gender affirming care is child abuse in my opinion

There are about 70 hospitals in the United States that provide so-called gender-affirming care to children the cost is about 76,000 to take a girl child and make her physically resemble a male child. Hospitals that do this type of procedure are very quick to explain to the public that gender confirming care is not child abuse. Of course the mutilation done to the child and the hormone therapy that is irreversibly damaging to the child is not explained in any detail nor is the Financial incentive to the hospital explained at all. I'm providing this link as a demonstration of just how they try to sell this type of procedure.
www.luriechildrens.org...

I'm not really sure about a Way Forward on the situation but I must say that I find it abhorrent that there is a profit to be made on the mutilation of children and the hormone therapy that is life-altering and entirely damaging to the child.

It's all very worrying. Ethics seem to have been discarded off the back of "feelings" and "wants". Sadly, I expect many children will grow up to have poor lives if they are subjected to the type of interventions promoted by the "gender industry".

And an industry it is. Lots of people have got jobs and now make good livings out of all of this. It's in their financial interests to dish out the drugs, run the sessions and wield the scalpel. They just won't be there when the children grow up.

a reply to: paraphi
I'm trying to determine a Way Forward here and I think that disincentivizing Physicians who would perform this type of Mutilation of children's genitalia should have their surgical hands made to look perhaps like something more like a catcher's mitt. That seems appropriate. If they are going to alter the genitalia of children's surgically when they have no say in the matter because they are not adults making decisions for the child those that make those decisions should have some consequences. Disincentivizing aberrant Behavior is not my expertise but it is certainly something I'm looking into.

a reply to: machineintelligence
I'm convinced that before a couple of decades have passed, a number of test cases will have established that transgendered minors have the right to claim retrospective damages from their parents, and all hell will break loose.

a reply to: DISRAELI


What an odd thaught...
Here I am thinking that child mutilation is OK in the USA, given that more than 50% are circumcised. Or are you advocating "rules for thee, but not for me" ?

a reply to: paraphi
I'm trying to determine a Way Forward here and I think that disincentivizing Physicians who would perform this type of Mutilation of children's genitalia should have their surgical hands made to look perhaps like something more like a catcher's mitt. That seems appropriate. If they are going to alter the genitalia of children's surgically when they have no say in the matter because they are not adults making decisions for the child those that make those decisions should have some consequences. Disincentivizing aberrant Behavior is not my expertise but it is certainly something I'm looking into.

I think it will be appropriate at the very least for the children that are treated in such a manner have some sort of recourse legally it doesn't repair the fact that they're on many occasions not going to be able to have children so we may end up losing a part of the Next Generation to this type of sexual mutilation Behavior.

a reply to: machineintelligence

A little child mutilation her and there hasn't harmed our society at all, we've been at it for 15`000 years, what's with the faux outrage?

I don't exactly think that there's any equivalents although what you are referring to with regard to circumcision is certainly a wrong but it does not destroy the genitalia of a male child entirely of course you're aware of the distinction between these two things you act as though there is no distinction out of sophistry your sophistry is noted.

a reply to: Terpene
I was making a prediction about the way lawyers would go. Do you think American lawyers are not capable of defining a difference between the two situations, if it created a profitable opportunity worth exploiting?

a reply to: machineintelligence

Indeed, you change one appendix for something else. What do you get when circumcised?

I think when working towards solutions, one must start in the own backyard. You want your critique heard, proof that you are aware of your own shortcomings considering the issue and bring a solution that solves your own first.

People will take you much more serious if you prove that your concern is honest, and not another "rules for thee but not for me".

I see no difference in the fact that parents are allowed to mutilate their children, do you?

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: DISRAELI


What an odd thaught...
Here I am thinking that child mutilation is OK in the USA, given that more than 50% are circumcised. Or are you advocating "rules for thee, but not for me" ?

You're trying to compare apples to oranges. As with a tonsillectomy or appendectomy, circumcision does not alter ones' birth gender. But you already know that and just want to take another opportunity to denigrate the US.

We Americans, unlike you, are willing to admit our country isn't perfect and neither are its citizens. We don't need people sitting in their glass houses in other countries to constantly tell us how bad we are. Few who live in denial are on ATS; those people usually hang out on FB and Twitter.

I think when working towards solutions, one must start in the own backyard.

How about you tell us where your backyard is so we can spend the rest of the thread pointing out what's wrong with your country?

a reply to: DISRAELI

I don't know about the states, but many things in law are set with precedents, you think this will set precedents that include all child mutilation, no matter the religion it is practiced under. Or will this give raise for a new religion?

What is a more probable way? Religion admitting an error, or an error creating a religion?

I don't think that pointing out a lesser evil makes a greater evil less evil but if you wish to stand with Satan you are quite allowed to do that. You can also stand with Satan at the judgment. I know that my mother was never asked that I would be circumcised it was simply done and she had no input and this was at Maxwell Air Force Base so the government was directly involved in that particular mutilation.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: DISRAELI

What an odd thaught...
Here I am thinking that child mutilation is OK in the USA, given that more than 50% are circumcised. Or are you advocating "rules for thee, but not for me" ?

First, I agree that circumcision is mutilation along the same lines of what happens to women in muslim countries, but...

Anyone who cannot see the difference is either a liar or a brainwashed idiot.

a reply to: tanstaafl

The only difference I see is the parents motivation for the mutilation of their kids.
It should be illegal to do any invasive surgery on minors unless live saving. I'm totally on board with that, but let's adress the whole issue otherwise it sounds quite hypocrite.

But nice try with the adhominem argument.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: DISRAELI


What an odd thaught...
Here I am thinking that child mutilation is OK in the USA, given that more than 50% are circumcised. Or are you advocating "rules for thee, but not for me" ?

you have it figured out. Well done. Circumcision is identical to chopping of the dick and turning it into a vajayjay.
Derp much?

a reply to: network dude

Oh, look at all the great ad hominem arguments you bring forth, must be very challenging.

I see no difference in the fact that parents are allowed to mutilate their children, do you?
Now, is it wrong that parents are allowed to mutilate their children? I say yes.
And If so, the practice of circumcision can only be appreciated by highly Hypocrite, and morally incoherent beings...

But hey if the shoe fits

a reply to: machineintelligence

There are doctors and medical professionals who will gladly do ANYTHING for money.

They do not care what they cut off or rip out of you as long as they keep getting paid.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: tanstaafl

The only difference I see is the parents motivation for the mutilation of their kids.
It should be illegal to do any invasive surgery on minors unless live saving.

I actually fully agree, but...

let's adress the whole issue otherwise it sounds quite hypocrite.

Not at all, but it absolutely is completely disingenuous (or just evidence of a lack of critical thinking skills) to equate the two.

But nice try with the adhominem argument.

By all means, point out what, precisely, about my argument was ad hominem.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: network dude

Oh, look at all the great ad hominem arguments you bring forth, must be very challenging.

I see no difference in the fact that parents are allowed to mutilate their children, do you?
Now, is it wrong that parents are allowed to mutilate their children? I say yes.
And If so, the practice of circumcision can only be appreciated by highly Hypocrite, and morally incoherent beings...

But hey if the shoe fits

If you get a circumcision, are you still a male? Do you still have working male parts? Can you still write your name in the snow? this isn't that. DERP is way to kind for this "argument", it's like being angry at an orange because you stubbed your toe on the bed. Don't be that DERP.