Current Events > Are you accepting and supportive of transgender people?

(+) Yeah! (+)

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Tmk posted...

The body can malfunction as well. Plenty of people are born with things wrong about their body.

So the question remains: why side with the body over the brain?

Because in this case gender dysphoria is caused by the brain not the body.

not quite. it's caused because the two aren't aligned. so, aligning them is the goal. and that is much easier (and, imo more ethically) accomplished by altering the body.
---

Medussa posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Tmk posted...

The body can malfunction as well. Plenty of people are born with things wrong about their body.

So the question remains: why side with the body over the brain?

Because in this case gender dysphoria is caused by the brain not the body.

not quite. it's caused because the two aren't aligned. so, aligning them is the goal. and that is much easier (and, imo more ethically) accomplished by altering the body.

In an ideal world, this would never have to happen anyway. People would be born as they should be. I've only met one transgender person, that I know of, but I'm sure she would rather not have to go through all the hormone therapy and possible surgery.
---

Dyinglegacy posted...

Medussa posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Tmk posted...

The body can malfunction as well. Plenty of people are born with things wrong about their body.

So the question remains: why side with the body over the brain?

Because in this case gender dysphoria is caused by the brain not the body.

not quite. it's caused because the two aren't aligned. so, aligning them is the goal. and that is much easier (and, imo more ethically) accomplished by altering the body.

In an ideal world, this would never have to happen anyway. People would be born as they should be. I've only met one transgender person, that I know of, but I'm sure she would rather not have to go through all the hormone therapy and possible surgery.

you're almost certainly right. but I guarantee you she would rather have been born with the junk that matches her brain than the other way around. (I'm not sure if you're suggesting otherwise. that's more a comment to the thread at large)
---

Tmk posted...

The body can malfunction as well. Plenty of people are born with things wrong about their body.

So the question remains: why side with the body over the brain?

Because, in this case, the malfunction seems to be with how the brain perceives the otherwise healthy, functional body. Similarly to people with Body Integrity Identity Disorder, in which those people's brains perceive their own limbs as being alien to the rest of the body. Should we "side with the brain" and happily start amputating their otherwise healthy arms and legs because they have a mental disorder? Is their body malfunctioning because they were born with fully functional limbs?

Soviet_Poland posted...

Esrac posted...

The brain can malfunction. As the case with people who feel their body is "wrong" because they have all working limbs, so they want to get some amputated. Or people who are bipolar or schizophrenic.

We don't just write those people off as "who they are". We try to treat their mental disorder through therapy and/or medication. I don't think we should regard people with Gender Dysphoria much differently.

As long as hormone therapy and surgery are the most effective ways to treat them, fine. But I don't think we should stop trying to learn and repair whatever has gone wrong in their brain to cause the dysphoria between their actual body and their mind's self-image.

The only reason we treat bipolar and schizophrenia symptomatically is because those symptoms often come with significant occupational dysfunction that causes undue distress. The pharmacologic and behavioral interventional treatment modalities address these symptoms.

Gender dysphoria is only considered a mental disorder in the same manner such that the discrepancy between their gender identity and sex recorded at birth are different and this causes undue distress. As such, treating them with HRT or SRS helps address this and reduces dysphoria.

To say otherwise would be imparting values onto patients, which is a huge no-no in medicine. What is the moral difference between "fixing" what's wrong in a patient's brain that causes them to identify differently versus "fixing" a homosexual person?

Perhaps we can fix certain political ideologies as well. See the slippery slope here? Where do you draw the line?

As I said, I'm fine with HRT and SRS as long as it's the best treatment method we have. But I stand by my opinion that we shouldn't rule out finding other methods that fix the malfunction in the brain. I don't particularly have any personal reservations about "fixing" homosexuals either, but homosexuality seems otherwise harmless and doesn't require complicated surgeries and a life time of hormone therapy to accommodate.

I don't think we can really compare how the mind erroneously perceives how the body should or should not be compare to how it actually exists and whether or not you, say, support a progressive tax rate or a flat tax rate.

I draw the line at how fixing how the mind perceives reality. Whether it's perceiving voices or visions that aren't actually there or the brain erroneously perceiving healthy body parts are alien to it or feels dysphoria over the body's sex not aligning with the mind's mental image.

I hope I'm explaining my position well enough. I don't oppose HRT and SRS as long as their more effective than doing nothing. If it makes you feel better, I'm even in favor of Medicaid and private health insurance paying for them as they would other conditions. I just don't think we should write off looking for solutions that could repair what seems to be going wrong in the brain.
---

Accepting, yes. Supportive, sure. But I don't support the procedure itself.

Transgender people don't impact my life in any way whatsoever. So they can do whatever they want to find happiness. I have sympathy for how confusing and difficult the whole thing must be for them.
---

Callixtus posted...

Do you really think there are no values being promoted in medicine?

Overarchingly sure. You bring up a great point about how changing societal values reflect in different classifications of mental illness.

But I guess I was speaking more on an individual level of medical ethics in that patient autonomy is more important. A physician is trained not to impart their values in terms of treatment options. They only help the patient make an informed choice with regards to risks/benefits.

