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

I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply pointing out that transsexualism is about self-identity and a mind-body mismatch. The mind. I think there are similarities with 'Body Identity Integrity Disorder' but that these can be overstated. One's sex is a far more fundamental component of self-identity than how many limbs one has. If I lost a leg I would still be me. If I somehow swapped bodies and had a different set of hormones and even a different brain physiology how much of "me" was retained would be a difficult and interesting question to try and answer. That is an interesting question. Has there ever been a case of this? Firstly - If we had psychological treatments that worked and which patients were happy with then I doubt anyone would be advocating surgery as an answer.Secondly - The reason people may not want their minds altered is because we are our minds. And the fear is to lose self-identity.To use my rather extreme mind-body mismatch comparison once again: If you woke up one day to find yourself in the body of a baboon do you think that resolving your mind-body mismatch by changing your mind to that of a baboon would be a viable answer to your plight? You are assuming that someone who deems death preferable to to existing in a body that makes life unbearable will deem death preferable to every single other problem in life as well. I don't think that is a justifiable assumption on your part.

Hi Straggler, Michael Jackson?Enjoy.

Possibly. And I'll grant you that didn't turn out too well.But we are at risk here of conflating people's desires to conform to popular conceptions of "beauty" with issues of identity.For example that many East Asians undergo blepharoplasty arguably has much more to do with conceptions of what is attractive than some sort of desire for these people to make their Asian features match their 'inner Westerner' identity.

Don't get slick with me, mister. You're the one who said they wanted the sex change or they would commit suicide. Sounds like a pretty harsh demand to me.That's why I'm asking if we should give into the demand. I wouldn't have asked otherwise. It's like a Mr. Potato Head, right? I'm not saying no, I'm saying is it really life saving? I have linked a few studies in which the evidence shows it was not life saving and in fact made the patient worse off than before. Because on the real, I don't believe doctors are acting in the best interest of the patient and are instead acting on the best intrest of themselves. The want the money from the surgery and can careless about the emotional state, before or after, of the patient.Same goes for most cases of plastic surgery. They want the money, they can careless how the girl feels after when her new tits aren't giving her the lifestyle she thought would come out of it. So it's not a Mr. Potato Head. Got it.- Oni

Well, that is the topic, basically, so why not try to answer it? Why all the thundering silence when the question is asked? How is that identity formed? I have suggested that there's a social component. On the other hand, we've had indications in this very thread that surgery doesn't work very well. Or is it fear of losing the stereotypical self-identity that they they think they "should" have? Not "every single" other problem, "an" other problem. People who are suicidal don't usually have just one issue.

You haven't shown that there's a difference between out "self-identity" and the popular conception of what we should be.

Straggler says: Just a reminder that you may be straying away from your own well-argued refutation of duality back in the Illusion Of Free Will thread. Certainly in my argument the mind is a part of the body. It is the part of the body that contains the self-identity you allude to. As you state here, you can cut off a leg and you are still you. You can poke out an eye and you are still you. You can get a heart transplant and you are still you. But you cannot get a brain transplant. You can get a body transplant when your brain is put into another body (say into a baboon's, to maintain a certain thematic continuity in this thread).It was offered here in this thread that a "cure" for dealing with the life-long desire of wanting to go through the long & arduous process of transgendering, is that, instead, you could change your mind. I'm sure you may also find such an approach similar to the fallacy of a brain transplant - the death of the original person and a new inhabitant of the body.So yes, agreeing, you quote Ringo Ringo didn't word it correctly for the purpose of this argument. He said "the body" and "a wrong body" rather than "that part of the body that is not the mind". I think that for successfully diagnosed candidates for transgender procedure, it is indeed the "the part of the body that is not the mind" that is wrong for "the part that is the mind".Case in point: Ringo in Message 165 says: For those who have gone through the long psychological evaluation & all the years of analysis and nonetheless still are certain of their predicament, this is tantamount to saying "Why not let someone else live in your body?"

I don't think I've ever suggested anything as a "cure". I've suggested that if A and B don't match, you shouldn't fixate on A being "wrong". It might make more sense to change B.Also, I don't know if English is your first language but there are several possible interpretations of the phrase, "change your mind." I didn't mean it in the trivial sense of changing one's mind about what to order from the menu. I meant it in the sense of adjusting B to match A rather than A to match B. I don't think a wholesale change such as a "brain transplant" makes any sense in this context at all. I'd say that they already have "somebody else" living in their body.

Ringo notes: Ahah! I think I get it. Not sure. Trying to understand where you are coming from, and this has been maybe the most illuminating thing you have said. SO - just who is living in this (the body minus the part that is the mind)? Would you grant intelligent lifeform rights to this "somebody else"?? No? why not? Who is the they as in the "they already have "somebody else" living in their body"? Who has been kidnapped in their own body? Where can I find this usurped entity?

Our society generally recognizes one set of rights per body. I personally advocate equal rights for all homo sapiens regardless of the size, shape, age, etc. of the body. "They" is the plural of "he/she" - just a reference to transgendered people in general, nothing spooky. It isn't a matter of kidnapping or usurpation. It's more a matter of the body owner not having a firm grip on his/her own identity.

So you think it impossible to have any concept of self or identity in the absence of others?

And I have suggested that there is a non-social component.Are you denying that there can be any non-social component to transsexualism? LinkSo how do we tackle these non-social causes?

I'm saying that it would be pretty unlikely to have a concept of self or identity that isn't influenced by others. And a concept of self or identity that's isolated too much would probably be considered a mental illness.

OK. But if one's self identity isn't wholly determined by others then simply changing how others react to someone isn't going to solve all issues of self identity is it?So, let's agree that others should treat transsexuals with tolerance but that this won't solve the whole issue. So, that said, how else can we address issues of sexual identity....?

If people in the US are getting any form of surgery to make doctors rich rather than to benefit patients I would suggest that is a problem related to the nature of healthcare funding in the US rather than with transsexual surgery specifically.Elsewhere in the world, where such surgery is publicly funded, the aim is to benefit the patient.If the patient in question is diagnosed by the long term team of doctors, psychologists etc. studying the case as warranting sex change surgery on the basis that the patient is so desperate as for this to be the only remaining option - Who are you to disagree?