What language are people allowed to use around describing SRS?

dodgy experimental surgery which failed, left someone in pain and need of repeated surgeries to try and recover something from the poor outcome of the first

And I presume, because of the public nature of this case, this was the work of one of the best surgeons of this type in the USA.

This is an American transman's experience of SRS:

madamnomad.com/2020/01/02/transman-offers-the-poop-on-phalloplasty/?fbclid=IwAR08zlnNpqEI-xJuzp3qSgc8JY8bxASEliQTm2R4s5kHnNyOKJsfpgOxpWw

CW: if you're squeamish, this has some fairly graphic photos of what is a pretty brutal series of operations.

Is it appropriate to refer to NHS surgery as ‘mutilation’?

Also the particular surgery being referred to was done in America, not on the NHS.

And the surgeon themselves admits it's experimental. As proven by the three subsequent operations to help correct the first one.

Is it appropriate to refer to NHS surgery as ‘mutilation’?
Is it appropriate to refer to people as being mutilated when undergoing NHS treatment?

Yes, if the patients were mutilated. Lots of patients have been have been harmed by nhs treatment: mesh, thalidomide, lobotomies, drugs which have since found to be unsafe (eg. Saroxat). None of these were even considered errors at the time. Then there are errors (removing wrong kidney, treating someone for non-existent cancer, having to removed arms/legs/uterus due to missing cancer) and rogue doctors such as George Rowland who has cost the NHS ~£25 million in compensation claims.

Of course NHS treatment leaves some patients mutilated.

Sexequality

I don't disagree with you at all. And I think the world is entirely appropriate.

My point is that banning the word mutilated really doesn't help those who have reported it in the way they think it will.

Because it's the facts that are horrifying. And that doesn't change.

Being a provider of healthcare doesn't necessarily mean you improve peoples lives. At all.

Clearly.

Datun I could understand some debate (which I don’t agree should be silenced) around the use of the word ‘mutilated’ for a planned established surgery with minimal/proportional risk. But to suggest this word is also wrong to use for dodgy experimental surgery which failed, left someone in pain and need of repeated surgeries to try and recover something from the poor outcome of the first?

They’re a provider of healthcare. They’re trying to improve people’s lives.

Is the NHS suddenly some arbiter of right and wrong?

Is it appropriate to refer to NHS surgery as ‘mutilation’?
Is it appropriate to refer to people as being mutilated when undergoing NHS treatment?

*that what we are expected...

The boards are only moderated as a result of reports. The more reports, the heavier the moderation.

These boards are reported all the time.

Which is why you can post elsewhere on the site, unless you, yourself, is someone who is targeted.

So if, for instance, the term mutilation is not allowed when talking about SRS, then are HQ expecting the actual facts to be written in full each time??

Eg, a teenage boy might have his testicles cut off, and his penis removed, or cut in half.

Healthy testicles, a healthy penis, and the potential for an adult sex life and the fathering of children - removed, or fashioned into a hole.

It's not what we are expected to do? Just stick to the clinical facts, in full, each time?

Quite. We are allowed to talk about other surgeries and poor women harmed by surgeons who have since been struck of or imprisoned, or treatments that have since be shown to cause harm and/or are of questionable worth (mesh, labia surgery). But SRS can only be discussed in glowing terms even when the surgeon with a conflict of interest does a terrible experimental bodge job on a youngster needing, so far, three attempts at ‘corrective’ surgery - and this happening in the glare of publicity.

Why are youngsters undergoing this surgery, or associated treatments not being allowed the same level of protection, through public scrutiny, are others? Why is MN HQ complicit in this?

All other subjects on the site aren't constantly stalked by a group of political extremist misogynists determined to control what women say, who harass HQ and report everything. In the belief that forcing MN to delete the evidence and hiding the words will prevent those thoughts escaping out and waking up the woke.