Delaware | Interesting that the article describes this so-called identity disorder as an "erotic fantasy." That would put it right in with the alphabet soup group as another moral perversion.
Because somebody believes something does that make it true?
That's really the critical question in this debate. It's a choice between 2 philosophies, absolutism or relativism. If you note who falls on which side of the debate, those who support these types of abnormality are relativists.
It begins with moral relativism. One poster here has been an outspoken proponent of that philosophy, and he is unable to defend any moral position at all, except on the basis of what he personally believes. So he in essence argues that something becomes true because he believes it.
In an attempt to follow this philosophy, the relativists are forced to continue past the moral and into the physical. Which is where they really make fools of themselves in many cases. In this case, the behavior in your article is more nearly logical than the behavior of a transgender person. It is actually possible for a healthy person to make themselves an amputee, while it is completely impossible for a person to change their gender.
Gender is not an opinion or a choice, it is an objective, absolute description of a person, which is determined by the chromosomes in their dna. "Gender reassignment surgery" is just the mutilation of healthy organs, like the amputations in your article, but with no possibility of achieving what it is described as. Politely reworded, a man who has his organs amputated doesn't become a woman, he becomes a man with his organs amputated.
Unlike the relativists, the rest of us accept reality as it exists and realize that it will not change regardless of our denial of it. A man cannot become a woman. A brick cannot fall up.
|
would you think again? just asking, I've no opinion.
