Dylan Mulvaney

[TexasTiger 13,006]

50 minutes ago, cbo said:

How about bringing up left handed people as an argument against adults having gender reassignment surgery. That is so far off the path of a constructive discussion. 

I'm surprised that's all you took from my post. But I don't want to get snippy with you. That's exactly why I'm trying to boil this down to the crux of the matter, without all the back and forth.

Anyway, I will happily retract my quoted statement and bow down to you, if you are only willing to tell me what you believe. 

I asked a simple, direct question and it's in everyone's interest to move on that point. 

“Bow down”? I think you’re the first to get snippy in this exchange.

There are multiple conversations on this broad issue and I’m not repeating every one of them. I’m confident, however, I haven’t been derogatory toward transgender people in any of them nor have I been disrespectful or unkind in person. Just the opposite. You’re also mischaracterizing my use of that hypothetical.

As I’ve repeatedly said, transgender folks deserve the same respect and dignity as everyone else and should not be subjected to discrimination in housing, employment, education, etc. I’ve also said the legislation in question is promoted largely by bigoted Republicans who mostly don’t really care about the teens and kids struggling with gender dysphoria.

On this topic in our polarized society the conversation is largely dominated by two very tribalistic positions— one is marked by the folks rushing through this legislation for political purposes. The other, are folks making blanket statements about the science on this topic by listing the associations you listed. Many also list WPATH. Years ago, WPATH was more measured, nuanced and grounded in science. I’ve addressed this in detail, as well.

Those American medical associations stand in contrast to medical associations in far more progressive countries that are less politicized and less driven by for-profit medicine that have reviewed the available scientific data and found it lacking. There’s multiple reports of this. Medical associations in Sweden, Finland, UK & France completed systematic scientific reviews and are drastically slowing medicalization in regard to minors.

In short, I oppose the current legislation, but also believe the medical establishment has been politicized on this issue in a way that impedes the objective scientific review that has happened in these other countries. 
 

 

[cbo 7,917]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

“Bow down”? I think you’re the first to get snippy in this exchange.

There’s multiple conversations on this broad issue and I’m not repeating every one of them. I’m confident, however, I haven’t been derogatory toward transgender people in any of them nor have I been disrespectful or unkind in person. Just the opposite. You’re also mischaracterizing my use of that hypothetical.

As I’ve repeatedly said, transgender folks deserve the same respect and dignity as everyone else and should not be subjected to discrimination in housing, employment, education, etc. I’ve also said the legislation in question is promoted largely by bigoted Republicans who mostly don’t really care about the teens and kids struggling with gender dysphoria.

On this topic in our polarized society the conversation is largely dominated by two very tribalistic positions— one is marked by the folks rushing through this legislation for political purposes. The other, are folks making blanket statements about the science on this topic by listing the associations you listed. Many also list WPATH. Years ago, WPATH was more measured, nuanced and grounded in science. I’ve addressed this in detail, as well.

Those American medical associations stand in contrast to medical associations in far more progressive countries that are less politicized and less driven by for-profit medicine that have reviewed the available scientific data and found it lacking. There’s multiple reports of this. Medical associations in Sweden, Finland, UK & France completed systematic scientific reviews and are drastically slowing medicalization in regard to minors.

In short, I oppose the current legislation, but also believe the medical establishment has been politicized on this issue in a way that impedes the objective scientific review that has happened in these other countries. 
 

 

I appreciate the response. I did get snippy with "bow down" because I thought it was odd to ignore all of my points and ask me to prove something I thought I had already proven, before you would respond to my question. 

I appreciate that you recognize the ban of gender affirming care in many states stems from bigoted Republicans. 

I don't understand why you question the established medical community on this topic, when I bet you would follow their guidelines if you and your loved ones had a medical issue. I wish you would quit bringing up WPATH, that no one but you has mentioned, and is not relevant to the real world problems of anyone on this board. 

