|
On August 14 2011 07:11 Lucumo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 06:51 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 06:42 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 06:24 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 05:45 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 05:12 aphorism wrote:On August 14 2011 04:56 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 04:43 aphorism wrote:On August 14 2011 04:27 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 04:16 DamageControL wrote:
[quote]
People planning on not having kids need psychological counseling? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
This is the part I take issue with most. I've explained why I think this way of seeing evolution is flawed and if you don't understand then I'm done here.
|
On August 14 2011 03:27 Zlasher wrote:As I posted in the other thread, gender is what is between your ears not your legs and like I showed in the other thread, you're looking at two former guys + Show Spoiler +
who's the girl on the left?
|
I don't understand why some people can be so intolerant of something that harms nobody else
GID and the whole subject is one of my favourite genre's in anime and manga: http://www.mangafox.com/manga/hourou_musuko/
I feel a lot like someone in the middle but i'm fairly content with who i am right now
Of all the cosplays i've ever done, my crossplays were by far my favourite. It feels like such a great expression of freedom to do and wear whatever i want. Even though i'm perfectly happy how i am, it is an expression of the other side of me too 
![[image loading]](http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/200412_10150113172454542_675714541_6457368_3879248_n.jpg)
|
On August 14 2011 07:17 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 07:11 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 06:51 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 06:42 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 06:24 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 05:45 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 05:12 aphorism wrote:On August 14 2011 04:56 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 04:43 aphorism wrote:On August 14 2011 04:27 Lucumo wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. This is the part I take issue with most. I've explained why I think this way of seeing evolution is flawed and if you don't understand then I'm done here.
Was this supposed to be your explanation?
On August 14 2011 06:24 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 05:45 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 05:12 aphorism wrote:On August 14 2011 04:56 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 04:43 aphorism wrote:On August 14 2011 04:27 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 04:16 DamageControL wrote: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? 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. 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. 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. 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.
The second sentence was putting words in my mouth which I never uttered. The third and fourth sentences are...hm, funny(?) because they make no sense. The strong survive, the weak die. If that wouldn't have happened, climatic changes, animals etc would have already killed us. And also, if there is no purpose and if we aren't supposed to do anything, why is sex fun and has all the positive effects? Remove them and then guess what would happen. We still aren't supposed to do anything? Well, then you can also remove sexuality, sexual urges etc. After all, urges which led our ancestors to reproduce are totally useless, right? Maybe we should become plants instead or self-regenerating beings.
And the first sentence, I already answered that in my last post. Other than that, there is nothing really more.
This talk about evolution is off-topic anyway, there was no real need to bring it up in the first place.
|
On August 14 2011 07:11 Lucumo wrote:
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.
Just to reiterate, no one is allowed to go through any surgical procedure (or even obtain hormone treatment) without pyschological evaluation and a lot of counciling. In the UK the guidelines require 6 months of living full time as your 'new' gender, including name and clothing etc, before they'll even consider offering hormone treatment, and these guidelines are far more widespread than the UK (they're known as the Harry Benjamin guidelines if you want to look them up, though that's a whole other discussion).
Beyond just getting on hormones, it takes at least a further 2 years before any surgical options are made available. Because of the likelihood of finding yourself sued if you operate on the wrong person, it'd be almost impossible to find any surgeon willing to proceed without a letter from a pyschiatrist in a relevant field who has extensively worked with the patient.
My point though, to sum up, is simply that no one can just jump in to surgery without extensive pyschological assessment and councilling, so I think that should cover the concerns you've raised there?
|
On August 14 2011 07:54 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 07:11 Lucumo wrote:
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. Just to reiterate, no one is allowed to go through any surgical procedure (or even obtain hormone treatment) without pyschological evaluation and a lot of counciling. In the UK the guidelines require 6 months of living full time as your 'new' gender, including name and clothing etc, before they'll even consider offering hormone treatment, and these guidelines are far more widespread than the UK (they're known as the Harry Benjamin guidelines if you want to look them up, though that's a whole other discussion). Beyond just getting on hormones, it takes at least a further 2 years before any surgical options are made available. Because of the likelihood of finding yourself sued if you operate on the wrong person, it'd be almost impossible to find any surgeon willing to proceed without a letter from a pyschiatrist in a relevant field who has extensively worked with the patient. My point though, to sum up, is simply that no one can just jump in to surgery without extensive pyschological assessment and councilling, so I think that should cover the concerns you've raised there?
