andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2003-02-13 01:26 pm
andrewducker) wrote2003-02-13 01:26 pm
All men are created equal
As some of you know, Erin has PCOS. The solution to this is to basically give her drugs that return her body to normal levels of insulin/glucose so that her testosterone levels drop and she's normal again.
Now, I have insulin problems too. And according to recent statistics a large proportion is ending up with type 2 diabetes because of dietary problems. So it'd be great if we could brute-force a solution to this.
In some ways.
How far from the norm do people have to be before they are considered eligible? Do you allow people to self-medicate away their problems? Do we allow people to use this tech to make themselves thinner (or fatter) than normal by medicating? Is it reasonable to allow people to basically make themselves dependent on this technology so that their hormone levels are constantly monitored and adjusted and tuned to keep them at optimum levels.
More to the point, lets extend that to a general level. We're gaining more and more control over our bodies and brains. Are we going to take control of our bodies on a deep invasive level (eventually redefining what it means to be human) or are we going to decide that only certain changes are to be allowed? This underlies many issues facing modern politics, from cloning to genetic manipulation to human/machine interfaces. At some point this basic issue is going to have to be faced, or the decisions will be taken piece by piece and not in the directions we necessarily want them to.
Now, I have insulin problems too. And according to recent statistics a large proportion is ending up with type 2 diabetes because of dietary problems. So it'd be great if we could brute-force a solution to this.
In some ways.
How far from the norm do people have to be before they are considered eligible? Do you allow people to self-medicate away their problems? Do we allow people to use this tech to make themselves thinner (or fatter) than normal by medicating? Is it reasonable to allow people to basically make themselves dependent on this technology so that their hormone levels are constantly monitored and adjusted and tuned to keep them at optimum levels.
More to the point, lets extend that to a general level. We're gaining more and more control over our bodies and brains. Are we going to take control of our bodies on a deep invasive level (eventually redefining what it means to be human) or are we going to decide that only certain changes are to be allowed? This underlies many issues facing modern politics, from cloning to genetic manipulation to human/machine interfaces. At some point this basic issue is going to have to be faced, or the decisions will be taken piece by piece and not in the directions we necessarily want them to.
Interesting, but... (cont.)
increased physical and mental diversity is always a good thing as long as people are happy with the changes they make to their bodies.
I'm sorry, but bullshit. I admit, some people are perfectly comfortable with themselves, and seek changes anyway. But I bet they are few and far between. Don't tell me that people, in general, only consider their appearance for themselves. That's a crock of shit, and everyone knows it. We all want to look good for other people. It's built into us. I admit, a very, very few people will probably be completely happy with themselves, and still seek to alter themselves in some way. And some people won't be happy with themselves, and will seek change purely for themselves. I still suspect the majority of people don't fall into either of those categories.
What we need to do, is promote tolerance and understanding of people as they are, regardless of height, size, colour, condition or anything else. I hate people that judge others solely on their appearance - that can see someone walking down the street and comment on them, without ever knowing them? What gives anyone the right to do that? I certainly don't tolerate it with my friends, and nobody else should. I'm willing to bet, if we could learn to be happy with everyone and accept people as they are, without question, this desire for extreme change, to physically alter our own beings, would be nowhere near as evident as it is today.
Re: Interesting, but... (cont.)
I'm close friends with several transsexuals and they get lines like that a lot. I don't buy that sort of logic for transsexuals and I don't buy it for other people either. More tolerance would be wonderful, but for many people the desire for body modification is largely internal. As soon as I get paid for the large writing project I did last year, I will be getting a tattoo, because I value the symbol and what it means to me. I'll enjoy showing others, but they aren't the point, I am. This is true for a great deal of body modification. Some people need to do it to be happy (like transsexuals) others simply wish to do it. Are tattoos wrong or dubious in your eyes? How about ear piercing or having oneself sterilized? If those mods are OK, then why are others not?
Also, what's wrong with changing yourself to appear more attractive? People have been doing this in all manner of ways since at least the neolithic. More tolerance might reduce the amount of some changes, but included in this tolerance I would hoe would also be a greater acceptance of how people wish to change themselves.
Also, the majority of the more extreme changes are most certainly not done to be more acceptable, no one implants horns on their head or cuts off their arm to be more acceptable by mainstream society.
Re: Interesting, but... (cont.)
Firstly, genuine transsexuals definitely fall into my "I admit, some people are perfectly comfortable with themselves, and seek changes anyway." category. I fully accept that there are some people who have purely internal reasons for seeking change, and that it has nothing to do with their environment and/or the people they know.
