Anti-trans bill passes in Kentucky

[Father Heathen]

My opinion is that it is a false moral equivalency to compare it in any way to the sexual mutilation of children.

You're right, because circumcision is a primitive and barbaric practice that serves no legitimate purpose. If anything deserves to be called sexual mutilation, it is that.
If someone wants to actually be circumcized, let them make their own choice as an adult.

 

[Father Heathen]

Name one medical facility, treatment facility or Dr clinic/office that isn't a business.

Don't try to dodge and dance around my point.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yup. They're just a bunch of chickens clucking out the few medical terms they've managed to scrape together watching their news that's infected with political rabies.

What sucks is there are detransitioners who feel like they have to stay quiet because they don't want their experiences stolen by political domogogues to be used against trans people. They just want to get the care they need, which is quite often for things like BPD.

Detransitioners aren't the enemy of trans people. And stigmatizing gender affirming care will not help them.

What does help them is a much more robust and accessible mental healthcare system, and Good luck getting conservatives to support that.

 

[Father Heathen]

There is no need for any of that. Children are developmentally incapable of being sexual. Exploiting an incapable person is criminal.

So then you're anti circumsision as well, otherwise you would have to be a two-faced hypocrite. An infant can't consent.

 

[JDMS]

I'm very glad that I did not follow the course of my life that I had thought it would be at 16/17. It's likely teenagers with gender dysphoria do not have a grasp on their identity or sexuality, and therefore it's best they wait until they're older. I personally feel even 18 is a bit too young for medical transitioning. When I was 18 I got what I thought was an amazing tattoo that I put a lot of thought into and thought I wanted it for life. Now, at 27, I'd rather not have that tattoo. I can't imagine making a decision to sexually mutilate myself at that age and grow up no longer feeling that way.

But the statistics do not agree with you. The statistics show that the majority of people who transition will not detransition, and if they do, it's usually because of societal pressures, and oftentimes, they will retransition later.

In my personal experience, of the >10 people I knew who said they were trans at 14-16 years old, not a single one has detransitioned or changed their mind 8-14 years later as adults.

But who cares about my personal experience... Let's provide actual statistics.

A UK a survey of 3398 attendees of a gender identity clinic found that only sixteen (0.47%) of the participants experienced transition-related regret. Of these, even fewer went on to actually detransition and become detransitioners. Mind you, this is a gender clinic, where detransitioners often frequent after making the decision to detransition to get access to resources, hormones, etc. if they already had certain surgeries or otherwise.

In the US, a survey of nearly 28,000 people found that only 8% of respondents reported some kind of detransition. Of this 8%, 62% percent only did so temporarily due to societal, financial, or family pressures. Feel free to read the entire 300-page report if you don't believe their methodologies.

And lastly for now, another study of transgender teens found that only 1.9% of young people on puberty blockers did not want to continue with the medical transition.

Actually... Another for good measure.

So... Yes. Clearly, there's some validity to people deciding they are trans. I'm sorry that it's impossible for you to comprehend the idea that people's intrinsic understanding of their own gender and sexuality is different than your experience with tattoos.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Name one medical facility, treatment facility or Dr clinic/office that isn't a business.

Many, many many of them are non-profits.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What sucks is there are detransitioners who feel like they have to stay quiet because they don't want their experiences stolen by political domogogues to be used against trans people. They just want to get the care they need, which is quite often for things like BPD.

Detransitioners aren't the enemy of trans people. And stigmatizing gender affirming care will not help them.

What does help them is a much more robust and accessible mental healthcare system, and Good luck getting conservatives to support that.

Really, this whole conversation is one of the many ways Conservatives make life harder for trans people. They say it's for the kids, but it would be more honest for them to just say they don't know anything about it. And they might as well anyways because the fact of their ignorance bleeds through the words they do say. It's like a Young Earth Creationist attempting to say something about evolution.

 

[vulcanlogician]

You're right, because circumcision is a primitive and barbaric practice that serves no legitimate purpose. If anything deserves to be called sexual mutilation, it is that.

I don't endorse circumcision, but I think "barbaric" is too strong a word. "Primitive" is right on point. "Body mutilation" of various kinds is practiced among many kinds of primitive tribes. Circumcision comes to us through the Israelite tribes.

FGM is something I would call truly barbaric, and IMO, if ANYTHING deserves to be called sexual mutilation, it's that. Male circumcision doesn't come anywhere close. That's not to say I endorse circumcision or anything. It's a primitive, pointless, tribal practice. But barbaric? FGM qualifies as barbaric. Male circumcision less so.

 

[Father Heathen]

Many, many many of them are non-profits.

Also, in other first world countries healthcare isn't a privatized, for profit racket.
I wonder if @We Never Know thinks that the PTSD of veterans and the treatments for it were just made up by doctors for money.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I don't endorse circumcision, but I think "barbaric" is too strong a word. "Primitive" is right on point. "Body mutilation" of various kinds is practiced among many kinds of primitive tribes. Circumcision comes to us through the Israelite tribes.

FGM is something I would call truly barbaric, and IMO, if ANYTHING deserves to be called sexual mutilation, it's that. Male circumcision doesn't come anywhere close. That's not to say I endorse circumcision or anything. It's a primitive, pointless, tribal practice. But barbaric? FGM qualifies as barbaric. Male circumcision less so.

There are FGM practices that have equal or even lesser effects on women's health than circumcision does for men. Most in the type IV procedures. But they're all unacceptable here because we didn't grow as a culture where it was around in large enough numbers to become traditional.

 

[vulcanlogician]

There are FGM practices that have equal or even lesser effects on women's health than circumcision does for men. Most in the type IV procedures. But they're all unacceptable here because we didn't grow as a culture where it was around in large enough numbers to become traditional.

