Maybe you should just settle for wearing a dolphin disguise.

I have reservations about transsexuality. I have what I suppose is a reasonably well grounded understanding of the mind/body conflict that transsexuals experience. I understand that many transsexuals are much happier after "becoming" the gender they think they really are, even if their original genital (or even hormone levels) are left as is.

That the complete sexual transformation does not work for everyone (that is, some are NOT happier after hormone treatment and surgery) makes me wonder whether either the counseling and therapy preceding and/or following surgery were not adequate, or perhaps that the benefits of the process were oversold.

A lot of people (maybe... 30%? 40%? 80%?) are troubled by their "self identity". They didn't become the individuals that they think they could have or should have become. It isn't that they feel they are in the wrong body; it's that they are in the wrong life. I feel that way sometimes.

But that IS life: When we are too young we don't know enough about life. By the time we know enough about life we are too old.

Let's say Montfort that you are 45 years old and you want to be the person you have always imagined yourself to be, but sadly, were not. You spend a pile of money to have your body remodeled along the lines you would like: basically, you have your body "re-upholstered". You can now successfully wear the kinds of clothes you wanted to wear; you now look like the person you always wanted to be. With the addition of a pile of cash, you could graft a new lifestyle onto your old one.

You haven't changed gender; the same equipment and hormones are there, as always. But you look different, and you feel like you are different. Because you feel very confident about your new self, other people tend to accept you as your "new self". So, question: Are you really a different person? Or have "the Make-up and Costume Departments" so to speak, made you into something that you can change out of and wash off?

Your appearance and the outward appearances have changed. Are you the same real you, or are you a different real you?

Transition always works if it works, but only for the stoic otherwise. It's all about passing. This is usually synonymous with being attractive in a lot of people's minds as well.

Those that had good structure and features already, pour like 100k into it, and train, train, train succeed. Those that were not as naturally gifted to begin with, regardless of money and work will often never succeed. This used to be, in itself, a criterion for the gate-keepers back in the classic transsexual days. It had to pretty much be obvious that you'd pass before they'd sign off on much.

I see identity as being more fluid than anything else. I am the result of the consciousness that is produced by my brain. My identity is the result of that consciousness trying to make sense of itself in order to achieve a feeling of comfort and familiarity. But I think that attaching your sense of identity to your physical traits is problematic. I have never taken pride in being a man or being white. I take pride in my accomplishments and my ethics. My actions are the indicator of who I am and that is where we should find our identity in my opinion. I think that transgenderism is simply people who don't feel normal trying to do so. But I don't think that anyone feels normal. Just because we can do gender reassignment surgeries doesn't mean we should. However, I don't see any harm in doing them for now. And I am certainly not an expert on the subject. We should see whether or not it actually helps to have the surgery and society should be as accommodating as possible. To answer your question though, yes if I were to do all of that I would still be me because it is the same conciousness in every instance of "me"

Where do we draw the line? — MonfortS26

Draw your own line wherever you like, just don't tell me where to draw mine. If you're a plastic surgeon, you have to consider your ethics, but otherwise get your nose out of other peoples privates.

So to the OP's question, you answer in the affirmative. He should be permitted to modify himself to be a dolphin and he should be accomodated as a dolphin without judgment by others.

Sure, this is a slippery slope argument, but you're explicitely arguing for no lines at all.

Sure, this is a slippery slope argument — Hanover

Happy to slide on down. It's between him and his surgeon; How the Olympic committee resolves their issues is of no interest to me either. He'd probably have to use the disabled toilet, but again its a matter of convenience; I don't mind aquatic mammals using the urinal.

Gender isn't a replacement for one's sex. To conflate the two would be issue number one.

↪Bitter Crank I see identity as being more fluid than anything else. I am the result of the consciousness that is produced by my brain. My identity is the result of that consciousness trying to make sense of itself in order to achieve a feeling of comfort and familiarity. — MonfortS26

Many people seem to have a more fluid identity; it's variable, depending on the situation. For better or worse, I don't think my identity is fluid. It's plastic, but only very slowly changing.

I have never taken pride in being a man or being white. I take pride in my accomplishments and my ethics. My actions are the indicator of who I am and that is where we should find our identity in my opinion. — MonfortS26

There is nothing at all wrong in taking pride in being a white man. And it is also right to take pride in your accomplishments and ethics. You are a whole person, after all, a unity of "body and soul".

I think that transgenderism is simply people who don't feel normal trying to do so. — MonfortS26

Could be. When I was in graduate school, I heard that abnormal people (their word) tended to not be effective counselors and therapists. The person's history of physical/psychological deficiencies prevents normal psychological development. At the time I was shocked and appalled by this view. Over many years (that was... almost 50 years ago) I've come to grudgingly accept some of the truth in their view.

I grew up being nearly blind and totally gay. Being a fish twice out of water did skew my personal development--impeding it. Parental and social attitudes had something to do with this too, of course.

I can see how someone whose conflict is over which gender they are (and gender being an extremely pervasive factor in life) would similarly find their adaptation to life skewed. If I could redesign my life and live it over, I would opt for 20/20 vision, but leave gayness in place. Deficient vision was a real problem (still is). Being gay wasn't an advantage when I was growing up (as if it is now) but there was no frustrating, confusing ambivalence about it.

I very much understand why transsexuals want to bring their physical appearance into accord with the way they feel about themselves. This ambivalence can trip up and confuse one's efforts to achieve and to be ethically satisfied (not that they are 'unethical').

What concerns me about young people who think they are transsexual is that they may be too young to be certain about their identity, and I don't think they or everyone else is well served by saying they should be allowed to use whichever toilet or shower room they feel the need to use, with others with the same gender identity. This 'integration' is being pushed too fast, and most children and adolescents are not going to benefit from being the star of this sort of political show.

Un pretty much nailed it. I'd add that there are some interesting philosophical issues around the way we understand trans people. So, for one, to say that a trans person is, perhaps, a man in a woman's body, is to say that there is something about being a man that is not related to one's physical features; that there are male minds.

Do you really think that?

Julia Gillard, writing in the March 7, '17 Guardian, asks... "With great female minds idling on the sidelines, how much progress have we lost?"

Apparently there are male and female minds, and like auto engines, they can be left idling while parked.

A lot of the heat around the issue of transgender and identity, is caused by the insistence by rights activists that one's gender identity is a matter of self-determination and so a fundamental human right (contra the view of 'biological determinism'). I think that is why it is seen as such a bellwether issue, even though the number of people who it actually applies to are a minute percentage of the population.

Got a source for that?

for what, in particular?

one's gender identity is a matter of self-determination and so a fundamental human right — Wayfarer

I googled the expression "gender self-determination" and did get many hits, from what seemed to be critical sites, but I'd never heard that before. Which activists are saying that?

I know one vaguely, and read a couple of books. I also hung around a few trans forums for a few years. The overwhelming vast majority take it as a matter of fact, that they have been systematically wronged for. That they're right about something that is right, and true, and not about just being able to do whatever they want regardless, as long as it isn't hurting anyone.

I don't even find that suggestion of radial self-determining freedom offensive, and I think that it's more encapsulating and unifying rather than attempt to identify particular features of the world. I think that the danger is that subsets will be marginalized if they can't pass the test.

Point being though, I really don't think that that is something that trans people tend to think, or trans activists tend to argue. So I was hoping to find out who was.

Are you a woman because that is the role you have been coached (or oppressed) into because of your genitals?

Then how do we make sense of the notion of a woman who has the wrong body?

Gender activists challenge the idea that gender is biologically determined, when according to them it's actually a 'social construct' and therefore a matter of choice. The point being that people ought to be allowed to choose their gender identity (or none - someone won the right recently in court to be recognised as having no gender. There is a lot of news coverage of transgender activism if you go looking for it.) There's been a huge amount of coverage of trans issues in the internaltional media the last two years.

What do you mean? That the existentialism of the above is mutually exclusive with the essentialism of the below?

"gender self-determination" — Wosret

For better or worse, 'transgender' or 'transsexual' is grouped with gay and bi. One prominent issue in the discussion of sexuality within the GBT population is whether sexual orientation and gender is "constructed" or "essential". The "construction" is engineered by society, but individuals can take a hand at shaping their behavior, their preferences, their identity. The opposite of this view, essentialism, assumes that sexual orientation and gender is at least largely determined by biology.

Which is right? Well, in my opinion it's biology over society for the most part. Biology doesn't specify that women wear skirts and men pants, or that women should be teachers and nurses and men should be executives and engineers. That's all society's doing.

People who are gay or transgender generally sense they are different (and in what way, more or less) before society has a chance to define all this for them. That's biology at work.

No, many radical feminists definitely do that, and radical feminists hate trans people. Mainly because they see gender as a construct, and not biological, and therefore trans people are men, trying to gain access into women's spaces.

I don't think I'd be interested in reading those, I prefer horses mouths, rather than asses.

Sometimes you have to take the horse by the tail and face the situation.

Feminists need to take constructivist position because they want to eliminate all barriers (like biology) from the accomplishment of their wishes. Unfortunately for feminists, biology has decreed that women shall be the exclusive agents of child bearing. Female biology is built around their reproductive role, just as male biology is. Men just happen to have a much more pleasant role in reproduction than women do: For women, a baby is often a prize they had no wish to win; for men, the fuck 'em and forget 'em approach is much easier. Not that we would recommend that approach, of course.

Feminists also want to get shut (southern US expression) of socially defined roles that they feel are restrictive.

Are feminists crazy for wanting to be free of biological and social limitations on the way they want to live their lives? Some feminists are decidedly crazy, and unpleasant spoiled brats besides, but sure--be whatever you want to be. If you want equality, fine--just don't shirk ditch digging, street cleaning, and foot soldiering during the next war.

There's a lot of trans people who don't see why they ought to be. These privileged princesses look down from Barbie's dream house, and think that the LGBT is about sexuality, and they're straight and normal as fuck.

As for the truth, I think that there is definitely a biological hormonal element to it, there is a lot of evidence of it in my view. The scientific case is far from in the opposition's favor.

I think that plenty about gender is probably constructed, and strikes me as inessential, and insubstantial.

I'm a feminist, I think, and I'm for equal opportunity, social standing, and treatment under the law. I just think that the radical becoming, and denial of essentialism puts them at odds with much of the trans community.

Yep.

If being a woman is a social condition, then how can a woman be caught in a man's body?

The implication would be that it was either nurtured or crazied into them.

Which seems quite unlikely.

How could a bishop be trapped in a knight's body? He's not trapped. He just wants to move diagonally and he knows knights who do that are scorned.

Sensible people avoid offering solutions to psychic problems they've never faced.

Indeed; although your post needs editing. The knight can't "feel" like a bishop, but can prefer bishop behaviour.

Has anyone ever reported being a dolphin in a human body to the extent that they want surgery? If someone actually did, and we respected that, s/he wouldn't be eligible for the Olympics because s/he would be a dolphin.

a dolphin in a human body — bert1

What could that mean?