1 in 2000 people are born with a mixture of both genitals, in most high income countries the common practice is for the doctor to assign and alter the baby to one gender without the child's consent (it's treated as a medical emergency). Anyways who do you think should choose the gender?
The doctor, the family or the child? And if you picked child what age should they be able to decide there gender (or leave it if they want to)? I think the child should get to decide if they want there body altered it should not be the decision of the doctor or family, but I'm not sure what age they
should be allowed to make that decision. We live in society where race, religion, ability and sexuality are becoming more tolerated should intersexuals be next the step (hermaphrodites and pseudo-hermaphrodites) up?
It's bad enough growing up with glasses or other small 'differences' but imagine the effect of being that different to everyone around you? the child could develop serious issue due to that.
The problem with choosing at birth is that they look at the genitals and decide which it looks more like. How they develop with hormones later on is harder to predict and there have been several big mistakes made this way particularly when doctors and family attempt to pressurise the person to act like the gender they have been assigned. It's difficult to say, perhaps its best to leave them neither one thing nor the other until they are older to see how they feel and how their body develops. Yes it'll be something they won't want put around the classroom but that's probably better to tolerate for a few years than living with the consequences of misguided corrective surgery when very young. Undergoing surgery should really be their decision at this point, they may not actually wish to be altered either way.
And if you prevent people correcting children for medical reasons at birth, where does that leave cosmetic surgery such as circumcision? For some reason, people are very keen to cling onto that needless surgery being carried out on their children. That should certainly be scrapped until the person is able to make such a decision for themselves, and no exceptions for 'religious' or 'cultural' reasons. It's needless surgery on your child's genitalia.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The problem with choosing at birth is that they look at the genitals and decide which it looks more like. How they develop with hormones later on is harder to predict and there have been several big mistakes made this way particularly when doctors and family attempt to pressurise the person to act like the gender they have been assigned. It's difficult to say, perhaps its best to leave them neither one thing nor the other until they are older to see how they feel and how their body develops. Yes it'll be something they won't want put around the classroom but that's probably better to tolerate for a few years than living with the consequences of misguided corrective surgery when very young.
It would be a matter of weighing the potential psychological damage vs the potential damage developmentally, It'll never be an easy choice.
I would think that it would be best to wait until the child has undergone sexual maturity, and then they can choose.
Otherwise you could have one of those "man trapped in a woman’s body/woman trapped in a man’s body scenarios"( I know that’s an oversimplification but you get my drift).
Howard A Treesong wrote: The problem with choosing at birth is that they look at the genitals and decide which it looks more like. How they develop with hormones later on is harder to predict and there have been several big mistakes made this way particularly when doctors and family attempt to pressurise the person to act like the gender they have been assigned. It's difficult to say, perhaps its best to leave them neither one thing nor the other until they are older to see how they feel and how their body develops. Yes it'll be something they won't want put around the classroom but that's probably better to tolerate for a few years than living with the consequences of misguided corrective surgery when very young.
It would be a matter of weighing the potential psychological damage vs the potential damage developmentally, It'll never be an easy choice.
InquisitorVaron wrote: The doctor it would cause friction in later life for the child.
Best they don't know.
You see I think it's society that should have to adapt not the child, hermaphrodites and pseudo-hermaphrodites should be accepted in society.
By adults sure. But children will always single out those who are different and will tease them relentlessly.
I didn't go arround grade school flashing kids to let them know what gender I am. Surely no one need know if you keep your two sets of tackle in your pants.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The problem with choosing at birth is that they look at the genitals and decide which it looks more like. How they develop with hormones later on is harder to predict and there have been several big mistakes made this way particularly when doctors and family attempt to pressurise the person to act like the gender they have been assigned. It's difficult to say, perhaps its best to leave them neither one thing nor the other until they are older to see how they feel and how their body develops. Yes it'll be something they won't want put around the classroom but that's probably better to tolerate for a few years than living with the consequences of misguided corrective surgery when very young.
It would be a matter of weighing the potential psychological damage vs the potential damage developmentally, It'll never be an easy choice.
InquisitorVaron wrote: The doctor it would cause friction in later life for the child.
Best they don't know.
You see I think it's society that should have to adapt not the child, hermaphrodites and pseudo-hermaphrodites should be accepted in society.
By adults sure. But children will always single out those who are different and will tease them relentlessly.
I didn't go arround grade school flashing kids to let them know what gender I am. Surely no one need know if you keep your two sets of tackle in your pants.
Yeah but what about getting changed at a swimming pool's change room? That being said how does an intersexual know which bathroom or change room to go to?
Howard A Treesong wrote: The problem with choosing at birth is that they look at the genitals and decide which it looks more like. How they develop with hormones later on is harder to predict and there have been several big mistakes made this way particularly when doctors and family attempt to pressurise the person to act like the gender they have been assigned. It's difficult to say, perhaps its best to leave them neither one thing nor the other until they are older to see how they feel and how their body develops. Yes it'll be something they won't want put around the classroom but that's probably better to tolerate for a few years than living with the consequences of misguided corrective surgery when very young.
It would be a matter of weighing the potential psychological damage vs the potential damage developmentally, It'll never be an easy choice.
InquisitorVaron wrote: The doctor it would cause friction in later life for the child.
Best they don't know.
You see I think it's society that should have to adapt not the child, hermaphrodites and pseudo-hermaphrodites should be accepted in society.
By adults sure. But children will always single out those who are different and will tease them relentlessly.
I didn't go arround grade school flashing kids to let them know what gender I am. Surely no one need know if you keep your two sets of tackle in your pants.
Yeah but what about getting changed at a swimming pool's change room? That being said how does an intersexual know which bathroom or change room to go to?
Change in a restroom? Go to the pool with your swimsuit on under your normal cloths? As for which changeroom to go to, people don't seem to mind when other people bring their prepubesent kids with them into a bathroom or changeroom.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The problem with choosing at birth is that they look at the genitals and decide which it looks more like. How they develop with hormones later on is harder to predict and there have been several big mistakes made this way particularly when doctors and family attempt to pressurise the person to act like the gender they have been assigned. It's difficult to say, perhaps its best to leave them neither one thing nor the other until they are older to see how they feel and how their body develops. Yes it'll be something they won't want put around the classroom but that's probably better to tolerate for a few years than living with the consequences of misguided corrective surgery when very young.
It would be a matter of weighing the potential psychological damage vs the potential damage developmentally, It'll never be an easy choice.
InquisitorVaron wrote: The doctor it would cause friction in later life for the child.
Best they don't know.
You see I think it's society that should have to adapt not the child, hermaphrodites and pseudo-hermaphrodites should be accepted in society.
By adults sure. But children will always single out those who are different and will tease them relentlessly.
I didn't go arround grade school flashing kids to let them know what gender I am. Surely no one need know if you keep your two sets of tackle in your pants.
Yeah but what about getting changed at a swimming pool's change room? That being said how does an intersexual know which bathroom or change room to go to?
Change in a restroom? Go to the pool with your swimsuit on under your normal cloths? As for which changeroom to go to, people don't seem to mind when other people bring their prepubesent kids with them into a bathroom or changeroom.
InquisitorVaron wrote: The doctor it would cause friction in later life for the child.
Best they don't know.
You see I think it's society that should have to adapt not the child, hermaphrodites and pseudo-hermaphrodites should be accepted in society.
Of course they should, they aren't immoral or evil or anything like that, they are simply born 'differently'.
Its a hard one though, its probably easier just to let the doctor or parents decide, and never let the child know, if thats possible.
*they as in society...
What happens if/when the child finds out later?
Then they get very upset and probably hate their parents, maybe themselves and become depressed.
It would obviously work best if they never knew. Which is quite probably isn't very realistic.
It certainly isn't an easy issue to find an answer for.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The problem with choosing at birth is that they look at the genitals and decide which it looks more like. How they develop with hormones later on is harder to predict and there have been several big mistakes made this way particularly when doctors and family attempt to pressurise the person to act like the gender they have been assigned. It's difficult to say, perhaps its best to leave them neither one thing nor the other until they are older to see how they feel and how their body develops. Yes it'll be something they won't want put around the classroom but that's probably better to tolerate for a few years than living with the consequences of misguided corrective surgery when very young.
It would be a matter of weighing the potential psychological damage vs the potential damage developmentally, It'll never be an easy choice.
InquisitorVaron wrote: The doctor it would cause friction in later life for the child.
Best they don't know.
You see I think it's society that should have to adapt not the child, hermaphrodites and pseudo-hermaphrodites should be accepted in society.
By adults sure. But children will always single out those who are different and will tease them relentlessly.
I didn't go arround grade school flashing kids to let them know what gender I am. Surely no one need know if you keep your two sets of tackle in your pants.
Yeah but what about getting changed at a swimming pool's change room? That being said how does an intersexual know which bathroom or change room to go to?
Change in a restroom? Go to the pool with your swimsuit on under your normal cloths? As for which changeroom to go to, people don't seem to mind when other people bring their prepubesent kids with them into a bathroom or changeroom.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The problem with choosing at birth is that they look at the genitals and decide which it looks more like. How they develop with hormones later on is harder to predict and there have been several big mistakes made this way particularly when doctors and family attempt to pressurise the person to act like the gender they have been assigned. It's difficult to say, perhaps its best to leave them neither one thing nor the other until they are older to see how they feel and how their body develops. Yes it'll be something they won't want put around the classroom but that's probably better to tolerate for a few years than living with the consequences of misguided corrective surgery when very young.
