Girl Sues Hospital for Removing Her Breasts at Age 13

[zibzibara]

This is in the US, I hope she wins, this could be the beginning of the end for this gender ideology driven medical abuse over there:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/girl-sues-hospital-for-removing-her-breasts-at-age-13-post_5335492.html

Archive link for article in my previous post.
https://archive.is/OsvZ6

When I was younger you'd learn about people who had lobotomies performed on them, people who were sterilised against their will and I could never understand the mindset of the people of that time. How was it made possible for those atrocities to occur?
I always thought- nothing like that would happen these days.

Well its happening and it just seems like the world has gone bonkers and upside down. How is this even legal?

I prefer 'irreversible sex mimicry treatment' to gac (although, as an acronym, 'gac' is quite good too). If MN will let me I might start using it.

I’m not sure I understand your argument. Even if they had tried 11 different doctors who refused, it would be the 12th, who did approve that would be sued.

there will be two types of parent - those who actively push for trans treatment, and those who are distressed but relying on the expertise of the medial profession. In either case, it’s not the parent who wield the knife for the surgery.

There is a different argument to be had for those parents who trans their children at a very young age

I think a decade or two or three down the road we will look back at this experimental treatment on children and see cutting healthy body parts off children as barbaric as some of the studies and treatments of past generations.

I'd have to disagree with your 2nd paragraph. I cant see any advantages to having young boys castrated.

I have a trans family member, they have a trans partner. Both have irretrievably damaged health, one bad enough to restrict their employment. As far as I know they are still happy with transition - why not when everyone says how brave and wonderful you are. Their health problems will only get worse. If they finally develop fully adult brains and finally realise how limited their life is by ill health and how much better it could have been with healthy bodies will they still be happy? ( I think the long term effect of puberty blockers on brain development is still unknown?) They are young, their friends will be having careers with more money and probably having children. They will be dealing with increasingly poor health.

This is YOUR story. Not the other side if that teen story.

The fact your family member is now happy (I assume?) and has no regret doesn’t mean it’s always that watertight for everyone and that many other teenager don’t regret their transition.

fwiw I dont think teens should have any transition (puberty blockers or surgery). Teenage hood is always a time when children try to make sense if the world. What seemed essential or life threatening at 14yo doesn’t feel that bad at 20yo.
Those teenagers. should be supported all the way. But not that way.

But more to the point, the fact that some teens are still happy 10~15 years down the line doesn’t mean ALL teens should be offered those irreversible ‘treatments’.

Yes they should all get payouts. The medical profession should know better (cosmetic surgery on demand on children?) and most of them now deserve to be struck off for committing child abuse. Where are their ethics? Or the killer question would they do this to their own children/grandchildren? Likely not. I wonder why?

Actually I'm not entirely sure she should get a big payout.

This is in America not the UK. Big payouts to individuals are what change the rules in the US. There's no obvious equivalent of our judicial review.

Should they all?

Big payouts to lots of individuals are even more effective.

But why blame the doctors here - if they hadn't allowed her to or refused her surgery it's highly likely that she just would've gone on to the next person until she found someone who would, because people of that ilk will just keep going until they get what they want.

As a pp says - blame the first doctor who says "yes".

i at least understand the the hypothetical arguments in favour of castrating boys who want to transition in relatively early puberty - doing so will to some extent stop them fully developing certain male characteristics in terms of facial bone structure, their voice breaking, and so on, stuff that's difficult to fix surgically 'further down the line'.

At the expense of putting their lives at risk if they later want a neovagina. Because one of the male characetristics they wont develop fully is a fullsized penis, so they don't have enough tissue from it to construct a neovagina, so it has to be done in an even more dangerous way.

One of the original Dutch protocol youngsters died as a result. The Dutch didn't fret about physical outcomes, the dead patient couldn't report on their satisfaction afterwards so was excluded from the figures. No-one pointed out "that's a 1 in 70 death rate for this treatment" until Michael Biggs got on the case.

These operations should never, ever be done on children.

When I was 13 I felt so uncomfortable in my body and had no money or access to clothes that weren’t make hand me down. I lived in baggy trousers and liked STEM subjects. I have no doubt I would have felt (ND) that I should identify as a male to fit it.
i am 100% female and like being me now and love skirts as much as trousers. But I’m just me and at that age I can see why being make would have seemed easier: especially not having to wear a skirt and shave my legs. People should just be allowed to be people and stop the pink/blue toy gendered shit

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, far from it, but if hypothetically you knew that surgery was the right thing to do for a boy and that it wouldn't be regretted, then it would be better to do it early rather than late, so that the boy wouldn't develop certain features that are typical of adult males such as shape of jawbone, browbone, depth of voice, and so on [semi-interestingly, eunuchs are said to be on average just as tall as 'intact' men].

