Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[Trausti]

Its up to us as a society to decide what treatments a doctor can and cannot refuse and any civil or criminal penalties they should face for refusal. Full stop. If anyone doesn't like the laws in the USA in relation to practicing medicine they have the freedom to not practice medicine within the USA.

Hypothetical: a pregnant woman goes into the ER with a serious medical issue and the on-call physician has two choices. 1) perform an abortion and the woman lives with a high degree of certainty, or 2) not perform an abortion and there's a 50/50 chance the woman lives. He refuses her option 1 because of ethical concerns and she dies. IMO he can serve a nice 10 year sentence for manslaughter.

You're aware that there are hospitals that do not perform elective abortions, regardless of legality?

 

[d4m10n]

"And why shouldn't a pharmacist just be able to decide the birth control is only for whores?"

"Because they are not prescribers tasked with exercising medical judgement."

 

[d4m10n]

This is the mythology of the "civil debate" and denying the idea that opinions can ever be insulting, only the way they are worded.

Can you provide an example of an insulting opinion from upthread?

 

[Trausti]

"Because they are not prescribers tasked with exercising medical judgement."

What if that "medical judgment" violates a hypochondriac's right to weekly full body CT scans? Put those bigot doctors in prision.

 

[theprestige]

The idea that hostility causes mental distress is not limited to trans people and not really that hard to comprehend.

Nobody worries too much about people who get passed over for a promotion they think they deserve, even though their self-image isn't reified by their boss.

Nobody worries too much about people who lose elections, even though large number of voters disagree with their sense of being the right person for the job.

Nobody worries too much about the potential suicidality of people confronted by the Cart Narc, or by Karens and those that are importuned by Karens.

Nobody worries too much about people who encounter much more overt expressions of hostility - unless they're already suicidal due to a preexisting condition of mental unhealth.

And the reason we worry about people whose preferred pronouns are ignored isn't because it's hostile, but because their self-image is fragile, and needs constant social acceptance and promotion, otherwise they'll kill themselves.

Not using someone's preferred pronouns is about as hostile as demanding that someone use pronouns they don't believe in. But nobody worries too much about me not being allowed to use pronouns that match a person's biological sex. Nobody worries too much about being hostile to me if I say my preference.

Many people have been unrelentingly hostile in this thread, but the mods steadfastly decline to sanction anyone here for inciting suicide.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Can you provide an example of an insulting opinion from upthread?

Sure.

I won't, not to you because I have zero intention of playing a 40 page rousing game of "Oh but show me where someone said that in those exact words because I'm going to pretend like nobody is speaking out of the side of their mouth in this discussion."

But I could.

 

[lobosrul5]

You're aware that there are hospitals that do not perform elective abortions, regardless of legality?

Elective as in, theres no emergency, go somewhere else at your leisure? Or elective as in, she's gonna die if we don't, MAYBE we can rush her somewhere that is willing to save her life? If its the latter then IMO, that should be changed with immediate effect. I dont give a flying **** if they are catholic or whatever.

 

[mumblethrax]

All I get from this is "change is good, everything must be mutable" I disagree - fundamentally.

The law very obviously mutable, and change is good (although not every instance of change will be).

I mean, do you want us to still have a 12th century understanding of sex? If not, you're going to have concede both these points, on pain of becoming insanely reactionary.

 

[d4m10n]

But I could.

I doubt it.

Sent from my Bravado Banshee using Tapatalk

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Nobody worries too much about people who get passed over for a promotion they think they deserve, even though their self-image isn't reified by their boss.

Nobody worries too much about people who lose elections, even though large number of voters disagree with their sense of being the right person for the job.

Nobody worries too much about the potential suicidality of people confronted by the Cart Narc, or by Karens and those that are importuned by Karens.

Nobody worries too much about people who encounter much more overt expressions of hostility - unless they're already suicidal due to a preexisting condition of mental unhealth.

And the reason we worry about people whose preferred pronouns are ignored isn't because it's hostile, but because their self-image is fragile, and needs constant social acceptance and promotion, otherwise they'll kill themselves.

Not using someone's preferred pronouns is about as hostile as demanding that someone use pronouns they don't believe in. But nobody worries too much about me not being allowed to use pronouns that match a person's biological sex. Nobody worries too much about being hostile to me if I say my preference.

Many people have been unrelentingly hostile in this thread, but the mods steadfastly decline to sanction anyone here for inciting suicide.

The most obvious parallel you didn't mention was the generally poorer mental health of gay population in societies in which being gay was intensely stigmatized.

