What if your boy wants to be a girl?

[ParkCungHee]

Why should the origin of a compulsion be of such overriding importance?
If conventional understanding of trangenderism was overturned, and it was found to be influenced by environment, would you suddenly lessen the seriousness of the impulse?

 

[Traitorfish]

Why should the origin of a compulsion be of such overriding importance?
If conventional understanding of trangenderism was overturned, and it was found to be influenced by environment, would you suddenly lessen the seriousness of the impulse?

It is important because it demonstrates that a trans person's conviction that they were born into the wrong body has it's roots in biological fact; that they are, essentially, correct in their assertion. As such, if it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that a prepubescent person is indeed transsexual, and that it is possible for them to avoid a puberty which not only makes transition difficult at a later date but can quite traumatic indeed, heightening, as it does, the sense of disassociation felt, then I would argue that they are entitled to do so.

If it did turn out that transsexuality was non-biological in origin, then, yes, I would reconsider my stance on supporting the possibility of early transition, because that would suggest a relatively lack of certainty of trans identity, and so I can see that it would be necessary to wait until adulthood has "settled" the issue before proceeding.

That said, I think that puberty-delaying treatment, as was mentioned earlier, could be the most effective method. Not only would it lessen the risk of improperly applied treatment, but it also allows for wider usage- being non-permanent as it is- and would significantly lower the bar for reasonable treatment, thus increasing the number of trans people who will be able to receive the puberty of their preference. It's a good idea all around, really. (I would still suggest that it could be possible to safely allow early transitions in some cases, but that isn't a point I would labour so heavily.)

 

[Maniacal]

Good, a daughter who can't get knocked up is a-okay with me.

 

[NovaKart]

I just read about otherkin. I've only recently found out what furries are and otherkin just strikes me as totally bizarre.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It is important because it demonstrates that a trans person's conviction that they were born into the wrong body has it's roots in biological fact; that they are, essentially, correct in their assertion.

Doesn't this also make people with Body Integrity Identity disorder essentially correct in their assertion that their limbs are superfluous?

 

[holy king]

Fundamentalist Christianity is not Christianity the way Jesus wanted it.

i'm sorry sir, but you seem not to understand what jesus wanted. this means war!

 

[Yeekim]

The assumption here seems to be that the body somehow dictates the proper nature of the mind, rather than vice-versa, which doesn't strike me as a view that holds much respect for the individual. This may be broadly true from a purely scientific perspective, but from a social one it is simply not conductive to constructing an inclusive society. I would suggest instead that transsexual people should not be viewed as having improperly formed minds, but improperly formed bodies.

I don't think we should go around ignoring scientific realities in the name of "inclusive society", not to mention I don't see why recognizing that someone needs psychiatric therapy should automatically mean they become rejects.

Transsexuals have properly formed, functional bodies. Having to undergo excessive surgery to solve a problem which could potentially be solved by a shrink does not strike me as patient-friendly approach - not to mention we simply aren't especially good at it (yet?). For instance, the article mentioned that phalloplasty is currently still more about "aesthetics" than about "functionality". Not to mention you'll stay sterile... Personally, being a hetero guy, I might rather have a proper female body than lose the function of my private parts. I could make a decent lesbian that way, at least.

Or, we could go around reprogramming people's brains until they think as we would prefer them to. Decades of Soviet rule, it seems, has made some impression on you.

Most certainly.

 

[MobBoss]

I would let my child be whatever they want.

I would say this is hugely irresponsible as a parent.

 

[Gustave5436]

Well, strictly speaking, transgenderism and transsexualism are distinct, it simply happens that the latter inevitably comes with the former- transsexual people are, at least as far as I know, always transgendered, either adopting the expected gender of their new anatomy, or adopting a genderqueer identity.
Transsexualism, rather than being an issue of social or personal identity, as transgenderism is, is an issue of identification with ones own anatomy.

And, being utterly indifferent to my own sex, I have difficulty understanding what the subjective experience of rejecting one's biological sex entails. I understand the objective, scientific aspect of it, but on a personal level the concept is rather alien. Of course, this sort of ignorance does not justify the fears and prejudices of bioconservatives, and the discrimination suffered by all people who reject conventional gender stereotypes cannot be tolerated.

Really? Seriously? Or are you being sarcastic? Because this boggles my mind, how could your race, gender, or sexual orientation NOT be integral to your identity given the nature of our society? We don't exist in a vacuum.

Allow me to illustrate by analogy to the concept of class. Libertarians object to the very idea of class distinctions and social hierarchy. Therefore, they reject capitalism, and aim at resolving the social question by the abolition of the very idea of social classes. By that same token, if I object to oppressive racial, gender, etc. distinctions, then it is only logical for me to reject them in favor of postracial, postgender philosophy.

Or, in a more practical sense, I am who I am, and see no need to adopt socially assigned labels. Society might choose to assign a gender or a race to me, but, as I see no meaning in them, I reject them by default.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Bioconservatives? That's quite a term.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Bioconservatives? That's quite a term.

I like the futuristic style that it implies. Implants are sin, cyborg half-men are inhuman!

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think we should go around ignoring scientific realities in the name of "inclusive society", not to mention I don't see why recognizing that someone needs psychiatric therapy should automatically mean they become rejects.

Transsexuals have properly formed, functional bodies. Having to undergo excessive surgery to solve a problem which could potentially be solved by a shrink does not strike me as patient-friendly approach - not to mention we simply aren't especially good at it (yet?).