It would be a matter of weighing the potential psychological damage vs the potential damage developmentally, It'll never be an easy choice.
InquisitorVaron wrote: The doctor it would cause friction in later life for the child.
Best they don't know.
You see I think it's society that should have to adapt not the child, hermaphrodites and pseudo-hermaphrodites should be accepted in society.
By adults sure. But children will always single out those who are different and will tease them relentlessly.
I didn't go arround grade school flashing kids to let them know what gender I am. Surely no one need know if you keep your two sets of tackle in your pants.
Yeah but what about getting changed at a swimming pool's change room? That being said how does an intersexual know which bathroom or change room to go to?
Change in a restroom? Go to the pool with your swimsuit on under your normal cloths? As for which changeroom to go to, people don't seem to mind when other people bring their prepubesent kids with them into a bathroom or changeroom.
InquisitorVaron wrote: The doctor it would cause friction in later life for the child.
Best they don't know.
You see I think it's society that should have to adapt not the child, hermaphrodites and pseudo-hermaphrodites should be accepted in society.
Of course they should, they aren't immoral or evil or anything like that, they are simply born 'differently'.
Its a hard one though, its probably easier just to let the doctor or parents decide, and never let the child know, if thats possible.
*they as in society...
What happens if/when the child finds out later?
Then they get very upset and probably hate their parents, maybe themselves and become depressed.
It would obviously work best if they never knew. Which is quite probably isn't very realistic.
It certainly isn't an easy issue to find an answer for.
There's also some people who'll feel the doctor made the right decision as well, and are happy with the operation they got.
Would certainly be easier to decide if making the choice at birth averted serious problems but medication isn't a huge burden. Something outrightly practical to tip the scales.
Tough choice. On the one hand, it's just a messed up situation to be in and even worse since the child has no control over how they're born. Just making the decision seems like it would avoid a lot of hassle and emotional distress.
But then there's the whole right of the child thing.
InquisitorVaron wrote: The doctor it would cause friction in later life for the child.
Best they don't know.
You see I think it's society that should have to adapt not the child, hermaphrodites and pseudo-hermaphrodites should be accepted in society.
Of course they should, they aren't immoral or evil or anything like that, they are simply born 'differently'.
Its a hard one though, its probably easier just to let the doctor or parents decide, and never let the child know, if thats possible.
*they as in society...
What happens if/when the child finds out later?
Then they get very upset and probably hate their parents, maybe themselves and become depressed.
It would obviously work best if they never knew. Which is quite probably isn't very realistic.
It certainly isn't an easy issue to find an answer for.
There's also some people who'll feel the doctor made the right decision as well, and are happy with the operation they got.
Oh, I guess that makes it alright then.
I suppose it will come as a great relief to those who feel.... sigh
I know he wasn't born as a intersex child but it relates to the discussion of a doctor choosing the sex of a child and then what happens when that information if withheld from a child.
How many of us have looked at their own medical records for no apparent reason. Obviously the flaw in the never find out bit is when your seriously ill and have a loud mouth doctor.
The worst thing that could happen is they find out.
If they think they were given the wrong gender gays and lesbians and bi-sexuals are accepted now.
InquisitorVaron wrote: The doctor it would cause friction in later life for the child.
Best they don't know.
You see I think it's society that should have to adapt not the child, hermaphrodites and pseudo-hermaphrodites should be accepted in society.
Of course they should, they aren't immoral or evil or anything like that, they are simply born 'differently'.
Its a hard one though, its probably easier just to let the doctor or parents decide, and never let the child know, if thats possible.
*they as in society...
What happens if/when the child finds out later?
Then they get very upset and probably hate their parents, maybe themselves and become depressed.
It would obviously work best if they never knew. Which is quite probably isn't very realistic.
It certainly isn't an easy issue to find an answer for.
There's also some people who'll feel the doctor made the right decision as well, and are happy with the operation they got.
Oh, I guess that makes it alright then.
I suppose it will come as a great relief to those who feel.... sigh
I know he wasn't born as a intersex child but it relates to the discussion of a doctor choosing the sex of a child and then what happens when that information if withheld from a child.
I was actually looking for that article when I was reading this.
I believe the child should have the choice, another person choosing what sex they should be can cause tremendous psychological trauma to a child.
I would actually assume that hermaphrodites will become much less common in the near future as natal medicine advances. Seeing as hermaphrodites and homosexuals arise, in part, due to in the womb conditions it isn't far fetched that they would be able to correct for any abnormalities to avoid those kind of conditions, similar to how down syndrome can be screened for today. Although currently the only cure for that is abortion.
I think this may open a monstrous can of worms though.
The child. I'm sure whatever hormonal inbalance comes out of not 'fixing' this can be alleviated with the correct medication. Wait until the child is old enough to figure out which gender he/she associates the most with, if any, and then let him choose to have the correct operation.
Maybe they won't want any procedures?
AH! Just thought about the most ridiculous Civil law scenario ever : hermaphrodite kid who'se been 'fixed' sue his parents or doctor for impediment to future income for having 'fixed' him/her, thus making it impossible for him/her to make it big in herma porn.
Abortion is the parents/mothers right no one can comment snidely about their choice.
The child shouldn't know nor should it be documented best to be forgot and not cause trouble, gays and lesbians fit in well so if the gender was wrong they can live a normal life. They can change it now, eventually it will be correctable before birth.
Ideally the child should choose but it causes more hassle than it's worth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I suppose the child should probably make the choice... this is quite a messy subject me thinks.
Agreed we can say our opinions but they mean nothing it's the people involved who chose.
What intrests me is why did cheescat bring this up?
InquisitorVaron wrote: Abortion is the parents/mothers right no one can comment snidely about their choice.
Of course we can, this is the internet, my good sir! Snide comments are bond to happen! And honestly, we're not talking about a monster here, just someone with a relatively easy to fix deformation. I already feel bad about abortion, but on something like this? My Thethan level would go through the roof.
The child shouldn't know nor should it be documented best to be forgot and not cause trouble
That's ridiculous, you have a right to your own medical history. On top of things, I don't know, but it might be important for future medical care...
Ideally the child should choose but it causes more hassle than it's worth.
There's no question of hassle here, it's the integrity of a person we're talking about. Parents are morally obligated to do everything in their power to make sure they live the best life they can, and that include realizing that some choices are not for them to make.
So you've agreed with me there?
The parents do what they think is best for their child.
They would only know truely what they want to be at an older age, younger kids would find out and as said beofre different people are outcasted, that would create an awkward and confused child.
Surely someone who thinks they're a boy and grows up living a normal life not having to make a big choice at a young age.
There's probably a statistic somewhere that people who don't know are less depressed and live a better life.
It may be morally right for the kid to chose but is it going to make them happier than not knowing?
I imagine there sex life would be a lot more difficult as well considering there might be a lot of guys and girls think they're dating a man or woman who only has one set of genitalia. Imagine you go out on a date with the most beautiful, kindest, fun man or woman you've ever laid eyes upon
and then you find out they have a mixture of both private parts how would you react? How do you think they would feel or react?
InquisitorVaron wrote: So you've agreed with me there?
The parents do what they think is best for their child.
Which in this case I think is to do nothing. So no, I don't agree with you.
They would only know truely what they want to be at an older age, younger kids would find out and as said beofre different people are outcasted, that would create an awkward and confused child.
In my experience, all kids are akward and confused. I've lived the most sheltered life ever, in some of the best conditions possible, and I still ended up being a 'confused and akward' kid. I think it's the parent's duty to help the kid go through these years to the point where he/she can take her own decisions.
It may be morally right for the kid to chose but is it going to make them happier than not knowing?
I'd at least find solace in the fact that my parents respected me enough to let it be my choice, instead of conforming me to the vision of the perfect kid without any issues.
InquisitorVaron wrote: So you've agreed with me there?
The parents do what they think is best for their child.
They would only know truely what they want to be at an older age, younger kids would find out and as said beofre different people are outcasted, that would create an awkward and confused child.
Surely someone who thinks they're a boy and grows up living a normal life not having to make a big choice at a young age.
There's probably a statistic somewhere that people who don't know are less depressed and live a better life.
It may be morally right for the kid to chose but is it going to make them happier than not knowing?
InquisitorVaron wrote: The child shouldn't know nor should it be documented best to be forgot and not cause trouble, gays and lesbians fit in well so if the gender was wrong they can live a normal life.
That isn't just wrong, it's laughably wrong. It is quite possibly the most wrong statement I've ever seen on this forum.
Here's a hint for you: there's way more to gender than what you want to have sex with. If you guess wrong and assign the wrong gender the child is going to grow up with the brain development of the other gender and feel completely out of place in their own body. And then you need a lot of expensive hormones/surgery/etc later in life to correct the mistake.
The solution, therefore, is to wait until the child is old enough to make the decision.
Cheesecat wrote: I imagine there sex life would be a lot more difficult as well considering there might be a lot of guys and girls think they're dating a man or woman who only has one set of genitalia. Imagine you go out on a date with the most beautiful, kindest, fun man or woman you've ever laid eyes upon
and then you find out they have a mixture of both private parts how would you react? How do you think they would feel or react?
Well, given that we're talking about children, I hope that "how someone about to have sex with you will react" isn't a very big factor. There's plenty of time before sex becomes an issue to make the gender decision as an adult.
