Gender dysphoria?

[InSearchofGrace]

…

Nice try at victim blaming there.

…

!?!

Rin, I get that you will not be dissuaded from the transitioning / HRT track, and would likely go the whole nine yards with SRS by how much you defend it. I get that you reject competing professional opinions on the research out there and disagreement as to the (im)morality of SRS. We clearly disagree on the matter, and I am fine with that.

I will ask, however, that you not mischaracterize my post. I do not blame the victim. The fault is with the perpetrator of the violence or crime. Specifically, I indicated that

For better, civil society has come to understand and accept that a woman who is dressed attractively is neither asking for or deserving to be raped or worse. A transgender is not asking or deserving to be raped or worse.

My post, directed to another, is cautionary, mentioning the reality that there are men who victimize vulnerable cis women, that possibly, transgenders especially pre-op transwomen, those who yearn for and go out to find Mr. Right, who think the horrible side of human nature will change just like that, might even be more at risk. I would not of course be referring to asexual transgenders, who could be victimized as well, but I imagine they would not be actively seeking a sexual partner or partners. At least with a gay male, one who does not crossdress, a potential male sex partner to him would / could not be deceived on the basis of appearance, the expectation being sexual intimacy between same sex partners.
,

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

!?!

Rin, I get that you will not be dissuaded from the transitioning / HRT track, and would likely go the whole nine yards with SRS by how much you defend it. I get that you reject competing professional opinions on the research out there and disagreement as to the (im)morality of SRS. We clearly disagree on the matter, and I am fine with that.

I will ask, however, that you not mischaracterize my post. I do not blame the victim. The fault is with the perpetrator of the violence or crime. Specifically, I indicated that

Rin is defending a right to discern whether SRS is right for a person, that doesn’t necessarily mean she will pursue it.

McHugh has been shown to be hawking ideology instead of supporting science.

 

[Rau]

Rin, I get that you will not be dissuaded from the transitioning / HRT track, and would likely go the whole nine yards with SRS by how much you defend it. I get that you reject competing professional opinions on the research out there and disagreement as to the (im)morality of SRS.

It’s not appropriate for you to speculate about what Rin will do in the future when she has posted her position on that point directly in post #56, where she specifically asked you to cease making assumptions about her intent. Your continued assertions about her intent in these circumstances strike me as designed to impugne her integrity and are uncharitable. You really should cease such assertions and speculation.

Further, defending the right of persons in general to pursue a course of action subject to relevant safeguards under high levels of medical care is not the same as advocating it for oneself or for particular persons at large. There may be a basis to debate the Church’s position, but I note in passing that if the Church intended to declare such medical treatment immoral, it has made a mediocre at best attempt at doing that. I for one can’t conclude that the Church teaching opposes surgery - it seems unclear to me.

As to the Swedish medical research, quoted by both McHugh and by you, that SRS “may not suffice” as a treatment for transsexualism, though “it does alleviate dysphoria”, nothing controversial or damning of SRS flows from this study. That the treatment provides relief, but does not deliver results as good as a person with no dysphoria at all, is a worthy argument for more research into better treatments, but is not an argument to abandon the treatment! The Swedish researchers themselves draw sensible conclusions from their research, viz:
1). SRS alleviates the dysphoria;
2). SRS alone is insufficient;
3). There is a need for improved "after SRS"s psychiatric and somatic care for patients.

Everyone here thinks this seems entirely reasonable. McHugh seeks to draw (via arm-waving) more damning conclusions (which don’t follow) and omits to mention the benefits of SRS.

I note McHugh is in print in the The Wall Street Journal on 14 June 2014.

I agree with some of what McHugh says. Research should continue into psychiatric treatment alternatives to SRS and the idea that there is something “improper” about such research is nonsense.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

Okay, I did state that the poster has decided to undergo SRS before and she said she has not made that decision, although she defends it, admitting she is transitioning and on HRT. She believes one side of the research and professional opinion on so called brain science that favors SRS. * As for Dr. McHugh’s opinion, it is not surprising that transgenders hate him and will attack anything that comes from him. He closed down the JH SRS program.

