[quote=@catchamber] Defining a human trait as a biological defect depends the definition of a human with no such defects. Since it seems impossible to do that without creating a paradox, or using circular logic by automatically defining certain biological traits as defects, it seems valid to say that calling something a defect is a matter of perspective.[/quote] Which builds upon what I understood Harbinger implied - that the definition of what is a defect and what is not can change but most likely will not when it comes to the things he is discussing. I never saw him say that the definition of a defect cannot change. I only saw him say that those that are diagnosed with certain traits are only that - diagnosed with certain traits. It says nothing about the quality of life. Having six fingers is a defect - because your body is not working as intended. It says nothing about the quality of life. Just that you have a defect because your body did something it wasn't supposed to do. [quote]Actually, I argued that this claim was inaccurate: I then went on to argue that something doesn't need the ability to reproduce to be considered alive. The hypothetical being I referenced was a thought experiment designed to criticize their claim, and they agreed that if such a being was ever proven to exist, they would agree with my criticism.[/quote] But this doesn't align with the definition, ergo, by your logic of asking if I know the definition of defect, I can just claim the same thing and come up with some hypothetical non-being that defies the definition of a defect. [quote]Sure, he wasn't talking about those with six fingers per hand, or women with two uteruses, but what happens when one of the people with any of the conditions I've listed view their trait as nondisruptive?[/quote] I don't know, I suppose that a pedo isn't actually mentally ill because they see their adoration for younger people as nondisruptive. Cancer is also nondisruptive as long as you will it into existence. Eh, yeah, no, you're wrong. Both those things can be nondisruptive in day to day life but can cause risks and complications later on. (Especially having two uteruses seems like it will cause a lot of complications and risks.) [quote]Does a medical association have a greater say over an individual's self-image than the individual? If you think the answer to that question is "yes", I wonder if you'd have considered arguing against the American Psychiatric Association's classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder before 1973. [/quote] I would argue that they do. Because they are not providing full on facts. They are providing medical insights and theories, and as we know, no theory is 100% conclusive and factual in nature and even the most ancient of theories that have been tried and tested are continuously being proven wrong and changed to accommodate. Perhaps that classification is wrong (I think it is) but I also think that during that time with our limited understanding of homosexuality, it was the solution that they came up with. So, at that time, it seemed like a natural conclusion and one that they believed was backed by facts. .. unless you are asserting here that they did this out of malicious intent and not out of a professional theory? EDIT: And just for the record - there is a clear cut example of medical organizations having a greater say that is obesity. Recently it's been claimed and believed into existence that obesity is not a risk factor for health at all by certain individuals. It's a load of shit, anyone with more than a single brain cell knows it. I would like to ask you if you think that just because people [i]think[/i] it causes no problem, that also means that it's not a problem?