Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

On Transgender / Transsexualism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Finding it bizarre is natural since you have no desire to do this. I agree, I find it bizarre too. But I will not tell another man he is immoral for doing this without first knowing why he is doing it. He could have good reasons, he coulld not. Context is king in all evaluations.

Beyond thinking it is bizzarre, I can't think of any normal context (ie. without serious mental damage not related exclusively to sexuality) where trying to change one's sex to some made-up, fake, wannabe knock-off of an idea of some other sex stereotype is beneficial somehow. And even in these serious cases, to me it looks like a body-mutilation band-aid over what are really mental issues.

I didn't grow up fitting into any established form of masculinity or "male-ness," nor did I fit into the somewhat accepted flamer-type gay "masculinity" -- I had to figure out my own identity. Should I have pumped myself full of steroids for years to become some kind of alpha male?

What good reasons are there for a well-adjusted adult to mutilate his genitals?

Edited by JASKN
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.

What good reasons are there for a well-adjusted adult to mutilate his genitals?

There has been a bit of research coming out that seems to indicate there is something fundamentally different in the brains of transgendered people. One notable difference is this,

in each transsexual person's brain the structure of the white matter in the four regions was halfway between that of the males and females (Journal of Psychiatric Research, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.11.007). "Their brains are not completely masculinised and not completely feminised, but they still feel female," says Guillamon.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html

Other differences have been found but that one is significant since there is such a huge difference in gray/white matter ratios between sexes. That said, the (admittedly) few transgendered people that I have ever been acquainted with all had pretty severely abusive backgrounds so I don't know whether it is clear that it is genetic rather than environmentally caused. Either way though, if their are fundamental biological differences that lead them to feel attraction and/or masculinity/femininity differently than the norm, I can't say that I see it as being significantly different from homosexuality in terms of moral judgement. Not sure that that's a "good reason to mutilate ones genitals," but it makes it less blame worthy, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond thinking it is bizzarre, I can't think of any normal context (ie. without serious mental damage not related exclusively to sexuality) where trying to change one's sex to some made-up, fake, wannabe knock-off of an idea of some other sex stereotype is beneficial somehow. And even in these serious cases, to me it looks like a body-mutilation band-aid over what are really mental issues.

I didn't grow up fitting into any established form of masculinity or "male-ness," nor did I fit into the somewhat accepted flamer-type gay "masculinity" -- I had to figure out my own identity. Should I have pumped myself full of steroids for years to become some kind of alpha male?

What good reasons are there for a well-adjusted adult to mutilate his genitals?

You’re transposing yourself in that situation and that does not need to be the case. I was a late bloomer myself and in the 70's-80's there was no anti-bullying campaigning so I had to suck it up and occasionally scrap it up. I certainly never would have done this either and I think I'd cut off a normal leg before the one between the two I walk on. This is not about normal situations but extreme cases.

The most reasonable situation I can fathom is when you have a DNA issue, like a guy with XX sex chromosomes or perhaps the documented cases of XXY or even XXXY (assuming you remember the picture I posted on the Checking Premises thread). There are cases where studies have shown transgenders have demonstrated specific brain patterns similar to opposite genders as well. However, that is no a smoking gun so to speak since there are other studies on hormone patterns that show that transgenders stay true to their born sex.

Thus, with no conclusive evidence but proof that certain contexts can make gender more that a simple issue of physical appearance, I would not call someone immoral without knowing their story. It could be that the person is chopping up his body in an extreme example of the self-mutilation you see troubled kids do. It could also be due to the fact the poor guy got dealt a physiological anomaly at birth and he should attempt to correct the problem to bring his life into a better place to thrive.

So, like I said, you need to know the full story before dismissing someone as immoral or a crack pot. Context is key and getting all of the facts is critical to gaining certainty. Once you have the facts then you can make a proper appraisal of the situation.

The real problem here in my opinion is the poor state of psychology since a proper science in the field would have likely defined this better by now.

Edit ~ Corrected font issue

Edited by Spiral Architect
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to avoid misunderstandings: I am not trying to argue in favor of Thomas's position in this post. I don't have enough confidence in my knowledge of the subject to even begin to form an opinion on it, let alone argue for it with anyone.

