Is it right or wrong for a person to change the gender they are born with?

[dattaswami]

All souls are female? God is the only male? Do you have anything that should reasonably be counted as evidence for these claims?

The creation is compared to female and the creator is compared to male. The creation is controlled by the creator. Generally the female is controlled by the male. Following this convention, the concept is represented accordingly.

Goddess Lakshmi is pressing the feet of the Lord Narayana as a servant. Here some misunderstand this as the male domination. Since the male domination existed in nature, the concept is represented like that. This does not mean that the concept supports the male domination.

Even in the ancient tradition, there used to be some cases of female domination over the males. According to that tradition God is represented by the female or Parashakti whose throne is carried by Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva on their shoulders.

Sankara praises God in female form in Soundaryalahari in which it is stated that Brahma creates the universe from the dust of Her lotus feet, Vishnu carries it on His head and Shiva powders it and applies on His body as ash. (Taniyamsam Pamsum….).

Here God is in the female-medium and the souls are in the mediums of males. Here Vishnu represents the soul and Adiparashakti represents God. Therefore the domination of male or female is not the point here, which may vary from case to case. But the domination of God over souls is the reality that is to be represented.

[Skepdick]

Is it right or wrong for a person to change the gender they are born with?

This is a loaded question which fails to clarify how the concept of "gender" is grounded.

Since you are also asking whether it's right; or wrong to change one's gender you necessarily conceptualise gender as something mutable.

So lets generalise this question: Is it right or wrong for a person to change anything about themselves? And suddenly the question sounds stupid to even ask!

[dattaswami]

Is it right or wrong for a person to change the gender they are born with?

This is a loaded question which fails to clarify how the concept of "gender" is grounded.

Since you are also asking whether it's right; or wrong to change one's gender you necessarily conceptualise gender as something mutable.

So lets generalise this question: Is it right or wrong for a person to change anything about themselves? And suddenly the question sounds stupid to even ask!

Certainly, the internal qualities get reflected in the external atmosphere resulting in the effects, which may be positive goodness or negative badness of the qualities deciding happiness or misery in the external atmosphere. Ethics explain this subject in the form of commandments from God. An ordinary soul trying for success and happiness should simply follow these Pravrutti-commandments and this stage itself introduces the first impression in the mind of God that is essential basis for Nivrutti (total surrender to God).

If you disobey His commandments in Pravrutti, how can you be His devotee in Nivrutti? Loyalty is basis of love. Hence, if the internal quality is to decide the external results, the commandment of God that a specific quality is good to be done and a specific quality is bad not to be done should be obeyed, which becomes the root of root.

Again and again I am showing you only one solution that only God is the ultimate (root of root) solution for any problem. If you have enough faith in the omniscience of God, you will not do any sin secretly. The court may not find it in the absence of proof of witness. But, God is the one witness whose eyes are never closed and see everything, everywhere and everytime.

This itself controls the sins and related bad qualities provided the faith on God is full. God does not mind if you exploit His name to protect yourself from injustice, but, today, people are misusing His name to cheat others and do injustice. One must fear for the horrible hells and liquid fire after judgement. If you are diverted to God and His work, there is no leisure time and extra energy to engage in a sin and its related bad quality and a non-entertained quality becomes weak and disappears.


If you don’t entertain the guest visiting your house, he will not come again to your house. Continuous engagement in God will control everything since God is omnipotent and also very kind, interested to uplift every soul. If you are interested in any other subject, you may be free from bad qualities in that span of time only, which will appear forcibly later on at anytime to revenge on you. Bad qualities or bad thoughts fear for God since there is nothing, which does not fear for the omniscient and omnipotent God. The Veda says that air, sun and even death fear for God functioning with perfect discipline (Bhishaasmaat...). If you surrender to God with sacrifice and service, I, assuredly tell all of you that even the problems will run away.

[Maia]

Is it wrong for a cat to become a dog?

The question is nonsensical.

[Walker]

Is it wrong for a cat to become a dog?

The question is nonsensical.

Changing gender means changing sexual appearance with surgery, hormonal treatments, type of clothing, and affectations of behavior.

You could apply the first two to a cat or dog, but not the last two unless you’re already dressing up a cat or dog.

Why should this be exempt from rightness and wrongness just because it's nonsensical? It's happening with people, might even be happening with cats and dogs.

[Maia]

Is it wrong for a cat to become a dog?

The question is nonsensical.

Changing gender means changing sexual appearance with surgery, hormonal treatments, type of clothing, and affectations of behavior.

You could apply the first two to a cat or dog, but not the last two unless you’re already dressing up a cat or dog.

