no, i had anthropology for a year on uni and wanted to help you explain what that WHO definition is based on, or at least the general reasoning when you make any health definition. but if you dont need help with the reasoning, you can literally ignore it, the proof below still stands physiological/psychological dissociation makes you unhealthy by definition. the WHO definition.

Oh man, you took a year of anthropology in uni? Damn, that makes you an expert. /s

If we are describing the tendency to pass on genes, that's fitness, not health. Health is a much more complicated subject, and to side step this fact you are just making stuff up.

It's sad really.

well it makes me more of an expert than you although im not really into that leftist "what are your credentials" shit, you can know something without any formal education

and no, it is "health", again by the WHO definition, please dont, to quote you, fabricate terms from thin air if you think you are of different sex, you arent attracted as much to that sex, you cant reproduce as efficiently, you have lower chance of reproduction than the average person. you are unhealthy. and thats just the physical aspect of the definition

Wrong. Health has many aspects. Somebody can be totally reproductively healthy and be trans, and somebody can be unhealthy and still have a lot of kids. There is no connection between health and reproduction except when specifically talking about reproductive health.

You are equating health with reproductive fitness, and it is incorrect. You should go back to uni if this is the understanding you got from the experience.

ooh yes, health has many aspects. prove you dont have one of them and you prove the person unhealthy, which is exactly what i did. first of all, there is a connection between health and reproduction POTENTIAL. that word is the most important and you (purposefully or not) omitted it. if you cant optimally reproduce, you are not healthy. by the WHO definition, if you cant do pretty much ANYTHING optimally, you are not healthy. for a statistically significant sample of free people (to rule out outliers and ideologies like islam where women are pretty much forced), if you have a suboptimal desire to have kids, you will have a suboptimal number of kids, period. you are inferior to a healthy human in that particular thing and by WHO, you are not healthy

the thing you cant seem to understand in this particular case is this: it doesnt really matter what the reason is for someone having a suboptimal potential to have children, as long as he has a suboptimal potential. now, you took trans people, a case which is really hard to defend. but even in cases that are easier to defend, like gay people, the result is the same. for them the only reason to have less children (and here i mean their own children, with genes of one of the parents), is because they simply arent attracted to the opposite sex (which is why they usually choose to adopt). and that reason alone makes them unhealthy by the WHO definition, reason being "suboptimal reproduction potential due to any reason"

edit:



wrong. reproductive potential doesnt equate to health, but it is only a small part of health. not sure how you didnt understand that, i said it like 10 times

This post was edited by Snyft2 on Oct 15 2021 01:22pm

Except it doesn't make them unhealthy by the WHO definition that you linked. The definition you linked says nothing about reproduction, you are just making that up.

the definition says "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity"

lower reproduction potential is not a state of well being. dont believe me? ask infertile people, see what they say.

Lower reproductive potential does not alone make somebody unhealthy. A person who has no desire to have kids wouldn't be considered unhealthy in that situaiton.

a person who has no desire to have kids is even worse, as that person is mentally unhealthy. again a good proof to this is that evolution makes sure those peoples' genes dont survive. literally everything we do is to make sure our genes survive, thats why people have urges to reproduce. that is the whole meaning of life, evolutionary speaking. a person who goes against that urge is severely mentally unhealthy and the leftists arent doing them any favors by trying to recognize it as normal and healthy

sorry for personal question, but do you want to have children ?

Oh look, it's that thing I pointed out you were doing already.




Reproductive fitness is not the same thing as reproductive health. A gay couple with no interest in passing on their genes is not unhealthy according to any currently accepted definition of health.