Is transsexuality immoral? [Archive I]

Otter

August 2, 2003, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
I'm sorry if I offend but I think transsexuals are sick.

Sick? Sick as in some sort of affliction? Or sick as in "Ewww, I think that's gross?"

Evidently the condition of which they suffer is officially considered a mental illness.

"Gender Identity Disorder" is listed in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), so it is classed as a psychological condition; I assume this is what you are referring to, as it's pretty official and being in the DSM seems to indicate it's a mental disorder.

However, the DSM is not an unchanging canon. Prior to the 1980 release of the DSM-III, homosexuality had its very own listing and was therefore "officially considered a mental illness." You may (or may not) still personally consider it sick, but being gay is no longer an offense punishable by psychotherapy.

Similarly, no amount of psychological intervention has been shown to "help" transsexuals. The only treatment is medical, in the form of hormones and surgery. If someone is transsexual you can't "fix" them so they identify with their physical gender.

But is it immoral for a person (for example) born a male to desire to become a woman?

In medical and scientific circles, transsexualism is understood as a biologically based condition. Gender identity -- your sense of yourself as male or female -- is determined at the fetal stage. It's something you're born with, not something you choose. It comes from your brain, not your gonads.

Is it immoral for a person (for example) to be born with a female gender identity and a male body to wish to live as a woman rather than as a man? Is it unnatural? Or does it simply make you uncomfortable?

The way I see it, transsexualism is no more immoral or unnatural than albinism.

Chiron

August 2, 2003, 12:58 AM

I must confess that I do not understand how transsexuality might be unnatural. The human body in general, and the human brain in particular, is a hideously, mind-bogglingly complex thing: it stands to reason that a given set of starting materials will not yield consistent results. It just so happens that some individuals seek sexual gratification via members of the opposite sex, some seek it via members of the same sex, and some seek it via gender reversal. Many seek sexual gratification through masturbation. Labeling some of the above cases (the ones which are not average) unnatural is, in my opinion, intuitive but incorrect. Equating unnature (non-average) with immorality is more incorrect (anyone remember the Auditors in Thief of Time removing cobblestones of incorrect sizes?).

The Time Has Come, the Chiron said, for Topically Tortuous things...
Is Live Action Role-Playing Immoral?
Evidently the condition of which they suffer is officially considered a pastime. But is it immoral for a person (for example) born a human to desire to play the part of a mythical being?

-Chiron

Otter

August 2, 2003, 01:18 AM

[...]It just so happens that some individuals seek sexual gratification via members of the opposite sex, some seek it via members of the same sex, and some seek it via gender reversal.

I think you're confusing transsexualism with crossdressing? Here's a discussion of the differences between the two. (http://www.genderpsychology.org/introduction/dsm_iv.html)

Is Live Action Role-Playing Immoral?
Evidently the condition of which they suffer is officially considered a pastime. But is it immoral for a person (for example) born a human to desire to play the part of a mythical being?

Well.. you know all roleplaying is satanic devil-worship, don't you? So it stands to reason LARPs are immoral. Besides, the idea of people running around with wooden swords and fake pointy ears disgusts me, they should dress like normal people.

Walross

August 2, 2003, 01:23 AM

meritocrat wrote:

I feel that transsexuality is unnatural.

so, you feel that it is supernatural? If not, then it is obviously part of the natural world, and therefore...natural.

Walross

meritocrat

August 2, 2003, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Yggdrasill
A better question would be "Because it doesn't hurt anyone?". Adultery hurts someone while transsexualism doesn't hurt anyone. Whether or not something hurts someone is a much better way at discerning if something is immoral than whether or not something infringes upon someones rights, because a person's rights fail to cover a lot of territory. You could make a case that it is immoral for telemarketers to bombard me with telephone calls (because of resulting mental anguish), but it doesn't infringe upon my rights.

Many things 'hurt' people/ 'Hurt is SO subjective. It hurts me when my favourite soccer team lose. Should that be outlawed?

Basing ethics on some kind of harm principle is a futile effort.

meritocrat

August 2, 2003, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
So is gun-ownership, placing a telephone call, and wearing a condom; cannabalism and infanticide are not unnatural, however, as they are both observed in nature.

Humans have been creating technologuy for millions of years. And?

A system of morality based upon naturalism would proscribe many things that we do not typically consider immoral, and allow many others that we almost universally abhor.

How so?

meritocrat

August 2, 2003, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by pariahSS
Umm actually, when you marry someone, you make promises to them. If you commit adultery, you lie to your partner. Lying is, in most peoples opinion, immoral.

Not so with being a transexual.

FYI, rights have little to do with morality. certainly not directly connected.

Huh?

There is no established right in any society I know of that prohibits one from being cheated on.

And I don't think lying is immoral.

xorbie

August 2, 2003, 02:43 AM

There is nothing immoral about things being unnatural. I don't know any transexuals, but it seems like a hard life, wanting to be the opposite sex so much. I can sorta identify because I have issues....

meritocrat

August 2, 2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by xorbie
There is nothing immoral about things being unnatural.

I disagree. Homosexuality is at least natural as some animal species exhibit such traits. I've never heard of an animal seeking to change its gender.

I don't know any transexuals,
I wouldn't want to know any.

meritocrat

August 2, 2003, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Otter
Sick? Sick as in some sort of affliction? Or sick as in "Ewww, I think that's gross?"

Yes.

"Gender Identity Disorder" is listed in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), so it is classed as a psychological condition; I assume this is what you are referring to, as it's pretty official and being in the DSM seems to indicate it's a mental disorder.

However, the DSM is not an unchanging canon. Prior to the 1980 release of the DSM-III, homosexuality had its very own listing and was therefore "officially considered a mental illness." You may (or may not) still personally consider it sick, but being gay is no longer an offense punishable by psychotherapy.

Similarly, no amount of psychological intervention has been shown to "help" transsexuals. The only treatment is medical, in the form of hormones and surgery. If someone is transsexual you can't "fix" them so they identify with their physical gender.

In medical and scientific circles, transsexualism is understood as a biologically based condition. Gender identity -- your sense of yourself as male or female -- is determined at the fetal stage. It's something you're born with, not something you choose. It comes from your brain, not your gonads.

Is it immoral for a person (for example) to be born with a female gender identity and a male body to wish to live as a woman rather than as a man? Is it unnatural? Or does it simply make you uncomfortable?

The way I see it, transsexualism is no more immoral or unnatural than albinism. [/B]

But one should not state that one must like transsexuals for who they are.

Transsexuals must realise that people have a right to hold prejudiced views towards them.

Calzaer

August 2, 2003, 03:31 AM

I feel that transsexuality is unnatural.

Several critters in the natural world have been observed changing sexes. Amphibians do it all the time.

On the other hand, no non-human animal on earth has ever been observed cooking its food. THAT'S the most unnatural act anyone could ever do.

A system of morality based upon naturalism would proscribe many things that we do not typically consider immoral, and allow many others that we almost universally abhor.

How so?

Well, as I said above, cooking food is hideously unnatural. No other critter in the world has ever even come up with such a disgusting idea.

But let's look at the bad things we'd be allowing if "natural = moral":

Many alpha-males (of various pack species, lions and wolves being the most common) will eat the young spawned from the previous alpha male.

Public masturbation (ala bonobos and many other primate species) would be perfectly acceptable, as would throwing our own dung at people who annoyed us.

Abandoning our elderly to die at the hands of younger, faster predators (thugs, rapists, con artists, stockbrokers, etc) would be just How Things Work(tm). Ditto for sick people.

Cannibalism should be a-ok, considering how often it happens in the natural world. It's present in several carnivorous higher animal species. A lion isn't going to think twice about eating another lion it finds dead on the savanna.

There'd be no such thing as a sexual deviation. Incest, exclusive polygamy, murder and cannibalism of the sexual partner after the act is completed, rape, beatiality (at least one primate species has been observed attempting to have sex with critters that aren't even primates), pedophilia (defined as attempting to mate with a member of the species that hasn't reached reproductive maturity yet), and pederasty (defined as mating with a member of the species significantly younger than you), among others.

And speaking of abhorrent sexual practices, let's not forget Xylocaris Maculipennis... they help their chances of reproduction through homosexual stabbing rape (http://www.ichimusai.org/artiklar/bedbugs.html).

Also slightly on the topic of sex, killing some chick's boyfriend because YOU want to sleep with her would be common practice.

Do I need to go on?

meritocrat

August 2, 2003, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by Calzaer
Several critters in the natural world have been observed changing sexes. Amphibians do it all the time.

On the other hand, no non-human animal on earth has ever been observed cooking its food. THAT'S the most unnatural act anyone could ever do.

Cooking food is natural to humans. Whether species don't do it is irrelevant.

By your rationale humans shouldn't have language as few others species can speak.

Calzaer

August 2, 2003, 03:47 AM

The above post was edited to include brainstorm information... see above for more points. Sorry. I didn't mean to back-edit and make it look like you ignored the majority of my post or something. My bad.

Cooking food is natural to humans. Whether species don't do it is irrelevant.

How do you define "natural" then? If you mean "occurs in nature", then transsexuality has a hell of a lot more precedent than food-cooking.

Further, I could use the quoted logic to say "transsexuality is natural to humans, so other species doing it or not is irrelevant. That humans do it is prima facia evidence that it's natural for humans to do it."

meritocrat

August 2, 2003, 03:51 AM

You defined natural as being existing in nature. You stated that cooking food did not exist in nature. Neither does language to a large extent so why not denounce that?

Calzaer

August 2, 2003, 03:58 AM

Good question, why not denounce language too? Speaking is more immoral than transsexuality, from the "natural" argument.

...although not by much, because most higher mammals (particularly primates) have somewhat vocal-based communicative systems.

[Who knew that sleeping with a wildlife biologist would come in so handy!]

Tani

August 2, 2003, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
Cooking food is natural to humans. Whether species don't do it is irrelevant.

By your rationale humans shouldn't have language as few others species can speak.

if you define what's natural for humans as to whatever humans do, then whatever you can observed human can do would be in the realm of human nature; but if you were to say some are natural and some are not even given the fact that you can observe the nots, then, unless you were to say the source of our nature is something unnatural and through an unnatrual means affects our nature directly, i don't see how you can avoid justifing the so called "unnatural acts" outside of the human species.

meritocrat

August 2, 2003, 04:19 AM

I think transsexuals do not deserve equal rights. Why should they?

The notion of transsexuality is vile and it IS unnatural. In my view people are meant to be either male or female.

Tani

August 2, 2003, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
I think transsexuals do not deserve equal rights. Why should they?

The notion of transsexuality is vile and it IS unnatural. In my view people are meant to be either male or female.

on the same token, people who sweat profusely under their armpits all year round so much so that all their clothes are stained are also vile, but why would they not deserve equal rights? the quality of being vile is really just your opinion, which is yours to have. as for it being unnatural, you have not yet proved anything.

meritocrat

August 2, 2003, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by Tani
on the same token, people who sweat profusely under their armpits all year round so much so that all their clothes are stained are also vile, but why would they not deserve equal rights?

NO it's not. You trying to tell me in the thread in Politics and Discussions that no one should have any rights.

the quality of being vile is really just your opinion, which is yours to have. as for it being unnatural, you have not yet proved anything.

Neither have your 'proved' that it's not unnatural.

Fr.Andrew

August 2, 2003, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
But is it immoral for a person (for example) born a male to desire to become a woman?

(Fr Andrew): No.

Tani

August 2, 2003, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
NO it's not. You trying to tell me in the thread in Politics and Discussions that no one should have any rights.
where did i say no one should have rights? i was merely saying rights has no meaning without duty, and duty has no meaning if there are not as least someone who has the ability to violate your right and thus can have duty prescribed against the performance of such ability.

and please, i was just pointing out "being vile" is really not a reason for someone deserve rights or not.

Neither have your 'proved' that it's not unnatural. [/B]
it is my believe that whatever observable is natural. i observed that there are transsexuals, therefore they are natural.

Diadectes

August 2, 2003, 05:54 AM

I think transsexuals do not deserve equal rights. Why should they?

Umm...because they are human beings?

Dr Rick

August 2, 2003, 08:29 AM

meritocrat:
By your rationale humans shouldn't have language as few others species can speak.

It would be your rationale that would lead to the conclusion that humans shouldn't have language, not his; that language would be considered "immoral" because it is unnatural is the result of your premise, not his.

You're the one arguing that something is immoral in part because it is unnatural.

Humans have been creating technologuy for millions of years.

Ignoring for the moment that humans have existed for much less than a million years and so could not have been creating technology for as long as you claim, how does the amount of time humans have been doing something make it moral and/or natural?

Computers are no more natural than transsexuality and haven't been around much longer than gender reassignment surgery; if, as you have proposed, transsexuality is immoral in part because it is unnatural, then so must be computers. No one here is actually arguing that computers are immoral, mind you, but judging ethics on the basis of naturalism would make it so. That is not meant to be an argument for making computers immoral; it is meant as a refutation against your judgement that transsexuality is immoral because it is unnatural. If you wish to argue that transsexuality is immoral because it is "unnatural," then you must either consider computers immoral or explain why they aren't even though they are no more natural than transexuality. If you don't do one or the other, then your position will continue to seem inconsistent.

Cooking food is natural to humans. Whether species don't do it is irrelevant.

Since transsexuality is natural to transsexuals. then whether or not other creatures do it is irrelevant, too

Donnmathan

August 2, 2003, 10:28 AM

I think what is needed here is a definition - meritocrat, can you give us a definition of "natural" or "unnatural" to use that has no basis in pure opinion? Such definitions may help us clear up what you are using as an arguement, as you seem to be argueing in circles.

Frankly, I'd love to know by what grounds you call me immoral and unnatural!

Theli

August 2, 2003, 11:04 AM

We could say that transexuality is moral since people should be allowed to do as they please to their own bodies, but an argument could be made that it affects other people in a negative way and should therefore be considered immoral.

Calzaer

August 2, 2003, 11:29 AM

I guess we can also assume that meritocrat has no problem with any of the natural things I listed above. Rape, incestuous rape, homosexual stabbing rape, cannibalism, sex followed by cannibalism, infantacide, infanticide followed by canniballism, beastiality, pederasty, lust-murder, etc. All of them are natural and thus all are moral.

Interesting how he refuses to address "natural" sex changes, like most fish and amphibians go through in the wild.

abe smith

August 2, 2003, 11:30 AM

my dear Meritocrat, we freaks & queers and Trannies and everybody-else don't give a fuck for your *opinion *; or for the Pope's opinion; or for the President of the US's opinion; and in answer to your OP qy, why don't you go off in a corner for a while, & come back with a working definition of "(im)moral" that makes any sense to me.
If your best argument to define "moral/immoral" is based on your own personal feelings, well, OI have feelings too; & why don't we step outside into the alley and settle this in the good oldfashioned way?

<Hi Abe, I'm going to presume "the good old fashioned way" is a stirring bout of "Paper, Rock, Scissors", as I know you strive to follow the IIDB behavior rules at all times when posting. - Michael>

Otter

August 2, 2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
I disagree. Homosexuality is at least natural as some animal species exhibit such traits. I've never heard of an animal seeking to change its gender.

So "I have never heard of X" means "X does not exist"?

Have you read the book "Biological Exuberance"? It's mainly concerned with homosexuality in animals but it includes transsexualism as well. So if you decide if something is natural and moral because non-human animals do it too, voila. Transsexualism is normal and shouldn't be vilified.

However, I don't believe that this is an absolute test of morality. As Calzaer said, animals do plenty of things most people would consider immoral.

I wouldn't want to know any.

You may know one (or more) and not know that they are.

But one should not state that one must like transsexuals for who they are.

Does one have to like anyone for what they are? Minority groups who lobby for rights are not lobbying for hugs and kisses and friendships. They want to be treated as human beings.

Transsexuals must realise that people have a right to hold prejudiced views towards them.

I am well aware people want to safeguard their right to ignorance and prejudice. But there's a difference between "I have a right to my opinions" and "I have a right to deny you of your rights."

The notion of transsexuality is vile and it IS unnatural. In my view people are meant to be either male or female.

Okay... what do you think of people who are intersexed? Are people born with ambiguous genitals vile and unnatural?

Hedwig

August 2, 2003, 02:01 PM

No other animal switches gender? That's a new one to me.

I think transsexuals do not deserve equal rights. Why should they?

Well, they're human beings for one thing. Why shouldn't they have equal rights?

The notion of transsexuality is vile and it IS unnatural. In my view people are meant to be either male or female.

So basically, because you find it icky, transsexuality is bad?

And if people are meant to be either male or female, how do you explain the whole hermaphrodite/undetermined gender thing that happens in nature? Do those people not deserve equal rights either?

Viti

August 2, 2003, 02:19 PM

The notion of transsexuality is vile and it IS unnatural. In my view people are meant to be either male or female. Simply not true...people are born transgenedered all the time. Gender is a part of fetal development dependent on hormones and is a very grey area. Anyway, what do you mean by "meant to be"? Who imparts this meaning...the nonexistent God?

pariah

August 2, 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by meritocrat
Huh?

There is no established right in any society I know of that prohibits one from being cheated on.

And I don't think lying is immoral.

When did I ever say that there was a right in a society that prohibits cheating on someone?

note: You said "prohibits one from being cheated on". I'm 99% sure this was a typo, but if its not, when did I ever say that? Ignore if it is.

scigirl

August 2, 2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by meritocrat
In my view people are meant to be either male or female.
In your view? How about looking at the actual biological facts of sexual development?

There are lots of people who are born both male and female. Or a weird hybrid of the two.

XX males
A sex reversal disorder occurring in 1 in 20,000 births. Genetically the child is female, but contain a piece of the Y chromosome stuck onto another chromosome. Develops testes and external male genitalia.

XY females
The other sex reversal disorder occurring in 1 in 20,000 births. Genetically child is male, but part of the Y chromosome is deleted or mutated, thus develops ovaries and female genitalia.

Pseudohermaphriditism
Can occur in XX or XY genotypes. Includes masculinized females who often have a large clitoris and labial fusion to form a scrotum-like structure. The most common cause of female pseudohermaphriditism occurs in 1 in 12,500 births. Males have underdeveloped or ambiguous genitalia. One cause, a deficit of 5-alpha reductase, results in a small penis and a blind vaginal pouch, making gender assignment difficult. Another example is androgen insensitivity, occurring in 1 in 20,000 live births. The patient is genotypically a male (XY) but has female external genitalia, a blind vaginal pouch, but no uterus or uterine tubes. Testes are present but often are mistaken for hernias.

Klinefelter Syndrome
Occurrence is at least 1 in 1000 male live births. Child has 47, XXY. Develops as a male but has small gonads, and are nearly always infertile. Many patients have a difficult time fitting into society, apparently because of poor body image.

Turner Syndrome
A female with only one X chromosome (or has two X chromosomes but part of one of the chromosomes is missing). Occurs in 1 in 4000 female live births. Patients have faulty ovaries, a broad chest with highly spaced nipples, and no or underdeveloped breasts. Patients, similar to Klinefelter patients, often have a tough time with social adjustment, and are often sterile.

For more discussion on this issue, click here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48863&highlight=male+and+female) .

P.S - do you like anyone, meritocrat? Well if you ever get married I guess your guest list will be short! :D

scigirl

Chiron

August 3, 2003, 12:37 AM

Technically, (Ah does believe) "gender reversal" can refer both to simply playing the part of the opposite gender and to having a gender change operation. I kept it intentionally vague because I wasn't exactly sure what meritocrat was calling sick/immoral (or asking if it was, or whatever).

More about the "In my view people are meant to be either male or female."
While it would be easier -- certainly simpler -- if things were like that, meritocrat, they are not. scigirl has already shone light on the icky facts, so I shan't get into that. Just thought I'd say that rarely is something so clearly defined. Even things that you'd think would be high-contrast, like what's life and living and what ain't (viruses, anyone? How 'bout prions? Or fire, or crystals?), and where "you" end and "everything else" begins, get downright blurry when you look closely. Taking what you know about being male and female and codifying this gets convoluted when you try to make real life fit into the code.

-Chiron
And by the way, I name what I see to be meritocrat's fallacy "argument from ickyness" (yeah, it probably already has a name. I use my powers of AMAZINGNESS to overwrite the name.)

HeatherD

August 3, 2003, 02:01 AM

Wow, I can't believe I didn't see this thread until now!

Originally posted by meritocrat
I disagree. Homosexuality is at least natural as some animal species exhibit such traits. I've never heard of an animal seeking to change its gender.

I think that's because you misunderstand the differences in the social structure between humans and "lower" animals. If a male animal acts the part of a female in a social structure, you probably assume that that creature is exhibiting homosexual traits. That creature could actually identify as female in that social structure. In that "natural" setting, the animals can't express themselves in any other way but "natural" It is we who assume the expression for them, we decide what they are doing, not them.

What I'm getting at here is that those "lower" animals that we think are exhibiting homosexuality are actually "gender variant" Why do we think they are acting homosexual any way? Do these male animals act male in every way accept that they have sex with other males? From what I've read, these animals generally act as the opposite sex in the social structure. That would make them "naturally" transsexual.

Transsexuality (and homosexuality) has been known in many cultures throughout the centuries, some cultures have reviled it, others have accepted and embraced it. In those cultures that accepted it, there was little to no dysphoria (abnormal depression and discontent), transsexuals that were allowed to be the sex they felt comfortable as, lived relatively normal lives. In some cultures they actually were treated as special.

Originally posted by meritocrat
I wouldn't want to know any.

Well, now you do! I'd also hazard a guess that if you knew me, you'd actually like me. I'm not a bad, evil, sick, immoral person. I'm just a person, a person who would like to be treated like any other person, with all the rights and privileges accorded any other person.

I've known I was a transsexual since as long as I can remember, probably around 5 or so. Well, at 5 I suppose I just knew I was different, at home it wasn't a problem, my older sibling was my sister. At school it was a totally different story.

I won't go into the whole, very long, saga of my life. I "transitioned" about 2 years ago but life was a living hell before that. I can't tell you how badly I wished to be "normal", to just be a guy, but I wasn't. I tried everything, I joined a bikers club, I joined the military twice, two boot camps, I worked as an auto technician...

Needless to say, I have spent most of my life being depressed and suicidal. It is, in no way imaginable, an immoral act to seek treatment, I'm not immoral because I came out his way, nor am I immoral because the only known treatment at this time is to live as the gender that works.

Getting back to the "naturalness" of transsexuality, I can tell you that if society had allowed me to just "be myself" without judging it as immoral, I wouldn't have had to live in hell for the last 30+ years. That would be natural because that is how I am, or how I was made.

My psychologist was discussing how, what is today considered a "mental disorder" in the DSM IV should probably be changed. Transsexuality itself is not the disorder, the extreme distress and angst caused by our society's disapproval of this natural condition is the real problem. My psychologist is one of the leading professionals in her field. She presented a paper (I don't remember where) that considered treating the real problem transsexuals have, which is usually an extreme anxiety condition. Basically what it was saying is that the gender expression is a normal physiological condition. The suppression of this natural gender expression is the actual mental condition as it causes extreme anxiety. I can personally attest to this in my case. Now that I am "allowed" to live as female, and be "accepted" as such by society, I now longer have this condition. It's not all stress fee mind you, I still know that many people wouldn't approve if they knew, so I don't advertise the fact in public. I've yet to have a stranger ever think I was anything but a natal female, that is all I want.

If you would like to actually know more about this condition, present and historically, you might want to look at some of the articles on my psychologist's webpage: Anne Vitale, Ph.D. (http://www.avitale.com/MenuPage.html)

I would recommend reading the sections "T Notes" and "Essays." A good article to read on the historical aspects of transsexuality is Gender Variant Expression: An Historical Account (http://www.avitale.com/historicalaccount.htm)

RevDahlia

August 3, 2003, 02:02 AM

I'd like to see definitions of "male" and "female" as well. These definitions are not contingent on chromosomes OR genitalia, as the many, surprisingly common, forms of hermaphrodism (described by scigirl) prove.

(edit: I would bet the rent that meritocrat DOES know transsexuals. S/he just doesn't realize it...)

ju'iblex

August 3, 2003, 04:14 AM

HeatherD, you rock. sorry, just had to say that.

lunachick

August 3, 2003, 05:46 AM

Oh dear, oh dear - is meritocrat spewing bile again? Funny, you know, given that his user name suggests that he is an advocate of a system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement, and yet he cannot bring himself to allow some members of the general public equal advancement based on their abilities or achievements because they don't fit into his rather limited definition of "normal".

Well, mr. badly-named meritocrat, here is an example of a very well-to-do transexual politician. http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TSsuccesses/GeorginaBeyer.html

I think that you'll find her achievements to be of merit, as did her constituency. Thank goodness not all people think like you, meritocrat - because if they did and they were able to successfully block Georgina's abilities to live a full life, simply because they didn't like to see a transexual have equal rights, then the community would have lost out on all her wonderful contributions to our society.

Personally, I'd rather have more Georgina's and far fewer you's. In fact, I don't think bigots should have equal rights as they have little to offer society except misinformation and intolerance. They do far more damage than most GLBT's could ever do.

<fixed your incorrect spelling of meritocrat's user name>

meritocrat

August 3, 2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by Tani
where did i say no one should have rights? i was merely saying rights has no meaning without duty, and duty has no meaning if there are not as least someone who has the ability to violate your right and thus can have duty prescribed against the performance of such ability.

Everyone in that thread apart from me stated so!! So you dismiss the notion of universal rights but endorse them here??

it is my believe that whatever observable is natural. i observed that there are transsexuals, therefore they are natural.

OK then.

Tani

August 3, 2003, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
Everyone in that thread apart from me stated so!! So you dismiss the notion of universal rights but endorse them here??

from what i have read, no one have tried to prescribed the notion that "no one should have rights," but merely stating that rights are given, respected, and enforced only by people. on top of that, i just added that for every right given, there must be someone who you can prescribe duty against for that right to be meaningful. i don't know how you can derive that you're the sole champion of universal rights or any rights at all.

Calzaer

August 3, 2003, 03:27 PM

Please quit ignoring me, Meritocrat! What is your opinion of a stepfather killing and eating his stepchildren? It's NATURAL!

Hedwig

August 3, 2003, 04:57 PM

HeatherD, excellent post.

meritocrat

August 4, 2003, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Otter
,

You may know one (or more) and not know that they are.

Heck, I doubt it.

[b]
Okay... what do you think of people who are intersexed? Are people born with ambiguous genitals vile and unnatural?

Yes.

Otter

August 4, 2003, 12:27 PM

Chiron: I apologise for misunderstanding how you meant "gender reversal" to refer to either transgenderism or crossdressing.

Meritocrat:

It's probable you know someone who is transsexual -- the prevalence of male-to-female transsexuals is estimated by some experts to be as high as one in five hundred. (Post-operative mtfs are rarer, on the order of 1:2500 according to the references I was able to easily find.) Unless you live in a very small town and don't get out at all, you do know at least one transsexual.

There are even more evil vile horrible unnatural people born with ambiguous genitals. More than one in a hundred people are born with some sort of intersex condition. I find it mindboggling that you would regard a large number of people as "icky" and "unnatural" because of their genitals, hormones or chromosomes. It's not bloody unnatural, it happens in nature. That's what natural means.

I'd go on about the differences between "natural/unnatural" and "moral/immoral" but pointing it out one more time probably wouldn't induce you to respond.

meritocrat

August 4, 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Otter

It's probable you know someone who is transsexual -- the prevalence of male-to-female transsexuals is estimated by some experts to be as high as one in five hundred. (Post-operative mtfs are rarer, on the order of 1:2500 according to the references I was able to easily find.) Unless you live in a very small town and don't get out at all, you do know at least one transsexual.

I know of no one whom I mix with that IS a transsexual.

There are even more evil vile horrible unnatural people born with ambiguous genitals. More than one in a hundred people are born with some sort of intersex condition. I find it mindboggling that you would regard a large number of people as "icky" and "unnatural" because of their genitals, hormones or chromosomes. It's not bloody unnatural, it happens in nature. That's what natural means.

Who is to say that a person cannot find someone 'icky' due to their chromosomes? I think a person can dislike another for any reason.

Diadectes

August 4, 2003, 12:59 PM

Who is to say that a person cannot find someone 'icky' due to their chromosomes? I think a person can dislike another for any reason.

The question was whether you found such people unnatural, to which you answered yes. It has since been pointed out to you that your definition of unnatural in this case is in error. Therefore your intense dislike of these people, who through no fault of their own have been given a bum deal by nature, can only be attributed to a worrying lack of humanity on your part. Sorry, but that's how it comes across. Is it just disabilities connected with genitals that disturb you so much? Or do you consider all people born with a disability to be 'icky' and 'unnatural'. If not, why not?

DigitalChicken

August 4, 2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by meritocrat
Adultery doesn't yet I find that immoral.

Adultery.. depending on how you use the term.. can be said to violate an agreement between two people, so it can be claimed to harm someone.

DC

Hedwig

August 4, 2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by meritocrat

Yes.

Why?

Walross

August 4, 2003, 03:15 PM

So, let me get this straight, meritocrat...the sum of your argument is "I don't like it, therefore it is immoral"? If I'm wrong, please correct me, but that's about all I've seen so far.

And if I'm right, then please everyone, DNFTT :rolleyes:

Walross

Calzaer

August 4, 2003, 03:23 PM

So, let me get this straight, meritocrat...the sum of your argument is "I don't like it, therefore it is immoral"? If I'm wrong, please correct me, but that's about all I've seen so far.

No, it's worse than that. It's "I don't like it, therefore it's UNNATURAL. The definition of unnatural is 'things I don't like'."

Autonemesis

August 4, 2003, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by meritocrat
Cooking food is natural to humans.

Transsexualism is natural to humans. After all, humans do it.

meritocrat

August 4, 2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Diadectes
The question was whether you found such people unnatural, to which you answered yes. It has since been pointed out to you that your definition of unnatural in this case is in error. Therefore your intense dislike of these people, who through no fault of their own have been given a bum deal by nature, can only be attributed to a worrying lack of humanity on your part.

Humanity, huh? :rolleyes: Why is that relevant?

Sorry, but that's how it comes across. Is it just disabilities connected with genitals that disturb you so much? Or do you consider all people born with a disability to be 'icky' and 'unnatural'. If not, why not?

I don't 'hate' people with disabilities.

meritocrat

August 4, 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Calzaer
Please quit ignoring me, Meritocrat! What is your opinion of a stepfather killing and eating his stepchildren? It's NATURAL!

So a stepfather killing his stepchildren is immoral. Whoop-e-do..:rolleyes:

PandaJoe

August 4, 2003, 05:23 PM

Eeesh, this is worse than a yguy thread.

Which I find vile and immoral. Therefore, it's unnatural, and meritocrat should not be given equal rights.

HeatherD

August 4, 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by meritocrat
So a stepfather killing his stepchildren is immoral. Whoop-e-do..:rolleyes:

What he was getting at was that it is natural. It happens all the time in many animal species. Often a female lion will have offspring and the "father" lion will die. The female will often mate up with another male. Her cubs are usually in mortal danger from the new "stepfather", it's not in his interest to see cubs, that aren't his, to survive. He's only interested in seeing his own genes survive.

So "a stepfather killing his stepchildren" isn't immoral because it's natural. Lower animals don't have morals so you can't use nature as a guide to morality.

You know, if you find something "icky", "unnatural", or "disgusting", that's fine. You are entitled to your opinions, even as I am allowed to consider you a bigot. But I find it hard to imagine that you could consider something immoral just because you don't like or, more likely, don't understand. Transsexuality isn't a moral issue no matter how much it disgusts you.

What is really interesting about this whole "debate" is that you must be more "to the right" than even Pat Robertson. As much of a religious bigot as he is, and has shown himself to be with regards to homosexuality, he is quite open-minded (http://www.emergenceministries.org/resources/pat_robertson.html) with regard to transsexuality.

So, I have to wonder, if Pat Robertson, of all people, doesn't consider it immoral, why do you? (besides your assertion that it is icky or disgusting)

Calzaer

August 4, 2003, 11:02 PM

So a stepfather killing his stepchildren is immoral.

BUT IT'S NATURAL!

Are you saying EVERYTHING, both Natural and Unnatural, is immoral??

Diadectes

August 5, 2003, 02:20 AM

I don't 'hate' people with disabilities.

Instead of putting words in my mouth, why not try answering the question?

Diadectes

August 5, 2003, 02:22 AM

Humanity, huh? Why is that relevant?

Your inability to empathise with people who have been born with an unfortunate condition through no fault of their own suggests a lack of humanity. It may not be relevent argument, but it is rather sad.

Walross

August 5, 2003, 02:36 AM

So meritocrat, are you going to answer my question? I also have another that I essentially asked earlier, but you conveniently ignored: if transexuallism is not natural, are you somehow suggesting that it's supernatural? If so, where is your extraordinary evidence? I'm still waiting. You realize, of course, that if it's not supernatural it is, by definition, natural.

Or are we only feeding a troll, like we did with your bullying thread?

Walross

meritocrat

August 5, 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Diadectes
Your inability to empathise with people who have been born with an unfortunate condition through no fault of their own suggests a lack of humanity. It may not be relevent argument, but it is rather sad.

It's not sad at all.

scigirl

August 5, 2003, 10:23 AM

meritocrat - any comments on the hermaphrodite post I made earlier - the one that shows that many people are born both male/female?

scigirl

Diadectes

August 5, 2003, 11:16 AM

It's not sad at all.

Yes, it is. Now, how about answering the question? Since you are disturbed by people who are born with indeterminate gender, are you also disturbed by people who are born with other disabilities? If not, why not? Why single out those unfortunate enough to have something wrong with their genitals?

meritocrat

August 5, 2003, 12:39 PM

Why is the fact that some people are born with disabilities of any consequence here?

Are you saying I should be sympathetic? Why is that the case?

meritocrat

August 5, 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by HeatherD
What he was getting at was that it is natural. It happens all the time in many animal species. Often a female lion will have offspring and the "father" lion will die. The female will often mate up with another male. Her cubs are usually in mortal danger from the new "stepfather", it's not in his interest to see cubs, that aren't his, to survive. He's only interested in seeing his own genes survive.

And?

So "a stepfather killing his stepchildren" isn't immoral because it's natural. Lower animals don't have morals so you can't use nature as a guide to morality.

Uh-huh...

You know, if you find something "icky", "unnatural", or "disgusting", that's fine. You are entitled to your opinions, even as I am allowed to consider you a bigot. But I find it hard to imagine that you could consider something immoral just because you don't like or, more likely, don't understand. Transsexuality isn't a moral issue no matter how much it disgusts you.

I don't see why it should not be a moral issue. Doesn't it depend on what one finds immoral?
What is really interesting about this whole "debate" is that you must be more "to the right" than even Pat Robertson. As much of a religious bigot as he is, and has shown himself to be with regards to homosexuality, he is quite open-minded (http://www.emergenceministries.org/resources/pat_robertson.html) with regard to transsexuality.

So, I have to wonder, if Pat Robertson, of all people, doesn't consider it immoral, why do you? (besides your assertion that it is icky or disgusting) [/B]

I have no idea who 'Pat Robertson' is, but I'm not a right-winger at all.

Fr.Andrew

August 5, 2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by meritocrat
Why is the fact that some people are born with disabilities of any consequence here?

Are you saying I should be sympathetic? Why is that the case?

(Fr Andrew): It's just that "humanity" thing again. Pay it no mind.
You have a perfect right to be a self-absorbed bigot, if you like...or an empathetic human being.
It's your call.

meritocrat

August 5, 2003, 04:04 PM

In my opinion, telling others to have 'empathy' for those with disabilities is misguided.

In some cases, nothing can be done to alter the condition. The person has to simply live with it.

Calzaer

August 5, 2003, 04:41 PM

Meritocrat:
I don't like it. Anything I don't like in unnatural. Anything unnatural (meaning that I don't like it) is automatically immoral. No other definitions of "natural" and "unnatural" need apply.

There. Fixed the OP for you.

meritocrat

August 5, 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Tani
from what i have read, no one have tried to prescribed the notion that "no one should have rights," but merely stating that rights are given, respected, and enforced only by people. on top of that, i just added that for every right given, there must be someone who you can prescribe duty against for that right to be meaningful. i don't know how you can derive that you're the sole champion of universal rights or any rights at all.

I don't believe that.

Some defended the apartheid regime and others stated that humans should have no rights as we are 'evolved animals'.

HeatherD

August 5, 2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by meritocrat

And?

Uh-huh...

Yes, I see, very cogent arguments you have there. If you aren't actually going to debate why did you even start this thread?

Originally posted by meritocrat
I don't see why it should not be a moral issue.

I'd like to know why you think it should be a moral issue. "Why not" is not a proper answer. You started this thread and immediately stated that you "think transsexuals are sick"
Please, please tell me why you think that a natural condition that a person has, that they can't actually change, is a moral issue for you. Is it really just because you find it "icky"? What are you, 5 years old?

Originally posted by meritocrat
Doesn't it depend on what one finds immoral?

Morality is not usually a personal issue, morals tend to come from somewhere, society at large, religious beliefs, family and upbringing.

I suppose you could have been brought up to believe that interracial marriage is immoral. You might get that from your parents, it might have to do with your religion, or it might be the norm of your local society, your town perhaps. So for you it might be immoral but it has a basis. But if the totality of your argument is going to be "I think it is so", why did you bother with this thread? People are telling you good reasons why they don't consider transsexuality a moral issue and you can only retort "why?" or "why not" is response to their arguments.

It is, of course, perfectly normal to hold moral views that are at odds with your experience. For instance, you might have been brought up to believe that prostitution is immoral. You yourself might develop the view that it is not, although usually from exposure to views contrary to your upbringing. Prostitution is a choice, it's also an issue for society so it is a moral issue, regardless of where your stand.

On the other hand, someone born with Down's Syndrome isn't immoral, even if you find it vile, disgusting, sick, unnatural, etc. The person born with this isn't responsible and didn't choose to be this way, therefore it isn't a moral issue. Parental blood testing or abortion to prevent or eliminate offspring with Down's syndrome would be a moral issue, as it affects society. You can choose to be on either side of an issue like that but you can't choose to be for or against Down's Syndrome itself, not as a moral issue.

By the same token, I can see if you have moral objections to the methods used to treat transsexuality. If you have moral objections to the methods used to treat transsexuals, please state them. Tell us what the methods are and why you think they are immoral. Then tell us the basis for your opinions.

But if it really is only based on your "ickyness" factor, then I propose we close and lock this thread. No one is going to change your mind about it and it's worthless to try.

Originally posted by meritocrat
I have no idea who 'Pat Robertson' is, but I'm not a right-winger at all.

I'm really surprised you don't know who Pat Robertson is, especially since you've been a member at ii for a while. You don't have any interest in politics or religion I take it? Do you live under a rock?

Pat is a very right-wing fundamentalist preacher type. His opinions of "all things moral" are usually parroted by the religious right. For these people, all morality comes from their god. That is the basis of their morality.

Reading other threads you've started or participated in, I find your opinions to be to the right, you are certainly no liberal, at least not in my opinion. There maybe no religious basis for your views on morality, I don't know, but you certainly have some of the same views as the right when it comes to immorality.

meritocrat

August 6, 2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by HeatherD

I'd like to know why you think it should be a moral issue. "Why not" is not a proper answer. You started this thread and immediately stated that you "think transsexuals are sick"
Please, please tell me why you think that a natural condition that a person has, that they can't actually change, is a moral issue for you. Is it really just because you find it "icky"? What are you, 5 years old?

You've given no reason why it should not be a moral issue.

Morality is not usually a personal issue, morals tend to come from somewhere, society at large, religious beliefs, family and upbringing.

I think morals are a personal choice.

I suppose you could have been brought up to believe that interracial marriage is immoral. You might get that from your parents, it might have to do with your religion, or it might be the norm of your local society, your town perhaps. So for you it might be immoral but it has a basis. But if the totality of your argument is going to be "I think it is so", why did you bother with this thread? People are telling you good reasons why they don't consider transsexuality a moral issue and you can only retort "why?" or "why not" is response to their arguments.

It is, of course, perfectly normal to hold moral views that are at odds with your experience. For instance, you might have been brought up to believe that prostitution is immoral. You yourself might develop the view that it is not, although usually from exposure to views contrary to your upbringing. Prostitution is a choice, it's also an issue for society so it is a moral issue, regardless of where your stand.

On the other hand, someone born with Down's Syndrome isn't immoral, even if you find it vile, disgusting, sick, unnatural, etc. The person born with this isn't responsible and didn't choose to be this way, therefore it isn't a moral issue. Parental blood testing or abortion to prevent or eliminate offspring with Down's syndrome would be a moral issue, as it affects society. You can choose to be on either side of an issue like that but you can't choose to be for or against Down's Syndrome itself, not as a moral issue.

I think it is immoral. Again you cite that someone being 'born' with a condition is not immoral. I state that it is.

By the same token, I can see if you have moral objections to the methods used to treat transsexuality. If you have moral objections to the methods used to treat transsexuals, please state them. Tell us what the methods are and why you think they are immoral. Then tell us the basis for your opinions.

But if it really is only based on your "ickyness" factor, then I propose we close and lock this thread. No one is going to change your mind about it and it's worthless to try.

I'm really surprised you don't know who Pat Robertson is, especially since you've been a member at ii for a while. You don't have any interest in politics or religion I take it? Do you live under a rock?

Pat is a very right-wing fundamentalist preacher type. His opinions of "all things moral" are usually parroted by the religious right. For these people, all morality comes from their god. That is the basis of their morality.

Reading other threads you've started or participated in, I find your opinions to be to the right, you are certainly no liberal, at least not in my opinion. There maybe no religious basis for your views on morality, I don't know, but you certainly have some of the same views as the right when it comes to immorality. [/B]

US liberals aren't true liberals. They don't believe in freedom. :)

Diadectes

August 6, 2003, 06:53 AM

I think it is immoral. Again you cite that someone being 'born' with a condition is not immoral. I state that it is.

Yes, we know that, but why ? How can it be immoral to be born with a condition you never asked for??? If the foetus had the choice and decided that it wanted to be born with Downs Syndrome, you could argue that it was acting irresponsibly and selfishly (given that it would be burdening its parents unnecessarily and without their consent) and therefore immorally. But in what other possible way could a newborn baby with Downs Syndrome be called immoral? I accept your argument that we create our own morality (it's all relative, always has been, always will be) but what criteria are you using to come to the conclusion that being born with a disability, as opposed to choosing one (as if anyone would!), is immoral?

Ovazor

August 6, 2003, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
In my opinion, telling others to have 'empathy' for those with disabilities is misguided.

In some cases, nothing can be done to alter the condition. The person has to simply live with it.

On the other hand, when the case is such that the condition can be altered (e.g. transsexuals), the person doesn't have to live with it. Wouldn't it be cruel and immoral to deny them the right to have the alteration which would improve his/hers situation?

meritocrat

August 6, 2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Diadectes
Yes, we know that, but why ? How can it be immoral to be born with a condition you never asked for??? If the foetus had the choice and decided that it wanted to be born with Downs Syndrome, you could argue that it was acting irresponsibly and selfishly (given that it would be burdening its parents unnecessarily and without their consent) and therefore immorally. But in what other possible way could a newborn baby with Downs Syndrome be called immoral? I accept your argument that we create our own morality (it's all relative, always has been, always will be) but what criteria are you using to come to the conclusion that being born with a disability, as opposed to choosing one (as if anyone would!), is immoral?

It's immoral in my own opinion.

People with disabilities have to accept discrimination.

Nowhere357

August 6, 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
It's immoral in my own opinion.
People with disabilities have to accept discrimination.
They do have to deal with it.

You know, it is actually painful to visit the mind of meritocrat. What happened to you?

meritocrat

August 6, 2003, 08:09 AM

What happened to what? I don't understand. :)

Diadectes

August 6, 2003, 08:14 AM

It's immoral in my own opinion.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

So you keep saying, ad nauseum, but for some reason you seem utterly incapable of answering the question. Why is that?

Nowhere357

August 6, 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
What happened to what? I don't understand. :)
Not what; who. And the who is you. What happened to you, that you lack basic empathy for people?

Any idea?

Purple Smartie

August 6, 2003, 08:43 AM

Can you even define "moral" then, Meritocrat? I don't understand where you're coming from. I don't understand how disabilities or illnesses are related to morals.

For example, I have a severe form of Crohn's disease. Nobody knows what causes it or how to cure it, but I've had it since the day I was born. Does that make me immoral? I still go to school, have a job, pay taxes, dress conservatively, give money to charity... all the things that regular old moral people seem to do. To look at me, nobody would ever know I had an illness (unless they saw scars under my shirt from where I had my colon removed) so would that make it more acceptable to you, by not offending your senses?

Is it immoral if you can see it and you don't like what you see? I see starving children in the street and I hate what I see, but that doesn't make those children immoral. Maybe their parents are immoral or society is immoral for not taking care of them, but the kids aren't immoral. They're not choosing to starve or be dirty.

Maybe everyone born with an illness or disability or a freckle you don't approve of should commit suicide? Would that be moral to you?

People with disabilities do NOT have to accept discrimination, nor do racial minorities or religious minorities, including atheists. Thankfully there are laws to protect us from people like you.

If you're not going to even bother to take the time to define moral and immoral, I don't know why you are here or why we should waste any more time on you.

meritocrat

August 6, 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Not what; who. And the who is you. What happened to you, that you lack basic empathy for people?

Any idea?

Why is this of any importance?

Nowhere357

August 6, 2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
Why is this of any importance?
Trying to understand.

meritocrat

August 6, 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Purple Smartie
Can you even define "moral" then, Meritocrat? I don't understand where you're coming from.

People here have disputed that transsexuality is immoral. I want to know how they define what is moral and what is immoral.

meritocrat

August 6, 2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Trying to understand.

Understand what exactly? There's nothing to understand.

Diadectes

August 6, 2003, 09:35 AM

If you're not going to even bother to take the time to define moral and immoral, I don't know why you are here or why we should waste any more time on you.

Indeed. In any case, I am beginning to suspect that what we are dealing with here is a troll . After all, no one, but no one, could be so shallow as to genuinely belive that disabilities are immoral. Not unless they were also incredibly stupid.

Donnmathan

August 6, 2003, 09:43 AM

Actually, I'm beginning to wonder what his definition of moral is, since it seems to differ so greatly from the standard one. Meritocrat, morallity requires choice, last time I looked; if it's genetic or biochemical, it is beyond the relms of choice and therefore no more a question of morallity than, say, the color of the sky. Unless, of course, you really are a troll, in which case the sky is immoral for being blue, too...

Purple Smartie

August 6, 2003, 09:55 AM

Merriam-Webster thinks the definition of "moral" is of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior .

Transsexuality is not a behaviour, it is a biological, physiological, carved-in-stone fact of life for some people. So is Down's Syndrome or a broken leg or AIDS.

So, by this definiton of "moral" I don't see how transsexuality can be moral or immoral any more than it can be salty or sweet.

Bree

August 6, 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
I want to know how they define what is moral and what is immoral.
And I want to know how you define what is moral and what is immoral.

Nowhere357

August 6, 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
Understand what exactly? There's nothing to understand.
The question was, why in your opinion do you lack basic empathy. I take it you do not value introspection, as it seems this question confuses you.

Have you been seriously mistreated in your life? Do you suffer from brain tumors? Do you enjoy feeling superior? Do you have any idea at all as to WHY you lack basic empathy?

meritocrat

August 6, 2003, 10:33 AM

Your psychoanalysis is quite comical. :)

abe smith

August 6, 2003, 10:44 AM

Perhaps "meritocrat" is not a human-being at-all? Perhaps it is a 'bot, or a not-very-well -invented computer program attempting to learn how to "pass" as a human-being here? There do seem to be major parts/processes MISSING; and the "entity" missing them appears to be incapable of perceiving that according to *our* criteria, stuff IZZ missing and something is profoundly "wrong".

meritocrat

August 6, 2003, 10:57 AM

No I'm as human as they come. :)

Nowhere357

August 6, 2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
Your psychoanalysis is quite comical. :)
That's fine. My apologies for trying to take you seriously. I notice you avoid many good questions from many posters in order to say you think it's funny that there may be a reason you lack basic human empathy.

It is good to know that you have nothing of value to say. Saves time when cruising the boards. You are in odious company - yguy, dk, nc, and the painful mc. Bye-bye. :)

meritocrat

August 6, 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
That's fine. My apologies for trying to take you seriously. I notice you avoid many good questions from many posters in order to say you think it's funny that there may be a reason you lack basic human empathy.

That 'reason' is inconsequential.

It is good to know that you have nothing of value to say. Saves time when cruising the boards. You are in odious company - yguy, dk, nc, and the painful mc. Bye-bye. :)

Well I have no idea who dk or nc are, so I'll take your word for it. :)

Diadectes

August 6, 2003, 11:43 AM

Definitely a troll. Let's move on.

meritocrat

August 7, 2003, 11:02 AM

Why should this be a troll thread? Because my statements are offensive? I've simply stated what I have felt here.

Diadectes

August 7, 2003, 11:30 AM

Why should this be a troll thread? Because my statements are offensive? I've simply stated what I have felt here.

Prove it then. Answer the questions you have been asked. You must have reasons for thinking disabilities are immoral. All we've asked you to do (and what you have repeatedly failed to do) is explain what those reasons are.

meritocrat

August 7, 2003, 11:43 AM

I think it's immoral because humanity should purge itself of its redundant parts.

If evolution is about survival of the fittest then disabled people simply should fall by the wayside.

Fr.Andrew

August 7, 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
No I'm as human as they come. :)

(Fr Andrew): Biologically, perhaps. You fail all the other tests. Miserably.

meritocrat

August 7, 2003, 12:03 PM

There are no 'other tests'. Humans are all different you know. :) ;)

Autonemesis

August 7, 2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by meritocrat
I think it's immoral because humanity should purge itself of its redundant parts.

If evolution is about survival of the fittest then disabled people simply should fall by the wayside.

If evolution is only about survival, or humanity is just about evolution, that would have already happened, don't you think?

Diadectes

August 7, 2003, 12:34 PM

I think it's immoral because humanity should purge itself of its redundant parts.

So, disabilities in and of themselves are not immoral (how could they be?) but allowing disabled children to be born and thrive is. I see. Ok, well please explain how and why disabled people are 'redundant'? How do you decide what is a useful contribution and what isn't?

Diadectes

August 7, 2003, 12:35 PM

There are no 'other tests'. Humans are all different you know.

This is meaningless. Please clarify.

Viti

August 7, 2003, 12:44 PM

Nevermind

HeatherD

August 7, 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by meritocrat
I think it's immoral because humanity should purge itself of its redundant parts.

If evolution is about survival of the fittest then disabled people simply should fall by the wayside.

Geez, why didn't you say all this 4 pages back?

At least this explains a few things, although I still have problems with your thought processes on this. Your application of morality is wrong.

First, evolution and disabilities are natural. You cannot, I repeat, cannot apply morality to nature. You cannot say that disabled people are themselves immoral. It is a misapplication of morality to make that statement.

As you said, "humanity should purge itself of its redundant parts", so a proper application of morality would be on the issue of eugenics. The application of eugenics is a moral issue. You would say that it is immoral to allow children to be born with genetic defects. You might even have moral concerns about allowing "defectives" to breed or even get proper medical care. Those are all valid applications of morality with regard to genetic defects.

Second, you use the word disabled. I can see how this might be different from "genetic defects." Your statement "disabled people simply should fall by the wayside" would indicate that you don't think that disabled people offer any value to society. I would disagree with you but that is a moral issue. Again it is a misapplication to apply morality to the disabled themselves. The idea that society protects or allows disabled individuals to survive in order that they may breed is a moral issue. You can't apply morality to the individual himself. To do so is an error.

Third, because evolution itself is a natural process that takes millions of years, "purging" those parts of humanity we today consider "defective" only removes genetic diversity. Purifying our genes only makes humans more susceptible to extinction should the environment change. That isn't to say that genetic defects that are immediately fatal are good for our future but there are plenty of genetic defects that are not life threatening. Allow evolution to do its work and that means that some "defective" offspring will live to carry on and have more offspring. We can't know if those "defective" genes might be beneficial someday. The male Y chromosome itself is a defect but that defect paved the way for the evolution of sexual differentiation.

Fourth, getting back to transsexuality. You can't know whether transsexuality is a genetic defect, environmental or sociological. Since all three are essentially natural, you can't apply morality to this condition.

Fifth, you might see the treatment or "cure" for transsexuality as immoral. This is a proper application of morality. It is an issue that can be moralised. It might be that you see any action by society to treat or cure transsexuality as wrong. I can understand that based on your statements thus far.

Finally, we can conclude that transsexuality is natural and therefore not a moral issue. And since we can come to the conclusion, based on your statements, that treating transsexuality is what you consider immoral, this is where I tell you that you are wrong:

In the process of treating transsexuality, the transsexual is invariably left infertile, either through surgery, hormonal changes or choice. If transsexuals are treated in early adulthood, the likelihood of offspring is further reduced.

So as you can see, you can't consider transsexuality immoral and you should see medical treatment of transsexuals as a positive as it is entirely inline with your view that humanity should purge itself.

meritocrat

August 8, 2003, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Diadectes
This is meaningless. Please clarify.

His statement was meaningless.

meritocrat

August 8, 2003, 04:19 AM

t least this explains a few things, although I still have problems with your thought processes on this. Your application of morality is wrong.

I don't believe so.

Nowhere357

August 8, 2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
I don't believe so.
This response to a thoughtful post is troll behavior, isn't it?

Fr.Andrew

August 8, 2003, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
There are no 'other tests'. Humans are all different you know. :) ;)

(Fr Andrew): Two smilies! I must have hit a nerve. Perhaps you're tired of defending a gutter morality?
I had in mind the "positive aspects of character" that distinguish humans from lower animals--which are sorely lacking from your posts.
You fail the "human" test on things like compassion, empathy, sensitivity, understanding, etc.
Miserably.

Donnmathan

August 8, 2003, 06:17 AM

OK, I'll try one more time, then I give up:

How do you justify applying moral standards to a condition that is not a matter of choice, any more than the color of the sky? Or is the sky immoral for being blue? Please explain your answer, if you even bother to answer. Try posting several sentances at once; it my be something of a novelty, but please do try.

meritocrat

August 8, 2003, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(Fr Andrew): Two smilies! I must have hit a nerve. Perhaps you're tired of defending a gutter morality?
I had in mind the "positive aspects of character" that distinguish humans from lower animals--which are sorely lacking from your posts.
You fail the "human" test on things like compassion, empathy, sensitivity, understanding, etc.
Miserably.

Those 'things' aren't necessary.

abe smith

August 8, 2003, 07:55 AM

I don't think this entity (whatever it is) is worth you-all's wasting your brains and time on. Looks to me that Its inability to respond intelligently is either innate or a dodge. Either way, why bother w/ this alleged person?

meritocrat

August 8, 2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Autonemesis
If evolution is only about survival, or humanity is just about evolution, that would have already happened, don't you think?

I doubt it.

Evolution is about organisms being best suited to their environments.

'Morality' enables us to allow the disabled or transsexuals ia 'place' in society but some disabilities do not allow us to be best suited to our environment. How can someone born with deformed limbs be suited to many tasks or aspects of a human's environment?

abe smith

August 8, 2003, 09:26 AM

Charles "Proteus" Steinmetz was more useful to humankind than you'll ever be, kiddo. There is a damn long list in answer to your (expletives deleted) remark, Meritocrat. Stephen Hawking is a better brain than you'll ever be.

And, I reiterate: WHY are we wasting time & space bothering to answer this uh, entity?

The Other Michael

August 8, 2003, 09:46 AM

Please, let's all keep the comments focused on the arguments being presented, and not on the people making them.

thanks,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

HeatherD

August 8, 2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by The Other Michael
Please, let's all keep the comments focused on the arguments being presented, and not on the people making them.

thanks,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

That's okay, I think this thread has run its course. I'm pretty satisfied that I have thoroughly trounced any "arguments" that meritocrat had. When a person posts a long set of debating points and all the other person can do is reply "I don't believe so" to one sentence, they have lost the argument.

meritocrat thinks that transsexuals are "immoral", "sick", "unnatural", "vile", and "icky" His opinions in this matter also appear to extend to people with disabilities and people born with genetic defects. The totality of his argument as to why he thinks these things are immoral is that he "thinks so". Great argument. :rolleyes:

matthias j.

August 9, 2003, 09:27 AM

Can I add something that might revive the discussion?

I read this paper yesterday about the post-op experiences of MtF (male-to-female) transsexuals. (I totally forgot in which journal it was published in, but if anybody really wants it I'll look for it in my cache).

The author--along with most authors on the subject--divided the MtF's in two groups:

a) People who are believed to have a genuine female identity. They are more likely to be percieved by their peers as female in their behaviour. Their earliest desires to become a woman date back to the age of 4 to 5. They have had same-sex relations pre-op or feel attracted to men. Female clothing is less likely to arouse them. Most of the times they're already functioning as female pre-op. In short, they're the classic "wrong person in the wrong body" cases.

b) The other group are fetisjists. They're less likely to be percieved as female by their peers. The first time they think about transformation is in their puberty (if I remember correctly) and the step to an operation is usually taken at about 40. They rarely have had an homosexual relation prior to operation and feel attracted to woman. Female clothing sexually arouses them.

The conclusion of the study was that although most people were happy about their operations and their new social position, fetisjists are less likely to be satisfied overall.

My question: should the operations of both groups be fully repaid by the health insurance? Do you think it's moral to perform an sex-changing operation on the last group?

HeatherD

August 9, 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by matthias j.
Can I add something that might revive the discussion?

I read this paper yesterday about the post-op experiences of MtF (male-to-female) transsexuals. (I totally forgot in which journal it was published in, but if anybody really wants it I'll look for it in my cache).

The author--along with most authors on the subject--divided the MtF's in two groups:

a) People who are believed to have a genuine female identity. They are more likely to be percieved by their peers as female in their behaviour. Their earliest desires to become a woman date back to the age of 4 to 5. They have had same-sex relations pre-op or feel attracted to men. Female clothing is less likely to arouse them. Most of the times they're already functioning as female pre-op. In short, they're the classic "wrong person in the wrong body" cases.

b) The other group are fetisjists. They're less likely to be percieved as female by their peers. The first time they think about transformation is in their puberty (if I remember correctly) and the step to an operation is usually taken at about 40. They rarely have had an homosexual relation prior to operation and feel attracted to woman. Female clothing sexually arouses them.

The conclusion of the study was that although most people were happy about their operations and their new social position, fetisjists are less likely to be satisfied overall.

My question: should the operations of both groups be fully repaid by the health insurance? Do you think it's moral to perform an sex-changing operation on the last group?

I don't know what author specifically you are referring to but what you are describing is probably related to the work of Blanchard and one proponent of his work J. Michael Bailey (http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/index.htm). It is certainly a controversial subject. One main controversy is the "lumping" of transsexuals into two groups. While grouping of humans into categories has theoretical value, humans are individuals. You can't psychologically treat transsexuals based on what group you assign them to, you have to tailor treatment to the individual.

Also he uses the terms "homosexual transsexual" and "autogynephilic transsexual" to lump these groups. The word fetishic is not used with regard to these two groups, to the best of my knowledge.

I don't know if his book The Man Who Would Be Queen (http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/book.html) contains his earlier discussions on the subject (used to be on his homepage) but his views are pretty sexist and biased. He even had a "test" that one could use to determine which group you belonged to.

Basically if you can be an attractive transsexual at an early age, work in a stereotypically female career and are solely attracted to men then you belong in the first group.

If you make an unattractive female and transitioned later in life, are bi or are attracted to women and have worked in male-dominated careers, then you are automatically in the second group. There is no middle ground. On the other hand, the accepted and mainstream theory is that gender expression fits into about five (IIRC) groups. The severity of the dysphoria increases along a scale defined in this theory.

All I can say is, Bailey is wrong in his assumptions. While he is a professor of psychology, he is not a working clinician of transsexuals.

My psychologist is, and works with others in this area, and she has stated that in her many years of treating transsexuals, cross-dressing and autogynephilia are quite "normal" for all male to female transsexuals. Both of these things show up as part of the suppression of the condition. Obviously, if you transition early, you have less time to suppress your transsexuality. Longer suppression will cause chronic mental disturbance. If the condition comes out of the shadows, treatment at an early age will allow more individual to live better, well-adjusted lives.

Since transsexuals that can be "attractive" at an early age have a harder time hiding it, it's quite normal to expect them to "deal" with it earlier. They appear more feminine and act more feminine earlier than most. Because of this, they find themselves outcasts socially, usually in school.

Basically, transsexuality is in the brain. Blanchard and Bailey would have you believe that you can "tell a book from its cover"

I could go on* but this is getting too long already. To answer your two main questions:
[S]hould the operations of both groups be fully repaid by the health insurance?
I'm not sure how things are in the rest of the world, I've heard that many health plans cover treatment of transsexuals, mentally and physically. Here in the USA, transsexual treatment is rarely paid for by insurance. It's not uncommon for insurance to pay for the mental portion, if you have that coverage, although it sometimes requires "hiding" the real purpose of the visits to get them paid.

The physical treatment, the sex surgery, is almost never paid for by insurance. Most, if not all, insurance companies deem the surgery as "experimental", even though it's been used for some 40+ years now with success.
Do you think it's moral to perform an sex-changing operation on the last group
Well, that depends on the existence of this last group. Seriously, I don't doubt that there are transsexuals that are primarily autogynephilic. If the operation, as a final component of treatment, is effective in allowing them to lead normal lives, then I can't call it immoral.

Regardless of his views on the subject, even Bailey concedes this point: ""What is bad about autogynephilia? (http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/controversy.htm#autogynephilia)

*While I sure there are some personal biases in the reviews of his book, I would recommend reading the one entitled: "Possibly well intentioned but seriously flawed" on the Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0309084180/ref%3Dpd%5Fecc%5Frvi%5F2/104-9228842-1803108) page for Bailey's book. That one review is more succinct and clear than my whole post.

P.S. Early in my post I mentioned that he had a page on his website that I feel shows how biased his "research" was. It is part of the book now, the entire book can be read online. This chapter (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309084180/html/141.html#pagetop) is an interesting read. He doesn't come across as a serious researcher in this chapter, more like just a voyeur. For one thing, his research subjects are mainly found in gay bars. I'd say that a majority of transsexuals don't cruise gay and tranny bars on a regular basis. I for one have never been to such a place.

matthias j.

August 10, 2003, 06:22 PM

I finally found the paper I was looking for. It's called "Factors Associated with Satisfaction or Regret Following Male-to-Female Sex Reassignment Surgery" by Lawrence A.A. published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, August 2003, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 299-315(17) by Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, U.S.A.

1. The use of the term "fetishistic" was my fault (but it seems to be used by a number of authors), but it was the only term I could remember. Miss Lawrence prefers "early-onset/androphilic versus late-onset/gynephilic". I think that sounds fair and doesn't hold any a priori conclusion (I admit that 'fetishistic" might hint the researchers moral stance on the subject)

2. The conclusion of the paper was a bit more nuanced than I remembered. To quote Lawrence:

"Mental health professionals may need to reconsider
the conventional clinical wisdom that factors associated
with transsexual typology are important predictors of satisfaction
or regret following MtF SRS. This study suggests
that the most important typological aspect of client history
to consider may be recalled internal feelings of femininity
during childhood. This variable showed significant
associations with two outcome measures, and was a better
predictor of outcomes than recalled overtly displayed
childhood femininity. However, recalled internal feelings
of childhood femininity may be an indicator of childhood
gender dysphoria more than an indicator of transsexual
typology."

That does leave us with the last question: Is it moral to perform such an drastic operation when the predictor variable shows a high possibility of regret after SRS?

(if you don't have the means to acces the paper--but I see you're a student, so you probably have--just PM me)

HeatherD

August 10, 2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by matthias j.
I finally found the paper I was looking for. It's called "Factors Associated with Satisfaction or Regret Following Male-to-Female Sex Reassignment Surgery" by Lawrence A.A. published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, August 2003, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 299-315(17) by Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, U.S.A.

1. The use of the term "fetishistic" was my fault (but it seems to be used by a number of authors), but it was the only term I could remember. Miss Lawrence prefers "early-onset/androphilic versus late-onset/gynephilic". I think that sounds fair and doesn't hold any a priori conclusion (I admit that 'fetishistic" might hint the researchers moral stance on the subject)

2. The conclusion of the paper was a bit more nuanced than I remembered. To quote Lawrence:

"Mental health professionals may need to reconsider
the conventional clinical wisdom that factors associated
with transsexual typology are important predictors of satisfaction
or regret following MtF SRS. This study suggests
that the most important typological aspect of client history
to consider may be recalled internal feelings of femininity
during childhood. This variable showed significant
associations with two outcome measures, and was a better
predictor of outcomes than recalled overtly displayed
childhood femininity. However, recalled internal feelings
of childhood femininity may be an indicator of childhood
gender dysphoria more than an indicator of transsexual
typology."

I don't have access to the entire article at the moment but I'm well aware of her work. She is a transsexual who used to be a medical doctor. She had trouble with her practise after transitioning and now works in clinical sexology. Her own personal experiences are the reason she accepted the theory about autogynephilia. As I mentioned in an earlier post, most therapists consider autogynephilia a component of long-term gender dysphoria, not its cause. It's the same with cross-dressing, there are "normal" males that cross-dress, transsexuals cross-dress mostly to feel normal. (to quote a well-known quip, "A transvestite comes home from work and puts on a bra, a transsexual comes home and take it off.")

Dr. Anne Lawrence is a widely known member of the HBIGDA (http://www.hbigda.org/) although her theories aren't widely accepted. Few professionals seriously consider the late-onset/early-onset theory and even fewer accept the theory that there are two specific "types" of gender dysphoric individuals. The latest opinions of the HBIGDA can probably be found here in the Standards of Care (http://www.hbigda.org/soc.html) and although not an authoritative source, my own therapist's website has an article on Primary and Secondary Transsexualism--Myths and Facts (http://www.avitale.com/prim_second.html) with further references. I also posted her website (http://www.avitale.com/MenuPage.html) earlier and suggest reading her "T-Notes" and "Essays" sections.

I've also never seen anything in Ms. Lawrence's articles that indicate that there is a high probability of regret in SRS patients. In fact, she has an article on her website that indicates an Absence of Regret (http://www.annelawrence.com/shortrlt.html) in one survey.
Originally posted by matthias j.

That does leave us with the last question: Is it moral to perform such an drastic operation when the predictor variable shows a high possibility of regret after SRS?
If there is a high possibility of regret then SRS is not a good treatment for gender dysphoria. Since patients aren't forced into SRS, I don't believe morality can be applied to the treatment

I don't remember where I got this but here is a good article entitled "The case for and against publicly funded transsexual surgery (http://www.sonic.net/~heatherd/4_00epsych.pdf) " obviously, I'm on the same side as Dr. Blanchard, if you find yourself agreeing with Dr. Fedoroff then I can see how you might think SRS is immoral.

I've never seen a study that indicates a high probability of regret in SRS patients. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of studies to indicate the opposite. The few, rather informal, surveys of SRS patients have shown a very low incidence of regret.

One other thing to consider is the HBIGDA Standards of Care (SOC) I linked to earlier. HBIGDA is an international organisation and all professionals that treat transsexuals are, or at least should, adhere to the minimum requirements of the SOC. If you look at the SOC you'll see that SRS isn't an on demand operation, the requirements to get SRS are quite long and involved. In many cases, SRS itself isn't even needed. It's really up to the patient and the doctor.

I've know a few gender dysphoric patients that only take minimum dosages of cross-sex hormones but continue to live as male. Factors in the patient's life prevent taking it further.

I am someone who, after taking hormones for two and a half years, lives as a female but I haven't had surgery. As a poor student it's unlikely I'll be able to afford the surgery anytime soon. I would have seen my therapist at around 30 but my life (military) got in the way. I had to wait until 35 to see my therapist and am now 40 years old. Once I am done with college and employed, I'll probably be on the high side of 45 before SRS. Because of this I'm unlikely to seek SRS. In fact, I'm seriously considering returning to life as a male, I think I could continue to live as a male, with low-dosage cross-sex hormones as my treatment. Since SRS is improbable, I tend to feel uncomfortable living "in-between" the sexes physically.

The remainder of gender dysphoric patients will seek SRS but only after seeing a therapist, being on hormones for nearly a year, painful electrolysis hair removal on the face, and the real-life test for at least a year. Then to get SRS you have to see another therapist who will concur with the diagnoses of the first therapist. Then the SRS doctor must agree and will usually require you be in good health and at a healthy weight.

matthias j.

August 11, 2003, 02:49 AM

"I don't remember where I got this but here is a good article entitled "The case for and against publicly funded transsexual surgery " obviously, I'm on the same side as Dr. Blanchard, if you find yourself agreeing with Dr. Fedoroff then I can see how you might think SRS is immoral."

I completely agree with Dr. Blanchard too. I have no problem with SRS, I strongly agree that it should get public funding and that it should be fully repaid by the government (in the case of the Belgian type of health care). But I still have some reservations. Especially about this:

"If you look at the SOC you'll see that SRS isn't an on demand operation, the requirements to get SRS are quite long and involved."

The article I mention talks about doctors performing SRS without the patient meeting the minimumrequirements. In casu patients with no preoperative reallife experiences as a female and with less than 12 months of hormone therapy. Although the study indicates that those people tend to be as pleased with the results as other patients, it does raise a question about morality imho. What's the use of the SOC if doctors ignore it?

I'd like to add that because of my limited knowledge of English I can't convey my point of view with enough subtelty. I just wanted to express some concerns about the possibility of "regular" mental pantients ending up on the operation tables. I still believe most doctors are capable of making the right decissions but it bothers me that there's no real legal framework to protect them and their patients.

HeatherD

August 11, 2003, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by matthias j.
"If you look at the SOC you'll see that SRS isn't an on demand operation, the requirements to get SRS are quite long and involved."

The article I mention talks about doctors performing SRS without the patient meeting the minimumrequirements. In casu patients with no preoperative reallife experiences as a female and with less than 12 months of hormone therapy. Although the study indicates that those people tend to be as pleased with the results as other patients, it does raise a question about morality imho. What's the use of the SOC if doctors ignore it?

I've read some of Dr. Lawrence's articles that speak to the possibility that the full length of the real-life experience (RLE) could be shortened but I don't think she is advocating SRS without the RLE.

As for doctors that ignore it, I doubt you'll find any reputable doctors in the U.S. that ignore it. I'm sure we still have some doctors that would do it illegally and I do find that immoral.

Before the SOC was developed, and before SRS became available in Europe or the U.S., Mexico was where most American transsexuals were going. Those doctors were filling a need, a need of some very desperate people. But today, in the U.S., it's much easier to get SRS. Overall, if someone is still doing illegal SRS operations in the U.S. then I would consider that immoral.

Now, I do know that it is quite easy to get SRS performed in Thailand and they will waive the SOC in some cases. The surgeons there are supposed to be quite good and also inexpensive compared to the U.S. and Canada. As far as I have heard, while it is possible to get SRS in Thailand, the SOC is still preferred but if you can't or haven't gotten the proper letters from your therapist, the final decision rests with the surgeon. For the surgeon's own reputation, they are careful not to perform SRS on obviously mentally ill individuals.

Originally posted by matthias j. I'd like to add that because of my limited knowledge of English I can't convey my point of view with enough subtelty. I just wanted to express some concerns about the possibility of "regular" mental pantients ending up on the operation tables. I still believe most doctors are capable of making the right decissions but it bothers me that there's no real legal framework to protect them and their patients.

Your English is pretty good, I wish I was better at other languages. I'm going to take two semesters of German at college, although French might be better as I'd like to move to Canada someday. I'm not good with French though, of all the Latin based languages, it has the most foreign pronunciation from an English background. German actually seems easy to me, the Germanic roots in many English words makes translation simpler.

To address your final comment about a "legal framework", at least here in the U.S., if you go through the SOC and go to a reputable SRS surgeon, you are protected. Protected at least as far as professional ethics is concerned. If you do go all the way through and have SRS done and then later regret it, I'm not sure there is any recourse.

Obviously, if a person thinks they are transsexual but isn't, never sees a therapist or works within the SOC guidelines, and goes to Thailand, and assuming the doctor isn't reputable, they aren't protected very much. If they then have regrets, there isn't much anyone can do.