Following a recent thread which I don't want to bring up in this blog as it's gotten too much attention for a member of our community already, I wanted to try to share some knowledge and maybe stop some of the absolutely disgusting comments I've seen in recent days regarding people with any form of Gender Identity Disorder (Transsexuals).
Please do not bring up any threads or people on TL.net when replying to this post! I do not want my blog being used to emotionally attack anyone.
OK, so first some basic terms for those unfamiliar with them.
Transsexual – Someone born with characteristics of a sex that does not conform with their gender identity.
That is the complete definition, it has nothing to do with any medical treatment (surgical, psychological or pharmaceutical), sexual preferences or fetishes, personality or even conforming with gender stereotypes. It is not a weekend hobby, it is a core identity. As much as you are male or female and couldn't change that, the same is true for a trans person. If you woke up tomorrow biological the opposite sex, you would still be the same person you are now. Gender is an identity, not a body type (or more crudely but more often worded as “it's what's between your head, not your legs”).
Transvestite – Someone who engages in cross-dressing, which is to say dressing in clothes typically reserved for people belonging to the opposite sex.
Transvestite is a term used to describe people who cross-dress. Whilst it is common that this is for sexual gratification, that isn't always the case but the important distinction is that the individual still identifies with their biological sex. A male transvestite dressed as a woman is still a man, and unlike a transsexual would not be offended by being classed as such, though often it's is proper to refer to them as the gender they're displaying this is a case by case thing. Referring to a transsexual as a transvestite is to literally say “You're not a woman, you're a man dressed as a woman” and that is extremely hurtful.
Cis-gendered: Someone for who biological and psychological sex and gender align. Basically a non transgendered person.
Androgynous: A person who exhibits both male and female typical sexual markers.
Androgynous people cover a large group. Colloquially it refers to someone who in appearance appears unidentifiable on the scale of man to woman. The literal meaning is someone though who expresses both masculine and feminine biological traits, sometimes to the extent that determining a gender identify from them without their input is not possible. Hermaphrodites (those born with sex organs of both sexes) are often put in to this category.
Genderqueer: A person who identifies as neither male or female.
Whilst for practical purposes a pronoun is usually apparent, those who identify as genderqueer could not be identified on a binary scale of male or female, but rather find comfort somewhere in the middle. Because of just how wide this definition is I can't really give a more in depth description than that, they come as a case by case basis. I don't know anyone who identifies as Genderqueer personally so I'm hoping someone else might be able to help here.
Transgender: This is an umbrella term for anyone who's expression of gender doesn't match that typically assigned at birth. This can literally cover everyone from transsexuals to transvestites to androgynous people and genderqueer individuals.
OK, so now we're all familiar with the terms let's get to the point. This post was originally going to be a massive rant on the absolutely horrible things I've seen posted recently but it occurred to me that the problem is more likely that people merely don't understand the issues or how hurtful they're being to others. At least I hope that's the case, and given the way the media portrays Transgendered people and often misuses terms I'm assuming it's likely.
OK, so as you'll have read above or already known a transsexual is someone that as a person does not identify with the sex of their body. The most common way that people are familiar with this issue is those who really don't pass well (can't blend in as their actual gender) or with 'Thai Lady boys'.
It's worth noting that Lady boy is definitely not a polite term to use to describe a transsexual, and often the people selling themselves as such have no interest in changing the sex. While some groups still use the term and understand it to mean that, it is literally saying it is a male lady, in the same way as that most vile of terms 'shemale'. Both, when used to describe a transsexual are terms invented by bigots to separate trans women (Male to Female Transsexuals) from the cis-gender one's. If you're not a bigot and you're talking a transwoman, don't use them.
There are also trans men (Female to Male Transsexuals) and figures show they're actually at least as common, although given the ease of obtaining the necessary drugs and so not having to visit a Dr officially, there are likely many more that are not on anyone's record. Because the effects of the appropriate male hormones are very obvious it isn't as common to notice a trans man. I should note I'm using the term 'trans man' and 'trans woman' here for explanation purposes. For all intents and purposes, trans men are simply 'men' and trans women are simply 'women', and those are the only acceptable terms. A trans man is not a 'miss', etc.
When talking with a transsexual, some things are just rude to bring up and I'll explain what and why and hopefully make interactions far more normal, as they should be.
First, transsexualism is a medically recognised issue known more commonly as 'Gender Identity Disorder' (GID). When you laugh at someone or post that "This is awesome ROFL!!!" upon learning that they have GID, you're literally laughing at them as people, laughing at their core identity, laughing at a private medical issue that has nothing to do with you and putting another hurdle in place separating a trans person from being able to comfortably live life as the person they are. It is not OK.
laughing at someone for GID is as sick as laughing at an Anorexic, doing your best to make sure they know how fat they were and how they'll never fit in. Yes, GID kills too that wasn't an understatement of the serious struggles faced by Anorexics (I almost lost a cousin to it). The usual statistic you'll hear for trans suicide rates is 50% although figures can generally put the rate at 5 times that of non trans people. The number of successful suicides in GID patients is somewhere around 1 in 25. Together that is to say no where near 50% but a hell of a lot of people struggling with serious depression and that's only counting the one's who make it to being on a record before being unable to continue on. Hopefully this paragraph alone will go some way to explaining the absolute sickening feeling I felt reading through recent comments on this site, especially with so few warning or bans handed out to those attacking members of our community.
So yes, after just laughing at the issue, the next thing is discussing a trans persons medical treatment. You wouldn't go up to someone on the street and say "Hi, I couldn't help but notice you've got a bit of a limp in your step, how's the ointment for your d**k working out?" because, well first they're likely to beat the s**t out of you and second, it's none of your business. A trans person's genitals are off limits to you unless they say otherwise. No it's not OK to ask unless you know they're comfortable with answering. Pre-op or post-op questions out of the way (as they're the most offensive I think) any other questions about their medical treatment or regime are off limits unless you know them well enough to know otherwise. Use common sense, they're people.
Finally trying to find out details about their past life as the opposite gender is out of the question too. "What was your name", or "Do you have a picture of you before" might sound innocuous enough but it's once again reaffirming that person is not who they are now, but can't escape what they were then. Once again, the only time questions on this are acceptable are when you're close enough to the person to know they're OK with it.
Finally, whilst the issue has only slightly been brought up on this site, thankfully, the radical feminist view. Some people, vocally announced by someone who I'll not name here as they deserve no attention at all, believe that trans men are giving up on womanhood to take up male privilege, and that trans women are just trying to 'fetishise' the female form or abuse women who might "mistake" them for a "real" woman. I don't feel I should have to address these points really but as we're here, transsexuality is not based on what you want, it's based on what and who you are. Given the extreme struggles many Transsexuals face, and the extensive studies in to the subject and the absolutely huge range of people and issues that go in to it, generalisations like this are revolting generalisations of an ignorant bigot and have no place in a rational society beyond being dismantled and forgotten.
I should add, not all radical feminists hold this view fortunately, I simply wanted to address the points.
I'm running out of time so I'll have to leave this post there, I've covered pretty much everything I wanted to though. I guess, in short all I'm asking is that people treat other's with respect, regardless of who they are and how they got there.
Edit: I had wanted to cover more of the scientific and research side of things in my original OP but ran out of time and decided I could safely wrap up the post without doing any real harm to the point or respecting people and understanding. However as the discussion has continued fusionsdf posted the following and gave me permission to add it to the OP, and I feel it's worth having here.
On August 14 2011 04:01 fusionsdf wrote: Actually I didn't address what I really wanted to last post, mainly that its a conflict of a physical body and a physical brain, where the sex of the body is opposite (or different from) the sex of the brain. I use 'sex' of the brain because it is an observable physical difference; not psychology or new age mysticism.
As you can see, there has been a LOT of research in this field. Trying to use psychology to get around the physical brain/identity would be a bit like a psychologist trying to convince a patient he is a rock. Trying to convince a woman she is a man (or vice versa) is not something easily achieved (or imo even desirable).
tl;dr: BAM, FACTS
I should add I've not yet been able to verify all the links myself, though they are in line with my understanding of the current state of modern medicine and should be interesting for those interested in reading more on that aspect.
