Disgust is sometimes an appropriate emotion. It can be a sign of rationality, ethical sense and confronting dysfunction and injustice. — Andrew4Handel

I'm disgusted with your bigotry. Happy? It's tiresome to read posts from someone who doesn't grasp the concepts of proof and evidence. When you're confronted with the fact the studies you cite don't say what you think they say, you ignore it and post anecdotal evidence. When you're confronted with evidence contrary to your position, your go to reaction is to ignore it. And then we get even more anecdotal evidence, which, in case you've missed that note, isn't evidence. If you don't understand what evidence is or logical proof, then you should begin with a course in logic.

This just a hunch but since having a male/female body isn't what a man/woman is (as per trans folks), the obvious next step in solving the mystery is to ask trans people what a man/woman is. They would know right?

@Andrew4Handel :up:

I'm disgusted with your bigotry. Happy? — Benkei

I'm not happy with your disgust.

Gender dysphoria is a legitimate medical condition, — busycuttingcrap

This is just a tad suspect. It is a mental health condition. Alien limb syndrome is not treated by surgery, and generally it seems that to treat psychological conditions with surgery is suspect, at the least. One might better compare such surgical interventions more with cosmetic surgery than knee surgery or the like.

@Andrew4Handel's situation is, as I understand it, that of someone who is not gender-typical, and therefore feels potentially the social pressure to undergo such surgeries, just as women are pressured socially towards conforming to a physical ideal of youth and beauty through surgery. As such Andrew has a certain authority as a directly affected person, and a particular right to express his concerns.

It is at least legitimate to wonder whether it is ethical to allow, let alone encourage conformity to such social norms through surgery, and to pretend that individual wishes in such matters are not very heavily socially constructed would be ridiculous.

FGM is outlawed because it results entirely from social pressure, and the relation to gender dysphoria is obvious. The tendency to overemphasise the autonomy of the individual and ignore the huge force of social pressures is itself the result of a current social pressure to conform. Body shaming is the basis of a huge, huge industry, that pretends it bears no relation to those primitive customs.

This is just a tad suspect. It is a mental health condition. Alien limb syndrome is not treated by surgery, and generally it seems that to treat psychological conditions with surgery is suspect, at the least. — unenlightened

It's worthy of analysis, yeah. Normally you'd expect therapy or pills or other lifestyle changes to help someone with a mental health condition, if it were treatable by those means. I don't think there's evidence that it is treatable by those means though. The closest cosmetic surgery analogue, IMO anyway, is restorative cosmetic surgery after an accident. In this case, an accident of "having a mismatch between brain and body" - not that the brain in wrong body story is particularly accurate, but it's a good starting point for a more nuanced discussion.

I don't see much difference between surgery for mental health conditions and surgery for (classically considered) bodily ones. I can feel it in my gut but it doesn't survive thinking - which usually connotes the presence of ideology or emotional reaction for me. What reasons motivate surgery? Two angles maybe?

The first angle - alleviating suffering. Harm minimisation.

Seems to me to alleviate suffering, surgery being the best option to alleviate that suffering, and the patient believing that it is the best course of action to alleviate that suffering. That's a medical sounding perspective on it. It definitely alleviates suffering, and patients believe it is the best course of action - but is it the best course of action? I think there's a persuasive argument there, considering how long the delays for treatment are and how many hurdles there are to it, it's a miracle people don't give up more often if it wasn't seen as essential to their welfare.

There's a sub discussion there regarding whether trans people suffer a delusion regarding their gender, but I don't see what the delusion would be specifically. That they're "really" the gender normally/normatively associated with their natal sex? That seems to be aligning delusion with ideology rather than distorted perception. Though your mileage may vary on how much ideology and norms of perception are distinct.

They don't seem deluded in general, AFAIK they've got to jump through a lot of hurdles to prove they've got insight, are making an informed and rational decision to get transition surgery etc.

The second angle - informed cosmetic surgery being fine regardless of underlying ideological considerations.

