Dylan Mulvaney

[TexasTiger 13,006]

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

   That's not true. 

First, I never said who are we to have opinions?  

I said who are we to dictate to others whether or not their  sexual identities are valid, legitimate or appropriate?   That's completely different.

Not what you said. But if you want to say you believe Eunuch is a sexual identity, say it. You’re entitled to that opinion. WPATH has recently declared it a gender identity. My problem with that is once a society buys that someone choosing to castrate themselves because they’ve been told it’s just  another gender identity no different than male or female it becomes easier for folks to do. You say, fine not your business. You don’t care. Ok. I do. Because I believe healthy people don’t just get castrated and say they’re the gender of no gender.  Once they do that, they’re no less deserving of compassion and respect, but my view is if we have compassion and respect for them to begin with we care about what is driving them toward self-mutilation. You seem to think that view is derived from bigotry. I think your lack of concern comes from a distorted view of what it means to be “accepting.” 

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Secondly, I don't "complain" about folks "disagreeing" with me, I argue with them and attempt to refute their arguments.

Hell, most of the people on this forum disagree with me.  If that bothered me to the point of complaining about it, I'd simply leave and find another form.

You are being very disingenuous with your rhetoric, which is just another form of dishonesty. 

I thought better of you.

Maybe you're not as in favor of "serious discussion" as you proclaim to be if you feel compelled to misrepresent other's positions in such a way. 

 

You said this:

”First, it's not my business - or yours - for that matter… Who am I - or you - to proclaim otherwise?”

Which is pretty much this:

“who are we to have opinions, anyway?” 

[DKW 86 7,440]

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Not what you said. But if you want to say you believe Eunuch is a sexual identity, say it. You’re entitled to that opinion. WPATH has recently declared it a gender identity. My problem with that is once a society buys that someone choosing to castrate themselves because they’ve been told it’s just  another gender identity no different than male or female it becomes easier for folks to do. You say, fine not your business. You don’t care. Ok. I do. Because I believe healthy people don’t just get castrated and say they’re the gender of no gender.  Once they do that, they’re no less deserving of compassion and respect, but my view is if we have compassion and respect for them to begin with we care about what is driving them toward self-mutilation. You seem to think that view is derived from bigotry. I think your lack of concern comes from a distorted view of what it means to be “accepting.” 

You said this:

”First, it's not my business - or yours - for that matter… Who am I - or you - to proclaim otherwise?”

Which is pretty much this:

“who are we to have opinions, anyway?” 

Talking with homey is like nailing jello to the wall. His words AND WHAT THEY MEAN change by the hour. He will claim, as he does in almost every thread here that YOU misread his words. Funny, but that happens with him almost every day. Its like no one on this board can read a single word written by him and interpret it correctly. OR that he is weaseling as usual...

[homersapien 11,440]

15 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Not what you said. But if you want to say you believe Eunuch is a sexual identity, say it. You’re entitled to that opinion. WPATH has recently declared it a gender identity. My problem with that is once a society buys that someone choosing to castrate themselves because they’ve been told it’s just  another gender identity no different than male or female it becomes easier for folks to do. You say, fine not your business. You don’t care. Ok. I do. Because I believe healthy people don’t just get castrated and say they’re the gender of no gender.  Once they do that, they’re no less deserving of compassion and respect, but my view is if we have compassion and respect for them to begin with we care about what is driving them toward self-mutilation. You seem to think that view is derived from bigotry. I think your lack of concern comes from a distorted view of what it means to be “accepting.” 

 

 

First, I personally don't believe Eunochs are a "natural" sexual identity.  It's hard for me to imagine they exist on the natural spectrum of sexuality or sexual identity.

Did WPATH "declare" them as a natural sexual identity, or are they simply respecting their claim?  (Regardless, I don't think WPATH necessarily represents the field of psychiatry in this regard.)

Whatever, I don't consider this to represent any sort of danger or threat to society. In fact, I don't think it will influence society at all.

If you want to become a "Eunuch denier" or "Eunuch opponent", have at it. (What do you plan to do about it?)   Regardless, I don't have any problem with it. I don't feel a responsibility to rescue Eunuchs from their beliefs. (Now if they start kidnapping people to castrate, that's a different situation. )

Otherwise, As far as I am concerned, eunuchs have a perfect right to have themselves castrated if that what makes them happy.

If you think that's a "distorted" view of acceptance, fine. 

15 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You said this:

”First, it's not my business - or yours - for that matter… Who am I - or you - to proclaim otherwise?”

Which is pretty much this:

 

“who are we to have opinions, anyway?” 

Well, most people would interpret "who are you to....." as a challenge to someone's assumed authority they really don't have. I have never seen anyone take it as one is not literally entitled to an opinion on something.

To expand, saying it's none of our business refers to one has standing,  responsibility, interests, or authority to pass judgements on and regulate others sexual proclivities or choices in an active way.  "Business" implies action or involvement by definition.  I don't think  it's our "business" to police other's sexual identities, although you are of course free to disapprove (opinion).  So while opinion may precipitate or initiate business, "business" is not the same as "opinion".

If your opinion is that you do have a right, responsibility or "standing" to police other people's sexual identities, then I would respectfully disagree.  I think your opinion is wrong.  But you are certainly entitled to it.

Bottom line, my opinion  is that it is none of our business. 

But I appreciate you for creating this rhetorical rabbit hole to address. (Not!)

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

Common TT, that post took a lot of work. 

I think it deserves a little more than a stupid slap-in-the-face icon response. 

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 13,006]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Common TT, that post took a lot of work. 

I think it deserves a little more than a stupid slap-in-the-face icon response. 

 

No one obligated to follow what they perceive to be a rabbit hole.

[homersapien 11,440]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

No one obligated to follow what they perceive to be a rabbit hole.

Well if someone misrepresents my post in a disingenuous way, I  feel a personal duty to address it in self-defense.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

Common TT, that post took a lot of work. 

I think it deserves a little more than a stupid slap-in-the-face icon response. 

 

It does feel like a lot of straining at gnats and twisting oneself into a pretzel to seem progressive. 

How many other things do we treat this way, even with adults?  We have people claiming to be transabled - they basically identify as handicapped.  The official condition is Body Integrity Identity Disorder, but they're re-marketing themselves based on the success they see with the transgender movement.  They seek things like the amputation of healthy limbs, severing of the spinal cord, and removing eyesight.  I mean, if they're grown adults should we go along with this and give them what they want?

Do we treat people with anorexia this way?  If they are adults and don't like the way they look, should we give them more diet tips rather than teach them and help them to see themselves realistically?

I don't.  And I don't think that means I'm "policing" them in the negative connotation you seem to be implying.

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

It does feel like a lot of straining at gnats and twisting oneself into a pretzel to seem progressive. 

How many other things do we treat this way, even with adults?  We have people claiming to be transabled - they basically identify as handicapped.  The official condition is Body Integrity Identity Disorder, but they're re-marketing themselves based on the success they see with the transgender movement.  They seek things like the amputation of healthy limbs, severing of the spinal cord, and removing eyesight.  I mean, if they're grown adults should we go along with this and give them what they want?

Do we treat people with anorexia this way?  If they are adults and don't like the way they look, should we give them more diet tips rather than teach them and help them to see themselves realistically?

I don't.  And I don't think that means I'm "policing" them in the negative connotation you seem to be implying.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. 

But I'll ask you what I asked TT - what do you think we should do about it? 

If the answer is nothing but expressing your opinion, then you aren't "policing".

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. 

But I'll ask you what I asked TT - what do you think we should do about it? 

If the answer is nothing but expressing your opinion, then you aren't "policing".

 

Guess this means you can't answer his questions. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. 

But I'll ask you what I asked TT - what do you think we should do about it? 

If the answer is nothing but expressing your opinion, then you aren't "policing".

Let me answer this by asking you a question first...what do you think we should do about "transabled" adults or those with anorexia?  Do you think we can or should legally and ethically permit doctors and therapists to encourage them in their self conception and provide the desired medical and surgical interventions to give them what they want?

[homersapien 11,440]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Let me answer this by asking you a question first...

1) what do you think we should do about "transabled" adults or those with anorexia? 

2) Do you think we can or should legally and ethically permit doctors and therapists to encourage them in their self conception and provide the desired medical and surgical interventions to give them what they want?

1) Don't know what you mean by "transabled". 

I certainly think anorexic should be treated with therapy. (Not force fed against their will.)

As far as eunuchs, I don't think many - if any - ethical doctors would castrate anyone without a valid medical reason.  I personally don't know if a valid psychological reason is possible, but I am open to that possibility.

2) I don't think we - as laymen - should discourage or encourage practitioners to provide psychological, medical or surgical interventions to "give them what they want". 

It depends on whether or not said professionals have valid reasons (from research and data) to think it will improve their lives. 

Bottom line, I don't support regulating/legislating it with civil legislation.   For example, if a wanna-be eunich is determined to get castrated, I am sure they can find someone to do it. (Maybe a farm boy? )  In other words, it shouldn't be against the law.

 

[homersapien 11,440]

4 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Guess this means you can't answer his questions. 

