Calm Posted January 4 Posted January 4 (edited) 13 hours ago, smac97 said: don't think the the above example is any more "extreme" than a woman with gender dysphoria having her healthy breasts removed, or a man with that disorder having his genitals removed. Seriously? Lots of boys get their breasts removed because they don’t want to look feminine and lots of women get some (lots for me, actually requested more be chopped off, but doctor decided otherwise for some reason…could have been for the very good reason of making reconstruction safer and not just easier, if so I don’t fault him) of their healthy breasts removed because they want smaller breasts. Besides some uncomfortable pulling on scar tissue and clothes fitting much better, functioning of life doesn’t change at all while this woman getting her spinal cord severed makes her much more dependent on others, limited in mobility, future medical issues much more likely, etc. That you consider them equivalent significantly changes my view of your reasoning. The impact of one is much more severe than the other. While many get breast reductions because of back pain and posture issues, many are like me and also got it done for aesthetic reasons while others have no problems, but simply prefer a better proportion body. Apparently women are getting smaller augmentation typically now for a more balanced look, which is smart imo. https://www.eliteplasticsurgeryaz.com/blog/breast-augmentation-trends-in-2025-what-phoenix-patients-should-know/ When I was in the hospital for the above, there was a woman in my room who had a radical mastectomy done who was in her early 20s even though she was perfectly healthy with no sign of breast cancer. Her sister, however, had just been diagnosed with breast cancer and her mother and several aunts and iirc her grandmother had died of said cancer. 10% of mastectomies involve removing a healthy breast when cancer is found in the other. I couldn’t find absolute numbers for mastectomies in healthy women, just that the rate is going up quite a bit. Iirc, at least the vast majority of breast removal in teens were for cis males. I and others have referenced that stat before. Removal of healthy breasts (the only current issue is having too much, potentially there is often a high risk of cancer for many who do choose, but that might never happen) is not an extreme procedure. One could even call it commonplace, imo. The doctor didn’t quibble one bit when I requested it even though I was not abnormally top heavy, just well endowed and annoyed with them, and that was over 30 years ago (while partial, it had pretty much the same medical impact as a full as far as I am aware, just more nerves cut and tissue and skin removed in a full version, the only real difference would have been positive imo, easier on my back and even better fitting clothes lol to get all removed). I am not as familiar with removal of healthy genitals as I am with breast reduction/removal, but since a person can fully function in society without requiring prosthetics or mobility aids or caregivers if a penis is removed and women have ovaries and uteruses removed all the time and often the long term effects are great (they have been for me, life is so much better, I only regret I waited so long), I see comparisons to spinal severance or limb removal as ridiculous to be frank. Obviously a lot of women may need hormonal therapy, but that can happen anyway even without any surgery, so not seeing it as extreme in the least. I do believe long term medical effects need to be considered with any surgery (wish my doctor had been clearer about potential for scar tissue so I would have been more proactive) and that is the reason I believe bottom surgery, which has significantly more medical impact than top surgery, should not be undergone until older, preferably over 25. I have a major problem allowing cisboys who are younger than 18 getting top surgery because they don’t want to appear feminine while refusing to allow trans boys to get the identical surgery for the same reason…because they don’t want to appear feminine, though I would hope in both cases counseling is extensive beforehand if surgery is an option because the cutting of nerves and the scar tissue discomfort is not trivial in my very personal experIence, even if not particularly life altering. Also, getting limbs removed and spines severed as part of your argument….how is using those extreme and highly unusual procedures (if there is no physical reason to cut) not attempting emotional manipulation and inappropriate comparisons (logical error in my view)? Again, there are some points in your arguments I agree with even if I find this aspect highly problematic. I think your arguments would be much stronger over all if you got rid of this not just weak, but quite bad argument imo. Edited January 4 by Calm 3
smac97 Posted January 6 Posted January 6 On 1/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Calm said: Quote I don't think the the above example is any more "extreme" than a woman with gender dysphoria having her healthy breasts removed, or a man with that disorder having his genitals removed. Seriously? That's an odd question. I have demonstrated that I am addressing these issues with the seriousness and gravity they deserve. On 1/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Calm said: Lots of boys get their breasts removed because they don’t want to look feminine and lots of women get some (lots for me, actually requested more be chopped off, but doctor decided otherwise for some reason…could have been for the very good reason of making reconstruction safer and not just easier, if so I don’t fault him) of their healthy breasts removed because they want smaller breasts. Look again at what I said: "I don't think the the above example is any more 'extreme' than a woman with gender dysphoria having her healthy breasts removed, or a man with that disorder having his genitals removed." On 1/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Calm said: Besides some uncomfortable pulling on scar tissue and clothes fitting much better, functioning of life doesn’t change at all while this woman getting her spinal cord severed makes her much more dependent on others, limited in mobility, future medical issues much more likely, etc. Elective mastectomies preclude nursing. Forever. Penectomies preclude sexual function and sensation. Forever. Meanwhile, comorbidities, informed consent, etc. need to be addressed. On 1/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Calm said: I am not as familiar with removal of healthy genitals as I am with breast reduction/removal, Prior to the last several years of extremist trans ideological efforts, nor was I. AFAICS, a person suffering from Body Integrity Identity Disorder is treated for the disorder. The disorder is not used as a justification to cut the person's leg off or sever her spinal cord. And yet we as a society have decided that Gender Dysphoria should be treated with, inter alia, cutting off otherwise healthy body parts? On 1/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Calm said: but since a person can fully function in society without requiring prosthetics or mobility aids or caregivers if a penis is removed and women have ovaries and uteruses removed all the time and often the long term effects are great (they have been for me, life is so much better, I only regret I waited so long), I see comparisons to spinal severance or limb removal as ridiculous to be frank. Well, no need to address it on its merits then. As you like. Cutting off a healthy penis to address Gender Dysphoria? No prob. Cutting off a leg or severing a spinal cord to address BIID? Ridiculous. Respectfully, I don't understand the distinction you are making here. On 1/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Calm said: I have a major problem allowing cisboys "Cisboys" = boys? Biological males? AFAF. On 1/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Calm said: who are younger than 18 getting top surgery because they don’t want to appear feminine while refusing to allow trans boys "Trans boys" = girls? Biological females? On 1/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Calm said: to get the identical surgery for the same reason… It's not the same reason. On 1/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Calm said: because they don’t want to appear feminine, Some few in one category (boys) have an appearance (excess breast tissue) incongruent with their biological sex, and they are uncomfortable with that. I don't think that is a mental health disorder. Some few in the other category (girls) have an appearance (breast tissue) that is totally congruent with their biological sex, and they are uncomfortable with that because they have a mental health disorder. I find this distinction in circumstance, diagnosis and treatment to be quite significant. On 1/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Calm said: Also, getting limbs removed and spines severed as part of your argument….how is using those extreme and highly unusual procedures Respectfully, I reject the premise. I find penectomies as a treatment for gender dysphoria to be "extreme and highly unusual" as well, and you have not demonstrated otherwise, or even bothered to try. On 1/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Calm said: (if there is no physical reason to cut) not attempting emotional manipulation and inappropriate comparisons (logical error in my view)? See above. Cutting off a healthy penis to address Gender Dysphoria? No prob. Cutting off a leg or severing a spinal cord to address BIID? Ridiculous. On 1/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Calm said: Again, there are some points in your arguments I agree with even if I find this aspect highly problematic. I think your arguments would be much stronger over all if you got rid of this not just weak, but quite bad argument imo. Okay. I would first like to see it addressed substantively, rather than summarily and conclusorily dismissed as "ridiculous," emotionally manipulative, "inappropriate," etc. Thanks, -Smac
longview Posted January 6 Posted January 6 2 hours ago, smac97 said: On 1/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Calm said: Also, getting limbs removed and spines severed as part of your argument….how is using those extreme and highly unusual procedures Respectfully, I reject the premise. I find penectomies as a treatment for gender dysphoria to be "extreme and highly unusual" as well, and you have not demonstrated otherwise, or even bothered to try. Calm frequently uses circular reasoning as a way to soft pedal the controversy or to show "broadmindedness" as a way to comfort certain "victim classes". 2 hours ago, smac97 said: On 1/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Calm said: Again, there are some points in your arguments I agree with even if I find this aspect highly problematic. I think your arguments would be much stronger over all if you got rid of this not just weak, but quite bad argument imo. Okay. I would first like to see it addressed substantively, rather than summarily and conclusorily dismissed as "ridiculous," emotionally manipulative, "inappropriate," etc. Circular reasoning is NOT substantive but appears to be more evasive.