Cheesecat wrote: I imagine there sex life would be a lot more difficult as well considering there might be a lot of guys and girls think they're dating a man or woman who only has one set of genitalia. Imagine you go out on a date with the most beautiful, kindest, fun man or woman you've ever laid eyes upon
and then you find out they have a mixture of both private parts how would you react? How do you think they would feel or react?
That sounds like a 4Chan scenario, minus the dirty pics.
Personnaly, it would depend on what impacts it has on the sex life, and if he/she has the working female parts. That's what attracts me, I'm confident enough about my orientation that I wouldn't be disgusted because OHMYGODWEINER.
Which makes me wonder, would they have twice the nerve endings of a normally constituted human being?
InquisitorVaron wrote: The child shouldn't know nor should it be documented best to be forgot and not cause trouble, gays and lesbians fit in well so if the gender was wrong they can live a normal life.
That isn't just wrong, it's laughably wrong. It is quite possibly the most wrong statement I've ever seen on this forum.
Here's a hint for you: there's way more to gender than what you want to have sex with. If you guess wrong and assign the wrong gender the child is going to grow up with the brain development of the other gender and feel completely out of place in their own body. And then you need a lot of expensive hormones/surgery/etc later in life to correct the mistake.
The solution, therefore, is to wait until the child is old enough to make the decision.
Cheesecat wrote: I imagine there sex life would be a lot more difficult as well considering there might be a lot of guys and girls think they're dating a man or woman who only has one set of genitalia. Imagine you go out on a date with the most beautiful, kindest, fun man or woman you've ever laid eyes upon
and then you find out they have a mixture of both private parts how would you react? How do you think they would feel or react?
Well, given that we're talking about children, I hope that "how someone about to have sex with you will react" isn't a very big factor. There's plenty of time before sex becomes an issue to make the gender decision as an adult.
Yeah, I forgot to specify this in that hypothetical but the intersexual is an adult in that situation who a) doesn't want to change his/her/it's body or b) is undecided about what gender he/she/it wants to be.
InquisitorVaron wrote: True, but would you say any were wrong?
Would the child not be happier not knowing and not having to make a big choice at a young age?
They'd feel like a man trapped in a woman's body, or a woman trapped in a man's body, if the doctor messed up.
So, no, they wouldn't be guaranteed to be happier. If anything, they might be a lot less happy.
InquisitorVaron wrote: The child shouldn't know nor should it be documented best to be forgot and not cause trouble, gays and lesbians fit in well so if the gender was wrong they can live a normal life.
That isn't just wrong, it's laughably wrong. It is quite possibly the most wrong statement I've ever seen on this forum.
Here's a hint for you: there's way more to gender than what you want to have sex with. If you guess wrong and assign the wrong gender the child is going to grow up with the brain development of the other gender and feel completely out of place in their own body. And then you need a lot of expensive hormones/surgery/etc later in life to correct the mistake.
The solution, therefore, is to wait until the child is old enough to make the decision.
Cheesecat wrote: I imagine there sex life would be a lot more difficult as well considering there might be a lot of guys and girls think they're dating a man or woman who only has one set of genitalia. Imagine you go out on a date with the most beautiful, kindest, fun man or woman you've ever laid eyes upon
and then you find out they have a mixture of both private parts how would you react? How do you think they would feel or react?
Well, given that we're talking about children, I hope that "how someone about to have sex with you will react" isn't a very big factor. There's plenty of time before sex becomes an issue to make the gender decision as an adult.
It's about numbers not indivuals, it's a 50/50 choice one you get a perfectly normal child who's really happy.
Or a child who doesn't know has to make a hard choice and might neber be truely happy.
I'm just saying the things people won't truely on numbers this makes sense.
Morals don't come into my thinking, your method would make the odd very happy child and lots of mediocore ones. Mine would create one in two happy kids a handful of ones that are not haply and the rest who feel good.
The current system is the best, the doctors ask what gender and the parents pick or allow the child to chose.
That's the best method and only a vocal minority would disagree.
Agreed we can say our opinions but they mean nothing it's the people involved who chose.
What intrests me is why did cheescat bring this up?
As to why I created this thread, I did it because I don't think people realize how common intersexuals are and I find this issue is both controversial and interesting so I thought those would be good qualities to have for stimulating conversation, plus it makes a nice change from all the political
discussions we get on the off-topic forum. No, I did not do it because I know of any intersexuals nor am I one (I'm a dude).
it's a 50/50 choice one you get a perfectly normal child who's really happy.
No, not at all. I mean, there's no way to know the statistics on this, nor should it really matter. It's a question of integrity.
Morals don't come into my thinking,
It should. It actually should be the only angle to look at this, honestly.
your method would make the odd very happy child and lots of mediocore ones. Mine would create one in two happy kids a handful of ones that are not haply and the rest who feel good.
This is not how psychology works. You have no way of knowing this.
That's the best method and only a vocal minority would disagree.
LoneLictor wrote: So, children should be denied a choice because when the doctor chooses for them, the doctor is right half the time?
But if we wait....
The grown adult would be right 100% of the time.
But have been screwed up and been made unhappy by that big choice and secret that makes them different.
If kids were accepting and kind and treated diffirent people kindly then it would and should be the kids choice, but it's not like that.
The current system is the best, the parents can either chose a gender ask the doctor to pick one or let the kid pick, that way each parent does what they think is best.
Perhaps they should set aside a fund so that if the choice was wrong their gender could be changed.
If I showed more empathy and explained my thoughts better we would be on the same page.
But alas i'm on a phone so writing tomes of text doesn't work.
I have my opinions you have yours, mine is the current system which only a vocal few in this situation disagree with. The rest live a happy life... Why change something not broken?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Answer this one question do you think it should be a law that the child choses?
LoneLictor wrote: So, children should be denied a choice because when the doctor chooses for them, the doctor is right half the time?
But if we wait....
The grown adult would be right 100% of the time.
Yeah the adult would be right 100% of the time in theory.
But, it could easily cause mental and social problems, its not fair but if others know its likely to be a cause for bullying, and possibly quite severe bullying.
And also, its not exactly going to be an easy choice to make, not like choosing wether to go to University/collage or get a job, wether to learn to drive or just take the bus, its a pretty different and difficult decision to make.
But then it isn't really right to deny them that, basically I think you can't get a win/win in this situation, unfortunately some people are born with things 'wrong' with them, and are mostly no ones fault, yet often/always society decides to make these peoples lives even harder. Anything that can make a persons life easier is worth considering. Here, how are you supposed to know wether someone would rather have a doctor/parents choose their sex if born a hermaphrodite? How do you know if they do decided then, they person will ever find out? And what they will think/do if they do find out? Or wether leaving it until they are older to make the decision themselves will work out fine, or make life extremely difficult for them?
LoneLictor wrote: So, children should be denied a choice because when the doctor chooses for them, the doctor is right half the time?
But if we wait....
The grown adult would be right 100% of the time.
But have been screwed up and been made unhappy by that big choice and secret that makes them different.
If kids were accepting and kind and treated diffirent people kindly then it would and should be the kids choice, but it's not like that.
The current system is the best, the parents can either chose a gender ask the doctor to pick one or let the kid pick, that way each parent does what they think is best.
Perhaps they should set aside a fund so that if the choice was wrong their gender could be changed.
If I showed more empathy and explained my thoughts better we would be on the same page.
But alas i'm on a phone so writing tomes of text doesn't work.
I have my opinions you have yours, mine is the current system which only a vocal few in this situation disagree with. The rest live a happy life... Why change something not broken?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Answer this one question do you think it should be a law that the child choses?
It should be illegal for people to choose the child's gender for it.
Alright, let's say that you were born with a vagina and a penis. You feel like a guy, but the doctor chops your penis off because your parents wanted a girl. Now, let's say you have male hormones and that jazz. You grow up to be a man with a vagina, something that you're very uncomfortable with.
It may be easier and simpler to just choose gender for a child, but that doesn't make it better. It can feth someone up for life.
I don't understand how you can rationalize choosing people's gender for them, without even the slightest regard for their wishes.
InquisitorVaron wrote: Because of odds and statistics, a law is for everyone not an individual therefore it's rational to go for what's good for the majority not a minority.
That's not how law works.
That statistically is the best route.
Yes and economically, killing everyone who doesn't contribute to society is the best route. Good thing that we don't evaluate options in any issues from the angle of statistics, isn't it?
InquisitorVaron wrote: Because of odds and statistics, a law is for everyone not an individual therefore it's rational to go for what's good for the majority not a minority.
The current system is the best, no one is forced into anything, the parents decide whether to make the choice or for the kid or doctor to.
As rodgers said there is no perfect it's not going to be a win win, so my logical brain says you go with the statistics not the individual.
As I said perhaps a charity or government funded pool of money that can be used to change their sex if they made the wrong choice wouldn't go amiss.
That statistically is the best route.
Your very empathetic calling them an it aren't you.
Stop being so righteous and accept that the one best for the majority is the way it should go.
But what is best for the majority might not be best for the individual. These are people, who have to live with the consequences of the surgery. Undoing the surgery is dangerous and will probably not be successful. Honestly, waiting until the person is an adult will alleviate stress in the long term.
Killing someone is extreme for such a small act, secondly for a pedant point it would cost money to kill people and keep order, possibly more money than the people who don't do anything take up
I have aspergers, I was sent away to a school designed for it because that helps the majority, it didn't work. Yet I still feel that going with the statistical view is the best option, stop living in rainbow land, someone will suffer with every choice, the good ones are ones that have more people benefit than suffer.
