EPTTranssexuals and TL.net - Page 2
| Blogs > Iyerbeth |
|
rel
Guam3521 Posts
| ||
|
Lucumo
6850 Posts
On August 14 2011 02:57 aphorism wrote: It's also possible for couples biologically incapable of reproducing to still raise children through means like surrogates and adoption, and just because something makes one unable to reproduce, that doesn't mean that there is something 'not right' in the mind of these people. 'Psychological help' for these issues is often unsuccessful, damaging to mental health and self-esteem, and it reinforces the pervasive idea in our society that not being heterosexual and/or cisgendered is wrong (just look at conversion therapy). Your first sentence makes no sense. Not that it has anything to do with what I wrote anyway. If a woman can't get a child, why would there be anything wrong with her mind? Did I say such a thing? Nope. Reproducing =/= raising a child. Even if it's unsuccessful, it's the only "real" way to go because you just ignored the problem which was the mind and not the body. Or let's say it like this: They don't fix the problem but they fix the world and in this case, the world is their body which makes it pretty easy. Other people with a psychological disease don't have it that easy. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters. You weren't born in a wrong body, it's just that your mind is not right. Seeking psychological help is the way to go, I agree with other users there. But nowadays it's easier to change your biological body, so people take that path. Actually I didn't address what I really wanted to last post, mainly that its a conflict of a physical body and a physical brain, where the sex of the body is opposite (or different from) the sex of the brain. I use 'sex' of the brain because it is an observable physical difference; not psychology or new age mysticism. * Transsexual gene link identified * Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus * Male-to-Female Transsexuals Show Sex-Atypical Hypothalamus Activation When Smelling Odorous Steroids * Regional Grey Matter Variation in Male-to-Female Transsexuality * A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity. * White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study. * A Sex Difference in the Human Brain and its Relation to Transsexuality * Typical female 2nd–4th finger length (2D:4D) ratios in male-to-female transsexuals—possible implications for prenatal androgen exposure As you can see, there has been a LOT of research in this field. Trying to use psychology to get around the physical brain/identity would be a bit like a psychologist trying to convince a patient he is a rock. Trying to convince a woman she is a man (or vice versa) is not something easily achieved (or imo even desirable). tl;dr: BAM, FACTS | ||
|
Lucumo
6850 Posts
On August 14 2011 03:44 fusionsdf wrote: Its not easier to change your body. The various surgeries (which some get and some don't) cost 10s of thousands of dollars (or more). The reason we do hormones/surgery isn't because its easier to change the body, but because its impossible to change the mind. Just look at David Reimer. In the hundred+ years studying trans people, there have never been any true successes using psychology to 'make it go away.' And this includes electroshock and aversion therapy etc. If you can't make people stop being gay or straight, why is it so hard to believe you can't change them being trans? Oh, didn't know it's uncurable(thought it has a pretty low success rate). That sucks then, but so my statement of "changing the body is easier" is still true. I don't/didn't know about therapy of homosexuality, I actually thought it has the same (really low)success rate. I guess the people were just unlucky then, same with uncurable biological diseases, except those can be mortal(suicide doesn't count). On August 14 2011 04:01 fusionsdf wrote: As you can see, there has been a LOT of research in this field. Trying to use psychology to get around the physical brain/identity would be a bit like a psychologist trying to convince a patient he is a rock. Trying to convince a woman she is a man (or vice versa) is not something easily achieved (or imo even desirable). Hypnosis might work(to convince the patient he is a rock), ha ha. I'm not sure about hypnosis, it probably only works on the weak minded if at all. It is certainly desirable because then you solve the problem in a natural way. | ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters. You weren't born in a wrong body, it's just that your mind is not right. Seeking psychological help is the way to go, I agree with other users there. But nowadays it's easier to change your biological body, so people take that path. People planning on not having kids need psychological counseling? | ||
|
Zlasher
United States9129 Posts
On August 14 2011 03:47 rel wrote: They will always be guys, no matter how hard you try. You can call a dog a cat as much as you want. It's still a dog. Once again there is a difference between Sex and Gender. | ||
|
Lucumo
6850 Posts
On August 14 2011 04:16 DamageControL wrote: People planning on not having kids need psychological counseling? You should actually read my post properly before answering. | ||
|
aphorism
United States226 Posts
On August 14 2011 04:27 Lucumo wrote: You should actually read my post properly before answering. So are you saying that non-cisgenderedness is a psychological problem, and that people simply change the body because its easier? If so, then fusionsdf addressed that point in his post. He (and I) also addressed the fact that 'psychological help' does not work on people who are homosexual, and given the same nature of that and GID, it is not likely to work in this case. EDIT: If this interpretation is wrong, then please explain your position more clearly, don't just tell people that they're missing the point. | ||
|
Lucumo
6850 Posts