Calm Posted January 6 Posted January 6 19 minutes ago, longview said: Calm frequently uses circular reasoning as a way to soft pedal the controversy or to show "broadmindedness" as a way to comfort certain "victim classes". I don’t think you know what circular reasoning is. Nor do you mind read me very well. I don’t like bad arguments no matter who makes them. Smac would do himself a favour to remove the weak parts of his reasoning and stick with the more solid ones. But his choice. 4
Calm Posted January 6 Posted January 6 (edited) 6 hours ago, smac97 said: Cutting off a healthy penis to address Gender Dysphoria? No prob. Cutting off a leg or severing a spinal cord to address BIID? Ridiculous. You are misrepresenting what I said. I was not even discussing gender dysphoria but comparing the functional impact of different surgeries to show why one would be viewed as an extreme procedure in terms of requiring a major change in care, specifically with spinal cord severing and limb removal would have its major physical adjustments as and others that have very limited impact on required changes…one does not need a wheelchair or other mobility aids or caregivers, etc after a mastectomy or when ovaries and uterus is removed. I assume the same goes for penile removal. I did not say that little functional impact (outside of reproductive function) justified having any of the operations for transitioning. I was solely addressing how it diminished your argument to categorize these operations with spinal severing or the removal of a limb. It looks more like emotional manipulation to me, trying to shock people, than informed reasoning. My guess is women who have experienced these operations and know how much they typically affect one’s life will not see the comparison as useful. I based this on my discussions over the last 50 years with young and old women on this subject (and I have had a lot). I will mention here I was not dealing with emotional impact as that can be high depending on the person, but less easy to quantify and compare…though the fact that more younger women are choosing early preventative mastectomies seems to indicate the emotional impact has shifted to less than what it was for mastectomies. ——— How does misrepresenting what my criticism was help your argument? Edited January 6 by Calm
longview Posted January 6 Posted January 6 2 hours ago, Calm said: I don’t think you know what circular reasoning is. Nor do you mind read me very well. I don’t like bad arguments no matter who makes them. Smac would do himself a favour to remove the weak parts of his reasoning and stick with the more solid ones. But his choice. You may be on to something! So I decided to ask two questions of chatGPT: Quote how to describe circular reasoning? Circular reasoning is usually described as a flaw in an argument where the conclusion is assumed in the premise, so the argument goes in a circle instead of providing real support. Here are a few clear ways to describe it, depending on context: Simple definition Circular reasoning is when an argument tries to prove a claim by repeating the claim in a different form. Slightly more formal Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as one of its premises, making the argument logically invalid. Plain-language explanation It’s when someone says something is true because it’s true, without offering independent evidence. Common structure Claim: X is true. Reason: Because X is true. → No new justification is given. Example “This policy is fair because it’s the right thing to do.” Here, “fair” and “the right thing to do” mean essentially the same thing, so nothing is actually proven. Related terms (useful synonyms) Begging the question Logical fallacy Tautological reasoning If you want, I can help you tailor the description for an essay, debate, or casual explanation. what is it called when the main point is not being directly addressed or some kind of evasion? That’s generally called a red herring, but there are a few closely related terms depending on how the evasion happens. Here’s a clear breakdown so you can pick the best fit: Most common term Red herring An argument that distracts from the main issue by introducing an irrelevant point. <<<------- is this applicable? Example: “Why worry about climate change when there are people out of work?” → The new issue doesn’t address the original question. When someone avoids answering a direct question Evasion or dodging the question (informal but accurate) Ignoring the question / Non-response Failing to address the core claim at all. When the response changes the subject slightly Changing the subject Shifting focus to a related but different issue. Formal logical fallacies (useful in writing or debate) Missing the point (ignoratio elenchi) The argument proves something, but not the thing that was actually at issue. Whataboutism (common in politics) Deflecting criticism by pointing to another issue or hypocrisy elsewhere. Quick guide Distraction with irrelevant info → Red herring Answer avoids the core claim → Evasion / dodging the question Proves something else instead → Missing the point Deflects by comparison → Whataboutism So I am thinking maybe you are making various premises in order to avoid the main point? Maybe I call it circular because you like to squish around (or dance around) the main point? You are a MUCH better communicator than I am. I could NOT hold a candle to you. I think everybody would agree that your are the most eminent member of the board! ❤️
Calm Posted January 6 Posted January 6 (edited) On 1/6/2026 at 3:41 PM, longview said: o I am thinking maybe you are making various premises in order to avoid the main point? Maybe I call it circular because you like to squish around (or dance around) the main point? I dealt with the only point I cared about, the comparison of spinal severing and limb removal as equivalent to top and bottom surgeries. I based my analysis on my own personal experience with that type of surgery as well as my knowledge of many other women who also chose to have said surgeries. For the male bottom surgery I do not know what recovery would be like, haven’t read or heard anything about that, but it’s pretty easy to reason that such will not be confined to wheelchairs or need help to be moved, fed, cleaned, etc (the extent depends on where the spine or limb is severed and how extensive rehab is for the latter before prosthetics can be used, if prosthetics are available that is). My purpose was to suggest to Smac he dump that comparison as I saw it as weakening his arguments. It would actually make more sense to compare like to like if he felt a need to compare, iow those getting reductions or enhancements or taking medications because of dislike of the appearance of their body and not for any health reasons. There are long term health implications to cosmetic procedures even if not much day to day functional differences or as severe an impact as spinal severance or limb amputation. IMO, medication that needs to be taken lifelong is even more problematic, but that may be based on my own personal experience being very prone to side effects. Maybe you have made some assumptions about why I am posting that are misleading you. PS: perhaps I should mention that while many people in the US can get decent medical care after amputations such that at times it may be hardly noticeable to those around them (and I see that as a wonderful thing), when we were in Russia in 1995, there were amputees in many places in the city begging. They either had no or poor quality prosthetics. No doubt some was just staging for more pity from passersby, but we were told by people with personal experience that there was an extensive lack of basic medical supplies, let alone the specialized stuff, as well as reading articles in the news about shortages in hospitals and clinics around the country (they even lacked enough ibuprofen or Tylenol to hand out in some places). It was seen as a national tragedy by many.*** It was very obvious how much a difference losing a leg or legs could make and even the loss of a hand required major adjustments. Given the amount of work that needs to be invested to maintain quality of life, comparing the surgeries for change of appearance to surgeries resulting in major physical disability just doesn’t add up logically. ***looks like things haven’t changed that much in this regard unfortunately, boards on wheels were not uncommon sights while we were there: https://cepa.org/article/putins-limbless-generation-struggles-for-support/ Edited January 8 by Calm
Calm Posted January 6 Posted January 6 20 minutes ago, longview said: You are a MUCH better communicator than I am. I could NOT hold a candle to you. I think everybody would agree that your are the most eminent member of the board! That is quite kind of you to say. I have the time to put into it, including corrections. I am sure that makes a major difference….that and the amount of posts I make. I have twice as many posts as the next highest (Mfb), eminency is rather automatic at that point, lol. 1
