Quote:You are still blending biology with psychology and sprinkling in morality. So you can accept that a biological anomaly (like the mutation that causes red hair) may be possible for a consistent number of the world population to have a disposition towards self identifying as transgender. But then you say it doesn't make it right or healthy or absolve that person from choosing not to be.


How can a person choose what they biologically ARE? Are they not reconciling their sense of self by acknowledging their biological makeup IS transgender (or gay)?


You can introduce whether or not it is right or healthy, but that is straying from the concept of the biological explanation. Whether or not it is "right" is subjective. A person's moral upbringing may call homosexuality or transgender a sin due to religious indoctrination. That has nothing to do with biology. An atheist may simply find it weird or off and classify it as "not right" because it is a deviation from the biological norm. (Once upon a time redheads were persecuted in a similar way in some cultures -- thanks Judas!)


You also touch upon it being unhealthy, blurring your argument between a biological explanation and the explanation of a mental disorder. Drano lady has a disorder and wants to blind herself. Transgender people identify as a sex they may have been misdiagnosed as at birth (XXY or XYY can appear XX or XY at birth, but how often are chromosomes tested at birth? Pretty much never.) I would challenge the definition of unhealthy there. Is it more unhealthy to live in a state of constant depression because you are not comfortable in your own skin because you repress what your biological makeup SAYS you are? OR to live as you feel most comfortable knowing it makes you a target of possible violence from "less enlightened" individuals? It's not a choice you've ever had to make. And being a pretty convincing XY, I would question what makes you the authority on how an XXY or XYY should reconcile their sense of self.


I cannot accept the concept a person has a choice in what is in their DNA. I have a friend who endured the cruel practice of "ex-gay" conversion therapy which you probably accept as a plausible practice. I will add the most profitable "ex-gay" program leader rejected this practice after decades of trying to prove the concept of choice and cited it does significant and in some cases irreparable harm to those who endure it.


I also reject the notion that a child needs to hit puberty before they are capable of determining a sense of self identity. I used to steal my father's Playboy magazines at the age of 3. I knew what I was then before I had any clue of what to do with it. The same can be said about the two young people I referenced earlier.

1.) I Don't ascribe to ex-gay aversion therapy.


2.) I make a contextual distinction between. What may be a biological predisposition (hormonal neural) to misidentify an aspect of self (gender) and a biological ambiguation of sex (homaphraditism, genital malformation, XXY yyx etc.)


3.) I think that in the case of opposite gender identity that there should be a physical exam including chromosomal analysis to determine if there is an underlying biological malady and or cause to better understand the root of the presentation.


4.) puberty is the second most important hormonal event in brain development (the first being hormone levels in uteri that should vary wildly between male and female fetuses). This can give clues as to what a persons body is actually trying to tell them. If someone is on a normal biological track but still persists in identifying with another gender then we know its mental or environmental. Otherwise I know that as a kid there are a lot of women who were masculine pre puberty and boys that were more feminine, including me.

---