Not right to encourage transgenderism

It's not being an asshole to point out the objective reality of the situation.

If the world is 99.7% percent one way. The 0.3 dont get to decide that they arent the ones who are abnormal.

There is a difference between "accepting" something and "encouraging" something.

I accept that for a very small % of people that transgenderism exist (as well as many other things), and I believe that many people do accept that.

That does not mean it's normal or should be encouraged. But, it does exist.

So if someone tells me they are "whatever" I'm not really going to question that as long as it is not criminal - and just try to treat them as a normal person (which does not mean that we become friends... that takes both an interest and personality match way).

It should be illegal full stop. It used to be illegal to perform the surgeries and it should have stayed that way.

I disagree with the initial argument based on aesthetics. It's a shallow argument, probably meant to provoke.

In general though, I don't think that people should be 'encouraged' to be transgender. The key principle in medicine is 'do no harm', take the least invasive/dramatic treatment option first, and as we've seen in this pandemic, you don't gamble with unknown entities when people's lives are at stake unless the alternative to taking the gamble is loss of life.

Flame me if you will, but I think that hormonal transition and sex reassignment surgery should not be so freely recommended and that other ways of looking at transgenderism should become acceptable. I don't think there should be such a great taboo in the medical community or in general about trying to think about and classify the misalignment between gender perception and sex in different ways. I think it should be possible to think more flexibly about the phenomenon. Please hear me out.

I know something of how dramatically self-perceptions and ways of relating to the world can change, and how specific shocks to the system can produce different changes. I have experienced my entire personality, my sexuality, my attitude towards my female sex, and my entire way of relating to other people and making friends flip-flop as a result of counselling, psychiatry, acquisition of spiritual life, various psychotropic medications, changing countries and starting a new life from scratch with no prior contacts in the new country, going from a monolingual existence to a bilingual one and developing a new set of social behaviours in a different linguaculture, and both good and traumatic relational experiences. Deep stuff that has been true of my self-perception since early childhood is being shifted in ways I hadn't thought possible. How inviolable in this regard is gender identity, even? I cannot consider myself female first and foremost before I consider myself anything else. I think there is a strong case for enabling people to be reconciled to the gender corresponding to their birth sex without the need for them to change sex, and without the need for abusive brainwashing, if the person concerned is willing and motivated (and it's always a matter of the patient being willing). But it would take a long time and a lot of work, and of course it might not be successful. Would unsuccessful treatment along these lines be more harmful than an unsuccessful outcome after transitioning or sex reassignment? I don't honestly think so.

This is my background. Perhaps it's not typical - but what's typical on IIN? It might be tl;dr for you: fair enough. For the record, until I was in my early twenties I didn't really think of my femaleness as being a part of my identity, so much as a function of sex and love. At all other times it was completely irrelevant. My childhood best friends had been boys. My brother was a boy. I did as they did and I beat them in arm wrestles and playfights sometimes. I didn't feel 'worthy' to be a girl; I felt ugly and deficient in my femininity, and I stopped thinking about it except when there was a boy I liked. I went to an all-girls' middle school and high school and as far as I was concerned I was just a person like everyone else. The idea that being a woman put me at a 'disadvantage' or that there was any job or study subject I couldn't do if I wanted to, just seemed absurd to me. I studied the same subjects as a boy would, and even traditional girls' school 'Home Economics' had been divided into Food Technology and Textile Technology and focused on catering logistics, food preparation safety, nutrition, production processes and project design - even though making fluffy pompoms and not being able to work the sewing machine are what I remember the most. I was encouraged to aim as high as I possibly could in everything, and to be rigorous and competitive in my work. Amongst everything else, I enjoyed Woodwork and ICT. I was encouraged to study Triple Science, take an extra Critical Thinking qualification and to apply for Oxford University. The career options presented to me didn't seem overtly 'girly' either. The idea of treating men preferentially wasn't 'sexist' or 'discriminatory' in my eyes: it was just plain perverse. I didn't understand why anyone would do that - perhaps except my mum, but that was just because she was old-fashioned, my brother was the 'golden child' anyway, and I grew up believing I was a defective human being, irrespective of the question of gender, so I didn't think I deserved any better. Then in my senior year at high school I was presented with my first English topic on 'the treatment of women in society' and I was like, 'Wtf? Why this obsession with the fact that they're female? Who even cares what sex they are - what relevance does that have to anything about them that matters? Why is this weird stuff being forced on my English studies? I never signed up to this!'. And so, the totalizing grip of Social Critical Theory took hold of my world and for the first time, I started to perceive myself as vulnerable because of my sex, and as needing to have 'rights' to protect me as such.

