all 34 comments

[–]MarkTwainiac 27 insightful - 3 fun27 insightful - 2 fun28 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I believe the judge ordered a one-month stay or delay so the mother can get more information. It's not a permanent injunction barring the surgery.

Step in the right direction, but the battle to prevent the teen from having the double mastectomy is ongoing.

[–]EveSerpent 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The mother’s lawyer stated that they’re likely to wind up in court again. The more this type of thing is exposed, the better.

[–]yousaythosethings 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I generally hate mainstream coverage of legal cases, which always glosses over the legal process in favor of dramatic and misleading headlines. The general public does not realize that procedure is everything in litigation. I had not seen an opinion and presume there is none if there's only a 1-month stay, but I'm not surprised that this is the explanation. Still, given how these cases have been going in the UK/U.S./Canada, it is still good news that the judge is willing to wait and hear such evidence. You know the judge is facing threats of suicide.

[–]Femaleisnthateful 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I read about this on cbc.ca (heavily slanted against the mother, of course). It reads as a classic case of ROGD. It appears the teen only went on hormones a few months prior. I assume she was 'diagnosed' at the same time. What happened to living as the opposite sex for a few years before deciding to surgically transition. I don't know what the standard of care is, now?

[–]NeedMoreCoffee 19 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It seems more and more that there is no more standard of care. It's just a race to how quick doctors get paid to chop of parts.

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

The adult transes didn't like that so brainwashed people into thinking they have to let kids do this insane bullshit "else they'll kill themselves".

[–]divingrightintowork 16 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Well that's cautiously optimistic.

[–]slushpilot 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm shocked this decision actually came out of the BC Supreme Court—after the opposite judgment in the case where the father was forbidden from preventing his 14-year-old daughter from taking hormones, and even discussing the facts of the case:

This new supreme court case is a good precedent, I do hope it reverses some things but I'm not holding my breath. It may yet go to court of appeals like the case above and get the bArBaRa fInDLay activist treatment there. (I think that's how she capitalizes it, lol.)

[–]EveSerpent 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Excellent precedent to set.

[–]yousaythosethings 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Did an opinion accompany the injunction order? I'm curious to hear the reasoning.

[–]denverkris 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I don't think these teens have an accurate idea of what a traumatic major surgery a mastectomy actually is. All they see are stupid instagram or tumblr pics of trans "boys" with "man chests" and are all like "Ya I want that!". It's ludicrous that anyone would allow a minor to voluntarily get such an unnecessary and traumatic surgery. I think some of them also labor under the mistaken idea that if they "change their mind" they just get an augmentation down the road. It ain't that easy folks. And, this girl is never going to be a "real boy". She'd be best off accepting that fact.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I don't think these teens have an accurate idea of what a traumatic major surgery a mastectomy actually is.

Yes, you're right. Also, they have no idea how common "complications" are in these cosmetic double mastectomies. The complications I hear that happen quite often to these girls and young women include nerve damage that causes chronic or permanent numbness, discomfort and/or pain; muscle damage that leads to limited range of movement in the arms and shoulders; misplacement or total loss of the nipples; keloid scars; damage to lymph nodes and drainage; failure to remove all the breast tissue so that the chest is left looking weirdly lumpy, misshapen and unbalanced; post-op infections...

I often wonder if this willingness to jump into having such traumatic major surgery isn't just due to belief in gender ideology, misplaced trust in the medical establishment and the usual feelings of physical invincibility and exceptionalism - "won't happen to me" - that often come with being of young age.

I have a sense it's also coz most of these young people grew up never experiencing or witnessing firsthand serious physical illness and suffering themselves due to being of generations born at a time when the once-routine or commonplace illnesses that everyone used to get or see during childhood - measles, polio, rubella, mumps, chicken pox, pneumonia, staph, streptococcus (scarlet fever) and other such bacterial infections, etc - have been eliminated due to vaccinations and modern-day antibiotics.

When I was growing up in the USA in the 1950s and 60s, most kids personally experienced bouts of serious sickness that would cause us to be in bed or confined for long stretches - and a fair number of polio victims were still living in iron lungs. Back then, most cancers and forms of heart disease were almost invariably lethal too. Also, back then everyone was well aware of medical scandals like Thalidomide and lobotomies, and everyone was well acquainted with the horrible fates that commonly befell girls and women who had pregnancies outside of marriage, had unwanted pregnancies when married, and who had illegal abortions.