The general message remains the same though - Please treat everyone with respect, and think before posting about specific people (trans or not).
It's good to read a post like this where someone wants to educate others to be more loving and understanding about people instead of the outside appearances.
Thank you for writing all this down, i've managed to avoid horrible comments like those you talk about on TL, but it's a constant thing everywhere else on the internet and it's nice to hear something positive outside of actual LGBT forums.
I also have problems with my identity and my body. I've always felt like I'm supposed to be really good looking, like a model. Inside, I just feel handsome, like I should be a bad-ass-looking James Bond type of guy. When I see myself in the mirror, it just feels like it's not me.
I can put on on my vile of politeness and say that I can tolerate transgenders, but deep down I still disapprove and am disgusted by their actions; shooting hormones and undergoing sexual reassignment surgery is just revolting as fuck. A parallel would be pedophiles; they can't help how they feel just like transgenders, but it's disgusting when they do decide to act upon their urges. The main difference between the two is legality of course.
Interesting read. But unfortunately I don't think you can teach respect to a bunch of angry internet nerds with a tsunami of text. Transexuals rank somewhere below other shit storm inducers like women, moletrap becoming a permanent Code A caster, and even (especially) dogs. You might as well try to prevent rising ocean levels by holding your pee in.
Youll be surprised how many internet nerds have a secret crush on transvestites.. its not a staple topic in communities like 4chan for no reasonyou know
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.
i do think sexuality is very greatly psychological , and can be shaped psychologically. i feel you need to take a step back and let go of your obsessions and compulsions, and experience totally new and alien things, before you allow yourself to embrace a particular thing. that said and done, in the end you need to do what makes you happy - just dont trust in yourself so much and so quickly that it blinds you from other experiences
(i dont disapprove of it, just it is easy to embrace such a strong a part of yourself without truely putting yourself out there and experiencing and understanding your reality. just an example, i have a friend who was straight for most of his life, but after some years of isolation and anime suddenly turned homosexual. i always had a lingering doubt that he could someday become straight again as his psychological world continued to revolve. another example, a lot of friends turned to lolicon after isolation and internet, and i feel they embraced something and began to revere it simply because they werent experiencing anything else)
On August 14 2011 01:46 Ravencruiser wrote: Good info thanks.
I can put on on my vile of politeness and say that I can tolerate transgenders, but deep down I still disapprove and am disgusted by their actions; shooting hormones and undergoing sexual reassignment surgery is just revolting as fuck. A parallel would be pedophiles; they can't help how they feel just like transgenders, but it's disgusting when they do decide to act upon their urges. The main difference between the two is legality of course.
I'm sorry but nothing can change that.
I'm afraid the two are about as nonparallel as the sun and the moon.
Transgender acting on their urges doesn't defile the rights of others. Instead of spreading your fear and hate, write your posts down in a notepad save it and reformat your computer. Just to be sure it doesn't make its way into an intelligent, open minded conversation.
On August 14 2011 01:46 Ravencruiser wrote: Good info thanks.
I can put on on my vile of politeness and say that I can tolerate transgenders, but deep down I still disapprove and am disgusted by their actions; shooting hormones and undergoing sexual reassignment surgery is just revolting as fuck. A parallel would be pedophiles; they can't help how they feel just like transgenders, but it's disgusting when they do decide to act upon their urges. The main difference between the two is legality of course.
I'm sorry but nothing can change that.
They aren't even slightly related. Trans is not about sex or attraction to anyone, its not a 'hunger.' It's simply an identity, hardwired in your brain from birth (there are numerous studies which attest to this fact.) In other words if you were the only person stranded on a deserted island for the rest of your life, you would still be trans and still want to transition.
The most glaring difference is that trans people don't hurt anyone, they just live their lives. As someone who has friends that have been abused as children, fuck you.
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.
It's also possible for couples biologically incapable of reproducing to still raise children through means like surrogates and adoption, and just because something makes one unable to reproduce, that doesn't mean that there is something 'not right' in the mind of these people. 'Psychological help' for these issues is often unsuccessful, damaging to mental health and self-esteem, and it reinforces the pervasive idea in our society that not being heterosexual and/or cisgendered is wrong (just look at conversion therapy).
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.
Its not easier to change your body. The various surgeries (which some get and some don't) cost 10s of thousands of dollars (or more).
The reason we do hormones/surgery isn't because its easier to change the body, but because its impossible to change the mind. Just look at David Reimer. In the hundred+ years studying trans people, there have never been any true successes using psychology to 'make it go away.' And this includes electroshock and aversion therapy etc. If you can't make people stop being gay or straight, why is it so hard to believe you can't change them being trans?
If you consider the results of transphobic attitude, it's very clear that something needs to be done, and educating the public is an important step.
A staggering 41% of [trans people] reported attempting suicide compared to 1.6% of the general population, with rates rising for those who lost a job due to bias (55%), were harassed/bullied in school (51%), had low household income, or were the victim of physical assault (61%) or sexual assault (64%).
Respondents lived in extreme poverty. Our sample was nearly four times more likely to have a household income of less than $10,000/ year compared to the general population.
Those who expressed a transgender identity or gender non-conformity while in grades K-12 reported alarming rates of harassment (78%), physical assault (35%) and sexual violence (12%); harassment was so severe that it led almost one-sixth (15%) to leave a school in K-12 settings or in higher education.
• Double the rate of unemployment: Survey respondents experienced unemployment at twice the rate of the general population at the time of the survey,v with rates for people of color up to four times the national unemployment rate. • Widespread mistreatment at work: Ninety percent (90%) of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment, mistreatment or discrimination on the job or took actions like hiding who they are to avoid it. Respondents who had lost a job due to bias also experienced ruinous consequences such as four times the rate of homelessness, 70% more current drinking or misuse of drugs to cope with mistreatment, 85% more incarceration, more than double the rate working in the underground economy, and more than double the HIV infection rate, compared to those who did not lose a job due to bias.
• One-fi fth (19%) reported experiencing homelessness at some point in their lives because they were transgender or gender nonconforming; the majority of those trying to access a homeless shelter were harassed by shelter staff or residents (55%), 29% were turned away altogether, and 22% were sexually assaulted by residents or staff .
• Refusal of care: 19% of our sample reported being refused medical care due to their transgender or gender non-conforming status, with even higher numbers among people of color in the survey.
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.
It's also possible for couples biologically incapable of reproducing to still raise children through means like surrogates and adoption, and just because something makes one unable to reproduce, that doesn't mean that there is something 'not right' in the mind of these people. 'Psychological help' for these issues is often unsuccessful, damaging to mental health and self-esteem, and it reinforces the pervasive idea in our society that not being heterosexual and/or cisgendered is wrong (just look at conversion therapy).
Your first sentence makes no sense. Not that it has anything to do with what I wrote anyway. If a woman can't get a child, why would there be anything wrong with her mind? Did I say such a thing? Nope. Reproducing =/= raising a child. Even if it's unsuccessful, it's the only "real" way to go because you just ignored the problem which was the mind and not the body. Or let's say it like this: They don't fix the problem but they fix the world and in this case, the world is their body which makes it pretty easy. Other people with a psychological disease don't have it that easy.
On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters. You weren't born in a wrong body, it's just that your mind is not right. Seeking psychological help is the way to go, I agree with other users there. But nowadays it's easier to change your biological body, so people take that path.
Actually I didn't address what I really wanted to last post, mainly that its a conflict of a physical body and a physical brain, where the sex of the body is opposite (or different from) the sex of the brain. I use 'sex' of the brain because it is an observable physical difference; not psychology or new age mysticism.
As you can see, there has been a LOT of research in this field. Trying to use psychology to get around the physical brain/identity would be a bit like a psychologist trying to convince a patient he is a rock. Trying to convince a woman she is a man (or vice versa) is not something easily achieved (or imo even desirable).
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.
