GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom?

submitted by GenderbenderShe/her/hers from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

Sex characteristics are not resexed, complications from surgery are common, results are frequently insensate or painful, and I am yet to see a single example of reconfigured genitals that are not very obviously unnatural.

Hormones change a few of over 2000 physical differences between males and females. A bit of hair and a minor redistribution of fat dependent on a permanent regime of exogenous hormones is not a biological change, so much as a cosmetic deliberate causing of inducing hormone disorders.

A snake oil salesmen has convinced you of organ transplants that will facilitate male pregnancy and birth because they can profit from promising this is right around the corner and in the meantime they’d be happy to offer FFS for the life savings of the average applicant.

This does not mean it will actually be achieved.

Altering phenotypes improving all the time is an opinion. Experimental surgery to treat mental anguish gaining acceptance, popularity, and guineapigs being good is your opinion.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

Sex characteristics are not resexed

I have breasts and the shape of lots of things from my face to my feet changed. I don't want to talk about my sex life, but last I checked breasts were a secondary sex characteristic differs between men and women.

I am yet to see a single example of reconfigured genitals that are not very obviously unnatural

Ever think those content with their results don't want you looking at them? If you get your examples from that awful botched SRS sub or similar then ofc you'd think this.

Also, most surgery pics circulated are from right after it was done so ofc they will bad, it's still healing.

they’d be happy to offer FFS for the life savings of the average applicant.

All the more reason for trans people's care to be more in the hands of trans people so that we don't have to rely on random doctors without our best interests. I will pay to get FFS because I can't do the surgery myself, but yes it is frustrating.

so much as a cosmetic deliberate causing of inducing hormone disorders.

Yeah it's deliberate, no it is not a disorder. My hormone levels are probably more stable than yours or anyone else who produces their sex hormones endogenously. I feel and am fine with my new levels

Compare trans care now to trans care 80 years ago. We used to have to rely on horse estrogen. And it's undeniable that in the last few decades more and more SRS surgeons have popped up to serve community need. Surgery is kinda inherently phenotypical change, and the techniques for vaginoplasty have been improving that's just the truth.

It's hardly experimental when SRS was first performed almost a century ago.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

You having either breast implants or induced gynemastica does not mean that humanity has succeeded in altering human sexual dimorphism.

If they wanted their results private they surely would not have uploaded them to public imgur albums and Reddit and their personal blogs, often with statements about how excited they are to share. Have you ever looked at the transgender surgery subreddits?

I am concerned that all you take away from someone selling you a lie like male pregnancy is that it’s frustrating that they are the only person who can charge you exorbitant fees for minor results.

Transgender people are not prevented from becoming cosmetic surgeons, so the numbers of transgender surgeons available is an internal fight for y’all to have.

A disorder is not defined by how you feel about it, so I am not going to pretend that excess female hormones in any male body is healthy function. I’m glad you don’t feel unwell but it is only health to someone with a very distorted perception of the concept.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

I have neither implants nor gynecomastia. They're just breasts. I can link the study showing that trans women's breasts were identical on the tissue level to other women's if you want? During the course of a scare I had with a lump in my breast my doctor confirmed to me that it was just lobular growth and totally normal, no one had told me that would happen but it was very relieving.

Have you ever looked at the transgender surgery subreddits?

I used to hateread the awful old sub that would say the worst stuff about people's results. I just don't put much stock in how results look right after surgery, when everything is healing. At this point, I also am starting to not care if the results aren't perfect as long as they are close enough and not obvious (I date men and men r likely to be more clueless on whether my genitalia look right)

I am concerned that all you take away from someone selling you a lie like male pregnancy

No I firmly believe it will happen eventually I just think I'll be old by the time they have it working. Which sucks, I would volunteer for it if I got the chance though.

Transgender people are not prevented from becoming cosmetic surgeons

The majority of trans people live in poverty, we make way less per dollar on average than people who aren't trans. I agree that should change and I'd love to see more trans surgeons.

