The witchhunt continues...

[icehorse]

If I had a teen-aged daughter who wanted a breast reduction or mastectomy, and we decided it would be the right thing to do, and the doctor decided it would be the right thing to do, we'd do it. Especially if she is being sexually harassed because of her breasts. No waiting until she's 18, because the harassment is occurring NOW, and will likely continue after she becomes an adult. If some self-righteous authoritarian politician wants to pass a law prohibiting her from it in the name of protecting her from abuse, then you can expect me to do everything in my power to prevent the State from interfering in our private medical decisions. Especially if the breast reduction was to stop harassment and abuse she might be experiencing because of her breasts. (Not to mention avoiding future breast cancer.)

Politicians are not doctors. Doctors are not lawyers, and should not be intimidated by politicians who don't know squat about medicine making asinine laws prohibiting sound and beneficial medical practices.

I think we ought to put breast reduction in a different category than mastectomy. There are HUGE differences in the long term consequences of those two procedures.

 

[fantome profane]

***mod edit***

It appears you are ignorant on these topics. Not a problem, it's a big, complex world, but I think if you want to debate, you ought to do a little legwork. The links have already been provided to you

Let me be clear. I consider myself as well informed as any non expert. And I convinced that you are misinformed.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think we ought to put breast reduction in a different category than mastectomy. There are HUGE differences in the long term consequences of those two procedures.

Such as? Like I'm willing to bet you know jack about either. I can't nurse, I had the same infections and scar risks, recovery time and aftercare. There is no mastectomy risk I didn't also have in reduction.

 

[icehorse]

You aren't even using the term castration correctly, which is specifically removal of testes, just another emotionally charged word for your call to emotion. Lol. You're like the people who would call my breast reduction mutilation to score some shock points.

Nobody buys your fake concern, or your 'many European studies.'

You aren't in it for the kids. You're in it to repress trans identities.

Here's the first result I get when looking for the definition of castration:

Removal or destruction of the testicles or ovaries using radiation, surgery, or drugs. Medical castration refers to the use of drugs to suppress the function of the ovaries or testicles.

As for being emotionally charged, you bet. I'm sure you never employ charged rhetoric in your arguments

Again, your mind reading skills are dubious at best. In thread after thread I've clarified that I think an adult should be able to have such surgeries if they want to. But for young people it's a different story, for many reasons.

As for the European studies, the links are there for your perusal. This claim is also easily findable using a search engine.

I'm going to reiterate something I said earlier:

Apologists on this topic are attempting to upend the normal rules of logical discussion and debate. One of the normal rules is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You'd like to put the burden on critics like me, but in reality, the burden is on the apologist. Your evidence MUST be bombproof, beyond reproach, robust and so on. If your evidence is shaky, your whole argument falls apart. That's how logical thought works.

 

[icehorse]

Such as? Like I'm willing to bet you know jack about either. I can't nurse, I had the same infections and scar risks, recovery time and aftercare. There is no mastectomy risk I didn't also have in reduction.

As I understand it, there is a decent chance that a woman can still nurse after breast reduction, no?

 

[icehorse]

Let me be clear. I consider myself as well informed as any non expert. And I convinced that you are misinformed.

Good for you. But we can all see your unwillingness to lift a finger to support the extraordinary claims you apologists are making.

 

[fantome profane]

Here's the first result I get when looking for the definition of castration:



As for being emotionally charged, you bet. I'm sure you never employ charged rhetoric in your arguments

Again, your mind reading skills are dubious at best. In thread after thread I've clarified that I think an adult should be able to have such surgeries if they want to. But for young people it's a different story, for many reasons.

As for the European studies, the links are there for your perusal. This claim is also easily findable using a search engine.

I'm going to reiterate something I said earlier:

Apologists on this topic are attempting to upend the normal rules of logical discussion and debate. One of the normal rules is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You'd like to put the burden on critics like me, but in reality, the burden is on the apologist. Your evidence MUST be bombproof, beyond reproach, robust and so on. If your evidence is shaky, your whole argument falls apart. That's how logical thought works.

