Should the government pay for sex-change operations?

the_syco

The seven-year-old child, who has 35% hearing loss in both ears, may have to be taken out of mainstream education as the HSE has refused to fund hearing-aid implants at a total cost of €1,600 for the child.

I find it hard to believe that the child needs implants with 35% hearing loss. In saying that, I don't know the specifics of the case. If the kid needs hearing aids, though, give it to them. They'll need it to help them to learn. You don't need a same sex change to learn.

titan18

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I didn't say I was offended at all

I have also never said that resources in the health system are not a problem - as I already said above - resources can be changed around so for example you try and get the SRS surgery cheaper or you can try and ensure that the HSE spends less on administration - However to decide that one person is more worthy of healthcare then another is a human rights abuse in my view

Nah, not really, if we only had the money to cure a child of cancer or a 70 year old of cancer, the child is worth it tbh.That's just logic.There's not a limitless budget and there are some operations that are of a much higher priority

Annasopra

whiteman19 wrote: »

i don't think the government should fund them, because there's more urgent places that the money is needed eg cancer care.

@Johnnnymcg, i realise that you find giving healthcare preference to some people over others wrong on human rights, but the reality is that there is more urgent places the money is needed. with wards closing all over the country (and in my own area, Sligo General has lost its cancer services), the government can't be expected to treat every single person who has an illness/disorder etc.
it's disgraceful, i know, but priorities must be made. but if there was more money available, i would be all for it. i know you said that money can be shifted to keep costs down but it's not a perfect system, the HSE. if the money could be obtained, i think it would go to some other service that needed it, rather than go to trans-gender operations.
it's is deciding who should get healthcare over another, but you can't please everybody.

just my 2c

Look as I said before in my view this is not and should not be about false choices of setting one group against another

Think about this way if Colm Keaveney had said I agree with closing down the cancer services in Sligo because I know of kids who have been refused ear implants and we should pay for them first - what would your reaction be?

As I have said before Fiona deLondras explains the way I view it much better than I could

Delivering ‘value’ and ‘positive results’ through healthcare

The idea that healthcare ought to provide value and positive results for society as well as for individuals needs some disentangling in order to identify the ways in which this contention is of concern from a human rights perspective. First of all, of course, there is nothing objectionable about insisting that state-provided healthcare would deliver value in terms of decreasing waste, increasing productivity and quality of healthcare etc… That is not, however, what it appears to me that Cllr. Keaveney meant here. Rather, from the context, it seems to me that his contention is that some kinds of health are more beneficial to society generally than others; that whether or not a trans person who elects to undergo a gender-reassignment surgery can in fact secure that surgery is not fundamental to that individual’s health. In fact, we know that being able to secure surgery where it has been elected for is extremely important and that failure to access such medical treatment can have detrimental effects on one’s mental health and sense of wellbeing, identity and autonomy.

Furthermore, Cllr. Keaveney appears to me to be glossing over the fact that individual health and wellbeing is in fact fundamental to society. A society is, after all, a collection of individuals and in a society such as Ireland where we have elected to have a welfare-based approach to the provision of healthcare for those who do not or can not secure private health insurance, part of our societal ethos lies in recognising the fundamentality of individual wellbeing to societal wellbeing. The right to healthcare and bodily integrity inheres in each person regardless of what their healthcare needs happen to be. Certainly, there will be times when resource realities require us to make decisions regarding how we react to the healthcare needs of different people but in making those decisions it is fundamental that we do not allow our analysis to be skewed by unreflective and generalised perceptions of some kinds of healthcare being more important, delivering more ‘value’ and having more ‘positive results’ for society than others.

Deciding healthcare priority on the basis of status rather than medical need


More worrying to me, from a human rights perspective, is the insinuation within Cllr Keaveney’s intervention that allocating healthcare resources can be done on the basis of status; that this is a child v trans person analysis. Such a method of resource allocation is both deeply offensive (why does child trump trans person in this analysis?), overly simplistic, and blind to the proper basis for the allocation of healthcare resources: medical need. Certainly there will be some cases in which the medical need of a child will trump the medical need of a trans person who has elected to undertake gender reassignment surgery but that will not necessarily be the case. It will be entirely dependent on the particular circumstances of the case. To suggest that this can be constructed as a competition for resources based on status rather than medical need is to wholly undermine the important role that medical treatment can play in the full realisation of one’s right to privacy and gender identity as well as to suggest some kind of medical triviality in respect of being transgendered.

