"Top surgery" for 12 year olds.

[FOJN]

New video from mrmenno on "top surgery" for minors. We already knew some of the gruesome details about what happens state side but the details about Scottish referrals for 16 and 17 year olds were new to me. I think it's important to emphasise the referrals part, I don't know if surgery was actually performed before the patients turned 18.

Note what happens to the rate of referrals for patients in their mid twenties, it's a trend I've noticed before. At what age is the brain fully developed?

I've also wondered about how young some of the patients are and what stage of puberty they are at when these decisions are made. Would a 12 year old, presumably sufficiently dysphoric enough to justify surgery not have been diagnosed before puberty and put on blockers or is this a rushed decision after puberty has started. Breast growth cannot be finished at 12 so what is being done to ensure the surgical results are permanent?

I'm trying to work out what the clinical logic is of performing such radical surgery on very young girls when you cannot reliably predict your ability to completely halt natural puberty. Are these children being given cross sex hormones at 12 and 13?

While consent should definitely cover a number of eventualities, I’m not sure that should include explaining to someone that if they choose to remove their lactating organs then those organs will no longer be there.

I'd rather have ripped my leftover breast milk down the sink than given it to someone who had their perfectly functioning breasts removed and then complained they couldn't breastfeed.

Yet a promoter of said ideology hasn’t worked out that if you remove your breasts, you can’t make breast milk

I guess the plan was to chestfeed rather than breastfeed.

These fuckers need locked up. So much about this whole movement enrages me. The me me meness of it, the thought policing, the outright aggression. But the brutalising of children, sacrificing them to the altar of trans fabulousness. I think there should be a word to describe the anger this causes. Rage doesn't come close to describing it.

These fuckers need locked up. So much about this whole movement enrages me. The me me meness of it, the thought policing, the outright aggression. But the brutalising of children, sacrificing them to the altar of trans fabulousness

The ease with which it has all happened is frightening. It's like something out of a conspiracy theory nuts brain. Where everyone necessary has been strategically placed and has waited fir their signal to make the move.

One key issue is that breastfeeding isn't mentioned on the National curriculum. It's not something that's talked about.

So few grow up knowing about it. It's been de normalised in our society.

So basically, trans is normalised for young women.

Bf isn't.

Easy to see that the overwhelming narrative is anti female.

Also, Emma Picket a breastfeeding consultant wrote a great book about breasts. Except it included a part about how some women choose to remove them. So that ok.

nothing about cancer and mastectomies as she didn't want to scare kids. She wanted them to embrace the normality of breasts. by knowing they can be removed.

The book was for teens.

@Clymene

I'd rather have ripped my leftover breast milk down the sink than given it to someone who had their perfectly functioning breasts removed and then complained they couldn't breastfeed.

Me too.

And since we're constantly told that formula is "just as good" (once again denying biological reality), then the transmen can use that.

I would also imagine that O'Connell's consultant thought - not unreasonably - that someone who wanted to remove their breasts because they were a distressing reminder of their biological sex would not then want to become a mother as that is basically the pinnacle of womanhood.

Let's not forget that O'Connell made a documentary about O'Connell which apparently (I haven't watched it) shows O'Connell receiving a GRC and then within days heading for a fertility clinic to start the process of becoming pregnant. This is not my idea of living as a man, and I very much doubt it's what Parliament thought might happen when they passed the GRA in 2004.

Then, of course, we had the protracted saga of O'Connell's attempts to get the law changed so that O'Connell would be shown on the birth certificate as father, not mother.

Mememememememememememe.

@Clymene

I'd rather have ripped my leftover breast milk down the sink than given it to someone who had their perfectly functioning breasts removed and then complained they couldn't breastfeed.

I agree.

@WarriorN

So basically, trans is normalised for young women.

Bf isn't.

Easy to see that the overwhelming narrative is anti female.

Also, Emma Picket a breastfeeding consultant wrote a great book about breasts. Except it included a part about how some women choose to remove them. So that ok.

nothing about cancer and mastectomies as she didn't want to scare kids. She wanted them to embrace the normality of breasts. by knowing they can be removed.

That’s terrifying. I feel sickened after reading this.

That’s terrifying. I feel sickened after reading this

Reminds me of a quote I very recently heard.

They normalise pathology so they can pathologist normalcy.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

Let's not forget that O'Connell made a documentary about O'Connell which apparently (I haven't watched it) shows O'Connell receiving a GRC and then within days heading for a fertility clinic to start the process of becoming pregnant. This is not my idea of living as a man, and I very much doubt it's what Parliament thought might happen when they passed the GRA in 2004.

Then, of course, we had the protracted saga of O'Connell's attempts to get the law changed so that O'Connell would be shown on the birth certificate as father, not mother.

Mememememememememememe.

Thankfully the law didn’t agree with this person as the law agreed that the person who gives birth is a mother.

I understand that F continues to be aggrieved about this “cis-normative” way of recording accurately that the person who gives birth is the mother.

The aforementioned documentary is a painful exercise in trying to make everyone you ever come across dance to your tune - even when you change your mind and realise that, despite having your breasts cut off and despite starting to take testosterone, you actually quite fancy getting pregnant.

@Clymene

I would also imagine that O'Connell's consultant thought - not unreasonably - that someone who wanted to remove their breasts because they were a distressing reminder of their biological sex would not then want to become a mother as that is basically the pinnacle of womanhood.

The lack of scientific literacy in this country combined with the social media saturated gender-woo "biology is soooo old-school and cis-normative" narrative makes surgeons' jobs impossible I would have thought.

The removal of a perfectly healthy organ requires even higher levels of consent-checking presumably?

I can’t get my head around any medical professional removing healthy organs. I don’t understand how they can bring themselves to do it. What happened to “first do no harm?”

If you say that it’s going to ‘save the life’ of your client then you will go ahead - it’s often lucrative isn’t it?

I wish they could.pr9duce the evidence fir this.

There is nothing out there that confirms that.

All we have are anecdotes from adult males who are very much alive claiming lives will be saved.

When in reality one death that made the news was accessing hormones on line.

How will it save a life, if its really a mental health disorder.

Could you imagine a surgeon removing a foot because in someone's mind it's wonky / evil and causing them distress.

The MH aspects will just move on to some other perceived imperfection.

These people need MH support not surgery

This is not my idea of living as a man, and I very much doubt it's what Parliament thought might happen when they passed the GRA in 2004.

There were some, particularly in the Lords, who raised these sorts of ridiculous scenarios as being possible under the proposed act, and they were told to, well, stop being ridiculous.

An early form of "this never happens"...

Could you imagine a surgeon removing a foot because in someone's mind it's wonky / evil and causing them distress.

Surgeons have occasionally done amputations for this sort of reason.

This is an interesting article (from 2000) which makes the obvious comparison of amputation of healthy limbs with 'gender' surgery.

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-way-to-be-mad/304671/

In January of this year British newspapers began running articles about Robert Smith, a surgeon at Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary, in Scotland. Smith had amputated the legs of two patients at their request, and he was planning to carry out a third amputation when the trust that runs his hospital stopped him. These patients were not physically sick. Their legs did not need to be amputated for any medical reason. Nor were they incompetent, according to the psychiatrists who examined them. They simply wanted to have their legs cut off. In fact, both the men whose limbs Smith amputated have declared in public interviews how much happier they are, now that they have finally had their legs removed.

Bazaar - but at least the trust stopped him from doing the 3rd one!