Why should this be exempt from rightness and wrongness just because it's nonsensical? It's happening with people, might even be happening with cats and dogs.

Who was it who redefined gender as something you can change?

[Trajk Logik]

Is it right or wrong for a person to change the gender they are born with?

This is a loaded question which fails to clarify how the concept of "gender" is grounded.

Since you are also asking whether it's right; or wrong to change one's gender you necessarily conceptualise gender as something mutable.

So lets generalise this question: Is it right or wrong for a person to change anything about themselves? And suddenly the question sounds stupid to even ask!

I don't know about that. Is it wrong or right for someone to change themselves from being alive to being dead (suicide)? What about self-harm (cutting themselves)? Is it okay for someone to go to Home Depot and use one of the tools to cut off their arms (this really happened) because he thought they were "alien" arms? Is this any different for your penis?

The problem is that not many people are willing to question the very claim of "gender fluidity", or a man's claim of being a woman. Is it right or wrong to question unfounded claims? Using your emotional state to stifle the asking of valid questions, while imposing your beliefs on others is what is wrong. Most of these people don't seem to realize that if they can change things about themselves, then other can choose to not change or change themselves, including their beliefs about what a man and woman are.

[Skepdick]

Is it right or wrong for a person to change the gender they are born with?

This is a loaded question which fails to clarify how the concept of "gender" is grounded.

Since you are also asking whether it's right; or wrong to change one's gender you necessarily conceptualise gender as something mutable.

So lets generalise this question: Is it right or wrong for a person to change anything about themselves? And suddenly the question sounds stupid to even ask!

I don't know about that. Is it wrong or right for someone to change themselves from being alive to being dead (suicide)? What about self-harm (cutting themselves)? Is it okay for someone to go to Home Depot and use one of the tools to cut off their arms (this really happened) because he thought they were "alien" arms? Is this any different for your penis?

Obviously I wasn't talking about degenerate/pathological cases and it's strawman to suggest that changing your gender is just a matter of amputating your penis; or breasts.

Since it's pretty obvious that we are talking about change in any direction, it's obvious that your examples are ridiculous.

Is going from dead to alive wrong? e.g resuscitation
Is going from amputee to non-amputee wrong? e.g having your limbs re-attached through surgery.

Try being more charitable.

The problem is that not many people are willing to question the very claim of "gender fluidity", or a man's claim of being a woman.

I am willing to. In fact I am even willing to go much further than most. I am willing to question a man's claim of being a man; I am willing to question a human's claim of being human. I am willin to question any and all reductionist claims of identity.

Naturally. Because I don't think problems of identity matter very much when decoupled from pragmatic context.

Is it right or wrong to question unfounded claims?

All claims are unfounded if you go deep enough. The foundationalist dream died a century ago.

Using your emotional state to stifle the asking of valid questions, while imposing your beliefs on others is what is wrong.

What is your claim of "validity" with respect to questions founded upon?

Most of these people don't seem to realize that if they can change things about themselves, then other can choose to not change or change themselves, including their beliefs about what a man and woman are.

Naturally, Madam. All arguments reduce to choice. Choosing to; or choosing not to. I want to; I don't want to, but that's banal.

The whole point of human discourse is the justifications that follow the "WHY do you; or don't you want to?"

[Trajk Logik]

Obviously I wasn't talking about degenerate/pathological cases and it's strawman to suggest that changing your gender is just a matter of amputating your penis; or breasts.

Since it's pretty obvious that we are talking about change in any direction, it's obvious that your examples are ridiculous.

Is going from dead to alive wrong? e.g resuscitation
Is going from amputee to non-amputee wrong? e.g having your limbs re-attached through surgery.

Try being more charitable.

The problem is that not many people are willing to question the very claim of "gender fluidity", or a man's claim of being a woman.

I am willing to. In fact I am even willing to go much further than most. I am willing to question a man's claim of being a man; I am willing to question a human's claim of being human. I am willin to question any and all reductionist claims of identity.

You end up going so far as to pull the rug out from under your own argument. You're willing to question a man's claim of being a man (notice how you already assumed they are a man making the claim - contradiction), you must also question whether or not a trans-gender's claim isn't a degenerate/pathological case. The fact that you assume that it isn't when all other cases of cutting off other body parts are pathological just exposes your inconsistency. What makes sexual parts so special in your mind in that cutting them off isn't an example of a pathology, but cutting off your arms is. Ever heard of somatic delusions?

Try being more consistent.

Is it right or wrong to question unfounded claims?

All claims are unfounded if you go deep enough. The foundationalist dream died a century ago.

But you're making an unfounded special case for trans-genders in that what they claim is true. Inconsistent.