Its not easier to change your body. The various surgeries (which some get and some don't) cost 10s of thousands of dollars (or more).
The reason we do hormones/surgery isn't because its easier to change the body, but because its impossible to change the mind. Just look at David Reimer. In the hundred+ years studying trans people, there have never been any true successes using psychology to 'make it go away.' And this includes electroshock and aversion therapy etc. If you can't make people stop being gay or straight, why is it so hard to believe you can't change them being trans?
Oh, didn't know it's uncurable(thought it has a pretty low success rate). That sucks then, but so my statement of "changing the body is easier" is still true. I don't/didn't know about therapy of homosexuality, I actually thought it has the same (really low)success rate. I guess the people were just unlucky then, same with uncurable biological diseases, except those can be mortal(suicide doesn't count).
On August 14 2011 04:01 fusionsdf wrote: As you can see, there has been a LOT of research in this field. Trying to use psychology to get around the physical brain/identity would be a bit like a psychologist trying to convince a patient he is a rock. Trying to convince a woman she is a man (or vice versa) is not something easily achieved (or imo even desirable).
Hypnosis might work(to convince the patient he is a rock), ha ha. I'm not sure about hypnosis, it probably only works on the weak minded if at all. It is certainly desirable because then you solve the problem in a natural way.
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?
On August 14 2011 03:47 rel wrote: They will always be guys, no matter how hard you try. You can call a dog a cat as much as you want. It's still a dog.
Once again there is a difference between Sex and Gender.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've added fusionsdf's links post to the OP with permission as it's interesting stuff I didn't myself have time to properly research and verify. So yeah, as I said before, thank you for that fusionsdf!
Regarding people who think that GID should be dealt with through pyschological help rather than surgical intervention, I would hope you'd still agree with me that there is an issue there that should not be worsened by belittling and offensive posts about the person's core identity, and that they should be treated with respect (which was the main thing I wanted people to get from this blog).
It is worth noting though that I disagree with your particular view on that, as GID is treated with a lot of pyschiatry before any surgery can be done, literally 2+ years of it and by that point is only authorised if the Dr's themselves agree it is the best option for the patient, and if the patient themself both wants and is able to go through the procedure (there are many reasons people choose not to). Suffice to say, if pyschiatric support is insufficient then surgery is the correct answer.
Throwing in my support - not saying I understand at all what transgendered folks go through, I can only imagine it's tough. I've never really understood why OTHERS consider it a big deal though.
Maybe I've just always had the tolerant "live and let live" mentality. I personally place far more value on honesty, hard work, and consideration of others far more than I could give a fuck what race/gender/sexual orientation someone was.
Interesting read. I've kept up to date on some of the scientific information about transsexuals as well as homosexuals (obviously quite different people, but the science of gender and sexuality is fascinating) and noting that both have genetic predispositions, disproving the long held stereotypes of certain forms of bigot that it's "all in the head". Basically, people are born this way and a civilised society accepts all forms of people, because nobody can help who they are.
It's rough the struggle these people have to go through in their lives. Just because black people are no longer a viable target for racism doesn't mean you can project your small minded bigotry on transsexuals. It wont be tolerated by anyone with a mind capable of reason.
If people continue down the path of discrimination, despite the evidence available, we know they must have an ulterior motive. Either religious (and the irony of a religion which proclaims itself of peace and love causes such vile actions and feelings is not lost on anyone), deep seated prejudice based on insecurity, or as happens SO often they are unsure of their own gender/sexuality. There have been multiple recorded cases of former hardline anti-homosexuals "coming out". Wouldn't be surprised if there were some transsexual situations too.
Kudos to you folk, its a tough path, stick to it and stay strong.
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.
On August 14 2011 03:47 rel wrote: They will always be guys, no matter how hard you try. You can call a dog a cat as much as you want. It's still a dog.
Once again there is a difference between Sex and Gender.
Can you state your opinions on these differences? Really curious actually.
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.
On August 14 2011 05:26 EvilTeletubby wrote: Throwing in my support - not saying I understand at all what transgendered folks go through, I can only imagine it's tough. I've never really understood why OTHERS consider it a big deal though.
Maybe I've just always had the tolerant "live and let live" mentality. I personally place far more value on honesty, hard work, and consideration of others far more than I could give a fuck what race/gender/sexual orientation someone was.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On August 14 2011 04:16 DamageControL wrote: [quote] People planning on not having kids need psychological counseling?
You should actually read my post properly before answering.
So are you saying that non-cisgenderedness is a psychological problem, and that people simply change the body because its easier? If so, then fusionsdf addressed that point in his post. He (and I) also addressed the fact that 'psychological help' does not work on people who are homosexual, and given the same nature of that and GID, it is not likely to work in this case.
EDIT: If this interpretation is wrong, then please explain your position more clearly, don't just tell people that they're missing the point.
Heh? What are you talking about? I answered fusionsdf already and yes, I said so in all my posts.
Here, my answer upon hearing that it's uncurable.
On August 14 2011 04:11 Lucumo wrote: Oh, didn't know it's uncurable(thought it has a pretty low success rate). That sucks then, but so my statement of "changing the body is easier" is still true.
And why are you quoting DamageControL? This has nothing to do with what I wrote anyway. It's as unrelated as your sentence about adoptions and stuff.
Okay. The reason I brought up adoption/surrogates is to dispel the idea that our purpose is to reproduce, and that that is somehow hindered by one being homosexual or non-cisgendered, which was implied by your post. I quoted DamageControL because it had your original post, and because it also had your post where you claimed he hadn't "read your post properly," something I brought up. Either way, both of these things are irrelevant to the discussion, so stop nitpicking about them.
It's this idea that transsexualism needs to be treated (because it defies our biological purpose to reproduce or whatever), that ones gender identity must align with their sexual organs, that I disagree with, and that is implied in your post.
Nope, that wasn't my point. You apparently didn't read the second part of my sentence.
On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters.
And this was also an answer to the discussion above. The body is the basis and the mind is what makes the body working. If the mind isn't working properly, you change the mind and not the body. After all the body is mass produced and it's not what's flawed, the mind is the problem. Therefore I agreed with the above posters. STILL, I did also say that we are supposed to reproduce(you only need a body for that, the mind is not relevant). We are supposed to but we don't have to. We, as a race, have the purpose to prosper, as do animals and plants. Natural selection was once a part of it but it no longer applies to us humans. If a man has the identity(?) of a woman but is lesbian, then there is no problem from a biological aspect. If he is simply transsexual, then there is a problem from that aspect. Then again, we don't necessarily have to reproduce but it doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong. And adoptions and other things have nothing to do with this. The discussion wasn't about this anyway, it was about whether it's ok to change the body or not. And several people said that it's not ok, even if the disease is uncurable. I already mentioned, that you can consider it bad luck, same with uncurable biological diseases. And despite the fact that an operation is probably good for the person, it doesn't change the fact that it's not ok. A lot more things are irrelevant but I certainly wasn't the person who brought that up. People interpret statements/opinions in my sentence, without considering the second part or the relation to the overall discussion -_-
It doesn't need to be treated just because it's wrong. I never implied such a thing. All I ever said is that surgery is not the way to go...even if there is no other way.
You put more value in your perceived goals of evolution than people's wellbeing. Despite an operation to increase the happiness of a person, you'd prefer they didn't have it because it's "wrong". That's sad man. There is no evolutionary purpose and we are not supposed to do anything. Evolution does not follow any rules and evolution is not trying to help us survive. It is simply a process that happens.
Where did I say that? Evolution was helping the human race passively through the means of natural selection(one example). Even though it is/was just a process, it took us to where we are now. It definitely did help us to survive.
When you said it's "wrong" and "not ok". You can't claim that you'd LIKE them to have the operation after saying that.
Your logic for whatever you perceive to be wrong in transsexuals is based on it going against natural selection and evolution. We are all products of evolution and natural selection, even transsexuals. There is not a goal that evolution has that transsexuals are rebelling against. We are all products of the same process.
