This is an otiose point, but I do feel the need to respond to it.

Harry Hindu asked "Why do we find it okay to tell the religious that they believe in a delusion, but not okay to tell this to a transgender?".

You responded "Because they are a treasure of victim points for the Left. So we must rationalise and intellectualise a case...". So I guess you did actually describe transgender people as deluded by telling Harry that the only reason we don't label them as such is because of rationalization among leftists. — VagabondSpectre

*sighs*

No, this is the last time I say it: do not straw man. Your reading, reasoning and conversation habits are sloppy.

First, if you reply to something I said, quote it fully and directly, you didn’t and that conveniently missed the point. You are referring to this comment.

I quoted this from Harry Dindu in my comment: “I would like to know how consistent people are in this. Why do we find it okay to tell the religious that they believe in a delusion, but not okay to tell this to a transgender?”

The keyword that I was replying to is the word “consistent” that he used there, which you left out for whatever sloppy reason.

My (cheeky) reply is an explanation for this inconsistency that Harry Dindu pointed out. Whether transgender people actually suffer from delusions is not even the point (or relevant).

The fact that you "don't mind this strawman" (read: I agree with this position but i didn't actually say that" strongly indicates that I have accurately interpreted and represented your position in this thread. — VagabondSpectre

Do you actually know what a straw man is? It is mispresenting someone’s view. You are mispresenting my view – I do not mind it because it is a meaningless point. It is like claiming that I hate olives. I love them, but I do not mind the straw man. Note that I still consider it a straw man.

To be clear, I do not think that transgender people necessarily suffer from delusions, because you can have mental disorders without suffering from delusions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's just that when you morally approve of allowing someone to dress as the opposite gender you're indulging their mental disorder in the same way that someone who says to an anorexic person "you are right, you are fat, stop eating" is indulging anorexia. — VagabondSpectre

What did I say regarding important decisions? You used the word “impactful”. I thought me made progress in this conversation.

You realize that we don't treat people with different mental disorders the same way right? — VagabondSpectre

And you realise that I already pointed that out, right? We treat them as if they have a mental disorder, but take different actions regarding their specific disorder, diagnosed and judged by a professional. We never indulge them in their mental disorder.

Nice comment Hanover, I just fully read it.

(I do this by memory for the moment)

Yes chicks with dicks is a fetish. Most fetishes are often directed to males, rather than females. This is basic marketing, because the male fetish market is much larger. The evolutionary psychophysical explanation for this regard the differences of sexual strategies between the genders. Male sexual strategy puts the emphasis on quantity and female sexual strategy puts the emphasis on quality. Males often seek to have sex with as many fertile women as possible.

There was a scientific experiment where attractive actors asked strangers on campus to have casual sex with them. Attractive women almost always got the positive answer, whereas attractive men got none.

The male sexual drive for particular niches (i.e. fetishes) changes from time to time. They get quickly bored so-to-say. I also read a scientific paper which stated that women find familiarity attractive, while men seek novelty regarding physical appearances. Women try to play this by changing their appearances occasionally to keep their partners attracted. See the fashion industry regarding clothes, make-up, hair colour and compare that to the fashion of men which is less diverse.

I never understood fetishes but I think it is part of an evolutionary adaptation. Human Nature is truly complex.

Here's a book that might be of interest:



I've got a backlog of reading on hand, but I think I'll make room for her book. This should be a very interesting read for partisans on either side in this thread.

When Faludi learned that her estranged and elderly father had undergone gender reassignment surgery, in 2004, it marked the resumption of a difficult relationship. Her father was violent and full of contradictions: a Hungarian Holocaust survivor and Leni Riefenstahl fanatic, he stabbed a man her mother was seeing and used the incident to avoid paying alimony. In this rich, arresting and ultimately generous memoir, Faludi — long known for her feminist journalism — tries to reconcile Steven, the overbearing patriarch her father once was, with Stefánie, the old woman she became. — New York Times - best books of 2016 list

Let's trim the fat if we may.

The issue is what I perceive your statement "we should not indulge transgender people" to mean.

The way I have previously interpreted this is: we should not allow transgender people to indulge their desire to be the opposite gender; we should not allow them to transition. Your comparisons of transgenderism to anorexia and suicide are in part what gave me this impression. Telling an anorexic person to "not eat" (indulging their mental disorder) would be directly analogous to telling a transgender person to "transition".

But if all you ever meant by we should not indulge them; treat it as a mental disorder, is that: we should let people live how they choose (I'm extrapolating this from your lack of condemnation of cross-dressing) and when it comes to surgery/hormones we should assist them in medically transitioning if whichever relevant authority deems it an appropriate form of treatment, then I would say we have no remaining relevant disagreement.

The latter one, without nit-picking your phrasing.

I want to put some emphasis on what I said here:

I quoted your question: "So when doctors perform sex change operations on individuals who have, with outside assistance, decided to transition, they are comitting an evil act?"

I answered as followed:

"Depends on what basis the doctor performs the operation. He has to do so by a decision of a person with good judgement. In this case, not the patient, but a superior (e.g. psychiatrist?). "

To be clear, we should also be able to override some important decisions the person wishes to make. In practice this means that we should be able to reject surgery based on better judgement. This is basically what it means 'to not indulge'.

Such a tired old plot, played out countless times in novel after novel. Man survives genocide, man stabs wife's mom's boyfriend, man avoids alimony payments, man transitions into woman. Formulaic nonsense.

Unless a clinic is operating a surgery mill (which is possible, of course, even if unlikely) the transgender patient has four hurdles to leap before the process is complete. People don't just waltz into a surgeon's office and schedule some slicing and dicing.