I think it's fine? The things which would make it not fine are a good chance of regret (demonstrably false) or there being a coercion to transition. There doesn't seem to be a coercion by force for transition, like there is for female genital mutilation or circumcision. Social exclusion from family and friends etc. There are maybe some people who believe you're not a real (Gender) unless you transition, but that's quite different from it being the societal expectation+conformity pressure. If anything the conformity pressure directed at trans people seems overwhelmingly to be "don't be trans", right? Rather than "thou shalt medically transition". @Andrew4Handel definitely seems to be a good example of people emphasising how bad medical transition is, those are my lasting impressions regarding the peer pressure surrounding transition - the peer pressure steers you away.

Though most people don't really care what others do with their bodies. Either way the norm seems to be that transition is permissible but not mandatory. If it were seen as mandatory it would be easier to obtain, no?

It is at least legitimate to wonder whether it is ethical to allow, let alone encourage conformity to such social norms through surgery, and to pretend that individual wishes in such matters are not very heavily socially constructed would be ridiculous.

FGM is outlawed because it results entirely from social pressure, and the relation to gender dysphoria is obvious. The tendency to overemphasise the autonomy of the individual and ignore the huge force of social pressures is itself the result of a current social pressure to conform. Body shaming is the basis of a huge, huge industry, that pretends it bears no relation to those primitive customs. — unenlightened

I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about whether supporting a right to transition entrenches norms of body shaming. My instinct on that is that transitioning isn't seen as mandatory, just as permissible. People seem to want it despite societal expectations and perceptions of ickiness. "Thou shalt not be icky" and "thou shalt respect no one who desires the ick" are hallmarks of conformity pressure away from the seen-as-icky thing, like the true variation in feminine bodies or homosexuality... But the seen-as-icky thing in this case is transitioning, and the transitioned body. "Thou shalt ick" is the opposite tendency.

Whether the motivation is physical, social, emotional, delusional or unhealthy, it is the decision of some other person to alter their own body, with the aid of skilled professionals willing to perform the operations.
The perennial 'discussion' is about what what we should allow other people to do with their bodies. Some of us see that as arrogation of power.

This is just a tad suspect. It is a mental health condition. Alien limb syndrome is not treated by surgery, and generally it seems that to treat psychological conditions with surgery is suspect, at the least. One might better compare such surgical interventions more with cosmetic surgery than knee surgery or the like. — unenlightened

Mental health conditions are medical conditions, and in any case gender dysphoria, like homosexuality, used to be classified as a mental illness only to have that classification subsequently corrected, and now is not considered a mental illness by credible health organizations or professionals (even though the incorrect belief that it is a mental illness persists among the general population- a belief that will change over time, as it did with homosexuality). So it is most certainly a legitimate medical condition, no way around that.

And alien limb syndrome isn't treated with surgery, because surgery hasn't been shown to be a safe and effective treatment for it. On the other hand, various surgical interventions have been proven safe and effective for the treatment of gender dysphoria. So sort of an apples/oranges situation here.

To me censoring or vilifying people for misgendering people and making me or others call a Male "She" or a Female "He" is undermining the quest for truth and transparency and authenticity. — Andrew4Handel

Misgendering trans people is engaging in falsehood and deception, as it involves blatantly ignoring how both gender and language work, and frankly is just an asshole move.

So don't do it. Unless you don't care about truth, and don't mind being an asshole. Honestly its just that simple. It doesn't harm you in any way to just use people's preferred pronouns, and so refusing to do so is just being an epic jerk.

I mean, honestly... is this satire or what? You post this checklist of transphobic misinformation- patent falsities- and want to turn around and claim concern for the truth? :yikes:

If you don't mind me asking, what are you smoking and where can I get some?

This is just a tad suspect. It is a mental health condition. Alien limb syndrome is not treated by surgery, and generally it seems that to treat psychological conditions with surgery is suspect, at the least. One might better compare such surgical interventions more with cosmetic surgery than knee surgery or the like. — unenlightened

Reasoning by analogy is helpful in sorting things out, but it does provide great latitude in the conclusions we can reach by drawing upon distinctions. It gives rise to an entire legal industry, where we can creatively argue why precedent does or does not apply.

So, if a man wishes his penis removed, should he be granted that right, and, if so, should the same right be afforded the man who no longer wants his right arm?

