CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Tax Dollars for the Mentally Ill? (Transgenders)
Should tax payers money go towards funding medical operations a community of mentally ill people who see themselves as something (a sex) they are not, and never will be?
You initially manifested my point by not even providing a counterargument (or any argument) to this forum. Such incompetence and inferiority is implicit in individuals who incessantly use fallacies so as to avoid a substantive intellectual dispute (as per your initial post).
Notwithstanding, I understand the frustration you must feel from consistently making yourself look foolish from engaging in debates with so much conviction and surety, only to poignantly learn that you cannot win- as your ignorance exceeds the intellectual precedence (me), of which you have not yet (rigorously) experienced and are not yet suited to assail.
Not only are you incapable of understanding a joke, but you tout said inability as evidence of your assumed intellectual superiority. You are further and further proving my initial point with each post.
1.) This presumes that my lack of comprehension is intentional... to which this statement then becomes inverted (unwittingly, of course).
2.) But of course your additional "You are further [...]" renders your initial point not a joke, to which renders this entire statement erroneous at least and fatuous at best (unwittingly, of course).
And yet the only evidence of that is the word of the person in question. Hardly compelling evidence, especially when the behavior of the person in question backs up all the accusations made against them.
Such a credibly real oration realised through a electromechanical input device has not in the length of the spectrum of the fourth dimension ever been utterly spoken or else wise endeavoured to be communicated. Bravo.
It is important to note from the offset that not all transgender people experience gender dysphoria, and therefore are not clinically diagnosable for mental illness. For those who do experience gender dyshporia, however, that is a clinically diagnosis for which the accepted medical treatment is transition in conjunction with therapy. Regardless of whether one thinks transgender identity is valid, the diagnosis and treatment are medically substantiated. If society funds any portion of care for other medical conditions, then to deny equitable coverage for gender dysphoria is an indefensible act of discrimination.
If you have had a sex change operation then you are your adopted sex. Fact. Also it's not a mental illness it's just being born with a brain that's the opposite gender to the body. Science agrees with me.
Not all transgender people experience gender dysphoria, but for those who do that condition is still considered a mental health disorder by a number of professional medical organizations. Nor is it necessary to transition physically to have ones gender identity legitimized.
Sure, because it's not a mental illness...? No one has told me why they think it's a mental illness so I have no reason to believe you're smart... or serious...
Why don't you get a species-change operation and turn into a monkey? Let your inner monkey, who is your great-great-great-great granddaddy, come out. At the same time you can get a sex change operation, and you will be the mother of us all who we never knew from way back in our evolutionary tree of fruitcake.
At the end of the day there is no single better reason for public funding than to ensure enough babies are produced for the future generation of the nation in which the tax money is being paid. Reproduction cannot possibly occur correctly or efficiently with unmonitored, untreated transgenderism and if too many people commit suicide due to the stress of their struggles, the population will go down rapidly and the nation will deteriorate and be taken over bit by bit until all of its territory is under other nations' names.
At the end of the day there is no single better reason for public funding than to ensure enough babies are produced for the future generation of the nation in which the tax money is being paid.
Why?
Reproduction cannot possibly occur correctly or efficiently with unmonitored, untreated transgenderism [...]
It can and does occur, and in some instances transitioning may actually make reproduction permanently impossible for the persons concerned.
[...] and if too many people commit suicide due to the stress of their struggles, the population will go down rapidly and the nation will deteriorate and be taken over bit by bit until all of its territory is under other nations' names.
Transgender people comprise roughly 0.1-0.5%. Natural infertility rates are substantially higher than that (e.g. 10.9% for women aged 15-49 in the U.S.), and yet the nation faces no threat of failing due to population depletion. Most population models assume a certain rate of non-reproductive members, as well as natural and premature fatalities.
"It can and does occur, and in some instances transitioning may actually make reproduction permanently impossible for the persons concerned."
Well, I guess that's their choice. Personally, I don't think it will matter a lot to the population as a whole if transgender people can't procreate because in America we really don't need any more children. There are many who can be adopted and want to be loved. I guess in other countries it matters.
I agree that it is their choice and that the impact is negligible; I never indicated otherwise and was merely correcting an inaccurate observation by OP.
Thank you for demonstrating the point of both of my posts.
Nothing you have posted on here makes any logical sense.
Why don't you get a species-change operation and turn into a monkey? Let your inner monkey, who is your great-great-great-great granddaddy, come out. At the same time you can get a sex change operation, and you will be the mother of us all who we never knew from way back in our evolutionary tree of fruitcake.
If no transgenders were treated or bullied and pressured to changed, the percentage would increase over time much like gays. Since gays got accepted more people actually have become it.
We must put all stops to rpevent trasnssexuality as it resutls in peoel falling for the wrong genitalia at times and ending up trapped in a nonreproductive relationship.
While we would expect people to be more aware of and open about their sexuality and gender identities with growing social acceptance and legal support, the data simply does not validate your claim that this increase is particularly significant relative to the population at large. But of course, if you posses the data to substantiate your claim then do feel free to present it. Ultimately, though, there is nothing to suggest that people being transgender and society not being prejudiced against them for it leads to social collapse; you are advancing a slippery slope fallacy as an argument and it simply does not withstand scrutiny.
You also seem rather confused about what being transgender actually means. It has nothing to do with sexual attraction ("falling for the wrong genitalia"), and as already mentioned it does not necessarily mean that someone does not end up reproducing.
No one's sexuality changes. As such, a person who is sexually attracted to the opposite gender and is 'exposed' to gay sex and finds it pleasurable would be bisexual, or, if they were gay, they would not have been getting sexual pleasure.
Always thought that feature of this site was a little on the strange side, as you have demonstrated.
One points out that another's touted evidence does not back up the initial claim, and suddenly declarations of hostility are being made. Seems contrary to the concept of debate to me.
Why don't you get a species-change operation and turn into a monkey? Let your inner monkey, who is your great-great-great-great granddaddy, come out. At the same time you can get a sex change operation, and you will be the mother of us all who we never knew from way back in our evolutionary tree of fruitcake.
Seeing as you can actually have the hormones of the opposite sex in excess which causes your personality to lean more masculine/feminine biologically, ie being transgender, you can't really call it a mental illness. Before you go out and try to act smart again at least get your facts right.
Additionally, what is the problem of medical treatment for the mentally ill (not that transgenders are)? People who are depressed get medical help all the time, same goes for those with PTSD, or bipolars, it definitely applies to those with more serious illnesses like schizophrenia. Which leads to the (unsurprising) conclusion that you made this debate for no other reason than to be a dick.
No, I don't think that is something that should be paid with tax money.
I get that some people have difficulties accepting their bodies, but what makes them different from me? I wouldn't mind getting free plastic surgeries to get rid of what I dislike with my body. I think transgenders should just do what the rest of us do - work for the money!
There are plenty of things transgenders can do to look more like the opposite sex without surgeries.
Free surgeries should be given to those whose lives are in danger without them, and those whose quality of life can be improved. And no, I don't think plastic boobs count as improvement of the quality of anyone's life.
Gender dysphoria is a clinically recognized medical treatment, characterized as a psychological disorder involving depression and anxiety. Far from constituting a "dislike" of ones body, dysphoria signifies marked distress and impaired ability to function. Medical research identifies transition in conjunction with therapy as the most effective medical treatment for this condition. Simply "passing" is not viewed as particularly effective for most cases, because dysphoria is predominantly a matter of self-perception.
Most government funded health coverage plans require an income based payment contribution from the insured. However, gender dysphoria is one of the few certified conditions for which treatment is consistently not covered under these plans. Comparable conditions, such as eating disorders, generally are covered at least in part. The argument for coverage under public plans is one of equity within a coverage system that already pays for treatments for clinical conditions, not for a special exception.
Under current health care infrastructure transgender people cannot pay for transition the way other people do, because their payment is almost inherently and entirely out of pocket even with private plans. Transgender people also face some of the highest rates of discrimination, including employment discrimination which makes finding a job more difficult than it is for cisgender people. Compound this with the fact that their diagnosis includes depression and anxiety, which are attributes that would make holding down a job difficult for most people.
Anorexia is also a psychological disorder involving depression and anxiety and dislike of one's body. That doesn't mean we give them free fat removing surgeries.
The appropriate medical treatment for anorexia is not fat removal surgery, so of course that procedure is not covered. However, therapy and medication which are the proscribed medical treatments for anorexia generally are covered.
Oh not it is not. I say a person with gender dysphoria may receive therapeutic treatment if he or she wants that. However, I don't think you should pay for their plastic surgeries.
