Another Mermaid statement: about Good Morning Britain and Caroline Farrow

The only thing comparable is infibulation.

But with elective hysterectomy/ mastectomy , where a woman has a vastly increased risk of cancer at a young age, then that surgery is prophylactic, not cosmetic. In breast reduction surgery, which may be cosmetic, but seems to normally be medical, then the breast is not entirely removed. I can’t think of any other surgical procedure where healthy parts are removed in their entirety ?

YY OldCrone
There is such a need for clarity.

AstonishedFemalePersonator & I were replying to PP assertion:
"Body parts have a function. We operate where they are not fulfilling their basic purpose. We don’t mutilate (and Catholic moral theology uses that word) or amputate healthy functioning body parts."

Yes, R0wantrees, I think we agree, but we're making slightly different points, and I realise mine wasn't clear at all from my last post.

You're absolutely right that healthy body parts can also be removed in cosmetic procedures. My point is that this is what is being done with 'gender reassignment surgery'. These are purely cosmetic procedures, which can seriously impact the future health of the person who undergoes them. Puberty blockers and hormones are also given for purely cosmetic reasons, again with the risk of serious side effects.

I think this is a point which needs to be made, particularly when children are involved. Children are being given powerful drugs to stop their natural development - for purely cosmetic reasons.

OldCrone I dont think we have any disagreement with regards the point you are making. The point of my post however was specifically in response to an assertion.
With regards cosmetic procedures then there too 'perfectly healthy body parts' are often removed.

There are a number of examples with specific reasons and justifications.

But the reasons and justifications are either medical or religious. If they are medically justified there will be a clear reason why the medical professionals involved view the treatment as necessary or in the best interests of the patient. It is not universally accepted that those which are done for religious reasons, such as circumcision in young boys, should be happening at all.

My point is that administering puberty blockers and hormones and carrying out surgery on people to make them resemble the opposite sex are cosmetic procedures. There is no medical justification. There is only a religious justification if gender identity ideology is a religion, but I don't think its adherents accept that it is. And even then it should be subject to the same scrutiny and debate as other procedures carried out in the name of religion.

YY OldCrone the point I and AstonishedFemalePersonator have made is that it isn't true to say 'healthy functioning body parts' are never removed.
There are a number of examples with specific reasons and justifications.

'Healthy functioning body parts' are removed eg elective mastectomies following BRCA+

But this is still done for a medical reason, because women with these genes are at high risk of cancer. This isn't comparable to 'gender reassignment surgery' which is done purely for cosmetic reasons.

The whole issue of transitioning children is based around cosmetic reasons for early transition.

relevent extract from a young woman (aged 19) who spoke from the audience at the end of 'We Need To Talk' meeting in Washington.
Transcribed by PencilsinSpace

"Additionally - so when I was going to get my double mastectomy after identifying as trans for four years, I just had to go to a doctor, say 'I'm trans and I want top surgery' and then they're like, OK, you know, then they'll ask me some questions about my life, but there's no like, maybe you're a lesbian who doesn't want to be seen as a lesbian because you live in a homophobic area, maybe you're dealing with - you need to deal with some sexual trauma. Maybe there's other things, other than this sort of idea. There's none of that, it's just like, OK! And so then the next time they were just like, OK I'll write a letter to your insurance saying they should pay for it.

You know, it's just - women are really being let down, especially lesbians.

And I don't know, it's just very - going on what you were saying? I just feel so bad about my peers because it's very hard to get out of. It's such a cult-like mindset because if you talk to anyone different you are going to be excommunicated, right? You're just not going to be allowed to interact with people. I mean it's like my friends who just dropped me, you know, it's really difficult - I don't know if I'm over my time limit - I just, I don't know, when people were saying about how it's really hard as a young person to not be accepted by your peers - it is terrifying, it is so ... scary, but it's really an important thing because so many women I know, every lesbian I know in my day to day life who's not a complete normie who's never been online, has identified as trans, even if they haven't transitioned, has previously identified as trans.

Because it's just - being a lesbian sucks, guys.

