• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Young transgender regret

dixon01767 said:
No he doesn't.



No that's gender dysphoria.
Click to expand...
If you would have bothered to read your own linked claim you would have known that he did.


Dr. Paul McHugh, former chairperson of the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital, has written that,

The idea that one's sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, Internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without a biological foundation wherever it emerges.
Click to expand...


McHugh has also defined pedophile priests.
This appointment was controversial, as McHugh had previously served as an expert witness in the defense of numerous priests accused of child sexual abuse.[
Click to expand...

McHugh hasn't learned from the deadly mistakes of John Money who claimed that a person's gender identity is fluid and can be changed. Those parents committed suicide when it was attempted.
But as the plans for the transgender health service were coming together last fall, a 143-page report, titled "Sexuality and Gender," appeared in the New Atlantis, a science and technology magazine published by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative Christian think tank. It was authored by McHugh and Lawrence Mayer, a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University and, at the time of the publication, a scholar in residence at Hopkins.
[Most read] Ravens vs. Seahawks staff picks: Who will win Sunday’s game in Seattle? »

The pair contended that neither sexual orientation nor gender identity are biologically determined. Although the New Atlantis is a small publication, the report dismayed many in the Hopkins medical community and beyond. Those included Dean Hamer, a scientist at the National Institutes of Health for several decades and one of the first researchers to identify a genetic link to homosexuality. Hamer termed some of the authors' statements "pure balderdash."
Click to expand...
 
Rich2018 said:
If most benefits regarding circumcision involve the prevention of STD spread, wouldn't the best age be when sex is legal ?
Click to expand...

No. Not at all. See the article I posted.

You know, peer reviewed scientific article.
 
AProudLefty said:
Lose what? Circumcision has been deemed unnecessary. And there's less sensations with men.
Click to expand...

It has not. It has proven to be good in the fight against HIV and other STDs. Please reread thread. Also enough circumcision isn't the topic
 
Renae said:
It has not. It has proven to be good in the fight against HIV and other STDs. Please reread thread. Also enough circumcision isn't the topic
Click to expand...

Oh I am sorry to interject. You can create a new thread.
 
RAMOSS said:
No. Not at all. See the article I posted.

You know, peer reviewed scientific article.
Click to expand...

I would disagree.

The time to circumcise someone is not as an infant. Assuming you believed there were genuine health benefits, the time would be after the 18th birthday.


If you think there is an overwhelming case for circumcision, why not make it compulsory like certain vaccinations like polio ?
 
Rich2018 said:
I would disagree.

The time to circumcise someone is not as an infant. Assuming you believed there were genuine health benefits, the time would be after the 18th birthday.


If you think there is an overwhelming case for circumcision, why not make it compulsory like certain vaccinations like polio ?
Click to expand...

Yet, you have not shown any case other than 'Because I said so'. The various attempts to support your claim had passages you ignored that directly contradict your claims.

From a medical point of view, your case has been shown to be false.

And, from a social point of view, you have not made your point at all.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yet, you have not shown any case other than 'Because I said so'. The various attempts to support your claim had passages you ignored that directly contradict your claims.

From a medical point of view, your case has been shown to be false.

And, from a social point of view, you have not made your point at all.
Click to expand...


"Opponents of circumcision...consider it the removal of a healthy body part that can be painful and traumatic for the infant as well as having deleterious consequences later in life, including diminished sexual pleasure. The Royal Dutch Medical Association, for example, claims the practice is “medically unnecessary” and violates boys’ human rights; and the British Medical Association considers it a cultural, non-therapeutic procedure that must require the consent of both parents.

Widespread opposition to the procedure across Europe even led the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to condemn circumcision as “a violation of the physical integrity of children” in 2013, with some courts likening the procedure to a form of criminal assault or child abuse — from which parents and doctors are legally bound to protect children when it is not medically necessary. Iceland’s parliament is currently considering a ban on circumcision that would make it the first European country to outlaw the procedure..."


Is Male Circumcision Child Abuse? | www.ozy.com
 
Rich2018 said:
"Opponents of circumcision...consider it the removal of a healthy body part that can be painful and traumatic for the infant as well as having deleterious consequences later in life, including diminished sexual pleasure. The Royal Dutch Medical Association, for example, claims the practice is “medically unnecessary” and violates boys’ human rights; and the British Medical Association considers it a cultural, non-therapeutic procedure that must require the consent of both parents.