Reiterate? I don't think anyone said anything about that yet.
Anyway, are you doing this on purpose? No one ever said anything about psychological counselling before surgery. It was always about psychological treatement to change the mind/cure the disease which is deemed impossible.
*sigh* I really should only answer people who make a good point and take this seriously. But it's a good thing I'll go offline now, so tomorrow I will be able to see if there are some worthwhile answers...even though there isn't really anything left to discuss, at least for me. And people should get my point by reading properly and not making assumptions.
|
On August 14 2011 07:40 Lucumo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 07:17 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 07:11 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 06:51 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 06:42 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 06:24 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 05:45 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 05:12 aphorism wrote:On August 14 2011 04:56 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 04:43 aphorism wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. 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. 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. This is the part I take issue with most. I've explained why I think this way of seeing evolution is flawed and if you don't understand then I'm done here. Was this supposed to be your explanation? Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 06:24 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 05:45 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 05:12 aphorism wrote:On August 14 2011 04:56 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 04:43 aphorism wrote:On August 14 2011 04:27 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 04:16 DamageControL wrote: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? 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. 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. 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. 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. The second sentence was putting words in my mouth which I never uttered. The third and fourth sentences are...hm, funny(?) because they make no sense. The strong survive, the weak die. If that wouldn't have happened, climatic changes, animals etc would have already killed us. And also, if there is no purpose and if we aren't supposed to do anything, why is sex fun and has all the positive effects? Remove them and then guess what would happen. We still aren't supposed to do anything? Well, then you can also remove sexuality, sexual urges etc. After all, urges which led our ancestors to reproduce are totally useless, right? Maybe we should become plants instead or self-regenerating beings. And the first sentence, I already answered that in my last post. Other than that, there is nothing really more. This talk about evolution is off-topic anyway, there was no real need to bring it up in the first place.
If you bothered to research, you'll know that very few species find enjoyment in sex. And it's the survival of the fittest, not the strongest. And I agree that we shouldn't talk about urges. We're above that now because we've achieved sentience. If we went by urges, there would be a lot more rapes and murders, and a lot more suffering in this world because of it.
Also I find your entire premise distasteful. We are supposed to reproduce, what? Where do you get off giving other people their purpose in life? The funny thing about humans, since we're self aware and are intelligent, is that we can think for ourselves. We've evolved past the primal urges of our ancestors. On the same vein, you shouldn't be using excuses like "it's not natural" to justify your ignorance, because just by breathing, you are "unnatural" to this planet. We are the single exception, we are not "normal".
|
On August 14 2011 08:10 Lucumo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 07:54 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 14 2011 07:11 Lucumo wrote:
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. Just to reiterate, no one is allowed to go through any surgical procedure (or even obtain hormone treatment) without pyschological evaluation and a lot of counciling. In the UK the guidelines require 6 months of living full time as your 'new' gender, including name and clothing etc, before they'll even consider offering hormone treatment, and these guidelines are far more widespread than the UK (they're known as the Harry Benjamin guidelines if you want to look them up, though that's a whole other discussion). Beyond just getting on hormones, it takes at least a further 2 years before any surgical options are made available. Because of the likelihood of finding yourself sued if you operate on the wrong person, it'd be almost impossible to find any surgeon willing to proceed without a letter from a pyschiatrist in a relevant field who has extensively worked with the patient. My point though, to sum up, is simply that no one can just jump in to surgery without extensive pyschological assessment and councilling, so I think that should cover the concerns you've raised there? Reiterate? I don't think anyone said anything about that yet. Anyway, are you doing this on purpose? No one ever said anything about psychological counselling before surgery. It was always about psychological treatement to change the mind/cure the disease which is deemed impossible. *sigh* I really should only answer people who make a good point and take this seriously. But it's a good thing I'll go offline now, so tomorrow I will be able to see if there are some worthwhile answers...even though there isn't really anything left to discuss, at least for me. And people should get my point by reading properly and not making assumptions.
