A critique of transgenderism

[homersapien 11,357]

There is nothing objective about what's going on in someone's mind because you cannot actually see or read it. It's entirely subjective and dependent on what they tell you they feel.

I was referring the biochemical processes that comprise thought, not to how well we may or may not understand them.

Chemistry is objective. It's not magic.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I don't understand your point. This guy is making an argument that assumes his position that sexuality is determined by ones sexual anatomy. Therefore, it's clearly an argument from authority.

Actually, both are making positive claims. THIS guy is making the point you mention above, but those arguing against it are also putting forth a positive claim: that sex and gender are separate things and that it's perfectly reasonable and ok for a person to have the chromosomes of one sex, their body to completely have the equipment of that sex but somehow because they 'feel' like the other sex, that's normal. It suffers the same deficiencies that you say THIS guy's argument does.

No that's wrong. First, the "positive claim" in the second case is based on scientific understanding.

Scientific understanding based on what someone tells you.

Come on Titan. :-\ Scientific understanding is based on what the science tells you, via scientific publications. You know that.

And the science tells you, miraculously, that the person's thoughts and feelings - only when they tell you they believe they are really the opposite sex of everything their chromosomes and genitalia tell you - are accurate and to be affirmed?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

There is nothing objective about what's going on in someone's mind because you cannot actually see or read it. It's entirely subjective and dependent on what they tell you they feel.

I was referring the biochemical processes that comprise thought, not to how well we may or may not understand them.

Chemistry is objective. It's not magic.

No one is arguing that their thoughts aren't real. We're questioning whether their thoughts are an accurate representation of reality. We know synapses are firing and thoughts are happening. We can observe they are a sentient being. What's at issue is whether we should take what they are saying and affirm that their thoughts about who/what they are are more accurate than what their physiology says they are. It's a question of whether, like basically every other disorder of this sort, you try to help them align their mind with the mirror or (in this one specific area) you encourage/affirm their belief that the mirror is wrong and it needs to align with their mind.

[homersapien 11,357]

Of course they are. We don't tell an anorexic person that believes they are fat when they are near skin and bones and weigh 90 lbs soaking wet that their feelings are ok and what they think it true about themselves.

We don't tell someone who looks like a normal person that their belief that all their various body parts are ugly and need to be surgically altered. We try to get them to align their mind with what the mirror and we can see objectively is true.

Except with transgenderism. Suddenly we flip into this notion that whatever reality they've created or their mind has concocted on its own is true and encourage them to pursue it, even to the point of mutilating their bodies to align their body with what their head is telling them. That's crazy. And apparently ineffective.

No we try to "correct" an anorexic because of the physical or psychological harm they do to themselves. That's the only justifiable reason.

People who want plastic surgery typically get it, unless it has the possibility of doing them harm, then the physician may opt to refuse.

Again with the "concoction" talk. :-\ You are in no position to tell someone what their sexuality identity is. Now as a psychologist, you may challenge that self-identity, but you cannot dictate it.

As far a "mutilating" their bodies, they don't see it that way. They see it as correcting their bodies.

As for the statistics, perhaps some physicians have been too lenient in granting procedures to those who want them. But the fact is, there are many well-adjusted transexuals that are happier than before. One shouldn't simply look for examples that confirm your prejudices.

[homersapien 11,357]

You could literally say the same thing about someone that believes they are a styrofoam packing peanut. The difference is, we don't look at that person and think it's a good thing for them to go have their body hacked up so they are shaped like one. We try to get them help to see what's objectively true: they are a human being.

Well, you could say that, but it would make for a piss-poor argument.

And again, you have no standing to dictate to any given person what their sexual identity is.

[homersapien 11,357]

I think nature gives us excellent clues 99% of the time. I don't think we should just accept at face value claims that someone "feels" like they are something other than what nature clearly tells us they are. There are entire and completely sincere communities of people online in places like tumblr of "otherkin": people who literally believe that though they were born with the body of a human being, their 'true self', what they identify as on the inside is some other species. Some believe they are a wolf, others some sort of plant.

