Are Transsexuals Mentally Ill?

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

But if they had disagreed, then the body would be right?



Sanity and insanity are NOT clinical terms. They are legal terms.



So, in that case your brain's sexual identity would be correct? And the body would be wrong?

I've explained myself long enough.
I'm done.

[DocCathode]

So to sum up-

You concede that the brain has a sexual identity. You also concede that the brain's sexual identity can differ from the body's.


You insist that in such a case, the body is right.


Why do you think the body has primacy? What do you base this on?

[Una Persson]

I must confess these "brain transplant" arguments and the related discussion are confusing the core issue somewhat.

The evidence seems very clear.

Transsexuals exist. They're here, they are fellow human beings on this earth who want simply to be treated like fellow human beings. This is not in dispute.

They have a mental gender which differs from their physical gender. This is not in dispute. Tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of transsexuals have been completely professionally evaluated. Google Scholar can find hundreds or thousands of technical papers explaining this. The root cause is academic; they are living, loving, human beings.

This disconnect causes them distress, in varying levels, but often to the point of suicide attempts. This also is not in dispute.

To resolve this distress, the most effective and proven treatments known are to align the body with the mind, not the mind with the body. I provided many citations which as of yet have not been refuted.

This alignment takes the form of body presentation and morphology changes, whether by clothing, or hormones, or SRS. The process of alignment is not in dispute.

So it comes down to "should transsexuals be treated as the gender they present."

What is the real driver for going out of one's way to treat a transwoman presenting as female, as if they were male?

Treating transsexuals as their presented gender is not an unreasonable or burdensome demand on everyone else. It does not burden anyone one whit more to treat a transwoman in the same manner as an XX woman. They're not demanding to be treated as two different genders, or asking for special privileges above and beyond being treated as their gender. In fact, by going out of one's way to treat them as a gender differently than they present, one is actually creating more work for themselves, as well as creating more distress for transsexuals. And being a bigoted fuckhead at the same time, but I digress. Discrimination normally creates a lot more work, trouble, and burden than tolerance.

So let's cut the thinly-veneered hysteric homophobia and penis panic. Stop the castration anxiety. Cease the stark raving terror that men want to invade the women's toilets. Get a grip and take a deep breath. Transsexuals as a population do not want to steal your "mighty" wang. They do not want to "trick" you into having sex with them. They do not want to peep under stalls in toilets. And they have not gone through years or decades of absolute hell just so they can attempt to "steal" some twisted idea of feminine sanctuary from men.

The solution to the transsexual "issue" is so doggone simple: just treat transsexuals as the gender they present in public, the workplace, in schools, and in society in general. No extra work. No psychodrama. That's all. Pretty please, with sugar on it.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

I must confess these "brain transplant" arguments and the related discussion are confusing the core issue somewhat.

The evidence seems very clear.

Transsexuals exist. They're here, they are fellow human beings on this earth who want simply to be treated like fellow human beings. This is not in dispute.

Agreed, but it was never an issue for me.

They have a mental gender which differs from their physical gender. This is not in dispute. Tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of transsexuals have been completely professionally evaluated. Google Scholar can find hundreds or thousands of technical papers explaining this. The root cause is academic; they are living, loving, human beings.

Agreed, except on the cause being simply academic.

This disconnect causes them distress, in varying levels, but often to the point of suicide attempts. This also is not in dispute.

Agreed, but it was never an issue for me.

To resolve this distress, the most effective and proven treatments known are to align the body with the mind, not the mind with the body. I provided many citations which as of yet have not been refuted.


This alignment takes the form of body presentation and morphology changes, whether by clothing, or hormones, or SRS. The process of alignment is not in dispute..

Agreed that it aligns the body and the mind.

So it comes down to "should transsexuals be treated as the gender they present."

What is the real driver for going out of one's way to treat a transwoman presenting as female, as if they were male?

Treating transsexuals as their presented gender is not an unreasonable or burdensome demand on everyone else. It does not burden anyone one whit more to treat a transwoman in the same manner as an XX woman. They're not demanding to be treated as two different genders, or asking for special privileges above and beyond being treated as their gender. In fact, by going out of one's way to treat them as a gender differently than they present, one is actually creating more work for themselves, as well as creating more distress for transsexuals. And being a bigoted fuckhead at the same time, but I digress. Discrimination normally creates a lot more work, trouble, and burden than tolerance.

