Welcome to Gaia! ::

Nobody forces sex changes on anyone, it is an option for people who believe that they were born with the wrong parts. If they don't want anti-depressants, if what they want is their d**k exchanged for a v****a (or vise versa) and a pair of tits put on (or removed)... What is the harm in that? So they can't have kids, big deal.

Even if sex changes were forced on people, in what way would that be different from forcing them to take anti-depressants instead?

I'm on anti-depressants, if my problems could be solved by a sex change I'd do that. I am not, however, a transgender so such a surgery would be pointless and damaging to my psyche. For people who are transgender the surgery would be beneficial.

My mistake I tend to get those two words mixed up. Not sure why exactly... I will edit.

A personal justification is one that requires people hearing the arguments to have standards or beliefs about things. Like if I was arguing that kids were too cold to go to school, you'd have to care about kids going to school which would imply that you care about an educated society, ect. ect. Ad nosium.

The desire to have kids is a personal one and does not altar a person's ability to be happy and healthy. Having a procedure that forever takes that choice away from you does, because people have certain emotional needs in their private lives that such a thing would stunt.

My original post didn't imply a disdain for those who do not desire to have children. It disdained taking that choice from people forever with a medical procedure.

Or maybe you just care about the kids not dying, regardless of where they were going or how much of an education they wound up with. Saying "if you care about the thing, then you care about the thing" doesn't really differentiate between caring about the thing because it's real or caring about the thing because you just want it to be real.

How would taking away the ability to do a thing you don't even want to do has a negative impact on your life?

So you're against elective surgery of all sorts? Or just elective surgeries that tamper with a person's "natural functions"?

It's about doing what keeps you mentally stable in the long run. If my happiness, and therefore mental stability, can be aided by an optional procedure then there is no harm in it for me as long as I am aware of any side effects that may take away options in future.

You seem to be under the impression that people are being forced to undergo the surgery or are not informed of the side effects. They go into the operating room after taking the time to thoroughly examine their options and how the surgery will impact their life.

Hate to break it to you, but anti-depressants often kill sex drive. My sex drive is presently so low that I've had relationships end on that basis alone. I get interested in sex once every few months, but my reproductive system functions quite normally. This is a massive buzz-kill for any man that I am interested in dating, and while I can't blame them I am unable to function normally at all if I stop the anti-depressants. What would you find sexy about a woman curled up on the floor sobbing with no idea what set her off? Or when her mood swings in another direction and she throws a hissy fit over the placement of a chair? Which then sets her off on the crying fit because she is scared of her own tantrums?

I hate to break it to you, but your answer to all life's mental problems is not the be-all end-all. And if there are other options for people to get the same result, why not just shut up and let them have it? If they are not endangering their lives, or anyone else's, what right do you have to tell them they can't have it?

Implicative implications. Using a logical fountain you can access a person's basic morality by working down from more specific branches of it with open ended questions until you reach the answers that confirm your suspicions. I do some small leaps to get from point A to point B. I assume that you trust society to some extent to get married. I also assume you care about the health and happiness of that society because you care about the health and happiness of yourself and the people you care about. My argument would need to logical, but within your morality to convince you of my correctness.

So my premises are as follows:
- Current standards for treating gender dysphoria cause the patients emotional and physical harm.
- Emotional and physical harm are road blocks in the path of strong society.
- My new proposed standards would limit emotional and physical harm to nearly negligible levels.

I was perhaps unclear in my original post about what the sex repressors existed for. Transgendered people DO want to have sex, just not with their natural genitals that they are convicted should not be there, and in most cases not with the sex that would produce offspring incidentally anyway. The drugs exist to calm anxiety about sex and sexuality by training the brain to ignore it. Much the same as ADHD medication would train the brain to pay attention to the most pertinent thing going on at the present moment (in absence of therapy to train the brain, of course).

There are people with perfectly healthy bodies who pretend to be amputees because they feel one of their limbs doesn't belong to their body. Do you also think it would be a good idea to "help" them by removing those limps? And don't even think about saying this is different because it handicaps them, being infertile is a handicap, too, even if it isn't as obvious in daily life.