a hypothetical situation

[Rusman]

Let them be transgender.

Really, I wouldn't care personally, it's my kid and they can be whoever they want to, I support them wholeheartedly.

Yeah pretty much... is there another answer?

My kids can be whatever they want them to be, hell they'd probably get half their weird lifestyle choice and fetishes from me anyway.

 

[Something Amyss]

Considering I've lived through that hell, I don't think I'm passing judgment on anyone.

 

[JoJo]

Depends on the age, if they were a younger child I'd smile and go along with their little game, if they were old enough to be serious then I'd ask why they thought that and perhaps get in contact with a psychologist. If they truly wanted to be the other gender then I'd accept that and support them but I'd want to make sure it wasn't another underlying psychological factor first and they were sure of their decision.

I'd like to point something out here, Transgenderism isn't purely psychological. There are cases of over exposure to androgens in utero that result in the child having a predisposition towards being transgendered.

If it's true transgenderism then yes, that well may be true (I'm not an expert on this subject) but I wouldn't let my child make such a large decision without consulting some sort of expert to make sure that really is the case and it isn't something-else which is causing them to think that. As a parent it would be my responsibility to make sure that they don't make any rash decisions or do something for the wrong reason.

 

[Blend]

That's not a thought experiment, that's a question.

 

[Rainboq]

That's not a thought experiment, that's a question.

That depends on your definition of thought experiment.

-snip- As a parent it would be my responsibility to make sure that they don't make any rash decisions or do something for the wrong reason.

That's what the 'real life test' is for. The person attempting to undergo hormone therapy and possibly SRS has to live as their chosen gender for at least a year (In Canada at least).

 

[Togs]

I honestly dont know, this is most likely gonna get me flamed but the whole transgender thing freaks me out and I cannot fathom the reasoning behind it.
I'd try and be supportive but Im not sure I could, it would take me a long time to accept and be comfortable with it.

 

[Indeterminacy]

To respond to what you just said: A child can often feel ashamed of varying from percieved societal sexual normals, hence why coming out of the closet is a huge thing, IME.

It's not so much about sexual norms as it is about the idea that sexual identity is so important to them that they feel the need to have corrective surgery. I would feel just as appalled by the thought that my child wanted penis enhancement medication or breast augmentation; well, probably more so, given the extent, expense and potential risk of the procedure of sexual reassignment.

I would see this sort of thing as a very strong deviation from the guiding principles I would lay out as a parent. You want to be homosexual, that's fine. You want to have a more group-oriented sexual lifestyle, I'll warn you about STDs, but otherwise give you the freedom to live that way if you want. But the second you start thinking of sex in terms of such self-definitional terms as that invoked in transsexualism (also including spending too much time watching pornography, dressing deliberatively provocatively for the sake of unqualified sexual attraction, or working in prostitution in later life), I will step in to intervene.

 

[Blend]

That's not a thought experiment, that's a question.

That depends on your definition of thought experiment.

-snip- As a parent it would be my responsibility to make sure that they don't make any rash decisions or do something for the wrong reason.

That's what the 'real life test' is for. The person attempting to undergo hormone therapy and possibly SRS has to live as their chosen gender for at least a year (In Canada at least).

Does it not depend on THE definition of "Thought experiment"?

 

[Rainboq]

I honestly dont know, this is most likely gonna get me flamed but the whole transgender thing freaks me out and I cannot fathom the reasoning behind it.

That's not a problem, quite a few people can't do this, and expecting a human being to see beyond their experiences and try to view things from someones point of view is a rather unreasonable expectation of human being. This is simply due our opinions and biases being born from our own experiences, which are both shaped by our experiences and decisions, and shape them in turn. No is asking you to accept it, but all any child would want is for you to tolerate it and try to understand it in time.

 

[MorgulMan]

I suppose it depends on the age of my child. But ultimately, the point would be to offer whatever age-appropriate assistance, possibly including therapy, is necessary to overcome the false-to-facts belief.

 

[Rainboq]

That's not a thought experiment, that's a question.

That depends on your definition of thought experiment.

