reply to post by n0b0DY
If you care at all about the posterity of your species and the well being of your children, then you'll accept whatever role you have been cast in
life. Denouncing this role is selfish and unimportant. A confident individual does not require sexual reassignment for purposes of psychological well
being; actually, this is merely an appeasement to biological satisfaction.
This is not to say anything negative of one's constitution, it's just that the decision is irrelevant to anyone but yourself. There is no necessity
for such deviation from the social norm to again, anyone but yourself. The recently emergent and exuberant liberal politicization of this trend has
made it completely acceptable for psychologically ill patients to be treated with such surgery. Though this may ostensibly appear to cure their
initial diagnosis, there are no long term studies suggesting that those patients are in any way better off than their counterparts.
That the current medical institution holds this impression to be unchallengeable is irrefutably irresponsible; it relinquishes all responsibility of
the individual unto the organism to which it constitutes. This secularization of body from mind is a dangerous idea, for the aforementioned reason,
and for the fact it will encourage the reckless inhibition of medical doctors prescribing all manner of drugs under all petty circumstances, a trend
already apparent within the social norm of society today.
Perhaps in the near future murderers will be treated and then subsequently cured and released instead of condemned to life in prison. Perhaps this
movement toward the realization that the individual is simply a product of its surroundings, more importantly of its own body is proof that we are
unprepared to establish any sufficiently advanced civilization beyond our own planet, and that we and the Universe and many of its possible
inhabitants would be better off without our species' unrelenting tendency for arbitrary exploration and usurpation of anything we come in contact
with. We can almost conclude there is no such thing as the individual, and that it is in fact merely an extension of our psychology, a conduit through
which our biological imperative manifests itself in the pursuit of the two significant motives
, of hedonism and of reproduction.
A man is so similar to a woman biologically they are essentially one and the same. It simply comes down to a random expression in certain genetic
qualities over others during the period and process of embryonic growth in a pregnant female. Even when you a compare a physiologically adult male
with that of a woman, they are not all that different. Obviously that is to be expected from members of the same species. Of course, one must admit
that the differences, when taken from a greater perspective, are minuscule. And that physiological differences should have such greater bearing on the
cultural implications of an individual's life after birth, regardless of sex, is perplexing, especially in a civilized society. Obviously, such
segregation would have proved beneficial in early hunter gatherer societies, and to all of our mammalian ancestors, who were incapable of directing
its own specie toward selective adaptation. However, it's inevitable that the life after birth makes all the difference. It's those experiences that
further segregate the sexes, forcing upon them highly contrasting psychological and behavioral profiles. But is finally during the latter portion of
the twentieth century and this twenty-first century that we are seeing a desegregation of the cultural mores of society in respect to both gender and
sexual preference. We are obviously following a more Enlightened path.
There is very little evidence established that the cultural mores of any given society are a reflection of the behavioral psychology attributed to the
excess or deficiency of any one sexual hormone, whether estrogen or testosterone. That the notion a woman who has masculine tendencies will
automatically feel more comfortable adapting the cultural trends of a man is not substantiated, but one of motivated or experiential belief (beliefs
founded on principles acquired through life). Uncertainty can often produce great, and significant changes, which are not always warranted or even
necessary. Information and literature must be made highly accessible to all people, from childhood throughout adolescence especially, as it is in that
period of one's life that one usually comes to grip with the reality and consequentiality of their existence.
It is hoped a confident and psychologically durable individual will accept the reality of their condition for what it is, and when it comes time to
procreate, to perpetuate life how they were, though not necessarily "destined" to do so, but by which utility they were gifted with so applying,
they do so will little resistance and maximum enjoyment.
Personally, I don't see life as one choice over another. It's just how you've been placed into whatever role it was and how you have come to both
deal and manage it that defines you. As an individual, sexual preference should not place one in a position of social disadvantage. Then again I'm
conflicted between that and the concept of the familial unit, which has since time immemorial been the most effective method of the distribution of
resources on the smallest scale, both of physical and potential, including both material and social support. Of course, economically this holds no
weight considering that a homosexual union can provide equally as well as any heterosexual union. But then that brings us to the threat that it
imposes on the power of the long established social and political bodies, by which they would love to believe our current life styles can only be
attributed to them. But then again, within the next century that barrier will be completely broken and battered.
And for a simple answer to the author of this thread: I don't really think anything exists for a reason. Biology, it turns out, is the ultimate
benefactor of sentient existence, and it could care less how we condone ourselves. Life can simply be described by the random configuration of carbon
molecules at any given instant. It's an esoteric certainty that life is irrelevant to any observer not directly involved in this grand experiment, or
part of something similar.
[edit on 4-11-2008 by cognoscente]