Transgender Rights

[Deleted member 1]

Not sure either on this. Time will tell.

Apparently what I read has it that as the surgery to transition wasn't supported by Medicare or has reliable facility to enact it this is what happens.

For the number getting surgery it’s quite likely to be cheaper to buy them all a round trip airfare to Thailand anyway rather than build a dedicated facility.

 

[Arch Dornan]

For the number getting surgery it’s quite likely to be cheaper to buy them all a round trip airfare to Thailand anyway rather than build a dedicated facility.

How's the reliability of the sex change operation there?

 

[Deleted member 1]

How's the reliability of the sex change operation there?

I don’t have information to quantify that, your google skills are likely as good as mine, and since there’s no official information I can only rely on anecdotal evidence which you could look for yourself; the anecdotes suggest it runs the gamut from a side street chop shop to the absolute best in the world depending on the surgeon. However, the private hospitals are some of the best in any developing nation so the aftercare should meet Victorian medicare standards.

 

[Nitramy]

This makes me wish that we've advanced neurological procedures so we can uncross those brain wires that cause gender dysphoria.

If that procedure becomes effective and affordable, watch the transtrender tumblrinas throw their pet cause away like yesterday's garbage.

(This doesn't imply anything other than that physiological change is only skin deep; the underlying neurological disconnect will still exist despite all the hormone treatment and surgery. Some trans people deal with this after transition, some don't, and maybe that's why the suicide rate among transgender people is so high.

As much as I don't approve of this physiological change, I don't want to see people killing themselves for this even more.)

 

[Deleted member 1]

I really don’t understand why people sacrifice the conservative principle of the integrity of human thought and expression over this issue. The idea of rewiring peoples’ brains to make them fit into what society expects of them is, bluntly, a totalitarian, dystopic hell.

 

[Planchar]

I really don’t understand why people sacrifice the conservative principle of the integrity of human thought and expression over this issue. The idea of rewiring peoples’ brains to make them fit into what society expects of them is, bluntly, a totalitarian, dystopic hell.

I think the whole “rewiring” of the brain wouldn’t necessarily mean changing a personality anymore than giving a depressed person anti-depressants.

 

[Marduk]

I think many see it in the category not of social expectations, but of biological ones. There are all sorts of odd, extreme, and more or less rare medical conditions that cause people to have some parts of their organisms develop in ways different from what would be considered "a healthy human", that range from inconvenient through making it incapable to live independently up to "will die without highly advanced constant medical supervision, and even with it, probably won't live anywhere near an ordinary lifespan".

Such biological basket cases are usually seen as illnesses to be cured to as great degree as possible.
But what if such rare and massive biological issues develop in such a way that they affect the brain and the rest of nervous system, rather than merely such obvious cases like missing/ malformed limbs or internal organs?

I understand the reservation about medically "rewiring people's brains" in general, but for the sake of fairness, the same reservation would have to apply to any psychiatric/psychological and even some neurological interventions. After all, those include, or in former cases, are purely focused on changing the patient's behavior, probably in the direction of what is considered healthy, ordinary and normal.
In some of these cases the patient may be an adult and capable of making such decisions for themselves. In the other extremes, the patient may be struggling to make decisions on what is the proper time and place to relieve themselves, nevermind complex medical-ethical decisions. And in the most complicated, the patient may be able to make decisions, but have decisionmaking ability impaired by the very medical issue in question, much like someone who is drunk, but indefinitely, at least until an effective medical intervention, in cases where such is possible at all with current state of medical science at all.

So, what to do with such cases in general? Transgenderism is hardly the first or the only one.
Oddly similar discussions are happening regarding autism, Down syndrome, ADHD, and the so called "deaf community", each case with its individual quirks regarding the medical details, effect on the afflicted, and effect on the society in general.

The one thing these cases share in becoming more of a public discussion than other mental illnesses, is the question of the afflicted interact with society in general, rather than just their own personal struggles, and in turn how should the society interact with them.
The "deaf community" case is closest here, as if people choose to not (partially) cure their affliction and live with what is traditionally considered a disability, should it still be considered a disability? Should they be pitied and helped by charity/social security, and benefit from special laws to protect them and their interests, if they think that their difference from the norm is not a medical problem, but an alternate and completely as valid and equal in every way to "the norm" identity,way of life, or lifestyle, despite the obvious and non negligible ways in which it disrupts related everyday interactions with the society at large?

