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 -  (6 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 -  (5 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 -  (4 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.

[–]BettysBitterButter 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

proven to be particularly damaging to society in every case

So... no eugenics for any diseases, then, I guess. WTH is "particularly damaging to society in every case"? Even something like CF would not fairly meet that criteria. Sickle cell wouldn't meet it. Even schizophrenia wouldn't meet it.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Schizophrenia and other genetic diseases are always damaging.

Edit: Schizophrenia isn't genetic, but BettysBitterButter claimed it was so I included it in my argument.

[–]Realwoman 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Schizophrenia isn't genetic. It has a genetic component but even though most schizophrenics don't have children, the percentage in the population stays stable. It can also be controlled with medication.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The person I was responding too said it was, so I just included it in my argument. I'll edit in a disclaimer though.