Gender-affirming surgeries are mostly performed on cisgender people: 'Bitter irony'
Gender-affirming surgeries are mostly performed on cisgender people: 'Bitter irony'
Out of the 151 breast reductions that were performed in 2019 on American minors, 146 (97 percent) were performed on cisgender males.
You're viewing a single thread.
Out of the 151 breast reductions that were performed in 2019 on American minors, 146 (97 percent) were performed on cisgender males.
The thing is, growing up in an evangelical church they don’t want these people getting breast reduction surgery either. they firmly believe that any change to the body is going against God’s will regardless of the physical or mental harm it may cause.
pretty sure they're okay with women getting boob implants, though.
Idk, the #1 thing people said behind Dolly Parton's back and held against her was that she had fake tits.
People are awful. If there’s nothing that they can be mean about, they’ll make shit up. I suspect most of that was more because she was rich/famous/influential in her own right rather than being tied to a husband.
(though she’s married. I looked it up outta curiosity. He doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page…
Dolly's husband has never been a part of her public persona. He's always been in the background and almost everyone has respected his/her choice on the matter.
absolutely true but Dolly Parton did not have to face transphobic harassment and violence
very very very important distinction
That one did oddly enough draw less of a stink, though it did still get whispered about when it suited one’s purpose.
Except male genital mutilation, aka circumcision. (Please don't take this as me saying FGM and MGM are equally bad. FGM is much, much worse.)
There are other forms of MGM too. Fortunately most of them are rare these days. Castration, subincision, penectomy.
And then there’s intersex people. That are routinely subject to “corrective surgery” in infancy. As adults they tend to be firmly of the opinion they should have been left alone and that the surgeries were harmful.
IMO bodily integrity and autonomy is a fundamental human right that should be absolutely respected for every human being.
https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets
III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
There are five grades of FGM; MGM is equivalent to hoodectomy, which is grade III.
The worst FGM is much, much worse that MGM, but the least-worst FGM is much less-worse than MGM.
where do you cite this five grade model?
the world health organization is not quite in line with you here (CW, hopefully obvious explicit discussion of mutilation) thanks !
Hm, it's been a while since I've been active in this space, I'm quoting from memory. I'll look up some stuff.
ty!
Honestly, that's only because the Bible says it's a thing that should be done (apparently)
The Hebrew Bible maybe, but it's pretty clearly outlined by Paul in the new testament that non-jewish Catholics definitely don't have to follow Jewish custom (and don't have to be circumcised in particular)
True. It's been a while, heh.
You're good, I just think it's worth saying out loud. There's probably plenty of parents who do think the Bible says it, even though it doesn't
this should hilight to us the outsized effect transphobia has on discourse.
if we were to believe the line that “we’re just concerned about people getting mutilated” we must naturally expect to see that 97% margin of outrage at breast implants, hair implants, weight management surgery etc. for cis folk.
and we don’t. here and there you might hear an evangelical getting upsetti spaghetti avout Ozempic et al but transphobic talking points dominate, in vast disproportion to actual individual cases.
Although they're usually fine with things like wearing glasses and getting stents. Odd, isn't it?
Well except for giant fake titties, God wants those. If we can get those on some minors, I'm pretty sure Republicans would shut the fuck up for decades.
My mother is fond of saying "God doesn't make junk". Easily disproven whether or not you believe in a god, but she's a "if I don't like it, it didn't happen" variety of Trump supporter, so I err on the side of changing the subject over arguing.
I'm so sorry you have to deal with that.
There's no way I could continue having a relationship with anyone who is a trump supporter.
Thank you. It is really difficult. It's especially hard to find the line. (Un)fortunately for me she's always been unreasonable per se, so I already had her at arm's length before Trump flopped onto the scene.
My mother (religious) once told me my tattoos make her sad. There are only two that are visible on a forearm (the third is under my shirt). I told her that they make me feel happy. She’s never brought it up again. But hers is less fervent, still rooted in the same origin.
I'm guessing that's because the Bible says no tattoos in the same book where it says not to eat pork and shellfish, but Christians only believe the passages in the Pentateuch if they're okay with them.
Bible says no pork, pork is ok.
Bible says not to be gay in the exact same book, being gay is an abomination unto the lord.
What it actually says is not to lay with a man as you would with a woman. It's not about being gay, it's about topping!
Oh they absolutely do. The alternative is men with breasts. They’ll say they don’t, but when the time comes to accept cis men’s bodies when they fall outside “male” expectations they won’t.
This appears to be an issue with accurate reporting. Considerations like this would make the data make a lot more sense.
The problem is the interpretation by those running the study.
I’m not sure I am perfectly following you—what should the authors have said?
I am definitely mistakenly misreading you here, sorry for the inconvenience!
(significantly edited to reflect my intent; also if any others could help me out, i don’t mean to bug this person and annoy them)
just because I had something to add doesn’t mean I missed you point.
well i am missing your point i guess, sorry. could you rephrase what you are saying ? im quite lost
edit: like what is “the problem” involved here? what are the journalists saying that is misleading?
well i am missing your point i guess
Yes, despite it being very simple and my having explained it clearly…
sorry
No, being “confusing and distracting” by muddying the waters was you whole point. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith. It’s just that I called you out.
Facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.
i literally don’t know what you are talking about, lol. just asking for clarification because my initial reading was clearly wrong :)
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".[8]
Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: "🤔🤔🤔"[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
see my edit :)
Your dissembling changes nothing. It only confirms my claim that you’re arguing in bad faith.
Thanks for that!
ah there’s our miscommunication! i am not arguing anything i just misunderstood at first and offered a possible solution/additional context
but i was wrong so i issued my apologies and asked for clarification :)
you stated there was something that was a problem with the reporting, and i inaccurately surmised that it had to do with trans people experiencing hate. what was it in reality?
ah there’s our miscommunication!
No. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith, and I’m not falling for it. And I’m calling you out on it. Deflecting is the tactic of a coward.
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".[8]
Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: "🤔🤔🤔"[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
Permanently Deleted