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.

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.

 Ratbarf wrote:


Well, statistically speaking there is something wrong, and if you don't like the word wrong how about off?

The word you're struggling to find is 'deviance'. Homosexuality 'deviates' from the norm. It doesn't run counter to it.

 Ratbarf wrote:

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?

 Ratbarf wrote:


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.

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.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

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).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis_size

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.

I think my ignore list just quadrupled in size. Sweet jesus.

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?

I'm perfectly willing to be reasonable.

 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.

Link for numbers. http://www.livescience.com/11208-high-suicide-risk-prejudice-plague-transgender-people.html

There has to be a double entendre in all of this.

 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.