I usually don't bother with these debates, but you sound like a thinking person that might actually listen and consider my points, even if I found your previous posts to be overly aggressive.  

So I will leave you with this. You might think it's fun or interesting to have theoretical debates on this matter. But there are lives at stake in the real world. All this negative talk about transgender people has already had a very real consequence, including the legislation you are against. 

In 20 or 30 years, this will be exactly like the debates about gay people. Most people won't care anymore and the people parsing out reasons for disapproval will be on the wrong side of history. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

22 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

“Bow down”? I think you’re the first to get snippy in this exchange.

There’s multiple conversations on this broad issue and I’m not repeating every one of them. I’m confident, however, I haven’t been derogatory toward transgender people in any of them nor have I been disrespectful or unkind in person. Just the opposite. You’re also mischaracterizing my use of that hypothetical.

As I’ve repeatedly said, transgender folks deserve the same respect and dignity as everyone else and should not be subjected to discrimination in housing, employment, education, etc. I’ve also said the legislation in question is promoted largely by bigoted Republicans who mostly don’t really care about the teens and kids struggling with gender dysphoria.

On this topic in our polarized society the conversation is largely dominated by two very tribalistic positions— one is marked by the folks rushing through this legislation for political purposes. The other, are folks making blanket statements about the science on this topic by listing the associations you listed. Many also list WPATH. Years ago, WPATH was more measured, nuanced and grounded in science. I’ve addressed this in detail, as well.

Those American medical associations stand in contrast to medical associations in far more progressive countries that are less politicized and less driven by for-profit medicine that have reviewed the available scientific data and found it lacking. There’s multiple reports of this. Medical associations in Sweden, Finland, UK & France completed systematic scientific reviews and are drastically slowing medicalization in regard to minors.

In short, I oppose the current legislation, but also believe the medical establishment has been politicized on this issue in a way that impedes the objective scientific review that has happened in these other countries. 
 

 

I largely agree with you.  However, I do not see the politicalization or, monetization.  I see the normal social reaction to a change in in culture.  But even then,,, I agree, that in itself, requires a greater psychological evaluation of any minor seeking treatment.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

42 minutes ago, cbo said:

I appreciate the response. I did get snippy with "bow down" because I thought it was odd to ignore all of my points and ask me to prove something I thought I had already proven, before you would respond to my question. 

I appreciate that you recognize the ban of gender affirming care in many states stems from bigoted Republicans. 

I don't understand why you question the established medical community on this topic, when I bet you would follow their guidelines if you and your loved ones had a medical issue. I wish you would quit bringing up WPATH, that no one but you has mentioned, and is not relevant to the real world problems of anyone on this board. 

I usually don't bother with these debates, but you sound like a thinking person that might actually listen and consider my points, even if I found your previous posts to be overly aggressive.  

So I will leave you with this. You might think it's fun or interesting to have theoretical debates on this matter. But there are lives at stake in the real world. All this negative talk about transgender people has already had a very real consequence, including the legislation you are against. 

In 20 or 30 years, this will be exactly like the debates about gay people. Most people won't care anymore and the people parsing out reasons for disapproval will be on the wrong side of history. 

There are absolutely real world consequences. Any theoretical debate I engage on this topic in is motivated by a desire to form the most helpful and compassionate approach to folks, particularly young people, who are struggling with this issue.

This issue has been overly politicized on the left and right, and objective analysis of the complex issues involved is suffering. Again, you mischaracterize my points as “negative talk about transgender people,” but object to me politely asking that you point specifically to what you accuse me of. I’m confident it’s grossly unfair.

You object to me bringing up WPATH as if it has no place in a meaningful discussion on transgender care when it literally is the primary resource most practitioners use and rely upon.

I’m not sure how to help you better understand why I question American medical associations when I point out that multiple European medical associations have recently published dispassionate statements on their systematic reviews of the evidence supporting much of the care promoted by those American associations and found it woefully lacking. I’ve linked to them elsewhere. If you’re interested, they aren’t hard to find.

