Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Changing one's sex

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Anyone who chooses to judge the facts! The transgendered, you, or me. I listed in my post the facts I consider most important.

Fair enough. I ask because it seems to me that this kind of thing can't be judged in some blanket or universal way; that the proper assessment of any individual case would depend on that individual's circumstances.

 

I mean, sex reassignment surgery makes no sense for me -- I have no issues on that score.  Neither does breast augmentation, or rhinoplasty, for that matter, and each would leave me "worse off" than before, in my judgement, which is why I don't pursue them.

 

But I can also imagine a person for whom these kinds of procedures might be a rational choice in an attempt for self-improvement, even when the person undergoing the procedure is informed of the potential drawbacks.  I think it is going too far to say that a procedure like this is irrational, as such, or that anyone who pursues it must be irrational or is somehow "at war with reality."

 

I mean, sure, some given individual might be sensibly described as at war with reality.  On the other hand and for another individual, recognizing that one's body does not look the way one wishes, and taking action to change it into something more personally pleasing, and/or expressive of one's self-image, might well be an expression of loyalty towards both reason and reality: putting (forgive the pun) cutting-edge science to work for the self.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, your best "pro" is that the end result body will kind of look more like a different gender? (Not intended to sound snarky)

 

Look more like you believe you ought to look, yes, as an expression of self-identity.

As to how important looking like one sex versus another is to a given individual, I really cannot say.  I cannot speak for another.  Image issues have never been at the forefront of my thought at all.  I'm not a very fashionable person, for instance, though I know that's a huge concern for others.  Maybe I could just say that all those who care about fashion have value systems which are out of whack, because they don't align with my own?  But I don't think that would be fair; I don't think it's that simple.  I also have little personal need for architecture, and I don't find discussions of the same to be very interesting, but I respect those who do.

 

Where sexual identity and expression are concerned, I understand that there are some people to whom it is very important.  Perhaps my own comfort with my sex, my expression of gender, my orientation, etc., have all left me with the luxury of not taking any of it too seriously?  I've never felt as though I've had to struggle to demonstrate "who I am" in society, or to be respected or taken seriously in that capacity (apart from a few conflicts in my late teens, when I first started to wear my hair long, which was instructive -- but then I've seen society progress on that issue in my own lifetime, also instructive).

 

As a rule, I try to respect that others value different things differently, even when those choices do not make sense to me, personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay well, here's the problem. The question of whether or not the concept of human gender, and sexual differentiation more widely, is determined solely on a biological basis is a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

All these a priori announcements otherwise, regardless of references to "metaphysics, man!" are examples of ignorance and bigotry, kind of like a Christian announcing homosexuality is a mere choice because, well the bible tells us so a priori. Such transphobia, like homophobia, needs to be stamped out in the Objectivist movement.

It's important for Objectivists to get this right for several reasons. One because it's wrong to make pronouncements on scientific subjects that you know nothing about, whether biological or social science. Second because it has profound negative impacts on liberty. It leads Objectivists to ignore, or even participate in, disgusting instances of trans-bashing and bigotry, which leads to marginalization of trans people, which leads quickly to oppression, and gender-based violations of liberty. And it also keeps us from seeing the way gender is used to oppress in modern society.

Understanding that social constructs help characterize our perceptions of gender can help us to understand power relations that we may not otherwise see. And apart of actual violations of liberty, it's just not a very nice thing to take such antagonistic attitudes towards people's very real feelings and struggles involving transsexuality. That takes a real ugly person to do that. Don't be an asshat. Especially for a community of self proclaimed individualists and rational, tolerant, and liberal people. It's not like the LGBT community just hates liberty and individual rights and hates reason, no it's because Randians and right-libertarians are fucking culturally backward social conservatives and just need to SHUT UP if you haven't researched something, much less had a single conversation with an actual trans person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay well, here's the problem. The question of whether or not the concept of human gender, and sexual differentiation more widely, is determined solely on a biological basis is a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

All these a priori announcements otherwise, regardless of references to "metaphysics, man!" are examples of ignorance and bigotry, kind of like a Christian announcing homosexuality is a mere choice because, well the bible tells us so a priori. Such transphobia, like homophobia, needs to be stamped out in the Objectivist movement.