smac97 Posted January 7 Posted January 7 (edited) 20 hours ago, Calm said: Quote Cutting off a healthy penis to address Gender Dysphoria? No prob. Cutting off a leg or severing a spinal cord to address BIID? Ridiculous. You are misrepresenting what I said. Didn't seem like it. I was speaking of penectomies and mastectomies on people with gender dysphoria, saying they are as "extreme" as medical interventions to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder. You then seemed to be defending/rationalizing those procedures by conflating them with procedures as to people with other medical conditions. So are you defending/rationalizing/justifying penectomies and mastectomies on people with gender dysphoria, or not? If no, then I am confused. If yes, then I am troubled. Cutting off a healthy penis to address Gender Dysphoria? No prob. Cutting off a leg or severing a spinal cord to address BIID? Ridiculous. 20 hours ago, Calm said: I was not even discussing gender dysphoria Yes, you are. Because that is the discussion under way. I have never spoken against breast reduction for someone with gynecomastia, but you are treating that paired treatment/condition (surgical intervention for the medical condition) as being undifferentiated from penectomies and mastectomies for people with gender dysphoria. I see huge differences here. I illustrated the problematic nature of this by comparing A) penectomies and mastectomies as a treatment for gender dysphoria with B) amputating a leg or severing a spinal cord as a treatment for Body Integrity Identity Disorder. You come along and, it seems, justify the former (by suggesting such procedures are comparable to treatment for gynecomastia) and dismiss the latter as "extreme" (even though, in my view, (A) and (B) seem very comparable). Again, I find penectomies as a treatment for gender dysphoria to be "extreme and highly unusual" as well, and you have not demonstrated otherwise, or even bothered to try. And again, I would first like to see this stuff addressed substantively, rather than summarily and conclusorily dismissed as "ridiculous," emotionally manipulative, "inappropriate," etc., which is what you are doing. 20 hours ago, Calm said: but comparing the functional impact of different surgeries to show why one would be viewed as an extreme procedure in terms of requiring a major change in care, specifically with spinal cord severing and limb removal would have its major physical adjustments as and others that have very limited impact on required changes…one does not need a wheelchair or other mobility aids or caregivers, etc after a mastectomy or when ovaries and uterus is removed. I assume the same goes for penile removal. I invite you to reconsider the suggestion here that A) some medical interventions to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder (elective amputation of a leg or severing of a spinal cord as a treatment for Body Integrity Identity Disorder) are "extreme" and "major," but that B) other medical interventions to address Gender Dysphoria (penectomies, mastectomies, hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc.) are not "extreme" and "major" (and instead have merely "limited impact"). That seems to be what you are saying. 20 hours ago, Calm said: I did not say that little functional impact (outside of reproductive function) justified having any of the operations for transitioning. Cutting of a penis has "little functional impact" on a person's life? Are you sure about that? 20 hours ago, Calm said: I was solely addressing how it diminished your argument to categorize these operations with spinal severing or the removal of a limb. Yeah, well, so far you are not persuading me that one set of medical interventions (amputation or paralysis to address BIID) is "extreme" and another set of medical interventions (penectomies, mastectomies, hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc. to address Gender Dysphoria) has "little functional impact." 20 hours ago, Calm said: It looks more like emotional manipulation to me, trying to shock people, than informed reasoning. Respectfully, right back atcha. You are arguing that medical interventions to address Gender Dysphoria (penectomies, mastectomies, hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc. to address Gender Dysphoria) have "little functional impact." Tell that to minors who have been sterilized for life, who have had their body chemistry irreversibly and profoundly altered, who have had body parts removed, who have permanently lost most or all capacity for sexual function/sensation. I find this stuff extreme and appalling. I find this stuff as problematic as medical interventions to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder (elective amputation of a leg or severing of a spinal cord as a treatment for Body Integrity Identity Disorder). You agree that the latter is extreme, but that the former is has "little functional impact," and that it is "emotional manipulation" to argue otherwise. 20 hours ago, Calm said: I will mention here I was not dealing with emotional impact as that can be high depending on the person, but less easy to quantify and compare… My principal argument has long centered on medical interventions on minors/children with Gender Dysphoria, though I also have comparable concerns about adults with this disorder. I acknowledge that adults with GD have more autonomy to request such treatments, but the concerns about comorbidities, informed consent, longitudinal studies, etc. are still very much in play. And I find these interventions just as extreme, and just as ethically problematic, as the cited interventions for BIID. 20 hours ago, Calm said: How does misrepresenting what my criticism was help your argument? I don't think I did. But I'm okay with disagreement about that. I think you are culturally/sociologically acclimatized to medical interventions for Gender Dysphoria, such that you do not see them as "extreme," but that cutting of a leg or severing a spinal cord as a medical intervention for Body Integrity Identity Disorder is extreme. If so, we just have a difference of opinion borne of sociopolitical acclimatization, as I find both categories to be "extreme" and problematic. Both Gender Dysphoria and Body Integrity Identity Disorder are profound mental health disorders, but the former is treated very differently from the latter, even to the point that Penectomies, mastectomies, hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc. to treat Gender Dysphoria = "Little functional impact." Cutting off a leg or severing a spinal cord to treat Body Integrity Identity Disorder = "Ridiculous" and "extreme." Thanks, -Smac Edited January 7 by smac97
smac97 Posted January 7 Posted January 7 15 hours ago, longview said: Quote Respectfully, I reject the premise. I find penectomies as a treatment for gender dysphoria to be "extreme and highly unusual" as well, and you have not demonstrated otherwise, or even bothered to try. Calm frequently uses circular reasoning as a way to soft pedal the controversy or to show "broadmindedness" as a way to comfort certain "victim classes". I've known Calm for a very long time, and I hold her in high regard, both as to her intellect and analytical capacity, and as to her character. It appears that she and I have some fundamentally different views on medical interventions for Gender Dysphoria, such that she finds comparisons to medical interventions for Body Integrity Identity Disorder to be beyond the pale. I'm okay with that. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things. Thanks, -Smac 2
Calm Posted January 8 Posted January 8 (edited) 14 hours ago, smac97 said: You then seemed to be defending/rationalizing those procedures by conflating them with procedures as to people with other medical conditions. No, I am not defending or rationalizing the procedures. I am not arguing anything about gender dysphoria either. I am strictly discussing whether it’s justified or not to describe these procedures as “extreme” procedures while comparing them to major surgeries—with life altering results in terms of care and day to day functioning—that would qualify as extreme because of their effect on someone’s functioning. It has nothing to do with the ultimate purpose of these procedures, but rather comparing the physical (and you could include financial here) impact/cost of them. The argument is essentially whether or not they are justified if not needed for an immediate need such as gangrene in a limb is a different argument or if anyone who desires them is irrational. Blinding oneself would also fall in this category, but I had forgotten to used it as an example. They were among several other examples you also see as irrational. I am not even discussing in these set of posts if the other examples are irrational or not (I might have mentioned animal identification depends on whether or not it’s literal or a more symbolic identity, but I think that was a different post). Quote There are also very small percentages of people who "identify" as trans-racial (Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug), an adult (50s) male who "identifies" perpetually six-years-old girl (Stefoknee Wolscht), a woman who "identifies" as handicapped and wants to have her spinal cord severed, a 5'9" white guy who "identifies" as a six-foot-tall Chinese woman (as a hypothetical), a woman who "identifies" as a dragon (Eva Tiamat Medusa), a woman who "identifies" as a wolf (Naia Ōkami), a young women who "identifies" as a red-tailed hawk ("Horus"), a teenage boy who "identifies" as a dog, people who well and truly want to have healthy body parts (legs) removed, or to be intentionally blinded, and so on. These people all seem to be genuine in their expressed "human conditions," and yet nobody suggests that the rest of society ought to go along with these incongruent-with-reality notions of "identity." I am genuinely curious as to why a person can "identify" as a gender they are not, but cannot identify as a species they are not, or an age they are not, etc. You are using, if I understand correctly, the examples of limb removal and spinal severance and blinding because the physical cost of all is so high, even crippling at least initially for two, permanently for spinal severance, that that it seems ridiculous/irrational to most to allow someone to voluntarily choose to intentionally cause these states in themselves. It would be seen as sadistic to do it to others just to experiment or curiosity or whatever. Both limb and spine procedures are such major injuries that “extreme” is not that much of a stretch. Blinding also has a major life changing impact. That is their value as examples as far as I see, that everyone agrees those should not be desirable states and anyone seeking them intentionally is mentally disturbed. Linking other procedures to such by labeling them as similarly extreme means you don’t have to argue mental disturbance, it’s a given. Problem is the other procedures you are linking do not have the same impact on someone’s life, so they are not extreme in that way where it shows inherent mental disturbance to desire them. It is not a double standard to accept one as okay but reject the other as a sign of mental illness on this basis. This does not mean someone who desires the gender affirming procedures I mentioned is not suffering from mental illness, but just that using this one line of reasoning is faulty. This is also not saying those who accept gender affirming care for trans individuals don’t have other double standards either, just that theses are not examples of a double standard. Edited January 8 by Calm
smac97 Posted January 8 Posted January 8 4 hours ago, Calm said: No, I am not defending or rationalizing the procedures. I am not arguing anything about gender dysphoria either. It sure seems like it. You are characterizing medical procedures to address Gender Dysphoria as not extreme, and differentiating them from medical procedures to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder. And you are doing so in the context of a thread specifically about Gender Dysphoria and "trans" issues. I do not understand how so many people can "normalize" the former and stand aghast at the latter. 4 hours ago, Calm said: I am strictly discussing whether it’s justified or not to describe these procedures as “extreme” procedures while comparing them to major surgeries—with life altering results in terms of care and day to day functioning—that would qualify as extreme because of their effect on someone’s functioning. It has nothing to do with the ultimate purpose of these procedures, but rather comparing the physical (and you could include financial here) impact/cost of them. We started all this because I compared medical procedures to address Gender Dysphoria with procedures to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder. I find all of these "extreme," yet you take exception to comparison by characterizing only the latter as "extreme" and the former as "little functional impact." But at this point we seem to be talking past each other. 4 hours ago, Calm said: The argument is essentially whether or not they are justified if not needed for an immediate need such as gangrene in a limb is a different argument or if anyone who desires them is irrational. No. No. I have said nothing like this. 4 hours ago, Calm said: Blinding oneself As a medical treatment to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder, right? 4 hours ago, Calm said: would also fall in this category, And so would, in my mind, penectomies and mastectomies to address Gender Dysphoria. Both treatments are "extreme" and problematic and disturbing. 4 hours ago, Calm said: You are using, if I understand correctly, the examples of limb removal and spinal severance and blinding because the physical cost of all is so high, even crippling at least initially for two, permanently for spinal severance, that that it seems ridiculous/irrational to most to allow someone to voluntarily choose to intentionally cause these states in themselves. I am not speaking of medical procedures being "ridiculous." That's your thing. I think it is very troubling to suggest that a profound mental health disorder like Body Integrity Identity Disorder should be addressed by allowing a person afflicted with it to have herself blinded, or her healthy leg amputated, or her spinal cord severed. I also think it is very troubling to suggest that a profound mental health disorder like Gender Dysphoria should be addressed by allowing a person afflicted with it to undergo a penectomy, or mastectomy, or hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, or medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc. 4 hours ago, Calm said: It would be seen as sadistic to do it to others just to experiment or curiosity or whatever. Why can't we say the same about penectomies, etc. as a treatment for Gender Dysphoria? 4 hours ago, Calm said: Both limb and spine procedures are such major injuries that “extreme” is not that much of a stretch. Blinding also has a major life changing impact. Other major and "extreme" medical treatments include, in my view, those used to "treat" Gender Dysphoria which I have noted over and over (penectomies, mastectomies, hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc.). Are these, in your view, also "extreme"? Do they also have "a major life changing impact"? I am genuinely unsure what you think on this subject. 4 hours ago, Calm said: That is their value as examples as far as I see, that everyone agrees those should not be desirable states and anyone seeking them intentionally is mentally disturbed. Right. We seem to be on the same page here. And yet when we pivot to talk about people afflicted with Gender Dysphoria, and the propriety of them receiving what I find to be "extreme" medical interventions as treatment (penectomies, mastectomies, etc.), there are large segments of society who find these treatments to be just hunky dory. 4 hours ago, Calm said: Linking other procedures to such by labeling them as similarly extreme means you don’t have to argue mental disturbance, it’s a given. I don't have have to "argue mental disturbance" about Gender Dysphoria because it is treated as such under DSM-V. I also don't have to "argue mental disturbance" about Body Integrity Identity Disorder because it is treated as such in the International Classification of Diseases, and also because there seems to be a societal willingness to say "Well, duh" to this being a serious disorder, and also because life-altering medical treatments (intentional blinding, amputation of a healthy leg, severing a spinal cord, etc.) are treated as facially "extreme" and "ridiculous," and as obviously morally and ethically objectionable. But then, I think life-altering medical treatments used to address Gender Dysphoria (penectomies, mastectomies, hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc.) are also morally and ethically objectionable. 4 hours ago, Calm said: Problem is the other procedures you are linking do not have the same impact on someone’s life, so they are not extreme in that way where it shows inherent mental disturbance to desire them. Cutting off a healthy penis to "treat" Gender Dysphoria does not have a big impact on someone's life? Cutting off healthy breasts to "treat" Gender Dysphoria does not have a big impact on someone's life? I could not disagree more strongly with you. 4 hours ago, Calm said: It is not a double standard to accept one as okay but reject the other as a sign of mental illness on this basis. Penectomies, mastectomies, hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc. to treat Gender Dysphoria = "Little functional impact." Cutting off a leg or severing a spinal cord to treat Body Integrity Identity Disorder = "Ridiculous" and "extreme." I just do not understand this reasoning. 4 hours ago, Calm said: This does not mean someone who desires the gender affirming procedures I mentioned is not suffering from mental illness, but just that using this one line of reasoning is faulty. You have not moved the needle at all. You are just making conclusory statements here. You have asserted, but not demonstrated, that medical interventions to "treat" BIID such as I have noted are "extreme" and "ridiculous" and whatnot, but that medical interventions to "treat" GD are just ho-hum and normal. That is an ideological differentiation that I do not share, and that I instead reject and facially unsound and unreasonable. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted January 8 Posted January 8 (edited) 3 hours ago, smac97 said: You are characterizing medical procedures to address Gender Dysphoria as not extreme, and differentiating them from medical procedures to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder. No, I am not. I am not addressing purpose at all as the focus of my criticism though it does apply to the greater context, but simply how a particular procedure affects day to day functioning, whether with little functional impact or extreme and then I am suggesting it’s better to compare like with like. Comparing low impact to high impact is inappropriate, similar to someone comparing the best behaviour of one group to the worst behaviour of another and acting as if both are equivalent, standard behaviour of these groups or equating inoffensive behaviour with destructive behavior. I would be making a similar argument if someone was arguing our faith is dangerous and inherently evil by claiming our temple covenants were equivalent to following the leaders of the MMM in massacring the victims. The issue is for me claiming equivalence where it doesn’t exist, I am not claiming all GD treatments are not extreme any more than I would claim no Saint has engaged in destructive behaviour. Using extreme, radical treatments as equivalents also appears to me to look like emotional manipulation even if unintended. False equivalence and emotional manipulation are both signs of weak arguments…so it’s best imo to avoid such comparisons and use others that are more appropriate to present a stronger argument. Quote You have asserted, but not demonstrated, that medical interventions to "treat" BIID such as I have noted are "extreme" and "ridiculous" and whatnot, but that medical interventions to "treat" GD are just ho-hum and normal. No, I have asserted the specific medical interventions you have chosen for examples of BIID are extreme in their disruption of life while the examples you have chosen for GD are less disruptive to life. There are no doubt procedures of BIID that are not extreme in my view (such as a nose job) and procedures to treat GD that are extreme, very extreme imo…perhaps someone with GD is quite tall, which is more typical for males than females and so in transitioning from man to woman, they desire to decrease their height by having significant parts of their leg bones removed etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/1fq18q4/height_reduction_surgery/ I would not say a nose job that shaves a bit of bone and removes cartilage is equivalent to removing parts of leg bones and having to plate them together, relearn how to walk, etc. Your reasoning in saying you saw top surgery for example as equivalent to spinal severance seems to me to imply you would also see a nose job for BIID as equivalent to limb reduction surgery for GD. If I am wrong, perhaps you will want to explain why you don’t see those as equivalent, but I am okay if you don’t believe it will clear up where we are missing each other’s reasoning. I feel the same way at this point as when I am discussing math with others who can’t see the logical steps I am using. Doesn’t mean they are stupid or anything because mental blocks can occur with anyone for pretty much anything in my experience. I know I have had to simply accept a person’s own summary of what and why they are reasoning a certain way that is obscure to me when I can’t connect the dots for whatever reason (I sometimes find out later it’s because I didn’t understand the premises they were using). And sometimes, back to my math example, I discover that I instinctively understand the math and skip the usual logic steps demonstrating why a function works or a proof is valid, which means it has been not a mental block for the other, but an incomplete explanation/argument on my part…which this might be, but it seems relatively straightforward to me. The rest of your comments don’t apply to my reasoning since you are using different premises than I am, so I am not going to address them, but it appears I may have a mental block with your reasoning as well because I don’t see how you are avoiding arguing the irrationality plainly seen in the extreme procedures that remove healthy tissue should be applied in the same way in the nonextreme (in terms of functionality) procedures that also remove healthy tissue (since you are not arguing using the examples of facelifts or nose jobs which to me would be a much closer equivalence). In one last attempt to understand your premises, I will ask if you see your argument as essentially the same if you did use face lifts or nose jobs as the examples of procedures addressing Body Integrity Identity Disorder*** and if so, I am asking why you chose not to use them, but the more radical ones. We are definitely talking past each other at this point in my view. It’s always an interesting discussion though, so thanks for putting up with me. ***just to be clear, I am assuming you see all treatments that alter the body for BIID as inappropriate because they address a symptom and not the cause, but I am wondering if you are okay with procedures such as a nose job if their only BIID was seeing their nose shape as wrong and surgery resolved that issue for them or you see it as medically unethical even if therapy to address why they had that sense of wrongness was also part of their longterm treatment? Iow, remove both the immediate source of anxiety while still addressing the cause of anxiety. Edited January 8 by Calm 1
longview Posted January 8 Posted January 8 8 hours ago, Calm said: Using extreme, radical treatments as equivalents also appears to me to look like emotional manipulation even if unintended. You are grasping at straws. BIID (Body Integrity Identity Disorder) and GD (gender dysphoria) are BOTH indications of serious mental delusions and disturbances. Both use elective surgical mutilations that will NOT assuage the mental illness of those individuals and will NOT bring comfort to them. Both are optional though seriously deranged lifestyle choices that will utterly degrade the quality of life for those individuals. 8 hours ago, Calm said: False equivalence and emotional manipulation are both signs of weak arguments…so it’s best imo to avoid such comparisons and use others that are more appropriate to present a stronger argument. BIID will result in: dependency on wheelchairs, rail/lift system for moving to/from bed and bathroom and etc costly service of family or acquaintances or professionals reduced options for a vibrant and vigorous quality of life GD will result in: surgical mutilation of sexual organs will terminate the ability to have children unwarranted elective removal of female breasts will eliminate the capacity for nursing infants chemical and hormonal alterations leaving serious and damaging effects on their bodies It is NOT a false equivalence to say that BOTH are unwarranted and dangerous lifestyle choices that will seriously derail an abundant and healthy life. It is NOT emotional manipulation to say that a dispassionate observance of the damaging effects require caution, prudence, patience, more careful study, wisdom, etc. It is NOT a weak argument to acknowledge that many transgenders have publically come out to say that they grievously regret their appalling decision to undertake those procedures. It is VERY appropriate to make a comparison between BIID and GD. Both are IRREVERSIBLE and profoundly unwise. God is deeply saddened to see those choices being made by the gullible and the deceived. 16 hours ago, Calm said: This does not mean someone who desires the gender affirming procedures I mentioned is not suffering from mental illness, but just that using this one line of reasoning is faulty. This is also not saying those who accept gender affirming care for trans individuals don’t have other double standards either, just that theses are not examples of a double standard. Sounds like soft pedalling, deflection and evasion. There is NO need to avoid considering the dire consequences of bad choices, whether it is GD, BIID, or other unwarranted lifestyle alterations. Important lessons can (and should) be made in observation of radical "detours" of life, especially when patience is called for.
