In the best possible scenario transitioning is replacing a functional body part with another, not saying we’re exactly there yet.
In most cases BIID would just mean removing a functional body part, so it’s not surprising that those people would be screwed in the long term. What happens if you replace the body part with an equal or a superior prosthetic?
What happens if you replace the body part with an equal or a superior prosthetic?
Then droves of transhumanists suddenly declare that they have BIID. Heck, I’d probably be first in line, especially if it was modular.
Really, transsexuality and BIID seem like just another subset of self-ownership and freedom of expression—a human being should have the right to do whatever they damn well please with their own body, and should have the right to negotiate their presentation with society at large. Whether that means drugs, or tattoos, or or sexual reassignment, or amputation of body parts, or augmentation of body parts, we need to make it cheap, safe, easy, and not a big fucking deal.
Hello! Sorry if my term was offensive, but I actually meant something specific by it. “Transgender” is indeed the preferred term when discussing people who choose to express a gender other than the one their culture wishes to assign them. However, “transsexuality” seemed a more accurate term when discussing those who specifically choose to undergo sexual reassignment surgery (and when comparing with BIID). I understand that there are political connotations to that term, but I needed to be simultaneously precise and concise and meant no offense.
Then droves of transhumanists suddenly declare that they have BIID. Heck, I’d probably be first in line, especially if it was modular.
Sign me up too :)
Really, transsexuality and BIID seem like just another subset of self-ownership and freedom of expression—a human being should have the right to do whatever they damn well please with their own body, and should have the right to negotiate their presentation with society at large. Whether that means drugs, or tattoos, or or sexual reassignment, or amputation of body parts, or augmentation of body parts, we need to make it cheap, safe, easy, and not a big fucking deal.
I agree on all accounts, but unfortunately I think most health professionals partly disagree. I think most of the rational objections to those things happen because most societies are designed in a way that makes other people pay for those choices. I expect these objections become obsolete in the future, since self-modifications will likely be trivially cheap.
Well, sure. That sentence was not meant to encompass all possible types of self modification. I was talking about general objections to modification based on the price tag today, so if a great number will become trivially cheap, most current objections of such type will become obsolete.
and should have the right to negotiate their presentation with society at large.
Note that the right to negotiate does not imply any particular outcome. For example, the result of such negotiation might be the society shunning that individual.
and not a big fucking deal.
You don’t get to determine what constitutes a BFD for other free individuals.
Note that the right to negotiate does not imply any particular outcome. For example, the result of such negotiation might be the society shunning that individual.
Of course. I think I need to recalibrate my expectations, since I thought this was obvious enough that it didn’t need to be stated. Thank you for the update!
You don’t get to determine what constitutes a BFD for other free individuals.
Absolutely not, but there’s a difference between determining what constitutes a BDF for free individuals, and what constitutes a BFD for governments and medical ethics committees. That’s why (for example) most modern democracies have Constitutional limits on what freedoms the populace can vote to suppress, for example.
Free individuals absolutely have the right to be disgusted, confused, or disappointed by people who choose a particular avenue of self-expression. But those rights end at the point where their own expression of disgust, confusion or disappointment inflicts material harm on the expresser—just like the original person’s right to self-expression ends where it inflicts material harm on others.
And while the boundary for “material harm” might be fuzzy, that doesn’t allow us the sophistry of defining whatever makes us uncomfortable as ‘material harm’.
I thought this was obvious enough that it didn’t need to be stated.
Well, it’s a bit complicated because the “right to negotiate” doesn’t usually mean anything. Or, if you want it to mean something it gets messy and fuzzy.
Rights generally exist as pairs—someone’s right has a counterpart of someone else’s duty. For example, the right to free speech has the counterpart of the duty of the government to not stop you from speaking. So “the right to negotiate” implies a duty on the part of the society to negotiate with you. And what does that mean? I don’t know.
Consider e.g. the witches and the Inquisition. Do witches have a “right to negotiate”? Sure. Does it do them much good? Not really.
there’s a difference between determining what constitutes a BDF for free individuals, and what constitutes a BFD for governments and medical ethics committees.
That is certainly true, but in your original post did you mean BFD on the part of the government, or did you mean BFD on the part of the society?
That is certainly true, but in your original post did you mean BFD on the part of the government, or did you mean BFD on the part of the society?
I meant both, but at different strengths.