Are penises enough like arms that the same rule applies? Does the fact that sexual expression/ gender representation is affected by one and not the other change our response? Or, is it a matter of pragmatics, that those wanting arm removal are rare enough that we don't care to evaluate it, but if it became something a considerable enough people really want, we should consider allowing it?

And the FGM is another issue. Are today's transsexuals evidence of a diseased society where natural biology is rejected and unknowing victims are volunteering for it (as some women might opt for FGM)?

So where do we go from here? I say like we always do, just with ad hoc responses to issues that arise without regard for pure logical consistency. In the case of transexuality, if option A is to be born as and live as a male but wish yourself female and option B is to live as a female but be born as a male, and deal with the negative social and physical issues, yet overall B was for you a happier life. I can't see not providing for B.

Why I won't do that for FGM or arm removal? Because I do make rules based upon principle alone, but I deal with specific issues and arrive at what works. But, if you want me to creatively arrive at a distinguishing fact that makes the analogy inapt, I suppose I could.

I thought philosophy was The Love of Knowledge and was really concerned about the nature of truth and reality.

To me censoring or vilifying people for misgendering people and making me or others call a Male "She" or a Female "He" is undermining the quest for truth and transparency and authenticity.

It is Undermining people personal beliefs it is engaging in a reality denying exercise and trying to suck society in to it. Getting people to deny their senses when they see a male looking person enter a women toilets. Gaslighting people.
I have called people who are clearly male "she" to be kind and this was before people started chanting "Trans men are men" and demanded we view trans and biological sex as interchangeable and equivalent.

It is a major assault on the truth. It is not a trivial or solely personal issue it effects relationships between people and peoples children are being told they can be born in the wrong body and set on the course for sterilisation and becoming a life long medical patient.

My being gay does not hinge on the approval of others it is not propped up by making people have particular thoughts about me.
Telling people they are hateful for not believing a man can become a woman, opposing child transition and destructive genital surgeries
that is a major psychological exercise at undermining peoples sense of reason and strongly held reality beliefs to follow what amounts to a personal and group religious ideology of invisible gender souls. — Andrew4Handel

Philosophy is the love of wisdom - it is really concerned about how and when to judge or action an understanding of reality.

Authenticity is as much about one’s own experience of reality as it is about how we interact with others. I get that ‘misgendering’ people is an experience we’re going to have to learn to navigate somehow, but when conceptual assumptions are found not to align with experience, we either work on adjusting our methodologies to account for the experience in our understanding of reality, or we deny the experience is valid, true, or ‘normal’.

To demand that biology and identity both be viewed as valid descriptions of gender - that “trans men are men” - is not a trivial or solely personal issue, but nor is it a major assault on THE truth. Children being told they were ‘born in the wrong body’ IS, however.

Being gay is no longer considered a dysfunction, but being born biologically male yet identifying as a ‘woman’ (ie. trans) is still perceived as a medical condition that needs to be ‘fixed’. I disagree with this diagnosis - I don’t believe that ‘a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina’ should be considered anymore accurate than ‘a man is sexually attracted to a woman’, or vice versa. As with homosexuality, medical intervention is not the solution - understanding is.

The fact that most intelligent adults can now interact without assuming sexual orientation based on gender identity, leads me to believe they could also interact without assuming biological anatomy based on gender identity. Yes, we like being able to make assumptions - it simplifies our interactions. We’re unaccustomed to reading the signs at this early stage, partly because trans people are unsure how they will be received - as if something is ‘wrong’ with them. But just as it’s getting easier to recognise and unnecessary to conceal when someone is gay, I think it will eventually get easier to recognise and unnecessary to conceal when someone was born biologically male, regardless of gender identity.

My instinct on that is that transitioning isn't seen as mandatory, just as permissible. People seem to want it despite societal expectations and perceptions of ickiness. "Thou shalt not be icky" and "thou shalt respect no one who desires the ick" are hallmarks of conformity pressure away from the seen-as-icky thing, like the true variation in feminine bodies or homosexuality... But the seen-as-icky thing in this case is transitioning, and the transitioned body. "Thou shalt ick" is the opposite tendency. — fdrake

My instincts are different. 'Thou shalt not be icky' is indeed a powerful commandment, but at the same time, anyone who does not conform to extremely narrow stereotypes of appearance and behaviour is already icky, and thereby in physical danger all day, every day. And under this lifelong threat, people "choose" whatever desperate measure promises a chance of sainted 'normality' and if not real acceptance, at least some blessed invisibility. The hatred of difference is already visible even in this very tolerant discussion site.

it is the decision of some other person to alter their own body, with the aid of skilled professionals willing to perform the operations. — Vera Mont

It is an individual decision whether or not to obey commands at gunpoint. But guns are often persuasive, and so too are many other forms of pressure such as ridicule, bullying, exclusion, and so on.

