The amount of people here saying this man does not deserve human rights make me sick.
he is human, therefore still deserves human rights.
it is interesting to realise that only about 80% of jury verdicts are proven to be the correct decision, so take a moment to decide that if you ended up on the wrong side of that statistic, whether or not you would deserve rights that are entitled to every person regardless of circumstance
What sorts of rights are those? Does not one forfeit his right to choose where and how he lives when committing a crime with a sentence involving time in prison? There are a lot more important human rights than the government recognizing your gender identity that we deny to convicts of crimes like rape and murder. Does not one forfeit his right to life itself when immediately threatening the lives of others? What could you possibly be talking about when you speak of rights that apply regardless of circumstance?
the right to be innocent until proven guilty, the right to a fair trial, the right to not be tortured and there are others.
maybe they don't affect this case, but people here are clamouring that criminals don't deserve rights. [edit - see post above, guilty of not only being ignorant but also of poor grammar]
I haven't read the human rights for a long time but i'm fairly sure you can't live whereever you choose criminal or not, if you don't have the money for rent you cant claim human rights say you can't be kicked out, and squatting isnt legal. and in prison they are given food, so your how is not destroyed. its different but nothing inhumane.
as for not deserving the right to life, it isn't forfeited, but the rights to life of everyone else supercede it. when given no choice, it is not that his right to life is not valid, it is just less valid then whoever elses are threatened.
on subject:
If the case had been unsuccessful, then i may have agreed it was a waste of money, but if a judge believes the decision is warranted then that is good enough for me. because unlike him, but alike to everyone posting here, i don't know all the details. maybe i'm just one of the few that realise or can accept that.
Try reversing your own example and see if it still makes any sense.
(Basically, if you raise a boy to be a girl, does it still sound reasonable to continue to insist they are a girl when they themselves are quite certain they are a boy?)
I dont quite understand what you mean here? My hypothetical was based on being raised the opposite gender to ones sex? The opposite would have been a girl raised to be a boy and then when she figures it out wishing to remain a boy. Your example reads to me like a set of parents who really wanted a girl trying to tell their boy he is one and him not buying it. If he has a penis and thinks he is a boy then why woul we force him into dresses and such? I may just be missing your point please clarify.
Well, I think you just proved that it doesn't make sense.
But your original example is based on the same logic.
A boy, raised to be a girl... Is not a girl right?
Yet you've raised them to believe that they are... Yet they probably know that that doesn't seem right.
Unless the child has some access to a definite proof that they are, in fact, a boy, they'll have to take it on faith that they are a girl.
What I meant was, if you take the physical evidence out of the equation, your example no longer makes sense.
Trying to explain to someone what it's like to feel like this is bound to cause confusion. Anyone with a knowledge of human anatomy can tell that their body conforms to what you'd expect of 'male' or 'female' (in most cases), but it's hard to explain to anyone how that can feel wrong.
You cant just remove the physical evidence from the equation though, event at in internal level there are going to be male hormones and such. Hes gonna know he is a he, you cant remove gentitalia and then propose the same question because you have changed the rules. In an oversimplified way the sex you are born is assigned a gender with it. And in reality we do not have to take it on faith which we are, i am a man, i have man parts (wow im maturing i didnt even put a smiley), i like girls etc. If somebody tried to tell me i was a girl i could drop trou. Gender and sex may be two seperate things but they are intrinsically linked. The anomoly of transgenders is that in spite of physical evidence they believe they are the opposite gender. Btw i should point out im not heartless either it must be awful for them to go throughthis kind of confusion.
Epitome said:
CrystalShadow said:
That Transsexualism is classified as a mental disorder is a bit of a catch 22. It cannot be medically treated unless it is considered an illness of some sort, but considering it an illness makes it easier to stigmatize people because of it.
And, see my point above. It's easier to treat the physical aspect, and get a positive result, than it is to get any meaningful benefit from a psychological treatment of it.
This is the primary reason why it isn't considered cosmetic surgery too. Physical modification is the only known treatment with any kind of success rate. And that's not for lack of trying, because it's an approach that (as plenty of comments in this thread still demonstrate) is not one that was widely thought of as a good idea in the past.
But, 50-60 years of evidence show there are simply no alternative treatment methods that actually work.
And why does anyone else even care? Because somehow a lot of people have some kind of weird reaction to it. (men especially.)
Is a Transsexual woman meaningfully different from a real one? Well, there's only one area where I can really think of that being the case, but it's not exclusive to transsexuals, it's just pretty much a certainty when dealing with one...
But it is currently a cosmetic surgery, i mean in my country there us an issue about sending illegal immigrants home where they will face genital mutlation as per their customs. If in their culture its not considered mutilation just as sex changes are not here why dont we send them home? My point is that it may not be classified as mutilation here but it easily could have been and once was. It is a cosmetic change from either standpoint in that the primary reason we have male and females is for reproduction, ie if we were all born asexual this wouldnt be an issue. So until it can practically be achieved where you grant the other sexes reproductive capabilities to a trans person it can still be seen as a cosmetic change not in a true switch.
As to why people care it seems to me that our gender and sex are intrinsically tied for most of us, to come across somebody where there is a seperation is like when you come across an amputee and such. Part of you feels bad for them , part of you wonders why it happened and none of you wants to actully ask. (sorry for the crude comparison but i think you can understand where i am coming from). Also its unfair to tell a man he is wrong for not accepting a trans as he would a woman in all aspects. If say a man finds out his wife/gf is a trans has he not got a right to be angry. She has lied, he may have wanted children and at teh extreme he may not have wanted anything to do with a post-op dude.
Sorry, but cosmetic isn't so simple to define. The reason for a procedure has as much bearing as the procedure itself, when it comes to what is, and is not merely defined by the nature of the procedure itself.
And yes, reproduction is the primary reason we have male and female. But if that were the only reason, then a lot of cultural issues would be non-existent. It's difficult to consider something a cosmetic procedure when it has such wide-ranging consequences on how a person is treated by others. (and I mean that without considering any specific prejudices against transsexuals as additional factors)
Now, with regard to acceptance, we face a more general problem of relationships, namely, trust.
Lying to another person is bound to cause problems, regardless of what it is.
Would it make the situation any less bad if a 'real' woman had lied about being infertile?
No. Lack of honesty is always going to be a problem.
But, it's not something that can be changed. Medical technology could advance to the point where the reproduction thing becomes a non-issue. But that still wouldn't do anything for the consequences of people feeling 'lied' to.
I don't begrudge a man being angry at that. But that doesn't mean I can't be equally angry about a reaction like that. And unfortunately, it's not a matter of if, but of when.
Do you tell someone right away? Or do you wait? It's one of those things...
Well cosmetic may not be so easy to define but we dont have to transform its meaning either. Women who get breast implants because they feel their bodies are not right are still getting cosmetic surgery. Even returning a burn victims skin to normal is considered "cosmetic" (i saw your other comment) http://www.cosmeticsandsurgery.com/for_burn_victi.asp yes it is a treatment but is no less cosmetic in nature. Why should this treatment be defined as anything other than cosmetic when it dos not change the nature of the persons body only its appearence?
When? You cant keep something like that from somebody?There are plenty of men out there who would consider post op women to be mutilated men. If you wait till after sex then they may feel violated or even raped at an extreme. the fact that you consider these mens opinion to be wrong does not make their feelings any less valid than you refusing to accept their view on the matter Trust is an issue but its beyond that , if we keep it from a purely definition stance, The you are dressing up men as women and letting them go out and try and form relationships with other men. Do the men here not have some sort of claim to feeling abused?
Epitome said:
CrystalShadow said:
English law (which incedentally, is weaker than some laws in Neighbouring European countries), views a post-op transsexual as being legally equivalent to the chosen gender in all but a handful of situations. (Some of the few exceptions have to do with laws specifically relating to physical issues, like child-birth, and sporting competitions where there might otherwise be an obvious performance difference.)
You can't make a blanket statement about what a Transsexual is unless you can make a definite statement about what it means to be male or female.
And trust me, you can't.
You may think you can, but you're wrong.
Every conceivable definition, right down to basic genetics (such as the presence or absense of a Y chromosome.) has viable counter-arguments.
To be blunt, Deviding the whole population strictly into male and female is a gross oversimplification of reality.
Enough borderline cases of various types exist to show that nature simply isn't that neat, and it's only our own incessant need to try and classify everything into neat categories that causes us to ignore this fact.
That, and it's so deeply ingrained in our biological reactions, that the very first judgement you make about any person you meet is wether they are male or female.
Those of you that feel like that can argue as loudly as you like that a Male to female Transsexual is actually still a man,
And I can shout just as loudly that your opinion is nonsense, (and hit you over the head with reams of medical studies to boot.)
In the end though, arguing won't get me anywhere with people so close-minded and rigid about such things.
And as for the person in prison? Meh. They're in very serious trouble regardless of which prison system they end up in.
I'm not going to try and shout louder than you, but i have seen medical studes that blame tran-sexuality on man made pollutants making their way into the mothers system and being mistaken for hormones by her endocrine system leading to a number of false signals being sent to the foetus during development. Similar arguements exist for homosexuality and bi-sexuality aswell but you dare mention these medical studies to tehir repective communities and you can expect a bashing for not being sensitive and calling them mutations.
There has to be a certan level of open-minded ness on both sides for the debate to continue, but what you will often get is the trans,homo,bi groups refuting your evidence with "you cant tell me how i feel is wrong" and such. Imagine for a second that i showed you definitive proof that these feelings were caused by pollutants in the system at birth would you then be willing to accept that trans,homos and bis were wrong to feel the way they do?
Unfortunately, that's a Red Herring argument really.
Wrong or not, and whatever the cause, we have to live with the consequences.
In fact, if you consider it a 'birth defect', (which such evidence would imply), then it only strengthens the argument.
You'll find homosexuals view such 'evidence' a little differently because their situation is as simple as a choice. Sure, you may not literally be able to choose who you're attracted to, but it still remains true that there is no physical problem.
A gay man is a man that likes other men. They either admit to it, or they don't.
Transsexuals have it a little more difficult, because the problem is one of self-identity.
Your body and your mind disagree on what you are.
Regardless of the cause, there's only 2 possible solutions:
1. Convince the mind to accept the body it's in.
2. Change the body to match what the mind expects.
60+ years of medical history in trying to treat the problem, show that option 1 doesn't work. That leaves option 2...
The only proof of significance, is wether this is a 'choice', or something 'fixed', (regardless of how it got that way).
And the difference between those two forms of proof determine how probable it is that treatment option no. 1 is viable or not.
Take the counterpoint "you cant tell me how i feel is wrong" : This counter exists for one very simple reason. If you tell someone what they feel is wrong, what you are saying is that they can control it. You are implying (wether you intend to or not), that they have a choice in the matter, when they are quite sure that they do not.
If you're a 'normal' person, this argument still applies, but it's easier to justify.
Let's say you were born male, and feel perfectly fine about it.
Now I tell you it's 'wrong' to be a man.
Is that justifiable? How about if I provide evidence that being a man technically makes you a form of mutated woman? (that's true, by the way, from a certain perspective.)
That's an interesting fact, but how does it prove there's anything wrong with being a man?
More to the point, you had no choice whatsoever in being born a man, so how can I say it's 'wrong' without being grossly unfair?
Ultimately, that's the issue at stake. It's much harder to show, because the changes are mental, and thus have no easily identifiable physical characteristics...
But it's a matter of choice here. Do we get to choose to feel like our body is the wrong one, any more than we actually get to choose what our body is in the first place?
I am aware that all foetus ar born female and a few weeks in if the go ahead is given the endocrine system gets to work about making a male. Your talking about treatment that while it may make them "feel" more like their assumed gender, it does not "change" their gender. At some level you are just "tricking" their mind into accepting. But is that really healthy? If as you say we cannot draw a distinct line betwen the genders, is it responsible to allow poeple to bounce back and forth accross the two?
Ugh. It's not a cosmetic procedure. It just isn't (directly) life-threatening.
Treating a burn victim's scar tissue isn't considered a cosmetic procedure either, even though the actual procedure is the same as used in several purely cosmetic operations.
Aside from which, there are multiple issues here. The legal challenge was about being allowed to have treatment in prison, as well as being moved.
People that talk about it being 'cosmetic', really don't have much of a sense of how badly this affects people, or the reality of why this kind of treatment is used at all, when it would seem on the surface to be a mental disorder, and thus, theoretically, treatable using psychological treatment. (never mind that treatments for psychological problems are all that effective at all.)
Physical alteration is the most effective available treatment by a significant margin, for a problem that has serious consequences for a person's mental health.
Given the social stigma (as evidenced in this thread alone), the fact that surgery can have a positive outcome at all suggests the situation for those left without recourse to it must be pretty bleak.
> serving an esthetic rather than a useful purpose; "cosmetic fenders on cars"; "the buildings were utilitarian rather than decorative"
> a toiletry designed to beautify the body
> serving an aesthetic purpose in beautifying the body; "cosmetic surgery"; "enhansive makeup"
It is not correcting an injury or birth defect, it is to change his appearance making it cosmetic. Treating scar tissue is cosmetic, it just happens to be correcting damage caused by trauma.
I have no issue with him changing his gender, its the convicted rapist part that is the issue. Upon release (he will get released at some point), as a woman, he would be using public toilets with other women, using womens changing rooms etc. and hes a sexual predator. If anything looking like a woman will make women underestimate his risk. This is without talk about risks of putting him in an all female prison.
If someone else wants it done all power to them. I can't help but think there are better uses for NHS funds, although I've not looked into it I'm assuming he is not paying for it as he claimed Legal aid for the court case and he's currently out of work.
Gone from ignorent fucker to nice repectable guy, not bad
Your still mistaking my position though. I am willing to accept trans no problem, if you want to attach a penis ill call you sir and piss next to you in the urinals (no peeking thought thats still wierd). Its the willingness to ACCOMODATE the (in my mind) unreasonable requests of trans. Take this guy the discussion started about. He is abusing the rights and wishes of trans in order to secure a transfer of prison, but he is still a murderer and an attempted rapist. People are bending over backwards to accomdate this excuse of a human at a great cost to the taxpayer. That 100k should have gone to a hospital. You cannot let gender philosophy overshadow everything else about a person.
The gay adoption thing is a fundamentaly flawed arguement, many crappy parents are allowed adopt, and foster care can be traumatic for a child it does seem unfair that a perfectly good home would go to waste because of intolerance. But they should not be allowed children because they are gay, i know of a few gays who support adoption but would be awful awful parents. Deny them and you can bet they will blame the being gay discrimination on it.
I agree with that though. But I am talking about trans in general. I dont think we should pay for a criminal's operations. Certainly good people are not getting public funding for THEIRS.
So you think just BAD couples should not be allowed to adopt, which I agree with, but you seem to attach gay to bad. Dont want bad gay couples to blame ignorance, then dont let them, but if you dont let good gay couples adopt, then it IS ignorance and they can blame it easily then. Yes, I understand that some bad people hide behind civil rights, but I dont think that should be allowed, but you cant seperate them from those actually being put down for just being different unless you make them equal and TREAT them equal.