The brain and the mind are no less a part of nature than one's sexual organs.

So are these "otherkin" people correct...they are really some sort of non-human animal or plantlife rather than a human being? If you were a psychologist and had opportunity to have such an individual in therapy, would you encourage this perception or see it as a mental disorder that should receive treatment?

I think that is a fanciful extrapolation.

Human sexuality has nothing to do with delusional fantasies. There are well-adjusted mentally sane transexuals.

And the studies suggest that overall, there is no increase in said sanity and being well adjusted...which if the supposed science about this is true, should not be the case. We should see a great increase in mental health.

It is no more a delusional fantasy to believe in one's mind that you're really another species than it is to believe that despite your chromosomes and a complete working set of genitalia of the sex your chromosomes say you are, that you're really the other sex.

I don't think the studies suggest such a thing overall. What are the position statements of the various psychology associations? Those typically reflect state of the research.

And the comparison between one's sexual identity and identifying as a different species is specious. (no pun intended)

[TitanTiger 20,472]

No we try to "correct" an anorexic because of the physical or psychological harm they do to themselves. That's the only justifiable reason.

Who are you to tell someone what their body should look like, or even whether they should continue to live if to do so they must go against what their mind tells them is how they really look?

People who want plastic surgery typically get it, unless it has the possibility of doing them harm, then the physician may opt to refuse.

Neither do people who don't have a financial interest in it encourage people to pursue radical changes to themselves. And even people with a conscience that do have a financial interest will often refuse to do it. Because we understand that there's something going on in their head that doesn't line up with reality on the ground.

Again with the "concoction" talk. :-\ You are in no position to tell someone what their sexuality identity is. Now as a psychologist, you may challenge that self-identity, but you cannot dictate it.

I'm in as much of a position to tell someone, "You are not a woman, you are a man. You have XY chromosomes, you have a penis and testicles and the complete absence of ovaries, a vagina, a cervix and so on" as I would be to tell someone, "I don't care how many times you tell me you identify as a giraffe, you are a human being. Your DNA is human, you do not have a long neck, long bony legs or a yellow and brown fur pattern."

As far a "mutilating" their bodies, they don't see it that way. They see it as correcting their bodies.

And that's the crux of this. I don't think it's their body that needs to be corrected.

As for the statistics, perhaps some physicians have been too lenient in granting procedures to those who want them.

Or this entire notion has serious flaws to begin with.

But the fact is, there are many well-adjusted transexuals that are happier than before. One shouldn't simply look for examples that confirm your prejudices.

Neither should you simply blow off the examples that undermine your premises and simply point to the ones you think affirm your views.

[homersapien 11,357]

No one's suggesting holding them at gunpoint and forcing them to try to change. But if they seek help and they come to a psychologist, part of that job is to help someone 'get their mind right' with reality, not encourage them in their delusions.

A similar position was taken with homosexuality in the past and it caused untold harm.

This talk about coercing people to conform to some arbitrary sexuality norm is disquieting.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

No one's suggesting holding them at gunpoint and forcing them to try to change. But if they seek help and they come to a psychologist, part of that job is to help someone 'get their mind right' with reality, not encourage them in their delusions.

A similar position was taken with homosexuality in the past and it caused untold harm.

This talk about coercing people to conform to some arbitrary sexuality norm is disquieting.

You make an assumption that sexuality is arbitrary.

And no one is talking about coercion. In fact, I specifically said that I wasn't.

[homersapien 11,357]

I don't understand your point. This guy is making an argument that assumes his position that sexuality is determined by ones sexual anatomy. Therefore, it's clearly an argument from authority.

Actually, both are making positive claims. THIS guy is making the point you mention above, but those arguing against it are also putting forth a positive claim: that sex and gender are separate things and that it's perfectly reasonable and ok for a person to have the chromosomes of one sex, their body to completely have the equipment of that sex but somehow because they 'feel' like the other sex, that's normal. It suffers the same deficiencies that you say THIS guy's argument does.