I'm just responding to the statements/questions I am quoting.

Thomas,

Is it correct ~ Objectively ~ to take the metaphysical nature

of Man, way back to the DNA level?

I ask, in all sincerity.

It would be impossible to say anything whatsoever about any living organism or species of organisms, that is unrelated to their genes.

And yes, it is objectively necessary to explore that logical relationship (which always exists) between a statement about a living organism or species, and their genes.

Finding it bizarre is natural since you have no desire to do this. I agree, I find it bizarre too. But I will not tell another man he is immoral for doing this without first knowing why he is doing it. He could have good reasons, he coulld not. Context is king in all evaluations.

Surely, you agree that some moral evaluations are valid in contexts that are wider than a single individual's life and reasons, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond thinking it is bizzarre, I can't think of any normal context (ie. without serious mental damage not related exclusively to sexuality) where trying to change one's sex to some made-up, fake, wannabe knock-off of an idea of some other sex stereotype is beneficial somehow. And even in these serious cases, to me it looks like a body-mutilation band-aid over what are really mental issues.

I didn't grow up fitting into any established form of masculinity or "male-ness," nor did I fit into the somewhat accepted flamer-type gay "masculinity" -- I had to figure out my own identity. Should I have pumped myself full of steroids for years to become some kind of alpha male?

What good reasons are there for a well-adjusted adult to mutilate his genitals?

While I support the right of someone to do whatever they please with their own bodies the argument about the morality gets trickier.

What do we know from research? Well, we do know that there are both physical and mental components to this gender dysphoria

Must political correctness keep us from calling this what it is- a form of mental illness? Value neutral, that is simply what it is.

So the question is- what is the moral thing to do when a genetic aberration causes a person to be incapable of living in their own skin comfortably?

When someone who lives in a state of altered reality feels as though some part of their body is "wrong" or out to hurt them, or possessed or what have you do we call it moral to just chop off the arm?

I don't know if anyone has a satisfactory answer to these questions yet, there hasn't been that much objective research yet. For a time the research was based on a very anti-gay worldview (the research conflated it, I am not saying it is related) and now the research tends towards an overly politically correct stance.

Edited by SapereAude
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the state of psychology isn't great and that the issue isn't fully understood. I don't claim to understand it fully, and I would guess it's similar to what homosexuals experience, minus whatever mental illness is attached (just like homosexuality).

What gets me is the mutilation, which is permanent, dangerous, and not even guaranteed to work -- ie. make the person feel "right." From what I can gather, the same mental issues persist even after "transition."

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be impossible to say anything whatsoever about any living organism or species of organisms, that is unrelated to their genes.

And yes, it is objectively necessary to explore that logical relationship (which always exists) between a statement about a living organism or species, and their genes.

I'm still not convinced (either way.)

My argument is likely facetious, but Aristotle did alright without gene-knowledge.

As did Ayn Rand - though she probably had some knowledge, I guess.

Are we going to re-write all metaphysics in the light of fresh info of DNA?

Is O'ism biologically deterministic?

"The fact that a living entity IS, determines what it OUGHT to do."[AR]

"IS" what? Volitional, rational and self-generating?

Or, male/female? Asian/Caucasian? (Ok, that's silly.)

"OUGHT" what? To live in opposition to his sense of personal identity?

Which may be confirmed by brain-scan.

When an alternative exists, medically?

Questions, questions... :)

Edited by JASKN
Fixed quote
Link to post
Share on other sites
What good reasons are there for a well-adjusted adult to mutilate his genitals?

One person I know online, a male, gave me a reason why, it's because he thinks he was born with a 'male birth defect', and is going through all the processes (over in Germany) to try to correct that. Eventually he is going to have the surgery, if he haven't already, I stopped following the 'progress'. Even with the surgery, I still wold think of him as a man, that had surgery. Even if his weiner is turned inwards, he's still a man with an inturned weiner, to me.