A disorder is not defined by how you feel about it, so I am not going to pretend that excess female hormones in any male body is healthy function

This is exactly my problem with GC ideology I guess. You can literally never see something as existing on its own or any exceptions to what you see as sacred, immutable biological sex. Like to you, me having breasts would be defined as gyno regardless of the fact that my breasts are fully developed and could produce milk, merely because they are attached to someone who's amab. It's absurd, like, you can think I'm male if you want but please acknowledge my body parts and hormones by how they actually are. In someone who isn't trans my levels would be a disorder because they would be in distress. For me, it was the other way around.

You can't just impose your idea of what is healthy onto everyone. We all have slightly different ideas of health, to me having my hormones managed exogenously is completely okay.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

In males, female appearing breasts may indicate the following;

Hypogonadism. Conditions that lower testosterone production, such as Klinefelter syndrome or pituitary insufficiency, can be associated with gynecomastia. Aging. Hormone changes that occur with aging can cause gynecomastia, especially in men who are overweight. Tumors. Some tumors, such as those involving the testes, adrenal glands or pituitary gland, can produce hormones that alter the male-female hormone balance. Hyperthyroidism. In this condition, the thyroid gland produces too much of the hormone thyroxine. Kidney failure. About half the people being treated with dialysis experience gynecomastia due to hormonal changes. Liver failure and cirrhosis. Changes in hormone levels related to liver problems and cirrhosis medications are associated with gynecomastia. Malnutrition and starvation. When your body is deprived of adequate nutrition, testosterone levels drop while estrogen levels remain the same, causing a hormonal imbalance. Gynecomastia can also happen when normal nutrition resumes.

In females breast development indicates healthy development and hormonal balance.

This article explains some differences,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5010345/ Such as the distinct lack of lobules. There is no evidence that estrogen causes the formation of lobules. There are mountains of evidence that the growth of breast tissue in males with excess estrogen is gynecomastia.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This article explains some differences,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5010345/ Such as the distinct lack of lobules. There is no evidence that estrogen causes the formation of lobules. There are mountains of evidence that the growth of breast tissue in males with excess estrogen is gynecomastia.

Generally, males do not have lobules. But some males with breast cancer have been found to have partially developed lobules. It's very rare, but it has happened.

One theory is that genetic factors cause the male androgen receptors in the breast tissue of some males to "express" in ways similar to estrogen receptors. Another theory is that during male mini puberty of infancy some male babies either make amounts of estrogen and progesterone that are higher than typical, or they respond to the normal amounts of E and P they make in atypical ways. Yet another theory is that for a time in infancy some males have excess aromatization that causes them to convert some of the massive amounts of T that baby boys produce during male mini puberty of infancy into estrogen. But no one knows.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I had an x-ray and a breast exam and my doctor told me very clearly that it was lobular growth. I can literally feel where. Obviously if you only look up info on gyno you will not get information about trans women, men with excess estrogen do not take the same doses that we do nor t blockers or progesterone, so it's simply not the same.

See this

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5773616/

The histologic effect of high levels of estrogen utilized for transition from male to female, unlike gynecomastia, includes development of ducts, lobules and acini histologically identical to cisgender women. Pseudolactational changes have also been described

The same breast pathology that occurs in natal women should be expected in transgender women.

Also: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8056255/

As hormone-induced breast development in trans women results in a histological female breast with ducts and lobules, lobular pathology in trans women may be expected

Tl;Dr it's not gyno and pretending it is will harm us because we need more breast screenings than men with gyno

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So what makes the breasts tissue of a man with “woman gender identity” different to a man who doesn’t?

Why would excess estrogen cause lobular growth in men with gender identity and regular gyno in men without it?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

identity doesn't make breast tissue different, hormones do...men with gyno have a different hormonal situation than trans women, it's not just estrogen it's also the amount of it and type and T level etc. As the study explains, breast development caused by exogenous estrogen for transitioning mtf is distinct from gyno.