You don't have an argument there, you are just reciting the received opinions and describing the status quo. Why isn't surgery appropriate in some mental cases, but appropriate in others? Why do the status of mental conditions come and go according to the moral strictures of the day? Try just a little critical thinking here. It's not as if it was the mental health professionals were in the vanguard of the change of attitude to homosexuality. In particular, try, please.
to be a bit less anal in your stigmatising put-downs. If you have a thing about assholes, try CBT before you opt for surgery.

So, if a man wishes his penis removed, should he be granted that right, and, if so, should the same right be afforded the man who no longer wants his right arm? — Hanover

Certainly that is not a question I have given a reasoned answer to, but I have raised it, and it does seem to merit some kind of response. It seems the social pressure to enlarge breasts, lips, buttocks by surgery is regarded as benign by this predominately male group. Again I wonder if there is any reason at all, more than 'what is socially accepted is acceptable.'. It looks complacent if not partisan, to me.

gender dysphoria, like homosexuality, used to be classified as a mental illness only to have that classification subsequently corrected, and now is not considered a mental illness by credible health organizations or professionals — busycuttingcrap

Misgendering trans people is engaging in falsehood and deception — busycuttingcrap

If your position is simply 'everything we're told is true' then you're not responding to the arguments you're simply not engaging. Medicine is political, your 'credible health organisations' are political, language is political. The decisions made in these fields are not made from some Solomon-like position of detached wisdom, they're not made by Plato's philosopher kings. they're made by humans, affected by and forming part of the culture they're in. The critique of the transgender movement is a political one, it includes the cultural changes within the medical establishment, the linguistic changes with our communities, and the cultural changes in the next generation. You can't argue against those criticisms by citing the very agencies they're criticising as if they were unquestionable authorities.

I honestly despair when I read this kind of response. Whatever happened to holding power to account? Do we just lay down an accept whatever we're told now? You said yourself...

gender dysphoria, like homosexuality, used to be classified as a mental illness... — busycuttingcrap

It used to be considered such by the very medical professionals whose current opinion you're now treating as gospel.

My instincts are different. 'Thou shalt not be icky' is indeed a powerful commandment, but at the same time, anyone who does not conform to extremely narrow stereotypes of appearance and behaviour is already icky, and thereby in physical danger all day, every day. And under this lifelong threat, people "choose" whatever desperate measure promises a chance of sainted 'normality' and if not real acceptance, at least some blessed invisibility. The hatred of difference is already visible even in this very tolerant discussion site. — unenlightened

I think that is a plausible motivation for an individual, internalised hatred. But there's a question of which internalised hatred - is "fleeing toward surgery" the same motivation as "minimising a discrepancy from gender stereotypes"? Perhaps these things are not mutually exclusive effects or motivations. If trans people adopted a sainted normality as an aesthetic choice - and god knows who must choose it with more vigour -, it may equally be their essence showing itself.

Some abstain from adopting those norms expressively - or conforming -, are they more pure?

The perennial 'discussion' is about what what we should allow other people to do with their bodies. — Vera Mont

So out goes drinking ages, drug laws, ages of consent, euthanasia? We discourage people from doing what they like with their own bodies all the time. We do so because society is not (contrary to increasingly popular opinion) just a collection of individuals. We affect each other, our decisions form part of trends, peer pressure, shifting norms, social boundary changes, and political influences which affect all of us. I don't doubt in some neo-liberal utopia we're all free to do exactly what we want without having to consider our affects of others, but here in the real world we ought do exactly that.

The argument that gender affirming surgery is harmful is not cut and dried, but it can't be dismissed by such gross oversimplification as 'it's their body, they can do what they like with it'. The choices we make influence others and we ought be mindful of the effects of that influence.