-snip- As a parent it would be my responsibility to make sure that they don't make any rash decisions or do something for the wrong reason.

That's what the 'real life test' is for. The person attempting to undergo hormone therapy and possibly SRS has to live as their chosen gender for at least a year (In Canada at least).

Does it not depend on THE definition of "Thought experiment"?

You, good sir or madam, are not versed in philosophy. No term has one, fixed definition for everyone. The dictionary exists more as a guideline for what the general meaning of a term is. A term can mean different things to different people. Take a term like "holocaust" for an (extremely polarized) example. It means different things to a survivor, than say, a Neo-Nazi.

To respond to what you just said: A child can often feel ashamed of varying from percieved societal sexual normals, hence why coming out of the closet is a huge thing, IME.

It's not so much about sexal norms as it is about the idea that sexual identity is so important to them that they feel the need to have corrective surgery. I would feel just as appalled by the thought that my child wanted penis enhancement medication or breast augmentation; well, probably more so, given the extent, expense and potential risk of the procedure of sexual reassignment.

I would see this sort of thing as a very strong deviation from the guiding principles I would lay out as a parent. You want to be homosexual, that's fine. You want to have a more group-oriented sexual lifestyle, I'll warn you about STDs, but otherwise give you the freedom to live that way if you want. But the second you start thinking of sex in terms of such self-definitional terms as that invoked in transsexualism (also including spending too much time watching pornography, dressing deliberatively provocatively for the sake of unqualified sexual attraction, or working in prostitution in later life), I will step in to intervene.

Why?

 

[Rainboq]

I suppose it depends on the age of my child. But ultimately, the point would be to offer whatever age-appropriate assistance, possibly including therapy, is necessary to overcome the false-to-facts belief.

Could you please explain?

 

[Blend]

That's not a thought experiment, that's a question.

That depends on your definition of thought experiment.

-snip- As a parent it would be my responsibility to make sure that they don't make any rash decisions or do something for the wrong reason.

That's what the 'real life test' is for. The person attempting to undergo hormone therapy and possibly SRS has to live as their chosen gender for at least a year (In Canada at least).

Does it not depend on THE definition of "Thought experiment"?

You, good sir or madam, are not versed in philosophy. No term has one, fixed definition for everyone. The dictionary exists more as a guideline for what the general meaning of a term is. A term can mean different things to different people. Take a term like "holocaust" for an (extremely polarized) example. It means different things to a survivor, than say, a Neo-Nazi.

To respond to what you just said: A child can often feel ashamed of varying from percieved societal sexual normals, hence why coming out of the closet is a huge thing, IME.

It's not so much about sexal norms as it is about the idea that sexual identity is so important to them that they feel the need to have corrective surgery. I would feel just as appalled by the thought that my child wanted penis enhancement medication or breast augmentation; well, probably more so, given the extent, expense and potential risk of the procedure of sexual reassignment.

I would see this sort of thing as a very strong deviation from the guiding principles I would lay out as a parent. You want to be homosexual, that's fine. You want to have a more group-oriented sexual lifestyle, I'll warn you about STDs, but otherwise give you the freedom to live that way if you want. But the second you start thinking of sex in terms of such self-definitional terms as that invoked in transsexualism (also including spending too much time watching pornography, dressing deliberatively provocatively for the sake of unqualified sexual attraction, or working in prostitution in later life), I will step in to intervene.

Why?

I'm more versed then the average joe and I've studied its Natural aspects extensively. So I can assure you, using your example, that the word "Holocaust" has one defined meaning. It may be that to many people it can invoke many different feelings or experiences, the word still has one meaning.

Thought experiment also has a definite meaning and the above question is not a thought experiment. I'm not really sure why we are discussing this. I only pointed it out because I clicked on the thread expecting a thought experiment and was disappointed. So for all those who would do the same I decided to point it out.

And also in the case you thought you were really posing a thought experiment.

 

[TheDooD]

As long as it doesn't cost me money I wouldn't mind. Then I'll say go troll your mom.