So theoretically if a treatment came out that "fixed" someone's gender identity, we've already reached a point societally where advocating for that treatment on the basis of an idea that's the "right" way is imparting a value. A physician might advocate for that treatment if the literature later supports better outcomes, but it would be purely from that basis, not a desire to "fix" it as a disease process when society has said otherwise. Because then it could open up an ethical can of worms with regards to future developments in other behavioral modification. If we could alter one's temperament, should we cure all introverts to become extroverted? The way one would classify transgenderism as a disease process could very well just as easily say the same with regards to introvertedness.

That is actually a big issue in mental illness. Where do you define normal? Our current answer is harmful dysfunction. We treat depression because it affects one's quality of life or impairs their work/relationships. We treat OCD because it affects quality of life or impairs their work/relationships. Insofar as someone isn't bothered by their introvertedness, it isn't any more fair to classify that as mentally ill as it is transgendered if they aren't bothered by it. But when they are, the idea is to provide as much restoration to occupational function or alleviating distress. In the case of someone who claims they identify as another gender, hormone replacement (as long as they are informed of risk/benefit) seems like a perfectly viable treatment option in light of not having definite answers as to the underlying neuroanatomy/physiology or "pathophysiology" of it.

I don't doubt a subset would choose a treatment to be congruent with their birthsex if that were an option. Maybe that will be developed down the line. But until then, the social issue of accepting someone going through something like that seems paramount and the way people treat transgenders now seems needless cruel all for what in my head is a very pedantic argument.
---

Esrac posted...

I hope I'm explaining my position well enough. I don't oppose HRT and SRS as long as their more effective than doing nothing. If it makes you feel better, I'm even in favor of Medicaid and private health insurance paying for them as they would other conditions. I just don't think we should write off looking for solutions that could repair what seems to be going wrong in the brain.

You are. I find it sensible and I don't disagree with you. I generally carry a "stronger" position on this issue given how polarized CE tends to be on it as more of a counter balance. Devil's advocate if you will.
---

I don't care for them. They can do whatever they want with their life. Don't expect me to do anything sexual with them though. I won't ever accept that.
---

Offworlder1 posted...

I think a "live and let live" policy needs to be applied to both sides, transgenders need to stop trying to force their way onto everyone else, and people who are uncomfortable around them need to stop making such a huge issue about it.

People who are against transgenders often are just as bad as the transgenders who want everyone to use their pronouns, their political agenda with bathrooms, or how people have a "if your not with us your against us" mentality.

There needs to be a neutral ground, or atleast a "you leave me alone we will leave you alone" kind of deal. If your trans fine great, but please stop trying to force your views and beliefs onto everyone. People against transsexuals need to just ignore them, let them live how they want to, stop harassing them because they are different.

Somehow I know someone will find something in my post offensive, but I take the risk in posting anyway because I feel both sides have their asshole people who are making trouble when trouble need not occur.

I don't think your post is offensive, or at least intentionally. I too think marginalized populations are better off having thicker skin. Resilience is an adaptive trait. At the same time, I recognize that it is very easy for me to say that from a position that isn't experiencing the kind of shit they deal with on a regular basis.

It's like telling a person with major depressive disorder to stop experiencing their syndrome, or someone with chronic pain to get over it. Ultimately it's just a lack of empathy, and the whole TG issue is nothing more than a call for a basic level of empathy.
---

@Soviet_Poland

Thanks for quoting my post, deleted it myself now so no one could mark it because I know it would happen by one side or the other cause I did not pander to them and tried to have a neutral stance.
---

Flasbangs posted...

Not really. Not against them, but I don't care enough to be supportive.

This exactly
---

Esrac posted...

Because, in this case, the malfunction seems to be with how the brain perceives the otherwise healthy, functional body.

This is faulty since it requires the assumption you're already right that the problem lies with the brain. Like I said, it's a dispute between body and brain. To say it's the brain malfunctioning is an inherent bias in you to side with the body for some reason. I'm curious what the actual reason is.

Esrac posted...

Similarly to people with Body Integrity Identity Disorder, in which those people's brains perceive their own limbs as being alien to the rest of the body. Should we "side with the brain" and happily start amputating their otherwise healthy arms and legs because they have a mental disorder? Is their body malfunctioning because they were born with fully functional limbs?

That's a compelling argument against cutting someone's limbs off.

We're talking about transgender people though. No matter how much you want these two issues to be identical, they're not. Focus on transgender people. Trying to relate it to other situations you find an easier time arguing against is a sign of weakness.
---

Transgender people often have functional body parts removed or destroyed, so it really isn't that different from those people that want limbs cut off.

MtF transpeople don't have their penis replaced with a functional vagina. They have their penis and testes repurposed with the result that they lose completely healthy, functional body parts, and gain a far less than perfect simulacrum.
---

If you wish to move the argument from being about transgender people to being about whether or not being transgender is the same as wanting to cut all your limbs off, it means you can't actually argue about the original issue.
---

I've stepped between a good friend and people who were trying to do him harm, so...yeah.
---

I mean I believe that everyone should feel comfortable, but that doesn't mean I gotta go out and like fight for your right to potty wherever you want or some shit.
---

Tmk posted...