This reads to me like an expression of disgust towards trans and gender non-conforming bodies. While your confusion toward all this is understandable - the issue is complex, expressing yourself in this manner is not. You must keep it respectful. — fdrake

Then you seem to have ignored most of what I have written

"For Ritchie Herron, a bright and articulate civil servant from Newcastle, life over the past four years has become almost unbearable.It takes him ten minutes to empty his bladder, a process as painful as it is slow. Any sex drive is long gone. In fact, he says, his crotch is numb, ‘shell-shocked’ from the damage done to him under the apparent care of the NHS."

Battling mental health issues – and after decades of suppressing his homosexuality – Ritchie, 35, had thought the answer was to become a woman. But instead, he says, he was fast-tracked into making ‘the biggest mistake of his life’ and left infertile, incontinent and with ongoing pain. — Andrew4Handel

"But soon after the operation was complete in 2015 in his mid-20s,Shape Shifter quickly realized he had made a terrible mistake, and that he was just a gay man who enjoyed presenting in a feminine way.

The procedures he has undergone - which include the removal of his penis and the creation of a 'neo-vagina' are irreversible. — Andrew4Handel

As I said I can cite many more cases of outspoken gay men who identified as trans and had their penis removed and now regret and in some cases immediately after the surgery. And people are bizarrely saying the surgeries are not genital mutilation are not sterilising people and denying the terrible effect this having on people due to external and internalised homophobia.

So you are lying about my contributions unfortunately.

I am a gay person with religious relatives who grew up in a religious cult, has not had a romantic relationship another man. I ended up with chronic sexual dysfunction due to my upbringing and paranoia about sex. I was also born with only one testicle that has now disappeared back inside my body so I have an empty scrotum. I am not speaking from place of heterosexuality or privilege. Myself and other gay and bi people are protesting about what has happened to the gay community and women's rights.

LGB has now become LGBTQIA+ gay people have been accused of committing sexual apartheid. There are few gay only spaces left. Same sex attraction is being attacked and lesbians are being harassed to sleep with women with penises, men with vaginas or Phalloplasties are turning up at gay saunas and crying when they get rejected by gay men.. Grooming is taking place. We are gay we have been there we are documenting it we know. Our community is compromised, at war and ruined and becoming criminal.

So, if a man wishes his penis removed, should he be granted that right, and, if so, should the same right be afforded the man who no longer wants his right arm?

He should granted the right on the grounds of self-ownership alone, but self-surgery is dangerous. So should he be provided with a professional to do it for him, and a setting in which to do it? I don’t think so.

It isn’t clear whether these kinds of surgeries are life-saving or cosmetic. The symptoms are often centered around beliefs and desires. The desire to have a vagina or no arm is just that, a desire. The belief that a man is a woman is just that, a belief. Worse, such surgeries hinder proper bodily function, and as such arguably make one worse off. This is why such surgeries should be relegated to the cosmetic type where access depends on whether you can find it in the market.

So out goes drinking ages, drug laws, ages of consent, euthanasia? — Isaac

Good idea! You know those arbitrary lines never worked, right?

We discourage people from doing what they like with their own bodies all the time. — Isaac

There is a distinction between discourage and forbid.

I don't doubt in some neo-liberal utopia we're all free to do exactly what we want without having to consider our affects of others, but here in the real world we ought do exactly that. — Isaac

By all means, do consider how individual decision regarding people's own bodies affect which others. Let us make laws according to an objective benefit/harm analysis.

If a man who feels acutely uncomfortable in the role of a man, because he knows he is meant to be a woman, and decides to have his external appearance altered to match his internal self-image, and he is happy with the result, that's a benefit for her. What is the harm, to whom?
If one such altered person in a hundred later regret their choice, that is his decisions doing harm to herself. Who else being harmed?
If then the 99 others who would benefit from the same alteration are prevented from doing so, just in case they might regret it later, that 99 unhappy people who for the rest of their lives bring little joy to anyone around them. Where is the benefit? (And that's even without asking why that one regretted his choice. Was it perhaps because bigots made her new life difficult?)

