Intersex people urge ban on non-consensual 'sex-normalisation' surgeries

I have the same position on this that I do with young teens who want to undergo gender transitions.
They should be allowed low level hormone blockers that would partially (but not completely) stop gender-specific puberty changes.
This would put them in a better position later to be able to go either path.

(I realise that's not addressing surgery at birth but rather treatments later)

 

It's also important to realise there are all different types of intersex conditions.
For some of these conditions, the child is obviously one gender not the other. In these cases where the child is obviously one gender, then a surgery to correct them to make them fully that gender should be okay. But this is provided of course that such a surgery does not have the potential for a tremendous level of damage and harm to their genitals and a decreased capacity to experience sexual feeling.

The issue of intersex needs to be broken down into several smaller categories, each of those are going to be a little bit different.
I'm against overgeneralised cookie-cutter approaches to problems. And no, I don't believe the parents or doctors should automatically get the choice. Some carefully thought out medical policies need to be made, to try to address each different type of exact medical condition or situation.

Some of these decisions could be very ethically difficult and controversial.
For example, if a baby has a micropenis, should a surgery be done to try to make it bigger. On the one hand, the boy is going to be likely to want the surgery later and now would be the best time and is going to give the best medical outcome. You would want to save the child from being laughed at later in life. On the other hand, there could be some medical risk. We can't be absolutely certain that individual would want to undergo such a surgery. Perhaps the surgical procedure will leave scars and the individual would have preferred the micropenis to the scars.

 

Surgeries don’t really happen on minors — hormone therapy does. The OP says “medical treatments that modify a child's physical, hormonal or genetic sex characteristics, until they are old enough to consent.”

So yes, it would limit surgery until they can legally consent

 

First off, if you keep reading further down in the thread, you'll find that gender reassignment surgery is, at least occasionally, performed on minors, but to the rest of your post, isn't hormone therapy also a 'medical treatment that modifies a child's physical, hormonal or genetic sex characteristics'?

 

The U.S. have touched on this in 1963, and has been entered in to our constitution,

Maybe the core issue starts with depravity the media and society pushing at every turn the promoting the normality of this type of thought.. Children are impressionable and with all the "In your face" social bombardment only serves to confuse them. The difference in yesterday and today is we all grew up making up our own choices unmolested by agenda driven "Medline description excerpts highlighting the key points" or "excerpts highlighting the key points".

Children/people are so confused today I doubt many of them even consider their own feeling on these subject because they are so "wanting" to fit in, and the stronger they are shamed for non compliance the more they will have conflicting choices..

 

Don't know why you stressed the word "she"? And yes, I know what the commission is talking about. Its right there in your OP. So I take it that you, the commission and @Derideo_Te are NOT wanting this applied to transgenders. Right? As such you are not being consistent.

 

Absolutely! And media should be brought to task also.. There is no need to emphasize preference at every opportunity..

 

Absolutely. I agree that it needs to be limited until a child can consent.

 

I honestly don't understand the thread title. It's like the Leftists are making up their own language.... where did they figure that out?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/newspeak

newspeak
noun, often capitalized

new·speak | \ ˈnü-ˌspēk, ˈnyü- \

Definition of newspeak: propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings

 

Usually, but that's starting to become more common and is not completely unheard of. Surgeries have been performed on 16 year olds, and surgeries on 15 year olds are not completely unheard of.
There may be surgeries being done on 12 or 13 year olds but we are not hearing about them because they are being kept secret. I don't think there are any specific laws on this sort of thing.

I don't mean to get too far off topic though.

 

That has been used so often and so indiscriminately as to not only lose its sting, but becomes a time for eye rolling and snickering. Lefties imposing their beliefs on other? Nonsense! That is a Republican hallmark, imposing their beliefs on speech, marriage, voting and sex just to name a few.

 

A child cannot give consent, obviously.

 

Which is mid to late teens at the earliest.

So you're against treatment which has lifelong implications, when not medically necessary (as in life/death situation), before the child reaches the age of consent?

 

What about hormone therapy?

 

This is something I agree with. These sorts of surgeries should not happen.

 

This has been rattling around in my head all day: In the article I cited earlier about the minor who got gender reassignment surgery, they wrote "Dr. Ting performed Emily’s reassignment surgery at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. He created female anatomy that is fully functional." That's absurd though, at least for any definition of "female anatomy that is fully functional" that I could find credible. Are Dr. Ting or Kenneth Craig (the reporter) just setting the bar for "fully functional" extremely low?

 

Exactly, but I wouldnt expect that level of intellectual honesty from the left.

 

Now you are just FLAILING with GUESSES!

This EXCEPTION occurred over TWO YEARS ago.

That makes it an ANECDOTE!

FACTS matter and you have NONE!

Sad!

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAA!

YOUR sad DESPERATION based upon a SINGLE anecdote is PALPABLE on this topic.

Priceless!

 

A SINGLE instance is NOT "occasionally".

Provide MORE examples to support that ALLEGATION.

 

The member alleged SURGERIES on MINORS.

Puberty blockers are intended to buy time until a better understanding can be achieved for what is essentially a life altering decision.

As far as hormone treatments are concerned some are reversible and others are not which is why they are not started until the teens at the earliest.

 

Why would I waste my time providing even more evidence that your claim ("NOT happening ANYWHERE") is false when you stuck your head in the sand and refused to acknowledge your error when I provided evidence refuting it earlier today? You're not a serious debater.

 

First off, I didn't "allege" it, I provided evidence of it. Your claim was "NOT happening ANYWHERE", which is demonstrably false.

 

I understand that and I agree with what you said in response if it happens I'm not sure it ever did but if it does I don't think it's very common.

I was asking you seem like you knew more about this than I did.

isn't taking puberty blockers a life s altering decision.

To me it seems like a bad idea to interfere with normal development in this way I'm all for letting the child Express themselves however they wish but monkeying with their biology seems like asking for trouble.

 

However a teen could be considered old enough to consent. Consent is not about age but understanding