How so?

"Are you saying the cause of their suffering isn't being forced to live in a body/identity contrary to how they feel?"

That's literally pointing out the cause of suffering is being forced to live in a body/identity contrary to how they feel... which is literally the cause, rather than the "deep problems" the other commenter baselessly claimed.

I didn't mention the solution at all there, but it should be rather obvious :)

Why can't the feeling be the target of intervention instead of the body? That's what I mean by cause/solution confusion.

Why assume the feeling can be dealt with by discussion? This isn't a new concept, trans people have existed throughout history -- and a tremendous amount of gender-based research and history was destroyed by the Nazis when they burned the archives of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaf[1].

In a time where psychology was a relatively novel field[2], and homosexuality was illegal in many places, the IfS was groundbreaking, This of course ignores many historical examples of trans people[3][4] existing, who didn't have access to the same medical care (including psychological, endocrinological, and surgical) that we have today.

I'm not sure why you're confused -- you seem to be working of the basis that being transgender is some "feeling" that needs some intervention other than... allowing a trans person to exist?

The feeling is the target of intervention, and the intervention -- more frequently than not -- is transitioning. Frequently that has to begin without changes afforded by HRT or surgery, which tend to come substantially later on.

The feeling is the cause, the solution is often to exist how you feel -- so I'm unsure what you're confused about?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_für_Sexualwissenschaf... [2] "Psychology as a field of experimental study began in 1854 in Leipzig, Germany when Gustav Fechner created the first theory of how judgments about sensory experiences are made and how to experiment on them." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychology [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_transgender_histor...

The confusion most likely stems from the fact that anorectic people have existed throughout history too, yet we still treat them by addressing "the feeling" and not by liposuction.

You appear to be confusing anorectic people (those with anorexia) with anorectic drugs (appetite suppressants.)

Anorectic people (those with anorexia) frequently are underweight, and are hyper-focussed on concerns regarding weight gain, so would generally absolutely not be candidates for liposuction.

If you're referring to those who /take/ anorectics, there are plenty people (for example, those deemed clinically obese, or those whose cormorbidities necessitate weight loss) who may be given anorexic drugs -- the prevalence of such medications and liposuction, etc. is much higher than "addressing "the feeling"" as you put it.

Nah, you appear to be misreading what I wrote.

When a person with anorexia goes to the doctor and say: "Doctor, when I look in the mirror I can't stand my body, I feel too fat", the doctor doesn't say: "Here, take those pills to make your body leaner and come to me later I will remove some fat from you". He says: "Okay, let's treat the image of your body that you have in your head, as it is incorrect".

I just wonder how that differs from a person claiming to be of the opposite sex.

Nah, I read what you put. "Anorectic people" don't need liposuction. Trans people do need affirmative healthcare.

Don't make a false equivalence then. This isn't the proper forum to educate you on the psychological nuances between body dysmorphic elements of anorexia nervosa, and gender dysphoria -- suffice to say that (a) they are not remotely the same thing, and (b) trans people aren't saying they are "too fat."

They're entirely different feelings. One is concerned around the perceived appearance of one particular aspect, the other is centred in their inherent existence and integration within society and the social construct that is gender. They are not the same.

Your words, "a body/identity contrary to how they feel." Your assumption, among many, is to absolutize such a feeling as "existence." Such a person clearly exists, and suffers. It is again your assumption, and confusion, to jump to transitioning as the sole solution to that suffering.

No, I don't assume, I go on what people say and decades of study on the matter, but good job making things up again

Again, no assumption, and no "jumping" -- people have been transitioning longer than either of us have existed in this world, and the data shows by and large it is what works to actually give gender-incongruent people a safe and happy life.

Again, gender is a social construct -- but if the gender incongruence and dysphoria are such that they clealrly don't match the sex assigned at birth, transitioning does wonders for both mental health, and actual quality of life -- but keep assuming toxic nonsense, since you're clearly trying to hide your bigotry on the matter.

You've still failed to say anything remotely true in a response, or suggested any form of treatment. You go on about working on "the feeling," but if the feeling is inherent difference between identified gender and assigned sex, transition is absolutely the gold standard in treatment routes.

Go read WPATH. Talk to trans people. Look at studies. Listen to parents and family of trans children suffering in the US because of backwards, religion-fuelled laws. That is an issue for secularism, religious beliefs shouldn't be used to push denial of medical treatment to those who you disagree are deserving of said treatment.

I've pointed out logical errors in your discourse, using your own words. I haven't offered any solutions, nor attempted to. You haven't provided any redress to the errors I pointed out.

Edit: and added further errors along the way, like ascribing all kinds of things to me I haven't said nor implied.

Edit 2: let me just call it out, you called me a bigot for pointing out a logical error. Addressing the error would have been a sufficient response.

No, I called you a bigot because you're making claims about other options, while offering no alternative, and dismissing the accepted treatment.

When there's one definitive treatment option, with empirical evidence. It's not my fault you don't do your research.

Anyway, I only pointed out your own flawed reasoning, or, charitably, unproven assumptions. I gave you the opportunity to give evidence for your assumptions, and you gave none. You instead said many irrelevant things. Asking a question is not the same as promoting an alternative therapy. This should be understood by any rational person participating in a site promoting curious discourse and assuming good faith. If you want to point me to do my own research, that's your choice, although your own severe flaws still remain. Since you have up to now seemed unable to even understand what I am pointing out, let me know and I can explain them to the detail you would require to understand.