Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

the #MeToo movement did, in fact, discover a new "epidemic of sexual assault," I'd like to see it.

Weren’t you paying attention, smac?  

Yes.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was nothing new about the sexual assaults that women were reporting, including a number on this board.

Again, if the #MeToo movement did, in fact, discover a new "epidemic of sexual assault," I'd like to see it.

"Epidemic" as in "extremely prevalent; widespread."

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Iirc, a majority of the women posting when we discussed this reported they had been sexually assaulted at sometime in their lives and if not assaulted, definitely harassed. 

I am certainly open to having a discussion about the prevalence of sexual assault, and whether "March of Dimes Syndrome" has had an effect on our perception of it.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

The only people I can find online using the phrase “new epidemic of sexual assault” are those being dismissive of the Me Too movement. 

I do not dismiss the movement altogether.  But I have concerns about whether the "March of Dimes Syndrome" is part of it.

See, e.g., here: Exaggerating With Statistics (About Rape)

Quote

In my last post, I discussed the topic of fear: specifically, how social and political agendas can distort the way people reason about statistics. The probable function of such distortions is to convince other people to accept a conclusion which is not exactly well supported by the available evidence. While such behavior is not exactly lying - inasmuch as the people making these claims don't necessarily know they're engaged in such cognitive distortions - it is certainly on the spectrum of dishonesty, as they would (and do) reject such reasoning otherwise. In the academic world, related kinds of statistical manipulations go by a few names, the one I like the most being "researcher degrees of freedom." The spirit of this idea refers to the problem of researchers selectively interpreting their data in a variety of ways until they find a result they want to publish, and then omit mentioning all the ways that their data did not work out, or might be interpreted. On that note, here's a scary statistic: 1 in 3 college men would rape a woman if they could get away with it. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective) the statistic is not at all what it seems.

 

The paper in question (Edwards et al, 2014) seeks to try and understand the apparent mystery behind the following finding: when asked if they ever raped anyone, most men will say "no"; when asked instead whether they ever held someone down to coerce them into having sex, a greater percentage of men will indicate that they have. Women's perceptions about the matter seem to follow suit. As I wrote when discussing the figure that 25% of college women will be raped:

The difference was so stark that roughly 75% of the participants that Koss had labeled as having experiencing rape did not, themselves, consider the experience to be rape.

What strikes me as curious about these findings is not the discrepancy in responses; that much can likely be explained by positing that these questions are perceived by the participants to be asking about categorically different behaviors. After all, if they were actually perceived to be asking about the same thing, you would see a greater agreement between the responses of both men and women between questions, which we do not. Instead, the curious part is that authors - like Edwards et al (2014) - continue to insist that all those participants must be wrong, writing, "...some men who rape do not seem to classify their behavior as such" (Jesse Singal at NYmag.com expresses a similar view, writing: "At the end of the day, after all, the two groups are saying the exact same thing"). Rather than conclude there is something wrong with the questions being asked (such as, say, they are capturing a portion of the population who would have rough, but consensual sex), they instead conclude there is something wrong with everyone else (both men and women) answering them. This latter explanation strikes me as unlikely.

There's already something of a bait-and-switch taking place, then, but this is far from the only methodological issue involved in deriving that scary-sounding 1-in-3 figure. Specifically, Edwards et al (2014) asked their 86 male participants to fill out part of the "attraction to sexual aggression" scale (Malamuth, 1989). On this scale, participants are asked to indicate, from 1 to 5, how likely they would be to engage in a variety of behaviors, with a "1" corresponding to "not likely at all," while "5" corresponds to "very likely." Included on this scale are two questions, one concerning whether the respondent would "rape" a woman, and another asking about whether he would "force her to do something she did not want to do" in a sexual setting. The participants in question were asked about their likelihood of engaging in such behaviors "if nobody would ever know and there wouldn't be any consequences." Edwards et al (2014) report that, if such criteria were met, 31% of the men would force a woman to do something sexually, whereas only 13% would rape a woman.

If you're perceptive, you might have noticed something strange already: that 1-in-3 figure cannot be straightforwardly derived from the sexual aggression scale, as the scale is a five-point measure, whereas the 1-in-3 statistic is clearly dichotomous. This raises the question of how one translates the scale into a yes/no response format. Edwards et al (2014) do not explicitly mention how they managed such a feat, but I think the answer is clear from the labeling in one of their tables: "Any intention to rape a woman" (emphasis, mine). What the researchers did, then, was code any response other than a "1" as an affirmative; the statistical equivalent of saying that 2 is closer to 5 than it is to 1. In other words, the question was, "Would you rape a woman if you could get away with it," and the answers were, effectively, "No, Yes, Yes, Yes, or Yes." Making the matter even worse is that all participants were answering both questions. This means they saw a question asking about "rape" and another question about "forcing a woman to do something she didn't want to." As participants likely figured that there was no reason the researchers would be asking the same question twice, they would have very good reason for thinking that these questions refer to categorically different things. For the authors to then conflate the two questions after the fact as being identical is stunningly disingenuous.

To put these figures in better context, we could consider the results reported by Malamuth (1989). In response to the "Would you rape if you wouldn't get caught" question, 74% of men indicated "1" and 14% indicated a "2," meaning a full 88% of them fell below the midpoint of the scale; by contrast, only 7% fell above the midpoint, with about 5% indicating a "4" and 2% indicating a "5." Of course, reporting that "1 in 3 men would rape" if they could get away with it is much different than saying "less than 1 in 10 probably would." The authors appear interested in deriving the most-damning interpretation of their data possible, however, as evidenced by their unreported and, in my mind, unjustifiable grouping of the responses. That fact alone should raise alarm bells as to whether the statistics they provide you would do a good job of predicting reality.
...
This returns us nicely to the politics of fear. The last post addressed people purposefully downplaying the risks posed by terrorist attacks; in this case, we see people purposefully inflating the reported propensities to rape. The 1-in-3 statistic is clearly crafted in the hopes of making an issue seem particularly threatening and large, as larger issues tend to have more altruism directed towards them in the hopes of a solution. As there are social stakes in trying to make one's problems seem especially threatening, however, this should immediately make people skeptical when dealing with such statistics for the same reason you shouldn't let me tell you about how smart or nice I am. There is a very real risk of artificially trying to puff one's statistics up, as people might come to eventually start not trusting you about things as the default, even for different topics entirely; this should hold true especially if they belong to a group targeted by such misleading results. The undesirable outcomes of such a process becoming, rather than increases in altruism and sympathy devoted to a real problem, apathy, and hostility. Lessons learned from fables like The Boy Who Cried Wolf are timely as ever, it would seem.

• "{H}ere's a scary statistic: 1 in 3 college men would rape a woman if they could get away with it. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective) the statistic is not at all what it seems."
• "There's already something of a bait-and-switch taking place, then, but this is far from the only methodological issue involved in deriving that scary-sounding 1-in-3 figure."
• "As participants likely figured that there was no reason the researchers would be asking the same question twice, they would have very good reason for thinking that these questions refer to categorically different things. For the authors to then conflate the two questions after the fact as being identical is stunningly disingenuous."
• "This returns us nicely to the politics of fear."
• "{I}n this case, we see people purposefully inflating the reported propensities to rape. The 1-in-3 statistic is clearly crafted in the hopes of making an issue seem particularly threatening and large."
• "There is a very real risk of artificially trying to puff one's statistics up, as people might come to eventually start not trusting you about things as the default, even for different topics entirely; this should hold true especially if they belong to a group targeted by such misleading results."

I suspect the "March of Dimes Syndrome" is a big part of the explanation for why "we see people purposefully inflating the reported propensities to rape" and other social ills.  Career activists are incentivized to sensationalize and construe in the darkest possible ways, to craft public messaging "in the hopes of making an issue seem particularly threatening and large."  And this means money and notoriety and purpose for the career activists.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, if the #MeToo movement did, in fact, discover a new "epidemic of sexual assault," I'd like to see it.

Who is claiming this, smac?  Why aren’t you questioning the article you are so fond of for where their source for this quote is from?  My guess is it’s from the book referenced that challenged the MeToo claims, not from anyone actually involved in the movement.  

You really think women*** (and men as they are opening up about being assaulted as well due to the MeToo movement) are exaggerating whether or not they have been sexually assaulted?  Because that is something so great to happen to someone?
 

****except for the rare exception, which I admit exists so no need to pull out the odd case that occurred here and there.  They usually result from mental illness according to the data iirc.  I am pretty certain the vast majority of false cases are repeat accusers who have a history of mental illness—though such accusations should be investigated seriously as the mentally ill are at high risk—or young girls forced by parents to report that never follow through on it so it’s assumed the parent is seeing it as an assault and the minor does not.

Edited October 8, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Where the new "mission" is worthwhile, and not a contrived or hyped up or exaggerated or politicized one, I think such pivots might be legitimate.  But activism for the sake of activism, activism to justify the ongoing financial remuneration of activists, can quickly go astray.

Are you suggesting that all in the list provided by either you or the articles are either contrived, hyped up or exaggerated?

To varying degrees, the "March of Dimes Syndrome" seems to have some pretty deleterious effects.  The March of Dimes itself seems to be a happy exception.

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because it seems odd to use a worthwhile mission as an example in a criticism of mission creep.

The criticism is mission creep by career activists.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And therefore activists are incentivized to exaggerate, distort, fabricate, politicize, etc.  From the Tierney article:

Yep.

Nope. Conservative groups want to discredit activists. Why do it one by one when you can just say they are all frauds? Faster that way.

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

People who label anyone they dislike as a "nazi," and then endorse extralegal physical violence against anyone so designated, may well like the SPLC's tactics.  I think plenty of other people take a less rah-rah view of the SPLC.  From the Tierney article:

Oh no! What if some people that are only Nazi allies get lumped in with Nazis? How unfair would that be?!?!

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See also here: The Truth About the SPLC

Nehor: "This is a good thing."

A dispassionate evaluation of the SPLC by their blood enemies the ADF?

Cool.

I’m convinced. /s

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

To varying degrees, the "March of Dimes Syndrome" seems to have some pretty deleterious effects.  The March of Dimes itself seems to be a happy exception.

Definitely a real problem. Such a pervasive problem that we named it after something that is not a problem because we couldn’t find anything better are just lazy.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The criticism is mission creep by career activists.

Which is a made up problem.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Again, if the #MeToo movement did, in fact, discover a new "epidemic of sexual assault," I'd like to see it.

Who is claiming this, smac?

I think the "Believe All Women" notion relies on it.

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

You really think women are exaggerating whether or not they have been sexually assaulted?  

Per this article: "Rape and sexual assault are terrible crimes, but they still need to be verified."

But to answer your question directly: Some women are willing to exaggerate or falsify claims of sexual assault.  From the above article:

Quote

It is irresponsible for news outlets to extrapolate how “commonplace” sexual abuse is based on hashtag trends spread by celebrities, anonymous claimants, and bots. The role of the press should be verification, not validation. Instead of interviewing activist actresses, reporters should be interviewing bona fide experts.

Brent Turvey, a forensic scientist and criminal profiler who heads the Forensic Criminology Institute, is the author or co-author of 16 criminal-justice books, including textbooks on rape investigation, crime reconstruction, behavioral evidence analysis, and forensic victimology.

Turvey’s most recent book, written with retired NYPD Special Victim Squad detective John Savino and Mexico-based forensic psychologist Aurelio Coronado Mares, is False Allegations: Investigative and Forensic Issues in Fraudulent Reports of Crime.

Published research has documented false rape and sexual-assault rates ranging from 8 percent to 41 percent.

Based on their review of decades of scientific literature, Turvey and his colleagues explode the “2 percent myth” peddled by politicians, victims’ advocates, and journalists “claiming that the nationwide false report rate for rape and sexual assault is nonexistent.” In fact, the statistic was traced to an unverified citation in a 1975 book by feminist author Susan Brownmiller.

“This figure is not only inaccurate,” Turvey and his co-authors conclude, “but also it has no basis in reality.”

