you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

You can call me whatever you want, and I won't be offended. You have rights. Though I would prefer that in social contexts I'm treated as a woman. In regards to sex, I'm male and that's how I want it to be treated. Chromosomes ain't got no'n to do with how I dress or behave, but they do have biological implications.

That's why I generally support separating gender and sex, since a transwoman still has male biology and a transman still has female biology, but they have the right to dress, behave, and set forth preferred manners of address. No one, however, should be required to address someone in a manner they believe to be appropriate.

I don't want to be pretty or desirable. I want to be a good person. Materialism has made people obsessed with appearance and sex, a byproduct of Capitalism and Socialism. I pass as a woman, but it doesn't matter to me what folks think about how I look. If I'm ugly, so what? This obsession with making other people like how you look is what drives people to suicide, both cis and trans (though, as you pointed out, more prominent in the latter). It's rather degrading, as well, as you make yourself into a product to be sold to others. I'm not going to be a product.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Although the evidence is strong that gender dysphoria is developmental/epigenetic rather than genetic in nature, if evidence were to arise that it's basis is genetic (as schizophrenia, etc.) - would you support eugenic abortions of predisposed children?

If the answer is no, which mental illnesses other than gender dysphoria do you consider acceptable in the gene pool?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

If it was proven to be genetic and furthermore proven to be particularly damaging to society in every case, then I would quite likely support the move. If it becomes evident that some cases are damaging while others are not, following a predictable pattern, I would support selectively preventing the damaging cases. If it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I would not support such measures.

Certain genetic conditions can be allowed so long as they aren't damaging to society. Furthermore, I would prefer to focus on the most damaging cases at first and deal with the fine-tuning later on in the process.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

A logical answer. I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand where you're coming from.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks, you too!