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

Why would you be opposed to something that is scientifically sound? Also, as it turns out, amputation, in rare circumstances and as a last resort, has been shown to alleviate body dysmorphia? At this point, you're against something just because you don't like it.

 

Well, I would argue that the reason I don't like it is because I'm not a barbarian, and I recognize that mutilating people as a treatment for psychiatric conditions is barbaric. However you seem to be a fan, so I'm curious, what States allow amputation as a treatment for body dysmorphia?

 

My understanding is all of them.
https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Body-Integrity-Dysphoria.aspx

 

Your article didn't state that it was legal in all states. In fact your article stated treatment as "cognitive behavioral therapy and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)," not chopping off body parts. What is your source that mutilation and amputation for body dysmorphia is legal in all states?

 

The idiocy with this trans **** was deciding it WASN'T a mental health disorder.

That snowballed all of this bullshit.

 

Sure, why not, assuming that they can find someone willing to do it and are willing to pay for it? Mind you that doesn't mean that they are free from consequences, including in the context of transgenders, realizing that they did something wrong in transitioning. They also have to realize that the world doesn't owe them just because their body issue causes them to have an effective handicap. However, if in losing their one arm, they become more functional (after all we have plenty of functional adults with lost limbs) since their body dysmorphia is no longer inhibiting them, is that not better over all?

 

So where is the exact line drawn? Especially when it's a decision that does not affect anyone else's body?

 

Well that argument is like claiming that women should be able to vote and then asking what states legally allowed women to vote before that right was secured for them. Supporting one's right to something does not automatically mean supporting the thing. Many people who are personally anti-abortion are still legally pro-choice.

 

Keep deluding yourself:

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19132621/
It's actually extremely rare, but the principle should be consistent regardless of the rarity of a condition.

 

So if there is no other way to end the dysmorphia (currently), you are saying that forcing the person to continue to suffer is enlightened not barbaric? Last I checked, forced suffering was considered barbaric.

 

The better measure is to note where it is illegal, because if it's not listed as illegal, then it's legal. When charges are brought to show that a legal violation has occurred, there must be a law that can be pointed to to say it was illegal. So tell me, what law anywhere states that it is illegal to treat BIID by amputating a limb (assuming that the limb is the focus of the BIID)?

 

You shouldn't practice scientism because many of these studies only assess a correlation not a causation.

 

Although not technically part of the Hippocratic Oath, "first do no harm" is attributed to Hippocrates and the medical community does try to play by that standard. In general, we don't allow mentally unstable people to make those kind of decisions since they, by definition, have a mental disorder and are not competent to do so, any more than we would allow someone to kill themselves because the voices told him to. Someone in danger of such severe self harm could be institutionalized and treated in most states.

People who are not of sound mind, by definition, shouldn't be allowed to make dangerous, life altering decisions of such a nature. Your "why not?" attitude seems to be a severe disregard for someone's life and well being. I'm curious as to why you support some, in effect, throwing themselves off a cliff like that?

 

Permanent harm seems a good standard.

 

OK I've lost the thread of your argument. People can support allowing others to amputate their limbs due to mental illness but wouldn't do it themselves?

 

That could be an argument against any life saving treatment.

 

Now define permanent harm. If it leaves a scar, and done intentionally, is that permanent harm?

You can apply it to anything. For example's sake, I could be of the belief that it is wrong and harmful and even mentally insane for any man to have a vasectomy, but still support his right to do so.

If a person has made a living will, or a DNR document, then yes that is forced suffering and is barbaric. For that matter, I hold that the right to life not only includes your right to maintain your life, but the right to end it. Both directions require that you do not impose upon others to achieve the end. Others can volunteer such as provide you an organ so you can keep living, or assisting you with the meds to quietly go to sleep forever, but you right to life does not require them to do so.

Agreed, but within that is the concept that some harm must be done in order to do the greater healing. That's the entire premise of surgery of any type. So given that it has been shown that more often than not, transitioning (which doesn't always go as far as the full SRS) alleviates the GD and allows the individual to lead a productive and healthier life, this fully satisfies that principle.

Granted and in general this is not a bad position. But we have long since learned that many things that were considered mental disorders are no longer so.
https://listverse.com/2016/11/01/10-obsolete-mental-disorders/
Hell, there are still Christians out there that actually think that not being a Christian is a mental disorder. And some religious (not limited to the Christians) act in such a way that I am tempted to believe that religion is a mental disorder. Actually some claim just that. Then again some claim that conservatism or liberalism are mental disorders.

Agreed, but just because we don't agree with it and even are repulsed by the idea, that doesn't automatically make it a disorder or that the person is not of sound mind.

