You argued that societal change had no ethical component because it's going to happen anyway. — Isaac

Not exactly. I said it had lots of components, the ethics of which are interpreted differently by each faction. There is no objective societal ethic to use as a standard.

(there exist arguments about whether the change is 'right' or 'wrong'), — Isaac

Always. Sometimes one faction wins a round, sometimes another. God refuses to decide, however hard both teams pray.

and it is not going to happen anyway, its driven by our collective actions. — Isaac

You think people will stop driving it sometime? I guess that's possible. Therefore I'll settle for: "So far in recorded history, change has always happened anyway, even though some people have always opposed change on the grounds that it would/might be for the worse."

Whether I present an opinion about how society ought progress has no bearing on the validity of that argument. — Isaac

You're quite right. I was hoping to nudge the thread back on track.

For starters, men should be able to wear dresses instead of boring suits. — Benkei

Nobody should ever have to wear a suit! (or high heels)

I have a theory that societies that are less hung up on gender stereotypes, will see a significant decrease in transitioning because there's a wider gamut available for gender expression so the dysphoria will probably lessen because gender roles will be less pronounced. For starters, men should be able to wear dresses instead of boring suits. — Benkei

I thinks that's very likely. I think it's behind @unenlightened's concerns (as I read them), which I share. Progress toward that end is hampered, not helped, by the promotion of the idea that one's discontent is 'fixed' by altering the offending body, not by altering the society which unjustly places such sex-related expectations.

The notion that the fault lies with the only aspect profitable drugs can 'fix' is not an accident.

So far in recorded history, change has always happened in spite of the people who opposed change. — Vera Mont

Change and the form that change takes are two different things. Of course society will always change, that doesn't mean we have to passively accept any specific change. We cna instead replace it with a different change.

Given this, we can still argue sensibly that some change is bad and ought be resisted.

Of course society will always change, that doesn't mean we have to passively accept any specific change. We cna instead replace it with a different change. — Isaac

That's what people invariably do.

Given this, we can still argue sensibly that some change is bad and ought be resisted. — Isaac

Of course, it always is. But society still won't remain unchanged, so you who resist a specific change must still decide on:
a proposal for the healthier, more beneficial, more ethical direction in which you want some unnamed factions or agents to steer the issue.

I agree and at the same time don't. :smile: I do think it is a fix, given the constraints of social circumstances. Not having the option would lead to other mental health issues, in particular depression with significant increased risk in suicide. I don't think that's a problem though. We deal with suboptimal solutions all the time. We incarcerate people instead of resolving the underlying causes for instance.

Even in this thread we see people cannot escape gender stereotypes and put horses behind carriages to justify their own biases. And I like to think I have a decent rational grasp on these sort of biases and I still reinforce them without thinking through jokes, expressions, how I treat women as opposed to men etc. in everyday life. It's not something we're likely to escape any time soon.

people cannot escape gender stereotypes — Benkei

I don't see why we need to escape gender stereotypes.

It is fact that there are far fewer women in prisons and committing violent crime. It is a stereotype and fact that men are more aggressive. There are averages and norms which make some stereotypes quite widely applicable but never covering every single person.

A lot stereotypes are not completely nonfactual.

It is one thing to dismantle stereotypes and another to try dismantle the biological reality of women by making the category meaningless and something you can opt in an out of.

Women have now been referred to in literature as cervix havers, pregnant people and black birthing bodies.

What is being called the breaking down of stereotypes is becoming the erasure of women.

I haven't defined it — Vera Mont

So you don't know what a trans right is but are advocating for it anyway?

And can you not see how rights can clash with each other?

For a basic example the right to play music in your house and the right for your neighbours to live in peace and quite.

These things can lead to compromises but sometimes they cannot.

I don't see why we need to escape gender stereotypes. — Andrew4Handel

That is a problem!

It is fact that there are far fewer women in prisons and committing violent crime. — Andrew4Handel

And there are many reasons for that besides genetics.

What is being called the breaking down of stereotypes is becoming the erasure of women. — Andrew4Handel

As a woman, I don't feel threatened. You should take a poll, which cis gender is more opposed to dismantling stereotypes.