Widespread opposition to the procedure across Europe even led the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to condemn circumcision as “a violation of the physical integrity of children” in 2013, with some courts likening the procedure to a form of criminal assault or child abuse — from which parents and doctors are legally bound to protect children when it is not medically necessary. Iceland’s parliament is currently considering a ban on circumcision that would make it the first European country to outlaw the procedure..."


Is Male Circumcision Child Abuse? | www.ozy.com
Click to expand...

I pointed to medical journals. Let's look at who 'ozy.com' is. It's a news site that says 'News to make you angry'. It is basically showing a bunch of folks on the street , probably highly edited, to give people's opinions. Not what I would consider a good scientific point of view. Yes, there are people who have an opinion, but your 'news' video (basically an opinion piece) does not make a case with anything but opinion..

To which I say 'So what'?
 
Lisa said:
If you would have bothered to read your own linked claim you would have known that he did. .
Click to expand...

Nothing there supports your assertion. But you knew that and just hoped no one would notice.
 
RAMOSS said:
I pointed to medical journals. Let's look at who 'ozy.com' is. It's a news site that says 'News to make you angry'. It is basically showing a bunch of folks on the street , probably highly edited, to give people's opinions. Not what I would consider a good scientific point of view. Yes, there are people who have an opinion, but your 'news' video (basically an opinion piece) does not make a case with anything but opinion..

To which I say 'So what'?
Click to expand...

Then again it's not your penis being cut.
Or you're perfectly happy for it to be done so - I say it's child abuse and as women in the abortion debate say men have no right to tell them what to do with bodies, no-one, has the right to tell a young male he has to get his foreskin cut off.
 
Rich2018 said:
Then again it's not your penis being cut.
Or you're perfectly happy for it to be done so - I say it's child abuse and as women in the abortion debate say men have no right to tell them what to do with bodies, no-one, has the right to tell a young male he has to get his foreskin cut off.
Click to expand...

YOu can say lots of things. You have not shown the medical case for it. Indeed, I heard of one father that wish they had it done to their son, rather than deal with some complications that happened in puberty that almost caused his son to be sterile. You can say all you want, but you have not been able to support it. As for an infant, a parent can give consent for medical procedures.
 
RAMOSS said:
YOu can say lots of things. You have not shown the medical case for it....
Click to expand...


Yes there is a medical case for circumcision (like there's a medical case for abortion) for instance if a male child is prevented from otherwise urinating.


I'd have thought it was clear that, that is not what we're discussing. We're discussing surgical removal from a healthy infant for religious reasons. And THAT is child abuse.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes there is a medical case for circumcision (like there's a medical case for abortion) for instance if a male child is prevented from otherwise urinating.


I'd have thought it was clear that, that is not what we're discussing. We're discussing surgical removal from a healthy infant for religious reasons. And THAT is child abuse.
Click to expand...

You have not made that case either.
 
Sometimes I wish I wasn't circumcised.
 
RAMOSS said:
You have not made that case either.
Click to expand...

Yes I have.

The rights of the infant supersede the religious wishes of the parent(s).

This is borne out by SC rulings that doctors may conduct blood transfusion operations on children, despite the objections of Jehovah's Witnesses parents.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes I have.

The rights of the infant supersede the religious wishes of the parent(s).

This is borne out by SC rulings that doctors may conduct blood transfusion operations on children, despite the objections of Jehovah's Witnesses parents.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't. And, if what you were sayign were true about the SC, then, a case would have been made, and circumcision would have been made illegal. It hasn't been. Thus it is demonstrated your argument is false.
 
RAMOSS said:
No, you haven't. And, if what you were sayign were true about the SC, then, a case would have been made, and circumcision would have been made illegal. It hasn't been. Thus it is demonstrated your argument is false.
Click to expand...

Yes I have

The SC have, so far, not heard a child abuse case regarding circumcision.

The JW ruling set a precedent that the child comes before the religious wishes of the parent(s).
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes I have

The SC have, so far, not heard a child abuse case regarding circumcision.

