The mind-blowing evil of slicing off young girls’ breasts.

It tells you the level of insanity in this country that this even needs to be debated. Anyone with half a brain and an ounce of moral fortitude should clearly see that mutilating the genitals of girls (again, perverts, we are talking about girls, not women) is completely wrong. It's absolutely unbelievable that we are debating the morals of genital mutilation. And, of course, the Democrats on this forum are in favor of it.

 

In a word, yes, as long as the surgery is reversible. Why shouldn't it be alright if it's reversible?

Women have been disguising their breasts for centuries with no permanent harm done. Why shouldn't they be permitted to do that as part of their therapy for gender dysphoria? I think that in the end most will not opt for a permanent change and if they do that will be their right as an adult.

 

1.Breasts are not genitals.

2. What do you think of circumcision? That actuality is genital mutilation.

 

It isn't reversible. There will be some permanent damage. Scars and probably some change of what the shape and size would have naturally been. At that point you are guaranteeing at the very least some level of cosmetic surgery on a child prior to them understanding or being able to consent meaningfully.

What do you think of neck and foot binding of the northern Thai Padang people, that they force onto very young girls? Do you consider that ethical?

Disguising? This is about surgery, not taping them up or wearing oversized sweaters.

And you just said women. Little girls are not grown women. And if you fins the distinction irrelevant, then please tell us if you think a twelve year old girl can consent to have sex with a fifty year old man? Women do that for centuries too.

 

Are you sure we are discussing surgery? Can you link to that?

 

See the OP. It references "gender affirming chest SURGERIES ".

If it was just kids cross dressing, taping back their chests or wearing big sweaters, this would not be much of an issue.

 

You have one helluva twisted mind because none of this makes sense except in a horror movie starring yourself.

Let's be clear; you have not proven that this is occuring anywhere to a degree that you are trying to make it be. I see links to NHS and other places, but not the US. If these "girls", since you are only concentrating on them because they have breasts, are indeed getting their "tits sliced off", as you like to put it, you have not explained under what conditions, by whom, or even researched the parents' side of the story.

As I've said before, this is a matter for the parents and the doctors involved. Why do you insist in getting in between that argument based on your layman's logic? There are a lot of medical procedures that at first glance sound worse than the disease itself, until you find yourself in that situation. Being an "armchair doctor" is a pretty lowly position of authority in most people's book.

 

The OP only refers to breast AUGMENTATION. If there was anything about permanently removing breasts from girls under 18 I didn't see it.

I have a question; why are so many conservative men seemingly so upset by the very idea that anyone would even HAVE gender dysphoria? Could this be related to the well known tendency of the most rabid homophobes to be latent homosexuals themselves?

 

It always comes back around to this very question. It reminds me every time of Larry Craig.



Remember Larry and his little incident at an airport restroom and his explanation of his "wide stance"?

And that's just one example, there are at least 19 more.

20 REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS BROUGHT DOWN BY BIG GAY SEX SCANDALS
SHE DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH.

 

It refers to surgeries. Are you saying surgeries don't happen? What do you think "augmentation" means? Is it padded bras? Or is it surgery?

Could be. But that's irrelevant to the question of the ethics of doing these procedures on children who many feel are too young to consent. What motivates somebody making a point does not invalidate the validity of the point itself.

The issues of children having sex with older men, neck and foot finding, female and male genital mutilation ("circuncision"), etc all come to mind and we COULD explore the ethics of why these things are ethical or not, and what factors matter, and if there is basis for yes to some and no to others other than political affiliation and cultural programming.

But instead we get theorizing about motivations of those people disagree with, and endless virtue signalling and posturing.

 

That depends on your source. I was able to find at least one source that says that breasts are genitals:

"
'Genitals' means the parts of the human anatomy including the pubic area, anus, or perineum and the breasts of any female.
"

 

That's a pretty messed up definition buried in a rub and tug ordinance (and scientifically wrong). Gentitals are actually the organs that evolved to pass on genes.

"of any female"? Penis and testicles are not genitals?

 

Well, at least hopefully you agree that breasts are organs. There's at least a couple of Democrats on this forum who deny this, despite mountains of scientific evidence.

 

Skin is also an organ. That's the one most people don't recognize.

 

I think medical issues are a completely private matter, and my opinion on how to raise your children should be none of your business. Should I try to insinuate myself between you and your children and your doctors, feel free to tell me to get stuffed. Unless, of course, you feel I’m more qualified than you and your doctors. In this case, I’ll happily make the decisions for you.

 

Just how far do you take that? I presume you don't mean this as an absolute? Or do you?

Does a religious parent have a right to kill his children if he believes they are being posessed by demons, and he wants to free them from this and save their souls? Or how about parents who do muder/suicides with their children, within or outside religious context?

Is the beating of children ok to you, to instill discipline? Spare the rod, spoil the child, etc?

Does a Jehova's Witness parent have the right to deny his toddler a life saving blood transfusion?

Is female genital mutilation, cutting off of the clitoris so the girl won't be able to feel the pleasure she otherwise may, to keep her chaste and "clean" ok?

Is the binding of feet and neck permanently damaging the shoulder ans spine, an ancient and ongoing tradition of the Padang people in Thailand a problem for you?

Now how about male circumcision of male babies without their consent, permanently removing the foreskin?

And now these surgeries on kids who are convinced they are trans. That one you are ok with I think you've stated.

Are you ok with all of the above, or are there boundaries you don't want to cross in the parental control and discretion over their offspring in your society?

 

I very purposefully indicated the doctor should be part of these discussions. I’m not suggesting mom gets to go at a child with a sawzall for any reason, including mastectomies.

I’m not personally for these surgeries pre 18. That said, I know trans people who wish they’d had some of these options available to pre teens now, almost exclusively the blockers. That doesn’t mean I feel qualified in any way to determine what’s appropriate in all cases.

 

But what does "part of these discussions" mean? Does the doctor have a veto? Is it any doctor that has the veto and can tell the mother / father no, or a group of them? Is it society at large?

I'm not either, but only because its a question of can informed meaningful consent be given or not at this stage of development. I see nothing wrong with doing it if the person doing it does have capacity for that consent.

You (and I) may not be qualified to make scientific determinations, but I think you, I and other adult citizens are qualified to make moral judgments on what we want to allow in our societies. The doctor is an expert in the science. The doctor is not inherently superior in moral judgment.

 

I find it fascinating that the ONLY ones talking about “mutilation” are Republicans - and they are coming
Back and back to this as if this is fulfilling something……….

 

What if there were a genetic component to gender dysphoria - would you look at it differently then ?

 

Not anymore, this is todays "anything goes" but morals and faith culture

 

Makes the pecker shorter during erection, don't do it!

 

That's because they are still human enough to recognize it!

 

…and that 13 year old is also old enough to have sex and vote. Younger the better!

 

It is fascinating that Republicans are the ones calling mutilation "mutilation," while Democrats, like yourself, describe top surgeries as just another form of cosmetic procedure or simply breast reduction, when it's not. Girls, not women, have a widely underdeveloped prefrontal cortex. Therefore, they cannot consent to this procedure, and the adults in their lives should not be allowed to make these choices for them. Top surgery is an irreversible procedure in which you deprive the girl of ever having the ability to breastfeed; it is not--NOT--breast reduction surgery. You are removing the parts of the breasts that make them organs.

Circumcision and top surgery are two completely different procedures. Circumcision is simply removing the foreskin; top surgery is removing the glands, ducts, and the adipose tissue, and there is no need for it. Additionally, circumcision has health benefits (easier hygiene, mitigation against urinary tract infections, and more). Plus, "sometimes there's a medical need for circumcision, such as when the foreskin is too tight to be pulled back (retracted) over the glans."