I mean it's wonderful once you're able to accept it and interact with other women, but this is a terrifying societal position to occupy and I'm completely proud and out now but it's just a really scary thing because these people who are supposed to be supporting you would rather you be anything but a lesbian." (continues)

full transcript of her comments in thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3507109-Pique-Resilience-Project-young-detransitioned-women-sharing-their-personal-stories

From the video linked:

"Children rely on adults to create reality for them, if we start creating a reality that is untrue, telling children they can be born in the wrong body .... we are talking about something meta physical.. to be told you can be born in the wrong body is very confusing and scary for children even if you don't have dysphoria"

Video by Erin two days ago:

Well meaning parents perpetuate the myth that a child can be born in the wrong body. These parents who advocate for the affirmation and transition of gender dysphoric children are harming children and using emotional blackmail when they tell other parents that a gender dysphoric child must be affirmed or else the child might kill themselves. Parents are not supposed to affirm or encourage the delusions of children. Loving and supportive parents need to know that most gender dysphoria will naturally resolve and that when it doesn't, treatments like cognitive behavior therapy can help children overcome dysphoric feelings. Trans activists who suggest that children are transgender if they are gender dysphoric are wrong. Just because a child has gender dysphoria does not mean they are transgender. Just because a child is gender non-conforming does not mean they are gender dysphoric.

I'm never going to find it now, but somewhere on here the other day there was a screenshot from a 'trans kids' type forum. A mother was talking about her 'trans' teenager who had discovered mastrubation and was wanting to stop their hormonal medication because it 'intereferred' and the mum was looking for advice as to how to persuade her child that this wouldn't necessarily be a good idea.

It was on this thread.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3531622-4thWaveNow-has-some-incredibly-disturbing-stuff-from-Facebook

twitter.com/4th_WaveNow/status/1105667219814526976

We don’t mutilate (and Catholic moral theology uses that word) or amputate healthy functioning body parts.

That's what circumcision is: the mutilation of a healthy body part for nothing other than religious reasons.

Plus experiments on sheep have shown an irreversible reduction in spatial awareness and cognitive ability. And a drop of 8 IQ points (although I can't see that bit, even though I know it's there?).

Or Coy Mathis, who at 4 months reached for the pink blanket instead of the blue one.

I was agog to see Coy Mathis, and their love for pink and sparkles, featured in that 'Stories for Rebel Girls' book.

from Datun's link above,
OP Pimmsnlemonade Tue 05-Mar-19 wrote:
www.transgendertrend.com/tavistock-experiment-puberty-blockers/

"To summarize, GIDS launched a study to administer experimental drugs to children suffering from gender dysphoria. Between 2010 and 2014, puberty blockers were given to 50 children. This study yielded only one published scientific article on outcomes. It showed no evidence for the effectiveness of GnRHa: there was no statistically significant difference in psychosocial functioning between the group given blockers and the group given only psychological support. In addition, there is unpublished evidence that after a year on GnRHa children reported greater self-harm, and that girls experienced more behavioural and emotional problems and expressed greater dissatisfaction with their body—so puberty blockers exacerbated gender dysphoria. Yet the study has been used to justify rolling out this drug regime to several hundred children aged under 16. Almost five years after the last patient was enrolled in the experiment, there is no evidence to substantiate Carmichael’s claim ‘that the results thus far have been positive’."

Or Coy Mathis, who at 4 months reached for the pink blanket instead of the blue one.

To the poster up thread (sorry I can't find it now), who wondered about the long-term affects of puberty blockers, this thread is incredibly revealing.

The Tavistock knew that puberty blockers actually exacerbated gender dysphoria.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3525450-Tavistock-s-Experimentation-with-Puberty-Blockers-Scrutinizing-the-Evidence?msgid=85389206

Coupled with the new evidence about the increased effects of heart attacks and strokes on those using cross sex hormones, it's difficult to believe they are still being prescribed so casually.

If we're speaking plain now, we neuter cats for instance before puberty, not only to prevent uncontrolled breeding but to prevent undesirable sexual behaviour.

It's unbelievable. That we are doing this to kids now. Almost 100% of children on puberty blockers go onto cross sex hormones.

very interesting. It is a real struggle to see the difference tbh

BarbieJellyBabyBrain The article re amputation interestingly refers to how Mr Smith then received requests from 'all over the world' and how the 'handful' of surgeons operating in this way were found on the internet.

Is iit reasonable to presume that amongst some 'communities' of apotemnophiliacs, Mr Smith and the surgeons in Russia, Canada and Austria who carry out amputations might be seen as being at forefront of treatment?

