3 ms·

And yet, one has the right to alleviate their pain. It's their body. And sometimes things like aspirin are useful. Yes, they say it doesn't suffice. It is a go

And yet, one has the right to alleviate their pain. It's their body. And sometimes things like aspirin are useful. Yes, they say it doesn't suffice. It is a good start, but we need more. People are still hurting. My thoughts on BIID are the same as for anything else: if 1. The major healthcare organizations believe that there isn't a better treatment for BIID, and 2. A person is shown to be mentally competent in every way except for having BIID, and 3. They want surgery to remove their foot, then why should I deny them the right to modify their body as they see fit? It's their choice. I have not heard that there is a good consensus on BIID. It is far more rare than being transgender, and far less well understood. But consider anorexia - they fail the first criterion, because medical science does have better ways to treat anorexia than to let people starve themselves to death. Many people with anorexia with proper treatment get over it, and thank the people that helped them get over it. I would therefore make a rare exception and agree we should not let anorexia suffers starve themselves to death. But that is simply not the case for transgender people, hence the medical establishment does support gender reassignment surgery, hormone therapy, etc.

Nadya 11y ago
I asked the question about BIID to see if we'd ever be able to see eye to eye. I'll save us from further discourse over the matter: we won't. I see benefits in identifying the source or cause of [__] rather than merely treating the symptoms of [__]. I find it more beneficial to see if low sodium intake is the root cause of a persons continual headaches rather than have them take Aspirin every day they have a headache. This is something we differ in ideologically and thus we will not see eye to eye. Your (1) only holds true when we can research alternative methods openly and decide there are no better alternatives. Loud and threatening advocacy groups, social pressures, and current popular political standings do not allow such research to be done. It also requires there to be a medical consensus and currently, there isn't one. There is a lot of criticism over the more 'positive' results of TS studies. They are often poorly conducted, lose track of many participants, or are not set up in meaningful ways [0]. To me, that says we can do better. But we can't look into better solutions because advocate groups and TS activists shut attempts down with threats and public backlash. This is something that personally affects me. So I feel very strongly about supporting research that goes against advocate groups and what people want others to believe. I'm in a particularly shitty situation: I'm a minority among a minority group. I'm forced to live in their world view, even if I disagree with it. Doubly so because in the current "PC Era" I can't even oppose the popular opinion of a minority group even if I belong to the same group. I'm still trying to fathom how I can be a transexual transphobe, but many people have asserted that I am. Or worse: I'm a fraud! I ask that you see my viewpoint: I don't think SRS is beneficial. I'm not alone in these beliefs as someone with gender dysphoria. I want alternative methods researched, for my benefit. TS activist groups actively threaten, riot, condemn, ridicule, etc. any attempts at doing so and squash them. All because this research goes against their world view and hurts their feelings. To even suggest to these people that they could be wrong is blasphemy to the highest degree. This leaves me in the dust. It leaves me and others like me behind. We aren't allowed a voice - and are increasingly silenced. It's actively harming me, and I won't stand for that. [0] http://library.transgenderzone.com/?page_id=1895 http://library.transgenderzone.com/?page_id=1895
- brighteyes 11y ago
  I think you make a bunch of valid points. I agree for example that politics make it hard to study this area. And I agree it is sad that there is silencing. But I just don't see how you can say that SRS is bad for other people. Let them decide for themselves, given the evidence, much of which supports that it does help. I agree that some people might be led by hurt feelings to jump to conclusions on this topic, as you say. But I don't think that explains the APA's position as mentioned earlier. There is substantial medical establishment support for SRS being helpful.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    I don't trust the APA's position on anything with strong political standpoints since homosexual lobbyists/activists pressured them for several years leading to their 1973 decision. Being disrupted and threatened for years and knowing a single statement with no immediate consequences to them could make it all stop - the decision seems easy. Regardless if that decision might prevent further research into the area and might be justified: it was pre-emptively killed off due to activists and social pressures. Which makes the APA's position on a related, but different and still politically-charged issue utterly meaningless in my eyes. There's also substantial evidence against SRS being helpful. So we'll have to agree to disagree based on our sources (which could easily be confirmation bias or simply politically-slanted studies, hard to tell with the lack of research in the area). It's very difficult to assume that a person who is "certain it will help" will actually be helped by the treatment. It is not a decision someone can make beforehand, but rather a result that happens after. Believing it will have a beneficial outcome and it having a beneficial outcome are not the same thing. Even if someone believed it would be beneficial had a beneficial outcome, that has little to do with their beliefs on the matter. That's why so many people who believed it would help them regret it after. Their beliefs of what would happen didn't match with the reality of what happened after.

Nadya 11y ago

I asked the question about BIID to see if we'd ever be able to see eye to eye. I'll save us from further discourse over the matter: we won't. I see benefits in identifying the source or cause of [__] rather than merely treating the symptoms of [__]. I find it more beneficial to see if low sodium intake is the root cause of a persons continual headaches rather than have them take Aspirin every day they have a headache. This is something we differ in ideologically and thus we will not see eye to eye. Your (1) only holds true when we can research alternative methods openly and decide there are no better alternatives. Loud and threatening advocacy groups, social pressures, and current popular political standings do not allow such research to be done. It also requires there to be a medical consensus and currently, there isn't one. There is a lot of criticism over the more 'positive' results of TS studies. They are often poorly conducted, lose track of many participants, or are not set up in meaningful ways [0]. To me, that says we can do better. But we can't look into better solutions because advocate groups and TS activists shut attempts down with threats and public backlash. This is something that personally affects me. So I feel very strongly about supporting research that goes against advocate groups and what people want others to believe. I'm in a particularly shitty situation: I'm a minority among a minority group. I'm forced to live in their world view, even if I disagree with it. Doubly so because in the current "PC Era" I can't even oppose the popular opinion of a minority group even if I belong to the same group. I'm still trying to fathom how I can be a transexual transphobe, but many people have asserted that I am. Or worse: I'm a fraud! I ask that you see my viewpoint: I don't think SRS is beneficial. I'm not alone in these beliefs as someone with gender dysphoria. I want alternative methods researched, for my benefit. TS activist groups actively threaten, riot, condemn, ridicule, etc. any attempts at doing so and squash them. All because this research goes against their world view and hurts their feelings. To even suggest to these people that they could be wrong is blasphemy to the highest degree. This leaves me in the dust. It leaves me and others like me behind. We aren't allowed a voice - and are increasingly silenced. It's actively harming me, and I won't stand for that. [0] http://library.transgenderzone.com/?page_id=1895 http://library.transgenderzone.com/?page_id=1895

brighteyes 11y ago
I think you make a bunch of valid points. I agree for example that politics make it hard to study this area. And I agree it is sad that there is silencing. But I just don't see how you can say that SRS is bad for other people. Let them decide for themselves, given the evidence, much of which supports that it does help. I agree that some people might be led by hurt feelings to jump to conclusions on this topic, as you say. But I don't think that explains the APA's position as mentioned earlier. There is substantial medical establishment support for SRS being helpful.
- Nadya 11y ago
  I don't trust the APA's position on anything with strong political standpoints since homosexual lobbyists/activists pressured them for several years leading to their 1973 decision. Being disrupted and threatened for years and knowing a single statement with no immediate consequences to them could make it all stop - the decision seems easy. Regardless if that decision might prevent further research into the area and might be justified: it was pre-emptively killed off due to activists and social pressures. Which makes the APA's position on a related, but different and still politically-charged issue utterly meaningless in my eyes. There's also substantial evidence against SRS being helpful. So we'll have to agree to disagree based on our sources (which could easily be confirmation bias or simply politically-slanted studies, hard to tell with the lack of research in the area). It's very difficult to assume that a person who is "certain it will help" will actually be helped by the treatment. It is not a decision someone can make beforehand, but rather a result that happens after. Believing it will have a beneficial outcome and it having a beneficial outcome are not the same thing. Even if someone believed it would be beneficial had a beneficial outcome, that has little to do with their beliefs on the matter. That's why so many people who believed it would help them regret it after. Their beliefs of what would happen didn't match with the reality of what happened after.