The argument that gender affirming surgery is harmful is not cut and dried, but it can't be dismissed by such gross oversimplification as 'it's their body, they can do what they like with it'. — Isaac

That's not precisely what I've been doing. However, that's what the legal position boils down to.
How about: It's their mind. What makes you think, what gives you the skill, where do you get the right, to know it better than they do?
And: Just how, exactly, is it affecting these 'others'?
No disgust doesn't count as grounds to assume guardianship over another adult, and neither does the belief that your morals are better than theirs.

The desire to have a vagina or no arm is just that, a desire. The belief that a man is a woman is just that, a belief. — NOS4A2

And therefore refusal to believe it trumps their right to act on it? Again, on what grounds?

it may equally be their essence showing itself. — fdrake

I'll make a bold claim, that some might want to dispute, (but I hope not) in an attempt to establish some semi solid ground for the debate:

"It is no part of anyone's essence to be ashamed of themselves or have any negative feelings about their body, (or for that matter, any pride or positive feelings). Such feelings can only arise in a social setting through comparison with others."

Alien limb syndrome is almost an exception, but to the extent there is negative feeling, it is precisely because it is not felt as oneself.

And therefore refusal to believe it trumps their right to act on it? Again, on what grounds?

My belief that that man is a man ought not to prohibit his right to try to look like a woman, because I also believe that that man ought to decide what he should do to himself. It’s not my body and not my decision. So it trumps no right.

There is a distinction between discourage and forbid — Vera Mont

No one is arguing gender-surgery ought be forbidden, so the distinction is irrelevant.

What is the harm, to whom? — Vera Mont

I've already outlined the potential harms, as have others. If you don't intend to address them then there's little point in my repeating them.

So it trumps no right. — NOS4A2

In this, we agree.

No one is arguing gender-surgery ought be forbidden, so the distinction is irrelevant. — Isaac

No-one is arguing that? I'm surprised.

I've already outlined the potential harms, — Isaac

Potential harms to others? Do you mean that attitudes might change? Organizations and social structures might change? They will anyway. Not sure I can see it as harmful.

There's a lot in your post, and it's clearly personal to you, which I do understand.

The question of whether regret is a common response to sexual reassignment surgery is an empirical question best addressed by statistically verifiable data, none of which you have. You just know of a handful of unfortunate examples. You can keep repeating them, but they hold no significant persuasive value for anyone who wants a scientific perspective.

Your personal health, sexual, emotional, and spiritual trauma are real, significant, defining, and challenging. Whether intentional or not, they are distracting to the issues at hand and they serve as a deterrent to objective debate for fear of offending you after you have discussed your vulnerabilities.

As to the impact you report on the gay community, even should I take that as fully correct, it is an aside. If there are members in the trans community that are bullying, attacking, misleading, and ostracizing, then they ought to stop, but that doesn't address whether society ought accept transsexuality.

As to a thorough evaluation of the empirical data, from the gay community, skeptical of transsexual medical treatment, see:

https://www.genderhq.org/trans-youth-suicide-statistics-kill-themselves-manipulate-parents

I point out this website because I do think it presents some reasonable areas of debate from the medical perspective and it comes from a critical perspective from the gay community.

That is, it makes your argument by addressing the science. Whether it ultimately is succesful will take some amount of sorting through.

No one is arguing gender-surgery ought be forbidden, so the distinction is irrelevant. — Isaac


No-one is arguing that? I'm surprised. — Vera Mont

I've not read any arguments to the effect that gender alteration ought be made illegal. Only varying degrees of concern about it's promotion.

Potential harms to others? — Vera Mont

Yes. Unless you seriously consider that after barely a few years of this change in approach all the evidence we'll ever need has been gathered and collated, then yes, all harms and benefits are 'potential'.

Do you mean that attitudes might change? Organizations and social structures might change? They will anyway. — Vera Mont

Yes. Are you suggesting it is impossible for such institutions to change for the worse? Or are you suggesting that we're powerless to steer changes, they're imposed on us by...?

Not sure I can see it as harmful. — Vera Mont

No. That much is evident. Others can, hence the discussion.