On August 14 2011 04:43 aphorism wrote: So are you saying that non-cisgenderedness is a psychological problem, and that people simply change the body because its easier? If so, then fusionsdf addressed that point in his post. He (and I) also addressed the fact that 'psychological help' does not work on people who are homosexual, and given the same nature of that and GID, it is not likely to work in this case. EDIT: If this interpretation is wrong, then please explain your position more clearly, don't just tell people that they're missing the point. Heh? What are you talking about? I answered fusionsdf already and yes, I said so in all my posts. Here, my answer upon hearing that it's uncurable. On August 14 2011 04:11 Lucumo wrote: Oh, didn't know it's uncurable(thought it has a pretty low success rate). That sucks then, but so my statement of "changing the body is easier" is still true. And why are you quoting DamageControL? This has nothing to do with what I wrote anyway. It's as unrelated as your sentence about adoptions and stuff. | ||
|
aphorism
United States226 Posts
On August 14 2011 04:56 Lucumo wrote: Heh? What are you talking about? I answered fusionsdf already and yes, I said so in all my posts. Here, my answer upon hearing that it's uncurable. And why are you quoting DamageControL? This has nothing to do with what I wrote anyway. It's as unrelated as your sentence about adoptions and stuff. Okay. The reason I brought up adoption/surrogates is to dispel the idea that our purpose is to reproduce, and that that is somehow hindered by one being homosexual or non-cisgendered, which was implied by your post. I quoted DamageControL because it had your original post, and because it also had your post where you claimed he hadn't "read your post properly," something I brought up. Either way, both of these things are irrelevant to the discussion, so stop nitpicking about them. It's this idea that transsexualism needs to be treated (because it defies our biological purpose to reproduce or whatever), that ones gender identity must align with their sexual organs, that I disagree with, and that is implied in your post. | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
Regarding people who think that GID should be dealt with through pyschological help rather than surgical intervention, I would hope you'd still agree with me that there is an issue there that should not be worsened by belittling and offensive posts about the person's core identity, and that they should be treated with respect (which was the main thing I wanted people to get from this blog). It is worth noting though that I disagree with your particular view on that, as GID is treated with a lot of pyschiatry before any surgery can be done, literally 2+ years of it and by that point is only authorised if the Dr's themselves agree it is the best option for the patient, and if the patient themself both wants and is able to go through the procedure (there are many reasons people choose not to). Suffice to say, if pyschiatric support is insufficient then surgery is the correct answer. | ||
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA22259 Posts
Maybe I've just always had the tolerant "live and let live" mentality. I personally place far more value on honesty, hard work, and consideration of others far more than I could give a fuck what race/gender/sexual orientation someone was. | ||
|
Vore210
Ireland256 Posts
It's rough the struggle these people have to go through in their lives. Just because black people are no longer a viable target for racism doesn't mean you can project your small minded bigotry on transsexuals. It wont be tolerated by anyone with a mind capable of reason. If people continue down the path of discrimination, despite the evidence available, we know they must have an ulterior motive. Either religious (and the irony of a religion which proclaims itself of peace and love causes such vile actions and feelings is not lost on anyone), deep seated prejudice based on insecurity, or as happens SO often they are unsure of their own gender/sexuality. There have been multiple recorded cases of former hardline anti-homosexuals "coming out". Wouldn't be surprised if there were some transsexual situations too. Kudos to you folk, its a tough path, stick to it and stay strong. | ||
|
Lucumo
6850 Posts
On August 14 2011 05:12 aphorism wrote: Okay. The reason I brought up adoption/surrogates is to dispel the idea that our purpose is to reproduce, and that that is somehow hindered by one being homosexual or non-cisgendered, which was implied by your post. I quoted DamageControL because it had your original post, and because it also had your post where you claimed he hadn't "read your post properly," something I brought up. Either way, both of these things are irrelevant to the discussion, so stop nitpicking about them. It's this idea that transsexualism needs to be treated (because it defies our biological purpose to reproduce or whatever), that ones gender identity must align with their sexual organs, that I disagree with, and that is implied in your post. Nope, that wasn't my point. You apparently didn't read the second part of my sentence. On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters. And this was also an answer to the discussion above. The body is the basis and the mind is what makes the body working. If the mind isn't working properly, you change the mind and not the body. After all the body is mass produced and it's not what's flawed, the mind is the problem. Therefore I agreed with the above posters. STILL, I did also say that we are supposed to reproduce(you only need a body for that, the mind is not relevant). We are supposed to but we don't have to. We, as a race, have the purpose to prosper, as do animals and plants. Natural selection was once a part of it but it no longer applies to us humans. If a man has the identity(?) of a woman but is lesbian, then there is no problem from a biological aspect. If he is simply transsexual, then there is a problem from that aspect. Then again, we don't necessarily have to reproduce but it doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong. And adoptions and other things have nothing to do with this. The discussion wasn't about this anyway, it was about whether it's ok to change the body or not. And several people said that it's not ok, even if the disease is uncurable. I already mentioned, that you can consider it bad luck, same with uncurable biological diseases. And despite the fact that an operation is probably good for the person, it doesn't change the fact that it's not ok. A lot more things are irrelevant but I certainly wasn't the person who brought that up. People interpret statements/opinions in my sentence, without considering the second part or the relation to the overall discussion -_- It doesn't need to be treated just because it's wrong. I never implied such a thing. All I ever said is that surgery is not the way to go...even if there is no other way. | ||