Calm Posted January 8 Posted January 8 (edited) 22 minutes ago, longview said: You are grasping at straws. BIID (Body Integrity Identity Disorder) and GD (gender dysphoria) are BOTH indications of serious mental delusions and disturbances. Both use elective surgical mutilations that will NOT assuage the mental illness of those individuals and will NOT bring comfort to them. Both are optional though seriously deranged lifestyle choices that will utterly degrade the quality of life for those individuals. BIID will result in: dependency on wheelchairs, rail/lift system for moving to/from bed and bathroom and etc costly service of family or acquaintances or professionals reduced options for a vibrant and vigorous quality of life GD will result in: surgical mutilation of sexual organs will terminate the ability to have children unwarranted elective removal of female breasts will eliminate the capacity for nursing infants chemical and hormonal alterations leaving serious and damaging effects on their bodies It is NOT a false equivalence to say that BOTH are unwarranted and dangerous lifestyle choices that will seriously derail an abundant and healthy life. It is NOT emotional manipulation to say that a dispassionate observance of the damaging effects require caution, prudence, patience, more careful study, wisdom, etc. It is NOT a weak argument to acknowledge that many transgenders have publically come out to say that they grievously regret their appalling decision to undertake those procedures. It is VERY appropriate to make a comparison between BIID and GD. Both are IRREVERSIBLE and profoundly unwise. God is deeply saddened to see those choices being made by the gullible and the deceived. Sounds like soft pedalling, deflection and evasion. There is NO need to avoid considering the dire consequences of bad choices, whether it is GD, BIID, or other unwarranted lifestyle alterations. Important lessons can (and should) be made in observation of radical "detours" of life, especially when patience is called for. So you find face lifts and nose jobs as unwarranted and dangerous and if the discussion was about them you would come out as strongly against them ? Serious question as still trying to understand your reasoning, if it’s actually all procedures to help with BIID are wrong no matter the level of impact or something else that is your premise here. ——— You are still completely missing my point. The only thing I am trying to grasp is a better framed, less emotional argument for Smac. Please go back and point out where I have been supportive of GD procedures or BIID procedures. I have said I would prefer those desiring them to wait until 25, but that is the same reason I would prefer other potentially dangerous things like alcohol intake and gun use to be not allowed prior to age 25…brains are not fully mature yet and tend to be more impulsive, etc. I do not see alcohol intake as a good thing, even moderate now the science supports there is no safe level of consumption. https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health I have never claimed it was inappropriate to compare BIID with GD. I have said compare like procedures of GD with like procedures of BIID, meaning compare less impactful with less impactful procedures and high impact and dangerous procedures with high impact and dangerous procedures rather than some of the less impactful with the most impactful. I don’t see why this focus is so difficult for you to comprehend. I am not even asking you to agree with me, it just would be nice not to get criticized for an argument I am not making over and over again. Edited January 8 by Calm 1
longview Posted January 8 Posted January 8 2 hours ago, Calm said: So you find face lifts and nose jobs as unwarranted and dangerous . . . This is deflection and evasion. I have no opposition to face lifts and nose jobs. They are NOT radical and NOT dangerous and NOT irrational. Are you putting words into my mouth? You know better. 2 hours ago, Calm said: and if the discussion was about them you would come out as strongly against them ? Circular reasoning. 2 hours ago, Calm said: Serious question as still trying to understand your reasoning, The arguments against BIID and GD bodily mutilations are basic. The damage is indisputable and horrific. The loss of functions is IRREVERSIBLE. Most if not all will come to have agonizing regrets. 2 hours ago, Calm said: if it’s actually all procedures to help with BIID are wrong no matter the level of impact or something else that is your premise here. There is NO help for accommodating BIID delusions. There is NO help for accommodating GD bodily mutilations. The professionals that engage in woke "affirmations" should be prosecuted for causing harm and for violating the hippocratic oath. Every step of the way! 2 hours ago, Calm said: You are still completely missing my point. The only thing I am trying to grasp is a better framed, less emotional argument for Smac. Completely? No, you are simply evading the obvious concerning BIID and GD bodily mutilations. 2 hours ago, Calm said: Please go back and point out where I have been supportive of GD procedures or BIID procedures. You were soft pedalling the severity of GD bodily mutilations by arguing that BIID is horrific BUT GD mutilations is "not as bad" . . . 2 hours ago, Calm said: I have said I would prefer those desiring them to wait until 25, I have read actual stories of a number of people who were glad to have waited. One said she was a rambunctious tom boy in her youth but was able to grow out of that phase later in life. She said she probably would have fallen for the woke propaganda had she been exposed to it during her high school years. 2 hours ago, Calm said: but that is the same reason I would prefer other potentially dangerous things like alcohol intake and gun use to be not allowed prior to age 25…brains are not fully mature yet and tend to be more impulsive, etc. I do not see alcohol intake as a good thing, even moderate now the science supports there is no safe level of consumption. Reasonable considerations BUT NOT on the same level as BIID and GD mutilations. 2 hours ago, Calm said: https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health I have never claimed it was inappropriate to compare BIID with GD. I have said compare like procedures of GD with like procedures of BIID, meaning compare less impactful with less impactful procedures and high impact and dangerous procedures with high impact and dangerous procedures rather than some of the less impactful with the most impactful. I don’t see why this focus is so difficult for you to comprehend. I am not even asking you to agree with me, it just would be nice not to get criticized for an argument I am not making over and over again. @smac97 is an orderly thinker able to lay out an impressive array of points, considerations, pros and cons, issues, etc. But instead of simply acknowledging the basics concerning BIID and GD mutilations, you accuse him of being manipulative and emotional. I see NO evidence of either but real concerns for those that are in serious need of careful counsel. You chose to go into a "head butting" contest, going off into all kinds of tangents. Then forcing a huge debate about irrelevant tangents when the focus should remain on the basics.
