Every important question is complex.
I'm as appalled as anyone at the irreversible mutilation being done to children by their parents and their doctors, under the guise of "gender-affirming care"—a term that's as bizarre an example of doublespeak as George Orwell ever dreamt of. Parents and doctors, abetted by teachers! Three of the strongest forces in life charged with keeping children safe! Surely this inversion of reality is one of the greatest horrors of our day.
And yet. And yet. It doesn't take much thinking to realize that societies, over all time and all places, have had a very inconsistent view of what, actually, is considered mutilation.
As a child, I remember seeing pictures (probably in the National Geographic magazine) of African women with huge wooden disks in their lips or ears, their bodies having been stretched since childhood by inserting disks of gradually increasing size. I called it mutilation; they called it fashion.
Not that many years ago, the Western world was horrified by the practice in many cultures of female circumcision, dubbing it "female genital mutilation," and putting strong negative pressure on countries where it was common. As recently as 2016 we saw billboards in the Gambia attacking the practice, and I was in agreement. But who was I—who is any outsider—to burden another culture with the norms of my own? Cultures can and sometimes should change, but from within, not imposed by outsiders.
What about male circumcision? That has been practiced for many millennia, in divergent cultures, and is far less drastic than the female version. If we'd had sons, I don't think we would have had them circumcized, there being no religious reason to do so—but when I was a child, it was the norm for most boys in America, regardless of religious affiliation. By the time my own children came along, there was a strong and vocal movement to eliminate male circumcision. Where are those folks now, when we are routinely removing a lot more than foreskins?
Okay, how about piercings? Tattoos? Frankly, I call both of them mutilation. Obviously, a large number of people disagree with me.
Some cultures in the past had no problem with "exposing" unwanted babies, leaving them to die—unless some kindly, childless couple found them and raised them as their own, thus creating the foundation for centuries of future folk tales and novels. We in America can hardly cast stones at those societies, given how few of our own unwanted babies live long enough to have a chance to be rescued.
Where do you draw the line? Maybe between what adults do of their own free will, and what adults do to children who are not yet capable of making informed decisions? Yet there are parents who have the ears of their babies pierced, or disks put into their lips, or parts of their genitals removed, and the societies they live in have no problem with that.
Where do you draw the line? I agree it's a complex and difficult issue.
All I know is that if America has become a place where parents, doctors, and teachers—those we trust most to do no harm to children—are facilitating the removal of young children's genitals, flooding their bodies with dangerous drugs, and encouraging them to believe that this is the best course of action for their mental health, then we haven't just crossed a line—we've fallen off a cliff.
Permalink | Read 525 times
Category Health: [first] [previous] [next] [newest] Politics: [first] [previous] [next] [newest] Children & Family Issues: [first] [previous] [next] [newest] Here I Stand: [first] [previous] [next] [newest]
It is a complex issue, one I think is between the patient, parents, and their doctors.
When you say "young children" are having their genitals removed, what age are you talking about?
As far as dangerous drugs, are you talking about puberty blockers or something else?
I don't know what particular drugs are given, but as far as I understand the process, it starts with puberty blockers and drugs must continue throughout life. I am extremely skeptical of claims that this process is "safe and reversible."
I agree that parents must be the ultimate authority in all decisions related to their children. That's their responsibility and consequently their right. It's risky, because some parents do horrible things to their kids, but in nearly all cases there is no safer place for the buck to stop. That said, doctors certainly should be able to refuse to do harmful things, and the state has always had the right to make certain behaviors illegal (theft and murder, for example).
Age is trickier. Since society seems to be pushing later and later the age at which we consider children's brains fully developed -- I think it's up to mid-20's at this point -- that seems to be a good age at which to allow them to make irreversible, radically life-altering decisions. But I'd settle for 18, given that at that age we feel free to send them off to war.
Maybe I didn't word my question properly. You say that "...parents, doctors, and teachers...are facilitating the removal of young children's genitals...". What age children have you heard of this happening to?
Puberty blockers have been used for years for a variety of conditions and are generally considered "safe". Following that, hormone therapy is used and those drugs are also used for more than transitioning. I do think there are more risks there but, as with other drugs, a patient must decide, in consultation with their doctor, if the benefits outweigh the risks.