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

I'm ill and bored and you entertain me. The quotes you yourself have supplied seem to suggest that in most cases it hasn't helped but that in a minority of cases it has.So the question becomes one of identifying which patients are best treated by which method (rather than simply opposing transgender surgery for anyone).Right?I'm simply trying to find out if you are just making a blanket objection or if you accept (as per the findings in your own quotes) that in some cases surgery can be successful and is therefore a legitimate course of action in these cases.

I know that was a shot at me, but I don't mind it when you do it. Hope you feel better. Whiskey...lots of it. Personally I don't think there is enough evidence of the long-term effects to know if, even in the small cases, it is a good idea. There seems to be conflicting opinions by the experts. One report says in small cases it has been good, the other two say that it is worse for the patient.I remain skeptical.But when I started this debate, I was told there are many case studies that say the people are better off after. No one has as of yet presented that. I did some leg work but only found conflicting views.I remain skeptical.- Oni

Of course. But meant in the nicest way possible. So if further research leads to the conclusion that surgery can be demonstrated to be successful in some cases you would support surgery in those cases. Right?This should be about what works for the individual shouldn't it? It shouldn't be about whether you or I can conceive of a situation where we would want our dicks surgically removed. Fair enough. Those who made that claim should present those case studies. I fear that until we understand the human brain a lot better than we do now all we are going to get on these sorts of subjects is "conflicting views" and lots of prejudiced assertions.

That's what I've been saying all along. If looking like Angelina Jolie or Long John Silver makes them happy, I'm all for it. I'm just saying that actually cutting off bits to enhance the deception is a radical step and they should be given every opportunity to be happy before it needs to go that far.

The argument was put forward by subbie (granted, without any documentation) that psychiatric evaluation and counselling are needed.Edited by ringo, : Splling.

*double pistols* Of course. It was never about whether I can conceive of it or not, it was simply a concern that the best interest of an indivudual was not being served by having such a drastic surgery. This whole debate could have started and ended with that position right there.I will further say, until such time as the brain is fully understood, or better understood perhaps I should say, performing such a surgery should not be allowed. Because, as some evidence has shown, it can in fact make the person worse than before. It seems by the evidence that that is the case in the majority of cases, except for the very few where it may have benefited.So given this, which side do you stand on? Currently... pro or against?- Oni

Like I said to CS I don't have any objection in principle.On the basis of the evidence it seems unlikely to have the desired effect. But it might do in some cases.So I would suggest that surgery should be seen as a last resort and only contemplated after other options have been exhausted and after making absolutely sure that the person in question knows all the risks and issues that the evidence brings to light.

Me too - but skepticism apparently isnit allowed here.[not sure where to put this, so I'll reply to the person who's least likely to jeer me ]I was wondering last night how often the medical establishment looks for a surgical solution to a non-physical problem. I was also wondering how often it takes one doctor to diagnose the problem and a completely different one to fix it.

Again, not being personally familiar with the phenomenon, I'm only repeating what I've picked up here and there. But my understanding is that often the issue has nothing to do with how society treats them, but with how they view themselves, their own body image.

I asked somebody before and I don't think I got an answer: Where does that self-image come from? I'm guessing that there's a social component.

I imagine it's like just about every other aspect of human psychology and a mix of a lot of things.

I've been doing some reading, and I'm having second thoughts.BIID is a psycological disorder and amputation is not offered as a treatment.Transexualism is trying to be distanced from being classified as a psycological disorder, they're gonna refer to Gender Idendity Disorder as Gender Dysphoria instead, and sexual reassignment surgery is currently used as a treatment.I guess it boils down to: If you're crazy then we ain't gonna cut on you, but transsexuals are sane.

But given that, as the evidence shows, the majority of cases end up being worse, and only in a small number of cases it might be a positive thing. Shouldn't the final determination be at the discretion of a doctor, and not up to the individual?I mean, how can someone make such a determination when even the experts can't figure it out?- Oni

It seems like we got them to come around. Anytime it can buy the doctors an new sports car.- Oni

A doctor, a psychologist and the individual in question ALL need to be thoroughly involved in the decision.As I understand it gender re-assignment surgery isn't done lightly. It involves all the expertise the medical profession can muster and some fairly stringent requirements of the patient in order to prove their seriousness.What we need here is more knowledge about the condition and what works and what doesn't. I don't think anyone is suggesting that simply rocking up and requesting that ones penis is removed, because that is what the individual in question has decided, should be considered a viable option.The question is whether or not such surgery is ever justified. Do you accept that in some cases it is justified? Or not?