You know, I have to post again & revise my last post.

Upon reading what I typed, I don't see a sex change or brain surgery (for depression) in the same league as gastric bypass, although they all seem dangerous.

I guess I just don't see it as a medical problem. Sorry ya'll, but this is Crap/Not Crap.

Jeez, I'm rambling.

steve wrote:What I will never understand is equating something this extreme with "cosmetic" surgery. It isn'a about what someone looks like, it's about being the physical being they believe they are in every other respect.

Anyone contemplating this surgery knows fully what a drastic move it is. It isn't "elective" in any real sense of the word. These people are compelled to do this because it is the only way they can be sane. To suggest that they "get used to it" or something is like telling a manic depressive that he should just "get used to" being out of his fucking mind half the time, or telling someone with kidney failure that it's just tough luck.

It's crazy to consider this some kind of indulgence. Nobody would choose to have this be his/her life story. It is something they must do, and if you can't recognize that, then maybe it's you crap-voting guys who are taking it lightly.

I don't know where to begin with this...

Manic depression and kidney dysfunction are afflictions and disorders - last time I checked, having a cock or ovaries isn't.

Newsflash: these people aren't "sane" after having their clit fashioned into a makeshift cock and balls or their cock mutilated into a vag - they are simply furthering their delusion - you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a fucking pig. The procedure does not change them genetically or hormonally and it is ultimately an elective cosmetic thing done to enhance their drive for social acceptance as the other sex. Psychological or chemical in nature - it's still a disorder and responsible surgeons should steer clear - "first do no harm."

I'm sure there are people who are happy after the procedure, but I'm also sure that if you found a schizophrenic who believed himself to be Napoleon and crowned him "Emperor For Life" of France and installed him in the Palais de l'Elysee he'd be pretty pleased as well.

There are a lot of sadly deranged peeps walking around who also feel the overwhelming need to have a perfectly healthy limb amputated and they are (rightfully) looked at as nuts by even more people who see wanna-be be trannies that way - the main reason transsexuals' desires are more socially acceptable is because anything involving sexuality is considered sacrosanct for some reason and that is somehow supposed to grant more justification for radical, irreversible and wholly unnecessary medical procedures.

To paraphrase someone: for all of man's history, it was his most unshakable evolutionary imperative to protect his genitalia from injury and somehow in the last 40 years he has graduated to giving large quantities of his material resources to third parties in order to have it removed.

Meh.

Dr. Awkward writes"

Once medical science progresses to the point where depression or other chemical imbalances can be cured by surgically repairing the brain instead of prescribing stopgaps like antidepressants, i bet people will opt for the surgery after therapy fails.

Doc, your a genius. I may not even wait for medical therapy to fail.

b.

Taken from one of my friend's LiveJournal postings:

In my Psych class, we just did a unit on Gender and Body, and we learned a whole lot about different types of intersexuality (people who are commonly called hermaphrodites.) We also learned that various degrees of intersexuality are a lot more common than I ever thought.

So here's my question for anyone who reads this:

We're all getting to an age where we're old enough to have children. Suppose you (or your partner) gives birth to a healthy baby, and you're so excited - but when you ask "Is it a boy or a girl?" ...the doctor doesn't know what to say. Your baby was born with "ambiguous genitalia". What do you do?

In Western society, intersexed babies are "assigned" a gender and undergo reassignment surgery at super young ages, like 2. The thought is that if an intersexed kid is not "given" an identity before a certain age, that they will get messed up as they grow. It causes a whole lot of mess though - kids who have tiny penises are turned into girls even though they have perfectly working testicles, and children who will grow up to have breasts and vaginas are sometimes assigned to a male identity simply because their genes are XY.

To top it off, there is also a group of North American intersexuals who are campaigning for parents to leave their kids with their ambiguous genitalia until the intersexual children in question are old enough to decide if they want to be a boy, a girl, or neither/both.

So what do you do?

like i said, this is always a case by case thing.
a general rule would be to always leave available its option to reproduce, if possible. this probably means avoiding surgery for the time being. i don't know the details. the doctor should make some input and no decision needs to feel rushed. it's not the end of the world.

Jordan wrote:In Western society, intersexed babies are "assigned" a gender and undergo reassignment surgery at super young ages, like 2. The thought is that if an intersexed kid is not "given" an identity before a certain age, that they will get messed up as they grow. It causes a whole lot of mess though - kids who have tiny penises are turned into girls even though they have perfectly working testicles, and children who will grow up to have breasts and vaginas are sometimes assigned to a male identity simply because their genes are XY.