Published research has documented false rape and sexual-assault rates ranging from 8 percent to 41 percent. Savino notes that in his NYPD’s Manhattan Special Victim Squad, “our false report rate was in the double digits during all of my years. Sometimes, it was as high as 40 percent.” Turvey, Savino, and Mares make clear to students that based on the evidence, as opposed to Facebook trends, “false reports happen; they are recurrent; and there are laws in place to deal with them when they do. They are, for lack of a better word, common.”

They are common because people lie for all sorts of reasons — from the need for attention to the lure of profit, out of anger or revenge, to conceal crimes or illicit activity, or because of addictions or mental-health issues. Unlike activists or advocates “steeped in bias, denial or self-interest,” Turvey and his colleagues teach criminal investigators and students that true professionals “do not seek confirmation of beliefs or ideas: they seek eradication of false theories. All reports of crime must be investigated. Otherwise, they are merely unconfirmed allegations that the ignorant or lazy may pass along as truth.”

Rape is a devastating crime. So is lying about it. Ignorant advocates and lazy journalists can be as dangerous as derelict detectives and prosecutors driven by political agendas instead of facts.

When #MeToo bandwagons form in the midst of a panic, innocent people get run over.

Career activism + mission creep can equate to some pretty bad things.

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because that is something so great to happen to someone?

Please don't put such horrible words into my mouth.  If you want to know what I think, I will tell you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Just now, smac97 said:

Please don't put such horrible words into my mouth.  If you want to know what I think, I will tell you.

Thanks,

Please stop claiming I am putting words in your mouth when I am not. That is sloppy reading. 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Quote

Because {sexual assault} is something so great to happen to someone?

Please don't put such horrible words into my mouth.  If you want to know what I think, I will tell you.

Please stop claiming I am putting words in your mouth when I am not. That is sloppy reading. 

"Because {sexual assault} is something so great to happen to someone?" is a horrible sentiment, which you implied is something to which I subscribe.  I never said or intimated anything like this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 8, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Because {sexual assault} is something so great to happen to someone?" is a horrible sentiment, which you implied is something to which I subscribe.  I never said or intimated anything like this.

Thanks,

-Smac

No, I did not.  I was saying the vast majority of non mentally ill women wouldn’t want to claim sexual assault that didn’t occur, just as women wouldn’t go around claiming to have lost babies when they hadn’t or lost a spouse or anything else so horrendous one doesn’t want to believe it could happen to them.  Period.  Nothing implying that anyone anywhere thought sexual assault was great from the survivor’s POV.  I just don’t think those claiming a significant number of women are exaggerating think about the implications of what they are claiming through to the end.

[Calm]

Btw, are you going to do the legwork to find where one of the career activists attached to the MeToo moment made any claims about a new epidemic of sexual assaults rather than simply addressing the longtime pervasiveness of sexual assault globally, withdraw the claim, or just keep throwing that out as an unsubstantiated accusation?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, I did not.  I was saying the vast majority of non mentally ill women wouldn’t want to claim sexual assault that didn’t occur, just as women wouldn’t go around claiming to have lost babies when they hadn’t or lost a spouse or anything else so horrendous one doesn’t want to believe it could happen to them.  Period.  Nothing implying that anyone anywhere thought sexual assault was great from the survivor’s POV.  I just don’t think those claiming a significant number of women are exaggerating think about the implications of what they are claiming through to the end.

Again, from the previously-quoted article:

Quote

Turvey’s most recent book, written with retired NYPD Special Victim Squad detective John Savino and Mexico-based forensic psychologist Aurelio Coronado Mares, is False Allegations: Investigative and Forensic Issues in Fraudulent Reports of Crime.

Published research has documented false rape and sexual-assault rates ranging from 8 percent to 41 percent.

Based on their review of decades of scientific literature, Turvey and his colleagues explode the “2 percent myth” peddled by politicians, victims’ advocates, and journalists “claiming that the nationwide false report rate for rape and sexual assault is nonexistent.” In fact, the statistic was traced to an unverified citation in a 1975 book by feminist author Susan Brownmiller.

“This figure is not only inaccurate,” Turvey and his co-authors conclude, “but also it has no basis in reality.”