That's the first response I've given to you and it was directly in reference you saying "Heck, I would like them to try the psychological way even if it's pretty much impossible." I used the word reiterate because I made the points in an earlier post in this thread, but in a far less detailed manner.
The pyschological treatment is intended to find solutions other than something as drastic as surgical options, and to try to find out if the person could be helped by propper mental health support, and those sessions do result in a lot of people seeking alternatives to Sexual Reassignment Surgery or at times even helping people realise that their issues are not transsexualism.
If your point wasn't that everyone should try to find an alternative to surgery through the pyschiatric sciences, then you're right I didn't understand your point but I think you'd be hard pressed to say that was as a result of me not reading correctly.
As to taking it seriously, I wrote the OP, so I think it'd be fair to say I do take the issue rather seriously which is why I addressed your point with objective facts and stayed out of the rest of the arguements. I even made the choice to not raise my own subjective opinions on the current guidelines in order to make a clear point. I hope this clarifies my point in relation to my original reply.
|
When will people get that its not ok to just bully, discriminate and demonize those who arn't like you?
You don't go around telling people that they are "bad, evil, wrong and NOT OK".
Thats the kind of behaviour that causes people with distress from any kind of problem to only feel worse and to push them deeper into depression.
Fuck you if you exhibit behaviour that ultimately has no other purpose than to make others feel worse
|
On August 14 2011 07:17 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 07:11 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 06:51 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 06:42 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 06:24 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 05:45 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 05:12 aphorism wrote:On August 14 2011 04:56 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 04:43 aphorism wrote:On August 14 2011 04:27 Lucumo wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. This is the part I take issue with most. I've explained why I think this way of seeing evolution is flawed and if you don't understand then I'm done here.
People who call evolution "the evolution" are not to be trusted.
|
I know a transexual that went man -> female and then said she was a lesbian. Weird. Shes not getting her dick removed either. Double weird!
|
All for genderqueers, transpeople, etc., but isn't demanding this be called "Gender Identity Disorder" kind of a structuralist pre-cum? You're kind of inviting the shortsighted to call it a psychological disorder that can be fixed. Foucault and Sedgwick have my back on this.
If I wear men's clothing but listen to Kate Bush and fixate on wily bookish girls who turn out to be lesbians, am I cisgendered? I'm too tall and my shoulders are too boxy to do the androgynous thing without falling into uncanny valley, nauseating-style.
|
On August 14 2011 07:24 BrTarolg wrote:I don't understand why some people can be so intolerant of something that harms nobody else GID and the whole subject is one of my favourite genre's in anime and manga: http://www.mangafox.com/manga/hourou_musuko/I feel a lot like someone in the middle but i'm fairly content with who i am right now Of all the cosplays i've ever done, my crossplays were by far my favourite. It feels like such a great expression of freedom to do and wear whatever i want. Even though i'm perfectly happy how i am, it is an expression of the other side of me too
+1 for the power to be yourself, on TL or anywhere you go. I'm proud of you being comfortable with who you are!
If I didn't support this my gay wife would kill me. Just kidding, I think the amount of thinly veiled hate is terrible and people deserve a right to be the people they want to be at all times.
But that amp does suck I won't deny that.
|
On August 14 2011 10:27 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 07:24 BrTarolg wrote:I don't understand why some people can be so intolerant of something that harms nobody else GID and the whole subject is one of my favourite genre's in anime and manga: http://www.mangafox.com/manga/hourou_musuko/I feel a lot like someone in the middle but i'm fairly content with who i am right now Of all the cosplays i've ever done, my crossplays were by far my favourite. It feels like such a great expression of freedom to do and wear whatever i want. Even though i'm perfectly happy how i am, it is an expression of the other side of me too I think the amount of thinly veiled hate is terrible and people deserve a right to be the people they want to be at all times.
Well since my previous answer was pretty much useless, I decided to chip in here because while I agree with you for the most part, I have to throw in my 2 cents which could be considered a cookie-cutter opinion on the matter. I don't really know actually.
I think that people should be allowed to have any sexuality they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, that's the main point people have been making here. If a "man" (XY) feels like he's actually a woman and vice-versa, then that's fine. The problem is that "being a woman" becomes such a big deal to those people (which is normal) that their whole life becomes defined by their "femaleness" (which is bad). People from many minorities have a tendency to put what makes them special in the very center of their personality.
I know that many people don't have the following problem, but basically I lost a gay friend because of it. He came out as being gay and everything was fine for a while, until he lost his personality completely in order to become "the gay guy" who did gay stuff because he liked looking gay because he was free to be gay.
Similarly, I was kind of annoyed when, at the gay pride parade in Montreal, they had a firetruck with a massive penis-shaped balloon on it. It was just a little over the top and one's sexuality, again, shouldn't be the center of their social life. (Note: I understand that homosexuality and transsexualism have little in common, but I figure that they face similar problems and get treated somewhat similarly by a bigoted society.)
On the other hand, I'm very happy for the people who manage to "transition" into the life they want, without blowing it out of proportions.
Any sort of feedback on my opinion would be appreciated. I'm kind of basing my views of the world (on that matter) with "anecdotal evidence" which is less than perfect. Cheers.
|
On August 14 2011 07:21 JoeSchmoe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 03:27 Zlasher wrote:As I posted in the other thread, gender is what is between your ears not your legs and like I showed in the other thread, you're looking at two former guys + Show Spoiler + who's the girl on the left?
Kara Leung aka Karaface, formerly a competitive counterstrike player who had some controversy due to her gender and being on teams or whatever. Now she's a photographer and takes a lot of the popular photos from big fighting game tournaments, one of the nicest people I've had the chance to meet. Girl on the right is Kayo Satoh aka Kayopolice who's a big TV personality/celebrity in Japan. Also kicks major ass at Street Fighter 4
|
On August 14 2011 10:11 T0fuuu wrote:
I know a transexual that went man -> female and then said she was a lesbian. Weird. Shes not getting her dick removed either. Double weird!
Being a transsexual and being gay are not mutually exclusive.
On August 14 2011 10:13 jon arbuckle wrote:
All for genderqueers, transpeople, etc., but isn't demanding this be called "Gender Identity Disorder" kind of a structuralist pre-cum? You're kind of inviting the shortsighted to call it a psychological disorder that can be fixed. Foucault and Sedgwick have my back on this.
If I wear men's clothing but listen to Kate Bush and fixate on wily bookish girls who turn out to be lesbians, am I cisgendered? I'm too tall and my shoulders are too boxy to do the androgynous thing without falling into uncanny valley, nauseating-style.
Disorder just means out of the normal order, not that it can be fixed. It's peoples own fault if they're too ignorant to know that. I get what you mean, but imo scientific illiteracy has a LOT to answer for.
|
Yeah Karaface has said on stuff like formspring that she's not getting post-op surgery because its insanely expensive, and has just been doing hormone stuff for years now. Also she's said she is more interested in females and not really men. Transexuality and Homosexuality aren't the same thing.
|
On August 14 2011 07:40 Lucumo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 07:17 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 07:11 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 06:51 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 06:42 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 06:24 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 05:45 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 05:12 aphorism wrote:On August 14 2011 04:56 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 04:43 aphorism wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. 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. 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. This is the part I take issue with most. I've explained why I think this way of seeing evolution is flawed and if you don't understand then I'm done here. Was this supposed to be your explanation? Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 06:24 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 05:45 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 05:12 aphorism wrote:On August 14 2011 04:56 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 04:43 aphorism wrote:On August 14 2011 04:27 Lucumo wrote:On August 14 2011 04:16 DamageControL wrote: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? 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. 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. 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. 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. The second sentence was putting words in my mouth which I never uttered. The third and fourth sentences are...hm, funny(?) because they make no sense. The strong survive, the weak die. If that wouldn't have happened, climatic changes, animals etc would have already killed us. And also, if there is no purpose and if we aren't supposed to do anything, why is sex fun and has all the positive effects? Remove them and then guess what would happen. We still aren't supposed to do anything? Well, then you can also remove sexuality, sexual urges etc. After all, urges which led our ancestors to reproduce are totally useless, right? Maybe we should become plants instead or self-regenerating beings. And the first sentence, I already answered that in my last post. Other than that, there is nothing really more. This talk about evolution is off-topic anyway, there was no real need to bring it up in the first place.