|
rel
Guam3521 Posts
On August 14 2011 04:21 Zlasher wrote: Once again there is a difference between Sex and Gender. Can you state your opinions on these differences? Really curious actually. | ||
|
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On August 14 2011 05:45 Lucumo wrote: Nope, that wasn't my point. You apparently didn't read the second part of my sentence. And this was also an answer to the discussion above. The body is the basis and the mind is what makes the body working. If the mind isn't working properly, you change the mind and not the body. After all the body is mass produced and it's not what's flawed, the mind is the problem. Therefore I agreed with the above posters. STILL, I did also say that we are supposed to reproduce(you only need a body for that, the mind is not relevant). We are supposed to but we don't have to. We, as a race, have the purpose to prosper, as do animals and plants. Natural selection was once a part of it but it no longer applies to us humans. If a man has the identity(?) of a woman but is lesbian, then there is no problem from a biological aspect. If he is simply transsexual, then there is a problem from that aspect. Then again, we don't necessarily have to reproduce but it doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong. And adoptions and other things have nothing to do with this. The discussion wasn't about this anyway, it was about whether it's ok to change the body or not. And several people said that it's not ok, even if the disease is uncurable. I already mentioned, that you can consider it bad luck, same with uncurable biological diseases. And despite the fact that an operation is probably good for the person, it doesn't change the fact that it's not ok. A lot more things are irrelevant but I certainly wasn't the person who brought that up. People interpret statements/opinions in my sentence, without considering the second part or the relation to the overall discussion -_- It doesn't need to be treated just because it's wrong. I never implied such a thing. All I ever said is that surgery is not the way to go...even if there is no other way. You put more value in your perceived goals of evolution than people's wellbeing. Despite an operation to increase the happiness of a person, you'd prefer they didn't have it because it's "wrong". That's sad man. There is no evolutionary purpose and we are not supposed to do anything. Evolution does not follow any rules and evolution is not trying to help us survive. It is simply a process that happens. | ||
|
FuDDx
United States5015 Posts
On August 14 2011 05:26 EvilTeletubby wrote: Throwing in my support - not saying I understand at all what transgendered folks go through, I can only imagine it's tough. I've never really understood why OTHERS consider it a big deal though. Maybe I've just always had the tolerant "live and let live" mentality. I personally place far more value on honesty, hard work, and consideration of others far more than I could give a fuck what race/gender/sexual orientation someone was. I wish this view was more widely held!! Ill be your friend as long as your friendly!! | ||
|
Lucumo
6850 Posts
On August 14 2011 06:24 Wohmfg wrote: You put more value in your perceived goals of evolution than people's wellbeing. Despite an operation to increase the happiness of a person, you'd prefer they didn't have it because it's "wrong". That's sad man. There is no evolutionary purpose and we are not supposed to do anything. Evolution does not follow any rules and evolution is not trying to help us survive. It is simply a process that happens. Where did I say that? Evolution was helping the human race passively through the means of natural selection(one example). Even though it is/was just a process, it took us to where we are now. It definitely did help us to survive. | ||
|
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On August 14 2011 06:42 Lucumo wrote: Where did I say that? Evolution was helping the human race passively through the means of natural selection(one example). Even though it is/was just a process, it took us to where we are now. It definitely did help us to survive. When you said it's "wrong" and "not ok". You can't claim that you'd LIKE them to have the operation after saying that. Your logic for whatever you perceive to be wrong in transsexuals is based on it going against natural selection and evolution. We are all products of evolution and natural selection, even transsexuals. There is not a goal that evolution has that transsexuals are rebelling against. We are all products of the same process. | ||
|
Lucumo
6850 Posts
On August 14 2011 06:51 Wohmfg wrote: When you said it's "wrong" and "not ok". You can't claim that you'd LIKE them to have the operation after saying that. Your logic for whatever you perceive to be wrong in transsexuals is based on it going against natural selection and evolution. We are all products of evolution and natural selection, even transsexuals. There is not a goal that evolution has that transsexuals are rebelling against. We are all products of the same process. It is wrong and not ok but that doesn't mean it's not preferable. Heck, I would like them to try the psychological way even if it's pretty much impossible. One thing doesn't necessarily exclude the other. I said natural selection is a part of the evolution(you even brought that word up), nothing more. And I said that it once applied to us. We are supposed to prosper, reproducing is a part of that. Things which defy the very basics(such as this psychological disease) are certainly not good. | ||
| ||
