to listen to the voices that tell them to burn things; if we could medicate transexuals into being normal, that would be the best solution by far.

No such therapy exists, GRS does and has the best net-positive effects for the group of people it's applied to. That's why medical councils allow it and why you are not a doctor.

The ideal solution once we reach the stage that the human mind can be uploaded and editted would probably to simply edit their mind to have the appropriate gender.

No, the ideal solution at that stage is to make it fluid and determined by the mind in question. I don't see why an "uploaded mind" would need to be rearranged into your view of pre-set gender boundaries. That's fucking nonsense. Why would anyone trust you to poke around in their brains and set policy? You're an autistic bigot, that's all.

Not a scientific paper, just my personal feelings on the matter of people who whine and demand special treatment.

Yeah, fuck diabetics.

[Broomstick]

Personally, I'd say that when I say spartasman's comment, my first thoughts were "nanobot treatments to rebuild the body as the opposite sex right down to the intracellular level" and "growing a new body of the opposite sex in a nanofabrication tank to transfer your mind into". Seriously, until we've developed one of the two, all our treatments are basically solving a mental health issue by mutilating people's bodies, and that's horrible; it's like if we went around lopping the hands off of people with body dysmorphia.

Yet another idiot calling sex change procedures "mutilations". Oh, and nanowank, too

They are, just like those disgusting peircings that leave a massive hole in your earlobe or slicing your tongue in two lengthwise so you have two tongue-tips is. Granted, I'm a supporter of morphological freedom, so every mentally competent adult has the right to mutilate themselves, but that doesn't make it any less of a mutilation.

You're a supporter of "morphological freedom" but view some of the relatively (compared to SRS) common body modifications today as mutilations? You don't see anything at all contradictory about that? Because I sure do.

So, what about the operations? Frankly, if your reasoning allows them to call them "mutilations", you might as well call an appendix removal a mutilation. Well, i suppose it's technically correct: "Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death." However, while you are removing one function, you are adding another one. Besides, the function removed isn't even wanted, so what's bad about it?
Frankly, for a supposed transhumanist, you are amazingly opposed to body modifications.

No, you're not. You're removing one function (reproduction) and at best just changing another (sexual pleasure). Well, not unless you're counting having an extra body cavity to smuggle things in as a function.

Congratulations. You have now just insulted everyone who has ever had surgical sterilization for whatever reason, trans or not, and called them mutilated. Anyone else you wish to insult with your broad-brush bigotry here?

Besides, lacking the reproductive drive is likely the result of their disorder, and therefore any lack of desire can be written off as the symptom of their mental illness, since if they were healthy, they would have that desire.

You're a fucking ignorant tool Where did you get the idea that the transgendered somehow lack the reproductive drive? Seriously, what part of your asscrack did you pull that out of. Several transgender people on this very board have expressed regrets they can't reproduce in the usual way, and Serafina has taken steps to insure she at least has the option of biological reproduction. This transman did reproduce naturally, which made world-wide headlines as "pregnant man". You are flat out, totally wrong on this.

[Akhlut]

You do realize that the brain of a transsexual person more closely resembles the brain of someone with the opposite body sex, right? That is to say, a transwoman might have a male body, but her brain far more closely resembles that of a woman than that of a man. Because altering the brain sufficiently to make the transwoman a traditional male is currently impossible, whereas giving them hormone and altering their bodies to more resemble their brain-gender.

So? It's not the brain of the person that determines their sex; it's a combination of their genitals, DNA, and following puberty, hormones and the effects thereof. All having a defective brain that thinks its a member of the opposite sex does is cause a lot of suffering; it's not even like the autistic spectrum where having alternate neurological wiring can have positive side-effects.

The brain's the most important part for the determination of what gender the person feels most comfortable as. All else is secondary.

Also: who cares about other mental disorders? We're not discussing those, we're discussing transsexuality. It'd be like me discussing vaccinations in relation to broken bones.

[Serafina]

You know very well I mean functioning as their actual birth sex. You know, like everyone else without a mental illness. Or mental disability or neurological disorder or whatever the fuck the term you'd prefer for it is. They have to see a bunch of shrinks before

Except that that's not what you said.
What you said is this:

I've also got little pity for someone who refuses to learn to project a mask of normality.

