Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I suppose the child should probably make the choice... this is quite a messy subject me thinks.

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?

Yeah, the kid should get a say in whether or not he or she wants to lose certain parts.

Its just like being gay, in that people should accept it. You might be grossed out by it, but that doesn't mean you have control over his or her body.

 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?

Awful lot of assumptions going on in here...

 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.

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?

 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?

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

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.

 InquisitorVaron wrote:

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).

 InquisitorVaron wrote:


It's about numbers not indivuals

No, this is clearly about the individual.

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.

=ad populum

 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?

 InquisitorVaron wrote:

 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.

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.

 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.

So your saying that a law doesn't apply to all?

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

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.

 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.

 Happygrunt wrote:

Less than half, so technically the humane decision would be to NOT do anything, because over half do not die.

You have a strange definition of 'humane'.

 InquisitorVaron wrote:
So your saying that a law doesn't apply to all?

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.