Will Humans want to alter their bodies to become 4 legged?

ora_43

Sat, Jun 06 2015, 4:54 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

What a great article TY Marina.

IBID "The Tzitz Eliezer's response shows us that a surgical transition (or really, any kind of gender transition) is important - so important that we must thank God for it and acknowledge it every day. (People assigned male at birth but are actually females should say "according to God's will" as their blessing, he says in a separate responsum.) Remember - this was one of the leading halachic authorities of Orthodox Judaism!"

You realize that's a quote from a group for gender diversity's interpretation of the psak, yes? Not necessarily what "one of the leading halachic authorities of Orthodox Judaism" would have said about his own psak.

As the article pointed out - the halachic view is generally that s-x goes according to visible s-x organs, not chromosomes. But that doesn't mean support for surgeries that alter s-x organs. IOW he might have said the surgery itself was assur.

ora_43

Sat, Jun 06 2015, 5:10 pm

marina wrote:

1. As magenta said, you must go through tons of counseling before you are considered ready for gender reassignment. Not so for other surgeries.

2. It's not presented as "the" treatment- it's an option. Potential downsides I'm sure are legally covered extensively. No surgeon wants to get sued b/c someone killed themselves and blamed it on the surgery.

3. It's very different to say: "hey, this surgery is a pretty extreme approach and you need to be very careful and think about the risks and whether it's worth it," and saying" You are crazy and you don't need surgery, you need HELP. And those people who talk about surgery have an agenda and they are harming you!"

#2 is the main issue.

This side discussion started with amother linking to an article where a man who underwent transition surgery then returned to being male told Jenner "don't do it." (Just getting back to the basics, here, since other people's responses to my post seem to have been made without noticing the link, which kind of totally alters the whole conversation).

I thought it was very clear he wasn't claiming that people are rushing into surgery. He's claiming that it's not an effective treatment option. That's what made your comparison to regular post-cosmetic surgery regret not work, IMHO. Regular cosmetic surgery isn't billed as a treatment option for anything more serious than cosmetic issues - and for those, it is usually effective.

A better cosmetic-surgery comparison would be if someone were claiming that breast augmentation surgery doesn't actually make breasts bigger, and that many people regret it. <- the regret is not the central argument

Just so it's completely clear, since to some it apparently wasn't (not you, marina) - I'm not saying the guy from the "don't do it Jenner" article was necessarily right. I'm just saying that the obvious fact that every decision is a decision some people regret isn't really an adequate response to what he's claiming.

ora_43

Sat, Jun 06 2015, 5:22 pm

amother wrote:

Nice.

I still havent heard what even ONE Rabbi's thoughts on this topic are. Havent ANY Rabbis given their opinions on what they think the Torah's opinion of transsexuality is? If its definitely within Torah guidelines and acceptable to categorize this change the same as any other medical procedure or treatment needed for physical or emotional health, why hasnt one Rabbi come forward and said that publicly?

Please just ONE open minded middle of the road Orthodox Rabbi, speak up and say something on this issue.Why leave us in the dark and guessing?

A lot of rabbis have talked about this.

The general consensus - summed up here in Hebrew - is that s-x change operations are not allowed (there are multiple halachot involved; fewer for women than men, men have the serious prohibition of 'sirus' to deal with). If a person has not had s-x change surgery, they are considered by halacha to belong to their biological gender (ie, if someone who is biologically male identifies as female, halacha will still consider him male if he still has a p*nis).

There is a machloket over what happens if a person undergoes surgery to change their s-x organs despite the issur. Some say that halacha now views the surgery as having actually altered their s-x, although AFAIK they would not be allowed to marry. IOW if the male from before did have his s-x organs removed, he might now be considered a woman - ie no longer obligated in 'male' mitzvot, and if he was married to a woman, no longer married - but it would still be assur for her to marry a man.

Others say the opposite. IOW that even if he has a s-x change operation, he's still a man, and still married to his wife (if he had one).

And of course, whatever the person's s-x they should still be treated kindly.

amother

Lime

Sat, Jun 06 2015, 10:44 pm

marina wrote:

the difference is that in a bris you are doing it to someone else, like hinda rochel said, without their consent. No one is in favor of you going around and performing your own transgender surgery on whomever you like. Also it's illegal.

Funny.

Yes, being a parent allows you to make medical decisions for your minor children. Where are the legislative efforts in place to change this? To lower the age of consent from 18 to, I don’t know, 15? Or 5? Or the age a child is when he’s old enough to know his “real” gender, whatever age the activists think that is? Where are the anti child’s ear-piercing campaigns? At least with circumcision, there is a medical benefit (as per the AAP). With ear-piercing, there is none.

PinkFridge

Sun, Jun 07 2015, 10:47 am

amother wrote:

Good point. No need to have gone amother.

MagentaYenta

Sun, Jun 07 2015, 12:59 pm

amother wrote:

I'm attempting to understand the point you are attempting to make. Could you please be kind enough to clarify.

marina

Sun, Jun 07 2015, 1:33 pm

ora_43 wrote:

Yes, surgery is assur as a general rule. Prob b/c of castration for males to females at least. And yes, this article is more about spin than anything else. That's also why I cited the second one which looks more legit.

But it is interesting that OJ has something to say on this topic and it's not all negative.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure exceptions for pikuach nefesh can be made, like in cases of suicidal pple.

marina

Sun, Jun 07 2015, 1:46 pm

amother wrote:

1. First, there are certainly debates on whether piercing babies' ears is okay. http://www.today.com/parents/c.....53540

2. Second, you must admit that ear piercing and circumcision are really quite different in terms of medical risk and future life effects. Children die from circumcision yearly.

