<p>There is information about “transabled” people and BIID available by Googling “transabled”.</p>
<p>Interesting thoughts, mimk6, but in this case I believe the analogy BIID <em>is</em> being used as a ploy to discredit the transgender community. From what I understand, surgeons will not remove an individuals limb so as to align themselves with the identity of being “disabled”. The transgender community is looking to try to align themselves to feel “normal” or “enabled” not disabled. They are not actively seeking to cut off an appendage; that just may be part of the process to feel “normal”, ie their correct gender. Some do elect to have the surgery, others do not. I hope DonnaL or quaere will jump in and address this, especially if I am not correct in my explanation. And, while doctors will not remove an appendage of a person in order for them to be/feel disabled, they will do so with the transgender community.</p>
<p>jym626
</p>
<p>Of course, ignoring people is a matter of free choice, but Clairemarie posted an article from a major media organization. A whole lot of people have access to that, and I think it is good to have an opportunity to refute the misconceptions here.</p>
<p>As for cruelty, it is pretty amazing to watch someone speak in a callous, insulting, and uncaring way to people who have clearly been through a hell of a lot. Don’t blame Chistianity, though, Jesus Christ would NEVER act like that. He left clear instructions to do quite the opposite.</p>
<p>I wonder whether Clare believes that women or men who have surgery in order to purposely become infertile – a vasectomy or a tubal ligation – are no longer women or men after the surgery is performed? It seems like that would fit Clare’s definition of bodily mutilation, and it also seems like it would be removing a necessary aspect for Clare to believe someone is their particular gender.</p>
<p>Why do we care who is what gender and what surgeries they had? I had 5 tooth implants, am I called bionic / robotic any other label? How about people with artificial knees , hips, hearts? That is really funny though, good entertainment, really goofy.</p>
<p>The Newsweek article was ridiculous because removing limbs or rendering them useless makes a person disabled. Having working hands and feet is clearly very important. Changing genders does not render someone disabled. Not everyone wants to have biological children. </p>
<p>There are so many elective surgeries performed which drastically change one or more body parts or organs. Some are covered by insurance, some are not. Every surgery carries with it the chance of death from infection or bleeding. Why single out this one type of surgery for such a scurrilous review? The kernel of truth here has something to do with bullying a population of people who have traditionally been targets for discrimination.</p>
<p>Spideygirl,
My decision ignore CM was in response to post # 199. She didnt post an article or link there, just more innuendos. My first interaction with her was in another thread several weeks ago where she and a few other posters provided interesting information about Catholicism. The discussion was appropriate and enlightening. The outrageous comments in this and the other abortion thread(s) are in stark contrast to that, and are offensive to virtually everyone here. I don’t mean to make a broad swipe at any religion, but her previous posts, with her devout beliefs are so diametrically opposed to the outrages being posted here that I almost wonder if someone is ghostwriting her posts for her.</p>
<p>“The Newsweek article was ridiculous because removing limbs or rendering them useless makes a person disabled.”</p>
<p>But the nature of the disorder is that these people WANT to be disabled. They insist that their intact bodies don’t match up with their brains. Most normal, sensible people are rightly appalled at the notion that cutting off healthy body parts, rather than treating their mental disorder, is the best “cure” for their illness. </p>
<p>But then, most normal, sensible people were (and most still are, notwithstanding the skewed views of most posters here) appalled at the notion that removing and mutilating healthy body parts, rather than treating the mental disorder, is the best cure for those who claim to be trapped in the body of a person of the opposite sex. No doubt there are those within the APA who would be open to giving the green light to “therapeutic” amputations for persons suffering from BIID – after all, they have also considered removing pedophilia and other sexual disorders from the DSM.</p>
<p>^I didn’t think you were taking a swing at any religion. I was just referring to my own observation that the very simple and exquisite message of Jesus Christ, whether you believe He is God or just an extra special person, quite frequently gets completelly bastardized in His name.</p>
<p>“There are so many elective surgeries performed which drastically change one or more body parts or organs.”</p>
<p>And the purpose of those surgeries is to IMPROVE or REPLACE a diseased or damaged organ.</p>
<p>BIID was absolutely, without doubt, raised by CM as a ploy to discredit trans people: these people are obviously crazy, and what trans people do is the same, and therefore trans people are crazy! </p>
<p>That is always the context in which transphobic people like CM raise BIID.</p>
<p>Even if the source of BIID were some unresolvable “brain mapping” issue in the brain that makes the brain feel wrong in the presence of the offending limb – an assertion that is entirely theoretical at this point, by the way, and seems to me to be different from the brain research on gender and gender identity that’s been going on – I would still say that the two types of dysphoria have fundamental differences that do justify different treatment for one than the other.</p>
