All young gay women, and a few gay men, thinking about 'trans' should watch this video

Let's make it even more simple. If you can't find a law in a state that makes the procedure illegal.....then it's legal.

That being said, credit where due, or blame in this case probably. I had posted the two articles close together, and was mixing up what I had posted. The link in post 111 is not the one I was thinking of, and I had confused it's contents with the one in 110. Here is the link that I have been thinking I had posted earlier.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3326051/

From the link:

 

Is a tattoo permanent harm? What about piercings or gauging? Is a scar from organ removal or transplant permanent harm? Breast reduction surgery? Breast augmentation surgery? Vasectomy? Hysterectomy?

By the exact dictionary definition of permanent:

And harm:

All of those are permanent harm, and yet somehow, I don't think you define them as such, even though I am using the dictionary as you keep saying I should. You know? That reference to English and how the words are defined?

 

define tattoo define piercing define gauging define scar define removal define transplant define breast reduction define vasectomy.

 

I really don't want to be insulting. It's against the rules and would get us nowhere as far as this topic goes, but I've long sense gotten bored with this topic, particularly since you sound, to me, like a crazy person advocating for the hacking off of healthy limbs. You have taken the odd position that I need to justify my disinterest in barbaric practices. In other breaking news, I oppose human sacrifice as well but I don't feel compelled to explain to you why it's seems self evidently wrong and savage to me, no matter how many studies you have about it.

Seek help...that's really all I can add at this point.

 

Ask him to define everything he says don't continue the conversation until he does.

I've come to this point with him multiple times on various other things where he fails to argue his position and then demands that you define common usage language. As though his fingers were broken can't use the dictionary.

 

I've already proven my point. You whine that I don't use a dictionary and then when I do you can't accept that the dictionary proves you wrong as well. Frankly I am tired of the fact that you can't keep up with either the dictionary you want me to use or the actual common use language that is out there for which dictionaries lag on. You are finished here, as far as I am concerned.

 

See the third line of my sig.

And yet you still keep responding, and failing to actually support any assertion with anything other than ad hom. I on the other hand have shown that it works in the extreme cases, and that the individuals are more healthy than they were before hand. You have yet to provide support to refute that point.

Ad hom

No, there is no need to justify your opinion. What you need to justify is your assertion that it is barbaric is society wide and that the practice does not do what I have shown it to do.

Show me a disorder when a person is asking to be sacrificed (as opposed to asking for assisted suicide) and then we can have a comparable discussion. Otherwise you are discussing apples and cucumbers. You aren't even close to oranges.

Ad hom

 

If you don't know what words mean look them up.

You don't have a point.

This stupid little game you play is just a tactic of avoiding the point.

Temporary illiteracy isn't that common.

 

Which states is it illegal?

 

I wish him luck in finding where it is illegal in the US. Which I would guess makes the whole of the US barbaric in his eyes since it's not illegal anywhere that I could find. There is certainly debate upon the ethics, but it is also proven to work in about 70% of cases.

 

I agree with you on the science, but, as a practical matter, if a transfemale wants me to refer to them as 'her' I will do it because I don't want to fight, and it's not that big of a deal for me to not inconvenience them. Where I do object is if they want to debate me on the subject, then I will assert the fact of biology, not opinion, determines sex. It's similar to the concept that there are many shades of blue, but light blue isn't red. And, those who argue 'intersex' this is a false argument, as statistical anomalies do not alter the biological principle of male and female. So, I say to trans, if you don't want my opinion, don't ask, but in the meantime, if you want me to treat you as a woman, I will open the car door for you, I will use your preferred pronoun, but don't ask me to dance, or want me to flirt with you, as there are limits. I view transgenderism as a solution for those who have serious gender dysphoria, but they have to pay that price, not me, they have their problems, and I have my own problems, and to all transfemales, life's a bitch, life is hell, and we're all a member of that club. you are no exception. welcome to the club.

 

I respect your way of handling it. I’m a bit different. I won’t allow my kids to ever think I am confused by science and I couldn’t give two craps how someone feels if I refuse to lie to them or myself about that fact. It’s not a fight, it’s honesty and if they can’t handle it then they just shouldn’t talk to me about it.

Honestly if they’re so confused about what a male and female is and the fact that I will never adhere to their logic drives them to do something stupid I honestly wouldn’t lose a second of sleep over it.

 

If this were fishing, my boat would be full.
Tell me if having a doctor chopping off healthy limbs is a constitutional right or not. I'm curious.

 

Now you want me to research your passion for you? Heh!

 

You were the one who said:

Well at this point, unless you can show a state where it is illegal, that would be all of them. Which is what he is pointing out.

So are you backing out on the bold?

 

No, I said I would start my search there, the "there" being your list of states where amputation is a legal treatment for mental illness.

Still waiting by the way. Get crackin'!

 

So now we are goal shifting from barbaric (which you were unable to support) to constitutional right. Not surprising. But sure I'll play along for now.

The problem starts with the fact that too many people take the actions that results from the exercise of a right to be the right itself. Not true. All persons have a right to seek medical attention from a medical professional, whether that is a pharmacist or a RN or a medical doctor. That right does not force another individual into aiding them. However, that right also means that any method that is shown to be effective in treating a condition, physical or mental or otherwise, cannot be forbidden by law unless a better method, per medical standards, exists. To parallel with another hot topic of the day, a woman doesn't actually have the right to an abortion. Her right is the ending of the pregnancy. Right now the only method to safely do that currently is an abortion up to viability and an induced labor after viability. IF another method were to be developed that was physically equal to or less than an abortion in bodily trauma (a measurable metric as opposed to emotional or mental trauma which is a subjective metric), and allowed the offspring to live, then as long as that option was available, abortion itself could be banned because a more effective method existed. That still doesn't give the right to force someone to perform that procedure. And for the purposes of this example, yes we are suspending the issues of fetal personhood and all that, just for the example. If you want to discuss that in an abortion thread I am willing to do so. This is just an example to show how a procedure in and of itself is not a right, but can be protected by a right as the only viable option at that time.

Likewise, If an effective method to treat BIID or GD were to be developed such that it would be successful without causing any additional bodily or mental trauma to the patient, then the current methods could be discontinued or banned if needed. But because the methods are proven to be effective (I've posted the links to prove both earlier in the thread), and no other method is, then it is the right of the patient to seek those treatments, and of a doctor, if willing, to perform those treatments upon the patient. It's not a right to the specific treatment itself, but to the most effective treatment currently available. That is why not all TG's need SRS to alleviate their GD. But when the other methods fail, then SRS is the most effective treatment. Same with BIID. Other treatments exist and they work on many who suffer with the condition. But for those whom the lessor treatments do not work, the amputation method has been shown to work on them in the vast majority of those extreme cases.

 

All of them. There is your list. This is the third time I have pointed that out, BTW.

 

I see no list.

 

Not goal shifting, merely curious as to your understanding of "rights."

 

So I say that it is legal in all the states, and you can't comprehend that means all 50? Sure, here you go:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakoda
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakoda
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

I even alphabetized them for you for easier searching. Feel free to show where any of them have actually made the procedure illegal. I'll admit that while I have yet to find one, my Google Fu is not the best and I might not be using the right keywords

 

I hope you found my explanation informative.

 

Yes, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

You forgot the link.

 

A link to what? Here is how this works. If something does not have a law making it illegal, then by default it is legal. Since the procedure is legal, there is no law to link to. Are you really that ignorant on how law works? If so I have now educated you. Go forth and try to prove me wrong, especially on the part that the procedure actually works in 70% of the cases it has been tried on.