No that's wrong. First, the "positive claim" in the second case is based on scientific understanding.

Scientific understanding based on what someone tells you.

Come on Titan. :-\ Scientific understanding is based on what the science tells you, via scientific publications. You know that.

And the science tells you, miraculously, that the person's thoughts and feelings - only when they tell you they believe they are really the opposite sex of everything their chromosomes and genitalia tell you - are accurate and to be affirmed?

No, the science doesn't "tell me" anything, miraculously.

If you want to discount science as a source of understanding that's your problem. I don't have the time or inclination to educate you in that regard.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I don't understand your point. This guy is making an argument that assumes his position that sexuality is determined by ones sexual anatomy. Therefore, it's clearly an argument from authority.

Actually, both are making positive claims. THIS guy is making the point you mention above, but those arguing against it are also putting forth a positive claim: that sex and gender are separate things and that it's perfectly reasonable and ok for a person to have the chromosomes of one sex, their body to completely have the equipment of that sex but somehow because they 'feel' like the other sex, that's normal. It suffers the same deficiencies that you say THIS guy's argument does.

No that's wrong. First, the "positive claim" in the second case is based on scientific understanding.

Scientific understanding based on what someone tells you.

Come on Titan. :-\ Scientific understanding is based on what the science tells you, via scientific publications. You know that.

And the science tells you, miraculously, that the person's thoughts and feelings - only when they tell you they believe they are really the opposite sex of everything their chromosomes and genitalia tell you - are accurate and to be affirmed?

No, the science doesn't "tell me" anything, miraculously.

If you want to discount science as a source of understanding that's your problem. I don't have the time or inclination to educate you in that regard.

I don't 'discount science as a source of understanding.' I merely understand the limitations of science.

[homersapien 11,357]

No we try to "correct" an anorexic because of the physical or psychological harm they do to themselves. That's the only justifiable reason.

Who are you to tell someone what their body should look like, or even whether they should continue to live if to do so they must go against what their mind tells them is how they really look?

No one. I am not a psychologist for starters, but even then I wouldn't presume to tell them unless they were seeking help.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

No we try to "correct" an anorexic because of the physical or psychological harm they do to themselves. That's the only justifiable reason.

Who are you to tell someone what their body should look like, or even whether they should continue to live if to do so they must go against what their mind tells them is how they really look?

No one. I am not a psychologist for starters, but even then I wouldn't presume to tell them unless they were seeking help.

Don't get pedantic to avoid the question. You know we are talking about what psychologists can/should say or do when people come to them. Neither you nor I are taking appointments for people seeking help for any of these issues.

[homersapien 11,357]

No one is arguing that their thoughts aren't real. We're questioning whether their thoughts are an accurate representation of reality. We know synapses are firing and thoughts are happening. We can observe they are a sentient being. What's at issue is whether we should take what they are saying and affirm that their thoughts about who/what they are are more accurate than what their physiology says they are. It's a question of whether, like basically every other disorder of this sort, you try to help them align their mind with the mirror or (in this one specific area) you encourage/affirm their belief that the mirror is wrong and it needs to align with their mind.

Their sexuality identity is reality. Again, you can't dictate another's sexual identity, which is exactly what you are doing by describing it as unreal.

Your last sentence is true enough as long as it's client driven. Obviously if they are conflicted about their sexual identity and want help on sorting that out, you provide them help.

[homersapien 11,357]

And it's not the job of psychologists to force anyone into some preconceived notion of what is normal as long as they don't represent a danger to themselves or other. Even then the emphasis should be on helping the patient to cope, including helping them to change if they want to change.

You don't even believe that....except for this one thing. Any other situation where a person is clearly not thinking correctly about what they see in the mirror you would expect a psychologist to help them align their mind with physical reality, not the other way around.

I think your concept of what psychologists do is flawed. They don't seek out problems or untruths to unilaterally rectify.

You cannot help anyone if they don't perceive they have a problem. I suppose you can take measures to keep them from hurting others, but you can't change them unless they are receptive to such change. You can always test their conviction, but you can't change it unilaterally.