Calm Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) 4 hours ago, longview said: Are you putting words into my mouth? You know better. I was asking a question. I made it clear it was a question, a serous one. I was not putting words in your mouth. As far as the rest of your response to my post, you are not arguing about what I said, but what you think I said and I don’t see how I can be any clearer than I have been and I have already addressed your criticisms in previous posts as to why you are misinterpreting, so I won’t be responding any more. I am going to add one more comment…there are a number of arguments made by less than proficient apologists for the Restored Gospel (older claims about archeological finds for example) that make me royally cringe. This does not mean I am antimormon, rooting for the anti Mormons, or soft on antimormonism or any less a devout Saint. In fact, I see it as beneficial to the Church for its defenders to drop the lesser quality defenses in order to put effort into refining the better ones. Claiming plural marriage was practiced primarily because there were more women than men in the Church or to take care of the widows and children did us no favors, for example. Much better to simply state it was practiced because members believed it was a commandment of God. And then include a realistic picture of it, warts and blessings, including the testimonies of those who actually lived it. I believe I first read it presented this way in Widtsoe’s Evidences and Reconciliations, which was my first real exposure to defending the Church I believe. It held a honored place on my parents’ library shelves, Widtsoe is a favorite of our family. If you can’t see the difference between disliking one specific argument about an issue because I see that one argument as a logical fallacy of false equivalence and rejecting all arguments supporting a particular position, that’s not my issue, but yours. Edited January 9 by Calm 1
longview Posted January 9 Posted January 9 3 hours ago, Calm said: 6 hours ago, longview said: Are you putting words into my mouth? You know better. I was asking a question. I made it clear it was a question, a serous one. Your statement (numbered with a 1) below was NOT in the form of a question. A question mark was NOT even used. Your use of the word SO made it look like that I made this conclusion. For which you tried to denigrate me as if I believed this. No way in heck did you make it "clear" . . . The second phrase (numbered with a 2) was making a hypothetical about a nonsensical tangent totally unrelated to the discussion concerning BIID and GD mutilation. It is a completely UNserious diversion from the topic. It is pointless and seriously unclear. Adding NOTHING to the debate! 10 hours ago, Calm said: 1- So you find face lifts and nose jobs as unwarranted and dangerous . . . 2- . . . and if the discussion was about them you would come out as strongly against them ? 3 hours ago, Calm said: I was not putting words in your mouth. Now you are gaslighting.
Calm Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) 12 hours ago, longview said: Your statement (numbered with a 1) below was NOT in the form of a question. A question mark was NOT even used. Your use of the word SO made it look like that I made this conclusion. For which you tried to denigrate me as if I believed this. No way in heck did you make it "clear" . . . The second phrase (numbered with a 2) was making a hypothetical about a nonsensical tangent totally unrelated to the discussion concerning BIID and GD mutilation. It is a completely UNserious diversion from the topic. It is pointless and seriously unclear. Adding NOTHING to the debate! Now you are gaslighting. No, I am not. You appear to expect me to perfectly communicate, but I don’t. I often type as if I am talking, which means the tone in my head shapes how I hear what I write and it would have been obviously a question if you had heard me speak it. It was a question…one full question, but if you want to see me as a liar, so be it. I will try and remember not to put so much effort into explaining what I actually mean when you misunderstand me because it looks like it will be a waste of effort. I could have had a good walk if I hadn’t let myself get distracted by this today for the time and attention I put into it. That’s on me, I need to shift my priorities. Got to say it’s really weird to me it’s important enough to you to dismiss my comments that you prefer to see me as a liar, someone willing to risk my salvation through knowingly sinning for something so trivial in the scheme of things as is this conversation rather than someone who is unable to convey her ideas in a way you get it…which would be no big deal except you defaulted into lying. I hope that Smac trusts me enough to realize it’s a communication problem and not a lack of honesty. added: @smac97, since it appears my communication is faulty here, I want to make it clear to you and anyone willing to believe me (yes, I am pissed off at Longview for choosing to believe it’s a moral failing rather than a communication error) that I don’t believe you are trying to be emotionally manipulative. I am pretty sure I used “appears” when I spoke of emotional manipulation, but it probably isn’t clear I meant using highly emotionally baggaged procedures was giving imo a false impression of what you were trying to do. I believe it looks like emotional manipulation because there is major emotion attached to amputation and paralysis/spinal injury. Paralysis, even partial, is many people’s worse nightmare from what I have heard some people say over the years as well as how it’s portrayed culturally in dramas, etc. Amputation, of course, has disgust added to it because the cause is usually tremendously injured flesh, shattered flesh and bones beyond repair, gangrene. Any conversation where they get inserted is going to be hard to avoid strong emotional undertones and inferences, imo. However, I assume you are using these examples because they would be seen as clearly an irrational choice by the vast majority of people, a very bright line for decision making, not for their emotional impact. And they make a very good bright line. I just don’t see them as in the same category, so I believe a better argument could be made by using procedures of comparable risk and medical and functional impact. I am not claiming this is why though as I may be wrong about why you are using them as at this point I am not trusting my interpretations of your comments since there is so much misunderstanding happening, just explaining here my guesses. Edited January 9 by Calm 1
JVW Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 8 hours ago, Calm said: No, I am not. You appear to expect me to perfectly communicate, but I don’t. I often type as if I am talking, which means the tone in my head shapes how I hear what I write. It was a question…one full question, but if you want to see me as a liar, so be it. I will try and remember not to put so much effort into explaining what I actually mean when you misunderstand me because it looks like it will be a waste of effort. I could have had a good walk if I hadn’t let myself get distracted by this today for the time and attention I put into it. That’s on me, I need to shift my priorities. Got to say it’s really weird to me it’s important enough to you to dismiss my comments that you prefer to see me as a liar, someone willing to risk my salvation through knowingly sinning for something so trivial in the scheme of things as is this conversation rather than someone who is unable to convey her ideas in a way you get it…which would be no big deal except you defaulted into lying. I hope that Smac trusts me enough to realize it’s a communication problem and not a lack of honesty. added: @smac97, since it appears my communication is faulty here, I want to make it clear to you and anyone willing to believe me (yes, I am pissed off at Longview for choosing to believe it’s a moral failing rather than a communication error) that I don’t believe you are trying to be emotionally manipulative. I am pretty sure I used “appears” when I spoke of emotional manipulation, but it probably isn’t clear I meant using highly emotionally baggaged procedures was giving imo a false impression of what you were trying to do. I