It is wrong and not ok but that doesn't mean it's not preferable. Heck, I would like them to try the psychological way even if it's pretty much impossible. One thing doesn't necessarily exclude the other.
I said natural selection is a part of the evolution(you even brought that word up), nothing more. And I said that it once applied to us. We are supposed to prosper, reproducing is a part of that. Things which defy the very basics(such as this psychological disease) are certainly not good.
This is the part I take issue with most. I've explained why I think this way of seeing evolution is flawed and if you don't understand then I'm done here.
I feel a lot like someone in the middle but i'm fairly content with who i am right now
Of all the cosplays i've ever done, my crossplays were by far my favourite. It feels like such a great expression of freedom to do and wear whatever i want. Even though i'm perfectly happy how i am, it is an expression of the other side of me too
On August 14 2011 04:27 Lucumo wrote: [quote] You should actually read my post properly before answering.
So are you saying that non-cisgenderedness is a psychological problem, and that people simply change the body because its easier? If so, then fusionsdf addressed that point in his post. He (and I) also addressed the fact that 'psychological help' does not work on people who are homosexual, and given the same nature of that and GID, it is not likely to work in this case.
EDIT: If this interpretation is wrong, then please explain your position more clearly, don't just tell people that they're missing the point.
Heh? What are you talking about? I answered fusionsdf already and yes, I said so in all my posts.
Here, my answer upon hearing that it's uncurable.
On August 14 2011 04:11 Lucumo wrote: Oh, didn't know it's uncurable(thought it has a pretty low success rate). That sucks then, but so my statement of "changing the body is easier" is still true.
And why are you quoting DamageControL? This has nothing to do with what I wrote anyway. It's as unrelated as your sentence about adoptions and stuff.
Okay. The reason I brought up adoption/surrogates is to dispel the idea that our purpose is to reproduce, and that that is somehow hindered by one being homosexual or non-cisgendered, which was implied by your post. I quoted DamageControL because it had your original post, and because it also had your post where you claimed he hadn't "read your post properly," something I brought up. Either way, both of these things are irrelevant to the discussion, so stop nitpicking about them.
It's this idea that transsexualism needs to be treated (because it defies our biological purpose to reproduce or whatever), that ones gender identity must align with their sexual organs, that I disagree with, and that is implied in your post.
Nope, that wasn't my point. You apparently didn't read the second part of my sentence.
On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters.
And this was also an answer to the discussion above. The body is the basis and the mind is what makes the body working. If the mind isn't working properly, you change the mind and not the body. After all the body is mass produced and it's not what's flawed, the mind is the problem. Therefore I agreed with the above posters. STILL, I did also say that we are supposed to reproduce(you only need a body for that, the mind is not relevant). We are supposed to but we don't have to. We, as a race, have the purpose to prosper, as do animals and plants. Natural selection was once a part of it but it no longer applies to us humans. If a man has the identity(?) of a woman but is lesbian, then there is no problem from a biological aspect. If he is simply transsexual, then there is a problem from that aspect. Then again, we don't necessarily have to reproduce but it doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong. And adoptions and other things have nothing to do with this. The discussion wasn't about this anyway, it was about whether it's ok to change the body or not. And several people said that it's not ok, even if the disease is uncurable. I already mentioned, that you can consider it bad luck, same with uncurable biological diseases. And despite the fact that an operation is probably good for the person, it doesn't change the fact that it's not ok. A lot more things are irrelevant but I certainly wasn't the person who brought that up. People interpret statements/opinions in my sentence, without considering the second part or the relation to the overall discussion -_-
It doesn't need to be treated just because it's wrong. I never implied such a thing. All I ever said is that surgery is not the way to go...even if there is no other way.
You put more value in your perceived goals of evolution than people's wellbeing. Despite an operation to increase the happiness of a person, you'd prefer they didn't have it because it's "wrong". That's sad man. There is no evolutionary purpose and we are not supposed to do anything. Evolution does not follow any rules and evolution is not trying to help us survive. It is simply a process that happens.
Where did I say that? Evolution was helping the human race passively through the means of natural selection(one example). Even though it is/was just a process, it took us to where we are now. It definitely did help us to survive.
When you said it's "wrong" and "not ok". You can't claim that you'd LIKE them to have the operation after saying that.
Your logic for whatever you perceive to be wrong in transsexuals is based on it going against natural selection and evolution. We are all products of evolution and natural selection, even transsexuals. There is not a goal that evolution has that transsexuals are rebelling against. We are all products of the same process.
It is wrong and not ok but that doesn't mean it's not preferable. Heck, I would like them to try the psychological way even if it's pretty much impossible. One thing doesn't necessarily exclude the other.
I said natural selection is a part of the evolution(you even brought that word up), nothing more. And I said that it once applied to us. We are supposed to prosper, reproducing is a part of that. Things which defy the very basics(such as this psychological disease) are certainly not good.
This is the part I take issue with most. I've explained why I think this way of seeing evolution is flawed and if you don't understand then I'm done here.
On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters. You weren't born in a wrong body, it's just that your mind is not right. Seeking psychological help is the way to go, I agree with other users there. But nowadays it's easier to change your biological body, so people take that path.
People planning on not having kids need psychological counseling?
You should actually read my post properly before answering.
So are you saying that non-cisgenderedness is a psychological problem, and that people simply change the body because its easier? If so, then fusionsdf addressed that point in his post. He (and I) also addressed the fact that 'psychological help' does not work on people who are homosexual, and given the same nature of that and GID, it is not likely to work in this case.
EDIT: If this interpretation is wrong, then please explain your position more clearly, don't just tell people that they're missing the point.
Heh? What are you talking about? I answered fusionsdf already and yes, I said so in all my posts.
Here, my answer upon hearing that it's uncurable.
On August 14 2011 04:11 Lucumo wrote: Oh, didn't know it's uncurable(thought it has a pretty low success rate). That sucks then, but so my statement of "changing the body is easier" is still true.
And why are you quoting DamageControL? This has nothing to do with what I wrote anyway. It's as unrelated as your sentence about adoptions and stuff.
Okay. The reason I brought up adoption/surrogates is to dispel the idea that our purpose is to reproduce, and that that is somehow hindered by one being homosexual or non-cisgendered, which was implied by your post. I quoted DamageControL because it had your original post, and because it also had your post where you claimed he hadn't "read your post properly," something I brought up. Either way, both of these things are irrelevant to the discussion, so stop nitpicking about them.
It's this idea that transsexualism needs to be treated (because it defies our biological purpose to reproduce or whatever), that ones gender identity must align with their sexual organs, that I disagree with, and that is implied in your post.
Nope, that wasn't my point. You apparently didn't read the second part of my sentence.
On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters.
And this was also an answer to the discussion above. The body is the basis and the mind is what makes the body working. If the mind isn't working properly, you change the mind and not the body. After all the body is mass produced and it's not what's flawed, the mind is the problem. Therefore I agreed with the above posters. STILL, I did also say that we are supposed to reproduce(you only need a body for that, the mind is not relevant). We are supposed to but we don't have to. We, as a race, have the purpose to prosper, as do animals and plants. Natural selection was once a part of it but it no longer applies to us humans. If a man has the identity(?) of a woman but is lesbian, then there is no problem from a biological aspect. If he is simply transsexual, then there is a problem from that aspect. Then again, we don't necessarily have to reproduce but it doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong. And adoptions and other things have nothing to do with this. The discussion wasn't about this anyway, it was about whether it's ok to change the body or not. And several people said that it's not ok, even if the disease is uncurable. I already mentioned, that you can consider it bad luck, same with uncurable biological diseases. And despite the fact that an operation is probably good for the person, it doesn't change the fact that it's not ok. A lot more things are irrelevant but I certainly wasn't the person who brought that up. People interpret statements/opinions in my sentence, without considering the second part or the relation to the overall discussion -_-
It doesn't need to be treated just because it's wrong. I never implied such a thing. All I ever said is that surgery is not the way to go...even if there is no other way.