I meant “it shouldn’t be a BFD to society” in the sense that I think that a society that considers it a BFD has some really weird and sad priorities, but that’s my personal opinion and carries as much weight as me complaining about you kids these days with your pokey-mans and your tweeds.
I meant “it shouldn’t be a BFD for the government” in the sense that the government shouldn’t pass laws to restrict how people choose to modify or portray themselves, that I only barely accept current public nudity/decency laws in that there’s some fights that just aren’t worth the energy/outcome ratio, but that I’m personally willing to invest quite a lot of energy, in general, towards abolishing laws which tell people what they can and can’t do with their anatomy, biochemistry, and passive social behavior. Of course other people can believe differently, and invest their own energy accordingly, but they’ll find themselves at odds with my own efforts.
Really, transsexuality and BIID seem like just another subset of self-ownership and freedom of expression—a human being should have the right to do whatever they damn well please with their own body,
There is a difference between saying someone should have a right to do X and saying doing X is a good idea. Specifically, the question is should society be encouraging people to do these things?
To be honest, I’m not sure off-hand how I would even recognize something as a “means of self-coordinating” for a system as complex as a state or a society. How do you do so, and what do you have in mind as candidates?
The mechanisms whereby the state passes, interprets, enforces, refrains from enforcing, and repeals laws in order to coordinate the behavior of its citizens seem anything but simple to me.
One example, this one comes from the assisted suicide debate, is the following: Suppose I tell just about anyone that I want to die, the reaction is likely to be to very strongly encourage me to talk to a therapist. Now suppose someone with a disability generally considered extremely severe says want to die, the reaction is likely to range from mild attempts to talk him out of it, to calling someone who specializes in assisted suicides.
What happens if you replace the body part with an equal or a superior prosthetic?
That depends on a whole bunch of factors. Maintenance schedule and expense, for example. Availability of spare parts. An interesting question is who has control over firmware. Legal status is another interesting question (for a reference point, in the US you do not own (in the property sense) your own body).
I mean it literally. Under US law you do not have property rights in your own body, organs, or biological information.
With prosthetics it’s an interesting dilemma. If you argue it’s part of your body you don’t own it. And if you argue it’s just a piece of hardware that you happen to own, well, it might be seized as part of bankruptcy proceedings, for example.
In the best possible scenario transitioning is replacing a functional body part with another, not saying we’re exactly there yet.
In most cases BIID would just mean removing a functional body part, so it’s not surprising that those people would be screwed in the long term. What happens if you replace the body part with an equal or a superior prosthetic?
Then droves of transhumanists suddenly declare that they have BIID. Heck, I’d probably be first in line, especially if it was modular.
Really, transsexuality and BIID seem like just another subset of self-ownership and freedom of expression—a human being should have the right to do whatever they damn well please with their own body, and should have the right to negotiate their presentation with society at large. Whether that means drugs, or tattoos, or or sexual reassignment, or amputation of body parts, or augmentation of body parts, we need to make it cheap, safe, easy, and not a big fucking deal.
hello! i am transgender, and i would like to friendly mention that the word is “transgender” is usually preferred
but words are hard, so if this doesn’t come across as friendly, i have done words poorly :c
Hello! Sorry if my term was offensive, but I actually meant something specific by it. “Transgender” is indeed the preferred term when discussing people who choose to express a gender other than the one their culture wishes to assign them. However, “transsexuality” seemed a more accurate term when discussing those who specifically choose to undergo sexual reassignment surgery (and when comparing with BIID). I understand that there are political connotations to that term, but I needed to be simultaneously precise and concise and meant no offense.
Sign me up too :)
I agree on all accounts, but unfortunately I think most health professionals partly disagree. I think most of the rational objections to those things happen because most societies are designed in a way that makes other people pay for those choices. I expect these objections become obsolete in the future, since self-modifications will likely be trivially cheap.
Depends on the modification.
Well, sure. That sentence was not meant to encompass all possible types of self modification. I was talking about general objections to modification based on the price tag today, so if a great number will become trivially cheap, most current objections of such type will become obsolete.
Note that the right to negotiate does not imply any particular outcome. For example, the result of such negotiation might be the society shunning that individual.
You don’t get to determine what constitutes a BFD for other free individuals.
Of course. I think I need to recalibrate my expectations, since I thought this was obvious enough that it didn’t need to be stated. Thank you for the update!
