I don't mean for this to sound harsh — intrapersona

Well... just a teensy bit harsh, perhaps. If everyone were gay or transgendered, we would be in deep doo doo. Fortunately for the species' future the rate is quite low. Out of a population of 320 million, there are perhaps 3 to 5 million gay men and maybe a million transexuals in the US. That's a low rate. It's a lower rate than than the rate of heterosexuals who are not reproducing themselves. If you are worried about the future of the species, get on all those heterosexuals who aren't breeding.

I am gay. I knew I was "different" from an early age -- way before I had a set of words to describe myself accurately. Like most young homosexuals boys born in the 1940s, I didn't announce to my first grade class that I liked boys. I kept it under cover. It didn't seem like the sort of thing one announced openly. (At the time it definitely was not.) I was not ready to deal with my own sexuality and community rejection while I was in high school or the first year or two of college. Some gay people act early and often, and if they can manage it, maybe OK. A lot of gay people need more time--into their 20s or 30s.

I am fairly unhappy with parents who have become aware of their children's possible transgender status who allow, or maybe encourage their young transgender children to go public in elementary school. The children--whose sexual identity isn't developed yet--are not ready to take on the stones and arrows of community resistance or peer rejection. Quite a few people decide they are transgender as adults, and decide to act upon it in the 40s, 50s, or later, even. I think the individual should deal with this at home for a while, and then gradually do so publicly--maybe around 16.

Some day in the future, MAYBE it will be possible for children to declare their sexual orientation while they are still in diapers, but we are not there yet.

These days we tend to not find ways in which we are all alike. We tend to find ways in which some of us are very different, and then we make a big deal out of the difference and the lack of acceptance. Like the enormous suffering of transgendered Somali community (all 3 of them in this town).

I think we would be better off understanding that gay people, celibate people, transgender people, and so on think, act, and function pretty much like everybody else in all sorts of consequential ways. Of course there are differences in sexual behavior between gay men and straight men, but compared to the similarities in occupational, intellectual, or recreational performance, sexual object choice is kind of minor.

To answer the question: nothing.

In evolutionary terms, gay animals are quite common. I suppose if they could cross dress, some of them would. If they could get an operation some of them would. Evolutionary speaking your counterfactual example is absurd. You don't all of a sudden become a transgender so an entire society won't either. It's a deviation from the norm but that doesn't make it wrong. Down syndrome is a deviation too as is my red hair. Neither are reasons to condemn gingers or mentally retarded people as doing something wrong.

Also, a transgender isn't pretending to be a woman. You don't have to pretend to be who you are either do you?

Now look I am not an a close-minded arsehole, people can do whatever the hell they please as long as it doesn't cause dis-ease or impact on to someone else's life. But I just can't for the life of me see any reason in why there is acceptance over such a thing in society. — intrapersona

Because a society which decides what is acceptable, (if it doesn't bother anyone else), is oppressive and nobody wants to live in an oppressive society? Does it have any benefit on society whatsoever to enforce arbitrary rules? If so, why not enforce even more arbitrary rules?

It is completely against our survival in evolutionary terms and looks like an aberrant disorder of the mind that serves no purpose and is completely backward to procreation as a species. For if everyone was a transgender and/or gay that would mean no one would have babies (assuming IVF does not exist). Even if such a world did exist with IVF included and boys looked like girls and girls looked like boys... it would be incredibly weird and look more like something out of a freakish absurd comedy-horror film. — intrapersona

That's "naturalistic fallacy". But there is an axiom, "evolution is always smarter than us". There may be valid reasons for a species to not be exclusively preoccupied with reproduction. We don't go around killing people off just because they can't become parents. There are many theories about the ways that people benefit society by working and engaging in an economy. Evolution has probably already found a balance for humanity, and strict binary gender roles apparently hasn't worked yet. Also, look at other species where males and females are virtually indistinguishable, (ever try to sex a chick), or may even naturally and spontaneously swap gender, (possibly some frogs), or role in reproduction, (seahorses).