I agree with that though. But I am talking about trans in general. I dont think we should pay for a criminal's operations. Certainly good people are not getting public funding for THEIRS.
So you think just BAD couples should not be allowed to adopt, which I agree with, but you seem to attach gay to bad. Dont want bad gay couples to blame ignorance, then dont let them, but if you dont let good gay couples adopt, then it IS ignorance and they can blame it easily then. Yes, I understand that some bad people hide behind civil rights, but I dont think that should be allowed, but you cant seperate them from those actually being put down for just being different unless you make them equal and TREAT them equal.
I think you may be slighty mistaken here, as far as i can tell the state is not paying for his op? He is unemployed(incarcerated) and therefore eligible for legal aid. The 80k figure is derived from the expense of keeping him in isolation in a womans prison while he still retains his male genitalia, it may also include the legal fees involved in dealing with this trial. What this is is a trans saying im a woman, inside at least and i should be in a womans prison. Now the state has to fork over mad amounts of taxpayer money to isolate him because while recognising him as a woman he is physically a man. This an is a murderer and an attempted rapist, why should he be allowed this kind of special treatment, the point of prison is to deny certain rights? Perhaps even ones of a gender philosphy nature.
Why on earth would I attach "gay" to "bad"? Im not that bad a human being lol gay people are no more or less bad than their indiviual characteristics. No while i may not wholeheartedly support the gay adoption as it still runs counter-intuitive i can see the validity to them adopting. better for a child to have a good home with gay parents than a bunch of shitty foster homes is my thinking. But if you asked me if there were two perfectly acceptable couples and one were gay and one were straight, i would advocate the child going with the straight couple. Intolerant maybe but at least im a step in the right direction.
Try reversing your own example and see if it still makes any sense.
(Basically, if you raise a boy to be a girl, does it still sound reasonable to continue to insist they are a girl when they themselves are quite certain they are a boy?)
I dont quite understand what you mean here? My hypothetical was based on being raised the opposite gender to ones sex? The opposite would have been a girl raised to be a boy and then when she figures it out wishing to remain a boy. Your example reads to me like a set of parents who really wanted a girl trying to tell their boy he is one and him not buying it. If he has a penis and thinks he is a boy then why woul we force him into dresses and such? I may just be missing your point please clarify.
Well, I think you just proved that it doesn't make sense.
But your original example is based on the same logic.
A boy, raised to be a girl... Is not a girl right?
Yet you've raised them to believe that they are... Yet they probably know that that doesn't seem right.
Unless the child has some access to a definite proof that they are, in fact, a boy, they'll have to take it on faith that they are a girl.
What I meant was, if you take the physical evidence out of the equation, your example no longer makes sense.
Trying to explain to someone what it's like to feel like this is bound to cause confusion. Anyone with a knowledge of human anatomy can tell that their body conforms to what you'd expect of 'male' or 'female' (in most cases), but it's hard to explain to anyone how that can feel wrong.
You cant just remove the physical evidence from the equation though, event at in internal level there are going to be male hormones and such. Hes gonna know he is a he, you cant remove gentitalia and then propose the same question because you have changed the rules. In an oversimplified way the sex you are born is assigned a gender with it. And in reality we do not have to take it on faith which we are, i am a man, i have man parts (wow im maturing i didnt even put a smiley), i like girls etc. If somebody tried to tell me i was a girl i could drop trou. Gender and sex may be two seperate things but they are intrinsically linked. The anomoly of transgenders is that in spite of physical evidence they believe they are the opposite gender. Btw i should point out im not heartless either it must be awful for them to go throughthis kind of confusion.
Epitome said:
CrystalShadow said:
That Transsexualism is classified as a mental disorder is a bit of a catch 22. It cannot be medically treated unless it is considered an illness of some sort, but considering it an illness makes it easier to stigmatize people because of it.
And, see my point above. It's easier to treat the physical aspect, and get a positive result, than it is to get any meaningful benefit from a psychological treatment of it.
This is the primary reason why it isn't considered cosmetic surgery too. Physical modification is the only known treatment with any kind of success rate. And that's not for lack of trying, because it's an approach that (as plenty of comments in this thread still demonstrate) is not one that was widely thought of as a good idea in the past.
But, 50-60 years of evidence show there are simply no alternative treatment methods that actually work.
And why does anyone else even care? Because somehow a lot of people have some kind of weird reaction to it. (men especially.)
Is a Transsexual woman meaningfully different from a real one? Well, there's only one area where I can really think of that being the case, but it's not exclusive to transsexuals, it's just pretty much a certainty when dealing with one...
But it is currently a cosmetic surgery, i mean in my country there us an issue about sending illegal immigrants home where they will face genital mutlation as per their customs. If in their culture its not considered mutilation just as sex changes are not here why dont we send them home? My point is that it may not be classified as mutilation here but it easily could have been and once was. It is a cosmetic change from either standpoint in that the primary reason we have male and females is for reproduction, ie if we were all born asexual this wouldnt be an issue. So until it can practically be achieved where you grant the other sexes reproductive capabilities to a trans person it can still be seen as a cosmetic change not in a true switch.
As to why people care it seems to me that our gender and sex are intrinsically tied for most of us, to come across somebody where there is a seperation is like when you come across an amputee and such. Part of you feels bad for them , part of you wonders why it happened and none of you wants to actully ask. (sorry for the crude comparison but i think you can understand where i am coming from). Also its unfair to tell a man he is wrong for not accepting a trans as he would a woman in all aspects. If say a man finds out his wife/gf is a trans has he not got a right to be angry. She has lied, he may have wanted children and at teh extreme he may not have wanted anything to do with a post-op dude.
Sorry, but cosmetic isn't so simple to define. The reason for a procedure has as much bearing as the procedure itself, when it comes to what is, and is not merely defined by the nature of the procedure itself.
And yes, reproduction is the primary reason we have male and female. But if that were the only reason, then a lot of cultural issues would be non-existent. It's difficult to consider something a cosmetic procedure when it has such wide-ranging consequences on how a person is treated by others. (and I mean that without considering any specific prejudices against transsexuals as additional factors)
Now, with regard to acceptance, we face a more general problem of relationships, namely, trust.
Lying to another person is bound to cause problems, regardless of what it is.
Would it make the situation any less bad if a 'real' woman had lied about being infertile?
No. Lack of honesty is always going to be a problem.
But, it's not something that can be changed. Medical technology could advance to the point where the reproduction thing becomes a non-issue. But that still wouldn't do anything for the consequences of people feeling 'lied' to.
I don't begrudge a man being angry at that. But that doesn't mean I can't be equally angry about a reaction like that. And unfortunately, it's not a matter of if, but of when.
Do you tell someone right away? Or do you wait? It's one of those things...
Well cosmetic may not be so easy to define but we dont have to transform its meaning either. Women who get breast implants because they feel their bodies are not right are still getting cosmetic surgery. Even returning a burn victims skin to normal is considered "cosmetic" (i saw your other comment) http://www.cosmeticsandsurgery.com/for_burn_victi.asp yes it is a treatment but is no less cosmetic in nature. Why should this treatment be defined as anything other than cosmetic when it dos not change the nature of the persons body only its appearence?
When? You cant keep something like that from somebody?There are plenty of men out there who would consider post op women to be mutilated men. If you wait till after sex then they may feel violated or even raped at an extreme. the fact that you consider these mens opinion to be wrong does not make their feelings any less valid than you refusing to accept their view on the matter Trust is an issue but its beyond that , if we keep it from a purely definition stance, The you are dressing up men as women and letting them go out and try and form relationships with other men. Do the men here not have some sort of claim to feeling abused?
This is a one-sided argument as much as saying it isn't hurtful to the transsexual to have to deal with this perspective.
Obviously you can keep it from somebody... But you can keep a lot of things hidden from people.
Hence, trust. If you don't trust your partner enough to tell them the truth, then I would expect problems regardless of what it is you're hiding from them.
On the other hand, you continue to insist that it's a valid viewpoint to consider someone like this to be a 'man dressed as a woman'.
How far does the physical nature of a person have to change before you'd drop an argument along these lines?
The problem I have with defining a post-op transsexual as a man is that in doing so, you are using an abstract concept to over-rule a practical reality.
A post-op transsexual woman, is physically and mentally, closer to being a woman than they are to being a man in most practical regards.
To argue otherwise is to hold a very arbitrary definition.
It's entirely accurate to say they used to be men, but arguing that they are still men is arguing that some entirely arbitrary and abstract notion over-rides reality.
Using the same line of reasoning, I can argue that most of the world's population are paedophiles, because the people they've had sex with used to be children at some point in the past.
You can't argue that an adult is a child by virtue of the fact that they used to be one, so why can you argue that a post-op transsexual woman is a man when most of the physical and mental evidence puts them closer to being a woman than being a man?
What exactly are you using to define things if you can hold a perspective like this?
You're pre-supposing an immutable definition of sex and gender entirely fixed at birth, that cannot possibly be changed under any circumstances, no matter how ridiculous it becomes.
Let's hypothesize here, and say we have a 'magic' device that enacts a perfect change. In other words, there's no evidence of any kind to imply that they're anything other than they appear to be.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you'd still argue that how they were born over-rules anything else, regardless of the practical reality of their day-to-day lives, or any available physical evidence...
If you want to be pedantic, a transsexual is no longer male or female at all, based on physical evidence, the only truly logical conclusion would be to say they are some form of hybrid, or inbetween state.
But that's even harder for people to deal with than arguing that a man who changes their body is now a woman.
(try this video to see what happens when you get the definition at birth wrong: http://current.com/items/89405000_im-80-girl-20-boy.htm)
Epitome said:
CrystalShadow said:
English law (which incedentally, is weaker than some laws in Neighbouring European countries), views a post-op transsexual as being legally equivalent to the chosen gender in all but a handful of situations. (Some of the few exceptions have to do with laws specifically relating to physical issues, like child-birth, and sporting competitions where there might otherwise be an obvious performance difference.)
You can't make a blanket statement about what a Transsexual is unless you can make a definite statement about what it means to be male or female.
And trust me, you can't.
You may think you can, but you're wrong.
Every conceivable definition, right down to basic genetics (such as the presence or absense of a Y chromosome.) has viable counter-arguments.
To be blunt, Deviding the whole population strictly into male and female is a gross oversimplification of reality.
Enough borderline cases of various types exist to show that nature simply isn't that neat, and it's only our own incessant need to try and classify everything into neat categories that causes us to ignore this fact.
That, and it's so deeply ingrained in our biological reactions, that the very first judgement you make about any person you meet is wether they are male or female.
Those of you that feel like that can argue as loudly as you like that a Male to female Transsexual is actually still a man,
And I can shout just as loudly that your opinion is nonsense, (and hit you over the head with reams of medical studies to boot.)
In the end though, arguing won't get me anywhere with people so close-minded and rigid about such things.
And as for the person in prison? Meh. They're in very serious trouble regardless of which prison system they end up in.
I'm not going to try and shout louder than you, but i have seen medical studes that blame tran-sexuality on man made pollutants making their way into the mothers system and being mistaken for hormones by her endocrine system leading to a number of false signals being sent to the foetus during development. Similar arguements exist for homosexuality and bi-sexuality aswell but you dare mention these medical studies to tehir repective communities and you can expect a bashing for not being sensitive and calling them mutations.
There has to be a certan level of open-minded ness on both sides for the debate to continue, but what you will often get is the trans,homo,bi groups refuting your evidence with "you cant tell me how i feel is wrong" and such. Imagine for a second that i showed you definitive proof that these feelings were caused by pollutants in the system at birth would you then be willing to accept that trans,homos and bis were wrong to feel the way they do?
Unfortunately, that's a Red Herring argument really.
Wrong or not, and whatever the cause, we have to live with the consequences.
In fact, if you consider it a 'birth defect', (which such evidence would imply), then it only strengthens the argument.
You'll find homosexuals view such 'evidence' a little differently because their situation is as simple as a choice. Sure, you may not literally be able to choose who you're attracted to, but it still remains true that there is no physical problem.
A gay man is a man that likes other men. They either admit to it, or they don't.
Transsexuals have it a little more difficult, because the problem is one of self-identity.
Your body and your mind disagree on what you are.
Regardless of the cause, there's only 2 possible solutions:
1. Convince the mind to accept the body it's in.
2. Change the body to match what the mind expects.
60+ years of medical history in trying to treat the problem, show that option 1 doesn't work. That leaves option 2...
The only proof of significance, is wether this is a 'choice', or something 'fixed', (regardless of how it got that way).
And the difference between those two forms of proof determine how probable it is that treatment option no. 1 is viable or not.
Take the counterpoint "you cant tell me how i feel is wrong" : This counter exists for one very simple reason. If you tell someone what they feel is wrong, what you are saying is that they can control it. You are implying (wether you intend to or not), that they have a choice in the matter, when they are quite sure that they do not.
If you're a 'normal' person, this argument still applies, but it's easier to justify.
Let's say you were born male, and feel perfectly fine about it.
Now I tell you it's 'wrong' to be a man.
Is that justifiable? How about if I provide evidence that being a man technically makes you a form of mutated woman? (that's true, by the way, from a certain perspective.)
That's an interesting fact, but how does it prove there's anything wrong with being a man?
More to the point, you had no choice whatsoever in being born a man, so how can I say it's 'wrong' without being grossly unfair?
Ultimately, that's the issue at stake. It's much harder to show, because the changes are mental, and thus have no easily identifiable physical characteristics...
But it's a matter of choice here. Do we get to choose to feel like our body is the wrong one, any more than we actually get to choose what our body is in the first place?
I am aware that all foetus ar born female and a few weeks in if the go ahead is given the endocrine system gets to work about making a male. Your talking about treatment that while it may make them "feel" more like their assumed gender, it does not "change" their gender. At some level you are just "tricking" their mind into accepting. But is that really healthy? If as you say we cannot draw a distinct line betwen the genders, is it responsible to allow poeple to bounce back and forth accross the two?
Is it responsible to arbitrarily force people to conform to one thing?
And I'd argue that your definition of 'change' is fairly arbitrary.
The change involved in gender reassignment is large enough for the end result to be closer to the intended gender than the original one.
Arguing that this is a superficial change implies that the physical aspects of gender are equally superficial.
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck, and looks like a duck, clearly it must be a rooster.
Your logic here is only plausible if you hold on to the entirely arbitrary notion that whatever is written on a birth certificate is the only possible truth.
bjj hero said:
CrystalShadow said:
Ugh. It's not a cosmetic procedure. It just isn't (directly) life-threatening.
Treating a burn victim's scar tissue isn't considered a cosmetic procedure either, even though the actual procedure is the same as used in several purely cosmetic operations.
Aside from which, there are multiple issues here. The legal challenge was about being allowed to have treatment in prison, as well as being moved.