[homersapien 11,357]

People who want plastic surgery typically get it, unless it has the possibility of doing them harm, then the physician may opt to refuse.

Neither do people who don't have a financial interest in it encourage people to pursue radical changes to themselves. And even people with a conscience that do have a financial interest will often refuse to do it. Because we understand that there's something going on in their head that doesn't line up with reality on the ground.

Sorry I don't understand that.

[homersapien 11,357]

I think nature gives us excellent clues 99% of the time. I don't think we should just accept at face value claims that someone "feels" like they are something other than what nature clearly tells us they are. There are entire and completely sincere communities of people online in places like tumblr of "otherkin": people who literally believe that though they were born with the body of a human being, their 'true self', what they identify as on the inside is some other species. Some believe they are a wolf, others some sort of plant.

The brain and the mind are no less a part of nature than one's sexual organs.

So are these "otherkin" people correct...they are really some sort of non-human animal or plantlife rather than a human being? If you were a psychologist and had opportunity to have such an individual in therapy, would you encourage this perception or see it as a mental disorder that should receive treatment?

I think that is a fanciful extrapolation.

Human sexuality has nothing to do with delusional fantasies. There are well-adjusted mentally sane transexuals.

And the studies suggest that overall, there is no increase in said sanity and being well adjusted...which if the supposed science about this is true, should not be the case. We should see a great increase in mental health.

It is no more a delusional fantasy to believe in one's mind that you're really another species than it is to believe that despite your chromosomes and a complete working set of genitalia of the sex your chromosomes say you are, that you're really the other sex.

And it's not the job of psychologists to force anyone into some preconceived notion of what is normal as long as they don't represent a danger to themselves or other. Even then the emphasis should be on helping the patient to cope, including helping them to change if they want to change.

You don't even believe that....except for this one thing. Any other situation where a person is clearly not thinking correctly about what they see in the mirror you would expect a psychologist to help them align their mind with physical reality, not the other way around.

The idea of curing (changing) someone's self identity without their cooperation is barbaric IMO.

No one's suggesting holding them at gunpoint and forcing them to try to change. But if they seek help and they come to a psychologist, part of that job is to help someone 'get their mind right' with reality, not encourage them in their delusions.

Key phrase. But that's not what you have been arguing. You have been coming from the point that right is right and wrong is wrong, based on the anatomy one is born with....

[homersapien 11,357]

I'm in as much of a position to tell someone, "You are not a woman, you are a man. You have XY chromosomes, you have a penis and testicles and the complete absence of ovaries, a vagina, a cervix and so on" as I would be to tell someone, "I don't care how many times you tell me you identify as a giraffe, you are a human being. Your DNA is human, you do not have a long neck, long bony legs or a yellow and brown fur pattern."

Well, except in the former case it is quite possible for one to possess all the physical elements of the opposite sex as part of their natural make-up.

No so for the latter case.

Thus the problem with that analogy.

[homersapien 11,357]

As far a "mutilating" their bodies, they don't see it that way. They see it as correcting their bodies.

And that's the crux of this. I don't think it's their body that needs to be corrected.

Your opinion is duly noted

[homersapien 11,357]

As for the statistics, perhaps some physicians have been too lenient in granting procedures to those who want them.

Or this entire notion has serious flaws to begin with.

Possibly. I am quite open to anyone who want's to make any case they want. Meanwhile, until someone does, I'll go with the scientific consensus.

[homersapien 11,357]

No we try to "correct" an anorexic because of the physical or But the fact is, there are many well-adjusted transexuals that are happier than before. One shouldn't simply look for examples that confirm your prejudices.

Neither should you simply blow off the examples that undermine your premises and simply point to the ones you think affirm your views.

True.

But the difference is that the existence of well-adjusted transexuals proves they can and do exist, whereas your argument seems to be that is pathological or "correctable" regardless.