But the "scientific reality", it is now apparent, is that transsexuals have intersex neurobiology, and so it is not merely a psychological problem, but a fundamental mis-match between brain and body. As such, there can be no "cure", merely the brainwashing of trans people to disregard their own condition- a sorry excuse for "treatment" if there ever was one.

Additionally, medical transition primarily talks the form of hormone treatment, surgery being something which is only undertaken at a later stage in the process.

For instance, the article mentioned that phalloplasty is currently still more about "aesthetics" than about "functionality". Not to mention you'll stay sterile... Personally, being a hetero guy, I might rather have a proper female body than lose the function of my private parts. I could make a decent lesbian that way, at least.

And many trans men do retain female bodies, but that does not stop them identifying as men, or from pursuing appropriate hormone treatment.

And, being utterly indifferent to my own sex, I have difficulty understanding what the subjective experience of rejecting one's biological sex entails. I understand the objective, scientific aspect of it, but on a personal level the concept is rather alien. Of course, this sort of ignorance does not justify the fears and prejudices of bioconservatives, and the discrimination suffered by all people who reject conventional gender stereotypes cannot be tolerated.

Indeed, it is not an experience which I myself pretend to understand on such a personal level. But, equally, I don't understand what it is like to be a woman, or black, or Jewish, or any range of other experiences; what is important is that we accept the legitimate diversity of human experience. "Nothing human is alien to me", if you'll forgive me the slight pretension of quoting Roman playwrights.

Also, the preferred terms would be "cissexists" or "transphobes", analogous to "heterosexist" and "homophobe" when used in reference to non-heterosexulity. The terminology, I will admit, can be a bit arcane!

I like the futuristic style that it implies. Implants are sin, cyborg half-men are inhuman!

Didn't they have those guys in Deus Ex?

 

[Lord of Elves]

Didn't they have those guys in Deus Ex?

I believe they do, but I never played the game myself. I was thinking more along the lines of Bladerunner, but for intents and purposes it's all the same.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Bioconservatives? That's quite a term.

I like it better than "Environmentalist."

 

[El_Machinae]

But the "scientific reality", it is now apparent, is that transsexuals have intersex neurobiology, and so it is not merely a psychological problem, but a fundamental mis-match between brain and body. As such, there can be no "cure", merely the brainwashing of trans people to disregard their own condition- a sorry excuse for "treatment" if there ever was one.

It becomes ridiculously complicated. "Brain washing" and "cognitive therapy" are gradients on a scale. And I think that using psychology to help someone adapt to their own body is perfectly good medicine. Every psychological problem is also a neurobiological problem, and whether we use a scalpel, drugs, or talking is merely a matter of convenience and a matter of effectiveness.

Now, I don't know if there is any type of talk therapy to help an intersexed person feel better, but I wouldn't be adverse to trying. Even if it doesn't result in a physical change of the neurobiology (of the regions we're noticing as 'different'), such therapy can certainly change the interconnections and the relative intensity of the differences.

The fact the surgery might be the most effective treatment is more of a condemnation of our society's knowledge of neuroscience than anything else.

 

[JohnRM]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/a-boy-apos-s-life/7059/1/

Interesting article about a child who wants to be a girl and how the parents handle it. I think it's a really tough choice because a child isn't really old enough to make a decision like that and handle the consequences but for some the desire to be the opposite sex is very strong.

Retroactive abortion?

jk

I have no idea how to handle that. If you let them act out on that then there is going to be permanent damage done. If they decide later to go back on the idea, all of those people in school and out in the world will still remember it and it just won't be good, at all. Its definitely a tough call.

 

[Traitorfish]

It becomes ridiculously complicated. "Brain washing" and "cognitive therapy" are gradients on a scale. And I think that using psychology to help someone adapt to their own body is perfectly good medicine. Every psychological problem is also a neurobiological problem, and whether we use a scalpel, drugs, or talking is merely a matter of convenience and a matter of effectiveness.

Now, I don't know if there is any type of talk therapy to help an intersexed person feel better, but I wouldn't be adverse to trying. Even if it doesn't result in a physical change of the neurobiology (of the regions we're noticing as 'different'), such therapy can certainly change the interconnections and the relative intensity of the differences.

The fact the surgery might be the most effective treatment is more of a condemnation of our society's knowledge of neuroscience than anything else.

Fair points. It really is nothing approaching a simple issue.

 

[classical_hero]

OK, I read all of the above ones and laughed alright...
But this one was a step too far!
Christianity doesn't teach anything bad and therefore is good on any level.

Only God is good.

Fundamentalist Christianity is not Christianity the way Jesus wanted it.

Basically a Fundamentalist Christian believes in the 5 Fundamentals.
1. The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture
2. The deity of Jesus Christ
3. The virgin birth of Christ
4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross
5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth.

I doubt that Jesus would be against that, but this is really OT, so we should be getting back to the subject.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Basically a Fundamentalist Christian believes in the 5 Fundamentals.
1. The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture
2. The deity of Jesus Christ
3. The virgin birth of Christ
4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross
5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth.

I doubt that Jesus would be against that, but this is really OT, so we should be getting back to the subject.

This is all true, but none of it is Fundamentalist, in fact, I don't see how you can deny any of them (Other than the first one) and even claim to be a Christian.