Is a sex-change a constitutional right?Follow

I don't think anyone said they were.



Um... Except that when sex and gender are at odds, then the last part of what I said applies. And since we're specifically speaking about that case, it's relevant. We only make a distinction between sex and gender when they don't match.

I'd also like to point out that this is precisely what I meant by "perception" versus "reality". Reality being what someone's physical body is (ie; their sex). Perception being what they think or feel (their gender). I never meant to suggest that a transgendered person actually perceives their physical body to be other than it is. The point I was making is that they don't believe that this physical state makes them "male" or "female", just as someone with an eating disorder doesn't believe that their weight and gauntness (or even near skeletalness) makes them "skinny". In their minds, they are fat, no matter what their physical body looks like. In that case "fat" no longer refers to the physical state, in the same way that "male" or "female" no longer applies to the physical state when speaking of gender.

We just don't have a separate word to use in the case of an eating disorder.



And why is that not "incorrect"? If we define incorrect to mean "someone who's mental perception of themselves doesn't match their physical selves", then it's incorrect.



Sure. Because we've created different terms to make the distinction. One could argue that you are confused because our gender should match your sex. I really think this is just a matter of terminology. If we created two imaginary terms like "blah" and "bloh", we could say that "blah" refers to someone's physical body type, and "bloh" refers to what people think about themselves, we could then also say that someone could have a fat blah, but a skinny bloh (or vice versa). And it would be exactly as legitimate a distinction as saying someone can have a male sex and a female gender. It's circular. We created the terms in order to identify that state. The absence of terms to identify analogous states in other context does not make one more or less "correct" than the other.



Yet you'd help person who has a male sex and female gender change the sex to match the gender. Do you see how that's inconsistent?

Or is it more about political correctness? If a woman were obese, but viewed herself as skinny, would you applaud her for her positive attitude?

I can't imagine anything on the forums less satisfying or fruitful than a debate between gbaji, Alma and Rachel. You kids have fun with this one

That's the question. What does she have? Why would she be labeled with a disorder? She isn't starving herself, she just see herself as fat, when she clearly isn't. What are the benchmarks being used to determine if someone has a disorder?



I'm not at your scientific level *yet*, but the truth is that those transformations are known pseudos. They know that their sexes are still the same, they just FEEL better about it. It's like wearing a fake Rolex watch or fake Coach purse. If we can be satisfied with a knock-off, then we can be satisfied with another brand, because what we have aren't the real things to begin with.

There might not be a readily available mental solution now, but the fact that a transsexual/gender can feel better after a known pseudo operation, says that it is definitely possible.



Exactly. People are unable to label something as is, disagree with it and respect it at the same time. As a result, people play with words, altering definitions and meanings to adhere to certain agendas. It makes no sense to label transgenders with disorders and not homosexuals, especially given that a noticeable percentage of homosexuals take on the opposite gender roles anyway. Likewise with heterosexuals. It becomes completely hypocritical to label people with certain disorders based on gender stereotypes. That completely contradicts the purpose of the word gender in the first place.

You are overlooking my point. Why are you even considering it a disorder in the first place? Based on what? Do you consider overweight people who call themselves "big boned" to have a disorder? Is denial a disorder? We don't always see ourselves the same way others see ourselves. So, if there's dissonance between the two, does that justify labeling someone with a disorder?



When we live in a society of political correctness and political favor, it would be foolish for someone to accept such a conclusion at face value when obvious contradiction is glaring you in the face.

I don't recall stating it a disorder, but if I did, I misspoke. I didn't make anything up. In my experiences, women in general tend to view themselves larger than what they are. Do all of those women have disorders? Does every man who claims to play as good as Michael Jordan have a disorder, i.e. Kobe Bryant, LeBron James? What about the people who believe that they are good singers, i.e. American Idol?

What are the benchmarks being used to determine if someone who views themselves differently than how society views them has a disorder?



1. I have neural science training, but not nearly enough to consider myself much more educated on the subject than the average educated person. Also, more on the computational side and not the psychological side.

2. I never argued that what was mentioned was hogwash, but the labeling of one cross dresser as a disorder and not the other. There was no scientific mentioning of homosexuality being or not being a disorder. When I asked Rachel to differentiate his meanings between decide and choose, he conveniently disregarded.

3. You don't have to be expert to see contradiction. Scientists say that global warming is a big deal. Scientists say that global warming is not a big deal. I don't have to study global warming to see that is a contradiction. This applies to almost any scientific study. That is why ethics is very important.

Can we get back to talking about sex? Er... Sex Changes. Yeah. That's what I meant!

You and I see the world very differently. I believe most medical/biological professions aren't normally interested in such topics until there's a social/political desire.



Maybe as a scientist, but you can't expect society to accept contradictions in the same manner. As a scientist who supposed to remain objective, it's easy to say "we don't know yet". As a normal citizen, people tend to choose sides. People are naturally more subjective.

You're right. I just don't think that the average person sees homosexuals/transgenders/sexuals as people who are suffering. As a result, "looking for a cure", means that you're already biased into thinking that there is a problem in the first place. I'm sure there are people who would objectively study it, but as you say, funding has to come from somewhere. Given that I would argue that the average person deem that topic as "personal lifestyles", people probably aren't naturally studying it without some sort of bias, one way or the other.

What? No i didn't.

People grow up saying "I want to cure 'cancer'/AIDS/etc." I doubt there is a noticeable percentage of people genuinely interested in the biological make up of homosexuality. It gets thrown in with "different strokes for different folks".



People suffer from AIDS and various forms of cancer. People don't suffer from homosexuality. Suicide is another whole other scenario that all boils down to the lack of self-worth. It's possible to talk someone out of committing suicide without even knowing what the problem is. There are a number of homosexuals who are happy, hence the word gay, and not suicidal. Given that fact, it's safe to say that there are other social factors that lead to suicides. In that large number of homosexual suicides, how many of them killed themselves solely because of their sexuality that did NOT include any negative social influence, i.e. ridicule, but had a loving family and friend environment.



Where was this answer? Feel free to quote or use post #.

The whole "reference post number" thing is getting old. That is all.

Administrator Kaolian

Post 115.

Post 229.