• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

LGBTQ Stuff (split from other political threads)

What are you basing that off of? Are you equating that acceptance of homosexuality and sexual orientation is going to lead to societal acceptance of the sexual abuse of children?
No, but I am saying that society will become more tolerant of people who identify as pedophiles. I believe the science of the matter suggests that that type of attraction is a mental issue and not a choice. That being said, there are those who commit the same acts without fitting into that category, and many people who do, who never act on it.


Let me be clear, I am not in support of anything that I am saying, I just wouldn't be surprised to see this in the future.
 
Another thing on this, with our current crisis of doctor shortages everywhere, is this something we need to focus on? Perhaps the wait times for surgery might change the persons mind..
The amount of surgeons that perform gender affirming surgery is miniscule and matches the same amount of demand. Not everyone gets the forklift Qual, because the demand of forklifts is lower. Don't begrudge that forklift driver when you need an LSVW moved and he's busy doing the thing he's needed for. Train more LSVW drivers.

A better COA if you're concerned with the lack of surgeons in Canada would be to tax the hell out of alcohol, tobacco, fast food and other vices that our oldest and largest generation used regularly to excess; thus destroying their health and requiring for medical intervention in the form of bypasses, transplants, and other more costly surgeries than gender affirming ones.
 
What sort of numbers support the « irrefutable harm was done to some people ». Not arguing really, but what are you basing that on? Is it 50% of the 10% of transgender that undergo the actual surgery? Is it more or is it less? I honestly have no real data and want to know what data people would be using to formulate their positions.

The numbers I’ve seen is that the number is as low as 1%. Regret after Gender-affirmation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prevalence

Again, this is only a cursory look at a much more complex issue. While there are cases being touted by social media and such, is it really a massive number or a low number.

Any medical procedure entails risk. 1% of a small population percentage seems like an acceptable risk considering the alternative could be worse.
People who had surgery as children and claim harm and claim that they felt pressured into it. (Adults may do as they please to themselves.)

Flip the contention around: is there an acceptable number greater than zero of children who may be pressured into something that is irreversible and harmful? What is that number?

There is an easy solution - no medical intervention on non-adults.
 
There is an easy solution - no medical intervention on non-adults.
Which is the policy of every medical body in Canada.

What happens south of the 49th Parallel does not correlate to the practices and policies used in Canada.

It's like hearing folks harp about their First Amendment rights here in Canada. We're all glad you have the right to have Manitoba join Confederation, but that doesn't have the same weight to your argument you think it does.

Pointing out a second wrong isn't a strong argument.
No, not necessarily arguing a point, but was providing a counter perspective to an anecdote.
 
People who had surgery as children and claim harm and claim that they felt pressured into it. (Adults may do as they please to themselves.)
Again. Numbers. Hard data. Nothing has been provided. I showed that 1% of those that underwent that surgery regretted it. And it would seem that a good chunk of that is because of how they were treated societally and socially after.
Flip the contention around: is there an acceptable number greater than zero of children who may be pressured into something that is irreversible and harmful? What is that number?
That isn’t flipping the contention. You contend that any risk is enough to not do something medically. A child who has to undergo heart surgery will have a greater risk so by your standard, this surgery should not be done or allowed.
There is an easy solution - no medical intervention on non-adults.
Does this apply to everything or only to things that have opposing moral implications to one’s own morals?
 
Accepting proven medical science to ease mental and, in some cases, physical maladities is not and will not be "giving a pass" to doctors that made the best call they had with the facs presented.

Theological quackery that uses abusive brainwashing akin to Chinese re-education camps will always be abhorrent.

Abuse exists on both sides. And one sides abuse does not excuse the other's.

That's your call. Where my belief stands is that the option should exist for those who make the choice to transition, regardless of the "but my religious/ethical beliefs state..." crowd influencing the ability to access it. Their beliefs don't factor into a personal decision to be made by my daughter when she is ready to make it.

Until...

-the child faces intolerance, abuse, homelessness because they are Trans.

-their privacy is compromised due to a legislative body mandating their unsupportive or abusive parent be informed of their personal choices or preferences that, frankly, aren't harmful or damaging to the child

-the child prefers the 9th Floor VR from life, rather than face the prospect of living in a toxic environment with no support

Parents suck. I suck, to be frank. But I have a duty to my kid to protect her. It is a job I cannot quit and one I cannot afford to fail at. I would rather walk this road beside her than find out that she had killed herself because she felt that was a better option than telling Dad 15 years after the fact he bought the wrong colour paint for the nursery .

You're doing exactly what I support. And you're doing what you feel is best for your kid. We have no bones here.
 
Horseshit!