This married couple:

image.jpg

the man on the right that looks like an old hag, is next to a girl that looks like the old hags grandson, both are transgenders (TG). The old hags lover, was expelled recently from U of Pitt, because she can't seem to be able to use the correct gender segragated restroom on campus - those that enter the campus property are allowed to use the appropriate gender segregated restroom, you go in the one because you think you are the opposite sex, when you are not, you can get into trouble. So, regardless of what is making her think so, pyschological or whatnot, as long as that ID says 'female' you are not supposed to be in the men's room. This is where how they think or feel about themselves can cause conflict.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, you agree that some moral evaluations are valid in contexts that are wider than a single individual's life and reasons, right?

Great question. Most definitely and I do. I do however require myself to have certainty to consider something to have context that is wider and universal over the need for individual context. If I am going to make such generalizations I want to be sure I am right. Principles such as Honesty and Productivity are good examples. In fact, productivity is such a strong principle of mine it is likely the one area I loose patience real fast (as happened in several threads here where people either claimed the right to control my ability to trade or refused to treat their own requirement to be productive serious).

Even more complex principles apply as well. I don’t need to hear how communism works well (relatively speaking) in small isolated monasteries to still consider it the most horrid social system to be inflicted on people, and that the monks that choose to do that are wrong. While it is their choice I would consider it an immoral choice. I’m sure they are nice people still they are dreadfully wrong for blowing this one shot at life.

But there are some things that you need individual clarification on. I have not been presented with enough evidence to be certain that transgenders are an issue that one can make wider evaluations outside of individual circumstances. If I was to make a wider context, and this is me thinking off the top of my head: “Sex changes are an extreme act of surgery that is the result of extreme circumstances relative to the psychological or physiological wellbeing of the individual.”

From here the direct evaluation would be discover the extreme circumstances. Is the person doing it due to very bad emotional psychological issues that are unhealthy (the self-mutilation example) or are they doing it due to rare and unfortunate physiological/psychological issues that could help the person lead a healthier life (someone born with XXXY chromosomes). You need to know the reason the person is doing it. In this case the line would be over the point of self-loathing versus self-correcting.

I will admit that this is all based on my (admittedly) armchair understanding of this issue. Google does not make one an expert so I could be proven wrong at a later time. But moral evaluations do require certainty. It is someone’s character you are talking about after all. What research I have done has led me to believe there is enough reasons for this happening (good and bad) that it is worth a little fact finding before a moral evaluation is in order. A basic evaluation (like a cold shudder) is natural. But if the person is worth the time for a moral sanction (or condemnation) then they are worth a few minutes to get the facts to make that decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far TG opponents here are ignoring freedom of choice. What if a person simply wishes to become the opposite sex? If technology exists to make that mostly possible, what moral condemnation can rightly be brought?

If a woman who has undergone transformative surgery to become a man wishes to use the men's restroom, why stop her? Will the men all be tainted by her presence? The idea of gender specific bathrooms is an Augustinian social convention anyway. She's not there to be a pervert, she's not tapping her foot beneath stalls, she's just using the bathroom most congruous with her outward appearance.

Transgenderism is okay morally just for the same reason homosexuality is, and that fundamental morality has nothing to do with biology or physiology in every way, and has everything to do with volition.

EDIT: I originally said "You're all ignoring" at the beginning, that was pretty inaccurate. Fixed.

Edited by Jackethan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is reasonable and rational.

I think the notion that this is some sort of whim, some plastic surgery for instant

gratification, has been dealt with. The psychological screening, ongoing therapy,

hormone treatments and finally, surgery - involved, must be horrendous, and take years.

Obviously, given all that,the prospective sex-change patient considers it still

a higher value: not a sacrifice.

Has anyone noticed the parallel arguments used in another scenario?

In which an adult's body also under-goes 'manipulation', intervention and surgical

procedure - by choice? Yes, abortion: which is opposed by conservative "pro-lifers" on the grounds of interfering with nature, going against God's will, and also being 'digusting'.

Objectivism supports "pro-choice" on the basis of the woman's life, and her right

to determine it, over the unborn foetus.

It's ironic that the argument is now switched the other way.