Absolutely not, but there’s a difference between determining what constitutes a BDF for free individuals, and what constitutes a BFD for governments and medical ethics committees. That’s why (for example) most modern democracies have Constitutional limits on what freedoms the populace can vote to suppress, for example.
Free individuals absolutely have the right to be disgusted, confused, or disappointed by people who choose a particular avenue of self-expression. But those rights end at the point where their own expression of disgust, confusion or disappointment inflicts material harm on the expresser—just like the original person’s right to self-expression ends where it inflicts material harm on others.
And while the boundary for “material harm” might be fuzzy, that doesn’t allow us the sophistry of defining whatever makes us uncomfortable as ‘material harm’.
Well, it’s a bit complicated because the “right to negotiate” doesn’t usually mean anything. Or, if you want it to mean something it gets messy and fuzzy.
Rights generally exist as pairs—someone’s right has a counterpart of someone else’s duty. For example, the right to free speech has the counterpart of the duty of the government to not stop you from speaking. So “the right to negotiate” implies a duty on the part of the society to negotiate with you. And what does that mean? I don’t know.
Consider e.g. the witches and the Inquisition. Do witches have a “right to negotiate”? Sure. Does it do them much good? Not really.
That is certainly true, but in your original post did you mean BFD on the part of the government, or did you mean BFD on the part of the society?
I meant both, but at different strengths.
I meant “it shouldn’t be a BFD to society” in the sense that I think that a society that considers it a BFD has some really weird and sad priorities, but that’s my personal opinion and carries as much weight as me complaining about you kids these days with your pokey-mans and your tweeds.
I meant “it shouldn’t be a BFD for the government” in the sense that the government shouldn’t pass laws to restrict how people choose to modify or portray themselves, that I only barely accept current public nudity/decency laws in that there’s some fights that just aren’t worth the energy/outcome ratio, but that I’m personally willing to invest quite a lot of energy, in general, towards abolishing laws which tell people what they can and can’t do with their anatomy, biochemistry, and passive social behavior. Of course other people can believe differently, and invest their own energy accordingly, but they’ll find themselves at odds with my own efforts.
There is a difference between saying someone should have a right to do X and saying doing X is a good idea. Specifically, the question is should society be encouraging people to do these things?
“Society” is not one entity with a single will. It’s a messy ecosystem which usually does a lot of different things at the same time.
I am not sure what does the expression “society should” mean. Unless you actually have “state” in mind.
It’s not clear to me that the “state” is any less of a messy ecosystem which usually does a lot of different things at the same time.
The “state” does have some means of self-coordinating and allowing dominant forces to alter the whole. Which I don’t think society does.
To be honest, I’m not sure off-hand how I would even recognize something as a “means of self-coordinating” for a system as complex as a state or a society. How do you do so, and what do you have in mind as candidates?
A simple example: laws.
The mechanisms whereby the state passes, interprets, enforces, refrains from enforcing, and repeals laws in order to coordinate the behavior of its citizens seem anything but simple to me.
The mechanisms are complex, but the outcome is reasonably consistent.
The two areas where the state is much less of a messy ecosystem is the legal system and the direct application of force (military, police).
The expression “state should” usually has a clear meaning which involves passing laws or enforcing them.
One example, this one comes from the assisted suicide debate, is the following: Suppose I tell just about anyone that I want to die, the reaction is likely to be to very strongly encourage me to talk to a therapist. Now suppose someone with a disability generally considered extremely severe says want to die, the reaction is likely to range from mild attempts to talk him out of it, to calling someone who specializes in assisted suicides.
That depends on a whole bunch of factors. Maintenance schedule and expense, for example. Availability of spare parts. An interesting question is who has control over firmware. Legal status is another interesting question (for a reference point, in the US you do not own (in the property sense) your own body).
I wonder if we’ll get a new “dysmorphic disorder” in DSM-VII for “excessive” prosthetic modding spiraling out of control ;)
I’m not sure I understand you. Isn’t borrowing someone’s prosthetic leg without permission called stealing?
I mean it literally. Under US law you do not have property rights in your own body, organs, or biological information.
With prosthetics it’s an interesting dilemma. If you argue it’s part of your body you don’t own it. And if you argue it’s just a piece of hardware that you happen to own, well, it might be seized as part of bankruptcy proceedings, for example.