Sorry, I had an errand to run and was in a hurry.  Didn't mean to upset you.  I'll get to it directly.

Since you're here, did you watch the PBSNH segment about doctors leaving Utah (in the Texas abortion thread)?

It validated my posts on that issue.

Edited May 2, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

On 5/1/2023 at 7:08 AM, DKW 86 said:

Talking with homey is like nailing jello to the wall. His words AND WHAT THEY MEAN change by the hour. He will claim, as he does in almost every thread here that YOU misread his words. Funny, but that happens with him almost every day. Its like no one on this board can read a single word written by him and interpret it correctly. OR that he is weaseling as usual...

Shut up David.

I spent a lot of time clarifying my post to TT who misinterpreted it.  There was nothing in that clarification that was illogical or irrational.  It's not my fault you cannot discern the difference between making something your business vs. having an opinion on it.

You - on the other hand - are willing to double down on a perceived
"lie" you cannot even produce.

If you can't keep up with my reasoning, just ignore my posts.  Same goes for your lapdogs who approved your post.  Apparently they have a similar problem with nuance, if not logic.

So go F yourself, you lying little hypocrite. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Sorry, I had an error to run and was in a hurry.  Didn't mean to upset you.  I'll get to it directly.

Since you're here, did you watch the PBSNH segment about doctors leaving Utah (in the Texas abortion thread)?

It validated my posts on that issue.

I did see it, I think it says way more about Idaho than Texas though. I can see where that law would put lives at risk there. It is worded like they spent a whole 3 minutes on thinking it out. 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,440]

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

1) How many other things do we treat this way, even with adults? 

Don't know.  Never tried to anticipate them. I just take them as they come.
 

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

2) I mean, if they're grown adults should we go along with this and give them what they want? 

Pretty much.  Unless it clearly violates the hippocratic oath and clearly doesn them harm.  I don't think castration (for example) does.
 

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Do we treat people with anorexia this way?  No. (See below.)

If they are adults and don't like the way they look, should we give them more diet tips rather than teach them and help them to see themselves realistically? 

Absolutely

 

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

And I don't think that means I'm "policing" them in the negative connotation you seem to be implying. 

I have not accused you of doing so

[wdefromtx 3,159]

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Sorry, I had an error to run and was in a hurry.  Didn't mean to upset you.  I'll get to it directly.

Since you're here, did you watch the PBSNH segment about doctors leaving Utah (in the Texas abortion thread)?

It validated my posts on that issue.

Freudian slip? 

[homersapien 11,440]

8 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Freudian slip? 

I hate when that happens!     

Especially when I'm being snitty or sarcastic!

(Mikey is still celebrating my use of shear instead of sheer.  Oh well, at least I made him happy.)

Now that you've documented it, I'll go back and edit it.

Edited May 2, 2023 by homersapien

[TitanTiger 20,510]

33 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1) Don't know what you mean by "transabled". 

I explained it earlier:

We have people claiming to be transabled - they basically identify as handicapped.  The official condition is Body Integrity Identity Disorder, but they're re-marketing themselves based on the success they see with the transgender movement.  They seek things like the amputation of healthy limbs, severing of the spinal cord, and removing eyesight.  I mean, if they're grown adults should we go along with this and give them what they want?

https://www.aufamily.com/topic/186824-dylan-mulvaney/?do=findComment&comment=3733211

 

33 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I certainly think anorexic should be treated with therapy. (Not force fed against their will.)

As do I.  Same with the "transabled."  Doctors and therapists that instead indulge them in their self-conceptions and would perform any surgical or medicinal procedures that would give them what they want here should be barred from further practice and liable to criminal prosecution.

 

33 minutes ago, homersapien said:

As far as eunuchs, I don't think many - if any - ethical doctors would castrate anyone without a valid medical reason.  I personally don't know if a valid psychological reason is possible, but I am open to that possibility.

There isn't.  And while I doubt ethical doctors would do it, money is a powerful incentive.

 

33 minutes ago, homersapien said:

2) I don't think we - as laymen - should discourage or encourage practitioners to provide psychological, medical or surgical interventions to "give them what they want". 

It depends on whether or not said professionals have valid reasons (from research and data) to think it will improve their lives. 

Bottom line, I don't support regulating/legislating it with civil legislation.   For example, if a wanna-be eunich is determined to get castrated, I am sure they can find someone to do it. (Maybe a farm boy? )  In other words, it shouldn't be against the law.

Wholly disagree.  It should be illegal for practitioners to do this.  It's malpractice.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Don't know.  Never tried to anticipate them. I just take them as they come.

I would think you'd at least attempt to be consistent.