That aside, can you imagine pretending to be a women your whole life? Does not that image seem related to a slightly psychotic child who never stopped wearing mummies dresses/lipstick and still sucks on his finger? — intrapersona

There are theories that we all do exactly that anyway. Like Simone de Beauvoir says, "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman". In that sense, the social definition of "woman" is not biological, but how closely someone conforms to social expectations. But it is good that what you say means that "maturity" is rejecting pretension and choosing another role.

It seems to me that in order to quench the rowdy disorder that comes from different people's opinions on what our social codes should be (moral relativism) people end up saying they accept all sorts of outrageous things in life (like transgender people) but secretly on the inside they keep their opinions to themselves because they know it would cause unrest due to the social order we formed to quench the rowdy disorder that comes from people offering or rather shouting differing opinions (moral relativism). — intrapersona

As above, I don't think we should be ruled by "rowdy disorder" or "social codes". I don't think it is moral relativism, but more apply the current standards of individual rights and responsibility. Once society takes on the role of decided what individuals are required to do, then it robs individuals of their rights and responsibility. We are no longer rational agents, but just extensions of some arbitrary social conventions.

In a way, maybe your reaction, (that a transgendered position), being so offensive is exactly the point. It is evolutionary pressure pushing back on being too restrictive, preventing us to adapt to novel conditions and experiences. If nobody ever dares behave in any way that might offend you, we might very well be headed for extinction for failure to adapt.

I don't mean for this to sound harsh, but rather just truthful. I want to see if there is a flaw in my thinking here. — intrapersona

As Bitter Crank pointed out, it isn't really an important matter. Never lose the perspective, this surely isn't an issue of human survival.

All of these issues are far more used as examples how wrong the World has gone, how much that SJW mentality dominates us, how far too permissive the society has become, and because of this, it's going down the drain. Part of it is the age old idea of that our society has become decadent and loosing it's steam, has seen already it's best days, the Untergang des Abendlandes attitude.

It seems to me that in order to quench the rowdy disorder that comes from different people's opinions on what our social codes should be (moral relativism) people end up saying they accept all sorts of outrageous things in life (like transgender people) but secretly on the inside they keep their opinions to themselves because they know it would cause unrest due to the social order we formed to quench the rowdy disorder that comes from people offering or rather shouting differing opinions (moral relativism). — intrapersona

Or perhaps you're conflating people thinking there's something bad or wrong about something, and people just not liking that something. I bet a lot of people initially feel it's somehow icky to for example physically interact with a clearly transgendered person (or at least in certain combinations), but that doesn't mean they secretly think there's something unacceptable about that person or their choices. They might secretly simply realize that it's really just in their own head, and be able to separate their own preferences and biases from what they think should or shouldn't be socially acceptable.

It is completely against our survival in evolutionary terms... and is completely backward to procreation as a species. — intrapersona

Actually there are all sorts of ways in which transgender people can benefit the species. First of all, it's important to consider that human beings don't need to be baby machines in order to contribute to society which is itself a fundamental bedrock of modern child-rearing. Individuals whose normal sexual functioning is compromised for whatever reason, be it atypical psychology or a physically damaged/incomplete set of reproductive organs, are not actually hindering the human race or it's future by failing to pass on their genes. In fact, it would be best if the very healthiest among us were the only ones to reproduce to ensure that the next generation has as healthy a gene pool as possible.

Strictly speaking it doesn't really matter how many MTF trannies there are because a couple virile men could pitch in and shoulder their share of the reproductive burden; only FTM transsexuals would actually be a throttling or limiting factor on the maximum number of babies that we ought to churn out

Genetically speaking, the ability for variation to occur is a necessity for evolution to occur. What some call aberration can eventually turn out to be indispensable innovation. Having a high variance in sex and gender identity inherent in a gene pool may be a reflection of a healthy ability for individuals and groups to adapt to the pressures of changing cultures and environments. See the following paragraph for examples.

and looks like an aberrant disorder of the mind that serves no purpose... — intrapersona

For someone who cannot otherwise be "happy" (in the long run for static psychological reasons, not a child's whim as some parents seem to think is the same thing), that's the only purpose that it needs to serve. If by being happy they can become a more productive member of society, then it will have been worth it to let them live out life as the gender of their choosing, presuming that we have moral or ethical purchase on their personal decisions in the first place.