People that talk about it being 'cosmetic', really don't have much of a sense of how badly this affects people, or the reality of why this kind of treatment is used at all, when it would seem on the surface to be a mental disorder, and thus, theoretically, treatable using psychological treatment. (never mind that treatments for psychological problems are all that effective at all.)
Physical alteration is the most effective available treatment by a significant margin, for a problem that has serious consequences for a person's mental health.
Given the social stigma (as evidenced in this thread alone), the fact that surgery can have a positive outcome at all suggests the situation for those left without recourse to it must be pretty bleak.
> serving an esthetic rather than a useful purpose; "cosmetic fenders on cars"; "the buildings were utilitarian rather than decorative"
> a toiletry designed to beautify the body
> serving an aesthetic purpose in beautifying the body; "cosmetic surgery"; "enhansive makeup"
It is not correcting an injury or birth defect, it is to change his appearance making it cosmetic. Treating scar tissue is cosmetic, it just happens to be correcting damage caused by trauma.
I have no issue with him changing his gender, its the convicted rapist part that is the issue. Upon release (he will get released at some point), as a woman, he would be using public toilets with other women, using womens changing rooms etc. and hes a sexual predator. If anything looking like a woman will make women underestimate his risk. This is without talk about risks of putting him in an all female prison.
If someone else wants it done all power to them. I can't help but think there are better uses for NHS funds, although I've not looked into it I'm assuming he is not paying for it as he claimed Legal aid for the court case and he's currently out of work.
How does the above definition prove it's a cosmetic procedure?
And define what constitutes a birth defect? - It's surprisingly easy to argue that a mismatch between mind and body that, according to a reasonable degree of evidence has been present since birth, constitutes a 'birth defect'. Wether you want to argue they have a defective body, or a defective mind, it doesn't make all that much difference, since any attempt to treat it would be forced to take the most practical route possible.
As for it being cosmetic in the sense that it only changes appearance, think about that a bit more carefully...
The most substantial physical changes are brought about by hormone treatment, which is non-surgical.
The surgical procedure is generally to alter the genitals. You might consider this a purely cosmetic change, but think about it from a functional perspective, and you might reconsider:
If it's purely cosmetic, then by definition it's only real consequence is a change in appearance.
A nose job, or breast implants, have little functional impact on anything. Within certain limits, the size and shape of your nose changes nothing.
But, altering a person's genitals, would have a serious impact on any sexual acts they performed.
If you go from having a penis, to having a vagina, it's rather difficult to consider that a cosmetic change unless you're never, under any circumstances going to have sex with anyone...
So explain to me how that can be considered an entirely cosmetic change?
Try reversing your own example and see if it still makes any sense.
(Basically, if you raise a boy to be a girl, does it still sound reasonable to continue to insist they are a girl when they themselves are quite certain they are a boy?)
I dont quite understand what you mean here? My hypothetical was based on being raised the opposite gender to ones sex? The opposite would have been a girl raised to be a boy and then when she figures it out wishing to remain a boy. Your example reads to me like a set of parents who really wanted a girl trying to tell their boy he is one and him not buying it. If he has a penis and thinks he is a boy then why woul we force him into dresses and such? I may just be missing your point please clarify.
Well, I think you just proved that it doesn't make sense.
But your original example is based on the same logic.
A boy, raised to be a girl... Is not a girl right?
Yet you've raised them to believe that they are... Yet they probably know that that doesn't seem right.
Unless the child has some access to a definite proof that they are, in fact, a boy, they'll have to take it on faith that they are a girl.
What I meant was, if you take the physical evidence out of the equation, your example no longer makes sense.
Trying to explain to someone what it's like to feel like this is bound to cause confusion. Anyone with a knowledge of human anatomy can tell that their body conforms to what you'd expect of 'male' or 'female' (in most cases), but it's hard to explain to anyone how that can feel wrong.
You cant just remove the physical evidence from the equation though, event at in internal level there are going to be male hormones and such. Hes gonna know he is a he, you cant remove gentitalia and then propose the same question because you have changed the rules. In an oversimplified way the sex you are born is assigned a gender with it. And in reality we do not have to take it on faith which we are, i am a man, i have man parts (wow im maturing i didnt even put a smiley), i like girls etc. If somebody tried to tell me i was a girl i could drop trou. Gender and sex may be two seperate things but they are intrinsically linked. The anomoly of transgenders is that in spite of physical evidence they believe they are the opposite gender. Btw i should point out im not heartless either it must be awful for them to go throughthis kind of confusion.
Epitome said:
CrystalShadow said:
That Transsexualism is classified as a mental disorder is a bit of a catch 22. It cannot be medically treated unless it is considered an illness of some sort, but considering it an illness makes it easier to stigmatize people because of it.
And, see my point above. It's easier to treat the physical aspect, and get a positive result, than it is to get any meaningful benefit from a psychological treatment of it.
This is the primary reason why it isn't considered cosmetic surgery too. Physical modification is the only known treatment with any kind of success rate. And that's not for lack of trying, because it's an approach that (as plenty of comments in this thread still demonstrate) is not one that was widely thought of as a good idea in the past.
But, 50-60 years of evidence show there are simply no alternative treatment methods that actually work.
And why does anyone else even care? Because somehow a lot of people have some kind of weird reaction to it. (men especially.)
Is a Transsexual woman meaningfully different from a real one? Well, there's only one area where I can really think of that being the case, but it's not exclusive to transsexuals, it's just pretty much a certainty when dealing with one...
But it is currently a cosmetic surgery, i mean in my country there us an issue about sending illegal immigrants home where they will face genital mutlation as per their customs. If in their culture its not considered mutilation just as sex changes are not here why dont we send them home? My point is that it may not be classified as mutilation here but it easily could have been and once was. It is a cosmetic change from either standpoint in that the primary reason we have male and females is for reproduction, ie if we were all born asexual this wouldnt be an issue. So until it can practically be achieved where you grant the other sexes reproductive capabilities to a trans person it can still be seen as a cosmetic change not in a true switch.
As to why people care it seems to me that our gender and sex are intrinsically tied for most of us, to come across somebody where there is a seperation is like when you come across an amputee and such. Part of you feels bad for them , part of you wonders why it happened and none of you wants to actully ask. (sorry for the crude comparison but i think you can understand where i am coming from). Also its unfair to tell a man he is wrong for not accepting a trans as he would a woman in all aspects. If say a man finds out his wife/gf is a trans has he not got a right to be angry. She has lied, he may have wanted children and at teh extreme he may not have wanted anything to do with a post-op dude.
Sorry, but cosmetic isn't so simple to define. The reason for a procedure has as much bearing as the procedure itself, when it comes to what is, and is not merely defined by the nature of the procedure itself.
And yes, reproduction is the primary reason we have male and female. But if that were the only reason, then a lot of cultural issues would be non-existent. It's difficult to consider something a cosmetic procedure when it has such wide-ranging consequences on how a person is treated by others. (and I mean that without considering any specific prejudices against transsexuals as additional factors)
Now, with regard to acceptance, we face a more general problem of relationships, namely, trust.
Lying to another person is bound to cause problems, regardless of what it is.
Would it make the situation any less bad if a 'real' woman had lied about being infertile?
No. Lack of honesty is always going to be a problem.
But, it's not something that can be changed. Medical technology could advance to the point where the reproduction thing becomes a non-issue. But that still wouldn't do anything for the consequences of people feeling 'lied' to.
I don't begrudge a man being angry at that. But that doesn't mean I can't be equally angry about a reaction like that. And unfortunately, it's not a matter of if, but of when.
Do you tell someone right away? Or do you wait? It's one of those things...
Well cosmetic may not be so easy to define but we dont have to transform its meaning either. Women who get breast implants because they feel their bodies are not right are still getting cosmetic surgery. Even returning a burn victims skin to normal is considered "cosmetic" (i saw your other comment) http://www.cosmeticsandsurgery.com/for_burn_victi.asp yes it is a treatment but is no less cosmetic in nature. Why should this treatment be defined as anything other than cosmetic when it dos not change the nature of the persons body only its appearence?
When? You cant keep something like that from somebody?There are plenty of men out there who would consider post op women to be mutilated men. If you wait till after sex then they may feel violated or even raped at an extreme. the fact that you consider these mens opinion to be wrong does not make their feelings any less valid than you refusing to accept their view on the matter Trust is an issue but its beyond that , if we keep it from a purely definition stance, The you are dressing up men as women and letting them go out and try and form relationships with other men. Do the men here not have some sort of claim to feeling abused?
This is a one-sided argument as much as saying it isn't hurtful to the transsexual to have to deal with this perspective.
Obviously you can keep it from somebody... But you can keep a lot of things hidden from people.
Hence, trust. If you don't trust your partner enough to tell them the truth, then I would expect problems regardless of what it is you're hiding from them.
On the other hand, you continue to insist that it's a valid viewpoint to consider someone like this to be a 'man dressed as a woman'.
How far does the physical nature of a person have to change before you'd drop an argument along these lines?
The problem I have with defining a post-op transsexual as a man is that in doing so, you are using an abstract concept to over-rule a practical reality.
A post-op transsexual woman, is physically and mentally, closer to being a woman than they are to being a man in most practical regards.
To argue otherwise is to hold a very arbitrary definition.
It's entirely accurate to say they used to be men, but arguing that they are still men is arguing that some entirely arbitrary and abstract notion over-rides reality.
Using the same line of reasoning, I can argue that most of the world's population are paedophiles, because the people they've had sex with used to be children at some point in the past.
You can't argue that an adult is a child by virtue of the fact that they used to be one, so why can you argue that a post-op transsexual woman is a man when most of the physical and mental evidence puts them closer to being a woman than being a man?
What exactly are you using to define things if you can hold a perspective like this?
You're pre-supposing an immutable definition of sex and gender entirely fixed at birth, that cannot possibly be changed under any circumstances, no matter how ridiculous it becomes.
Let's hypothesize here, and say we have a 'magic' device that enacts a perfect change. In other words, there's no evidence of any kind to imply that they're anything other than they appear to be.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you'd still argue that how they were born over-rules anything else, regardless of the practical reality of their day-to-day lives, or any available physical evidence...
If you want to be pedantic, a transsexual is no longer male or female at all, based on physical evidence, the only truly logical conclusion would be to say they are some form of hybrid, or inbetween state.
But that's even harder for people to deal with than arguing that a man who changes their body is now a woman.
(try this video to see what happens when you get the definition at birth wrong: http://current.com/items/89405000_im-80-girl-20-boy.htm)
Epitome said:
CrystalShadow said:
English law (which incedentally, is weaker than some laws in Neighbouring European countries), views a post-op transsexual as being legally equivalent to the chosen gender in all but a handful of situations. (Some of the few exceptions have to do with laws specifically relating to physical issues, like child-birth, and sporting competitions where there might otherwise be an obvious performance difference.)
You can't make a blanket statement about what a Transsexual is unless you can make a definite statement about what it means to be male or female.
And trust me, you can't.
You may think you can, but you're wrong.
Every conceivable definition, right down to basic genetics (such as the presence or absense of a Y chromosome.) has viable counter-arguments.
To be blunt, Deviding the whole population strictly into male and female is a gross oversimplification of reality.
Enough borderline cases of various types exist to show that nature simply isn't that neat, and it's only our own incessant need to try and classify everything into neat categories that causes us to ignore this fact.
That, and it's so deeply ingrained in our biological reactions, that the very first judgement you make about any person you meet is wether they are male or female.
Those of you that feel like that can argue as loudly as you like that a Male to female Transsexual is actually still a man,
And I can shout just as loudly that your opinion is nonsense, (and hit you over the head with reams of medical studies to boot.)
In the end though, arguing won't get me anywhere with people so close-minded and rigid about such things.
And as for the person in prison? Meh. They're in very serious trouble regardless of which prison system they end up in.
I'm not going to try and shout louder than you, but i have seen medical studes that blame tran-sexuality on man made pollutants making their way into the mothers system and being mistaken for hormones by her endocrine system leading to a number of false signals being sent to the foetus during development. Similar arguements exist for homosexuality and bi-sexuality aswell but you dare mention these medical studies to tehir repective communities and you can expect a bashing for not being sensitive and calling them mutations.
There has to be a certan level of open-minded ness on both sides for the debate to continue, but what you will often get is the trans,homo,bi groups refuting your evidence with "you cant tell me how i feel is wrong" and such. Imagine for a second that i showed you definitive proof that these feelings were caused by pollutants in the system at birth would you then be willing to accept that trans,homos and bis were wrong to feel the way they do?
Unfortunately, that's a Red Herring argument really.
Wrong or not, and whatever the cause, we have to live with the consequences.
In fact, if you consider it a 'birth defect', (which such evidence would imply), then it only strengthens the argument.
You'll find homosexuals view such 'evidence' a little differently because their situation is as simple as a choice. Sure, you may not literally be able to choose who you're attracted to, but it still remains true that there is no physical problem.
A gay man is a man that likes other men. They either admit to it, or they don't.
Transsexuals have it a little more difficult, because the problem is one of self-identity.
Your body and your mind disagree on what you are.
Regardless of the cause, there's only 2 possible solutions:
1. Convince the mind to accept the body it's in.
2. Change the body to match what the mind expects.
60+ years of medical history in trying to treat the problem, show that option 1 doesn't work. That leaves option 2...
The only proof of significance, is wether this is a 'choice', or something 'fixed', (regardless of how it got that way).
And the difference between those two forms of proof determine how probable it is that treatment option no. 1 is viable or not.
Take the counterpoint "you cant tell me how i feel is wrong" : This counter exists for one very simple reason. If you tell someone what they feel is wrong, what you are saying is that they can control it. You are implying (wether you intend to or not), that they have a choice in the matter, when they are quite sure that they do not.
If you're a 'normal' person, this argument still applies, but it's easier to justify.
Let's say you were born male, and feel perfectly fine about it.
Now I tell you it's 'wrong' to be a man.
Is that justifiable? How about if I provide evidence that being a man technically makes you a form of mutated woman? (that's true, by the way, from a certain perspective.)
That's an interesting fact, but how does it prove there's anything wrong with being a man?
More to the point, you had no choice whatsoever in being born a man, so how can I say it's 'wrong' without being grossly unfair?
Ultimately, that's the issue at stake. It's much harder to show, because the changes are mental, and thus have no easily identifiable physical characteristics...
But it's a matter of choice here. Do we get to choose to feel like our body is the wrong one, any more than we actually get to choose what our body is in the first place?
I am aware that all foetus ar born female and a few weeks in if the go ahead is given the endocrine system gets to work about making a male. Your talking about treatment that while it may make them "feel" more like their assumed gender, it does not "change" their gender. At some level you are just "tricking" their mind into accepting. But is that really healthy? If as you say we cannot draw a distinct line betwen the genders, is it responsible to allow poeple to bounce back and forth accross the two?
Is it responsible to arbitrarily force people to conform to one thing?
And I'd argue that your definition of 'change' is fairly arbitrary.
The change involved in gender reassignment is large enough for the end result to be closer to the intended gender than the original one.