There's no such advantage for a girl. She's not going to suddenly start looking like Jason Statham or whoever just because she's had a double mastectomy, and there are no further female developments which will be prevented.

I find it so so bizarre this quite clearly unethical surgery is being allowed.

DD1 had a mole removed and the amount of risks / documentation we had to read about that was insane. To have a mole removed on medical advice. There WERE risks too but obviously the risks of leaving the mole there were, in this instance, considered to be higher.

And even with that surgery there's a risk of permanent scarring and pigmentation of the scar which we had to try and explain to DD who didn't really get it. She really disliked the mole because she thought it didn't look nice and just wanted it removed.

But boys who have been on the 'gender affirming' pathway don't grow enough penile skin to have successful surgery, leading to the latest developments which tend to use colon skin grafts to construct a mock-vagina. These have their own issues.

The bottom line is it's impossible to accurately mimic the opposite sex, and the increasingly bizarre and complex procedures are all creating various other side effects, and their own issues. The long term implications of hormones and surgery at such an early age are pretty much an unknown quantity. I suppose we may find out in due course the effects, if research is properly carried out.

Experimental, risky, dangerous surgeries for massive profit, based the ideas of people like John Money and the WPATH guidelines, which affirm 'eunuch' as a valid gender identity for children.

Who consented to this surgery at such a young age.

I don't think that, in the UK, be would be regarded as having what UK law call's "Gillick Competence".

There's no underlying principle about people who are trans here, just about how this person was treated.

I understood what you were trying to say, just felt personally for me, there would never be any advantages to these surgeries in children so young.
Even if aesthetically there would be a better outcome.

But more to the point, the fact that some teens are still happy 10~15 years down the line doesn’t mean ALL teens should be offered those irreversible ‘treatments’.

Yes it’s a bit like those stories where children have sexual relationships with adults and maintain well into adulthood that not only were they they not harmed by that “relationship” but they also use that perceived lack of personal harm as evidence that reducing the age of consent wouldn’t be harmful to all children. It’s such a warped perspective.

She was very determined

//

She was also 13

semi-interestingly, eunuchs are said to be on average just as tall as 'intact' men

I thought eunuchs tended to be taller than average because part of the process of puberty is to end growth.

Did that family member have radical surgery before they were even out of puberty?

Have they had surgery at all?

Were they pre-pubertal, or undergoing puberty? Was their puberty delayed?

Are they M to F or F to M? (this does make a difference)

Most "trans" children do NOT get exploratory sessions with a psychologist (and when they do, it tends to be purely affirmation "therapy" - not in any way looking for deeper causes of the dysphoria/ dysmorphia).

There will always be the exception which proves the rule - your relative may be fortunate enough to be that exception.

In many ways I'm not surprised. The idea of "gender affirming care" has always - as far as I can see - leant heavily on the "affirming". It's coupled with the campaigns against any kind of clinical questioning, even when the clinician can see the self-harm scars/autism signs/abusive parenting with their own eyes and therefore has very good grounds to think that there's something else going on here. As such, any sort of questioning is "conversion therapy", apparently, and lumped in with the horrific things done to gay people to try and turn them straight. So you have a situation where there's only affirmation and that is the only thing a gender-questioning child hears. Increasing cases of regret were inevitable, particularly when they were told that puberty blockers were reversible, medication had no long-term side effects and, well, if surgery can lop 'em off presumably they can pop on a new pair? I've even seen reference to belief that amputated breasts can grow back.

It scares the shit out of me because I would so easily have been one of those kids - I hated periods, I hated my changing body and I can quite clearly remember writing in my diary that I would have a hysterectomy as soon as I was old enough. If it had been available in the name of being "trans" I hate to think what route I could have found myself on. 13 year old me wouldn't have cared one jot about osteoporosis or having lost the option to have children.

As for a PP's comment about our TRA friends not galloping in as usual to tell us why we're wrong, it's almost as if some things are just utterly indefensible, isn't it?

I remember reading about castrati singers during the Georgian era - these were boys castrated before or around puberty to "preserve" their high voices for posterity.

IIRC they suffered terrible health problems and either had stunted growth or grew extremely tall and thin. There was a rather cruel satirical cartoon that showed one as almost as wide as he was tall and the other like a beanpole.

So I guess they would average out?

You are correct - with slight reservations. If castration occurs before the end of puberty they do grow taller than they would have done had they gone through puberty - the long bones in the legs and arms continue to grow because the end of puberty is required to stop that growth. They unfortunately don't just grow taller than they would have done, but are disproportionate, with legs and arms which are far too long for their torsos. Muscle development is also affected.

They also have narrow shoulders and wider hips than most men. because they aren't getting the masculinising testosterone.

Like other people though, there is height variation. They don't necessarily grow into giants unless they were going to be tall anyway - just taller than they would have been had their growth plates fused the way nature intended.