Beyond that though, there are all kinds of social situations where "gender bending" fits right in; stress relief. When groups of men are on their own for extended periods of time, such as in prison, while on long hunting trips, and during extended war, transsexuals or individuals who can easily transition into a typically feminine role, would eventually become quite popular indeed... In our tree-dwelling evolutionary history we were most likely some kind of pan-sexual gender bending nymphomaniacs at some point who took every opportunity possible to have sex just for the stress relief that it can provide. Bonobos (a great ape) notably are up to this behavior all day long and in the reality of their social structures it serves a useful purpose.

Whether instances of transgenderism are just accidental but necessary evolutionary spandrels which appear as anomalies in population groups (due to how gender and genetics (or the psychology of gender) works), or is an actually load bearing part of our evolutionary history of genetic adaptation and resulting adaptability, I cannot say, but what I can say is that since nobody has a moral obligation to birth or sire 2.6 children and a dog, it doesn't really matter what gender people choose live as. If that's required for their happiness, then I would argue we're morally obligated not to interfere with them unless they are causing some kind of actual harm.

For if everyone was a transgender and/or gay that would mean no one would have babies (assuming IVF does not exist). Even if such a world did exist with IVF included and boys looked like girls and girls looked like boys... it would be incredibly weird and look more like something out of a freakish absurd comedy-horror film. — intrapersona

I know right? If we forced every boy to become a girl and every girl to become a boy, we would be living in a very silly world indeed. Very very silly. This world would be marked by two things: It's silliness, and it's complete dedication to forcing children to swap genders. For the sequel we could have a wheel-of-gender-fortune that includes that list of 32 new genders and spin that at the birth of every child.

For real though: the baby train is not under threat; we will not all be transgender one day; developmental variance is a function of the way evolution allows us to adapt as individuals and as groups over the long run; living in confusion or depression is less mentally healthy than being happy and transgender.

What possible reasons are left with which you could argue for the condemnation of the decision to transition between genders?

There is, one could say, an identity crisis that stretches across civilization and cuts painfully into the pysche of countless people. It is almost immeasurably deep. And, as i see it, the most effective way to counteract it is to "go deep". Deep into your identity. Who or what am i, really? The distinctions of one's race, cultural heritage, gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, social standing, money and possessions, career, etc. are of great importance in developing an identity. It is the framework on which a life is built and lived, so these distinctions are an important part of our very existence.

But what does this framework stand upon? One could say that the common denominator is "humanity". To identity as a human primarily, prior to and "more existentially" than the above mentioned distinctions, is to realize a common and indissoluble solidarity with every person who has ever lived. And with those yet to be born. That seems to be a significant step in a person's psyche-spiritual development. A step that perhaps some do not take within their lifetime. Maybe that's something to put on the "bucket list".

And beyond that? Or, (if one thinks of going deeper) "below" that? Is there anything below/beyond that in terms of the foundation of our identity? Perhaps. And thankfully, it may not be all that uncommon. To go deeper than one's human identity is to identity with other mammals, and with all living beings. I dare say that someone who has deeply bonded with a pet has possibly transcended a strictly human identity. And this is disregarding the strange, otherworldly hypnotic powers of pet cats. ;) Dog lovers know this, as do those connected with other mammals, reptiles, birds, and fish. And even insects. It is quite an experience to have a praying mantis turn its head toward you, and calmly consider your presence. Your consciousness is connected with its consciousness in way not dependent on IQ.

Perhaps three of the strongest things or forces in this world are gravity, water, and tree roots. Powerful and unceasing. Our roots go down deep, perhaps deeper than can easily be imagined. This is our very strength, since a tree cut through completely at ground level can regenerate itself. Humans have their own kind of heliotropism, growing upward and building higher and higher. Which is as it should be.
Let us not neglect our powerful geotropism, even though it is mostly not visible and might seem to be in the muck and mire of existence.

The high hurdler has much skill, as does the limbo dancer. How low can you go?

Transgenders have what is called a somatic delusion - where one believes that there is something wrong with their body.
http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusions.html

Why is it that we seem to allow some people to continue to hold their delusions, or even promote their delusional state, while others we try to "help" them overcome their delusions and see things as they truly are (that they are actually the gender they were born as). It comes down to "Is it moral to allow someone to continue believing in a lie, or to make them face the facts?" Would it be immoral to help reinforce their lie to themselves?

I would like to know how consistent people are in this. Why do we find it okay to tell the religious that they believe in a delusion, but not okay to tell this to a transgender?

Why do we find it okay to allow doctors to make money off mentally ill people to perform a sex change when that essentially counts as mutilating their body as a result of their delusion?

Transgenders have what is called a somatic delusion - where one believes that there is something wrong with their body.
http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusions.html

Why is it that we seem to allow some people to continue to hold their delusions, or even promote their delusional state, while others we try to "help" them overcome their delusions and see things as they truly are (that they are actually the gender they were born as). It comes down to "Is it moral to allow someone to continue believing in a lie, or to make them face the facts?" Would it be immoral to help reinforce their lie to themselves?

I would like to know how consistent people are in this. Why do we find it okay to tell the religious that they believe in a delusion, but not okay to tell this to a transgender?

Why do we find it okay to allow doctors to make money off mentally ill people to perform a sex change when that essentially counts as mutilating their body as a result of their delusion? — Harry Hindu

Well what's the latest science on that? Do transgender people have actual physiological differences in their brain or is it purely a psychological thing? What kind of treatment or therapy could "cure" them, and would that tend to be easier or harder than undergoing a sex change, or just living as transgender without a sex change?

Surely the answers to your questions depend on those.

Transgenders have what is called a somatic delusion - where one believes that there is something wrong with their body.
http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusions.html

Why is it that we seem to allow some people to continue to hold their delusions, or even promote their delusional state, while others we try to "help" them overcome their delusions and see things as they truly are (that they are actually the gender they were born as). It comes down to "Is it moral to allow someone to continue believing in a lie, or to make them face the facts?" Would it be immoral to help reinforce their lie to themselves?

I would like to know how consistent people are in this. Why do we find it okay to tell the religious that they believe in a delusion, but not okay to tell this to a transgender? — Harry Hindu

Are you equating gender with biological sex? Because I don't know if many transgender men, for example, believe that they have a penis despite the fact that they have a vagina.

I think gender is usually understood as referring to masculinity and femininity – i.e. a generalised set of attitudes and behaviours. The "issue" is that these sets of attitudes and behaviours tend to be associated with a particular biological sex, e.g. those born with a penis tend to be masculine and those born with a vagina tend to be feminine. But I think it wrong to suggest that it is wrong for someone born with a penis to be feminine (and so identify as being of the female gender) and for someone born with a vagina to be masculine (and so identify as being of the male gender).

Why do we find it okay to allow doctors to make money off mentally ill people to perform a sex change when that essentially counts as mutilating their body as a result of their delusion?

For the same reason that we find it OK to allow doctors to make money from people requesting rhinoplasty. Some people are just uncomfortable with their body, and I see no reason to suggest that it is wrong to make changes to it. It's not like it's some holy object that ought be preserved in its natural state.

Now look I am not an a close-minded arsehole — intrapersona

Right, of course, you even have transgender friends :-}

Look, if you want to be "truthful," why these disingenuous excuses? If you think that there's something wrong with bigotry, well, that's the answer to your question, isn't it? And if you don't think there's anything wrong with bigotry, then grow yourself a pair and own it.

Also, a transgender isn't pretending to be a woman. — Benkei

Except that a penis/balls-bearing transexual male raised as a male or a transexual vagina/ovaries-bearing female raised as a female has to imagine what it is like being the opposite. They do for a while have to pretend. Having watched a tall, broad-shouldered kind-of-homely 45 year old guy transition to being a woman, (not a particularly graceful experience for the two of them) yes, imagination, pretending, and just plain stage work is required to get from one gender to the other.

Ditto for the secular Jewish woman who transitioned to ultra orthodox bearded manhood. Ditto for most of the transexuals I have know. It takes a hell of a lot of "balls" to pull these transitions off, whether it goes well or not.

Transgenders have to contend with the fact that the males who resent them the most are the ones who find themselves most tempted by homosexuality and often don't even like to watch gays relaxing in public and are horrified at the thought of mistaking a man for a woman. There is one matriarchal culture that supports such things, but modern civilization is based on patriarchal culture and money takes on a life of its own.

For the same reason that we find it OK to allow doctors to make money from people requesting rhinoplasty. — Michael

Cartoon:

Surgeon and woman sitting in consulting room...

"I can't make you look young again, but I can make you look like
you've had a lot of expensive plastic surgery."

But I just can't for the life of me see any reason in why there is acceptance over such a thing in society. — intrapersona

In my opinion the reason was what you said in the sentence just prior to that one:

people can do whatever the hell they please as long as it doesn't cause dis-ease or impact on to someone else's life. — intrapersona

if everyone was a transgender and/or gay that would mean no one would have babies (assuming IVF does not exist). — intrapersona

Well, people could still decide to have kids in that situation in order to continue the species, but suppose instead that no one thought it was worthwhile to have kids to continue the species. What would be the problem with that if everyone were to feel that way? People should do what they want.

Of course, not everyone is going to feel that way. Some people will decide to have kids.

Anyway, on these sorts of issues, I'm as libertarian/libertine/laissez-faire as one can be, and if I have any sort of "mission" in life, it's to encourage people to be accepting or tolerant of difference in these regards.

Call me stupid, ignorant or morally fucked up but I for one fucking believe that biological sex is one and the same with gender! >:O

There is one matriarchal culture that supports such things, but modern civilization is based on patriarchal culture and money takes on a life of its own. — wuliheron

Is this the POMO propaganda that male = bad and female = good? :D

It can be if you want it to be, but its the only sizable butch matriarchy left in the world today and their lifestyle is rather primitive.

It can be if you want it to be, but its the only sizable butch matriarchy left in the world today and their lifestyle is rather primitive. — wuliheron

Yes but I'm talking about your discourse - you talk as if patriarchy is bad, and matriarchy is good - that's what your discourse is saying.

I am with Benkei in the simple answer of: nothing.

People live how they want to live and are pretty similar with at least half being enough to drive anyone mad. As Yogi said, "90% of this game is half-mental".

Call me stupid, ignorant or morally fucked up but I for one fucking believe that biological sex is one and the same with gender! — Agustino

Dear Stupid, Ignorant, and Morally Fucked Up: I appreciate the three of you stopping by. No. "sex" and "gender" have separate meanings. "Sex" is biology, "gender" is psychology -- so to speak. In most cases, like 95% of most people, sex and gender reinforce, supplement, and augment each other. Men fuck women and act like men. Women want and expect to get fucked, and they are. They they complain that it was unpleasant and it didn't last long enough. Transgendered people apparently experience a contradiction between their biology (male and female) and the gender role they think is naturally appropriate for them. Should one wear heels or oxfords, dresses or pants, and fuck or get fucked?

In the past it was believed (by psychoanalytic psychologists) that homosexuals were heterosexuals who had been deflected from their normal development and could be directed (through therapy) back to heterosexuality. It has not worked. No amount of therapy is effective at redirecting object choice (as far as I know).

Some people think that transgendered or transsexual people have been misdirected to think they they are trapped in the opposite sex's biological body. I am not sure whether any therapy has proven successful in redirecting transsexual / transgender person to think they are in the correct body. Probably not. Very basic personality traits seem to be fixed already in childhood, even normal childhoods, and never seem to fade away.

Sex roles are, of course, important to people, but we have many other roles to fulfill and gays, for instance, fulfill their occupational, recreational, financial, intellectual, social roles as well as anyone else (on average). Guys may think about sex a lot, but most guys don't spend all that much time each day actually performing sex. The average heterosexual (and homosexual) encounter tends to be pleasant, enjoyable, and short--at least from the male perspective. Nobody knows what women want, so we won't go there.

Transsexuals also have many roles to fulfill and they spend most of their time performing those various roles, and do not think about being trapped in the wrong body most of the time--especially when all the identity issues remain locked down and unresolved.

Evolutionary speaking your counterfactual example is absurd. You don't all of a sudden become a transgender so an entire society won't either. It's a deviation from the norm but that doesn't make it wrong. Down syndrome is a deviation too as is my red hair. Neither are reasons to condemn gingers or mentally retarded people as doing something wrong.

Also, a transgender isn't pretending to be a woman. You don't have to pretend to be who you are either do you? — Benkei

This is the politically correct opinion, which I don't agree with.

How can you say down syndrome is only a "deviation from the norm"? It is a downright disease of the human condition and it as preposterous that we accept it, it is like cancer, it should be eradicated because it serves no purpose other than wasting our resources like time, money, food and much more.

Effectively what you are advocating is like advocating that we accept new humans in to this world with no arms or legs, as if that is acceptable. Down Syndrome are akin to people with out arms or legs in the sense that they have not full capacity of the human organism, they are disabled. Likewise, those with terminal cancer are disabled from full health capacity of the human organism and yet we look at it as if it is abhorrent and should be eradicated. Likewise disorders of the mind should be abhorrent and be eradicated just like cancer or any other disease and not looked on as something that is welcomed in society.

Why would you welcome and accept any disorder that cripples humans and wastes their resources? This is a-like narrow-minded politicians who make suicide illegal so that people in pain with terminal illness have to wait out months in agony just because bigoted conservative assholes won't let them be at peace. To hell with your bigoted, conservative political correctness.

Well... just a teensy bit harsh, perhaps. If everyone were gay or transgendered, we would be in deep doo doo. Fortunately for the species' future the rate is quite low. Out of a population of 320 million, there are perhaps 3 to 5 million gay men and maybe a million transexuals in the US. That's a low rate. It's a lower rate than than the rate of heterosexuals who are not reproducing themselves. If you are worried about the future of the species, get on all those heterosexuals who aren't breeding.

These days we tend to not find ways in which we are all alike. We tend to find ways in which some of us are very different, and then we make a big deal out of the difference and the lack of acceptance. Like the enormous suffering of transgendered Somali community (all 3 of them in this town).

I think we would be better off understanding that gay people, celibate people, transgender people, and so on think, act, and function pretty much like everybody else in all sorts of consequential ways. Of course there are differences in sexual behavior between gay men and straight men, but compared to the similarities in occupational, intellectual, or recreational performance, sexual object choice is kind of minor. — Bitter Crank

Well, I by no means want to cause offense, I just want to investigate how I might be wrong in my thinking here.

What do you think about what I said about gays having a disorder of the mind? Isn't it counter-evolution and therefor going AGAINST your own fundamental nature? IE the square cube does NOT, i repeat, DOES NOT fit in to the circular hole... so why are you trying to make it?

Homosexuality is like spending decades preparing for a nice meal (child growth), only to throw it all on the floor and gargle acid down instead (something that is not nutritional and goes against what our biology is there for, namely, to eat food in this sense).

:D

Also, a transgender isn't pretending to be a woman. You don't have to pretend to be who you are either do you? — Benkei

Who you are means what you physically are. If you are a human you can't say you are an octopus without pretending to be one. If you are a female, you can't say you are a male without pretending to be one. Just like an apple is not a banana not matter how much you say it is.

For everything else, like fashion, social position etc... then yes, you do. If you want to be a gangster you have to pretend to be one until you do it for long enough that it is natural for you to be it and can't be anything else.

That's "naturalistic fallacy". But there is an axiom, "evolution is always smarter than us". There may be valid reasons for a species to not be exclusively preoccupied with reproduction. — swstephe

I can see why you would say that, but I am just talking about practicality here. I am not saying what is natural is best but what is most practical is best. It just so happens that what is our fundamental biological nature (reproduction) IS most practical and therefor to say it is the opposite is false.