The simplistic angle most “progressives” have taken is that this is the new gay issue— identity is just like orientation. I originally defaulted to that good progressive view until I searched more, questioned more and thought more deeply.  I’m afraid for many, not all, young people undergoing irreversible medical treatment the exact opposite is true. Many young people are being permanently maimed by mostly well-meaning people due to sloppy, weak science that’s been highly politicized.

And BTW, when I or a family member is facing any significant medical issue I generally explore how such issues are treated in modern, progressive countries with healthcare systems driven more by outcomes than profits and insurance company decisions. 

[cbo 7,917]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

There are absolutely real world consequences. Any theoretical debate I engage in is motivated by a desire to form the most helpful and compassionate approach to folks, particularly young people, who are struggling with this issue.

This issue has been overly politicized on the left and right, and objective analysis of the complex issues involved is suffering. Again, you mischaracterize my points as “negative talk about transgender people,” but object to me politely asking that you point specifically to what you accuse me of. I’m confident it’s grossly unfair.

You object to me bringing up WPATH as if it has no place in a meaningful discussion on transgender care when it literally is the primary resource most practitioners use and rely upon.

I’m not sure how to help you better understand why I question American medical associations when I point out that multiple European medical associations have recently published dispassionate statements on their systematic reviews of the evidence supporting much of the care promoted by those American associations and found it woefully lacking. I’ve linked to them elsewhere. If you’re interested, they aren’t hard to find.

The simplistic angle most “progressives” have taken is that this is the new gay issue— identity is just like orientation. I originally defaulted to that good progressive view until I searched more, questioned more and thought more deeply.  I’m afraid for many, not all, young people undergoing irreversible medical treatment the exact opposite is true. Many young people are being permanently maimed by mostly well-meaning people due to sloppy, weak science that’s been highly politicized.

And BTW, when I or a family member is facing any significant medical issue I generally explore how such issues are treated in modern, progressive countries with healthcare systems driven more by outcomes than profits and insurance company decisions. 

You frame yourself as helpful and compassionate but you seem to me like someone who just wants to win a debate. 

Your comment about WPATH as the primary resource for most providers is wildly inaccurate. At least in this country. We use the guidelines from the associations I provided at every hospital in this country. 

I don't appreciate your condescending tone or calling my argument "simplistic," when I promise you I have researched this topic more than you and have also discussed it multiple times with several of the country's leading physicians. 

Like I said before, I thought you might be different than the goofs who will hop on here and downvote me tomorrow.

But your argument about concern for women and lesbians seemed like a red flag. You called homersapien a misogynist and a homophobe for not agreeing with the point you never made. 

If you look back to my very first response to you, I simply asked you to explain to me how women and lesbians are affected by the transgender community. I honestly wanted to know. That seemed like a very important point to you. But you never once addressed it. More interested in complaining about how you were wronged on a message board that you moderate. 

P.S. Many young people are not being permanently maimed. Surgery on minors is incredibly rare. Please show your support if you want to keep saying this. 

[cbo 7,917]

By the way, I noticed there was a gay slur on the very first page of this thread and none of the moderators gave a damn. I guess that's cool too. 

 

[TexasTiger 13,006]

1 hour ago, cbo said:

You frame yourself as helpful and compassionate but you seem to me like someone who just wants to win a debate. 

Your comment about WPATH as the primary resource for most providers is wildly inaccurate. At least in this country. We use the guidelines from the associations I provided at every hospital in this country. 

I don't appreciate your condescending tone or calling my argument "simplistic," when I promise you I have researched this topic more than you and have also discussed it multiple times with several of the country's leading physicians. 

Like I said before, I thought you might be different than the goofs who will hop on here and downvote me tomorrow.

But your argument about concern for women and lesbians seemed like a red flag. You called homersapien a misogynist and a homophobe for not agreeing with the point you never made. 

