Touché.

(February 18, 2019 at 1:58 pm)Yonadav Wrote: This is one of those issues that I don't think should be tried in the court of public opinion. The initial policies about performing these surgeries were largely informed by intersexed individuals to whom these surgeries were not available at the time that they were born. The policy has been evolving in response to feedback from those who have been operated on. I don't think that it is an issue where there are any bad actors with bad motives.

Yeah, I'd have to say that personally I'd need to do an immense amount of research to form anything like a firm opinion on this one.

What a difficult question.

I don't have children, only 3 nephews.

I think I would be torn; I would desperately want my child to be happy, and would do anything for them.

HOWEVER, as far as I know, gender reassignment surgery cannot be reversed. I'm also under the impression that it is more effective if done before puberty.

All that needs to be weighed against the concept of legal infancy. We don't allow children to do a whole bunch of things. This is because they lack the mental capacity to make important decisions . So, do we simply make an exception for gender reassignment? This is something which effects the person at the most intimate level for the rest of their lives.

I'm not convinced a child should be able to make that decision. However, this is such a deeply personal matter, I think the law should butt out.

Imo yelling 'Ban it!' on a regular basis ,is the mark of an unreflective and shallow mind. Off hand, I can't actually think of a serious social issue which has been resolved by banning something. Of course I may be wrong, I often am.

If FGM was legal in the Western world, there'd be people advocating for it, doctors encouraging it, and parents requesting it for their daughters. And in the past, people used to defend slavery and even argue that it's good for the economy. Doctors had "good" motives when they conducted the disastrous Tuskegee syphilis experiment, and today we have doctors publishing studies that purportedly show the benefits of being circumcised as a boy/man.

What history tells me, and what can be seen in a few posts in this thread is that human beings are really good at rationalizing all sorts of practices, and there seems to be no such thing as a truly indefensible practice (as there will always be people to defend it, even providing very intellectual arguments for it).

Fine, arguments can be made for and against. But how about placing priority on the bodily and autonomy rights of the individuals most affected by these policies? I think it's fair and very reasonable to leave it up to the person most affected to decide for themselves, short of medical necessity.

wyzas, "medically unnecessary" in this case means if the individual involved is otherwise healthy and suffers no serious complications that may cause considerable and obvious risk for them later in life if left untreated, then the surgery is medically unnecessary. In this case, wait for the child to be able to consent in an informed manner and let them decide.

(February 18, 2019 at 3:21 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(February 18, 2019 at 2:49 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Just ban kids.

All future problems solved.

But if you ban kids, where would the next generation of your victims come from?

Cloning.

(February 18, 2019 at 7:06 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(February 18, 2019 at 3:21 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: But if you ban kids, where would the next generation of your victims come from?

Cloning.

Well, yes.


Unfortunately, it's impossible to stop the truly stupid from breeding. It's what they do best. 

I'm not simply being elitist; Any stats  on large populations  clearly shows the top 3% in IQ tend  have fewer children.

ME? I have no progeny enhancing the gene pool. I have never been able to work out if that was terribly clever or terribly stupid of me. I suspect the correct answer is somewhere in the middle.

Although I can't stop people from breeding, in nearly 30 years ,no child has entered my house. I really, trooly, rooly do not like children. I think they'er a bunch of little psychos. ( no empathy, no conscience) I guess I might not feel quite the same with my own.

 I understand, from an impeccable source,( the film "Aeon Flux") that  continuous  cloning degrades eventually.

I'd be willing to bet that at least one country has already successfully produced a human clone. Probably the PRC, Russia or the US. Definitely North Korea if they have the capacity.

(February 18, 2019 at 6:18 pm)Grandizer Wrote: If FGM was legal in the Western world, there'd be people advocating for it, doctors encouraging it, and parents requesting it for their daughters. And in the past, people used to defend slavery and even argue that it's good for the economy. Doctors had "good" motives when they conducted the disastrous Tuskegee syphilis experiment, and today we have doctors publishing studies that purportedly show the benefits of being circumcised as a boy/man.

What history tells me, and what can be seen in a few posts in this thread is that human beings are really good at rationalizing all sorts of practices, and there seems to be no such thing as a truly indefensible practice (as there will always be people to defend it, even providing very intellectual arguments for it).

Fine, arguments can be made for and against. But how about placing priority on the bodily and autonomy rights of the individuals most affected by these policies? I think it's fair and very reasonable to leave it up to the person most affected to decide for themselves, short of medical necessity.

wyzas, "medically unnecessary" in this case means if the individual involved is otherwise healthy and suffers no serious complications that may cause considerable and obvious risk for them later in life if left untreated, then the surgery is medically unnecessary. In this case, wait for the child to be able to consent in an informed manner and let them decide.

The thing is, you are a guy who watched a television show about a very complex issue that you really don't know much about, and then started telling everyone how things should be. You just watched a television show. It didn't endow you with the expertise.

(February 18, 2019 at 8:59 pm)Yonadav Wrote:

(February 18, 2019 at 6:18 pm)Grandizer Wrote: If FGM was legal in the Western world, there'd be people advocating for it, doctors encouraging it, and parents requesting it for their daughters. And in the past, people used to defend slavery and even argue that it's good for the economy. Doctors had "good" motives when they conducted the disastrous Tuskegee syphilis experiment, and today we have doctors publishing studies that purportedly show the benefits of being circumcised as a boy/man.

What history tells me, and what can be seen in a few posts in this thread is that human beings are really good at rationalizing all sorts of practices, and there seems to be no such thing as a truly indefensible practice (as there will always be people to defend it, even providing very intellectual arguments for it).

Fine, arguments can be made for and against. But how about placing priority on the bodily and autonomy rights of the individuals most affected by these policies? I think it's fair and very reasonable to leave it up to the person most affected to decide for themselves, short of medical necessity.

wyzas, "medically unnecessary" in this case means if the individual involved is otherwise healthy and suffers no serious complications that may cause considerable and obvious risk for them later in life if left untreated, then the surgery is medically unnecessary. In this case, wait for the child to be able to consent in an informed manner and let them decide.

The thing is, you are a guy who watched a television show about a very complex issue that you really don't know much about, and then started telling everyone how things should be. You just watched a television show. It didn't endow you with the expertise.

Nope also did research. And I based my views on what's right taking into account human rights and backed by multiple human rights organizations around the world.

(February 18, 2019 at 9:01 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 18, 2019 at 8:59 pm)Yonadav Wrote: The thing is, you are a guy who watched a television show about a very complex issue that you really don't know much about, and then started telling everyone how things should be. You just watched a television show. It didn't endow you with the expertise.

Nope also did research. And I based my views on what's right taking into account human rights and backed by multiple human rights organizations around the world.

OK. You acquire expertise pretty rapidly I guess.

(February 18, 2019 at 9:27 pm)Yonadav Wrote:

(February 18, 2019 at 9:01 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Nope also did research. And I based my views on what's right taking into account human rights and backed by multiple human rights organizations around the world.

OK. You acquire expertise pretty rapidly I guess.

Except I didn't say that. Doing research doesn't mean Ive become an expert. It means I've read what experts had to say. Do you have an argument to make that doesn't mainly involve my character?