He should granted the right on the grounds of self-ownership alone, but self-surgery is dangerous. So should he be provided with a professional to do it for him, and a setting in which to do it? I don’t think so. — NOS4A2

Why does the patient have the right to self ownership to do aa he wishes, but the doctor doesn't have the right to self-ownerhip to do as he wants as long as there is mutual consent?

isn’t clear whether these kinds of surgeries are life-saving or cosmetic. The symptoms are often centered around beliefs and desires. The desire to have a vagina or no arm is just that, a desire. The belief that a man is a woman is just that, a belief. Worse, such surgeries hinder proper bodily function, and as such arguably make one worse off. This is why such surgeries should be relegated to the cosmetic type where access depends on whether you can find it in the market. — NOS4A2

So you're in favor of facial feminization, breast implants, buttock implants, and liposuction, but hold your single objection to modifications to the penis?

Are you suggesting it is impossible for such institutions to change for the worse? — Isaac

No. I am stating that societies, their mores and attitudes change continuously, even though all societies have some members who want no kind of change. It may be for better or worse or better for some and worse for others, or simply different. And of course it is steered: advocacy groups take up one cause or another; they are supported by some portion of society and opposed by another; they are effective and successful or they are defeated and persecuted. Any shift in rulership, economic and power relations bring about change. Some changes are predictable, some are unforeseen; brought on by external or internal pressure, by new knowledge or new circumstances. Society is an organism. Organisms change. It's neither helpful nor harmful - it's life.

So how does any of that defeat the argument that this change might be for the worse and we ought steer society in a more healthy direction?

"It is no part of anyone's essence to be ashamed of themselves or have any negative feelings about their body, (or for that matter, any pride or positive feelings). Such feelings can only arise in a social setting through comparison with others. — unenlightened

Therefore, insofar as the topic is positive essential characteristics of females, there is nothing to be said. Any positivity is a social construct, as is the negativity. One might think that reproductive ability is an essential positive, but the existence of abortion legal or illegal, and the stigmatisation of offspring born out of wedlock contradicts this. Beauty - is of course in the eye of the pornographer. One is left with motherhood and apple pie. And again the difference between noble service and ignoble servitude is all in the eye of the beholder.

Or possibly in the ass of the pontificator.

You don't have an argument there, you are just reciting the received opinions and describing the status quo. Why isn't surgery appropriate in some mental cases, but appropriate in others? — unenlightened

No, I was correcting you on the facts: mental health conditions are medical conditions, and gender dysphoria isn't considered a mental health condition. If your view on this question requires we ignore patent medical fact, all the worse for you. Though, credit where credit is due; "received opinions" is a good one :lol:

And I imagine what treatments are effective for what conditions are going to differ on a case-by-case basis (though, again, gender dysphoria isn't a "mental case"): what are the causes and symptoms of this or that condition? What is currently feasible via surgery? In any case, when surgery is or isn't appropriate or effective is a medical question, not a philosophical one, and neither you nor I are doctors (so far as I'm aware), so what is the value of us debating it?

mental health conditions are medical conditions, — busycuttingcrap

This is not a fact of nature, it's a social construct. this is demonstrated by the fact that you already pointed out that what is and isn't a mental health condition changes from time to time, not in the light of evidence, but in the light of changing social mores.

If your position is simply 'everything we're told is true' then you're not responding to the arguments you're simply not engaging. — Isaac

It isn't (I've said nothing even remotely to that effect, as I suspect you know perfectly well), and there's no serious argument to engage here, just a lot of prejudice and misinformation/ignorance trying (and failing) to masquerade as a totally-not-ridiculous discussion topic.

It used to be considered such by the very medical professionals whose current opinion you're now treating as gospel. — Isaac

Where did I say anything about treating stuff as gospel? Its not that great to keep attributing fictitious claims and quotes to people you're trying to have a discussion with; maybe stick to the things I actually said?

And "medical evidence/expertise has been mistaken in the past, therefore this particular piece of medical evidence/expertise is mistaken" isn't much of an argument either. If the weight of the empirical evidence and the unanimous consensus of the medical profession considers something to be or not be a medical opinion, I'm inclined to accept that as provisionally true lacking any compelling evidence to the contrary.

And you don't have any compelling evidence to the contrary, do you? :roll: