There Are Only Two Genders: Even transgressors admit it

That's irrelevant to your initial statment that I challenged. It is indeed the poster's decision. It is the whole society's decision.

 

Madness, pure madness.

You're not on the same page here. Why would anyone want/need to tell someone they are fat or ugly? Commenting on someone's stature isn't part of daily, social communication. I have never in my life experienced (or witnessed) that two strangers meeting for the first time are compelled to comment on one another's external attributes. But this pronoun business is meant to be mandatory; "Forced" as Jolly says. Requiring someone to use an improper pronoun is outrageous.

 

No. Simply NO!!

People's healthcare is not a societal issue.

 

The abuse of minors is a societal issue, even when done in the guise of healthcare. The same applies to forcing homosexual children to undergo "conversion therapy", or when applying to children of religious parents being prayed for instead of given life saving medicine/surgery.

 

You trying to compare transgender healthcare to gay conversion therapy disqualifies any further points you may have.

 

No it doesn't. It is something that we need to be watching out for. The last thing we want out there is another Dr. Money making another David Reimer. What he did with those boys was abominable. Further with the simple fact that some issues can mask as other issues, we need to make sure that we don't cause irreversible or irreparable harm to minors. Short of intense suicidal ideation, I am all for limiting any surgeries until adulthood. While there are few, relatively speaking who have transitioned when they should not have, we still need to protect them as well as protect those kids are actually are transgender. Any limitations should not be absolute and should allow for a doctor to make a call with regards to health. Which is why the puberty blockers are a good thing as they can give a youth time to do further self evaluation. But limitations there should be. Aside from a Dr. Money situation, Munchousen (sp?) by Proxy is a very real thing, and such parents can pressure their kids into claiming other than what they actually want, especially if they started young.

 

You only think so because you support one but not the other. Just because you consider one ok and the other bad, doesn't make either not a societal issue.

 

As long as they keep it personal it doesn't. It only becomes a problem when they tell me what I'm supposed to be attracted to.

They come off a lot like incels that the world owes them something and that's not how it works.

 

There you go again, making up stuff about others you have no clue about.
Why don't you just stick to the topic or your off topic posts without ad hom nonsense.

It's no more a societal issue than gay marriage or interracial marriage.

 

The protection of children from abuse is a more important societal issue. One that the vast majority of the population do not want left exclusively to the discretion of parents and doctors. This point is nearly universally agreed upon. Children are to be protected from abusive parents.

The question is then what is and is not abuse. Some say gay conversion therapy is abuse. Others say it isn't (which I stand corrected on, and may include you). Some say causing irreversible harm to others with gender conversion surgery or puberty blockers done to minors below age of consent is abuse. The comparison is apt.

 

Transgenderism is not by abusive parents.
Abuse is forcing kids to be something they are not, as you want to do.

 

Doing surgery or giving drugs to children can be abusive, as Maquiscat points out. What exactly is and isn't is a matter of opinon that people will differ on, and is a societal issue.

There you go again, making up stuff about others you have no clue about.
Why don't you just stick to the topic or your off topic posts without ad hom nonsense.

 

I want to emphasize that word. And while there can societal opinion about such, that opinion has to be tempered with what medical professionals know. Sadly far too many opponents want to use their opinion against what medical professionals say.

 

Medical professionals are experts on what the medical science is, which can inform society's ethical decisons, but shouldn't be confused for those decisions themselves.

The doctors can tell you what physically is, or will happen if we do X, if they have enough research to rely on (very debatable if they do in this case). They can't tell us if that result is desirable. That's up to society. That's a societal issue.

 

We do have the medical science that shows that transitioning reduced suicidal ideation by 44% and also that of those who surgically transitioned, those who try to de-transition are almost twice as likely to have suicidal ideation than those who do not try de-transitioning. Seems to me that society today wants to have a reduction in suicidal ideation regardless of cause. Yet opponents want to claim that a reduction in suicidal ideation for transgenders transitioning is somehow unethical.

 

Of who, over what time period, and how good is the evidence? I can see numerous possible confounding variables, as well as correlation vs causation issues. I would also question how many of those who transition were suidical, why they were suicidal (if there is social contagion involved in it and if they may have been suicidal for other reasons but think this is a solution), why that suidical ideation decreased, and how many thera are that are not suicidal and are harmed by the transitioning, leading them to become suicidal.

That seems to make a lot of sense. Those who try to de-transition feel that they made a mistake, and realize that they can't fully undo it, so are more likely to become suicidal. I don't see many alternative explanations to that one.

Have you actually encountered many claiming the bolded? Or are you concluding this by inference? If the latter, I don't think the inference is justified. It presumes that they both know the reasearch you speak of and find the conclusions drawn from the data in it convincing.

They also may simply find it unethical to intefere with the sexual organs and development of people who can not consent to that.

 

To the best of my knowledge and reading that did NOT account for other reasons for suicidal ideation. Which to me means that were other suicide factors taken out, such as harassment, the rate of reduction would increase.

HOwever there is also this:

Which confirms that simply looking at suicide among transgenders does not automatically mean the suicide is because of being transgender, at least directly. Being harassed for being transgender would be indirect.

From the same Williams Institute article:

So you know where I got my figures for that claim. One final piece of data:

I've seen post in multiple threads, both here and my other forum, that doctors who perform these surgeries should lose their licenses. So direct.

If you are referring to minors, aside from the fact that such transitioning is rare, the whole point of people who cannot consent to something applies to anything medial. Where do you draw the line for someone else's decisions? It seems to me to be more unethical to make a decision for someone if you don't have the professional knowledge to make that judgement for individual cases. But the problem is that many opponents would rather prevent SRS for all.

 

I still wouldn't presume to equate the above statement to the below statement.

...

I think medical experts are useful for showing the facts. And that is very important, since there is a LOT of ignorance on these topics, and people making decisions without good knowledge. But ultimately I think society, not medical experts who decide what to do with the facts. I can see some lenience to parents having more say than others, but I also think society ultimately decides what is and what is not abusive and allowable.

Personally, I see a lot of good reason for concern when it is children who can't consent being transitioned. I personally see no ethical basis to deny it to adults.

Finally, I would like to say that reading your posts on this forum is very much a breath of fresh air. You are both knowledgable and clearly good faith.

 

So ONE person DECIDES and the whole of society MUST agree with that decision?

Or does SOCIETY get to DICTATE that each person MUST agree with society's decision?

The former is AUTHORITARIAN and the LATTER is TYRANNY of the MAJORITY!

Here is how INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS work in America, as a FREE society INDIVIDUALS get to make their OWN decisions, NOT society.

The Law of Land as promogulated by the government of We the People ENSURES that DISCRIMINATION against INDIVIDUALS is ILLEGAL.

Freedom of Expression enables INDIVIDUALS to EXPRESS their decisions to TRANSITION from one SEX to ANOTHER.

Society does NOT get to DICTATE that the DECISION by the INDIVIDUAL is "illegal/invalid".

Society does get to WHINE about the DECISION by the INDIVIDUAL.

Which is what this entire thread is all about, puerile whinging because they don't like what the INDIVIDUAL decided for themselves.