If you look back to my very first response to you, I simply asked you to explain to me how women and lesbians are affected by the transgender community. I honestly wanted to know. That seemed like a very important point to you. But you never once addressed it. More interested in complaining about how you were wronged on a message board that you moderate. 

P.S. Many young people are not being permanently maimed. Surgery on minors is incredibly rare. Please show your support if you want to keep saying this. 

I hoped you might be different, too.

If you’ve researched more than me, for some reason there are huge gaping holes in your knowledge regarding the role of WPATH.

The associations you list rely significantly on WPATH. For example, the APA is quite explicit:

“APA practice guidelines are aspirational; in other words, they set ideals to which APA encourages psychologists to aspire. The new guidelines encourage psychologists to use them in tandem with APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct and with treatment guidelines, such as those set forth by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care and the Endocrine Society.”

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/08/working-transgender

The major insurance companies rely on WPATH for treatment they cover which clearly makes their guidelines hugely significant— arguably that most critical:

 

Beyond surgery, there’s ample evidence I’ve previously listed of changes brought about by hormones and puberty blockers that results in often irreversible changes, including puberty blockers making a more suitable surgical transition later much more challenging.
 

It’s funny you take my disagreement as just wanting to win a debate and position yourself as the truly caring person (who seems to want to win a debate. 😉). I have no illusions of convincing you of anything. But unlike you, my starting point is you’re as genuinely concerned about these young people as I am, we just disagree on the best approach. I don’t need to think you’re  bad to disagree with you.

And I didn’t personally call your argument simplistic— I traced my own journey of thinking on this issue and said I defaulted to what I now see as an overly simplistic comparison. That’s the view I arrived at. Your thought journey is your own and you can describe it as you see fit.

If you truly want to understand my remark to Homer, it was his dismissing the concerns articulated in the BBC article about the experience of many lesbians in the UK that I linked to as “petty.” I found his tone and his dismissal of their concerns callous and, yes, misogynistic and homophobic. I’ve admittedly had that view influenced by lesbians I know, have listened to and really tried to understand. My views of misogynistic behavior is much broader than just a few years ago when I was too quick to dismiss concerns I don’t dismiss now.

[cbo 7,917]

On 4/25/2023 at 11:17 AM, TitanTiger said:

Whether Dylan cosplays his way into a Bud Light promo deal isn't important.  The overall message that being a woman is primarily how one feels rather than biological reality is.  And all the s*** that gloms on to it like putting children on puberty blockers, putting someone on crosssex hormones and such.  These things have long term consequences and some things that we simply don't know because we're largely operating on faith rather than hard data and documented outcomes.

Then there's the ways that these hormonal treatments intersect with irreversible surgical interventions such as this:

https://thepostmillennial.com/trans-teen-died-from-vaginoplasty-complications-during-landmark-dutch-study-used-to-justify-child-sex-changes

I'll warn you if you search for this story online...there are photos that have gotten out and it's graphic and disturbing.  This story doesn't link to them and I'm not posting them here either.  But basically because this healthy young boy was put on puberty blockers, it stunted the growth of his penis.  And because he didn't have enough penile tissue to perform a regular vaginoplasty, they used a section of his colon.  Not only is that a far more invasive surgery, it introduces other complications such as what happened here:  e.coli from the boy's colon caused an infection leading to necrotizing fasciitis - essentially a flesh-eating disease where the tissue around his new "vagina" began to rapidly die and spread to the rest of his body.  He died several days later after multiple rounds of antibiotics and debriding failed to help.

Even when not fatal, you have still serious situations such as Jazz Jennings, the young boy featured in "I Am Jazz" who transitioned to a girl.  Because of the same issue with puberty blockers, Jazz had to forgo the regular vaginoplasty using penile tissue for this more risky procedure.  Jazz has now had three corrective surgeries, and has never experienced (and will never experience) orgasm.

This s*** actually matters.  Not because Dylan likes to cartoonishly act out as a woman.  Not because some beer company put his face on a can.  But because of stuff like this.  It's damaging and ruinous.  And we act like it's not big deal and anyone that raises the bleeding obvious red flags is being reactionary.

Yes, this s*** does actually matter.

Thanks for sharing the link and all the words about one Dutch surgery. 

And the Jazz Jennings thing that everyone is clinging to now. Do you know why Jazz Jennings got a show? Because she is an extreme outlier, just like Honey Boo Boo, the 600 pounders and the people that are addicted to eating toilet paper. Do you still think TLC stands for The Learning Channel? Is this really the source that backs up your beliefs?

Since you know so much about this to make a strongly worded argument, please tell me the long term consequences of puberty blockers, testosterone, "crossex hormones (a phrase you made up) "and such." 

 

 

 

[TexasTiger 13,006]

5 minutes ago, cbo said:

Yes, this s*** does actually matter.

Thanks for sharing the link and all the words about one Dutch surgery. 

And the Jazz Jennings thing that everyone is clinging to now. Do you know why Jazz Jennings got a show? Because she is an extreme outlier, just like Honey Boo Boo, the 600 pounders and the people that are addicted to eating toilet paper. Do you still think TLC stands for The Learning Channel? Is this really the source that backs up your beliefs?

Since you know so much about this to make a strongly worded argument, please tell me the long term consequences of puberty blockers, testosterone, "crossex hormones (a phrase you made up) "and such." 

 

 

 

For a term Titan made up, it’s catching on quickly in the scientific literature:

https://www.issm.info/sexual-health-qa/what-is-cross-sex-hormone-therapy/

https://eje.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/eje/164/4/635.xml

[cbo 7,917]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

For a term Titan made up, it’s catching on quickly in the scientific literature:

https://www.issm.info/sexual-health-qa/what-is-cross-sex-hormone-therapy/

https://eje.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/eje/164/4/635.xml

You care about scientific literature now?

But seriously, my bad. I shouldn't have said that. And it clearly renders all my other points worthless. 

[cbo 7,917]

21 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I hoped you might be different, too.

If you’ve researched more than me, for some reason there are huge gaping holes in your knowledge regarding the role of WPATH.

The associations you list rely significantly on WPATH. For example, the APA is quite explicit:

“APA practice guidelines are aspirational; in other words, they set ideals to which APA encourages psychologists to aspire. The new guidelines encourage psychologists to use them in tandem with APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct and with treatment guidelines, such as those set forth by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care and the Endocrine Society.”

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/08/working-transgender

The major insurance companies rely on WPATH for treatment they cover which clearly makes their guidelines hugely significant— arguably that most critical:

 

Beyond surgery, there’s ample evidence I’ve previously listed of changes brought about by hormones and puberty blockers that results in often irreversible changes, including puberty blockers making a more suitable surgical transition later much more challenging.
 

It’s funny you take my disagreement as just wanting to win a debate and position yourself as the truly caring person (who seems to want to win a debate. 😉). I have no illusions of convincing you of anything. But unlike you, my starting point is you’re as genuinely concerned about these young people as I am, we just disagree on the best approach. I don’t need to think you’re  bad to disagree with you.

And I didn’t personally call your argument simplistic— I traced my own journey of thinking on this issue and said I defaulted to what I now see as an overly simplistic comparison. That’s the view I arrived at. Your thought journey is your own and you can describe it as you see fit.

If you truly want to understand my remark to Homer, it was his dismissing the concerns articulated in the BBC article about the experience of many lesbians in the UK that I linked to as “petty.” I found his tone and his dismissal of their concerns callous and, yes, misogynistic and homophobic. I’ve admittedly had that view influenced by lesbians I know, have listened to and really tried to understand. My views of misogynistic behavior is much broader than just a few years ago when I was too quick to dismiss concerns I don’t dismiss now.

I oversee a team of healthcare billers in my job every day. I know what it takes to get a bill paid in reality. 

I honestly can't believe you are still more concerned about WPATH than the transgender children who are having their care outlawed. 

