Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

On Transgender / Transsexualism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This makes no sense. Would you examine a person with an infected appendix and then conclude an appendectomy is not a disorder?

Of course an appendectomy is not a disorder. An appendectomy is a procedure. Appendicitis is a disorder. But wait, maybe you're accusing me of a non sequitur, in which case you would be wrong: the original post stated, "[] feeling like you need to have vital parts of yourself manipulated with hormones, drugs and often with genital mutilation ... is a disorder", i.e. that feeling a need for a solution to the disharmony IS the problem. Since I dispute that trans-sexuality is matter of arbitrary self conception or merely a feeling, I would not call the sense of the same (or desire to correct it) a disorder (if a double amputee stated that he could not feel his missing legs, I would not call that feeling a disorder either). I suppose that to be charitable (ugh) I could grant that what OP really meant to say is that if one feels this particular disorder, then the disorder exists, but that won't do, and not simply because feelings can be wrong. It won't do because granting the equivocation would cede ground on an important point, namely, that trans-sexuality does not fundamentally concern feeling, but fact: a disharmony among one's sexual organs, chromosomes, hormones, brain structure, etc. (and possibly one's psychological make-up). Is there a disorder? Yes. Does it necessarily or fundamentally consist of feelings or chosen self-conceptions? No. Properly considered, it consists of having mixed sex characteristics, and the solution, as I said, might consist of the various corrective procedures mentioned. I agree with de-classifying it as a mental disorder, not to save money on surgery, but to accurately identify the nature of the problem.

Edited by Seeker
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Let's talk about another philosophical subject: evasion. I think it's obvious to everybody that LP (and his idolateurs) knows nothing about biology despite the fact that he felt the need to talk

To something in the first paragraph of Jackethan's post, the part about just wanting to act like some sort of stereotype, I've come across examples of some like that and some that aren't. One of my ol

IntellectualAmmo, That picture really should come with a warning you know. I can't unsee that.

Now for the record I have no problem with homosexuality or with trans-sexualism but I find this to be a disturbing sop to politically correct sensibilities.

There seems a trend these days to call things illnesses that are not (sorry I am calling bullshit on sex-addiction) and refusing to call things disorders that are.

It seems that nowadays anyone that is too far off the scale of "normal" is considered "disordered." Of course, one way to tell if someone has a problem is how they may function differently than others. The issue comes down to specifying what IS normal. Autism spectrum disorders come to mind here. As far as I know - and someone please correct me if I'm wrong - there isn't definitive answer to what is psychologically normal, or at least it's not something with a commonly accepted definition. From my understanding, there is indeed something "wrong" with a trans-sexual, in the sense they want to change some physical aspect of themselves. Similar to how there is something "wrong" with a person who is uncomfortable with their face and decides to get plastic surgery. There really isn't necessarily any mental problem involved, though. Would you call a person opting for facial plastic surgery disordered because they have altered a vital part of themselves by resorting to facial "mutilation"? I wouldn't. However, I also suspect that there is *something* physically wrong with a trans-sexual. There is probably some sort of biological cause to defining yourself as a particular sex, which would mean a trans-sexual simply has a problem with this biological mechanism. (You can't know if you can have a baby unless you also realize you are female, so there is a biological need to know what sex you are. But whether or not even that is learned as well is another question. If it is something learned, then trans-sexuality is most definitely not a disorder.) I have not 100% decided, but I'm leaning towards trans-sexualism not being a disorder, merely being different.

Vik, since it pertains to this discussion about whether or not trans-sexualism is a disorder, what do you mean by a brain with very masculine traits?

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Vik, since it pertains to this discussion about whether or not trans-sexualism is a disorder, what do you mean by a brain with very masculine traits?"

Statistically speaking, there are physical differences between male brains and female brains. For example, men have more gray matter and less white matter than women.

"Masculinized" brains and "feminized" brains are statistical outliers. Could neurological differences make it difficult for them to understand and relate to other members of their biological gender? That's a question best left for science.

Does that necessarily mean the condition is a disorder? Only if it inhibits proper function of the organism, which is the essential characteristic of disorders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From my understanding, there is indeed something "wrong" with a trans-sexual, in the sense they want to change some physical aspect of themselves. Similar to how there is something "wrong" with a person who is uncomfortable with their face and decides to get plastic surgery.

It may be a little vague what I meant in these two sentences, so to clarify, I do not also mean "wrong" as in irrational/immoral.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

I know this is an old thread but I might as well bump it and explain my view on transgenderism.

I myself is a trans-man, that is, I have a female body but a male mind. Whether or not it's genetic, it's something rooted deep inside of me and I really can't choose to stop feeling that my mind and body clash. I can remember from very early days of my childhood that I liked playing with the girls, but did not like them seeing me as one of them in that sense. And while I liked playing with the boys, I got a feeling that they shut me out in a sense that I couldn't understand and accept. The first time I wore male clothes, at the age of 8, stealing clothes from my brother's wardrobe, I felt more secure than I ever had. (No, it does not arouse me to wear male clothes, it never has. I just feel intensely more secure in who I am.)