Lobular growth seems to be hit or miss. I know other trans women who have not had that much development. Others with more than me. It's frustrating that we don't know more

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why would excess estrogen cause lobular growth in men with gender identity and regular gyno in men without it?

Good question. Maybe it's the head tilt, the pronouns insisted upon, or way the way the breast tissue bounces when going up and down stairs. TW frequently say on social media that the bouncing of their breast tissue makes them ecstatic with gender euphoria, but bog standard guys with gynecomastia are far less thrilled by all the jiggling their own breast tissue does.

Then again, the explanation could also be that the claims being made here are simply not true.

Since male breast tissue is rudimentary, it usually does not differentiate and undergo lobule formation unless exposed to increased concentrations of endogenous or exogenous estrogen.

  • The Differences between Male and Female Breast Cancer, 2010

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Both the papers you linked to are about the kinds of pathologies that HCPs need to be aware of and look out for when doing imaging of breast tissue of TW who take exogenous estrogen. The fact that some TW who've had breast imaging show "development of ducts, lobules and acini" that on film or on screen appear "histologically identical" to some women doesn't mean they are capable of performing the same function, which is to make milk.

Pseudolactational changes have also been described

Just because the authors of this paper say "pseudolactational changes" in the breast tissue of TW have been "described" by some doctors doesn't mean this breast tissue is lactational tissue. It doesn't mean this tissue has lactated or can lactate. It means the total opposite, in fact. The clue is in the "pseud" part of "pseudolactational." Pseudo means "not genuine; spurious or sham."

Also, the first paper you cite itself says that the development of the specific kinds of tissue in the breasts that has been observed in some TW through imaging, and which you are so focused on, is the kind of development that occurs in females early in puberty, but only early in puberty. The tissue observed in TW has not reached the level of development seen in females who are in the final phase of puberty known as Tanner Stage 5.

Plus, not all breast experts would agree that the sort of tissue development that the HCPs who do breast imaging and who wrote the first paper say they have observed in some TW on exogenous hormone formulations have never been found in bog-standard males who don't take the same sorts of drugs:

Male breast pathology has a similar diversity as is seen in women. Although lobular carcinomas were not thought to occur in men because of the normally absent terminal lobular unit, several reports have identified both in situ and invasive lobular carcinoma.16,100,101 Virtually every histologic entity described in women has occurred in men.

  • "Gynecomastia" in The Breast, 2-Volume Set, Expert Consult Online and Print (Fourth Edition), 2009

Since male breast tissue is rudimentary, it usually does not differentiate and undergo lobule formation unless exposed to increased concentrations of endogenous or exogenous estrogen.

Because of the [usual] lack of lobules in the male breast, lobular carcinoma [in males who don't identify as trans and don't take exogenous estrogens] is very uncommon (1%), but has been reported in the literature.

  • The Differences between Male and Female Breast Cancer, 2010

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/male-breast

Another issue is that imaging technology only goes so far and is limited in what it reveals. For example, when I had a concerning mass in one of my breasts, and a tumor in my head, the doctors who treated me guessed what the growths were made of - but they couldn't be sure until they actually took a biopsy of my breast mass, and removed the tumor from head, then sent the tissue to a pathology lab for thorough examination. In the case of both my breast mass and my cranial tumor, the doctors' guesses based on what they saw in the imaging turned out to be wrong. (ETA: these events in my medical history were separate, and did not occur at the same time. The times when I had a tumor in my head that had to be removed surgically and I had a breast mass requiring biopsy were years apart.)

The point is: even though males and females can and do develop breast tissues and pathology that can appear identical when viewed through imaging technology, there are still many differences at the cellular level. For example, the vast majority of the hormone receptors in male breast tissue will be male androgen receptors whilst the majority of the hormone receptors in female breast tissue will be female estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors. Yes, males have estrogen and receptors in their breast tissue too, as they do in other parts of their bodies. Moreover, in males who develop certain breast cancers, many of the male androgen receptors that are predominant in number will "express" in ways that cause them to behave a lot like female estrogen receptors. Yet at the same time, the male receptors that behave somewhat like female receptors will play a different role in male and female breast cancer even when the cancer is of the same type.