Arguing that this is a superficial change implies that the physical aspects of gender are equally superficial.
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck, and looks like a duck, clearly it must be a rooster.
Your logic here is only plausible if you hold on to the entirely arbitrary notion that whatever is written on a birth certificate is the only possible truth.
bjj hero said:
CrystalShadow said:
Ugh. It's not a cosmetic procedure. It just isn't (directly) life-threatening.
Treating a burn victim's scar tissue isn't considered a cosmetic procedure either, even though the actual procedure is the same as used in several purely cosmetic operations.
Aside from which, there are multiple issues here. The legal challenge was about being allowed to have treatment in prison, as well as being moved.
People that talk about it being 'cosmetic', really don't have much of a sense of how badly this affects people, or the reality of why this kind of treatment is used at all, when it would seem on the surface to be a mental disorder, and thus, theoretically, treatable using psychological treatment. (never mind that treatments for psychological problems are all that effective at all.)
Physical alteration is the most effective available treatment by a significant margin, for a problem that has serious consequences for a person's mental health.
Given the social stigma (as evidenced in this thread alone), the fact that surgery can have a positive outcome at all suggests the situation for those left without recourse to it must be pretty bleak.
> serving an esthetic rather than a useful purpose; "cosmetic fenders on cars"; "the buildings were utilitarian rather than decorative"
> a toiletry designed to beautify the body
> serving an aesthetic purpose in beautifying the body; "cosmetic surgery"; "enhansive makeup"
It is not correcting an injury or birth defect, it is to change his appearance making it cosmetic. Treating scar tissue is cosmetic, it just happens to be correcting damage caused by trauma.
I have no issue with him changing his gender, its the convicted rapist part that is the issue. Upon release (he will get released at some point), as a woman, he would be using public toilets with other women, using womens changing rooms etc. and hes a sexual predator. If anything looking like a woman will make women underestimate his risk. This is without talk about risks of putting him in an all female prison.
If someone else wants it done all power to them. I can't help but think there are better uses for NHS funds, although I've not looked into it I'm assuming he is not paying for it as he claimed Legal aid for the court case and he's currently out of work.
How does the above definition prove it's a cosmetic procedure?
And define what constitutes a birth defect? - It's surprisingly easy to argue that a mismatch between mind and body that, according to a reasonable degree of evidence has been present since birth, constitutes a 'birth defect'. Wether you want to argue they have a defective body, or a defective mind, it doesn't make all that much difference, since any attempt to treat it would be forced to take the most practical route possible.
As for it being cosmetic in the sense that it only changes appearance, think about that a bit more carefully...
The most substantial physical changes are brought about by hormone treatment, which is non-surgical.
The surgical procedure is generally to alter the genitals. You might consider this a purely cosmetic change, but think about it from a functional perspective, and you might reconsider:
If it's purely cosmetic, then by definition it's only real consequence is a change in appearance.
A nose job, or breast implants, have little functional impact on anything. Within certain limits, the size and shape of your nose changes nothing.
But, altering a person's genitals, would have a serious impact on any sexual acts they performed.
If you go from having a penis, to having a vagina, it's rather difficult to consider that a cosmetic change unless you're never, under any circumstances going to have sex with anyone...
So explain to me how that can be considered an entirely cosmetic change?
Wow, you should use spoilers for this, if you don't know how pm me and I'll show you.
Firstly I believe its cosmetic, its an aesthetic change, a change to physical appearance. Surely this cannot be denied?
My second bit is that a birth defect is a congenital physical, a structural abnormality that causes problems, eg a cleft lip. Saying being a man is a birth defect gives 49% of the population the same birth defect. I don't except this, though you are within your rights to disagree.
By your definition a boob job is not cosmetic. It changes sensation, can alter the patients gait, creates/eases back pain and affects self esteem amongst other things.
I don't look down on people who have cosmetic procedures, its no skin off my nose and if it makes you happy then its peachy. I just feel there are better uses for public funding and this particular individual is a risk to women and caused plenty of harm to society. He can chase his op once he has served his sentence, completed all of his offence focused work and being closely supervised with clear restrictions on his movements and activities.
Try reversing your own example and see if it still makes any sense.
(Basically, if you raise a boy to be a girl, does it still sound reasonable to continue to insist they are a girl when they themselves are quite certain they are a boy?)
I dont quite understand what you mean here? My hypothetical was based on being raised the opposite gender to ones sex? The opposite would have been a girl raised to be a boy and then when she figures it out wishing to remain a boy. Your example reads to me like a set of parents who really wanted a girl trying to tell their boy he is one and him not buying it. If he has a penis and thinks he is a boy then why woul we force him into dresses and such? I may just be missing your point please clarify.
Well, I think you just proved that it doesn't make sense.
But your original example is based on the same logic.
A boy, raised to be a girl... Is not a girl right?
Yet you've raised them to believe that they are... Yet they probably know that that doesn't seem right.
Unless the child has some access to a definite proof that they are, in fact, a boy, they'll have to take it on faith that they are a girl.
What I meant was, if you take the physical evidence out of the equation, your example no longer makes sense.
Trying to explain to someone what it's like to feel like this is bound to cause confusion. Anyone with a knowledge of human anatomy can tell that their body conforms to what you'd expect of 'male' or 'female' (in most cases), but it's hard to explain to anyone how that can feel wrong.
You cant just remove the physical evidence from the equation though, event at in internal level there are going to be male hormones and such. Hes gonna know he is a he, you cant remove gentitalia and then propose the same question because you have changed the rules. In an oversimplified way the sex you are born is assigned a gender with it. And in reality we do not have to take it on faith which we are, i am a man, i have man parts (wow im maturing i didnt even put a smiley), i like girls etc. If somebody tried to tell me i was a girl i could drop trou. Gender and sex may be two seperate things but they are intrinsically linked. The anomoly of transgenders is that in spite of physical evidence they believe they are the opposite gender. Btw i should point out im not heartless either it must be awful for them to go throughthis kind of confusion.
Epitome said:
CrystalShadow said:
That Transsexualism is classified as a mental disorder is a bit of a catch 22. It cannot be medically treated unless it is considered an illness of some sort, but considering it an illness makes it easier to stigmatize people because of it.
And, see my point above. It's easier to treat the physical aspect, and get a positive result, than it is to get any meaningful benefit from a psychological treatment of it.
This is the primary reason why it isn't considered cosmetic surgery too. Physical modification is the only known treatment with any kind of success rate. And that's not for lack of trying, because it's an approach that (as plenty of comments in this thread still demonstrate) is not one that was widely thought of as a good idea in the past.
But, 50-60 years of evidence show there are simply no alternative treatment methods that actually work.
And why does anyone else even care? Because somehow a lot of people have some kind of weird reaction to it. (men especially.)
Is a Transsexual woman meaningfully different from a real one? Well, there's only one area where I can really think of that being the case, but it's not exclusive to transsexuals, it's just pretty much a certainty when dealing with one...
But it is currently a cosmetic surgery, i mean in my country there us an issue about sending illegal immigrants home where they will face genital mutlation as per their customs. If in their culture its not considered mutilation just as sex changes are not here why dont we send them home? My point is that it may not be classified as mutilation here but it easily could have been and once was. It is a cosmetic change from either standpoint in that the primary reason we have male and females is for reproduction, ie if we were all born asexual this wouldnt be an issue. So until it can practically be achieved where you grant the other sexes reproductive capabilities to a trans person it can still be seen as a cosmetic change not in a true switch.
As to why people care it seems to me that our gender and sex are intrinsically tied for most of us, to come across somebody where there is a seperation is like when you come across an amputee and such. Part of you feels bad for them , part of you wonders why it happened and none of you wants to actully ask. (sorry for the crude comparison but i think you can understand where i am coming from). Also its unfair to tell a man he is wrong for not accepting a trans as he would a woman in all aspects. If say a man finds out his wife/gf is a trans has he not got a right to be angry. She has lied, he may have wanted children and at teh extreme he may not have wanted anything to do with a post-op dude.
Sorry, but cosmetic isn't so simple to define. The reason for a procedure has as much bearing as the procedure itself, when it comes to what is, and is not merely defined by the nature of the procedure itself.
And yes, reproduction is the primary reason we have male and female. But if that were the only reason, then a lot of cultural issues would be non-existent. It's difficult to consider something a cosmetic procedure when it has such wide-ranging consequences on how a person is treated by others. (and I mean that without considering any specific prejudices against transsexuals as additional factors)
Now, with regard to acceptance, we face a more general problem of relationships, namely, trust.
Lying to another person is bound to cause problems, regardless of what it is.
Would it make the situation any less bad if a 'real' woman had lied about being infertile?
No. Lack of honesty is always going to be a problem.
But, it's not something that can be changed. Medical technology could advance to the point where the reproduction thing becomes a non-issue. But that still wouldn't do anything for the consequences of people feeling 'lied' to.
I don't begrudge a man being angry at that. But that doesn't mean I can't be equally angry about a reaction like that. And unfortunately, it's not a matter of if, but of when.
Do you tell someone right away? Or do you wait? It's one of those things...
Well cosmetic may not be so easy to define but we dont have to transform its meaning either. Women who get breast implants because they feel their bodies are not right are still getting cosmetic surgery. Even returning a burn victims skin to normal is considered "cosmetic" (i saw your other comment) http://www.cosmeticsandsurgery.com/for_burn_victi.asp yes it is a treatment but is no less cosmetic in nature. Why should this treatment be defined as anything other than cosmetic when it dos not change the nature of the persons body only its appearence?
When? You cant keep something like that from somebody?There are plenty of men out there who would consider post op women to be mutilated men. If you wait till after sex then they may feel violated or even raped at an extreme. the fact that you consider these mens opinion to be wrong does not make their feelings any less valid than you refusing to accept their view on the matter Trust is an issue but its beyond that , if we keep it from a purely definition stance, The you are dressing up men as women and letting them go out and try and form relationships with other men. Do the men here not have some sort of claim to feeling abused?
This is a one-sided argument as much as saying it isn't hurtful to the transsexual to have to deal with this perspective.
Obviously you can keep it from somebody... But you can keep a lot of things hidden from people.
Hence, trust. If you don't trust your partner enough to tell them the truth, then I would expect problems regardless of what it is you're hiding from them.
On the other hand, you continue to insist that it's a valid viewpoint to consider someone like this to be a 'man dressed as a woman'.
How far does the physical nature of a person have to change before you'd drop an argument along these lines?
The problem I have with defining a post-op transsexual as a man is that in doing so, you are using an abstract concept to over-rule a practical reality.
A post-op transsexual woman, is physically and mentally, closer to being a woman than they are to being a man in most practical regards.
To argue otherwise is to hold a very arbitrary definition.
It's entirely accurate to say they used to be men, but arguing that they are still men is arguing that some entirely arbitrary and abstract notion over-rides reality.
Using the same line of reasoning, I can argue that most of the world's population are paedophiles, because the people they've had sex with used to be children at some point in the past.
You can't argue that an adult is a child by virtue of the fact that they used to be one, so why can you argue that a post-op transsexual woman is a man when most of the physical and mental evidence puts them closer to being a woman than being a man?
What exactly are you using to define things if you can hold a perspective like this?
You're pre-supposing an immutable definition of sex and gender entirely fixed at birth, that cannot possibly be changed under any circumstances, no matter how ridiculous it becomes.
Let's hypothesize here, and say we have a 'magic' device that enacts a perfect change. In other words, there's no evidence of any kind to imply that they're anything other than they appear to be.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you'd still argue that how they were born over-rules anything else, regardless of the practical reality of their day-to-day lives, or any available physical evidence...
If you want to be pedantic, a transsexual is no longer male or female at all, based on physical evidence, the only truly logical conclusion would be to say they are some form of hybrid, or inbetween state.
But that's even harder for people to deal with than arguing that a man who changes their body is now a woman.
(try this video to see what happens when you get the definition at birth wrong: http://current.com/items/89405000_im-80-girl-20-boy.htm)
Epitome said:
CrystalShadow said:
English law (which incedentally, is weaker than some laws in Neighbouring European countries), views a post-op transsexual as being legally equivalent to the chosen gender in all but a handful of situations. (Some of the few exceptions have to do with laws specifically relating to physical issues, like child-birth, and sporting competitions where there might otherwise be an obvious performance difference.)
You can't make a blanket statement about what a Transsexual is unless you can make a definite statement about what it means to be male or female.
And trust me, you can't.
You may think you can, but you're wrong.
Every conceivable definition, right down to basic genetics (such as the presence or absense of a Y chromosome.) has viable counter-arguments.
To be blunt, Deviding the whole population strictly into male and female is a gross oversimplification of reality.
Enough borderline cases of various types exist to show that nature simply isn't that neat, and it's only our own incessant need to try and classify everything into neat categories that causes us to ignore this fact.
That, and it's so deeply ingrained in our biological reactions, that the very first judgement you make about any person you meet is wether they are male or female.
Those of you that feel like that can argue as loudly as you like that a Male to female Transsexual is actually still a man,
And I can shout just as loudly that your opinion is nonsense, (and hit you over the head with reams of medical studies to boot.)
In the end though, arguing won't get me anywhere with people so close-minded and rigid about such things.
And as for the person in prison? Meh. They're in very serious trouble regardless of which prison system they end up in.
I'm not going to try and shout louder than you, but i have seen medical studes that blame tran-sexuality on man made pollutants making their way into the mothers system and being mistaken for hormones by her endocrine system leading to a number of false signals being sent to the foetus during development. Similar arguements exist for homosexuality and bi-sexuality aswell but you dare mention these medical studies to tehir repective communities and you can expect a bashing for not being sensitive and calling them mutations.
There has to be a certan level of open-minded ness on both sides for the debate to continue, but what you will often get is the trans,homo,bi groups refuting your evidence with "you cant tell me how i feel is wrong" and such. Imagine for a second that i showed you definitive proof that these feelings were caused by pollutants in the system at birth would you then be willing to accept that trans,homos and bis were wrong to feel the way they do?
Unfortunately, that's a Red Herring argument really.
Wrong or not, and whatever the cause, we have to live with the consequences.
In fact, if you consider it a 'birth defect', (which such evidence would imply), then it only strengthens the argument.
You'll find homosexuals view such 'evidence' a little differently because their situation is as simple as a choice. Sure, you may not literally be able to choose who you're attracted to, but it still remains true that there is no physical problem.
A gay man is a man that likes other men. They either admit to it, or they don't.
Transsexuals have it a little more difficult, because the problem is one of self-identity.
Your body and your mind disagree on what you are.
Regardless of the cause, there's only 2 possible solutions:
1. Convince the mind to accept the body it's in.
2. Change the body to match what the mind expects.
60+ years of medical history in trying to treat the problem, show that option 1 doesn't work. That leaves option 2...
The only proof of significance, is wether this is a 'choice', or something 'fixed', (regardless of how it got that way).
And the difference between those two forms of proof determine how probable it is that treatment option no. 1 is viable or not.
Take the counterpoint "you cant tell me how i feel is wrong" : This counter exists for one very simple reason. If you tell someone what they feel is wrong, what you are saying is that they can control it. You are implying (wether you intend to or not), that they have a choice in the matter, when they are quite sure that they do not.
If you're a 'normal' person, this argument still applies, but it's easier to justify.
Let's say you were born male, and feel perfectly fine about it.
Now I tell you it's 'wrong' to be a man.
Is that justifiable? How about if I provide evidence that being a man technically makes you a form of mutated woman? (that's true, by the way, from a certain perspective.)
That's an interesting fact, but how does it prove there's anything wrong with being a man?
More to the point, you had no choice whatsoever in being born a man, so how can I say it's 'wrong' without being grossly unfair?
Ultimately, that's the issue at stake. It's much harder to show, because the changes are mental, and thus have no easily identifiable physical characteristics...
But it's a matter of choice here. Do we get to choose to feel like our body is the wrong one, any more than we actually get to choose what our body is in the first place?
I am aware that all foetus ar born female and a few weeks in if the go ahead is given the endocrine system gets to work about making a male. Your talking about treatment that while it may make them "feel" more like their assumed gender, it does not "change" their gender. At some level you are just "tricking" their mind into accepting. But is that really healthy? If as you say we cannot draw a distinct line betwen the genders, is it responsible to allow poeple to bounce back and forth accross the two?
Is it responsible to arbitrarily force people to conform to one thing?
And I'd argue that your definition of 'change' is fairly arbitrary.
The change involved in gender reassignment is large enough for the end result to be closer to the intended gender than the original one.
Arguing that this is a superficial change implies that the physical aspects of gender are equally superficial.
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck, and looks like a duck, clearly it must be a rooster.
Your logic here is only plausible if you hold on to the entirely arbitrary notion that whatever is written on a birth certificate is the only possible truth.
bjj hero said:
CrystalShadow said:
Ugh. It's not a cosmetic procedure. It just isn't (directly) life-threatening.
Treating a burn victim's scar tissue isn't considered a cosmetic procedure either, even though the actual procedure is the same as used in several purely cosmetic operations.
Aside from which, there are multiple issues here. The legal challenge was about being allowed to have treatment in prison, as well as being moved.
People that talk about it being 'cosmetic', really don't have much of a sense of how badly this affects people, or the reality of why this kind of treatment is used at all, when it would seem on the surface to be a mental disorder, and thus, theoretically, treatable using psychological treatment. (never mind that treatments for psychological problems are all that effective at all.)
Physical alteration is the most effective available treatment by a significant margin, for a problem that has serious consequences for a person's mental health.
Given the social stigma (as evidenced in this thread alone), the fact that surgery can have a positive outcome at all suggests the situation for those left without recourse to it must be pretty bleak.
> serving an esthetic rather than a useful purpose; "cosmetic fenders on cars"; "the buildings were utilitarian rather than decorative"
> a toiletry designed to beautify the body
> serving an aesthetic purpose in beautifying the body; "cosmetic surgery"; "enhansive makeup"
It is not correcting an injury or birth defect, it is to change his appearance making it cosmetic. Treating scar tissue is cosmetic, it just happens to be correcting damage caused by trauma.
I have no issue with him changing his gender, its the convicted rapist part that is the issue. Upon release (he will get released at some point), as a woman, he would be using public toilets with other women, using womens changing rooms etc. and hes a sexual predator. If anything looking like a woman will make women underestimate his risk. This is without talk about risks of putting him in an all female prison.
If someone else wants it done all power to them. I can't help but think there are better uses for NHS funds, although I've not looked into it I'm assuming he is not paying for it as he claimed Legal aid for the court case and he's currently out of work.
How does the above definition prove it's a cosmetic procedure?
And define what constitutes a birth defect? - It's surprisingly easy to argue that a mismatch between mind and body that, according to a reasonable degree of evidence has been present since birth, constitutes a 'birth defect'. Wether you want to argue they have a defective body, or a defective mind, it doesn't make all that much difference, since any attempt to treat it would be forced to take the most practical route possible.
As for it being cosmetic in the sense that it only changes appearance, think about that a bit more carefully...
The most substantial physical changes are brought about by hormone treatment, which is non-surgical.
The surgical procedure is generally to alter the genitals. You might consider this a purely cosmetic change, but think about it from a functional perspective, and you might reconsider:
If it's purely cosmetic, then by definition it's only real consequence is a change in appearance.
A nose job, or breast implants, have little functional impact on anything. Within certain limits, the size and shape of your nose changes nothing.
But, altering a person's genitals, would have a serious impact on any sexual acts they performed.
If you go from having a penis, to having a vagina, it's rather difficult to consider that a cosmetic change unless you're never, under any circumstances going to have sex with anyone...
So explain to me how that can be considered an entirely cosmetic change?
Wow, you should use spoilers for this, if you don't know how pm me and I'll show you.
Firstly I believe its cosmetic, its an aesthetic change, a change to physical appearance. Surely this cannot be denied?
My second bit is that a birth defect is a congenital physical, a structural abnormality that causes problems, eg a cleft lip. Saying being a man is a birth defect gives 49% of the population the same birth defect. I don't except this, though you are within your rights to disagree.
By your definition a boob job is not cosmetic. It changes sensation, can alter the patients gait, creates/eases back pain and affects self esteem amongst other things.
I don't look down on people who have cosmetic procedures, its no skin off my nose and if it makes you happy then its peachy. I just feel there are better uses for public funding and this particular individual is a risk to women and caused plenty of harm to society. He can chase his op once he has served his sentence, completed all of his offence focused work and being closely supervised with clear restrictions on his movements and activities.
You kind of miss the point in both these cases.
You're defining a birth defect in purely visible terms. - Even though there are obvious examples (such as down syndrome) that aren't solely physical in nature...
A common theory (since there is no definitive way to prove most issues relating to the brain) is that transsexualism is caused by a defect in the brain.
Since, according to this theory this is something which leaves physical evidence (a structural abnormality in the brain that, when taken in combination with the rest of the body causes severe psychological problems).
By the definition you gave, it is perfectly reasonable to consider this a birth defect.
Saying a it's a birth defect to be a man is obviously ridiculous, and arguing along these lines shows you dismiss even the existence of transsexualism beyond something that somebody just decides one day.
The hidden implication you're making here is that a transsexual is just someone who suddenly decides it'd be a laugh to be the opposite gender to the one they appear to be.
But it's quite a reasonable supposition to consider a transsexual to have a birth defect, it's just that it would be a neurological one, which poses some obvious problems in trying to correct it directly, or even demonstrably prove it's there. (it is after all, comparatively difficult to study brain anatomy)
And the problem with the dividing line you're using here with regards to what is and isn't cosmetic...
You define cosmetic procedures as an aesthetic change...
In the end, definitions don't matter that much, except that this particular definition is used as an excuse not to fund procedures.
Therefore, you are by definition saying that any 'cosmetic' procedure is one that cannot possibly have any legitimate reason to be funded publicly.
Let's take someone who needs extensive facial reconstruction. Yes, it's cosmetic. But... If you don't do it, they will look absolutely horrible, and most people will freak out looking at them. They will probably also have problems eating, and possibly breathing.
Does that deserve public funding?
Breast surgery, as you mentioned: It's rarely argued that bigger breasts are something that should be funded. Yet, there are legitimate health reasons for doing a reduction. (although there are also more frivolous reasons for doing so.)
Ignoring that implies that these health reasons don't matter, and it shouldn't be funded because it's a 'cosmetic' procedure.
The problem here, is that you are using the label 'cosmetic procedure' to justify not funding something. Therefore, you are negating the seriousness of a problem because you don't understand it, or can't see how it could have any meaningful impact on someone's health or well-being.
Avykins said:
CrystalShadow said:
You can't make a blanket statement about what a Transsexual is unless you can make a definite statement about what it means to be male or female.
And trust me, you can't.
You may think you can, but you're wrong.
Every conceivable definition, right down to basic genetics (such as the presence or absense of a Y chromosome.) has viable counter-arguments.
To be blunt, Deviding the whole population strictly into male and female is a gross oversimplification of reality.
A man is someone who is born with a penis and has X Y chromosomes.
A woman is someone who is born with a vagoo and X X chromosomes.
Sure there are occasionally screw ups like women with X or even XXX chromosomes but still.
So, do you see what I did there? I proved you wrong. I can make a definite statement of what it means to be male or female.
So no, dividing the population into those two categories is not a oversimplification. Trying to pretend that the clear cut definitions are false is over thinking and using false logic in an attempt to claim that something you do not like is no longer fact.
If there are really decent, sane, logical counter arguments then have at it. However I will not accept any crap about philosophy or what you think it should mean.
Men are men, women are women. The categories exist and they are correct.
I note you chose to quote only that part of my post that's easiest to refute when taken by itself.
Evidence? What of XXY? (people who have genitals that don't quite look like a penis, or a vagina) Or people with androgen insensitivity syndrome? (born physically indistinguishable from a woman, yet genetically speaking, they have an XY chromosome pair.)
Or chimeras? (different parts of their bodies have different chromosomes. It's quite possible for one part to be XX, and another XY)
Here, have a look: http://www.aissg.org/21_OVERVIEW.HTM#What
You gave a strange definition of a man as being a person with an X and Y chromosome and a penis.
So what do you have if you have a person with an X and Y chromosome, and a vagina? - And they were born that way?
Do you consider such a person a woman? A man? Neither? - understand that how you define such a person has a serious impact on how you treat them, and you can hardly go and tell them "sorry. You don't exist.".
Furthermore, which definition you choose as being valid in this case has logical consequences for the more typical definitions.
If you consider such a person a woman, you imply that physical appearance is the most important indicator.
If you declare them a a man, you declare genetics to overrule all other considerations.
If you say they're neither, you might upset them, although you are at least acknowledging that it's possible for there to be other options...
More to the point, these specific groups would (and have) suffer more than transsexuals would, and with notably less justifiable cause (not that I consider either justifiable) if you make arbitrary single-minded definitions like that...
You're going to brush all those people aside because you refuse to even acknowledge that there is anything else? - The mistakes aren't irrelevant because they're rare? The fact that they exist at all should give you pause to think about insisting on a binary division based on arbitrary information.
You are ignoring reality to stick to a set of arbitrary definitions that fit most but not all people. - I'm not the one arguing from a premise of philosophy as a basis here.
Just what do you use as judgement there? Genetics alone? Behaviour? Appearance? what is your definition? And how does it account for the ambiguous cases? (1 in 2000 people can't even be identified at birth as being either male or female.)
And I love how you claim I'm using false logic when you don't use any at all. Something isn't true just because you say it is. It isn't even true because the {i]majority[/i] say it is.
Logic and reason aren't statistical. Without a valid set of starting prepositions, no amount of logic will produce a logical result.
You want decent, sane, logical counter-arguments to a preposition that is an arbitrary statement that isn't logical, ignores broad swathes of biological evidence, and basically amounts to saying it's true because You say it is, and I'm the one spouting BS?
Do I really need to get into a massive biology lesson just to prove a point?
A man is a man and a woman is a woman? Really? Is that kind of crap the best you can come up with? In what way is that statement even remotely logical, or even a definition of anything. A dog is a dog... Well duh. 1 = 1. There you go. That's logical. It's also completely pointless and meaningless.
Scientific evidence exists, and is fairly conclusive, but you brush it aside as being irrelevant.
So, if objective scientific evidence is 'overthinking and illogical', what constitutes evidence for you exactly?
The facts are, that biology gives us 3 different sets of characteristics that have bearing:
Genetics,
Primary sexual characteristics (those you have at birth)
Secondary sexual characteristics (those you get at puberty, which are induced entirely by hormones)
And society gives us:
gender roles.
All 3 of the biological ones have documented ambiguous cases...
And the gender roles are largely cultural.
This whole question boils down to how you deal with the ambiguous cases, and I don't know how you can consider just ignoring them altogether a sane and logical response.
It's only sane and logical to anyone that isn't personally dealing with it, or never runs into anyone that's dealing with it.
All these ambiguous cases have been actively suppressed over the years Wether it's transsexuals, where physical evidence is hard to come by, to intersex conditions, where secrecy and surgery performed on children, in many cases without even parental consent has conspired to hide their very existence from the world...
I really can't tolerate someone basing their definitions in a way that mis-represents, or even completely ignores such groups. Suppression of minorities isn't something that can just be blindly accepted because the majority can't even be bothered to acknowledge their existence...
After all that (probably wasted) effort, I do have to say, based on how often I see your name crop up with inflammatory opinions like this though, it's very tempting to just consider you a bigoted idiot and be done with it. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you're making it rather difficult.
Try reversing your own example and see if it still makes any sense.
(Basically, if you raise a boy to be a girl, does it still sound reasonable to continue to insist they are a girl when they themselves are quite certain they are a boy?)
I dont quite understand what you mean here? My hypothetical was based on being raised the opposite gender to ones sex? The opposite would have been a girl raised to be a boy and then when she figures it out wishing to remain a boy. Your example reads to me like a set of parents who really wanted a girl trying to tell their boy he is one and him not buying it. If he has a penis and thinks he is a boy then why woul we force him into dresses and such? I may just be missing your point please clarify.
Well, I think you just proved that it doesn't make sense.
But your original example is based on the same logic.
A boy, raised to be a girl... Is not a girl right?
Yet you've raised them to believe that they are... Yet they probably know that that doesn't seem right.
Unless the child has some access to a definite proof that they are, in fact, a boy, they'll have to take it on faith that they are a girl.
What I meant was, if you take the physical evidence out of the equation, your example no longer makes sense.
Trying to explain to someone what it's like to feel like this is bound to cause confusion. Anyone with a knowledge of human anatomy can tell that their body conforms to what you'd expect of 'male' or 'female' (in most cases), but it's hard to explain to anyone how that can feel wrong.
You cant just remove the physical evidence from the equation though, event at in internal level there are going to be male hormones and such. Hes gonna know he is a he, you cant remove gentitalia and then propose the same question because you have changed the rules. In an oversimplified way the sex you are born is assigned a gender with it. And in reality we do not have to take it on faith which we are, i am a man, i have man parts (wow im maturing i didnt even put a smiley), i like girls etc. If somebody tried to tell me i was a girl i could drop trou. Gender and sex may be two seperate things but they are intrinsically linked. The anomoly of transgenders is that in spite of physical evidence they believe they are the opposite gender. Btw i should point out im not heartless either it must be awful for them to go throughthis kind of confusion.
Epitome said:
CrystalShadow said:
That Transsexualism is classified as a mental disorder is a bit of a catch 22. It cannot be medically treated unless it is considered an illness of some sort, but considering it an illness makes it easier to stigmatize people because of it.
And, see my point above. It's easier to treat the physical aspect, and get a positive result, than it is to get any meaningful benefit from a psychological treatment of it.