If you wish to move the argument from being about transgender people to being about whether or not being transgender is the same as wanting to cut all your limbs off, it means you can't actually argue about the original issue.

No it's actually pointing out an inconsistency.

I see no real distinction between someone with a mental disorder wishing to have their limbs removed because they believe that they should be a limbless person, and someone who wishes to have their testes removed because they believe they are a woman.

These are both instances of a person who is clearly confused or distressed about the state of their reality, who seeks to rectify that situation through an act of violence against the self, because it is violence to me, to destroy one's functional body parts because they are vexed by reality.

Yet even most progressives would say that a person who wishes to removes a limb is mentally ill, but would not apply the same standard to transpeople, without arguing a particular point to distinguish the two cases. The answer to me seems to be not reason, but ideology.
---

Disorders are treated differently depending on how they effect the patient, to what severity, and based on the impact of the various possible treatment options.

Which is why comparing how we treat/handle various disorders is more often dishonest than valid.
---

Yes, of course. I support people being who they are and see absolutely no problem with who they are. Remaining neutral seems irresponsible to me, since it's clear there is a bias against them. Opposing it is ridiculous and I can't think of a single good reason to be 'against' other people's genders.

Callixtus posted...

No it's actually pointing out an inconsistency.

I see no real distinction between someone with a mental disorder wishing to have their limbs removed because they believe that they should be a limbless person, and someone who wishes to have their testes removed because they believe they are a woman.

These are both instances of a person who is clearly confused or distressed about the state of their reality, who seeks to rectify that situation through an act of violence against the self, because it is violence to me, to destroy one's functional body parts because of a distress at reality.

Yet even most progressives would say that a person who wishes to removes a limb is mentally ill, but would not apply the same standard to transpeople, without arguing a particular point to distinguish the two cases. The answer to me seems to be not reason, but ideology.

Yes I'm aware you think they're the same. That is irrelevant. A lot of people see being transgender as essentially a disease that needs to be suppressed and wiped out.

You need to step outside yourself momentarily and consider the following: everyone opposed to transgender people thinks they are equivalent to far more severe or just patently bad things. That comes with thinking it's bad. It's pointless for someone supportive of being trans to try and argue EVERY additional pet association these people make because all it is, is them not being able to argue against transgender people so they go to more extreme examples, slippery slopes, false equivalencies and so forth to try to have better footing to argue from, and it never truly ends.

People opposed to gay marriage sometimes saw accepting it as accepting polygamy too. Or pedophilia. Or bestiality. What was the difference to them? They saw none. It's "redefining" marriage. Homosexuality is "unnatural" "Just like" bestiality and so forth.

This is just what people opposed to treating certain groups as equal humans do. They find other associations to attach to them to make rejecting them easier.
---

I'm accepting of them, but also accepting of them committing suicide.

Tmk posted...

Esrac posted...

Because, in this case, the malfunction seems to be with how the brain perceives the otherwise healthy, functional body.

This is faulty since it requires the assumption you're already right that the problem lies with the brain. Like I said, it's a dispute between body and brain. To say it's the brain malfunctioning is an inherent bias in you to side with the body for some reason. I'm curious what the actual reason is.

Esrac posted...

Similarly to people with Body Integrity Identity Disorder, in which those people's brains perceive their own limbs as being alien to the rest of the body. Should we "side with the brain" and happily start amputating their otherwise healthy arms and legs because they have a mental disorder? Is their body malfunctioning because they were born with fully functional limbs?

That's a compelling argument against cutting someone's limbs off.

We're talking about transgender people though. No matter how much you want these two issues to be identical, they're not. Focus on transgender people. Trying to relate it to other situations you find an easier time arguing against is a sign of weakness.

It is a valid comparison when your initial argument seemed to be "We are our brain, not our body. If the brain says the body should be X, then we should help them alter their body to be X."

I'm using BIID to point out a similar situation, in which the body physically doesn't match what the mind says it should be, to point out that the brain can malfunction on how it perceives the body. They perceive an otherwise healthy, functional limb as alien in a way that seems very similar to how someone suffering gender dysphoria would perceive their genitals as, if not alien, then wrong.

The brain is part of the body and it's as capable of malfunctioning as any other part. You seem to be trying to set up a false dichotemy between the brain and the body and asserting we should just go along with what the brain perceives the body should be because reasons.

If we have a situation where the body doesn't match what the brain perceives it should be, it seems likemy the malfunction is with the brain, because the brain is the organ that does the perceiving about reality. Unless there's a reason to believe we have a male body sending some "I'm supposed to be female" signal to the brain, it seems more likely to me that there is something off in that brain that's causing it's perception about the body to be faulty, in a similar fashion to BIID sufferers having brains that perceive limbs as alien to the body.

If my post is wonky, it's probably because I'm typing this up as quickly as I can on my phone as I am away from my computer.
---

I'm trying to think of a way to interrupt that, that doesn't reflect horribly on you.
---

Esrac posted...