Let’s be clear. You have specifically talked about surgical castration of minors in this thread.

I really hope you are not going to start saying you meant hormone blockers.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Here's the first result I get when looking for the definition of castration:



As for being emotionally charged, you bet. I'm sure you never employ charged rhetoric in your arguments

Again, your mind reading skills are dubious at best. In thread after thread I've clarified that I think an adult should be able to have such surgeries if they want to. But for young people it's a different story, for many reasons.

As for the European studies, the links are there for your perusal. This claim is also easily findable using a search engine.

I'm going to reiterate something I said earlier:

Apologists on this topic are attempting to upend the normal rules of logical discussion and debate. One of the normal rules is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You'd like to put the burden on critics like me, but in reality, the burden is on the apologist. Your evidence MUST be bombproof, beyond reproach, robust and so on. If your evidence is shaky, your whole argument falls apart. That's how logical thought works.

No it isn't the first result you got. It's the first result you chose to look at. Because the first result is the defintion: the removal of the testicles of a male animal or man.

No actual medical provider or study will call removal of ovaries castration. (spaying in non-human animals and oophorectomy in humans.)

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As I understand it, there is a decent chance that a woman can still nurse after breast reduction, no?

Not if they sever the milk ducts in reconstruction by relocation of the nipple. Which is done in cases exceeding removal of certain poundage of tissue.

I knew going in it was very unlikely I'd be able to nurse.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As I understand it, there is a decent chance that a woman can still nurse after breast reduction, no?

Should also note that lots of transmen have surgeries that also preserve the areola and can still nurse too. (There are also transwomen who can and have stimulated milk production as well.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's not surprising given that the whole society is telling you that you don't (or shouldn't) exist.

I wouldn't say it's the whole. Afterall, Jerry Springer isn't defining us and where most people get their "exposure" from. There's actually states now that let us go pee where we should pee. There's even markers of improvement for society as a whole such as not requiring transwomen to hold pink collar jobs or be heterosexual for treatments. It's also starting to put focus on the fact that woman come in a variety of shapes and sizes and features, something society has been long amd detrimentally over due on. Likewise with men where there is a more livelier discussion revovling around masculinity and manliness not being about his cock and balls and t-levels.
Things have unarguably gotten worse in some places, but it's also gotten way easier and better as far as avaerage people go. I don't even hear the "jokes" like I used to hear (legitimately degrading and humiliating statements, not things like what Gervais or Chappelle has said).
The Yeehawdists are unfortunately gaining ground in Washington, but those ****nuts don't represent the average American, mostly who don't really care because it's not something that effects them, with a good part of of them being basically live and let live.

 

[icehorse]

Let’s be clear. You have specifically talked about surgical castration of minors in this thread.

I really hope you are not going to start saying you meant hormone blockers.

I have talked about both. Hormones blockers are also known as chemical castration. And despite what the apologists claim, hormone blockers have significant detrimental, irreversible side effects, e.g., hurting normal bone growth.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Apologists on this topic are attempting to upend the normal rules of logical discussion and debate. One of the normal rules is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You'd like to put the burden on critics like me, but in reality, the burden is on the apologist. Your evidence MUST be bombproof, beyond reproach, robust and so on. If your evidence is shaky, your whole argument falls apart. That's how logical thought works

It's trickier than that, actually. The way I understand it, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertions. One can't necessarily say "People are wrong" and get broad protection from the burden of proof throughout the thread. Especially if they are the one bringing it up at any given time. One has to look at the assertions at any given time. One can for example say "The sky isn't red" and if no one else brought it up, they have to prove it. But if someone says "The sky is red", on the other hand, and then you say "The sky isn't red", the person who says "The sky is red" has to prove it.

Also, the one who determines who won the argument is generally the crowd. Not any given side.

 

[icehorse]

No it isn't the first result you got. It's the first result you chose to look at. Because the first result is the defintion: the removal of the testicles of a male animal or man.

