I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion? If you had a functioning body part and could swap with another person that would still be cutting off a functioning body part. Just because you got another functional body part doesn't change anything.
If it becomes possible in the future to just swap body parts with no issues, it would probably be less controversial, but I don't think it would really be accepted. The problem is the current sex change operations are no where close to that. You can't just flip back and forth and have all your parts remain fully functional.
There is, of course an exception and that is with organ donation. That however only happens when the person who is removing the functioning part does not need theirs which can happen because they are dead, there is an extra one (kidney), or it will grow back (liver). This, of course, is not the same type of thing as we are talking about.
Why are my private bits any of your business anyway? Don't reproductive rights go both ways? I can't even have children of my own anyway since I'm married to a woman. But it all comes back to how useful I am to a cishet guy? Either I'm someone's fetish or a baby-making machine.
> Why are my private bits any of your business anyway?
I think, and most people probably agree with me, that cutting off perfectly good body parts is not acceptable regardless if they are your private bits. Bringing up the private bits instead of a generic body part is attempting to make it emotional.
If somebody wants to cut off their healthy foot, people do not find that acceptable. Doctors are supposed to do no harm and cutting off the foot would be doing harm. I think most of us like the idea of doctors being there to heal us, not harm us.
Society believes in restricting what people can do with their body even if no harm comes to others. Maybe you think that is dumb, but most of society disagrees.
Here is an extreme example. We believe drunk driving should be illegal even if nobody is harmed. We don't like that behavior so we ban it. How many people complain about that?
> Don't reproductive rights go both ways?
Of course they don't. Men have no right to abort without the woman's consent. Men also cannot just give up rights to their children if they don't want to pay child support.
What makes you think we as a society want reproductive rights not being universal? Do you want men to be allowed to force the woman they impregnated to get an abortion? If not, then reproductive rights cannot be universal.
Once you start blocking reproductive rights one way you will have a difficult time stopping it in another area. Either men have to be able to give up rights to their children or society should be allowed to restrict other rights.
It sounds like you also have some sort of notion that you have a right to have a kid or something like that. I am dubious of such an argument. Could you explain why you think you have such a right?
> But it all comes back to how useful I am to a cishet guy? Either I'm someone's fetish or a baby-making machine.
Nobody said anything close to that. Please do not read into my statement anything more than the exact words.
No, he's implying that someone with a non-functioning body part getting a functioning donor (presumably from someone who just died and has no chance of ever needing or wanting theirs again) would not be controversial.
To answer farther into your line of questioning, though, I'd personally consider replacement reproductive systems "fully functional" only if they allow having children with one's own DNA. If we were to reach the level where someone could get a sex change and then perform the reproductive role of their new sex with their own DNA (except maybe the sex chromosome itself)-- and especially if they could then swap back in the other direction later-- I actually do think that would eliminate a lot of the implicit concerns that make it controversial.
The goal of all life is to make more life, is it? Not everyone wants kids. Is it my duty to be able to make kids? But what about my autism and mental illness? I thought that people didn't want people like me making kids. Or is it all about my usefulness to cishet guys? A woman is, after all, just a tool.
Remember, you asked if "there'd be no controversy." I'm just examining the controversy, not universal truth.
I didn't tell you that you need to want or have kids. I do believe your life will have been pointless if you don't, but you're free (and likely) to disagree with that. Personally, I think "eternal life" as promised by some religions can be analogized as reproduction. If you think you've identified another biological purpose of life, that's good for you.
I don't know why you'd bring sexism into this; it takes two, and both sides are just as valuable. Having biological kids with someone means your DNA's going to be stuck together as a new person, so you want it to be someone you care about. It almost sounds like you're transgender yourself, but most transgender people I've spoken with about the topic would be thrilled to be able to have kids, especially MtF folks on the topic of carrying. I've certainly heard some say they don't care about it (and they have to come to peace with that, regardless), but I haven't heard of anyone saying not being able to is part of their identity.
This right here is part of the problem. You identified that I don't agree with you on the current state of things and picked a fight, rather than agreeing on working towards a place we'd both be happier with, anyway. (Or are you saying you specifically don't want transgender people to be able to have kids? Do you think there'd be something wrong with it if they were able to?) This entire line of argument would be irrelevant if science got to that point. But political and medical will is stalled arguing about half-measures instead. I know science is slow, but I just hope there will come a day when people can make decisions about their bodies without loss of reproduction being a concern-- and not talking about it won't get us there faster.
Your questions about autism and mental illness falls under "eugenics," which is kind of one of the major discussion points of this entire thread.
In the US there are plenty of places where children can get surgeries. This is a small sampling of the locations:
The Stanford Children's Hospital [1] will provide surgeries to both minors and adults. It doesn't specify how young the children can be.
The University of Illinois [2] will do surgery on people under 18, but doesn't specify how young the children can be.
The University of Rochester [3] will do some surgeries for people under 18. It doesn't specify the age, but it is under the "Adolescent Medicine" section.
Seattle Children's Hospital [4] will provide referrals for gender-affirming surgery to children as young as 9 so long as they have started puberty.
Looking at the links, none of them suggest that surgeries are performed on children. Puberty blockers aren't surgery. Intersex children are surgically mutilated without their consent but adult trans people need an OK from two psychiatrists. If I had had puberty blockers (reversible) as a child, I wouldn't have had to go through something painful. I was only able to start hormones at the age of 23 when all the changes had already happened. Hormones aren't able to reverse everything. Then people complain that we don't look good enough when we were never given the chance (unless you're rich enough to be able to afford surgeries, which I'm not).
This thing I just looove to see everywhere is $blah_blah$ or \{blah_blah\} or some shite like that. At this point, I should be almost fluent in LaTeX or whatever eldritch tongue these people speak. Perhaps there is a lack of proper authoring tools for MathML? Doesn't Chrome support MathML at least partially these days? I use Firefox so I wouldn't know.
"Nordic" has multiple meanings. One is "of the Nordic countries", which are the sovereign states of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden; the autonomous territories of the Faroe Islands and Greenland; and the autonomous region of Åland, plus a handful of other Norwegian areas.
"Nordic" can also mean more specifically "Scandinavian", for example, the North Germanic languages are also referred to as the Nordic languages, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_folklore says "Nordic folklore" is "the folklore of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and the Faroe Islands", which you'll see does not list Finland or Greenland.
And if you look more closely, you'll see it's not actually "the folklore of Sweden" but "the folklore of ethnic Swedes", since Nordic folklore does not typically include Sámi folklore. There's also a long history of discrimination against the Sámi.
Taking it about 10 steps more extreme, Nordicism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordicism) used race psuedoscience to characterize the Nordic peoples as the most superior Aryans, and the master race. Finns were not seen as part of the Nordic race, but members of, for examples, the East Baltic or Mongolian races. In the US, Finns were sometimes not seen as white Europeans but as Asians, and thus justifying discrimination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_th...
Thus, when someone says "Nordic", do they mean the inclusive version which includes the Uralic Finns and Sámi? Or do they mostly mean the Scandinavian parts of the Nordic countries, with the Uralic and Greenlandic inhabitants as afterthoughts or even forgotten? Even if they mean the former, it can carry with it the exclusion of the latter.
The linked-to Nordic Names site includes Sámi, Finnish, and Greenlandic names, so it's more into the inclusive category.