 

[Deleted member 1]

@Marduk , I am basically anti-psychiatry but acknowledge it’s probably better than nothing in our deranged modern society. Strictly I would say people who don’t fit in deserve society to have rules for them to live as part of society, but those rules don’t necessarily provide them payouts or special privileges.

Essentially, if someone is, to me, spiritually called to walk this road, the path should be provided, but we’re not necessarily under an obligation to make it easy. Premodern societies usually had traditional roles for transsexuals, like Hijra and Kathoey.

A society has an obligation to develop exceptions to its rules for those who don’t fit in, but those exceptions have the right to create pressure to behave according to the default. That is the “standard” among traditional societies, and it worked.

I am absolutely opposed to clinicalising this or any other behavioural issue. Even Foucault could recognise where that went as an evil. Treating human minds as a potential pathology is a vile development of modern liberalism and it has and is being used to torture opponents to left-wing regimes. Today transsexualism is a mental illness, tomorrow conservativism is.

Refuse to play the progressive game. Don’t rely on science to adjudicate the human spirit. They will use pathologisation to come for you. They are already talking about conservativism being a mental illness, with increasing seriousness.

What I believe on the other hand is timeless, and is merely the distilled essence of what every reasoned person knew to be true before the French Revolution.

 

[Deleted member 1]

I think the whole “rewiring” of the brain wouldn’t necessarily mean changing a personality anymore than giving a depressed person anti-depressants.

And a lot of people have been horribly tortured by the effects of those addictive drugs on their minds. Check out the Inner Compass Initiative and the related Withdrawal Project. While I think psychological talk therapy, especially Jungian, has its place in tradition, the fact is, antidepressants are no better than psychoactive street drugs, just used under supervision, and often have worse side effects. The rise of “depression” is a consequence of the derangement of modern pit society. I believe the only cure for depression is God.

 

[Marduk]

@Marduk , I am basically anti-psychiatry but acknowledge it’s probably better than nothing in our deranged modern society. Strictly I would say people who don’t fit in deserve society to have rules for them to live as part of society, but those rules don’t necessarily provide them payouts or special privileges.

Essentially, if someone is, to me, spiritually called to walk this road, the path should be provided, but we’re not necessarily under an obligation to make it easy. Premodern societies usually had traditional roles for transsexuals, like Hijra and Kathoey.

Some traditional societies do, some don't, and it also varied with given case.

For an interesting comparison, take the theory that in Norse society (and many other, particularly more warlike cultures, had similar ideas) the concept of "berserker" was used as a path for people with certain mental or psychological disorders that create a tendency towards extreme and poorly controlled violence.

All The Rage

A brief look at Berserkers

www.psychologytoday.com

A different, probably no less common problem, yet with completely different challenges and considerations.

A society has an obligation to develop exceptions to its rules for those who don’t fit in, but those exceptions have the right to create pressure to behave according to the default. That is the “standard” among traditional societies, and it worked.

The problem is that at the scale of a whole society, those exceptions take resources that could be spent on something else (possibly something laudable, or in harsher times, something necessary), and each such exception adds up with its costs, so it's hardly an unlimited, easy or feasible to apply universally solution.

I am absolutely opposed to clinicalising this or any other behavioural issue. Even Foucault could recognise where that went as an evil. Treating human minds as a potential pathology is a vile development of modern liberalism and it has and is being used to torture opponents to left-wing regimes. Today transsexualism is a mental illness, tomorrow conservativism is.

Just because a tool can be abused doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist at all. Some mental illnesses are mere inconveniences, others have profound and unavoidable effect on the patient's ability to live a normal life at all, transgenderism being somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, making such treatment at least remotely feasible, but on the other hand, only remotely so. However, how does one apply such attitude towards, say, Down syndrome, or paranoid schizophrenia?

They are already talking about conservativism being a mental illness, with increasing seriousness.

In many communist countries, opposition to the regime was in fact used as an excuse to send people to mental asylums. But that doesn't change the fact that it was merely an abuse of that system, much like "ordinary" prisons, law enforcement and justice system were also abused in these same countries, for exactly the same purpose. However, that is not a reasonable argument against the very existence of a justice system and law enforcement.