So you don't know what a trans right is but are advocating for it anyway? — Andrew4Handel

Yup, if it makes you happy to put it that way.

And can you not see how rights can clash with each other? — Andrew4Handel

Indeed, some do, and in order to be fair (which no society actually is, BTW) it would be necessary to reconcile such conflicts. But forbidding things is easier than solving problems, so that's how the legal code usually works.

For a basic example the right to play music in your house and the right for your neighbours to live in peace and quite.

These things can lead to compromises but sometimes they cannot. — Andrew4Handel

That one certainly can! And there are even some helpful technologies.
So, what, precisely, can't be reconciled with acceptance of non-stereotype gender identities?

As a woman, I don't feel threatened. You should take a poll, which cis gender is more opposed to dismantling stereotypes. — Vera Mont

Women have been raped by men identifying as women in prisons and women's shelters but you don't feel threatened so that's Okay.

I am not a child starving to death in poverty that doesn't mean it is not happening and that I shouldn't be concerned.

Women have been raped by men identifying as women in prisons and women's shelters but you don't feel threatened so that's Okay. — Andrew4Handel

And that relates to

What is being called the breaking down of stereotypes is becoming the erasure of women. — Andrew4Handel

How exactly?

I don't see why we need to escape gender stereotypes.
— Andrew4Handel

That is a problem! — Vera Mont

I am man who as I said earlier read books aimed at teenage girls as a boy and hung around with girls at primary school (kindergarten for Americans?)

I have never been a conformist but I have also never considered myself to be escaping stereotypes. I have had to accept that I am different than a lot of men who have different preferences not deny these mens existences and preferences and deny biological differences.

Ironically gender ideology says that if you are a girl who doesn't like make up and dresses you might be a trans child and need sterilising by puberty blockers and that if you are non conforming you need a flag and a label like Non binary or Ace-aro, pansexual and two-spirit etc.

And that relates to — Vera Mont

What you said

that you don't feel threatened by things that are having a negative effect on other women

and that your personal perception should apparently guide legislation not the obvious flaws in an ideology.

As a gay man I am now being associated with lots of unpleasant things I am strongly against including gender ideology, breaking down healthy barriers, sterilising children with puberty blockers and castrating people and trying to normalise the attraction to children (Paedophiles) Now being labelled MAPS or minor attracted people.

I think the class 'mental illness' is a social construct, as I already said. This means that there is no fact of the matter such that anything is or is not a mental illness, and one has or does not have anything identifiable like a virus or a wound. — unenlightened

Are we sure that's how it works? Isn't it rather that "the fact of the matter" is a matter of social convention rather than, say, a fact of nature? Adulthood is also something of a social construct, since how/when one qualifies as an adult has varied pretty significantly over time and from place to place, but in a given time/place there is still some "fact of the matter" as to when you are an adult according to the social conventions of that time and place: the fact of the matter is just whatever that community has decided it to be.

Or, to use Banno's favorite example, the rules of the game of chess are purely socially stipulated, but there still is some fact of the matter as to how each piece can move... its just a fact that is socially determined. And so similarly with mental illness as a social construct. So, that difficulty out of the way, you can now answer my question as to whether you think declassifying homosexuality and gender dysphoria as mental illnesses was a mistake, right?

In general, I think the identification of any person as mentally ill is unhelpful. — unenlightened

You know who its really helpful for? People with a mental illness. I suspect it is pretty difficult to get treatment for a mental illness, without being diagnosed as a person with a mental illness.

Since only 8% regret transitioning, transitioning is a good thing. — Benkei

Yeah I'm not sure this is even seriously in debate anymore; the positive effect on mental health outcomes, of both surgical and non-surgical gender-affirming medical interventions, is substantial. And as far as surgical interventions go, all major surgeries carry risk, and gender-affirming surgery is no exception... but as far as major surgery goes, they are quite safe.

So... no compelling contrary evidence, then? Maybe next time I guess, eh?