Without linking such a statement to "affirming gender identity and gender affirmation surgery" (I'll leave specifics of that issue to @rmc_wannabe, he's more knowledgeable and invested), how do you square the advancement of medical science without "risking harm"? Every time a surgeon makes that initial cut, they risk harm; nothing is 100% certain. Every time a patient study participant takes that first (or second or third or . . . ) dose of a new medication, the side effects (adverse reactions) are not 100% predetermined despite rigorous analysis and testing.

The principle to ‘first, do no harm’ is often described as the first rule of medicine and assumed by many to be in the Hippocratic Oath. But that four word phrase is not found in that oath, although to be fair, it is found in another of Hippocrates' writings called Of the Epidemics.
The principle isn't understood to mean doing absolutely nothing that entails risk, but my phrasing thoroughly misrepresented that. "Gambling" should replace "risking". There is no way of reducing "gamble" to "risk" without trying stuff out, but children are the wrong people to be trying stuff out on.
 
I'm going to make a prediction: 20 years from now pedophilia will be a recognized sexual orientation and will be protected under human rights legislation (I'm not saying the physical act itself will be, but maybe there will be a few Charter challenges on the age of consent). And then we will have people being canceled over old tweets they made about pedophilia. Remember, the way people feel about pedophilias is the way that people used to think about gays.

That being said, I hope I'm wrong.
Pedophilia is already recognized; we have a name for it. It's widely held to be unacceptable (and unlawful) to act on it, except in the realm of imagination.
 
I'm going to make a prediction: 20 years from now pedophilia will be a recognized sexual orientation and will be protected under human rights legislation (I'm not saying the physical act itself will be, but maybe there will be a few Charter challenges on the age of consent). And then we will have people being canceled over old tweets they made about pedophilia. Remember, the way people feel about pedophilias is the way that people used to think about gays.

That being said, I hope I'm wrong.
.. that won't be coming from the 2SLGBTQIA+ crowd, where adultconsent is a far more important value that within heteronormative society.

I'm sure the church, politicians, and LEOs who have a higher statistical percentage of pedophilia sexual abusers of children in their ranks would breathe a sigh of relief.

This is one of those arguments that can never be won, simply because the horrendous damage to the victims of child sexual abuse justifiably triggers outrage. But here goes anyway.

I'll post the whole article for those interested enough to read, but I'll excerpt a couple of paragraphs to highlight the importance of properly defining a word.

Pedophilia is viewed as among the most horrifying social ills. But scientists who study the sexual disorder say it is also among the most misunderstood.

When most of the public thinks of pedophilia, they assume it's synonymous with child sexual abuse, a pervasive social problem that has exploded to crisis levels online. Researchers who study pedophilia say the term describes an attraction, not an action, and using it interchangeably with "abuse" fuels misperceptions.

The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders said pedophilia is defined by “recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.“ Scientists have in recent decades improved their understanding of pedophilia's causes, prenatal and early childhood risk factors as well as how pedophiles can better control impulses.

One of the most significant findings is that scientists who study the disorder say pedophilia is determined in the womb, though environmental factors may influence whether someone acts on an urge to abuse.

"The evidence suggests it is inborn. It's neurological," said James Cantor, a clinical psychologist, sex researcher and former editor-in-chief of, "Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment." "Pedophilia is the attraction to children, regardless of whether the (person) ever ... harms."

Not all people who sexually abuse children are pedophiles. Some pedophiles never abuse children, experts say, and some people who sexually abuse children do not sexually prefer them, but use them as a surrogate for an adult partner. They may be disinhibited and anti-social, with impulse control problems.

"There are child molesters and pedophiles. If you think of Venn diagrams, there's a lot of overlap," said Anna Salter, a psychologist, author, and internationally recognized expert who has done over 500 evaluations of high-risk sex offenders. "There are the people who are sexually attracted to children ... (and then) there are some people who molest kids who are not pedophiles. They molest kids because of anger. They molest kids because they're scared of adult women. They molest kids to get revenge, but they don't actually have an age preference for prepubescent children."

'This is not something that people choose'
Michael Seto, forensic research director at the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group in Canada, said there is more neuroscientific knowledge of pedophilia than ever before. MRI research is showing how sexual interests develop in the brain.

"I think as a field, we've accepted the idea that this is not something that people choose," Seto said.

Seto said pedophilia is something people are born with or at least have a predisposition to. Evidence shows men are more likely to have pedophilia than women. This aligns with research showing men are more likely to have other paraphilias, including exhibitionism, voyeurism and sadism. Men are also more likely than women to commit criminal acts.

Research also offers insights into risk factors. Seto said men with pedophilia have a much higher incidence of early childhood head injury. One study on diagnosed pedophiles showed they are more likely to report their mothers had received psychiatric treatment, which suggests the disorder may be influenced by genetic factors.