It is a valid comparison when your initial argument seemed to be "We are our brain, not our body. If the brain says the body should be X, then we should help them alter their body to be X."

The point is, in a dispute between the body and the mind, why do you side with the body? Why do you consider that defining of who someone is?

If you want to go this route why not bring up suicide? Is that not the ultimate destruction of the body, perpetrated by the mind?

Do you not understand the difference between these things? Are you just that stuck on seeing a transgender person transitioning as "mutilating" their body? Because the alternative...is brainwashing. How is that not mutilating the mind? Right back at the beginning: mind, vs. body.

If you come into this viewing transitioning as mutilation or destruction, then you're drinking poison then blaming me for a tummyache. It's a change, not a destruction.
---

Tmk posted...

I'm trying to think of a way to interrupt that, that doesn't reflect horribly on you.

I mean, there's some truth in what he's saying about the brain and body.

Rather, the brain is the body. It's just as capable of doing something "wrong" as any other part of the body. It's just that the brain is complicated, controls a lot of things, and creates through its processes the being that we call "us," so it's easy for us to consider it distinct it from the "body" in our minds (funnily enough, maybe it's a bit of narcissism on our parts, lol).
---

My post was in response to the post before his. >_>
---

Tmk posted...

Callixtus posted...

No it's actually pointing out an inconsistency.

I see no real distinction between someone with a mental disorder wishing to have their limbs removed because they believe that they should be a limbless person, and someone who wishes to have their testes removed because they believe they are a woman.

These are both instances of a person who is clearly confused or distressed about the state of their reality, who seeks to rectify that situation through an act of violence against the self, because it is violence to me, to destroy one's functional body parts because of a distress at reality.

Yet even most progressives would say that a person who wishes to removes a limb is mentally ill, but would not apply the same standard to transpeople, without arguing a particular point to distinguish the two cases. The answer to me seems to be not reason, but ideology.

Yes I'm aware you think they're the same. That is irrelevant. A lot of people see being transgender as essentially a disease that needs to be suppressed and wiped out.

You need to step outside yourself momentarily and consider the following: everyone opposed to transgender people thinks they are equivalent to far more severe or just patently bad things. That comes with thinking it's bad. It's pointless for someone supportive of being trans to try and argue EVERY additional pet association these people make because all it is, is them not being able to argue against transgender people so they go to more extreme examples, slippery slopes, false equivalencies and so forth to try to have better footing to argue from, and it never truly ends.

People opposed to gay marriage sometimes saw accepting it as accepting polygamy too. Or pedophilia. Or bestiality. What was the difference to them? They saw none. It's "redefining" marriage. Homosexuality is "unnatural" "Just like" bestiality and so forth.

This is just what people opposed to treating certain groups as equal humans do. They find other associations to attach to them to make rejecting them easier.

This is a lot of drivel.

Consistency is treating like things alike and different things differently. If gender dysphoria and apotemnophilia, the desire to remove limbs, are alike, then they should be treated that way. Something tells me that you do not support the removal of limbs to satisfy a mental image of one's self, though perhaps I am wrong (and if I am, then please say so).

So could you please tell me the reason why you support sex reassignment surgery and not amputation for apotemnophiliacs, despite both operations resulting in the destruction or degrading of functional body parts? If not they can you explain why you are inconsistent there?
---

Callixtus posted...

If gender dysphoria and apotemnophilia, the desire to remove limbs, are alike,

Which is a different argument, you wish to have, instead of arguing about the original issue, because you can't.

As I said.
---

Tmk posted...

Callixtus posted...

If gender dysphoria and apotemnophilia, the desire to remove limbs, are alike,

Which is a different argument, you wish to have, instead of arguing about the original issue, because you can't.

As I said.

No I can. It's actually quite easy.

I think it is wrong to inflict self harm in order to match a perverse self-image.

This is an easy, defensible first principle and it can be applied to a wide range of issues (ie gender dysphoria, anorexia, apotemnophilia, bulimia, you name it.)

You however are telling me that it is okay to inflict harm, or perhaps to word it more favorably, alter the body even through surgery to match a mental image, even if that renders certain members unusuable, and even though such surgery does not achieve the desired result (ie rendering a male a female or vice versa).

So I am asking why your principle does not apply to other groups where it is directly applicable, while mine is both consistent and simply stated?
---

Tmk posted...

Esrac posted...

It is a valid comparison when your initial argument seemed to be "We are our brain, not our body. If the brain says the body should be X, then we should help them alter their body to be X."

The point is, in a dispute between the body and the mind, why do you side with the body? Why do you consider that defining of who someone is?

If you want to go this route why not bring up suicide? Is that not the ultimate destruction of the body, perpetrated by the mind?

Do you not understand the difference between these things? Are you just that stuck on seeing a transgender person transitioning as "mutilating" their body? Because the alternative...is brainwashing. How is that not mutilating the mind? Right back at the beginning: mind, vs. body.

If you come into this viewing transitioning as mutilation or destruction, then you're drinking poison then blaming me for a tummyache. It's a change, not a destruction.