This is the primary reason why it isn't considered cosmetic surgery too. Physical modification is the only known treatment with any kind of success rate. And that's not for lack of trying, because it's an approach that (as plenty of comments in this thread still demonstrate) is not one that was widely thought of as a good idea in the past.
But, 50-60 years of evidence show there are simply no alternative treatment methods that actually work.
And why does anyone else even care? Because somehow a lot of people have some kind of weird reaction to it. (men especially.)
Is a Transsexual woman meaningfully different from a real one? Well, there's only one area where I can really think of that being the case, but it's not exclusive to transsexuals, it's just pretty much a certainty when dealing with one...
But it is currently a cosmetic surgery, i mean in my country there us an issue about sending illegal immigrants home where they will face genital mutlation as per their customs. If in their culture its not considered mutilation just as sex changes are not here why dont we send them home? My point is that it may not be classified as mutilation here but it easily could have been and once was. It is a cosmetic change from either standpoint in that the primary reason we have male and females is for reproduction, ie if we were all born asexual this wouldnt be an issue. So until it can practically be achieved where you grant the other sexes reproductive capabilities to a trans person it can still be seen as a cosmetic change not in a true switch.
As to why people care it seems to me that our gender and sex are intrinsically tied for most of us, to come across somebody where there is a seperation is like when you come across an amputee and such. Part of you feels bad for them , part of you wonders why it happened and none of you wants to actully ask. (sorry for the crude comparison but i think you can understand where i am coming from). Also its unfair to tell a man he is wrong for not accepting a trans as he would a woman in all aspects. If say a man finds out his wife/gf is a trans has he not got a right to be angry. She has lied, he may have wanted children and at teh extreme he may not have wanted anything to do with a post-op dude.
Sorry, but cosmetic isn't so simple to define. The reason for a procedure has as much bearing as the procedure itself, when it comes to what is, and is not merely defined by the nature of the procedure itself.
And yes, reproduction is the primary reason we have male and female. But if that were the only reason, then a lot of cultural issues would be non-existent. It's difficult to consider something a cosmetic procedure when it has such wide-ranging consequences on how a person is treated by others. (and I mean that without considering any specific prejudices against transsexuals as additional factors)
Now, with regard to acceptance, we face a more general problem of relationships, namely, trust.
Lying to another person is bound to cause problems, regardless of what it is.
Would it make the situation any less bad if a 'real' woman had lied about being infertile?
No. Lack of honesty is always going to be a problem.
But, it's not something that can be changed. Medical technology could advance to the point where the reproduction thing becomes a non-issue. But that still wouldn't do anything for the consequences of people feeling 'lied' to.
I don't begrudge a man being angry at that. But that doesn't mean I can't be equally angry about a reaction like that. And unfortunately, it's not a matter of if, but of when.
Do you tell someone right away? Or do you wait? It's one of those things...
Well cosmetic may not be so easy to define but we dont have to transform its meaning either. Women who get breast implants because they feel their bodies are not right are still getting cosmetic surgery. Even returning a burn victims skin to normal is considered "cosmetic" (i saw your other comment) http://www.cosmeticsandsurgery.com/for_burn_victi.asp yes it is a treatment but is no less cosmetic in nature. Why should this treatment be defined as anything other than cosmetic when it dos not change the nature of the persons body only its appearence?
When? You cant keep something like that from somebody?There are plenty of men out there who would consider post op women to be mutilated men. If you wait till after sex then they may feel violated or even raped at an extreme. the fact that you consider these mens opinion to be wrong does not make their feelings any less valid than you refusing to accept their view on the matter Trust is an issue but its beyond that , if we keep it from a purely definition stance, The you are dressing up men as women and letting them go out and try and form relationships with other men. Do the men here not have some sort of claim to feeling abused?
This is a one-sided argument as much as saying it isn't hurtful to the transsexual to have to deal with this perspective.
Obviously you can keep it from somebody... But you can keep a lot of things hidden from people.
Hence, trust. If you don't trust your partner enough to tell them the truth, then I would expect problems regardless of what it is you're hiding from them.
On the other hand, you continue to insist that it's a valid viewpoint to consider someone like this to be a 'man dressed as a woman'.
How far does the physical nature of a person have to change before you'd drop an argument along these lines?
The problem I have with defining a post-op transsexual as a man is that in doing so, you are using an abstract concept to over-rule a practical reality.
A post-op transsexual woman, is physically and mentally, closer to being a woman than they are to being a man in most practical regards.
To argue otherwise is to hold a very arbitrary definition.
It's entirely accurate to say they used to be men, but arguing that they are still men is arguing that some entirely arbitrary and abstract notion over-rides reality.
Using the same line of reasoning, I can argue that most of the world's population are paedophiles, because the people they've had sex with used to be children at some point in the past.
You can't argue that an adult is a child by virtue of the fact that they used to be one, so why can you argue that a post-op transsexual woman is a man when most of the physical and mental evidence puts them closer to being a woman than being a man?
What exactly are you using to define things if you can hold a perspective like this?
You're pre-supposing an immutable definition of sex and gender entirely fixed at birth, that cannot possibly be changed under any circumstances, no matter how ridiculous it becomes.
Let's hypothesize here, and say we have a 'magic' device that enacts a perfect change. In other words, there's no evidence of any kind to imply that they're anything other than they appear to be.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you'd still argue that how they were born over-rules anything else, regardless of the practical reality of their day-to-day lives, or any available physical evidence...
If you want to be pedantic, a transsexual is no longer male or female at all, based on physical evidence, the only truly logical conclusion would be to say they are some form of hybrid, or inbetween state.
But that's even harder for people to deal with than arguing that a man who changes their body is now a woman.
(try this video to see what happens when you get the definition at birth wrong: http://current.com/items/89405000_im-80-girl-20-boy.htm)
Epitome said:
CrystalShadow said:
English law (which incedentally, is weaker than some laws in Neighbouring European countries), views a post-op transsexual as being legally equivalent to the chosen gender in all but a handful of situations. (Some of the few exceptions have to do with laws specifically relating to physical issues, like child-birth, and sporting competitions where there might otherwise be an obvious performance difference.)
You can't make a blanket statement about what a Transsexual is unless you can make a definite statement about what it means to be male or female.
And trust me, you can't.
You may think you can, but you're wrong.
Every conceivable definition, right down to basic genetics (such as the presence or absense of a Y chromosome.) has viable counter-arguments.
To be blunt, Deviding the whole population strictly into male and female is a gross oversimplification of reality.
Enough borderline cases of various types exist to show that nature simply isn't that neat, and it's only our own incessant need to try and classify everything into neat categories that causes us to ignore this fact.
That, and it's so deeply ingrained in our biological reactions, that the very first judgement you make about any person you meet is wether they are male or female.
Those of you that feel like that can argue as loudly as you like that a Male to female Transsexual is actually still a man,
And I can shout just as loudly that your opinion is nonsense, (and hit you over the head with reams of medical studies to boot.)
In the end though, arguing won't get me anywhere with people so close-minded and rigid about such things.
And as for the person in prison? Meh. They're in very serious trouble regardless of which prison system they end up in.
I'm not going to try and shout louder than you, but i have seen medical studes that blame tran-sexuality on man made pollutants making their way into the mothers system and being mistaken for hormones by her endocrine system leading to a number of false signals being sent to the foetus during development. Similar arguements exist for homosexuality and bi-sexuality aswell but you dare mention these medical studies to tehir repective communities and you can expect a bashing for not being sensitive and calling them mutations.
There has to be a certan level of open-minded ness on both sides for the debate to continue, but what you will often get is the trans,homo,bi groups refuting your evidence with "you cant tell me how i feel is wrong" and such. Imagine for a second that i showed you definitive proof that these feelings were caused by pollutants in the system at birth would you then be willing to accept that trans,homos and bis were wrong to feel the way they do?
Unfortunately, that's a Red Herring argument really.
Wrong or not, and whatever the cause, we have to live with the consequences.
In fact, if you consider it a 'birth defect', (which such evidence would imply), then it only strengthens the argument.
You'll find homosexuals view such 'evidence' a little differently because their situation is as simple as a choice. Sure, you may not literally be able to choose who you're attracted to, but it still remains true that there is no physical problem.
A gay man is a man that likes other men. They either admit to it, or they don't.
Transsexuals have it a little more difficult, because the problem is one of self-identity.
Your body and your mind disagree on what you are.
Regardless of the cause, there's only 2 possible solutions:
1. Convince the mind to accept the body it's in.
2. Change the body to match what the mind expects.
60+ years of medical history in trying to treat the problem, show that option 1 doesn't work. That leaves option 2...
The only proof of significance, is wether this is a 'choice', or something 'fixed', (regardless of how it got that way).
And the difference between those two forms of proof determine how probable it is that treatment option no. 1 is viable or not.
Take the counterpoint "you cant tell me how i feel is wrong" : This counter exists for one very simple reason. If you tell someone what they feel is wrong, what you are saying is that they can control it. You are implying (wether you intend to or not), that they have a choice in the matter, when they are quite sure that they do not.
If you're a 'normal' person, this argument still applies, but it's easier to justify.
Let's say you were born male, and feel perfectly fine about it.
Now I tell you it's 'wrong' to be a man.
Is that justifiable? How about if I provide evidence that being a man technically makes you a form of mutated woman? (that's true, by the way, from a certain perspective.)
That's an interesting fact, but how does it prove there's anything wrong with being a man?
More to the point, you had no choice whatsoever in being born a man, so how can I say it's 'wrong' without being grossly unfair?
Ultimately, that's the issue at stake. It's much harder to show, because the changes are mental, and thus have no easily identifiable physical characteristics...
But it's a matter of choice here. Do we get to choose to feel like our body is the wrong one, any more than we actually get to choose what our body is in the first place?
I am aware that all foetus ar born female and a few weeks in if the go ahead is given the endocrine system gets to work about making a male. Your talking about treatment that while it may make them "feel" more like their assumed gender, it does not "change" their gender. At some level you are just "tricking" their mind into accepting. But is that really healthy? If as you say we cannot draw a distinct line betwen the genders, is it responsible to allow poeple to bounce back and forth accross the two?
Is it responsible to arbitrarily force people to conform to one thing?
And I'd argue that your definition of 'change' is fairly arbitrary.
The change involved in gender reassignment is large enough for the end result to be closer to the intended gender than the original one.
Arguing that this is a superficial change implies that the physical aspects of gender are equally superficial.
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck, and looks like a duck, clearly it must be a rooster.
Your logic here is only plausible if you hold on to the entirely arbitrary notion that whatever is written on a birth certificate is the only possible truth.
bjj hero said:
CrystalShadow said:
Ugh. It's not a cosmetic procedure. It just isn't (directly) life-threatening.
Treating a burn victim's scar tissue isn't considered a cosmetic procedure either, even though the actual procedure is the same as used in several purely cosmetic operations.
Aside from which, there are multiple issues here. The legal challenge was about being allowed to have treatment in prison, as well as being moved.
People that talk about it being 'cosmetic', really don't have much of a sense of how badly this affects people, or the reality of why this kind of treatment is used at all, when it would seem on the surface to be a mental disorder, and thus, theoretically, treatable using psychological treatment. (never mind that treatments for psychological problems are all that effective at all.)
Physical alteration is the most effective available treatment by a significant margin, for a problem that has serious consequences for a person's mental health.
Given the social stigma (as evidenced in this thread alone), the fact that surgery can have a positive outcome at all suggests the situation for those left without recourse to it must be pretty bleak.
> serving an esthetic rather than a useful purpose; "cosmetic fenders on cars"; "the buildings were utilitarian rather than decorative"
> a toiletry designed to beautify the body
> serving an aesthetic purpose in beautifying the body; "cosmetic surgery"; "enhansive makeup"
It is not correcting an injury or birth defect, it is to change his appearance making it cosmetic. Treating scar tissue is cosmetic, it just happens to be correcting damage caused by trauma.
I have no issue with him changing his gender, its the convicted rapist part that is the issue. Upon release (he will get released at some point), as a woman, he would be using public toilets with other women, using womens changing rooms etc. and hes a sexual predator. If anything looking like a woman will make women underestimate his risk. This is without talk about risks of putting him in an all female prison.
If someone else wants it done all power to them. I can't help but think there are better uses for NHS funds, although I've not looked into it I'm assuming he is not paying for it as he claimed Legal aid for the court case and he's currently out of work.
How does the above definition prove it's a cosmetic procedure?
And define what constitutes a birth defect? - It's surprisingly easy to argue that a mismatch between mind and body that, according to a reasonable degree of evidence has been present since birth, constitutes a 'birth defect'. Wether you want to argue they have a defective body, or a defective mind, it doesn't make all that much difference, since any attempt to treat it would be forced to take the most practical route possible.
As for it being cosmetic in the sense that it only changes appearance, think about that a bit more carefully...
The most substantial physical changes are brought about by hormone treatment, which is non-surgical.
The surgical procedure is generally to alter the genitals. You might consider this a purely cosmetic change, but think about it from a functional perspective, and you might reconsider:
If it's purely cosmetic, then by definition it's only real consequence is a change in appearance.
A nose job, or breast implants, have little functional impact on anything. Within certain limits, the size and shape of your nose changes nothing.
But, altering a person's genitals, would have a serious impact on any sexual acts they performed.
If you go from having a penis, to having a vagina, it's rather difficult to consider that a cosmetic change unless you're never, under any circumstances going to have sex with anyone...
So explain to me how that can be considered an entirely cosmetic change?
Wow, you should use spoilers for this, if you don't know how pm me and I'll show you.
Firstly I believe its cosmetic, its an aesthetic change, a change to physical appearance. Surely this cannot be denied?
My second bit is that a birth defect is a congenital physical, a structural abnormality that causes problems, eg a cleft lip. Saying being a man is a birth defect gives 49% of the population the same birth defect. I don't except this, though you are within your rights to disagree.
By your definition a boob job is not cosmetic. It changes sensation, can alter the patients gait, creates/eases back pain and affects self esteem amongst other things.
I don't look down on people who have cosmetic procedures, its no skin off my nose and if it makes you happy then its peachy. I just feel there are better uses for public funding and this particular individual is a risk to women and caused plenty of harm to society. He can chase his op once he has served his sentence, completed all of his offence focused work and being closely supervised with clear restrictions on his movements and activities.
You kind of miss the point in both these cases.
You're defining a birth defect in purely visible terms. - Even though there are obvious examples (such as down syndrome) that aren't solely physical in nature...
A common theory (since there is no definitive way to prove most issues relating to the brain) is that transsexualism is caused by a defect in the brain.
Since, according to this theory this is something which leaves physical evidence (a structural abnormality in the brain that, when taken in combination with the rest of the body causes severe psychological problems).
By the definition you gave, it is perfectly reasonable to consider this a birth defect.
Saying a it's a birth defect to be a man is obviously ridiculous, and arguing along these lines shows you dismiss even the existence of transsexualism beyond something that somebody just decides one day.
The hidden implication you're making here is that a transsexual is just someone who suddenly decides it'd be a laugh to be the opposite gender to the one they appear to be.
