[please be serious] Does gender have -anything- to do with gentials at ALL?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > [please be serious] Does gender have -anything- to do with gentials at ALL?

«‹›10 »

Juffo-Wup: Jan 13, 2005; Pillbug

NathanScottPhillips posted:

This is a very, very interesting set of posts to appear. The first claims that "an obsession for physical basis for such bahaviors and feelings" is a immoral pursuit.

False. In fact it claims that such an obsession is frequently used as an intellectual cover for bigotry. Try not to say false things.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 00:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 12:42

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

NathanScottPhillips posted:

Personally, I feel that in 20 years, maybe sooner, when neuroscience has progressed to the point where it can pinpoint the reasons why people need sex changes it will be treatable with medication or therapy, just like depression is now. This period of surgery and hormone supplements will be looked back on in the same light we look back on lobotomies.

why is surgery haram? you're not putting forth any logical or rational reasons to leave surgery off the list of potential treatments

# ? Apr 20, 2016 00:32

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

NathanScottPhillips posted:

This is a very, very interesting set of posts to appear. The first claims that "an obsession for physical basis for such bahaviors and feelings" is a immoral pursuit. The second flippantly mentions suicide in the same breath as a sex change procedure as if they are on the same spectrum.

In a vacuum it would not be an immoral pursuit. In the current atmosphere searching for physiological bases for gender roles often comes with an agenda. It's like a lot of the 'gay gene' research. In an ethical vacuum that would be interesting, like hey we can see the genetic basis for this or that outcome, cool! Currently it comes with a whole heap of poo poo and half of the people backing it are mostly doing so because of their own sexual hangups or because they want a test to abort gay fetuses.
If they're that interested in genes and sexuality perhaps they should go look for a pedophile gene or a rapist gene or something that might provide useful information for improving society. Maybe some of the researchers really are just interested in sexuality being possibly genetic, but that doesn't happen in an ethical vacuum, and when your sponsors are holding a literal vacuum and waiting for the transvaginal gaydar then you should perhaps question your ethical duties beyond mere knowledge.

quote:

I think this is very interesting; if you do not want to address the physical basis for mental health problems, then you are basically telling people who have suicidal thoughts "go ahead, do it. That's what you feel is best, right. I support your decision, you are brave." Is this seriously where the argument is going?

There was a thread on that, it was bad. The only possible relevance to this thread is that it discussed the ethics of forced medical/surgical treatments to prevent someone doing something that you have decided is immoral.

quote:

Personally, I feel that in 20 years, maybe sooner, when neuroscience has progressed to the point where it can pinpoint the reasons why people need sex changes it will be treatable with medication or therapy, just like depression is now. This period of surgery and hormone supplements will be looked back on in the same light we look back on lobotomies.

Or they might be able to identify it in advance so that the person can transition before puberty, which by some metrics has far better results than post-pubescent transition. In which case it goes to the ethical issue of whether the individual be allowed an informed choice between physical or mental transition.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 00:43

Cobweb Heart: Mar 31, 2010; I need you to wear this. I need you to wear this all the time. It's office policy.

NathanScottPhillips posted:

The second flippantly mentions suicide in the same breath as a sex change procedure as if they are on the same spectrum.

The post McAlister is quoting reads:

quote:

Don't be surprised, there are people who have limbs removed because they want to be disabled

I couldn't anything about a sex change procedure in their last few posts in this thread, so I'm not really sure where you saw that. Gender is an extremely complex and difficult-to-discuss subject, so please read and try to understand carefully what each person is actually saying.

asdf32 posted:

Trans gendered individuals demonstrate the innate nature of gender.

'Gender' encompasses a whole bunch of behaviors, dispositions, and outward expressions. To say that something about how people experience their gender is innate is not to establish that that whole complex is innate. It remains an open question exactly which parts of that complex are innate and which are learned. Most of the opposition to the innateness thesis in this thread has been to object to the suggestion that something like aggression or risk-taking is innate rather than learned. Which is not the same as claiming that biology has nothing to do with behavior whatsoever.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 01:19

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Cobweb Heart posted:

Because in 20 years, everyone who dislikes their dick or breasts and wants them gone will be rightfully recognized as mentally ill and simply encouraged by professionals to change their minds, and I guess everyone who's already done it will be dead and forgotten. It's an extreme offshoot of the same thinking that gives us the classic "God gave you your body, and taking anything off of it is an insult to Him" opinion.

body dysmorphia is recognized as a disorder right now, and one of the treatments is surgery, so you should call the medical community and alert them to your discovery without delay

# ? Apr 20, 2016 01:38

Baxta: Feb 18, 2004; Needs More Pirate

Guavanaut posted:

In a vacuum it would not be an immoral pursuit. In the current atmosphere searching for physiological bases for gender roles often comes with an agenda. It's like a lot of the 'gay gene' research. In an ethical vacuum that would be interesting, like hey we can see the genetic basis for this or that outcome, cool! Currently it comes with a whole heap of poo poo and half of the people backing it are mostly doing so because of their own sexual hangups or because they want a test to abort gay fetuses.
If they're that interested in genes and sexuality perhaps they should go look for a pedophile gene or a rapist gene or something that might provide useful information for improving society. Maybe some of the researchers really are just interested in sexuality being possibly genetic, but that doesn't happen in an ethical vacuum, and when your sponsors are holding a literal vacuum and waiting for the transvaginal gaydar then you should perhaps question your ethical duties beyond mere knowledge.

The answer to ignorance is not to be ignorant yourself. You're basically saying that it's ok to hold back human progress and the search for absolute truth because some people might do something bad.

quote:

There was a thread on that, it was bad. The only possible relevance to this thread is that it discussed the ethics of forced medical/surgical treatments to prevent someone doing something that you have decided is immoral.

Or they might be able to identify it in advance so that the person can transition before puberty, which by some metrics has far better results than post-pubescent transition. In which case it goes to the ethical issue of whether the individual be allowed an informed choice between physical or mental transition.

You have failed to acknowledge the fact that depression is a mental disorder that can be corrected with therapy or medicine, and I was analogizing it to body dismorphia. Body dismorphia is a mental disorder, it's gotta be. My position is that if someone's body dismorphia is caused by an chemical imbalance in their brain, then fixing that imbalance might fix their body dismorphia and cause them to no longer need to have a sex change. If this were the case, then people who have had surgical sex changes might have been the unfortunate victims of medical evolution, like those poor people that used to be lobotomized.

Cobweb Heart posted:

The post McAlister is quoting reads:
I couldn't anything about a sex change procedure in their last few posts in this thread, so I'm not really sure where you saw that. Gender is an extremely complex and difficult-to-discuss subject, so please read and try to understand carefully what each person is actually saying.

Hey thanks but I follow the conversation for more than 3 lines, sorry for bringing in more thoughts than you can handle in one post.

quote:

Because in 20 years, everyone who dislikes their dick or breasts and wants them gone will be rightfully recognized as mentally ill and simply encouraged by professionals to change their minds, and I guess everyone who's already done it will be dead and forgotten. It's an extreme offshoot of the same thinking that gives us the classic "God gave you your body, and taking anything off of it is an insult to Him" opinion.

Yes, in 20 years if a medicine or therapy were created that cured people's body dismorphia, nobody would ever feel any desire to cut off their dick or breasts and could get on living their life. That's the goal, no?

# ? Apr 20, 2016 02:13

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

NathanScottPhillips posted:

I think most medical professionals agree 9 times out of 10 that surgery and body modification should be the absolute last resort, especially if therapy or medicine work. There are all sorts of reasons why therapy and drugs should be pursued instead, from the upheaval in a patient's personal or work life, potential for something to go wrong under the knife, regretting the decision, and just plain monetary cost, to name a few.

you're moving the goalposts. you said surgery should never be an option. then you said surgery could be an option. which is it?

NathanScottPhillips posted:

Yes, in 20 years if a medicine or therapy were created that cured people's body dismorphia, nobody would ever feel any desire to cut off their dick or breasts and could get on living their life. That's the goal, no?

dysmorphia isn't cured, it's treated. one of the potential treatments is surgically altering the body. this is in the DSM-V

# ? Apr 20, 2016 02:14

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

NathanScottPhillips posted:

Did I? Can you quote it?

NathanScottPhillips posted:

This period of surgery and hormone supplements will be looked back on in the same light we look back on lobotomies.

NathanScottPhillips posted:

e: slow down, kid. I said if it could be cured. Lobotomies used to be in medical journals toted as a treatment for depression. Please follow along.

it can be treated, with surgery. you have a tendency to use inflammatory and inaccurate language while perhaps not intending to? i bet this has caused some interpersonal problems in your communications with others, in the past

boner confessor fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Apr 20, 2016

# ? Apr 20, 2016 02:17

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

NathanScottPhillips posted:

Who moved the goalposts?

so you disagree with the medical profession in that surgery should not be considered a valid option for gender dysmorphia? why? do you have a better reason than "doctors have been wrong in the past"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPtjXFfczM

# ? Apr 20, 2016 02:21

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

NathanScottPhillips posted:

I'm using complete sentences with proper punctuation and capitalization. That is far more useful in life than whatever debate technique you are implementing. I do not prescribe emotions to word, but definitions. If you want to engage with what I've wrote let's do it, but I'm not going to apologize for using descriptive words that get my point across.

I wrote a couple paragraphs about why I think that.

yeah, you basically wrote that you have a real solid gut feeling that gender dysmorphia is a full on mental illness ("Body dismorphia is a mental disorder, it's gotta be. My position is that if someone's body dismorphia is caused by an chemical imbalance in their brain...") despite the fact that medical science disagrees with you and treats gender dysmorphia as a disorder caused by an internal self-image disagreement with society, meaning that it's easier to transition a person rather than expect society to relax, as you are sweatily demonstrating. and you don't seem to to be capable of giving any kind of objective reason why anyone should take your opinion seriously

# ? Apr 20, 2016 02:36

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

gender dysphoria, sorry. here read this and then calmly and logically explain in your professional opinion why they're wrong and you're right

# ? Apr 20, 2016 02:41

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Guavanaut posted:

LGBT rights in general are legitimized by not being pricks to LGBT people.

The idea that finding a 'gay gene' would suddenly legitimize LGBT issues is absurd. Let's say we find one. Cool, now let's say we develop a test you can pee on or put a blood sample on. Then let's give a few hundred thousand free to Uganda or Saudi Arabia or Faithful Word Baptist Church. What good exactly do you see coming from that?

The pursuit of knowledge at all levels can be a great thing in and of itself (not just at lower levels, because that just lends itself to reductionism) but it can't create or legitimize social or civil rights issues on its own.

Most people have already decided that being gay isn't a choice which is a shift that's accompanied many rights. For obvious reasons. Society doesn't support every whim and preference of every individual. The fundamental and innate nature of sexual preference is why society has and should write laws to support gay marriage and LGBT issues in general.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 02:56

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

NathanScottPhillips posted:

Hey thanks but I follow the conversation for more than 3 lines, sorry for bringing in more thoughts than you can handle in one post.

You said "The second flippantly mentions suicide in the same breath as a sex change procedure as if they are on the same spectrum." McAlister's post is in reference to the removal of limbs. When they say "a little cosmetic surgery", they are talking about the removal of limbs. The post doesn't mention a sex change procedure and your post was predicated on the basis that it was. Getting defensive and burning my brainpower doesn't make you more right.

quote:

Yes, in 20 years if a medicine or therapy were created that cured people's body dismorphia, nobody would ever feel any desire to cut off their dick or breasts and could get on living their life. That's the goal, no?

No. Wanting to cut off your dick or breasts isn't really a huge deal if you're really sure you don't like the way they look and feel on you. Plenty of people have done it already and plenty more are going to. Why would you care? The idea of "It's inherently bad to want to remove your sex characteristics, so I expect pills and therapy to be rapidly developed so that everybody with breasts who doesn't want them comes around to the right way of thinking" is really not palatable to a lot of people.

asdf32 posted:

Most people have already decided that being gay isn't a choice which is a shift that's accompanied many rights. For obvious reasons. Society doesn't support every whim and preference of every individual. The fundamental and innate nature of sexual preference is why society has and should write laws to support gay marriage and LGBT issues in general.

So if it were proven tomorrow that being gay is a choice after all, would it be okay to discriminate against gay people again?

# ? Apr 20, 2016 04:56

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Guavanaut posted:

LGBT rights in general are legitimized by not being pricks to LGBT people.

The idea that finding a 'gay gene' would suddenly legitimize LGBT issues is absurd. Let's say we find one. Cool, now let's say we develop a test you can pee on or put a blood sample on. Then let's give a few hundred thousand free to Uganda or Saudi Arabia or Faithful Word Baptist Church. What good exactly do you see coming from that?

Well the religious right would suddenly stop trying to ban abortions and it would become a woman's religious freedom and her right to choose :v:

# ? Apr 20, 2016 04:57

Blue Star: Feb 18, 2013; by FactsAreUseless

I'm of the opinion that transgenderism is almost purely a psychological phenomenon that develops over time, rather than an innate biologically congenital one that happens in the womb. Brain studies have indicated a lot of different things and neuroscience is still in its infancy. Some studies have shown that male and female brains are pretty much the same and that any differences are entirely due to nurture. Some studies have shown that trans women's brains are more similar to cis women's, while others have shown the opposite: that trans women are more similar to cis men, neurologically. Other studies have shown that young MTF transitioners are more similar to cis women, while older MTF transitioners are more like cis men. It's all very much up in the air and nothing is conclusive.

So right now I'm kinda sorta leaning towards the idea that transgenderism is more than likely a nurture sort of thing. People do not have innate genders in their brains. The desire to transition arises due to acquired psychological factors that occur during a person's lifetime, not due to innate congenital biology. Trans women are biological males who desire to live their lives as women and be socially recognized as women, while trans men are the opposite. Whether or not that makes them actual women or actual men is an open question. But I do think that gender roles as defined by the West are too rigid so it's good that some people are pushing the boundaries. In 20 years, I think gender noncomformity will be a little more accepted than it is today, although medically there probably won't be any more options for trans people than there are today. No miracle brain cure pills, no significant advancements in surgical tech or body modification tech. The majority of trans women will still be non-passing and obviously male, but hopefully they will be more accepted.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 05:08

DeathMuffin: May 25, 2004; Cake or Death

NathanScottPhillips posted:

Yes, in 20 years if a medicine or therapy were created that cured people's body dismorphia, nobody would ever feel any desire to cut off their dick or breasts and could get on living their life. That's the goal, no?

If you asked most trans people about this, if they could take the magic pill that would make them happy with their assigned gender, they'd say no - despite the huge social pressures to do so.

It's because it is a matter of identity. That you wouldn't be the same person.

So, unless you're proposing forced medication, this is pretty much a non starter. Being trans isn't a bad thing. People being cunts about it is.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 06:39

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

NathanScottPhillips posted:

The answer to ignorance is not to be ignorant yourself. You're basically saying that it's ok to hold back human progress and the search for absolute truth because some people might do something bad.

No I'm not, I'm saying that the search for more cool stuff is fine, the search for more random stuff is fine, but the search for stuff actively pushed by awful people is less fine. I'm not sure there is an 'absolute truth', but searching for a genetic root for sexuality seems pointless at best (not that I'm against gaining pointless knowledge) and actively harmful at worst, especially when people fronting such research have gone on record saying they support a parent's right to test and abort their gaybies.
It's like the difference between a chemist who is looking for novel new organophosphates because they really enjoy phosphate chemistry and a chemist who is looking for novel new organophosphates that can be made in an airplane bathroom from a binary solution and is sponsored by someone who is cool with nerve gas attacks. One might say there are some ethical issues outweighing the loss of potential organophosphate knowledge in the latter case. Surely there's better things for them to be getting on with.

asdf32 posted:

Most people have already decided that being gay isn't a choice which is a shift that's accompanied many rights. For obvious reasons. Society doesn't support every whim and preference of every individual. The fundamental and innate nature of sexual preference is why society has and should write laws to support gay marriage and LGBT issues in general.

The opening shot of gay rights legislation in the UK, the Wolfenden report, contained in its closing argument the phrase "It is not, in our view, the function of the law to intervene in the private life of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour." That sounds like an argument to choice. Prior to that, many physicians were arguing about the congenital/hormonal nature of homosexuality, and its possible treatment through chemical castration and electroshock therapy. That sounds like an argument to innateness.

You can use choice arguments to be an ally or a dick. You can also use innateness arguments to be an ally or a dick too, although they always come off a bit patronizing in the "aww, they can't help it" sense even in the best case.

I support the same rights to partnership for same sex couples as for different sex couples, I don't think there needs to be a blood test for it or anything, just ask the two people if they want to be married..

I support the rights of mixed race couples to register a partnership too. I don't believe there's a gene or an innate factor that causes a person to be attracted to black or Asian or white people or whatever, I believe that people fall in love for a whole lot of difference complex reasons. And I believe that if scientists were looking for 'the gene' that made you attracted to different races, and the person fronting the project was unsubtly saying "well of course it's the parents' right to know if their unborn child is carrying this gene, they might not want colored grandkids" then they can gently caress off too.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 09:39

Oh dear me: Aug 14, 2012; I have burned numerous saucepans, sometimes right through the metal

asdf32 posted:

Most people have already decided that being gay isn't a choice which is a shift that's accompanied many rights. For obvious reasons. Society doesn't support every whim and preference of every individual. The fundamental and innate nature of sexual preference is why society has and should write laws to support gay marriage and LGBT issues in general.

'Not a choice' does not mean innate. I did not choose English as my mother tongue. I did not choose to get measles.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 09:42

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

asdf32 posted:

Trans gendered individuals demonstrate the innate nature of gender. LGBT rights in general are legitimized by recognizing the innate nature of sexual orientation and gender.

The idea that studying human behavior at lower levels must only reinforce social norms or whatever is absurd.

No, LGBT rights are legitimized by the notion that allowing a person to exist harmoniously with themselves is important, regardless of why any discord may exist.

If a person believes wholeheartedly that their body does not fit them, the best thing for them is to either change their mind, or their body, so that they no longer have to feel that. All that matters is that people feel at peace with themselves and happy in their bodies and their lives, no proscription against body modification should stand in the way of that, and there is no requirement for a "legitimiate" biological basis for that, looking for one with the hope of justifying people's feelings is to completely miss the issue.

Same with gay conversion therapy, it's not wrong because homosexuality is unchangeable, it's wrong because there's no reason why a person shouldn't be homosexual. The same is true of trans people. Changing your body to match your gender is exactly as legitimate as not doing so.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Apr 20, 2016

# ? Apr 20, 2016 11:07

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004; Out here, everything hurts.

OwlFancier posted:

No, LGBT rights are legitimized by the notion that allowing a person to exist harmoniously with themselves is important, regardless of why any discord may exist.

If a person believes wholeheartedly that their body does not fit them, the best thing for them is to either change their mind, or their body, so that they no longer have to feel that. All that matters is that people feel at peace with themselves and happy in their bodies and their lives, no proscription against body modification should stand in the way of that, and there is no requirement for a "legitimiate" biological basis for that, looking for one with the hope of justifying people's feelings is to completely miss the issue.

Same with gay conversion therapy, it's not wrong because homosexuality is unchangeable, it's wrong because there's no reason why a person shouldn't be homosexual. The same is true of trans people. Changing your body to match your gender is exactly as legitimate as not doing so.

The only real argument against reassignment surgery is if there are health issues that would complicate it that are stronger than the benefit it gives, and that's a conversation that needs to happen between patient, doctor, and mental health professional, not on the Internet.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 11:46

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

All surgery is dangerous because it carries the risk of severe complications, and should not be taken lightly. The choice for surgery however should remain between patient and doctor, as with all medical procedures.

OwlFancier posted:

Same with gay conversion therapy, it's not wrong because homosexuality is unchangeable, it's wrong because there's no reason why a person shouldn't be homosexual. The same is true of trans people. Changing your body to match your gender is exactly as legitimate as not doing so.

Suppose gay conversion therapy worked. Would you allow someone who was gay, but felt uncomfortable being gay, take that therapy? I'm not sure I would, but you're stressing the importance of comfort, so you necessarily must. Peace of mind is a funny thing.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 12:52

Armani: Jun 22, 2008; Now it's been 17 summers since I've seen my mother

But every night I see her smile inside my dreams

McAlister posted:

Note: I did know that hysterectomies existed in the 90's but was unable to find a doctor willing to perform one on me as a healthy childless twenty something woman. I know men of that age who were able to get vasectomies at that time. They got a moderate amount of pushback and couldn't get the first doc they called to do it. But in the end their control of their fertility was respected in a way mine wasn't.

Hey, first off: You've shared a lot of great stuff, and it's awesome, thanks.

Second, I wanted to springboard off this bit of personal info because this is my exact issue, too.

My entire life, pregnancy has been my #1 fear because it has a 100% chance of killing me. Abortion bans are straight up on my mind 24/7.

So, here's the fun, gender thing: I am a woman, was born as one, and present as such by whatever that means - but I can't have children. Periods are useless to me. I want the poo poo removed.

To everyone I know, that is the -one- thing that makes you a woman: childbearing. Can't do it: Am I a woman? You'd be shocked by the answers. You'd be even more shocked by the weird near-reptilian tone people take with me and suddenly spring nightmares onto me:

"God had a plan, go with it."
"Don't take birth control, it'll ruin your brain/body/hormones."
"Maybe they can induce a coma on you and surgically remove your ribcage to induce labor!"
"Maybe you should give your life for the child, I mean, you can't -not- have kids."
"Why would you do such a selfish thing to the men in your life?"
"You can't have kids? Oh man, you're never going to find a guy."
"Why should I wear a condom? It feels bad. We can just, like, do stuff to get rid of it if you get pregnant, right?"
"Well, it's cool you want to adopt, but I kinda want to spread MY genes, you know...?"