Scientific understanding of male and female hormone receptors is still in early stages. But what is clear from human and animal research is that whilst both sexes have androgen receptors, estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors (as well as receptors for other hormones), the ARs, ERs and PRs of males and females are different in nature, location, number, expression and function - and when hormone receptors are affected by genetic mutations, the impact of the same exact mutation on the affected receptors will be different depending on the person's sex.

Finally, the focus on breast development - on what a TW's breast tissue might look like to a casual observer on the street or what it might look like in medical imaging - is beside the point. Although human breasts serve a reproductive purpose that is extremely important, human breasts are still secondary sex characteristics. Lots of women have all sorts of breast anomalies. Lots of women have issues with their breast anatomy that makes it difficult or impossible for them to breastfeed. Lots of women have had one or both breasts removed due to breast cancer. But none of that has any affect on our sex. Many males including a majority of TW tend to see breasts as defining characteristics of women - in fact, many see breasts as women's single most important and most defining characteristic. But women don't see ourselves and each other that way.

The difference between how TW and women regard women's breasts has been illustrated on a number of Mumsnet threads where TW have expressed their belief that women size up and rate one another according to breast size, and that we see women with large breasts as being more genuinely female than women with small or absent breasts. The women of Mumsnet were aghast at this preposterous view.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The fact that some TW who've had breast imaging show "development of ducts, lobules and acini" that on film or on screen appear "histologically identical" to some women doesn't mean they are capable of performing the same function, which is to make milk.

there are literally forums where trans women have figured out how to do so. There have been trans women who have breastfed.

The tissue observed in TW has not reached the level of development seen in females who are in the final phase of puberty known as Tanner Stage 5.

It has in some of us, in me for example. My doctor has told me so.

Since male breast tissue is rudimentary

They should stop defining it as male breast tissue then if it no longer presents as such because of exogenous exposure.

but they couldn't be sure until they actually took a biopsy of my breast mass

Do I need to literally have this done for you to believe me? My breasts are not gyno, it is incredibly apparent from those studies, from what my doctor has told me based on examinations, from appearance and form--theyre literally attached to my body so I know what my own breasts feel like thanks very much.

there are still many differences at the cellular level.

Who the heck cares? The tissue level is identical, what's important is that my receptors behave in a way that lets my breasts be breasts, and they do.

the ARs, ERs and PRs of males and females are different in nature

Then maybe the future for trans care is taking a medication to wipe out natural receptors and another to introduce the right ones artificially.

I don't believe silly things like that women rate each other based on size. I just won't sit here and be lectured about my anatomy when I know that I do not have gyno. It's not the only secondary sex characteristic I have and I'm determined to change as much as I can.

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

there are still many differences at the cellular level.

Who the heck cares? The tissue level is identical, what's important is that my receptors behave in a way that lets my breasts be breasts, and they do.

Well, tissues are made up of cells and if there are differences at the cellular level...

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Histologically identical means identical at the tissue level. Saying there are cellular differences as some sort of gotcha is just really hurtful, it's not my fault I can't get change my DNA. If you define it based on that instead of its actual function, tissue and structure, you've missed the entire point which is that many secondary sex characteristics of our bodies are mutable and that there is nothing stopping someone from phenotypically changing sex.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

there are literally forums where trans women have figured out how to do so. There have been trans women who have breastfed.

No, some TW have taken drug regimens to cause them to develop some kind of nipple discharge while their wives were pregnant. A couple of these TW say they pumped the nipple discharge out, stored it, and later put it into bottles and forced the bottles into the mouths of hungry newborn babies who being babies with no other choice, ended up sucking the nipple discharge down. Some TW have said they put their newborn babies to their nipples and for a few moments their helpless newborn babies sucked on their nipples and in the process presumably ingested some of whatever the discharge coming out of the nipples was.

