Trans

And if they wanted to destroy their old house and build a new one would that be going to far? We aren't advocating that you try to help people who aren't asking for help. Just that you provide the medically accepted help when people need and want it.

I do accept my own nature. I am a transman. Part of my experience being trans is accepting that, in order to be fully happy with myself, I need surgery. Recognizing who you are, being who you are despite the stigma attached to it, and doing what you need to do to make yourself happy is about as honest as it gets. Wouldn't it be more dishonest to say to myself, "Yes, I'm trans, but owning that is too scary so I'll live in fear and pain for the rest of my life instead."

ren wrote: To not accept one's own nature is inauthentic and as such, a form of dishonesty.

So your espousing biological essentialism then? That your body and genetics are everything that you are and that your nature cannot differ from these?

Red Lila wrote:

ren wrote: You know what I'll be the devil's advocate and argue I can totally respect people who learn to work with what they've got. Besides, if I saw an amputee go about their business walking with their hands they'd automatically get free pints just because they're awesome.

Be the devil's advocate all you want but you're not addressing my point. Just because you don't understand or agree with a medical diagnosis, psychiatric or otherwise does not mean your opinion of it should dictate the lives of others. We have many years of study with transsexuals now and whether you think its just window dressing or not, we know for a fact that there are demonstrable improvements to quality of life and dramatic decreases in stress related mental illness as a result of HRT and SRS.

The goal of medicine is to both improve quality of life and prevent the loss of life. The major delineation between necessary medical intervention and cosmetic surgery is often made based off a very basic analysis: Will the procedure improve quality of life in an ongoing basis after acclimation to changes? If the answer is no, its cosmetic. If the answer is yes then its not cosmetic. The AMA, APA, and WHO all say this is not cosmetic.

Their predecessors used to prescribe leaches. Fashion does not make something right (or wrong).

Red Lila wrote:

ren wrote: To not accept one's own nature is inauthentic and as such, a form of dishonesty.

So your espousing biological essentialism then? That your body and genetics are everything that you are and that your nature cannot differ from these?

I am existentialist. i use "authentic" in the existentialist sense. An other existentialist concept is "the other" and their look. The other and their looks resrict your personal freedom (such as being who you are). I've argued this point already (that you need not identify as one gender or the other, or even I believe in your case, with any gender at all) but I didn't delve too much into the existentialist stuff as people just aren't that deep into philosophy here.

ren wrote: Their predecessors used to prescribe leaches. Fashion does not make something right (or wrong).

You're making a sweeping generalization and attempting to dismiss my supporting points because of your opinion. Public policy has to be based on what can be established and proven. Should that change, then policy should change, however doing nothing simply because you don't think its right when we know doing nothing causes harm is malicious negligence.

ren wrote: I am existentialist. i use "authentic" in the existentialist sense. An other existentialist concept is "the other" and their look. The other and their looks resrict your personal freedom (such as being who you are). I've argued this point already (that you need not identify as one gender or the other, or even I believe in your case, with any gender at all) but I didn't delve too much into the existentialist stuff as people just aren't that deep into philosophy here.

Quite the contrary, a transgender person expressing themselves is acting in an incredibly authentic fashion in the existentialist self, forcing oneself to conform to their prescribed role in society would be more ingrained with "the other" than anything else. The fact that there is medical/neurological research to compliment this is secondary. Further with such an existentialist bent at no point does existentialism say we should neglect our health and well being simply because they are influenced by our physical form.

That said, I'm not an existentialist and while existentialism may allow a sophistic loophole where no amount of evidence matters as the opinion and subjective experience rules all its a inhospitable method for determining your interactions with others.

<insert unhelpful smarty pants comment about medical leeches here>

Red Lila wrote:

ren wrote: Their predecessors used to prescribe leaches. Fashion does not make something right (or wrong).

You're making a sweeping generalization and attempting to dismiss my supporting points because of your opinion. Public policy has to be based on what can be established and proven. Should that change, then policy should change, however doing nothing simply because you don't think its right when we know doing nothing causes harm is malicious negligence.

Public policy has to be based on what people want. Not on the wants of a minority, no matter who or what that minority is. What is "established and proven" regarding trans is that people want to switch, and that we have NO CLUE why.

Quite the contrary, a transgender person expressing themselves is acting in an incredibly authentic fashion in the existentialist self, forcing oneself to conform to their prescribed role in society would be more ingrained with "the other" than anything else.

WHat trans is, is complete submission of the self to the Other. YOU could have lived "outside the system", but chose to join it because it gave you comfort. What I challenge is the source of that comfort.

ren wrote:
Public policy has to be based on what people want. Not on the wants of a minority, no matter who or what that minority is. What is "established and proven" regarding trans is that people want to switch, and that we have NO CLUE why.

We know that trans people want SRS when we experience sex dysphoria that is strong enough to cause other mental health problems. We also know that SRS works in the vast majority of cases.

Does SRS still work without the large amount of psychotherapy they get afterwards?

To me your argument sounds like "the placebo effect works! Let's do more of it!". Which is true, just not something I admire in the human psyche. Similarly, I do not support the insurance coverage of placebos... for the very simple reason people could live very well without them.