What you said

that you don't feel threatened by things that are having a negative effect on other women — Andrew4Handel

No. What I replied to your fear of the "erasure" of women due to the breakdown of stereotypes was that I don't feel threatened with erasure.

and that your personal perception should apparently guide legislation not the obvious flaws in an ideology. — Andrew4Handel

No again. You said that.

Whatever your personal feelings are regarding stereotypes, I can't relate to legislation or ideology or whatever. I'm tired of chasing your arguments all around the mulberry bush. You win.

I suspect it is pretty difficult to get treatment for a mental illness, without being diagnosed as a person with a mental illness. — busycuttingcrap

Cut the crap lad. Respond to the position I have presented or not as you please, but if you want to respond make a point at least.

Please read this article to find out what a phalloplasty is and what it complications are.

*warning graphic photos*

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3901910/

It was mentioned in this article I cited:

"The overall proportion of phalloplasties that need surgical revision, while lower for some surgeons (including mine), is about one in two. The highest number of corrective follow-up surgeries needed by anyone I know personally is 12"

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/gabriel-mac-essay.html

"One of the nodding heads in the group belonged to a nonbinary white person who was still horizontal in recovery from having had, a week prior, the worst happen, which was that after their procedure, in which all the fat and skin had been stripped from their left forearm from wrist to nearly elbow, along with major nerves, an artery, and veins, and then shaped into a tube and connected, in careful layers, to skin and blood vessels and nerves in their pelvis, their new penis had failed."

I did: I highlighted why what you said was not only wrong, but deeply silly. But then, you sort of already know that it was, right? And so hence your evasiveness and refusal to answer my question: you backed yourself into a corner, and now you want to take your ball and go home.

I mean, who would've thought that pushing lazy anti-intellectual conspiracy theories and parroting anti-trans talking points without actually thinking about what you were saying would not end well? :roll:

So you're saying that major surgery carries the risk of complication... what a shocking discovery!

This changes everything! :lol:

How can you endorse anyone getting a phalloplasty.

It is nothing like a penis.
Look at the article and the images in it and tell me you believe that is a penis and worth removing a chunk of your arm and leg for?

Are you a man? I have penis I have had surgery for a missing testicle and undescended testicles but I can get erections and produce sperm. Don't gas light people that that is a penis and a necessary body modification. It is sterility and life long health programs. How many examples do you want me to quote of complications I can probably easily find 100 I have read.

Why would you encourage women to think this is a penis and an adequate replacement for a penis?

How can you endorse anyone getting a phalloplasty — Andrew4Handel

Its pretty straightforward, tbh: gender dysphoria is by all accounts quite miserable, hence the increased rate of e.g. depression, suicide, etc, and gender-affirming surgery is both relatively safe as far as major surgery goes and has a strong positive effect on mental health. And in any case, if gender-affirming surgery scares you so much, there's an easy solution: don't have any.

My question for you is, why do you care so much about what other people are doing, especially if they find it helpful? Why are you obsessed with this particular type of surgery? I don't hear you going on about plastic surgery or other medical interventions that carry similar amounts of risk, so what is it that makes you so worried about this particular type of surgery and not any others? It couldn't have anything to do with your obvious prejudice towards trans people/transexuality, could it?

Here is something from Jammidogder a trans man who has 1.03 million subscribers.

"(...)something big's happened, I had lower surgery back in January this year so January 2018 and that essentially means that I now have a penis"

Here Jammi is lying to a big audience as a phalloplasty (or the metoidioplasty Jammi had) is not a penis, does not function like a penis and the other implants are not testicles and do not function as testicles and produce sperm, Jammi also does not have a prostate gland or produce seminal fluid.

Jammi goes on:

"(...)with my surgery first stage back in January 2019 where had complications hematoma nicked artery blood spurting everywhere second emergency surgery week in hospital horrible horrible time much pain."

"One of the surgeons came through and like removed some stitches and then squeezed out the blood clot probably one of the most painful things I've ever experienced
yesterday went a bit bad after the squeezing I did feel better and then went to the toilet and suddenly the right side just started swelling up again really bad blood was spurting out.
It was not pretty so what that meant is I had to go back in for surgery it was all good in the end and it didn't impact my actual results but it was probably one of the worst weeks of my life i'm not gonna lie "

.......

