Leaderboard

I read your whole post and appreciate your thorough reply. If we could, I'd like to explore the above snippet in particular, and leave aside the specific question of defining sex organs, since that subject doesn't interest you. Do you consider SRS a type of body modification surgery? Because that is actually my position, and the reason why I call it a fraud. The name alone, Sex Reassignment Surgery, suggests a change in sex type, not merely body appearance and/or personality. I think it's correct to compare SRS to other body modification surgeries, such as breast augmentation (or reduction) and nose jobs, which happen to also be involved in some "gender transitioning" processes. An honest description of SRS, in my view, is an extreme form of genital modification. And, yes, I do have an "authentic threshold" which must be met before I accept that science has turned a man into a woman, or vice versa. I also have a standard which must be met before I accept that science has turned a robot into a man, or a man into a supernatural god. But none of that means I believe those transformations are possible. Though I believe that man into woman is the least impossible of the three.

The post that you're quoting said the words "if" and "might," not "is" and "does." Such words on behalf of MisterSwig seem to indicate that he wasn't trying to diagnose anything, merely suggesting a possibility rather than making a diagnosis or prescription. Also, you don't need to be a doctor to know that anti-psychotic medication is prescribed to treat schizophrenia, bipolar, and other mental disorders.

I fear we're reaching the point of repetition and consequently diminishing returns. Thus, this may be my last contribution -- at least, for a while... In any event, the context for rights? Is that what we're looking for? Yes, I think the intended context is human society, any society. I don't think it's any more "restrictive" than that. (And to search for societies in which individual rights are somehow held not to apply, I think, is to abandon the Objectivist Politics entirely.) "Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man’s nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness." and "The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work." That's the context. If we're looking for "human coexistence" in such a society as you would devise, then individual rights apply: She spoke directly to the case of not finding a sufficient number of volunteers, and elsewhere that rights are not alienable in an "emergency." And while I think it's fine to disagree with all of that, can we at least acknowledge that you are doing so? I mean, earlier 2046 had quoted Rand asserting, "You cannot say that 'man has inalienable rights except in cold weather and on every second Tuesday,' just as you cannot say that 'man has inalienable rights except in an emergency,' or 'man's rights cannot be violated except for a good purpose.'" To that, it seems to me, you're saying the equivalent of, "but what about every second Wednesday?" You're both welcome and encouraged to figure things out for yourself, but in trying to determine what Rand meant with respect to the NAP, and individual rights, and her politics more generally, I do find her thoughts about the draft and taxation meaningful. This is also why I was interested in her reasoning for supporting a subpoena (granting that she did). It may yet be the case that there's an inconsistency between her support for subpoena and her theory of rights, generally; in such a case, I'm inclined to keep the latter over the former. "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement." I think the way you're phrasing things (e.g "in the service of human life," etc.) serves to obscure Rand's meaning: she means to eliminate force so that men deal with one another as described above, via reason. Yes, there will still be criminals -- those who continue to initiate the use of force -- and the role of government is to respond to those criminals with retaliatory force. One of us seems to misunderstand, at least. "No right not to provide the government what it needs"*? Yes, I think this is your position, stated essentially. I continue to disagree. I know you don't care what Rand had to say about the draft, yet I do (and others reading this thread might as well), so: Yet I think you're saying, indeed, that "rights impose obligations." The existence of government -- which man needs for the protection of rights -- imposes obligations upon the individual, in terms of subpoena and taxation and conscription. You must give the government what it needs, and after all, you have "no right not to." You adopt this selfsame argument and imagine that it somehow only applies to subpoena, and not to the rest, but it is what it is. It is statism. ___________________________ * And I understand you've appended "to be objective," by which you mean information, and you hold this to be more fundamental to the role of a government than funding or manpower. Though later you say, "In the case of a population that won't supply sufficient funds or manpower...all bets are off," so...

There is zero scientific consensus on this matter. For some conflicting evidence, consider that post-op transgender people still have a suicide rate that dwarfs the general population. If SRS was truly a cure, you wouldn't expect to see that. The truth is that transgenderism is a mental disorder. Body dis-morphia and mental dysphoria aren't only present in transgenders. They are also present in anorexics and bulimics, who feel that they aren't "thin enough" so resort to under-eating or to binging and purging. Is the correct treatment for them to give them liposuction so that they can be ridiculously thin? No. The correct treatment for a mental delusion is not to give in to the delusion; the correct treatment is psychotherapy.