Are they different than LGBs? It does seem like a different situation, in that there is no “treatment” required for LGBs. And the treatment seems to be extreme, and in the long run, perhaps not helpful, or it makes things worse.
And no, it’s not “bigoted” or “phobic” to ask the question.
[Thursday-morning update]
[Bumped]
Eric S. Raymond – who is neither Christian or conservative – wrote about this, agreeing with another author that there’s no rational way to say the “transgender” impulse is somehow different than body integrity identity disorder (the desire to cut off body parts).
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5015
If LGBs are disproportionately likely (and in large numbers) to believe that sex and gender are two different things, then homosexuality is symptomatic of greater insanity(ies) that bloody well requires treatment.
I have a curiosity in regards to psychiatry, but otherwise try to steer clear of diagnosis, so I will here. However, I do want to point to this article by Ace which nails my issue with a particular argument by the trans community. I had the same problem with Bradley Manning. They can do what they want with their body, but telling me that I must now ignore nature and science and accept them as always being a woman is absurd.
For Manning, this was a tacit way to absolve his new persona of the crimes he committed. In the case of Jenner, if their argument is true, then I think the Olympics committee will have to re-evaluate their sports (something I suspect the trans community would support) or strip Caitlyn of Bruce’s medals earned by committing fraud.
And this does touch on the psychiatry, because if Caitlyn was “born that way”, then she competed in the wrong sport fraudulently; if there was a change in Bruce’s belief to become a woman named Caitlyn, then there must be some psychiatric reason for that change. If neither is true, then there is no definition for sex and all rules related to such definitions are null and void, (i.e. Olympic sports deferentiated by sex and Title IX).
Already the Ministry of Truth at Wikipedia is working to revise history:
“The current women’s world record is held by Marita Koch, with a time of 47.60 seconds. However Caitlyn Jenner is the fastest woman’s performer of all time, running a time of 47.51 in 1976 while competing under the name Bruce Jenner.”
The issue is now being discussed in the Washington Post with many more examples of the new history.
Born this way? I think gay people are born gay even if we can not prove it with science yet. Trans could be born with whatever issue they are dealing with but the movie Jupiter Ascending gives some insight into the trans community.
All we ever here is born this way but in the movie the message is very clear about people having a choice. That people can choose to change their gender or anything else about them. One of the main characters was born a dog/man hybrid but was given wings in the military and he liked to fly. He had his wings clipped at one point but wanted them back and the movie presented him with the choice of getting them back or not.
The dog/man hybrid was able to soar with the eagles and achieve happiness through augmentation. The movie presents augmentation like improving various things about the body as something normal and beneficial and includes changing one’s gender as one of the many options available.
When the word augmentation is used, people here probably think of bionic body parts or improving your memory or something but there is a group of people who engage in body augmentation in different terms by putting giant plugs in their ears, splitting their tongue in two, implanting horns, or having the surgeon give them elf ears. Perhaps the scientific and the cultural versions of augmentation will merge at some point.
The movie was ok, nothing too spectacular, but when watched for the message, it provided a look into how some in the trans community view themselves and it isn’t just transgender but transhuman.
While I understand how augmentation of anything could cause a psychological change in how one sees themselves; I still don’t see where the augmentation forces others to think of someone as completely different.
The man/dog was still a man/dog in your description whether they had wings or not. A griffin is essentially a winged 4 legged creature, that if it had the mind of a man might be considered a man/dog/bird hybrid. If it was born a griffin, and the wings clipped, would you now call it a man/dog hybrid or a griffin?
I enjoy watching DWTS. This year we had Noah and the previous year Amy Purdy. They had body features removed, and then later their body augmented with other devices. I still consider them respectively a man and a woman. Some may also consider them handicap, disabled, or crippled, but I would argue some of those words are simply poor descriptions and none truly define who they are now, unless mentally they allow those words to define them. You didn’t ask for this question, but still I wonder, why must I accept the new definition of who Bruce Jenner is simply because that is what he believes? Would it have been healthy for Noah or Amy to accept them as crippled if they chose to believe that of themselves? Both felt that way for a period of time.
The “born that way” argument is a huge slippery slope. If a gay gene were identified, particularly given the current climate of abortion at any time for any reason, then the development of a reliable test to determine the presence of that gene would be an extinction event for homosexuality.
The notion of a single “gay gene” is obviously ridiculous.
But that doesn’t mean that gays aren’t born that way. Genetics, and womb development, are much more complicated than that.
Last I heard, one of the leading theories for male homosexuality was the uterine environment: the more older brothers (biological), the greater the chance of a male being homosexual. Something about the mother’s body reacting to the hormones of a male fetus. There are lots of male-female competitions at the genetic and cellular level; it’s quite fascinating.
But female homosexuality apparently has no similar mechanism, and is more likely to be genetic with a slight societal element.
No doubt the readership here despises anything eminating from Slate.com, but I will nonetheless offer this as a coherent counterpoint to the original article posted:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/16/the_wall_street_journal_displays_shocking_ignorance_about_lgbtq_issues.html