I don't distinguish between the mind and the body because the mind is part of the body. It is contained, entirely, in the physicaly apparatus that is the brain. Everything you are as a person is confined to your physical brain, and that brain can malfunction. As I said, you see to be setting up this false dichotomy between mind and body, when the mind doesn't exist without the brain, which is just one part of the body.

I'm not interested in buzzwords like "brainwashing". I don't view hypothetical treatments of the brain to address feelings of gender dysphoria any differently that I'd view treating the brain for other psychological or perception-based disorders. Sometimes the brain malfunctions and needs medical treatment.

Also, I don't know why you are using quotes on "mutilating" as if it's something I said. I don't believe I have once referred to the process trans people undergo as mutilation. In fact, I've said the opposite: I am accepting of it as long as it's a treatment that has better results than doing nothing for them at all. The distinction is I don't think we should disregard potential treatments that could repair the brain itself.
---

Callixtus posted...

I think it is wrong to inflict self harm in order to match a perverse self-image.

And you define transitioning as self-harm, and being transgender as perverse.

This is a problem.


Esrac posted...

I don't distinguish between the mind and the body

You know when I say mind I mean that as synonymous with brain right? So that means you do, because that's why you say being transgender is a malfunction of the brain, and it's what needs to be changed.

Esrac posted...

I'm not interested in buzzwords like "brainwashing". I don't view hypothetical treatments of the brain to address feelings of gender dysphoria any differently that I'd view treating the brain for other psychological or perception-based disorders. Sometimes the brain malfunctions and needs medical treatment.

And sometimes a person is born with a body that is fucked up in some way.

So why do you take the side of the body over the brain when a dispute happens? You have yet to adequately answer this. Both the brain and the body can be wrong. Why do you think it is the brain this time? Why is being transgender a disorder?
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Tmk posted...

I'm trying to think of a way to interrupt that, that doesn't reflect horribly on you.

I mean, there's some truth in what he's saying about the brain and body.

Rather, the brain is the body. It's just as capable of doing something "wrong" as any other part of the body. It's just that the brain is complicated, controls a lot of things, and creates through its processes the being that we call "us," so it's easy for us to consider it distinct it from the "body" in our minds (funnily enough, maybe it's a bit of narcissism on our parts, lol).

Yes. This is why I explained find the answer to this topic for society is a fool's errand. We'll never understand the location of consciousness, and there IS a cost, which is increasingly logical inconsistencies with how we share understanding of the objective world. People are already losing track of the brain being a body part and accidentally substituting the brain for the mind/body distinction (when the brain is a body part). This idea of forcing pronouns that aren't agreed upon on society (sometimes by force) is that problem extrapolated further. It's not about a lack of empathy, it's about a degradation of the shared fabric of how we define words when people who don't want to play along are forced to play along.
---

Tmk posted...

Callixtus posted...

I think it is wrong to inflict self harm in order to match a perverse self-image.

And you define transitioning as self-harm, and being transgender as perverse.

This is a problem.

Why do you keep avoiding simple questions lol

If it is okay to remove, alter, or destroy body parts to match a mental image in cases of gender dysphoria, why is it not okay to do the same in cases of apotemnophilia?

Can you explain this seeming inconsistency or are you just another ideologue?
---

Callixtus posted...

Why do you keep avoiding simple questions lol

If it is okay to remove, alter, or destroy body parts to match a mental image in cases of gender dysphoria, why is it not okay to do the same in cases of apotemnophilia?

Can you explain this seeming inconsistency or are you just another ideologue?

I already made it clear to you I'm not going to play along with this "x is like y. Defend y!" nonsense.

It goes nowhere, it's an endless game to avoid owning up to the emptiness of your rejection of the original issue, and nothing more. And seems to be something society is doomed to have to go through for every group, one at a time, because nothing is learned about how to treat people, ever, only how to treat one group, at a time.

Very inefficient.
---

HippopotamusRex posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Tmk posted...

I'm trying to think of a way to interrupt that, that doesn't reflect horribly on you.

I mean, there's some truth in what he's saying about the brain and body.

Rather, the brain is the body. It's just as capable of doing something "wrong" as any other part of the body. It's just that the brain is complicated, controls a lot of things, and creates through its processes the being that we call "us," so it's easy for us to consider it distinct it from the "body" in our minds (funnily enough, maybe it's a bit of narcissism on our parts, lol).

Yes. This is why I explained find the answer to this topic for society is a fool's errand. We'll never understand the location of consciousness, and there IS a cost, which is increasingly logical inconsistencies with how we share understanding of the objective world. People are already losing track of the brain being a body part and accidentally substituting the brain for the mind/body distinction (when the brain is a body part). This idea of forcing pronouns that aren't agreed upon on society (sometimes by force) is that problem extrapolated further. It's not about a lack of empathy, it's about a degradation of the shared fabric of how we define words when people who don't want to play along are forced to play along.

"Forced"

What gives you the right to force your ideas upon trans people when you refuse to even grant any merit to the possibility they're genuinely of the gender they state they are?