If John wants to be called Mary, I'll call him Mary, but out of courtesy and not because I really think John is a woman.

So let's cut the thinly-veneered hysteric homophobia and penis panic. Stop the castration anxiety. Cease the stark raving terror that men want to invade the women's toilets. Get a grip and take a deep breath. Transsexuals as a population do not want to steal your "mighty" wang. They do not want to "trick" you into having sex with them. They do not want to peep under stalls in toilets. And they have not gone through years or decades of absolute hell just so they can attempt to "steal" some twisted idea of feminine sanctuary from men.

The solution to the transsexual "issue" is so doggone simple: just treat transsexuals as the gender they present in public, the workplace, in schools, and in society in general. No extra work. No psychodrama. That's all. Pretty please, with sugar on it.

Wrong, at least for me for all your attacks. No homophobia, penis panic, castration anxiety, toilets, wang stealin, trick, peeping, sanctuary. Keep that to yourself. You destroy all your "compassion and science" case.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

If John wants to be called Mary, I'll call him Mary, but out of courtesy and not because I really think John is a woman.

And in this sentence you show you a lack of courtesy. Saying you'll call "him" Mary belies that you probably wouldn't treat a transsexual you met IRL with the dignity and respect as due a fellow human being who has done you no harm other than merely existing as themselves.

[Broomstick]

Actually, that sort of stubborness regarding identity isn't limited to just transsexuals. It's nowhere near as serious, but I knew a man once who changed his first name from "Lawrence" to "Lorenzo" for professional reasons (he was a performer in an area where an Italian name had advantages over an "American" one). 10 years later there were people who still called him "Lawrence" not out of a slip or carelessness but because they were very, very insistent that his REAL name was "Lawrence". Um... no, it wasn't, it was Lorenzo and had been for a decade, yet these folks not only stuck with the old name but would arrogantly "correct" anyone who had met and known him as Lorenzo since the legal change.

Then there's the whole issue of people who "correct" married women who retain their maiden names, or hyphenate, or do something else they don't approve of.

Needless to say, such folks go ballistic over anything more extreme than a name change. A gender change? Who is going to clean up the exploded head goo?

It's not just castration anxiety (although that is a real factor in many instances), it's about people who can't accept that someone might change, or that other people don't conform to their stubborn, incorrect images of them. How dare those people NOT play the game! How dare they not conform/submit/play their role?!

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

And in this sentence you show you a lack of courtesy. Saying you'll call "him" Mary belies that you probably wouldn't treat a transsexual you met IRL with the dignity and respect as due a fellow human being who has done you no harm other than merely existing as themselves.

Belive want you want.
My point is very clear, your own I'm-the-defender-of-transsexuals shtick is really your bias showing.
John is a man and will alwyas be a man. Out of courtesy I'll call him Mary (and she and her), but it's courtesy for a person suffering a disease.

[Revenant Threshold]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

The problem with hypotheticals is that they quickly break down, but I'll answer. Since the original body and the original mind agreed, then it is established that my mind was right. Since my mental sanity regarding my sexual identity is correct, whatever happens to my body after that is, in that matter, incosecuential.
If somebody druged my and amputated my penis, and gave me fully functioning uterus, ovaries , vagina, and breasts and tricked my endocrinal glands into secretin females hormones I'd still be a man.

Hold on a moment, then. Let's apply that to the first part of your post.

That's right in the gigantic majority of cases.
Amputees feel phantom limbs, they even scratch them.

An amputee in their original body and the original mind agreed, thus it is established that your mind was right. Since their mental sanity regarding their limb status is correct, whatever happens to their body after that is, in that matter, inconsequential.

Thus, if someone drugged them and amputated their limb, they would still, mentally, be a person with said limb. That would seem to be the outcome if we apply the argument you're using on amputees. Thus, they should be treated, per your argument, as people who still have that limb.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

Belive want you want.
My point is very clear, your own I'm-the-defender-of-transsexuals shtick is really your bias showing.

Yes. I am highly biased towards treating all people in general with dignity and respect, and towards vehemently defending one of the most mistreated and abused communities, transsexuals. If one is to have a "schtick", then there are likely few more honorable to have.