Alright, in that case you are just reiterating your original stance without responding to my criticism of it. Which is a tacit concession by way of non-response.
I think his contention lies within the funding of a treatment (with tax money) that only satisfies someone's psychological delusion. In which case someone with anorexia believes he or she is fat, should we also fund their treatment of plastic surgery (of some sort) so as to also satisfy their psychological delusion?
This may seem like a gross comparison, but it has a fundamental subtext: Do we use taxpayer's money for individuals with mental illnesses that engender unrealistic goals (sex change, or some sort of physical change) just to progress their delusion for satisfactory/alleviatory purposes?
Anorexia and gender dysphoria are not only symptomatically distinct, but respond differently to various treatments due to those distinct symptomologies. Anorexia is responsive to therapy and medication, but is non-responsive to physical alterations. Gender dysphoria is non-responsive to therapy and medication, but is responsive to physical alteration. I can think of no other medical condition for which the primary treatment is so routinely excluded from coverage.
The argument that transition is an unrealistic goal is advanced from a false assumption that the goal is to perfectly mimic the stereotyped opposite sex. The actual medical goal is to manage symptoms and reduce stress, and in that regards transition has a higher success rate than many other formal medical treatments have. It has been postulated that this may be because the dysphoria originates less from a discomfort with the body specifically and more with the assumptions others and society at large make about the person based upon the body; therefore, "passing" can treat the dysphoria and a "perfect match" is not necessary. It also bears mentioning that binary sex is itself something of a misnomer, with plenty of cisgender people falling outside the traditional imaginations of the "male" and "female" sex classifications (ergo, a "perfect match" is not possible since "perfect sex" does not exist).
I'll concede to your disanalogy. However, let's substitute 'Anorexia nervosa' with 'Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD)'.
Individuals with this condition (sometimes) can be remedied through therapy. Sometimes. But let's address the ones that can't. Such individuals have an obsessive focus on a certain appendage or attribute that they deem unprepossessing, and as a result, [their attribute] becomes an extreme encumbrance and/or debilitation in their life- socially, academically, psychologically etc. (same with gender dysphoria). Such distress can only be alleviated through physical alteration inasmuch as the feature is visibly physical (e.g. a lumped nose).
Now, you may argue that people with BDD have an exaggerated 'imaginary' view of their disrelished attribute; but, given the amount of subjectivity with aesthetics, it would be virtually erroneous to say that they have erred in their self-evaluation.
---
As for 'cisgenders': I have researched this epiphenomenon extensively and I still find it rather bizarre. Perhaps this bizarreness stems from my lack of comprehension on the matter but nevertheless this is so. Essentially, if I am correct, a 'cisgender' is an individual who identifies with their assigned sex given a harmonious relationship between their sex, and their life experience.
Now, if so is the case, it would seem as though this is just a logical phenomenon created by pointing out what was just overlooked intuition (and I mean logical in the sense that your experiences of your gender should, naturally, agree with your sex). But if I am mistaken (which hopefully I am as not being so will render cisgenderism a patently absurd concept for consideration in this debate) can you give a method as to how one is to treat this 'matter' (assuming it is a debilitation or distressful condition- and assuming it is a condition)?
---
My other contention with paying for such changes is the suicide rate for post-ops. This implies that physical alteration is not enough to truly help these individuals (understandably so as [post-ops] still have internal conflict given their appreciation of what sex they are, and their knowledge that they cannot fully function as their intended sex (e.g get pregnant or impregnate--naturally that is- which I believe is what truly makes the opposite sex relevant: Evolution- survival and reproduction)- which is another issue that is too often overlooked).
It is somewhat of a dilemma as taxpayers would definitely not like the idea of their money going to treatment that may help; and I am sure most would not consider it ethical to confine [GD transgenders] to attributes that are debilitating if such attributes can be simply removed/replaced.
The primary treatment for BDD is therapy in conjunction with medication, most likely because it remains the most effective treatment option available (even if it is imperfect). I cannot find any evidence to suggest that physical alteration is actually effective at relieving the symptoms of BDD, and in fact one of the more common symptoms seems to be persistent dissatisfaction even after repeated cosmetic alterations (which further indicates that there is an objective basis from which to conclude that their self-perception is inaccurate and independent of their actual physical form).
Those with GD do perceive their bodies accurately, or at least there is nothing to suggest that they do not. As already mentioned, there is additional research which suggests that the distress of GD may actually be the consequence of social pressure and discrimination more than an inherent dislike of the physical body (which also explains why not all transgender people experience GD). Most importantly, perhaps, physical alteration has been demonstrated to be highly effective for those living with GD whereas the condition is almost entirely non-responsive to therapy and medication regimens.
Even if the two conditions had comparable responsiveness to treatment regimens, I fail to see how this invalidates my argument that primary treatment for valid medical conditions ought to be covered in light of the highly consistent pattern of doing so (one additional exception hardly alters the full context).
Cisgender Identity
Cisgender does not refer to a medical condition any more than transgender does; both terms refer to a basic state of being with no corresponding medical disorder attached. To be cisgender means only that one's designated sex at birth is aligned with their sense of gender identity (i.e. designated male and identifying as as man). The word "designated" is significant here, because it touches on the invalidity of the binary sex mythos - that all people are either biologically male or female, which is simply not supported by science.
My point was that quite a few cisgender people do not fit the stereotypical biological criteria of the sex they were designated at birth and continue to identify with. To expect that transgender people would need to perfectly fit the biological criteria of the gender they identify with is something of a double standard in light of that reality.
Post-op suicide
Suicide rates for transgender people are outrageously high to begin with, and according to everything I have read from the medical profession while depression and suicide remain problems for some post-ops the rate does reduce significantly overall. It is also very assumptive to conclude that suicides among post-ops are due to the inefficacy of the treatment rather than the disproportionately high rates of rejection, discrimination, and violence (all known causal variable for suicidality) that transgender people continue to face even after transition.
Reproduction
Would you extend the same skepticism towards asexuals, celibates, steriles, and the elderly? Reproduction is not necessary to leading a fulfilled life, and its absence is not generally treated as a debilitating condition under other circumstances. More importantly, refusing treatment does not improve quality of life or even guarantee reproduction (rather the opposite).
It is somewhat of a dilemma as taxpayers would definitely not like the idea of their money going to treatment that may help; and I am sure most would not consider it ethical to confine [GD transgenders] to attributes that are debilitating if such attributes can be simply removed/replaced.
There are many reasons I oppose pure majoritarianism; patronizing, paternalistic attitudes like this happen to be among them. I do not think other people have a valid role in restricting the autonomy of others over their own lives, and decisions such as this ought to be made between the person in question in consultation with medical professionals who can inform them of the costs and benefits of their options. So long as we fund other autonomous medical care choices, opposing that same autonomy for transgender people with GD is invalid and ultimately prejudiced.
While [physical alteration] does not work for some, this does not mean all, obviously. This extends to transgender people as well (the most obvious being post-op suicide- which I saw your reasons as to why post-ops suicide might be occur, which I will touch on in a moment). To be fair, here is a scenario in which physical alteration would be necessary to alleviate BDD stresses:
Suppose a woman has an obvious lump on her nose, and this appendage is the cause of her BDD symptoms. Not only does she notice, but so too does anyone who looks at her (though, they do not believe it makes her unattractive). She is then shown a picture of an ideal nose. She has average intelligence and she reviews the measurements by which the appendage will be crafted. If she has such surgery, she will be relieved of her distressing issues.
Social pressures
I cannot concede to this idea, entirely, simply because of the stresses children with GD obtain once they enter the stage in which they start to understand sex differences. Such case could imply that this is their acknowledgement that they can never truly be what they feel that they ought to be (assuming a child of adequate intelligence that can deduce knowledge learned from simple biology). Of course social influences are also taken into consideration, but to deny that most of transgender peoples’ discontent stems from their understanding that no matter what gets done, they will never turn into the opposite sex (in terms of sexual functionality (e.g. becoming pregnant, or impregnating)), is to be a bit partial.
Cisgender (response)
Again, this just seems to be some sort of logical epiphenomenon. Someone identifying as their inherent sex seems to be what one would expect of a perfectly normal individual- not saying that transgender people are not human, rather they obtained a rare condition. Evolution is not perfect- and, to my knowledge, there has been no data to support that GID or GD is in any way evolutionarily advantageous. Likewise, BDD or anorexia nervosa can be caused by social influences, whereas GD is something inherent.
Post-op (response)
My problem with this is that transgender people go through a variety of alterations that make them look like the opposite sex. So unfair treatment and rejection would (or at least should) apply to perhaps physical interpersonal relationships (where the potential lover will eventually find out their true self/sex - which would obviously be problematic if the lover was male and wanted children--the natural way--or vice versa).
As stated previously, I believe most of them face the “I, internally, can never be what I truly believe I am” dilemma as anyone in a similar situation would (imagine Bill Gates magically switching brains with a prisoner. That would drive anyone to the point of suicide as them not being themselves would translate to them killing someone else in the act of suicide).
Reproduction (response)
My reason for bringing up reproduction was to address the necessity of the opposite sex. It was not a moralistic argument nor was it a contentious argument (at least in terms of science). If you reject that the opposite sex is not relevant then you are negating a fundamental evolutionary premise (or actually necessity). I will also like to note that the mentioned variables does not entail that they do not wish for such things as reproduction (with the exception of the elderly, as menopause is an evolutionary benefit).
Taxpayer
Although I agree with the rationale of your statement, I will just point out that the majority’s discontent with such tax policies stems from their skepticism about the efficacy of the treatment. To them they think, “Why should I pay money for individuals who still won't be satisfied with their transition, kill themselves anyway, and thus waste it?”
I understand your point regarding society's potential role in their suicides, but even if this is the case, we cannot change societal perception (at least not so fast, esp. when the lgbt community is only becoming accepted legally but not at the same rate socially), and no matter how sad it may sound, it just wouldn't be sensible to medically pay for these individuals if the likelihood of them killing themselves is so high.
---
As an aside: a forming perspective of transgender people is that they always seem to be unsatisfied with the amount of reforms they are receiving. For example, we create gender-neutral bathrooms/ locker-rooms, they riot; we create gender-neutral prison cells, they riot. This nonconformity does not help their overall perception. If they really wish for people to be sympathetic towards them they should probably accept the drastic changes given to them (a .02% of the population).
Before you say they are obligated to rebel against such reforms such as GN bathrooms, this wouldn't be a reasonable rejection as you must take into perspective others’ discomfort with knowing a (sexual) male is in their presence at a time of privacy (and not all transgender peoples are gay). This most likely plays a role in their suicide rate, but if they have an inability to recognize other’s dismay towards their presence, then their discomfort in inexorably everlasting.
The problem with your scenario is that BDD is clinically non-responsive to treatment precisely because the lump on her nose is not the cause of her BDD. The condition is so non-responsive to physical alteration that dissatisfaction with those procedures is part of the symptomology. This makes it distinct from GD which is highly responsive to physical alteration in clinical studies.
Social pressures
That GD is highly responsive to physical transition indicates that dislike of the physical body, or at the very least a desire for a perfectly opposite-sexed body, is not the primary or exclusive drive behind the condition. If it were, then we would expect GD to be as non-responsive to physical alteration as BDD is (and it is not). If you are going to maintain your stance you need to explain the discrepancy between your hypothesis and the evidence.
Understanding GD as a consequence of socialization does fit with the effectiveness of transition. Pervasive invalidation of personal identity by others on the basis of physical appearance is generally beyond the control of transgender people, and so the body becomes the target of revision as the only thing that can realistically be changed. Transgender people are also taught by society that for their identity to be valid they have to have a corresponding body, and this narrative is reinforced by intolerance and hostility which further teach that there is something fundamentally wrong about transgender people themselves. This also explains why not all transgender people have GD, since not all people are exposed to or respond the same to this socialization.
Cisgender (response)
Employing the term "cisgender" eliminates this class as the assumed default from which transgender deviates. It is the difference between saying there are cisgender people and transgender people, and saying that there are people and transgender people. For comparison: like saying there are male people and female people, rather than people and female people; white people and black people, instead of people and then black people. It means that transgender is not a sub-class of human, but a type of human diversity treated equally to its counterpart. The semantic technicality may seem petty or unimportant to cisgender people, but then again they are not regularly treated as an otherized sub-human.
Evolution
Actually, transgender people have existed quite consistently throughout human history and across multiple cultures. In some societies they played particularly important roles ranging from child rearing to spiritual leadership. The implication is that at the very least trans* identity is natural to our species as well as functional. We only happen to live in a society that not only ignores this natural diversity of gender but erases the history of its past and contemporaneous existence.