Pedophiles and the choice to abuse
Salter said when she conducts trainings, she often asked the audience, "How many of you have ever had an inappropriate sexual thought?"

If no one raises their hand, she tells them they're in denial.

"Of course, people have had inappropriate sexual thoughts. You may be attracted to your wife's sister. You may be attracted to a 16-year-old postpubescent babysitter. It doesn't mean you act on it," she said. "Pedophiles may not have control over the fact that they are attracted to kids, but they are responsible for whether they do or don't act on it."

Salter's conceptualization of the dynamics of sexual abuse involves a motor and brakes. Many people experience inappropriate sexual thoughts (the motor) but there are brakes (empathy, for example) that keep someone from acting on them. For a pedophile, the motor is their sexual attraction to children, but they can still use brakes to stop from abusing.

Salter said more research is needed to understand why some pedophiles do not act on their attractions, but her clinical observations suggest at least some pedophiles with bad brakes are raised in homes where they were mistreated or neglected. There is also a genetic component, as some pedophiles show psychopathic traits.

The controversy over 'destigmatizing pedophilia'
An academic at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, who talked about “destigmatizing pedophilia” and referred to pedophiles as "minor-attracted people" resigned in November following outcry over the phrase. Allyn Walker argued destigmatizing the attraction would allow more people to seek help and ultimately prevent child sexual abuse.

There is growing support in the field for Walker's point of view. While Cantor said there's no treatment that can turn a pedophile into a non-pedophile, pedophiles can be taught self-control and compensatory strategies, which he said is more likely if they're under the care of a professional. He argues that pedophiles need to be able to access therapy, which can be difficult since those afflicted may be ashamed to seek help or worried about being reported to the authorities if they do.

The paragraphs I selected to highlight the often misuse of the term.
Researchers who study pedophilia say the term describes an attraction, not an action, and using it interchangeably with "abuse" fuels misperceptions.
Not all people who sexually abuse children are pedophiles. Some pedophiles never abuse children, experts say, and some people who sexually abuse children do not sexually prefer them, but use them as a surrogate for an adult partner. They may be disinhibited and anti-social, with impulse control problems.
"There are child molesters and pedophiles. If you think of Venn diagrams, there's a lot of overlap," said Anna Salter, a psychologist, author, and internationally recognized expert who has done over 500 evaluations of high-risk sex offenders. "There are the people who are sexually attracted to children ... (and then) there are some people who molest kids who are not pedophiles. They molest kids because of anger. They molest kids because they're scared of adult women. They molest kids to get revenge, but they don't actually have an age preference for prepubescent children."

And the reason why researchers feel that use of terminology is important.
The controversy over 'destigmatizing pedophilia'
An academic at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, who talked about “destigmatizing pedophilia” and referred to pedophiles as "minor-attracted people" resigned in November following outcry over the phrase. Allyn Walker argued destigmatizing the attraction would allow more people to seek help and ultimately prevent child sexual abuse.

There is growing support in the field for Walker's point of view. While Cantor said there's no treatment that can turn a pedophile into a non-pedophile, pedophiles can be taught self-control and compensatory strategies, which he said is more likely if they're under the care of a professional. He argues that pedophiles need to be able to access therapy, which can be difficult since those afflicted may be ashamed to seek help or worried about being reported to the authorities if they do.
 
Again. Numbers. Hard data. Nothing has been provided. I showed that 1% of those that underwent that surgery regretted it. And it would seem that a good chunk of that is because of how they were treated societally and socially after.
Sure, but the boundaries can't just be set there. Numbers would have to include:
  • people who started treatment as children and are satisfied
  • people who started treatment as children and are dissatisfied
  • people who didn't take any treatment as children and as adults regret not starting early
  • people who didn't take any treatment as children and as adults are satisfied, regardless whether they took treatment later

We also need data on how widespread insincere claims (by kids) are.
 
Well since you brought it up first, let's dissect your previous post:
People who had surgery as children and claim harm and claim that they felt pressured into it. (Adults may do as they please to themselves.)
Gender reassignment surgery, as I mentioned in an above post, is only performed on those 18 years and older in Canada. 2 years of prior treatment for Gender Dysphoria is needed before its even considered. Keep this in mind for the next parts.

Flip the contention around: is there an acceptable number greater than zero of children who may be pressured into something that is irreversible and harmful? What is that number?
Provide the stats on that and we can have that discussion. Targeted articles and anecdotes from a U.S. source don't count.

There is an easy solution - no medical intervention on non-adults.
You're referencing blockers/HRT as well. This IS reversible and has a far lower statistical risk of harm than... you know... suicide.

