Extreme body modification case

[AchillesElbow]

Guardian here

Men in court accused of carrying out extreme body modifications on willing participants, including penis and testicle removal.

I note with interest that the men who received this treatment are referred to as ‘victims’ despite willingly undergoing the procedure.

I wonder how this would be reported if the men said they were transgender? Would they be criminalised then or would they be heroes forced to act outside the law to save their patients from suicide?

I don't understand the difference between this and what that Mermaids woman had done to her son?

Well, WPATH promote Eunuch as a valid gender identity, and the NHS still use WPATH Standards of Care as their reference for trans healthcare, so ...

Wish I hadn't read that. I also note with abhorrence that the ring leader has previous for child porn.

Fucking hell that's dark.

This is what I don’t understand. It all seems to be down to what motive you give for wanting the surgery. Transgender: fine go ahead. Anything else: crime.

Yes, what is the difference?

I've seen TikTok videos of young women showing their voice change from taking testosterone. They don't seem to try to emulate a male appearance in any other way. It is body modification.

The difference here is they aren't a sacred caste of Chariries, Drs, Librarians, politicians and school teachers.

Yes. Why are the authorities prosecuting untrained and unregistered people who have been conducting unlicensed and unsupervised medical procedures in contravention of The Medical Act (1983)?

It truly is a mystery…

Is it to do with the medical act? I thought it was about gbh? For it not to be gbh extreme body modification would need to have a medical reason.

There was a case years ago among a group of 'sado-masochists' where it was deemed it was not possible to consent to various physical harms among the members of the group. I think it was a UK case.
This was in the days before extreme cosmetic surgery/trans woo woo was even a thing.

This one maybe:
Consent to serious harm for sexual gratification. A person is unable to consent to the infliction of harm that results in ABH or other more serious injury, for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification: s. 71 Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which codifies the principle set out in the case of R v Brown [1993] 2 WLR 556.

I think it was Operation Spanner?

This should have a trigger warning

I believe all of that is ensconced in the WPATH guidelines, Genevieve Gluck has done a lot of research on this.

genevievegluck.substack.com/

Her more recent interviews with Glinner and possibly Boyce are shocking

Eunuch is a legitimate, recognised gender according to WPATH. Some UK orgs including some NHS get their gender policies from WPATH.

It's a bit transphobic of the Guardian not to recognise eunuch gender tbh and calling them a "subculture". This is gender-affirming healthcare.

Is it only GBH when the person doing the cutting off isn't medically qualified? And when the person being cut admits it's a fetish? Otherwise it's life-saving care, right?

Seems to depend somewhat on the body part.

Doctor who amputated legs when someone had BIID got in bother. This person is accused of amputating someone's leg.

But sex organs seems to be acceptable so long as one has the correct certification.

I read about this with mounting horror. It seems one of the accused has carried out self-mutilation, consented to their own mutilation by others and inflicted it on other (willing? unwilling?) victims.

I think it's harsh of people to try and compare this to what a certain charity person had done to their child. No matter what you think of that person and the outcome, it really doesn't compare to this allegedly porn-addled, sadistic bunch. They were live-streaming and getting people to pay and watch FGS.

I agree with the disgust that WPATH seek to legitimise nullification and eunuch status but the digs elsewhere are going too far I think.

My point was more around the reporting really. It’s not acceptable to call a castrated child a victim, but it is applicable for consenting adults.

So because charity person didnt live stream it, it's different?
WPATH are the only "experts" on trans so their word is gospel. Therefore eunuch is a valid identity, never mind how they came to be that way.

When you compare two things, you're not (necessarily) saying "they are exactly the same", but pointing out the similarities (both to achieve a gender desired by the person) and differences.

I read this with horror - but, just like you, OP, struggled to see how it was really any different from a very young adult identifying as trans having the same done to them.

Technically, they consent; but we've all seen and heard the testimonies of detransitioners and it's very clear that they were not consenting with anything like full awareness of the lifelong consequences - how many people would truly want that 'trade', if they were in full possession and understanding of the facts?

It's widely sold as simply moving from fully and healthily functioning as one sex to fully and healthily functioning as the other sex, but the truth is starkly different - how could it be anything but?