Indeed not, but I cannot blame you for thinking that. I am simply working outside your familiar paradigm. To me a person's freedom and control of their own life is or more paramount than my personal feeling. Now I am not, and have not ever been for either just chopping of the arm or transitioning with full SRS at the moment a person makes their claim of the dysphoria. That is the lie that most opponents put out. Of course, such conditions need to be evaluated, if for no other reason, that various conditions can share symptoms such that they can mask for each other. For example, a high functioning autistic child (or adult as the case may be, since these conditions never go away) might be mistaken as having ADD/ADHD. But treating the later will fail to alleviate the condition (both are currently incurable) since they use different meds to treat the condition. For transgenders, full SRS might not be necessary. Lower levels of transitioning are usually tried first in a majority of cases. For body dysmorphia, other treatments are usually tried first. The surgeries are the final attempt where no other treatment works. That doesn't mean that there will not be other treatments in the future, but it cold be days away or centuries away. In the end, a person should get whatever treatment allows them to function and live life, not just simply existing in a living state. If that takes amputating a limb, or removing breasts, so be it. You are not the one suffering, so you can't actually know what they are going through. Hell women go through it all too often now, with doctors telling them their pain is nothing, and then nearly dying of endometriosis or some other condition, instead of being believed of what they said about their own bodies.

 

Given that you've already stated that you support someone's right to amputate their own body parts, even with a mental illness, I'm not sure what is the point of continuing this discussion. Maybe not on this forum, but I think out in the world, yours is the minority position and mine is the majority position.

When I read things like what you've written (and to be fair, not just you) it reminds me how in our current year arrogance, we regard the medical practices of the past as ignorant, barbaric, and savage, while smugly think that we're on the top of the ethical foodchain. Meanwhile I wonder a 100 years from now what the thoughts will be on our current obsession of treating all matter of body dysmorphias with bizarre radical surgeries. They'll think us mad and savagely primitive.

 

Then you didn't read what I wrote. I made clear the point that despite that right, it doesn't require another to perform that action. A woman's right to an abortion does not force anyone to give her that abortion or require that someone be forced to certify to perform abortions. Secondly, I have noted that just because you consider something a mental illness does not mean that it is so. I've provided examples of how some things used to be considered mental illnesses, which included left-handedness, that are no longer considered as such by the people who actually study these things and are the professionals in the field. Secondly, I have also shown how there are many things in the medical world where we do not have cures and we have to treat the symptoms until such time we develop a cure. Some mental illnesses we have cures for, others we do not. We don't let those who are suffering continue to suffer if we don't have to. But we also don't go straight to the extreme option until that is all that is left. Which is better, a person losing a healthy part of their body, and now able to function on a daily basis, or keeping them intact and having them go suicidal? Personally, if all other methods of treatment have failed, I will keep them alive, unless they express a desire otherwise.

Exchange of ideas. Even if we do not agree, we can learn new things, and maybe we might hit upon that one argument that can change the other's mind. Not all the opinions I used to have are still with me today, and I have changed positions on topics with the right argument. I am very interested in hearing what you mean by "permanent harm", especially given how all encompassing that term could be.

Many positions out in the world have been minority positions and have turned into majority ones. And many issues have been decided by the minority position in the interest of freedom and right. Giving women the right to vote, allowing interracial marriage, allowing abortion, and many more. All of these were being made legal despite being a minority position, even before the SCOTUS decision or amendment that brought them about nationwide were done.

When I read things like what you've written (and to be fair, not just you) it reminds me how in our current year arrogance, we regard the medical practices of the past as ignorant, barbaric, and savage, while smugly think that we're on the top of the ethical foodchain. Meanwhile I wonder a 100 years from now what the thoughts will be on our current obsession of treating all matter of body dysmorphias with bizarre radical surgeries. They'll think us mad and savagely primitive.[/QUOTE]

No doubt. Hell I am all for going back to many of our drugs being more naturally derived than artificially manufactured. I read somewhere (like early or pre-internet common days) that some studies had shown that using drugs straight from the plant they were derived from was more effective than the chemically created versions. But you also have to look at the other side of things historically. Surgery itself would have been considered barbaric, even as recently as the 16th century, and even after that many felt it barbaric for a good long time. And they way they performed the surgeries would be barbaric today, with no sterilization or anesthetic. Barbaric is always going to be based upon a given perspective. I'm sure you and I would agree that taking away women's right to vote and own businesses and such would be barbaric, and yet there are those who are trying to do just that, thinking that women having right is uncivilized.

But again I still come back to that point of if there is not a cure, then do you let a person suffer, or do you allow a radical procedure that at least allow for at least less suffering. Forcing suffering would be the barbaric move in a good number of people's opinion. There is a difference between a person either suffering from the problem or suffering from or through the solution. At least they have the choice there. But withholding from them, as a third party, any chance of lessening or removing the suffering, with no choice on their part, especially when they show that they are otherwise sound of mind, is forcing the suffering. You say do no harm, but I say that forced suffering is doing harm. Not treating what you can with what you have for at least some measure of relief, is more harm than that small measure of relief.

 

I don't see how you've pushed the argument forward in any way. You simply restated things that you've already posted in this thread. So that only leaves me the option of restating things that I've already posted in this thread. I will decline to do that since I've made my position on this issue clear as have you.

 

And yet you never actually answer that question. Interesting.

 

I did answer, you just didn't like the answer.

 

I must have missed that. Post#?

 

Try #116