Published research has documented false rape and sexual-assault rates ranging from 8 percent to 41 percent. Savino notes that in his NYPD’s Manhattan Special Victim Squad, “our false report rate was in the double digits during all of my years. Sometimes, it was as high as 40 percent.” Turvey, Savino, and Mares make clear to students that based on the evidence, as opposed to Facebook trends, “false reports happen; they are recurrent; and there are laws in place to deal with them when they do. They are, for lack of a better word, common.”

Anywhere between 8% and 41% is a nontrivial number of instances of people exaggerating or fabricating sexual assault claims.  Such specious claims "are, for lack of a better word, common.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

ywhere between 8% and 41% is a nontrivial number of instances of people exaggerating or fabricating sexual assault claims.  Such specious claims "are, for lack of a better word, common.'"

And these are a majority of repeat offenders (women who make the accusations repeatedly) or minors who are being pushed by parents to report sexual encounters that may or may not have been forced.   As your article states “there are laws in place to deal with them when they do”.

As far as the 40% claim, is that investigated claims or claims that allegedly didn’t pass the smell test from the beginning and never were reported?  I am prefer outside audits to self reports.

It’w wiki, but I don’t have time to deep dive for quality. At least it’s not the Daily Mail.

”Another complicating factor is that data regarding false allegations generally do not come from studies designed to estimate the prevalence of false allegations; rather, they come from reviews of data regarding investigations and prosecutions within criminal justice systems. The goal of such investigations is to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, not to evaluate the cases for which there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute and classify such cases as "false" or "true"”.

I would agree that an accurate rate of false allegations is likely impossible to get.  Can we at least agree that even the worst false allegation rate you have posted of 41% has women telling the truth the majority of the time and therefore while it is necessary to provide enough evidence to convict and one shouldn’t label someone guilty without evidence, the starting point should be a default of treating the claim as if it really happened, not from the point of the victim having to prove they were assaulted before someone investigates?

And talking about mission creep…

This irrelevant discussion about false rates (my question was rhetorical for once…yes, this is hyperbole, I have asked rhetorical questions more than once in my lifetime, though the vast majority of my questions are not, even if limited to this board, so I am not blaming you for the derailment, but it does appear you are avoiding the question about the claim of new epidemic) all started because of your reposting of the article’s claim (without actually showing it was a bona fide claim) that some activist out there was claiming there was a new epidemic out there.  And that is my focus…the revision here of history of what the MeToo movement was and is about for most of the women who were/are part of it.  I asked 3 or 4 times before this derailment occurred for where the claim came from and you never addressed it.

I would still like to know where this alleged new epidemic claim came from.

“The original purpose of "Me Too" as used by Tarana Burke in 2006 was to empower women through empathy, especially young and vulnerable women. In October 2017, Alyssa Milano encouraged using the phrase as a hashtag to help reveal the extent of problems with sexual harassment and assault by showing how many people have experienced these events themselves. It therefore encourages women to speak up about their abuses, knowing that they are not alone.^[4][5]”

^{https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeToo_movement}

Edited October 8, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

And the law.  And the canons of medic ethics.

The  law and the canon on medic ethics is covered by the doctor.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nobody is, or ought to be, above the law.  Do you agree with this statement?

Thanks,

-Smac

I do.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The  law and the canon on medic ethics is covered by the doctor.

I agree.  So if and when the law interposes constraints on medical care, then we cannot say that "{t}he only people who should be involved in this decision is the parents of the child, the child and the doctor."  The legislature is also "involved in this decision."

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, from the previously-quoted article:

Anywhere between 8% and 41% is a nontrivial number of instances of people exaggerating or fabricating sexual assault claims.  Such specious claims "are, for lack of a better word, common.'"

And where did the reputable and devoted to sharing only the fact National Review come up with those numbers?

And more importantly why are you taking them at their word?

The usual range is 2 to 10 percent.

I would guess that the 41% rate was pulled from somewhere that categorized all baseless and unsubstantiated and unprosecutable cases as “false”. If you play this game you can almost certainly push the numbers up to around 90%. Just need to find an incompetent police department which isn’t hard.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And where did the reputable and devoted to sharing only the fact National Review come up with those numbers?

Quote

 

Turvey’s most recent book, written with retired NYPD Special Victim Squad detective John Savino and Mexico-based forensic psychologist Aurelio Coronado Mares, is False Allegations: Investigative and Forensic Issues in Fraudulent Reports of Crime.

As posted by Smac.

Unfortunately we don’t have the book to see what published research it refers to.

Does not appear to be a very popular book with only 10 ratings on Amazon and published in 2017.  The only review is negative, it’s too basic and poor quality (typos, too dark photos, etc.)

Edited October 9, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

As posted by Smac.

Unfortunately we don’t have the book to see what published research it refers to.

Does not appear to be a very popular book with only 10 ratings on Amazon and published in 2017.  The only review is negative, it’s too basic and poor quality (typos, too dark photos, etc.)

I’m shocked. Seriously. This is my shocked face. It just looks like my regular face.

[california boy]

11 hours ago, longview said:

National Institute of Health? Yeah. Go ahead and put your utter trust in the system. If those various agencies and world bodies have been shown to let down the people during covid, our only choice is to look over our options three times over.

I think you missed my point entirely.  I am not putting my trust in any books.  I am putting my trust that the parents of the child and the doctor responsible for the care of that child are the only ones qualified to make medical decisions.  You shouldn't have a vote in this decision, nor should some author who has never even seen the child that they are making a judgement about.  Do you even know any person who is transitioning enough to determine what medical care might be appropriate?  Sorry but neither you or I should be deciding what is best for other parents decisions on what is best for their own child.

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  So if and when the law interposes constraints on medical care, then we cannot say that "{t}he only people who should be involved in this decision is the parents of the child, the child and the doctor."  The legislature is also "involved in this decision."

Just because the legislature might involve itself in the medical decisions of citizens doesn’t mean that it should.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

If a child with serious mental health comorbidities asks a doctor to cut off the child's healthy body parts, whether due to Body Integrity Identity Disorder or some other mental health disorder (such as Gender Dysphoria), and if the doctor complies with that request, then that deserves some real discussion.  That said, labeling this as "mutilation" might be risible and/or conclusory, and may derail the discussion.

I don’t think there is anything funny about labeling medical treatment “mutilation.” Could you explain why you think this is funny?

[Rain]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you missed my point entirely.  I am not putting my trust in any books.  I am putting my trust that the parents of the child and the doctor responsible for the care of that child are the only ones qualified to make medical decisions.  You shouldn't have a vote in this decision, nor should some author who has never even seen the child that they are making a judgement about.  Do you even know any person who is transitioning enough to determine what medical care might be appropriate?  Sorry but neither you or I should be deciding what is best for other parents decisions on what is best for their own child.

In theory I agree with this, but it's really...sticky.  

My nephew had ears that really stuck out. My in-laws really evaluated the situation and had him have surgery that somehow made his ears lay flatter.  They did it for many reasons such as his esteem, bullying etc.  Totally feels like a parents know best situatuion.

More and more though society looks on male circumcision as harmful.  Western society already views female circumcission as harmful or even abusive. Are we ok saying it should be the parents choice to have female genital mutilation?

Is it that different than gender surgery - at least in theory that parents know best, not so much in length, willingness and work?

I don't know.  I can tell  you I definitely wouldn't trust so people who were raised with the importance of the female circumcision choosing to do it on their daughter. So that doesn't make it easy for me to be ok with some parents choosing trans surgery.

So how do you deal with parents who are not making good choices before the child is facing these changes? While I want to say it should be up to the parents and doctors, that is an awfully big consequence forcthe child if they choose wrong.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

In theory I agree with this, but it's really...sticky.  

My nephew had ears that really stuck out. My in-laws really evaluated the situation and had him have surgery that somehow made his ears lay flatter.  They did it for many reasons such as his esteem, bullying etc.  Totally feels like a parents know best situatuion.

More and more though society looks on male circumcision as harmful.  Western society already views female circumcission as harmful or even abusive. Are we ok saying it should be the parents choice to have female genital mutilation?