Since I was like, 10 years old. It's hosed. It's some kind of gross sexual projection dressed up as concern.

E: for the super nerdy goons, please refer to the cinema classic Prometheus to get a wonderful metaphor of how horrific and unreal this natural and biological act feels to me. Thanks for reading, have a great day, keep posting.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 12:58

Bulgogi Hoagie: Jun 1, 2012; We

Can't wait to see how gender reassignment surgery copes with the incoming lack of working antibiotics.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Apr 20, 2016 13:00

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Dude, that's just mean.

rudatron posted:

Suppose gay conversion therapy worked. Would you allow someone who was gay, but felt uncomfortable being gay, take that therapy? I'm not sure I would, but you're stressing the importance of comfort, so you necessarily must. Peace of mind is a funny thing.

If we are going into magic fantasy land where a person can just take a pill and feel sexual desire towards X, sure why not?

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 13:04 on Apr 20, 2016

# ? Apr 20, 2016 13:01

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Armani posted:

"Why would you do such a selfish thing to the men in your life?"
"Well, it's cool you want to adopt, but I kinda want to spread MY genes, you know...?"

These two are wonderful in combination. :catstare:

It says a lot about people if they think that the absolute best thing that they can offer the world is a chemical that they produce without any conscious effort, they should just go be a plant or something.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 13:26

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

rudatron posted:

All surgery is dangerous because it carries the risk of severe complications, and should not be taken lightly. The choice for surgery however should remain between patient and doctor, as with all medical procedures.

Suppose gay conversion therapy worked. Would you allow someone who was gay, but felt uncomfortable being gay, take that therapy? I'm not sure I would, but you're stressing the importance of comfort, so you necessarily must. Peace of mind is a funny thing.

Depends on why they want to. If it's because people are being twats to them then I would suggest that conformity probably wouldn't help, if they have a personal preference and want to be attracted to the opposite sex, and the process simply did that, then sure.

I'm not going to say "yes if gay conversion therapy worked it would be OK" because gay conversion therapy carries way too much associated baggage for that to be a precise statement but I have no particular aversion to people changing aspects of themselves to become what they think is a better person.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 13:28

Armani: Jun 22, 2008; Now it's been 17 summers since I've seen my mother

But every night I see her smile inside my dreams

Guavanaut posted:

These two are wonderful in combination.

It says a lot about people if they think that the absolute best thing that they can offer the world is a chemical that they produce without any conscious effort, they should just go be a plant or something.

This dude gets it. The other fun thing is complete faux-concern over my 'biological clock' like I'm some sort of slowly dying oven that can't bake poo poo right. That happens to every woman I know to some degree, though.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 13:40

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

I am curious how "get pregnant even if it literally kills you" is supposed to work.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 13:46

WoodrowSkillson: Feb 24, 2005; *Gestures at 60 years of Lions history*

Considering the vast majority of trans individuals i have spoken with state they knew something was off very early in their lives, I do not think many would be accepting to any therapy that "corrected" them. Some might, especially if their dysphoria is not as pronounced, health reasons prevent a full transition, etc. But you are dealing with someone's identity they have felt since they were a child, and that's a deeper thing than depression.

To me, the real goal is researching the hormonal and other aspects of gender dysphoria is being able to identify it early and allow treatments for transition far earlier in the person's life, when it is far less painful and grueling. If we know how it actually works, we can objectively tell a parent "your child is trans, here is the treatment" when the kid is like 3 or something and does not even personally understand gender yet.

To the thread's point, there is probably some aspect of the hormones that cause you to grow one set of genitals vs another also affecting your gender, and the better we understand it, the faster and easier we can make the process of transitioning.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 13:47

The Larch: Jan 14, 2015; by FactsAreUseless

OwlFancier posted:

I am curious how "get pregnant even if it literally kills you" is supposed to work.

Ever seen Alien?

# ? Apr 20, 2016 13:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 12:42

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Ok I should rephrase, I understand mechanically how getting pregnant and it killing you works but I am having difficulty understanding the rational basis for why it is a good thing.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 13:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > [please be serious] Does gender have -anything- to do with gentials at ALL?

«‹›10 »