And I'm heavily biased, being an actual scientist myself, towards agreeing completely with the widely-recognized scientific consensus of the disconnect between physical and mental gender, and towards giving mental gender precedence. Something you have serious issues with for some strange reason.

But thanks for noticing!

[gamerunknown]

It's a bit of a tangent and anecdotal, but there is a sentiment which is honourable on its face making life more difficult for those experiencing gender dysphoria: opposition to elective vaginoplasty. I watched a documentary (The Perfect Vagina) where the documentary maker expressed an opinion along the lines that if her daughter was not happy with her vagina at age 18, she'd have failed as a mother. While there is valid concern about exploitation of insecurities for profit, this kind of Platonic thinking may manifest itself in a more ugly fashion when dictating that people be happy with the body they're "born with".

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

Yes. I am highly biased towards treating all people in general with dignity and respect, and towards vehemently defending one of the most mistreated and abused communities, transsexuals. If one is to have a "schtick", then there are likely few more honorable to have.

And I'm heavily biased, being an actual scientist myself, towards agreeing completely with the widely-recognized scientific consensus of the disconnect between physical and mental gender, and towards giving mental gender precedence. Something you have serious issues with for some strange reason.

But thanks for noticing!

...and now you're reaching for the Nobel Peace Prize, I get it. I understand that if I don't measure to your standards, I'm the CEO of UNIT 731.

If you want to martyr yourself for science (which no one here has refuted, ergo it is accepted), or treating transsexuals correctly (which no one here has said no to) or hormonal treatment (which everyone has accepted as a treatment option) or sex reasignemnt surgery (which everyone has accepted as an treatment option) or even the use of the correct pronoun (which no one here has objected to), knock yourself out, but the OP asked a question and the answer was Yes. All your ohter causes fall flat because nobody was against them.

BTW; "giving precedence" is a treatment option for a mental disease to improve outcomes.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

...and now you're reaching for the Nobel Peace Prize, I get it.

No thanks; one was enough.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

No thanks; one was enough.

Apparently not, the quest is still on, the enemies haven't been vanquished.
Or was it a "nice try" Peace Prize?

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

Apparently not, the quest is still on, the enemies haven't been vanquished.
Or was it a "nice try" Peace Prize?

I already responded to your initial dig with humor; if you want to continue this off-topic...whatever...take it to another forum.

Oh, unofficially, of course.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

I'm not ignorant on the topic. You response was that not being ignorant meant being a transsexual.

To a certain degree, I think that is true. But ignorance is a matter of degrees, and I don't know how well read you are on the topic, I don't know how many transexuals you know personally, etc. I made a generic comment that I think most people's objections come from fear and ignorance. If yours do not, then I guess you are an outlier. Congrats.

For every other aspect, body takes precedence.
Transexuality is a disease of the mind, not the body. The body is right.

I very carefully separated genitals from mental identity. I did not speak of the body. Which is more the body, the genitals or the brain? The brain is a physical organ, too, rooted in biochemistry. Right now, the evidence points at the brain biochemistry defining sexual identity based upon hormonal balances during formation. Right now, the evidence supports that sexual identity is as much rooted in physical processes as vision. (Vision is a process in the brain, that relies on inputs from the eyes. You can't have vision without input, but the eyes can work perfectly and the brain still malfunction on vision.)

Ergo, the body is right, but which part of the body?

I do not accept the validity of the common concept of gender. Sex is gender.

Science recognizes that there are people who have a mismatch between their self-conception of their identity and their gonads. Scientists need a way to make the distinctions in order to understand and treat this condition. So they define a concept, "gender", and differentiate it from another concept, "sex", so they can talk about the issues clearly and concisely.

You seem to be disputing that self conception of sexual identity occurs. But you state that you are a man, and that if your brain were transplanted into a female body, or if you were drugged and surgically altered, you would still be a man. This is inconsistent. If your mind is set by who you are now, and changes to your body would not change your identity, then the concept of "gender" is real. If your "gender" is determined by your body, then if someone surgically altered your body to have female genitals, you would be a woman. Against your will, but still be a woman. You can't have it both ways. Either gender is not real, in which case you would become a woman, and then I guess be a lesbian*, or gender is real, in which case you would still be a man in a female body, and thus in need of some form of treatment - perhaps surgery to "correct" what was done against your will.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

So it comes down to "should transsexuals be treated as the gender they present."

