LGBT -- the common acronym for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered issues.
For a while, it's struck me as a major mistake to include the 'transgendered' in this label. Homosexuals (male and female) and bisexuals have something in common -- a sexual desire for people of their own gender. This is not necessarily a phenomenon experienced among members of the last category, the transgendered. This category is simply not germane to LGB issues.
I think that homosexual conduct is sinful, but the desires are the reasonable result of in-born traits among such people. Most homosexuals can lead normal and more or less healthy lives in an open society. This lifestyle is quite different from those who wish to slice off their own genitals and pretend to be something that nature did not make them, nor can medical science change. It is possible to be intimate with people of one's own gender. But it is impossible to change that gender.
Because these desires lead a person to sexually mutilate oneself, I think that transgenderism can only be seen as a severe mental illness. I do not have any sort of psychiatric background from which to make such a judgment, but only the sense that taking a scalpel to one's privates is crazy.
Unfortunately, in the name of openmindedness, our society has accepted this mental illness as normal, thus preventing transsexually-inclined people from getting the help that they so desperately need. Homosexual activists are not doing them any favor by legitimizing their urges or actions on those urges. There is a critical distinction between these two sexual behaviors. One requires brutally damaging surgery for even partial sexual fulfillment. The other does not.
Nor, I hasten to add, are homosexuals helping their own cause by allying with proponents of a literally self-destructive behavior. The legitimization of homosexuality does not necessitate the acceptance of every other kind of sexual expression.
What do you think?
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
I agree with you. It's interesting, however, that no one on either side of the issue ever brings up the "T" issue. Those who are for acceptance probably on purpose. Those not for acceptance probably because we never thought of it. How would any congregation feel about receiving a pastor who had had a sex change? Even in the UMC that would be a stretch.
Actually, I get stuck on the "B". What in the world is bisexual monogamy? But since your post is about the "T", I'll go no further in that direction. Have a great weekend.
Interesting post John. I've actually seen (revwilly) some legislation on transgender issues, but nothing that ever went anywhere, that was suggesting a study on the issue. I honestly don't know how I feel about the issue - I don't know that I've ever met a person struggling with transgender issues, though I can't be sure. I'm not sure if it makes things more helpful or more confusing/difficult to include with LGB issues. Hm...
I honestly don't know what to think. I believe it was one of those surgery shows in which a female was turned into a male (I think - I admit I was thoroughly confused after it was all said and done!).
A lot of attention was focused on the mental and emotional state of the person undergoing the "T". Whether male or female, these persons are subjected to rather intense mental and emotional scrutiny before they are allowed to proceed.
I will say, in defense of these "T" persons, that these decisions were not reached lightly. They had already convinced themselves or had become convinced that they were "trapped in the wrong body". Exactly what that means, I could not say.
Like any others who depend on this world for their physical or emotional comfort, they deserve at least our pity and prayers. Whether they are entitled to legislative protection above and beyond the basic human rights, however, is another matter.
Yeah- the T and B both mess up the major arguments for G and L inclusion- all that stuff about innate orientation trumping and same-sex monogamy. You cannot have it both ways.
You can't say "gay is OK because they can practice monogamy" and still advocate for bisexuals who, by definition cannot be monogamous without denying their nature. (Remember, asking a gay or lesbian to deny their orientation is considered hate. So isn't asking a bisexual to "pick one or the other" also, by the very same logic, hateful?
And if asking a bisexual to practice monogamy isn't hate, then neither is asking a gay or lesbian to be celebate or try to change their orientation.
And when we say "we must accept that gays are born gay," must we not also tell transgendered folks to embrace their innate physical gender because that was how they were born?
Nope- the pro-gay camp cannot convince me until they dump the Tranny and Bi side of their agenda.
When someone sells me two contradictory stories, I'm inclined to doubt both of them.
revwilly - if someone who has has a sex change wanted to join your congregation- are you saying that you would not accept them? (Assuming that you knew in the first place)
Even if you consider what they have done as a sin your church - and mine - is full of sinners. I think they'd feel at home
Part of the problem is that we want gender and sexuality to fall into hard-formed categories. (Male is male and female is female or gay is gay and straight is straight.) BUt what if it isn't that clear? Admittedly monogamy and bisexuality seem to be at odds (unless one talks about serial monogamy, which may be a societal norm but not the goal of Christian partnership).
Transgendered folks claim that they have been given the wrong body. MAybe gender is more than genitalia and an X or Y chromosome? I don't know. But I do think that it is more complicated than I was taught as a child. What one calls mutilation (sex-change surgery) another calls restoration. And in the end, does it really mater to GOd? Or would God rather we worried about the big issues like poverty, and famine, and voilence...
So it is hateful to ask someone to deny that which fulfills them sexually?
Last time I checked, Christianity is the religion that says "take up your cross, deny yourself, and follow."
Those who seek to serve the Risen Master deny themselves pleasure and earthly fulfillment of some sort or another.
Granted- we preachers are afraid to teach self-denial, and so few Christians in America practice it.
But that doesn't change what our religion truly teaches.
I know many Christians who have given up high paying, emotionally fulfilling jobs for the Gospel. I know others who have risked estrangement from their families for the sake of the Gospel. To this day, Christians around the globe face prison and death for the Gospel.
So asking someone to give up romantic love for the Gospel, if their preferred flavor or romance offends the Gospel, is asking far less than what Christ has asked of the martyrs.
James- spirituality has nothing to do with sexuality? Sounds rather gnostic to me.
The Jesus I know is God in the flesh- the validating the spiritual worth of the fleshly being. And if our physical bodied matter (and if they don't, why hope in resurrection) then certainly what we do with those bodies matters. Which is why Jesus raises the bar on warnings about lust and infidelity in His teachings- because our sexuality matters to God.
I think that the transgendered issue is much more complicated that people realize. I have had at least 4 students in the past with serious problems -- which caused them to present as "ambiguous." One was a person born presenting as a female, but when reaching puberty, begain to develop male sexual characteristics. She chose to have an operation and remain female. Genetically, she was a XXY, but growing up a girl, she wished to remain a girl.
Is she living in sin? The answer to this is beyond my payscale. I leave it to God.
There was a child that I had who had an "accident" when the circumcision was done at 8 days of age. The parents chose to have the child transgendered to female. Where is the sin there?
And there are other stories like this -- and more common that one would realize. There are a total of 22 abnormalities according to the COG that can cause this type of problem and they may occur in more that 1 of 50 people. Many of these people will never know until they have fertility problems or they develop other issues.
Those poor souls who are intersexed deserve our unrestrained compassion and love.
That is a bit different from adults who are medically gendered and feel compulsions to multilate themselves as a consequence, either by themselves or with a doctor. These people are ill and and their delusions should not be validated. Such kindness is brutality in disguise.
Yes, and I will posit that many of the people who choose to undergo this surgery are in much more pain that we might realize. Most, if not practically all who undergo this surgery will undergo many years of therapy.
What horror must it be to desire a complete change like this? What self-hate must be involved to physically remove and destroy organs with single minded purpose -- organs that are healthy and functioning? The creation of imitation organs which will never have the genuineness and functioning of authentic organs is a thing I cannot even comprehend.
I know 3 people who have had this surgery -- and each has done it at tremendous emotional cost. One was a woman who was raped multiple times -- mostly by her father. One was a man who was the son of a brutal man who emotionally abused him, castigating him and tell him "you'll never be a man."
The third -- I have never learned the entire story.
There is a tremendous difference between those who have been called "Trannies" in this dialogue -- transexuals who cross-dress for sexual thrill and those who are transgendered because of various abuse and self-hate issues.
They need spiritual counseling which will help them realize the love of a God who loves them as individuals created in His image -- imago Dei.
I wonder at times why sexual sin and disease seems so much MORE horrible to us than say, lying or stealing -- or working on the Sabboth. Is it because it is a distortion of Love itself? And by extension, since God is Love -- a distortion of God?
The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit -- when we distort that Love of God, is it a blasphemy?
John, I have to agree. I was blogging about a LGBT website a few days ago, and I felt funny even typing the words "bisexual" and "transgendered." It just seems to make the whole argument that much more difficult to swallow.
It just sounds ridiculous, I'm afraid. But then on the other hand, Paul did say in Galatians, "I wish they'd just go all the way and emasculate themselves."
John, you should really be careful throwing around diagnostic words like "delusion." I'm not certain you are qualified to make such a diagnostic claim, especially in broad strokes.
reverend mommy is right. It is more complicated than most people realize, and we tend to oversimplify the lives, backgrounds and arguments of others in order to make their situations fit our theological and ideological frameworks. In reality, we do not know what is going on in the minds, hearts, bodies, brains, and genetic structures of those cavalierly labeled as "transgendered."
I've heard some mock them by saying "God screwed up when he made me." That's not the argument at all; any more so than arguing that God screwed up when others are born blind, diabetic, deaf, conjoined, or with other congenital anomalies. The subject needs further study big time. Frankly, I don't think it's well studied mostly because it creeps people out.
They need our prayers more than they need our criticisms or our amateur diagnoses.
John, you should really be careful throwing around diagnostic words like "delusion." I'm not certain you are qualified to make such a diagnostic claim, especially in broad strokes.
What would you call slicing off your own genitals?
RevMommy is talking about people born intersexed -- a whole different issue.
"What would you call slicing off your own genitals?"
I would call it a behavior. A delusion is not a behavior, it is a belief.
If you are referring to self-mutilation as opposed to the surgical procedure, I would call it an extremely maladaptive behavior that warrants treatment and compassion, not condemnation. I honestly do not know what to say or believe about the surgical procedure.
I do have a psych background and I don't know what to make of Gender Identity Disorder - it's so far outside my realm of expertise that I would have to do some serious reading before I made any broad generalizations or public declarations.
I simply think it's important for us as pastors to recognize our own limitations and the boundaries of our expertise, especially when using the jargon of another discipline.
I would call it a behavior. A delusion is not a behavior, it is a belief.
If you are referring to self-mutilation as opposed to the surgical procedure, I would call it an extremely maladaptive behavior that warrants treatment and compassion, not condemnation. I honestly do not know what to say or believe about the surgical procedure.
Well, I know what to say about removing perfectly healthy reproducive organs -- it's crazy!
True compassion does not lie in enabling self-destructive behaviors.
I do have a psych background and I don't know what to make of Gender Identity Disorder - it's so far outside my realm of expertise that I would have to do some serious reading before I made any broad generalizations or public declarations.
I simply think it's important for us as pastors to recognize our own limitations and the boundaries of our expertise, especially when using the jargon of another discipline.
You are engaging in the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
If my argument is flawed, then attack it on its merits.
I, for one, will not engage in a behavior or endorse that of others that I know to be self-destructive simply because a person with a Ph.D. says that it's okay. Christian ethics must be formed on more than just the Nuremburg Defense. In fact, standing up to authority figures engaging in evil is intrinsic to the Christian tradition.
I'm not talking about acceptance or endorsement of a behavior. Nor am I defending transgenderism, or attempting to change your mind about it.
I'm talking about the use of rhetoric. I could postulate that in the case of transgenderism there is most likely a combination of psychological and physical pathology that requires treatment. As a no-longer licensed therapist, I am able to express my suspicions and theories; but to tacitly define it as "delusional" is outside the realm of my discipline. I'm no longer licensed to diagnose and/or treat. (I chose not to renew my license when I changed vocation).
Re: sin - No question that transgendered folks and authorities who have declared it okay are missing the mark somewhere. I, for one, am willing to reserve judgment regarding whether that particular sin is evil until more information becomes available.
Compassion for the hurting; offering healing and wholeness to the most broken is intrinsic to the Christian tradition.
This is going to be a long post, and I apologise for that.
I too have no psych qualifications, and precious little in the way of neuroscience. I'm entirely self-taught. OTOH, I've had articles selected in "best of" collections in medicine and neurology, so the professional psychs, medics, and neurologists who peer-reviewed them seem impressed.
Some reading - not exactly light entertainment:
Berglund- "Male-to-female transsexuals show sex-atypical hypothalamus activation when smelling odorous steroids"
Bentz - "A common polymorphism of the SRD5A2 gene and transsexualism."
Kerlin - "Prenatal Exposure to Diethylstilbestrol (DES) in Males and Gender-Related Disorders: Results from a 5-Year Study " and "The Presence of Gender Dysphoria, Transsexualism, and Disorders of Sexual Differentiation in Males Prenatally Exposed to Diethylstilbestrol: Initial Evidence from a 5-Year Study"
Krause - "Geschlechtsspezifische Differenzen der Hirnaktivitaet in der fMRT bei Normalprobanden im Vergleich mit transsexuellen Probanden".
For the teutonically challenged, that's "Gender differences in brain activity between normal volunteers compared with transsexual subjects in functional magneto-resonance imaging".
Kruiver - Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus
Zhang - A Sex Difference in the Human Brain and its Relation to Transsexuality
Henningsson - Sex steroid-related genes and male-to-female transsexualism
We're not sure what the exact mechanism is or mechanisms are that cause transsexuality. It appears to be the combination of an atypical hormonal environment in the womb, combined with a genetic pre-disposition. We're now confident though that we know what transsexuality is. A (partly, mostly or completely) male brain in a (partly, mostly, or completely) female body, or the reverse.
That's a simplification. More accurately, the lymbic system's future development is set in the womb, but there's no "male" or "female" parts. Instead, instincts and emotional responses tend to follow either a male-typical or female-typical pattern. The child "learns" their gender by comparison with others, and this is not a matter of socially-constructed behaviour, but hard-wired emotional responses. Female babies tend to be more cognisant of facial expressions from birth, for example. It's these hard-wired differences that lead the child to know what gender they are, and that may not match their body or clothing. Children showing cross-gendered behaviour patterns, rather than emotional responses, aren't usually transsexual, merely pre-Gay. The ratio of TS to pre-Gay is 1:2 or 1:3, and any change to those figures due to aversion therapy - child abuse and medically-sanctioned therapeutic torture - is questionable. It may take it to 1:4 at most.
Boy brain in girl body, or girl brain in boy body, that's close enough though, and it looks like fMRI may soon be adequate as a diagnostic tool. The visible differences aren't subtle. We've long gone past the stage where we're arguing if the effect is real we're now trying to quantify it and find out what structures are affected and by how much.
What does this mean to someone born transsexual? I'll quote a specialist in the area, Anne Vitale:
"Typically, at time of presentation these individuals report that either their lives are in ruin, or they are very afraid that if their gender variant condition was to become known they would loose all that they cherish and be ostracized from family, friends and the ability to support themselves. High anxiety and deep depression with concurrent suicide ideation is common. One of the most extreme cases I have treated was that of a 50 year old genetic male, married and the father of 3 grown children with an international reputation as a scientist who reported to me that the reason he finally sought out treatment for his gender issues was because the number of times he found himself curled up in the corner of his office in the fetal position muffling his cry was increasing. That is not dysphoria, that is pure misery. "
Been there, done that. You see, although I'm technically Intersexed rather than transsexual, I transitioned. I used to look male, and had exactly those symptoms. Now it turns out that biologically, I was more accurately described as a severely intersexed female rather than a mildly intersexed male (as had been first thought), but we didn't know that until 2005 when physical symptoms manifested. I transitioned immediately thereafter - for one thing, I didn't "pass" as male any more.
I'll get into the theological implications later: first though, it's useful to know the biological facts.
Just a thought about a lot of comments regrding Transgener people. There seems to be a very large grouping of people who think that Transgender means "born in the wrong body". This simply is ot true. The vast majority of Transgender people think that their bodies are just fine and their major problem is that they are unable to express themselves in the gender opposite their assigned birth due to their sexual organs and in that process are denied their rights of free expression. It might also be added that the results of that denial in the public is the reason why they experience the same homophobia as due GLB people, which is really the common link that puts us together in the GLBTI Community.
GLB people cannot divorce themselves from T people, because they quite often are T people and express their gender differently from their birth sex. So it is not as much that GLB's should drop the T, it is just the reverse, should T's drop the GLB's fromt he argument that people have the right to express their gender as they see fit, without becoming the victims of homophobia.
It is homophobia that we are all fighting.
I have no medical or psychological expertise, but on the other hand I do have an intense desire to judge things about which I know nothing, especially if they make me feel icky.
What horror must it be to desire another man's penis up one's rectum? What self-hate must be involved to physically put life-giving semen into another person's poop-shoot- a poop-shoot that is healthy and functioning, in discharging poop? The mixing of semen and feces which will never have the genuineness and functioning of semen and egg is a thing I cannot even comprehend.
I've known a gay man who was lonely and unhappy, and from this I conclude that all gay men must be likewise.
They need spiritual counseling which will help them realize the love of a God who loves them as individuals created by sperm and egg, not by sperm and rump chocolate.
Well, I know what to say about anal sex -- it's crazy!
True compassion does not lie in enabling self-destructive behaviors.
Keep in mind I have no qualifications to discuss this whatsoever, but it's very important that I sit in judgement over others, because otherwise I might have to find more productive uses for my time.
Boo, keep in mind that failing to address this issue in our society leads to the sexual mutilation of many people.
Your argument is akin to suggesting that we not "judge" schizophrenics, but accept schizophrenia as a lifestyle choice.
Addressing this issue the way we've done so in the past also leads to mutilation.
Question - Many people are born with polydactyly - more than the usual number of fingers or toes, sometimes completely functional ones.
Is removal of the extraneous ones mutilation?
I think that depends. If the patient is comfortable with the additions, even glad to have the additional dexterity, then yes, it's mutilation. Conversely, if the patient is uncomfortable with them, that they "feel wrong", that their neurologically-based "body image" doesn't include them, then it's not mutilation but reparative surgery.
Do we say that those who are comfortable with the extras are "mentally ill" for wanting to remain abnormal? Or that those who are uncomfortable are "mentally ill" for wanting to remove perfectly healthy tissue? Or do we say such things are a "lifestyle choice", when those that feel that way insist they're not?
I deal with a lot of people who were born Intersexed. Some desire surgery to have their bodies conform to their minds. Others don't want surgery even though their genitalia is non-standard, they feel that it's right for them. But all too many had surgery when they were infants, unable to object, and want the changes reversed as they ended up "transsexual", with a body that, while almost normal-looking for one sex, is the wrong sex.
Because of my own unusual condition, I also have specific interest in those Intersexed people with 5ARD or 17BHDD, who are born looking female, but change to look male later in life. For some, it's an end to the nightmare of transsexuality. For some, well, they just go with the flow. But for some, it's a descent into hell, where they become transsexual unless they get surgery to stop the natural change.
See for example Gender change in 46,XY persons with 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency. by Cohen-Ketternis.
However, an estimation of the prevalence of gender role changes, based on the current literature, shows that gender role changes occur frequently, but not invariably. Gender role changes were reported in 56-63% of cases with 5alpha-RD-2 and 39-64% of cases with 17beta-HSD-3 who were raised as girls. The changes were usually made in adolescence and early adulthood. In these two syndromes, the degree of external genital masculinization at birth does not seem to be related to gender role changes in a systematic way..
It's not that simple.
My own story's dealt with in COSMOS Science Magazine, in Intersex: The space between the genders. Male to Female natural sex changes are exceedingly rare, only 1% of all natural sex changes, and are not well understood. But they happen. You can see why I have an interest in the area!
Indeed, let's leave off the last letter.
It's interesting, however, that no one on either side of the issue ever brings up the "T" issue.
Well, there is one who does...me. You can read my blog at: http://tgnonsense.wordpress.com/
There can be no discussion about the "T" until those who intend to partake in one realize that "transgender" and "classic transsexuality" are about as related as a cup of coffee and a small rock resting on the surface of Mars.
It must be noted that contrary to popular belief, transgender was not associated with transsexuality in the 80’s and early 90’s. It was an umbrella term then for sure, but was one that captured the different degrees and intensities of crossdressers. Initially, it had nothing to do with transsexuals at all. If one saw any association at all in print, it was written as “…transgender and transsexuals” or “…transsexuals and transgender” and more often than not, each term was defined. No one, but no one in the early 90’s - not transsexuals, not the therapists, not even the transgender themselves equated transgender with transsexuality. Everyone who was engaged with gender issues on any level had a very firm grasp on transsexuality (and had for years); the term transgender initially came about to differentiate between the two, not merge them.
What the mainstream sees as "transgender" is not in any way representative of the very, VERY vast majority of post operative transsexuals...most of whom have their surgery, merge into mainstream society, and not only are not homosexual, but do not support the GLB agenda.
to John Wilks, let me ask you a question. Do you like ice cream or chocolate? If you do, do you like only one flavour, or do you like more than one flavour?
If you do like chocolate or ice cream, why do you like them, and if not, why do you not like them, do you know, or do you just know you do either way?
Most people think that you are born heterosexual, then those that are gay, change to be gay. For some of us, we know from an early age what our sexuality is, for others, it's something we discover, most think this is around puberty.
About bisexuality, just because you like both, does not mean that you can't be monogonus. All people are prone to monogomy or polyamory, or just plain old cheating. Heterosexual relationship haven't had to hide like non-hetero relationships, and during that time, a clear "road-map" has emerged. In gay relationships, people we're shunned, made to feel like they weren't as valued as hetero relationships, so we're conducted in the shadows away from scrutiny, and developed their own road-map over time, which is different to the hetero road-map.
As for transgender people. I am transsexual, and gone through most, if not all the relevant treatment. It's a little different country to country, but the main treatments are roughly the same. From start to finish of receiving treatment to ending it took me from 1999 to 2007, yet I first enquired with my docotr in 1997, and made my first discoveries about myself in the mid eigthies. It is a long painful process, which I wouldn't recommend to anyone. If society was more accepting of differences, then we wouldn't feel the need to transition, but people are no so accepting and demand people be "normal". Unfortunately, this makes anyone who doesn't fit this role as being "abnormal". Society is not going to change overnight, and transsexual people don't have the time to wait for them to change, so they are themselves forced to change, to fit into society as best they can.
Feel I need to add that we are all have intersex conditions, some are more obviois than others. We are a mix of male and female, and not a perfcect mix, a different mix every time.
The people here who mention Christianity and God, should we believe that they are mentally disturbed to believe in something they have no physical proof of? I am a Christian and I do believe in God, but if you we're to ask me for proof of God's exsitence, I couldn't give you any.
My answer at the end of day is a choice of one of the following:
1 God made a mistake and that's why I'm transsexual. Does God make mistakes?
2 God didn't make a mistake, and meant for me to be transsexual. Are you questioning God's reasons for making me transsexual?
If you say that I am being sinful for being transsexual, then you are choosing answer 1, as Sin comes from the Devil, and the Devil comes from God.
Life is a test, I am being tested, the people around me are being tested, the answer is less important than the method used to work out the answer.
Your argument is akin to suggesting that we not "judge" schizophrenics, but accept schizophrenia as a lifestyle choice.
No John, my argument is akin to saying that maybe people who openly admit they don't know anything about a certain phenomenon shouldn't then proceed to turn around and make all sorts of judgements about it, since they, you know, just said they know nothing about it.
My argument is akin to suggesting that any judgement of schizophrenics be done by people who are actually qualified to do so, who are familiar with the relevant scientific literature and have experience with that population.
It's ok not to understand, but the proper response to not understanding something is to learn more about it, not immediately leap to the conclusion that it must be the result of self-hatred/craziness/bad parenting (as the religious right always does of the GLBs).
I mean, most of the people here havne't even figured out that bisexuality is not the same thing as polyamory, and that most bisexuals are monogamous. Bi people have the capacity to fall in love with either gender, but that doesn't mean they need both, just as a straight man having the capacity to be attracted to more than one woman doesn't mean he needs multiple wives.
But if you still want to pursue the "mutilation" angle, then answer me one simple question: why don't we make men who want vasectomies get years of therapy and two letters certifying them as mentally ill?
On bisexual monogamy: yeah, I don't agree that bisexuality and monogamy are inherently at odds. I am heterosexual, but that does not mean that I must have sex with every or multiple women in order to find sexual fulfillment. Likewise, it does not follow (as John Wilks suggests) that a bisexual person must have multiple partners of various genders to find sexual fulfillment.
oopster wrote:
Feel I need to add that we are all have intersex conditions, some are more obviois than others. We are a mix of male and female, and not a perfcect mix, a different mix every time.
All of us? How so?
boo wrote:
No John, my argument is akin to saying that maybe people who openly admit they don't know anything about a certain phenomenon shouldn't then proceed to turn around and make all sorts of judgements about it, since they, you know, just said they know nothing about it.
Hypothetically, what would you consider to be proof of transsexuality as a mental illness?
But if you still want to pursue the "mutilation" angle, then answer me one simple question: why don't we make men who want vasectomies get years of therapy and two letters certifying them as mentally ill?
Interesting point. I would say that the distinction is that sexual reassignment surgery annihilates sexual function, whereas a vasectomy is a contraceptive procedure. Sexual function, albeit not reproductive, is not destroyed.
Hypothetically, what would you consider to be proof of transsexuality as a mental illness?
Hypothetically, the burden of proof is supposed to be on those making the claim, but when the treatment protocols were first laid down, they sort of skipped that step.
The DSM states that distress caused by social noncomformity cannot be considered evidence of mental disorder. The only exception to this rule in the entire DSM is gender identity disorder, but no explanation is given as to why it should have this special status.
I suppose I would consider it a mental disorder if it were established that transsexual people experience distress and/or maladaption regardless of transition status. Anorexics, for example, keep feeling distress no matter how skinny they get, and if they keep going they eventually kill themselves. Transsexuals, on the other hand, demonstrate great reduction in distress and maladaptive behavior (e.g. drug use, etc) upon transition. Those who are rejected by friends and family and are unable to fit into society as their target gender of course often continue to experience distress, but this is the result of social noncomformity, which according to the DSM is not to be considered evidence of mental disorder. (Short explanation- if I feel weirded out by you and decide to torment you because of it, it's supposed to be my problem, not your mental illness.)
I would say that the distinction is that sexual reassignment surgery annihilates sexual function, whereas a vasectomy is a contraceptive procedure. Sexual function, albeit not reproductive, is not destroyed.
Again illustrating my point about the dangers of rushing in to judge something about which you appear to know nothing. Sex reassignment surgery retains sexual function.
Post a Comment