5 ms·

> A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about trangenderism [sic!] because their opinions are con

> A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about trangenderism [sic!] because their opinions are considered "disrespectful" or even "violent" to transgender people. What does "being opposed to sex-reassignment surgery" even mean? I see two options: 1. Being opposed to others having the possibility of undergoing such a surgery. 2. Being opposed to undergoing such a surgery. In the first case, I do believe it's disrespectful of the freedom to do with one's body as one pleases. In the second case, AFAIK nobody forces anybody to undergo such a surgery, so I doubt that anybody understands this position this way. Disclaimer: I also don't like the idea of "safe spaces", however this particular criticism seems ill-founded.

ramblerman 7y ago
> In the first case, I do believe it's disrespectful of the freedom to do with one's body as one pleases You aren’t allowed to harm yourself. You could argue that you should but under current laws we protect people from that, mostly. Also doctors have to perform these surgeries in which case their oath would mandate we are certain this procedure isn’t causing harm. And finally and perhaps most importantly. These surgeries can be performed before the age of 18.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "And finally and perhaps most importantly. These surgeries can be performed before the age of 18." Can you cite numbers as to where, and how often, this is happening?
- sosborn 7y ago
  > You aren’t allowed to harm yourself. You could argue that you should but under current laws we protect people from that, mostly. There is a law against committing suicide, but there aren't any laws about harming yourself. If there were, sugar intake would be regulated and alcohol would be banned. You also don't get arrested if you intentionally cut yourself. > their oath would mandate we are certain this procedure isn’t causing harm That's not what the oath means, and you can see plenty examples of this in practice. Many procedures cause harm and the question is whether or not the harm caused by the procedure outweighs the harm done by not doing the surgery.
  - tgflynn 7y ago
    > There is a law against committing suicide The vast majority of Western countries (at least) no longer have laws against committing suicide. What they do have is laws that allow the basic rights of people who are considered "a danger to themselves", such as the right to refuse treatment, to be set aside. In my view such laws, unless limited to people with specifically diagnosable and treatable conditions, are an unwarranted invasion of government into an individual's private affairs.
- hellomyguys 7y ago
  I agree, we should put more effort into banning circumcision.
- abjKT26nO8 7y ago
  I think that I should be the judge of what is harmful to me. So you could say that I disagree with you, but FWIW I don't agree with the downvotes you received. Your points are valid, it seems that a lot of people use the downvote button as a sign of disagreement.
ganzuul 7y ago
By the definition of 'safe space' given by the article?
- abjKT26nO8 7y ago
  > By the definition of 'safe space' given by the article? I don't understand your reply. Perhaps you meant to reply to a different comment?
  - ganzuul 7y ago
    You said; > 'Disclaimer: I also don't like the idea of "safe spaces"...' The article defines a safe space as "...an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgement." I suppose I'm really asking you if you read TFA.
    - abjKT26nO8 7y ago
      I read it. And I think that people shouldn't be shielded from harsh judgement or things that they may find offensive. Mutual respect is desired, but it isn't something that can be achieved by regulation --- unless you aim merely for a false sense of respect.
      - ganzuul 7y ago
        Are you assuming constant shielding, like being surrounded by 'yes-men'? I don't think that is what advocates of safe spaces have in mind.

ramblerman 7y ago

> In the first case, I do believe it's disrespectful of the freedom to do with one's body as one pleases You aren’t allowed to harm yourself. You could argue that you should but under current laws we protect people from that, mostly. Also doctors have to perform these surgeries in which case their oath would mandate we are certain this procedure isn’t causing harm. And finally and perhaps most importantly. These surgeries can be performed before the age of 18.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"And finally and perhaps most importantly. These surgeries can be performed before the age of 18." Can you cite numbers as to where, and how often, this is happening?
sosborn 7y ago
> You aren’t allowed to harm yourself. You could argue that you should but under current laws we protect people from that, mostly. There is a law against committing suicide, but there aren't any laws about harming yourself. If there were, sugar intake would be regulated and alcohol would be banned. You also don't get arrested if you intentionally cut yourself. > their oath would mandate we are certain this procedure isn’t causing harm That's not what the oath means, and you can see plenty examples of this in practice. Many procedures cause harm and the question is whether or not the harm caused by the procedure outweighs the harm done by not doing the surgery.
- tgflynn 7y ago
  > There is a law against committing suicide The vast majority of Western countries (at least) no longer have laws against committing suicide. What they do have is laws that allow the basic rights of people who are considered "a danger to themselves", such as the right to refuse treatment, to be set aside. In my view such laws, unless limited to people with specifically diagnosable and treatable conditions, are an unwarranted invasion of government into an individual's private affairs.
hellomyguys 7y ago
I agree, we should put more effort into banning circumcision.
abjKT26nO8 7y ago
I think that I should be the judge of what is harmful to me. So you could say that I disagree with you, but FWIW I don't agree with the downvotes you received. Your points are valid, it seems that a lot of people use the downvote button as a sign of disagreement.

ganzuul 7y ago

By the definition of 'safe space' given by the article?

abjKT26nO8 7y ago
> By the definition of 'safe space' given by the article? I don't understand your reply. Perhaps you meant to reply to a different comment?
- ganzuul 7y ago
  You said; > 'Disclaimer: I also don't like the idea of "safe spaces"...' The article defines a safe space as "...an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgement." I suppose I'm really asking you if you read TFA.
  - abjKT26nO8 7y ago
    I read it. And I think that people shouldn't be shielded from harsh judgement or things that they may find offensive. Mutual respect is desired, but it isn't something that can be achieved by regulation --- unless you aim merely for a false sense of respect.
    - ganzuul 7y ago
      Are you assuming constant shielding, like being surrounded by 'yes-men'? I don't think that is what advocates of safe spaces have in mind.