And the obvious question is: so what? How do you define what comes “naturally”? And if what’s natural or unnatural in itself has no bearing on what our actions in reagrds to it “should” be, then what they heck is your point? I’m going to drive my highly non-natural car to my job wherein we dispense non-naturally occuring medications to enable people with problems much worse than GID to lead a balanced life. A whole bunch of people had to mess with nature in unnatural ways to create my car.

I’m still waiting to see documented evidence that there is no significant difference between the kids who underwent Zucker’s therapy and the kids who evolved naturally in one direction or another.

Or, crazy thought, maybe Zucker should be expected to produce documented evidence that there is a significant difference between kids who underwent his therapy and those who didn’t, other than the difference of Bradley being miserable and withdrawn and Jona being social and happy.

So put em together and it sounded to me like you were saying that biology is teleological. And I was saying there’s nothing necessarily “bad” about not being reproductive, and that using what “science says” to enforce social norms has along and very ugly history.

When we were debating that biological argument, I used the term ‘deviation’ in a purely technical and descriptive manner; there was no moral or normative intent behind it.

No, there is nothing inherently bad about not being reproductive, but if you, as a scientist, look at the population and see that there is a number of individuals who, due to a presumed inborn condition, choose to resort to body modifications in order to match brain feelings, it makes you think that, biologically, this is not the norm, that it is not a simple variation in the population, like eye colour or height. It’s more profound and it affects many basic dimensions, psychological and physical. Now, of course, every gender population is more or less typical and there is a distribution of that in the entire population. But on the sides that becomes really problematic, especially for the people involved. They have to do all sorts of things that don’t come naturally just to be able to lead a balanced life.

I’m still waiting to see documented evidence that there is no significant difference between the kids who underwent Zucker’s therapy and the kids who evolved naturally in one direction or another. If therapy really makes no difference besides making children go through unnecessary hardship, even harm, then there is no good reason for parents to consider that. But I have some doubts that this is the case. The fact that there are many individuals, like you, who voice their concerns, is a proof that it surely does not work for all. I’d also like to hear from people who did Zucker’s therapy and grew out of GID because of that. Also people who did not do therapy and grew out of it naturally. Let’s have the entire picture laid out and then we can discuss from all points of view.

I’m not saying what will technically work or not work other than to suggest that rapid improvement is to be expected. But I mean from a legal standpoint it’s up to the parents.

These kids brains aren’t yours to flip whatever switches you think need flipping. Or their parents, for that matter.

It’s not up to me but when a safe therapy comes along it’s certainly up to the parents.

That’s the whole point. It’s not your life. These kids brains aren’t yours to flip whatever switches you think need flipping. Or their parents, for that matter. Who gets to decide that a miserable boy is a better outcome than a happy girl?

I read your posts and you guys have too much self-esteem, hehe. If I was Dysphoric it would take me about 3 seconds to decide I wanted the quick-fix shot. My life is loaded to the hilt with problems. I’d check that one off my list.

Well, let’s see. In response to something I said, you said this:

In human terms, of course not. But if you ask a couple of biologists they will admit that in any given population this is a deviation. In natural terms, they would consider it a bad outcome. In our society we have a different way of dealing with differences, though. In this respect, I don’t see why someone should be forced to fit in if all interventions have failed to correct GID, as long as there is no definitive answer to what causes this.

Perhaps I pounced too much on the second and third sentences, but then you said this in response to me:

I beg to differ on that. What biological purpose can serve an individual to have a complete mismatch between gender and body? A biologist knows that the normal population includes individuals who are able, after they develop, to become reproductive. How can a transsexual be reproductive if they have one sex, but want to change it according to feelings?

So put em together and it sounded to me like you were saying that biology is teleological. And I was saying there’s nothing necessarily “bad” about not being reproductive, and that using what “science says” to enforce social norms has along and very ugly history.

Incidentally, and I’m sure this is just another one of those amazing coincidences that has nothing to do with anything, but the clinic Zucker works at just happens to have been the hub of Canada’s pre WWII eugenics program. Mainly, they sterilized foreigners. But I’m sure that can’t relate in any way whatsoever to any work they do now.