A little moral quandary for you all...

[Trippy Turtle]

I'd say give them the choice.
I'd suggest they take it, but I can't force people to fix their broken leg either.

 

[The White Hunter]

Introduce a bit more of that trans-hating sentiment via the media, introduce the cure with a hefty price, and BAM. Millions were made once again. Or at least that's what I expect from the world.

OT: Give them the choice.

That said evil pharmaceutical corporations will do evil things.

 

[DarkRawen]

Transgendered people have brain chemistry that makes them think they are the opposite gender of what they were born as.

Actually, transgendered people identify with neither side fully, hence the conversation in another thread about them referring to themselves as 'they' instead of he or she. Not important. You have questions, Jack has answers.

...Ehm, not really, no. I've met a couple of transgendered people who'd disagree with that, myself included.
I identify fully as a guy, I just know that I am also physically female, and that until I (hopefully) am able to have that fixed, I will allow people to think of me, and refer to me as a female. I know some disagree though (not that I've met any of those), it's a wide term, but still.

So I've tossing this moral/philosophical question around and I figured I'd share it with the Escapist for the purposes of engaging in a Socratic exercise:

Transgendered people have brain chemistry that makes them think they are the opposite gender of what they were born as. Now, lets say scientists come up with some revolutionary treatment that alters the brain chemistry to match the person's birth gender. Essentially they can "cure" trans people of being trans (i.e. They would identify as the gender they were born as), removing the gender confusion and likely sparing them a great deal of hardship.

Should this cure be administered to all people who are trans? Why or why not? Should they be given a choice to live as they are, or are we under moral obligation to correct this quirk? Trans people often live hard lives, not just because of hate crimes, but also the daily confusion and secondary mental disorders like depression. Is it right to forcefully (or even strongly encourage) administer the cure if it means letting them live healthy lives amongst the majority? But even if it was for their own good, is giving a cure like that right?

I want to hear your opinions on this matter.

I'd say no. On one hand, I (blah blah, trans, blah blah, I reply to way too many of these threads and I have no idea why, someone help me ;_ can certainly see the benefits, growing up not being aware of it, yet clearly feeling that just about everything was off has screwed me over in a couple of ways. However, I'd still like the choice, and, in the end, at this point it wouldn't matter too much either way. I'm one more evaluation away from being able to get hormones and so on (if I can fool them into thinking I'm not insane). However, if it had happened while I was a child, perhaps someone noticed even if I didn't, then... hm. Actually, still no.

Choices are good, that's why so many people want them in games.

 

[Flames66]

Is it right to forcefully (or even strongly encourage) administer the cure if it means letting them live healthy lives amongst the majority? But even if it was for their own good, is giving a cure like that right?

I do not consider being part of the majority to be a laudable goal. The majority is represented in my brain by a homogeneous mass of identical people all trying to fit together like puzzle pieces after having their rough edges forcibly sand blasted off. I am a square peg in a round hole and proud of it and I admire anyone who is an even more strangely shaped peg.

I must throw my opinion alongside those who say that the choice is theirs and theirs alone. My reasoning is simple. I have a condition which is also the result of a differing brain from the norm: I am autistic. Let me tell you that people who refer to it as a clinical problem - as though diseased - bother the hell out of me. What scares me is that someone will try to find a cure and that such a thing would diminish who I am.

I also agree with this chappy here. If a cure was discovered for dyslexia, I would not take it or allow it to come anywhere near me. My mental differences are a part of who I am and I don't want anyone fiddling with them.

Forcibly? No, absolutely not.

Keep in mind, we are essentially talking about state run cognitive alteration to force people fall into line with the status quo. If that doesn't raise red flags, then you need a good slap to wake you up.

This also. Anything that forces people to adhere to the status quo is bad in my opinion.

when it comes to giving medical treatment to children, we typically overrule their free will because we know it's for their own good. (SNIPS)

Anybody want to weigh in on this?

I will! Any treatment that alters how a personality will develop should only be administered once the person in question has the mental capacity to fully understand and consent to it.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I'd say give them the choice.

But this also begs the question of which part needs "fixing", the body, or the brain.

Another question would be "Should this be administered to newborns if it is discovered their brain chemistry and body don't match up?".

Personally I have I don't think it should be forced, in any case, as the forced administering of brain altering drugs sounds pretty dystopian to me.

 

[zumbledum]

It should be a choice , its a case of the cure likely doing more damage than the condition, were not talking about fixing something broken like a leg here , someone has grown up and mentally developed with this fact in their lives suddenly flipping a switch and altering something so vast to the mental landscape is likely to be something that brings a huge amount of trauma and therapy.


now if you had said it was a pre birth test and "cure" that's a harder issue and honestly i wouldn't know, i feel whenever we remove diversity we as a whole society loose something , a point of view an experience a depth and richness but as someone who knows from personal experience if you deviate from the norms life can be harder, i also know you end up stronger (or broken) . i think in this case i would advocate doing nothing until the person is old enough to understand the issue and let them choose.