None of these insinuations are helpful. Neither do they lay the foundation for a rights-based allocation of limited resources, which in my view is the only justifiable mechanism for deciding on priority in the context of the provision of medical services.

TelePaul

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I wasn't talking about the HSE having a limitless budget at all I was saying that within their current resources they could actually fund both by shopping around and attempting to reduce the extortionate costs within their administration Do you think that Gender Identity Disorder is some sort of luxury for boom times, but now we can only deal with “real” issues?

I'm afraid that in it's current state, the HSE aren't fully capable of dealing with even these espoused 'real' issues that you're referring to, let alone the rather more esoteric concept of Gender Identity Disorder. I'm a pragmatist, I'm dealing with facts, not hypotheses about what the HSE are capable of. Sadly, I think even cost-cutting alternatives like this are probably beyond them right now.

storm2811

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Right so basically this is about your thoughts rather than actually informed medical opinion?

Well yes I suppose,but if the person was happy enough for the moment with the hormone therapy(not depressed/suicidal) then why would they need the op immediately?
If I needed something done but didn't need it right away I would in no way hesitate to let others who were in physical pain go before me if I could.

RolandIRL

dvpower wrote: »

Sligo General losing its cancer services wasn't because of a budget cut per se. It was because of the government's strategy for cancer control. No amount of cuts elsewhere will bring this service back to Sligo.

sligo had great cancer services. it should have been a centre of excellence but harney, in her infinite wisdom, decided there wasn't enough money for another centre. now people with cancer in the north-west have to travel 2+ hours to get cancer treatment in galway when it could be in sligo.

off-topic i know, but just had to clarify.

Links234

steve06 wrote: »

If you found someone who truly loved you for who you are right now, would it distract you from everything and make you feel comfortable in your current body or would it make a difference to the fact that you're not something that you want to be?

what, you think someone can just find a person and their entire identity just goes away in a puff of smoke or something?! holy hell, that's insulting! it's like the kind of thing some pig-headed guy who thinks that lesbians "just need a good dicking" would say.

you cannot pretend this is a psychological problem when bodies like the American medical association have stated that it is not something that can be "cured" by psychological means.

transsexuality is a REAL condition

TelePaul

whiteman19 wrote: »

it's is deciding who should get healthcare over another, but you can't please everybody.

+1. This isn't about who deserves what degree of healthcare, it's about who deserves what degree or healthcare right now given the state's dwindling budget.

dvpower

steve06 wrote: »

What the article fails to mention is that although the boy was denied the treatment, it's not as if a sex change was put in front of the operation in relation to importance.

Exactly. He makes it sound like some doctor (or more likely, an evil HSE administrator) made a specific decision to put a sex change operation in front of a hearing aid implant.

TelePaul

Links234 wrote: »

what, you think someone can just find a person and their entire identity just goes away in a puff of smoke or something?! holy hell, that's insulting! it's like the kind of thing some pig-headed guy who thinks that lesbians "just need a good dicking" would say.

I think you're projecting an awful lot.

RachPie

I see no reason why they should.
Unless there was some life - threatening reason behind it.
Government health money should be spent on improving the (godawful) HSE, saving people's lives and upskilling nurses and doctors. Not attaching a d*** to a woman who thinks she should be a man. People's physical wellbeing is far more important than psychological. I have no problem at all with transsexuals, but money could be spent far more wisely than that.

smash

Links234 wrote: »

what, you think someone can just find a person and their entire identity just goes away in a puff of smoke or something?! holy hell, that's insulting! it's like the kind of thing some pig-headed guy who thinks that lesbians "just need a good dicking" would say.

Eh no I didn't say that, I only asked the question because you said you've never felt comfortable letting someone near you. My question was that if you met someone who did love you for who you are, would you feel in any way more comfortable with who you are? And my best friend is a lesbian, I don't think like that.

Links234 wrote: »

you cannot pretend this is a psychological problem when bodies like the American medical association have stated that it is not something that can be "cured" by psychological means.

transsexuality is a REAL condition

I never said it wasn't, I said in some cases it comes across as more of a psychological problem. I gave 2 examples, 1 where it wasn't and 1 where it was.

Annasopra

TelePaul wrote: »

+1. This isn't about who deserves what degree of healthcare, it's about who deserves what degree or healthcare right now given the state's dwindling budget.

But thats just contradictory

smash

Johnnymcg wrote: »

But thats just contradictory

My son's going to die of cancer vs I'm a man/woman trapped in a woman/man's body.

I think it's clear where the priority should be here. It's life & death vs a temporary hold up in eventual happiness.

Links234

steve06 wrote: »

Eh no I didn't say that, I only asked the question because you said you've never felt comfortable letting someone near you. My question was that if you met someone who did love you for who you are, would you feel in any way more comfortable with who you are? And my best friend is a lesbian, I don't think like that.

you imply that you can change someone in something as profound as gender identity, something that is at the very core of a person's being, that's no different than someone saying to a lesbian that finding the right guy would change their sexual identity.

TelePaul

Johnnymcg wrote: »

But thats just contradictory

How so? Assuming, of course, that we live in a world with finite public service resources.

smash

Links234 wrote: »

you imply that you can change someone in something as profound as gender identity, something that is at the very core of a person's being, that's no different than someone saying to a lesbian that finding the right guy would change their sexual identity.

No I didn't, I asked a question. I asked is someone loved you for who you are, would you feel any better about who you are. I'm not talking about sexuality, I'm talking about physical attraction and more so a mental connection.

Links234

steve06 wrote: »

No I didn't, I asked a question. I asked is someone loved you for who you are, would you feel any better about who you are. I'm not talking about sexuality, I'm talking about physical attraction and more so a mental connection.

yeah, it's pretty much the same thing, you're asking if someone can change who I am as a person. also, there's the implication of who I am being something other than what I say. and on top of that, there's the implication that I'm not happy with who I am

I'm actually very happy with who I am, I became happy with who I am when I stopped trying to fit into this male rolegl

smash

Links234 wrote: »

yeah, it's pretty much the same thing, you're asking if someone can change who I am as a person.

Because people change. Every day people change.

Links234 wrote: »

also, there's the implication of who I am being something other than what I say. and on top of that, there's the implication that I'm not happy with who I am

Forgive me if this is ignorant, but with transgender people is that not a given? thus the want for a gender correction surgery?

Links234 wrote: »

I'm actually very happy with who I am, I became happy with who I am when I stopped trying to fit into this male rolegl

So you're happy with who you are inside. Are you happy with yourself physically?

RolandIRL

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Think about this way if Colm Keaveney had said I agree with closing down the cancer services in Sligo because I know of kids who have been refused ear implants and we should pay for them first - what would your reaction be?

i would say the cancer services should be kept over the implants, but i'm being biased as i've had relatives with cancer, so it's personal for me.

i would consider cancer services more important than trans-gender operations (for the above reasons), but also because more lives will be saved with these services as opposed to lives saved from trans-gender operations. i would consider physical well-being more important than mental (unless it's a very serious mental condition that risks a life) but that's just me.

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Look as I said before in my view this is not and should not be about false choices of setting one group against another

it is about the budget available to the HSE, but in a perfect world, the HSE would have enough money to cater for everyone, and treat everyone with a condition/illness/disorder. unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world, and priorities have to be made. sad but true.
just for the record, i've nothing against funding money for trans-gender operations. i just think that it's not possible atm with budget concerns and other people in need of life-saving treatment.

Cookie_Monster

The seven-year-old child, who has 35% hearing loss in both ears, may have to be taken out of mainstream education as the HSE has refused to fund hearing-aid implants at a total cost of €1,600 for the child.

this whole thing is over 1600 quid?

FFs, what 1600 quid to the HSE, sure more is spent on expenses in 5 minutes than that :mad:

Links234

steve06 wrote: »

Because people change. Every day people change.

so, you could just change yourself into a woman, change the very idea of who you are inside, change your instincts, your whole sense of self? because that's what you're asking me to do.

steve06 wrote: »

Forgive me if this is ignorant, but with transgender people is that not a given? thus the want for a gender correction surgery?

So you're happy with who you are inside. Are you happy with yourself physically?

people transition to feel comfortable and happy with their own bodies, simple as that

and no, I am not happy with myself physically, why the hell would I be? I'm female but I have boy bits, that's nothing to be happy about. I feel constantly as if there's parts of me missing and other parts that feel like they don't belong to me at all.

A Primal Nut

The_Minister wrote: »

Inspired by a Labour councillor.
http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2010/jul/25/call-for-hse-to-axe-sex-change-ops-as-child-denied/


I'm going to add a poll to this.

