Shall I get technical?

There have been some argumetns regarding the sex reassignment process. I thought maybe I should post a detailed description of all that's involved, including the Standards of Care, Hormone Replacement Therapy and Sex Reassignment Surgery.

I will post about it if there's one vote for it (I won't vote in this one). The poll is to gaugue how detailed I should be and where to post warnings. In any case you may all ahve to wait til Friday evening or Saturday morning. Work's really being a mean-tempreed female dog right now ;)

If it turns out that I'm not interested I will use common sense and not read any more. Just like I do on many posts, and, thankfully, titles keeps me from even starting quite a few. I posted the first interested vote.

I'm very much on both sides of the fence.

Technical? I'm sure there are plenty of websites where you could simply supply links and save yourself the trouble of typing all the technical details.

Personal? This is probably where the 'squeemish' factor comes in. And there's probably not that many places where you could simply provide a link for all those gory details. And, quite frankly, I wouldn't want to follow any of those links anyway.

Would I read all the details that you might post? Well, I have so far....

---

Quote: Nareed

There have been some argumetns regarding the sex reassignment process.

No there haven't. There's been arguments about sex change. That's very different, and, once the distinction is made, the argument becomes meaningless.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Technical? I'm sure there are plenty of websites where you could simply supply links and save yourself the trouble of typing all the technical details.

Certainly. But this way you can ask questions about it and I can answer them. half of all learning is asking questions.

Quote:

Personal? This is probably where the 'squeemish' factor comes in. And there's probably not that many places where you could simply provide a link for all those gory details. And, quite frankly, I wouldn't want to follow any of those links anyway.

I wouldn't, either. I've read descriptions of how the surgery goes. It wasn't easy. I've had the same trouble reading about orher types of surgery, like heart valve replacements. I mean, if you just say "remove the valve and sew in the replacement," I'm ok. When the descriptions say where the scalpel cuts, what gets clamped, etc, I get squeamish.

I'm assuming that's what would bother most peolpe, BTW, but how can you tell what wil bother whom? For all I know phrases like "reduced libido" could hit someone harder than details about surgery.

Quote:

Would I read all the details that you might post? Well, I have so far....

That's very kind of you.

I've found posting helps me, whether I get any replies or not.

Quote:

No there haven't. There's been arguments about sex change. That's very different, and, once the distinction is made, the argument becomes meaningless.

You're right. But mkl really spewed a couple of whopers as far as I read (and it wasn't very far). This is an area rife with missinformation and ignorance. You woulnd't believe how many people think sex change surgery consists of breast implants... So, do let's argue about sex changes, but let's ahve all the pertinent facts at hand: what gets added, what gets removed and how the whole thing works.

You're born how you're born. Once sperm fertilizes egg, all doubts about the genetic sequence that makes you You are laid to rest - outside of any radiation mutations obtained during a lifetime, but those are random environmental occurrences and not immutable genetic inheritances.

But we all know genetic inheritances are not always perfect. There are some six-fingered people out there, or three-nippled, or whatever. It shouldn't surprise that similar "imperfections" (for lack of a better word) occur with sexual organs. There are some folks out there with both a man-part and a lady-part, etc. While these occur, they're rare. I think in instances like this, the case for gender-related surgery is easy, and IMHO, is perfectly moral and healthy in the same way removing a sixth finger or third nipple would be.

"You're born how you're born" also includes the way the brain is wired. I've called this a "talent" in other threads. The issue is by no means settled, but it's how I view it and I think it makes the most sense. I believe that genetic inheritances can make someone clearly one gender, but his/her "talent" makes their sexuality something different than "normal" - where "normal" is defined in the bell-curve sense, and not the "natural-ness" of the "talent." In the sense I mean here, it's similarly abnormal to be a musical genius like Mozart or a physics genius like Newton.

In the same way genetic inheritances are not always perfect, wiring-matching-gender is not always "normal" (in the bell-curve sense). Like genetic imperfection, this (I think) is also rare. By this, I mean that being "homosexual" in this sense is significantly less frequent than people who learn/choose it. If I had to put a percentage on it, I'd say about 2% of the homosexual demographic is homosexual in this brain-wiring way. I think in instances like this, the case for gender-related surgery is nebulous, and no easy moral or health determinations can be made. It would be done on a very case-by-case basis and (rightly) should be ultra-uber-super-screened.

But then there are the people who do gender reassignment surgery for reasons outside of genetic imperfections and having the homosexual "talent." If I had to throw a percentage of all gender reassignment surgeries that are done outside of those circumstances, I would probably put about 90% on it, meaning, that in 90% of the cases, gender reassignment is a very, very, very bad idea in terms of the health of the patient and the morality of performing the procedure. Hopefully, the ultra-uber-super-screening would weed out these cases, or at least minimize this occurrence.

Is it a person's right to do what they will with their body? Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no. It is certainly not someone's right to use their body to murder someone. It is sometimes someone's right to use their body for prostitution. It is certainly someone's right to use their body for charitable service. Where "right to gender re=assignment surgery" falls on the continuum is certainly a matter for debate, but I would put it on the "no, you don't have that right, and it should only occur in the rare cases described above."

My $0.02.

Quote: Nareed

You're right. But mkl really spewed a couple of whopers as far as I read (and it wasn't very far). This is an area rife with missinformation and ignorance. You woulnd't believe how many people think sex change surgery consists of breast implants... So, do let's argue about sex changes, but let's ahve all the pertinent facts at hand: what gets added, what gets removed and how the whole thing works.

Does anyone see the pitiful illogic in criticizing something that another person wrote, without actually having read it?

Nareed, and many many others, so desperately want sex chnage surgery to be a possibility. But all that is available with today's technology is "sex-change" COSMETIC surgery. I would be rather interested to see how a modern sex-change operation could possibly include, say, the installation of a functional vagina, uterus, and ovaries into a male body--which would, among many other structural changes, have to occur before a true "sex change" would take place. Similarly, to change a woman into a man, you'd need to insert a functioning prostate gland, etc. etc. etc. (though lopping off various and sundry parts would probably be easier than installing them).

I guess if it's a "whopper" to say that medical science doesn't yet know how to install female internal organs in a male body, I guess I'm guilty of that thar "whopper."

I continue to pity the persons who feel trapped in their own bodies, and I do wish that a sex change operation was, in fact, possible. I also wish humans could fly unaided.

Quote: mkl654321

Does anyone see the pitiful illogic in criticizing something that another person wrote, without actually having read it?

I criticized the parts I read, which you'd know if you read my post in the Free Speech area. I won't rehash here what I said there, either.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

You're born how you're born. Once sperm fertilizes egg, all doubts about the genetic sequence that makes you You are laid to rest - outside of any radiation mutations obtained during a lifetime, but those are random environmental occurrences and not immutable genetic inheritances.

(snip for length)

You statement does imply a preference for the nature side of the nature/nuture argument, which I'd suggest that nuture is as much a factor in someone's brain wiring, personality and thus gender identity as their nature.

I'd also suggest that gender identity and sexual preference are different issues, though they maybe linked. I'm know of both gay and straight transgendered people, and gay/straight meaning either way you decide to judge their gender (their view, or your own). I also know of plenty of cisgendered LGB folks, and plenty of folks whose sexuality and gender identity is in no way black or white.

Quote: thecesspit

You statement does imply a preference for the nature side of the nature/nuture argument, which I'd suggest that nuture is as much a factor in someone's brain wiring, personality and thus gender identity as their nature.

I'd also suggest that gender identity and sexual preference are different issues, though they maybe linked. I'm know of both gay and straight transgendered people, and gay/straight meaning either way you decide to judge their gender (their view, or your own). I also know of plenty of cisgendered LGB folks, and plenty of folks whose sexuality and gender identity is in no way black or white.

I don't necessarily disagree. I tried to hit all those points and still keep it brief, but my post is still pretty long. Give it a good once-over and tell me your impressions, REMEMBERING that is it just a guy's opinion.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I don't necessarily disagree. I tried to hit all those points and still keep it brief, but my post is still pretty long. Give it a good once-over and tell me your impressions, REMEMBERING that is it just a guy's opinion.

I've re-read your comment and I think we broadly agree (as i thought initially) but have slightly different takes on it, which is all good, and all I was trying to follow up with. I understand it's your opinion. Not trying to start a fight. I wasn't going to post in this thread, but kinda of got caught up in it.

I mostly don't agree with the statement about 2% are born with the homosexual talent as you describe. I think it's a nebulous quality that would very hard to pin down (and I don't really care why someone is gay or straight). IF it was possible to define it, I would suspect the number is higher than 2% though.

Quote: Nareed

I criticized the parts I read, which you'd know if you read my post in the Free Speech area. I won't rehash here what I said there, either.

As I said, pitiful illogic--to read and criticize a PART of what someone wrote without even bothering to read the rest. You had an emotional reaction and responded based solely on that. I do agree that you don't bother to read what I write before you react to it. You take things out of context, and react to a portion of an argument rather than its entirety.

In any case, I invite you to refute my assertion that modern medical science lacks the ability to insert a complete set of functioning female organs into a male body, and vice versa. If you can't or won't do that, then stop bitching about what I said.

Look, Jerry, just go where the argument actually is, instead of trying to multiply it here.

Quote: Nareed

Look, Jerry, just go where the argument actually is, instead of trying to multiply it here.

OOOOOO! He called me "Jerry"! What a witty and devastating bon mot! (and what an admission of failure on your part!)

Yeah, sure, you got me. I'm mortally wounded. I'm devastated. How will I survive the scorn of a little, tiny man? Oh, wait...

Quote: thecesspit

I've re-read your comment and I think we broadly agree (as i thought initially) but have slightly different takes on it, which is all good, and all I was trying to follow up with. I understand it's your opinion. Not trying to start a fight. I wasn't going to post in this thread, but kinda of got caught up in it.

I mostly don't agree with the statement about 2% are born with the homosexual talent as you describe. I think it's a nebulous quality that would very hard to pin down (and I don't really care why someone is gay or straight). IF it was possible to define it, I would suspect the number is higher than 2% though.

Yeah, the 2% thing is just a guess. I thought about how many normal SDs worked for me and what "vibe" my interactions with homosexual friends/folks gave, and that is where I landed. Since there's no political or societal will to do research on this, it will remain a guess for a while ...

Curious ... if you had to put a percentage on it, what would you guess?

Ok, as there are four poeple interested, I will be posting about it. I'll try to keep the gory details to a minimmum, and to palce warnings when they're necessary. I'll try to cover also the female-to-male process, but I know very little about the surgical aspects of it.

As noted I'll post tomorrow or the day after, and in a new thread.

Make that Sunday. Sorry. I sold my car today and will likely spend much of Saturday cleaning it up.