|
Xandu posted:Is this fundamentally different than a pill to fix gay people? I understand the point that gender dysmorphia is not easily treated (through surgery/hormones), but if it's a part of one's identity, then it can't and shouldn't really be changed. No, it's not fundamentally different, and I'm not sure what the point of this hypothetical is, especially given my second point, which is: Who What Now posted:You don't need a pill for that, it's just natural. Whoops! I meant to say "What if there was a magic pill that could stop people from caring about being amputees?" My point was that it's a problem with the body, not the mind, and since we already have ways of dealing with that (which admittedly aren't perfect, but are getting better), it's better to focus on that, and social acceptance, than to focus on some hypothetical magic pill. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Dec 7, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
Xandu posted:Is this fundamentally different than a pill to fix gay people? The kind of gender dysphoria that causes a person to feel miserable without major surgical and hormonal intervention is fundamentally different from being gay I think, yeah. Being homosexual doesn't cause any inherent suffering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Is this fundamentally different than a pill to fix gay people? I understand the point that gender dysmorphia is not easily treated (through surgery/hormones), but if it's a part of one's identity, then it can't and shouldn't really be changed. I get the objection you're raising, but don't you think there's something not quite right about treating gender, or dysphoria related to gender, or one's body, or even one's sex, as something immutable? A lot of people do want to change these things about themselves. Just because they've incorporated as aspect of their person into their identity doesn't mean they're happy with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Is this fundamentally different than a pill to fix gay people? I understand the point that gender dysmorphia is not easily treated (through surgery/hormones), but if it's a part of one's identity, then it can't and shouldn't really be changed. It wouldn't be fundamentally different, but the crux of the argument is essentially 'Does every naturally occurring human oddity have a moral obligation to be expressed?' So, would it be different from a pill that fixes sickle cell anemia? Would you take one and not the other? What is the quantifiable thing that makes sexuality or race a thing which should be expressed, and which makes debilitating illnesses a thing which should not be expressed? I assume everyone has a nicely developed gut instinct that says yes to the former and no to the latter but it's kind of hard to explain why from first principles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It wouldn't be fundamentally different, but the crux of the argument is essentially 'Does every naturally occurring human oddity have a moral obligation to be expressed?' The illness actively does harm to the individual while everything else is an aspect of who they are. And don't you dare respond by saying that people in a racial, sexual, and gender minority also experience harm because that harm is in no way comparable to a debilitating disease.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
The difference is Sickle Cell Anemia or Cancer or something like that is a problem on a biological level. It's nature's fault, so we can't fix it without curing it (or at least treating the symptoms). Lack of acceptance of sexual preference/gender identity is a society level problem, we can fix that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
For me this would fall under my views on if there was a machine or pill that could give someone white skin, I wouldn't be against it as I believe every person has a right to do what they wish with their own body, but it would probably be really sad to see how many people would be desperate to use it just to gain social acceptance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:The difference is Sickle Cell Anemia or Cancer or something like that is a problem on a biological level. It's nature's fault, so we can't fix it without curing it (or at least treating the symptoms). So the idea there is that the order of alteration should be non-biological factors, then biological factors. While that is consistent, I would be curious as to the reasoning behind it. Personally I see the distinction as a little arbitrary, as both biological and non-biological things can make your life kind of lovely, I would generally approach it from a practical effects standpoint, if one is easier to change than the other and results in a net quality of life improvement, I'd find it hard to argue against it rationally. MizPiz posted:The illness actively does harm to the individual while everything else is an aspect of who they are. Which follows onto this, yeah they're different and give people grief for different reasons, but a lovely life is a lovely life, if someone wants to sacrifice something that makes them different in order to gain better integration into society, I couldn't really tell them it's immoral to do so, and thus if I was in the position of having to make the decision for them, I wouldn't be able to say no to the offer on ethical grounds. The morality of choosing whether or not to express parts of your biological makeup which could potentially result in harm to you is the same regardless of who is making the decision, you can argue that making decisions for others in general has ethical issues with it certainly, but otherwise if the decision is right or wrong for a person to make for themselves, then it is equally right or wrong for someone else to make for them, assuming you can justify making decisions for other people in general. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Some people have already broached this, but some others still seem to be looking at only a single group so I figured I would take a shot at it too. If we're talking about surgery level dysphoria, it's a little more than just "society doesn't accept them". It's more like being born with a broken bone. The issue in this case seems to me to be that the mental stuff is more "who we are" than, say, a broken arm. If you cut off someone's arm, they are still more or less them. If you do something like cut out their entire frontal lobe, they become very different people. This pill is like the frontal lobe cut to a very significant portion of the people being talked about. Right now, surgery is like fixing the broken arm for people with that level/kind of dysphoria. For simple crossdressing, I think it's sufficient to just say that society needs to get their heads our of their asses about it. It's the less interesting of the problems anyway I think. It's also likely this could not be detected in childhood to administer the hypothetical pill too, so I'd say it's a wash on that hypothetical. For the hormone replacement or surgery level/kind: If someone wants to take the pill when they can make decisions (but with the option probably being available around puberty so hormone stuff can be fully effective) I think they should be able to. I don't think it would be too different than taking other psychotropic medications, especially if you could take one to "go back". They should have the choice of surgery or pill. The childhood hypothetical is probably the most interesting here. On one hand, you would be saving them a lot of dysphoria for hypothetically cheaper. I am assuming the pill is like $5 and not the expensive piece of nanomachinery it might need to be. On the other, we don't know how much is tied to whatever it is that causes dysphoria so it might change many aspects of their personality aside from just removing the physical dysphoria. If it only removes the physical dysphoria aspects, and it has no other personality side effects, and it is far cheaper than surgery, and society is ok with people anywhere along the gender expression spectrum (since they may still end up expressing between even with no physical dysphoria and may have a might higher chance to do so), then I think it should be considered for a typical (but not mandatory) course of treatment. Although, I still think it should be waited out until puberty at which point the dysphoria should most strongly start to present. Anytime before that would also require a hypothetical "transness" detector of some sort. If any of those conditions are not met, then no. With the special caveat that if the only condition not met is that if the pill is about as expensive as surgery and such then it should still be considered since it is hypothetically safer (no surgery, no liver use) and preserves reproductive function (which a lot of people like to have).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
With that said I would like to say that we'll probably figure out how to clone opposite sex organs from the same person's genetic material before we have this hypothetical pill (if ever), and that would evade most of the sticky problems with the pill hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:The difference is Sickle Cell Anemia or Cancer or something like that is a problem on a biological level. It's nature's fault, so we can't fix it without curing it (or at least treating the symptoms). I think it's generally accepted that at least a portion of being transgender and/or experiencing gender dysphoria comes from differences in the physiology of the brain. Basically, the brain and the body don't match each other on a biological level. The current treatment for such is to alter the body to match the brain, since we don't know how to do it the other way around, but there's no inherent reason why we couldn't alter the brain to match the body (which is what the Magic Pill would do) if it were a more effective treatment. This is not really the same as sexual preference, or even how you choose to express your gender or lack thereof.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Number one ethics rule: Don't gently caress with people's brains. Just don't do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
But we gently caress with people's brains all the time? Have you never drunk alcohol? Any anti-depressants?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Don't gently caress with people's brains: 1) irreversibly 2) against their will 3) because they're different
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Don't gently caress with people's brains: Also maybe not always 2. Emergency situations, they're gonna kill people, etc. I'll take it as a strong set of general guidelines though. Regarding the current hypothetical, if they took the magic pill of their own volition that would violate #1. I'd view that similarly to epilepsy surgeries and find it acceptable in many potential cases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Number one ethics rule: Don't gently caress with people's brains. Just don't do it. We gently caress with people's brains all the time. What do you think CB therapy is? Nameless_Steve posted:Don't gently caress with people's brains: Again, this is done for children all the time. ADHD meds for kids would easily cover 2/3 and arguably 1 but I'm sure there's even better examples. The statement is far to broad to have any meaning. tsa fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