Using your emotional state to stifle the asking of valid questions, while imposing your beliefs on others is what is wrong.

What is your claim of "validity" with respect to questions founded upon?

Well, being consistent is part of it.

Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:

- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.

If sex were purely a social construct, sexual selection wouldn’t work: males would look identical to females. That difference itself suggests that there’s a biological reality to sex, and that this biological reality—the correlation of chromosomal constitution with reproductive traits and with secondary sexual traits—is what has caused both behavioral and morphological differences between the sexes. If sex were purely a social construct, then male deer wouldn’t have antlers, male peacocks wouldn’t have long tails, human females wouldn’t have breasts, etc.

Biologists from different cultures agree on the hierarchical categorization of life, of which each sexual species reproduces in a similar way as opposed to asexual species.

Even accounting for trans-sexuals, we'd still have categories of man and woman, with a third accounting for the extremely rare cases of being born with a combination of traits from both, but then they always have more traits of one or the other therefore placing them more on one side or the other rather than squarely in the middle.

Most of these people don't seem to realize that if they can change things about themselves, then other can choose to not change or change themselves, including their beliefs about what a man and woman are.

Naturally, Madam. All arguments reduce to choice. Choosing to; or choosing not to. I want to; I don't want to, but that's banal.

The whole point of human discourse is the justifications that follow the "WHY do you; or don't you want to?"

Good question. Why do trans-people make the claims they do? Are they delusional? Are they seeking attention or want to impose their beliefs on others? Did their parents raise their daughter as a boy because they wanted a boy and not a girl?

[Skepdick]

You end up going so far as to pull the rug out from under your own argument. You're willing to question a man's claim of being a man (notice how you already assumed they are a man making the claim - contradiction)

It seems my request for charity fell on deaf ears. Despite me making the general point on identty. Irrespective of who makes the claim.

In any case - my arguments require no rugs. They stand on my shoulders.

you must also question whether or not a trans-gender's claim isn't a degenerate/pathological case.

I don't need to question it. The way I see it - all claims of identity are equally pathological.

If we can tolerate your pathological claim that you are a "man"; or a "woman"; we can tolerate anybody's pathological claim that they are an attack helicopter.

The fact that you assume that it isn't when all other cases of cutting off other body parts are pathological just exposes your inconsistency.

What makes sexual parts so special in your mind in that cutting them off isn't an example of a pathology, but cutting off your arms is. Ever heard of somatic delusions?

You are working overtime to strawman me, you fucking twat (yes, I am intentionally turning rude now - people who don't practice charity deserve nothig but violent derrision).

Nobody is talking about amputating body parts in context of gender changes. It's an option, but not a necessity.

Try being more consistent.

I am consistently inconsistent, you ad-hominem peddling wanker. Focus on the point, not on me.

But you're making an unfounded special case for trans-genders in that what they claim is true. Inconsistent.

No I am not. I am merely granting them the same leeway you've granted yourself and others.

You enjoy the privilege of determining your own identity - an identity founded upon... nothing. So I am being as consistent as I can be: I am granting them EXACTLY the same privileges.

What is your claim of "validity" with respect to questions founded upon?

Well, being consistent is part of it.

What's your claim of "consistency" founded upon?

Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:

- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.

If sex were purely a social construct, sexual selection wouldn’t work: males would look identical to females. That difference itself suggests that there’s a biological reality to sex, and that this biological reality—the correlation of chromosomal constitution with reproductive traits and with secondary sexual traits—is what has caused both behavioral and morphological differences between the sexes. If sex were purely a social construct, then male deer wouldn’t have antlers, male peacocks wouldn’t have long tails, human females wouldn’t have breasts, etc.

Biologists from different cultures agree on the hierarchical categorization of life, of which each sexual species reproduces in a similar way as opposed to asexual species.

Even accounting for trans-sexuals, we'd still have categories of man and woman, with a third accounting for the extremely rare cases of being born with a combination of traits from both, but then they always have more traits of one or the other therefore placing them more on one side or the other rather than squarely in the middle.

Are you claiming that gender is founded upon or determined by sex? Justify.

All categories/categorisation schemes are social constructs. The number of buckets for "gender" are completely arbitary.

We could have one gender for specimen with short penises and another gender for specimen with long ones.
It's entirely up to us.

Good question. Why do trans-people make the claims they do? Are they delusional? Are they seeking attention or want to impose their beliefs on others? Did their parents raise their daughter as a boy because they wanted a boy and not a girl?

You can ask the exact same question of straight people?