This proposal gives me some trouble.
On the one hand, I think the state should pay for sex-changes - they are a medical issue.

Its not a medical issue - its a cosmetic/happiness issue. Its not the government's responsibility to pay for people to happy; just to give them the chance.

I could come out and say I don't feel happy within myself if I don't get an x-box, it doesn't mean the government pays for it.

Links234

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Its not a medical issue - its a cosmetic/happiness issue.

It IS a medical issue, and it is NOT cosmetic!

Nodin

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Its not a medical issue - its a cosmetic/happiness issue. Its not the government's responsibility to pay for people to happy; just to give them the chance.

I'd say having an identifiably female brain stuck in a male body was fairly obviously a medical condition.

smash

Links234 wrote: »

so, you could just change yourself into a woman, change the very idea of who you are inside, change your instincts, your whole sense of self? because that's what you're asking me to do.

No, you're missing it... That's not what I'm asking. It's nothing to do with who you are or your instincts or sense of self. It's nothing to do with asking you to change who you are or who you're not... You're already in a situation where you don't feel comfortable with your physical form. I'm asking if you found someone who you connected with, and didn't care about your physical form, would it make you feel in any way better about it?

Links234 wrote: »

people transition to feel comfortable and happy with their own bodies, simple as that

But that's not what you're saying below.

Links234 wrote: »

and no, I am not happy with myself physically, why the hell would I be? I'm female but I have boy bits, that's nothing to be happy about. I feel constantly as if there's parts of me missing and other parts that feel like they don't belong to me at all.

So your point is what we already know really... that you know who you are and you're happy about that, but you're not fully what you want to be.

Links234

steve06 wrote: »

I'm asking if you found someone who you connected with, and didn't care about your physical form, would it make you feel in any way better about it?

how do you suggest it would it make me feel any better about my physical form?

if I found someone I connected with, I don't think basically an asexual relationship would be fair on them. do you?

steve06 wrote: »

But that's not what you're saying below.

Yes it is.

General Zod

aDeener wrote: »

how is this even a topic for debate?

Because3 a Labour councillor has engaged in a bit of Electioneering to get his profile raised, making out that the kid was denied hearing aides because someone got a sex change.

How about he attack private health care subsidies or the pay packets of HSE executives?

smash

Links234 wrote: »

how do you suggest it would it make me feel any better about my physical form?

The same way if someone had a birthmark on their face and they hated it but couldn't change it, yet their partner loved them and saw past it. Then they'd stop worrying so much about it because the person that mattered most to them didn't care about it.

Links234 wrote: »

if I found someone I connected with, I don't think basically an asexual relationship would be fair on them. do you?

Depends what they want out of the relationship, and if you could let go of how you look physically for their sake. But I know that wouldn't happen as you've stated before.

I think people in your situation have a long way to go considering France has been the only country in the world to remove transexualism from its list of mental illnesses. But considering that the HSE has funded these operations I guess it's a step in the right direction. Although I do feel there's people in more need so if it comes to it, I think they should be put before an operation such as this on a temporary basis.

minidazzler

I am a very liberal person when it comes to sexuality, but I don't think the Government should pay for sex change operations whether in whole or in part.

I would be in favour of Tax relief for people who go through the operation, as in they don't have to pay tax for 6 months - 1 year after the operation.

Wazdakka

Links234 wrote: »

if I found someone I connected with, I don't think basically an asexual relationship would be fair on them. do you?

So the HSE should pay to surgically modify your body for your partners happiness?

Strata

RachPie wrote: »

I see no reason why they should.
Unless there was some life - threatening reason behind it.
Government health money should be spent on improving the (godawful) HSE, saving people's lives and upskilling nurses and doctors. Not attaching a d*** to a woman who thinks she should be a man. People's physical wellbeing is far more important than psychological. I have no problem at all with transsexuals, but money could be spent far more wisely than that.

Really? Try telling that to some-one suffering from depression.

