LogFAQs > #883689558

I have an idle question, kind of poorly formed:

If the gender dysphoria that transgenders feel (and such dysphoria is "merely" a feeling/emotion/psychological-stress) that make them want to transition is itself enough are considered legitimate enough that one might not question them and then also accept them, why are so many people resistant to the idea that the feelings this ex-sailor of being raped were legitimate? To her, she was a woman and felt the need to transition. To him, she was a man and he was raped. What makes one more "real"?

Are they both not just, in the end, feelings? What's different here? For the sailor, he was directly affected by somebody else's actions. At least her feelings only affected her (until she made the actions she undertook [ie, transitioning]), up until, well, she involved other people.

I don't think this is an uncommon sentiment or "problem", and it interacts in an extremely new and weird way of human biology and identity (and will only get weirder as technology improves until eventually it's probably almost entirely accepted as standard - but that isn't now), so it seems different from an example situation of "well if it was a born biological woman that happened to be sterile, would it be rape if she didn't tell him?"

Note I'm not justifying the stabbing, just sort of defending the idea of the marine feeling raped, which some people seem to be entirely dismissing as legitimate, and in doing so are dismissing a lot of other peoples' feelings (those that would feel that it's rape to be deceived in such a way) where those feelings don't even affect other people until they are "deceived", so they seem fairly innocent beliefs to have - it's not like people are entitled to having sex with everybody, including those that feel like it would be rape, so they aren't being unfairly treated, are they?

All seems very odd, to me.
---

http://i.imgur.com/nkZgO.jpg