You have to balance that, by admitting that a lot of people seek to change themselves not purely for themselves, but to respond to pressures from external sources. I don't actually believe that will lead to them being any happier anyway, and I certainly don't believe it to be right. IMHO, which is just my opinion, admittedly, it is far healthier to fully accept yourself as you are. In fact, I'd argue that the only people who should alter themselves should be those who can and do accept themselves fully for who they are. I think, am I right, that transsexuals would fall into that category?
Also, and I guess we're just going to disagree on this, I think it's ignorant to ignore the effects that mental illness can have on someone. I don't think it's in anyway right to say anorexia is a personal choice - good luck to them. It's an illness, just as a cold or Aids is an illness. It's not a choice - there are no recovered anorexians (did I just make up a word?) that are not glad they have recovered - just as anyone who recovered from a cold or Aids (hey, I can dream) would be glad. You are very, very wrong to describe it as a choice. it's exactly the opposite of that. And the point I was trying to make with regards to that was, if anorexia is the removal of that choice, then who is to say that other extreme body-mods aren't the result of a similar illness? You have to concede the argument. There's a difference between freedom of choice, and being ill.
Lastly, you seem to think I'm intolerant of people who look 'different'. Again, I think you miss my point. I will never judge someone for how they look - I don't profess, however, to understand why some people choose to physically do some of the things they do to themselves. There's a marked difference there. I equally will never understand people who eat olives, as they are the food of the devil, but I won't judge them for it. Trite, yes, but I hope you see my point. I don't judge people who treat their bodies in a perceived 'extreme' manner, or claim they are 'wrong'. I question why they want to do this in the first place. Genuinely - why? What drives it? Is it completely healthy, and individual, and innocent, or is it a reaction to environmental factors, or an illness? It IS an important question - far better to ask it, than just to accept everything without question.
Re: Interesting, but... (cont.)
Firstly, genuine transsexuals definitely fall into my "I admit, some people are perfectly comfortable with themselves, and seek changes anyway." category.
Nope, transexuals change gender because they are completely uncomfortable with themselves and want to change themselves to a form they are comfortable with.
You have to balance that, by admitting that a lot of people seek to change themselves not purely for themselves, but to respond to pressures from external sources.
Well, of course. But why is that bad? If I've made the decision to dye my hair pink, wear black and diet down to a skinny size, isn't that my decision?
. I don't think it's in anyway right to say anorexia is a personal choice - good luck to them. It's an illness, just as a cold or Aids is an illness.
Both the Cold and AIDS are caused by a virus infecting a person. They are diseases. Anorexia isn't caused by a virus or a bacteria. It's a mental state. Now, if you want to categorise certain mental states as 'unhealthy' or 'forbidden' go for it. But don't you think that's a bit Orwellian?
You seem to be basically saying "You can make certain choices, but if you choose things I think are bad for you, that's not a choice, it's a compulsion." Is that what you mean?
Re: Interesting, but... (cont.)
You are talking about changing your hair, your clothes, and your diet. I've already said 'plumage' changes (I can't think of a better expression) are understandable. A part of who we are. We want to appeal to others. It's extreme changes, changes which can damage our health, or the removal of limbs etc, that I think are not boundary pushing, but something more sinister.
Regarding your 'Orwellian' point. Simply put - show me ONE, just ONE, person who has recovered from Anorexia and isn't happy about it, and I'll consider your argument. To complete deny the possibility of mental illness, and categorise everything as free-will, IMHO is absurd. Taking that to extremes, I guess things like rape, torture and murder are all completely understandable, and only unnacceptable because they impact on someone else?
I know, if I ever wanted to drastically change myself, by chopping limbs of or starving myself to death, I'd hope someone would help me. To counter that point though, I'd hope if I was dying of some horrible illness, and was in great amounts of pain, someone would allow me or help me to take my own life. None of this is black and white. I just don't think it's responsible t
Re: Interesting, but... (cont.)
Show me one person who has recovered from being a tory and isn't happy about it and I'll consider yours. When people change from one way of thinking to another, they always reject their old thinking and embrace the new.
To complete deny the possibility of mental illness, and categorise everything as free-will, IMHO is absurd.
Actually, I agree. It's a question of drawing lines, who gets to draw them and the method used. I don't trust other people to draw my lines, generally speaking.
I guess things like rape, torture and murder are all completely understandable, and only unnacceptable because they impact on someone else?
Of course! These things are completely commonplace throughout human history and can't be defined as mental abberations. Ordinary common people have got caught up in all of them on a fairly constant basis.