One TW who was written up in a medical case report claimed to have fed a newborn from the TW's breasts exclusively for 6 weeks - and that the baby thrived, and the baby's pediatrician heartily approved. But the doctors who wrote up the case report were gender clinic doctors with no medical expertise in obstetrics, postpartum maternity, neonatal care or lactation - and apparently no personal life experience with, or even a clue about, the care and tending of babies, either. The doctors who wrote up the case report never saw TW's baby, spoke to the baby's mother, or checked with the baby's pediatrician. For all they knew, there might not have been any baby or pregnant wife at all.

But a key fact about all these stories of supposed medical miracles is that NO scientific analysis was done of the fluid that came out of the nipples of the TW in any of the cases. Therefore, there is no evidence at all of what exactly was in the nipple discharge. The nipple discharge could have been simply pus. Most definitely it was full of the heavy-duty drugs the TW had been ingesting to stimulate nipple discharge - one of which is a drug explicitly barred in the USA for use by breastfeeding women because of the negative impacts on the health of the children. Negative impacts which the FDA says can include heart failure and death.

But whatever was oozing out of the nipples of the TW in those real or apocryphal cases, I would bet my house that it was neither colostrum nor breastmilk.

If there were any chance the nipple discharge of these TW were breastmilk or colostrum, then surely the TW and their doctors would have arranged for lab analysis to prove once and for all that it was. After all, lab analysis is not difficult or costly to do. It's done all the time nowadays.

For many years, milk banks have been testing donor milk for pathogens and to ascertain it contains the customary and necessary nutrients https://milkbank.org/faq/

A number of commercial labs now also provide of at-home kits that make getting an analysis of breastmilk easy as pie.

https://lactationlab.com/collections/breast-milk-test-kits/products/basic-test-kit

https://www.mymilklab.com/mmes/nutrition

Given how easy it is to do a thorough analysis of breast milk and all other kinds of nipple discharge, don't you find it curious that no one bothered to do it in these cases? After all, proving that what issued from the breasts of TW in these cases was colostrum and breastmilk identical to what women make - and proving that it was totally sufficient to meet the nutritional and immunity needs of newborns - would be a huge win for the QT and TRA side. It would also give TW the kind of gender validation and affirmation that the T community seeks, holds so dear and is always demanding that others provide (or else). So it seems rather telling that no one bothered to do any lab analysis. Since TP and their doctors put so much faith in the wonders of modern medical science, it's odd that taking a sample to a lab never occurred to a single person involved in any of these tales.

Also, just for the record, many people believe that the TW who claim they have breastfed their newborns actually were engaging in clearcut abuse of the babies involved. None of the TW who have engaged in this activity and have written about it or spoken to the press about it, or have been written up as medical case reports, said they were motivated by wanting to do what's best for the child. On the contrary, all said they did it for personal gratification, "the experience" and "validation" and "affirmation" of their gender identities and their "femininity." Moreover, one TW who wrote about the experience for The Stranger bragged very openly that "she" found it very sexual arousing - the biggest turn-on of "her" life, in fact - and encouraged other TW to do it for the sexual thrills. As a result, many women feel this novel form of newborn "child care" that TW have invented constitutes not just child abuse, but child sex abuse too.

In response to me saying,

there are still many differences at the cellular level

Your response is

Who the heck cares? The tissue level is identical

Really? How can the tissue be identical when tissue is made up of cells?

what's important is that my receptors behave in a way that lets my breasts be breasts, and they do.

Okay, then. But can you share exactly what you mean when you say your receptors let your "breasts be breasts"?

BTW, perhaps it's my twisted mind, but the phrase "let breasts be breasts" immediately reminded me of the oft-heard expression, "boys will be boys."

Anyways, no one GC would dispute that males have breasts. Lots of men have sizable breasts - just go visit any beach and you'll see. We just say there are functional differences between male and female breasts. Just as there are functional differences between the breasts of a woman who has never had a baby and a woman who has, and there are especially marked differences between the breasts of a woman who has recently given birth and one who has not.