If I look at myself in the mirror and imagine that face and body to belong to a female, by gender, it makes me feel out of place and depersonalized and induces self-hate. If I look at myself and imagine a man, I feel unhappy since the body does not match the mind, but it still feels like me.

I've been thinking about the root of the problem a lot lately. I've considered the social aspects of it, and it is not related to social behavior in the sense some claim, that it is how people treat you. I do not act typically male and I do not try to be more masculine for people to see me as a man. I'm a very androgynous person to start with. The root of the problem is love. It does not matter if my parents see me as their son or daughter, because the love they have for me is not of the kind that is depending on gender. The problem is that I have a need and wish to be loved by a person as they would love a man. I want to be the man in someones life, I wish to have sex as a man. I am not quite sure about my sexuality since I'm very young and inexperienced, but I do know that whoever I end up with, either male or female, I want them to love me and have sex with me as they would with a man. Therefore I am going to alter my body to make that possible, because even if this person sees me as a man by gender, my body would feminize me and would not make it possible for that other person to love me as a male. I know it's mutilation in a sense - especially since the results of the genitalia-operations for trans-men are generally bad - but I'd rather mutilate my body than live alone for the rest of my life, or live with someone who can not fulfill that urge of mine.

I hope this clears some things up, if not, just ask and I'll do my best to help.

And please excuse me if the language is very simple or the grammar is wrong, English is not my native.

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

**** Split from elsewhere, and merged into an existing topic. - sN ***

 

--- Mod Note: Split from previous topic ---

Where do all of you smart asses come from, and why can't you understand cell biology in simple terms? Your chromosomes are what make you what you are qua living being, and are causative to the development of your body including your sex.

Added on edit: Normally speaking, XX sex chromosomes leads to one being female, while XY sex chromosomes leads to one being male. However, these chromosomes can be damaged /mutated leading to a different outcome; or one can have multiple sets of X or Y chromosomes or even off chromosomes that can lead to mutations of crossed sexes or even being a hermaphrodite (having both a penis and a vagina).

Now, how is this an application of philosophy? Thinking in terms of causality is a philosophical stance. It is this philosophical stance (starting with Aristotle) that leads to the special sciences. No, philosophy per se will not make one a molecular biologist, and no, Ayn Rand never said anything about molecular biology, but understanding the world in terms of causes *does* come from a rational philosophy.

Edited by softwareNerd
Split and merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do all of you smart asses come from, and why can't you understand cell biology in simple terms? Your chromosomes are what make you what you are qua living being, and are causative to the development of your body including your sex.

I doubt you believe in biological determinism, so what does it matter about chromosomes? Biology won't tell us which type of modifications not found in nature are bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do all of you smart asses come from, and why can't you understand cell biology in simple terms? Your chromosomes are what make you what you are qua living being, and are causative to the development of your body including your sex.

And also including your hair color. Should we not change that? Your argument needs more than the elementary biological observation that our DNA codes for our sex.

It's telling that Peikoff (incorrectly) states in his podcast that gender reassignment surgery destroys the patient's capacity for normal sexual pleasure. Without the idea that there's something fundamental and important being lost in the process, the argument falls apart.

Edited by Dante
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's talk about another philosophical subject: evasion.

I think it's obvious to everybody that LP (and his idolateurs) knows nothing about biology despite the fact that he felt the need to talk about it at length.

Now, it's not above any of us, I think, to talk out of our ass occasionally. You oversimplify a subject based on only a smattering of knowledge, make a bunch of assumptions that turn out to be wrong, and end up in a place that's completely and utterly disconnected from reality. Often this is driven by a narrative of disconnected abstractions telling you what the reality must be like in order to coincide with that narrative.

In this case, the floating abstraction is, "transgenders are immoral", then "facts" were brought in to support this narrative--including facts from various and complex areas of science including physiology and biology.

Now, the more honest among us would simply fess up and say, "sorry, talking out of my ass". The less honest simply keep digging a deeper and deeper hole...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what was meant by "biological determinism" in a previous post. I don't think you were referring to free will / determinism, but rather should one learn to live with whatever one's DNA code has dished out? It all depends, since you made no specific references. Insofar as a chromosome or a DNA sequence or a gene can be shown to have malfunctioned, leading to a less than healthy human being, then by the standard of human health, something ought to be done about it. For example, I don't think those who have autism ought to learn to live with it, and if a way to correct it can be found, then by all means, make the correction. Trouble is, all we can do today is provide special brain medications that helps them to focus their mind, but it doesn't really cure the problem. In other words, we can correct for the symptoms, which is beneficial, but we don't have the cure. Similarly, if one is born with conflicting sex chromosomes, getting a sex change might correct for a symptom, but it does not provide the cure. For example, in another thread, someone said that the latest James Bond Girl was actually born a man with XX/XY sex chromosomes, and later got a sex change. We can't do anything about the extra sex chromosomes at this time, but nature determined that with that combination of sex chromosomes that he would be born a male. I'm not aware of any health problems arising from this or lack of functionality sexually, so why change it? By what standard? I would say, ideally, a way ought to be found to get rid of the extra sex chromosome so he could be more fully a male; but we cannot do that at this time. And I'm not sure a sex change to female corrected any negative symptoms. She is certainly not fully female, as she wouldn't have a womb or ovaries or eggs, so if the choice is maybe not being fully male or definitely not being fully female, how does one make that decision to amputate one's penis? What was gained?

