How Great The Fall!

[Starlight]

Well, SOME of us believe it's important to teach our children to respect life, not stomp on kittens and puppies, show respect to elders, eat with silverware, not kick, bite and scratch, to eat healthy and get sleep, not play in traffic....

I have no problem with parents sharing their values with their children. I think that's great, and I expect it to happen.

The problem I have arises when parents start trying to activity prevent their children from having knowledge of any other ideas, out of fear that their children might "choose wrong" if actually given a choice. These parents typically come across as insecure: They are scared that if their child has the information and education necessary to make informed choices between real alternatives, then the child might not actually choose the choice their parent wants for them. Therefore the parents act to keep information and education and knowledge of alternate choices away from their children in order to force the parents' values onto the children. And they seem to perceive this as some sort of fundamental right to "raise our children to share our values", whereas I view it as child-abuse to deprive children of education and freedom.

http://www.logotv.com/shows/rupauls_...1/series.jhtml

I wasn't aware the existence of one TV program defined the wider culture.

[Cow Poke]

I have no problem with parents sharing their values with their children.

Cool! Cause now I'm working on my GRANDchildren, but it's more fun -- we have ice cream for breakfast!

[phank]

When even some of the less "conservative" research shows a higher rate of suicide and other problems resulting from these things, I feel a responsibility to do whatever is in my power to at least make them slow down and think about what they're doing.

To me, it's not very loving to cheer them on and champion a cause that could lead to their destruction. (and, yeah, I know you're not saying that)

As for the "freedom thing" - I would also NOT cheer on somebody who was pouring gasoline over their body and getting ready to light a match. I would do my best to intervene.

Uh, wait a minute. These people are seriously messed up. Whether or not they do a sex change operation. You seem to be taking it for granted that these were perfectly normal, well balanced people who for reasons beyond your comprehension decided to mutilate themselves, and the mutilation depressed them and led them to suicide. This model is completely mistaken. The operation is the RESULT of the problems, not the CAUSE of the problems. You have it backwards.

Think of these operations as being analogous to radiation treatment for cancer. Yes, the radiation treatment "could lead to destruction". But NOT undergoing the treatment is even MORE likely to lead to destruction. Would you do you best to prevent the cancer victim from getting the treatment, on the grounds that the treatment is clearly dangerous?

[Cow Poke]

Uh, wait a minute. These people are seriously messed up. Whether or not they do a sex change operation. You seem to be taking it for granted that these were perfectly normal, well balanced people who for reasons beyond your comprehension decided to mutilate themselves, and the mutilation depressed them and led them to suicide.

That's dumb -- Never said that nor implied it.

[Starlight]

Uh, wait a minute. These people are seriously messed up. Whether or not they do a sex change operation. You seem to be taking it for granted that these were perfectly normal, well balanced people who for reasons beyond your comprehension decided to mutilate themselves, and the mutilation depressed them and led them to suicide. This model is completely mistaken. The operation is the RESULT of the problems, not the CAUSE of the problems. You have it backwards.

Think of these operations as being analogous to radiation treatment for cancer. Yes, the radiation treatment "could lead to destruction". But NOT undergoing the treatment is even MORE likely to lead to destruction. Would you do you best to prevent the cancer victim from getting the treatment, on the grounds that the treatment is clearly dangerous?

Well phrased. That was what I was trying to get at by pointing out that the study compared these people to the general population.

[phank]

That's dumb -- Never said that nor implied it.

You spoke of "problems RESULTING from these things." This is backwards. These things are the result of the problem.

You said these operations could lead to their destruction. But NOT having the operation is MORE likely to lead to destruction. You never mentioned this. Your whole approach is: people should not do these things, because they are better off remaining normal. But they never WERE normal.

[Adrift]

I don't think it's true that culture "glorifies and celebrates" it. At most it accepts and respects those people's self-identity.

I'm just calling it as I see it. For instance, according to GLAAD, LGBT characters on television are over-represented in the media compared to the actual American population (I think its something like 4.4% of the characters currently on TV). But if you disagree that the culture is glorified and celebrated, there's probably not much I can do to change your opinion.

It's a matter of being nice to others and not forcing everyone else to conform to your beliefs.

You're right. No one should be forced to conform to another's beliefs, but I think everyone wish they could have others come to their way of thinking. You would have me come to your way of thinking, would you not?

The alternative is to try and force your personal ideas of what is "morally reprehensible" onto everyone else and to be out criticizing and judging people for falling short of your personal moral standards.

Why is it fine for you to criticize and judge me, but others are verboten from doing so?

Again with the trying to force your values onto others.

Raising your children to cherish your values is forcing your values on them? Do you have children?

I've noticed that in the US, there's quite a widespread idea of having some sort of right to force your own values onto your children and mold them in your image. That's always struck me as bizarre. Children are not your slaves or your property and their purpose is not to be clones of their parents: They have the freedom to choose for themselves what they will make of their lives. So a fear that children might not necessarily follow in the footsteps of, or endorse the values of, their parents, strikes me as bizarre.

It strikes you bizarre to raise children to have values? That is probably one of the dumbest things I think I've ever read anyone say on this forum. How do you expect children to know right from wrong? To show fairness, and kindness, and mercy, and love? To show respect for authority and for their peers? To not steal, or to kill, or to harm? If you want to see what happens in a society when children are raised with little to no values, you're free to visit my church who works with troubled kids and teens from the inner-city.

[Cow Poke]

You spoke of "problems RESULTING from these things." This is backwards. These things are the result of the problem.

