Don't like gender reassignment surgery? Get an injunction!

[Firethorn]

Your faith in pseudo-science is a bit unsettling.  These are the same sort of folk who think self harm is a problem to be addressed and ended if superficial, but super-peachy if severe and mutilating.

Only if you determine sex re-assignment surgery to be 'severe and mutilating'. 

Giving these sort of morally and scientifically un-moored folk power or influence is a big mistake.

The ones I've met weren't.  They were rather serious on the moral fronts, one guy recounted how he was initially involved in one of the old 'just pick one' cases where they picked the wrong one...  Well, he's still involved even today, working to correct the damage.

vaskidmark - you put my name down, but it seems to be more a response to roo_ster.  Can you clarify?

I agree with you - cutting and such is normally a temporary 'fix' to their problem, while yes, gender-reassignment is intended to be permanent.  That being said, as I understand it they're so good with the surgeries today that a non-expert can't tell that the person has had it and was once the opposite sex once everything's completed. 

There are some weird things where a person will try to cut their own limbs off thinking they 'don't belong', but that results in a permanent disability, but I think that both men and women will get upset if you try to imply that their form is a disability.

[brimic]

The dude sounds like a total head case, but if he wants to have his genitalua turned inside out, I'm good with it.  I'm even gooder about his parents outing his hiv and hep  status in a news story. The dude is a walking public health hazard.

[Ron]

Thank you.  It is about time that the moralists among us recognize that there are genetic mistakes --or overlaps in human characteristics, if you will.

Oh, and that they should mind their own damned business.

Terry

Who pays?

If it causes my insurance or taxes to go up I have a say. Keep your paws out of my wallet.

[vaskidmark]

.

vaskidmark - you put my name down, but it seems to be more a response to roo_ster.  Can you clarify?

.

You are correct - should have attributed the comment to roo_ster.  My eyes seem to have wandered to your name at the head of his post where he was quoting you.  Please accept my apology.

stay safe.

[Firethorn]

You are correct - should have attributed the comment to roo_ster.  My eyes seem to have wandered to your name at the head of his post where he was quoting you.  Please accept my apology.

Not a problem, it just had me scratching my head for a bit. 

[roo_ster]

Only if you determine sex re-assignment surgery to be 'severe and mutilating'. 

Do we have to play word games?  Are we 9 years old around here?

se•vere (səˈvɪər)

adj. -ver•er, -ver•est.
1. harsh; unnecessarily extreme: severe criticism.
2. serious or stern in manner or appearance.
3. grave; critical: a severe illness.
4. rigidly restrained in style, taste, etc.; plain; austere.
5. of an extreme, intense, or violent character or nature: severe thunderstorms.
6. difficult to endure, perform, fulfill, etc.: a severe test of strength.
7. rigidly exact; demanding: severe standards.

mu•ti•late (ˈmyut lˌeɪt)
v.t. -lat•ed, -lat•ing.
1. to injure or disfigure by removing or irreparably damaging parts: to mutilate a painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

The surgery is both severe and mutilating as understood by rational folk not playing word games.

The ones I've met weren't.  They were rather serious on the moral fronts, one guy recounted how he was initially involved in one of the old 'just pick one' cases where they picked the wrong one...  Well, he's still involved even today, working to correct the damage.

Scientifically Unmoored
Cross-dressers, transsexuals, or whatever you want to call them that have the surgery have a greater likelihood of suicide and self-reported unhappiness than those who do not.  The institution and doctors who pioneered the surgery have now disavowed it as harmful.  Were sex change surgery a new drug, it would not be approved by the FDA. 

But, like I wrote above, many folk toss reason, sense, and morality out the window at the first mention of sex.


Morally Unmoored
It is not morally good and right to further a mentally disturbed person's desire for severe and mutilating self-harm that will forever destroy the natural function of their body. 

The disgusting doctors who do this sort of thing are no better, morally, than Morgan Spurlock paying derelicts to eat dog *expletive deleted*it in exchange for money they will buy drugs or booze with.

...as I understand it they're so good with the surgeries today that a non-expert can't tell that the person has had it and was once the opposite sex once everything's completed.

Don't be so gullible.


These folks have no business having any influence or power.

[Firethorn]

Do we have to play word games?  Are we 9 years old around here?

