• Harry Hindu
    2.5k
    You're missing the point. She is her body. She (the woman in question) recognises it.

    She moves to alter her body (a penis, we'll be reductive for simplicity) because she recognises it is a part of her.

    If she was delusional about her body, she would have no motivation to alter her body. She would believe she had a vagina and no penis (again, I'll be reductive for simplicity's sake), so she would not hold her body (with a penis) needs changing.
    TheWillowOfDarkness
    If "she" (so much for steering away from gender-binary terms) recognized that the penis is part of "her" then why would she want to remove it? Why would someone want to remove something that is part of them. It seems to me that people would only remove things that they think aren't part of them. Both can recognize the existence of the part, but one thinks it doesn't belong, or isn't what defines them, yet they go about transforming themselves into the opposite binary entity, even though they claim it's non-binary.
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    1.9k


    I'm not quite sure what you think was going on. My point was she recognised she existed with penis, but understood it doesn't belong or ought not be there.

    All along my point has been these are both true. Transformation is sought because she recognises how she exists but understands this ought to be different.

    My point is a falsehood to say she is delusional about what body she has. If she already believed she existed with the body she ought it have, she would understand there is nothing which needs to change. One has to realise something is part of them to be have the goal of removing it from themsleves. My point is someone has to recognise how they exist, if they are to think something about their existence doesn't belong.

    Ergo, it is impossible for this person to be delusional about how their body exists. They need to know how they exist (with a penis) for them to want to change it.

    It's not really question of binary either because it's about the body. If the issue is you exist with a penis, then whether one is male, female or anything else doesn't define the problem.

    If one ought not have a penis, then there is motivation to remove it whether you are male,.female or something else entirely. Whether having a penis is binary or non-binary does nothing eliminate the issue. Either might be true, the person question would still want it removed, it's the state of body which they hold to be a problem.
  • HereToDisscuss
    46
    It's not really question of binary either because it's about the body. If the issue is you exist with a penis, then whether one is male, female or anything else doesn't define the problem.

    If one ought not have a penis, then there is motivation to remove it whether you are male,.female or something else entirely. Whether having a penis is binary or non-binary does nothing eliminate the issue. Either might be true, the person question would still want it removed, it's the state of body which they hold to be a problem.
    TheWillowOfDarkness

    While the first part is true (albeit both of you are strawmanning each other, you are doing it by taking "delusional" to be something different while he does it by taking "being a part of something" to be something different), there is a problem with this: Some transwomen are fine with their penises and do not have genital dysphoria. So, it is not merely them having a penis existing that is the problem.

    That is the same for a lot of things that you would think transwomen would have a problem with: manly voice, beard (i have even heard someone say she only cut her beard because it was weird, but she liked it), being called a "he" or a "lad"...

    It is because some of them can't see someone with a penis/manly voice/beard as a woman, especially themselves, that they want to change it. *The misidentity is the reason, not the mere fact that they have a penis or whatever.
    *That is not to say that they do not recognize such people as women (if they do identify as such, the the vast majority of them do), but rather that they would not be able to convince themselves that they are a woman because of these features. It would constantly bug them (for simplicity's sake).
    It is "I ought to not have a penis because i do not want a penis since it makes me feel manly which i do not want.", not "I ought to not have a penis simply because i just do not want a penis for an unknown reason."
  • Harry Hindu
    2.5k

    How is that any different than someone cutting off their legs because felt they didnt belong to their body? Is someone that cuts off their legs delusional?
    Check this out:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/health/psychology/at-war-with-their-bodies-they-seek-to-sever-limbs.html

    Dr. John Money is even mentioned and the whole gist of the article is that this is a sexual deviation - an abnormality.

    What makes it okay to cut off your penis, but not your legs? If one is a psychological disorder, why isn't the other?
  • Harry Hindu
    2.5k
    My point is a falsehood to say she is delusional about what body she has. If she already believed she existed with the body she ought it have, she would understand there is nothing which needs to change. One has to realise something is part of them to be have the goal of removing it from themsleves. My point is someone has to recognise how they exist, if they are to think something about their existence doesn't belong.TheWillowOfDarkness
    What does it mean for someone to think that they should have been born in a different body? It doesn't make sense to say that they recognize the part as being part of them and then removing it makes them more like how they are suppose to be. If they already recognize the part as part of them, then removing it would remove part of them.

    A delusion is defined as:
    characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

    The idiosyncratic belief is that they were born in the wrong body. What does that even mean? Are they saying that they have a soul that is female that was put in the body of a male? What exactly are they implying when they claim to be the opposite sex, or that their body parts are wrong, and how is that consistent with how we treat others who follow the same pattern - just with different body parts?
  • NOS4A2
    1.5k


    You're missing the point. She is her body. She (the woman in question) recognises it.

    She moves to alter her body (a penis, we'll be reductive for simplicity) because she recognises it is a part of her.

    If she was delusional about her body, she would have no motivation to alter her body. She would believe she had a vagina and no penis (again, I'll be reductive for simplicity's sake), so she would not hold her body (with a penis) needs changing.

    But he does not identify with the sex he was born as and often seeks to alter it through surgical means, or less dramatically, by adopting the garb and mannerisms of the opposite sex. If he was his body, and identified as himself, he wouldn’t seek to alter himself and portray himself as something he wasn’t.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment