The New Cult Of LGBT Packaging Of Child Sexual Mutilation: "Regular People Just Don't Care"

[Silhouette]

Wow you're a gymnast with reading comprehension, aren't you? What a person seeking sex REASSIGNMENT surgery is doing, mentally by saying they have "the wrong genitals" is entering into an oral & written contract with the MD, with the expectation that their actual gender will change. Yes, that is factually their expectations.

This isn't true. Not only do you like to twist and bend the definition of delusion to build your house of logic cards you also make up whatever pops into your head about the feelings/intentions/beliefs of people you've never met.

1. They know they have a penis, thus are not delusional.
2. They don't believe removing it will change their chromosomes to become a biological woman.

Their belief that their penis, arm, head, leg or elbow doesn't belong attached to their body is the delusion. Try to keep up.

If they believed that mutilating their body won't actually be a sex reassignment (as the MDs caution them it really isn't in a waiver they have them sign), if they ACTUALLY understood that, instead of what's happening with their being steeped in delusion, few if any of them would consent to surgery or cancer hormones

Sex reassignment is just the name of the procedure.

OK...so if an MD prescribed a surgery called "kidney removal" would we expect that it had nothing to do with removing the kidney? You see the deception involved don't you. And by the way, deceptive medical practice is what makes the practice against the law.

If you went to a doctor and he frankly confronted you with the fact that the say, drug you were wanting him to prescribe you would in no way work at all for what you wanted, and worse, it came with a dozen harmful, lifelong-inescapable side effects, that MD would be in criminal violation of law if you were able to convince him to give it to you anyway.

And here we have the usual Silhouette conclusion based on premise that has already been debunked. They want their dick off, and that's what happens.

Illegally, see my comment just above.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

hey, I want my forskin back..

Sorry, that won't make your dick any bigger

by at least an 1/8th of an inch, every little bit helps..

But you are a catcher so why?

 

[DrainBamage]

Their belief that their penis, arm, head, leg or elbow doesn't belong attached to their body is the delusion. Try to keep up.

I've kept up, you recycling the same argument over an over that gets thoroughly debunked every time isn't proving anything. That is not a delusion.

OK...so if an MD prescribed a surgery called "kidney removal" would we expect that it had nothing to do with removing the kidney?

Both the doctor and the patient know they won't have some chromosome shift to become a biological female, there is no deception anywhere but in your head.

Illegally, see my comment just above.

You comment based on your flawed premise, as usual.

Let's recycle again, I'm curious how many times you want to the same arguments debunked.

 

[Silhouette]

OK...so if an MD prescribed a surgery called "kidney removal" would we expect that it had nothing to do with removing the kidney?

Both the doctor and the patient know they won't have some chromosome shift to become a biological female, there is no deception anywhere but in your head.

I think it's misleading to the patient to call it sex reassignment surgery. It's deceptive. And it does not cure the patient's condition. And it carries with it a host of lifelong, permanent disabling side effects and conditions. Therefore, it's illegal.

 

[DrainBamage]

I think it's misleading to the patient to call it sex reassignment surgery. It's deceptive. And it does not cure the patient's condition. And it carries with it a host of lifelong, permanent disabling side effects and conditions.

Who cares what you think about the name for the surgery? It's just a name for an operation, not something we go create legal opinions or accusations of delusion around.

Therefore, it's illegal.

No, it isn't. Someone on the internet obsessed with government controlling other peoples' lives, twisting the word delusion, and playing doctor/psychologist/lawyer with absolutely zero education/expertise on the subject doesn't make something illegal.

I'd further note that someone claiming an operation is illegal when our legal system says otherwise is... well... delusional.

 

[Silhouette]

I think it's misleading to the patient to call it sex reassignment surgery. It's deceptive. And it does not cure the patient's condition. And it carries with it a host of lifelong, permanent disabling side effects and conditions.

Who cares what you think about the name for the surgery?

Well for starters, a jury sitting on an MD/defendant's case before a criminal trial might care...you see, "deception" is one qualifier for determining whether or not malpractice was criminal.

 

[Silhouette]

If an MD is deceiving a patient by calling what he does "sex reassignment surgery", knowing that's not what the procedure actually does...duping a patient already mentally precarious by his evident psychological delusion, into amputating vital organs...knowing said amputation statistically will harm him for life, that MD is guilty of CRIMINAL malpractice. And so is every other MD who conspired with him along the process (psychologists "clearing" a patient for amputation that won't solve the underlying mental issues).

 

[DrainBamage]

Well for starters, a jury sitting on an MD/defendant's case before a criminal trial might care...you see, "deception" is one qualifier for determining whether or not malpractice was criminal.

