All young gay women, and a few gay men, thinking about 'trans' should watch this video

OK well that says:

Which answered the question:

Although it you still did not answer the question of:

But #116 does not answer the question of:

Which is the question that you seem to be avoiding.

 

Define permanent harm? If you need someone to define that for you it's unlikely your knowledge of English is substantial enough to understand the answer. I suggest you look up the dictionary definition of permanent harm.

And as for your other question..."...do you let a person suffer, or do you allow a radical procedure that at least allow for at least less suffering?"

You seem to simply assume that that radical amputation as a treatment for body dysmorphia would result in less suffering. That seems wildly speculative. To that I refer you back to what I've already posted in this thread: First, do no harm.

 

You're avoiding the question, probably because you realize that you can't support the argument. My mother was done permanently harm when her pancreas was removed making her a type one brittle diabetic. My sister was permanently harm when her uterus was removed. For that matter I was permanently harmed when I had a vasectomy. My daughter was permanently harmed when she got piercings several places upon her body. My son was permanently harmed when he got tattoos. Yet somehow I don't think that you would count all of these, if any, as permanent harm. So again, what are you claiming is permanent harm?

Not speculative, proven.

Now this is not saying that all people with BIID (body dysmorphia) require such surgery in order to alleviate their condition, in the same manner that not all transgenders need the full SRS in order to alleviate their GD. There are various treatments that have various levels of effect on different people with the condition. Again, there is currently not a cure, so the only thing left is to treat the symptoms.

And yet to perform surgery one must do harm. Maybe you need to rethink that phrase.[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]


Look, I've already gotten a win out of this by getting you to support radical amputation as a treatment for body dysmorphia. The fact that you want to double down on it and continue this absurdity is just more flavored toppings. So I think the very best thing you can do is to continue lauding your support of a savage, barbaric practice that puts you in Dr Mengele land. Enjoy!

 

If you want to call it a win for me to support what is medical fact, you go right ahead. You are the one who is saying that you would rather have someone suffer than have a procedure to lower or end the suffering, just because you don't like the procedure. I provided you with the information direct from the National Institute for Health. But I guess that you know better than all those medical professionals.

 

Actually I didn't say I would rather have someone suffer, you said that. I don't think your Cronenberg body horror therapy is a legitimate treatment, although it would make a great horror movie.

 

In your failure to answer the question, it's the only logical conclusion. It doesn't matter what you think of any given specific treatment, the question was asked as a generality, and can be answered as such. And it's not my treatment. It's the one derived by the medical community and shown to work as per the evidence by the NIH I presented shows.

 

I've answered every question. You just don't like the answers. What you do like is radical amputations apparently.

 

What I like or don't like is irrelevant to what works. I don't have to like something to support it as the method that actually works and reduces or eliminates suffering. You on the other hand, in not supporting what works, as shown by the linked evidence, by default support the individual continuing to suffer. It doesn't get much more barbaric than that, save to add to their suffering.

 

You do realize I'm perfectly happy to be the guy on the forum who opposes radical amputations as a treatment for mental illness. And I'm perfectly happy for you to be the guy supporting it.

 

And I am perfectly happy to be they guy whose support will more likely result in a functional person (as per the linked evidence), whereas you seem to be happy to be the guy whose support will more likely result in a suicide since you want them to continue suffering. Remember that open heart surgery was once a radical treatment.

 

I wasn't criticizing it because it was radical, but because it is savagely barbaric.

 

Prove it.

 

Heh. You want me to "prove" that radical amputations as a "treatment" for body dysmorphia is savagely barbaric?

Frankly I thought Maquiscat was a one off in supporting them. I'm actually surprised that there are two people on the forum (maybe more?) supporting amputations for body dysmorphia. Well, you learn something new every day!

Now as to your challenge, how exactly should I "prove" that your Doctor Mengele-like love of chopping off body parts on an otherwise physically healthy individual is barbaric?

 

As noted before, any kind of cutting open of a person for surgery with organs was considered barbaric at one point.

Well yes. Just saying it's barbaric doesn't make it so, therefore there has to be something to support that argument. If it's true, then you can support the argument. Otherwise the argument is reduced to "I don't like it so I will call it name for an emotional reaction instead of using facts."

He doesn't have to support my position to ask you to support yours. And I have already supported mine with references from the National Institute of Health itself that shows the method works for extreme cases where other treatments failed. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence save your own opinion.

It's your assertion, you find the evidence. I did with my assertion.

 

I don't have to justify finding a barbaric practice barbaric by finding a study. That's an interesting take though.

 

Except that you have not proved that it is barbaric. So we are back to "I don't like it so I will call it names for an emotional reaction instead of using facts."

 

By showing that in the rare cases where they do amputate, the patient is worse off and has a higher chance of dying as a result.

 

There is not an objective criteria to determine whether a practice is barbaric or not. That's culturally based. As I come from a Western culture, I feel comfortable calling your radical amputation treatment barbaric. You may align with a different culture that feels differently.

 

Well which states is this practice legal? I'll start my search there.

 

Good luck to him on that. I already showed where, on the rare occasions that such treatment is necessary, that it works more often than it doesn't. But he would rather others suffer and maybe become suicidal than allow someone else to have done what makes him uncomfortable.

 

Oh I am so sorry, but I have already shown that it is not only not barbaric by our shared Western culture, but effective. What proof have you that says otherwise? You haven't even managed to come up with anything that shows most of the culture would consider it barbaric. You have just claimed it so.

 

I'll make it even easier for you. You can start with the NIH article that I already linked to in this thread that shows the practice to be effective.

 

I've seen that, just not what I asked for.

 

This is quite common. People pretend like they don't understand English.