But I will ask you the same question I asked the other mod. What are the irreversible effects of treatment like, say, testosterone, that you are both so concerned about? Admittedly, there are a couple. Do you know without googling?

And, finally, I will once again ask you to explain to me the harm done to women and lesbians. Literally my first question to you that you still can't seem to answer. 

[TexasTiger 13,006]

10 minutes ago, cbo said:

I oversee a team of healthcare billers in my job every day. I know what it takes to get a bill paid in reality. 

I honestly can't believe you are still more concerned about WPATH than the transgender children who are having their care outlawed. 

But I will ask you the same question I asked the other mod. What are the irreversible effects of treatment like, say, testosterone, that you are both so concerned about? Admittedly, there are a couple. Do you know without googling?

And, finally, I will once again ask you to explain to me the harm done to women and lesbians. Literally my first question to you that you still can't seem to answer. 

Ok. We don’t have much history that I recall, so I’m not sure if you’re drunk, high, especially emotional over this topic or just wildly irrational in general, but it’s clear I just wasted a good chunk of my evening trying to have a reasonable exchange with you. Lesson learned. You take care, brother.

[cbo 7,917]

11 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Ok. We don’t have much history that I recall, so I’m not sure if you’re drunk, high, especially emotional over this topic or just wildly irrational in general, but it’s clear I just wasted a good chunk of my evening trying to have a reasonable exchange with you. Lesson learned. You take care, brother.

Got it. You can't answer the most simple questions on this topic that you deeply care about for some reason and claim to want to discuss. 

[TexasTiger 13,006]

5 hours ago, cbo said:

Got it. You can't answer the most simple questions on this topic that you deeply care about for some reason and claim to want to discuss. 

I’ve answered them many times over different threads. I often feel as if I’m speaking to brick walls (not just you— it’s cumulative). You don’t seem to have read what I’ve said very closely or with an open mind. It gets very tiring. I don’t want to continue to get frustrated and seem rude to you. You strike me as a nice guy with a good heart, but I feel you were being condescending toward me and my patience is far from infinite. Perhaps you feel the same. It’s a complicated issue. Take care.

[cbo 7,917]

6 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I’ve answered them many times over different threads. I often feel as if I’m speaking to brick walls (not just you— it’s cumulative). You don’t seem to have read what I’ve said very closely or with an open mind. It gets very tiring. I don’t want to continue to get frustrated and seem rude to you. You strike me as a nice guy with a good heart, but I feel you were being condescending toward me and my patience is far from infinite. Perhaps you feel the same. It’s a complicated issue. Take care.

Fair enough. Have a good one. 

[TexasTiger 13,006]

8 minutes ago, cbo said:

Fair enough. Have a good one. 

You, too, brother. 

[homersapien 11,440]

On 5/9/2023 at 11:54 AM, TexasTiger said:

Not joking at all. Women have valid concerns. Lesbians have valid concerns. You haven’t taken the time to inform yourself beyond a surface level on topics for which you, nonetheless, render strong judgements. You’re dismissive of their concerns. I was, too. Then I began to actually listen. You’re entitled to your views. You asked me a question and I answered.

BS. 

Name ONE "strong judgment" I have rendered that I have been inconsistent about.  ONE

I have no idea what you are doing in this thread other than throwing questions at me in a challenging and pedantic way.  You have made NO points.  You are just challenging my statements without trying to define your point in doing so.

And now you say I am "misogynistic and homophobic".  Because I am not clutching my pearls when some Lesbians are getting static (presumably from trans-women) because they aren't aren't attracted to trans women???

That's crazy.

(I thought I had posted post this earlier when it was more timely.  Apparently I didn't. I apologize for that.)

Edited May 17, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

Until TT - or Titan, if he's still interested - can come up with a succinct thesis that he feels I oppose, I quit. 

I am not going to participate in an argument without knowing what the point of contention we are arguing about is. 

Arguing without even knowing what you are arguing about seems like a foolish waste of time to me.