The 'gender assignee' will argue exactly the same: that his/her right to pursue

happiness (which they feel denied of, due to no fault of their own) - is just

as moral. While not an argument,per se, there are enough parallels here to make

me wary of a contradiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far TG opponents here are ignoring freedom of choice. What if a person simply wishes to become the opposite sex?

A person can freely choose to do all sorts of things that aren't in their best interest. This isn't some minor alteration -- it's a full blown slice-and-dice of the source of sexual pleasure, which can never be un-done. It's also not great "technology," either, where the results aren't exactly convincing, to say the least. What is the benefit in this lengthy, expensive, risky procedure and hormone treatment? Why would someone choose this?

The restroom issue is something else, and I agree with you: it's silly to segregate people to different bathrooms based only on sex.

Has anyone noticed the parallel arguments used in another scenario?

In which an adult's body also under-goes 'manipulation', intervention and surgical

procedure - by choice? Yes, abortion[...]

I don't think abortion is analogous. Without an abortion, a woman's life is forever changed in a thousand (presumably) unwanted ways. After one, she is still mentally sound, she hasn't destroyed her source of sexual pleasure, and she isn't pretending to be something she isn't.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So far TG opponents here are ignoring freedom of choice. What if a person simply wishes to become the opposite sex? If technology exists to make that mostly possible, what moral condemnation can rightly be brought?

If a woman who has undergone transformative surgery to become a man wishes to use the men's restroom, why stop her? Will the men all be tainted by her presence? The idea of gender specific bathrooms is an Augustinian social convention anyway. She's not there to be a pervert, she's not tapping her foot beneath stalls, she's just using the bathroom most congruous with her outward appearance.

Transgenderism is okay morally just for the same reason homosexuality is, and that fundamental morality has nothing to do with biology or physiology in every way, and has everything to do with volition.

EDIT: I originally said "You're all ignoring" at the beginning, that was pretty inaccurate. Fixed.

I have to disagree that “freedom of choice” is a valid criteria. There are many things in life that one can choose to do but whether it is a good idea is a different story. One’s life and long term happiness should be the standard and rationally observed. I agree it may be a good idea for someone to get a sex change but it is a rare extreme case to fit the criteria of being in one’s rational self-interest. Considering how life changing and irrevocable it is one should be absolutely certain that it is worth doing. The mere act of volition unaccounted for a rational reason to do so relegates the act to whims. You buy a record on a whim. You don’t permanently rearrange your body on a whim.

I don’t know if I read you wrong, but I also disagree that homosexuality is about freedom of choice. Homosexuals don’t choose to like the same sex; it is outside of their control since they are born that way. I agree the issue with transgenders may be similar in that someone can be born with physical predisposition to be the opposite sex (the XXY example). Again, it’s about being true to oneself and acting in one’s rational best interest to live, not doing what one or others want out of a whim (or obedience). To be moral the choice should be objective, not subjective or intrinsic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a woman who has undergone transformative surgery to become a man wishes to use the men's restroom, why stop her? Will the men all be tainted by her presence? The idea of gender specific bathrooms is an Augustinian social convention anyway. She's not there to be a pervert, she's not tapping her foot beneath stalls, she's just using the bathroom most congruous with her outward appearance.

Just to play devils advocate here and defend the ladies, most women I know would rather have the bathroom be segregated if for no other reason then most men make a mess of the bathroom. I keep our bathroom clean (we break the house up for the cleaning schedule) but my wife still dreams of a day when we will get a second one so I can be exiled… :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not convinced (either way.)

My argument is likely facetious, but Aristotle did alright without gene-knowledge.

Aristotle did terribly with pretty much everything past Logic. He's lucky that he didn't need any knowledge of human beings for Logic, otherwise he would've been in deep trouble.

As did Ayn Rand - though she probably had some knowledge, I guess.

Are we going to re-write all metaphysics in the light of fresh info of DNA?

No, we don't need to rewrite it, because new discoveries tend to confirm old knowledge. We only need to rewrite the parts people got wrong. Luckily, with Ayn Rand, there are relatively few of them.

Is O'ism biologically deterministic?

Biological determinism is the notion that genes determine our choices (meaning that we don't have free will), not that genetic reality ought to be considered whenever we exercise our free will and make choices.

