And I know the comparison to BDD or other disorders are often made, but I'd say that someone's ability to be productive adults in society is a relevant concept when considering the difference someone missing limbs and someone having rearranged junk are in terms of normal functionality in their lives.

The Hopkins chief psychiatrist seemed like he would be against HRT as well, based on the reasoning behind his argument against SRS.

He would be against it for childhood but I don't see any reason he would for adults considering he only cited statistics for postop and the changes made by hormones are far milder than SRS.

And in the end, even his argument boils down to it being benign at worst. He can say "removing functional organs" but he can't decide what value a penis is if the person with it never uses it the way he thinks it should be used.

Quote from: eggsalad on February 21, 2016, 05:43:20 PM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 05:35:54 PM

The Hopkins chief psychiatrist seemed like he would be against HRT as well, based on the reasoning behind his argument against SRS.

He would be against it for childhood but I don't see any reason he would for adults considering he only cited statistics for postop and the changes made by hormones are far milder than SRS.

And in the end, even his argument boils down to it being benign at worst. He can say "removing functional organs" but he can't decide what value a penis is if the person with it never uses it the way he thinks it should be used.

Well how often do people just stop at HRT without aspirations of going further? You might be correct, though.

Removing of genitalia does more than just disable the person from commencing in sexual activities, it will have significant effects on the psychology of the individual.

Pretty often, but that is muddled by the fact it's hard and expensive to get it done right now. Until something changes my mind I don't intend to either.

It actually doesn't disable someone from sexual activities. (Not sure how FtM postop sex works or if it can get erect unassisted) Post-op MtFs can have penetrative sex with their pseudo-vagina (yknow what it is don't make this an argument of what to call it please), or even if they can't they can have anal or oral or mutual masturbation etc etc etc to infinity.

You can't cite the health of castrated cis individuals here, they like having their original organs and that makes them distinctly different.

If by "sexual activities" you meant strictly procreative, heterosexual sex, then I'm just going to say that your definition is too narrow for it to be relevant in this context. And if that professor thinks it's relevant, then that's a pretty large symptom of him being a psychiatrist and not a psychologist; not understanding the variety and spectrum of human sexuality.

Wait, are people seriously citing the fuckheads from Hopkins?

Quote

Paul McHugh
University Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Former member of the United State Conference of Catholic Bishop's National Review Board

• Refers to homosexuality as "erroneous desire"
• Argues that being medically accomodating to a transgender child is "like performing liposuction on an anorexic child"
• Filed an amicus brief arguing in favor of Proposition 8 on the basis that homosexuality is a "choice."
• Describes post surgical trans women as "caricatures of women"
• As part of the USCCB's Review Board, pushed the idea that the Catholic sex abuse scandal was not about pedophilia but about “homosexual predation on American Catholic youth.”

Wow, what a great unbiased source that definitely doesn't have any sort of religious agenda.

Got any credible sources to back this up? I've tried to look into this John Hopkins stuff to broaden my horizons on this issue and I can't find anything remotely impartial that corroborates with these claims.

Quote

Refers to homosexuality as "erroneous desire"

Well, biologically this is correct.

On another front, as the sexuality debate within mainline churches seems to have shifted so profoundly in favor of the left, how do you see the debates of the broader culture changing in the next five to ten years?

It really is amazing ... I mean, 50 years ago [homosexual behavior] was a crime, and now we're talking about [same-sex marriage]. Anyone who wants to stick with the tradition is accused of being a biblical literalist or a homophobic racist, because, in part, of the more fundamental change in our society towards permissiveness, that is, easy divorce, cohabitation and concubinage, abortion, pornography ... and euthanasia. The issue of the homosexual is not separate ... it's all part and parcel of the pandemonium that the permissive movement has brought. We have just licensed all kinds of behavior."

You have noted the critical influence of social behavior clusters on sexual development. You also mentioned that, early on in your medical training, you knew there were certain things that would disqualify you from becoming a doctor, including poor grades, a criminal record or a failed marriage.

Yes, that's right. Fundamentally, I expected that, if I did marry, I was supposed to make it a go.

Now, wouldn't some argue that those were societal expectations which were imposed upon you and your generation?

Yes, and they were good ones - and biblically based, and part and parcel of my commitment to really what amounts to loving relationships. You see, what has happened with the permissive movement is that it has picked up the Freudian confusion of desire and love, making them the same. And with the implication, for example, that I must desire my mother. I don't desire my mother. I love my mother. Now the fact is that in my marriage, of course, I desired this woman and I felt love for her. Now, 50 years into marriage with her, I still desire her, but now I love her. She's irreplaceable. There is this thing that has come and it's different. This person exists for me as irreplaceable. So, there is this confusion of desire and love. [Homosexuality] is erroneous desire.

Doesn't sound to me like he's making any appeal to biology.

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 06:22:28 PM

Quote

Refers to homosexuality as "erroneous desire"

Well, biologically this is correct.

Quote

On another front, as the sexuality debate within mainline churches seems to have shifted so profoundly in favor of the left, how do you see the debates of the broader culture changing in the next five to ten years?

It really is amazing ... I mean, 50 years ago [homosexual behavior] was a crime, and now we're talking about [same-sex marriage]. Anyone who wants to stick with the tradition is accused of being a biblical literalist or a homophobic racist, because, in part, of the more fundamental change in our society towards permissiveness, that is, easy divorce, cohabitation and concubinage, abortion, pornography ... and euthanasia. The issue of the homosexual is not separate ... it's all part and parcel of the pandemonium that the permissive movement has brought. We have just licensed all kinds of behavior."

You have noted the critical influence of social behavior clusters on sexual development. You also mentioned that, early on in your medical training, you knew there were certain things that would disqualify you from becoming a doctor, including poor grades, a criminal record or a failed marriage.

Yes, that's right. Fundamentally, I expected that, if I did marry, I was supposed to make it a go.

Now, wouldn't some argue that those were societal expectations which were imposed upon you and your generation?

Yes, and they were good ones - and biblically based, and part and parcel of my commitment to really what amounts to loving relationships. You see, what has happened with the permissive movement is that it has picked up the Freudian confusion of desire and love, making them the same. And with the implication, for example, that I must desire my mother. I don't desire my mother. I love my mother. Now the fact is that in my marriage, of course, I desired this woman and I felt love for her. Now, 50 years into marriage with her, I still desire her, but now I love her. She's irreplaceable. There is this thing that has come and it's different. This person exists for me as irreplaceable. So, there is this confusion of desire and love. [Homosexuality] is erroneous desire.

Doesn't sound to me like he's making any appeal to biology.

That's a social appeal. Not the argument I was making. Nice try, kiddo.

Quote from: Varg on February 21, 2016, 06:35:22 PM

You'd have to look elsewhere for a better way to try and slam transgender people.

This right here is a big part of the problem. There is this attitude that anyone even somewhat critical of transgenderism is being hateful. It stifles and limits conversation.

Everyone shitposts, but I, and I assume everyone else here who is questioning or unsure about the matter, am concerned about the mental and physical well-being of these people. What happens twenty years from now, if my kid comes out transgender? I want to be absolutely sure they are able to get what they need, be it medicine or counseling or what. I'm not throwing caution to the wind for the sake of a spook like tolerance, and accusing me of bigotry isn't going to make me change my mind.

I think a lot of us, myself included, are just baffled that people are against what has otherwise been a standard medical practice for so long now. It's not that it's bad to question the practice, it's just that those questioning it seem to put forth very little supporting evidence for the notion that the treatment might not be appropriate. I've seen plenty of statistics suggesting it's a decent attempt at treating gender dysphoria, but most arguments I see against it are qualitative, not quantitative. It's easier (though admittedly wrong) to blame bigotry especially when people repeatedly cite statistics that inappropriately compare the control population with treated/untreated gender dysphoric persons or refer to outspoken medical professionals who seem more influenced by their upbringing/beliefs than any research.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
Before we all right McHugh off as a religious hick there is still the issue of extremely high suicide rates for SRS patients that no one in the thread has yet to address. Those who had the sex-change surgery were almost 20 times more likely to take their own lives than the non-transgender population. They were also more likely to seek in-house treatment for psychiatric conditions.

The study was conducted in 2011, so you'd be pretty hard pressed to categorize the data as 'outdated'.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
Before we all right McHugh off as a religious hick there is still the issue of extremely high suicide rates for SRS patients that no one in the thread has yet to address. Those who had the sex-change surgery were almost 20 times more likely to take their own lives than the non-transgender population. They were also more likely to seek in-house treatment for psychiatric conditions.

The study was conducted in 2011, so you'd be pretty hard pressed to categorize the data as 'outdated'.

something i like to repost:

from here

3.3. Percentages of transsexuals with symptoms
of anxiety and depression according to the
hormonal treatment
Overall, 61% of the group of patients without treatment and
33% of the group with hormonal treatment experienced
possible symptoms (score 8—10) or symptoms (score >11)
of anxiety (Table 3). The same pattern was found for symptoms
of depression;the percentages were significantly higher
in the group of patients without treatment (31%) than in the
group on hormonal treatment (8%).

You might be confused by the fact that transsexuals remain at high risk for suicide after transitioning, but the question is whether or not they would have been at a high risk anyway if they hadn't transitioned, because the transgender tendency might relate to a mental health difference that non-transgender populations do not exhibit. See: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

"For the purpose of evaluating the safety of sex reassignment in terms of morbidity and mortality, however, it is reasonable to compare sex reassigned persons with matched population controls. The caveat with this design is that transsexual persons before sex reassignment might differ from healthy controls (although this bias can be statistically corrected for by adjusting for baseline differences). It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism. In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment. As an analogy, similar studies have found increased somatic morbidity, suicide rate, and overall mortality for patients treated for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.[39], [40] This is important information, but it does not follow that mood stabilizing treatment or antipsychotic treatment is the culprit."