In fact, there are marked differences in women's breasts over the course of our lives, and depending on our childbearing status. My own breasts are very different now than they were at 18 and 35. When I was pregnant and breastfeeding, my breasts were different to how they were before then and the way they've been since I weaned. Now that I'm past menopause age, my breasts aren't what they once were looks-wise, either. I have a hunch that when it comes to meeting male standards of what breasts should look like to be considered sexually attractive and "hot and sexy" by men and boys, your breasts probably fit the bill far, far better than mine.

GC women also say that when male human beings take hormone formulations that result in them developing visible breasts that the whole world can see with the naked eye, and which might look similar or identical to the breast tissue of some women when viewed in medical imaging, it still doesn't make them women.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, some TW have taken drug regimens to cause them to develop some kind of nipple discharge

It's called milk you know.

No scientific analysis was done of the fluid that came out

I'll be sure to try and analyze it when I start making my own cheese. I'll send it off to that site you linked.

It could have been pus

Y'all literally believe we're disgusting abominations huh? Why would it be that when we have all of the structures in place to lactate? Heck, you know that men have lactated before right? Without any of the hormonal interventions that would make it way easier for a trans woman to.

Also, just for the record, many people believe that the TW who claim they have breastfed their newborns actually were engaging in clearcut abuse of the babies involved

Yeah because when we do anything that's totally normal for a mother to do it's abuse just because we're trans I forgot about that detail x(

said they were motivated by wanting to do what's best for the child

I would be, that's my motivation. I would want to be a good mom and if I'm biologically capable of it then I want to know in advance.

How can the tissue be identical when tissue is made up of cells?

A carpet can be synthetic or natural fibers but it's still a carpet lol

We just say there are functional differences between male and female breasts

Well mine function like female breasts

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Oh, another thing. If by experimental surgery you mean SRS and you don't want us to be able to get SRS, why do other GCers also insist that trans women who don't get SRS are more dangerous or aren't really trans or have a fetish? Do y'all want us to get surgery or not?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I mean experimental surgery like the “patchwork” technique developed on Jazz Jennings, the abdominal pull-down phalloplasty, surgeries intended to reduce or enlarge the hips or long bones, radical craniofacial techniques in Korea, tilapia grafts for vaginoplasty, and many other experimental gender related surgeries.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Pretty much all of that sounds really fantastic to me. I long for the day when the right set of procedures is found and there isn't so much confusion and experimentation, but I live too early for that I think.

Idk, I guess I just don't really care about my body being experimented on in certain areas. I was breaking down boxes today and almost cut myself because I was just wearing shorts, and I had to remember to remind myself that oh I should probably not do that. I'm very strongly disassociated from my genitalia being a part of me so changing that area with surgery doesn't scare me

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The experiments aren’t happening to you though. What does it matter how you feel about an experimental surgery happening to jazz Jennings? Ethics aren’t based on just derrples feelings.

Do you really want to say that it’s okay for surgeons to perform experiments on transgender patients based on you feeling like you would be ok with being the patient?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Yeah it should be okay if those patients consent to it?

What are your feelings on experimental surgery on jazz Jennings? And should ethics be based on them, or bodily autonomy?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It is impossible to consent to the complications since they are unknown.

What makes it acceptable for people to potentially die, and to face unknown surgery, for a procedure that will never be medically necessary?

How many lives would be worth losing for the perfect rhinoplasty to be developed?

Ethics should be based on causing the maximum amount of good while preventing further harm and reducing harm where possible.

I don’t think any teenager should be undergoing experimental surgery unless they are sure to die from a disease, disorder, or injury, and the procedure has a reasonable chance to help, without foreseeably causing additional injury, disorder, or disease.

This would not include any attempt to reconfigure the child’s genitals.

Bodily autonomy has limits. It does not mean freedom to do anything one pleases without consequence or regard for others.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It is impossible to consent to the complications since they are unknown.