Jammi then goes on to describe having no regrets.

What does it take to make someone admit they regret something. Jammi was just a normal lesbian before this. Now Jammi is a heterosexual male. An aspiration for an increasing number of lesbians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YImdgvt8_qA&t=240s&ab_channel=Jammidodger

I don't see why we need to escape gender stereotypes. — Andrew4Handel

Because they're harmful.



Love how you are now confusing lesbians with gender dysphoria.

I hate your parents for fucking up your upbringing.

I hate your parents for fucking up your upbringing. — Benkei

Not appropriate.

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. — unenlightened

You can probably predict my response based on this.

"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

I think you believe the same as me, that people are what people make of them. Identity isn't in the head, it's in what people do together and have done together - personality as internalised patterns' constraints on people's potential actions. So some kind of comparison is in the essence of identity, right?

The next point I've got to make is that people do have predispositions, perhaps some bodily, which constrain how patterns can be internalised into identity, which constraints work and which don't. That manifests as a constraint on someone's propensities for development, who they become depends on how they're set up to grow and set up to adapt, even though all the potential is not determined in advance.

So I think you can grant that shame is not part of someone's essence, but negative feeling about the body could result in a discrepancy between someone's essence and their current state, which is indeed a comparison, but perhaps of the first kind. A desire to become who you know you are, rather than a desire to become someone else. The shame isn't necessarily felt, just commonly felt.

If shame is the feeling that your essence is in error - "I am wrong" rather than "I did wrong", it isn't surprising that shame often follows such a fundamental discrepancy.

Seem about right to you?

society still won't remain unchanged, so you who resist a specific change must still decide on:
a proposal for the healthier, more beneficial, more ethical direction in which you want some unnamed factions or agents to steer the issue. — Vera Mont

Yes, but that's not the debate here. For clarity (although it's been spelled out already) I'd prefer people not be encouraged to surgically alter their bodies to 'fix' a mental health problem caused by societal values which are themselves wrong. Fixing society's unhealthy attitudes by laying the fault at the individual is itself unhealthy, but doing so by giving more power to an industrial complex which is already responsible for some of the greatest tragedies we've recently been through is doubly bad.

Not having the option would lead to other mental health issues, in particular depression with significant increased risk in suicide. I don't think that's a problem though. We deal with suboptimal solutions all the time. We incarcerate people instead of resolving the underlying causes for instance. — Benkei

If we have two options (simplistically - promote gender altering surgery or don't), and each has it's potential flaws, but we accept suboptimal solutions all the time... does that lead us to either option? It reads to me as an argument for either.

If I've genuine concerns for the social impact of such policies then is it not just as legitimate to say that, yes, there'll be downsides to not promoting such surgery (mental health impacts on those who might otherwise be helped), but no policy is perfect and we accept suboptimal solutions all the time?

who would've thought that pushing lazy anti-intellectual conspiracy theories — busycuttingcrap

... Christ almightly! Does everything one doesn't personally agree with have to be a 'conspiracy theory' these days?

What's lazy is dividing every position into one of the two ready-made media-friendly tribes on every issue instead of actually reading what people are saying.

If we have two options (simplistically - promote gender altering surgery or don't), and each has it's potential flaws, but we accept suboptimal solutions all the time... does that lead us to either option? It reads to me as an argument for either. — Isaac

I'm not promoting either. I'm promoting having the choice and respecting such choice when it's been made one way or the other. What I don't accept, not that that is what you're doing but what I consider other posters to be guilty of, is trying to rile up disgust and deciding once and for all for everybody in every situation what that choice should be. It's not as if people are picking out a dress when they decide to have gender affirming surgery. At least in the Netherlands it takes years and surgeons are reluctant to perform these operations because they take their hypocratic oath seriously. Patients really should have a high likelihood to be better off with the surgery than without. Especially since comorbidity of other mental health issues are common.