I see we’ve reached the mandatory “shut up while I tell you my opinions about the transgendered” portion of the thread. It was a fairly good discussion for a while there.
So not taking that purposefully misdirected bait.
I did my legwork and hard research into the subject, you refuse to do any. People can read and make their own judgement about quality of life.
When you administer chemotherapy to cancer patients, a certain percentage of them still die of cancer. Therefore, we can conclude that chemotherapy is an ineffective cancer treatment.
If there is no evidence that a given form of chemotherapy reduces the death rate, then it seems like a reasonable conclusion to say that particular form of chemotherapy is ineffective.
Regards,
Shodan
I can’t find myself agreeing with you I’m afraid. With a pre op transgender person, there’s at least the option of you coming across information about the other person that will allow meaningful consent to sex. With a post op person, I quite strongly feel the information should be volunteered. The best analogy I can come up with is the twin deception example, where someone has sex with one twin while assuming they’re having sex with the other, which cannot be considered meaningful consent. Now of course they’re not perfectly analogous, but I think in some major respects they are. I have no reason to believe(given the very low percentage of transgender people) that the person I’m having sex with is transgender. Were I to find out later that I’d had sex with a transgender person, I suspect my visceral reaction would be similar to the idea of having sex with a man, which is to say, a person different than the person I thought I was having sex with. I also suspect that most heterosexual men would agree with me. I’m not claiming this is necessarily a rational response. But surely this is one of those cases where it matters that it is what the response is? If the response is, as you suggest, based on cultural prejudice, it is appropriate to try and remove that prejudice, and I applaud all efforts to try and combat it, but as long as that response exists, it seems to me wrong to withhold, ex ante, information that can be expected to produce such a response ex post.
Disclaimer- I’m on dial up and can’t watch the video in question. It strikes me as much like Tone Loc’s Funky Cold Medina. Slightly offensive, but not worth worrying about.
Re Obligation To Disclose
There is no right time for a woman to tell a heterosexual man “I have a penis”. Tell him too early and he’ll leave. Tell him after you’ve become emotionally involved or after you’ve had anal or sex, and he’ll feel tricked and likely become abusive.
As I’ve long said, my response to “Before we go any further, you need to know that I have a penis,” would be to say “But you do consent to going further, right? You’re very attractive and I’d love to be inside you” while undressing.
So, in the former scenario, wouldn’t you consider giving the partner all of the information so that he or she can make an informed decision to be the right time?
Yeah, that was a bad analogy. Let’s try this instead.
Left untreated, let’s say 20% of transsexuals commit suicide. 70% don’t kill themselves, but experience significant problems with depression and substance abuse. After treatment, 20% of transsexuals still commit suicide, but only 10% have significant problems with depression and substance abuse.
Would you say that the treatment is effective?
No, I wouldn’t. I stand by my statement that there is no right time.
So, with full knowledge that he will leave if he knows the truth, it’s ethically fine to withhold that information?
I’m trying to come up with any scenario (transgendered issues aside) where it is ethically ok to not divulge something that is true prior to intercourse if you know that such divulgence would lead to the other person changing their mind.
Bah, I should have stuck “likely” in my first post.
Most men will, I make no argument, no longer be interested in sex with a woman if she reveals she was born with a penis.
Most men will feel tricked if they find out after sex has already taken place.
BUT, some men will feel differently.
So a transwoman can’t have “full knowledge” that a man will leave or feel tricked. There’s always the chance this particular man won’t. We’re dealing in hypotheticals. Transwomen are dealing in real men, who they know better than we do.
This is why we keep coming back to those quantifying, where-do-you-draw-the-line types of hypotheticals. I understand your point that finding out a woman you’ve had sex with used to have a penis is something you’d consider comparable to finding out that she was actually a completely different individual from the one you were encouraged to believe you were having sex with, as in a classic D’Artagnan/Milady/De Wardes triangle.
So in your opinion, where is the line crossed between that and other surgical modifications? I’m guessing you wouldn’t consider you’d been deprived of “meaningful consent” if you found out after the fact that a woman you’d slept with had had breast implants or hair removal to make her appear more conventionally feminine, for example.