It's important for Objectivists to get this right for several reasons. One because it's wrong to make pronouncements on scientific subjects that you know nothing about, whether biological or social science. Second because it has profound negative impacts on liberty. It leads Objectivists to ignore, or even participate in, disgusting instances of trans-bashing and bigotry, which leads to marginalization of trans people, which leads quickly to oppression, and gender-based violations of liberty. And it also keeps us from seeing the way gender is used to oppress in modern society.

Understanding that social constructs help characterize our perceptions of gender can help us to understand power relations that we may not otherwise see. And apart of actual violations of liberty, it's just not a very nice thing to take such antagonistic attitudes towards people's very real feelings and struggles involving transsexuality. That takes a real ugly person to do that. Don't be an asshat. Especially for a community of self proclaimed individualists and rational, tolerant, and liberal people. It's not like the LGBT community just hates liberty and individual rights and hates reason, no it's because Randians and right-libertarians are fucking culturally backward social conservatives and just need to SHUT UP if you haven't researched something, much less had a single conversation with an actual trans person.

 

In an irrational society full of bigotry, gender stereo types, and so called gender roles, some individuals, because of who they are will be treated badly for who they are, e.g. a manly female or a feminine male.

 

This results in pain and suffering, identity crises, and when unbearable, it is possible that the only way to live in that irrational society is to commit a metaphysical assault on that person's own identity in the pursuit of harmony or at the very least normalcy/anonymity.

 

Like suicide ... but not quite.... such a choice may be rational in the right context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2046, you have made up problems and inferred erroneously while criticizing heavily. Where are these Objectivist "bigots"? Who is arguing against the bulk of your last post? You have a lot to say about hasty, unfounded generalizations while doing the same thing yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to recap, gender is a complicated issue which no one has yet figured out. We all agree that some people aren't comfortable with how society has identified them. But, everyone except me agrees that it's Ok to perform a pointless surgery on one's self, which solves no problems for the patient and leaves him worse off? "Who am I to judge?"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these a priori announcements otherwise, regardless of references to "metaphysics, man!" are examples of ignorance and bigotry, kind of like a Christian announcing homosexuality is a mere choice because, well the bible tells us so a priori. Such transphobia, like homophobia, needs to be stamped out in the Objectivist movement.

Well, only SL seems to be making a case even close to that (a poorly explained argument as to what metaphysical assault is, as though any alteration to oneself is an assault, as though identity crisis only exists because other people are irrational). As for Plasmatic, well, after re-reading his posts, I don't know what he is trying to say, but he hasn't taken a position actually that I saw.

If you mean in general, including Leonard Peikoff, the a priori pronouncement is real (some go to ridiculous extremes as blatant bigotry and stereotyping). It exists in society at large. Many people are completely unable to comprehend the issue and make up stories as to why their bias is justified. It is a common phenomenon. Stories as in a post hoc explanation, a rationalization absent observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to recap, gender is a complicated issue which no one has yet figured out. We all agree that some people aren't comfortable with how society has identified them. But, everyone except me agrees that it's Ok to perform a pointless surgery on one's self, which solves no problems for the patient and leaves him worse off? "Who am I to judge?"?

It's not pointless, it does solve problems, and the patient is better off. Changing your physical form is no particular issue, people do have aesthetic preferences of their own - and people saying "like your body how it is!" evades how people are in control of how their body is in numerous ways daily. Not that you said that, JASKN, I only mean it solves problems of what a person wants their body to be. Also, you seemed to miss that a sex change operation doesn't destroy anything, only the shape is changed. So you aren't in a position to judge well - you have the facts wrong, or lack enough knowledge.

In this sense, you are making an a priori judgment, even if it's not as bad as Peikoff's conclusions. Research some more before saying more, or ask for more info. I still need to read Fine's book, and her book isn't on transgenderism, but here's why I'm interested:

Info on sex reassignment surgery (NSFW):

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to classify things as irrelevant, to be able to know something?

Yes.

