An Hypothetical Treatment Régime.
Diagnosed Gender-Identity Disorder (GID) may require intensive assessment, by specialist health care professionals – psychologists, surgeons, anaesthetists, social workers, et alii, who may consider the patient a suitable candidate for uro-genital and reconstructive-plastic surgery; i.e., Gender Reassignment Surgery. Hypothesized procedures (not to be considered as formal surgical procedures, but solely as hypothesized treatment régimes), for male patients, may involve: v.g.mammary prosthetic silicone implants, orchidectomy, penectomy, labiaplasty, et cetera; and endocrine therapy viz., hormone as a testosteronal inhibitor, and an hormonal steroid (estrogen) to promote female secondary sex characteristics.
Similarly, female patients may also: undergo procedures v.g. bilateral mastectomy, total or perhaps radical (qq.v.) hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, phalloplasty, testicular prostheses implants, etc., and androgenic steroid to promote masculine characteristics. These surgical procedures, although hypothetical, will suffice for the purpose for comprehension. Moreover, both defining and separating diagnosed Gender-Identity Disorder (GID) discussion from the entirely different categories, of ‘homosexuality’, ‘transvestism’, ‘crossdressing’, and so-called “transgenderism”. My suggestions were intended to demonstrate the incongruousness of your teachings with academic and clinical medicine. As well as being at variance with the World Health Organisation (WHO), or Organisation Mondial de la Sante (OMS). Who acknowledged, and designated, GID as a diagnosable disorder; in 1992.
Hindu Tradition of Transvestism (SAKHIS).
I suggest you examine ‘transvestism’ within the Hindu religious tradition of Sakhis, but tread very cautiously, particularly regarding any homophobic campaigns, or any other contemporary arguments, whether they be for proselytizing purposes (for your brand of Hinduism), vilifying Christians, or identity politics et cetera. An excellent study on the subject would be: ‘Transsexualism, Gender, and Anxiety in Traditional India,’ by Professor Robert P. Goldman, Ph. D., Research Scientist, in Integrative Biology at the University of Texas; at Austin.
The Metaphysical vs. The Mechanistic.
You claim:
“This is a very great science. People have to try to understand it as a science. This is not a belief. People must understand the reality of how the mind affects the gross body and how activities of the present body affect the mind”.
Your claim is, in my opinion, incoherent because of the inconsistency of your assertion by failing to define and differentiate between “reality”, “mind”, and “gross body” (‘sthûla sarîra’).
Firstly, ‘reality’, as I understand it, is measurable by objective scientific standards of the physical world, whereas the “reality”, in your claim, is simply and solely, interpretable constructs extrapolated from your personal subjective opinions regardless of reliable empirical facts and data of the physical world.
Secondly, your assertion that: “… the mind affects the gross body” is a contradiction of terms. Your use of the word “affects” in your argument hasn’t any biological meaning without a qualifier to correlate the abstract mind with the physical body.
Thirdly, your metaphorical use of the term “mind” to explain neurophysiological activities of the “gross body”, at the zenithal ‘organismic level’, is a juxtaposing of contrasting theoretical frames: viz., the metaphysical and mechanistic, e.g.,interactionism, psychophysicalism, and materialism, subjective idealism; respectively. All things considered, it would appear that your notions of a “very great science”, “reality”, “mind”, “gross body”, and your confusion between”science” and “belief”, absent of a synthesis, are indeed; an odd assortment of sophistries.