InquisitorVaron wrote: The child shouldn't know nor should it be documented best to be forgot and not cause trouble, gays and lesbians fit in well so if the gender was wrong they can live a normal life.
That isn't just wrong, it's laughably wrong. It is quite possibly the most wrong statement I've ever seen on this forum.
Here's a hint for you: there's way more to gender than what you want to have sex with. If you guess wrong and assign the wrong gender the child is going to grow up with the brain development of the other gender and feel completely out of place in their own body. And then you need a lot of expensive hormones/surgery/etc later in life to correct the mistake.
The solution, therefore, is to wait until the child is old enough to make the decision.
I agree with this completely.
InquisitorVaron wrote: Because of odds and statistics, a law is for everyone not an individual therefore it's rational to go for what's good for the majority not a minority.
This law does not concern the majority in the slightest.
The current system is the best, no one is forced into anything, the parents decide whether to make the choice or for the kid or doctor to.
You mean "no one is forced into anything, except for the child."
As rodgers said there is no perfect it's not going to be a win win, so my logical brain says you go with the statistics not the individual.
How about, instead of comparing this issue to unrelated statistics of people who are decidedly normal, you compare the numbers of intersexuals who have been reassigned, intersexuals who haven't been reassigned, and intersexuals have been reassigned without their consent?
That statistically is the best route.
No, it's not, and the more you say it, the more unintelligent it sounds.
Your very empathetic calling them an it aren't you.
Stop being so righteous and accept that the one best for the majority is the way it should go.
How the hell is this in any way "best for the majority?"
Why does there have to be only two distinctions for sex and gender? In reality, no one's 100% perfectly male or female. We group ourselves based on the most clearly definable traits that outline the two archetypes, but there are plenty of ways that many people fall in between. The idea that sex should be strictly dichotomized is an outdated one.
Happygrunt wrote: The child. They are the ones who will have to live with the choice, after all
By the time that they can make a fully informed choice it would be too late. The physiological changes brought on by puberty are irreversable and while puberty itself can be delayed that has its own consequences.
If anyone makes the choice it should be a geneticist, failing that the parents.
In a utopian society a hermaphroditic child would be fully accepted but we are not a utopia. It is far easier, and much more humane, for the child to be assigned a standard sex as early as possible.
InquisitorVaron wrote: Did a quick google, 41% of transgenders who were not assigned a sex commit suicide. So do you still think that's humane and a good option?
Pack it in stats are the way to go.
Less than half, so technically the humane decision would be to NOT do anything, because over half do not die.
No, I'm saying that laws aren't designed with 'what's statistically best' in mind, or at least not all the time. On top of things, you have no way to determine a basis for your statistics. That would require, you know, empirical data and stuff.
Killing someone is extreme for such a small act, secondly for a pedant point it would cost money to kill people and keep order, possibly more money than the people who don't do anything take up
A bullet, a gun and the salary for the person doing the execution would always be gakload cheaper than just about any social net. Plus, I thought we were talking from the point of view of statistics only? 'Such a small act' is a value judgement, and doesn't come into statistics.
I have aspergers, I was sent away to a school designed for it because that helps the majority, it didn't work. Yet I still feel that going with the statistical view is the best option, stop living in rainbow land, someone will suffer with every choice, the good ones are ones that have more people benefit than suffer.
Still no basis for your 'this is the best choice', therefore your argument is empty.
Happygrunt wrote: The child. They are the ones who will have to live with the choice, after all
By the time that they can make a fully informed choice it would be too late. The physiological changes brought on by puberty are irreversable and while puberty itself can be delayed that has its own consequences.
If anyone makes the choice it should be a geneticist, failing that the parents.
In a utopian society a hermaphroditic child would be fully accepted but we are not a utopia. It is far easier, and much more humane, for the child to be assigned a standard sex as early as possible.
I would have said something like this if I wasn't on a phone, but more basic and less informed, the latest would be 13-14 and take testostorone or estrogen, anyway my last post as I'm tired and my spelling has gone to pot.
No, I'm saying that laws aren't designed with 'what's statistically best' in mind, or at least not all the time. On top of things, you have no way to determine a basis for your statistics. That would require, you know, empirical data and stuff.
Killing someone is extreme for such a small act, secondly for a pedant point it would cost money to kill people and keep order, possibly more money than the people who don't do anything take up
A bullet, a gun and the salary for the person doing the execution would always be gakload cheaper than just about any social net. Plus, I thought we were talking from the point of view of statistics only? 'Such a small act' is a value judgement, and doesn't come into statistics.
I have aspergers, I was sent away to a school designed for it because that helps the majority, it didn't work. Yet I still feel that going with the statistical view is the best option, stop living in rainbow land, someone will suffer with every choice, the good ones are ones that have more people benefit than suffer.
Still no basis for your 'this is the best choice', therefore your argument is empty.
Not empty but just to show I've been on that side of things.
It's earlier over in canada give a brit a break it's midnight and I'm on a phone my arguements and reasons aren't as indepth as I could were it midday.
The truth is, none of us have the capacity to make any sort of decision about a law being put in to place or anything like that regarding any of this. We do not have any real information, we have not had any data thrown our way. We do not know what it is like to be in this situation.
What should be done is, doctors should consult those hermaphrodites that are out there and see how it has impacted their lives, what choices were made and how those choices have been good/bad for them.
Ratbarf wrote: I would actually assume that hermaphrodites will become much less common in the near future as natal medicine advances. Seeing as hermaphrodites and homosexuals arise, in part, due to in the womb conditions it isn't far fetched that they would be able to correct for any abnormalities to avoid those kind of conditions, similar to how down syndrome can be screened for today. Although currently the only cure for that is abortion.
I think this may open a monstrous can of worms though.
How have people not flipped the feth out about this post...
Ratbarf wrote: I would actually assume that hermaphrodites will become much less common in the near future as natal medicine advances. Seeing as hermaphrodites and homosexuals arise, in part, due to in the womb conditions it isn't far fetched that they would be able to correct for any abnormalities to avoid those kind of conditions, similar to how down syndrome can be screened for today. Although currently the only cure for that is abortion.
I think this may open a monstrous can of worms though.
How have people not flipped the feth out about this post...
I've developped a floating blind spot to compensate for the Homosexuality Threads in Dakka's OT.
Ratbarf wrote: I would actually assume that hermaphrodites will become much less common in the near future as natal medicine advances. Seeing as hermaphrodites and homosexuals arise, in part, due to in the womb conditions it isn't far fetched that they would be able to correct for any abnormalities to avoid those kind of conditions, similar to how down syndrome can be screened for today. Although currently the only cure for that is abortion.
I think this may open a monstrous can of worms though.
How have people not flipped the feth out about this post...
Once someone compares homosexuality to down syndrome, there's no point in trying to reason with them.
Ratbarf wrote: I would actually assume that hermaphrodites will become much less common in the near future as natal medicine advances. Seeing as hermaphrodites and homosexuals arise, in part, due to in the womb conditions it isn't far fetched that they would be able to correct for any abnormalities to avoid those kind of conditions, similar to how down syndrome can be screened for today. Although currently the only cure for that is abortion.
I think this may open a monstrous can of worms though.
How have people not flipped the out about this post...
I just kind of ignored it. I do that a lot now on Dakka.
Once someone compares homosexuality to down syndrome, there's no point in trying to reason with them.
Assuming that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, not that thas has been proven of course, then its not an inaccurate comparison. Its not exactly tactful but you can't have everything.
Making a choice at birth carries a high risk of causing severe harm to the person, since if you make the wrong guess they will be stuck in the wrong body for their brain's gender (something that is incredibly harmful psychologically), at high risk of bullying/suicide/etc, forced to deal with an extremely difficult process of changing sex at some point in the future (or stuck living a miserable life if they can't afford it), etc.
Making a choice later in life carries a small risk of forcing the person to make a difficult decision about which gender they want to be. However this is a very small risk, since by the time you have to make a decision one way or the other most people have a pretty solid idea of who they are and the choice will be easy to make.
Therefore the obvious conclusion is to do nothing at birth, and only make a decision later in life once the person reaches an age where they have formed a gender identity and gained the ability to make an informed decision.
And no, the parents have no right to decide, just like the parents have no right to decide to cut their child's arms off at birth because they think it will be better for them.
Once someone compares homosexuality to down syndrome, there's no point in trying to reason with them.
Assuming that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, not that thas has been proven of course, then its not an inaccurate comparison. Its not exactly tactful but you can't have everything.
Of course it's an inaccurate comparison. Down syndrome is a crippling problem that removes any chance of having a normal life. Homosexuality is just a personality characteristic, and no different than a preference for brown hair vs. blonde, or liking football over baseball. The only "problem" caused by homosexuality is from bigots who are determined to make life hell for anyone who deviates from their idea of what is "right", homosexuality itself has no harmful effect.
Of course it's an inaccurate comparison. Down syndrome is a crippling problem that removes any chance of having a normal life. Homosexuality is just a personality characteristic, and no different than a preference for brown hair vs. blonde, or liking football over baseball. The only "problem" caused by homosexuality is from bigots who are determined to make life hell for anyone who deviates from their idea of what is "right", homosexuality itself has no harmful effect.
