Old Enough for a Sex Change but Not Old Enough for Sex?

Thank you. I didn’t know. this is truly bad. This is what I have been against regardless which side it is. Parents should have the ultimate power and not the government.

Oh by the way, Montana is one of the most conservative state in the union. And Gov who is defending this horrifying practice by government is Republican.

 

Yea good news that I see conservative state with conservative Governor, a Trump big Trump supporter is forcing kids to have gender altercation without parental consent. It’s like going back in time to 1939, German experimenting on Jews.

Don’t you worry , we liberals are moving into Montana. We will flip the state blue and take care of all these barbaric practice.

 

What was that? I got what?? Looks like links were provided as you requested and you chose to ignore it.,
Ahh, so sad!
Is this what happens when folks think of Trump 24/7? Logic ceases to exist? Well, keep up the good work. I'm quite entertained. Can't wait to see your next post!

 

That was my whole point. In my not be common under your measurement system but it happens a lot more than kids getting sex changes. My question is where are the post and outrage over that? Think how many actual lives have been impacted this and it can lead to things like teen pregnancies etc...

What if the parents consent? Do you want to pass laws and have government step in to circumvent the will of the parents?

 

If the argument is that we should not be performing sex change surgery on children because it's genital mutilation, then it's a very relative point. Mutilation is mutilation regardless of the reason. Far too often, the argument is that God or nature put those genitals there. Well they put the foreskin there too, so if the one act is wrong, based on that reason, then the other is too. For that matter, one could support your overall position, and still point out how hypocritical it is for one to claim mutilation as the argument while one still supports circumcision.

 

Still missing the point.
Circumcision has absolutely nothing to do with sexual preference.
Nothing.
Parents/doctors do not perform a circumcision on their male children because a 3 day old boy thinks their sexual orientation was misassigned.

Nor is circumcision considered "mutilation" by the medical profession or by parents.

Your logic is not logical.

 

Gender and transitioning have nothing to do with sexual preference either. We are discussing gender identity, not sexual orientation.

Of course not. That would be a strawman argument to what our argument is. If you want to argue that there is no need to remove perfectly healthy working parts of the body, then that applies as equally to circumcision as to it does to any surgical removal for the purpose of transitioning (not that transitioning always require such surgery). The point doesn't negate the position against transgenders in whole, but does show the typical hypocrisy of that specific argument. You can't claim that it is wrong to remove a penis or breasts when they are healthy and have nothing wrong with them, and then say that it's perfectly alright to remove a foreskin when it is healthy and has nothing wrong with it. We don't even remove appendixes or wisdom teeth unless something goes wrong with them.

Interestingly enough, neither was female circumcision in many cultures, and still isn't by some of those cultures. And now it is by most. So it's obvious that practices that were not initially seen as mutilation can later be seen as such.

Irony, thy name is Shutcie. Let's examine your logic on this argument.
"You can not cut off the penis because it is a healthy working part of the body they were born with."
"You can cut off the end of he penis, even though it is a healthy working part of the body they were born with."
Yeah, very logical there.

 

Deleted

 

Ah. I see your confusion.
You assume that I am somehow against gender surgery. Or whatever it is you want to call it.
I am not, if you are a coherent adult.
If you want to remove your breasts, or penis, or enhance them or do anything along those lines, its your business.
Not my business and for damn sure not governments business.
If you can find a dr. Willing to do it, more power to you.

Circumcision is not a "mutilation" in the sense you claim.
Still not a logical arguement to claim any relationship between circumcision and whatever it is you're on about.

 

The "Progressive Left" has nothing to do with the personal feelings of any living being. And the personal feelings of anyone other than you are none of your business.

 

I have no need to assume which side of the argument that you are on to make this point. You could even be 100% on the side of surgical transitioning for children and still hold the position you have that the two surgeries are not logically linked. Supporting a given conclusion does not mean that you support all arguments given towards that conclusion. Also, in case such is the situation, most of my use of the term "you" has been in the generalized sense, and not specifically you. I normally make that distinction, and didn't in this case. Apologies.

With that said, the most common argument from the opponents of transgenders and transitioning with regards to surgery is that it is the mutilation of the body because the parts are healthy and functioning, and are what the person was born with. When you (generalized) present this as the reasoning as to why it is mutilation, that same reasoning and logic applies to all such parts of the body. Which logically means that circumcision is mutilation as well since that falls under the given definition given by the opponent. Whether or not I personally feel that circumcision is mutilation or not is irrelevant. The argument of gender surgery being mutilation is not coming from me with said criteria. And, IIRC, the OP, to whom the initial response of circumcision was made to, is one who claims that gender surgery is mutilation, be it child or adult. Therefore it is a logical connection, based on the most common argument of why gender surgery is mutilation, that circumcision is also mutilation.