"The fact that a living entity IS, determines what it OUGHT to do."[AR]

"IS" what? Volitional, rational and self-generating?

Or, male/female? Asian/Caucasian? (Ok, that's silly.)

It's not silly, actually. One's race can be a relevant factor in making choices. (for instance blacks should know that they are more likely to get sickle cell and should act accordingly).

The answer is: everything. And a lot of that everything is, in the end, determined by our genes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicky,

We have to get right the distinction between the metaphysical and the physical

(re: Man) otherwise this could go round and round.

See my reply to T.Miovas on the other thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has been said here already, but the point I made a while ago about the absurdity of bringing up our chromosomes is that most of them are used once and then forever ignored. In other words, a chromosome might say, "when it comes time to grow the ear, make it an attached one". Then, for the next 100 or so years of the organism's life, that chromosome has nothing to say about anything. It's just there.

Hence it's idiotic imagine that chromosomes are these active things in your body like midi-chlorians or thetans. The fact that they are in every cell is completely meaningless in practicality. Their powers are not magic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read some arguments that a medical sex change would result in loss of feeling from the genitalia, which is a solid argument since it seriously makes the reason for a sex change moot in my mind. There is no reason to change your sex if you will not be able to have intercourse as romantic relationships are essential to living. So if the procedure results in one losing quality of romantic love … well it would justifiably be wrong. Surgery should not be a step backwards.

This is a good counter argument so I decided to fact check myself. I’m glad I did as I learned a few things:

  1. Sex reassignment surgery does not replace genitalia but is more akin to plastic surgery in that it changes what you already have.
  2. This is not an exact science and is considered an art because it involves cosmetic surgery. Success is a result of the skill of the surgeon and pervious health conditions of the patient. Smoking can cause problems (I did not research why) but also previous surgeries or injuries around the genitalia.
  3. The very limited nature and relatively new research in this area means techniques very as well.
  4. The male to female version of this surgery is more successful as changing male genitalia to a female equivalent is easier. I never thought of that but it makes sense. The primary failures are functional or aesthetic but sensational issues can result as well. One needs to make sure they have a clean bill of health and get the best surgeon you can buy.
  5. Physical sensation and other sexual sensations is comparable post surgery, even in cases where skin grafts have to be used due to issues with traditional vaginoplasty (inverting the penis).
  6. The surgery is treated as a wound by the body so therapy to keep the “vagina” open and treatments for chemical imbalances may need to be done so the body doesn’t try to “heal” the changes. Depending on your body and to what extend the doctors had to rearrange the landscape this may be a lifetime commitment.

That helps clarify the issue. You can get a sex change and continue to have romantic relationships. It is an extreme make over and not without risk so someone needs to be certain that it is in their rational best interest to do so. Talk about weighting opportunity costs! You need to be committed to doing the homework to get the best procedure done by the best doctors and also be prepared (at least currently) for years in physical therapy as well as treatments. In extreme situations I can see this being good for someone but it certainly is only for those situations. It isn’t a simple lifestyle choice that anyone should do on a whim. It is a decision one needs to weigh one’s life and long term happiness against. One needs to be certain that the risks are worth the rewards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has been said here already, but the point I made a while ago about the absurdity of bringing up our chromosomes is that most of them are used once and then forever ignored. In other words, a chromosome might say, "when it comes time to grow the ear, make it an attached one". Then, for the next 100 or so years of the organism's life, that chromosome has nothing to say about anything. It's just there.

Hence it's idiotic imagine that chromosomes are these active things in your body like midi-chlorians or thetans. The fact that they are in every cell is completely meaningless in practicality. Their powers are not magic.

That makes sense, but it would also mean that at some point the chromosome did go off. If the pattern is different from expectations (like in XX versus XXY) would it not then make sense that this would cause a physilogical difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The restroom issue is something else, and I agree with you: it's silly to segregate people to different bathrooms based only on sex.

Well, whatever the property owner specifies and puts into policy, or has been made into law, one has to go by. Coed restrooms I think exist, and of course there are the ones that are 'unisex' where either a man or woman can use, and lock the door behind them when they do.