And TT, I think you are being dishonest with yourself if you really think this has been an "honest discussion" of give and take. 

You have been challenging almost my every post - and apparently trying to argue with them and getting progressively more aggressive about it with snark and insults, yet  I don't know what the point of contention is.   You just come across as pissed-off.  By what, I don't know.

If this forum had numbered posts - a very unfortunate laxity IMO - I'd simply go back and list all the posts - by number - that illustrate that. 

But it doesn't.  And I'll be damned if I am going to spend the time going back, quoting them just to prove my point.  It's just not that important to me. (I guess that makes me a "homophobe" or "misogynist", huh?  

(BTW, thanks cbo for a little relief. )

I'm out.

Edited May 17, 2023 by homersapien

[TitanTiger 20,510]

These stories are gaining more and more traction.  It's unbelievably sad to hear of the pain these folks have gone through.

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

These stories are gaining more and more traction.  It's unbelievably sad to hear of the pain these folks have gone through.

 

I feel very sorry for these five individuals. 

Is this the case for the majority of all of those who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery? 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

30 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I feel very sorry for these five individuals. 

Is this the case for the majority of all of those who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery? 

The data is starting to trickle in and some of the rates of complication are alarming.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33663938/

Outcomes: Of the 1,212 patients completing the survey, 129 patients underwent genital reconstruction surgery. Seventy-nine patients (61 percent) underwent phalloplasty only, 32 patients (25 percent) underwent metoidioplasty only, and 18 patients (14 percent) underwent metoidioplasty followed by phalloplasty.

Results: Patients reported 281 complications requiring 142 revisions. The most common complications were urethrocutaneous fistula (n = 51, 40 percent), urethral stricture (n = 41, 32 percent), and worsened mental health (n = 25, 19 percent). The average erect neophallus after phalloplasty was 14.1 cm long vs 5.5 cm after metoidioplasty (P < .00001). Metoidioplasty patients report 4.8 out of 5 erogenous sensation, compared to 3.4 out of 5 for phalloplasty patients (P < .00001). Patients who underwent clitoris burial in addition to primary phalloplasty did not report change in erogenous sensation relative to primary phalloplasty patients without clitoris burial (P = .105). The average postoperative patient genital self-image score was 20.29 compared with 13.04 for preoperative patients (P < .00001) and 21.97 for a historical control of cisgender men (P = .0004).

Clinical implications: These results support anecdotal reports that complication rates following gender affirming genital reconstruction are higher than are commonly reported in the surgical literature. Patients undergoing clitoris burial in addition to primary phalloplasty did not report a change in erogenous sensation relative to those patients not undergoing clitoris burial. Postoperative patients report improved genital self-image relative to their preoperative counterparts, although self-image scores remain lower than cisgender males.

 

And the complication rates for phalloplasty (creating a "penis" for female to male transsexuals) are even higher:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3901910/

 

And don't think these five are the only ones.  There are many others if you have the willingness to look.  But they often get cowed into keeping quiet about it, particularly if they express any serious regret over their decision to get the surgery or suggest that much more time and counseling be given to people before moving forward.

The worst part of it is, this stuff isn't reversible.  This isn't like other cosmetic surgeries.  For instance, if a woman with breasts that are too large for her to be comfortable (unwanted attention, back pain, etc), she can get a reduction.  But if after time she decides she went too small and wishes to be bigger again (maybe not as big as before, but bigger than she is now), she can do that with relative ease.  And the same is true for breast enlargements - you can have the implants removed.  Same with things like calf implants.  But doing something like having your penis lopped off and changed into a neovagina - either you stay the course and make the best of it as a "woman" despite the drastically reduced (or completely eliminated) sexual sensation and constant issues with keeping it dilated or you detransition back to being a man, but live without a penis.  There ain't no third option where you go back to the way things were pre-operation.  And this isn't just a cosmetic matter like breast reduction/augmentation or calf or pectoral implants, it's an actual bodily function gone on permanently altered.