As to the point that circumcisions are not considered mutilation by the medical community, neither is gender transition surgery.

 

Well, good. We're on the same page for one thing; if you want to change your body and you're a coherent adult, have at it. For what it's worth, I put tattoos, piercings, most plastic surgery and implants in the same category. If it pleases you, whack away. Not my business.

As for the arguments against gender surgery I have not seen a lot of arguments that gender surgery is mutilation. What I have seen is a lot of people saying that prepubescent kids need not normally be concerned with anything sexual; not gender, not preference, not any part of sex. Until the hormones hit, let them be kids. Time enough to deal with what sex they think they are when the groin hair starts growing.

And what I've heard from the proponents is, it's cruel to force a 6 year old, convinced they are misgendered, to have to wait to start the process. Sorry, the very few 6 year olds who are confused should have to wait. My son was convinced, when he was 8, that Superman was real. He grew out of it.

But whatever it is this axe you have to grind about gender, hope you find peace with it.

 

Are we in agreement on the basis of how circumcision is a logical argument against the argument about genital mutilation based on the typical argument given? Even if you personally do not see it a lot, given the basis I provided, do you see the logical connection we are making against that specific argument?

From this thread:

From other threads:

It's quite frequent that the argument is made that gender surgery is mutilation.

Yeah, right. These are also the same people who are telling these kids what to wear, thus pushing their own idea of what gender should be. If the kids are not supposed to be concerned with anything sexual or dealing with gender, then there would be no need to stop the boys from wearing dresses, nor the girls from wearing anything "boys" that hasn't already been co-opted. Basically their argument is coming down to, "don't push gender on kids that interferes with the gender we are pushing on kids."They aren't even limiting them to their own kids, hence all the law attempts.

No, that is what you hear opponents claim that proponents are saying. We don't say that. Allow them to present, sure. Puberty blockers? If they are getting puberty blockers at 6, then they are going through precocious puberty and need to have them blocked, cis or trans. But for the most part, trans minors do not get puberty blockers until puberty. And if they don't harm the children who take them for precocious puberty, then why would they hurt the teenaged ones? If the one group recovers, then the other will as well. Surgery doesn't happen before 18 except in a few rare cases where nothing else works to manage or reduce suicidal ideation. And of course this all ties into the opponent lie that all transgender people undergo surgery. Transitioning can range from presenting, to the full GCS, and includes all kinds of points in between. Surgery is not always needed. And of course, opponents only focus on trans girls/women, and ignore trans boys/men.

I could say the same for opponents.

 

Did you edit your reply out or just hit reply and post?

 

Reply was inside the quotes near the tp

"We are not.
You might as well argue a tonsillectomy is mutilation.
As for the rest, I don't have a dog in the fight and can't see the need to engage on either side of it.​

 

Leftists want both of those things to be legal.

 

I'll ask again and the RW will hide again: where are genital surgeries being performed for underage trans kids?

 

There are at least 13 hospitals doing it.

https://washingtonstand.com/comment...perform-gender-transition-surgeries-on-minors

Where did the 65 children in this study that are minors get their surgery if it's "not being done"?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000168/pdf/jcm-11-01943.pdf

 

Here's 65 of them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000168/pdf/jcm-11-01943.pdf

 

18-year-old boy died after doctors tried to create a vagina from part of his colon

Nebraska woman sues trans doctors who removed her breasts as a teen

'Detransitioners' warn others against gender change

They're starting them young


This article says that 32% of the children were referred for "gender-affirming surgery", and that 89 out of the 317 children ended up getting surgeries.
"Medical records ... for all patients less than 18 years of age in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health system who were referred to a specialty transgender clinic between February 2015 and June 2018. "
"Trends in Referrals to a Pediatric Transgender Clinic", Ted Handler, 2019

 

You either didn't read my question or didn't read your own link. Shall I repeat my question?

 

Oh I read it.

I gave you a study where 65 of the participants were minors.

Did you not understand it or are you just trying to stall for more time?

The post above that I listed 13 hospitals that offer surgeries to minors.

Take your time.

 

Since you still didn't read my question, or you haven't read your own link, I will repeat my question. Let me know if you can actually answer it this time. Where are genital surgeries being performed for underage trans kids? Since you can't be bothered to read your own link, no, it doesn't say there were 65 such surgeries. Do you need me to read your link for you?