The only one forcing anything on others is people like you who think the right to be jerks is more important than granting some dignity to others.
---

Tmk posted...

Callixtus posted...

Why do you keep avoiding simple questions lol

If it is okay to remove, alter, or destroy body parts to match a mental image in cases of gender dysphoria, why is it not okay to do the same in cases of apotemnophilia?

Can you explain this seeming inconsistency or are you just another ideologue?

I already made it clear to you I'm not going to play along with this "x is like y. Defend y!" nonsense.

It goes nowhere, it's an endless game to avoid owning up to the emptiness of your rejection of the original issue, and nothing more. And seems to be something society is doomed to have to go through for every group, one at a time, because nothing is learned about how to treat people, ever, only how to treat one group, at a time.

Very inefficient.

Well, it just seems as if you have no real principles before your beliefs, at least no one's you are willing nor able to defend.

I could never adopt your views, because in my opinion supporting sex reassignment surgery, as a good in itself, (and not on a contingent basis as the least bad current option) would also require me to support amputations for apotemnophiliacs. Otherwise I would be arbitrarily applying different principles to substantially the same cases. It's unfortunate that someone who has more insight into the moral imperatives for SRS can't explain to me what distinguishes it from other similar sorts of treatments.

Shame.
---

The last time I was in an argument about this sort of thing, people tried to do the same thing. Make it about me, how I feel about OTHER issues. Insist those other issues are "the same" so they should be argued too. It's a very predictable pattern.
---

Callixtus posted...

Tmk posted...

Callixtus posted...

Why do you keep avoiding simple questions lol

If it is okay to remove, alter, or destroy body parts to match a mental image in cases of gender dysphoria, why is it not okay to do the same in cases of apotemnophilia?

Can you explain this seeming inconsistency or are you just another ideologue?

I already made it clear to you I'm not going to play along with this "x is like y. Defend y!" nonsense.

It goes nowhere, it's an endless game to avoid owning up to the emptiness of your rejection of the original issue, and nothing more. And seems to be something society is doomed to have to go through for every group, one at a time, because nothing is learned about how to treat people, ever, only how to treat one group, at a time.

Very inefficient.

Well, it just seems as if you have no real principles before your beliefs, at least no one's you are willing nor able to defend.

I could never adopt your views, because in my opinion supporting sex reassignment surgery, as a good in itself, (and not on a contingent basis as the least bad current option) would also require me to support amputations for apotemnophiliacs. Otherwise I would be arbitrarily applying different principles to substantially the same cases. It's unfortunate that someone who has more insight into the moral imperatives for SRS can't explain to me what distinguishes it from other similar sorts of treatments.

Shame.

Amputations is removing an actual limb that aids one in every day functions. A sex change isn't simply just that. Technically, the penis is still there. It would just be functioning as a non-performing organ of the other sex. That person can still run, play basketball or whatever they want to in a functioning life. Half of the world's population don't have penises, so it's honestly a little different.
---

gunplagirl posted...

HippopotamusRex posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Tmk posted...

I'm trying to think of a way to interrupt that, that doesn't reflect horribly on you.

I mean, there's some truth in what he's saying about the brain and body.

Rather, the brain is the body. It's just as capable of doing something "wrong" as any other part of the body. It's just that the brain is complicated, controls a lot of things, and creates through its processes the being that we call "us," so it's easy for us to consider it distinct it from the "body" in our minds (funnily enough, maybe it's a bit of narcissism on our parts, lol).

Yes. This is why I explained find the answer to this topic for society is a fool's errand. We'll never understand the location of consciousness, and there IS a cost, which is increasingly logical inconsistencies with how we share understanding of the objective world. People are already losing track of the brain being a body part and accidentally substituting the brain for the mind/body distinction (when the brain is a body part). This idea of forcing pronouns that aren't agreed upon on society (sometimes by force) is that problem extrapolated further. It's not about a lack of empathy, it's about a degradation of the shared fabric of how we define words when people who don't want to play along are forced to play along.

"Forced"

What gives you the right to force your ideas upon trans people when you refuse to even grant any merit to the possibility they're genuinely of the gender they state they are?

The only one forcing anything on others is people like you who think the right to be jerks is more important than granting some dignity to others.

Because it's a malformed question. There's no way to prove consciousness is gendered. You're building up to a conclusion that can never be proven. Every physical extension of consciousness is in body. And body is xx or xy so no matter how you feel any representation of those feelings is manifested biologically. Hence the chicken and the egg problem of mind and body. I'm dealing with a lack of a null set too. For people who define things based off biological data, you are essentially forcing them to scrap a body of data that is useful, and common across multiple people for your individual feelings.

You don't have to agree. I'm not forcing you to agree, but the deal is you can't force anyone to agree either. And when coercion comes in the form of modding on this site, political agendas, firings, or even state legislation, THAT is when there is an issue. I'm not sure what you mean by force, but that's what I mean by force.

