|
Sharkie posted: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. I completely see where you're coming from now, sorry for getting a little combative.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Sharkie posted: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. You're missing the point of the thread. The OP was pretty clear that they wanted to discuss the ethical issues around modifying someone's perception of self, not whether such a thing was possible. A big flaming stink posted: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 Someone already did this, like 2 pages ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Now, imagine that the drug only worked in the formative years. On children, essentially. Would it be acceptable for parents of children experiencing gender dysphoria to give their child the drug? Obviously not, since we have available treatments to change their bodies when they're old enough to give input on the decision, so why not just do that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Obviously not, since we have available treatments to change their bodies when they're old enough to give input on the decision, so why not just do that? It's not exactly an easy route to take. How would you justify forcing the person to choose between dysphoria or a more traditional transitioning process? Neither is something I would voluntarily subject someone to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's not exactly an easy route to take. How would you justify forcing the person to choose between dysphoria or a more traditional transitioning process? Neither is something I would voluntarily subject someone to. Because it's their choice to make. Let's say we had a pill that would change a baby's body and brain into the opposite sex that only works in infancy. Would it be ethical to do it to your baby girl because you always wanted a boy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because it's their choice to make. Assuming it has no side effects, that decision would be entirely non-moral, as in the choice would not require a moral decision, both male and female children are valid so the only deciding factor would be personal preference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Torka posted:I completely see where you're coming from now, sorry for getting a little combative. Nah, it's cool, you didn't come off as combative to me, and you gave me an opportunity to clarify my position. I'm admittedly a little sensitive about discussions of trans issues in some spaces, because they're often less about "how do we help trans people," and more about "aren't trans people crazy lol" (I'm not trying to imply that anyone in this thread has been claiming that). KillHour posted:You're missing the point of the thread. The OP was pretty clear that they wanted to discuss the ethical issues around modifying someone's perception of self, not whether such a thing was possible. Again, I'm just wondering why gender dysphoria was picked as the debate topic, instead of say, depression or anorexia or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Assuming it has no side effects, that decision would be entirely non-moral, as in the choice would not require a moral decision, both male and female children are valid so the only deciding factor would be personal preference. Just because you're changing your child into an equally valid human being doesn't mean that it's ethical to do so without their consent. Liking football and not liking football are also equally valid, but treatments to change your kid's brain to like all the things you like seem problematic to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Again, I'm just wondering why gender dysphoria was picked as the debate topic, instead of say, depression or anorexia or whatever. I used to resist medication that was offered for my depression because I was afraid it would change who I was (this is a pretty common fear). Eventually I did start taking it, but it wasn't because I changed my mind about that. I still think they probably do change your personality somewhat. It was just that the problems the depression was causing had become severe enough that changing who I was seemed like the lesser of the evils.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just because you're changing your child into an equally valid human being doesn't mean that it's ethical to do so without their consent. That would seem to be predicated on the idea that humans come into being from birth with 100% of their value. Personally I subscribe to the idea that humans acquire value as they grow, as they accumulate thoughts and ideas and beliefs and feelings and experiences. As they become unique. Changing a person destroys part of that unique and valuable thing, which is what makes it unethical, but if that uniqueness is not present in a significant degree, or can easily reform, then it becomes less objectionable. Considrering babies are arguably non-sentient, much less unique people, I wouldn't see a problem with it. Especially if doing it would spare them almost certain pain later in life. It would be different if you were suggesting doing it to a teenager or even an eight year old, as people become, well, people, they acquire the right to self determination, to a sense of continuity of the self, I guess you could describe it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
So essentially you can morally do anything you want to a baby, since it's not a proper person, as long as there's a pill available to give it that will ensure it doesn't care when it gets older so no one has been hurt. That's interesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So essentially you can morally do anything you want to a baby, since it's not a proper person, as long as there's a pill available to give it that will ensure it doesn't care when it gets older so no one has been hurt. Er, you probably shouldn't start killing/beating babies, that is stupid and destructive and obviously immoral, I didn't think I would need to specify that...