Palindrome wrote: In a utopian society a hermaphroditic child would be fully accepted but we are not a utopia. It is far easier, and much more humane, for the child to be assigned a standard sex as early as possible.
See I disagree with this mentality because it doesn't solve the problem it just encourages intolerance, that's like having a black baby's skin altered because they aren't tolerated in society. If you want to fight intolerance sometimes you have to risk offending others and hurting yourself as well.
I did read it. I was just giving you an opportunity to gracefully change what you said into what you might have meant to say. But since you stand by what you wrote, my criticism stands.
He suggested that homosexuality is possibly a condition linked to prenatal developpment. Which, if were true, would be an apt comparison as long as, like you've noted, we don't compare them as defect.
Which he should have noted himself. Possibly, that's what Ratbarf also meant, but didn't convey very well.
Kovnik Obama wrote: He suggested that homosexuality is possibly a condition linked to prenatal developpment. Which, if were true, would be an apt comparison as long as, like you've noted, we don't compare them as defect.
Except it's not even close to an apt comparison, since it doesn't say anything meaningful. "Things that have genetic components" is such a broad category that saying any two things are in that category is about as useful as saying that they're both words typed into a forum page. The only way to make the statement into a meaningful one is to include "harmful conditions" in the comparison, which makes it meaningful but completely false.
I am for the traditional option for all children, that they are the ones who decide whether to live life as a boy or a girl. Most children know what they are by at 5, so the traditional age for decision making has always been 6 years.
Doctors and Parents should make the other decisions for health and safety, but this is one to butt out of.
Of course it's an inaccurate comparison. Down syndrome is a crippling problem that removes any chance of having a normal life. Homosexuality is just a personality characteristic, and no different than a preference for brown hair vs. blonde, or liking football over baseball. The only "problem" caused by homosexuality is from bigots who are determined to make life hell for anyone who deviates from their idea of what is "right", homosexuality itself has no harmful effect.
Oh I wouldn't know about that, increased probability of depression/suicide, increased probability of drugs and alcohol abuse, not to mention sexual abnormality.
Edit; that's about the "homosexuality having no harmful effect" part.
Of course it's an inaccurate comparison. Down syndrome is a crippling problem that removes any chance of having a normal life. Homosexuality is just a personality characteristic, and no different than a preference for brown hair vs. blonde, or liking football over baseball. The only "problem" caused by homosexuality is from bigots who are determined to make life hell for anyone who deviates from their idea of what is "right", homosexuality itself has no harmful effect.
Yeah you missed my point, I wasn't comparing Homosexuality to Down Syndrome in its effect or negativeness, I was simply comparing that they were both conditions that can/could potentially be screened for and corrected in the womb. I mean there isn't anything wrong with homosexuals from a personal point of view, but to say there isn't anatomical abnormalities is simply wrong.
He suggested that homosexuality is possibly a condition linked to prenatal developpment. Which, if were true, would be an apt comparison as long as, like you've noted, we don't compare them as defect.
Which he should have noted himself. Possibly, that's what Ratbarf also meant, but didn't convey very well.
Yeah that's pretty much what I meant.
As a side note once that becomes possible I wonder what the reaction from the LGBTQ community would be, seeing as they would possibly be faced with extinction. (I can't really see too many non homosexual parents choosing to knowingly have a homosexual child.)
Ratbarf wrote: Oh I wouldn't know about that, increased probability of depression/suicide, increased probability of drugs and alcohol abuse, not to mention sexual abnormality.
Edit; that's about the "homosexuality having no harmful effect" part.
Except all of those problems are caused by abuse by bigots, not by homosexuality itself. It's ridiculous victim blaming.
Yeah you missed my point, I wasn't comparing Homosexuality to Down Syndrome in its effect or negativeness, I was simply comparing that they were both conditions that can/could potentially be screened for and corrected in the womb. I mean there isn't anything wrong with homosexuals from a personal point of view, but to say there isn't anatomical abnormalities is simply wrong.
Err, what? What do anatomical abnormalities and homosexuality have to do with each other? And how exactly do you "correct" homosexuality?
As a side note once that becomes possible I wonder what the reaction from the LGBTQ community would be, seeing as they would possibly be faced with extinction. (I can't really see too many non homosexual parents choosing to knowingly have a homosexual child.)
The reaction of course will be a ban on that kind of genetic engineering, since it enables every racist/sexist/etc belief in eugenics. Once we reach a point where we can detect and modify things with that kind of precision (which is much easier said than done) I think there will be a new law that you can only use it to remove obvious harmful disabilities, not to choose specific personality traits that you want your child to have.
This is a dangerous choice for any of the parties to make. The doctor needs to advise the parents if there is any medical risk involved in sex assignment. Often in cases of hermaphroditism, the "plumbing" can be tangled or non-existant. The parents then risk the possibility of raising "a boy in a girl's body" or vice versa and dealing with its consequences later. When the child is old enough to understand its gender identity, it can scar the child physically and psychologically.
No one factor or individual choice is going to be an easy one. It is often a difficult life for children born with both or ambiguously formed genitals. Unless you're Jamie Lee Curtis....
Oh I wouldn't know about that, increased probability of depression/suicide, increased probability of drugs and alcohol abuse, not to mention sexual abnormality.
Edit; that's about the "homosexuality having no harmful effect" part.
Correlation =/= causation. Those issues are more likely related to the reaction of society to homosexuality. Change that, and you fix the issue.
Imagine the gakstorm I would get if I said that being black is a defect because it causes you to have a lower income, and suggested that we should 'fix' them by gene therapy...
Yeah you missed my point, I wasn't comparing Homosexuality to Down Syndrome in its effect or negativeness, I was simply comparing that they were both conditions that can/could potentially be screened for and corrected in the womb. I mean there isn't anything wrong with homosexuals from a personal point of view, but to say there isn't anatomical abnormalities is simply wrong.
As far as I know, there's no known anatomical abnormalities related to homosexuality.
As a side note once that becomes possible I wonder what the reaction from the LGBTQ community would be, seeing as they would possibly be faced with extinction. (I can't really see too many non homosexual parents choosing to knowingly have a homosexual child.)
I'm about 99% sure that it's a psychological issue, so I doubt it'll become an issue. Most gay guys that I know figured it out around 14-16, which is a little bit later then normal sexualisation.
As far as I know, there's no known anatomical abnormalities related to homosexuality.
I agree, but gay men usually have bigger penises then straight guys, although the study was self reported so they could be lying (there's no evidence to show if gay guys lie more than straight guys and I don't know if they counted bisexuals as gays in the study either).
Err, what? What do anatomical abnormalities and homosexuality have to do with each other? And how exactly do you "correct" homosexuality?
There is good, if limited, science on the differences in brain formation of homosexuals and transgenders, which generally stems from either an excess or lack of estrogen/testosterone during development in the womb. The result is that the section of the brain which is responsible for gender and sexual "preference"? is out of whack with the rest of the person physiology. Literally a female/male brain stuck in a male/female body. Watched a documentary on it in Psych class in high school, I see if I can find it for you.
Essentially if that could be screened and corrected for there could potentially come a day where there are few, if any, homosexuals.
Think I found it, not 100% sure because my internet is slow right now and I couldn't watch it.
As far as I know, there's no known anatomical abnormalities related to homosexuality.
There is a specific region/gland in the brain that is either too large or too small for the persons physical gender. This was discovered by dissecting the brains of transgendered and homosexuals. When they attempted to replicate this in rats the result was the same, that physically male rats with the female brain behaved like female rats, and female rats with male brains acted like male rats, ie tried to have sex with what they recognised as the opposite gender as well as other behavioral differences.
Correlation =/= causation. Those issues are more likely related to the reaction of society to homosexuality. Change that, and you fix the issue.
True, just sayin, what parent would knowingly and willingly put their child through that?
As far as I know, there's no known anatomical abnormalities related to homosexuality.
I agree, but gay men usually have bigger penises then straight guys, although the study was self reported so they could be lying (there's no evidence to show if gay guys lie more than straight guys and I don't know if they counted bisexuals as gays in the study either).
Yeah, I was going to mention this one factoid, had heard about it when the study came out in the 90s. I've got my doubts.
Also, my friend noted that the Village here has shops where you can buy padded underwear, to suggest more then there is. I thought it was funny you didn't find those elsewhere... Maybe gays are even more superficial about this than straight men?
Ratbarf wrote: There is good, if limited, science on the differences in brain formation of homosexuals and transgenders, which generally stems from either an excess or lack of estrogen/testosterone during development in the womb. The result is that the section of the brain which is responsible for gender and sexual "preference"? is out of whack with the rest of the person physiology. Literally a female/male brain stuck in a male/female body. Watched a documentary on it in Psych class in high school, I see if I can find it for you.
What does that have to do with anatomy?
Essentially if that could be screened and corrected for there could potentially come a day where there are few, if any, homosexuals.
First of all, "correcting" homosexuality is just as morally appalling as "correcting" being black, so please stop using that term.
Second, the way to "correct" a mismatch between brain gender and body is to fix the body, not to modify someone's brain and in the process destroy who they are as a person. "Correcting" the brain is just as morally appalling as "correcting" homosexuality.
True, just sayin, what parent would knowingly and willingly put their child through that?
