Re: Surgical Sterilization and the definition of "Mutilation&amp
Again, the major issue of contention here seems to be your view that "mutilation" is always subjective, and always primarily dependent on self-definition. I'm sorry, but that's just not really the case. Not only is that not what the definition of the word supports, but it doesn't work from a logical perspective either.
If you take a hacksaw to the fingers on one hand, for example, that's not simply "modification." It is, objectively, mutilation. No, it really doesn't matter if you or anyone else might happen to feel differently about it.
This is where the natural standard comes into play. The hand has a certain "default" look and function. That is the standard by which a hand is judged.
While someone might personally value the hand more in its mutilated state, it doesn't change the fact that, by any objective medical standard, it has lost most of its natural functionality. That is what is most relevant if looking at the thing from any kind of clinical perspective.
Don't get me wrong. I'll freely admit that "modification" can exist as a legitimate positive. I'll also admit that there are some grey areas out there, where subjectivity plays more of a role.
How you want to play things here, however, "mutilation" basically wouldn't exist. Nothing could ever be said to be totally "negative." That simply doesn't work.
There's no reason to abandon a word simply because some people happen to dislike it.
Actually that's not objective either. The reason we consider something like that to be self-mutilation is that it is pretty much always a result of extreme mental disease.
Mentally healthy people wish to avoid pain and minimize risk to their body. They may decide to modify it IN SPITE of pain and risk, provided that riskier or more painful things can be taken to an absolute minimum -- such as modern medicine that allow things like eye and pelvic surgery to be nothing worse than fleetingly uncomfortable, with very low risk of serious side effects, and go on to provide several decades of positive results.
Let's take a less extreme example from the same general planet: cutting.
Cutting is not always a sign of mental disorder. It is not always self-harm or self-mutilation. Even a psychologist will tell you this.
Blood ritual and scarification are practised the world over, and they are not considered mutilation or sign of distress in that context, even in the West where it is less common than some places.
The key factor is motivation. Self-harm is motivated by DESIRE to suffer as a last-ditch effort to release emotions the person is unable to cope with. Blood ritual and scarification are usually spiritual or community activities, where pain is something that must be endured for the sake of the experience, but is not the goal of it, nor are any negative emotions or lack of coping mechanisms associated with it.
Nothing is objectively "negative." Nature doesn't care, dude. How many times do I have to explain this?
While a human might care, and while a majority of humans might even agree on certain things, that does not make it objective. Things that are objective are still true even if we are not here to observe them, like gravity. Doing stuff to your body is not negative or positive if no human is there to observe it. Nature doesn't care. In fact, nature is the biggest mutilator of all.
Our human subjectivity is meaningful to our lives, especially when most of us agree. As social animals, it's important our subjective judgements be used to help us work together.
That does not make them objective. And on things as individually subjective as how one relates to their body, to argue otherwise is frankly ridiculous.
Thread closed as a result of mod review.