And really, you aren't doing yourself any favors. If you behave this way in general, people will remove themselves for your presence in the future so they don't risk any of those many very real definitions of force I've listed above that come with being made to redefine terms. You're going to put yourself into a lonely, isolated desert by continuing to behave that way. The best you can hope for is to part at the 'agree to disagree' mark with those who don't want to play along.
---

byron posted...

Callixtus posted...

You however are telling me that it is okay to inflict harm, or perhaps to word it more favorably, alter the body even through surgery to match a mental image, even if that renders certain members unusuable, and even though such surgery does not achieve the desired result

U against tit jobs?

Personally, I find boob jobs to be repulsive and unattractive.

However, the question is more likely whether I'm against them in general, and not just because of my personal aesthetic tastes. And not knowing too much about breast implants, I would say that I they are categorically different from sex reassignment surgeries. The goal of breast enhancement can be seen right there in the name. It is to make an existing body part better. Of course this is only aesthetically, but ultimately the breast enhancement seeks to preserve the functions of the breasts as much as possible, while making some aesthetic changes. The goal of SRS is completely the opposite. Its purpose is not to preserve the functions of certain members, but to completely destroy them, and render them completely unusable. So while I might condemn boob jobs for a variety of reasons (they are vain, they have unnecessary complications, they can render certain features of the breasts unusuable by accident), they are not nearly as bad SRS.
---

Sayoria posted...

Callixtus posted...

Tmk posted...

Callixtus posted...

Why do you keep avoiding simple questions lol

If it is okay to remove, alter, or destroy body parts to match a mental image in cases of gender dysphoria, why is it not okay to do the same in cases of apotemnophilia?

Can you explain this seeming inconsistency or are you just another ideologue?

I already made it clear to you I'm not going to play along with this "x is like y. Defend y!" nonsense.

It goes nowhere, it's an endless game to avoid owning up to the emptiness of your rejection of the original issue, and nothing more. And seems to be something society is doomed to have to go through for every group, one at a time, because nothing is learned about how to treat people, ever, only how to treat one group, at a time.

Very inefficient.

Well, it just seems as if you have no real principles before your beliefs, at least no one's you are willing nor able to defend.

I could never adopt your views, because in my opinion supporting sex reassignment surgery, as a good in itself, (and not on a contingent basis as the least bad current option) would also require me to support amputations for apotemnophiliacs. Otherwise I would be arbitrarily applying different principles to substantially the same cases. It's unfortunate that someone who has more insight into the moral imperatives for SRS can't explain to me what distinguishes it from other similar sorts of treatments.

Shame.

Amputations is removing an actual limb that aids one in every day functions. A sex change isn't simply just that. Technically, the penis is still there. It would just be functioning as a non-performing organ of the other sex. That person can still run, play basketball or whatever they want to in a functioning life. Half of the world's population don't have penises, so it's honestly a little different.

And the other half of the world has vaginas and ovaries, which are used for reproduction among other things, which are not open to MtF transpeople.

You have also glossed over the fact that the testes are removed during SRS. They are a functional body part that are completely destroyed, rendering MtF transpeople sterile.

And you are correct that amputations may hinder daily life functions, but reproduction, is one of life's most crucial functions as well, even if it does not occur daily in individual humans. Even amputees may still participate in that.
---

Callixtus posted...

in my opinion supporting sex reassignment surgery, as a good in itself, (and not on a contingent basis as the least bad current option) would also require me to support amputations for apotemnophiliacs. Otherwise I would be arbitrarily applying different principles to substantially the same cases.

or you could realise you're talking about two different things there
---

accepting in that they have a right to be who they want to be, but i don't think they should expect society to conform around them. also disagree with some vocal transpeople on this board about how it's not a necessary thing to tell someone when getting intimate with them

you'll always have been born one way or another, and no amount of surgery and hormone treatment will ever change that. neither a man nor a woman, but a transsexual

bevan306 posted...

Callixtus posted...

in my opinion supporting sex reassignment surgery, as a good in itself, (and not on a contingent basis as the least bad current option) would also require me to support amputations for apotemnophiliacs. Otherwise I would be arbitrarily applying different principles to substantially the same cases.

or you could realise you're talking about two different things there

Why are they so different that there should be two different standards?

This is an easy question. You people surely know the answer because you have two separate principles already. Why can't you share this with me?
---

Callixtus posted...

Sayoria posted...

Callixtus posted...

Tmk posted...

Callixtus posted...

Why do you keep avoiding simple questions lol

If it is okay to remove, alter, or destroy body parts to match a mental image in cases of gender dysphoria, why is it not okay to do the same in cases of apotemnophilia?

Can you explain this seeming inconsistency or are you just another ideologue?

I already made it clear to you I'm not going to play along with this "x is like y. Defend y!" nonsense.

It goes nowhere, it's an endless game to avoid owning up to the emptiness of your rejection of the original issue, and nothing more. And seems to be something society is doomed to have to go through for every group, one at a time, because nothing is learned about how to treat people, ever, only how to treat one group, at a time.

Very inefficient.

Well, it just seems as if you have no real principles before your beliefs, at least no one's you are willing nor able to defend.

