(February 4, 2013 at 12:02 am)Aractus Wrote: Indeed there have, and in my opinion doing so is totally unethical. Look at David Reimer, for instance. Miriam, from "Something about Miriam" did not have sex reassignment surgery, but took hormones through "her" teenage years, and look where that led ... pornography, shitty reality TV, more pornography, prostitution.

Still on this lady are we?

I agree with you regarding John Money, by the way... that was sickening. And David wasn't the only man 'made a girl, because it's easier' shortly after his birth...

Fraudulent medical science to save face, someone didn't follow their Hippocratic Oath... and *hundreds* of intersex children have paid for that by their physician or parents choosing their advertised sex for them.

Quote:With that said, there are plenty of people with medical conditions that don't allow them to pass puberty who live very happy and fulfilling lives. And so they should.

That said... living with two (or 1.x) sets of genitalia will not stop someone from surviving until puberty. Leave the knife off a baby unless they will likely die (or have a very solid chance of it)... how things look below the belt really doesn't enter into it: it's benign in almost every case (and where it's not, it's usually due to urethra not getting connected right, which still doesn't involve lopping someone's dick off and binning it).

Quote:But should you allow someone who would normally go through puberty to be castrated in order to preserve their singing voice? Well that's certainly one way to determine their career choice for them early on. I think the biggest difference between now and the 18th century (/19th century) is that there is a lot more career choice, and being able to be an opera singer isn't as great an ability as it may have once been because there are plenty more career choices still available. But yeah, I can see how in the 17th/18th centuries it was desirable and an advantage.

Agreed, opera just isn't what it used to be. It's not so much a cultural phenomenon alongside theatre... as it is an 'okay' career choice and an occasional interest of the rich and the quirky

---

(February 4, 2013 at 5:29 pm)Dee Dee Ramone Wrote:

Quote:Isn't it ironic?

... that this is your response?

Yeah, happy cherrypicking halfway a discussion.

(February 4, 2013 at 12:23 am)Dee Dee Ramone Wrote: You don't have an argument, because the comparison between cutting balls (and permanently destroying sexual reproduction/sex life) and letting kids choosing a hobby (influencing opportunties) is faulty.

In life we make choices, even kids. Removing testicles is not a kid's choice, it's mutilation.

Kids can make the choice to remove their testicles. It isn't always a smart choice, but they can make that choice (it's within their ability, at the end of the day... "the only rules are what a man can do... and what he can't").

The key here, is that such things usually aren't the kid's choice. And if they are, then that choice is usually thought up, reasoned to them, and propagandized by their parents. And children will often do a lot to please their parents, whether they be children of 10 or 60.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFuJ-r_TJWQ

@Tara: humans didn't live long enough back then to often experience osteoporosis. I mean, they'd get some mild forms of it of course.. but never an intense form like they might have had living 40 years longer.

---

(February 4, 2013 at 5:32 pm)Dee Dee Ramone Wrote: Yeah, happy cherrypicking halfway a discussion.

Considering I'm giving almost every response in this thread a response, I really don't think that I'm cherrypicking.

Now... if you'd like to can your emotional bag of worms and actually contribute something useful to this thread: I welcome you to. Not that you have to, mind: there's always a fair share of whiners on this forum to go around

---

(February 4, 2013 at 12:34 am)Aractus Wrote: Wrong. Reimer was 22 months old when he underwent sex reassignment surgery. Worse still, it was under the recommendation of a trumped-up psychologist, John Money, and not a psychiatrist/physician. Money counted this case as a success, Reimer blew his head off with a sawn-off shotgun at age 38. Fair to say he disagreed with Money....

To be fair, he didn't undergo vaginoplasty (as we're understanding it for this purpose): he had a botched circumcision which led to his penis being destroyed.

The boys parents were then concerned about the boy's future sex life without a penis, and then went to a doctor who thought that sexual identity was largely learned (rather than largely innate), who then

Then, the boys parents had him (and his twin, also male) sexually abused by having the one with a functioning penis hump David doggystyle. And missionary. And other sexual abuses that were undoubtable not even spoken of. I mean...

Wikipedia Wrote:Dr. Money also forced the children to take their "clothes off" and engage in "genital inspections".[4] On at "least one occasion", Dr. Money took a photograph of the two children doing these activities.[4] Dr. Money's rationale for these various treatments was his belief that "childhood 'sexual rehearsal play'" was important for a "healthy adult gender identity".[4]

Money was wrong, absolutely (at least, so far as the scientific method has demonstrated). And messing with the genitals of a child ESPECIALLY before puberty at *anything but their behest* is wrong too (to me).

Quote:It's one thing to allow them to live as the other gender, it's another to give them hormones or surgery.

So... I lived 100% as a woman at school starting in 7th grade. Didn't pretend to be anything else. And at the time, I even mostly looked the part.

Didn't stop me from being bullied endlessly, beaten, threatened, etc as a result. Hormones alone would have gone a long way towards this (it's a lot harder for men to publicly punch a visibly attractive girl and save face with the rest of the 'pretty girl population', and putting her up to a locker and humping her publicly wouldn't be anywhere near as likely to result in *her* getting suspended for a few days).