The transgenders can be problematic. There is no dress code to use the restrooms, only gender specific signs. So a dude that plays dressup to look like a lady goes into a men's restroom, hikes up his skirt while standing in front of a urinal to wiz, which could cause conflict, but he is in the correct restroom, so any harassment, or beatings, that may happen as a result would be violating his rights in one way or another.

Ahhh, the beauty of restrooms with locks on them, where one can wiz in peace.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

A person can freely choose to do all sorts of things that aren't in their best interest. This isn't some minor alteration -- it's a full blown slice-and-dice of the source of sexual pleasure, which can never be un-done. It's also not great "technology," either, where the results aren't exactly convincing, to say the least. What is the benefit in this lengthy, expensive, risky procedure and hormone treatment? Why would someone choose this?

The restroom issue is something else, and I agree with you: it's silly to segregate people to different bathrooms based only on sex.

"Why would someone choose this?" That's precisely the issue. Because you don't understand why they would, you are assigning a blanket moral statement that it is wrong for anyone to do. This is far different from, say, a Muslim woman choosing to undergo circumcision to bring herself closer to God. There are documented instances of people having a sex change and enjoying a stable healthy life afterward. The fact that the surgery is invasive, permanent, and that some people may not be quite as happy as they thought afterward does not negate the fact that some people -are- quite happy, so at most moral condemnation should only be assigned on a case by case basis. In the future, when geneticists have figured out how to give someone a real actual sex change, this debate will be quite different.

Glad we agree on restrooms. :D I also agreed with you earlier on masculinity.

You don’t permanently rearrange your body on a whim.

I don’t know if I read you wrong, but I also disagree that homosexuality is about freedom of choice. Homosexuals don’t choose to like the same sex; it is outside of their control since they are born that way.

A sex change surgery requires a lot more rigorous testing than being a simple whim. If a person can convince a doctor to give them hormones, a psychologist that they need them, and then after that they need a surgery, then it may go beyond a simple whim. Plastic surgeons aren't just handing out sex changes to anyone who can pay.

The morality of homosexuality necessarily -must- be about freedom of choice. Regardless of what psychology says now, or what it might say in the future, being gay is okay because it is morally okay for a person to choose to be that way. Psychologists used to say it was a disorder, now they say it's a trait, in the future they might say it's nurture. This is just the nature of science, and it's why the moral evaluation of homosexuality must divorce itself from science. Homosexuality being a choice or not is not a first level concept.

Just to play devils advocate here and defend the ladies, most women I know would rather have the bathroom be segregated if for no other reason then most men make a mess of the bathroom. I keep our bathroom clean (we break the house up for the cleaning schedule) but my wife still dreams of a day when we will get a second one so I can be exiled… :lol:

To play devil's advocate on your devil's advocate, I used to work in a retail position where I had to clean bathrooms, and frequently the women's bathroom was more filthy than the men's. Cleaning soiled tampons off the floor and toilet is just as disgusting as cleaning piss from beneath the urinal.

Well, whatever the property owner specifies and puts into policy, or has been made into law, one has to go by. Coed restrooms I think exist, and of course there are the ones that are 'unisex' where either a man or woman can use, and lock the door behind them when they do.

The transgenders can be problematic. There is no dress code to use the restrooms, only gender specific signs. So a dude that plays dressup to look like a lady goes into a men's restroom, hikes up his skirt while standing in front of a urinal to wiz, which could cause conflict, but he is in the correct restroom, so any harassment, or beatings, that may happen as a result would be violating his rights in one way or another.

Ahhh, the beauty of restrooms with locks on them, where one can wiz in peace.

I thought we were speaking morally and not legally. If we're speaking legally, no argument can be made, because volition definitely is a legal principle, even in the modern USA.

Also if we're speaking legally, a law against transgenders using a bathroom would be a violation of rights in any context. You could only punish stupid or ugly transsexuals who, for some reason, reveal their sex to someone else in the bathroom. Generally the convincing ones will get by, whatcha gonna do, lift her skirt?