You put more value in your perceived goals of evolution than people's wellbeing. Despite an operation to increase the happiness of a person, you'd prefer they didn't have it because it's "wrong". That's sad man. There is no evolutionary purpose and we are not supposed to do anything. Evolution does not follow any rules and evolution is not trying to help us survive. It is simply a process that happens.
The second sentence was putting words in my mouth which I never uttered. The third and fourth sentences are...hm, funny(?) because they make no sense. The strong survive, the weak die. If that wouldn't have happened, climatic changes, animals etc would have already killed us. And also, if there is no purpose and if we aren't supposed to do anything, why is sex fun and has all the positive effects? Remove them and then guess what would happen. We still aren't supposed to do anything? Well, then you can also remove sexuality, sexual urges etc. After all, urges which led our ancestors to reproduce are totally useless, right? Maybe we should become plants instead or self-regenerating beings. And the first sentence, I already answered that in my last post. Other than that, there is nothing really more.
This talk about evolution is off-topic anyway, there was no real need to bring it up in the first place.
On August 14 2011 07:11 Lucumo wrote: It is wrong and not ok but that doesn't mean it's not preferable. Heck, I would like them to try the psychological way even if it's pretty much impossible. One thing doesn't necessarily exclude the other.
Just to reiterate, no one is allowed to go through any surgical procedure (or even obtain hormone treatment) without pyschological evaluation and a lot of counciling. In the UK the guidelines require 6 months of living full time as your 'new' gender, including name and clothing etc, before they'll even consider offering hormone treatment, and these guidelines are far more widespread than the UK (they're known as the Harry Benjamin guidelines if you want to look them up, though that's a whole other discussion).
Beyond just getting on hormones, it takes at least a further 2 years before any surgical options are made available. Because of the likelihood of finding yourself sued if you operate on the wrong person, it'd be almost impossible to find any surgeon willing to proceed without a letter from a pyschiatrist in a relevant field who has extensively worked with the patient.
My point though, to sum up, is simply that no one can just jump in to surgery without extensive pyschological assessment and councilling, so I think that should cover the concerns you've raised there?
On August 14 2011 07:11 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.
So are you saying that non-cisgenderedness is a psychological problem, and that people simply change the body because its easier? If so, then fusionsdf addressed that point in his post. He (and I) also addressed the fact that 'psychological help' does not work on people who are homosexual, and given the same nature of that and GID, it is not likely to work in this case.
EDIT: If this interpretation is wrong, then please explain your position more clearly, don't just tell people that they're missing the point.
Heh? What are you talking about? I answered fusionsdf already and yes, I said so in all my posts.
Here, my answer upon hearing that it's uncurable.
On August 14 2011 04:11 Lucumo wrote: Oh, didn't know it's uncurable(thought it has a pretty low success rate). That sucks then, but so my statement of "changing the body is easier" is still true.
And why are you quoting DamageControL? This has nothing to do with what I wrote anyway. It's as unrelated as your sentence about adoptions and stuff.
Okay. The reason I brought up adoption/surrogates is to dispel the idea that our purpose is to reproduce, and that that is somehow hindered by one being homosexual or non-cisgendered, which was implied by your post. I quoted DamageControL because it had your original post, and because it also had your post where you claimed he hadn't "read your post properly," something I brought up. Either way, both of these things are irrelevant to the discussion, so stop nitpicking about them.
It's this idea that transsexualism needs to be treated (because it defies our biological purpose to reproduce or whatever), that ones gender identity must align with their sexual organs, that I disagree with, and that is implied in your post.
Nope, that wasn't my point. You apparently didn't read the second part of my sentence.
On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters.
And this was also an answer to the discussion above. The body is the basis and the mind is what makes the body working. If the mind isn't working properly, you change the mind and not the body. After all the body is mass produced and it's not what's flawed, the mind is the problem. Therefore I agreed with the above posters. STILL, I did also say that we are supposed to reproduce(you only need a body for that, the mind is not relevant). We are supposed to but we don't have to. We, as a race, have the purpose to prosper, as do animals and plants. Natural selection was once a part of it but it no longer applies to us humans. If a man has the identity(?) of a woman but is lesbian, then there is no problem from a biological aspect. If he is simply transsexual, then there is a problem from that aspect. Then again, we don't necessarily have to reproduce but it doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong. And adoptions and other things have nothing to do with this. The discussion wasn't about this anyway, it was about whether it's ok to change the body or not. And several people said that it's not ok, even if the disease is uncurable. I already mentioned, that you can consider it bad luck, same with uncurable biological diseases. And despite the fact that an operation is probably good for the person, it doesn't change the fact that it's not ok. A lot more things are irrelevant but I certainly wasn't the person who brought that up. People interpret statements/opinions in my sentence, without considering the second part or the relation to the overall discussion -_-
It doesn't need to be treated just because it's wrong. I never implied such a thing. All I ever said is that surgery is not the way to go...even if there is no other way.
You put more value in your perceived goals of evolution than people's wellbeing. Despite an operation to increase the happiness of a person, you'd prefer they didn't have it because it's "wrong". That's sad man. There is no evolutionary purpose and we are not supposed to do anything. Evolution does not follow any rules and evolution is not trying to help us survive. It is simply a process that happens.
Where did I say that? Evolution was helping the human race passively through the means of natural selection(one example). Even though it is/was just a process, it took us to where we are now. It definitely did help us to survive.
When you said it's "wrong" and "not ok". You can't claim that you'd LIKE them to have the operation after saying that.
Your logic for whatever you perceive to be wrong in transsexuals is based on it going against natural selection and evolution. We are all products of evolution and natural selection, even transsexuals. There is not a goal that evolution has that transsexuals are rebelling against. We are all products of the same process.
It is wrong and not ok but that doesn't mean it's not preferable. Heck, I would like them to try the psychological way even if it's pretty much impossible. One thing doesn't necessarily exclude the other.
I said natural selection is a part of the evolution(you even brought that word up), nothing more. And I said that it once applied to us. We are supposed to prosper, reproducing is a part of that. Things which defy the very basics(such as this psychological disease) are certainly not good.
This is the part I take issue with most. I've explained why I think this way of seeing evolution is flawed and if you don't understand then I'm done here.
On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters. You weren't born in a wrong body, it's just that your mind is not right. Seeking psychological help is the way to go, I agree with other users there. But nowadays it's easier to change your biological body, so people take that path.
People planning on not having kids need psychological counseling?
You should actually read my post properly before answering.
So are you saying that non-cisgenderedness is a psychological problem, and that people simply change the body because its easier? If so, then fusionsdf addressed that point in his post. He (and I) also addressed the fact that 'psychological help' does not work on people who are homosexual, and given the same nature of that and GID, it is not likely to work in this case.
EDIT: If this interpretation is wrong, then please explain your position more clearly, don't just tell people that they're missing the point.
Heh? What are you talking about? I answered fusionsdf already and yes, I said so in all my posts.
Here, my answer upon hearing that it's uncurable.
On August 14 2011 04:11 Lucumo wrote: Oh, didn't know it's uncurable(thought it has a pretty low success rate). That sucks then, but so my statement of "changing the body is easier" is still true.
And why are you quoting DamageControL? This has nothing to do with what I wrote anyway. It's as unrelated as your sentence about adoptions and stuff.
Okay. The reason I brought up adoption/surrogates is to dispel the idea that our purpose is to reproduce, and that that is somehow hindered by one being homosexual or non-cisgendered, which was implied by your post. I quoted DamageControL because it had your original post, and because it also had your post where you claimed he hadn't "read your post properly," something I brought up. Either way, both of these things are irrelevant to the discussion, so stop nitpicking about them.
It's this idea that transsexualism needs to be treated (because it defies our biological purpose to reproduce or whatever), that ones gender identity must align with their sexual organs, that I disagree with, and that is implied in your post.
Nope, that wasn't my point. You apparently didn't read the second part of my sentence.
On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters.