Medical treatment includes chemical intervention. Allowed or not in Canada?
So with the above context, yes. They are. Within prescribed medical practice and oversight.

Anything else you need clarification on?
 
Well since you brought it up first, let's dissect your previous post:

Gender reassignment surgery, as I mentioned in an above post, is only performed on those 18 years and older in Canada. 2 years of prior treatment for Gender Dysphoria is needed before its even considered. Keep this in mind for the next parts.
Great. That takes care of surgery.
Provide the stats on that and we can have that discussion. Targeted articles and anecdotes from a U.S. source don't count.
Don't need numbers to set a limit. It's better to set the limit without influencing the decision with particular numbers in mind.
You're referencing blockers/HRT as well. This IS reversible and has a far lower statistical risk of harm than... you know... suicide.
What's reversible is continuing to take them. Whether the effects of what has been taken are reversible is still undetermined. Common sense suggests a developmental interruption is more likely to have permanent effects than otherwise.
So with the above context, yes. They are. Within prescribed medical practice and oversight.
Thus, uncontrolled medical experimentation on minors. We can't know the long-term (lifetime) consequences without a large enough population that has been treated and lived that long, so by definition we are experimenting. By definition they're minors. No point trying to dress this one up.
 
Is gender reassignment confiming surgery considered the bottom half only? I met a young army cadet who was 16 and presented as male who had their breasts removed at 15 when they were female.
Thank you for providing this anecdote, as my experience with my child has been that of Assigned Male At Birth (AMAB) vice Assigned Female At Birth (AFAB).

A quick review of the MoH page on confirming surgery is kind of unclear on age requirement (as they have since been update March 1). That said, it can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The cadet in question could have had top surgery in another province or jurisdiction that what I'm familiar with (and am now reviewing my data). Everything I have seen from CAMH has stated 18 for genital surgery however.

Thank you for the nudge to refresh my knowledge base 👍
 
Great. That takes care of surgery.

Don't need numbers to set a limit. It's better to set the limit without influencing the decision with particular numbers in mind.

What's reversible is continuing to take them. Whether the effects of what has been taken are reversible is still undetermined. Common sense suggests a developmental interruption is more likely to have permanent effects than otherwise.

Thus, uncontrolled medical experimentation on minors. We can't know the long-term (lifetime) consequences without a large enough population that has been treated and lived that long, so by definition we are experimenting. By definition they're minors. No point trying to dress this one up.
I am no longer biting, friend.

I have tried to debate this with you with logic, facts, and references; only to be met with quasi-conspiracy theory comparisons and innuendo comparing a common medical practice to the Mengle Experiments.
 
I amended your post to reflect some of the other experiences Trans kids have had. Shoe goes on the other foot more often than your experience dictated.
'Conversion therapy" is not surgery and who determines what is defined as conversion therapy? If my pre-puberty kid is confused about their gender and I take them to counselling to help them align their feeling with the biological equipment, is that also conversion therapy? My youngest went through a period where she said she was gender neutral, then she decided she was gay and has a "girlfriend". But now is talking about marrying a guy in the future. Puberty has the final say. I will argue that majority of the confusion is caused by educators, advocates and others all wrapped up in pushing this agenda. When the actual number of truly genderless/gay kids is a tiny minority.
 
I am no longer biting, friend.

I have tried to debate this with you with logic, facts, and references; only to be met with quasi-conspiracy theory comparisons and innuendo comparing a common medical practice to the Mengle Experiments.
What is in dispute about the logic, facts, and references?

What is it about the following that you think to be untrue?
  • we don't know what the long-term effects of the medical treatments are
  • treatments for which we don't know outcomes amount to experimentation
  • minors can't meaningfully consent to these treatments

If all those are true, we are experimenting on people who can't consent.

It should be obvious that the premise open to dispute is the third. I can see, maybe, a couple of grounds.

One, that for some reason there should be a carve-out for the common practice that the power to consent is often withheld from minors. It'd have to be a strong reason, because both the intended and unintended consequences of the medical treatment are non-trivial.

Two, that parents can consult on behalf of their children. Again this will have to pass a high bar because of the irrevocable nature of the commitment.
 
Is gender reassignment surgery considered the bottom half only? I met a young army cadet who was 16 and presented as male who had their breasts removed at 15 when they were female.
I'm not sure, too, where the line is drawn between a nominally cosmetic procedure and specifically GA surgery, depending on which avenue you might use to access it. There's much discussion in a US context of the number of breast augmentations carried out on/by quite young teens, IIRC often in the same areas where there's much howling about (again, IIRC) an exponentially smaller number of trans people and what they might be getting up to with their own bodies.
 
Back
Top