On the ethical and moral standpoint, the poster maintains that moral theologians and the NCBI are in error in saying SRS should not be undertaken, that Fr. Serpa and all CAF apologists are in error, Fr. Saunders is in error, that the words of Pope Benedict are saying something else in his Dec 2012 homily, etc. It should not matter, except that the Church does have something to say about SRS, and for the fact that she, you, and myself identify as Catholics, discussing a controversial topic in the Moral Theology SubForum. I do not share your view that the Church’s attempt to declare her position on SRS is mediocre. You see it as unclear, I see the position as clear. We simply differ in opinion.

The poster and I had a long exchange, mutually agreeing we were done, as we clearly reached an impasse on the subject of SRS. The position I take is that SRS should not be recommended for those who are unambiguously male or female, karyotyped as XY or XX, because SRS involves removal of healthy organs. I indicated it is understandable with individuals with true and rare intersex conditions. When there is a functionality issue, or when patients present with ambiguous genitalia and/or mixed DNA sex trait, surgery could be permissible ethically and morally. The Church has posited clearly (in the organ donation example you raised) that anatomical and functional integrity is not to be forsaken in surgeries meant to alleviate or ameliorate suffering or a condition.

At any rate, in engaging a different poster where I presented a cautionary view, she again repeated her pro-SRS arguments (I have no problem with you arriving that they have more weight), although she said she was already tired of stating her views ad nauseum in this forum. Hence, my remark that I understand she would likely move ahead with SRS, but that I requested that she not disregard parts of my post, in effect, stating that our society is better in accepting and believing that transgenders do not deserve being victimized for being transgenders. Transgenders do not ask or deserve to be raped or worse. I think her statement “nice try in victim blaming there” is therefore inappropriate and unfair. Now Joie and you jumped on my other remark instead, which I do not believe is inappropriate or uncharitable. Perhaps Rin needs to hear the other side more, but this is where it ends for me in replying to her in this forum. And to you, as well.

Good day.*

 

[Rin]

At any rate, in engaging a different poster where I presented a cautionary view, she again repeated her pro-SRS arguments (I have no problem with you arriving that they have more weight), although she said she was already tired of stating her views ad nauseum in this forum.

I am still tired of it - actually I’m sick of it.

But when I see someone, you or anyone else, clearly misrepresenting research data, repeatedly, as you again did in the paragraph I quoted (to be specific, while you didn’t quote the study directly, you knew perfectly well that your statement is unsupported by research), then I will respond when I have the energy and time for it (and sometimes when I don’t). I can agree to disagree on moral opinion, as long as the person does not insist on having their opinion elevated to infallible doctrine, when there is none. I dislike alternative magisteria. I can, however, not agree to let blatant misrepresentation of facts stand.

As for the part about you engaging someone else, well, it’s a public forum…

I think her statement “nice try in victim blaming there” is therefore inappropriate and unfair.

Your statement was very similar to those of politicians who defend not spending extra resources on combating assault rape and other violence against women, through pointing out things about lack of precautions taken, clothing, behavior etc. They also safeguard against criticism by saying such violence is unacceptable nonetheless; that does however not mean they are not guilty of victim blaming. Any statement could be made with such a safeguard; the “I’m not a racist, but…” cliche is a prime example.

Another is the use of “without further comparison”, when the comparison nevertheless at best will cause unintended derailment of a debate, or at worst is intended to cause emotional response against a group. The endless bringing up of pedophiles in debates about sexual orientation or gender identity is a great example of this - of course, the people who make such comparisons will deny any intent of equating the group in question with pedophiles . But nevertheless, such statements do pollute a debate, and often destroys it.

Similarly, your statement implied that the high assault statistics could be because of the kind of behavior you described. This is false (the behavior you describe is rare), and easily interpreted as victim blaming. If it was not intended as such, then I gladly apologize; but I also ask you to consider whether your language in this case did not convey what you thought it would.

Perhaps Rin needs to hear the other side more

I’ve been the other side

Rest assured, I still hear the other side quite often - but their arguments simply do not hold water. Hearing them repeated ad nauseam won’t change that.