Presumably, if transgender identity is inherent then that inherency is the consequence of genetics, which are selected for by evolution... therefore invalidating your conjecture that it lacks an evolutionary function. Moreover, there is also no real evidence to suggest that transgender identity is any more inherent than cisgender identity is.
Post-op
Everyday social interactions and intimate sexual relationships are entirely different with respect to control and personal autonomy. It is effectively impossible to avoid regular human interaction with strangers or distant acquaintances, and for transgender people who do not "pass" this means that social invalidation is a constant reality. However, we can exercise considerable control and autonomy with respect to the partners we choose. For transgender people this means that healthy sexual relationships do not have to conform to prevailing social norms about gender and sex, and that such relationships are neither impossible nor uncommon due to their physical bodies. Even were this not the case, such invalidation would still indicate that disastisfaction with the body is not inherent with the body but with how other people respond to the body; therefore, it still makes sense that GD is responsive to transition whereas GDD is not.
P.S. Not all transgender people go through transition; that is worth remembering.
Reproduction
It appears, then, that your argument is only that transgender people may not be happy not being able to reproduce. I would politely but firmly suggest that it is really no one's business how they weigh the personal costs and benefits of transition versus reproduction.
Taxpayer
Neither the majority's ignorance of the efficacy of treatment nor their sense of entitlement to assert their will over the autonomy of another person's medical choices is a valid basis from which to deny equitable coverage.
Suicidality
Transgender people kill themselves because they are depressed. They do this at significantly higher rates when they have GD and cannot afford to transition. To suggest that we should not extend coverage for GD because some transgender people still kill themselves is just as absurd as saying we should not cover treatment for depression because some people still kill themselves. This ignorance literally causes some people to die who otherwise would not.
Dissatisfaction aside
If transgender people did not object to their treatment absolutely no change would happen. Your argument that oppressed people just basically just shut up and accept what their oppressors decide to give them is precisely the argument that has been levied against every civil rights movement, and yet by and large these movements are successful over time. The simple reality is that people with privilege are frequently ignorant of and unwilling to relinquish their privilege unless someone else forces them to do so. It is easy but ultimately absurd to preach a doctrine of futile waiting to people who live with some of the highest rates of violence, poverty, and discrimination in society.
Restrooms
With respect to restrooms. While there are documented cases of violence against transgender and cisgender people in restrooms by cisgender people, there are no known cases of such violence being perpetrated by transgender people. There is also no evidence that identity determines proclivity for violence (although there is plenty to indicate that ignorance and prejudice do). Moreover, if people actually believed this argument then they would also be demanding separate restrooms for homosexuals (they do not, generally, because that prejudice has been more thoroughly debunked and they know they cannot get away with it). I am well within reason to reject unfounded and prejudicial discomfort, particularly when it is weighed against actual risk and harm.
1.) You've misunderstood the context by which I used inherent. It only applied to evolution, not natural selection.
2.) Since #1, your following statement regarding genetics is rendered not entirely true. Something can be inherent (in the context used) and not be the consequence of natural selection.
I believe the term you could possibly be conflating with inherent is inherit (?).
3.) It wouldn't even make sense for me to claim that GD is naturally selected for as the majority of people with this condition do not reproduce.
I already knew about some notable native transgender leaders. A lot of them were referred to as sages and rightfully so as most of them were very wise. Though, this has nothing to do with my point... I never stated that transgender people were non-inclusive in our ancestral past. I stated that the condition that they have is inherent but not advantageous to reproduction and survival- it is just an evolutionary byproduct (or spandrel). This extends to other situations as well such as individuals with trisomy 21- it is a debilitating condition that is in no way advantageous for survival & reproduction, but nevertheless it consistently happens at a considerate rate- it too is an evolutionary byproduct.
(NOTE: I will respond to your other points later as they may require some more research. This post, however, stood out the most and I wanted to resolve the miscommunication.)
My analysis carried your premise of inherency to its natural conclusion. I would suggest that you are confusing the implications I drew from this line of reasoning with non-existent statements regarding what I think your views on the matter are. I understand that you do not think that GD is naturally selected for. I also did not suggest you were ignorant of the existence of transgender people in other cultural contexts. Allow me to clarify my argument.
I introduced evolution into the discourse because I think genetics is the only plausible basis from which to claim the inherency you suggested exists. If you have an alternative hypothesis, do feel free to suggest it.
