|
Keep discussion objective and civil.
Blindly spewing uninformed non-sense will lead to moderation action. |
United States42971 Posts
On December 05 2012 06:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 06:51 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 06:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 06:43 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote:
I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic. I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else. Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological. If the issue they're having is that they know that their gender is female but they physically have a penis then how is that not a physical problem? Me being shortsighted is just muscles in the eyes being badly calibrated, that's way less of a physical problem than having a penis in my eye would be. Because the penis itself is not causing harm, it is the psychological reaction to the penis.
That's a meaningless distinction. Shortsightedness isn't harming me in any way, I still want to be able to see.
|
On December 05 2012 06:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 06:51 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 06:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 06:43 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote:
I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic. I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else. Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological. If the issue they're having is that they know that their gender is female but they physically have a penis then how is that not a physical problem? Me being shortsighted is just muscles in the eyes being badly calibrated, that's way less of a physical problem than having a penis in my eye would be. Because the penis itself is not causing harm, it is the psychological reaction to the penis.
So... thought experiment question. If a cissexual female involuntarily has a penis constructed, and lived her life for the next several years... but had serious mental health problems with the penis... would you say it's a psychological problem, because the penis itself is not causing harm to her? I'm not trying to be offensive here, but I'm genuinely curious. It seems like the answer is that yes, the penis is causing her psychological harm (not physical, assuming the surgery went ok without complication). But we would also say she'd be perfectly right to want to get it removed, wouldn't we?
|
On December 05 2012 06:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 06:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 06:51 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 06:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 06:43 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote:
I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic. I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else. Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological. If the issue they're having is that they know that their gender is female but they physically have a penis then how is that not a physical problem? Me being shortsighted is just muscles in the eyes being badly calibrated, that's way less of a physical problem than having a penis in my eye would be. Because the penis itself is not causing harm, it is the psychological reaction to the penis. That's a meaningless distinction. Shortsightedness isn't harming me in any way, I still want to be able to see.
Shortsightedness is harming you... It is diminishing your vision, which again is a physical objectivity, not simply a psychological response.
You certainly wouldn't argue that blindness doesn't diminish people physically?
|
This thread is starting get pretty bad/repetitive. Perhaps the OP could add an FAQ at the top because it seems like people are just bringing up the same points over and over.
|
On December 05 2012 06:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological. You could argue that neurological is also simply physical... but the average person sees a dichotomy there.
We classify some thoughts as disorders and some thoughts as not disorders, and people are looking for the distinguishing characteristics here. In my mind, the distinguishing characteristic is primarily whether we have any power to change it or not. Once we decide something is too innate and can't be resolved, we intend to conform society into minimizing the harm caused by ignorance, assuming there is sufficient social acceptance already to do so.
Well, we have to ask ourselves... Are trans people dysphoric because of an aberrant neurological structure or because of their incongruent sex characteristics? There is no concrete answer as of yet, and the bigger problem is that there is an incongruency in the first place. That's why the term "gender dysphoria" is probably more accurate.
|
On December 05 2012 06:57 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 06:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 06:51 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 06:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 06:43 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote:
I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic. I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else. Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological. If the issue they're having is that they know that their gender is female but they physically have a penis then how is that not a physical problem? Me being shortsighted is just muscles in the eyes being badly calibrated, that's way less of a physical problem than having a penis in my eye would be. Because the penis itself is not causing harm, it is the psychological reaction to the penis. So... thought experiment question. If a cissexual female involuntarily has a penis constructed, and lived her life for the next several years... but had serious mental health problems with the penis... would you say it's a psychological problem, because the penis itself is not causing harm to her? I'm not trying to be offensive here, but I'm genuinely curious. It seems like the answer is that yes, the penis is causing her psychological harm (not physical, assuming the surgery went ok without complication). But we would also say she'd be perfectly right to want to get it removed, wouldn't we?
Any permanent change to the body is capable of causing psychological harm, even moving from the place you grew up can cause psychological harm. Being born with the desire you are describing isn't a change, it's an innate state of mind.
|
On December 05 2012 06:58 Crawdad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 06:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological. You could argue that neurological is also simply physical... but the average person sees a dichotomy there.
We classify some thoughts as disorders and some thoughts as not disorders, and people are looking for the distinguishing characteristics here. In my mind, the distinguishing characteristic is primarily whether we have any power to change it or not. Once we decide something is too innate and can't be resolved, we intend to conform society into minimizing the harm caused by ignorance, assuming there is sufficient social acceptance already to do so. Well, we have to ask ourselves... Are trans people dysphoric because of an aberrant neurological structure or because of their incongruent sex characteristics? There is no concrete answer as of yet, and the bigger problem is that there is an incongruency in the first place. That's why the term "gender dysphoria" is probably more accurate.
Well, it's interesting that you bring that up, because the question is often asked to trans patients whether or not they'd be happy if there was some sort of magical pill they could take that would make their brains match their gender (ie a trans female could take testosterone supplements and fully realize a male identity, no longer being trans). The answer is actually often no, because altering the brain to match their gender would change who they are. I feel like I wouldn't be "me" anymore for example. Although some people say yes, so it's actually a rather fluid sort of thing that has no definitive answer, and I kind of doubt there can be a definitive answer.
|
Are trans people dysphoric because of an aberrant neurological structure or because of their incongruent sex characteristics?
lol, this is a very interesting question, almost philosophical. Basically asking how to define the true self, as the brain or the body. I'd say most people define the self as the brain.
And hence why they say no to the pill hypothetical.
|
It's interesting how former diseases become normatized sexualities over time. Starting from homosexualitys so called emancipation, new forms of gender now get accepted as something not pathological.
What I gain from these decisions:
Essentially, as long as you don't piss off your environment with weird sexualities/paraphilias, you are considered sane, but if the public doesn't like you, you're ill.
For sciences sake, psychiatric illnesses need to be defined more strictly and with disregard to public opinion.
|
United States42971 Posts
On December 05 2012 06:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 06:54 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 06:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 06:51 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 06:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 06:43 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote:
I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic. I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else. Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological. If the issue they're having is that they know that their gender is female but they physically have a penis then how is that not a physical problem? Me being shortsighted is just muscles in the eyes being badly calibrated, that's way less of a physical problem than having a penis in my eye would be. Because the penis itself is not causing harm, it is the psychological reaction to the penis. That's a meaningless distinction. Shortsightedness isn't harming me in any way, I still want to be able to see. Shortsightedness is harming you... It is diminishing your vision, which again is a physical objectivity, not simply a psychological response. You certainly wouldn't argue that blindness doesn't diminish people physically?
Being short sighted is considerably less physically debilitating than having a penis where there shouldn't be one, for a start I'm way less likely to commit suicide over it. There is physical damage being caused and fixing the physical problem will fix it. If you go to a doctor and say "I have this physical problem and it's ruining my life" and the doctor knows that addressing the physical problem will solve it then you don't expect them to go "are you sure you're not ruining your own life with all the knock on psychological reactions to this physical issue?", you expect them to correct the physical issue. It is a meaningless distinction. If you have something physically wrong with your body and it is causing medical issues then that should be the end of it, just as it is with shortsightedness.
|
On December 05 2012 07:05 Vivax wrote:
It's interesting how former diseases become normatized sexualities over time. Starting from homosexualitys so called emancipation, new forms of gender now get accepted as something not pathological.
What I gain from these decisions:
Essentially, as long as you don't piss off your environment with weird sexualities/paraphilias, you are considered sane, but if the public doesn't like you, you're ill.
For sciences sake, psychiatric illnesses need to be defined more strictly and with disregard to public opinion.
The fact that the definitions change a lot over time has more to do with how hard it is to define a psychiatric condition than it has to do about public opinion. If it was easy public opinion wouldn't have as much sway in the matter.
|
On December 05 2012 07:01 shinosai wrote:
Well, it's interesting that you bring that up, because the question is often asked to trans patients whether or not they'd be happy if there was some sort of magical pill they could take that would make their brains match their gender (ie a trans female could take testosterone supplements and fully realize a male identity, no longer being trans). The answer is actually often no, because altering the brain to match their gender would change who they are. I feel like I wouldn't be "me" anymore for example. Although some people say yes, so it's actually a rather fluid sort of thing that has no definitive answer, and I kind of doubt there can be a definitive answer.
In my case (I'm MtF), I would rather be a fully-realized cis woman than a cis man, for the reasons you described.
|
I haven't gotten an answer to some of my questions so I'll repost while there's still people around:
Is there a difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? The brain structure of a trans female has identifiably female characteristics, but is it that way from birth or is it an effect of seeing yourself as a woman?
And I'd still like an answer to the cat issue if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
edit: the way I see it, it's only a psychological issue if the best way of treating it is psychological. Once physical treatments are viable and commonplace, then it's no longer a mental disorder.
|
On December 05 2012 07:05 Vivax wrote:
It's interesting how former diseases become normatized sexualities over time. Starting from homosexualitys so called emancipation, new forms of gender now get accepted as something not pathological.
What I gain from these decisions:
Essentially, as long as you don't piss off your environment with weird sexualities/paraphilias, you are considered sane, but if the public doesn't like you, you're ill.
For sciences sake, psychiatric illnesses need to be defined more strictly and with disregard to public opinion.
The vagueness with the definitions has more to do with our lack of understanding how the brain does, and in some cases, does not work. As we discover more about neurochemisty and learn to describe neural process more accurately and having a foundation in physical phenomenon, this issue will become less.
|
On December 05 2012 07:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 06:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 06:54 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 06:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 06:51 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 06:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 06:43 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote:
I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic. I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else. Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological. If the issue they're having is that they know that their gender is female but they physically have a penis then how is that not a physical problem? Me being shortsighted is just muscles in the eyes being badly calibrated, that's way less of a physical problem than having a penis in my eye would be. Because the penis itself is not causing harm, it is the psychological reaction to the penis. That's a meaningless distinction. Shortsightedness isn't harming me in any way, I still want to be able to see. Shortsightedness is harming you... It is diminishing your vision, which again is a physical objectivity, not simply a psychological response. You certainly wouldn't argue that blindness doesn't diminish people physically? Being short sighted is considerably less physically debilitating than having a penis where there shouldn't be one, for a start I'm way less likely to commit suicide over it. There is physical damage being caused and fixing the physical problem will fix it. If you go to a doctor and say "I have this physical problem and it's ruining my life" and the doctor knows that addressing the physical problem will solve it then you don't expect them to go "are you sure you're not ruining your own life with all the knock on psychological reactions to this physical issue?", you expect them to correct the physical issue. It is a meaningless distinction. If you have something physically wrong with your body and it is causing medical issues then that should be the end of it, just as it is with shortsightedness.
Let's take depression as an example then.
Many severely depressed people feel they want to die. They simply think their life is not worth living and nothing and no one will change that fact. A psychologist would obviously not tell the person that what they are feeling is perfectly justified and therefore suicide is justified. The psychologist would say they are suffering from a mental disorder and need treatment for it.
And often, you give that person the right medication and almost magically their "innate self" changes and eventually they don't want to end their life. And they realize what they were feeling was not some objective reality or objective self, but simply chemicals in the brain behaving a certain way.
Obviously suicide is far more harmful than surgery, and I am not trying to compare the two, only to compare the mindset which instigated it. The reason we are so intent on not calling it a disorder is precisely because we are unable to treat it. As I argued before, if they discovered some medication in the 1940's that could prevent homosexuality from ever arising in the fetus, then homosexuality would be regarded as a disorder today precisely because we are capable of treating it.
|
On December 05 2012 07:13 starfries wrote:
I haven't gotten an answer to some of my questions so I'll repost while there's still people around:
Is there a difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? The brain structure of a trans female has identifiably female characteristics, but is it that way from birth or is it an effect of seeing yourself as a woman?
And I'd still like an answer to the cat issue if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
edit: the way I see it, it's only a psychological issue if the best way of treating it is psychological. Once physical treatments are viable and commonplace, then it's no longer a mental disorder.
Yes, there is. The difference is that the trans female will be happy once she undergoes treatment, whereas such a treatment would have no such effect on a man with the delusion of being female. In fact, upon undergoing treatment, the man with the delusion would likely become extremely depressed (as has been documented in cases where people mistakenly underwent treatment.)
This would not be much unlike your average person seeing a list of symptoms in a psychology journal for a particular disease, and since they are so vague, he says, aha! I have "borderline personality disorder." Is there a difference between someone who has borderline personality disorder and someone who feels that he has borderline personality disorder? Yes: In one case treatment will work, in the other it won't.
We can always be mistaken about our identities or mental health. That's why we have mental health professionals and very strict procedures to prevent permanent irreversible mistakes from occurring.
|
On December 05 2012 07:13 starfries wrote:
Is there a difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? The brain structure of a trans female has identifiably female characteristics, but is it that way from birth or is it an effect of seeing yourself as a woman?
This would be exceedingly difficult to test, because there would be no grounds to scan somebody's brain for the female markers unless they exhibited gender dysphoria.
|
United States42971 Posts
The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
|
On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote:
The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts?
|
United States42971 Posts
On December 05 2012 07:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote:
The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable. That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts?
You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