I don't deny the possibility that any given transexual can be "wrong", whereas you seem to argue that its impossible for any given transexual can be "right".

Examples of "corrected" transexuals do not affect my case. Example of well adjusted transexuals refute yours.

[homersapien 11,357]

No one's suggesting holding them at gunpoint and forcing them to try to change. But if they seek help and they come to a psychologist, part of that job is to help someone 'get their mind right' with reality, not encourage them in their delusions.

A similar position was taken with homosexuality in the past and it caused untold harm.

This talk about coercing people to conform to some arbitrary sexuality norm is disquieting.

You make an assumption that sexuality is arbitrary.

And no one is talking about coercion. In fact, I specifically said that I wasn't.

How and where did I make the assumption that sexuality is arbitrary? Just the opposite.

And you implied that a transexual who is adjusted to and content with being a transexual is still "owed" psychological treatment, or it was otherwise psychology's "duty" to treat them.

Providing treatment to someone who doesn't want or need it sounds like coercion to em.

[homersapien 11,357]

I don't understand your point. This guy is making an argument that assumes his position that sexuality is determined by ones sexual anatomy. Therefore, it's clearly an argument from authority.

Actually, both are making positive claims. THIS guy is making the point you mention above, but those arguing against it are also putting forth a positive claim: that sex and gender are separate things and that it's perfectly reasonable and ok for a person to have the chromosomes of one sex, their body to completely have the equipment of that sex but somehow because they 'feel' like the other sex, that's normal. It suffers the same deficiencies that you say THIS guy's argument does.

No that's wrong. First, the "positive claim" in the second case is based on scientific understanding.

Scientific understanding based on what someone tells you.

Come on Titan. :-\ Scientific understanding is based on what the science tells you, via scientific publications. You know that.

And the science tells you, miraculously, that the person's thoughts and feelings - only when they tell you they believe they are really the opposite sex of everything their chromosomes and genitalia tell you - are accurate and to be affirmed?

No, the science doesn't "tell me" anything, miraculously.

If you want to discount science as a source of understanding that's your problem. I don't have the time or inclination to educate you in that regard.

I don't 'discount science as a source of understanding.' I merely understand the limitations of science.

A scientific argument that resides beyond the limitations of science is not science by definition, so I wouldn't intentionally make such an argument. If you think I have, you'll have to point it out.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Key phrase. But that's not what you have been arguing. You have been coming from the point that right is right and wrong is wrong, based on the anatomy one is born with....

I have, not once, in this thread argued that we should go out and force people to change. My issue is that right now, when they seek help, we (colloquially, as in psychologists in this country) are affirming these feelings and rather than trying to help them get their mind to align with the reality of their anatomy and chromosomes, we are actively doing the opposite - encouraging them to start down a path of dressing, looking and behaving like the other sex. Even to the point of surgically altering their bodies, taking hormones and other things to make them appear more like this sex their mind believes they "really" are. Hell, we even require insurance to cover it in many if not all cases. Courts rule that the state has to pay for prisoners to have sex-reassignment surgery. And we have a society that says if the person believes in their head that they are the opposite sex, everyone has to accommodate that belief whether it's restrooms and locker rooms, dorms and living quarters that are single sex only, and even sports teams. That's what I'm talking about here. I have zero idea where you came up with the belief that I was arguing we should be yanking folks off the street to force them to change.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

People who want plastic surgery typically get it, unless it has the possibility of doing them harm, then the physician may opt to refuse.

Neither do people who don't have a financial interest in it encourage people to pursue radical changes to themselves. And even people with a conscience that do have a financial interest will often refuse to do it. Because we understand that there's something going on in their head that doesn't line up with reality on the ground.

Sorry I don't understand that.

People who want plastic surgery normally get it. But frequently, people who don't make money off the procedures see this crazy behavior of thinking everything is wrong with their various body parts will speak up and discourage them from doing so. Even doctors who do profit from the surgery will refuse to do it. And that's because regardless of their freedom to mutilate themselves, professionals and others see that there is something going on in their head that's off.

Is that clearer?