tsa posted:We gently caress with people's brains all the time. What do you think CB therapy is? Kylra fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Don't gently caress with people's brains: Is this a "don't do it if its one of these" or "don't do it if its all of these"? The second case I can agree with, but the first one is... pretty divergent from mainstream opinion. loving with people's brains in an attempt to give them a better life is like the major purpose of the psychiatric system, through means both direct and indirect, and plenty of those means are in fact irreversible. Do you believe psychology to be immoral? Xandu posted:Is this fundamentally different than a pill to fix gay people? I understand the point that gender dysmorphia is not easily treated (through surgery/hormones), but if it's a part of one's identity, then it can't and shouldn't really be changed. And parenting is rather inherently concerned with shaping and changing the identity of children, instilling in them beliefs and behaviours that will serve them well throughout their life. In what way is this meaningfully different, other than that the effect would be known and reliable? And this is a disorder that will cause significant quality of life issues. The debate is actually being played out right now, in real life, in deaf and blind communities, where the pill isn't a pill and isn't magic, but the procedures do exist to "correct" blindness and deafness in childhood... but many blind and deaf families are opposed, because they see those things as defining features of their children's identities and cultures. Kylra posted:Presumably we're talking about medicine type interventions (pills, surgery), not talking to people. If we cast a wide enough definition, then just having a baby which grows up is constantly loving with their brain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Kylra posted:Presumably we're talking about medicine type interventions (pills, surgery), not talking to people. If we cast a wide enough definition, then just having a baby which grows up is constantly loving with their brain. Which is one of several reasons I don't feel OK with having children. Seems pretty horrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This is... pretty much a true statement though. A lot of people are super screwed up because of it, while others are super successful!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think it's generally accepted that at least a portion of being transgender and/or experiencing gender dysphoria comes from differences in the physiology of the brain. Basically, the brain and the body don't match each other on a biological level. The current treatment for such is to alter the body to match the brain, since we don't know how to do it the other way around, but there's no inherent reason why we couldn't alter the brain to match the body (which is what the Magic Pill would do) if it were a more effective treatment. This is not really the same as sexual preference, or even how you choose to express your gender or lack thereof. I'm literally a transgendered woman so yes I am aware. The point I was trying to make is the vast majority of the problems for trans people come from stigma, which is a societal problem. If trans people could be their desired gender without being harassed it wouldn't totally alleviate the problem (They still would hate their body) it would remove a lot of the stress of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I'm literally a transgendered woman so yes I am aware. The point I was trying to make is the vast majority of the problems for trans people come from stigma, which is a societal problem. If trans people could be their desired gender without being harassed it wouldn't totally alleviate the problem (They still would hate their body) it would remove a lot of the stress of it. Absolutely. Given the perfect medical technology, both for treatment of the body and the brain, individuals would be able to make a choice between whether to treat the body to fall in line with one's mind, or visa versa, but we don't have perfect treatment for either. As it stands, I would agree that most of the negative effects of being transgender are due to society's reaction to it, as opposed to any innate quality of being transgender.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Is this a "don't do it if its one of these" or "don't do it if its all of these"? The second case I can agree with, but the first one is... pretty divergent from mainstream opinion. loving with people's brains in an attempt to give them a better life is like the major purpose of the psychiatric system, through means both direct and indirect, and plenty of those means are in fact irreversible. Do you believe psychology to be immoral?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Will there ever be a pill that will make moot's dream come true?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Is this fundamentally different than a pill to fix gay people? I understand the point that gender dysmorphia is not easily treated (through surgery/hormones), but if it's a part of one's identity, then it can't and shouldn't really be changed. It's fundamentally different because gender dysphoria is a disease and being gay isn't. And as far as identity goes, it's absolutely possible for someone to become a completely different person, personality and identity wise. It can happen after being concussed, for example. We just don't know how it happens or what wires need to be crossed to achieve a certain desired effect. I imagine the ultimate answer to roll-your-own-personality type stuff in the far-future will be surgery (possibly carried out internally via nano robots instead of classic surgery techniques) rather than drugs. The optimist in me comes to the conclusion that the ability to change our brains so precisely that we can determine specific personality traits will likely coincide with the technology to build ourselves a "dream body." Unfortunately, the pessimist in me comes to the conclusion that the brain surgery will be cheaper (and more likely to be covered by insurance), so only the rich will have the second option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
KillHour posted:It's fundamentally different because gender dysphoria is a disease and being gay isn't. No, gender dysphoria is not a disease. A disease always has a defined etiology and is usually associated with an infectious agent. In fact, in the latest DSM, dysphoria is not even a disorder, much less a disease, and the APA has stated that one of their primary motivations for keeping it in, instead of removing it like homosexuality, is because people need a diagnostic term that will protect their access to resources.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:No, gender dysphoria is not a disease. A disease always has a defined etiology and is usually associated with an infectious agent. In fact, in the latest DSM, dysphoria is not even a disorder, much less a disease, and the APA has stated that one of their primary motivations for keeping it in, instead of removing it like homosexuality, is because people need a diagnostic term that will protect their access to resources. Sorry, I did mean to say disorder, not disease. And the ICD-10 does list it as a disorder, so there's at least some disagreement about that. I honestly don't see how gender dysphoria could not be a disorder, since it has a significant negative impact on the lives of those suffering from it. I understand the aversion to saying there's something wrong with the brains of people suffering from it, but it hits all the traditional criteria. Either way, arguing semantics distracts from the argument at hand; namely, is psychiatric treatment (assuming effective) a reasonable solution to gender dysphoria? I see no reason to believe it wouldn't be. It's not like treating other mental anguish with psychoactives is unusual, even in minors. If our knowledge of the brain ever gets to the point where we are comfortable rewiring it, the slow steps that must happen to get us there will necessarily erode the stigma against such practices. It is likely brain-machine interfaces will be commonly available long before we can do anything meaningful to the brain directly. That alone, I think, will greatly change our perception of ourselves. The changing perceptions might even sidestep the issue entirely. KillHour fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I understand the aversion to saying there's something wrong with the brains of people suffering from it Except that for many people, changing their bodies alleviates the suffering, so it's not necessarily clear that it's "something wrong with the brain." If someone is experiencing distress from gender dysphoria, and a change in the body alleviates it, then it's not the brain that's the problem, it's the body. KillHour posted:And the ICD-10 does list it as a disorder, so there's at least some disagreement about that. The ICD-10, which is over 20 years old at this point, also lists transvestism, absent any cross-sex identification, or mental distress caused by the transvestism, as a gender identity disorder, so sorry if I consider it out-dated and wrong when it comes to gender identity issues. If you're taking it seriously you'd better be ready to defend claiming that every drag queen ever has a gender identity disorder, because that's what it says. KillHour posted:Either way, arguing semantics distracts from the argument at hand; namely, is psychiatric treatment (assuming effective) a reasonable solution to gender dysphoria? I see no reason to believe it wouldn't be. How about, "it's been tried and it doesn't work," is that a good enough reason? Also you can't just say, "let's assume this treatment is effective, wouldn't it then be effective," as that's the sloppiest and most unconvincing circular argument. There's a reason any credible doctor will not recommend a course of psychiatric therapy or psychoactive drugs to "cure" gender dysphoria. Psychological treatments for gender dysphoria are about helping the patient to adapt to their desired gender role, not "cure" them and make them associate with their assigned gender. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Except that for many people, changing their bodies alleviates the suffering, so it's not necessarily clear that it's "something wrong with the brain." If someone is experiencing distress from gender dysphoria, and a change in the body alleviates it, then it's not the brain that's the problem, it's the body. This is kind of a circular argument. Having a mismatch between the brain and the body doesn't say there's anything wrong with the brain OR the body. The brain may function just fine in a different body, but the body would function just fine with a different brain, too. You can change whichever is convenient. There's nothing special about a brain that makes changing it somehow more abhorrent than changing any other part of you. Sharkie posted:The ICD-10, which is over 20 years old at this point, also lists transvestism, absent any cross-sex identification, or mental distress caused by the transvestism, as a gender identity disorder, so