What parent would knowingly and willingly put their child through being born black? After all, racists are still a problem in society and you can't deny that white children have an easy life.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: This is a dangerous choice for any of the parties to make. The doctor needs to advise the parents if there is any medical risk involved in sex assignment. Often in cases of hermaphroditism, the "plumbing" can be tangled or non-existant. The parents then risk the possibility of raising "a boy in a girl's body" or vice versa and dealing with its consequences later. When the child is old enough to understand its gender identity, it can scar the child physically and psychologically.
No one factor or individual choice is going to be an easy one. It is often a difficult life for children born with both or ambiguously formed genitals. Unless you're Jamie Lee Curtis....
Just so there's no confusion with my OP, the intersexual doesn't necessarily have to choose a sex either, he/she/it should be allowed to stay an intersexual if they want to.
First of all, "correcting" homosexuality is just as morally appalling as "correcting" being black, so please stop using that term.
Second, the way to "correct" a mismatch between brain gender and body is to fix the body, not to modify someone's brain and in the process destroy who they are as a person. "Correcting" the brain is just as morally appalling as "correcting" homosexuality.
"Correcting" could mean either changing their physical sex in womb or the sex of their brain. Basically they just have to match, it really doesn't matter from what end you start.
What does that have to do with anatomy?
Are you saying that the brain isn't a part of anatomy?
What parent would knowingly and willingly put their child through being born black? After all, racists are still a problem in society and you can't deny that white children have an easy life.
They are so vastly different that to use them as a comparison is just an extreme case of hyperbole. It's not like black people suddenly wake up at the age of 16 and realise they're black and then have all of the negative statistics for being black fall upon them in one large ungodly dump.
First of all, "correcting" homosexuality is just as morally appalling as "correcting" being black, so please stop using that term.
I'm sorry but it is different, essentially if it is entirely a physical condition, which I'm not saying it is, it simply has the potential to be, then that means that it would fall under the category of all "born with it" conditions. The LGBTQ community stresses that they are "born that way," well so are the deaf. (Edit; forgot the "not")
Second, the way to "correct" a mismatch between brain gender and body is to fix the body, not to modify someone's brain and in the process destroy who they are as a person. "Correcting" the brain is just as morally appalling as "correcting" homosexuality
As a side note I hope you realise what you just said there, in womb meddling with the brain shouldn't matter at all as the fetus isn't a "person."
That last part is just trolling, feel free to ignore it.
Ratbarf wrote: "Correcting" could mean either changing their physical sex in womb or the sex of their brain. Basically they just have to match, it really doesn't matter from what end you start.
Oh good, then we agree. Ban sex changing/assigning surgery until the child is old enough to make their own decision, and then make appropriate physical changes to match the child's gender if necessary.
Are you saying that the brain isn't a part of anatomy?
I'm saying that this is a mental problem, not a simple anatomy one. Having one leg longer than the other is a nice simple anatomy problem, you measure the difference and then correct it if necessary. Gender is far, far more complicated and we currently have no way to simply measure it by looking at they physical body and no real belief that it will ever work that way.
They are so vastly different that to use them as a comparison is just an extreme case of hyperbole. It's not like black people suddenly wake up at the age of 16 and realise they're black and then have all of the negative statistics for being black fall upon them in one large ungodly dump.
You're missing the point of the comparison. The point is that the "problems" associated with either are caused by poor treatment from society (based on morally horrible beliefs), not by the condition itself.
And yes, you could have it all fall upon you at once. For example, if you spend your first 16 years living in an open-minded city, and then move to a small white-dominated town full of angry old racists.
I'm sorry but it is different, essentially if it is entirely a physical condition, which I'm not saying it is, it simply has the potential to be, then that means that it would fall under the category of all "born with it" conditions. The LGBTQ community stresses that they are "born that way," well so are the deaf. (Edit; forgot the "not")
The point is that "correcting" means that something is wrong in the first place. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, just like there is nothing wrong with wanting to play 40k instead of WoW and it would be ridiculous to call surgery to change that preference "correction". Continuing to use the term "correction" is incredibly offensive.
The point is that "correcting" means that something is wrong in the first place. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, just like there is nothing wrong with wanting to play 40k instead of WoW and it would be ridiculous to call surgery to change that preference "correction". Continuing to use the term "correction" is incredibly offensive.
Well, statistically speaking there is something wrong, and if you don't like the word wrong how about off? Plus, I'm treating it like a condition not a choice.
I'm saying that this is a mental problem, not a simple anatomy one. Having one leg longer than the other is a nice simple anatomy problem, you measure the difference and then correct it if necessary. Gender is far, far more complicated and we currently have no way to simply measure it by looking at they physical body and no real belief that it will ever work that way.
Mental problems are generally an issue of either physical deformity or chemical imbalance. And since I've been saying all along that it is possible that this is strictly a mental condition that arises from a physical abnormality it means that it could be both screened for and corrected.
Oh good, then we agree. Ban sex changing/assigning surgery until the child is old enough to make their own decision, and then make appropriate physical changes to match the child's gender if necessary.
Yeah no we don't.... If it's possible to accurately guage the gender before birth it would be much less harmful, not to mention cheaper, and I would argue more responsible, to perform the operation in utero than when they're 20 and have already gone through all the crap that homosexuals usually have to go through to make it to adulthood.
Ratbarf wrote: Well, statistically speaking there is something wrong, and if you don't like the word wrong how about off? Plus, I'm treating it like a condition not a choice.
This is not complicated. "Statistically not typical" is not the same thing as "wrong", and there are plenty of rare attributes which are neutral or beneficial. Your continued use of "correction" is extremely offensive.
Mental problems are generally an issue of either physical deformity or chemical imbalance. And since I've been saying all along that it is possible that this is strictly a mental condition that arises from a physical abnormality it means that it could be both screened for and corrected.
You are making the incredibly huge assumption that there is a simple physical problem that can be identified and corrected before birth, when everything we know suggests that gender is a complicated mix of biology/social influences/etc.
Yeah no we don't.... If it's possible to accurately guage the gender before birth it would be much less harmful, not to mention cheaper, and I would argue more responsible, to perform the operation in utero than when they're 20 and have already gone through all the crap that homosexuals usually have to go through to make it to adulthood.
WTF. Did you really mean to use "homosexuality" to describe someone who is born with a mismatch between gender and body?
And you don't have to wait until someone is 20. Most people have a pretty solid idea of what gender they are long before that age, so you only have to wait until you can get an informed decision instead of just blindly guessing and hoping you make the right choice for them.
WTF. Did you really mean to use "homosexuality" to describe someone who is born with a mismatch between gender and body?
Yarp.
And you don't have to wait until someone is 20. Most people have a pretty solid idea of what gender they are long before that age, so you only have to wait until you can get an informed decision instead of just blindly guessing and hoping you make the right choice for them.
And I'm saying that if it's possible to do accurately it's more responsible to do before birth. I don't think you're registering the fact that I'm saying "if possible" I know that the knowledge isn't complete yet and still has a ways to go. However, from what I've been told/exposed to/read it would seem that physical traits play a significant part of it.
"Statistically not typical" is not the same thing as "wrong", and there are plenty of rare attributes which are neutral or beneficial.
And I would argue that homosexuality is not one those. Yes it's not their fault that they're treated the way they are by society, but do you know how many of my gay friends have told they wish they had been born the opposite gender? And the feeling they put behind those words? I think it would save such a huge amount of pain that it would be worth it if it could be done.
You are making the incredibly huge assumption that there is a simple physical problem that can be identified and corrected before birth, when everything we know suggests that gender is a complicated mix of biology/social influences/etc.
I know I'm making an assumption, I thought I had clarified that? And the everything we know isn't a heck of a lot, what I've been espousing is simply one way in which science is pointing out it could work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gender is far, far more complicated and we currently have no way to simply measure it by looking at they physical body and no real belief that it will ever work that way.
I know we currently have no way to accurately identify it, I'm saying that it is highly likely that in the somewhat near future we will.
WTF. Did you really mean to use "homosexuality" to describe someone who is born with a mismatch between gender and body?
Yarp.
Well, congratulations on winning the "most ignorant statement of the day" award.
And I would argue that homosexuality is not one those. Yes it's not their fault that they're treated the way they are by society, but do you know how many of my gay friends have told they wish they had been born the opposite gender? And the feeling they put behind those words? I think it would save such a huge amount of pain that it would be worth it if it could be done.
So because people wish they were born differently to escape the bigotry of society we should blame the victim and "correct" them so that they fit into the bigot's idea of what is "acceptable"?
I bet you'll also find a lot of black people who wish they'd been born white so they could escape horrible treatment by racists, does that mean you support "correcting" skin color before birth so that everyone will be white?
I know we currently have no way to accurately identify it, I'm saying that it is highly likely that in the somewhat near future we will.
Which is entirely speculation, and depends on a rather simplistic model of how gender works (IOW, simple enough to measure). You might as well propose that in the near future we'll have the ability to upload our brains into computers, and gender will cease to be relevant because we'll all be embodied in swarms of networked combat drones.
So did you even watch the doc I posted? It goes over that pretty well.
So because people wish they were born differently to escape the bigotry of society we should blame the victim and "correct" them so that they fit into the bigot's idea of what is "acceptable"?
And why is that so different then them making the exact same decision later on in their lives?
Well, congratulations on winning the "most ignorant statement of the day" award.
Thank you, I'll be expecting my 12" golden statue in the mail shortly.
The word you're struggling to find is 'deviance'. Homosexuality 'deviates' from the norm. It doesn't run counter to it.