 

[Deleted member 1]

@Marduk I believe in the great eastern tradition of the Fakhir and regard schizophrenia in the context of divine madness. In the west, it was the Hesychast monk. We may be denying our social connection to God by pathologising madness.

 

[Nitramy]

I really don’t understand why people sacrifice the conservative principle of the integrity of human thought and expression over this issue. The idea of rewiring peoples’ brains to make them fit into what society expects of them is, bluntly, a totalitarian, dystopic hell.

That is where we will have to agree to disagree, because my idea of addressing the neurological issue isn't compulsory (nor has it ever been); and the feasibility of the approach will be determined by its results.

Also, there is the small ideological issue at hand here, where I don't particularly consider human beings as having their rational selves rule over their animal selves in general. In fact, it's more of the opposite: human beings tend to rationalize their animal urges. The rare few who do manage to transcend their animal urges are few, far between, and often regarded as the iconoclasts of their era.

(This is important, because I don't consider addressing the neurological issue as a violation of the integrity of human thought and expression. If one considers that human beings have a soul inhabiting the body, and the body came with flaws from manufacturing, isn't it natural to want to return it to specifications? To make an analogy, it's like having bought a car with a broken engine, but the mechanics can only fix the transmission -- the end result is, your car still gets wrecked eventually. Wouldn't you want to fix the engine first if the mechanics found a way to isolate and fix what's making the engine broken?)

 

[Deleted member 1]

@Nitramy , I respect that. I have already covered how l, to me, nothing can be an accident.

 

[Marduk]

I really don’t understand why people sacrifice the conservative principle of the integrity of human thought and expression over this issue. The idea of rewiring peoples’ brains to make them fit into what society expects of them is, bluntly, a totalitarian, dystopic hell.

Yeah, such social roles are an interesting, possibly unobtrusive and low cost alternative to medical intervention for some mental illnesses (and let's not forget the isolative aspect of many monastic traditions, conveniently replicating the role of an asylum as far as general society is concerned, unfortunately anathema to the modern "identity advocates"), but such ideas, much like the medical route, can also have a darker side.
Say, the Islamic traditionalist's military use of depressed, mentally challenged and suicidal, to at least some degree.

 

[Nitramy]

@Nitramy , I respect that. I have already covered how l, to me, nothing can be an accident.

Yeah, I do understand where you're coming from; I've read quite a bit on Theosophy and life's purpose across the centuries and the nature of the soul, but the thing is, I don't mind dividing what I believe in and what needs to be done (clear and present danger). The clear and present dangers of the transgender situation are twofold: suicide rates and politicization/intersectionality.

Oh yeah, and religious zealotry, too (this includes TERFs, but some might think intersectionality isn't a religion -- which to me is incorrect).

 

[Lanmandragon]

So, what, they get medical confidentiality, but can't legally change their gender or file new identity paperwork or what have you? Where precisely are you going with this "right to enforce their delusions on society" thing?

Make gender and biological sex different categories legally.

 

[Edgeplay_cgo]

How's the reliability of the sex change operation there?

Depends on who you talk to. My Thai f(r)iend, a retired major general, insists they are the best. They are also the best at Bobbit repairs. Apparently they get a lot of them. According to my TS f(r)iend, the best surgeons are in Californica, but you pay Californica prices. One thing that saves money in Thailand, is that they discharge you to a hotel for recovery. Less convenient than a hospital, but there is less chance of infection, and the food id better.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

The repair jobs are, of course, dependent upon the amputated member not having been fed to ducks (the traditional means of disposal) or (in one immortal case) not having been attached to a hydrogen-filled balloon and floated off over the rooftops.

 

[ReeeFallin]

How's the reliability of the sex change operation there?

Thailand actually has some of the best doctors for the procedure.

 

[Terthna]

@Marduk I believe in the great eastern tradition of the Fakhir and regard schizophrenia in the context of divine madness. In the west, it was the Hesychast monk. We may be denying our social connection to God by pathologising madness.

This sounds a bit too close to "we must not prevent suffering, for suffering brings men closer to god" for my liking.