Guess what, most transsexual people are doing just that - they try to live as normal women or men.
This is not only true after transition, but also before transition - many transsexual people try to function normally in accordance to their birth sex. Pretty much every late transitioner is evidence for that, many of them function quite well: They get married, have children, good jobs, the respect of their peers etc.

The reason why they (and every other transsexual person) choses to transition is because they are not HAPPY that way.
According to your "logic", it's perfectly fine to persecute and kill someone who tries to be happy, presumably because you are not allowed to change your body.
Strange logic for a transhumanist who supports body modifications.

As for "they have to see a bunch of shrinks before":
That is done in order to RULE OUT (certain) mental disorders. If you actually read the scientific literature, you'll not that it has been the scientific consensus for nearly 40 years that you can NOT cure transsexuality with psychological treatment, drugs, same-sex hormones or anything like that.
But who needs science if you can just spout your uneducated bigotry?

Frozen sperm doesn't count. You might be able to use frozen sperm to knock up a woman or get IVF done, but you yourself will be sterile, which should be obvious since you won't have the organs to make gametes any more.

You know, it's really amazing how you claim to be a transhumanist etc. - but dismiss a technological solution because it's not natural
And according to your "logic", every single gay person on this planet has a mental illness. It doesn't matter if they WANT children, the fact that they won't have those children naturally qualifies them for a mental disorder in your book.
Your "logic" why transsexual people have a mental disorder for lacking the "reproductice drive": They do not use their ability to reproduce naturally. Even if they reproduce artifically, the fact that they don't do so naturally means that they lack some sort of inherent drive, which means that you are mentally ill.
The same "logic" applies to gay people as well: They do not use their ability to reproduce naturally. Even if they reproduce artifically, the fact that they don't do so naturally menas that they lack some sort of inherent drive, which means that they are mentally ill.

Even preists don't castrate themselves; to supress such a fundamental desire to such a degree that there is no regret felt in permanently removing it implies some degree of mental disfunction, yes.

The same "logic" would also apply to every man who ever had a vasectomie, or every women fallopian tube cut.

Either way, the world-wide scientific community disagrees with you - not wanting to reproduce is NOT a mental disorder.
But again, who needs science if you can just make stuff up as you go along?

But go ahead. Prove your assertion that transsexual people are incapable and unwilling to function normally in a society.

The fact that they voluntarily mutilate themselves and then pretend to be someone of the opposite sex is obvious enough evidence of that, I think.

You hereby fail at elementary logic.
I asked for proof that transsexual people can not function normally in a society, and that they have no desire to do so.
Instead of addressing that, you just repeat your assertion that "sex change=mutilation=mental disorder".
Guess what: Even if it was a mental disorder, having such a disorder doesn't automatically mean that you are incapable of unwilling to function in a society. So your response absolutely misses my question.
By the way, you still have no provided a shred of evidence that "changing ones body=mental disorder". If you change your body in order to improve your health (and yes, mental health counts), how is that a disorder?



From here:

He asked for evidence of cognitive bias and I gave it to him. Rereading it, though, I think I may have missed some of his intention, there; thanks for that. I need more sleep.

And the evidence you were asking for is right in the article, dude; only 6% of scientists are Republicans.

She, and she asked for global statistics. Not American ones. You shouldn't give people ammunition like that.

What, do you want me to run through the full inferential proof or something? I'm not going to uni to be a bloody mathematician; it's not my field. It's not like it's a difficult conclusion to draw, if you're doing it informally; if almost all American scientists are left-wing, and the rest of the world is more left wing than America, then the scientists of the rest of the world will be more left-wing than those of America and therefore less right-wing scientists than in America.

Besides, it's not like you're automatically female because your avatar has tits.

You know, i normally don't give a damn when someone addresses me as male on a webboard - after all, the assumption that most people on such boards are male is nearly always justified. In most cases, the person just doesn't know any better - sometimes i will correct them, sometimes i won't.
However, you DID know better. Your original post occured a significant time after you posted in this thread. Unless you didn't read this thread at all, you would have to know about my gender identity.
Therefore, the only conclusion left is that the "he" was deliberate and against better knowledge - in other words, a deliberate insult against me due to my gender identity.

[Andrew J.]

if I can learn to fake normality IRL despite my disability, they can too.

I gotta say, as a fellow autism-spectrumer, you suck pretty bad at it. Your performance here in gauging the mood of the room and projecting basic empathy has been, quite frankly, abysmal.