To top it off, there is also a group of North American intersexuals who are campaigning for parents to leave their kids with their ambiguous genitalia until the intersexual children in question are old enough to decide if they want to be a boy, a girl, or neither/both.

So what do you do?

The push to assign a sex to intersexed infants isn't nearly as strong as it used to be. Consensus is building in the medical community that it doesn't work.

You have to leave that shit alone. The child will have plenty of time to figure things out for his/herself.

Gender identity, like sexual orientation, is very important to each of us as individuals. We impress its personal importance on society, and it becomes important societally as a result.

It makes us more comfortable to have gender and sexual roles locked in. I think the old saw is true that the less comfortable an individual is in his or her own skin, the more important it will be to that person to have some kind of rigid social order defining gender and sexual roles.

Realistically, however, apart from ourselves and our potential partners, gender and sexual orientation are fractionally as significant in a social sense as we make them out to be. I think they're basically insignificant factors outside of sexual impulses and attendant hangups. Of course, it's hard to get outside of those impulses and hangups.

The question of the sex change is interesting. I'm inclined to give people who reach that conclusion the benefit of the doubt, but I understand the concern over such a radical process.

Whereas, Matthew wrote some time ago:

I'm not sure what the point to your rather convoluted post is.

I don't think my point was very hard to understand for someone who purports to understand G. K. Chesterton. But as long as we're citing someone who exercised discipline in though (Chesterton), let me point out the following as regards transgender surgery.

My original point was that there were ONLY two "UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS" required to assess the question of "Act: Sex change. Crap or not crap? From a Christian perspective. These were

1) Fallen human nature could explain it. E.g., the person in question is a degenerate sinner, as you seem to conclude. Or
2) Fallen "nature nature" could explain it (which would render the individual blameless).

These, I believe, are the ONLY TWO UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS required to address the subject of sex reassignment surgery from a Christian perspective. (I say required, because they are the only two UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS needed to address the question, that the Christain faith CANNOT dispense with) IF THERE’S ANOTHER, SPIT IT OUT. I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist but like Socrates, I'm eager to hear the error of my ways.

Meanwhile, you answer (I believe as a Christian) that the procedure is "crap." In your defense you cite (to my reading) ABSOLUTELY NO over-riding principle but invoke the following UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS to support your position:

1) "I really don't think most people that undergo a "sex change" (a contradiction in terms) are born with malformed genitalia or even gross hormonal problems.” Strictly speaking, there are at least two UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS here, but I’m feeling generous. I’ll let it slide this time.
2) "They are usually adults with more or less normal bodies who for one reason or another hate their sexuality and will go so far as to mutilate themselves in an attempt to "fix" what they perceive is wrong with them.” This is probably true but it serves no inherent or self-evident purpose either scientifically or morally."
3) “In reality however, people are born either male or female...persons with malformed genitalia or hormonal abnormalities are just that, they are abnormal in the physiological sense.”
4) “To say that their bodies are "normal" is like saying that it is normal to be born without limbs.”
5) “This isn't a lack of compassion on my part for those unfortunate people...hardly, and I hope that medical science can do all it in its power to help these folks.” Seriously brother, I have doubts the depth of your compassion.
6) “ . . . male and female is the fundamental dichotomy in the human species. It's the norm . . . “
7) and and 9) “. . . and the sexuality that each of us has is a gift that should be a source of great happiness, not loathing, hatred and narcissism as is the case with the vast majority of the "transgendered" population.” A) You don’t know a goddamn thing about what gift anyone else has received (and see C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity on my saying “goddamn” is not frivolous swearing). B) You have misused narcissism in this sentence. A narcissist is enamored with their own beauty and or perceived perfection. C) You don’t know a goddamn thing about the “vast majority of the “transgendered” population (see above on the “goddamn thing”). Do you even know one? I only know two, but I suspect that’s two more than you.
10) ”The fact that the cosmos is damaged has both empirical and Scriptural basis.” I agree, which of course I should, as you are writing this in response to an assertion of mine. It is still, however, an UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION.
11) “The human race, as the steward of the universe, has a somewhat mysterious sovereignty to it.” I agree again, though you introduced this thread. It is still, however, an UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION.
12) “Therefore when our first parents fell, the rest of the universe in a sense fell as well.” Not only is this an UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION, this is also a NON SEQUITOR, with which, as a matter of faith, I am compelled to agree.
13) “However, when we take an example of a normally formed man or woman who "feels" that he or she is in fact a member of the opposing gender regardless of his or her physiology, then we are dealing with an entirely different thing altogether from fixing a malformed human body.” William Blake writes “There is no body apart from the soul.” (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell). He’s a greater Christian genius than anyone either you or I will ever know and, even if I am wrong, your statement is an UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION.
14) I’ve lost my friggin’ count but this at least scores a trifecta. “Such "feelings" are not normal, because as I also said human beings are divided into males and females. There is no middle ground; there is only physiological abnormality which is not "just another thing" anymore than being born with a cleft palate or polydactylism is.......and as we all hopefully know here, for a thing to be abnormal is for it to be not normal.”
?) “In the case of say a man born with underdeveloped genitalia, this is a physiological abnormality and it ought to be treated as best as medical science can . . . “ I starting to think the only underdeveloped organ here is resting behind your temples. I don’t mean to be a dick, but the human brain is an organ created with an amazing capacity for synthetic thought as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning. I have yet to find evidence that YOUR brain is executing ANY EXECUTIVE FUNCTION.
?) “the reason why these and other physiological abnormalities happen? Because the natural world has been damaged by Original Sin. . . “ HOLY SHIT. You’re invoking Original Sin!!! Not only is this an UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION, it’s so elusive that even that Vatican has declared they don’t know exactly what it means. (“The transmission or original sin is a mystery we cannot fully understand.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404). Those guys sound up on all kinds of bullshit (and mind you, I’m an adult convert Catholicism) like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and yet they take a pass on this central tenet). Also, the most prominent Christian to minimize the role of original sin seems to be Jesus Christ. Cf. the man born blind in John 9:1-3 and his statement on the children in Matthew (Chapter 18, I think, I only try to keep track of chapter and verse for Jesus freaks how are getting every thing wrong).