To cut a long story short: I made it to my early twenties mildly gender-dysphoric and pretty much ignoring my gender, because at my all-girls' school the Pandora's Box of gender identity had not been opened until I was about 17. I focused on other aspects of my identity instead. I have suffered by various things in my life, but choosing to ignore my gender hasn't been one of them.

It doesn't matter. It proved most people will develop a mental illness, which was my point. Not if it's permanent or not (Although I don't know how that works).

You take care now.

You obviously didn't read the articles.

You take care now.

Transgenderism is beautiful you bigot. If people want to or look like they should transition then its up to us to make sure they get the help they need.

Trying to promote anything as a means to get more to join is wrong. Doesnt matter if its transgenderism, religion, political affiliation. Doing so would essentially make it a cult, and thats just as wrong.

I think that’s surface value shit though, it’s about feeling like you were born in the wrong body, I think with the way society is around gender norms growing up you can feel a lack of identity with yourself and not be able to pinpoint what that is until later in life, when you discover that it is your gender that’s malaligned. I think it’s important here to seperate gender from sex, sex is the genital attributes you were born with and gender is identity, so when you seperate these two things there’s really no issue in someone changing how they identify, that is their own personal choice and how they look to you shouldn’t matter to them if they have discovered themselves. We’re all on our own journeys here, it’s about being respectful to that, I think. Otherwise we’re just as bad as the magazines lol

Say that again?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/mental-illness-is-far-more-common-than-we-knew/
https://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/learn/index.htm

"You did exaggerate, which is why when I looked up how many people suffer from mental illness I only see references to a minority of people experiencing mental illness, not a majority, and most of them are referenced as mental health issues that are in no way permanent. I gave you the opportunity to cite the source you referenced in the face of the information I found that disproves your assertion and you have not been able to do so, therefor making your claim unsubstantiated and merits disregard".

No I didn't. You know, did it cross your mind that maybe one of us read references that were wrong? And what are you even talking about? Mental illnesses are chronic, genius.

"We both know where we are in this conversation. We should just chalk this up as a misunderstanding and part ways".

Great. Fine by me.

"Yes you did. You said in your initial response to LloydAsher, and I quote, "Something being common doesn't mean it's normal". You're already lying to me while not understanding I need only scroll up to disprove the lie, which makes me believe you're going to try and bring out as many dishonest tactics available in the hopes of tripping me up to win the argument, which I'm not necessarily interested in partaking in".

Not at all. I genuinely forgot I even made that statement. No, saddlegoose, I am not trying to be dishonest so I win the argument. Don't be so quick to make assumptions like that.

"LloydAsher never brought up the argument that something being abnormal necessarily defaults that something to being bad, you either misunderstood what was said to you or you've intentionally misrepresented what he has said to pivot the conversation into another direction. You can scroll up yourself and see this to be true".

It was his tone.

"There are people "locked up" in mental hospitals because they lack the capacity to survive on their own or they are a danger to others in society".

Where did you pull that out from? Your ass? There have been numerous times people have been locked up for a stupid reason.

"I didn't forget Google but you asserted the point so you must have the source for the point but instead of easily pointing me towards this point you are instead telling me to find this information through the entirety of the internet instead? No. I think it's safe to say that we both know you exaggerated the mental illness point which is why you're reluctant to share the information".

I think it's safe to assume you're just too lazy to look it up yourself. I didn't exaggerate anything. I'm just not willing to pull information for you. Get up off your lazy ass and find it your damn self. If you're that interested, go look yourself. I am not going to do it for you. It's easy. Just type in a couple of words, click, and boom. You got your answer.