Whenever we say that one thing always leads to another (or any other kind of relation) there's an implicit "all else being equal"; meaning that this holds true as long as there isn't any other intervening thing, which we haven't mentioned.

Well, all else is never really metaphysically equal, but we have to look at it that way. If we didn't then instead of saying that "the gravitational attraction between two objects is equal to the product of their masses, divided by the squared distance between them" we would have to say "two objects will move towards each other by [Newton's equation] provided they aren't magnetized, ignoring atmospheric friction, assuming there isn't some third body between them, etc." Since the number of intervening things is potentially infinite, if we went the latter route then it would take an unlimited amount of time in order to ever learn anything.

Hence, we have to distinguish between what can and can't be safely ignored, most of the time, in order to know anything at all.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, yeah. I think that understanding should come before judgment and I just don't understand the reasoning behind that kind of choice.

Of course, in all cases understanding should come before judgement.

 

It's not pointless, it does solve problems, and the patient is better off. [...] Also, you seemed to miss that a sex change operation doesn't destroy anything, only the shape is changed. So you aren't in a position to judge well - you have the facts wrong, or lack enough knowledge.

Here's a guy from John Hopkins who cites two studies which concluded that post-surgery, transgendered people are not mentally satisfied, and decades later often develop worse mental problems, including a much higher rate of suicide. I think he sums it up succinctly by saying, "'Sex change' is biologically impossible." He says it's a mental disorder, which is also my layman's conclusion.

 

By the way, virtually every trans YouTuber has a channel full of bitching about their decision to start taking hormones or go through with the surgery.

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So to recap, gender is a complicated issue which no one has yet figured out. We all agree that some people aren't comfortable with how society has identified them. But, everyone except me agrees that it's Ok to perform a pointless surgery on one's self, which solves no problems for the patient and leaves him worse off? "Who am I to judge?"?

You're not the only one who thinks that. I don't see the point of sex change operations either. That's why I think the concept that's important here is gender, not sex. Sex is fixed, no point in trying to change it. Gender isn't, it's a psychological and social concept.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrelevant TO something else.

And that statement is irrelevant to the conversation we were having...since that conversation was about whether the concept of gender should exist or not, not about whether the concept of gender is relevant to everything ever.

 

Yes.

Whenever we say that one thing always leads to another (or any other kind of relation) there's an implicit "all else being equal"; meaning that this holds true as long as there isn't any other intervening thing, which we haven't mentioned.

Well, all else is never really metaphysically equal, but we have to look at it that way. If we didn't then instead of saying that "the gravitational attraction between two objects is equal to the product of their masses, divided by the squared distance between them" we would have to say "two objects will move towards each other by [Newton's equation] provided they aren't magnetized, ignoring atmospheric friction, assuming there isn't some third body between them, etc." Since the number of intervening things is potentially infinite, if we went the latter route then it would take an unlimited amount of time in order to ever learn anything.

Hence, we have to distinguish between what can and can't be safely ignored, most of the time, in order to know anything at all.

Surely, you understand the difference between the meaning of the word irrelevant and the meaning of the phrase "can be safely ignored most of the time".

 

So stop moving the goalposts. 

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're not the only one who thinks that. I don't see the point of sex change operations either. That's why I think the concept that's important here is gender, not sex. Sex is fixed, no point in trying to change it. Gender isn't, it's a psychological and social concept.

 

The point strikes me as a cosmetic issue.

 

If a mind is truly honest, what will it always know? — Change presupposes identity. If such a recognition makes me bigoted (I shaved my mustache off years ago), let me be so as honestly as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Here's a guy from John Hopkins who cites two studies which concluded that post-surgery, transgendered people are not mentally satisfied, and decades later often develop worse mental problems, including a much higher rate of suicide. I think he sums it up succinctly by saying, "'Sex change' is biologically impossible." He says it's a mental disorder, which is also my layman's conclusion.

I don't have full access to the article. What are the two cited studies? I am curious to read them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have full access to the article. What are the two cited studies? I am curious to read them.

It looks like a search for the op-ed title in Google provides a search link which will open up the full article. But, a direct link to the article shields it behind a price wall. So, search "Transgender Surgery Isn't the Solution" -- worked for me.

