LogFAQs > #886046081

Callixtus posted...

Those are bad arguments. The thing about principles is that you don't have to go into the nitty gritty details about whether or not it works in practice or not, in order to affirm whether the principle is worth upholding or not. So we don't have to worry about whether doctors in practice will provide amputations, only that it is morally permissible for them to do so and that we as a society should support such practices at least in theory. Otherwise, 80 years ago, when no one would have conducted SRS both because of moral concerns and the technology of the time, we could have established a rule for all time that no one would ever perform a sex reassignment surgery, regardless of changes in circumstances.

What's funny is that I looked into the literature for BIID and found this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3326051/

"Subjects who actually had performed amputation scored significantly lower on the Sheehan Disability Scale compared to those who had not. BIID individuals prefer being in harmony with one's identity, even if it results in physical disability. Surgery appears to result in permanent remission of BIID and in impressive improvement of quality of life, but conflicts with ethical standards of physicians indicating not to amputate healthy limbs"

Lmao, the example you used to try and delinate some moral failing in HRT/SRS actually is consistent with the standard of care for treating dysphoria. Indulging in these identities do produce clinical remission in their symptoms.

Perhaps we should be opening the discussion whether or not we should be pushing for more elective amputations in BIID. Look, at the end of the day these discussions become risk/benefit stratifications. Someone losing a limb to satisfy a mental obsession if you want to call it will suffer greater morbidity in terms of the loss of functionality of a limb. That's why you get that intuitive hesitation when you try and bring up that example. It's a larger "cost."

HRT or SRS produces changes, or renders sexual organs no longer functional, but these ultimately are more value judgements than objective matters of functionality. The transition more or less lets them do anything they were able to do prior, except for sexual reproduction, in which we've already established people make permanent decisions on their reproductive functionality/fate.

In fact, your desire to "render a human being less than functional" is a value judgement on your part, which others may or may not agree with. To push that on others is no different than the frustration people against transgenders feel that mere acceptance of their condition is "enforcing their beliefs on them." You're the one trying to force the mental anguish on another just to satisfy your tidy world view.
---

"He has two neurons held together by a spirochete."