My question to you, as a brother in Christ is, "How the fuck is anyone supposed to talk you!!!"

You may be right on every point (though I highly doubt it). Meanwhile, you're condemning people as sinners (many of whom identify themselves as Christians and are deeply troubled by remarks such as yours) even though your own position seems to be friggin' train wreck of unproven assumptions, a "house of cards" if you will.

I had previously cited Occam's Razor in the discussion, because I think any Christian born in a time of amazing scientific advancement should hold this principle in the highest of esteem.

For more on Occam's Razor see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

In Christ,
Faith, hope and love.

B.

Yeah!

cowtown14 wrote:Whereas, Matthew wrote some time ago:

I'm not sure what the point to your rather convoluted post is.

I don't think my point was very hard to understand for someone who purports to understand G. K. Chesterton. But as long as we're citing someone who exercised discipline in though (Chesterton), let me point out the following as regards transgender surgery.

My original point was that there were ONLY two "UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS" required to assess the question of "Act: Sex change. Crap or not crap? From a Christian perspective. These were

1) Fallen human nature could explain it. E.g., the person in question is a degenerate sinner, as you seem to conclude. Or
2) Fallen "nature nature" could explain it (which would render the individual blameless).

These, I believe, are the ONLY TWO UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS required to address the subject of sex reassignment surgery from a Christian perspective. (I say required, because they are the only two UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS needed to address the question, that the Christain faith CANNOT dispense with) IF THERE’S ANOTHER, SPIT IT OUT. I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist but like Socrates, I'm eager to hear the error of my ways.

Meanwhile, you answer (I believe as a Christian) that the procedure is "crap." In your defense you cite (to my reading) ABSOLUTELY NO over-riding principle but invoke the following UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS to support your position:

1) "I really don't think most people that undergo a "sex change" (a contradiction in terms) are born with malformed genitalia or even gross hormonal problems.” Strictly speaking, there are at least two UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS here, but I’m feeling generous. I’ll let it slide this time.
2) "They are usually adults with more or less normal bodies who for one reason or another hate their sexuality and will go so far as to mutilate themselves in an attempt to "fix" what they perceive is wrong with them.” This is probably true but it serves no inherent or self-evident purpose either scientifically or morally."
3) “In reality however, people are born either male or female...persons with malformed genitalia or hormonal abnormalities are just that, they are abnormal in the physiological sense.”
4) “To say that their bodies are "normal" is like saying that it is normal to be born without limbs.”
5) “This isn't a lack of compassion on my part for those unfortunate people...hardly, and I hope that medical science can do all it in its power to help these folks.” Seriously brother, I have doubts the depth of your compassion.
6) “ . . . male and female is the fundamental dichotomy in the human species. It's the norm . . . “
7) and and 9) “. . . and the sexuality that each of us has is a gift that should be a source of great happiness, not loathing, hatred and narcissism as is the case with the vast majority of the "transgendered" population.” A) You don’t know a goddamn thing about what gift anyone else has received (and see C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity on my saying “goddamn” is not frivolous swearing). B) You have misused narcissism in this sentence. A narcissist is enamored with their own beauty and or perceived perfection. C) You don’t know a goddamn thing about the “vast majority of the “transgendered” population (see above on the “goddamn thing”). Do you even know one? I only know two, but I suspect that’s two more than you.
10) ”The fact that the cosmos is damaged has both empirical and Scriptural basis.” I agree, which of course I should, as you are writing this in response to an assertion of mine. It is still, however, an UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION.
11) “The human race, as the steward of the universe, has a somewhat mysterious sovereignty to it.” I agree again, though you introduced this thread. It is still, however, an UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION.
12) “Therefore when our first parents fell, the rest of the universe in a sense fell as well.” Not only is this an UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION, this is also a NON SEQUITOR, with which, as a matter of faith, I am compelled to agree.
13) “However, when we take an example of a normally formed man or woman who "feels" that he or she is in fact a member of the opposing gender regardless of his or her physiology, then we are dealing with an entirely different thing altogether from fixing a malformed human body.” William Blake writes “There is no body apart from the soul.” (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell). He’s a greater Christian genius than anyone either you or I will ever know and, even if I am wrong, your statement is an UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION.
14) I’ve lost my friggin’ count but this at least scores a trifecta. “Such "feelings" are not normal, because as I also said human beings are divided into males and females. There is no middle ground; there is only physiological abnormality which is not "just another thing" anymore than being born with a cleft palate or polydactylism is.......and as we all hopefully know here, for a thing to be abnormal is for it to be not normal.”
?) “In the case of say a man born with underdeveloped genitalia, this is a physiological abnormality and it ought to be treated as best as medical science can . . . “ I starting to think the only underdeveloped organ here is resting behind your temples. I don’t mean to be a dick, but the human brain is an organ created with an amazing capacity for synthetic thought as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning. I have yet to find evidence that YOUR brain is executing ANY EXECUTIVE FUNCTION.
?) “the reason why these and other physiological abnormalities happen? Because the natural world has been damaged by Original Sin. . . “ HOLY SHIT. You’re invoking Original Sin!!! Not only is this an UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION, it’s so elusive that even that Vatican has declared they don’t know exactly what it means. (“The transmission or original sin is a mystery we cannot fully understand.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404). Those guys sound up on all kinds of bullshit (and mind you, I’m an adult convert Catholicism) like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and yet they take a pass on this central tenet). Also, the most prominent Christian to minimize the role of original sin seems to be Jesus Christ. Cf. the man born blind in John 9:1-3 and his statement on the children in Matthew (Chapter 18, I think, I only try to keep track of chapter and verse for Jesus freaks how are getting every thing wrong).

My question to you, as a brother in Christ is, "How the fuck is anyone supposed to talk you!!!"

You may be right on every point (though I highly doubt it). Meanwhile, you're condemning people as sinners (many of whom identify themselves as Christians and are deeply troubled by remarks such as yours) even though your own position seems to be friggin' train wreck of unproven assumptions, a "house of cards" if you will.

I had previously cited Occam's Razor in the discussion, because I think any Christian born in a time of amazing scientific advancement should hold this principle in the highest of esteem.

For more on Occam's Razor see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

In Christ,
Faith, hope and love.

B.

I have not ever condemned an individual person in any posts on this board. I have condemned certain acts that certain individuals do, but how can I condemn a person/say that they are damned? I've never done that once in my life, nor am I about to start now. Not only is it wrong to attempt to but it is not even possible to read an individual's heart save by an extraordinary grace from God.

In any event, your notion of rationality and reasoning is rather narrow and confounding to me. Also I REALLY don't think you read my posts very well. That is all I have to say.

There is a pretty rigorous screening process before you can have a sex change, since a very high percentage of people flip out once it is done. I don't remember the percentage, but it's high. I believe the psychological testing itself takes several years. A good friend of mine's father underwent the years of screening and build-up to the operation(s), and eventually flipped out anyway once it was all finished. He was institutionalized for a long time and is now in an assisted-living complex. I don't really have a C/NC, except to state the obvious fact that people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies.

Oh yeah: God this, church that.