 

[jklinders]

Reminds me of the gender selection that doctors used to do on babies of "uncertain gender" way back when. It was a terrible idea then and i cannot see it going any better now. people should be given the choice.

 

[zumbledum]

I have yet to encounter any situation where forcefully changing the way people think is a good thing.

This thread is no exception.

depressed people, manic depressives, bi-polar s, sociopaths, psychopaths. pedophiles, rapists, schizophrenics , Munchhausen's , self harmers and most other mental conditions. heck throw in the uneducated ,ignorant,intolerant and people that don't think i'm right!

 

[Barbas]

Give them the choice. On top of that, consider hiding and/or destroying all research related to the treatment, to avoid attempts at exploitation by religious groups and dictatorships.

 

[Rabbitboy]

They should decide for themselves. An unoriginal opinion but forcing this kind of stuf on people is just wrong.

 

[Briantb]

I'm prochoice on most things this is no exception if you wish to be treated then so be it, if not then don't.

 

[GrumbleGrump]

Introduce a bit more of that trans-hating sentiment via the media, introduce the cure with a hefty price, and BAM. Millions were made once again. Or at least that's what I expect from the world.

I like the cut of your jib.

OT: Well, considering you're talking about imposing a choice onto people then it's not really a moral quandry, is it? It's just plain wrong.

 

[laggyteabag]

I would never feel right forcing a very large life choice onto someone else. As someone who isn't transsexual, who am I to say that someone does or doesn't need to do something. Just make the "cure" readily available to those who want to take it, and don't force it onto those who don't.

 

[small]

Transgendered people have brain chemistry that makes them think they are the opposite gender of what they were born as.

Actually, transgendered people identify with neither side fully, hence the conversation in another thread about them referring to themselves as 'they' instead of he or she. Not important. You have questions, Jack has answers.

Ive heard of exactly one single person referring to themselves as "they" and it was in that thread actually.

you do get people who dont see themselves as any gender but almost every transgender person i know thinks of themselves as one gender or the other, personally female here.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

If people have the right to refuse treatment for their own fatal illnesses, and can choose not to vaccinate their children against all reason and common sense, then DUH. It's a very personal choice that each individual would have to make. Why is this even a question?

 

[stroopwafel]

You'd have to reverse the entire neurology of the brain to 'change' gender identity(or even sexual orientation) preceding even development during the time in the womb, which would literally be impossible. It's why they never have(and never will) figure out a pill to 'cure' homosexuality. The neurological basis of gender identity is much the same way. The only thing medication can do is suppress biological function, which is hardly what I would call a 'cure'.

Much more relevant is progress in prenatal screening, considering they can now even detect down syndrome with a simple blood test. I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future there is some standard checklist that can test for everything from sexual orientation to gender identity to matter of intelligence to predisposition to diseases etc. It's all decided in your genes. There is a more or less consensus that it can be morally justified to abort a foetus with developing down syndrome, but there is a much grayer territory where exactly you draw the line. People with down syndrome will eventually become extinct, but over time that line might be further drawn to people with other 'undesirable' neurological traits(gender identity/transexuality being one of them).

But anyways, as for the original dilemma; from a purely theoretical standpoint maybe 200 years in the future when a nanobot can re-arrange the entire genetic structure of our neurology, even then, I'd still say personal autonomy should trump societal pressures.

 

[Guffe]

There's no moral dilemma here.
What we need to do is blow up the universe, the HadronCollider failed, so now we just need plan B to work!

 

[CrystalShadow]

This exact question (framed differently) has been seen on self-ddiagnostic screening tools for transgender people.
(framed asm if such a cure existed, would you take it?)

On the side of 'forcing' a cure entailing alteration to a person's core identity?

Doing that without permission is highly unethical...

Consider several similar situations.

1. perform a surgical sex change on a person by force, without asking them. (or on a child. Which actually used to be done to intersex infants, often without so much as the parent's consent)

2. Brainwashing of people with political beliefs the people in charge don't like...

Really, any medical treatment performed without informed consent is already on dangerous ground, but when you deliberately start to mess with core elements of a person's personality, beliefs and memories without permission you are violating them on a pretty deep level.

Even if after the fact they are ok with it, Asking about it after treatment is like asking a lobotomy patient if they are ok about having an important part of their brain removed.


On a side note, I can imagine the existence of such a cure, if using it were made voluntary, would potentially lead to a massive increase in predjudice towards those who choose not to take it for whatever reason.

 

[spartan231490]

Body autonomy. Medicine should not trump choice, ever.

 

[Lieju]

Transgendered people have brain chemistry that makes them think they are the opposite gender of what they were born as.

Actually, transgendered people identify with neither side fully, hence the conversation in another thread about them referring to themselves as 'they' instead of he or she.

Some transgender people will. Maybe there is a confusion in terms, since these can be different depending on the country or community.

For example, in Finnish, 'transgender' means that kind of person, who doesn't feel they're either male nor female. (There is also a Finnish term for it, muunsukupuolinen)

Also obviously transpeople disagree on things, some would prefer it if gender was never assumed, some see being trans as a different kind of identity etc.

As for OP, doing something like that against someone's will? No.