Looks go a long ways in the politics of middle school and high school. And things only get worse if over time you're getting worse. I finally had to stop being stubborn and just shave my face when I was in 9th grade, and the testosterone flooding through me was making me look absolutely ghoulish.

Yeah... it's one thing to just let your child be, and it's another thing to protect them... or to even listen to them.

Ah, you've found the key.

You're not giving a response to every response but hey, who gives a damn.

(February 4, 2013 at 12:49 am)Dee Dee Ramone Wrote: You're right. Maybe parents should allow their kids to cut of a leg so kids improve their chances to become top-class wheelchair tennisplayers if that's what a kid realllly wants to be.

But you said that children don't have the right to consent... therefore they are objects to be used as their parents decide. And if their parents decide to do this: then absolutely that is what they should do.

---

(February 4, 2013 at 6:35 pm)Dee Dee Ramone Wrote: Ah, you've found the key.

You're not giving a response to every response but hey, who gives a damn.

About 1/4th of the responses are 'YES IT IS!' 'NO IT ISN'T!'

If you *really* want to, I might deign to respond to such. But I dunno, I'm really not one to appease the desires of those beneath me... I could be getting ahead here

Forum politics are a lot like highschool: look pretty, get popular, and you exist. Don't manage it? Looks like you'll be low-level, living in the Christianity thread, largely ignored, making retarded arguments with theists.

Kuddo's for you Violet.

(February 4, 2013 at 12:56 am)Shell B Wrote: DeeDee, TEGH is clearly playing devil's advocate.

Maybe he is... but wager a guess to who isn't?

Quote:Aractus, I find myself agreeing with you, which is a rarity, so bravo. Poor Reimer's entire life was fucked because of what his parents and psychiatrist decided to do in response to a bad circumcision.

Have you considered that the parents might have sexually abused their children in other ways with simply another justification?

Because with the level that they went to... I dunno. Maybe things not going their way set them over the edge. Imagine if one of them came out as gay, or if one of them dropped a plate and it made a loud sound.

Quote:I do not believe that children should be allowed to have a body changing surgery that is not for medical reasons. One might argue that there are psychological reasons for it, but a child can live as their gender until they can have proper surgery to correct nature's mistake.

There are psychological reasons for it, those reasons *usually* surface hard around puberty... the real question is what is a 'child', and what makes you think that they can live as something that isn't themselves for so long as to make it past an arbitrary age line where their parents disbecome part of the process?

Survive? Well, they might just do that... but live, I'm really not seeing it.

Quote:My reasons for this are many and include the inherent risks with any surgery where you have to go under. I also think a person needs to make that decision without the input of his or her parents. I would neither discourage it or encourage it in my stepson, so as not to influence the decision. Nonetheless, I would not be party to putting him under the knife for cosmetic purposes during his childhood. Besides, I would prefer him not use his sex organs until he is an adult anyway.

Because the likelihood of a teenager not having sex until they are legally adults is... 'immense'.

---

(February 4, 2013 at 12:56 am)TaraJo Wrote: Surgery, yes, that's not exactly reversable. Hormones are a totally different story.

Not totally reversible... I mean, if you get C-cup breasts... those are not totally going away for decades.

Quote:Give that to a young child and they probably won't notice any effect for at least 2 or 3 months. Even up to about six months, everything from estrogen will reverse itself if you simply stop taking estrogen.

How young? If they are pubescent, then their body will develop *fast*. But I'd agree, in general: 6 months estro will revert (eventually).

Quote:This doesn't even mention how much easier it can make the rest of our lives if we get into hormones before male puberty makes changes to our body that cant' be reversed. I mean, do you have any idea how difficult it is for me to find women's shoes in size 11? The world also isn't exactly filled with women's clothes for a woman who's 5'10.

Huh, I was going to go with 'I mean, do you have any idea how scary it is to wake up with facial hair, and an angular squarish jawline and forward brow that would instantly ping me for male if I stopped getting estrogen.' Which I have, of course.

Or the deep-set eyes, or the MASSIVE FUCKING ADAMS APPLE and not innately womanly voice. I mean... body hair out the wazoo. Oh, and stuff happening in my scrotum is just annoying.

---

(February 4, 2013 at 1:02 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: It takes balls to do that.

Great big rubber ones, why do you think kids join choirs?

---

(February 4, 2013 at 12:55 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: Nope I am pritty certain that an argument about a moral issue cannot be concluded with an argument on esthetics.

Ummm... what do morals necessarily have to do with how pretty things are believed to be?

---

(February 4, 2013 at 2:35 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: Well. Remove your balls with a razorblade and after a period of 10 years tell me if the lack of sexual activity has caused any depression or other.

Depression...? No way, that sounds like freedom. I'd be pissed about ruining my future vaginal skin though.

Quote:Coincidentely, The catholic church child abuse scandle surfaced in southern Germany some years ago because a boy was so violently abused by a priest that his testicles had to be amputated when he was 11.
The scandle came to public light when that person comitted suicide in his 40s due to the resulting depressions he had.