Nope, because a colloquial name like that wouldn't meet the burden of proof for intent to deceive. Doctor, did you promise the patient that they would become a biological female? No? Case dismissed.

You're manufacturing scenarios that don't exist, these people go through extensive counseling (as per your link) and there is no way they don't understand exactly what the surgery does and doesn't do. They aren't going to find someone criminal because of pedantic nuances, no matter how desperate and driven you might be to control other people's lives.

If an MD is deceiving a patient by calling what he does "sex reassignment surgery", knowing that's not what the procedure actually does...duping a patient already mentally precarious by his evident psychological delusion, into amputating vital organs...knowing said amputation statistically will harm him for life, that MD is guilty of CRIMINAL malpractice. And so is every other MD who conspired with him along the process (psychologists "clearing" a patient for amputation that won't solve the underlying mental issues).

Your entire point here fails (for about the 10th time) because you're again claiming patient has delusion, which in my opinion has been thoroughly debunked. Going forward please assume that anytime you base reasoning on the assumption they are delusional it is a waste of typing, because I'll just respond "debunked" okay?

 

[Silhouette]

Well for starters, a jury sitting on an MD/defendant's case before a criminal trial might care...you see, "deception" is one qualifier for determining whether or not malpractice was criminal.

Nope, because a colloquial name like that wouldn't meet the burden of proof for intent to deceive. Doctor, did you promise the patient that they would become a biological female? No? Case dismissed.

Well that's one way of looking at it. Another way might be "Doctor, did you advertise that you do "sex reassignment surgery" and would a layman who is intent on chopping his dick off anyway he can be super discerning about quick fine print he signs on a form in order to achieve the advertised service?"

And

"....So how is it being above board and honest given you've named the procedure "sex reassignment surgery"? Isn't that like advertising "knee replacement surgery" and then going in and only putting a scar on the patient's leg without actually excising old bone and replacing its failure?"

"How is it that you advertise "sex reassignment surgery" and then go on, once the dubiously-sane patient is satisfied that's what he's getting, and then discuss (briefly, in a waiver form or quick mention before the knife) how you can't actually reassign someone's sex.?" Shouldn't that have been explained in the title of your procedure; and in lengthy consultations where you told the patient frankly and point-blank "we cannot change you to a woman, that will never happen. You will still be male...? Wouldn't inexperienced, confused patients be better served if you called your procedure "sex mimicry surgery"? That would be true advertising, no? Or would that not keep the patients coming in and the bank account filling up?

Case ordered to go forward. Doctor charged with deceptive criminal malpractice. Juries don't have much patience for deception; even if it tries to hide behind colloquialism. When a person is being mutilated by a product, what its label professes to do is key and pivotal.

 

[DrainBamage]

Well that's one way of looking at it. Another way might be "Doctor, did you advertise that you do "sex reassignment surgery" and would a layman who is intent on chopping his dick off anyway he can be super discerning about quick fine print he signs on a form in order to achieve the advertised service?"

Your own link detailed the extensive counseling they undergo, there is no layman. How delusional of you.

is key and pivotal.

Which law school did you graduate from, and where did you practice? Clearly since these are prosecuted as you describe you should contact your law school and demand recourse for your law education.

Or were you just being delusional?

 

[Silhouette]

Well that's one way of looking at it. Another way might be "Doctor, did you advertise that you do "sex reassignment surgery" and would a layman who is intent on chopping his dick off anyway he can be super discerning about quick fine print he signs on a form in order to achieve the advertised service?"

And

"....So how is it being above board and honest given you've named the procedure "sex reassignment surgery"? Isn't that like advertising "knee replacement surgery" and then going in and only putting a scar on the patient's leg without actually excising old bone and replacing its failure?"

"How is it that you advertise "sex reassignment surgery" and then go on, once the dubiously-sane patient is satisfied that's what he's getting, and then discuss (briefly, in a waiver form or quick mention before the knife) how you can't actually reassign someone's sex.?" Shouldn't that have been explained in the title of your procedure; and in lengthy consultations where you told the patient frankly and point-blank "we cannot change you to a woman, that will never happen. You will still be male...? Wouldn't inexperienced, confused patients be better served if you called your procedure "sex mimicry surgery"? That would be true advertising, no? Or would that not keep the patients coming in and the bank account filling up?

Case ordered to go forward. Doctor charged with deceptive criminal malpractice. Juries don't have much patience for deception; even if it tries to hide behind colloquialism. When a person is being mutilated by a product, what its label professes to do is key and pivotal.

Your own link detailed the extensive counseling they undergo, there is no layman. How delusional of you.

Which law school did you graduate from, and where did you practice? Clearly since these are prosecuted as you describe you should contact your law school and demand recourse for your law education.

Or were you just being delusional?

The patient IS ALWAYS THE LAYMAN. Otherwise we'd be performing surgery on ourselves and our neighbors. One doesn't need to graduate from law school to see that deception is an element for the prosecution of criminal malpractice. It's listed on the internet in the link I provided you with the bullet points on what constitutes criminal malpractice.

To advertise a professional (not colloquial) surgery called "sex reassignment" to a patient that could be proven in front of a jury to be a mentally impaired layman, and then have him sign a waiver that says "you know we won't really be able to reassign your sex" is DECEPTIVE for the purpose of profit by mutilating another human being unnecessarily.

If you don't like my take on it, run it by a jury if you're so cock-sure it's OK for a deeply invasive surgery to be labelled deceptively

 

[DrainBamage]

The patient IS ALWAYS THE LAYMAN.

You implied layman in terms of being unaware of what the operation does, the link you provided early clearly dispels this notion.

one doesn't need to graduate from law school to see that deception is an element for the prosecution of criminal malpractice. It's listed on the internet in the link I provided you with the bullet points on what constitutes criminal malpractice.

Your fail is with the word "deception" and someone with a law degree who prosecutes criminals would actually understand the elements instead of playing armchair lawyer on a message board.

to be a mentally impaired

Already debunked.

 

[Silhouette]

You implied layman in terms of being unaware of what the operation does, the link you provided early clearly dispels this notion.

Potato pot-A-to. The jury will be less concerned with your diversionary parsing out of what "layman" means and will likely focus on the fact that the patient is not the doctor and the doctor was advertising "sex reassignment" when no such thing happens and he knew that in advance.

That's called "deception". When you draw someone in a precarious mental state into an extremely invasive and permanently disfiguring unnecessary procedure with false advertising, by it's very name promising what it cannot deliver, that's deceptive (criminal) malpractice..

 

[DrainBamage]

Potato pot-A-to. The jury will be less concerned with your diversionary parsing out of what "layman" means and will likely focus on the fact that the patient is not the doctor and the doctor was advertising "sex reassignment" when no such thing happens and he knew that in advance.

You call it diversion because it sinks your argument. Clearly with a year of counseling (or whatever the long time frame) a patient understands what the surgery does and doesn't, and you know it. That is about the third time it has been explained that the massive amount of counseling and interactions with doctors before the surgery mean there is no deception based on the name of the surgery, so since you're again just recycling let's save time and I'll type "deception fallacy already debunked" the next time you repeat it.

precarious mental state

Already debunked. Let's call it "mental state fallacy already debunked" going forward so as not to confuse with your other debunked arguments that you believe repeating into eternity changes the fact they've been debunked already.

 

[Silhouette]

The jury would have to listen to psychologists explain how a person can at the same time believe their genitals don't belong attached to their body, and also be "not delusional"...able to normally grapple with reality on its terms. And....

....good luck!

 

[DrainBamage]

The jury would have to listen to psychologists explain how a person can at the same time believe their genitals don't belong attached to their body, and also be "not delusional"...able to normally grapple with reality on its terms. And....

Delusion fallacy already debunked

 

[Silhouette]

The jury would have to listen to psychologists explain how a person can at the same time believe their genitals don't belong attached to their body, and also be "not delusional"...able to normally grapple with reality on its terms. And....

Delusion fallacy already debunked

No, only when our questions are run before a jury are they debunked.

I have faith that a jury will see the term "sex reassignment surgery" coupled with a patient so addled in the head that he thinks his penis and testicles need to be amputated and put two and two together. A doctor who names his surgery "sex reassignment" and then warns said addled patient on the cusp of amputation: "oh...by the way...this won't actually change your sex..." is a doctor guilty of deceptive criminal malpractice.

 

[Silhouette]

I, unlike you, am not afraid at all of a jury weighing these issues on criminal malpractice.

 

[DrainBamage]

No, only when our questions are run before a jury are they debunked.

False. Poor arguments that are logically refuted happens without juries all the time, I suspect you're a veteran of being on the receiving end of that scenario.

I, unlike you, am not afraid at all of a jury weighing these issues on criminal malpractice.

Ah now you're attributing emotions to me. Apparently as someone who isn't planning a gender reassignment surgery, doesn't perform these surgeries, and doesn't even live in the United States I am afraid of juries weighing these issues. I think you fit "delusion" quit well here, and by your own logic should be banned from signing waivers or contracts.

 

[Silhouette]

I'd place bets on a jury finding the surgery named "sexual reassignment" pitched to addled patients or non addled patients, when it does not change sex, an example of deceptive malpractice.