There are theories that we all do exactly that anyway. Like Simone de Beauvoir says, "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman". In that sense, the social definition of "woman" is not biological, but how closely someone conforms to social expectations. But it is good that what you say means that "maturity" is rejecting pretension and choosing another role. — swstephe

By definition, a female baby is always born as a female. A woman is a mature female and therefor de beauvoir is right in that you grow in to one. BUT to be a woman necessitates you be a female in the first place, by definition that is. To say you are a woman when you are a man is frankly absurd, I might as well say I am a peanut and not a human.

Because a society which decides what is acceptable, (if it doesn't bother anyone else), is oppressive and nobody wants to live in an oppressive society? Does it have any benefit on society whatsoever to enforce arbitrary rules? If so, why not enforce even more arbitrary rules? — swstephe

Then our society must be oppressive, because viewpoints are being imprinted on people whether they like it or not. Most of the just gobble it up without second-guessing or analysing at all.

Evolution has probably already found a balance for humanity, and strict binary gender roles apparently hasn't worked yet — swstephe

It hasn't worked? Like it hasn't worked in making 7 billion people over the last 50,000 years?

As above, I don't think we should be ruled by "rowdy disorder" or "social codes". I don't think it is moral relativism, but more apply the current standards of individual rights and responsibility. Once society takes on the role of decided what individuals are required to do, then it robs individuals of their rights and responsibility. We are no longer rational agents, but just extensions of some arbitrary social conventions.

In a way, maybe your reaction, (that a transgendered position), being so offensive is exactly the point. It is evolutionary pressure pushing back on being too restrictive, preventing us to adapt to novel conditions and experiences. If nobody ever dares behave in any way that might offend you, we might very well be headed for extinction for failure to adapt. — swstephe

In one sense you are agreeing with me and in another disagreeing.

You agree that society takes on the role of deciding what individuals are required to believe is ethical and that social conventions currently force people to accept gays, transgender etc. and that such a thing is oppression.

You disagree with me in that transgender is a disorder. You seem to view it as "an adaption towards novel conditions". But what is novel about pretending to be a peanut? Or saying that you are God? It is all deranged thinking and is in no way any more practical, reasonable are novel in any way shape or form.

For the same reason that we find it OK to allow doctors to make money from people requesting rhinoplasty. Some people are just uncomfortable with their body, and I see no reason to suggest that it is wrong to make changes to it. It's not like it's some holy object that ought be preserved in its natural state. — Michael

Nice analogy. I'd never thought of it like that.

I feel uncomfortable around obviously transgender people in the same way I feel uncomfortable when I see a man get kicked in the testicles - it makes me involuntarily imagine being kicked in the testicles / castrated / administered feminising drugs.

But that's my problem, not the problem of the transgender person. It's just one of the many ways in which I am a less than optimally resilient human.

I certainly can't see any reason for laws preventing gender reassignment surgery, provided the patient is (1) determined to be a mentally competent adult and (2) they have had psychiatric assessments to ensure that the desire for the operation is sufficiently genuine, deep-seated and very unlikely to be the subject of later regret.

As I understand it, those are the only conditions applied to such surgery where I live (Australia). There's an additional question of whether it can be funded by public health arrangements, but that only arises in civilised countries, where public health exists. I don't know what the Australian rules are for that, but I know that at least one army veteran has had the procedure, paid for by his (government-funded) veterans' health care arrangements.

As Bitter Crank pointed out, it isn't really an important matter. Never lose the perspective, this surely isn't an issue of human survival.

All of these issues are far more used as examples how wrong the World has gone, how much that SJW mentality dominates us, how far too permissive the society has become, and because of this, it's going down the drain. Part of it is the age old idea of that our society has become decadent and loosing it's steam, has seen already it's best days, the Untergang des Abendlandes attitude. — ssu

Thanks for being earnest and agreeing with me, you call it as it is. I had a debate about political correctness on here which discussed this in much detail but as you say most people can't see the error in their own self-assured tactics of pumping up their own ego through promoting irrational system of common sense PC thought: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/587/page/p1#OP

I didn't know that an SJW is defined as:

Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.