And this was also an answer to the discussion above. The body is the basis and the mind is what makes the body working. If the mind isn't working properly, you change the mind and not the body. After all the body is mass produced and it's not what's flawed, the mind is the problem. Therefore I agreed with the above posters. STILL, I did also say that we are supposed to reproduce(you only need a body for that, the mind is not relevant). We are supposed to but we don't have to. We, as a race, have the purpose to prosper, as do animals and plants. Natural selection was once a part of it but it no longer applies to us humans. If a man has the identity(?) of a woman but is lesbian, then there is no problem from a biological aspect. If he is simply transsexual, then there is a problem from that aspect. Then again, we don't necessarily have to reproduce but it doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong. And adoptions and other things have nothing to do with this. The discussion wasn't about this anyway, it was about whether it's ok to change the body or not. And several people said that it's not ok, even if the disease is uncurable. I already mentioned, that you can consider it bad luck, same with uncurable biological diseases. And despite the fact that an operation is probably good for the person, it doesn't change the fact that it's not ok. A lot more things are irrelevant but I certainly wasn't the person who brought that up. People interpret statements/opinions in my sentence, without considering the second part or the relation to the overall discussion -_-
It doesn't need to be treated just because it's wrong. I never implied such a thing. All I ever said is that surgery is not the way to go...even if there is no other way.
You put more value in your perceived goals of evolution than people's wellbeing. Despite an operation to increase the happiness of a person, you'd prefer they didn't have it because it's "wrong". That's sad man. There is no evolutionary purpose and we are not supposed to do anything. Evolution does not follow any rules and evolution is not trying to help us survive. It is simply a process that happens.
The second sentence was putting words in my mouth which I never uttered. The third and fourth sentences are...hm, funny(?) because they make no sense. The strong survive, the weak die. If that wouldn't have happened, climatic changes, animals etc would have already killed us. And also, if there is no purpose and if we aren't supposed to do anything, why is sex fun and has all the positive effects? Remove them and then guess what would happen. We still aren't supposed to do anything? Well, then you can also remove sexuality, sexual urges etc. After all, urges which led our ancestors to reproduce are totally useless, right? Maybe we should become plants instead or self-regenerating beings. And the first sentence, I already answered that in my last post. Other than that, there is nothing really more.
This talk about evolution is off-topic anyway, there was no real need to bring it up in the first place.
If you bothered to research, you'll know that very few species find enjoyment in sex. And it's the survival of the fittest, not the strongest. And I agree that we shouldn't talk about urges. We're above that now because we've achieved sentience. If we went by urges, there would be a lot more rapes and murders, and a lot more suffering in this world because of it.
Also I find your entire premise distasteful. We are supposed to reproduce, what? Where do you get off giving other people their purpose in life? The funny thing about humans, since we're self aware and are intelligent, is that we can think for ourselves. We've evolved past the primal urges of our ancestors. On the same vein, you shouldn't be using excuses like "it's not natural" to justify your ignorance, because just by breathing, you are "unnatural" to this planet. We are the single exception, we are not "normal".
On August 14 2011 07:11 Lucumo wrote: It is wrong and not ok but that doesn't mean it's not preferable. Heck, I would like them to try the psychological way even if it's pretty much impossible. One thing doesn't necessarily exclude the other.
Just to reiterate, no one is allowed to go through any surgical procedure (or even obtain hormone treatment) without pyschological evaluation and a lot of counciling. In the UK the guidelines require 6 months of living full time as your 'new' gender, including name and clothing etc, before they'll even consider offering hormone treatment, and these guidelines are far more widespread than the UK (they're known as the Harry Benjamin guidelines if you want to look them up, though that's a whole other discussion).
Beyond just getting on hormones, it takes at least a further 2 years before any surgical options are made available. Because of the likelihood of finding yourself sued if you operate on the wrong person, it'd be almost impossible to find any surgeon willing to proceed without a letter from a pyschiatrist in a relevant field who has extensively worked with the patient.
My point though, to sum up, is simply that no one can just jump in to surgery without extensive pyschological assessment and councilling, so I think that should cover the concerns you've raised there?
Reiterate? I don't think anyone said anything about that yet.
Anyway, are you doing this on purpose? No one ever said anything about psychological counselling before surgery. It was always about psychological treatement to change the mind/cure the disease which is deemed impossible.
*sigh* I really should only answer people who make a good point and take this seriously. But it's a good thing I'll go offline now, so tomorrow I will be able to see if there are some worthwhile answers...even though there isn't really anything left to discuss, at least for me. And people should get my point by reading properly and not making assumptions.
That's the first response I've given to you and it was directly in reference you saying "Heck, I would like them to try the psychological way even if it's pretty much impossible." I used the word reiterate because I made the points in an earlier post in this thread, but in a far less detailed manner.
The pyschological treatment is intended to find solutions other than something as drastic as surgical options, and to try to find out if the person could be helped by propper mental health support, and those sessions do result in a lot of people seeking alternatives to Sexual Reassignment Surgery or at times even helping people realise that their issues are not transsexualism.
If your point wasn't that everyone should try to find an alternative to surgery through the pyschiatric sciences, then you're right I didn't understand your point but I think you'd be hard pressed to say that was as a result of me not reading correctly.
As to taking it seriously, I wrote the OP, so I think it'd be fair to say I do take the issue rather seriously which is why I addressed your point with objective facts and stayed out of the rest of the arguements. I even made the choice to not raise my own subjective opinions on the current guidelines in order to make a clear point. I hope this clarifies my point in relation to my original reply.
When will people get that its not ok to just bully, discriminate and demonize those who arn't like you?
You don't go around telling people that they are "bad, evil, wrong and NOT OK".
Thats the kind of behaviour that causes people with distress from any kind of problem to only feel worse and to push them deeper into depression. Fuck you if you exhibit behaviour that ultimately has no other purpose than to make others feel worse
On August 14 2011 04:27 Lucumo wrote: [quote] You should actually read my post properly before answering.
So are you saying that non-cisgenderedness is a psychological problem, and that people simply change the body because its easier? If so, then fusionsdf addressed that point in his post. He (and I) also addressed the fact that 'psychological help' does not work on people who are homosexual, and given the same nature of that and GID, it is not likely to work in this case.
EDIT: If this interpretation is wrong, then please explain your position more clearly, don't just tell people that they're missing the point.
Heh? What are you talking about? I answered fusionsdf already and yes, I said so in all my posts.
Here, my answer upon hearing that it's uncurable.
On August 14 2011 04:11 Lucumo wrote: Oh, didn't know it's uncurable(thought it has a pretty low success rate). That sucks then, but so my statement of "changing the body is easier" is still true.
And why are you quoting DamageControL? This has nothing to do with what I wrote anyway. It's as unrelated as your sentence about adoptions and stuff.
Okay. The reason I brought up adoption/surrogates is to dispel the idea that our purpose is to reproduce, and that that is somehow hindered by one being homosexual or non-cisgendered, which was implied by your post. I quoted DamageControL because it had your original post, and because it also had your post where you claimed he hadn't "read your post properly," something I brought up. Either way, both of these things are irrelevant to the discussion, so stop nitpicking about them.
It's this idea that transsexualism needs to be treated (because it defies our biological purpose to reproduce or whatever), that ones gender identity must align with their sexual organs, that I disagree with, and that is implied in your post.
Nope, that wasn't my point. You apparently didn't read the second part of my sentence.
On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters.
And this was also an answer to the discussion above. The body is the basis and the mind is what makes the body working. If the mind isn't working properly, you change the mind and not the body. After all the body is mass produced and it's not what's flawed, the mind is the problem. Therefore I agreed with the above posters. STILL, I did also say that we are supposed to reproduce(you only need a body for that, the mind is not relevant). We are supposed to but we don't have to. We, as a race, have the purpose to prosper, as do animals and plants. Natural selection was once a part of it but it no longer applies to us humans. If a man has the identity(?) of a woman but is lesbian, then there is no problem from a biological aspect. If he is simply transsexual, then there is a problem from that aspect. Then again, we don't necessarily have to reproduce but it doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong. And adoptions and other things have nothing to do with this. The discussion wasn't about this anyway, it was about whether it's ok to change the body or not. And several people said that it's not ok, even if the disease is uncurable. I already mentioned, that you can consider it bad luck, same with uncurable biological diseases. And despite the fact that an operation is probably good for the person, it doesn't change the fact that it's not ok. A lot more things are irrelevant but I certainly wasn't the person who brought that up. People interpret statements/opinions in my sentence, without considering the second part or the relation to the overall discussion -_-
It doesn't need to be treated just because it's wrong. I never implied such a thing. All I ever said is that surgery is not the way to go...even if there is no other way.
