Sorry for my misinterpretation in reading–I shouldn’t try and read & post during my break. As for “alien” limb syndrome (and to inject a little levity into the conversation), I pretty much think all men have a “limb” that doesn’t always act the way we want it to…in essence, “to not be a part of us”.

A full understanding of nature, particularly human nature, demands final causes. This cannot be proven in a comments post and it is a fallacy to demand a proof in this space.

I didn’t demand a “proof in this space”. I simply pointed out that what was offered was not proof.

I wouldn’t mind having that conversation at some point, though. I’ve looked at more comprehensive attempts to prove that and found issues with the ones I’ve come across.

It’s when an existing, always-been-attached, otherwise healthy limb is perceived by the sufferer to be not part of them. To be, in a word… “alien”. And as I said, this can escalate to the point of… well, read Matthew 18:8.

1) Phantom limb syndrome only occurs when a limb that used to be becomes amputated/lost. They “feel” the limb because the neurons that mapped to them haven’t yet died in the brain.

With the exception of an extremely small minority who were born hermaphrodites, those afflicted with gender dysphoria didn’t formerly have the sex organs of the opposite sex.

2) I’ve never heard of someone with “gender dysphoria” say “I feel a (phantom) penis/vagina” between my legs.” Even among those who were born hermaphrodites.

I recently read about a study that examined sufferers using MRI and the parts of their brains that ‘map’ the body, that encode one’s ‘body image’, did not respond to the ‘alien’ part. It’s quite possible the underlying condition is neurological, though it obviously has psychological ramifications.

It’s possible that there’s a similar underlying neurological reality in gender dysphoria that influences the desire, rather than vice versa.

Of course, a better outcome – for those with either condition – would probably be to reconcile the sufferer to the biological reality, to bring the neurology into line with the rest of the body. But the situation could be more complicated than “Desire Defines Reality”.

That is the crux of the matter: are there real purposes and ends in nature which we are bound to respect because, well, they are real?

Well, are there?

Pointing out unwelcome consequences if something is false isn’t quite the same thing as demonstrating it to be true.

Why do they stop there? If a male basketball player, declaring himself a woman, wants to use the same changing rooms as the female players, on what grounds can they object? Or will he be a second class woman until (s)he has undergone hormone therapy and surgeons remove his “junk”?

If a student declares that he or she is a god and must be worshipped by all at the college or university, by what logic do the officials disabuse that person?

It is amusing to see woolly-thinking liberals tied up in intellectual knots. It is sad that such people are in positions of influence. I expect it will soon be called “hate-speech” to tell the female basketball player she is really a woman.