Many people have been unrelentingly hostile in this thread, but the mods steadfastly decline to sanction anyone here for inciting suicide.

No argument there, the continued tolerance of outright bigotry on this forum is a continued source of embarrassment. Luckily the "skeptic's movement" is so irrelevant these days it's largely a moot point.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I doubt it.

I think I'll still sleep at night.

 

[Trausti]

Elective as in, theres no emergency, go somewhere else at your leisure? Or elective as in, she's gonna die if we don't, MAYBE we can rush her somewhere that is willing to save her life? If its the latter then IMO, that should be changed with immediate effect. I dont give a flying **** if they are catholic or whatever.

Those hospitals usually have a process where it's okay to save the life of the mother; but that's an exceedingly rare occurrance. But you can't force a doctor to perform a procedure that they don't want to do.

 

[theprestige]

What a terrible mishmash of straw, so much so it's really nothing but a parody of itself.

We know there are some people that would consider themselves trans that fall under a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. We know that some people deny this, we know some people don't deny this.

We know there are some people that would consider themselves trans that don't fall under a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. We know that some people deny this, we know some people don't deny this.

We know some people believe that not using a trans person's chosen gender pronouns causes some trans people harm/unhappiness/upset. We know that some people deny this.

My only concern is which of these paradigms should prevail and inform public policy about sex segregation and gender self-ID.

We know that the mainstream TRA position is that fiat self-ID should be the basis of public policy. I have yet to see a rationale for this that doesn't try to have one's cake and eat it too. If you have such a rationale, it would greatly advance the discussion.

 

[d4m10n]

I think I'll still sleep at night.

"It's cool to make unsubstantiated claims on skeptic forums." <— Not an insulting opinion.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[lobosrul5]

Those hospitals usually have a process where it's okay to save the life of the mother; but that's an exceedingly rare occurrance. But you can't force a doctor to perform a procedure that they don't want to do.

You can say that about ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY ANYTHING. You can make it a criminal act though. I'm not saying what is, im saying, what should be.

 

[Trausti]

You can say that about ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY ANYTHING. You can make it a criminal act though. I'm not saying what is, im saying, what should be.

You feel that a plastic surgeon should be forced to do a mastectomy on a 13 year-old even if the surgeon feels the procedure unethical?

 

[Ziggurat]

Who is "nobody" in this context? In this thread or more broadly?

In this thread.

Because generally speaking, there's lots of people who think that adults should not get the care they want

"A lot" is subjective, but I think it's a small minority. I will note, though, that you used "want" and not "need". Quite often doctors don't provide you with whatever care you want.

Hell, many of them are using political power to make such care for adults illegal.

To my knowledge, the moves to legally restrict medical transition in the US have all been in regards to children, not adults.

 

[mumblethrax]

On the one hand, we're assured it isn't. That no diagnosis is necessary. That it's transphobic to suggest otherwise. That wanting to cross sex segregation boundaries is perfectly normal and healthy and that all you have to do is say you want to.

We're talking about prison. In Florida. There will be a bureaucratic process for becoming considered a transgender prisoner, and processes that follow from that.

Nobody's talking about social niceties here.

 

[theprestige]

"And why shouldn't a pharmacist just be able to decide the birth control is only for whores?"

It comes as no surprise that this analogy fails to explain why a woman should or should not be able to command a hysterectomy from the doctor of her choice, for whatever reason she desires, overriding his preference if necessary.

 

[Paul2]

What does the discrepancy matter?

Fairness?

Are trans people responsible for the piggish attitudes of doctors who automatically refuse care that will result in the sterilization of young patients, even when they explicitly give their informed consent?

Trans affirming care could be criminalized where EC lives tomorrow and that wouldn't move the needle at all for these doctors refusing care on the grounds of prioritizing their fertility over quality of life.

If EC wasn't viewing this through the forced perspective of a zero-sum battle between the rights of cis women and trans women, they might even realize that both groups have very similar interests in bodily autonomy and a right to direct their own medical care without undue interference by secondary interests. In the case of the US, rollbacks of women's right to abortion and other reproductive care often goes hand-in-hand with criminalizing trans affirming care, almost as if their interests are linked and they have a common enemy. Such facts do not square well with the dead-ender transphobe who must lay every evil on the doorstep of trans activists.


What exactly does focusing on this discrepancy show besides sour grapes? EC's grievance is with patronizing doctors, not other patients also trying to receive medical care.