You put more value in your perceived goals of evolution than people's wellbeing. Despite an operation to increase the happiness of a person, you'd prefer they didn't have it because it's "wrong". That's sad man. There is no evolutionary purpose and we are not supposed to do anything. Evolution does not follow any rules and evolution is not trying to help us survive. It is simply a process that happens.
Where did I say that? Evolution was helping the human race passively through the means of natural selection(one example). Even though it is/was just a process, it took us to where we are now. It definitely did help us to survive.
When you said it's "wrong" and "not ok". You can't claim that you'd LIKE them to have the operation after saying that.
Your logic for whatever you perceive to be wrong in transsexuals is based on it going against natural selection and evolution. We are all products of evolution and natural selection, even transsexuals. There is not a goal that evolution has that transsexuals are rebelling against. We are all products of the same process.
It is wrong and not ok but that doesn't mean it's not preferable. Heck, I would like them to try the psychological way even if it's pretty much impossible. One thing doesn't necessarily exclude the other.
I said natural selection is a part of the evolution(you even brought that word up), nothing more. And I said that it once applied to us. We are supposed to prosper, reproducing is a part of that. Things which defy the very basics(such as this psychological disease) are certainly not good.
This is the part I take issue with most. I've explained why I think this way of seeing evolution is flawed and if you don't understand then I'm done here.
People who call evolution "the evolution" are not to be trusted.
All for genderqueers, transpeople, etc., but isn't demanding this be called "Gender Identity Disorder" kind of a structuralist pre-cum? You're kind of inviting the shortsighted to call it a psychological disorder that can be fixed. Foucault and Sedgwick have my back on this.
If I wear men's clothing but listen to Kate Bush and fixate on wily bookish girls who turn out to be lesbians, am I cisgendered? I'm too tall and my shoulders are too boxy to do the androgynous thing without falling into uncanny valley, nauseating-style.
I feel a lot like someone in the middle but i'm fairly content with who i am right now
Of all the cosplays i've ever done, my crossplays were by far my favourite. It feels like such a great expression of freedom to do and wear whatever i want. Even though i'm perfectly happy how i am, it is an expression of the other side of me too
+1 for the power to be yourself, on TL or anywhere you go. I'm proud of you being comfortable with who you are!
If I didn't support this my gay wife would kill me. Just kidding, I think the amount of thinly veiled hate is terrible and people deserve a right to be the people they want to be at all times.
I feel a lot like someone in the middle but i'm fairly content with who i am right now
Of all the cosplays i've ever done, my crossplays were by far my favourite. It feels like such a great expression of freedom to do and wear whatever i want. Even though i'm perfectly happy how i am, it is an expression of the other side of me too
I think the amount of thinly veiled hate is terrible and people deserve a right to be the people they want to be at all times.
Well since my previous answer was pretty much useless, I decided to chip in here because while I agree with you for the most part, I have to throw in my 2 cents which could be considered a cookie-cutter opinion on the matter. I don't really know actually.
I think that people should be allowed to have any sexuality they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, that's the main point people have been making here. If a "man" (XY) feels like he's actually a woman and vice-versa, then that's fine. The problem is that "being a woman" becomes such a big deal to those people (which is normal) that their whole life becomes defined by their "femaleness" (which is bad). People from many minorities have a tendency to put what makes them special in the very center of their personality.
I know that many people don't have the following problem, but basically I lost a gay friend because of it. He came out as being gay and everything was fine for a while, until he lost his personality completely in order to become "the gay guy" who did gay stuff because he liked looking gay because he was free to be gay.
Similarly, I was kind of annoyed when, at the gay pride parade in Montreal, they had a firetruck with a massive penis-shaped balloon on it. It was just a little over the top and one's sexuality, again, shouldn't be the center of their social life. (Note: I understand that homosexuality and transsexualism have little in common, but I figure that they face similar problems and get treated somewhat similarly by a bigoted society.)
On the other hand, I'm very happy for the people who manage to "transition" into the life they want, without blowing it out of proportions.
Any sort of feedback on my opinion would be appreciated. I'm kind of basing my views of the world (on that matter) with "anecdotal evidence" which is less than perfect. Cheers.
Kara Leung aka Karaface, formerly a competitive counterstrike player who had some controversy due to her gender and being on teams or whatever. Now she's a photographer and takes a lot of the popular photos from big fighting game tournaments, one of the nicest people I've had the chance to meet. Girl on the right is Kayo Satoh aka Kayopolice who's a big TV personality/celebrity in Japan. Also kicks major ass at Street Fighter 4
On August 14 2011 10:11 T0fuuu wrote: I know a transexual that went man -> female and then said she was a lesbian. Weird. Shes not getting her dick removed either. Double weird!
Being a transsexual and being gay are not mutually exclusive.
On August 14 2011 10:13 jon arbuckle wrote: All for genderqueers, transpeople, etc., but isn't demanding this be called "Gender Identity Disorder" kind of a structuralist pre-cum? You're kind of inviting the shortsighted to call it a psychological disorder that can be fixed. Foucault and Sedgwick have my back on this.
If I wear men's clothing but listen to Kate Bush and fixate on wily bookish girls who turn out to be lesbians, am I cisgendered? I'm too tall and my shoulders are too boxy to do the androgynous thing without falling into uncanny valley, nauseating-style.
Disorder just means out of the normal order, not that it can be fixed. It's peoples own fault if they're too ignorant to know that. I get what you mean, but imo scientific illiteracy has a LOT to answer for.
Yeah Karaface has said on stuff like formspring that she's not getting post-op surgery because its insanely expensive, and has just been doing hormone stuff for years now. Also she's said she is more interested in females and not really men. Transexuality and Homosexuality aren't the same thing.
So are you saying that non-cisgenderedness is a psychological problem, and that people simply change the body because its easier? If so, then fusionsdf addressed that point in his post. He (and I) also addressed the fact that 'psychological help' does not work on people who are homosexual, and given the same nature of that and GID, it is not likely to work in this case.
EDIT: If this interpretation is wrong, then please explain your position more clearly, don't just tell people that they're missing the point.
Heh? What are you talking about? I answered fusionsdf already and yes, I said so in all my posts.
Here, my answer upon hearing that it's uncurable.
On August 14 2011 04:11 Lucumo wrote: Oh, didn't know it's uncurable(thought it has a pretty low success rate). That sucks then, but so my statement of "changing the body is easier" is still true.
And why are you quoting DamageControL? This has nothing to do with what I wrote anyway. It's as unrelated as your sentence about adoptions and stuff.
Okay. The reason I brought up adoption/surrogates is to dispel the idea that our purpose is to reproduce, and that that is somehow hindered by one being homosexual or non-cisgendered, which was implied by your post. I quoted DamageControL because it had your original post, and because it also had your post where you claimed he hadn't "read your post properly," something I brought up. Either way, both of these things are irrelevant to the discussion, so stop nitpicking about them.
It's this idea that transsexualism needs to be treated (because it defies our biological purpose to reproduce or whatever), that ones gender identity must align with their sexual organs, that I disagree with, and that is implied in your post.
Nope, that wasn't my point. You apparently didn't read the second part of my sentence.
On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters.
