Oregon now allows 15-year-olds to get state-subsidized ‘sex-change’ operations withou

RCLady said:

The list of things 15-year-olds are not legally allowed to do in Oregon is long: Drive, smoke, donate blood, get a tattoo — even go to a tanning bed.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, Oregon is one of the three states that bans sexual orientation change effort (SOCE) therapy for minors.

How can a 15 year old be "free" to get a sex change, but not free to seek help for unwanted sexual desires?

Seems like Oregonian freedom is very selective.

glassjester said:

Interestingly, Oregon is one of the three states that bans sexual orientation change effort (SOCE) therapy for minors.

How can a 15 year old be "free" to get a sex change, but not free to seek help for unwanted sexual desires?

Seems like Oregonian freedom is very selective.

Click to expand...

Right, because as we all know everyone who goes to these hideous pray the gay away camps wants to be there.

Granite said:

Right, because as we all know everyone who goes to these hideous pray the gay away camps wants to be there.

Click to expand...

My point is, an Oregonian 15 year old cannot receive this therapy even if they freely seek it.

Why can't they?

glassjester said:

My point is, an Oregonian 15 year old cannot receive this therapy even if they freely seek it.

Why can't they?

Click to expand...

Because it's been found to be grossly abusive and harmful? Might have something to do with it. (You might also note the odds of a fifteen-year-old freely seeking this manner of "counseling" are unlikely--as unlikely, perhaps, as a teen of the same age seriously seeking out reassignment.) And before you jump to the whole "chopping stuff off" Freudian nonsense you guys have been peddling, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever comparing reassignment surgery to the savagery of anti-gay "counseling."

You might as well ask why phrenologists aren't around anymore...or why someone who freely "seeks" a lobotomy shouldn't be able to just get one.

Granite said:

And before you jump to the whole "chopping stuff off" Freudian nonsense you guys have been peddling, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever comparing reassignment surgery to the savagery of anti-gay "counseling."

Click to expand...

Right, because "counseling" is useful for dealing with emotional and behavioral issues, but "chopping stuff off" is the way to avoid dealing with those issues.

genuineoriginal said:

Right, because "counseling" is useful for dealing with emotional and behavioral issues, but "chopping stuff off" is the way to avoid dealing with those issues.

Click to expand...

For one, "gay away" counseling is known to be ineffective, abusive, and incredibly harmful. And for another, reassignment involves actual counseling by professionals as part of a very thorough, lengthy process. It's worth pointing out that the reassignment itself is dealing with a tremendous "issue" indeed, while anti-gay "camps" and "counseling" do a tremendous amount of (substantiated) harm.

The reasons Oregonian teenagers can't "freely" seek out this kind of "therapy" is the same reason Bayer no longer sells heroin.

Granite said:

It's worth pointing out that the reassignment itself is dealing with a tremendous "issue" indeed,

Click to expand...

Like this one?
Your solution is to start "chopping stuff off" whenever a person has an identity disorder.

genuineoriginal said:

Like this one?

_____
Body integrity identity disorder
Body integrity identity disorder (BIID, also referred to as amputee identity disorder) is a psychological disorder wherein sufferers feel they would be happier living as an amputee, or being "transabled." It is related to xenomelia, "the oppressive feeling that one or more limbs of one's body do not belong to one's self".

BIID is typically accompanied by the desire to amputate one or more healthy limbs to achieve that end. BIID can be associated with apotemnophilia, sexual arousal based on the image of one's self as an amputee.
_____​

Your solution is to start "chopping stuff off" whenever a person has an identity disorder.

Click to expand...

The short answer is: No, not at all.

Granite said:

The short answer is: No, not at all.

Click to expand...

Then you are opposed to "gender reassignment" in all cases?

RevTestament said:

That is what is sinister. Medicaid should be for life threatening conditions and general physical health conditions. Getting a sex change on the public dime is sinister imho. If I want plastic surgery to correct a non-health threatening defect, should the public pay for that too? Or to correct my smile so that I won't have a poor self-image...etc, etc.

I would hope that no one could make the public pay for their sex changes... no matter the age. In an age when the elderly are being denied their traditional medications, and surgeries needed to prolong their lives, this is just absolutely the wrong priorities. A sex change operation is a matter of personal preference - like any plastic surgery - and the public shouldn't be paying for them...period.

Click to expand...

Well said.

genuineoriginal said:

Then you are opposed to "gender reassignment" in all cases?

Click to expand...

We're talking about two completely different things.

Granite said:

We're talking about two completely different things.

Click to expand...

No, we are not.

We are talking about "chopping stuff off" whenever a person has an identity disorder, especially when that person experiences sexual arousal based on the image of one's self with those parts chopped off.

Some people know what gender they identify with early in childhood.

