Musing...

The thing about the issue raised in the last post is...

Andrew Bolt rails against the tragedy of allowing this poor girl to change her sex, on the basis that she was not born a "boy in a girl's body", but was somehow "twisted" into this state of mind by the abusive behaviour of parents.

And this line seems to assume that if someone is not born into a certain state, that state is not actually genuine.

Let us suppose that Bolt is right (God forbid), and that yes, "Alex" was not born with gender dysphoria, but instead developed the condition later in life. Does that mean her condition is not genuine? If she was not born this way, does that make it any easier for her to keep living as a girl? Does it make her need to be a boy any less urgent? Does a desire lose its legitimacy because it arose in the world and not in the womb?

The whole nature versus nurture debate is inherently flawed. Take the issue of homosexuality. Sure, if you can convince a fundamentalist that gays are born, not made, you might get them to stop trying to convert them back, but in reality it doesn't matter. If a gay person isn't born gay, but becomes gay as a child, as a teenager, as an adult, it doesn't make it wrong to be gay. If scientific evidence came to light tomorrow, proving beyond doubt that homosexuality is definitely a matter of upbringing or environment, it wouldn't change one bit the acceptability of homosexuality, or the importance of gay rights. It wouldn't make homophobes right.

So sure Andy, maybe "Alex" was made into who she is, not born that way. But that doesn't make her any less miserable now, and it doesn't make her any less entitled to try to be happy.