sorry if I consider it out-dated and wrong when it comes to gender identity issues. If you're taking it seriously you'd better be ready to defend claiming that every drag queen ever has a gender identity disorder, because that's what it says. I will concede this point, because I honestly don't know enough about the texts to speak to their veracity, other than both being commonly referenced. The argument over semantics is still tangential to the point. Sharkie posted:How about, "it's been tried and it doesn't work," is that a good enough reason? Also you can't just say, "let's assume this treatment is effective, wouldn't it then be effective," as that's the sloppiest and most unconvincing circular argument. There's a reason any credible doctor will not recommend a course of psychiatric therapy or psychoactive drugs to "cure" gender dysphoria. Psychological treatments for gender dysphoria are about helping the patient to adapt to their desired gender role, not "cure" them and make them associate with their assigned gender. But that assumption is the entire premise of the OP (and the premise was explicitly stated). Of course any argument falls apart if you don't grant the original premise. That's how arguments work.  You're also trying to make the comparison that curing gender dysphoria is like "curing" homosexuality. This is not a valid comparison. Being gay doesn't prevent you from living a normal, happy life. Even if we removed all social stigma from transgendered people, there would still be a disconnect between their brains and their bodies. In fact, sufficiently modifying the body to match the brain so that there is no longer a disconnect is curing it, by definition. Again, there's no reason why one of those things has to be "wrong;" they just disagree. I'm not saying gender dysphoria is a mental disorder (implying something is wrong with the brain), I'm just saying it's a disorder (something is wrong, in general). If, for some reason, the choice is between having an imperfect procedure to modify your body or having a (supposedly) perfect procedure to modify your brain, surely some would choose the latter. You're also supposing that people would no longer have the option of gender reassignment, which nobody is arguing for. KillHour fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Except that for many people, changing their bodies alleviates the suffering, so it's not necessarily clear that it's "something wrong with the brain." If someone is experiencing distress from gender dysphoria, and a change in the body alleviates it, then it's not the brain that's the problem, it's the body. Possibly the disagreement between the two is the problem and the body is currently the easier of the two to modify reliably. Declaring universal priority of mind over body seems a bit of a stretch, when it could easily be left to the individual to decide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
KillHour posted:This is kind of a circular argument. Having a mismatch between the brain and the body doesn't say there's anything wrong with the brain OR the body. The brain may function just fine in a different body, but the body would function just fine with a different brain, too. You can change whichever is convenient. There's nothing special about a brain that makes changing it somehow more abhorrent than changing any other part of you. We have the means to change someone's body through hormone therapy and SRS to help alleviate dysphoria, whereas your proposed method for changing the brain involves brain-rewiring nanobots. Personally I know which one I'd say is more convenient. (hint: it's the one that doesn't involve non-existent scifi technology). KillHour posted:But that assumption is the entire premise of the OP (and the premise was explicitly stated). Of course any argument falls apart if you don't grant the original premise. That's how arguments work. If an argument has a premise based on fantasies of nonexistent Star Trek technology, it's not a leap to say that it falls apart when talking about the real world. Personally I find "what if, like, you could switch minds, man" discussions to be not relevant when discussing real people in the real world. KillHour posted:You're also (implicitly) trying to make the comparison that curing gender dysphoria is like "curing" homosexuality. This is not a valid comparison. I'm sorry but you're the one arguing that gender dysphoria can be "cured" through psychiatric means, which flies in the face of medical knowledge of gender dysphoria. It's been tried, it doesn't work. And yes, this is similar to how homosexuality tried to be cured through psychiatric means, and that also didn't work. That's the only comparison I'm making, and if you want to argue it's invalid, you're going to have to show how to eliminate gender dysphoria by psychiatrically making the person identify with their assigned gender. Torka posted:Gender dysphora is a form of suffering, sometimes intense suffering. Homosexuality is merely a sexual orientation And some people have mental/emotional suffering from being gay, and some people have gender identity issues but don't suffer from them (for example, people in other cultures). edit: I guess my point is that saying "Hey, let's assume we have nanomachines that can rewire your brain in any fashion," then limiting the discussion to trans people, is weird, and useless when it comes to real life. You'd think we'd want to prioritize major depression or anorexia or something if that technology existed, and I have to wonder why the OP didn't make a thread about that. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Gender dysphora is a form of suffering, sometimes intense suffering. Homosexuality is merely a sexual orientation
