ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
Oh, it gets better. On the off chance you decide to have a kid after all this, you can look forward to stuff like this:
I'm numb on the top of my chest, and I continue to be unable to feel on my skin [my son], or myself, or my boyfriend or anyone... But there's like chest tissue that is becoming engorged and filling with milk that is trapped in between scar tissue that's under my chest. I got these, like, rocks in my chest. When it happens, you can see it physically, like my chest getting large rocks in it, but it's not two, like breasts... it's little rocks and lumps and they're hot, and they're painful, and you can physically see it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
You don't understand how parents overruling children's autonomy is in the same category of parents overruling children's autonomy?
Yeah. Parents overrule children's autonomy all the time, arguably that's what they're for. Overriding it to the point where they can't leave their house unaccompanied is so extreme that it does belong in a separate category, in my opinion.
I've argued against vaccine mandates.
Really? You were here during the Covid era? My memory isn't great but I feel like I would have made a note given how vicious the Blues were at the time.
But generally I'm pretty damn consistent here, government out individual responsibilities in.
So you're assuming everyone else is a Randian / bordering on ancap? Because I don't see where's the hypocrisy otherwise.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
and I don't really get the object to 17+ mastectomies. These processes do have risks and side effects, but they're relatively well-bounded and understood.
They're irreversible, 17 is still in the "crazy teenager" years, and even for the purposes of gender dysphoria, they don't seem like something that can't wait a few years. I of course have my issues with blockers / hormones, but I at least understand the logic, that at a certain age you have to pick a path, and it will be very complicated to roll it back if you do it later. There's a potential compromise I could see, where instead of mastectomies they'd be doing breast reduction, with preservation of function.
and combined with the drastically reduced incidence of desistance by those age ranges
Where do you get that from? From what I understand desistence is still pretty understudied.
Eh, I get this is playful overstatement, but the extent minor insurance tomfoolery is tolerated is pretty important to recognize
I appreciate you been evenhanded on this, and I was trying to do the same. I wouldn't have anything against asserting general minor insurance tomfoolery, but asserting tomfoolery that conveniently supports my point didn't feel fair, and I wanted to make it clear I find any potential skepticism completely valid.
Some discussion here
Huh, I can't believe I didn't catch that at the time.
Similarly, SEGM estimates a maximum of 1k masectomies on under-18s per year
This would be lower than the STH number, but not by much (and that's expected as they include other forms of surgery, including the infamous laser hair removal).
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
Personally I'm pretty strong in children having that right but the trend has been consistently towards more and more helicopter parenting and coddling children so much even teenagers aren't allowed to leave their neighborhoods so that's just been lost.
You think parents not letting their kids leave their neighborhood, and parents not letting their kids chop off healthy body parts belongs in the se category?
Sure, so what about the attempts to ban transition in situations where the parents and children both agree to do it
We can probably work out some sort of a compromise. Say, we make it illegal for doctors to put pressure on parents with made up nonsense like "would you rather have a happy daughter or a dead son?" or lie about the reversibility of the procedures, but otherwise allow it for people who know what they're signing up for.
There's lots of possible compromises, but it requires the other side coming to the table. Currently, they still refuse, and insist on censoring us instead.
Finally, what I want to know why is this literally thr only subject where people's libertarianism comes out? Why haven't I seen your principled anti-government libertarianism around during the Covid era?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13hr ago
What strong argument could you make that I shouldn’t have been permitted to do it?
I'd need to dig out the study where this came from, I think it was one of the early Dutch ones (so definitely from pro-trans side), but I recall someone making a remark that it's very typical for transgender people to report satisfaction with the procedure, but that it doesn't seem to be reflected by their mental health actually improving.
With parental consent (PC), a 16-yo can marry a 30-yo and bear his children in a lot of states.
As others pointed the entire culture is against such marriages, and even sees pregnancies from low age gap relationships as something to be prevented. I don't know how it is now, but it looked like a sizeable amount of money was being spent when I was an adolescent, to stop this from happening.
That being said, I do not consider mastectomies to be that irreversibly life-altering. If you change your mind, you can still get implants
I'm sorry, that's deranged. That's the sort of stuff that makes me want to go to the local feminists and say "I'm sorry, you were right". What you said only makes sense if you believe the breasts' only function is decorative, for the enjoyment of men.
And while we are discussing genital surgery without medical indication in minors, we should probably acknowledge that the median case is not the 15-yo getting her breasts removed, but the baby getting circumcised for religious reasons of his parents.
Yes, circumcision is barbaric, next question.
With regard to puberty and interventions, I will notice that 'natural' is not the same as 'good'. 'Natural' is when half of the kids die before puberty, and nobody remotely sane would suggest we go back to that. We have seen how God has planned out human life, and collectively decided "fuck that guy". The natural fate of a 12-yo with no health anomaly is not puberty. It is death through asphyxiation within minutes -- basically everywhere in the observable universe.
That's a pretty absurd argument, if that's where you want to leave it at. When a kid loses their baby teeth, we don't try to halt that process because "natural is not the same as good". When a kid grows, and experiences growing pains, we also don't try to halt the process no matter how much he whines about it. These things are a normal part of healthy development, and we recognize an argument needs to be made to intervene in it, not to defend allowing the process to take place.
But there is certainly a subset who have a different gender identity hardwired and would be harmed not helped by letting puberty happen.
If it's certain, what sort of evidence do you have for the claim? Every systematic review of pediatric gender care that I'm aware of, came out saying the evidence is of low or very low quality. As far as I recall the history of these interventions, this isn't even a case of small studies showing promising initial results, but failing to scale, the results have been pretty poor from the start, but we went ahead with it for ideological reasons.
This means that medical interventions must be made based on trade-offs. Anticipate how the patient would view the intervention with 20 years of hindsight. Try to minimize the excepted reduction in QALYs -- no matter if it is due to suicide, sterility, surgical interventions etc. This involves guesswork, but every moral decision in the real world involves guesswork
Ok, and when it turns out they're not doing it, can I point that out? When it, in fact turns out that they might be maximizing the reduction in QALY's, can I point that out? When it turns out they're not even so much interested in figuring out whether any of these things are medically justified to begin with, as they are an autonomy and self-expression, can I point that out? When it turns out that the approach you're proposing is not only not being followed, but is pretty much impossible under the current framework, because by definition anyone who wants a trans-surgery is trans, and thus justifies the surgery being performed, can I point it out? Can I point all of these things out without being called "just as bad" as the side that's doing them?
Ok, do you want to give 12 year olds the right to sign contracts, join the military, etc?
Also, if you want to RETVRN, I'm pretty sure that wanting to chop parts of your body off would be grounds to limit even an adults autonomy, due to lunacy and/or demonic posesion.
Not really. Even you accepted that in case of babies, it's normal for parents to override autonomy, we already accept the parents will be making. Also, there's a difference between forcing a procedure on someone (vaxx), and banning it. We do the latter all the time, but there's a taboo on the former.
Only a tiny minority (if anyone), of trans activists is in favor of a complete abolition of all medical regulations, so I'm not sure why you're seeing hypocricy in only one side.
Uh, are we talking about transitioning kids in Samoa? Why bring them up?
Sure, I'll even grant that in extreme enough circumstances, mandatory vaccinations could be justified.
More options
Context Copy link