Sex is fun because people who are predisposed genetically to enjoy sex will have more of it. Therefore they will have more offspring and their genes are more likely to be passed on. There is nothing right or wrong in any sense about this. We are not required to have sex. There is nothing right or wrong about having sex. You make it sound like evolution is meant to make us prosper and reproduce, therefore sex is fun.
And just to clarify, natural selection is still taking place in humans.
Now onto why I think your posts have been offensive. What I think you're trying to say is (correct me if I'm wrong):
1. the human race's aim is to survive and reproduce
2. anything that goes against this is bad, therefore some transsexuals, the ones that can't reproduce, go against the human race's aim and are therefore wrong in some way
From what I think you're saying, all gays are "wrong", people with incurable diseases who will die before they can reproduce are "wrong", people born sterile are "wrong" because they do net help humans "prosper". Even though these people can help society in many ways, or can even just survive and be happy, you see these people as wrong in some way? This is why I think you're putting the purpose of evolution (there isn't one) or the human race (there isn't one) above people's wellbeing, which I find worrying.
The whole talk of evolution started because you said in your very first sentence in your first reply in the thread:
Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters
Now I take the meaning of suppose in this sentence to mean:
Be required to do something because of the position one is in or an agreement one has made
- I'm supposed to be meeting someone at the airport
So I take huge issue with your sentence there. There is no requirement or purpose for the human race, unless you believe in a god or something supernatural. I've explained why a few times but if you still don't understand then I'll try again.
|
I have no qualms with transvestites as long as they look good ^^
|
On August 14 2011 08:10 Lucumo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 07:54 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 14 2011 07:11 Lucumo wrote:
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. Just to reiterate, no one is allowed to go through any surgical procedure (or even obtain hormone treatment) without pyschological evaluation and a lot of counciling. In the UK the guidelines require 6 months of living full time as your 'new' gender, including name and clothing etc, before they'll even consider offering hormone treatment, and these guidelines are far more widespread than the UK (they're known as the Harry Benjamin guidelines if you want to look them up, though that's a whole other discussion). Beyond just getting on hormones, it takes at least a further 2 years before any surgical options are made available. Because of the likelihood of finding yourself sued if you operate on the wrong person, it'd be almost impossible to find any surgeon willing to proceed without a letter from a pyschiatrist in a relevant field who has extensively worked with the patient. My point though, to sum up, is simply that no one can just jump in to surgery without extensive pyschological assessment and councilling, so I think that should cover the concerns you've raised there? Reiterate? I don't think anyone said anything about that yet. Anyway, are you doing this on purpose? No one ever said anything about psychological counselling before surgery. It was always about psychological treatement to change the mind/cure the disease which is deemed impossible. *sigh* I really should only answer people who make a good point and take this seriously. But it's a good thing I'll go offline now, so tomorrow I will be able to see if there are some worthwhile answers...even though there isn't really anything left to discuss, at least for me. And people should get my point by reading properly and not making assumptions.
The mind is based on the physical structure of the brain. Saying a trans woman has a 'disease' based on her gender identity isn't all that different from saying the same about a genetic woman.
Whether you want to admit it or not, you are following the same patterns forced by your own gender identity - which is rooted in the physical brain. Just because your body happens to match your brain in terms of gender/sex means you don't have to think about this on a daily basis.
In no way is being trans a disease; birth defect is closer, but I'm not sure I'm 100% aligned with the views that would label trans people as defective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/285482_10100337538222527_3600043_53918986_8096459_n.jpg)