But I am definitely against the idea that a sex change is just cosmetic, like changing one's hair color or getting a face lift. One's sex is integral to one's whole body, whereas hair color is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I am definitely against the idea that a sex change is just cosmetic, like changing one's hair color or getting a face lift. One's sex is integral to one's whole body, whereas hair color is not.

I'm not seeing a rational principle underlying the distinction here. What does it matter what percentage of one's body one decides to alter? At what percentage does the self-harm appear? Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing a rational principle underlying the distinction here. What does it matter what percentage of one's body one decides to alter? At what percentage does the self-harm appear? Why?

There is no rational principle stating that one can do whatever the hell one wants to do with one's own body and it is rational and moral. And some things do not require an elaborate philosophical proof, because they are obvious. For example, it is obvious that getting a hair cut does one no harm but cutting off one's left arm with a machete does do one harm. The rational principle is human health and well-being. Cutting off one's penis, if not for medical reasons like penile cancer, which can kill you, is doing harm to oneself, and ought not to be done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do not understand what is so difficult to grasp about the idea that one ought not to cut off pieces of oneself as this is doing harm to oneself and is therefore immoral. Do you have the moral / political right to do it? -- sure, it's your body, but that doesn't make it moral. And when it comes to donating or selling organs for transplant patients, it would only be moral to do so if one gained a greater value -- such as saving the life of a loved one or making more money than one needed to counter-act the missing organ. Certainly, one shouldn't do it out of altruism and one shouldn't do it as a sacrifice or just because someone else needs it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do not understand what is so difficult to grasp about the idea that one ought not to cut off pieces of oneself as this is doing harm to oneself and is therefore immoral.

I did mention elsewhere to you that sex reassignment surgery doesn't involve chopping off anything. So... I don't know what you're talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I looked up the specifics of sexual reassignment surgery, and, yes, for male to female, the testicles are removed. Also, the earlier sex changes up to around 1950 did involve removal of the penis as well. More modern procedures, for what I can gather (no real article on the full procedure that I can find), the penis is basically turned inside out and the testicles are removed. Like I said, I could not find any good details, so I am unsure of what they can do these days. So saying that nothing is cut off is definitely wrong. If you can find a link detailing what is done (I tried Wiki and several doctor's websites), that would be helpful. Some of the sites mentioned using portions of intestines to construct a vaginal canal that is self-lubricating, but I'm not sure how that works with inverted penis operations. And I would assume that with the inverted penis method that the portion of the penis that causes erections would have to be removed (the inside of the penis), but I am unsure of that.

But with that said, the only thing that changes from male is the castration of the testicles, leading to no testosterone creation, though that wouldn't really make one a female. So, is testosterone the problem? does the testosterone in a transgender male to female what makes them reject their maleness? or maybe they just don't like getting an erection? Seems rather strange to me, as they are only cosmetically made into females otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And when it comes to donating or selling organs for transplant patients, it would only be moral to do so if one gained a greater value -- such as saving the life of a loved one or making more money than one needed to counter-act the missing organ. Certainly, one shouldn't do it out of altruism and one shouldn't do it as a sacrifice or just because someone else needs it.

But someone whose gender identity doesn't match their sex couldn't possibly be getting such a greater value by going through gender reassignment surgery. >.<

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to re-assess my integration of sex changes, given my new information. If the penis is inverted male to female and the clitoris is extended female to male, then it looks like sexual enjoyment is still possible. But I don't know if this is better or worse, in a sense, because it still means a mutilated penis / clitoris and I'm still against that procedure due to the bodily mutilation. The underlying chromosomes / DNA still means they haven't been converted from one sex to the other, it's just that the parts are re-arranged (and some are removed). Does this make it more pretentious? If the male still has a penis, but it is internal instead of external, is he just against getting an erection? I just find that bizarre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do not understand what is so difficult to grasp about the idea that one ought not to cut off pieces of oneself as this is doing harm to oneself and is therefore immoral. Do you have the moral / political right to do it? -- sure, it's your body, but that doesn't make it moral. And when it comes to donating or selling organs for transplant patients, it would only be moral to do so if one gained a greater value -- such as saving the life of a loved one or making more money than one needed to counter-act the missing organ. Certainly, one shouldn't do it out of altruism and one shouldn't do it as a sacrifice or just because someone else needs it.

Then it is also moral to remove organs which one cannot use or doesn't enjoy their use and to create an anatomy which would be compatible with one's physiological and psychological sexual identity. How joy and well being could be a sacrifice?

Link to post
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...