My wife is a nurse who worked for a time with pregnant moms. If the baby was born with male/female sex organs, the doctor and the parents "chose" which sex they wanted to have.

This, as later research showed, left a lot of suicides and unhappy people.

genuineoriginal said:

No, we are not.

We are talking about "chopping stuff off" whenever a person has an identity disorder, especially when that person experiences sexual arousal based on the image of one's self with those parts chopped off.

Click to expand...

Which circles back around to the same freudian issues a lot of you Christians seem to have.

You have no idea what the world you're talking about. At all. Comparing gender reassignment with an amputee fetish is ignorant and asinine in the extreme. But that's generally what you bring to the party.:yawn:

aCultureWarrior said:

So the issue with you isn't that a law has been passed that forbids parents of a 15 year old gender confused boy to have any say in his genital mutilation surgery, your complaint is that tax payers shouldn't have to pay for it? (how Libertarian of you).

Click to expand...

My objection is wider than that, yes. However, I believe the counsel of parents to be an important factor in such issues, and yes, disagree with leaving them out of the consent process. The idea of the nanny state replacing the parents is repugnant to me.

RevTestament said:

My objection is wider than that, yes. However, I believe the counsel of parents to be an important factor in such issues, and yes, disagree with leaving them out of the consent process. The idea of the nanny state replacing the parents is repugnant to me.

Click to expand...

Don't you think the decision about what gender to live with should be based on what the child wants instead of the parents (or the government)?

Like I have said before, my wife is an RN that worked in a hospital birthing center and the doctors usually made the decision for the infant and the parents by surgically dealing with cases of mixed sex organs. And the consequences of this method left a lot of broken and suicidal people behind.

Basically the medical profession forced the gender decision on the children.

People need to be allowed fundamental dignity to make their own best choice.

Granite said:

I notice people who talk about states's rights and small government can shelve both concepts when convenient.

Click to expand...

Just because the states did reserve the power to regulate matters of public health doesn't mean I agree with everything they do in that realm, and I object to the idea of my state paying for sex change operations even if I acknowledge they have the power to do it.
I am sure you are a proponent of gay marriage however, and do not feel the states have the right to regulate this area. I find it ironic that probably most states have sodomy laws on their books, but now cannot deny a marriage license to gay men - just how are they going to "consummate" their "marriage?" It has always been the realm of the states to regulate matters of public health, and they only need to pass a rational basis test in order to do so. Denying marriage licenses to gay men who can reasonably be expected to violate sodomy laws therefore has a rational basis. And sodomy laws have a rational connection to public health in view of SSDs and other health related issues connected with sodomy.

Medicaid already covers braces for people under the age of 21. So I'd assume you'd support doing away with this benefit.

Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about orthodontics - which I believe doctors may feel are sometimes medically necessary. Thumb-sucking children can deform their palate which can adversely affect their ability to chew their food for the rest of their lives, and is more than just a cosmetic thing. But for the state to pay for orthodontics to correct two crooked teeth is objectionable to me. But you are right, they retained power unto themselves for matters of governing public health, so it is allowable for them to pay for it if they wish.

aikido7 said:

Don't you think the decision about what gender to live with should be based on what the child wants instead of the parents (or the government)?

Click to expand...

I don't expect a child to be able to make a fully informed decision on such a matter which will affect the rest of their lives. They can obviously seek out such a procedure on their own dime when they reach the age of majority, and I see no reason to thrust their immature decision onto the public dime. It's not like most people get married as a teenager anymore anyway.

Like I have said before, my wife is an RN that worked in a hospital birthing center and the doctors usually made the decision for the infant and the parents by surgically dealing with cases of mixed sex organs. And the consequences of this method left a lot of broken and suicidal people behind.

Basically the medical profession forced the gender decision on the children.

People need to be allowed fundamental dignity to make their own best choice.

Click to expand...

Being born as a hermaphrodite is a different situation obviously. And I agree that forcing such a decision on a child is probably wrong. In this day it is probably medically feasible to delay a surgical procedure until the child is older and can at least give consent to what is being done in order to "correct an abnormality." That is a different situation than when a child is seeking consent to change the normal physical form in which he/she was born - which has little rational basis from the standpoint of being a medical necessity.

Granite said:

You have no idea what the world you're talking about.

Click to expand...

We are talking about the extremes people will go to when they are trying to accomodate their sexual perversions.

genuineoriginal said:

We are talking about the extremes people will go to when they are trying to accomodate their sexual perversions.

Click to expand...

No, that's the malarkey you keep trying to discuss. Your inability to consider gender reassignment like a mature human being is typical. And this proves a point I've made time and again: You guys literally cannot conceive of any substantial differences between any sexual activity outside of marriage. It's all pretty much either the same to you, or at the very least, equally "perverse." That's the attitude of an ignorant child trapped in an adult prig's body.