"Then it entirely depends on the definition of voyeurism you're using. Earlier you implied that voyeurism is considered a morally bad thing by society but not within the definition that makes it comparable to porn, however in the legal definition, the one I'm working with, which one can be charged for, it is considered a moral bad. So what you've done there is take two different understandings of a word, taken the morally acceptable understanding that can be compared to porn consumption, and portrayed it as if it's the morally unacceptable form of voyeurism to make your comparison point to porn".

I'm also going by the legal definition. Voyeurism is considered bad by society, yet they're engaging in voyeurism by watching porn because according to the definition of voyeurism, watching people have sex is considered voyeuristic, there goes my conclusion that people who watch porn engage in the the very thing they consider morally bad. Whether porn consumption is illegal or not is irrelevant because the law is backwards when it comes to porn. Prostitution for example. Porn is the same as prostitution, yet prostitution on the street is illegal, but porn is fine and dandy. Like I said, it's backwards. Try again.

"You're either doing it unintentionally or intentionally. If you're above the age of 25 I do not doubt for a second that you are intentionally trying to manipulate language to push your point, which won't work as there are plenty of sharp cookies here that will notice it straight away, but there's an off-chance that you're just young which may be the cause of your misunderstandings".

Neither one of them are correct. Have a good day.

Edit: Unsuspecting or not, It still is technically voyeuristic, just voyeurism people are willing to allow. Again, have a good day.

What a wonderful explanation that I would honestly not been able to convey with the same amount of respect.

It's true, I meant zero ill intentions when I say something is abnormal. Just the perception of something falling outside of what's considered standard. I'm saying this as a person who by my own genetics outside of the normal. I have an odd number of chromosomes, thankfully all it did was make me sterile and not retarded. I am not normal because of this. Does this make me good or bad? Of course not. Those who willfully give the perception of morality to those who didnt choose are the worst kind of liars.

I truely wish to help those with transgenderism I just dont think medical mutilation is the best path forward for the individual. Treating my opinion like I have disdain for them is the complete opposite of my point.

I never said commonality doesn't equate to something being normal. I said "normal" does not equate to something being good. And ALL of you dictate what's normal or not because you obey a stupid social contract claiming what is normal or not. You don't get to dictate what's normal or not because society says what is normal or not, yet you still dictate what is normal or not. Even go as far as to dictate what someone else does in their life based off what society thinks is normal or abnormal. Like when society has people locked up in a mental hospital. Plus, I mainly made my reply to Lloyd because he's acting as if abnormal means "bad". That's why.

Do y'all forget there's something called google? If you're that interested, Google it. You'll easily find it.

No, I am not. If you look up on google the definition of voyeurism, you will find that watching porn is technically voyeurism, suspecting or not. That was a really poor attempt at trying to argue watching porn isn't voyeurism. Try again. And no, i'm not trying to manipulate language, i'm just stating the facts.

That goes for you too. You don't get to decide what's normal or not because you're an obedient princess to a hypocritical society that decides what's acceptable.

Not passing is a common fear for those early in transition. But the thing is after you adjust to the many changes I'm your life you stop caring for you are finally happy. I frankly don't care if I look like a dude in a dress to others for I am happy. Plus even if I do look like a dude in a dress I'm getting far more positive attention from men then when I was a. Miserable borderline suicidal dude in pants.

Haven't thought about it that way, but maybe honesty is better. People still should have the choice. But transitioning is more than just dressing up. Taking hormones will change your body as well, and I dont think anyone would stay as muscular as Brock Lesnar or keep their beard if they specifically took hormones to be (as far as they can) like a normal woman. Distribution of fat and muscle is at least partially decided by hormones.There may also be surgeries that make you look even more like the gender you planned for. You wont necessarily make for a super attractive man and women, but enough of actually born men and women aren't either.

Transwomen are men. But I don't mind people dressing however they like or wearing make up and high heels. Even if deep down I believe that they need therapy more than anything else if they really think that they can be the opposite sex by adopting gender stereotypes.