Gay\transgender -- not by genetics, not by upbringing, not by choice

If you can point out where I've done any such thing....It took more than fifty posts for anybody to post that infomation (and still no documentation). You guys should step up your game instead of falling over each other trying to be liberaler than thou. Edited by ringo, : Took subbie's words out of my mouth (fixed quote attribution).

I'd be most curious to hear what definition of "liberal" you are using that would apply to my posts in this thread.

"Liberaler than thou" refers to some people's eagerness to jump on the We Love Genderqueer bandwagon without bothering to read the the posts they're responding to or think through their position.Now you. Show me where I condemned anything.

You are mistaken. I have no particular love for homosexuals, transsexuals or "genderqueer," as you so quaintly refer to them. They make me uncomfortable in the extreme and I generally try to avoid them. But I also happen to think they have the same right to the pursuit of whatever makes them happy as anyone else.

By degree, I suppose, but you leave unstated what the exact difference actually is. So I, you know, don't believe you. If it's justifiable as an elective, then it's certainly justifiable as a corrective. And if it is corrective, as you're now willing to admit, then there's absolutely no reason to deny someone the surgery. Maybe. It's really easy for normal people to tell others that you have to play the hand you're dealt. While you're at it, you should throw away your contact lenses and celebrate the natural diversity in visual acuity, don't you think? Who cares if it means you can't drive or read?

And yet the phony assertion that a choice is somehow "harmful" - without any argument put forward in support - is frequently used to deny people choice. There's a greater burden of evidence for arguing that someone's choice is "harmful" than just mere assertion of harm.

People who care about you tend to error on the side of caution.

Yeah, I left it unstated because I don't believe you are a fucking idiot and can see the difference. If this is the rabbit hole you need to go to in this debate, then we can end this here. It has been zero fun lately to debate here, mostly because of disingenuous shit like this. Plus it's turned into Facebook, how utterly annoying.It was more fun being dark Oni... That doesn't make any sense. Que? I was merely asking which YOU wanted to use, since it seems interchangable for you. Corrective surgery is Lasik, correcting vision. A sex change is correcting nothing. At all. Define normal...?I don't know who is normal and who is not normal. Between the black girl and the blonde in my example, which is normal and which one is playing the hand they were dealt? Same goes for a short person and a tall person. Which is normal?You've lost me in your ridiculousness, so if you could please try to make some sense. Oh lets see, eyes are bad, need correcting... yep, that's corrective surgery.Nothing physically wrong with those having a sex change. It is therefore NOT corrective. They elect to do it, sure. But they are not correcting anything unless you mean to tell me nature fucked up making them the wrong sex?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Facts I could dig up on the matter. Doesn't favor well with those supporting sex changes, mostly because it doesn't improve the lives of those under-going the surgery. I'll provide quotes, you can read the whole thing if you like. Sex changes are not effective, say researchers

quote:

---

There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation, according to a medical review conducted exclusively for Guardian Weekend tomorrow.

​

The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham's aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.

---

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

quote:

---

Results

​

The overall mortality for sex-reassigned persons was higher during follow-up (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8—4.3) than for controls of the same birth sex, particularly death from suicide (aHR 19.1; 95% CI 5.8—62.9). Sex-reassigned persons also had an increased risk for suicide attempts (aHR 4.9; 95% CI 2.9—8.5) and psychiatric inpatient care (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 2.0—3.9). Comparisons with controls matched on reassigned sex yielded similar results. Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls.

​

Conclusions

​

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

---

This one seems unsure as to the long term effects and makes reference to the procedure possibly being abandoned eventual except for very very few you would qualify. You can read the rest here: Sex Reassignment Surgery: Historical, Bioethical, and Theoretical Issues

quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS
The reported 68%-86% success rates for sex reassignment surgery must be viewed cautiously. The lack of long-term follow-up studies makes these statistics misleading. As long as sex reassignment surgery remains a viable treatment modality, it is reasonable to ask how one determines which patients will most benefit from sex reassignment surgery. Currently the selection criteria available are informally culled from clinical guidelines established by the various gender identity clinics nationwide. These criteria might be used in establishing universally acceptable guidelines for referring a patient for sex reassignment surgery. In order for these guidelines to be effective one would have to ensure that sex reassignment surgery was done only by skilled surgeons in highly selected university-based clinics that could provide follow-up. Essentially, this would mean limiting all sex reassignment surgery to a select number of hospitals in the United States. While this raises certain ethical issues, it is clear that current abuse comes from the widespread availability of sex reassignment surgery and not the other way around.