Thanks, I was actually looking for that word in a way. Though what is the word for bringing a devient statistic back to normality? Regression to the mean?
Thanks, I was actually looking for that word in a way. Though what is the word for bringing a devient statistic back to normality? Regression to the mean?
Not sure, but normativisation or normalisation would both fit the semantical need.
Ratbarf wrote: And why is that so different then them making the exact same decision later on in their lives?
Because:
1) You're talking about homosexuality, where there is no "decision later on in their lives". Once again, this is NOT the same as being born with the wrong body for your gender, so please stop using the two interchangably.
2) In the case of gender/body mismatch the decision later in life means it's their choice. Instead of having a decision imposed on them by someone else (with a high chance of screwing it up and causing massive harm) they are free to make whatever changes, if any, they want. I really don't see why it is so hard to see how this is a good thing.
Thank you, I'll be expecting my 12" golden statue in the mail shortly.
Oh good, a nice sarcastic reply. I'm glad that's your choice, instead of trying to correct your ignorance. It's very convenient when people are proud of their ignorance, it means I can dismiss everything they have to say without regret.
Thanks, I was actually looking for that word in a way. Though what is the word for bringing a devient statistic back to normality? Regression to the mean?
Regression to the mean is a specific mathematical event which is simply stated as "outcomes tend to be average, therefore an exceptional result is often followed by one closer to the average". It has nothing to do with deliberate correction.
As far as I know, there's no known anatomical abnormalities related to homosexuality.
I agree, but gay men usually have bigger penises then straight guys, although the study was self reported so they could be lying (there's no evidence to show if gay guys lie more than straight guys and I don't know if they counted bisexuals as gays in the study either).
Yeah, I was going to mention this one factoid, had heard about it when the study came out in the 90s. I've got my doubts.
Also, my friend noted that the Village here has shops where you can buy padded underwear, to suggest more then there is. I thought it was funny you didn't find those elsewhere... Maybe gays are even more superficial about this than straight men?
That seemed to be what the person who wrote the wiki was implying
You know, Perigrine, you might be able to get your point across easier if you weren't so damn antagonizing in the way you argue... Just saying.
I think I understand his point, I simply think it's wrong. Though his wrongness may stem from his misunderstanding of the points I am attempting to make.
Regression to the mean is a specific mathematical event which is simply stated as "outcomes tend to be average, therefore an exceptional result is often followed by one closer to the average". It has nothing to do with deliberate correction.
And this is why I was asking.
Oh good, a nice sarcastic reply. I'm glad that's your choice, instead of trying to correct your ignorance. It's very convenient when people are proud of their ignorance, it means I can dismiss everything they have to say without regret.
Pluck out the log in your own eye before plucking out the speck in your brother's eye. Just sayin.
1) You're talking about homosexuality, where there is no "decision later on in their lives". Once again, this is NOT the same as being born with the wrong body for your gender, so please stop using the two interchangably.
Well if there is no decision later on in their lives then that would mean they were born that way would it not? Which means it can normativised in utero before it ever becomes a problem in their lives.
Also I would argue that homosexuality is a mismatch between brain and body, yes it is to a somewhat lesser extent than full blown transexualism, but the point still stands that their sexual orientation is incorrect with regards to either their brain or their body depending on which way you choose to approach it.
2) In the case of gender/body mismatch the decision later in life means it's their choice. Instead of having a decision imposed on them by someone else (with a high chance of screwing it up and causing massive harm) they are free to make whatever changes, if any, they want. I really don't see why it is so hard to see how this is a good thing.
I don't think you're quite grasping the ground from which I'm making this argument, namely that the decision is made because there is a high chance of accuracy. Making your argument somewhat invalid.
Ratbarf wrote: Well if there is no decision later on in their lives then that would mean they were born that way would it not? Which means it can normativised in utero before it ever becomes a problem in their lives.
Oh FFS, this is really not hard. The debate over when to make a decision is related to gender/body mismatches, not homosexuality. In the case of homosexuality people can wish that they were born differently all they want, and for whatever reasons, but "correcting" it is impossible right now. Please stop using the two interchangeably, especially when you're mixing up arguments related to one with arguments related to the other.
Also I would argue that homosexuality is a mismatch between brain and body, yes it is to a somewhat lesser extent than full blown transexualism, but the point still stands that their sexual orientation is incorrect with regards to either their brain or their body depending on which way you choose to approach it.
The two are entirely separate issues. The only thing they have in common is that many of the same bigots hate both groups. Your continued attempts to combine the two just demonstrate your appalling ignorance of the subject.
And again with the offensive statements. Homosexuality is not "incorrect", it's just one of a wide range of different sets of preferences, none of them more "correct" than any others.
I don't think you're quite grasping the ground from which I'm making this argument, namely that the decision is made because there is a high chance of accuracy. Making your argument somewhat invalid.
And that "ground" is pure fantasy and wishful thinking. Maybe you could invent a fantasy world where you can make the decision accurately before birth, but in the real world we see over and over again the wrong decision being made and lives being destroyed as a result.
The debate over when to make a decision is related to gender/body mismatches, not homosexuality. In the case of homosexuality people can wish that they were born differently all they want, and for whatever reasons, but "correcting" it is impossible right now. Please stop using the two interchangeably, especially when you're mixing up arguments related to one with arguments related to the other.
So we're sticking to transexuals/transgenders? Okay then, my points made in that regard still stand.
And again with the offensive statements. Homosexuality is not "incorrect", it's just one of a wide range of different sets of preferences, none of them more "correct" than any others.
If you find my word choice unpalatable I would ask that you supply an acceptable alternative. What would you prefer I use which still fits the theme of it not being the norm?
Ratbarf wrote: So we're sticking to transexuals/transgenders? Okay then, my points made in that regard still stand.
Well, that was the topic of the OP, so I'd say yes. Or at least if you're going to change the subject you need to stop using the two interchangeably and keep your arguments about each separate.
And your points made in that regard are still wrong.
If you find my word choice unpalatable I would ask that you supply an acceptable alternative. What would you prefer I use which still fits the theme of it not being the norm?
How about "not average". If all you're looking for is a term to describe one particular attribute being relatively uncommon then I don't see why you can't just use the language of statistics instead of value judgements like "incorrect".
Would abnormal do? Not average is a bit of clunker. To address my use of the term "correct" I was using it with the thought that most surgeries done to make normal something abnormal within or on a human was called corrective surgery. I was not intending it to be a judgement call.
And your points made in that regard are still wrong.
I don't think so, (lol duh) because the reason I'm arguing for the averaging surgery in the future when the tech is available is the same reason that you say the surgery should not be done now.
Also the thought that said tech is impossible would fly in the face of quite a bit of human invention. Though the argument that I made predicting it within the next 30 to 50 years (ie somewhat near future) is up for debate.
Ratbarf wrote: Would abnormal do? Not average is a bit of clunker.
It's also less judgmental, given that "abnormal" has a connotation of "wrong", not just "statistically not within a certain range of the average".
To address my use of the term "correct" I was using it with the thought that most surgeries done to make normal something abnormal within or on a human was called corrective surgery. I was not intending it to be a judgement call.
It's called corrective surgery because it corrects a problem. Once again the problem is because you're considering homosexuality and brain/body mismatches interchangeable concepts. The reality is very simple:
Surgery to correct a brain/body mismatch by altering the body to match what the mental "map" expects it to be is corrective surgery, assuming it is done at a point where the person has determined their gender identity and made an informed decision that it is necessary to make physical changes.
Hypothetical surgery to "correct" homosexuality is not, because it does not correct a problem, just like hypothetical surgery to "correct" above-average intelligence back to the statistical average is not legitimate corrective surgery.
Hypothetical surgery to correct a brain/body mismatch by altering the brain is "corrective surgery" only in the sense that you can "correct" a broken ankle by cutting off the entire leg.
I don't think so, (lol duh) because the reason I'm arguing for the averaging surgery in the future when the tech is available is the same reason that you say the surgery should not be done now.
Except there is no reason to believe that the technology will ever be available. Gender identity is an incredibly complex subject and not easily reduced to a single measurable quality, and it's hard to believe that we'll ever reach a point where confidence in a gender "mistake" is high enough to justify the severe costs of making the wrong choice. For the foreseeable future the correct choice is almost certainly going to continue to be "do nothing at birth, wait until the person can make their own decision and then respect that decision".
Though the argument that I made predicting it within the next 30 to 50 years (ie somewhat near future) is up for debate.
So pretty much you're talking about a fantasy world based on pure speculation. I'm sure you can come up with one where your argument works, but for an argument to be useful it has to be true in the real world, not just in a fantasy world designed to support it.
So pretty much you're talking about a fantasy world based on pure speculation. I'm sure you can come up with one where your argument works, but for an argument to be useful it has to be true in the real world, not just in a fantasy world designed to support it.
There is a difference between wild speculation and educated speculation. This would fall on the educated side of that. It's not like I'm proposing that we turn them into dragons or something.
Except there is no reason to believe that the technology will ever be available. Gender identity is an incredibly complex subject and not easily reduced to a single measurable quality, and it's hard to believe that we'll ever reach a point where confidence in a gender "mistake" is high enough to justify the severe costs of making the wrong choice.
The thing is though is that we do have strong evidence that in transgendered people this can be accurately identified. That accuracy will only increase as time goes on. Secondly, if we know that there is a 90% chance that a fetus will grow up to be a girl but has the body of the boy is it not more right to make the decision then to expose the child to the harsh social realities of being a transgendered person?
