Changing one's sex

[JASKN]

But it fails, in my estimation, to make the case that therefore all sex reassignment is irrational or immoral.

Maybe it would help to try to think up a good reason why someone *would* have this surgery. The breast reduction analogy, for example, is partly applicable to the transgendered surgeries because the person's physical pain isn't measurable, like a transgender's inner turmoil isn't. But, we know that heavy things will wear a body out from our own personal experience, and so we can translate that to a breast reduction patient and guess that the decision was a good one, or at least could be a good one.

But what about the transgendered? What experiences in a "normal" person's life can inform him that it's rational for a "transgendered" person to "reconstruct" his genitals? I've listed plenty of reasons that point toward it being a poor decision, but for me "feeling a little better maybe and probably not" does not counter those reasons, if it's the only reason.

Obviously there is something going on with this group of "transgendered," and possibly with everyone (all the genders ), but chopping apart body parts to make-believe that your physiology is different still does not look like a fix on any level to me. "I look closer to how I feel" only works if you forget the reality.

[JASKN]

Eiuol, thanks for going through that study. So, it's not great, but it's also not the only source of info. (A kink in all this is the low numbers of transgendered to begin with.) What more-or-less sealed my skepticism was the pre-surgery excitement followed by post-surgery dysphoria found all over YouTube. Some of the people looked just pathetic in their post-surgery disillusionment, and you feel sorry for them. It's like chemotherapy, or other such "kind of" treatments.

[Eiuol]

Eiuol, thanks for going through that study. So, it's not great, but it's also not the only source of info.

Agreed, but it also is a good way to point out questions regarding SRS. As a treatment, I'm not surprised that some people still feel miserable afterwards. It's important to recognize that there are still significant factors contributing to dysphoria besides only genitalia. I doubt that the surgery itself causes a problem really, and it's difficult if not impossible to figure out if the person is better or worse than they would be otherwise.

[DonAthos]

Maybe it would help to try to think up a good reason why someone *would* have this surgery. The breast reduction analogy, for example, is partly applicable to the transgendered surgeries because the person's physical pain isn't measurable, like a transgender's inner turmoil isn't.

 

I think the reason that most people have the surgery is because they believe that it will address their experience of gender dysphoria.

 

When you say that the transgender's inner turmoil isn't measurable, I'll take it that you mean it cannot be measured quantitatively.  But perhaps it can yet be measured comparatively, and thus a person could compare the pain that they experience against what they expect through the surgery, and find the post-surgery experience they imagine to be preferable to their current circumstances.

 

But, we know that heavy things will wear a body out from our own personal experience, and so we can translate that to a breast reduction patient and guess that the decision was a good one, or at least could be a good one.

But what about the transgendered? What experiences in a "normal" person's life can inform him that it's rational for a "transgendered" person to "reconstruct" his genitals?

 

I don't know the pain of gender dysphoria personally, but I've experienced various forms of physical and emotional pain that can help me to understand someone else's, even when the particulars -- or the depth -- are beyond my experience.  I know generally speaking that we take measures to correct for pain, and that the greater the pain (or risk of death), the more extreme the measures we rightly consider to address it.  For instance, the amputation of a limb might be horrific when considered on its own merits, but in certain circumstances it might yet be a rational choice.

 

How much pain must someone be in to consider this sort of surgery?  I don't know.  I expect it must be significant.  Does the surgery correct this particular pain?  It appears that in some cases, it does, though the research you've provided makes clear that it does not yet solve every related problem.  Perhaps there are some who believe that it is simply not rational to experience "gender dysphoria" in the first place.  That may be so.  I've heard similar arguments made for other identity claims outside of the "norm," some of which we now mostly take for granted, though I typically lack the expertise to assess them (just as I doubt that many of those who advance these arguments likewise have any particular expertise).

 

But if one does experience this phenomenon of gender dysphoria -- if we grant that there are people who do, at least sincere in their pathology -- well, what then?  Shouldn't they do what they can to try to make themselves happy, as best as they can, given their situation?  If there are alternatives to this surgery which provide whatever relief they're looking for, better alternatives, then of course they should avail themselves of them.  Or if the surgical options themselves can be improved upon, that would also be for the good.  But in the meantime, I continue to hold that this must be an individual choice based on one's own personal context, and we cannot make blanket pronouncements as to whether or not it is rational to pursue this kind of surgery, as such.

 

I've listed plenty of reasons that point toward it being a poor decision, but for me "feeling a little better maybe and probably not" does not counter those reasons, if it's the only reason.

When you say "feeling a little better maybe and probably not," who are you quoting? Or what are you paraphrasing? If there are people who report that this surgery alleviates their gender dysphoria, and who are part of the group studied who do not have other psychological problems, or etc. (whether those problems themselves have anything to do with the surgery), then is that not a success? Because there is a statistically significant group for whom this surgery does not function as a cure-all -- and absolutely that is significant -- that does not mean that it doesn't work for anybody. If it doesn't work for anybody -- if everyone who claims success is lying or otherwise deluded -- then we're agreed; a surgery that doesn't ever do anything it seeks to do is not a wise choice. But I don't think that's what we're looking at, do you? Isn't there reason to believe that this surgery works for some people, and helps them to make their lives better?

 

Obviously there is something going on with this group of "transgendered," and possibly with everyone (all the genders ), but chopping apart body parts to make-believe that your physiology is different still does not look like a fix on any level to me. "I look closer to how I feel" only works if you forget the reality.

 

I don't know what you mean when you say "make-believe that your physiology is different"... or I kind of understand, but...  let's see...

 

I had my appendix removed some years ago -- am I only pretending that I'm different, post-surgery?  Or am I genuinely different?  I don't pretend that I was born other than how I was born...  I did indeed have an appendix originally, but now it is equally true that I don't have one.  That's a real change to my physiology, and there is no "make-believe" required on my part.  I'm sure we are agreed on that?

 

If a person is born a man and then undergoes a sex change, I'm sure you want to tell him that he's not "really" a woman, all the same.  But if he understands the process he's endured (which I'll submit as "likely," in at least a majority of cases) -- that he was born with a penis, but underwent whatever costly and painful surgical operation, and now has some facsimile of a vagina, yet continues to require whatever hormone treatments, etc. -- then I'm guessing that this is, again, not so much an act of "make-believe" as it is a dedicated effort to confront some reality, and change it -- "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."  When he calls himself a "woman," I doubt that he means that none of the above is true, that he never experienced this surgery, that his breast implants are "natural," that he no longer requires whatever supplements to change his body chemistry.  If he were to say that he now is closer in appearance, and/or in feeling, to his self-image... upon what grounds would I gainsay him?

 

Perhaps he has some belief about what it means to be a "man" or a "woman" that is satisfied by the steps he's taken, so that now he may rightly say that he is a woman, and perhaps you would disagree on that score?  But if so, then I consider that a deep enough question that I'd like to see and weigh the arguments for myself.  How many changes does a man have to make -- genuine physical changes -- before he is correct in pronouncing himself a woman, or vice-versa?  Or can he never reach such a goal?  What is the sine qua non of sex, and is it alterable?  Is this a problem technology can solve at some sufficiently advanced level?  Or will we retain some gendered "essence" we were born with despite every last physical trace being altered?  If we do, what does that "essence" matter, if it retains no particular physical expression?

 

I think I'm sufficiently satisfied with the changes transsexuals make today to respect their chosen sex/gender as being true of them.  If our current methods do not yet change every phenotypical distinction -- and if we cannot yet root out chromosomal differences -- well, I expect that'll all come soon enough.