|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
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
|
|