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Er, you probably shouldn't start killing/beating babies, that is stupid and destructive and obviously immoral, I didn't think I would need to specify that... Well sure, but short of that, right, as long as you make sure it doesn't bother them later. Maybe give them the straight-making pill that was suggested earlier to make sure they don't grow up gay. Or cut off a foot and give them the pill someone else brought up that makes them happy not to have a foot. Is there harm if you do it when they still have 0% value and you make sure they're happy about it when they reach critical-human-value and it becomes wrong to tamper with them without consent? Or do humans have some inherent right to govern themselves after all instead of being a means to satisfy their parents' arbitrary whims until they reach some fuzzy indistinct threshold of self-actualization or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well sure, but short of that, right, as long as you make sure it doesn't bother them later. Why would you cut off someone's foot for no reason? What purpose does that serve? Straight-making, personally yes, because I wouldn't willingly subject someone to having to put up with the kind of poo poo they'd have to put up with growing up gay. If I could defer the painless decision until they were old enough to decide for themselves then I would, because painless self determination is a rare gift, but if I had to make the decision for them, I would choose the path designed to minimize suffering. If you put me in charge of looking after a child, it is my absolute responsibility to give that child the best opportunities I can, as well as to minimize the amount of senseless pain they have to endure. Self determination is important but until one has the experience to understand the decision, one cannot self determine. Benevolent, but outside determination is better than no determination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you put me in charge of looking after a child, it is my absolute responsibility to give that child the best opportunities I can, as well as to minimize the amount of senseless pain they have to endure. Self determination is important but until one has the experience to understand the decision, one cannot self determine. Benevolent, but outside determination is better than no determination. When the pain is senseless and caused by other people being senseless, why should the victims (or their parents) have any responsibility in this situation? This line of reasoning would seem to imply that any painless method of ensuring we only give birth to (white? straight?) males is a parental responsibility. Sex-selective abortion is possible now; are you going to make use of it to ensure your child has the absolute best possible opportunities in male-dominated society? e: not accusing you of being a misogynist or anything, just noting that your reasoning has some strange implications
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:When the pain is senseless and caused by other people being senseless, why should the victims (or their parents) have any responsibility in this situation? This line of reasoning would seem to imply that any painless method of ensuring we only give birth to (white? straight?) males is a parental responsibility. Sex-selective abortion is possible now; are you going to make use of it to ensure your child has the absolute best possible opportunities in male-dominated society? Depends, you can also make the argument that as that kind of selective screening of children is not available to many people, utilizing it hurts people as a whole by reinforcing malicious thinking in the world at large. The responsibility is there because the capacity for action is there, if you can act to change a situation, you are responsible for the outcome. If your inaction leads to a particular outcome, you are responsible for that outcome. The question would be whether it is ethical to decide to use people as sacrificial lambs on the altar of social acceptance, to knowingly give someone a life you know is going to be hard, in the hopes that it will make future lives less hard. Is it ethical to make one person suffer for the hopeful good of many? I don't have a universal answer to that, but in my case I would not be willing to use someone entrusted to my care as a tool in that manner. It would be a betrayal of trust to do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Assuming it has no side effects, that decision would be entirely non-moral, as in the choice would not require a moral decision, both male and female children are valid so the only deciding factor would be personal preference. Hm http://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/12/1374.short-ref= quote:A consistent pattern in all three countries is the marked trend related to birth order and the influence of the sex of the preceding child. If the first child is a girl, couples will often use sex-selective abortion to ensure a boy in the second pregnancy, especially in areas where low fertility is the norm. A large study in India showed that for second births with one preceding girl the SRB is 132, and for third births with two previous girls it is 139, whereas sex ratios are normal where the previous child was a boy.6 In China this effect is even more dramatic, especially in areas where the rural population are allowed a second child only after the birth of a girl, as is the case in some central provinces. The SRB across the country for first-order births is 108, for second-order births it is 143 and for the (albeit rare) third-order births it is 157.5 SRB being the sex ratio at birth, in this case the number of boys per 100 girls. Point being when you say "personal preference" you mean "societal preference" which starts being a well maybe it's not so ok to gently caress with this sort of thing just because you feel like it, at the very least because of the possibility of unforeseen consequences, especially if there's no direct benefit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Depends, you can also make the argument that as that kind of selective screening of children is not available to many people, utilizing it hurts people as a whole by reinforcing malicious thinking in the world at large. Could we not make the argument that de-transing people hurts existing trans people as a whole by reinforcing anti-trans sentiment in the world at large? OwlFancier posted:The question would be whether it is ethical to decide to use people as sacrificial lambs on the altar of social acceptance, to knowingly give someone a life you know is going to be hard, in the hopes that it will make future lives less hard. Is it ethical to make one person suffer for the hopeful good of many? So, if you have a child one day, you definitely would use artificial insemination or sex-selective abortions to ensure the child is born male? Genuinely asking because it seems like that is what you are saying. E: I mean I can't necessarily say it's wrong in the individual case but something about it sure rubs me the wrong way. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Why would you cut off someone's foot for no reason? What purpose does that serve? Hey honey, I know when you left this morning, we had a brand new mixed-race girl, but I did the numbers and that's suboptimal, and I just hate the pain racism causes so much, y'know, so ta-da, I changed her into a white boy. Also he now loves making money and also football, because I love football, and not sharing interests with your parents would be a senseless emotional pain. OwlFancier posted:The question would be whether it is ethical to decide to use people as sacrificial lambs on the altar of social acceptance, to knowingly give someone a life you know is going to be hard, in the hopes that it will make future lives less hard. Is it ethical to make one person suffer for the hopeful good of many? Two black parents: we had an abortion because it would be a betrayal of trust to make a black baby. Therefore we'll adopt a white one so as not to make a sacrifice on the altar of social acceptance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Could we not make the argument that de-transing people hurts existing trans people as a whole by reinforcing anti-trans sentiment in the world at large? Yes. VitalSigns posted:So, if you have a child one day, you definitely would use artificial insemination or sex-selective abortions to ensure the child is born male? Actually I would, if possible, ensure a girl, as I very much doubt I would make a good father to a boy. As I don't believe sex selection is legal in the UK, this forms part of my decision not to have children. The rest of it being basically that having children in general seems fairly immoral and unnecessary when you could adopt. Adoption I would be OK with, assuming I became rich enough to support a child easily, anyway. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Diversity is pretty cool, also useful pretty often. It wouldn't do for everyone to want to be a football star and nothing else, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
I would support doing it if traditional ways to alter the body would`nt work. For instance if the child has some disability that makes hormone therapy a death sentence. Or if the Family is too poor to afford normal treatment and have no way of getting the necessary funds. In scenarios like that rewiring the brain seems like the lesser evil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:59
|
|
