5 ms·

> "Allowed" is a telling choice of words though! You're advocating for a state-enforced limit on what people are allowed to choose for themselves. To children.

> "Allowed" is a telling choice of words though! You're advocating for a state-enforced limit on what people are allowed to choose for themselves. To children. What people are allowed to do to children > Which is why the permission of their parents acts as a limit on what they're able to agree to, in this case as in all others. If a parent comes forward and says "I consent to my child getting sterilized", should that be the only criterion necessary? You said "all" here, so you think that the case I provided is also covered? > The anti-trans moral panic is the tip of the spear of fascism in north america https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/16/as-spain-advances-trans-rights-sweden-backtracks-on-gender-affirming-treatments-for-teens https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/16/as-spain-advances-t... Would you describe Sweden as a fascist country? For (generally) prohibiting giving hormonal therapies to children?

giraffe_lady 4y ago
> If a parent comes forward and says "I consent to my child getting sterilized" Is that happening? We're not trying to formulate a generalizable moral framework here, we're responding to a concrete set of conditions experienced by actual living people. We're inserting ourself into a specialized medical practice, against the wishes of both its practitioners and the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them. Why are we doing that? Why are you so invested with what choices people make for themselves, again, with the consideration of their doctors and families? > Would you describe Sweden as a fascist country? Yeah kinda actually. Unlike most people with internet opinions of scandinavia I have actually lived there with a non-white spouse and they are racist as fuck. I wasn't surprised at all to hear they decided to euthanize old folks during covid and I wouldn't be surprised if they take a hard right swerve in the next decade either.
- trieste92 4y ago
  > against the wishes of both its practitioners Because our wishes conflict with their economic motives > the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them Again, children who aren't able to consent > Why are you so invested with what choices people make for themselves, again, with the consideration of their doctors and families? The same reason why I think the distribution of opiates should be tightly regulated. Because I see something that's inherently wrong, and I see corporations benefitting from it
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    "After careful application of my Logic, I have decided that I support precisely these two restrictive policies that also, separately and completely coincidentally of course, harm some of the most marginalized and vulnerable members of society." Like, this is just not credible sorry. There is a neofascist moral panic being used to justify crackdowns and violence against this group right now. That's where we are and that's where your justification of support needs to start from.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > wishes of both its practitioners and the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them. Not "people", "children", and we frequently disregard the wishes of children when it comes to their health and wellbeing regardless of how they feel about it. We (adults) do this because society has already collectively decided that children are not mature enough to make the best decisions regarding their health and wellbeing. When we decide that the children's (in this case pre-pubescent children), consent is irrelevant to them going to school, or having sex, or taking nude selfies, or getting a boob-job because they are not mature enough to provide meaningful consent, then you can be pretty fucking sure that we, collectively, as a society, aren't going to suddenly decide that pre-pubescent children are making an informed decision about things like chemical and/or literal castration. Seriously, you really think that a group that is considered too undeveloped to consent to a boob-job is still developed enough to consent to sterilisation?
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    It's funny that you mention that because cosmetic surgery like breast enhancement and reduction are performed on minors an order of magnitude more often than anything having to do with gender presentation. I assume you spend a proportionate amount of time and energy fighting that practice? And we allow minors to participate in all kinds of potentially harmful or regrettable things, with parental consent. Working as actors, playing sports that risk brain injury, using firearms, and yes, getting cosmetic surgery. This isn't a new category of thing we're allowing minors to do. Why suddenly the strict consideration by outsiders who never cared about any of those other things? The people cultivating this moral panic have admitted that it is a step on the way to a complete ban on trans healthcare and a crackdown on the existence of trans people. First make it impossible for minors, then under 25, then everyone. Again you cannot just ignore that context and pretend that, ah, well, nevertheless, I just really think this one thing is important for this specific reason.
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > It's funny that you mention that because cosmetic surgery like breast enhancement and reduction are performed on minors an order of magnitude more often than anything having to do with gender presentation. I assume you spend a proportionate amount of time and energy fighting that practice? You say "minors" when I clarified "children" to mean "prepubescent children". There is no way that pre-pubescent children are getting boob-jobs at the rate you claim they are. Because we aren't talking about minor children in general. We're talking about prepubescent children. And we frequently (like in all the examples I gave) ensure that, even with parental consent, they can't do certain things. Like sex. > This isn't a new category of thing we're allowing minors to do. Yes, it is. Irreversible changes purely based on the feelings of the prepubescent child and nothing else aren't allowed, your strawman notwithstanding. > Why suddenly the strict consideration by outsiders who never cared about any of those other things? Sorry, outsiders? Lot's of people cared about prepubescent children enough to enforce that those children go to school, that they are not allowed to have sex no matter how much their parent claims "But they asked for it!!! They feel ready for it!!!" Seriously, we ignore the wishes of prepubescent children all the time, because they are not in a position to provide informed consent. > Again you cannot just ignore that context and pretend that, ah, well, nevertheless, I just really think this one thing is important for this specific reason. No. That's what you are doing. This is your single issue. I'm just pointing out that, collectively, society has already agreed that prepubescent children cannot make their own health decisions. You are here whining that you should be able to petition prepubescent children so that they can give consent. In reality, they have no ability to give consent because we (society) took it away from them.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