Links234

steve06 wrote: »

The same way if someone had a birthmark on their face and they hated it but couldn't change it, yet their partner loved them and saw past it. Then they'd stop worrying so much about it because the person that mattered most to them didn't care about it.

you're making it out like it's just something like a self image issue... it's not!

there's been loads of stuff posted on other threads, this is basically something hardwired into the brain, like my subconscious expects my body to be in a certain order, and it's not.

you know, they used to think that phantom limb pain was just in the imagination, that patients couldn't really be feeling anything, but then they started to understand that the brain was hardwired and mapped out for the way the body is ordered, and that the brain still thinks that the limb is there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb#Neurological_basis

it's like that!

steve06 wrote: »

Depends what they want out of the relationship, and if you could let go of how you look physically for their sake. But I know that wouldn't happen as you've stated before.

it is absolutely NOT about how I look

Wazdakka wrote: »

So the HSE should pay to surgically modify your body for your partners happiness?

didn't say that, did I? I said right here that I wouldn't want them to pay for it: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67121547&postcount=81

and no, it wouldn't be for the happiness of any partner, it would solely be for me.

smash

When you explain it like the phantom limb thing then it's easier to understand. You should have just said that from the start!

Wolflikeme

dvpower wrote: »

I think councilling is already a pre requisite to getting the operation.

I'm sure it is but, I'm also sure they know exactly what to say to get approval.

A sex change simply isn't as important as a child's hearing or even to a greater degree, money spent on a cervical cancer vaccine. End of story. People can be as P.C. as they want about this - 'but it's important to them'. I don't care about them. I care about children getting the help they deserve. They're kids, and as kids of this country, the state has an obligation to them as far as I'm concerned. Sex change patients should pay for it themselves.

I got braces because I hated my teeth. They fall under 'cosmetics'. Did I ever want or expect the state to pay? Did I ****!

I'm off to cool down!

TelePaul

I think it's worth noting that society has always been pre-disposed towards the treatment of medical conditions as opposed to psychological conditions, even from an historical perspective. Depression, addiction, body dysmorphic disorder, GID....they're all comparatively recent discoveries from a medical - as opposed to behavioural - standpoint. Perhaps it's fairer to say that the recognition of psychological disorders as comprising a broader medical concern is itself a relatively recent development in medicine. Either way, it's going to take a while before the relevant legislative and social changes come into effect.

Chuchoter

steve06 wrote: »

When you explain it like the phantom limb thing then it's easier to understand. You should have just said that from the start!

Phantom limb pain is when someone has a leg or arm amputated but feels as if it is still there and it hurts. This is because the brain is still programmed to think that the arm is still there and doesn't understand that its gone. I think what she's getting at is that just because something is going on in the brain does not make it psychological, like PLP isn't a mental illness, its neurons firing wrong and you can't counsel neurons so you have to do other physiological things to fix it.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Links234 wrote: »

so, you could just change yourself into a woman, change the very idea of who you are inside, change your instincts, your whole sense of self? because that's what you're asking me to do.



people transition to feel comfortable and happy with their own bodies, simple as that

and no, I am not happy with myself physically, why the hell would I be? I'm female but I have boy bits, that's nothing to be happy about. I feel constantly as if there's parts of me missing and other parts that feel like they don't belong to me at all.

I understand what you are saying, but with all due respect you will never have these 'lady parts'. You may undergo surgery to create a representation of female genitalia but the fact is it will noly be a representation. You cannot have the womd, the ovaries, the mammary glands or any of that which truly makes a person female.
For this reason I cannot truly believe that it is gender reassignment, it's a feel good fix. Which is all well and good but I don't believe that the state should pay for it when there are other priorites

Chuchoter

Raelyn Big Sarong wrote: »

I understand what you are saying, but with all due respect you will never have these 'lady parts'. You may undergo surgery to create a representation of female genitalia but the fact is it will noly be a representation. You cannot have the womd, the ovaries, the mammary glands or any of that which truly makes a person female.
For this reason I cannot truly believe that it is gender reassignment, it's a feel good fix. Which is all well and good but I don't believe that the state should pay for it when there are other priorites

So women who have hysterectomies or born without reproductive organs=not real women? Just feel good fixes?

Links234

steve06 wrote: »

When you explain it like the phantom limb thing then it's easier to understand. You should have just said that from the start!

ok, well I have a phantom vagina.
every time I go to touch myself, that's what I want to touch, that's what I expect to touch, and I'm always disturbed that I can't, because something else is there. and every morning when I wake up, I have to come to the realization that what I feel is there, isn't.

also, this is interesting: http://cbc.ucsd.edu/pdf/occurence_phantom_genitalia.pdf

CreepingDeath

Links234 wrote: »

there's been loads of stuff posted on other threads, this is basically something hardwired into the brain, like my subconscious expects my body to be in a certain order, and it's not.

That's just your fantasy of how you would like to look and feel.

