The hard fact is that a girl, is not, and cannot become a boy, nor is a boy nor can a boy become a girl. It is flat-out biologically impossible.
Okay, an Asian can't become a white person, but gosh darn, how many Asians get Blephoraplasties to round out their eyes?
Yet you never seem to be nearly as freaked out about that.
Two reasons immediately jump out at me as to why your analogy is bullshit.
First of all, does anyone believe that the operation you describe can genuinely turn person of Asian ethnicity into one of Caucasian ethnicity? I seriously doubt it. I can imagine that someone of Asian appearance might think that white people's eyes are more attractive, and be vain enough to have the surgery to imitate that, but I doubt anyone believes that he or she is actually becoming a white person by having that operation. I think I am vaguely aware that at some point in the past, it was fashionable for black people to have their hair straightened, in order to look more like white people's hair. Much less drastic a process than a blephoraplasty, but the same idea. I don't think anyone genuinely thought that it made them white.
The big fraud at the root of
“gender affirming care” is that it somehow changes the victim into the opposite of his true
gender sex. It does no such thing, and anyone who believes that it does is delusional. After it is all done, what is left is a person that is the same sex he was before, but now a ruined, mutilated form thereof; likely rendered sterile, possibly inconstant, incapable of enjoying sexual intimacy. The victim's mind is still just as fucked up as it was before, but now the victim's body is fucked up as well.
—
And that leads into the second point. I assume that this blephoraplasty is purely a cosmetic procedure, that it does not cause any actual loss of function for the patient, other than the usual damage and recovery that is inherent in any surgery. Someone who has had a blephoraplasty, can still see as well as before the procedure, right? It doesn't damage or disable any actual functions or organs, does it?
Same with nearly every other form of legitimate cosmetic surgery, I assume. Short of having some serious visual deformity, I, myself, have a difficult time imagining anyone being vain enough to go through surgery just for cosmetic reasons, but I guess there are some people who are much vainer than I can imagine being. Having been through two surgeries on the leg that I broke four year ago, I have enough of a sense of how destructive surgery inherently is that I would not easily consent to having it done to me unless it is to fix damage that is more serious than what the surgery itself will unavoidably cause.
“General affirming care” isn't just cosmetic. It entails, through drugs, hormones and surgery, a destruction of the victim's reproductive system, as well as of excretory systems in close proximity thereto. No objective benefit at all; and plenty of serious, irreversible harm. Sterility, sexual dysfunction, incontinence, a lifetime of ongoing drugs and treatments to maintain the mutilated body. It flies in the face of any rational set of medical ethics, for any physician to have any part in doing this to a patient.
Certainly, a minor cannot be expected to understand or give informed consent to the seriousness of the lifetime harm that this Frankensteinery would inflict; and no excuse can possibly stand for doing any of this to a minor, or even in encouraging a minor along that path. Even an adult that wishes this shit to be done to him, should probably be assumed to be of a seriously unsound mental condition, such that it would be unethical for any physician to take advantage of his mental unsoundness by performing these procedures.
If Josef Mengele were alive today, I think he would be fascinated by this field. This shit is very much in line with the sort of work he was into; and very much in line with what is known of his ethical character.
www.theindianalawyer.com