If it was entirely due to this and this only... why did he wait so long?

I mean... I could have committed suicide ages ago. Alas, I'm not selfish... and I have something to look forward to. Maybe he's the same, minus that latter portion. 30+ years is a long time to give for others while the self is miserable...

And then, maybe I should stop making inferences about a life I know nothing about... a life you probably know nothing about as well. And if you do know something: please share

Quote:Nope. A human being is a learning animal and can always learn new traits, it might be capable to learn more as a child but the capability of learning itself never fades away.

Well, it's mostly true, try learning a language in your thirties... your progress compared to learning that same language in your teens or early childhood is absolutely pathetic.

In other words... sure: you're capable of eventually learning... but by the time you do: your physical prime will have passed. There's a reason you don't see many 50+ year old professional athletes And you dont see many nerds suddenly change course after college to get into american 'football', even if they really wanted to: your time spent specializing in one thing necessarily takes away from time you could have spent specializing elsewhere.

And we're not allowed to bring up learning disabilities, right?

Quote:Again, I mentioned this before, learning never fades away and one is constantly capable to redecide what one learns.

Well... I've totally forgotten almost everything from school, including words from a language I love (BUT NOT THE RULES!) so.... it definitely fades away

And if you don't practice it, you can quickly find it all gone.

Quote:A scrotum doesnt grow back once you remove it.

One can do it as an adult (if there are no laws against self mutilation in place)

But before the age of 18 these decisions will not be taken seriously by a child, neighter can a parent make such a grave decisions for a child.

Thank goodness it doesn't... otherwise I'd be rather scared of getting rid of it. I hate that facial hair and body hair comes back. I WANT IT GONE, DAMMIT.

What is an adult?

What is so special about the arbitrary age line of 18? Could you not instead draw it at 30? How about 10? 14? 1234892147?

I decided (quite seriously, mind) that I was a woman when I was 13... so we have a decision which was taken seriously by a "child" (what is this word?). And we have parents circumcising their male and female children all over the globe, so it's quite (readily) apparent that infact: they can make such 'grave decisions' for a child.

One might even go so far as to say: it's their job.

(February 4, 2013 at 2:45 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I'm a classical singer, in fact, referencing the OP, Lascia Ch'io Pianga was one of the arias I performed for my senior recital... beautiful piece by Handel.

The castrati have always been fascinating to me. They were the rock stars of their time. I envy the flexibility that they had. No matter how much I practiced, I could never quiiiiiite get to the level of a castrato, and I'm a coloratura soprano.

That being said, in my opinion, pre-pubescent castration is unethical. I don't think a pre-pubescent boy can consent to that type of thing. Just the fact that he's pre-pubescent means he hasn't matured enough to consent to permanently alter his body. Back in the days of the castrati, their families made the decision for them, usually due to monetary or health reasons. Castration was a treatment for many childhood diseases back then, and a beautiful singing voice was often just a silver-lining to the cloud of losing one's balls.

I like you

Well... pre-pubescent people *can* consent. Observe 6-year old Darla: Darla, would you like to go to your friend Dalton's birthday party? "Oh yes, momma!"

Or otherwise, deny consent... Observe 6-year old David: David, do you mind if I take the dishes from your room and clean them? "NO! It's my room!"

Of course, then their parents overrule them... because might makes right

.......

Ultimately, the period at which one's ability to consent should be observed is largely individual and it is often 'decided' by those with the power to overrule what would have been the one's decisions had said people not been there. This is sometimes good, sometimes bad... it really is a mixed bag. There's a massive potential for abuse, right with a massive potential for allowing perhaps too much.

And that's why I'm against branding much of anything as strictly evil or good. Although... there are always bananas

(February 4, 2013 at 4:07 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: So really, we shouldn't be able to consent to anything until we're about 25ish. Maybe 28, if our brains decide to be a little slow.

Or, if you'd read/skimmed the article, the Formal Operational Stage. :/

Toph Wrote:What is beautiful is subjective. A lot of people liked the Star Wars prequels despite what the professional critics and us nerds thought. Were they wrong? No, they were just judging based on a different set of criteria than we have.

I like Jar's antics, even if I don't like the character.

Lots of pretty explosions, and humor to be found. Oh, and Darth Maul is kinda exotic... and however much gin Quygon was drinking: he looks like Jesus. That's the sex.

---

(February 4, 2013 at 8:08 pm)Annik Wrote: Or, if you'd read/skimmed the article, the Formal Operational Stage. :/

How about if you'd take a course on philosophy, and recognize that the brain never stops developing unless it is in stasis

Or... more importantly, you just use your head for a moment, and think of a time when the consequences of an action you've made as an 'adult' turned out differently than you expected to. We live in the moment, or for the near future, for that which we can see... 15 years from now: DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA, at all? Because if you do... that's rather optimistic of ya

Because we really cannot see the future, and I'm really not about to excuse away people's stupidity with 'oh, but their brain isn't developed enough to do that without judging the consequences 'properly''... value systems are subjective, and humans will not see everything coming until they perfectly mathematize their little universe.