I could never adopt your views, because in my opinion supporting sex reassignment surgery, as a good in itself, (and not on a contingent basis as the least bad current option) would also require me to support amputations for apotemnophiliacs. Otherwise I would be arbitrarily applying different principles to substantially the same cases. It's unfortunate that someone who has more insight into the moral imperatives for SRS can't explain to me what distinguishes it from other similar sorts of treatments.

Shame.

Amputations is removing an actual limb that aids one in every day functions. A sex change isn't simply just that. Technically, the penis is still there. It would just be functioning as a non-performing organ of the other sex. That person can still run, play basketball or whatever they want to in a functioning life. Half of the world's population don't have penises, so it's honestly a little different.

And the other half of the world has vaginas, which are used for reproduction among other things, which are not open to MtF transpeople.

You have also glossed over the fact that the testes are removed during SRS. They are a functional body part that are completely destroyed, rendering MtF transpeople sterile.

Vasectomies render people sterile too and that also is a choice.

Ridding of the testies does nothing that hinders a trans woman from living her life. All they are used for is pumping testosterone and reproducing. I have my surgery for sex change in May. I have no reason for the testicles but unlike amputees, I have reasons for my legs and arms.
---

Callixtus posted...

So could you please tell me the reason why you support sex reassignment surgery and not amputation for apotemnophiliacs, despite both operations resulting in the destruction or degrading of functional body parts?

Well for starters, there already are procedures that result in destruction or degradation of functional body parts. It's called a vasectomy or a tubal ligation and they're perfectly valid forms of birth control.

But the real reason for the difference in your example is that no surgeon is going to perform the operation for the apotemnophiliac. First off, someone with that would be extremely rare compared to a transgendered individual. So someone coming into a surgeon's office asking for an elective amputation is going to be laughed out. That's just inviting over liability. Given it's incredible rarity, there isn't any literature supporting amputation as a valid treatment modality with good outcomes. The same can't be said for HRT or SRS, because there is some evidence to suggest it helps (albeit weak evidence).

So like I get your desire to grasp for consistency here, but your incredibly esoteric zebra of an example doesn't really have a lot of real world applicability. Apotemnophilia is just not something clinicians encounter, but transgenderism is. And not addressing that component, even just psychosocially, is asking for poorer outcomes and less than standard of care for transgendered patients.
---

HippopotamusRex posted...

gunplagirl posted...

HippopotamusRex posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Tmk posted...

I'm trying to think of a way to interrupt that, that doesn't reflect horribly on you.

I mean, there's some truth in what he's saying about the brain and body.

Rather, the brain is the body. It's just as capable of doing something "wrong" as any other part of the body. It's just that the brain is complicated, controls a lot of things, and creates through its processes the being that we call "us," so it's easy for us to consider it distinct it from the "body" in our minds (funnily enough, maybe it's a bit of narcissism on our parts, lol).

Yes. This is why I explained find the answer to this topic for society is a fool's errand. We'll never understand the location of consciousness, and there IS a cost, which is increasingly logical inconsistencies with how we share understanding of the objective world. People are already losing track of the brain being a body part and accidentally substituting the brain for the mind/body distinction (when the brain is a body part). This idea of forcing pronouns that aren't agreed upon on society (sometimes by force) is that problem extrapolated further. It's not about a lack of empathy, it's about a degradation of the shared fabric of how we define words when people who don't want to play along are forced to play along.

"Forced"

What gives you the right to force your ideas upon trans people when you refuse to even grant any merit to the possibility they're genuinely of the gender they state they are?

The only one forcing anything on others is people like you who think the right to be jerks is more important than granting some dignity to others.

Because it's a malformed question. There's no way to prove consciousness is gendered. You're building up to a conclusion that can never be proven. Every physical extension of consciousness is in body. And body is xx or xy so no matter how you feel any representation of those feelings is manifested biologically. Hence the chicken and the egg problem of mind and body. I'm dealing with a lack of a null set too. For people who define things based off biological data, you are essentially forcing them to scrap a body of data that is useful, and common across multiple people for your individual feelings.

You don't have to agree. I'm not forcing you to agree, but the deal is you can't force anyone to agree either. And when coercion comes in the form of modding on this site, political agendas, firings, or even state legislation, THAT is when there is an issue. I'm not sure what you mean by force, but that's what I mean by force.

And really, you aren't doing yourself any favors. If you behave this way in general, people will remove themselves for your presence in the future so they don't risk any of those many very real definitions of force I've listed above that come with being made to redefine terms. You're going to put yourself into a lonely, isolated desert by continuing to behave that way. The best you can hope for is to part at the 'agree to disagree' mark with those who don't want to play along.

There's more than xx and xy. Intersex people exist. Even within humans there's also O chromosomes in extremely rare cases. And unless you phenotype every person you talk to, the entire premise is moot to use as your baseline.

And if, when somebody tells you they're a woman or a man, you insist you know them better than they do? You deserve to be fired. Your right to be a bigot does not take priority over others comfort.
---

I think my response is MEh, not for or against.

If thats what they want to do i dont see the problem

I just dont like the whole using it as an agenda and/or showing it in peoples faces for whatever reason.
---