Transexuals

[I_am_not_mafia]

The issue seems much more complicated that what either you or Drich have said. Mental health problems are often a constellation of issues and cannot be attributed to a single specific illness or cause. The problems associated with gender-dysphoria cannot be fully attributed to social attitudes.  Most often the mentally ill are better served by accepting themselves as they are. That seems to me to be a very important difference between being gay and being transgendered. Positive self-acceptance for a gay person does not require a regime of hormonal treatments and/or invasive surgical procedures. Absent a serious physical illness, trying to change your existing biology to conform to how you think it "should be" is the exact opposite of self-acceptance.

Why doesn't it ever work though? The only proven effective treatment for transgendered is to let them transition.

It is not ideology. It is practice and experience. The medical establishment tried absolutely everything they could to stop transgendered people transitioning. Absolutely nothing else worked.

[Esquilax]

Do I think this is the healthiest way of dealing with the disorder? I admit I'm no expert, but just from a personal common sense type perspective, it just seems to me like the healthier approach would be to treat the disorder through therapy/etc and help these people accept themselves for who they are. Rather than taking synthetic hormones and undergoing extensive surgeries to try to change.

See, I noticed this line of reasoning in Wooters' post too, this "accepting themselves as they are," thing, and I think it assumes a connection between your "proper" gender and your physical body that really doesn't need to be there. Essentially, why assume that who you "really" are is what your physical body dictates, rather than your mind? I've yet to see an answer to this, but even if one could be made, isn't there an equal argument we could make that, since the brain is also a part of the body and that brain, in transgender people, is telling them that their body doesn't match their internal model of themselves, that their bodies are suggesting a "who they really are," that doesn't match their physical sex? I mean, at most you now have two competing physiological impulses- the brain and the genitals- fit to inform who a person "really is" in this model: why on earth would you preference the genitals over the brain?

I mean, this is kind of an irrelevant line of reasoning anyway, since a proper understanding of gender (the mental state, as opposed to physical sex) puts paid to the idea that there's little actual connection between one's internal gender and one's exterior sex anyway: I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking that the transgender community are just people surgically correcting their physical sex and nobody else, because that's how the media and common understanding tends to play it, but in truth there's a far greater scale than that. There are transgender folks who don't want reassignment surgery and are okay with their genitals the way they are, genderqueer people whose gender identity fluctuates and occasionally aligns with their body, agender people who feel no particular affiliation to either gender, and so on. Examining the reality reveals a gender spectrum without even a guarantee that any given individual will have a fixed place upon it, and to suggest that, no, all of these gender identities are wrong, all of these brains are just wrong, but the penis and vagina have it perfectly right all of the time merely because that happens to align with conventional wisdom on the subject (which, notably, transgender people have not historically had much of a voice in to begin with) reeks of special pleading. Not only does it stand on a lack of understanding of the distinctions between sex and gender, which we're still only really starting to discover, but it appeals to traditional views of gender for no adequately justified reason at all.

Sorry if that sounded standoffish, CL: I know you didn't suggest a lot of this in your post, just some of your language snagged in my mind and got me off on a tear, here.

[I_am_not_mafia]

This is an unrelated question but why is the T in LGBT? The first three make sense as they are all sexual orientations, but isn't T something entirely different? Why do they get lumped together? Doesn't make sense to me since somebody who is trans can be LGB or Hetero.

You're right in that being trans is about gender identity and being lesbian, gay or bisexual concerns your sexuality. The two are different.

But it's down to practicality because they face the same kind of bigotry from society. Not every T wants to be lumped in with the LGB, but many T's are, or have been more fluid with their own sexuality.

[I_am_not_mafia]

See, I noticed this line of reasoning in Wooters' post too, this "accepting themselves as they are," thing, and I think it assumes a connection between your "proper" gender and your physical body that really doesn't need to be there. Essentially, why assume that who you "really" are is what your physical body dictates, rather than your mind? I've yet to see an answer to this, but even if one could be made, isn't there an equal argument we could make that, since the brain is also a part of the body and that brain, in transgender people, is telling them that their body doesn't match their internal model of themselves, that their bodies are suggesting a "who they really are," that doesn't match their physical sex? I mean, at most you now have two competing physiological impulses- the brain and the genitals- fit to inform who a person "really is" in this model: why on earth would you preference the genitals over the brain?