 

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Pretty much.  Unless it clearly violates the hippocratic oath and clearly doesn them harm.  I don't think castration (for example) does.

Help me understand then.  It violated the Hippocratic Oath to amputate a limb or remove eyesight, but not to amputate healthy, working testicles?  How does that logic follow in your mind?

 

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Absolutely

 

I think you misunderstood what I was saying (at least I hope you did).  I'm asking, do you think we should give anorexics more tips on how to lose more weight OR should we instead help them through counseling to have a more realistic body image and guide them toward a healthy weight and eating habits?

In other words, should we affirm their self-conception as being too fat or should we get them to see the error of that view?

 

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I have not accused you of doing so

Unless I'm missing something, you're calling any laws or prohibitions against these sorts of surgical and therapeutic approaches "policing."

[homersapien 11,440]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I explained it earlier:

We have people claiming to be transabled - they basically identify as handicapped.  The official condition is Body Integrity Identity Disorder, but they're re-marketing themselves based on the success they see with the transgender movement.  They seek things like the amputation of healthy limbs, severing of the spinal cord, and removing eyesight.  I mean, if they're grown adults should we go along with this and give them what they want?

https://www.aufamily.com/topic/186824-dylan-mulvaney/?do=findComment&comment=3733211

Thanks.  I guess I forgot.

One could argue this sort of thing exists on the same spectrum as the desire for plastic surgery, of course the distinction is the  practical harm it causes vs. the perceived psychological benefit.  But I agree with you, it would be  unethical for a doctor to perform such surgery.

One could also argue that castration does not really qualify as a "BIID".  There is arguably no clear practical harm and possible(?) benefits in the case of psychiatric conditions such as sex addiction.  

I am not trying to be an advocate. I just thing such matters are better determined in the medical/psychiatric field than the political.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Thanks.  I guess I forgot.

One could argue this sort of thing exists on the same spectrum as the desire for plastic surgery, of course the distinction is the  practical harm it causes vs. the perceived psychological benefit.  But I agree with you, it would be  unethical for a doctor to perform such surgery.

One could also argue that castration does not really qualify as a "BIID".  There is arguably no clear practical harm and possible(?) benefits in the case of psychiatric conditions such as sex addiction.  

I am not trying to be an advocate. I just thing such matters are better determined in the medical/psychiatric field than the political.

The problem is, because finding people who will perform the surgery isn't easy, and because insurance won't cover it, such procedures could be very lucrative for unscrupulous doctors.  You can't have the very people who benefit financially also be the people policing themselves with no other accountability as to whether it's ethical or legal.  Some things actually should have legislative guard rails.  We should not be amputating healthy body parts over someone's weird psychological desires.

[homersapien 11,440]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I would think you'd at least attempt to be consistent.

 

I don't understand this. 

Consistent in what?  What have I said that implies I should provide new examples of medical treatments we should consider?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

I don't understand this. 

Consistent in what?  What have I said that implies I should provide new examples of medical treatments we should consider?

Consistent in affirming people in their self-conception and allowing for any and all medical and psychological treatments that help them fulfill it.  Instead, you cherry pick.  Sex reassignment surgeries and castrations for the hell of it - all good.  Amputating a leg below the knee - no go.  It's a rather squishy and nonsensical approach.

[homersapien 11,440]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The problem is, because finding people who will perform the surgery isn't easy, and because insurance won't cover it, such procedures could be very lucrative for unscrupulous doctors.  You can't have the very people who benefit financially also be the people policing themselves with no other accountability as to whether it's ethical or legal.  Some things actually should have legislative guard rails.  We should not be amputating healthy body parts over someone's weird psychological desires.

So you want state legislature to do it?  Or national legislatures.  You want politicians to determine what's appropriate medical and psychiatric care?

I totally disagree.  That sounds like "big brother" government to me.

These are personal issues between medical and psychiatric practitioners and the individual. 

[homersapien 11,440]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Consistent in affirming people in their self-conception and allowing for any and all medical and psychological treatments that help them fulfill it.  Instead, you cherry pick.  Sex reassignment surgeries and castrations for the hell of it - all good.  Amputating a leg below the knee - no go.  It's a rather squishy and nonsensical approach.

Yes, of course I "pick and choose", depending on what we know about the potential harm vs potential benefit in every case.  And it's not just every case, it's every potential case.

The idea one can come up with a universal law or regulation that will cover the full spectrum of medical and psychiatric issues is naive, "nonsensical", and extremely dangerous to personal liberty IMO.

We're already seeing this in some of the state abortion legislation and we'll see even more in the newer "transgender" legislation.

And I thought limited government was a basic conservative principle.