The JW ruling set a precedent that the child comes before the religious wishes of the parent(s).
Click to expand...

I bet you they won't either. That's because it's just plan crazy and nuts to say it's against the constitution. And, the key part of 'the child comes before the religious wishes of the parent' is a life/death situation, which makes the entire case not equal. You are making tons of claims you aren't being able to back up, and your response is 'yes you have'. I don't see where you did so, except with false equivalencies and bigotry.
 
RAMOSS said:
I bet you they won't either. That's because it's just plan crazy and nuts to say it's against the constitution. And, the key part of 'the child comes before the religious wishes of the parent' is a life/death situation, which makes the entire case not equal. You are making tons of claims you aren't being able to back up, and your response is 'yes you have'. I don't see where you did so, except with false equivalencies and bigotry.
Click to expand...

It's about human rights every bit as abortion and a blood transfusion

So you think the parents' wishes come before a child's right in a non-life or death situation ?

So a parent could tattoo a religious symbol on a child's forehead and that's OK with you ?
 
dixon01767 said:
Richard P. Fitzgibbons is the author of the study and Paul cites to the study from Vanderbilt University and London's Portman Clinic. Maybe burry your head a little deeper.
Click to expand...

Could you link to that study cause I cant find it and every link that I click on with Paul Mc Hugh citing that study doesnt link to it either.
 
Omgitsme said:
Could you link to that study cause I cant find it and every link that I click on with Paul Mc Hugh citing that study doesnt link to it either.
Click to expand...

"Richard Fitzgibbons, MD, is the director of the Institute for Marital Healing, has worked with hundreds of Catholic marriages and families over the past 40 years. He coauthored Forgiveness Therapy: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope, in which he addresses the importance of a treatment plan to uncover and address excessive anger in marital conflicts and divorce. His book Habits for a Healthy Marriage: A Handbook for Catholic Marriages will be published in 2019 by Ignatius Press.

Over the past 38 years, Dr. Fitzgibbons has consulted with priests from many dioceses and religious communities. He has authored articles in 'The Priest' on identifying and resolving emotional conflicts in priestly life and has given conferences on these topics in many dioceses. He coedited an issue of the Catholic Medical Association's Linacre Quarterly (August 2011) on the crisis in the Church, and has served as a consultant to the Congregation for the Clergy..."



https://www.hprweb.com/author/dr-richard-fitzgibbons/
 
Rich2018 said:
"Richard Fitzgibbons, MD, is the director of the Institute for Marital Healing, has worked with hundreds of Catholic marriages and families over the past 40 years. He coauthored Forgiveness Therapy: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope, in which he addresses the importance of a treatment plan to uncover and address excessive anger in marital conflicts and divorce. His book Habits for a Healthy Marriage: A Handbook for Catholic Marriages will be published in 2019 by Ignatius Press.

Over the past 38 years, Dr. Fitzgibbons has consulted with priests from many dioceses and religious communities. He has authored articles in 'The Priest' on identifying and resolving emotional conflicts in priestly life and has given conferences on these topics in many dioceses. He coedited an issue of the Catholic Medical Association's Linacre Quarterly (August 2011) on the crisis in the Church, and has served as a consultant to the Congregation for the Clergy..."



Dr. Richard P. Fitzgibbons, MD, Author at Homiletic & Pastoral Review
Click to expand...

Yeah him and Paul McHugh are pretty terrible sources for anything trans related and im assuming thats why you shared that link with me? However they are claiming that both the Vanderbilt University and London's Portman Clinic is the primary source for the "70 to 80 percent of children who reported transgender feeling lost those feelings" claim and thats what im trying to find and it doesnt seem to exist.
 
RAMOSS said:
I bet you they won't either. That's because it's just plan crazy and nuts to say it's against the constitution. And, the key part of 'the child comes before the religious wishes of the parent' is a life/death situation, which makes the entire case not equal. You are making tons of claims you aren't being able to back up, and your response is 'yes you have'. I don't see where you did so, except with false equivalencies and bigotry.
Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line.

What mutilation of a child's body would you allow for purely religious reasons ?

Would you allow female circumcision ? If not, why do you had one view for girls and another for boys ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom