|
Transsexuals are weird, they're biological anomalies. Sure the same argument can be made for gays, but the thing is, they don't have to mutilate their bodies to express themselves. Changing from a guy to a girl, or vise versa, in my eyes is disturbing and seems deceitful on the part of the transsexual. I want to know that when I see a girl, that I can trust that they weren't once a guy in their past.
Call it being superficial or whatever you like, but the feeling a lot of people, including myself, get is that if they were in the situation of finding out after the fact, that they were sleeping with a transsexual, it would have a distinct feeling of being a homosexual. Don't misunderstand, there's nothing wrong with being a homosexual, it's that I'm a heterosexual person and I am disgusted, to the point of violence, by the image of sleeping with a guy.
Even if they aren't one now, it bothers me that they basically "tricked" me with some surgery thinking that I was sleeping with a natural female when in fact they are fake. I think transsexuals shouldn't hide that information from people, but as it seems right now they do it because they WANT to be known as the opposite gender. Meaning that it's, at least for me, extremely hard to accept them in normal everyday society.
|
First, why do you think all trans women are into guys?
Second, why do you think all trans women are going to lie about who they are to 'trick' you into sex? There are a lot of guys out there confident enough in their sexuality, trans women don't have to trick you to get in a relationship.
Third, why do you think every transsexual is a trans woman (trans men certainly exist as well)?
Fourth, you do know not ever trans person gets surgery, right (in fact, probably the majority don't)?
Last, lets imagine a scenario. You are the trans women. Lets say you are straight (into guys). Lets also say you want to date a guy, but have to choose how/when/where to tell him you are trans.
you could a) tell in public, risking being publically humiliated/outed or b) tell in private and risk being assaulted/killed by insecure asshats like yourself. Neither option is a good one. Both are improved by increasing the acceptance of trans people (particularly trans women).
Note that being outed as trans in public won't save you from being assaulted/nearly killed:
http://www.bilerico.com/2011/04/transwoman_severely_beaten_at_baltimore_mcdonalds.php
(NOTE: video in the link is somewhat NSFL and potentially very triggering, especially for trans women. Watch at your own risk)
|
On August 14 2011 15:14 fusionsdf wrote:First, why do you think all trans women are into guys? Second, why do you think all trans women are going to lie about who they are to 'trick' you into sex? There are a lot of guys out there confident enough in their sexuality, trans women don't have to trick you to get in a relationship. Third, why do you think every transsexual is a trans woman (trans men certainly exist as well)? Fourth, you do know not ever trans person gets surgery, right (in fact, probably the majority don't)? Last, lets imagine a scenario. You are the trans women. Lets say you are straight (into guys). Lets also say you want to date a guy, but have to choose how/when/where to tell him you are trans. you could a) tell in public, risking being publically humiliated/outed or b) tell in private and risk being assaulted/killed by insecure asshats like yourself. Neither option is a good one. Both are improved by increasing the acceptance of trans people (particularly trans women). Note that being outed as trans in public won't save you from being assaulted/nearly killed: http://www.bilerico.com/2011/04/transwoman_severely_beaten_at_baltimore_mcdonalds.php(NOTE: video in the link is somewhat NSFL and potentially very triggering, especially for trans women. Watch at your own risk)
Ugh that video makes me feel sick. I can't believe that the people filming not only didn't step in, but they were laughing and making jokes as it happened. I almost find them more reprehensible than the two girls who attacked the TG woman.
|
On August 14 2011 08:14 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 07:40 Lucumo wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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: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".
I was referring to us, which means humans. Otherwise I wouldn't have wrote "us" and "we". Strongest in this context means obviously fittest, I doubt anyone would think strongest as in strength or whatever. Or maybe there are such people, then I really did not write it fool-proof. That doesn't change the fact that those urges still exist, they just aren't as strong anymore.
We are and I explained why. And I also said that we are supposed to but we don't have to. It's a purpose given by nature and if you remove that purpose, then you can remove all things connected with it as well, as I already wrote. By breathing, I'm unnatural? So I guess birds are as well...and fish too, or living beings in general.
On August 14 2011 08:36 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 08:10 Lucumo wrote: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.
That's why, and it seems your post also got lost in between the discussion. At least I failed to read your one.
And the "Heck...blabla" sentence refers to only one thing which I already explained:
On August 14 2011 08:10 Lucumo wrote:
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.
I only made points about either surgery or curing of the disease. I didn't write about doing nothing and just seeking mental support yet. And in everything I wrote I assumed that they are transsexual(response to your "[...]helping people realise that their issues are not transsexualism" part), otherwise there would be no point in discussing it anyway.
But if you ask me whether I would prefer it to be that way, then yes. I only said that surgery is bad, anything else is fine. They can cross-dress if it helps them or do anything they like, I don't mind that. I actually don't care about the people at all but this is a theoretical discussion after all and I'm just giving my views on the subject.
Haha, yeah. Considering that I missed your second post, there was only one in this thread and I didn't remember all the nicknames of the people that posted here, hence, I assumed(wrongly) that this was your first. Sorry. And yes, your response was fine except for the fact that you assumed something which I didn't address yet 
On August 14 2011 08:45 BrTarolg wrote:
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".
Not sure if it's a response to me considering that I don't go around and tell people anything. I never said anything or write anything about this topic before or talked to a transsexual and here, I'm just stating my opinion. And people aren't bad because they have a psychological disease, the act of surgery is not ok but it doesn't make the people bad either.
Again, this only matters if your were somehow addressing me. Also, people should learn to not get a black-white view.
On August 14 2011 13:15 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 07:40 Lucumo wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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: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: Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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.
That's exactly what I mean and I mentioned already that a long time ago, the urges were stronger and people weren't evolved to this point, so they didn't think that they have to have sex to keep the human race alive. And sex being fun was a part of it to make it that way. You do realize that everything useful is kept while everything useless is discarded over time. So everything has a purpose and we humans are the most complex life forms anyway.
Natural selection is no longer taking place ever since things like medicine were invented/discovered. Early on, it didn't have much of an effect but now it heavily influences it. People who are supposed to die, don't die. Therefore natural selection is no longer active from a biological point.
1. Yep, but not just the human race; to survive, to reproduce, to prosper
2. Their minds are wrong, heck, it's not like it's considered a disease for no reason
Exactly. Homosexuality was actually considered a disease as well but they removed it from the list at some point. That doesn't change the very nature of it though. And homosexuality is different from transsexuality anyway; it has to do with puberty and homosexuality can "go away" after it for example. I didn't really think about it yet but if I had to give an early statement, I would say that the mind is in a state of confusion. It sometimes goes away but it sometimes doesn't. If it doesn't, I guess you can call it a disorder. Why would it matter whether they can help society? Society eventually formed, it helps but it is nothing which has a direct relation to us as humans. Yes, we do need social contacts to survive(there was once an experiment where they didn't talk to babies for years, and they were only giving them food and something to drink and eventually, almost all of them died) but society is only something convenient, nothing more. The best description is probably that of a tool.
This sentence means that what I already stated(why sex is the way it is, why there are these urges etc) and applies them to the discussion which was held at that time why curing the mind is ok while changing the body isn't. The body is the basis, the mind is not. And often enough I said that I'm talking about the biological aspect only which should have made it easier for people to understand it.
If I would believe in god, I would probably believe in creationalism or something ridiculous or the purpose would be something like: "Lead a proper life, do not do these, do not do that, follows these lines, blablabla". (Anyway, god may or may not exist. Either side need to prove anything first.) I believe in nature if that satifies you. Everything has a purpose. If it would have deemed useless, the species would have got rid of it over time. This refers mainly to biological aspects but holds true in psychological aspects as well.
On August 14 2011 13:52 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 08:10 Lucumo wrote: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.
I dislike those words, a trans man is a man with the mind of a woman, right? And a genetical woman is a woman, right? It is different because the woman works as intended while the trans woman doesn't.
Well, of course I am. Thinking about what? About male/female, reproduction etc? Of course you aren't consciously thinking about it all the time, no question about it.
It is considered a disease by medicine and I agree.
Man, why do I have to write with so many people at the same time? We really need to reduce the amount and considering many things are just repeating what I already said and reaching the conclusion to agree on disagreeing, it should very well be possible.
|
On August 14 2011 16:40 Lucumo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 08:14 TOloseGT wrote:On August 14 2011 07:40 Lucumo wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. 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". I was referring to us, which means humans. Otherwise I wouldn't have wrote "us" and "we". Strongest in this context means obviously fittest, I doubt anyone would think strongest as in strength or whatever. Or maybe there are such people, then I really did not write it fool-proof. That doesn't change the fact that those urges still exist, they just aren't as strong anymore. We are and I explained why. And I also said that we are supposed to but we don't have to. It's a purpose given by nature and if you remove that purpose, then you can remove all things connected with it as well, as I already wrote. By breathing, I'm unnatural? So I guess birds are as well...and fish too, or living beings in general. Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 08:36 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 14 2011 08:10 Lucumo wrote: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. That's why, and it seems your post also got lost in between the discussion. At least I failed to read your one. And the "Heck...blabla" sentence refers to only one thing which I already explained: Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 08:10 Lucumo wrote:
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. I only made points about either surgery or curing of the disease. I didn't write about doing nothing and just seeking mental support yet. And in everything I wrote I assumed that they are transsexual(response to your "[...]helping people realise that their issues are not transsexualism" part), otherwise there would be no point in discussing it anyway. But if you ask me whether I would prefer it to be that way, then yes. I only said that surgery is bad, anything else is fine. They can cross-dress if it helps them or do anything they like, I don't mind that. I actually don't care about the people at all but this is a theoretical discussion after all and I'm just giving my views on the subject. Haha, yeah. Considering that I missed your second post, there was only one in this thread and I didn't remember all the nicknames of the people that posted here, hence, I assumed(wrongly) that this was your first. Sorry. And yes, your response was fine except for the fact that you assumed something which I didn't address yet Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 08:45 BrTarolg wrote:
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". Not sure if it's a response to me considering that I don't go around and tell people anything. I never said anything or write anything about this topic before or talked to a transsexual and here, I'm just stating my opinion. And people aren't bad because they have a psychological disease, the act of surgery is not ok but it doesn't make the people bad either. Again, this only matters if your were somehow addressing me. Also, people should learn to not get a black-white view. Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 13:15 Wohmfg wrote:On August 14 2011 07:40 Lucumo wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. 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. That's exactly what I mean and I mentioned already that a long time ago, the urges were stronger and people weren't evolved to this point, so they didn't think that they have to have sex to keep the human race alive. And sex being fun was a part of it to make it that way. You do realize that everything useful is kept while everything useless is discarded over time. So everything has a purpose and we humans are the most complex life forms anyway. Natural selection is no longer taking place ever since things like medicine were invented/discovered. Early on, it didn't have much of an effect but now it heavily influences it. People who are supposed to die, don't die. Therefore natural selection is no longer active from a biological point. 1. Yep, but not just the human race; to survive, to reproduce, to prosper 2. Their minds are wrong, heck, it's not like it's considered a disease for no reason Exactly. Homosexuality was actually considered a disease as well but they removed it from the list at some point. That doesn't change the very nature of it though. And homosexuality is different from transsexuality anyway; it has to do with puberty and homosexuality can "go away" after it for example. I didn't really think about it yet but if I had to give an early statement, I would say that the mind is in a state of confusion. It sometimes goes away but it sometimes doesn't. If it doesn't, I guess you can call it a disorder. Why would it matter whether they can help society? Society eventually formed, it helps but it is nothing which has a direct relation to us as humans. Yes, we do need social contacts to survive(there was once an experiment where they didn't talk to babies for years, and they were only giving them food and something to drink and eventually, almost all of them died) but society is only something convenient, nothing more. The best description is probably that of a tool. This sentence means that what I already stated(why sex is the way it is, why there are these urges etc) and applies them to the discussion which was held at that time why curing the mind is ok while changing the body isn't. The body is the basis, the mind is not. And often enough I said that I'm talking about the biological aspect only which should have made it easier for people to understand it. If I would believe in god, I would probably believe in creationalism or something ridiculous or the purpose would be something like: "Lead a proper life, do not do these, do not do that, follows these lines, blablabla". (Anyway, god may or may not exist. Either side need to prove anything first.) I believe in nature if that satifies you. Everything has a purpose. If it would have deemed useless, the species would have got rid of it over time. This refers mainly to biological aspects but holds true in psychological aspects as well. Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 13:52 fusionsdf wrote:On August 14 2011 08:10 Lucumo wrote: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. I dislike those words, a trans man is a man with the mind of a woman, right? And a genetical woman is a woman, right? It is different because the woman works as intended while the trans woman doesn't. Well, of course I am. Thinking about what? About male/female, reproduction etc? Of course you aren't consciously thinking about it all the time, no question about it. It is considered a disease by medicine and I agree. Man, why do I have to write with so many people at the same time? We really need to reduce the amount and considering many things are just repeating what I already said and reaching the conclusion to agree on disagreeing, it should very well be possible.
No one is "supposed" to die because they get a disease! Taking medicine to cure them is not defying evolution or natural selection or anything of the sort! There is no arbiter saying who is supposed to die and who isn't, where do you get this idea from? This is what I have been discussing with you since the very beginning.
And yes, natural selection is still happening in humans. Think about why some people with some genetic traits would die and others would survive and pass on their genes in this day and age.
The bolded statement... there is no intention in anything to do with evolution, the human race, natural selection or survival of the fittest. Where did you get this idea from?
|
This is my first post in this blog and I don't really want to enter in the discussion of surgery being wrong or not. In my opinion, only people directly related to this topic have enough knowledge to discuss about it. If you are not directly related to something you can't help but doubt all the time about your knowledge.
Some people in this thread look really directly related to the topic, some don't. I won't start a flamewar about it though because I have zero knowledge about the people talking in this blog.
But there is something that I do want to address. I will do my best to explain my point, wich doesn't look easy in this discussion based on the many misunderstandings going around.
One day I was watching an stream. If I remember correctly it was onemoregame.tv with Chill and djWHEAT talking about the increasing number of casting threads on teamliquid some weeks/months ago. I'm not sure about the source, but it doesn't really matter.
Someone stated something (I think it was Chill, not sure though) that really opened my mind to how people express their opinions:
· He said something like "if you are going to express your opinion, then say something constructive; hate doesn't get you or the other person anywhere".
· They were also talking about the fact that just maybe 1 or 2% of the people reading a thread will post something useful and constructive.
I think they were trying to state that the other 98/99% are there reading too and there is a chance that maybe 50% of that people could give positive feedback and not just do some trolling or criticism.
Where I'm trying to get is to the point that if you don't know the opinions of someone about something... even if all you read/hear/see is fucking disgusting, you can't state that all the people would think like that. That is a well known cognitive bias and is risky to fall into that trap.
So, basically, I just wanted to support everyone who could be in a situation of defending what they think is good for them, even if a bigoted society harrass them, or when trying to make a point about their real concerns bringing facts and research they are judged with the neverending "ok vs wrong" debate.
Do whatever you want to do. If someone doesn't like what you do try to understand why. Be strong enough to not fall into a trap of moral jugdements if you really feel that what you do is good for you. If you feel that what you do is good for others... remember to allways ask them directly about that, they could think differently and your good intention could be devastating for some people. And whatever you do, just be happy and trust yourself.
Kudos to everyone in a situation like that. People who defend who they are even against a bigoted society deserve all my trust.
Never forget that there is people out there that doesn't express their opinions and they could support you if they are given the chance to do so.
Cheers.
fatum
|
United States41980 Posts
At the end of the day this is just people trying to be happy. I'm in favour of happiness. Good luck to you all, you deserve it as much as the rest of us.
|
On August 14 2011 16:40 Lucumo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 08:14 TOloseGT wrote:On August 14 2011 07:40 Lucumo wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. 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". I was referring to us, which means humans. Otherwise I wouldn't have wrote "us" and "we". Strongest in this context means obviously fittest, I doubt anyone would think strongest as in strength or whatever. Or maybe there are such people, then I really did not write it fool-proof. That doesn't change the fact that those urges still exist, they just aren't as strong anymore. We are and I explained why. And I also said that we are supposed to but we don't have to. It's a purpose given by nature and if you remove that purpose, then you can remove all things connected with it as well, as I already wrote. By breathing, I'm unnatural? So I guess birds are as well...and fish too, or living beings in general.
They aren't strong anymore because we are self-aware, that's the point. We're not natural because out of all the species in this world, we are the only ones (whales and dolphins don't count) that have evolved to that point. We are the savants of Earth, that 0.0001% of species. That's "unnatural".
And I think you've mixed up your words. It's not a purpose. It's the way we reproduce, sure, but assigning purpose to it is ridiculous. I keep on getting back to how we are self-aware, but that's the crux of the argument. Because we aren't animals anymore, what we do in life shouldn't be prescribed a general purpose because we alone can make our life whatever we want. Thus, our purpose is what we make of it. You have a purpose of reproducing, that's cool. Others do not, that should also be fine for you.
Also, by assigning a purpose of reproduction, you're using the same old and wrong arguments that anti-gay people and anti-mixed race people use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
