[Jimbee (OP)]

You can easily change your gender. Gender is a fluid concept. But you sadly can't change you sex yet.

But I hope someday science will be able to do that.

And transitioned men being able to bear children. Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing?

[evan_au]

Sex is more fluid in some fish species.

For example, Nemo's mother was once the dominant male...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clownfish#Reproduction

[alancalverd]

There's no reason why someone with a Y chromosome couldn't be fitted with a functional uterus, either custom-made or secondhand, but equally there's no reason why he should. Male childbearing is as complicated and pointless as android robots: we have far too many people already, and if we need more, half of the population can bear them with no need for surgical modification.

[paul cotter]

At conception, if it is normal, one is assigned xx or xy and no amount of drugs or mutilation can change this. Oh gawd! I fear I will now be cancelled. Sometimes the process will yield an excess of one of the sex chromosomes and the gender will then be not clearly defined eg klinefelter's and several other intersex conditions.





(

[Bored chemist]

There's no reason why someone with a Y chromosome couldn't be fitted with a functional uterus, either custom-made or secondhand, but equally there's no reason why he should. Male childbearing is as complicated and pointless as android robots: we have far too many people already, and if we need more, half of the population can bear them with no need for surgical modification.

You are failing to distinguish wants and needs.
The world got by with no saxophone players for billions of years. A single sax player is more than we actually need.
But that's not a valid reason to say we shouldn't allow people to play sax if they wish.

[Petrochemicals]

As I have said before, I think gender identity is something altogether animal,  we should really be aiming higher than that. Gender identity and feminism do not make easy bedfellows, one is wholly bent on gender identity being paramount, the other wishes it to have gender as a non issue.

[alancalverd]

I'm all for people doing whatever they want as long as (a) it doesn't harm or disadvantage anyone else and (b) I don't have to pay for it. But (a) isn't satisfied when a male rapist or professional athlete says he is a woman.

[Jimbee (OP)]

I'm all for people doing whatever they want as long as (a) it doesn't harm or disadvantage anyone else and (b) I don't have to pay for it. But (a) isn't satisfied when a male rapist or professional athlete says he is a woman.

Have to tell you:

(a) Agree wholeheartedly .
(b) I live in the US and I believe that the govt. should pay for most things. You're entitled to your opinion. I just find it odd for someone from the UK to say that (are you from the UK?).
(C) Well, actually it comes down to science. Science doesn't change, it changes you. Some people are trying to make transgendereds playing sports a moral issue. It isn't. I mean, are they stronger? Or are they not? Now, see I am not a scientist, so I just don't know.

[alancalverd]

Male athletes competing against females isn't a moral issue but a practical one.

If you look at records for noncontact sports it is obvious even to those who have never seen either naked, that men are faster and stronger than women. If you look at the biomechanics of contact sport, the Rugby Football Union has concluded that in a mixed-sex elite league, the women would suffer at least 30% more serious injuries than the men.

Simply put, if you don't discriminate, you discriminate by effectively disenfranchising half  of the population from serious adult sport. I have coached mixed rugby up to age 12, but common sense dictates that the kids are separated from then on, and AFAIK the Football Association has guidance rather than strict regulation that teenage girls should be offered women-only soccer teams for the same reason. Mixed adult field hockey is fun but whilst bodychecking  is a legitimate tactic in single-sex lacrosse, it is forbidden in mixed games.

Sensibly, some noncontact sports tend not to discriminate.The Federation Aeronautique International decreed around 50 years ago that women's records in air sports will be abolished by attrition, whenever a woman breaks an existing record held by a man.

[alancalverd]

And regarding (b), one of the first lectures candidates receive at the Civil Service College begins with the words "The government has no money. It can only spend money raised by taxes and loans (which have to be repaid from taxes)." So anything supplied by the state has been paid for by me. This is important when considering what elective medical procedures should be state-funded. Hip replacement and cataract surgery actually saves the state (i.e. us) money by making old folk like me independent and productive, but it isn't clear how HM Taxpayer would benefit if I were to acquire a functional uterus or breasts.

[Zer0]

If Possible, i would Really Like to hear & know about the Personal Views & Opinions of Forum Members on...
" DeTransitioning " ?

[Bored chemist]

Hip replacement and cataract surgery actually saves the state (i.e. us) money

It can't save the state money.

"The government has no money.

Are you aware that the NHS funds "cosmetic" surgery because it understands psychological harm?