How about a woman who’d been born with some intersex genital characteristics and had had surgery and other treatments to correct them, but had always been formally assigned as female and had always lived as female? If you found out after the fact about her corrective surgery in infancy, would you consider her to be “a person different than the person I thought I was having sex with”?
Bear in mind that a lot of these distinctions boil down to a somewhat arbitrary judgement call on the part of a neonatal pediatrician. In fact, an assigned female born with some intersex characteristics including clitoral hypertrophy, who gets corrective surgery and hormones to look like a more typical female, could be physiologically IDENTICAL to an assigned male with some intersex characteristics including a very small penis, who self-identifies as female and eventually transitions to transwoman status.
She’d be physiologically and psychologically the same person in both cases. She’d have had the same genetics, the same natural physiology, the same persistent and consistent self-identification as female, and the same treatments to reinforce that female identity physically. The crucial difference would basically be whether some doctor decided to tick “M” or “F” on the birth certificate.
Wait, what? This makes no sense, unless you’re conflating “cancer treatment” with “cancer cure”.
If a cancer treatment, for instance, prolongs the lives of cancer patients or reduces the amount of pain or weakness they suffer, or if it speeds up remission in whatever percentage of patients survive cancer, then it most definitely counts as in some sense an effective treatment even if it doesn’t reduce the overall death rate among the cancer victims.
Similarly, even if SSR doesn’t reduce suicide rates among transgender people, ISTM that if it’s increasing the happiness of those transgender people who don’t commit suicide, it’s definitely accomplishing something.
Does that PLoS One article even say anything about whether sex reassignment surgery reduces the suicide rate of trans people? The conclusion section of the abstract says “Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.” (Emphasis added.) Surgery could potentially reduce the suicide rate for trans people without bringing it all the way down to the same rate as the general population.
I just pulled up the full text (PLoS One is an open-source journal, so anyone can read it) and skimmed through it, and in the discussion section the authors write:
(Emphasis added again.)
No, it really doesn’t. It’s silly and ignorant to judge a treatment by the primary category of “does it across the board reduce suicides” or “does it bring suicides down to exactly the level of the general population.” Seriously, this whole issue is a red herring.
Sure, that could be the case. There doesn’t seem to be much evidence that it is the case, but it could be.
That misses the point rather badly. No one that I know of argues that SRS increases mortality rates. What is missing is evidence that it decreases it.
SRS tends to be spoken of as something life-saving and that transsexuals would die without it. There does not seem to be much evidence that it is life-saving, and no more that people die without it than with it.
But nobody seems to want to ask the question.
The advantage of measuring suicide rates is that it is objective. Thus you avoid the whole “the operation was a success but the patient died” idea. If 40% of transsexuals are so miserable that they attempt suicde before SRS, and then 80% of those who get SRS report that they are happy with the results of their surgery but 40% still try to kill themselves, then that means a significant number of those who are happy with the results of their surgery are still so miserable as to want to die.
Regards,
Shodan
The question has been asked and answered. You simply refuse to accept the answer and to do your own legwork. The answer is there is no significant difference on suicide rates proven one way or another.
Quality of life is subjective, and yet all these medical researchers from the around the world (previously cited, and used as the basis for the WPATH standards of care) feel they it can be measured and that such ensnarement is valid. Otherwise one might as well through out most of psychiatry and psychology and simply rely on the actuarial tables of “number dead via suicide.”
I am baffled how anyone can argue that even if suicide rates stay exactly the same, improving the quality life for all the rest of the people in the study nonetheless represents an ineffective or failed treatment.
I’m still not seeing that the article you cited says anything like this. Could you please quote the specific passage from the PLoS One article Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden that compares the suicide or attempted suicide rate among transsexuals who have not had SRS to transsexuals who have had SRS?
I’m not seeing it either, of course, so I’m wondering what the relevance of it was in the first place.
It’s particularly puzzling since, as I mentioned before, the authors of the study do say “It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism.” So I’m wondering why someone would cite this study as evidence of the ineffectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism when the article itself explicitly says not to do this.