Are you delusional about your gender? Are you seeking attention or want to impose your beliefs on others? Did your parents raise you as a "boy" or "girl" simply because biological factors told them they must classify you one way or the other?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You end up going so far as to pull the rug out from under your own argument. You're willing to question a man's claim of being a man (notice how you already assumed they are a man making the claim - contradiction)

It seems my request for charity fell on deaf ears. Despite me making the general point on identty. Irrespective of who makes the claim.

In any case - my arguments require no rugs. They stand on my shoulders.

you must also question whether or not a trans-gender's claim isn't a degenerate/pathological case.

I don't need to question it. The way I see it - all claims of identity are equally pathological.

If we can tolerate your pathological claim that you are a "man"; or a "woman"; we can tolerate anybody's pathological claim that they are an attack helicopter.

The fact that you assume that it isn't when all other cases of cutting off other body parts are pathological just exposes your inconsistency.

What makes sexual parts so special in your mind in that cutting them off isn't an example of a pathology, but cutting off your arms is. Ever heard of somatic delusions?

You are working overtime to strawman me, you fucking twat (yes, I am intentionally turning rude now - people who don't practice charity deserve nothig but violent derrision).

Nobody is talking about amputating body parts in context of gender changes. It's an option, but not a necessity.

Try being more consistent.

I am consistently inconsistent, you ad-hominem peddling wanker. Focus on the point, not on me.

But you're making an unfounded special case for trans-genders in that what they claim is true. Inconsistent.

No I am not. I am merely granting them the same leeway you've granted yourself and others.

You enjoy the privilege of determining your own identity - an identity founded upon... nothing. So I am being as consistent as I can be: I am granting them EXACTLY the same privileges.

What is your claim of "validity" with respect to questions founded upon?

Well, being consistent is part of it.

What's your claim of "consistency" founded upon?

Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:

- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.

If sex were purely a social construct, sexual selection wouldn’t work: males would look identical to females. That difference itself suggests that there’s a biological reality to sex, and that this biological reality—the correlation of chromosomal constitution with reproductive traits and with secondary sexual traits—is what has caused both behavioral and morphological differences between the sexes. If sex were purely a social construct, then male deer wouldn’t have antlers, male peacocks wouldn’t have long tails, human females wouldn’t have breasts, etc.

Biologists from different cultures agree on the hierarchical categorization of life, of which each sexual species reproduces in a similar way as opposed to asexual species.

Even accounting for trans-sexuals, we'd still have categories of man and woman, with a third accounting for the extremely rare cases of being born with a combination of traits from both, but then they always have more traits of one or the other therefore placing them more on one side or the other rather than squarely in the middle.

Are you claiming that gender is founded upon or determined by sex? Justify.

All categories/categorisation schemes are social constructs. The number of buckets for "gender" are completely arbitary.

We could have one gender for specimen with short penises and another gender for specimen with long ones.
It's entirely up to us.

Good question. Why do trans-people make the claims they do? Are they delusional? Are they seeking attention or want to impose their beliefs on others? Did their parents raise their daughter as a boy because they wanted a boy and not a girl?

You can ask the exact same question of straight people?

Are you delusional about your gender? Are you seeking attention or want to impose your beliefs on others? Did your parents raise you as a "boy" or "girl" simply because biological factors told them they must classify you one way or the other?

Sex and gender mean the same thing. And don't quote me political bullshit from the online McDikshinary, recently cooked up by bored, mischief-making yank academic wannabe social engineers. I'm not interested.
I suppose it's considered 'hate speech' now for people to have 'gender reveal' parties

[Skepdick]

Sex and gender mean the same thing...

OK, lets play that game.

What makes you a "woman"?

Is it your chromosomes? Your genitals? Your internal organs? Your hormones?

If it's any one of those things then why don't you just mention that property explicitly? Why do you call yourself a "woman" and not a "vagina owner" ?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Sex and gender mean the same thing...

OK, lets play that game.

What makes you a "woman"?

Is it your chromosomes? Your genitals? Your internal organs? Your hormones? Your brain? All of those and more?

By being an adult female human.

[Skepdick]

Sex and gender mean the same thing...

OK, lets play that game.

What makes you a "woman"?

Is it your chromosomes? Your genitals? Your internal organs? Your hormones? Your brain? All of those and more?

By being an adult human female.

I didn't ask what makes you an "adult human female". I asked what makes you a "woman".

But hey, while we are playing this silly game.... What makes you an "adult human female"?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

OK, lets play that game.

What makes you a "woman"?

Is it your chromosomes? Your genitals? Your internal organs? Your hormones? Your brain? All of those and more?

By being an adult human female.

I didn't ask what makes you an "adult human female". I asked what makes you a "woman".

But hey, while we are playing this silly game.... What makes you an "adult human female"?

What ''game'' am I ''playing''? Stating facts is now a ''game''?