I mean, this is kind of an irrelevant line of reasoning anyway, since a proper understanding of gender (the mental state, as opposed to physical sex) puts paid to the idea that there's little actual connection between one's internal gender and one's exterior sex anyway: I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking that the transgender community are just people surgically correcting their physical sex and nobody else, because that's how the media and common understanding tends to play it, but in truth there's a far greater scale than that. There are transgender folks who don't want reassignment surgery and are okay with their genitals the way they are, genderqueer people whose gender identity fluctuates and occasionally aligns with their body, agender people who feel no particular affiliation to either gender, and so on. Examining the reality reveals a gender spectrum without even a guarantee that any given individual will have a fixed place upon it, and to suggest that, no, all of these gender identities are wrong, all of these brains are just wrong, but the penis and vagina have it perfectly right all of the time merely because that happens to align with conventional wisdom on the subject (which, notably, transgender people have not historically had much of a voice in to begin with) reeks of special pleading. Not only does it stand on a lack of understanding of the distinctions between sex and gender, which we're still only really starting to discover, but it appeals to traditional views of gender for no adequately justified reason at all.

This.

Many transgendered people spend many decades fighting against who they are, trying to fit into the roles expected of them by society and eventually they come round to the point where they have to accept themselves.

First and foremost you are your brain, not your body. You can cut off parts of your body and still be you. Cut off parts of your brain and you start losing yourself.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I do agree that it's a mental disorder, but I still think they should be legally allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies. It's not really my business if someone chooses to amputate their penis/boobs, and I'm not going to make a case about it or treat them differently because of it.

That sounds very progressive, except if someone is indeed suffering from a mental disorder it is not noble to allow them to irreversibly harm themselves. For example, it is right and proper to intervene when a severely depressed person tries to commit suicide rather than respect their personal autonomy. Likewise, it is right and proper to treat substance abusers rather than make it easy for them to poison themselves in the name of liberty.Right now, some people feel virtuous because they believe they are opposing bigotry and ignorance. They see themselves as fighting oppression. Their virtue signalling has nothing to do with compassion. Calling Drich a bigot only makes them feel good about themselves.

But Drich did raised the cultural issue in a clumsy fashion. Cultures do not self-segregate the sexes purely out of modesty, moral sentiment, or taboo. Many social practices evolved to protect people in situations where they may be vulnerable, like states of undress. Sexual predators taking advantage of a misguided law to remove sex segregation is a legitimate concern. Also state mandates to alter public and private infrastructure just to sooth the feelings of a tiny minority would divert resources away from more worthwhile pursuits.

[LadyForCamus]

This is a slippery slope. What about cosmetic surgery? Liposuction? Breast implants? Vaginal reconstruction surgery? Hair transplant? Tattoos? Ear piercings? Why are we picking on the transgendered here? If transitioning allows them to feel well, and healthy, and whole, who is anyone to stand up against that? Why would anyone want to? Why are "we" so preoccupied with other people's sexuality and gender identity?

[Esquilax]

That sounds very progressive, except if someone is indeed suffering from a mental disorder it is not noble to allow them to irreversibly harm themselves. For example, it is right and proper to intervene when a severely depressed person tries to commit suicide rather than respect their personal autonomy. Likewise, it is right and proper to treat substance abusers rather than make it easy for them to poison themselves in the name of liberty.Right now, some people feel virtuous because they believe they are opposing bigotry and ignorance. They see themselves as fighting oppression. Their virtue signalling has nothing to do with compassion. Calling Drich a bigot only makes them feel good about themselves.

And yet you wouldn't kick up this much fuss, nor attempt to prevent, a person from getting plastic surgery. You might not like it, but I doubt you'd make the argument they should be prevented from doing so, yes?

So, the question becomes: why classify transgendered people in the same group as substance abusers or people trying to harm themselves, rather than as those wanting plastic surgery to improve the way they feel about their exteriors? We've gotta unwrap these assumptions you guys keep making, here.

But Drich did raised the cultural issue in a clumsy fashion. Cultures do not self-segregate the sexes purely out of modesty, moral sentiment, or taboo. Many social practices evolved to protect people in situations where they may be vulnerable, like states of undress. Sexual predators taking advantage of a misguided law to remove sex segregation is a legitimate concern. Also state mandates to alter public and private infrastructure just to sooth the feelings of a tiny minority would divert resources away from more worthwhile pursuits.

Oh, I'm so glad you brought this up today. Why? Because the Friendly Atheist ran a piece about this exact issue today: what was the takeaway? How many transgendered sexual predators have actually been arrested for doing illegal things in bathrooms? Zero.

How many republican politicians have been caught doing that? At least three. So, by your own logic, we'd be better served by making laws preventing GOP candidates from using restrooms than we would transgendered people. This specter of bathroom rape resulting from equitable transgender laws is constantly brought up, but there's simply no facts to support it. There's an interesting little coda to the article I posted, where a commentator demonstrated that men were already getting into women's bathrooms under false pretenses to improperly interact with them, rendering laws specifically forbidding transgender people not only irrelevant, but targeted at the wrong group anyway. Cis men dress as women to commit these crimes: transgender people do not.

And also, you know, sexual assault is still a crime. It's already illegal: if it happens right now the perpetrator has run afoul of the law, and frankly, it's not as though there's any real barrier to it happening either way. There aren't guards outside public restrooms frisking people's junk before they go in; you just kinda walk in. When you make this argument that allowing transgender people to use the correct restroom enables sexual assault in bathrooms and gendered spaces, what you're suggesting is that actual, real life rapists are not concerned with the far worse, felony laws for sexual assault, but that they will be deterred by state level bathroom bills, and I simply do not know how you can make that argument with a straight face.

"Dang, I guess I can't go into this women's bathroom to rape somebody now that the law prevents me from using the restroom other than the one matching my biological sex. I wouldn't want to break the law or anything..."

Doesn't that sound ridiculous to you?

[LadyForCamus]

I do agree that it's a mental disorder, but I still think they should be legally allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies. It's not really my business if someone chooses to amputate their penis/boobs, and I'm not going to make a case about it or treat them differently because of it.

That sounds very progressive, except if someone is indeed suffering from a mental disorder it is not noble to allow them to irreversibly harm themselves. For example, it is right and proper to intervene when a severely depressed person tries to commit suicide rather than respect their personal autonomy. Likewise, it is right and proper to treat substance abusers rather than make it easy for them to poison themselves in the name of liberty.Right now, some people feel virtuous because they believe they are opposing bigotry and ignorance. They see themselves as fighting oppression. Their virtue signalling has nothing to do with compassion. Calling Drich a bigot only makes them feel good about themselves.

But Drich did raised the cultural issue in a clumsy fashion. Cultures do not self-segregate the sexes purely out of modesty, moral sentiment, or taboo. Many social practices evolved to protect people in situations where they may be vulnerable, like states of undress. Sexual predators taking advantage of a misguided law to remove sex segregation is a legitimate concern. Also state mandates to alter public and private infrastructure just to sooth the feelings of a tiny minority would divert resources away from more worthwhile pursuits.

How presumptuous (though not surprising) of you. For me it has everything to do with empathy and compassion. How hard is it to put yourself in someone else's shoes? Apparently too hard for some Christians here.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The only proven effective treatment for transgendered is to let them transition...It is not ideology. It is practice and experience.

Transitioning may remove the feelings of gender-dysphoria. Sex reassignment is still not effective at reducing the suicide rates or other psychological problems, like substance abuse, of trans-gendered people. There are deeper issues at play.

For those who wonder why physical integrity should be prioritized, it is because subjective mental states are more malleable than objective biological states. People can have profound changes in their mental state, including their sense of self, without the use of advanced technology.

[LadyForCamus]

That sounds very progressive, except if someone is indeed suffering from a mental disorder it is not noble to allow them to irreversibly harm themselves. For example, it is right and proper to intervene when a severely depressed person tries to commit suicide rather than respect their personal autonomy. Likewise, it is right and proper to treat substance abusers rather than make it easy for them to poison themselves in the name of liberty.Right now, some people feel virtuous because they believe they are opposing bigotry and ignorance. They see themselves as fighting oppression. Their virtue signalling has nothing to do with compassion. Calling Drich a bigot only makes them feel good about themselves.

But Drich did raised the cultural issue in a clumsy fashion. Cultures do not self-segregate the sexes purely out of modesty, moral sentiment, or taboo. Many social practices evolved to protect people in situations where they may be vulnerable, like states of undress. Sexual predators taking advantage of a misguided law to remove sex segregation is a legitimate concern. Also state mandates to alter public and private infrastructure just to sooth the feelings of a tiny minority would divert resources away from more worthwhile pursuits.

How presumptuous (though not surprising) of you. For me it has everything to do with empathy and compassion. How hard is it to put yourself in someone else's shoes? Apparently too hard for some Christians here. Just because your religion dissuades you from empathizing with those who different from you doesn't mean the rest of us are equally as callous. How about only speak for your own feelings going forward.