Also as a side note, I'm personally against urinals, I dislike them and never use them. I'd prefer if Men's restrooms didn't have them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think abortion is analogous. Without an abortion, a woman's life is forever changed in a thousand (presumably) unwanted ways. After one, she is still mentally sound, she hasn't destroyed her source of sexual pleasure, and she isn't pretending to be something she isn't.

My point is the parallel between the argumentations.

Conservatives believe abortion to be a "metaphysical assault",too, I'm sure.

It's like the Catholic Church (way back when) outlawing anaesthesia - because

it interfered with God's purpose for men to feel pain.

The Church apparently saw metaphysical value in pain, as it does today

in an unborn foetus. That was then - but who knows what innovative medical interventions we will have in our future?

I think this whole issue revolves around commanding Nature - by obeying it first -

but commanding it just the same.

Man's body is Nature also.

It puzzles me that you think gender re-assignment will eliminate pleasure; first, my

simple knowledge is that the primary purpose is for the person to establish their

'correct' gender, matching their inherent view of themselves (initially, not about sex at all); second, that not many (a few perhaps) would enter the program knowing this possibility.

Also, I do not believe these unfortunate people to be mentally unsound.

That they'd have psychological problems, however, would not surprise me.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Conservatives believe abortion to be a "metaphysical assault",too, I'm sure.

[...]

It puzzles me that you think gender re-assignment will eliminate pleasure; first, my

simple knowledge is that the primary purpose is for the person to establish their

'correct' gender, matching their inherent view of themselves [...]

I'm not talking about legality here, I'm talking about morality.

It's just so bizarre to me that you would say that genital mutilation is "matching" either sex. The organs are not grown and replaced, they are spliced and diced. I also don't believe people who say that the feeling is even comparable to intact genitals.

I suppose if we want to make up some reality where human bodies and body parts can be grown and swapped out with an hour-long medical procedure safely, even routinely, then I have no argument against that, and the world we would live in would be a lot different than the one we live in now. But we're talking about now, where the unknowns are many and the benefits uncertain/nonexistent.

A sex change surgery requires a lot more rigorous testing than being a simple whim. If a person can convince a doctor to give them hormones, a psychologist that they need them, and then after that they need a surgery, then it may go beyond a simple whim. Plastic surgeons aren't just handing out sex changes to anyone who can pay.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone could convince all three of those professions to do wacky things to his body.

The morality of homosexuality necessarily -must- be about freedom of choice. Regardless of what psychology says now, or what it might say in the future, being gay is okay because it is morally okay for a person to choose to be that way. Psychologists used to say it was a disorder, now they say it's a trait, in the future they might say it's nurture.

The morality of homosexuality involves choice, no choice, circumstance, and the individual in question. But if you mean just the sexual urges of a male toward another male, that involves no choice at all, at least by the time he is sexually mature -- and I doubt any conscious choice before then, either -- and thus is not a question of morality.

"Why would someone choose this?" That's precisely the issue. Because you don't understand why they would, you are assigning a blanket moral statement that it is wrong for anyone to do. This is far different from, say, a Muslim woman choosing to undergo circumcision to bring herself closer to God. There are documented instances of people having a sex change and enjoying a stable healthy life afterward. The fact that the surgery is invasive, permanent, and that some people may not be quite as happy as they thought afterward does not negate the fact that some people -are- quite happy, so at most moral condemnation should only be assigned on a case by case basis. In the future, when geneticists have figured out how to give someone a real actual sex change, this debate will be quite different.

So you think I don't understand, and I've repeatedly asked to be "enlightened," yet you don't offer simple explanations on the benefits of this surgery and calling one's self "transgender," or even what "transgender" means.

Just because a person is "quite happy" (which can't be known for certain) after the sex "reassignment" surgery doesn't mean the surgery was a good idea, or was even responsible for the happiness. If we're comparing it to homosexuality, I'm gay because only men turn me on -- period. It doesn't have to do with the gender I "identify" with, nor my personality, nor my preferences, nor whatever. What makes a transgender person? How does this surgery help him? How is it different from any other forms of sexuality? "In the future," when humans can be altered at whim, we won't be having almost any of the kinds of discussions we're having now, will we? All of our current discussions are about humans.

Edited by JASKN
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...