What? You can consent to riding a rollercoaster or going skydiving right?

Many of us are so desperate that we will consent to any and all side effects if there's a chance of it going right.

What makes it acceptable for people to potentially die, and to face unknown surgery, for a procedure that will never be medically necessary?

Clearly it was pretty medically necessary to them if they went through it that early?

How many lives would be worth losing for the perfect rhinoplasty to be developed?

As many people as are willing to try

Ethics should be based on causing the maximum amount of good while preventing further harm and reducing harm where possible.

What does harm mean? Is it universal? We def agree that like killing someone is harm, but sometimes it's not always clear. If I couldn't access hormones that would cause me harm, physical and mental health issues, even if taking them is "harming" aspects of my natural body like fertility.

Bodily autonomy has limits. It does not mean freedom to do anything one pleases without consequence or regard for others.

It means the freedom to do whatever one wishes to your own body?

That freedom can't be withheld; we will do it ourselves if we can't get it done above the table. Who should decide my body's limits?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What? You can consent to riding a rollercoaster or going skydiving right?

In the USA, to go skydiving with a professional, properly-insured skydiving operation you have to be 18.

Jazz Jennings was 11 when Jazz's parents put the child on "puberty blockers" and 17 when they had Jazz undergo genital surgeries.

The rules for roller coasters vary, but most roller coasters require riders to have reached a certain height. All prohibit adults from riding if we are wearing a sling, snuggy or other kind carrier on our chests, hips or backs with a baby or young child in it. Some roller coasters require smaller-height children to be accompanied by an adult.

All sports activities and amusement parks practice various kinds of gatekeeping for safety reasons. None of them have the total lack of precautionary restrictions the way you are implying.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, because we know what will happen if it fails, are informed what safety procedures are in place and how effective they are, exactly what to expect, exactly what signals something is wrong, and what steps have proven to best protect you in the event of failure.

An experimental surgery, none of that is known. That’s a dreadful comparison.

Use the dictionary definition of harm even though you might not feel that it’s correct.

So, fifty kids? A million? Acceptable deaths as long as one person wealthy enough for it gets the nose of their dreams?

If beris wouldn’t freak the fuck out, I’d question how much empathy is to be found in that statement.

So I have the bodily autonomy to place my body the oncology ward while I have the flu and violent diarrhoea? That’s allowed? That’s morally fine?

We all have the bodily autonomy to just get totally naked and loudly masturbate in the middle of the shopping center? That’s morally acceptable? Legally acceptable?

We can board any plane, lick the Mona Lisa until the paint is gone, shake a baby, any damn thing possible with our bodies? And that’s both legal and moral?

Really?

People who have realistic knowledge of what will and won’t kill you should probably decide your bodies limits.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Use the dictionary definition of harm even though you might not feel that it’s correct.

The dictionary defines it as "being physically injured" which still seems very subjective and personal.

An experimental surgery, none of that is known

Well everything was once experimental and someone had to take a leap of faith.

So, fifty kids? A million? Acceptable deaths as long as one person wealthy enough for it gets the nose of their dreams?

It shouldn't just be the wealthy but I think a lot of people who died would be happy to know that someone finally got what they wanted. I don't want people to die, but if people doing what they want will kill them, I still support them doing what they want.

So I have the bodily autonomy to place my body the oncology ward while I have the flu and violent diarrhoea? That’s allowed? That’s morally fine?

This and the getting naked thing are kinda public, no? autonomy ends where another person begins. Personal and medical autonomy--if you can find a surgeon or doctor to do it for you, you should be able to do it

People who have realistic knowledge of what will and won’t kill you should probably decide your bodies limits.

Nah it should be my right and decision to do something that might kill me.

lick the Mona Lisa until the paint is gone

Tbh this one sounds cool and pretty harmless yeah I agree.

I guess I should have clarified I meant things you can do to your body that don't involve, yk, literally getting naked in public. There will probably always be doctors willing to do experimental surgery at least