Things gradually got better over the course of the 60s and 70s due to vaccinations, antibiotics, advances in cancer and cardiovascular care, birth control and finally the legalization of abortion. Still, in the 1970s scandals around DES and IUDs occurred, then in the 1980s AIDS came along.... The result was that even after birth control and legal abortion became available, most young females still felt a frisson of vulnerablilty that kept us from believing we were physically invincible the way young males did. When AIDS came along, it really shook many young men out of the sense of complacency, safety and invincibility they'd become accustomed to as well.

By contrast, nowadays, most kids of both sexes in the well-off parts of the world breeze through childhood without ever getting seriously sick, and if they get sick it's for a short while coz of modern-day drugs. HIV, which was once a sure death sentence, is now seen as a manageable disease, and even most cancers and various other diseases are no longer fatal the way they once were.

All this is progress, to be sure. But a downside is that many young people seem to have no idea of how precious and fragile their own health is, and how easily one's good health can be compromised - or lost - due to illness or a traumatic major surgery. Even when major surgery goes entirely as planned it - and the anesthesia used - can have longterm negative effects. And as we all know from shows like "Botched" and the stats on the hundreds of thousands who die due to medical errors in the US each year, very often surgeries and other medical interventions go terribly wrong.

[–]denverkris 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think its a lot of what you mention, plus a lot of other things, with a major one being that they have way too much time on their hands. On top of that I think they do fewer chores and work fewer jobs than kids of previous generation, so they have plenty of time to obsess over this identity nonsense.

"that many young people seem to have no idea of how precious and fragile their own health is"

This. Theres no take backs with this stuff. No "oops I changed my mind". And they're chasing a mark they'll never hit. Such a waste.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, I agree many diverse factors are involved, not just the ones I mentioned in my post.

So true about today's kids doing fewer household chores and working fewer formal jobs outside the home than previous generations. Used to be, outside of school kids too young to work legally still delivered newspapers, shoveled snow, swept streets, mowed lawns, washed windows, cleaned houses, washed cars, polished silver, did laundry and ironing, worked as "candy stripers," etc - and once we became old enough to work officially for real wages in after-school and weekend jobs (age 16), we all had them.

Also, perhaps coz of smaller families, fewer kids nowadays seem to spend time caring for younger siblings as kids were back in the day. And fewer seem to be doing informal jobs like babysitting, homework monitoring, tutoring etc - tasks that when I was growing up girls routinely did from age 11-12.

What's more, tons of time outside of school was taken up by things like religious education, civic activities (scouting, for example) and various sports and recreational activities, whether through schools, community organizations and clubs or more informally.

[–]denverkris 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Indeed. One other thing I though of, I feel as though we were constantly being reminded that other people's opinions of us were not important, and that we needed to think for ourselves (if all your friends jumped off a cliff....yada yada). But social media is teaching these kids just the opposite. They're being trained to collect "likes", to constantly present their "image", and that they actually have some sort of "right" to impose their beliefs on others...to actually compel others (including complete strangers) give a feck about their "internal feelings". The way others see them is SO important to them that they fall to pieces if others see reality instead of whatever internal fantasy these kids have come up with. Not a recipe for a very happy life, imo.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, we were taught think for ourselves, not to be afraid of going against the crowd, to be "inner directed" not "outer directed," that "life isn't a popularity contest," "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt/break me" and - very important - "don't sweat the small stuff," "don't let others bring you down" and after a failure, defeat, gaffe, mistake or (perceived) social humiliation, "dust yourself off, hold your head high, get back on the horse and carry on."

[–]worried19 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The worst thing is that doctors are performing double mastectomies on children as young as 13 in the USA. I feel like that fact needs to be spread far and wide because so many people aren't aware it's happening. Even many trans activists will deny it, despite the fact that the doctors involved freely admit it is being done.

[–]denverkris 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, its insane.

[–]yousaythosethings 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Where are they happening at 13? And I assume with parental consent at that age?

