You've articulated the anti-trans case well, here and in other posts, and you make some good points.
So, where would I disagree? WRT ugliness: it's a genotype as well as a phenotype. The genes that control appearance also don't change when someone is surgically enhanced. This person may only be good looking artificially, but they're still good looking.
But more than that, a sex reassignment operation goes deeper than cosmetic surgery. It also involves pumping someone full of biochemistry-modifying hormones. The analogue to that, WRT to a mentally-challenged person, is to give them a daily "brain pill" that modifies their neuronal firing patterns. The person's genotype hasn't changed, but it has been suppressed and controlled. And while it would be inauthentic to call this person normal, it would also be inauthentic to call them mentally-challenged.
So which is this person's real identity? Honestly, while I lean in the direction of the social-constructionist (pro-trans) camp, I'm pretty unsure. The philosophical problem is irresolvable because "identity" is impossible to define to begin with: sometimes it's something intrinsic and inalienable; other times it's something you earn or which is granted to you; and, increasingly, "intrinsicness" is itself a modifiable quality. There is no definition of identity that's consistent across all the different analogies that people use to make comparisons with transsexualism.



Reply With Quote
