= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
hyporational comments on Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (312)
Extensive research about the harm based argument and transsexual happiness has been done and would have been done regardless of initial political decisions. This would have and probably has affected policy. Now that we have this research, why is wild speculation of historical political trajectories relevant?
I don't think that the primary reason for giving rights to transsexuals is because of real research. It's rather the result of political activisim by a certain coaltion of social justice thinkers.
Primary reason or not, I bet the activism is easier with some research to back it. In Finland, sex change is done with taxpayer money after extensive screening for other mental disorders. It's done because it helps, not because of political advocacy.
There are hypothetical treatments that would reduce harm ("it helps") in this sense that we would not use because of our current set of ideology/values. Indeed I think it likely this is the case.
I think I finally updated in your direction, just had to let the argument sink in a bit and think of other examples. Abortion laws would be fertile ground for some likely true but controversial arguments.
I think there are also lots of hypothetical disorders that could be treated, but most people would think of it as "medicalization" because it wouldn't fit their values.