re: "Gender affirming healthcare"

quote:

---

The question is not one of choice to have it performed

---

It’s an “ELECTIVE” procedure.

In cases of “gender affirming care,” it is Aka - child abuse.

quote:

---

Should only one group have that choice?

---

Yes.

That one group is called "consenting adults."

Population reduction... again???

Yet I am crazy for saying they want to do what they said they want to do.

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.

quote:

---

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

---

Perhaps you should look up the health risks that accompany long term "transition" dose estrogen therapy for men and testosterone therapy for women.

Huge increase in risk of heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolisms, etc. Stuff that can kill you or leave you disabled for life.

In exchange for what? A very modest decrease in the likelihood of suicide.

Medicine is a risk-reward game. Anybody who was looking at the facts objectively would not conclude that the medical potential rewards here outweigh the risks, but no one in this game (including you, apparently) are regarding the data objectively.

This is from the Mayo Clinic website:

Complications can include:

Blood clots in a deep vein or in the lungs
Heart problems
High levels of triglycerides, a type of fat, in the blood
High levels of potassium in the blood
High levels of the hormone prolactin in the blood
Nipple discharge
Weight gain
Infertility
High blood pressure
Type 2 diabetes
Stroke

This is right after they say "gender affirming care can be 'safe and effective.'"

I'm not aware of any study in the world that shows any more than a modest decrease in likelihood of suicide following "gender affirming care" when the long term is considered (or even medium term, for that matter...the longest studies I've seen on it only carry out the study for a year or so).

So I call bullshite on "effective."

Safe? Transgender women have been found to be twice as likely as biological women to have a thromboembolism and 80%-90% more likely to have a stroke or heart attack.

So that's another bullshite moment from the Mayo Clinic. And you.

quote:

---

think you are saying that recognizing gender as a spectrum rather than a binary choice might make fewer people feel a need to shoehorn themselves into one of the two binary choices.

You may have a point.

---

But you would have to be willing to except a lie to agree with this concept. Gender and sex are and have always been tied together. Trying to change the definition will never change the science.

quote:

---

Where did I say anything positive about transition surgery for minors?

---

Your reputation precedes you. I'm sure the poster was just being proactive because it would only be a matter of time before you tried changing the thread discussion.

I do I hate pedophiles like you

quote:

---

mahdragonz

---

Confirmed groomer