It's all the more confounding to see this, knowing the prefrontal cortex for human beings isn't fully formed in adolescents (and it's typically finished until around 24-25 years old) and the ability to understand the full implications of long term consequences of decisions isn't all there, that people want to make this available to minors.

[cbo 7,917]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's all the more confounding to see this, knowing the prefrontal cortex for human beings isn't fully formed in adolescents (and it's typically finished until around 24-25 years old) and the ability to understand the full implications of long term consequences of decisions isn't all there, that people want to make this available to minors.

Once again, I will ask. Who are these people that want genital surgery for minors? How many of these surgeries have been performed on minors in America? 

You and many others love to bring this up every time the much broader and complex issue of transgenderism is mentioned. Is it just for shock value? Is it too ignore more nuanced matters? 

 

[DKW 86 7,440]

12 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

These stories are gaining more and more traction.  It's unbelievably sad to hear of the pain these folks have gone through.

 

I do not have words...In case any of you missed it. Here is Jazz Jennings talking about HIMSELF. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

13 hours ago, cbo said:

Once again, I will ask. Who are these people that want genital surgery for minors? How many of these surgeries have been performed on minors in America? 

Under current law in various states, minors as young as 15 can get gender affirming surgery, in some cases without parental consent.  This is currently the law in Oregon for instance.

Even under current Oregon law, gender-affirming care is treated as broadly medically necessary. For people 15 and older, a parent's permission is not needed. Those 14 and younger do require permission, and HB 2002 does not change that.

The bill also explicitly states that voluntary sterilization does not qualify as reproductive care for minors under 15 years of age, meaning people 14 and under will not be able to seek it on their own.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/heres-what-the-oregon-bill-on-abortion-gender-affirming-care-would-actually-change/ar-AA1b1NIU

 

From the bill itself:

A minor 15 years of age or older may give consent, without the consent of a parent or guardian of the minor, to: (a) Hospital care, medical or surgical diagnosis or treatment by a physician licensed by the Oregon Medical Board or a naturopathic physician licensed under ORS chapter 685, and dental or surgical diagnosis or treatment by a dentist licensed by the Oregon Board of Dentistry.

This includes transgender interventions:

SECTION 24. (1) As used in this section, “gender-affirming treatment” means a procedure, service, drug, device or product that a physical or behavioral health care provider prescribes to treat an individual for incongruence between the individual’s gender identity and the individual’s sex assignment at birth…

Can we please stop acting like people raising this concern are being crazy or unreasonable, as if that's some sort of gotcha trump card? This stuff is being pushed by transgender activists and it's being allowed or the laws relaxed in various states.  Oregon is just the latest.

 

13 hours ago, cbo said:

You and many others love to bring this up every time the much broader and complex issue of transgenderism is mentioned. Is it just for shock value? Is it too ignore more nuanced matters?

No, it's because it matters.  And because what a fully grown adult does with themselves is one thing.  I may not think it's good, wise, or moral but they are free to do such things.  But minor children are not emotionally, mentally, or psychologically mature and developed enough to be having such things done to or for them.  We ought to at least be able to agree on such bright line areas, but increasingly I find that such an assumption isn't true and it's bewildering and frankly frightening.  I cannot understand functioning adults who advocate for such things or shrug and go along with them in the name of tolerance and "caring."

If you don't like to talk about it, fine.  Don't.  But we're going to discuss it and other collateral damage that comes from such views because greatly they affect other people besides the individual doing this to themselves - whether it be in areas of women's rights and the privacy and safety of women and girls, women's and girls sports, etc...or in the case of minors - it's being done (or being proposed as legal and permissible) to people who do not possess the necessary mental and psychological development to comprehend the lasting consequences of going down this road.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I do not have words...In case any of you missed it. Here is Jazz Jennings talking about HIMSELF. 

 

Just to be clear,,, I agree with most of the video.  However, your disrespect with the bolded "himself" is distasteful.