 

[Candidus]

Quick addendum; 'So, not really a thought experiment so much as hypothetical situation and-possibly-advice thread'.

My sister (or brother, as it happens now) is transgendered female>male. Our parents found that calling her by a male name and using male pronouns was difficult to remember, but not difficult as a concept.

I personally found it easy to remember and easy in concept, as my 'sister' was always sexless as far as my eyes were concerned. Nothing really changed from my perspective.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

Sacrifice them to cure myself of lycanthropy.

It's a win-win!

 

[Phasmal]

I honestly wouldn't care.
If they were serious about it I would make sure they had the support they needed.
It's their gender not mine.

 

[Jedamethis]

Tell them to wait a while to make sure. Then support them.

 

[dave1004]

Laugh hysterically, take a picture, censor it, post it on funnyjunk, enjoy infinite green thumbs! ^_^.

On a serious side, I'd probably disown it. I don't want children, normal or not. Good thing I'm a loser virgin!

 

[Indeterminacy]

Why?

Why dislike the prospect that being sexual is fundamental to what it means to be human? Basically, because it brings together three aspects of materialism that strike me as philosophically untenable.

Spoiler: One: That a primary function of humanity is to reproduce.

One: That a primary function of humanity is to reproduce. This may be a matter of biological imperative, but from a constructive perspective it's a strategy that inevitably leads towards problems of surplus labour and diminishing resources. Quality of life is more important than quantity. Moreover, it seems to presuppose a biological, and hence realist, notion of human essence that acts as a normative rule. I dispute that our biology need have anything to do with what we, as individual persons, take to be important. Consider the prospect of a multi-species civilisation - there is nothing there to suggest that either one or the other should be seen to impose their goals or aims on the members of the other, or that such a thing as multi-species society is otherwise impossible.

Spoiler: Two: That human beings should categorically strive for pleasure.

A subjective perspective on the role and content of human value is something that again becomes impossible to justify in a world where people must be social in order to sustain both their own existence and that of the world itself. We can quite happily acknowledge that there is no "fundamental" meaning to things, but meaning itself is still something we need to construct as a matter of protocol for communication. Given that, any notion of value we take to run as a matter of social living must be mutual and agreed upon, and while this contingently might include an allowance towards a certain amount of hedonism, this is only a consequence of said conventions.

Spoiler: Three: That sexual partnerships (aka; protofamilies) are important social constructs.

Three: That sexual partnerships (aka; protofamilies) are important social constructs. This is basically to say that people partner up in order to deal with the world, to provide the child-rearing framework and to allow the satisfaction of human social needs. But this way of looking at both is incredibly flawed. Children get orphaned, and our social systems cannot reliably deal with them. Moreover, there are awful parents, and we have very limited responsibility to ensure that other people provide adequate parenting. Schooling draws a distinction in education between what is taught in the broader social mindset of the school and what is the parents' responsibility, and this has disastrous consequences for the maintenance of a good learning environment. The problem isn't even just that there are "bad" parents, but simply that there are parents that can give different and unjust levels of advantage and privilege to their own offspring, in a sense that is reflected in a seemingly ineliminable split between rich and poor in education.

Even stepping away from the family model as it applies specifically to children, people partnering up means a distinct lack of civility in the way people relate to each other in general. It's okay if you're a dick everywhere else as long as you treat your partner and kids with love and respect. This is used to justify the perspective of pretty much everyone in financial trading, everyone in the arms industry, corrupted lawmakers, industrial lobbyists, media tyrants and a whole slew of otherwise intolerable positions. It's also the justification people have for accepting grossly inadequate working conditions, and hence what enables the widescale repression of people who really don't deserve the harsh treatment they receive. Love that seeks to support "mine first" is a cruel and impoverished sort of love, barely deserving of the name.

I believe in none of these things. Existence precedes Essence. Essence is Social. Social is not Exclusive.

Of course you can have a sexual identity, you can have kids and you can have relationships. But these things are choices; we only think they aren't because we yield to external pressures of either Biology or Culture. And if there's one thing I'd wish to pass on to my kids, it's the ability to discern the difference between obligation and freedom.