[–]worried19 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

California for sure, but I assume all over the country. Parents can easily travel to a different state to find a doctor willing to do it.

Olson had 68 surgically diminished girls fill out her “novel” scale between one and five years after their surgery. Thirty-three of these girls were under 18 at the time of surgery. Two were only 13 years old, and five were only 14.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/12/u-s-doctors-performing-double-mastectomies-healthy-13-year-old-girls

Odeneal: How many patients have you referred for the chest surgery?

Olson-Kennedy: Probably about 200.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/12/09/the-tragedy-of-the-trans-child

I don't believe these surgeries can proceed without the consent of the parents, but if Olson-Kennedy had her way, they would. She advocates for children being removed from parents who are not on board with medical transition.

[–]yousaythosethings 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thank you! I was only aware of Oregon before which allows double mastectomies without parental consent as young as 15.

Even just 7 occurring at 13-14 is bone-chilling. It should be none. Those are 7 tragedies. I wonder how old those girls are now. It may be years before they are in a position to ponder the consequences.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I had not heard that about Oregon. Snopes gives some conflicting information:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oregon-teen-sex-change-law

Are there verified cases of surgeries being carried out on kids that young in Oregon without parental consent?

[–]yousaythosethings 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This Snopes article is misleading and makes me mad as well. I don't see how it debunks or casts doubt on the core claims at all. In fact, it affirms them by confirming that changes were made to the law in Oregon and that the effect of those changes is to legally permit elective double mastectomies on 15-year-old girls. Oh, but wait, Snopes is here to tell us, "Don't worry, because what kind of doctor would actually perform that kind of procedure on a young girl? Surely doctors will be reasonable." Those are the noises of someone who has no idea wtf they're talking about on issues stemming from gender ideology or is being deceitful while knowing better. We have already learned that good faith is not a standard we can rely on when it comes to those who profit from gender ideology.

I say this as a lawyer (not your lawyer) all the time but I hate how reporting on legal situations and changes is handled by the media when it's directed at the general public. It often preys upon widespread public ignorance about our legal system and the way changes are made to the law in the first place in order to manipulate public perception. In the U.S. we have a common law system involving an interplay of statutes passed by legislative bodies, agency regulations, agency opinions, guidance published by agencies, case law developed through judicial opinion, executive orders, procedural rules, etc. with layers of federal, state, and local laws. That's why when someone asks "Can I legally do X?" it's not a simple inquiry of "Let me pull up the law for a sec and let you know." The legal parameters for almost anything rely on a constellation of legal authorities as specified above that first require you to identify the universe of legal provisions at issue. You can’t answer a legal question with any reasonable degree of certainty without doing so.

Snopes's point seems to be that because the pre-existing age of medical consent in Oregon is in 15 and that that is the age of consent that applies to the new law in question, that it’s a nothingburger. The reporting that I read before, which was not from Fox News, made this clear. As if the think thanks and special interest organizations who drafted and lobbied for these specific legal changes didn't have a team of lawyers behind them analyzing the existing legal framework and implications of proposed changes. There is no way they didn't at any point identify and consider the age of the people to whom their proposed changes would apply. That means they knew it would allow 15-year-olds to get double mastectomies/sex change surgery without parental consent. That means they deliberately didn’t add a higher age of consent into this new law because they knew that the gap-filling age of consent for medical procedures would apply as a default. And if they had any issue with this result they would have pushed for an update to the law. So yea, here the legislators and lobbyists knew exactly what they were doing, and it’s shady af.

By the way, I’ve never looked into who publishes Snopes articles, but this is Kim LaCapria, the content manager for Snopes and author of this particular article. And if there’s any doubt about what her bias is here, she puts her pronouns in her Twitter profile, and if you Google her, you can also find her giving a lot of commentary in various publications about anti-trans hoaxes. There’s also a lot of weird information about her out there. I can’t look at Snopes the same way again.

[–]worried19 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good to know. It would probably be too much to hope that Snopes is impartial. I don't trust most mainstream media these days.