Do you think that's a good thing, or do you think those born with (or who acquire) what are seen as "deformities" should be left to suffer?

Can you show a fundamental difference between that and transsexuals or do you think they should suffer just because you don't want to pay for their treatment?

[Petrochemicals]

And regarding (b), one of the first lectures candidates receive at the Civil Service College begins with the words "The government has no money. It can only spend money raised by taxes and loans (which have to be repaid from taxes)." So anything supplied by the state has been paid for by me. This is important when considering what elective medical procedures should be state-funded. Hip replacement and cataract surgery actually saves the state (i.e. us) money by making old folk like me independent and productive, but it isn't clear how HM Taxpayer would benefit if I were to acquire a functional uterus or breasts.

But you would on your Web shows Alan.

Intravenous illegal drug use is one tax payer condition that does not make fiscal sense. The tax payer supplies substitute drugs such a methodone, Police the drug addicts, police the drug dealers and houses them, pays massive medical interventions on the drug addicts when they overdose/develop complications need treatment and pays money in the form of social security sometimes for life. Given we already do all this, the benefit we would gain from decriminalising intravenous drugs would be massive. It is a public health issue that the government does nothing about. Alcoholics, even though far greater in number I would guess cost the taxpayer far less purely because the drug is clean, accessible and a consistent strength, does not involve crime on the supplier or consumer side. We already supply them opioids.

[Bored chemist]

Male athletes competing against females isn't a moral issue but a practical one.

And the Paralympics managed to deal with much more complex ones.
So the only actual problem is that people want to use the topic as a political football, rathe than actually addressing the issues.

[alancalverd]

The Paralympics still recognise that men have a physical advantage in many sports. Worth watching wheelchair tennis to appreciate the difference. Oddly, the great leveller is wheelchair rugby league, where ablebodied persons of either sex may compete together with disabled folk, but track and field parasports are segregated.

Back to hip replacement surgery. If  I hadn't had a hip replaced (cost to the NHS about £6,000), I'd be officially disabled and dependent on all sorts of pensions, benefits,  free parking and regular medical treatment for pain, bedsores, you name it.  Instead of which I'm an active working taxpayer, supporting such important projects as Liz Truss's pension fund, HS2 and PPE.

Not sure what point you are making about cosmetic surgery. Post-trauma facial reconstruction and artificial eyes don't fall into the category of personal vanity, and I happily work with surgeons who try to restore some symmetry when they've removed a chunk of breast. But adding a functional uterus or breasts to a male seems a less worthy expenditure of public funds than, for instance, trying to preserve or restore such function to a female.

[Bored chemist]

Not sure what point you are making about cosmetic surgery. Post-trauma facial reconstruction and artificial eyes don't fall into the category of personal vanity,

So... you really don't understand that there are people getting cosmetic surgery for reasons other than vanity.
OK, do you realise that people born with a with hare lip are likely to survive, even without surgery (as long as it's not too severe).
Do you realise that such a condition will be treated on the NHS?

[Bored chemist]

But adding a functional uterus or breasts to a male seems a less worthy expenditure of public funds

Is anyone actually doing that, or is it a straw man?

[alancalverd]

So... you really don't understand that there are people getting cosmetic surgery for reasons other than vanity.

Of course I do. I even quoted three instances with which I have had some professional involvement.

What I don't understand is why you suddenly introduced cosmetic surgery as a response to the statement that "the government has no money."

In case you haven't noticed, the NHS (and indeed every other public service) is funded from taxes and loans, not government investments, trading profits, or a magic money tree. This might just change after the next general election, but I think it unlikely.

[Bored chemist]

What I don't understand is why you suddenly introduced cosmetic surgery as a response to the statement that "the government has no money."

The thread is not about the government's money supply.
You introduced that bit.

If the government is prepared to pay (with someone else's money) for some medical interventions (such as cosmetic surgery) where the only demonstrable benefit is psychological, why should it not pay for another (like gender reassignment)?

[alancalverd]

Because it isn't someone else's money, and this thread isn't about cosmesis but functional addition. JImbee (reply #7) asked about state funding for functional add-ons.

Having never had a trial for any other country, I have the absolute right to play cricket for England, and I'm deeply distressed by no longer having the physical capacity to do so. I will be pleased to use some of your taxes to replace and enhance whatever needs to be done to my body to get me to the requisite condition - maybe as a fertile woman, while they are about it..