And this was also an answer to the discussion above. The body is the basis and the mind is what makes the body working. If the mind isn't working properly, you change the mind and not the body. After all the body is mass produced and it's not what's flawed, the mind is the problem. Therefore I agreed with the above posters. STILL, I did also say that we are supposed to reproduce(you only need a body for that, the mind is not relevant). We are supposed to but we don't have to. We, as a race, have the purpose to prosper, as do animals and plants. Natural selection was once a part of it but it no longer applies to us humans. If a man has the identity(?) of a woman but is lesbian, then there is no problem from a biological aspect. If he is simply transsexual, then there is a problem from that aspect. Then again, we don't necessarily have to reproduce but it doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong. And adoptions and other things have nothing to do with this. The discussion wasn't about this anyway, it was about whether it's ok to change the body or not. And several people said that it's not ok, even if the disease is uncurable. I already mentioned, that you can consider it bad luck, same with uncurable biological diseases. And despite the fact that an operation is probably good for the person, it doesn't change the fact that it's not ok. A lot more things are irrelevant but I certainly wasn't the person who brought that up. People interpret statements/opinions in my sentence, without considering the second part or the relation to the overall discussion -_-
It doesn't need to be treated just because it's wrong. I never implied such a thing. All I ever said is that surgery is not the way to go...even if there is no other way.
You put more value in your perceived goals of evolution than people's wellbeing. Despite an operation to increase the happiness of a person, you'd prefer they didn't have it because it's "wrong". That's sad man. There is no evolutionary purpose and we are not supposed to do anything. Evolution does not follow any rules and evolution is not trying to help us survive. It is simply a process that happens.
Where did I say that? Evolution was helping the human race passively through the means of natural selection(one example). Even though it is/was just a process, it took us to where we are now. It definitely did help us to survive.
When you said it's "wrong" and "not ok". You can't claim that you'd LIKE them to have the operation after saying that.
Your logic for whatever you perceive to be wrong in transsexuals is based on it going against natural selection and evolution. We are all products of evolution and natural selection, even transsexuals. There is not a goal that evolution has that transsexuals are rebelling against. We are all products of the same process.
It is wrong and not ok but that doesn't mean it's not preferable. Heck, I would like them to try the psychological way even if it's pretty much impossible. One thing doesn't necessarily exclude the other.
I said natural selection is a part of the evolution(you even brought that word up), nothing more. And I said that it once applied to us. We are supposed to prosper, reproducing is a part of that. Things which defy the very basics(such as this psychological disease) are certainly not good.
This is the part I take issue with most. I've explained why I think this way of seeing evolution is flawed and if you don't understand then I'm done here.
On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters. You weren't born in a wrong body, it's just that your mind is not right. Seeking psychological help is the way to go, I agree with other users there. But nowadays it's easier to change your biological body, so people take that path.
People planning on not having kids need psychological counseling?
You should actually read my post properly before answering.
So are you saying that non-cisgenderedness is a psychological problem, and that people simply change the body because its easier? If so, then fusionsdf addressed that point in his post. He (and I) also addressed the fact that 'psychological help' does not work on people who are homosexual, and given the same nature of that and GID, it is not likely to work in this case.
EDIT: If this interpretation is wrong, then please explain your position more clearly, don't just tell people that they're missing the point.
Heh? What are you talking about? I answered fusionsdf already and yes, I said so in all my posts.
Here, my answer upon hearing that it's uncurable.
On August 14 2011 04:11 Lucumo wrote: Oh, didn't know it's uncurable(thought it has a pretty low success rate). That sucks then, but so my statement of "changing the body is easier" is still true.
And why are you quoting DamageControL? This has nothing to do with what I wrote anyway. It's as unrelated as your sentence about adoptions and stuff.
Okay. The reason I brought up adoption/surrogates is to dispel the idea that our purpose is to reproduce, and that that is somehow hindered by one being homosexual or non-cisgendered, which was implied by your post. I quoted DamageControL because it had your original post, and because it also had your post where you claimed he hadn't "read your post properly," something I brought up. Either way, both of these things are irrelevant to the discussion, so stop nitpicking about them.
It's this idea that transsexualism needs to be treated (because it defies our biological purpose to reproduce or whatever), that ones gender identity must align with their sexual organs, that I disagree with, and that is implied in your post.
Nope, that wasn't my point. You apparently didn't read the second part of my sentence.
On August 14 2011 02:23 Lucumo wrote: Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters.
And this was also an answer to the discussion above. The body is the basis and the mind is what makes the body working. If the mind isn't working properly, you change the mind and not the body. After all the body is mass produced and it's not what's flawed, the mind is the problem. Therefore I agreed with the above posters. STILL, I did also say that we are supposed to reproduce(you only need a body for that, the mind is not relevant). We are supposed to but we don't have to. We, as a race, have the purpose to prosper, as do animals and plants. Natural selection was once a part of it but it no longer applies to us humans. If a man has the identity(?) of a woman but is lesbian, then there is no problem from a biological aspect. If he is simply transsexual, then there is a problem from that aspect. Then again, we don't necessarily have to reproduce but it doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong. And adoptions and other things have nothing to do with this. The discussion wasn't about this anyway, it was about whether it's ok to change the body or not. And several people said that it's not ok, even if the disease is uncurable. I already mentioned, that you can consider it bad luck, same with uncurable biological diseases. And despite the fact that an operation is probably good for the person, it doesn't change the fact that it's not ok. A lot more things are irrelevant but I certainly wasn't the person who brought that up. People interpret statements/opinions in my sentence, without considering the second part or the relation to the overall discussion -_-
It doesn't need to be treated just because it's wrong. I never implied such a thing. All I ever said is that surgery is not the way to go...even if there is no other way.
You put more value in your perceived goals of evolution than people's wellbeing. Despite an operation to increase the happiness of a person, you'd prefer they didn't have it because it's "wrong". That's sad man. There is no evolutionary purpose and we are not supposed to do anything. Evolution does not follow any rules and evolution is not trying to help us survive. It is simply a process that happens.
The second sentence was putting words in my mouth which I never uttered. The third and fourth sentences are...hm, funny(?) because they make no sense. The strong survive, the weak die. If that wouldn't have happened, climatic changes, animals etc would have already killed us. And also, if there is no purpose and if we aren't supposed to do anything, why is sex fun and has all the positive effects? Remove them and then guess what would happen. We still aren't supposed to do anything? Well, then you can also remove sexuality, sexual urges etc. After all, urges which led our ancestors to reproduce are totally useless, right? Maybe we should become plants instead or self-regenerating beings. And the first sentence, I already answered that in my last post. Other than that, there is nothing really more.
This talk about evolution is off-topic anyway, there was no real need to bring it up in the first place.
Sex is fun because people who are predisposed genetically to enjoy sex will have more of it. Therefore they will have more offspring and their genes are more likely to be passed on. There is nothing right or wrong in any sense about this. We are not required to have sex. There is nothing right or wrong about having sex. You make it sound like evolution is meant to make us prosper and reproduce, therefore sex is fun.
And just to clarify, natural selection is still taking place in humans.
Now onto why I think your posts have been offensive. What I think you're trying to say is (correct me if I'm wrong): 1. the human race's aim is to survive and reproduce 2. anything that goes against this is bad, therefore some transsexuals, the ones that can't reproduce, go against the human race's aim and are therefore wrong in some way
From what I think you're saying, all gays are "wrong", people with incurable diseases who will die before they can reproduce are "wrong", people born sterile are "wrong" because they do net help humans "prosper". Even though these people can help society in many ways, or can even just survive and be happy, you see these people as wrong in some way? This is why I think you're putting the purpose of evolution (there isn't one) or the human race (there isn't one) above people's wellbeing, which I find worrying.
The whole talk of evolution started because you said in your very first sentence in your first reply in the thread:
Considering that we are supposed to reproduce, the biological body is all that matters
Now I take the meaning of suppose in this sentence to mean:
Be required to do something because of the position one is in or an agreement one has made - I'm supposed to be meeting someone at the airport
So I take huge issue with your sentence there. There is no requirement or purpose for the human race, unless you believe in a god or something supernatural. I've explained why a few times but if you still don't understand then I'll try again.
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.
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).
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).
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 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 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 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:
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
![[image loading]](http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/285482_10100337538222527_3600043_53918986_8096459_n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/200412_10150113172454542_675714541_6457368_3879248_n.jpg)