Even the author of this article seems to realize that it would be insane for doctors to perform that surgery on a minor without parental consent, but doctors are insane these days. Surgeons don't abide by medical ethics. All they care about is getting paid. Even if some doctors do care, you can always find one who doesn't. My question was more if any kid under 18 had managed to get surgery in Oregon without parental consent because that would be a big boost of visibility to the insanity that's happening to children. We all know it's happening to kids with parental consent, but without it, that would be a bigger news story.

If it was my kid, I'd hightail it to another state. The government can't take kids away from parents for not medicalizing them, at least not yet, much to the displeasure of some trans activists.

[–]Madsea 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

More of this.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

the comments mention BCs Infants Act which includes "Mature Minor Consent" which looks like it was made so children can vaccinate themselves.

A child under the age of 19 is called a “minor”. "Mature minor consent" is the consent a child gives to receive health care after the child has been assessed by a health care provider as having the necessary understanding to give the consent. A health care provider can accept consent from the child and provide the treatment without getting consent from the parent or guardian if the health care provider is sure that the child understands: The need for the treatment, What the treatment involves and, The benefits and risks of having the treatment

A child cannot understand the benefits and risks of transgender hormones and surgery. I don't know that a minor can truly understand what it would mean to induce male-patterned baldness or severe acne. Looking back, I don't think I would have. That's small compared to the unstudied long term effects of hormones and sterilization. There's a reason why doctors are extremely hesitant to sterilize young women even those who are over the age of consent. Even for women with severe endometriosis (aka a non-healthy body part) there are huge risks to consider.

If you get your parent's consent or wait till you're a day over the legal age and go nuts, that's your own problem. It's a medical ethics problem, but its your (or your parents, or a malpractice lawyer's) responsibility. But to let a minor do this and think that they are a "mature minor" who can consent to such severe treatment is abhorrent.

more: https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/healthlinkbc-files/infants-act-mature-minor-consent-and-immunization

[–]forwardback 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There's a reason why doctors are extremely hesitant to sterilize young women even those who are over the age of consent.

Whoa, hold the phone! This is a Very Bad Not an analogy. You are focusing solely on "young women". Vasectomies on young men are a non-issue for you? You're not implying young women over the age of consent are particularly stupid concerning their reproductive choices, are you? That would be a very sexist thing to do. I submit women's current problems obtaining tubal ligation are a function of increasing misogyny. I had NO problem obtaining one in 1983. And women suffering from endometriosis deserve treatment with informed consent, they don't deserve the brush off that too many have experienced.

Edit format

Edit2. In the same comment you state:

If you get your parent's consent or wait till you're a day over the legal age and go nuts, that's your own problem. It's a medical ethics problem, but its your (or your parents, or a malpractice lawyer's) responsibility.

Your logic, as presented, seems inconsistent to me.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are focusing solely on "young women".

The thread is about a teenage girl scheduled to have a cosmetic bilateral mastectomy, so yeah the focus is on young female people.

Vasectomies on young men are a non-issue for you?

Verypeak mentioned sterilization of young women. You then made the leap that she was referring to tubal ligation, which you further jumped to link and equate to vasectomy.

Whilst on the surface these might appear to be analogous procedures, in fact they are not. The only reason a male might want to have vasectomy is to make it impossible to impregnate a female person. Males don't have vasectomies as a way to relieve recurrent or chronic pelvic pain, to deal with recurrent blood loss that has made them anemic, or to stave off a physical condition/experience that might kill them.

By contrast, girls or women might want or need a tubal ligation (or other method of sterilization) to prevent excruciating pain and regular extreme blood loss from heavy periods and ovulation AND to prevent becoming impregnated by a male person, which can lead to situations where the female person's survival is put at risk and her future life options become much narrowed.

Many males have fainted, vomited and experienced extreme anxiety when their female partners were in labor and giving birth. But no male has ever died from labor or childbirth, suffered severe tearing to the genitals or damage to the pelvic nerves, needed to have their vulvas or bellies split open, required a blood transfusion, or suffered a life-threatening infection from/after giving birth.

Similarly, many males have gained weight and gotten moody and broody when their female partners have gone through pregnancies. But as far as I know, as a result of pregnancy no males have experienced physically-caused nausea or vomiting (aka the misnomered "morning sickness"), allergies or hives, high blood pressure, piles, reflux/indigestion, excessive fatigue or insomnia, liver pain and other forms of physical discomfort, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, etc. Nor do males experience the extreme hormonal fluctuations and states that can wreak havoc on women's mental health during pregnancy and in the months/years after giving birth. And after birth, males don't have to deal with issues like engorged breasts, mastitis or urinary incontinence, either.

