"Gender affirming healthcare"

Women who get breast implants have body dysphoria on what they think their gender should look like.

They mutilate their bodies and insert foreign materials in it. Why do you think they are altering their sex organs?

They try to "affirm" their bodies for their gender.

Should only one group have that choice?

Medical malpractice.

It should be treated as what it is... mental illness...

quote:

---

"gender affirming healthcare"

---

=

Child abuse.

Period.

It's "sex change surgery." Sex is biological and hard to change (impossible, at the chromosomal level). Gender is a social and mental construct that is fluid and can and does change. And that's *their* argument. At the root of all this is the insane idea that you can and should change biological identity to accommodate a fluid (and in almost all cases pathological) sense of psychological identity.

I would be better not to say "gender affirming," even when quoting headlines or comments.

When you control the Language, you control the Culture. The Left is winning & the media is all in on it.

Commie playbook.

"Genital mutilation" is the accurate term.

For purposes of discussion, let's accept the notion that gender confusion (whether dysmorphia or dysphoria) is a "mental illness."

It seems to me that there are three broad categories of response. First, do nothing. Second, psychological/psychiatric treatment. Third, physical treatment.

Hopefully, not many people propose "do nothing." Again as I see it, the second option is basically an attempt to alter the contents of the package to match its exterior, while the third option is an attempt to alter the packaging to match the contents.

I've yet to see a coherent and logical reason that altering the contents is a better response than altering the packaging.

To the contrary, it seems to me that the "essence" of a person is not the packaging, but the personality, the memories and the thought processes that it contains ... the "soul" if you will. Changing the packaging to match the contents just makes more sense to me, if it were just a toggle switch. It isn't a toggle switch, no two people/patients are the same, and it seems to me that one solution might be best for one person, while the other approach might be better for the other.

quote:

---

why is a surgery to alter the sexual organs to match the person's self-identified gender considered "gender affirming"?

---

Yet another example of worrying more about labels than substance, IMO.

The reasoning behind the terminology is not difficult to understand. If the "packaging" is being altered to match the "contents," then the "contents" are being affirmed as being the true essence of the person at issue.

Personally, I could not care less about the terminology.

quote:

---

If the argument is gender does not necessarily correlate with a person's sexual organs, then why is a surgery to alter the sexual organs to match the person's self-identified gender considered "gender affirming"?

---

I think about that question as well. There are some trans folks that seem to be ok with simply identifying as being nonbinary, gender fluid or identifying as a gender that is opposite of their sex without under going surgical or hormonal transition...or they limit it. Perhaps they dont suffer from the dymorphia as others do and its just how they choose to identify themselves.

The concept that gender and sex are separate and gender is just a social construct makes sense to me. Its not a new concept either and cultures have accepted this concept through out history. It does make me wonder if we were more open and accepting of those that identify as the gender opposite of their sex if we would see less cases of dysmorphia (am I using that term right?)and in turn see less of a desire to surgically alter themselves.

"Mental illness affirming medical procedure."