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:And some people have mental/emotional suffering from being gay Inherently? Or as a result of other people's reactions to their being gay? The difference is not just semantic
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
I always get the impression from your posts itt that you think any suffering related to being trans comes solely from other people/culture mistreating or misunderstanding you because you're trans (like it does for homosexuality). I think that's ridiculous because I have known trans people who were surrounded by loving, supportive, totally accepting people who nevertheless suffered from being trans because the dysphoria is inherently an unpleasant feeling. Regardless of how cool and accepting your culture is about being trans, being trans is still going to hurt because it's just a bad feeling for your mind and body not to match. I don't think you can say that about being gay. Torka fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Torka posted:Inherently? Or as a result of other people's reactions to their being gay? The difference is not just semantic Depends whether you would classify internal discomfort due to say, being a conservative Christian and being gay, as inherent. It can be argued that religion is a social construct and thus constitutes an external force, but you can make that same argument for about 90% of the concept of gender as well. We internalize both.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
I'd consider giving it a try, if my fiancee agreed that it was okay. I'm a guy but I'm not tremendously attached to the identity (which, at least to some extent, is something that comes from a position of privilege) or my body, and I am curious about what it's like to be a woman in all senses, likely including those I don't/can't envision. I think such a pill would be entirely appropriate for someone suffering from GID, but I accept the need for rigor if the thing is irreversible, as it may otherwise lead to people making mistakes and ending up in the wrong body after all. However, I believe that sort of thing is just sound medical practice and should attend any serious procedure or treatment, not this one specifically, and I have no desire to have any trans individuals told they're not really trans or any bullshit like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
The technology to change our bodies is coming along much faster than the technology to change our brains. Stem cells, tissue engineering, bioprinting, etc. are improving all the time. Recently scientists were able to create functional vaginas using tissue engineering, and implant them into some women. Functional penises, breasts, etc. also aren't out of the question. These are all still in the development stage but they're not distant future sci-fi stuff either. The applications to sex-reassignment and facial feminization surgery are obvious. I fully expect that, within our lifetimes, even older transitioners will be able to greatly alter their face and parts of their physique and genitalia and "pass" as their gender. Heck, we're already there in some ways. Meanwhile, we barely know jack about how our brains work, and nanobots are still sci-fi. I know there has been progress with nanoparticles and DNA origami, but that isn't what people talk about when they mention nanorobots. Brain-computer interfaces are coming along, but still a far cry from what you would need if you wanted to turn a transgendered person into a cisgendered one. I think we'll just stick with hormone therapy and such-like for now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Then maybe don't post in the thread about magic brain-altering pills?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Torka posted:I always get the impression from your posts itt that you think any suffering related to being trans comes solely from other people/culture mistreating or misunderstanding you because you're trans (like it does for homosexuality). I think that's ridiculous because I have known trans people who were surrounded by loving, supportive, totally accepting people who nevertheless suffered from being trans because the dysphoria is inherently an unpleasant feeling. No, I guess I can see how I came off that way, but that's not what I meant to imply. I absolutely think dysphoria hurts in and of itself. It's just that I'm kind of skeeved out by the premise of assuming "what if we could use nanobots to make trans people stop being trans," and I wanted to bring things back more towards pointing out that a magic brain re-writer isn't a goal worth paying attention to, and emphasizing the social aspects of dysphoria was part of that attempt. For what it's worth, I'm transgender, so yeah, I absolutely agree that dysphoria sucks, and that's also why I'm probably taking this a little personally, especially since it seems to be coming at it from "why can't we use psychiatry to make people stop being trans," except using nanobots instead of whatever other methods have been tried. OwlFancier posted:It can be argued that religion is a social construct and thus constitutes an external force, but you can make that same argument for about 90% of the concept of gender as well. We internalize both. I agree and think this is a very good point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
this threadchat is veering dangerously close to tumblr-style truscum debates. like i half expect someone to start posting about how you dont need to experience gender dysphoria to be trans
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:11
|
|