|
|
|
|
|
by TaylorAlexander
747 days ago
|
|
> The question seems to be whether being transgender, or being a mountain biker, is something that can exist purely in the mind, in the absence of the ability to realise it. Agreed. And we don't generally refer to mountain bikers like that, but we do for trans people. Equalizing the analogy, it would be "person who would enjoy mountain biking" and "person who would enjoy gender transition". I think this framing makes it easier to see as something that could already exist within a person. Of course the truth is that whether someone would enjoy mountain biking or whether someone would enjoy transition is related to both social factors and pre-existing personality traits. The real problem comes when we stigmatize people for having these traits or for deciding to do something about it. |
|
As an example, we stigmatize, and should stigmatize, the behaviours of those who are attracted to minors, and that stigma likely does reduce the social transmission of those behaviours.
The question I think comes down to essentially whether one considers the results of acting on gender dysphoria to be "bad".
If it is bad, then the question then becomes, is it a net benefit to stigmatize transitioning - i.e. do the benefits in reducing overall gender dysphoria outweigh the costs to those who would have it regardless of social factors.
If it's not bad, none of that matters, crack on.