The same argument could be made of people with cleft palates. They don't do any harm whatsoever except that they are not normal. Should we make it so that the child can only get it averaged when they turn 16? Thus exposing them to a childhood and adolescence of ridicule? Surely the child would ask why their parents didn't merely make this choice for them so they could have lived without the pain for those first 16 years of life?
Ratbarf wrote: There is a difference between wild speculation and educated speculation. This would fall on the educated side of that. It's not like I'm proposing that we turn them into dragons or something.
There's no education here, just an assumption that technology and knowledge will always advance therefore we'll know everything. There's no reason to think that it will happen in the foreseeable future, and who knows beyond that. It might just be an unknown until we all upload ourselves into swarms of combat drones and meat bodies cease to matter.
The thing is though is that we do have strong evidence that in transgendered people this can be accurately identified. That accuracy will only increase as time goes on. Secondly, if we know that there is a 90% chance that a fetus will grow up to be a girl but has the body of the boy is it not more right to make the decision then to expose the child to the harsh social realities of being a transgendered person?
First of all, even if I grant your assumption of a 90% correct identification rate that's still a 10% chance of utterly destroying the person's life. That's unacceptably high when there's a much safer method available.
Second, you're assuming that you can get the rate that high, which is a pretty big assumption for something as complex as gender identity. Yes, there's the trend of that specific brain region being a different size, but can you:
1) Identify the size difference early enough. Given how brain development doesn't finish until long after birth this may be easier said than done.
and
2) State, with absolute confidence, that this is a definite sign, and there are no cases of men who are quite content as men but have a statistically unusual size for that brain region. If there's any overlap in size between people who are and aren't transgendered then you can't safely use it as a test.
and
3) Rule out any other causes. If this is just one potential factor then even complete success on the first two requirements isn't going to get you a 90% success rate overall.
Finally, this is another case of victim blaming. If bigots are a problem then the solution is to fix the bigots, not to impose risky surgery guesses on their victims.
The same argument could be made of people with cleft palates.
No it can't, because there's no consequence to fixing that problem. It's incredibly unlikely that anyone who had it fixed at birth without making a conscious choice to allow it would have any complaint about the decision, so it's safe to just go ahead and do it and avoid making them live with the problem until they're old enough to make a conscious choice. This is entirely different from at-birth sex decisions, where there's a long and ugly history of making a choice that the person hates later in life.
Finally, this is another case of victim blaming. If bigots are a problem then the solution is to fix the bigots, not to impose risky surgery guesses on their victims.
For one who proclaims to only deal with reality you seem to be quite an idealist.
First of all, even if I grant your assumption of a 90% correct identification rate that's still a 10% chance of utterly destroying the person's life. That's unacceptably high when there's a much safer method available.
Really? if it gets as high as 90 percent accuracy there is actually only a 5 percent chance of it being the wrong gender. So if we take the OPs number of 1 in 2000 people are transgender, then we have about 1 in 40000 chance of a transgendered person having the wrong gender assigned. Seeing as they're doing a reasonably well job of coping with the current fail rate of 1 4000 I think it's safe to say that the 95 percent gain in success rate outweighs the 5 percent fail rate compared to the current 50 percent fail rate.
No it can't, because there's no consequence to fixing that problem. It's incredibly unlikely that anyone who had it fixed at birth without making a conscious choice to allow it would have any complaint about the decision, so it's safe to just go ahead and do it and avoid making them live with the problem until they're old enough to make a conscious choice. This is entirely different from at-birth sex decisions, where there's a long and ugly history of making a choice that the person hates later in life.
Actually you can't dismiss it due to your own logic, because there will still be that odd person whose life is utterly destroyed because their parents fixed their cleft palate before they were of age to consent. Obviously the safest way to be absolutely sure is wait until they are old enough to make an informed decision.
Ratbarf wrote: Really? if it gets as high as 90 percent accuracy there is actually only a 5 percent chance of it being the wrong gender.
90% accuracy means that you make the right decision 90% of the time, not that 90% of the time you're right and the other 10% you're 50/50.
So if we take the OPs number of 1 in 2000 people are transgender, then we have about 1 in 40000 chance of a transgendered person having the wrong gender assigned.
I don't think you understand how probability works, since what you just said is complete nonsense.
Seeing as they're doing a reasonably well job of coping with the current fail rate of 1 4000 I think it's safe to say that the 95 percent gain in success rate outweighs the 5 percent fail rate compared to the current 50 percent fail rate.
Have you done any research on the subject? Like, even spent 30 seconds with google? Because it's absolutely insane to think that they are doing a "reasonably good job of coping". Having the wrong gender assigned at birth, especially if chopping bits off is involved, is pretty high on the list of "worst ways to screw up someone's life and make them miserable".
Actually you can't dismiss it due to your own logic, because there will still be that odd person whose life is utterly destroyed because their parents fixed their cleft palate before they were of age to consent. Obviously the safest way to be absolutely sure is wait until they are old enough to make an informed decision.
Oh FFS, that's just stupid. Can you really not see the difference between "it's theoretically possible that someone might not be happy with the outcome" and "people are very frequently unhappy with the outcome"?
Have you done any research on the subject? Like, even spent 30 seconds with google? Because it's absolutely insane to think that they are doing a "reasonably good job of coping".
Well you seem to advocate for not doing anything, which is pretty close the status quo anyways.
I don't think you understand how probability works, since what you just said is complete nonsense.
This is probably true, percentages and ratios are not my strong point. In my defence, 100/5=20, 1/2000x20=1/40000 does it not?
Oh FFS, that's just stupid. Can you really not see the difference between "it's theoretically possible that someone might not be happy with the outcome" and "people are very frequently unhappy with the outcome"?
Yeah, logic is often annoying, doesn't make it illogical though.
Because pretty much you could turn your argument around switch the wording and use it against you.
ie; can you really not see the difference between "It's theoretically possible some people may be unhappy with the outcome," and "people are very frequently happy with the outcome?" 90% happy to be relative to prior numbers.
I mean what you're essentially saying is let them all be equally miserable because it's the moral high road then to do this and only end up with 5 percent miserable.
To use real world numbers, out of 7000 transgender people polled 41 precent (2870) admitted to attempting suicide. With this procedure that number within that group would drop to about 350. That's what you're so horribly disgusted with, an 800 percent drop in suicide attempts within those who would be born transgender otherwise.
Ratbarf wrote: Well you seem to advocate for not doing anything, which is pretty close the status quo anyways.
No, I'm advocating doing nothing at birth, which is entirely different from the status quo of "chop something off at birth".
This is probably true, percentages and ratios are not my strong point. In my defence, 100/5=20, 1/2000x20=1/40000 does it not?
I didn't say you made a mistake with your calculator, I said your statement is nonsense. You've correctly divided all of those things, but the answer you get has no meaning.
Yeah, logic is often annoying, doesn't make it illogical though.
That's not logic, that's insanity.
ie; can you really not see the difference between "It's theoretically possible some people may be unhappy with the outcome," and "people are very frequently happy with the outcome?" 90% happy to be relative to prior numbers.
FFS. This is not complicated.
Sex decision/changes at birth have a high "regret" rate. Even if you have a 90% success rate that's still 10% failures, and those failures are pretty high on the "miserable life" scale. And of course in reality the failure rate is much higher than 10%.
Repairing a cleft palate has an extremely small "regret" rate, and it's quite possible that it's zero and the hypothetical outraged victim is entirely theoretical. It's certainly not even close to 10%, and it's even less likely that anyone who would regret the decision would suffer the kind of life-destroying harm that a failed sex assignment choice inflicts.
Conclusion: one is a safe decision where the chance of a harmful failure is negligible, one is a risky decision with harsh consequences for failure. It is not in any way inconsistent to accept one while rejecting the other, since they're two entirely different cases.
I mean what you're essentially saying is let them all be equally miserable because it's the moral high road then to do this and only end up with 5 percent miserable.
First of all, learn to do math. Even with your assumed 90% success rate it's 10% failure, not 5%.
Second, this is a textbook false dilemma fallacy since you're rejecting the third option of doing nothing at birth.
To use real world numbers, out of 7000 transgender people polled 41 precent (2870) admitted to attempting suicide. With this procedure that number within that group would drop to about 350. That's what you're so horribly disgusted with, an 800 percent drop in suicide attempts within those who would be born transgender otherwise.
And how many of those 2870 did so because they were the victim of an incorrect at-birth gender choice? How do you know that the number wouldn't be reduced even more by doing nothing at birth and waiting until the child's gender identity is known before making any decisions? Especially if the choice of doing nothing at birth is accompanied by increased support for transgender people? Since, after all, a major factor in suicide attempts is the sense of helplessness caused by the difficulty in obtaining the necessary hormones/surgery/etc to get the body the person wants to have.
And of course this is still assuming your imaginary 90% success rate which is based on nothing but your own assumption.
There are two good medical reasons why the choice of sex should be as early as possible.
One is that young infants heal extremely quickly.
The other is that gender identity is largely a social construct offering male and female roles. The upbringing of the child will support its gender socialisation much better if it has a clear anatomical gender from the outset.
However, without reliable medical statistics on the long-term outcome of such cases, a change to the current system risks causing more harm than good.
Anyway, I don't think it is possible to advance this topic usefully, so I will close the thred.
out about this post...