> If a parent comes forward and says "I consent to my child getting sterilized" Is that happening? We're not trying to formulate a generalizable moral framework here, we're responding to a concrete set of conditions experienced by actual living people. We're inserting ourself into a specialized medical practice, against the wishes of both its practitioners and the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them. Why are we doing that? Why are you so invested with what choices people make for themselves, again, with the consideration of their doctors and families? > Would you describe Sweden as a fascist country? Yeah kinda actually. Unlike most people with internet opinions of scandinavia I have actually lived there with a non-white spouse and they are racist as fuck. I wasn't surprised at all to hear they decided to euthanize old folks during covid and I wouldn't be surprised if they take a hard right swerve in the next decade either.

trieste92 4y ago
> against the wishes of both its practitioners Because our wishes conflict with their economic motives > the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them Again, children who aren't able to consent > Why are you so invested with what choices people make for themselves, again, with the consideration of their doctors and families? The same reason why I think the distribution of opiates should be tightly regulated. Because I see something that's inherently wrong, and I see corporations benefitting from it
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  "After careful application of my Logic, I have decided that I support precisely these two restrictive policies that also, separately and completely coincidentally of course, harm some of the most marginalized and vulnerable members of society." Like, this is just not credible sorry. There is a neofascist moral panic being used to justify crackdowns and violence against this group right now. That's where we are and that's where your justification of support needs to start from.
lelanthran 4y ago
> wishes of both its practitioners and the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them. Not "people", "children", and we frequently disregard the wishes of children when it comes to their health and wellbeing regardless of how they feel about it. We (adults) do this because society has already collectively decided that children are not mature enough to make the best decisions regarding their health and wellbeing. When we decide that the children's (in this case pre-pubescent children), consent is irrelevant to them going to school, or having sex, or taking nude selfies, or getting a boob-job because they are not mature enough to provide meaningful consent, then you can be pretty fucking sure that we, collectively, as a society, aren't going to suddenly decide that pre-pubescent children are making an informed decision about things like chemical and/or literal castration. Seriously, you really think that a group that is considered too undeveloped to consent to a boob-job is still developed enough to consent to sterilisation?
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  It's funny that you mention that because cosmetic surgery like breast enhancement and reduction are performed on minors an order of magnitude more often than anything having to do with gender presentation. I assume you spend a proportionate amount of time and energy fighting that practice? And we allow minors to participate in all kinds of potentially harmful or regrettable things, with parental consent. Working as actors, playing sports that risk brain injury, using firearms, and yes, getting cosmetic surgery. This isn't a new category of thing we're allowing minors to do. Why suddenly the strict consideration by outsiders who never cared about any of those other things? The people cultivating this moral panic have admitted that it is a step on the way to a complete ban on trans healthcare and a crackdown on the existence of trans people. First make it impossible for minors, then under 25, then everyone. Again you cannot just ignore that context and pretend that, ah, well, nevertheless, I just really think this one thing is important for this specific reason.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > It's funny that you mention that because cosmetic surgery like breast enhancement and reduction are performed on minors an order of magnitude more often than anything having to do with gender presentation. I assume you spend a proportionate amount of time and energy fighting that practice? You say "minors" when I clarified "children" to mean "prepubescent children". There is no way that pre-pubescent children are getting boob-jobs at the rate you claim they are. Because we aren't talking about minor children in general. We're talking about prepubescent children. And we frequently (like in all the examples I gave) ensure that, even with parental consent, they can't do certain things. Like sex. > This isn't a new category of thing we're allowing minors to do. Yes, it is. Irreversible changes purely based on the feelings of the prepubescent child and nothing else aren't allowed, your strawman notwithstanding. > Why suddenly the strict consideration by outsiders who never cared about any of those other things? Sorry, outsiders? Lot's of people cared about prepubescent children enough to enforce that those children go to school, that they are not allowed to have sex no matter how much their parent claims "But they asked for it!!! They feel ready for it!!!" Seriously, we ignore the wishes of prepubescent children all the time, because they are not in a position to provide informed consent. > Again you cannot just ignore that context and pretend that, ah, well, nevertheless, I just really think this one thing is important for this specific reason. No. That's what you are doing. This is your single issue. I'm just pointing out that, collectively, society has already agreed that prepubescent children cannot make their own health decisions. You are here whining that you should be able to petition prepubescent children so that they can give consent. In reality, they have no ability to give consent because we (society) took it away from them.