Yeah…I might consider it if we were talking magic, and that I’d be a fully functional, fertile, XY male, but I’m not interested if this instead involves gender reassignment surgery.
AIUI the OP means that the person would change the body to the opposite gender but their brain would still remain the original gender. Because if someone transitioned truly to the opposite gender and their brain also changed as well, they presumably would not *mind *being the opposite gender - just like most men don’t mind being men and most women don’t mind being women. I think the OP’s whole point is that you have to be somewhat unhappy about being stuck in a body that’s not your correct gender, otherwise why would you need an entire quarter-of-a-billion-dollars in compensation.
That’s how I understood it. If the question was “Would you switch genders and sex for $250 million?” then I would have a different answer.
Well, $250 million is a lot of money.
If it were “Change your body to opposite gender for $2.5 million” and the majority said no, I’d understand but I am indeed surprised at the majority turning it down in the face of Powerball-sized money.
This. I’m okay as a guy, I guess, but I would make a large and rather ugly woman. I saw the astounding changes when one of my friends transitioned from a muscular young man to a curvy and cute woman over a period of several years, so I have a hint of what’s possible. But today’s techniques don’t change basic body size.
If I could be… resculpted… to become a hottie, that would be different.
Internally, if nothing changed with my sexual preferences, I’d just have to figure out how to be mostly gay instead of mostly straight. I think. The most difficult part would be learning a new social culture, starting with how to go to the washroom.
Perhaps we are dealing with different definitions of “sex change”
They way I understand the scenario, I would still be a man, but have a vagina (and maybe boobs) instead of a penis.
When I told him about this question, my husband, ever the economist, said "it would be more interesting to pose the question as, “How much would you have to be paid in order to do this?”
Actually, I raised this topic by telling him the OP’s question, then asking: (a) how would you answer? (b) what do you think my answer was? and (c) what do you think most people on the SD said?
He got (c) totally wrong, but his response to (a) was the same as mine and as for (b), he correctly guessed what I would say.
Clearly, we are meant for each other 
Either
- “Let’s both change genders, that way one of us is still a man and the other is a woman, and we can still have heterosexual sex, but get $500 million out of it,”
or
- “I love you just the way and would never change anything about you for any sum of money” “Ditto”?
:p:p:p:p:p
I’ve been thinking about this more than what is probably entirely healthy.
It’s no secret that I’m a rather girlish boy. In some ways, I would make more sense as a girl. But on the other hand, then I would be a rather boyish girl.
If given a choice about which side of that mirror to be, so to speak, I might be very keen indeed to try the boyish girl option. However, I have no particular desire to be a very feminine woman. Not that I have anything against very feminine women. On the contrary, I adore them. I guess I just want to be me (breaks into song), only a more interesting version. Maybe it’s partly boredom, after all these years of being the girlish boy kind of me.
Also, specifically, I have no desire to be a heterosexual woman. I don’t particularly want to fancy men. Does that make me an androphile-phobe (if that makes sense)? I know what the retort is: If I suddenly do fancy men, then it’s fine, right? I won’t then want to fancy women. So it works the same way, only switched around. It’s like if you prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla. If I re-wire your brain, so it’s the other way around, you won’t want to fancy chocolate instead. You’ll just eat your vanilla and be happy. But the problem with that is, and let’s face it: Chocolate is just objectively better, isn’t it? I have nothing against androphiles. Many of my best friends are androphiles. But, all you androphiles: As much as I hate to tell you this, I honestly think that you’re missing out, in a fairly big way.
BTW, there’s a bit of a paradox in here somewhere, isn’t there? Men love women. Well, if they do, why wouldn’t they want to *be *women? But if you ask them that, you might get the reaction “hell, no!” So, now it seems that they *hate *women, then, if the thought of being one is so terrible. Same the other way around. A woman might love men. But ask her if she wants to be a man, and she may go “yuck, gross!”
And you can see how we can go around and around, and maybe make weird overlapping spiral shapes, with this.
If I was 15 years younger, maybe.
The one thing I’ve always envied about women is the capacity for multiple orgasms. If I was of an age to exploit that, I’d be tempted–I mean, multiple orgasms and $250 mill (after-the-axe)? I’d never have to do anything else if I didn’t want to! A big part of me that says “what’s not to like?”
But I’m gonna be 58 two weeks from Tuesday, and that’s well past the age of menopause, right ( I’m not sufficiently familiar with womanly physicality to know that sort of thing)? Since I’d probably be post-orgasmic within a year or two at most, I’d miss out on my main incentive (other than that nine figure one) to accept the transformation.
On second thought, being a rich old lady might well be a lot better than being a broke-ass old man. Oh, what the hell? I ain’t never been much of a macho man no how, so bring on the high-end post-op pain drugs and the great big check. Do not spell my name wrong on that check or that prescription.
I guess I didn’t know that women could be “post-orgasmic”. Is that really a thing?
It is, according to my post-menopausal friends.
No. Not for any amount of money. For all its unique challenges, being a woman feels natural to me.
There’s another dichotomy involved in this question, too. You have respondents who are financially secure, and hence don’t need extra money so much. And then you have the other kind.
There have been times when I’ve been so broke that if you reduced this problem to simply chopping off my dick for money (not a sex change, just a cleaver to the dick, and not $250 million, just money), then I might still have at least considered it.
I may not be marketable for that much money, but I’ve got a lot of sentimental value, much more than that paltry amount in the poll, to myself as I am right now.
I almost started a thread about this. I am not wealthy, but I have economic security, and as a result, large sums of money are not a great incentive for me in any hypothetical. But for those living hand-to-mouth, struggling to keep the heat on, it could be huge.
Sure I would and then I’d use some of my money to get changed right back.
I’m surprised the minority saying yes is as large as it is. Among other things it might depend on how you imagine it, perhaps like the movie ‘Switch’ where a shallow guy dies and is reincarnated as an actual woman (played by Ellen Barkin). A sex change operation does not actually change your sex. Although others seem aware of this and presenting the possibility it’s enough money to perhaps accept it anyway.
As mentioned, also depends on financial situation and view toward money. In general my answer to hypotheticals about undergoing ordeals for money, and I would consider a real life sex change op to be one, is ‘no interest’. I’m not much moved either by pseudo-altruistic arguments about undergoing ordeals to get money to give to others. I give my 10%+ to others (voluntarily besides taxes), call it arbitrary but it works for me. If people would really undergo ordeals for money to then give it away, why don’t they just give away all their money now without undergoing an ordeal?
Meh. My gender identity is pretty tied to my body. I don’t really feel like there’s anything masculine about me besides my physical characteristics. It’s part of what makes transgenderism hard for me to understand viscerally; but I also recognize that there’s no particular need for me to understand it viscerally. If I were in a woman’s body, I’d identify as female.
So long as I can stay asexual, ya betcha, sweetie.