We operate where they are not fulfilling their basic purpose. We don’t mutilate (and Catholic moral theology uses that word) or amputate healthy functioning body parts.

That's not strictly true.
'Healthy functioning body parts' are removed eg elective mastectomies following BRCA+

I dont think theology / religious ideology should have any more involvement in medical deision making than transgender ideology.

Wow, thanks for that R0wantrees, very interesting. It is a real struggle to see the difference tbh.

Do adolescents desist because that's when they generally start having sexual fantasies and masturbating?

I'm never going to find it now, but somewhere on here the other day there was a screenshot from a 'trans kids' type forum. A mother was talking about her 'trans' teenager who had discovered mastrubation and was wanting to stop their hormonal medication because it 'intereferred' and the mum was looking for advice as to how to persuade her child that this wouldn't necessarily be a good idea. Like, WTF?!

SRS surgery (or whatever we are going to call it) is actually far more comparable to someone claiming they have a mole on their arm, where no mole can be observed, and then demanding that a doctor remove part of the skin of the arm. Or claiming that they have a deformity on their leg, possibly one which is causing them pain, when all examinations, scans, x rays, show that there is nothing wrong with the leg. And then demanding that the leg is amputated.

2000 Guardian: 'Healthy limbs cut off at patients' request
NHS trust puts stop to surgeon's amputations done as last resort on disturbed patients with 'life threatening' hate of their own bodies'

(extract)
"A surgeon who amputated the healthy limbs from two psychologically disturbed men at their request said yesterday that he saw nothing wrong with his actions and that he was disappointed he would not be able to carry out such operations again.

Robert Smith cut off the lower legs of two patients, one from England and one from Germany, during private operations at Falkirk and district royal infirmary. The men had been turned away by surgeons across Europe before Mr Smith agreed to operate.

Mr Smith said, however, that he did not want to specialise in the procedure. "The last thing I want to be is a world centre for cutting off arms and legs."

The two men were suffering from an extremely rare form of body dysmorphic disorder known as apotemnophilia. Those suffering from the disease have an obsessive belief that their body is "incomplete" with four limbs and will only be complete after amputation. In most cases of apotemnophilia the desire to be an amputee is linked to a form of sexual arousal, but Mr Smith said there was no suggestion that any of his patients were motivated by sexual urges.

Following an internal investigation, Forth Valley NHS trust has now effectively banned Mr Smith from carrying out further procedures on people suffering from the disorder. Private hospitals have also refused to allow Mr Smith to carry out the procedure.

Mr Smith said he had six more patients waiting to be considered for amputation, two of whom had been fully assessed by psychiatrists as suitable candidates. The disorder takes over patients' lives and Mr Smith said that one of his patients had already tried to persuade friends to shoot off one of her limbs.

"My fear is that someone will injure or kill themselves," he said. "I have very serious concerns that they will go to an unlicensed practitioner or take the law into their own hands and lie down on a railway line, or take a shotgun.

Mr Smith's patients, whom he said were severely disabled by their disorder, had rigorous psychological and psychiatric evaluations before their operations. His decision to carry out the amputations was legal.

Kenyon Mason, a professor dealing with medical ethics, said the law would view the case in much the same way as it would gender reassignment. "As long as you say that people can have a sex change for what is a severe psychological disease, then it is difficult to say you cannot have an amputation for this form of severe psychological disease," said Professor Mason." (continues)

www.theguardian.com/society/2000/feb/01/futureofthenhs.health

Its worth reading the whole article

I think the fact that a very high proportion of gnc children desist if allowed to go through puberty is seen as a problem by some and that the aim of positive affirmation is to ensure they do.
If we're speaking plain now, we neuter cats for instance before puberty, not only to prevent uncontrolled breeding but to prevent undesirable sexual behaviour.
Puberty doesn't just bring physical changes, but the emergence of sexual urges.
Do adolescents desist because that's when they generally start having sexual fantasies and masturbating? If put on puberty blockers, that will never happen. Jazz Jennings has said she doesn't have a sex drive.
positive affirmation is grooming children into puberty blockers to keep them sex less.

Beginning to wonder if Aristotelian ethics (which Catholic moral theology is in part based upon) comes into play here.

Body parts have a function. We operate where they are not fulfilling their basic purpose. We don’t mutilate (and Catholic moral theology uses that word) or amputate healthy functioning body parts.