1. Personality stability

Potentials don't need to be paragons of conventional life, but they need to have dealt with alcohol/drug addictions, for instance, and be well into recovery. The can't present with major mental illnesses and proceed forward. They need to present a cogent case for their desired transition.

2. Hormone therapy

Patients usually complete at least a year of hormone therapy (which continues for life) before surgery can be considered. For M ---> F transexuals, this means taking estrogen, F ---> M, testosterone. Over time significant physical changes occur; breasts develop, fat distribution changes, to some extent, (I don't know how much--probably varies from person to person) changes in sensuality. For F ---> M, hair starts to grow, they develop a beard, fat distribution changes, musculature may change noticeably (depending on age, fitness activity, etc.).

3. Wardrobe and grooming changes - Transgenders begin to publicly present as the sex opposite their chromosomal, birth, and anatomical sex. Learning to do this well takes time, and money.

4. Finally, if all has gone well, if the patient wishes and if the patient is a good candidate for surgery (in terms of overall health) surgical changes in organs are made. For M ---> F surgery means removal of the testicles, construction of a vaginal pouch and labia, re-arranging the urethra, and if possible, preserving the nerves serving the glans. For F ---> M, it means a hysterectomy, construction of a penis and scrotum (plastic testicles are available, sized in just pitiful to ox-balls), re-routing of the urethra, and preservation of clitoral nerves, if possible.

There are risks, of course, like infection following surgery is a possibility. Undesirable side effects of estrogen and testosterone therapy. Various difficulties in adjusting to new roles.

One wouldn't expect transgender patients to have uniformly excellent results from transgender therapy, including surgery.

Often, transgenders have experienced a lot of personal turmoil related to their sexual identity issues. Quite a few will have become alcoholic or drug addicted before finally dealing with identity issues. They may have poor employment histories. They may have experienced a great deal of familial or peer hostility.

Transgender therapy may help a great deal, but it can't erase a long troubled history, (This is true for anybody who seeks psychotherapy.) So, we find that things don't always work out well.

(I am sorry in advance if my points and questions have already been made)

I believe that biological sex is one and the same with gender! — Agustino

Do you mean "should be" not "is" or that you can't distinguish between the two concepts?
If the former, why?

If the former, why? — Ovaloid

I don't have an answer to that (and I doubt the answers others provided). It's like asking me why I believe there's other minds. It's self-evident to me. This world doesn't have to fit to the whimsical nature of man, rather man must fit to the world.

I'm wondering what place this thread has on a *philosophy* forum. I've read right through this, and I haven't noticed anything worth calling philosophy at all. Just ignorance, prejudice, personal insults, argumentative trollishness, and prurient speculation about other people's lives--all of it unleavened by the most basic factual information or attempt at empathy. I wouldn't describe myself as a snowflake, but this thread doesn't make it hard to see why transgender people get suicidal.

I would have raised this matter with the managers of this forum without registering myself, but there seems to be no way to do that. So I've done it this way. I think it's very unlikely that I'll be adding anything else. I have written about what it's like to be transgender, so perhaps you could look out that article (Being transgender and transgender being) before you impose your stupid and reprehensible opinions on any other transgender people?

In the mean time, behind the veil of anonymity that nearly all of you have bravely chosen to adopt, you can all feel very proud of yourselves for making someone's day.

You claim to have read the entire thread (which I don't believe), and you claim all of our opinions are horrible, but you haven't actually said anything or addressed anyone. Your comment reads as: maybe you should read my article before you prurient speculators force your stupid and reprehensible opinions on other people. Why do we need to read your article? Are you the central authority on transgenders?

Since you've not differentiated between any contributors to this thread, please tell me which aspects of my contributions were in anyway less than accurate or offensive.

Why do we need to read your article? Are you the central authority on transgenders? — VagabondSpectre

Well, the original post is a response/reaction to Sophie's article talk. Obviously you don't need to read it to address the general issue of gender identity, but her comment above is justified in context.

The original post brings her up but fails to actually link an article or explore it. You can say her post is perhaps justifiably directed at Interpersona, who reacted to "a talk" of hers without adequately addressing her ideas, but all I've really done in this thread is defend transgenderism from attempts at moral condemnation.

I don't need to read anyone's article to criticize the ideas Interpersona raised...

Damn, can't mention anyone without them showing up it seems... I wonder how much time famous people spend googling themselves.

I hope she decides to stay long enough to explain to me how the thousands of words I've written in this thread in defense of transgenderism is really just prurient speculation and argumentative trollishness unleavened by basic facts or empathy.

I for one feel entirely unvictimized. A much better tune.

I for one feel entirely unvictimized. A much better tune. — Wosret

How dare you marginalize my lived experiences!?

Heh... All I really want is for the ad-hom laden contrarians of the world to at least try to put some substance into the mud they sling...

Is that really such a lofty expectation?

You want them to add some rocks to the mud, eh? I prefer flung projectiles coming at me to lack substance, personally. They don't hurt nearly as badly.

What the serious fudge? I guess it doesn’t surprise me anymore, so much as boggle my mind…

Bud Light brand loses billions in value due to simple acknowledgment to transgender person.

And it seems that “Budlighting” is the new “gaslighting” or something…

Target hit with anti-transgender “protest”

I'm wondering what place this thread has on a *philosophy* forum. I've read right through this, and I haven't noticed anything worth calling philosophy at all. Just ignorance, prejudice, personal insults, argumentative trollishness, and prurient speculation about other people's lives--all of it unleavened by the most basic factual information or attempt at empathy. I wouldn't describe myself as a snowflake, but this thread doesn't make it hard to see why transgender people get suicidal. — Sophie Grace Chappell

:up:

This thread is an embarrassment. Happily, we've moved on and had much more intelligent conversations as of late.