No actual medical provider or study will call removal of ovaries castration. (spaying in non-human animals and oophorectomy in humans.)

Not sure if you're aware of this, but search engines do not all provide the same results in the same order.

I will request that you refrain from calling me a liar. Again, I'm pretty sure this is against forum rules, no?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I wouldn't say it's the whole. Afterall, Jerry Springer isn't defining us and where most people get their "exposure" from. There's actually states now that let us go pee where we should pee. There's even markers of improvement for society as a whole such as not requiring transwomen to hold pink collar jobs or be heterosexual for treatments. It's also starting to put focus on the fact that woman come in a variety of shapes and sizes and features, something society has been long amd detrimentally over due on. Likewise with men where there is a more livelier discussion revovling around masculinity and manliness not being about his cock and balls and t-levels.
Things have unarguably gotten worse in some places, but it's also gotten way easier and better as far as avaerage people go. I don't even hear the "jokes" like I used to hear (legitimately degrading and humiliating statements, not things like what Gervais or Chappelle has said).
The Yeehawdists are unfortunately gaining ground in Washington, but those ****nuts don't represent the average American, mostly who don't really care because it's not something that effects them, with a good part of of them being basically live and let live.

Yep, it's amazing what actual contact with the people you have marginalized in your own head will do sometimes. Not always, but sometimes. I have a friend who is fairly conservative Idaho woman but when she became friends with a transwoman mutual she not only respected her pronouns but corrected others.

 

[icehorse]

It's trickier than that, actually. The way I understand it, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertions.

Agreed, with a caveat: Typically there is a context to a debate. That context usually includes claims made by the apologists.

The context in this case is the apologist claim (that I'm criticizing), that "surgeries and hormones for trans youth saves lives".

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I have talked about both. Hormones blockers are also known as chemical castration. And despite what the apologists claim, hormone blockers have significant detrimental, irreversible side effects, e.g., hurting normal bone growth.

Puberty blockers (and hormone blockers in general) are not in any way, shape or form chemical castration. Not even anywhere near the same chemical compounds or dosages, or effects. And the millions of us kids with precocious puberty who were on puberty blockers went on to have normal (normal in quotes for me due to PCOS) puberties and normal fertility rates.

Do you know what else hurts bone growth? Low estrogen, corticosteroids, SSRIs and reflux medications, which is why you take supplements if you're on them.

Do you ever get tired of commenting on things you have no knowledge of?

 

[We Never Know]

Yet that's "logical fallacy - cherry picking" if you use that to say those are the only issues faced.

Cherry picking - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I looked my post over three times.. Never saw any time where I said "only".
That cherry picking exists in your mind.

 

[We Never Know]

Not necessarily. You can get statistics on how many heart surgeries occur, how many hip replacements, how many boob jobs are preformed. Why can’t you tell me how many castrations have been preformed on minors?

example:

”According to ASPS statistics, 30,246 rhinoplasty procedures were performed on patients age 13-19 in 2015.”

That information does not violate HIPPA.



But if you are telling me that you believe HIPPA makes that information unavailable, that means you have no information that any minor has had surgery on their genitalia for gender affirming care. Thank you,

With all the controversy with transgender transistions, I.e. surgery... do think it would be a good ideal to release those numbers to the public?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Agreed, with a caveat: Typically there is a context to a debate. That context usually includes claims made by the apologists.

The context in this case is the apologist claim (that I'm criticizing), that "surgeries and hormones for trans youth saves lives".

You seem to be broadly claiming that, though. When there is not necessarily any collective side. Better to weigh the individual claims of each person when debating.

For example, if I had to make a broad statement, it would be more like: "Surgeries and hormones can save lives, possibly even in some trans youth.... however even after the hormones or surgeries, trans adults and trans youth may face obstacles which can affect their lives and mental health, including being excluded for being trans, facing bigotry and even politicization, alienation from friends and family due to being trans, etc, etc, etc. And that is a separate hurdle.''