Apparently?  Seriously, one can consider heart surgery extreme, but I doubt any here would argue it's necessity.  The brain surgery that attempts to treat epilepsy by having the connections between the right and left side severed is extreme.

Gender reassignment surgery, on the other hand, is 'merely' plastic surgery.  Techniques pioneered for reconstruction after accidents, to 'correct' those born intersex(or whatever the current term is), and such has given us the ability to do a 'really good' job at it.

There are plenty of 'less intact' males and females out there, for various unfortunate reasons.

The surgery is both severe and mutilating as understood by rational folk not playing word games.

Are you a surgeon?  No?  How do you know it's severe?  How do you know it's mutilating?  Do you consider being female being mutilated?  Do you consider being male mutilated?

Scientifically Unmoored
Cross-dressers, transsexuals, or whatever you want to call them that have the surgery have a greater likelihood of suicide and self-reported unhappiness than those who do not.

 

Including cross-dressers in there actually weakens your point. 

The institution and doctors who pioneered the surgery have now disavowed it as harmful.  Were sex change surgery a new drug, it would not be approved by the FDA.

Do you mean this study?  If so, I suggest noting the date(1981).
Other studies show mostly positive results with modern methods:
Factors Associated with Satisfaction or Regret Following Male-to-Female Sex Reassignment Surgery
Adolescents With Gender Identity Disorder Who Were Accepted or Rejected for Sex Reassignment Surgery: A Prospective Follow-up Study
Regrets After Sex Reassignment Surgery - Under 2% regret; 'poor surgical results' one of the main reasons.  Let's face it, surgeons mess up even routine surgery on occasion.

But, like I wrote above, many folk toss reason, sense, and morality out the window at the first mention of sex.

Be careful that you do not do so as well.

Morally Unmoored
It is not morally good and right to further a mentally disturbed person's desire for severe and mutilating self-harm that will forever destroy the natural function of their body.

Correct, but what does that have to do with reassignment surgury?

[Perd Hapley]

How do you know it's mutilating?  Do you consider being female being mutilated?  Do you consider being male mutilated?
  

facepalm  Obviously being female isn't "mutilation." Until, of course, you replace her female organs with male ones. Are you going to keep pretending you don't understand that?

Yes, you are.

[Firethorn]

Are you going to keep pretending you don't understand that?

Yes, you are.

Are you going to keep making fallacious arguments?

Yes, you are.

Specifically, other than shooting blanks(and plenty of real men/women are doing that for various reasons, including deliberate choice), at this point they're 'fully functional'.  I even posted some links, though I think I dropped the sex one.  They're quite successful at having sexual encounters after the operation, and are generally quite happy with the results.  So it's not mutilation, or at least not extreme mutilation.

Hmm...  Increased suicide rate study.  Buried in the study: "In line with the increased mortality from suicide, sex-reassigned individuals were also at a higher risk for suicide attempts, though this was not statistically significant for the time period 1989–2003." and for being convicted for 'any crime or violent crime' "only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989."

However, reading it, it's more that transexuals, transitioned or not, are more likely to commit suicide - the surgery itself results in changes, but the link to suicide is still weak.

Here's how I consider it:  For at least some individuals, the operation is the least bad option. 

Anyways, it looks like we're operating from different presuppositions.  Which is why I'm pulling studies out on the after-effects.  Against those, just repeating 'MUTILATION' doesn't do much.

[brimic]

If he commits suicide 6 months after surgery, who here is going to feel a loss?

[vaskidmark]

If he commits suicide 6 months after surgery, who here is going to feel a loss?

If he commits suicide 6 years after surgery, who here is going to feel a loss?

Is there even a vague suggestion that some time after he is blocked from doing what he wants to do he will come up with the cure for the common cold, or any form of cancer, or bring peace and tolerance to the Middle East or Ferguson, Mo., or even not only balance the federal budget but eliminate the debt burden?  Maybe save the life of some little kid who will grow up to do any of those things?

Some of us do not subscribe as forcefully as you to the "loss of a sparrow"* notion.

stay safe.

* - Perhaps not the best reference to the notion but it's the one I came up with.  I have little doubt that anyone will have difficulty understanding the meaning and intent.

[Perd Hapley]

Are you going to keep making fallacious arguments?

Yes, you are.

Specifically, other than shooting blanks(and plenty of real men/women are doing that for various reasons, including deliberate choice), at this point they're 'fully functional'.  I even posted some links, though I think I dropped the sex one.  They're quite successful at having sexual encounters after the operation, and are generally quite happy with the results.  So it's not mutilation, or at least not extreme mutilation.

