o_O.Q said:
"Because they are not as neutral as they wanted to appear, as I stated." this entails that they are leaning towards a position, what do you believe that position to be? do you believe yourself to be neutral? "Don't really know what to say here, some people put gigantic gauges in their ears. Is that finally mutilation or does this only apply to gender reassignment surgery?" does this cause significant damage or deformation to the ear? "You take puberty blockers until a final decision is made to transition" suppose they decide to not transition? lets say its a boy and their penis hasn't developed, will he be stuck with an undeveloped penis for life? "after which I believe one goes on hormone therapy, and finally if they so choose, surgery to reassign the gender." fair enough, but wouldn't it just be easier though to fix the underlying psychological issue though since its a social construct? " Now the arguments you have made so far have only been for how the surgery could be thought of as mutilation, and that part isn't happening to small children so my original point stands." well I was just offering my opinion as to why the other user may have used the word "mutilation" |
No, I'm for trans rights. If you think the poster I was talking with is actually anti-trans and is happy to be seen as such then I suppose my comment is pointless, but since we were previously talking about P-values of research articles and going where the research led us I was taken aback by the idea that "small children are being mutilated" which has still not been substantiated.
Deformation of the ear? Absolutely, but I assume you think there's some inexorable difference.
The medical consensus I'm aware of is that puberty blockers are fully reversible: https://assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pd
my apologies, you are correct that they are reassigning their sex and not their gender. good catch.
mk, so he was wrong. Small children are not being mutilated by any standard definition.
...