 

But, here's the relevant part that isn't just his conclusion:

We at Johns Hopkins University—which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into "sex-reassignment surgery"—launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as "satisfied" by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a "satisfied" but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

 
It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.
I'm not sure where you could read the actual studies, you'd have to do some googling.
 
Edit: From this link (nothing new there), the Sweden study.
Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: From this link (nothing new there), the Sweden study.

So that "Sweden study" appears to be comparing a post-op transsexual population against the general population (unless I'm missing something)?

 

That the post-op transsexual population should suffer from greater psychological distress than the general population should hardly come as a surprise, I'd think.  Whether or not we view gender dysphoria as being itself a psychological disorder, I'm certain it routinely accompanies other disorders.  Furthermore, and perhaps relatedly, I think it's likely that a post-op transsexual deals with many people in their lives who tell them, among other things, that they are "at war with reality," or similar.  That probably is not beneficial.

 

I don't see that this helps us to determine whether the procedure is itself a valuable treatment, either generally, or (what is most important) in any specific case.  Perhaps it is true that a person who suffers from gender dysphoria and depression and a host of other issues will not have all of those issues solved by sex reassignment.  It may not help them to deal with others in their lives who disapprove of their choices.  Depending on the person, it might not even resolve their gender dysphoria (if that was even a proper diagnosis originally).  But it fails, in my estimation, to make the case that therefore all sex reassignment is irrational or immoral.

 

I think that studies like this need to be read critically, and especially when they seek to describe statistical trends while we're talking about individual ethical decision making.  While statistics may help to illuminate potential risks in undertaking a proposed course of action, they do not necessarily speak to a given individual's context, which is the only relevant context for that individual's subsequent ethical action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So stop moving the goalposts.

I didn't know that I was.

I do not see any difference between "irrelevant" and "safe to ignore". If you do then feel free to elaborate.

And that statement is irrelevant to the conversation we were having...since that conversation was about whether the concept of gender should exist or not, not about whether the concept of gender is relevant to everything ever.

Actually, if memory serves, when Louie made the comparison between gender stereotypes and racial stereotypes you responded that there should be such concepts IF they match our observations (which is valid), to which Louie said that they don't match observation (which is true) and went on to explain that a person's race is irrelevant to their actions (which is true), to which your retort was that "nothing is irrelevant" (which is false in a very subtle way).

I agree with you here; the nature of relevance is irrelevant to the question of sex changes. I just thought I'd try to explain that tricky sort of error, anyway.

Sorry.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if memory serves, when Louie made the comparison between gender stereotypes and racial stereotypes you responded that there should be such concepts IF they match our observations (which is valid), to which Louie said that they don't match observation (which is true) and went on to explain that a person's race is irrelevant to their actions (which is true), to which your retort was that "nothing is irrelevant" (which is false in a very subtle way).

It was a weird post by Nicky anyway. SL was saying Nicky's response to me was irrelevant to the discussion - I wasn't asking about IF there WERE things black people do because they're black. So Nicky's "if" was irrelevant.

 

EDIT: By the way, race/gender/etc are all relevant to a person's actions to the extent other people enforce norms. Even the belief that there is a norm leads people to act in response to a norm, whether it is conformity or non-conformity. That was part of my point earlier: the concept of gender only makes sense as a set norms set by society. Nothing else. Sex changes can't alter that. But they can help self-image (I'll get to Jaskn's post later).

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than having a gender and a body that don't match up, my thought is maybe they have a set of internal "blue prints" so to speak that don't match the external "building". They have built into their brain (and maybe some of their DNA more generally) information about what their body consists of that says they have, say, female organs and such when they actually wound up getting the male set. Any notion they have of them "belonging" playing with dolls and wearing skirts or whatever ("gender") is actually deduced from the simple formula "Vagina etc. owners, I am told, belong playing with dolls" + "I am one of those people that's supposed to have one of those vaginas and such".