But it's quite a reasonable supposition to consider a transsexual to have a birth defect, it's just that it would be a neurological one, which poses some obvious problems in trying to correct it directly, or even demonstrably prove it's there. (it is after all, comparatively difficult to study brain anatomy)
And the problem with the dividing line you're using here with regards to what is and isn't cosmetic...
You define cosmetic procedures as an aesthetic change...
In the end, definitions don't matter that much, except that this particular definition is used as an excuse not to fund procedures.
Therefore, you are by definition saying that any 'cosmetic' procedure is one that cannot possibly have any legitimate reason to be funded publicly.
Let's take someone who needs extensive facial reconstruction. Yes, it's cosmetic. But... If you don't do it, they will look absolutely horrible, and most people will freak out looking at them. They will probably also have problems eating, and possibly breathing.
Does that deserve public funding?
Breast surgery, as you mentioned: It's rarely argued that bigger breasts are something that should be funded. Yet, there are legitimate health reasons for doing a reduction. (although there are also more frivolous reasons for doing so.)
Ignoring that implies that these health reasons don't matter, and it shouldn't be funded because it's a 'cosmetic' procedure.
The problem here, is that you are using the label 'cosmetic procedure' to justify not funding something. Therefore, you are negating the seriousness of a problem because you don't understand it, or can't see how it could have any meaningful impact on someone's health or well-being.
Avykins said:
CrystalShadow said:
You can't make a blanket statement about what a Transsexual is unless you can make a definite statement about what it means to be male or female.
And trust me, you can't.
You may think you can, but you're wrong.
Every conceivable definition, right down to basic genetics (such as the presence or absense of a Y chromosome.) has viable counter-arguments.
To be blunt, Deviding the whole population strictly into male and female is a gross oversimplification of reality.
A man is someone who is born with a penis and has X Y chromosomes.
A woman is someone who is born with a vagoo and X X chromosomes.
Sure there are occasionally screw ups like women with X or even XXX chromosomes but still.
So, do you see what I did there? I proved you wrong. I can make a definite statement of what it means to be male or female.
So no, dividing the population into those two categories is not a oversimplification. Trying to pretend that the clear cut definitions are false is over thinking and using false logic in an attempt to claim that something you do not like is no longer fact.
If there are really decent, sane, logical counter arguments then have at it. However I will not accept any crap about philosophy or what you think it should mean.
Men are men, women are women. The categories exist and they are correct.
I note you chose to quote only that part of my post that's easiest to refute when taken by itself.
Evidence? What of XXY? (people who have genitals that don't quite look like a penis, or a vagina) Or people with androgen insensitivity syndrome? (born physically indistinguishable from a woman, yet genetically speaking, they have an XY chromosome pair.)
Or chimeras? (different parts of their bodies have different chromosomes. It's quite possible for one part to be XX, and another XY)
Here, have a look: http://www.aissg.org/21_OVERVIEW.HTM#What
You gave a strange definition of a man as being a person with an X and Y chromosome and a penis.
So what do you have if you have a person with an X and Y chromosome, and a vagina? - And they were born that way?
Do you consider such a person a woman? A man? Neither? - understand that how you define such a person has a serious impact on how you treat them, and you can hardly go and tell them "sorry. You don't exist.".
Furthermore, which definition you choose as being valid in this case has logical consequences for the more typical definitions.
If you consider such a person a woman, you imply that physical appearance is the most important indicator.
If you declare them a a man, you declare genetics to overrule all other considerations.
If you say they're neither, you might upset them, although you are at least acknowledging that it's possible for there to be other options...
More to the point, these specific groups would (and have) suffer more than transsexuals would, and with notably less justifiable cause (not that I consider either justifiable) if you make arbitrary single-minded definitions like that...
You're going to brush all those people aside because you refuse to even acknowledge that there is anything else? - The mistakes aren't irrelevant because they're rare? The fact that they exist at all should give you pause to think about insisting on a binary division based on arbitrary information.
You are ignoring reality to stick to a set of arbitrary definitions that fit most but not all people. - I'm not the one arguing from a premise of philosophy as a basis here.
Just what do you use as judgement there? Genetics alone? Behaviour? Appearance? what is your definition? And how does it account for the ambiguous cases? (1 in 2000 people can't even be identified at birth as being either male or female.)
And I love how you claim I'm using false logic when you don't use any at all. Something isn't true just because you say it is. It isn't even true because the {i]majority[/i] say it is.
Logic and reason aren't statistical. Without a valid set of starting prepositions, no amount of logic will produce a logical result.
You want decent, sane, logical counter-arguments to a preposition that is an arbitrary statement that isn't logical, ignores broad swathes of biological evidence, and basically amounts to saying it's true because You say it is, and I'm the one spouting BS?
Do I really need to get into a massive biology lesson just to prove a point?
A man is a man and a woman is a woman? Really? Is that kind of crap the best you can come up with? In what way is that statement even remotely logical, or even a definition of anything. A dog is a dog... Well duh. 1 = 1. There you go. That's logical. It's also completely pointless and meaningless.
Scientific evidence exists, and is fairly conclusive, but you brush it aside as being irrelevant.
So, if objective scientific evidence is 'overthinking and illogical', what constitutes evidence for you exactly?
The facts are, that biology gives us 3 different sets of characteristics that have bearing:
Genetics,
Primary sexual characteristics (those you have at birth)
Secondary sexual characteristics (those you get at puberty, which are induced entirely by hormones)
And society gives us:
gender roles.
All 3 of the biological ones have documented ambiguous cases...
And the gender roles are largely cultural.
This whole question boils down to how you deal with the ambiguous cases, and I don't know how you can consider just ignoring them altogether a sane and logical response.
It's only sane and logical to anyone that isn't personally dealing with it, or never runs into anyone that's dealing with it.
All these ambiguous cases have been actively suppressed over the years Wether it's transsexuals, where physical evidence is hard to come by, to intersex conditions, where secrecy and surgery performed on children, in many cases without even parental consent has conspired to hide their very existence from the world...
I really can't tolerate someone basing their definitions in a way that mis-represents, or even completely ignores such groups. Suppression of minorities isn't something that can just be blindly accepted because the majority can't even be bothered to acknowledge their existence...
After all that (probably wasted) effort, I do have to say, based on how often I see your name crop up with inflammatory opinions like this though, it's very tempting to just consider you a bigoted idiot and be done with it. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you're making it rather difficult.
Try reversing your own example and see if it still makes any sense.
(Basically, if you raise a boy to be a girl, does it still sound reasonable to continue to insist they are a girl when they themselves are quite certain they are a boy?)
I dont quite understand what you mean here? My hypothetical was based on being raised the opposite gender to ones sex? The opposite would have been a girl raised to be a boy and then when she figures it out wishing to remain a boy. Your example reads to me like a set of parents who really wanted a girl trying to tell their boy he is one and him not buying it. If he has a penis and thinks he is a boy then why woul we force him into dresses and such? I may just be missing your point please clarify.
Well, I think you just proved that it doesn't make sense.
But your original example is based on the same logic.
A boy, raised to be a girl... Is not a girl right?
Yet you've raised them to believe that they are... Yet they probably know that that doesn't seem right.
Unless the child has some access to a definite proof that they are, in fact, a boy, they'll have to take it on faith that they are a girl.
What I meant was, if you take the physical evidence out of the equation, your example no longer makes sense.
Trying to explain to someone what it's like to feel like this is bound to cause confusion. Anyone with a knowledge of human anatomy can tell that their body conforms to what you'd expect of 'male' or 'female' (in most cases), but it's hard to explain to anyone how that can feel wrong.
You cant just remove the physical evidence from the equation though, event at in internal level there are going to be male hormones and such. Hes gonna know he is a he, you cant remove gentitalia and then propose the same question because you have changed the rules. In an oversimplified way the sex you are born is assigned a gender with it. And in reality we do not have to take it on faith which we are, i am a man, i have man parts (wow im maturing i didnt even put a smiley), i like girls etc. If somebody tried to tell me i was a girl i could drop trou. Gender and sex may be two seperate things but they are intrinsically linked. The anomoly of transgenders is that in spite of physical evidence they believe they are the opposite gender. Btw i should point out im not heartless either it must be awful for them to go throughthis kind of confusion.
Epitome said:
CrystalShadow said:
That Transsexualism is classified as a mental disorder is a bit of a catch 22. It cannot be medically treated unless it is considered an illness of some sort, but considering it an illness makes it easier to stigmatize people because of it.
And, see my point above. It's easier to treat the physical aspect, and get a positive result, than it is to get any meaningful benefit from a psychological treatment of it.
This is the primary reason why it isn't considered cosmetic surgery too. Physical modification is the only known treatment with any kind of success rate. And that's not for lack of trying, because it's an approach that (as plenty of comments in this thread still demonstrate) is not one that was widely thought of as a good idea in the past.
But, 50-60 years of evidence show there are simply no alternative treatment methods that actually work.
And why does anyone else even care? Because somehow a lot of people have some kind of weird reaction to it. (men especially.)
Is a Transsexual woman meaningfully different from a real one? Well, there's only one area where I can really think of that being the case, but it's not exclusive to transsexuals, it's just pretty much a certainty when dealing with one...
But it is currently a cosmetic surgery, i mean in my country there us an issue about sending illegal immigrants home where they will face genital mutlation as per their customs. If in their culture its not considered mutilation just as sex changes are not here why dont we send them home? My point is that it may not be classified as mutilation here but it easily could have been and once was. It is a cosmetic change from either standpoint in that the primary reason we have male and females is for reproduction, ie if we were all born asexual this wouldnt be an issue. So until it can practically be achieved where you grant the other sexes reproductive capabilities to a trans person it can still be seen as a cosmetic change not in a true switch.
As to why people care it seems to me that our gender and sex are intrinsically tied for most of us, to come across somebody where there is a seperation is like when you come across an amputee and such. Part of you feels bad for them , part of you wonders why it happened and none of you wants to actully ask. (sorry for the crude comparison but i think you can understand where i am coming from). Also its unfair to tell a man he is wrong for not accepting a trans as he would a woman in all aspects. If say a man finds out his wife/gf is a trans has he not got a right to be angry. She has lied, he may have wanted children and at teh extreme he may not have wanted anything to do with a post-op dude.
Sorry, but cosmetic isn't so simple to define. The reason for a procedure has as much bearing as the procedure itself, when it comes to what is, and is not merely defined by the nature of the procedure itself.
And yes, reproduction is the primary reason we have male and female. But if that were the only reason, then a lot of cultural issues would be non-existent. It's difficult to consider something a cosmetic procedure when it has such wide-ranging consequences on how a person is treated by others. (and I mean that without considering any specific prejudices against transsexuals as additional factors)
Now, with regard to acceptance, we face a more general problem of relationships, namely, trust.
Lying to another person is bound to cause problems, regardless of what it is.
Would it make the situation any less bad if a 'real' woman had lied about being infertile?
No. Lack of honesty is always going to be a problem.
But, it's not something that can be changed. Medical technology could advance to the point where the reproduction thing becomes a non-issue. But that still wouldn't do anything for the consequences of people feeling 'lied' to.
I don't begrudge a man being angry at that. But that doesn't mean I can't be equally angry about a reaction like that. And unfortunately, it's not a matter of if, but of when.
Do you tell someone right away? Or do you wait? It's one of those things...
Well cosmetic may not be so easy to define but we dont have to transform its meaning either. Women who get breast implants because they feel their bodies are not right are still getting cosmetic surgery. Even returning a burn victims skin to normal is considered "cosmetic" (i saw your other comment) http://www.cosmeticsandsurgery.com/for_burn_victi.asp yes it is a treatment but is no less cosmetic in nature. Why should this treatment be defined as anything other than cosmetic when it dos not change the nature of the persons body only its appearence?
When? You cant keep something like that from somebody?There are plenty of men out there who would consider post op women to be mutilated men. If you wait till after sex then they may feel violated or even raped at an extreme. the fact that you consider these mens opinion to be wrong does not make their feelings any less valid than you refusing to accept their view on the matter Trust is an issue but its beyond that , if we keep it from a purely definition stance, The you are dressing up men as women and letting them go out and try and form relationships with other men. Do the men here not have some sort of claim to feeling abused?
This is a one-sided argument as much as saying it isn't hurtful to the transsexual to have to deal with this perspective.
Obviously you can keep it from somebody... But you can keep a lot of things hidden from people.
Hence, trust. If you don't trust your partner enough to tell them the truth, then I would expect problems regardless of what it is you're hiding from them.
On the other hand, you continue to insist that it's a valid viewpoint to consider someone like this to be a 'man dressed as a woman'.
How far does the physical nature of a person have to change before you'd drop an argument along these lines?
The problem I have with defining a post-op transsexual as a man is that in doing so, you are using an abstract concept to over-rule a practical reality.
A post-op transsexual woman, is physically and mentally, closer to being a woman than they are to being a man in most practical regards.
To argue otherwise is to hold a very arbitrary definition.
It's entirely accurate to say they used to be men, but arguing that they are still men is arguing that some entirely arbitrary and abstract notion over-rides reality.
Using the same line of reasoning, I can argue that most of the world's population are paedophiles, because the people they've had sex with used to be children at some point in the past.
You can't argue that an adult is a child by virtue of the fact that they used to be one, so why can you argue that a post-op transsexual woman is a man when most of the physical and mental evidence puts them closer to being a woman than being a man?
What exactly are you using to define things if you can hold a perspective like this?
You're pre-supposing an immutable definition of sex and gender entirely fixed at birth, that cannot possibly be changed under any circumstances, no matter how ridiculous it becomes.
Let's hypothesize here, and say we have a 'magic' device that enacts a perfect change. In other words, there's no evidence of any kind to imply that they're anything other than they appear to be.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you'd still argue that how they were born over-rules anything else, regardless of the practical reality of their day-to-day lives, or any available physical evidence...
If you want to be pedantic, a transsexual is no longer male or female at all, based on physical evidence, the only truly logical conclusion would be to say they are some form of hybrid, or inbetween state.
But that's even harder for people to deal with than arguing that a man who changes their body is now a woman.
(try this video to see what happens when you get the definition at birth wrong: http://current.com/items/89405000_im-80-girl-20-boy.htm)
Epitome said:
CrystalShadow said:
English law (which incedentally, is weaker than some laws in Neighbouring European countries), views a post-op transsexual as being legally equivalent to the chosen gender in all but a handful of situations. (Some of the few exceptions have to do with laws specifically relating to physical issues, like child-birth, and sporting competitions where there might otherwise be an obvious performance difference.)
You can't make a blanket statement about what a Transsexual is unless you can make a definite statement about what it means to be male or female.
And trust me, you can't.
You may think you can, but you're wrong.
Every conceivable definition, right down to basic genetics (such as the presence or absense of a Y chromosome.) has viable counter-arguments.
To be blunt, Deviding the whole population strictly into male and female is a gross oversimplification of reality.