The motor cortex of a childs brain learns how to control the body it has, it is not hardwired with only two possible configurations of male and female.

Stroke victims can relearn how to use limbs when part of their motor functioning has been damaged. The sensory neurons find another path and the brain rewires itself based on input and feedback.

Sure that eight legged/armed Indian girl who was in the papers last year could control her limbs. How can that happen if the brain is hard wired with a male/female representation and there's extra limbs ?
So the brain learns to control and map the sensory inputs from whatever body configuration is there.

I think the poll results have shown that a bit of common sense prevails.
The state only has to provide basic needs for it's citizens, but give them the freedom to do the rest. It's not there as a wishing well.

Terry

RachPie wrote: »

I see no reason why they should.
Unless there was some life - threatening reason behind it.
Government health money should be spent on improving the (godawful) HSE, saving people's lives and upskilling nurses and doctors. Not attaching a d*** to a woman who thinks she should be a man. People's physical wellbeing is far more important than psychological. I have no problem at all with transsexuals, but money could be spent far more wisely than that.

You have absolutely no idea how wrong you are there.

Nodin wrote: »

I'd say having an identifiably female brain stuck in a male body was fairly obviously a medical condition.

How is it possible to differentiate between a male and female brain?
What are the different characteristics? Honest questions.

Also, how is this a physical condition as opposed to a psychological one?

Now one thing that hasn't really been addressed here is the fact that this child will end up costing the state far more that €1,600 if he is not treated now.
He will have to be placed in a different school, at the cost of the state. He will also need the operation at some point in his life. If the condition gets worse, then it will just cost more money over time.
I don't blame trans-sexual people for this. It's squarely at the foot of the HSE, and that is where the blame should be focussed.

Links234

Raelyn Big Sarong wrote: »

I understand what you are saying, but with all due respect you will never have these 'lady parts'. You may undergo surgery to create a representation of female genitalia but the fact is it will noly be a representation. You cannot have the womd, the ovaries, the mammary glands or any of that which truly makes a person female.

I know what I will and won't have, and I'm happy with the options that are available to me
the penis and the vagina both form from the same thing in a fetus, what forms the clitoris and clitoral hood is what forms the glans and foreskin, getting mine put back in the proper order is close enough for me.

and yes, I WILL have mammary glands, my breasts will develop the same way as any other girls does

Links234

CreepingDeath wrote: »

That's just your fantasy of how you would like to look and feel.

fantasy? after everything that's been said in the other thread, I think you're just trying to get a rise out of me

TelePaul

crayolastereo wrote: »

So women who have hysterectomies or born without reproductive organs=not real women? Just feel good fixes?

I think the the op was pointing to a natural vs synthetic makeup.

tommyhaas

Terry wrote: »

How is it possible to differentiate between a male and female brain?

By asking them to explain the offside rule

CreepingDeath

Links234 wrote: »

fantasy? after everything that's been said in the other thread, I think you're just trying to get a rise out of me

Nope.

That hypothesis that GID is caused by certain differences in the brain could well be backwards.
It could be that obsessive transsexual fantasies could cause changes in the brain as your consciousness focuses more and more on certain body parts.

In the same way that musicians who focus more on hearing probably have a more active audio processing region of their brain.

Karl Hungus

FFS, I don't really care to be the guy who always chimes in with the same thing on this subject, and sometimes, I find it's like arguing with creationists.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

That hypothesis that GID is caused by certain differences in the brain could well be backwards.
It could be that obsessive transsexual fantasies could cause changes in the brain as your consciousness focuses more and more on certain body parts.

Fantasies can change a person's genes now, can they? *Ahem*

**** it, I'll just copy and paste it from the other thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67120391&postcount=269

Transsexual gene link identified
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Show Sex-Atypical Hypothalamus Activation When Smelling Odorous Steroids

Nodin

Terry wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea how wrong you are there.



How is it possible to differentiate between a male and female brain?
What are the different characteristics? Honest questions.

Also, how is this a physical condition as opposed to a psychological one?

.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034

Chemistry is a physical thing.

Nodin

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Nope.

That hypothesis that GID is caused by certain differences in the brain could well be backwards.
It could be that obsessive transsexual fantasies could cause changes in the brain as your consciousness focuses more and more on certain body parts.

In the same way that musicians who focus more on hearing probably have a more active audio processing region of their brain.

Stuff and nonsense. Bad enough you ignore the obvious without coming with some bizarre 'creationist' level science of your own.