There's an old saying "every problem is the result of a previous solution". The fact that there are problems FROM something does not negate the possibility that they were CAUSED by something else.

You said these operations could lead to their destruction.

And there are documented cases, yes.

But NOT having the operation is MORE likely to lead to destruction.

You know this for a FACT?

You never mentioned this. Your whole approach is: people should not do these things, because they are better off remaining normal. But they never WERE normal.

Wrong. My point was that these things should be considered very seriously, and not entered into lightly.

[phank]

There's an old saying "every problem is the result of a previous solution". The fact that there are problems FROM something does not negate the possibility that they were CAUSED by something else.

These operations seek the least unhappy medium.

And there are documented cases, yes.

Depends on what you mean by destruction. I've been trying to say that a sex change operation is like Churchill's democracy - the worst possible solution except for all the others.

You know this for a FACT?

Nobody undergoes anything that drastic just as a lark. Of course there is no guarantee that it will lead to a better life, but the number of suicides due to dissatisfaction with one's sexuality is depressingly large. People hit puberty, discover they are attracted to the same sex, KNOW that something is wrong with them, discover that they can't overcome it, and elect to die. Happens too often. I think we can be quite confident that seriously messed up people have no good choices.

Wrong. My point was that these things should be considered very seriously, and not entered into lightly.

In this, I think everyone agrees entirely. I have only known one person who underwent this operation, and that person spent about 15 years of sheer torture and confusion before finally electing such a major change. I think this is pretty typical. And I doubt any biologically typical person would ever consider such a thing. Again, think of it as being like radiation treatment for cancer. Nobody would undergo it unless they were fully convinced that the alternative was worse.

[Cow Poke]

Depends on what you mean by destruction. I've been trying to say that a sex change operation is like Churchill's democracy - the worst possible solution except for all the others.

Just like I can't know that a transgendered person's life would have been better WITHOUT surgery, you can't know that their life will be better WITH it.

I can find a lot of documentation that supports my position as to the risks and the "transgender regret", but they come from conservative sources. Liberal sources document "the myth of transgender regret".

I don't think you know as much about this as you pretend to know. I readily admit I don't.

[Jedidiah]

Whatever became of the 'freedom' thing that you guys are so passionate about elsewhere. Who are we to limit what a person should or should not do with their bodies.

I can not speak for others but I have no problem with people mutilating themselves. The problem I have is with being forced to pretend that a mutilated man is really a woman. He had some biosculpturing done, yes, but he is still a man. The same argument applies to a woman who pretends to be a man. Such actions are the working out of sever psychological problems, not some mystic "born in the wrong body" crap.

[Jedidiah]

I find it odd that body dysmorphia is widely recognized as a disorder, but this particular type of body dysmorphia is not.

Dysmorphia is widely recognized as psychological pathology.

[Jedidiah]

At the margins, biology is always messy. Even gender is not absolute.

Here you are pointing to the rare genetic defects where a person's gender is indeterminate (as pointed out by OBP. Not in dispute.

Orientatations don't necessarily fit bodies,

This is only true for those rare genetic defects. Most sex change mutilations are the result of sever psychological pathology.

[Adrift]

Dysmorphia is widely recognized as psychological pathology.

That was kind of my point.

[Starlight]

For instance, according to GLAAD, LGBT characters on television are over-represented in the media compared to the actual American population (I think its something like 4.4% of the characters currently on TV).

Well, getting accurate data about the rate of LGBT people in the general population is notoriously difficult. You get quite different numbers depending on how you phrase questions and how sure the people taking the survey are that their answers are anonymous. Analyses of publicly available data from google searches, for example, suggests that about 5% of the US male population is predominantly same-sex attracted. And the most-anonymous surveys suggest rates of bisexuality around 20%. But if you focus on the question of whether people are willing to publicly admit to being same-sex attracted, or whether they are living with a same-sex partner, those numbers shoot down to somewhere in the 2 to 2.5% range. So the inaccuracy in current TV is probably not so much the number of gay characters as it is their readiness to admit to others that they are same-sex attracted and to act on it. (There are also well-documented under-representations of gay minorities - ie the gay characters are predominantly young middle-class white males, which is not an accurate reflection of reality. Plus the gay characters are nearly always either the villain or a token gay friend, and far less often the actual hero.)

Why is it fine for you to criticize and judge me, but others are verboten from doing so?

If people's actions are hurting others, I think it's fine to call them out on it.

It strikes you bizarre to raise children to have values? That is probably one of the dumbest things I think I've ever read anyone say on this forum. How do you expect children to know right from wrong? To show fairness, and kindness, and mercy, and love? To show respect for authority and for their peers? To not steal, or to kill, or to harm? If you want to see what happens in a society when children are raised with little to no values, you're free to visit my church who works with troubled kids and teens from the inner-city.

I see the essential difference as being between parents sharing their values and ideas with their children and forcing them on their children. As I explained earlier:

I have no problem with parents sharing their values with their children. I think that's great, and I expect it to happen.

The problem I have arises when parents start trying to actively prevent their children from having knowledge of any other ideas, out of fear that their children might "choose wrong" if actually given a choice. These parents typically come across as insecure: They are scared that if their child has the information and education necessary to make informed choices between real alternatives, then the child might not actually choose the choice their parent wants for them. Therefore the parents act to keep information and education and knowledge of alternate choices away from their children in order to force the parents' values onto the children. And they seem to perceive this as some sort of fundamental right to "raise our children to share our values", whereas I view it as child-abuse to deprive children of education and freedom.