Enough borderline cases of various types exist to show that nature simply isn't that neat, and it's only our own incessant need to try and classify everything into neat categories that causes us to ignore this fact.
That, and it's so deeply ingrained in our biological reactions, that the very first judgement you make about any person you meet is wether they are male or female.
Those of you that feel like that can argue as loudly as you like that a Male to female Transsexual is actually still a man,
And I can shout just as loudly that your opinion is nonsense, (and hit you over the head with reams of medical studies to boot.)
In the end though, arguing won't get me anywhere with people so close-minded and rigid about such things.
And as for the person in prison? Meh. They're in very serious trouble regardless of which prison system they end up in.
I'm not going to try and shout louder than you, but i have seen medical studes that blame tran-sexuality on man made pollutants making their way into the mothers system and being mistaken for hormones by her endocrine system leading to a number of false signals being sent to the foetus during development. Similar arguements exist for homosexuality and bi-sexuality aswell but you dare mention these medical studies to tehir repective communities and you can expect a bashing for not being sensitive and calling them mutations.
There has to be a certan level of open-minded ness on both sides for the debate to continue, but what you will often get is the trans,homo,bi groups refuting your evidence with "you cant tell me how i feel is wrong" and such. Imagine for a second that i showed you definitive proof that these feelings were caused by pollutants in the system at birth would you then be willing to accept that trans,homos and bis were wrong to feel the way they do?
Unfortunately, that's a Red Herring argument really.
Wrong or not, and whatever the cause, we have to live with the consequences.
In fact, if you consider it a 'birth defect', (which such evidence would imply), then it only strengthens the argument.
You'll find homosexuals view such 'evidence' a little differently because their situation is as simple as a choice. Sure, you may not literally be able to choose who you're attracted to, but it still remains true that there is no physical problem.
A gay man is a man that likes other men. They either admit to it, or they don't.
Transsexuals have it a little more difficult, because the problem is one of self-identity.
Your body and your mind disagree on what you are.
Regardless of the cause, there's only 2 possible solutions:
1. Convince the mind to accept the body it's in.
2. Change the body to match what the mind expects.
60+ years of medical history in trying to treat the problem, show that option 1 doesn't work. That leaves option 2...
The only proof of significance, is wether this is a 'choice', or something 'fixed', (regardless of how it got that way).
And the difference between those two forms of proof determine how probable it is that treatment option no. 1 is viable or not.
Take the counterpoint "you cant tell me how i feel is wrong" : This counter exists for one very simple reason. If you tell someone what they feel is wrong, what you are saying is that they can control it. You are implying (wether you intend to or not), that they have a choice in the matter, when they are quite sure that they do not.
If you're a 'normal' person, this argument still applies, but it's easier to justify.
Let's say you were born male, and feel perfectly fine about it.
Now I tell you it's 'wrong' to be a man.
Is that justifiable? How about if I provide evidence that being a man technically makes you a form of mutated woman? (that's true, by the way, from a certain perspective.)
That's an interesting fact, but how does it prove there's anything wrong with being a man?
More to the point, you had no choice whatsoever in being born a man, so how can I say it's 'wrong' without being grossly unfair?
Ultimately, that's the issue at stake. It's much harder to show, because the changes are mental, and thus have no easily identifiable physical characteristics...
But it's a matter of choice here. Do we get to choose to feel like our body is the wrong one, any more than we actually get to choose what our body is in the first place?
I am aware that all foetus ar born female and a few weeks in if the go ahead is given the endocrine system gets to work about making a male. Your talking about treatment that while it may make them "feel" more like their assumed gender, it does not "change" their gender. At some level you are just "tricking" their mind into accepting. But is that really healthy? If as you say we cannot draw a distinct line betwen the genders, is it responsible to allow poeple to bounce back and forth accross the two?
Is it responsible to arbitrarily force people to conform to one thing?
And I'd argue that your definition of 'change' is fairly arbitrary.
The change involved in gender reassignment is large enough for the end result to be closer to the intended gender than the original one.
Arguing that this is a superficial change implies that the physical aspects of gender are equally superficial.
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck, and looks like a duck, clearly it must be a rooster.
Your logic here is only plausible if you hold on to the entirely arbitrary notion that whatever is written on a birth certificate is the only possible truth.
bjj hero said:
CrystalShadow said:
Ugh. It's not a cosmetic procedure. It just isn't (directly) life-threatening.
Treating a burn victim's scar tissue isn't considered a cosmetic procedure either, even though the actual procedure is the same as used in several purely cosmetic operations.
Aside from which, there are multiple issues here. The legal challenge was about being allowed to have treatment in prison, as well as being moved.
People that talk about it being 'cosmetic', really don't have much of a sense of how badly this affects people, or the reality of why this kind of treatment is used at all, when it would seem on the surface to be a mental disorder, and thus, theoretically, treatable using psychological treatment. (never mind that treatments for psychological problems are all that effective at all.)
Physical alteration is the most effective available treatment by a significant margin, for a problem that has serious consequences for a person's mental health.
Given the social stigma (as evidenced in this thread alone), the fact that surgery can have a positive outcome at all suggests the situation for those left without recourse to it must be pretty bleak.
> serving an esthetic rather than a useful purpose; "cosmetic fenders on cars"; "the buildings were utilitarian rather than decorative"
> a toiletry designed to beautify the body
> serving an aesthetic purpose in beautifying the body; "cosmetic surgery"; "enhansive makeup"
It is not correcting an injury or birth defect, it is to change his appearance making it cosmetic. Treating scar tissue is cosmetic, it just happens to be correcting damage caused by trauma.
I have no issue with him changing his gender, its the convicted rapist part that is the issue. Upon release (he will get released at some point), as a woman, he would be using public toilets with other women, using womens changing rooms etc. and hes a sexual predator. If anything looking like a woman will make women underestimate his risk. This is without talk about risks of putting him in an all female prison.
If someone else wants it done all power to them. I can't help but think there are better uses for NHS funds, although I've not looked into it I'm assuming he is not paying for it as he claimed Legal aid for the court case and he's currently out of work.
How does the above definition prove it's a cosmetic procedure?
And define what constitutes a birth defect? - It's surprisingly easy to argue that a mismatch between mind and body that, according to a reasonable degree of evidence has been present since birth, constitutes a 'birth defect'. Wether you want to argue they have a defective body, or a defective mind, it doesn't make all that much difference, since any attempt to treat it would be forced to take the most practical route possible.
As for it being cosmetic in the sense that it only changes appearance, think about that a bit more carefully...
The most substantial physical changes are brought about by hormone treatment, which is non-surgical.
The surgical procedure is generally to alter the genitals. You might consider this a purely cosmetic change, but think about it from a functional perspective, and you might reconsider:
If it's purely cosmetic, then by definition it's only real consequence is a change in appearance.
A nose job, or breast implants, have little functional impact on anything. Within certain limits, the size and shape of your nose changes nothing.
But, altering a person's genitals, would have a serious impact on any sexual acts they performed.
If you go from having a penis, to having a vagina, it's rather difficult to consider that a cosmetic change unless you're never, under any circumstances going to have sex with anyone...
So explain to me how that can be considered an entirely cosmetic change?
Wow, you should use spoilers for this, if you don't know how pm me and I'll show you.
Firstly I believe its cosmetic, its an aesthetic change, a change to physical appearance. Surely this cannot be denied?
My second bit is that a birth defect is a congenital physical, a structural abnormality that causes problems, eg a cleft lip. Saying being a man is a birth defect gives 49% of the population the same birth defect. I don't except this, though you are within your rights to disagree.
By your definition a boob job is not cosmetic. It changes sensation, can alter the patients gait, creates/eases back pain and affects self esteem amongst other things.
I don't look down on people who have cosmetic procedures, its no skin off my nose and if it makes you happy then its peachy. I just feel there are better uses for public funding and this particular individual is a risk to women and caused plenty of harm to society. He can chase his op once he has served his sentence, completed all of his offence focused work and being closely supervised with clear restrictions on his movements and activities.
You kind of miss the point in both these cases.
You're defining a birth defect in purely visible terms. - Even though there are obvious examples (such as down syndrome) that aren't solely physical in nature...
A common theory (since there is no definitive way to prove most issues relating to the brain) is that transsexualism is caused by a defect in the brain.
Since, according to this theory this is something which leaves physical evidence (a structural abnormality in the brain that, when taken in combination with the rest of the body causes severe psychological problems).
By the definition you gave, it is perfectly reasonable to consider this a birth defect.
Saying a it's a birth defect to be a man is obviously ridiculous, and arguing along these lines shows you dismiss even the existence of transsexualism beyond something that somebody just decides one day.
The hidden implication you're making here is that a transsexual is just someone who suddenly decides it'd be a laugh to be the opposite gender to the one they appear to be.
But it's quite a reasonable supposition to consider a transsexual to have a birth defect, it's just that it would be a neurological one, which poses some obvious problems in trying to correct it directly, or even demonstrably prove it's there. (it is after all, comparatively difficult to study brain anatomy)
And the problem with the dividing line you're using here with regards to what is and isn't cosmetic...
You define cosmetic procedures as an aesthetic change...
In the end, definitions don't matter that much, except that this particular definition is used as an excuse not to fund procedures.
Therefore, you are by definition saying that any 'cosmetic' procedure is one that cannot possibly have any legitimate reason to be funded publicly.
Let's take someone who needs extensive facial reconstruction. Yes, it's cosmetic. But... If you don't do it, they will look absolutely horrible, and most people will freak out looking at them. They will probably also have problems eating, and possibly breathing.
Does that deserve public funding?
Breast surgery, as you mentioned: It's rarely argued that bigger breasts are something that should be funded. Yet, there are legitimate health reasons for doing a reduction. (although there are also more frivolous reasons for doing so.)
Ignoring that implies that these health reasons don't matter, and it shouldn't be funded because it's a 'cosmetic' procedure.
The problem here, is that you are using the label 'cosmetic procedure' to justify not funding something. Therefore, you are negating the seriousness of a problem because you don't understand it, or can't see how it could have any meaningful impact on someone's health or well-being.
Avykins said:
CrystalShadow said:
You can't make a blanket statement about what a Transsexual is unless you can make a definite statement about what it means to be male or female.
And trust me, you can't.
You may think you can, but you're wrong.
Every conceivable definition, right down to basic genetics (such as the presence or absense of a Y chromosome.) has viable counter-arguments.
To be blunt, Deviding the whole population strictly into male and female is a gross oversimplification of reality.
A man is someone who is born with a penis and has X Y chromosomes.
A woman is someone who is born with a vagoo and X X chromosomes.
Sure there are occasionally screw ups like women with X or even XXX chromosomes but still.
So, do you see what I did there? I proved you wrong. I can make a definite statement of what it means to be male or female.
So no, dividing the population into those two categories is not a oversimplification. Trying to pretend that the clear cut definitions are false is over thinking and using false logic in an attempt to claim that something you do not like is no longer fact.
If there are really decent, sane, logical counter arguments then have at it. However I will not accept any crap about philosophy or what you think it should mean.
Men are men, women are women. The categories exist and they are correct.
I note you chose to quote only that part of my post that's easiest to refute when taken by itself.
Evidence? What of XXY? (people who have genitals that don't quite look like a penis, or a vagina) Or people with androgen insensitivity syndrome? (born physically indistinguishable from a woman, yet genetically speaking, they have an XY chromosome pair.)
Or chimeras? (different parts of their bodies have different chromosomes. It's quite possible for one part to be XX, and another XY)
Here, have a look: http://www.aissg.org/21_OVERVIEW.HTM#What
You gave a strange definition of a man as being a person with an X and Y chromosome and a penis.
So what do you have if you have a person with an X and Y chromosome, and a vagina? - And they were born that way?
Do you consider such a person a woman? A man? Neither? - understand that how you define such a person has a serious impact on how you treat them, and you can hardly go and tell them "sorry. You don't exist.".
Furthermore, which definition you choose as being valid in this case has logical consequences for the more typical definitions.
If you consider such a person a woman, you imply that physical appearance is the most important indicator.
If you declare them a a man, you declare genetics to overrule all other considerations.
If you say they're neither, you might upset them, although you are at least acknowledging that it's possible for there to be other options...
More to the point, these specific groups would (and have) suffer more than transsexuals would, and with notably less justifiable cause (not that I consider either justifiable) if you make arbitrary single-minded definitions like that...
You're going to brush all those people aside because you refuse to even acknowledge that there is anything else? - The mistakes aren't irrelevant because they're rare? The fact that they exist at all should give you pause to think about insisting on a binary division based on arbitrary information.
You are ignoring reality to stick to a set of arbitrary definitions that fit most but not all people. - I'm not the one arguing from a premise of philosophy as a basis here.
Just what do you use as judgement there? Genetics alone? Behaviour? Appearance? what is your definition? And how does it account for the ambiguous cases? (1 in 2000 people can't even be identified at birth as being either male or female.)
And I love how you claim I'm using false logic when you don't use any at all. Something isn't true just because you say it is. It isn't even true because the {i]majority[/i] say it is.
Logic and reason aren't statistical. Without a valid set of starting prepositions, no amount of logic will produce a logical result.
You want decent, sane, logical counter-arguments to a preposition that is an arbitrary statement that isn't logical, ignores broad swathes of biological evidence, and basically amounts to saying it's true because You say it is, and I'm the one spouting BS?
Do I really need to get into a massive biology lesson just to prove a point?
A man is a man and a woman is a woman? Really? Is that kind of crap the best you can come up with? In what way is that statement even remotely logical, or even a definition of anything. A dog is a dog... Well duh. 1 = 1. There you go. That's logical. It's also completely pointless and meaningless.
Scientific evidence exists, and is fairly conclusive, but you brush it aside as being irrelevant.
So, if objective scientific evidence is 'overthinking and illogical', what constitutes evidence for you exactly?
The facts are, that biology gives us 3 different sets of characteristics that have bearing:
Genetics,
Primary sexual characteristics (those you have at birth)
Secondary sexual characteristics (those you get at puberty, which are induced entirely by hormones)
And society gives us:
gender roles.
All 3 of the biological ones have documented ambiguous cases...
And the gender roles are largely cultural.
This whole question boils down to how you deal with the ambiguous cases, and I don't know how you can consider just ignoring them altogether a sane and logical response.
It's only sane and logical to anyone that isn't personally dealing with it, or never runs into anyone that's dealing with it.
All these ambiguous cases have been actively suppressed over the years Wether it's transsexuals, where physical evidence is hard to come by, to intersex conditions, where secrecy and surgery performed on children, in many cases without even parental consent has conspired to hide their very existence from the world...
I really can't tolerate someone basing their definitions in a way that mis-represents, or even completely ignores such groups. Suppression of minorities isn't something that can just be blindly accepted because the majority can't even be bothered to acknowledge their existence...
After all that (probably wasted) effort, I do have to say, based on how often I see your name crop up with inflammatory opinions like this though, it's very tempting to just consider you a bigoted idiot and be done with it. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you're making it rather difficult.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