The experience and consequences of impregnating for males and becoming impregnated for females are so vastly different that they are not even comparable. So you are right: drawing a parallel between vasectomies and procedures on women that can leave us sterile is a bad analogy.

[–]MezozoicGay 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Vasectomies on young men are a non-issue for you?

Let's men sort our own problems on our own, it is not feminism or women's duty to solve men's problems created by men for men.

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

Like you, I found issue with a commenter's single sentence.

I hoped the commenter would clarify whether 's/he believed young (people over the age of consent) may make poor life-time decisions, or whether "young women over the age of consent" make poor decisions particularly. Women can display misogyny, also. I made no judgement about male choice. I brought up the male sterilization issue to suss out whether sexism was involved.

No thanks for the lecture. I don't need mansplaining.

Edit word

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

Who are you accusing of mansplaining?

Real question. I can never figure out how the indenting works on here, LOL.

I brought up the male sterilization issue to suss out whether sexism was involved.

Huh? In response to another poster's comment about

why doctors are extremely hesitant to sterilize young women even those who are over the age of consent

you immediately jumped on her for not mentioning vasectomies on young men, not male sterilization more generally, in a thread about a young female person.

Then you went on to speak exclusively about tubal ligation for female people as if this is the only way of sterilizing females.

You also intimated tubal ligation is a/the treatment for endometriosis. But many sources for decades have said that tubal ligation exacerbates endo and makes it more severe, or often creates scarring and fistulas similar to or characteristic of endo.

Just as tubal ligation is not the only way of sterilizing females, vasectomy is not the only way of sterilizing males.

But the main point is, this a thread about the delay of a double mastectomy being done on a young female person. How on earth is it sexist to fail to mention, center or decry young males who get vasectomies on such a thread?

It's like saying those who post on forums about cystic fibrosis are exclusionary for not talking about lung cancer, diabetes or COPD.

If someone makes a point about air pollution in Mumbai, it doesn't mean they're saying what's happening to the Uyghurs in China is "a non-issue for them."

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

sigh.

Vasectomies on young men would also be an issue, but a different issue. I don't know of any health issues that it would alleviate and I understand it to be a less invasive and perhaps more reversible procedure. This thread is about surgery on females.

If a woman got a tubal litigation or a hysterectomy for whatever reason that is her choice. Notice there is no mention that this practice should be outlawed, that women should not do it, etc. No matter what the reason these are serious surgeries with serious risks. A doctor should not be required to perform a surgery they think will be more harmful than beneficial in the long run. It seems improbable to me that there would be no one willing to do it. If there are none, I hope a woman would go into that field to help other women out.

Whether it's transgender surgery or surgery for a medical issue, it's equally not my problem. Ultimately, I cannot control what someone does when they are a legal adult, even though the pre-frontal cortex isn't fully developed until around age 25. The medical ethics problem is not about endometriosis but refers to how any treatment that is not gender-affirming is considered conversion therapy, resulting in therapists unable to help patients find other potential causes for dysphoria such as sexual abuse, and whether or not a child can comprehend the long term effects of hormones.

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

I've taken a couple days, and have turned to reread the post and this particular thread. I stll have issue with

There's a reason why doctors are extremely hesitant to sterilize young women even those who are over the age of consent. Even for women with severe endometriosis (aka a non-healthy body part) there are huge risks to consider.

The commenter brought these issues up (young women over the age of consent having their decisions questioned or denied, and endometriosis).

I do not find a possible (I was questioning, hence my comment, rather than assuming) midset of 'young women over the age of consent can't make good life affecting decisions' much better than the TRA's fallacy that transgender minors can and should make life altering decisions on their own.

If this is not the place for questioning, challenges, or debates, no problem.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Meanwhile in Canada, this week Nova Scotia started providing full medical coverage for girls and women who want to have double mastectomies coz they identify as non binary.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/msi-begins-covering-breast-reduction-surgery-non-binary-1.5796325