Originally posted by nico
View Post
Someone with AIS needs to adjust. Genderless or "communal" rooms should be made available. Also, they need to be smart and recognize where they could best blend in.
I agree with your reasoning about changing the body. It makes more sense to pursue that option than the other. However, this is where we disagree. I would opt that no change happen. Your goal is to make them normal. They are not normal, and that's the problem. Nothing can change that. They must adapt to the fact that they are abnormal people living in a normal society.
I agree with your reasoning about changing the body. It makes more sense to pursue that option than the other. However, this is where we disagree. I would opt that no change happen. Your goal is to make them normal. They are not normal, and that's the problem. Nothing can change that. They must adapt to the fact that they are abnormal people living in a normal society.
Women should always be cautious of men in their vulnerable moments. That's not a culturally relative suggestion. Women are incredibly vulnerable in the locker room. They should never be forced to act in spite of their instinct to protect themselves from men in these types of circumstances.
For (b), the KY episode was in the girls locker room in a public high school. It caused massive disruption. Obviously, the law has not really begun to accommodate transpeople so there are only isolated instances, but as the law becomes more favorable to their cause, more disruption will occur.
For (b), the KY episode was in the girls locker room in a public high school. It caused massive disruption. Obviously, the law has not really begun to accommodate transpeople so there are only isolated instances, but as the law becomes more favorable to their cause, more disruption will occur.
The KY incident and the surrounding concerns are culturally relative because other cultures have coed locker rooms and don't have whatever rampant problems you are imagining.
Neurology is really science. Dabbling was the wrong word and I apologize for using it. I know what you're doing is more than that. You're assuming that because I keep returning to our ethical divide it's because I'm dodging your points. Neurological science is excellent and profoundly interesting. However, there is still a great deal of mystery, and I think it's intellectually dishonest to think otherwise.
Depression has been a subject of neurological study for decades. Billions of dollars have been poured into it. We are told it's an imbalance of dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, or perhaps it's a deficiency in the chemical synapse. Neurotransmission has been studied to death on this issue, yet depression is not cured. Electrotherapy is still in use today as a last resort because the medical community is at a loss. To be fair, depression medication is met with some success, but it certainly doesn't "cure" depression.
In the world of thoughts and feelings (e.g. gender disphoria), you cannot ignore the psychological component. I sense you are doing just that. In that way, the science is subjective, not in terms measuring neurological activity, but in terms of understanding what it means. There is a strong interpretive element that exists that isn't applied in equal measure to the genetic components of gender.
To make the unwell (transpeople) well, your suggested course of action is to change society to legitimize the condition (gender disphoria) and to get their bodies to match their minds. In my estimation, the effect of doing so would make vastly more well people (mind and body consistency) unwell.
I maintain that the key difference between us is an ethical worldview.
Depression has been a subject of neurological study for decades. Billions of dollars have been poured into it. We are told it's an imbalance of dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, or perhaps it's a deficiency in the chemical synapse. Neurotransmission has been studied to death on this issue, yet depression is not cured. Electrotherapy is still in use today as a last resort because the medical community is at a loss. To be fair, depression medication is met with some success, but it certainly doesn't "cure" depression.
In the world of thoughts and feelings (e.g. gender disphoria), you cannot ignore the psychological component. I sense you are doing just that. In that way, the science is subjective, not in terms measuring neurological activity, but in terms of understanding what it means. There is a strong interpretive element that exists that isn't applied in equal measure to the genetic components of gender.
To make the unwell (transpeople) well, your suggested course of action is to change society to legitimize the condition (gender disphoria) and to get their bodies to match their minds. In my estimation, the effect of doing so would make vastly more well people (mind and body consistency) unwell.
I maintain that the key difference between us is an ethical worldview.
I don't understand the bolded statement. What do you mean "legitimize"? Gender dysphoria is already a legitimate condition. How would "legitimizing" the condition through transitioning harm anyone?
Comment