"Is the parent who allows their child's leg to be amputated 'mutilating' them? Suppose that leg was useless to them? Change your mind?"
Ashley's legs are useless (as are are arms and teeth) Shall we whip them off too?
And no mind not changed
Gannymede ignorant? Didn't he say he was a surgeon? One that had performed hysterectomys? I think he's viewpoint is very valid
I know profound and severe are very different but they are both disabling. What if someone discovers Ashley does have ability to communicate at some point? That she has some mental capacity? Does it make this ok still? Her sexuality is still important, whether she uses it in a sexual way or not.
Testicles may not cause the same inconvience as periods or breasts....but they can cause discomfort if laid on awkwardly or if pants are bit tight! Removing Ashleys breasts, in the main was to de sexualise her (in case a carer was to assault her) Saying the same about a young man was to say is that not the same thing?
It's like they want to take away everything adult away. I still think it's wrong.