Is it that different than gender surgery - at least in theory that parents know best, not so much in length, willingness and work?

I don't know.  I can tell  you I definitely wouldn't trust so people who were raised with the importance of the female circumcision choosing to do it on their daughter. So that doesn't make it easy for me to be ok with some parents choosing trans surgery.

So how do you deal with parents who are not making good choices before the child is facing these changes? While I want to say it should be up to the parents and doctors, that is an awfully big consequence forcthe child if they choose wrong.

Parents can choose the doctor, so that’s not always a backup for avoiding unnecessary unhealthy practices.  Or choose not to take the child to the doctor at all. 

Edited October 9, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  So if and when the law interposes constraints on medical care, then we cannot say that "{t}he only people who should be involved in this decision is the parents of the child, the child and the doctor."  The legislature is also "involved in this decision."

Thanks,

-Smac

To the extent a legislative body passes relevant laws. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

In theory I agree with this, but it's really...sticky.  

My nephew had ears that really stuck out. My in-laws really evaluated the situation and had him have surgery that somehow made his ears lay flatter.  They did it for many reasons such as his esteem, bullying etc.  Totally feels like a parents know best situatuion.

More and more though society looks on male circumcision as harmful.  Western society already views female circumcission as harmful or even abusive. Are we ok saying it should be the parents choice to have female genital mutilation?

Is it that different than gender surgery - at least in theory that parents know best, not so much in length, willingness and work?

I don't know.  I can tell  you I definitely wouldn't trust so people who were raised with the importance of the female circumcision choosing to do it on their daughter. So that doesn't make it easy for me to be ok with some parents choosing trans surgery.

So how do you deal with parents who are not making good choices before the child is facing these changes? While I want to say it should be up to the parents and doctors, that is an awfully big consequence forcthe child if they choose wrong.

You are really comparing apples to oranges and completely ignoring the very most important person in the child, parent, doctor decision process, the CHILD and what they want.  In the end, we all should be allowed to choose our path in life where ever that leads and no matter who might disagree with our choices as long as we are not harming others.  

In female circumcision, the parents have taken that decision out of the hands of the very person who should have the most say in that medical procedure, the child. That is the person that has to live with the results of that decision.   A more apt comparison would be if others were forcing the child to change genders or in your example forced to be circumcised against their will.  Do I have a right to impose the path that I believe in, on you or anyone else when your path is not harming others and you have the mental capacity to make your decision for yourself?  Does your neighbor have the right to impose their beliefs on you?  Does an elected official have that right?

While I have no idea what it is like to have such driving inter feeling to need to live a life as a different gender, I do know what it is like to be gay in a world that does not always easily accept that choice.  No parent or doctor should force a child to live a gay life for example.  Nor should you or any other person get a vote in whether a person can live as a gay person.  It is ONLY the individual that should be allowed to follow that person who they believe is who they are to their very core. Just as strongly, if not more strongly, the driving force of changing gender must be first and foremost driven by the person that is making that transition.  It is them, not anyone else who understands and has to deal with those feelings far and above any other single person.  

So yes, if a female wishes to be circumcised I would hope that the female getting the circumcision has spent countless hours convincing their parents and doctor of its own personal importance that is in their lives. I don't think that is ever happening.  

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

Just because the legislature might involve itself in the medical decisions of citizens doesn’t mean that it should.

Yes, the particulars of how the legislature is involved are important.

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

That said, labeling this as "mutilation" might be risible and/or conclusory, and may derail the discussion.

I don’t think there is anything funny about labeling medical treatment “mutilation.” Could you explain why you think this is funny?

Ah.  I apparently misunderstood and misapplied the term.  I meant something along the lines of "calculated or intended to offend or provoke."

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are really comparing apples to oranges and completely ignoring the very most important person in the child, parent, doctor decision process, the CHILD and what they want.  In the end, we all should be allowed to choose our path in life where ever that leads and no matter who might disagree with our choices as long as we are not harming others.  

Are we really wanting to argue though that the child should always get what they want?  Children are considered minors for a reason.  What they want isn't always what is best for them.