What FGM practices have lesser effects than male circumcision? I mean, to me, FGM means removal of the clitoris. What kind of male circumcision even comes close to that?

I'm not really interested in what is acceptable to a given culture but rather which practices harm the particular individuals who undergo them. FGM causes incredible harm. Male circumcision does to an extent, but in my mind, it is nowhere close.

 

[SomeRandom]

Name one medical facility, treatment facility or Dr clinic/office that isn't a business.

That actually might be more of a specifically American thing. Other countries with free healthcare still offer such treatments. I’ll admit my country can do a hell of a lot better since it’s only partially covered by our Medicare system (what Ozzie’s call our Universal healthcare system.)
Still. The healthcare system in my country, which is literally paid for by tax payers and not insurance like the price gougers of the US system, does actually cover some gender affirming care.
Are you suggesting that the medical facilities in my country that work under a system opposite to the privately funded US system only offer such treatments for money? Seriously? Lol just because your doctors work for profit doesn’t mean everyone else’s do. We have universal healthcare. Not private capitalist cruelty

 

[vulcanlogician]

Name one medical facility, treatment facility or Dr clinic/office that isn't a business.

When I was practicing massage therapy, we would often have parties where we would give each other massages and if you had a specific problem, say a sciatic nerve impingement, you could seeks someone out at the party with a specialization to treat you and exchange a massage with them. I think that qualifies as a "treatment facility" but does NOT qualify as a business, because the goal of such an event is NOT to produce a monetary profit.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What FGM practices have lesser effects than male circumcision? I mean, to me, FGM means removal of the clitoris. What kind of male circumcision even comes close to that?

I'm not really interested in what is acceptable to a given culture but rather which practices harm the particular individuals who undergo them. FGM causes incredible harm. Male circumcision does to an extent, but in my mind, it is nowhere close.

There's a number of categories for FGM. Full clitorectomy is one of the type 1 or type I. But there's ones that just effect the clitorial hood, only involve the labia, or only involve nicking or pricking the clitoris.

All of them are categorically illegal, regardless of relative harm.

(With few exceptions. For example, clitorectomy or clitoral shaving is routinely done for intersex when the clitoris is considered "too large" for afab.)

 

[vulcanlogician]

There's a number of categories for FGM. Full clitorectomy is one of the type 1 or type I. But there's ones that just effect the clitorial hood, only involve the labia, or only involve nicking or pricking the clitoris.

Yeah, but see, those all seem unacceptable to me. They are all designed to reduce a person's capacity to experience pleasure.

Male circumcision, on the other hand, counts as involuntary mutilation, but as someone who has personally undergone the procedure (as an infant) I report no personal impediment to experiencing sexual pleasure.

So, to me, there is a huge moral difference between the two practices.

I found your post informative, and would have given an informative frube if I still could. But I fail to see, given the information I have learned from you thus far, how FGM even comes close to male circumcision.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yeah, but see, those all seem unacceptable to me. They are all designed to reduce a person's capacity to experience pleasure.

Male circumcision, on the other hand, counts as involuntary mutilation, but as someone who has personally undergone the procedure (as an infant) I report no personal impediment to experiencing sexual pleasure.

So, to me, there is a huge moral difference between the two practices.

I found your post informative, and would have given an informative frube if I still could. But I fail to see, given the information I have learned from you thus far, how FGM even comes close to male circumcision.

All circumcision, female or male, is designed to reduce sensitivity. And various methods reduce more or less. Clitoral piercing will have way less effect than a clitorial cutting, or sewing the labia. But it still somewhat reduces sensitivity. Dehooding reduces sensitivity in a way comparable to male circumcision. You still can feel some, but not as much if those nerve endings went undamaged.

It's also worth noting thay the male circumcision we do today is not comparable to early Hebrew, which was a much smaller amount of tissue removed compared to now. So really it's gotten *worse* since it's original religious introduction. (If you want to know more it's the difference between brit milah and brit peri'ah. I'll post no pictures here lol.)

 

[vulcanlogician]

All circumcision, female or male, is designed to reduce sensitivity.

Wow. I seem to be largely ignorant on the subject. I always thought male circumcision was for aesthetic purposes, while FGM was intended to reduce the recipient's capacity to experience sexual pleasure.

Ignore my previous objections if they're irrelevant. It seems I need to research this matter some more before advancing a thesis.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Wow. I seem to be largely ignorant on the subject. I always thought male circumcision was for aesthetic purposes, while FGM was intended to reduce the recipient's capacity to experience sexual pleasure.

Ignore my previous objections if they're irrelevant. It seems I need to research this matter some more before advancing a thesis.

You're not wrong in the 'I want my son to look normal' is an argument used by a lot of parents today because circumcision is so normal here (though not in much of europe anymore.)
But the procedure was historically sold as a way to to curb masturbation because of the effect the surgery has on the number of nerve endings. ( this is a long article and I don't expect you to read it but if you're excessively bored or curious it goes into the nuance of male circumcision as a history in the 'West.' The masturbation taboo and the rise of routine male circumcision: A review of the historiography - Review Essay )

Last point I promise, but in the US there's also clitorial hood reduction that's perfectly legal and acceptable as a plastic surgery for consenting adults to 'normalize' a 'aesthetic amount of tissue.' Same surgery, but considered improper to do to nonconsentong children. And the WHO classifies it as FGM type 1.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can keep calling out your bigotry, ignorance and hypocrisy.

You mean the reality of the situation.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But you excuse it when it's your party, which is the worst offender.

I never excused it. Point that one out. Like usual you project your own bias into other people's postings.