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

And my point is that you are completely ignoring all the other often far less necessary or validated reasons for breast surgery done in teens

 

No one should be making decisions for permanent changes to a girl's body that deprives the girl from ever being able to breastfeed. The girl can't, because her brain is not developed, and her parents and doctors should not be making those decisions either. A girl may "feel" like a boy--whatever that means--but it may (and probably is) a phase that they will get over, and we should not be entertaining their delusions.

 

No, I did not. I said that girls can have breast reduction surgery, if their breasts are large enough that it is causing physical pain. You, it appears, are trying to compare breast reduction surgery with top surgery, which removes the ability to breastfeed, even though both procedures are fundamentally different.

 

But, you're okay with circumcision?

 

Again, this is comparing two fundamentally different procedures. This argument is the same as Bowerbird trying to compare breast reduction surgery to top surgery. Does circumcision deprive a boy from being able to inseminate at an older age? No. Does top surgery deprive a girl from being able to breastfeed. Yes. Thus, two fundamentally different procedures.

This is sick that you people are making these wild, sophistic comparisons.

 

I find it really hard to engage with this constant theme that I see you repeating here. Do you think that is all what women are for? Being human Milk-machines? I have no problem with folks having fetishes, but I certainly don't see how your hucow fantasies are the basis for public policy.

From one perv to another, keep the junk in the trunk.

 

Breast reduction surgery can also affect the ability to breastfeed

 

It is a (poor) justification for the hyperbole that is attempting to be sold

 

The human species would have gone extinct without woman's ability to feed their young. So yes, being able to breast feed is one of the most important features of being a woman. The MSM propaganda that being a corporate wage slave is more rewarding than being a mother is wrong.

40 years of this...


Is NOT more rewarding or important than this:

 

ender

The NHS is a unified healthcare system and yet it had to shut down its gender clinic for the sort of abuses disscussed here.

Progressives are promulgating the transgender fad.

 

Link?

 

And yet even the recent baby formula shortage underscored how many women either do not or cannot breastfeed

And as for historical abilities - where do you think the term “wet nurse” comes from?

 

Thank you for deciding what’s right for me. Luckily, it’s too late for me to have kids. My career was completely rewarding and I’m now retired, looking forward to seeing my first grandchild (step.)

While I’m sorry I didn’t live my life according to your plan for me, I’m not at all sorry I lived my own life and didn’t listen to those who said I’d never be happy if I never gave birth.

 

First, children do not have the ability to consider long term consequences. They process information through the amygdala. Only around the age of 25 do they process information through the prefrontal cortex.

Second, the image of femininity/masculinity is a product that has been sold to them. Telling them that they were born defective and require drugs and surgery to fit the image that was invented for them, does not make them happier.

This should never be done to a minor. When they reach adulthood and can afford cosmetic surgery, I have no objection.

 

Being that the link to the actual study is literally the 3rd word, Are you insinuating that the Journal of the American Medical Association is Conservative?

LOL...If that is in fact your assertion, it is patently absurd.
Gender-Affirming Chest Reconstruction Among Transgender and Gender-Diverse Adolescents in the US From 2016 to 2019 | Adolescent Medicine | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network

 

What anyone has yet to do is actually prove that there is rampant “slicingthe breasts off” and that this is being done on a whim

 

And did you read it? Because I eventually found it and did read it. What is very interesting is that in no way does it affirm the title or the content of the hyperbolic rubbish in the article

 

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/

 

I did not read it, but that is 100% beside the point.

I saw someone make the ridiculous claim that the Journal of the American Medical Association is a "conservative" journal, and as someone that works with medical journals and studies for a living, I had to point out how utterly ridiculous that claim is.

Tell me, what about the article did not affirm the title? Perhaps I will read it.

 

Hold onto your knickers now...

Weird but true: Men can actually lactate and produce milk

 

That depends entirely on the individual.

 

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/

Out of how many with gender dysphoria? Now this was an analysis of insurance data and I can think of at least 5 ways that the data would be overestimated - up to and including male mastectomy for male macromastia being included in the data.

 

Sorry but it is very much the point

Let’s start with the fact it is not an actual research paper since it is published in the “research letters”

Here is a link to the full article

https://transreads.org/wp-content/u...e-Adolescents-in-the-US-From-2016-to-2019.pdf

 

I responded to you regarding your mischaracterization of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The predicate of my response was indeed that mischaracterization. You do not set the predicate of my response, and that was the sole topic of my response. Your attempt to change the subject does not magically become the new "point". Sorry. Whether I had read the study was most certainly NOT the point of me correcting your mischaracterization of JAMA.

Anyway, you then went on to say that the article did not affirm the title, which for a peer-reviewed study published in a highly respected journal is a bizarre assertion to say the least. I did ask you what about the article did not affirm the title, and that is NOW the point of our conversation.

Your answer to that question is that it is not an actual research paper because it is published in the research letters. Having worked in pharma and presented medical studies for many years, I find this claim to be puzzling. Not a real "research paper". Are you under the impression that a set of criteria is required before something is called a "research paper"? I can tell you unequivocally that there is not a special designation for the term "research paper". In fact, that term is not used in the world of medical studies, and if someone did slip in that verbiage, it most certainly does not have an official designation. Trying to read between the lines, I think that you very likely are trying to say not an official medical study which is a far more common term but still lacking an official designation, or if you were even closer to almost making a correct statement, you may have been trying to say it is not a peer-reviewed study because you are assuming that the "Letters" section of Jama is not part of their peer review process.

You provided a link to this study via the "transreads" link, but it too provides a link directly to the JAMA site. The Jama site is far more traditional looking for a medical study, for whatever that is worth. At any rate, I found this information for you regarding the Letters section of their Journal.

"Research letters in JAMA report results of studies, just as original investigations do. They have introductions, methods, results, and discussion sections, just like original investigations. They are peer reviewed and subject to stringent editorial review as well. But a research letter contains a maximum of 600 words and 6 references, as opposed to 3500 words and 40 references in an original investigation, and at most 2 tables or figures, as opposed to 5 or more in a longer article. Research letters do not have abstracts and ordinarily do not have supplementary web-only materials, in contrast with other studies published in JAMA."
Research Letters in JAMA: Small but Mighty | Adolescent Medicine | JAMA | JAMA Network


As you can see above, you can rest assured that the Letters section is reporting results of actual studies, and most importantly, those studies are peer-reviewed.

I am afraid that this first attempt was a red herring. Did you have something else that you wanted to point out that you feel equates to this study not affirming the title? ( The chances of you finding a flaw in their methodology and subsequent title, that the Peer-Review process did not uncover is close to zero)

 

Of course, but it shows the direction we are going. The child or young adult does not possess the ability to consider long term effects, so the decision is made by those who profit, and the parents that view the doctor as an authority on the issue. This is unnecessary cosmetic surgery that should never be performed on minors and should never be covered by insurance. Once the patient can afford cosmetic surgery, they are most likely old enough to make such a permanent decision.