Why shouldn't they? You claim not to be bigoted. Can you give a reason that isn't bigoted?

If John wants to be called Mary, I'll call him Mary, but out of courtesy and not because I really think John is a woman.

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, this boils down to a matter of perception. You don't mentally accept that a person's internal identity matters, you think that "reality" is defined by the gonads over the brain biochemistry. Therefore, conceptually, the person will always be the sex they were born rather than however they identify. Even if they get hormones early, get surgery early, look like a woman to all outward appearances, and have a vagina and breasts, you will still think they are a "man" underneath it all because their chromosomes are XY and/or their body started out with a penis and scrotum.

I guess I can understand that. I have a certain mental struggle myself when I encounter someone who looks mostly masculine wearing makeup and a dress. It triggers a discombobulation, a sense of discomfort, a social awkwardness. I'm trying to remap my personal conception to think of them as female rather than male because it helps me mentally map my expectations to theirs, so I'm less likely to get confused on pronouns and the like. If I try to keep the conceptualization as "That's a man I'm supposed to treat like a woman" I'll get confused, whereas if I conceptualize "that's a woman who looks like a man" I'll be more likely to keep it straight. To me, it's all about mental compartmentalization to create a map of expectations, how to interact. Experience breeds familiarity breeds comfort with the situation.

-----
*I'm assuming you still accept sexual orientation as different than sexual identity.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Irishman

I guess I can understand that. I have a certain mental struggle myself when I encounter someone who looks mostly masculine wearing makeup and a dress. It triggers a discombobulation, a sense of discomfort, a social awkwardness. I'm trying to remap my personal conception to think of them as female rather than male because it helps me mentally map my expectations to theirs, so I'm less likely to get confused on pronouns and the like.

Would the concept of "uncanny valley" describe how you feel?

[Docta G]

Yes, everyone different from you is insane, immoral, and intolerable.

[Revenant Threshold]

I know I am!

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

Would the concept of "uncanny valley" describe how you feel?

I suppose that I, for one, might describe it so. In my 64 years I’ve known only a handful of lesbians (known to me to be so), none well, and only one transsexual (a co-worker that I barely knew enough to say “Hello” to), and so, when faced with one, I tend to feel a little—off-balance, shall I say? On the other hand, as a theatre habitué, as a semipro opera/operetta singer, and as an active participant in Oz (as in “Wizard of”) fandom, I’ve known more “out” gay men that I can count, so I’m entirely at my ease. As Jack Point says, “Use is everything.”

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

Yes. I am highly biased towards treating all people in general with dignity and respect

Well, there's your problem! Now if only you could get past that silly scruple, you could become a right-thinking sort of person like Aji!

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Well, there's your problem! Now if only you could get past that silly scruple, you could become a right-thinking sort of person like Aji!

To tell the truth, I'm having some difficulty making sense of what their position actually is. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt based on some things they've written, and hope that IRL they actually would treat a trans person quite well. But there seems to be a communication gap here.

[Ají de Gallina]

This will be my last post on this thread.

Originally Posted by Irishman

To a certain degree, I think that is true. But ignorance is a matter of degrees, and I don't know how well read you are on the topic, I don't know how many transexuals you know personally, etc. I made a generic comment that I think most people's objections come from fear and ignorance. If yours do not, then I guess you are an outlier. Congrats.

Sure, but your reply was "are you a transsexual".
My comments are not out of ignorance.

I very carefully separated genitals from mental identity. I did not speak of the body. Which is more the body, the genitals or the brain? The brain is a physical organ, too, rooted in biochemistry. Right now, the evidence points at the brain biochemistry defining sexual identity based upon hormonal balances during formation. Right now, the evidence supports that sexual identity is as much rooted in physical processes as vision. (Vision is a process in the brain, that relies on inputs from the eyes. You can't have vision without input, but the eyes can work perfectly and the brain still malfunction on vision.)

If you have a male body (and normally, but not always, that means XY and penis) you are a man.

Ergo, the body is right, but which part of the body?

The whole body. The brain is part of the body, but perception while resideing in the body, is not a part of it

Science recognizes that there are people who have a mismatch between their self-conception of their identity and their gonads. Scientists need a way to make the distinctions in order to understand and treat this condition. So they define a concept, "gender", and differentiate it from another concept, "sex", so they can talk about the issues clearly and concisely.

Gender is a social construct, and in my opinion, useless.

You seem to be disputing that self conception of sexual identity occurs. But you state that you are a man, and that if your brain were transplanted into a female body, or if you were drugged and surgically altered, you would still be a man. This is inconsistent. If your mind is set by who you are now, and changes to your body would not change your identity, then the concept of "gender" is real. If your "gender" is determined by your body, then if someone surgically altered your body to have female genitals, you would be a woman. Against your will, but still be a woman. You can't have it both ways. Either gender is not real, in which case you would become a woman, and then I guess be a lesbian*, or gender is real, in which case you would still be a man in a female body, and thus in need of some form of treatment - perhaps surgery to "correct" what was done against your will.

I've given enough examples, I wuill not repeatr them. I'm sorry if they are not clear enough or if you can't understand them.

Why shouldn't they? You claim not to be bigoted. Can you give a reason that isn't bigoted?

Read my "John-Mary" posts.

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, this boils down to a matter of perception. You don't mentally accept that a person's internal identity matters, you think that "reality" is defined by the gonads over the brain biochemistry. Therefore, conceptually, the person will always be the sex they were born rather than however they identify. Even if they get hormones early, get surgery early, look like a woman to all outward appearances, and have a vagina and breasts, you will still think they are a "man" underneath it all because their chromosomes are XY and/or their body started out with a penis and scrotum.

I guess I can understand that. I have a certain mental struggle myself when I encounter someone who looks mostly masculine wearing makeup and a dress. It triggers a discombobulation, a sense of discomfort, a social awkwardness. I'm trying to remap my personal conception to think of them as female rather than male because it helps me mentally map my expectations to theirs, so I'm less likely to get confused on pronouns and the like. If I try to keep the conceptualization as "That's a man I'm supposed to treat like a woman" I'll get confused, whereas if I conceptualize "that's a woman who looks like a man" I'll be more likely to keep it straight. To me, it's all about mental compartmentalization to create a map of expectations, how to interact. Experience breeds familiarity breeds comfort with the situation.
-----
*I'm assuming you still accept sexual orientation as different than sexual identity.

No struggle, no uncanny valley. If a two-armed person wants me to traet him as if he had only one, I'll do it. He still has two, though.

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Well, there's your problem! Now if only you could get past that silly scruple, you could become a right-thinking sort of person like Aji!

Originally Posted by Una Persson

To tell the truth, I'm having some difficulty making sense of what their position actually is. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt based on some things they've written, and hope that IRL they actually would treat a trans person quite well. But there seems to be a communication gap here.

I fboth of you get from the thread that I wouldn't treat a person with dignity and respect, then there is nothing more I can do that'll convince you.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

Would the concept of "uncanny valley" describe how you feel?

That's fairly accurate. It captures a similar kind of discomfort. The signals are self-contradictory, and not fitting into the expected niche. Ergo, social discomfort.

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

I suppose that I, for one, might describe it so. In my 64 years I’ve known only a handful of lesbians (known to me to be so), none well, and only one transsexual (a co-worker that I barely knew enough to say “Hello” to), and so, when faced with one, I tend to feel a little—off-balance, shall I say? On the other hand, as a theatre habitué, as a semipro opera/operetta singer, and as an active participant in Oz (as in “Wizard of”) fandom, I’ve known more “out” gay men that I can count, so I’m entirely at my ease. As Jack Point says, “Use is everything.”

That is exactly my point. If you encounter early in life and deal with regularly people who have differences, you figure out how to fit them into your mental map and how to deal with them. But if you encounter someone else with a different difference, then that is more awkward because you don't have a place for them.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

Sure, but your reply was "are you a transsexual".
My comments are not out of ignorance.

That was me conceding the point.

If you have a male body (and normally, but not always, that means XY and penis) you are a man.

As I said, you are defining "male body" by genes and genitals, and ignoring any brain chemistry as "not the body".

Gender is a social construct, and in my opinion, useless.

Your opinion is useless to the scientists, counselors, and patients who actually have to deal with the topic.

