By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - SaveJames - Liberal mom forcing her son to act like a girl?

Torillian said:
DarkD said:
It's not a lack of trust in social sciences. It's simply put, the sample size is too small to use that study. It's not a study that says anything is factual, it's a study that says, "look at these other things you guys may wanna research." It's not meant for you to use as proof of fact. It's a small piece of evidence that can be used by both sides of the argument to say whatever the hell they want.

It's like a trial in a court of law. You have to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt" before you can punish someone over it. You can't just say "Mr Johnson saw Patty enter the flower shop at 4:30 and the crime took place at 4:40; therefor, Patty is guilty" You need MORE EVIDENCE.

Getting back to the matter at hand here. We're talking about decisions that could very well be mutilating small children. I refuse to vote for it if all we have is a weak study.

I'd like to swing back to these decisions that could be mutilating small children. Exactly what are we talking about there?

I'm not sure but I'd guess that he views penises and breasts being cut off, holes being cut between legs to imitate vaginas etc etc etc as mutilation

here is jazz jennings(a 15 year old at the time I believe) going for a consultation



o_O.Q said:
Torillian said:

I'd like to swing back to these decisions that could be mutilating small children. Exactly what are we talking about there?

I'm not sure but I'd guess that he views penises and breasts being cut off, holes being cut between legs to imitate vaginas etc etc etc as mutilation

here is jazz jennings(a 15 year old at the time I believe) going for a consultation

So we're using mutilation for a medical procedure (never a good sign if you want to claim yourself as a neutral observer just following the facts to use such emotionally charged language) and by "small children" we're talking about 15 year olds talking about procedures they'll have at 17? So small children are anyone under the legal age of adulthood in the US. 



...

Torillian said:
o_O.Q said:

I'm not sure but I'd guess that he views penises and breasts being cut off, holes being cut between legs to imitate vaginas etc etc etc as mutilation

here is jazz jennings(a 15 year old at the time I believe) going for a consultation

So we're using mutilation for a medical procedure (never a good sign if you want to claim yourself as a neutral observer just following the facts to use such emotionally charged language) and by "small children" we're talking about 15 year olds talking about procedures they'll have at 17? So small children are anyone under the legal age of adulthood in the US. 

"So we're using mutilation for a medical procedure"

what would you call cutting away healthy tissue? making holes in flesh that would close up if there isn't continued dilation forever? putting children in a state where they will be reliant on drugs forever? and ultimately the most important thing of all is that for the most part for most of them it will not work, since as I've stated before the perceptual mechanisms we use to assess people are so embedded you distinguish between trans and unaltered people automatically anyway

"and by "small children" we're talking about 15 year olds talking about procedures they'll have at 17? So small children are anyone under the legal age of adulthood in the US. "

do you understand the purpose of puberty blockers? to block puberty correct? when does puberty occur?



o_O.Q said:
Torillian said:

So we're using mutilation for a medical procedure (never a good sign if you want to claim yourself as a neutral observer just following the facts to use such emotionally charged language) and by "small children" we're talking about 15 year olds talking about procedures they'll have at 17? So small children are anyone under the legal age of adulthood in the US. 

"So we're using mutilation for a medical procedure"

what would you call cutting away healthy tissue? making holes in flesh that would close up if there isn't continued dilation forever? putting children in a state where they will be reliant on drugs forever? and ultimately the most important thing of all is that for the most part for most of them it will not work, since as I've stated before the perceptual mechanisms we use to assess people are so embedded you distinguish between trans and unaltered people automatically anyway

"and by "small children" we're talking about 15 year olds talking about procedures they'll have at 17? So small children are anyone under the legal age of adulthood in the US. "

do you understand the purpose of puberty blockers? to block puberty correct? when does puberty occur?

I'd call it a medical procedure. Something a doctor is doing to try and better the life of the patient at their behest. That the medical community has concluded is the best way to treat a mental condition. Just like I wouldn't call ear piercings mutilations, or a tracheotomy. 

Since when is getting kids reliant on drugs "mutilation"? Does mutilation just mean "bad" or "icky" medical related thing? 