<p>In both a societal and a physical sense, the very purpose and effect of GRS (= genital reassignment surgery or gender reassignment surgery, a/k/a SRS [sex reassignment surgery]) – which, as I’ve said before, does not, for MTF surgery, involve amputation of the [forbidden word!] – are precisely to make both the individual and the affected portions of the body more functional and more “abled.” To empower the individual. By contrast, the very purpose and effect of BIID are to make the affected portions of the body disappear, with nothing in their place, thereby, by definition, creating a disability, and, in some cases, dependence on others. (Suppose someone decided they needed to be quadriplegic because none of their limbs belong?) BIID-type dysphoria seems to be entirely physical, and the desired “treatment” does nothing to improve functionality in a societal sense. Gender dysphoria, on the other hand, has (for many people) as much of a societal as a physical element. To me, there’s no fundamental resemblance, and I am, in fact, offended by the comparison. As I said before, a woman (with female genitals that are, in fact, entirely functional unless one believes that their sole valid purpose is to enable pregnancy and birth) is not a mutilated or disabled version of a man with male genitals. Whatever misgoynistic philosophers may have thought through the ages. The converse, of course, is equally true of trans men.</p>
<p>So, even assuming arguendo that the source of both BIID and gender dysphoria is ultimately found to lie in the “hard-wiring” of the brain, the treatment, in terms of both nature and effect, is entirely different.</p>
<p>From an interview with someone with BIID who chopped off his own hand: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not the same.</p>
<p>In addition, there’s something about the form BIID takes that raises questions in my mind, and that of many others. Even apart from the fact that BIID is a syndrome found overwhelmingly in white males (whereas transness is something that has existed in all races and cultures for thousands of years), one wonders why the disabilities that BIID sufferers seek all involve very narrow and specific types of disabilities. As one friend of mine wrote on another website:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My response on that site was as follows (with apologies for my having been somewhat vitriolic at the comparison, especially in how it’s used by the religious right):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other trans people who also happen to have disabilities were similarly upset by the analogy, like one person who had lost an appendage and pointed out that having GRS does not dramatically affect one’s ability to conduct one’s life; to the contrary, it improves it. Having a hand or foot removed negatively impacts every aspect of one’s life, in a practical sense. </p>
<p>Finally, it’s not so easy for BIID sufferers to undergo a required “real life experience” prior to the surgery they desire, e.g., requiring them to live “as an amputee,” privately and publicly, for a year. Although I suppose there might be ways of doing something like that, it just doesn’t seem quite the same to me as simply living in your desired gender for a year. </p>
<p>In any event, the entire analogy is (I think) highly offensive not only to trans people, but to disabled people as well. It’s a fundamentally flawed analogy. No matter how “good” it sounds to some. Surface similarities (which don’t even hold up on examination) do not necessarily imply actual equivalence. Certainly, there are so many fundamental differences that there’s no possibility, I believe, of any societal conclusion that “just because you allow X, you have necessarily have to allow Y.” Nor, of course, does the converse follow – i.e., that because you don’t allow Y, you also have to forbid X. Whatever CM may think. In essence, then, the causation question is not particularly relevant. BIID needs to be evaluated independently. If BIID sufferers succeed in convincing the medical establishment that what they seek is appropriate, on its own merits rather than by appropriating and piggybacking upon trans identity and trans rights, then more power to them. Not otherwise. Conversely, trans people should neither be asked nor expected nor forced to conduct the exercise that I’ve just conducted on this thread: justifying ourselves by distinguishing BIID from gender dysphoria. </p>
<p>For that reason, I refuse to be drawn into a debate on the subject. It’s all completely irrelevant to my life. This is all I’m saying about it.</p>
<p>By the way, all extant polls I know of show that the general public support for anti-discrimination laws protecting trans people is, in fact, greater than the public support for same-sex marriage. CM, as usual, cites no evidence for her view that “most people” are appalled by gender reassignment surgery. It is, of course, she who is out of step, she who has skewed and bigoted (never mind vicious) viewpoints. If the public were so appalled by GRS, then 47 states wouldn’t have passed legislation, in some cases decades ago, providing that post-operative trans people have the right to change the (current) gender designation on their birth certificates, at least for the purpose of obtaining necessary documentation. Even in the early 1950’s, the public reaction to Christine Jorgensen was fascination, not disgust. Most people do seem, especially if they personally know any trans people in real life, to understand why GRS is appropriate and necessary for some people. </p>
<p>Who knows why Claremarie has such an obsession with the configuration of trans people’s genitals? (One does wonder how she knows how “healthy” and functional they all supposedly are prior to surgery. Especially after what is often many years of hormone treatment. Just how many trans people’s genitals has CM personally examined? Inquiring minds want to know!)</p>
<p>I remember asking CM a question months ago on another thread. She never answered, of course, and doubt she ever will. (Not that I’d know unless someone told me, since I have her on “ignore” – just as someone told me about her “most people are appalled” comment.) I asked her how she would react if a close female friend of hers, of many years’ standing, finally confided in her that she had an unusual history and, in fact, had been assigned male at birth and raised as a boy. Would Claremarie abandon this friend, and/or refuse to continue to use her female name and to use female pronouns for her? Or would she accept her, and continue the friendship, and acknowledge that she was still, as she had always really been, a woman? Would it depend on whether this friend had had GRS? On second thought, perhaps I don’t want to hear CM’s answer!</p>
<p>“BIID was absolutely, without doubt, raised by CM as a ploy to discredit trans people”</p>
<p>False. Someone else posted that link. But it does raise interesting issues that have evidently agitated some people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This reflects a misunderstanding of BIID. People with BIID do not want to remove a limb to be or feel disabled. It is not some kind of identification with the disabled community. It is the very real feeling that the particular limb does not belong on their body and is extraneous and makes them uncomfortable and that they will feel whole when it is removed - not disabled. It is the perception of those outside the BIID experience who think it is a desire to become disabled – that is an inaccurate representation of BIID. And just because one poster may or may not be using BIID as a ploy, does not render it irrelevant or insignificant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You raise a number of good points. I raised mine because I have read articles (more than the one posted here) that were not at all about discrediting the transgender community where a number of scientists and physicians did make the comparison. However, while I feel you made a number of solid distinctions between the two, your last point in quote is not realistic. Very often, the fight to gain a right is strengthened by the fight others have fought for other rights.</p>
<p>I do believe that there is a valid connection between the “very real feeling that [a] particular limb does not belong” on one’s body and the feeling among transgendered people of identifying with a gender other than their biological sex. </p>
<p>It’s not, however, reasonable to invoke BIID for the sole purpose of discrediting the transgendered community – as claremarie is clearly doing. No matter one’s feeling on BIID, gender reassignment surgery is so clearly not tantamount to elective limb amputation. It’s a ridiculous implication.</p>
<p>Donna, maybe you’re not sure, but I want to hear claremarie’s response to both your question (post #214) and PhysicsMom’s question (post #206). </p>
<p>So I’ll re-state them (paraphrasing a bit). </p>
<p>claremarie:</p>
<p>1) If a close female friend of yours, of many years’ standing, finally confided in you that she had been male at birth and raised as a boy, would you abandon this friend, or refuse to continue to use her female name and to use female pronouns for her? Or would you accept her, and continue the friendship, and acknowledge that she was a woman? </p>
<p>2) You wrote in post #212 that the purpose of surgeries that change one or more body parts or organs is “to IMPROVE or REPLACE a diseased or damaged organ.” What about a healthy man who has a vasectomy or a healthy woman who has a tubal ligation? Since they have deliberately chosen to make functioning body parts non-functioning, are they suffering from mental disorders?</p>
<p>I see nothing wrong with concluding that surgery for the purpose or result of living as a man or woman is appropriate while surgery for the purpose or result of living as an amputee is not.</p>
<p>Spideygirl,</p>
<p>Unless I overlooked a post (which is entirely possible) the person who brought up the link to the newsweek article was (z), in response to CM’s post (#199) where, as far as I can tell, the issue of BIID was first introduced into this thread. It struck me as more subterfuge, and yet another way for her to redirect the conversation (which was about shoes at that particular time) back to more ways to defame people with whom she takes issue. I hope posters will stop responding to her vitriol and that she gets no more attention for her garbage. We are feeding her pathos, and we should stop. I do not mean to put down any religious individual, spidey, but people like CM who spew their hate-mongering here, yet claim such devout catholic beliefs elsewhere, well, frankly she gives the devout believers a bad name. </p>
<p>Lots of people have cosmetic surgery to change their appearance. I know of several women who have had breast reduction surgery. Would this be considered “mutilation”? (PS women commonly can’t nurse after breast reduction or enlagement-- so does this make a functional bodypart non-functrional, and therefore it is wrong?)</p>
<p>Following Mary13, #219:</p>
<p>Birth control generally, including Natural Family Planning, is intended to prevent or impair the functioning of perfectly healthy reproductive organs. Does the use of birth control, including Natural Family Planning, indicate the presence of a mental disorder?</p>