​

While sex reassignment surgery has definite medical-surgical and psychological limitations, there is insufficient evidence to warrant its termination. In deed, there is evidence suggesting that some gender dysphoric patients benefit primarily from sex reassignment surgery (reference 12 and an unpublished study by S. Satterfield). The problem is how to identify these patients. The growing body of literature implicating a neurohormonal hypothesis in gender dysphoria (57) also cannot be used to justify sex reassignment surgery, since the disorders of gender dysphoria are primarily psychological disorders, and it is rare to substantiate a neurohormonal disorder for any given case. Most gender dysphoric patients, however, are secondary transsexuals (58) who can benefit from various modes of psychotherapy (54-56). To date the evidence suggests that many patients who would have otherwise undergone sex reassignment surgery may adjust to a nonsurgical solution through psychotherapy (7). Moreover, many misdiagnosed gender dysphoric patients need psychotherapy, not surgery (59). Indeed, sex reassignment surgery should only be considered as the last resort for a highly select group of diagnosed gender dysphoric patients. It is imperative that legislators who wish to provide Medicaid payments for transsexual surgery understand that, in most cases, alternatives to sex reassignment surgery are available to patients. Physicians wishing to refer a patient for evaluation for sex reassignment surgery should be allowed to make use of the many specialized gender dysphoria clinics that are currently in operation.

​

As clinicians learn new ways to diagnose and treat transsexualism, either sex reassignment surgery will be abandoned as a routine treatment modality (reserved for only a few select patients) or new predictive variables for choosing suitable patients for sex reassignment surgery will be established. Future research needs to focus on long-term follow-up studies maximizing the use of those methodological issues outlined in this paper which will enhance our understanding of the etiology and the course of gender identity disorders.

---

So can any of the supporters provide evidence for the long term effects being good?- Oni

Can they distiguish between a person who has BIID and one that is transgender?

I had never heard of BIID before. From your link: I have to admit BIID does seem like something that is comparable to sexual re-assignment in the context of this debate.I suppose if it genuinely does solve a problem for the individual in question then I am not against either removing limbs or penises in principle.But if the issue is a mental one then psychological treatment seems preferable just because the physical route is so drastic and one-way.I wonder what the evidence says about whether or not the lives of people who do have such surgery improve or not. I suppose that should ultimately be the determining factor. What is most liley to work for the person in question.

Here is part of what you yourself quoted: So the facts you posted seem to support transgender surgery in some cases and purely psychological treatments for others.So the question becomes one of identifying which patients are best treated by which method (rather than simply opposing transgender surgery for anyone).Right?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

First, I quoted three studies, two of which show the lack of success. The third, the one you chose to quote, seemed almost unsure.From the same one you quoted from:

quote:

---

As clinicians learn new ways to diagnose and treat transsexualism, either sex reassignment surgery will be abandoned as a routine treatment modality (reserved for only a few select patients) or new predictive variables for choosing suitable patients for sex reassignment surgery will be established. Future research needs to focus on long-term follow-up studies maximizing the use of those methodological issues outlined in this paper which will enhance our understanding of the etiology and the course of gender identity disorders.

---

Here it points to the abandonment of sex reassignment surgery (except for a very few select patients.) Et tu, Straggler? I posted three quotes on the matter, two of which showed no support for it, saying the patients were in fact worse. One claimed MAYBE it will be ok for a few patients. But also went on to say: As clinicians learn new ways to diagnose and treat transsexualism, either sex reassignment surgery will be abandoned as a routine treatment modality...And from that you are saying the facts claim support of sex reassignment surgery? Really? At best it's saying maybe it will be something to do, but also, it may be abandoned all together. But the other two studies showed zero support for it.So no, the question is NOT who gets it. The question STILL remains is it the right thing to do? Two studies say absolutely NOT. One says maybe for some very few select people, but perhaps not at all.Can someone post some facts that show a clear support for it?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Bye.

- Oni