So by "mutilate small children" you think he meant the administration of puberty blockers for 10-16 year-olds. That seems like a stretch of the term "mutilate". Basically, my claim is that in order to say the decisions being made are whether or not to "mutilate small children" one either has to stretch the term mutilate to include puberty blockers, the term small children to include 17 year olds (and inherently making a moral judgement that sex reassignment is bad), or just not understand the procedures being done for transgender youth. 

Last edited by Torillian - on 29 August 2019

...

Makes me sad how closeminded some can be whenever it fits their ideology,even worse when it's about children.



Torillian said:
o_O.Q said:

"So we're using mutilation for a medical procedure"

what would you call cutting away healthy tissue? making holes in flesh that would close up if there isn't continued dilation forever? putting children in a state where they will be reliant on drugs forever? and ultimately the most important thing of all is that for the most part for most of them it will not work, since as I've stated before the perceptual mechanisms we use to assess people are so embedded you distinguish between trans and unaltered people automatically anyway

"and by "small children" we're talking about 15 year olds talking about procedures they'll have at 17? So small children are anyone under the legal age of adulthood in the US. "

do you understand the purpose of puberty blockers? to block puberty correct? when does puberty occur?

I'd call it a medical procedure. Something a doctor is doing to try and better the life of the patient at their behest. That the medical community has concluded is the best way to treat a mental condition. Just like I wouldn't call ear piercings mutilations, or a tracheotomy. 

Since when is getting kids reliant on drugs "mutilation"? Does mutilation just mean "bad" or "icky" medical related thing? 

So by "mutilate small children" you think he meant the administration of puberty blockers for 10-16 year-olds. That seems like a stretch of the term "mutilate". Basically, my claim is that in order to say the decisions being made are whether or not to "mutilate small children" one either has to stretch the term mutilate to include puberty blockers, the term small children to include 17 year olds (and inherently making a moral judgement that sex reassignment is bad), or just not understand the procedures being done for transgender youth. 

"That seems like a stretch of the term "mutilate"."

ok lets try this again, do you consider removing healthy tissue to be mutilation?

what about creating wounds that must be kept from healing with lifelong dilation?

"Since when is getting kids reliant on drugs "mutilation"?"

I love how you literally skipped over me talking about cutting away healthy tissue and keeping wounds from healing to a point I raised to address your argument about age

"one either has to stretch the term mutilate to include puberty blockers, the term small children to include 17 year olds (and inherently making a moral judgement that sex reassignment is bad), or just not understand the procedures being done for transgender youth."

why can't mutiate just be used in the way it always has? referring to cutting or gauging away of healthy tissue?

"So by "mutilate small children" you think he meant the administration of puberty blockers for 10-16 year-olds."

the puberty blockers are used in conjunction with reassignment surgery in some cases



o_O.Q said:
Torillian said:

I'd call it a medical procedure. Something a doctor is doing to try and better the life of the patient at their behest. That the medical community has concluded is the best way to treat a mental condition. Just like I wouldn't call ear piercings mutilations, or a tracheotomy. 

Since when is getting kids reliant on drugs "mutilation"? Does mutilation just mean "bad" or "icky" medical related thing? 

So by "mutilate small children" you think he meant the administration of puberty blockers for 10-16 year-olds. That seems like a stretch of the term "mutilate". Basically, my claim is that in order to say the decisions being made are whether or not to "mutilate small children" one either has to stretch the term mutilate to include puberty blockers, the term small children to include 17 year olds (and inherently making a moral judgement that sex reassignment is bad), or just not understand the procedures being done for transgender youth. 

"That seems like a stretch of the term "mutilate"."

ok lets try this again, do you consider removing healthy tissue to be mutilation?

what about creating wounds that must be kept from healing with lifelong dilation?

"Since when is getting kids reliant on drugs "mutilation"?"

I love how you literally skipped over me talking about cutting away healthy tissue and keeping wounds from healing to a point I raised to address your argument about age

"one either has to stretch the term mutilate to include puberty blockers, the term small children to include 17 year olds (and inherently making a moral judgement that sex reassignment is bad), or just not understand the procedures being done for transgender youth."

why can't mutiate just be used in the way it always has? referring to cutting or gauging away of healthy tissue?

