Ask someone who's transgender anything!

You really need to keep moving the goalposts don't you? Sanity has nothing to do with this discussion. It is a question of functionality. If they can still walk then they have not lost that function. Now what you want to say is that there is something inherent to the nature of walking that requires the usage of two evenly sized legs. That requires a definition of walking, something along the lines of the even spread gait of appendages designed for movement in a direction. You can probably think of a creature that could exist without an even gait that could "walk" as efficiently as any other creature.

 

So sanity already WAS a part of the discussion. And you said that mental problems are present when function is interfered with...not eliminated entirely. Who's moving goalposts now?

Infection. Insemination. Go.

 

I brought up sanity, sure. First off mental disorders have nothing to do with sanity. A person can have a mental disorder and be perfectly sane. They're two separate concepts. Second, you then said it lost function changing the conversation. Then I said that it's not function, it's efficiency. The function is still there, just not as efficient. So we've been discussing functionality and the definition of it, not sanity.

As for the other two claims you made let's see a link for lacking resistance. And define the functionality of genitalia.

 

Mental disorders have nothing to do with sanity? Really? That's what you're going with? Fine, let's just say mental disorders then. Can we agree that mental disorders are not something that you want to have?

Efficiency is reduced when function is "interfered with" (your criteria). So it qualifies as a mental disorder, per your previous statement.

"Because of the physiological make up of the female reproductive system, a woman is more vulnerable than her male partner in a number of ways...The vagina is quite vulnerable to invasion by bacteria and viruses. The vagina is a warm, moist environment which is ideal for the growth of bacteria which can increase the risk of HIV transmission" http://archguelph.ca/biological-susceptibility

"Urinary tract infections are common in women, and many women experience more than one infection during their lifetimes. Risk factors specific to women for UTIs include: Female anatomy. A woman has a shorter urethra than a man does, which shortens the distance that bacteria must travel to reach the bladder." http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...ct-infection/basics/risk-factors/con-20037892
The obvious corollary to this statement is that a longer urethra lengthens the distance bacteria must travel.

In addition to the functionalities already discussed above (urination, protection from microorganisms), male genitalia has the function of insemination. I am not going to even go into female genitalia at this point, because it would only muddy the waters.

 

Sure, I can agree with that.

Not necessarily. See that definition from before is actually incomplete. I've already established in this thread that a mental disorder has three parts to it. It's an abnormal behavior that is not culturally accepted that interferes with a person's function. The definition from earlier today was just a reply, talking about the major argument against it. Not the real deal.

You claimed sex change leads to a loss of bacterial resistance. This is not what you claimed. Having a shorter uretha is not a sex change.

That's not defining the functionality of genitalia. You clearly left things out. What about masturbation?

 

I must admit that I am not an expert on sex change operations, but is not the penis (and with it a great deal of urethra) removed during such an operation? If the penis IS removed, or even shortened, I just don't see how the urethra would not also be. And if it is, then there would be a corresponding loss of the aforementioned resistance.

I don't see the point of an all-inclusive list. I hear some people in Scandinavia also have weight-lifting contests with their junk, but I am not going to advance the position that not being able to perform such extraneous tasks constitutes a loss of function.

 

Simply put, neither of you seem to truly or completely understand the implications of surgery and SRS in general, this is no simple topic or one that can be discussed in a forum like this.

Surgical modification of ones body whether it is cosmetic or even more complicated plastic and invasive SRS, has many possible complications and considerations and not something entered into lightly, requiring the services of a team of surgical specialists.

 

I personally regard plastic surgeries used to 'correct' non-errors as the wrong treatment for psychological disorders. EG, non-mastectomy breast enlargements, vanity surgeries to the face/body, and gender related surgeries.

If a person is so dysfunctional that they 'cannot live' with their natural appearance, psychiatric intervention is needed. Followed by a long stint volunteering in a deeply impoverished war zone or similar for perspective.

Beauty is not a right, nor even remotely a necessity for life success. The somewhat extreme focus of on appearance that we see in the safe, well fed, and comfortable west is an unpleasant side effect of first world life - but it won't happen unless there's also a background of seriously inadequate parenting.

Our kids should enter adult life confident and happy with exactly who and what they are. And they REALLY ought not be sent out into the world with such an unhealthy focus on self. If we have a child who's starting to get overly introspective, we should be distracting them immediately. Get them out into the forest, onto the sports field, onto the ocean, or into art galleries, or pretty much anything to redirect that energy outwards - to others and to the world. We let them stew in their bedrooms and we take full responsibility for whatever happens to them. It's lazy arsed parenting, and ruins young lives. Tangent, apologies!

 

Bravo! Great post. I couldn't agree more with these sentiments. There just seems to be something inherently abnormally self centered about the whole thing, IMO.

 

Isn't mostly for that reason?

 

There can be for other reasons as well. Mental closure, to get close to another person.