I don't argue about sexual/gender matters. I inform deniers.

You have described a successful mutilation - a man or woman successfully mutilated until they no longer function as designed, even if they appear to function as something else.

That is not an argument. It is an explanation. That is all. You can go spout your insanity some more.

[Jamisjockey]

Morally Unmoored

So glad we have you to be the arbiter of all that is moral and good.  What would my moral compass do without you?

[RoadKingLarry]

As long as I don't have to pay for it, either up front or for the mess made after, I don't care what someone does or has done with their dangly bits.
But I do have an opinion about the folks that want to get the remodeling work done and the medical practitioners that do such work and it isn't a very high one.

[lupinus]

I frankly have no problem with a family moving to stop a mentally ill family member from permanently and severely mutilating themselves.

I won't pretend there are a lot of good answers, because it's a shitty situation. But I have no objections to the family trying. I'd have no reservations with them succeeding either if it was warranted.


Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.

[Jamisjockey]

As long as I don't have to pay for it, either up front or for the mess made after, I don't care what someone does or has done with their dangly bits.
But I do have an opinion about the folks that want to get the remodeling work done and the medical practitioners that do such work and it isn't a very high one.

No no no. Rooster said it's immoral and you should care.

[RoadKingLarry]

The only moral issue I have with it is if they are forcing me to pay for it at the point of a gun i.e. -taxes.

[Jamisjockey]

The only moral issue I have with it is if they are forcing me to pay for it at the point of a gun i.e. -taxes.

Which is why I'm fully and wholly against trans surgeries for anyone on public assistance, in jail, or in the military.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I frankly have no problem with a family moving to stop a mentally ill family member from permanently and severely mutilating themselves.

I won't pretend there are a lot of good answers, because it's a shitty situation. But I have no objections to the family trying. I'd have no reservations with them succeeding either if it was warranted.


Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.

What about the precedent set?

If a family could stop this, what else could they stop, in the name of "saving" an adult child from personal decisions? Even if you leave it at medical decisions alone, you've just set a downright dangerous precedent for anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with their parents.

[Jamisjockey]

What about the precedent set?

If a family could stop this, what else could they stop, in the name of "saving" an adult child from personal decisions? Even if you leave it at medical decisions alone, you've just set a downright dangerous precedent for anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with their parents.

Sssshhhh, Liz.  It's Immoral.  Because rooster said so.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I really don't get why suicide rates always come up in this never ending war of righteousness.

Is it really a shocker that a socially disenfranchised group (regardless of if they are right or wrong) is going to have a higher suicide rate than the general run of everyone else?

As long as you are not paying for it, it's not your business what some other person does to themselves.
And I'm pretty sure there is some bit in the bible where Jesus told ya'll Christians to worry about your own *expletive deleted*it and leave other people alone.


(And as a total aside, but it comes to mind everytime this subject comes up, am I the only one around here who thinks the laws regarding suicide should be struck from the books?)

[BlueStarLizzard]

Sssshhhh, Liz.  It's Immoral.  Because rooster said so.

I really wish I was doing something immoral by christian standards, as we speak, but I can only pull on Morman standards *guzzles more diet Pepsi and puffs on a ciggerette*

Ahhh!!! The joys of being an Immoral American!

[cordex]

I really don't get why suicide rates always come up in this never ending war of righteousness.

Is it really a shocker that a socially disenfranchised group (regardless of if they are right or wrong) is going to have a higher suicide rate than the general run of everyone else?

I think the claim (which I have not verified) is that the already high suicide rate gets worse after the surgery.  Thus the surgery is a net negative to the mental well being of these people.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I think the claim (which I have not verified) is that the already high suicide rate gets worse after the surgery.  Thus the surgery is a net negative to the mental well being of these people.

Except you can't really get proper stats on the ones who haven't had the surgery. The ones who have it, it's generally recorded and, even if it's not, it can be identified by medical evaluation after death.
The ones who don't have surgery, you are completely reliant on their honesty in identifying their various issues in previous statements or physical evidence that is properly assessed after death.

[Ron]

It doesn't really matter whether there are more or less suicides or whether there is even more or less "happiness".

What matters is the cultural Marxist narrative of gender fluidity and all the other related nonsense.