There is also the matter of distinguishing transgender and GD: the former is an identity, the latter a medical condition. They are not interchangeable, as not all transgender people have GD. Being transgender is not intrinsically dysfunctional, and it is no more a condition than being cisgender is. My argument is that gender dysphoria and the subsequent desire to transition is a consequence not of the identity, but of strong social pressure to conform to a false gender narrative. Therefore, it is not transgender identity which is dysfunctional but society. So long as society will not change its attitude, I argue that it ought to bear responsibility for covering the costs of the condition it creates.
My point about the consistent, cross-cultural existence of transgender people across human history was that this demonstrates a plausible genetic basis for the identity. I draw no conclusions as to whether this means the attribute was directly selected or a byproduct, nor do I find the distinction particularly relevant. Either way, transgender identity is naturally occurring and because it is not interchangeable with GD lacks any intrinsic dysfunction. Nor would its being a byproduct mean that it confers neutral advantage, since byproducts can still confer an evolutionary advantage with or without reproduction (and again, non-reproduction is not intrinsic to transgender identity).
A non-reproductive evolutionary advantage seems counter-intuitive, perhaps, but epigenetics provides insights into how evolution can preference attributes which benefit the herd even if those attributes preclude reproduction in those who have them. Any given attribute originates from a genetic disposition which has been activated by external stimuli. Successful non-reproductive attributes tend towards latency and are thus passed on by the relations of those few who have the active disposition. Increased fertility may also correspond with the latent form of the sequence (as is argued to be the case with male homosexuality). Those with the active disposition are not distracted by reproduction or their own offspring and can therefore contribute to the well-being of their family in different ways - additional caretaker, spiritual leaders, etc. - which increase the odds of survival for their family members who carry the latent sequencing of their active disposition.
Pretending to be smart does not explain away stupidity. If a man thinks he's a woman, he's stupid. Next somebody is going to try to tell me they are really a monkey and I should fund their monkey-progression operations.....wait a minute, Darwin already told us we are all monkeys and the whole public school system if funding the mutations of our minds to believe that rubbish.
Your best counter against an analysis grounded in medical consensus is to dismiss it as stupid by way of an irrelevant tirade. As usual your attempt at reason leaves much to be desired, as you have not actually refuted the fact that gender dysphoria is a clinically identified condition for which transition is the clinically identified treatment.
Unless I am mistaken, tax payer money does not go toward operations for the transgendered. If a transgendered person wants an operation, it is up to the transgendered person to foot the bill for the operation.
Maybe the taxpayers will fund people trans-speciating into monkeys....oh yeah, they have pretty good proof already that taxpayer funded monkeying around with trans-gendering is how Bigfoot became king of the wild.
The DSM-IV listed gender identity disorder, which included most if not all transgender people under the medical diagnosis. The DSM-V lists gender dysphoria as a mental health condition, with different criteria that do not include all or possibly even most transgender people. Of course, the APA has been incorrect before (e.g. homosexuality) so that should still be taken with a grain of salt.
That would be the basis from which the argument is advanced, I suspect, except where it is done out of sheer prejudicial ignorance (also a possibility).
Thank you for demonstrating the point of both of my posts.
Nothing you have posted on here makes any logical sense.
Why don't you get a species-change operation and turn into a monkey? Let your inner monkey, who is your great-great-great-great granddaddy, come out. At the same time you can get a sex change operation, and you will be the mother of us all who we never knew.
Why don't you get a species-change operation and turn into a monkey? Let your inner monkey, who is your great-great-great-great granddaddy, come out. At the same time you can get a sex change operation, and you will be the mother of us all who we never knew from way back in our evolutionary tree of fruitcake.
I wouldn't say transgendered people are mentally ill, so that part of the questioned is flawed in my opinion. But anyways, no people should not have to help transgendered people pay for their operations because it is not necessary. Of course it would help them feel more comfortable in their bodies, but most people are uncomfortable in their own skin for various different reasons, and it would impossible to help everyone love their bodies more.
Thank you for demonstrating the point of both of my posts.
Nothing you have posted on here makes any logical sense.
Why don't you get a species-change operation and turn into a monkey? Let your inner monkey, who is your great-great-great-great granddaddy, come out. At the same time you can get a sex change operation, and you will be the mother of us all who we never knew.