believe it looks like emotional manipulation because there is major emotion attached to amputation and paralysis/spinal injury. Paralysis, even partial, is many people’s worse nightmare from what I have heard some people say over the years as well as how it’s portrayed culturally in dramas, etc. Amputation, of course, has disgust added to it because the cause is usually tremendously injured flesh, shattered flesh and bones beyond repair, gangrene. Any conversation where they get inserted is going to be hard to avoid strong emotional undertones and inferences, imo. However, I assume you are using these examples because they would be seen as clearly an irrational choice by the vast majority of people, a very bright line for decision making, not for their emotional impact. And they make a very good bright line. I just don’t see them as in the same category, so I believe a better argument could be made by using procedures of comparable risk and medical and functional impact. I am not claiming this is why though as I may be wrong about why you are using them as at this point I am not trusting my interpretations of your comments since there is so much misunderstanding happening, just explaining here my guesses. For what it's worth, Calm. I appreciate your contributions to the conversation on this thread. Thanks for participating! I think Longview is being unnecessarily short-tempered with you. I can't speak for the women parts, but as a man I'd rather choose to be blind or paralyzed than have my junk cut off and have butt hair growing in a cavity they created in me that I have to stretch with tools every day in order to prevent the wound from ever closing. I understand your point about the fallout from some operations being more extreme than others and it seems to me like you are basing it on a "burden to society" metric. That is, a paralyzed person needs ADA accommodations added to buildings, people to help push them around, specially manufactured cars and parking spaces, etc. Whereas someone without a thingy only needs to take medicine and meet with doctors periodically. I also believe that it is reasonable to consider the result of any elective procedure and its burden on society, especially when the government is trying to make policy decisions. However, to Smac's point I think that anyone who wants to have surgery for any cosmetic or identity reason has a mental health issue. And I don't think it's offensive or wrong to suggest that. I have a friend in her 30's who gets cosmetic botox, and I think she should see a therapist because it indicates an issue with how she views herself. I think that South Korea's massive plastic surgery industry (30 story buildings dedicated just to nose jobs, for example) indicates a serious problem with Korean culture and individuals personal state of minds. And I believe that if someone has a mental health issue they should get mental health treatment, not surgery, in an attempt to resolve it. However, because culturally the push has been that trans is not mental health related and that it needs "affirmative care" there are many who treat their mental health condition with surgery, which is a -relatively- extreme treatment for the condition. Especially when considering the cohort of high school girls. I don't know if you've ever read Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier, but at the time of that writing (2020) the rate of high school girls in the U.S. who identified as trans was 2%, 1 in 50. It very well could be higher now. That is not a natural ratio for trans identification in any cohort, let alone high school girls. She posits that, for that cohort specifically, trans is a social contagion like anorexia. Honestly, I don't know why so many teenage girls identify as trans, but going from 0 documented cases of gender dysphoria in *sometime after the 90s or 2000s probably* (I just did a search for "history of female gender dysphoria" and the first page didn't have any relevant articles) to 1 in 50, in the 2010s just for teenaged girls, is not normal.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 9 Posted January 9 12 hours ago, longview said: Your statement (numbered with a 1) below was NOT in the form of a question. A question mark was NOT even used. Your use of the word SO made it look like that I made this conclusion. For which you tried to denigrate me as if I believed this. No way in heck did you make it "clear" . . . The second phrase (numbered with a 2) was making a hypothetical about a nonsensical tangent totally unrelated to the discussion concerning BIID and GD mutilation. It is a completely UNserious diversion from the topic. It is pointless and seriously unclear. Adding NOTHING to the debate! Now you are gaslighting. Dude, when you cut the question in half and claim it didn't have a question mark - like most people put their question marks at the end, not in the middle. And she even followed up with "serious question". And the reason for the "so" is because based on her understanding of your reasoning, one follows the other. She is asking for you to clarify your reasoning as to why you believe one is ok but not the other. She is inviting further discussion not putting words in your mouth. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 9 Posted January 9 44 minutes ago, JVW said: I can't speak for the women parts, but as a man I'd rather choose to be blind or paralyzed than have my junk cut off and have butt hair growing in a cavity they created in me that I have to stretch with tools every day in order to prevent the wound from ever closing. This seems to say much more about you than anyone else. And I'll just cavalierly state without any evidence whatsoever that this indicates you need mental health treatment and therapy for your "disorder". And if you find that offensive, then maybe you should hold up a mirror and look in it.
JVW Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: This seems to say much more about you than anyone else. And I'll just cavalierly state without any evidence whatsoever that this indicates you need mental health treatment and therapy for your "disorder". And if you find that offensive, then maybe you should hold up a mirror and look in it. Yeah, you got me. There's a reason I'm in therapy that has so far eluded me, but it's probably my overattachment to my genitals that's at the root of my personal problems. By the way, the previous statement was a joke, and the statement you quoted was also a joke. Except yeah, I do like being a man. I could deal with being a Eunuch, but having the whole thing removed and inverted is a bit too much for me. There's a chance I'd have to pee in a bag the rest of my life and that's not something I want to risk. And who knows what kind of potential chronic pain post-ops have to deal with??? Again, this is a joke. I recognize the contradiction in not wanting to pee in a bag but being ok in a wheelchair wearing diapers. I get it brother. Cheers. 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) 8 minutes ago, JVW said: Yeah, you got me. There's a reason I'm in therapy that has so far eluded me, but it's probably my overattachment to my genitals that's at the root of my personal problems. By the way, the previous statement was a joke, and the statement you quoted was also a joke. Except yeah, I do like being a man. I could deal with being a Eunuch, but having the whole thing removed and inverted is a bit too much for me. There's a chance I'd have to pee in a bag the rest of my life and that's not something I want to risk. And who knows what kind of potential chronic pain post-ops have to deal with??? Again, this is a joke. I recognize the contradiction in not wanting to pee in a bag but being ok in a wheelchair wearing diapers. I get it brother. Cheers. And just to be clear, I don't think your personal preferences in that regard indicates mental illness. Only that perhaps you should be a bit more kind towards other peoples preferences. Edited January 9 by SeekingUnderstanding 3
JVW Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: And just to be clear, I don't think your personal preferences in that regard indicates mental illness. Only that perhaps you should be a bit more kind towards other peoples preferences. How have I been unkind towards those with other preferences?
Recommended Posts