I've given enough examples, I wuill not repeatr them. I'm sorry if they are not clear enough or if you can't understand them.

As I just explained your position in detail, I do understand. If you do not agree with the implications, then you need to examine your position more carefully. Or expalin where my analysis is incorrect.

Read my "John-Mary" posts.

I have read the posts; they do not answer the question. Actually, you have stated that you will treat them as the gender they present, out of courtesy, not out of conviction. I can accept that answer. But it doesn't address the question: is there a non-bigoted reason to not treat them as the gender they present?

I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, to assume you have no ill will toward transexuals, but that it is merely a matter of definitions. It is easy to assume the other person has a hidden motivation for the definitions they choose, but I am trying to take it that it is just your perception, not a judgment. I can see why you might be frustrated at people implying motives on your part that you don't feel.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

Are you certain you read it right? Let me quote it:

How do the two "my's" in the quote not signify clearly and unambiguously that Serano is talking about herself and her Y chromosomes and her body?

Yes, I read it right. Clearly she's talking about her body, and her chromosomes, but it carries the connotation of "I don't want these Y chromosomes because Y chromosomes are lame-ass", rather than "MY PERSONAL Y chromosomes are lame-ass because they're in my body instead of not".

Perhaps I interpret the connotation differently because I possess Y chromosomes myself, and I don't think they're at all lame-ass.


Powers &8^]

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Powers

Yes, I read it right. Clearly she's talking about her body, and her chromosomes, but it carries the connotation of "I don't want these Y chromosomes because Y chromosomes are lame-ass", rather than "MY PERSONAL Y chromosomes are lame-ass because they're in my body instead of not".

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point, I fear.

Perhaps I interpret the connotation differently because I possess Y chromosomes myself, and I don't think they're at all lame-ass.

I agree that is a very valid possibility.

[Inner Stickler]

Well, I possess a y-chromosome and I didn't feel maligned by it. It seemed clear to me that she was speaking of her experience and not generalizing to the population as a whole.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point, I fear.

No need to fear, since I never tried to claim it was the only possible interpretation; merely that it was a valid one.


Powers &8^]

[Powers]

Relevant to this topic:

Oklahoma judge refuses to let men planning sex-change operations have feminine names

“A so-called sex-change surgery can make one appear to be the opposite sex, but in fact they are nothing more than an imitation of the opposite sex,” the judge wrote in a seven-page order last year.

“Here, petitioner has not even had the surgery by which his sex purports to be changed. Thus, based on the foregoing and the DNA evidence, a sex change cannot make a man a woman or a woman a man all of which, the Court finds is sufficient in and of itself to deny petitioner's request for a name change,” Graves wrote.

“To grant a name change in this case would be to assist that which is fraudulent,” Graves wrote. “It is notable that Genesis 1:27-28 states: ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth ...' The DNA code shows God meant for them to stay male and female.”

The judge also wrote about not wanting to be “complicit in legitimizing sex changes through changes of names.”

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-judge-ref...#ixzz26x1t61rE


Powers &8^]

[DocCathode]

Besides all else, I'm positively thrilled when rather than citing case law, a judge cites the Bible.

[John W. Kennedy]

For God’s sake, why hasn’t this flagrant traitor been impeached?

[Powers]

Also relevant:

The Silent Soldiers Who Are Still ‘Unfit to Serve’

As the rest of the country commemorates the first year of open service by gay, lesbian and bisexual service members, transgender soldiers still serve in silence. While “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal opened the door for LGB service members, the U.S. military considers transgender identity to be a mental health disorder that makes one ineligible to serve.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/mil...rve?page=0%2C0


Powers &8^]

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

For God’s sake, why hasn’t this flagrant traitor been impeached?

He's from Oklahoma.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Powers

Relevant to this topic:

Oklahoma judge refuses to let men planning sex-change operations have feminine namesPowers &8^]

As I said in another thread, I'm shocked he didn't find the petitioner in contempt for violating the Deuteronomy prohibiting against wearing female clothing.

[stevenova]

A panel has recommended post menopausal women NOT take HRT as the risks outweigh the benefits. This is for women who have actual physical problems due to the lessoning of estrogen in their bodies. So do you think it's okay for MEN to take HRT even though they have no physical problem that even requires it, when doctores recommend women not take it due to the health risks?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...tml?ctab=all_&

[Una Persson]

First off, the impacts of hormones on transsexuals have already been discussed, or you could have looked them up yourself. Hormone therapy for transsexuals, especially 17B-estradiol, has been proven relatively safe, with even the potential for DVT now being thought to be very highly over-rated. Breast cancer is highly rare in transsexuals, as are other cancers and negative cardiovascular effects. Increased mortality exists but it greatly overweighed by the increased risk of suicide, homicide, and HIV/AIDS among transsexuals. The reasons for which were previously discussed.

Second, nearly every drug known has side effects and risk factors associated with it, even aspirin. The question to ask with any drug is, does it relieve more suffering and do more good than it has the potential to cause harm? And in the case of hormone treatment for transsexuals, the answer is "absolutely."

Third, HRT for post-menopausal women is not the same as hormone therapy for male to female transsexuals. If the reasons are unclear...(shrug).

Fourth, there is a physical reason for hormone therapy. The physical differences between the brains of transsexuals and cisgendered persons has already been discussed, although there is disagreement by some as to the magnitude of those physical differences.

[stevenova]

What are the LONG TERM studies on men taking female hormones? kind of hard to believe it's "safe" for men to take hormones not meant for their bodies but it's unsafe for women to take them. Politics and political correctness getting ahead of safety once again for a liberal feel good moment?

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by stevenova

What are the LONG TERM studies on men taking female hormones? kind of hard to believe it's "safe" for men to take hormones not meant for their bodies but it's unsafe for women to take them. Politics and political correctness getting ahead of safety once again for a liberal feel good moment?

First off, drop the wounded political correctness banner; it really doesn't suit this topic. Transsexualism has fuck-all to do with liberalism and political correctness, it has to do with the lives, health, and livelihood of your fellow human beings.

Second, I told you that it was previously discussed. Please re-read the thread before asking questions which have already been addressed. Or did you intend this to be a rant and mean for this to be in the Pit? I encourage you to start a Pit thread if so.

Third, be aware that hormone regimens and treatments and formulations are not the same, even among women on HRT I believe there were at least 6 or 8 different formulations of hormones which were commonly prescribed, all of them with different levels of risk. Most critically, the difference between ethinyl estradiol and 17B-estradiol. Which was previously discussed.

Finally, from page one of the thread you are reading:

Many express concern over the long-term impacts of taking large doses of hormones, but the risks appear to be low. Study 9, one of the largest studies conducted to date on the subject, consisting of 816 transwomen and 293 transmen over more than 10,000 patient-years showed the overall mortality rates were not significantly different than the general population. A 20-fold increase in blood clots was seen for transwomen, but almost all cases were due to oral ethinyl estradiol intake, which is no longer advised for patients at risk (endocrinologists I’ve interviewed who specialize in transsexual patients say they stopped prescribing ethinyl estradiol a long time ago). Study 12, a recent 10-year study of 95 transsexuals showed no evidence of significant health effects from hormones, and Study 13, a larger 20-year survey showed no significant differences in mortality, but for transwomen who had taken ethinyl estradiol, again there was a significant increase in blood clots. Study 14 claims that despite fears of breast, pituitary, and prostate cancer, transsexual hormone-related tumors are rare. A more recent study, which (caveat) I have not fully reviewed, claims that the risk of deep vein thrombus for transwomen is even less than previously thought, on the order of about a 7% relative risk increase.

I can provide more citations, provided I don't think I'm being trolled.

[stevenova]

Political correctness has state it's not a mental illness to take dangerous an unecessary hormones and to cut off healthy body parts. How long until it's hate speech for me to say that?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by stevenova

Political correctness has state it's not a mental illness to take dangerous an unecessary hormones and to cut off healthy body parts. How long until it's hate speech for me to say that?

So you think deliberately putting harmful things into your own body is a mental illness?

[stevenova]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

So you think deliberately putting harmful things into your own body is a mental illness?

So I guess meat eating need sto be banned.

How about sex? especially anal sex?

Guess what, someone can quit smoking, or not even die from smoking, but you can't get your dick back after you cut it off.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by stevenova

Political correctness has state it's not a mental illness to take dangerous an unecessary hormones and to cut off healthy body parts. How long until it's hate speech for me to say that?

You have no factual basis to claim that hormone therapy is either dangerous nor unnecessary. You ignore the parallel of other cosmetic surgeries. You ignore the citations given and seem to be pushing some sort of intolerant and ignorant agenda. How unfortunate.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by stevenova

Guess what, someone can quit smoking, or not even die from smoking, but you can't get your dick back after you cut it off.

Nor can one convince a transphobic hater to change. In all my life debating the issue I have never once interacted with a transphobe who ever changed their opinion towards one of behaving tolerantly and decently towards transsexuals. It's like arguing with moon landing hoaxers or birthers.

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by stevenova

but you can't get your dick back after you cut it off.

Huh. Maybe Una was on to something with the 'castration anxiety' argument.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by stevenova

Guess what, someone can quit smoking, or not even die from smoking, but you can't get your dick back after you cut it off.

You can relax, no one is coming to cut your dick off.

[stevenova]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

Nor can one convince a transphobic hater to change. In all my life debating the issue I have never once interacted with a transphobe who ever changed their opinion towards one of behaving tolerantly and decently towards transsexuals. It's like arguing with moon landing hoaxers or birthers.

Do I also "hate" bulemics if I don't think doctors should enable their mental illness by giving them laxatives or teaching them vomiting techniques that won't damage their teeth as much?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by stevenova

Do I also "hate" bulemics if I don't think doctors should enable their mental illness by giving them laxatives or teaching them vomiting techniques that won't damage their teeth as much?

What the hell are you talking about?Ignoring off-topic rant/hijack.

[stevenova]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

What the hell are you talking about?Ignoring off-topic rant/hijack.

It's called an ANALOGY. it's how you logically make an argument.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by stevenova

It's called an ANALOGY. it's how you logically make an argument.

You mean like the one I linked to in post #289?

[Jragon]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

The evidence seems very clear.

Transsexuals exist. They're here, they are fellow human beings on this earth who want simply to be treated like fellow human beings. This is not in dispute.[...]

I want to say, that for me it's a philosophical argument over a medical one. I absolutely agree that transsexuals, like everyone else should be treated with respect. I agree that, at present, the best treatments involve aligning the body with the mind -- and since it brings them comfort and makes them happy they should use it (and further, that we should refer to a mtf as "her" and an ftm as "him").

Perhaps "mentally ill" isn't the term that I should hold on to. Now I realize that what I'm about to talk about it purely academic, and philosophical, that's what I'm intending. But to me the question comes down to in what cases, and to what degree, when there is a mind/body disconnect is the body or the mind the true determiner of reality?

Like I said, it's purely a philosophical argument. I think it's the most ethical to fully support a trans person's treatment, and refer to them by the name and pronoun they choose. I consider that argument resolved, case closed. I do think that the philosophical question, though, of which is "real" is, even if useless and unimportant, interesting to think about at least.

Perhaps the question could be formulated as: "If there were magic pills that could switch the mind's gender, and an equally hassle-free pill that could switch the body -- would one treatment be more correct than the other?"

[Irishman]

If there were a magic pills that could make either change occur in such a hassle-free manner, I don't know there would be a "right" answer, just that person's choice. But I suspect if *I* found my identity at odds with my body and had the choice of a simple pill to change each, *I* would probably keep my inward, personal self (i.e. identity) the same and make my outward self (i.e. body) match. Because it's my self.*

A more challenging question is if we managed to come up with a pill that would magically change the mind's gender, but don't have a magic fix for the body. Then the choice is a simple change to the gender, or a BFD to tinker with the body and hope it eventually sort of resembles the sex the person wants to be. In that situation, how does the primacy of the identity stack against the realities of the effort involved?

That's probably a philosophical discussion that could be had in another thread. For now, we don't have any magic pills.
-----
* Here's another analogy and strange philosophical question that helps demonstrate my point. What if there were a magical pill that would allow you to change your mental ethnicity, such that instead of being a middle class WASP you could transform into an ethnic Serb, or an African tribesman, or a Japanese? In other words, your social cues and expectations, your speech patterns, etc would be morphed to make you act and feel like that ethnicity. Would you opt for such a pill? Try it as a lark? Pop around to see what life is like? Or would you keep preference for your original mind? Can you guarantee you'd ever be able to find your "self" back, if you didn't like the change?