"So by "mutilate small children" you think he meant the administration of puberty blockers for 10-16 year-olds."

the puberty blockers are used in conjunction with reassignment surgery in some cases

I would argue that mutilation has a negative connotation that you would never use for other similar medical procedures. I addressed this when I said I wouldn't call tracheotomies or getting your ears pierced mutilation either. This also addresses your second statement on how I skipped over "cutting away healthy tissue" (I didn't).

Mutilate can mean that, but then we aren't doing it to small children. Unless we stretch the term small children to include 17 year olds. The statement I was addressing requires that small children are being mutilated. Not that someone is mutilated or that small children have other medical procedures happening, but that small children are being mutilated. 

Puberty blockers are thus tangential to something you could define as mutilation if you define surgical gender reassignment as mutilation, but they are not themselves mutilation. Thus, small children are not being mutilated. 



...

Again, I just want to stress, children are not getting gender reassignment surgery. It is almost impossible to get such a surgery under the age of 16, and still exceedingly rare under the age of 18. Further, this is not something that all transgendered individuals seek to do. It is an optional step that some transgendered individuals take, typically alongside significant counseling with their doctor and a mental health professional.

No procedure that "small children" undergo can reasonably be described as "mutilation" and describing it as such is little more than fear mongering bullshit.



SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

what about creating wounds that must be kept from healing with lifelong dilation?

Chances are good your mom has her ears pierced and probably at a young age.  Did your grandparents mutilate your mother?

you know, that's actually a very good point 

piercing ears is definitely comparable to gender reassignment surgery, I stand corrected



Torillian said:
o_O.Q said:

"That seems like a stretch of the term "mutilate"."

ok lets try this again, do you consider removing healthy tissue to be mutilation?

what about creating wounds that must be kept from healing with lifelong dilation?

"Since when is getting kids reliant on drugs "mutilation"?"

I love how you literally skipped over me talking about cutting away healthy tissue and keeping wounds from healing to a point I raised to address your argument about age

"one either has to stretch the term mutilate to include puberty blockers, the term small children to include 17 year olds (and inherently making a moral judgement that sex reassignment is bad), or just not understand the procedures being done for transgender youth."

why can't mutiate just be used in the way it always has? referring to cutting or gauging away of healthy tissue?

"So by "mutilate small children" you think he meant the administration of puberty blockers for 10-16 year-olds."

the puberty blockers are used in conjunction with reassignment surgery in some cases

I would argue that mutilation has a negative connotation that you would never use for other similar medical procedures. I addressed this when I said I wouldn't call tracheotomies or getting your ears pierced mutilation either. This also addresses your second statement on how I skipped over "cutting away healthy tissue" (I didn't).

Mutilate can mean that, but then we aren't doing it to small children. Unless we stretch the term small children to include 17 year olds. The statement I was addressing requires that small children are being mutilated. Not that someone is mutilated or that small children have other medical procedures happening, but that small children are being mutilated. 

Puberty blockers are thus tangential to something you could define as mutilation if you define surgical gender reassignment as mutilation, but they are not themselves mutilation. Thus, small children are not being mutilated. 

"I would argue that mutilation has a negative connotation that you would never use for other similar medical procedures. "

true, why do you figure someone would use language with a negative connotation to discuss this topic?

" I addressed this when I said I wouldn't call tracheotomies or getting your ears pierced mutilation either."

I suppose at the time I didn't believe you could be making a comparison between cutting off major body parts and tiny incisions for ornaments or for breathing

but now that I've thought on it a bit i have to admit that the comparison makes sense

"Puberty blockers are thus tangential to something you could define as mutilation if you define surgical gender reassignment as mutilation, but they are not themselves mutilation. Thus, small children are not being mutilated. "

ok so lets say we put a kid on puberty blockers and we stop them from going through puberty... which means of course that we've arrested the natural development of their bodies and their primary and secondary sexual characteristics 

what happens next? they just continue through life with an undeveloped body?