Are GRS prerequisites reasonable?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Syne, Aug 17, 2016.

  1. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    There is a pretty hefty list of mandatory prerequisites for gender reassignment surgery:
    Mandatory Prerequisites for Gender Reassignment Surgery (GRS/SRS)
    • A true transsexual with gender dysphoria
    • Surgery recommended by 2 mental health specialists trained in gender identity issues.
    • Hormone treatment for at least one year.
    • Living “true life” test for a minimum of one year.
    • Emotionally stable
    • Medically healthy with any medical conditions being treated and under control.
    - http://www.thetransgendercenter.com/index.php/prerequisites.html

    Are these reasonable and ethical restrictions? Do they protect people from making potentially ill-advised decisions they may later regret?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Explain to me how transgender is possible, naturally, without science making use of artificial prosthesis? Is natural human sexual genetic metamorphosis possible? The answer is no. This is all driven by politics and crony capitalism.

    The analogy I see is connected to eating. There are all types of preferred foods, just like there are all types of sexual preferences. Some preferences for food are deeply engrained in some people. These may come from cultural inductions from youth; eat rice or potatoes. While other preferences may appear in youth and seem to be innate. The Koala bear eats only eucalyptus leaves, which shows specific foods can be engrained in the brain.

    In spite of Koala Bear evidence, that food choices can be engrained in the brain, science and medicine has shown that not all food choices, even if assumed to be innate are healthy food choices. There are certain parameters of the body, defined by our DNA, which can make, what is assumed to be innate food choices, unhealthy for us. The same should be true of sexual choices. Our DNA has certain parameters and limits, which can be exceeded by the brain, due to free will and choice.

    As a food analogy for transsexuality, say one is born lactose intolerant. However, they are obsessed with ice cream from youth. Ice cream is like their eucalyptus leaves, so we argue this choice is hard wired in their brain with some mystery genetics. However, we also know the genetics of their body is not designed to metabolize lactose as evident by the gas. They know this, yet they decide they still love ice cream and convince themselves, they are lactose tolerant. They want to be treated as lactose tolerant even though they emit gas.

    How is the outsider supposed to deal with this? Is one supposed to pretend their choice is causal, just to spare their feelings? If science could alter their body with artificial means, does that mean their brain was right all along? Or is this entire thing an illusion, brought to life by science fiction?

    Maybe we need to have objective sexual health guidelines, similar to food guidelines, rather than leave sexuality based on subjective political criteria that mercenary science reinforces. PC says one has to smile when the lactose intolerant give off gas, if they claim to be lactose tolerant, even if your natural reaction is to leave the room. Fake needs fake, while a natural reaction will react to natural and not reinforce the fake.

    An objective criteria does not mean people still can't make choices. One can still eat ice cream even if lactose intolerant. Rather is means the outside person is not forced to blindly accept illusions. Rather there will be a natural baseline, so they don't have to smile, while being forced to live in gas chamber. There will need to be more give and take by the illusionists. Not everyone wants to be part of a science fiction play, and this will exempt them based on rational criteria. Yet the actors can still act and put on plays.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Because to a conservative, the lives and opinions of non-white, non-straight, non-cis, non-men doesn't really matter. And the problem is liberals and conservatives that aren't conservative enough.

    And these limits should be decided by white, straight, cis men.
    This is a great analogy, because the person really does like ice cream. Even though white, straight, cis men don't want this person to have ice cream.

    I think that the real issue here is that wellwisher wants to be free to insult and belittle trans people. He does not want to be in a world where people can like ice cream without permission.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Anyone have a yes or no answer to the actual question asked?
     
  8. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I'm not asking if the procedure is natural or right. I'm asking if the prerequisites are reasonable, considering it is legal and there are surgeons willing to perform it. You could very well say that they are inadequate and that further restrictions are necessary and morally obligatory...or that they impose an undue burden on free choice.

    To perhaps get a little further out of the (moralizing) transgender weeds...are these kinds of prerequisites sufficient for someone seeking physical alteration in order to match their transabled identity? In both cases, it could be argued, they are removing healthy body parts/tissue. Would you increase or decrease the restrictions of one or the other, and why?

    I'm not, here, concerned with subjective identification so much as the conflict between body autonomy and the burden of prerequisites. We could perhaps even lump in assisted suicide in with these two. In all three, it is a question of what rights do you have over your own body and what is society's responsibility to ensure the mentally ill, no matter how briefly, do not unduly harm themselves.
     
  9. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,048
    Ignoring Wellwisher's typical bigoted ignorance and trolling (I highly recommend it), I wonder how they're defining "medically healthy"?
     
  10. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I'd assume able to safely undergo the surgery, since they also say "any medical conditions being treated and under control."
     

Share This Page