 

That's the problem, if you don't define what the genitalia is used for then how can you say that it has lost its function? It's like the hatchet example from before. Did the hatchet lose functionality when you went hungry?

 

I can, and have, defined certain functions, without having to define them all. And I can say that certain functions are lost without introducing red herrings about masturbation and penis weight-lifting. If your car won't move, we can say that it has lost functionality, without going off into the weeds about how you could feasibly still use it as a shelter from the rain. It need not lose every conceivable functionality in order to definitively lose the defined functionality of mobility.

If you traded your food for a hatchet, the hatchet didn't lose functionality; YOU did. Likewise, your severed penis might still prevent bacteria from moving up its urethra, but that doesn't do you any good any more, because it's no longer yours.

 

It also makes you sterile so that you can never have children of your own. It can also be very dangerous. Anesthesia actually kills a LOT of people. Invasive surgery should be avoided at all costs because your body is never the same afterwards. There can be painful adhesions, scar tissue, chronic pain, etc.

A lot of people who undergo these types of procedures also have to go back and back to the surgeon to "fix" things, and there are certainly high risks associated with infection and death because of those factors.

 

You gave us criteria but how do you know that's the proper criteria? Insemination is inherently biological- why should the biology of the genitalia be the defining traits of the genitalia? There's more to it then that and to deny that leaves you open to all sorts of attacks.

Just because you're hungry doesn't mean you still can't use the hatchet now does it?

 

Why should the biology of an organ be its defining traits? Are you kidding? Because it is alive! Biology is hands down the most sensible way to look at it- especially when you are talking about function.

biology
[bahy-ol-uh-jee]

noun
1.
the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior.

It doesn't matter if there's more, you're trying to act as if there is LESS by cutting things like insemination out of the equation. If you add more functions of genitalia to the list, all you're doing is expanding the list of functions that could be lost without it.

Until you starve to death. But once again, you're going off on a red herring tangent. You have lost the function of what you had.

 

Why define the functionality by biology? There are plenty of other ways to define the functionality of an organ. Why limit it to biology? Do you define the functionality of a chicken breast by its biology? Or do you define it by the quality of its meat seasoned with salt and pepper? (Sorry dinner time) Or how about the brain for that matter. You as a person can not define your entire existence in terms of biology. You can't reduce your mind down to your biology.

Not expanding, selecting a definition. That's the problem.

What if you returned it for a refund? Where is the lost functionality?

 

Well, because a person would be changing his biology, not (hopefully) preparing a meal.

You are trying to select this definition through an argument that is so bizarre that it's getting hard to even know what to say anymore. "Sure, I can't father children anymore, and I'll probably get many more infections and diseases, but as long as I retain the power of masturbation, then I haven't lost anything"

I think you'd find that your food had already been eaten, metaphorically speaking.

 

So why does that matter?

Have you ever heard of the mind-body problem? Basically I'm taking that and applying it to this.

By whom?

 

There is more than just 'something' abnormally self-centred about it. It's essentially a product of galloping inward focus. The human mind is industrious and curious. If it's not given adequate 'exercise' it will turn in on itself. In the vacuum of a life without productive purpose and focus, things which would normally be fleeting moments of self-absorption turn into monsters ... which we then give free rein to if no distraction is forthcoming.

Humans do FAR better in the mental health department when busy and productive. When crops need harvesting and water collecting, whether or not you're entirely satisfied with your gender is never going to be an issue. Even sadness (aka, depression) is hard to maintain under such conditions. Any niggling self-indulgence of that nature is going to be subsumed by the practicalities. It literally can't survive the 16 hours a day, 7 days a week of outward focus and physical activity.

Kids, who are the least introspective of all humans (which is why childhood is so much fun!), should never be encouraged to self-examine beyond the basics and a general sense of self. They shouldn't know or care anything about depression or any other symptoms of first world adult malaise. They should be kept busy, productive, active, and outward focused. The minute you see your kid getting self-indulgent or moping (without quantifiable cause), you act to redirect their focus. Validating such unproductive and harmful behaviours is entirely the wrong thing to do.

 

Definitely. There is way too much focus on "me" it seems. I mentioned earlier that instead of focusing so much on your gender or your sex or whatever, that people need to focus on being a better "person" and doing things to contribute to their communities, etc. I think there are other more productive and safer ways for these people to learn to accept themselves for who and what they are (biologically). I've also read that a lot of these people don't succeed with cosmetic surgery and hormones and that they still suffer from depression about the same as they do preoperatively. I bet a lot of them think that these surgeries and hormones will "fix" them. I don't think that's the case though.

 

Although it is a different arena, many people that get elective cosmetic plastic surgery are often unsatisfied with the results and insist on revision surgery in spite of everyone telling them they look great, after multiple surgeries, the results are often disastrous as complications cause hideous results in that persons appearance.

 

I know! I've looked at some of the pictures.

 

That's because their noses and/or wrinkles aren't actually the problem. Their minds are.

 

If your kid grows up uncomfortable in his/her own skin, you've done something wrong.