My information this hypothesis is based on: 1) We already know people have internal schematics for their bodies. (Sobriety tests for example involving closing your eyes and touching your nose are based on this.) 2) We have other examples already too of people having internal schematics that don't match up with their external body perfectly - a) amputees still getting sensations for limbs they no longer have b ) people with healthy limbs that they always felt were like some foreign object that didn't belong there http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/nov/14/please-amputate-this-leg

 

Now, about genital sex reassignment surgery. Why do it? As mentioned by others, it results in genitalia closer to the ones that somebody feels (maybe due to the different schematics idea I mentioned) they're supposed to have. Why not feel like everything is all great as far as the sex issue goes once that's done? Well, closer to that type of genitals, definitely, but not perfect with current technology. There's also still often other indicators remaining to varying degrees of the type of body one was born with, like (for male to female) broader shoulders, narrower hips, adam's apple, a more prominent brow and jaw and such. If somebody had unrealistic expectations for how much the surgery would change and how well, they may be disappointment. Does the amount of improvement toward the genitals matching this sex rather than that sex make the surgery worth the drawbacks (cost, time, travel, pain, risk of decreased sexual pleasure)? That depends on there not being other ways to get the results and where one's sense of their physical self being accurate falls on their value hierarchy relative to those things like money and such. Value hierarchies can properly vary from person to person. To be wrong to value the benefits of such a surgery to one's sense of their physical self being accurate higher than the cost, I think one would need to show how that order of the values on the hierarchy is detrimental to a person qua human being. Let's assume were not talking about somebody using the last of their food money or a quack surgeon or something else that could kill them so easily here.

 

"Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population."

Do they have a comparison group of transgender people that wanted surgery, but (costs maybe) never got it? (I figure people that didn't want surgery anyway may gum up the works by having less difficulty living with their condition to begin with or something.)

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Jaskn, I read the whole study now. There is one notable problem! It doesn't compare those who got SRS to the people who were unable to get SRS. So the study itself explicitly says this:

"Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment. As an analogy, similar studies have found increased somatic morbidity, suicide rate, and overall mortality for patients treated for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.[39], [40] This is important information, but it does not follow that mood stabilizing treatment or antipsychotic treatment is the culprit."

I was going to bring this point up, a similar example with bipolar disorder, but the study did it for me. So, no, SRS isn't The Solution, but it may well be part of a way to attain a better life than otherwise. The study suggests this as possible:

"A recent systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that approximately 80% reported subjective improvement in terms of gender dysphoria, quality of life, and psychological symptoms, but also that there are studies reporting high psychiatric morbidity and suicide rates after sex reassignment.[19] The authors concluded though that the evidence base for sex reassignment “is of very low quality due to the serious methodological limitations of included studies.” "

Keep in mind that, like any treatment, all problems aren't solved. As with anything psychological, treatments are important, even when the main treatment is done. That goes for surgeries of all kinds. The study acknowledges this:

"Notably, however, in this study the increased risk for psychiatric hospitalisation persisted even after adjusting for psychiatric hospitalisation prior to sex reassignment. This suggests that even though sex reassignment alleviates gender dysphoria, there is a need to identify and treat co-occurring psychiatric morbidity in transsexual persons not only before but also after sex reassignment."

The crazy thing is, the article's author turns against the study he cited as important, implicating SRS as a cause of worse problems. The study says this is false. Here's another reason to think it is false:

 

"In accordance, the overall mortality rate was only significantly increased for the group operated before 1989. However, the latter might also be explained by improved health care for transsexual persons during 1990s, along with altered societal attitudes towards persons with different gender expressions.[35]"

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do they have a comparison group of transgender people that wanted surgery, but (costs maybe) never got it? (I figure people that didn't want surgery anyway may gum up the works by having less difficulty living with their condition to begin with or something.)

Nope, it made no comparison like that.

 

I agree with your hypothesis by the way, I've had similar ideas. I don't have anything to add to it, except one thing. Although it may seem like it relies on the premise of gendered behaviors as very real inborn differences between males. But it could be that a "sense" of being male or female is really just body awareness rather than deep psychological consistencies. So, like the internal "schematic" of what one's physical body is "supposed" to be. That might explain why "wrong body" is a common example to describe dysphoria.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...