I also referenced tobacco, which is not a short-term risk thing and which you conveniently ignored. You don't like alcohol, fine. Why do we prevent children from using tobacco? According to you, they are capable of making a long-term decision about their health. If they are not, at what age should we lift the restriction?
Tobacco and smoking are short term risk taking behaviors, not healthcare, I thought that went without saying. Apparently not. We don't typically allow adults to supply minors with harmful substances and for good reason. They're harmful. The one exception we make really is for the medical community. We allow them to dose children with toxic chemical and radiation. We allow them to perform mastectomies on young girls to fight cancer. None of you seem to be confused on the difference in this regard but here you let you bigotry and ignorance lead you to irrational arguments.
But I don't have to be a medical professional to realize that 40% of a group attempting suicide is NOT a good number, no matter how you try to frame it or what you try to blame it on.
Well, you kind of need to know the cause if you hope to treat it. You, sitting comfortably from your couch get to roll around in ignorance but the professionals who have to care for the people who are suffering don't have that luxury.
I'm not involved in treating these children, so that one just disappeared like rich liberals when asked how soon they're leaving the country.
What? Are you connecting coherent points here?
Which doesn't negate my position at all.
Your own stated ignorance and lack of desire to understand any of their underlying issues negates your point.
How long post-op? Weeks, months or years? IOW, there is the placebo effect, I expect this surgery to make me feel better, so I feel better for a while until I realize that my life really hasn't changed all that much, and I still feel bad. Link to the studies.
How can you know any of that before I even link to a study? Why do you all feel the need to fantasize at me rather than responding with reason?
And your medical opinion absolves the mental issues these people suffered before transitioning and continued to suffer afterward of all responsibility? There are many people groups that experience violence, hate, housing and work discrimination that don't resort to suicide at those levels. There's a lot more going on here than just that. Seriously, if you want to make that argument you have to deal with a people group that suffered all that for much longer than the trans community and didn't resort to suicide.
If you want to make an argument about a particular study you have to link to it. If you want to argue that average people are facing the sort of discrimination and hate trans people do under the same sort of circumstances then provide that evidence. All the evidence I've seen shows how this tiny community faces violence and discrimination without much of a support group.
And you're pointing out things that can make someone in this situation feel better about themselves and their lives without undergoing surgery, namely, being treated more nicely by those around them and not being bullied. This would be especially true of teenagers, notorious for craving peer acceptance.
Or not trying to deny them healthcare because of your own ignorance and bigotry.
Not at all, it illustrates my point that advances in medical knowledge often render a previous practice barbaric.
It doesn't. One case from a previous century in no way indicates that's
often the case today. You don't seem to understand how reason and logic work.
In human history terms, it wasn't that long ago that we lost an American ex-president because we thought that draining his blood would cure his illness. Barbaric today, the height of medical treatment then. Even more recently, we treated mental illness by shoving a metal rod into the patient's brain. Barbaric today, the height of medical treatment then.
It's still an argument based on a logical fallacy.
It is my belief that it won't be very long before society will look back at what we're doing to children today and shudder in revulsion because medical understanding has advanced to the point that we can more effectively treat kids in that situation without causing them life-long problems and rendering them sterile. That's not a fallacy, that's an opinion based on the rapid pace of medical innovation and understanding.
Its fanstasy and cosplay.
Let's put it this way, how confident are YOU that medical science will still say in 100 years the best way to treat a teenager wanting to appear more feminine or masculine is to surgically mess with their bodies, stop their normal sexual maturation, and render them sterile for the rest of their lives, especially given that 40% of them will attempt to kill themselves?
I'm guessing in 100 years we will be able to do it with gene editing.