3. There are different types of medical decisions. Everyone agrees that parents should make life saving medical decisions for their children, regardless of whether the child consents. Most people agree that parents should go along with necessary cosmetic surgery if it would benefit the child emotionally- like ears that stand out or a visible birth mark etc. Most people also agree that parents SHOULD NOT undertake cosmetic surgery that they just think the child should have without the child's consent. Like say some mom thinks her 12 year old isn't developing quickly enough, so she forces her to undergo a breast enlargement procedure. No one thinks that's okay.

All of these different surgeries we are discussing- ear piercing, circumcision, gender reassignment- fall somewhere on this continuum but people will disagree where.

But I am confused about whether you are comparing gender reassignment surgery chosen by adults themselves to circumcision for an 8 day old infant or gender reassignment for minors or what.

marina

Sun, Jun 07 2015, 1:51 pm

ora_43 wrote:

Gender reassignment surgery does change your s-xual organs- there's really no debate about that. I think what the guy was saying is that just changing your organs may not be enough to make you feel like a person of the opposite gender. That's pretty much the same as saying a breast augmentation doesn't actually increase your self confidence and people regret it.

Or maybe I just don't understand what he's saying.

HindaRochel

Sun, Jun 07 2015, 2:40 pm

marina wrote:

The reason people (generally) have reassignment surgery is because they feel as if they are the opposite sϵx. The surgery, at least in their mind and from my understanding, completes them, gives them the correct body for their mind.

Whatever else one feels about this - leaving aside the moral/emotional/psychological debate -the reassignment doesn't create the sense of self, it supports it.

ora_43

Mon, Jun 08 2015, 8:31 am

marina wrote:

I think "not all negative" is a stretch.

But yes, I've heard that if someone is suicidal, some rabbis will consider it life-saving surgery and therefore allowed. I maybe should have mentioned that in the earlier post, but I didn't (and don't) have a source beyond "somebody told me that's a thing."

ora_43

Mon, Jun 08 2015, 8:46 am

So I realize this thread is basically dead now, but today I stumbled across an article that basically explains my own POV:

What makes a woman?

I find the thought of someone having their s-x organs removed disturbing in a visceral "gaaah" kind of way, but hey, I feel the same about people who tattoo their eyeballs or pierce their chests. But neither is any skin off my back. The state of other people's genitalia really doesn't affect my day to day life or moods.

But redefining gender does affect my life. I think it's so important for women to not be viewed as "other," for men (and women) to recognize that women have a different biological reality but shouldn't be viewed as less rational, as emotionally weaker, as more prone to tears or hysteria, or any one of a million and one other things.

And now there's this whole movement that says the opposite - that there is such a thing as a "female brain," that women are not only different, but are so different that being a woman is an entirely different state of being. I.e., that there's such a thing as being "woman" or "man" on a quasi-spiritual level - beyond biology or social structure - and a "woman" can't live as a man or vice versa.

I realize that they aren't trying to be anti-feminist. But who else talks like that? If you hear, "Woman and men are fundamentally different on a mental and emotional level," you're expecting to hear ".... which is why women can't be community leaders," or "... which is why women don't belong in the army." Or at least I am.

Men who decide to be women - no skin off my back. Men who decide to be women and then tell everyone that they were always a woman inside (and who take on a "woman" persona that fits a sexist view of women as s-x objects.... ) - disturbing.

Anyway. I'm glad I found that article, which explains my views better than I just did (although I don't fully agree with everything she said - for instance, while fear of rape is a more typically female experience, I don't see that as making a woman either).

youngishbear

Mon, Jun 08 2015, 9:04 am

Ora, I didn't read the article you linked, but I did want to say that denying the differences between men and women is just as unfeminist as the opinions of the people you mentioned.

I think the corrext way to end the sentence "men and women are different and therefore... they bring different skills and strengths to any profession, including corporate leadership and the military."

This is besides the fact that many individual women have strong "masculine" qualities and vice versa.

ora_43

Mon, Jun 08 2015, 9:13 am

youngishbear wrote:

I don't think denying objective gender differences outside biology or socialization is unfeminist at all. Many feminist leaders have done exactly that.

But either way, there's still a big difference between saying differences exist on average, and saying that those differences are what "man" and "woman" are all about. I.e., a woman who likes playing soccer and fixing cars is no less "womanly" than a woman who likes dancing ballet and painting her nails.

I think arguing that women bring "different skills" to top jobs is insulting. I realize that gender feminists mostly feel otherwise, but I've never agreed with them on that.

amother

Lime

Mon, Jun 08 2015, 12:55 pm

marina wrote:

You are vastly, vastly over-stating the risks of circumcision. Death is such a rare occurrence that if it does happen, it can’t be linked conclusively to the circumcision. In 2010, when the matter was reviewed, circumcision resulted in no deaths in the U.S., as per the cdc. In fact, the anti-circumcision rhetoric reads very much like the anti-vax rhetoric, imo.

There are debates on ear piercing, yes. But no legislative efforts underway to make it illegal, or massive PR campaigns, that I’m aware of—even though complications from ear-piercings include paralysis and permanent ear-disfigurement (google it).

I’m sure there are multitudes of other procedures with less medical benefit than circumcision, as well, but about which no one is protesting or seeking to legally ban. This indicates that the real objection to circumcision has little to do with the stated objections.

I was not comparing circumcision to anything; I was responding to a previous poster who made the comparison.