Iam 12 and what is this

Oh yeah, I forgot the hair. They've found a way to only dilate twice a week, but still it's horrible. It should be illegal to offer this to children, considering the risks alone. This is nearly impossible to undo, and could have horrible effects on the psyche. It's on par with a medical scam, but a liberal leaning society supports it, sadly. If you told most people what they're getting into before all this, they wouldn't do it. Many trans people regret these kinds of surgeries, and the support groups that were there for them suddenly disappear now that the trans person's views conflict with theirs. People are being medically mutilated so that they can be political bargaining chips. And so many groups and organizations support this. So many. Parents are doing this to their kids for liberal cookie points. This is nightmarish. Sex when older will be painful for them, and they can forget about having kids unless they're a fucking billionaire and don't mind becoming guinea pigs for even more unstable surgeries.

how much money would it take for you to suck the hairy, blood and puss covered medical dildo?

Debbie downer type not nigga damn

Enough money to buy a man-made bomb to destroy the world

What the fuck

bump

noooooiice

epic lulz

Your posts have an interesting mix of truth and nonsense.

Surgery will never be able to turn one type of cell into another type of cell.

What are you implying you can buy with a billion dollars? Reconstruct your destroyed junk?

Everything else is pretty accurate tho.

well there you have it, gender reassignment surgery at its finest, that man has truley just become a woman, i dont understandwhy more people go through this transformation, after all who would want a perfectly normal looking penis when you can have vigina that looks like a broken cat flap

Mental illness under dsm 5,declassified by anglo establishment perverts and called normal.

Thank you mr ' fag in la that likes black cocks, i can show some studs in watts' pence.

(checked)

here user, enjoy

if i had to define Hell, that image would be the definition

It's a sexual lobotomy.

We'll be able to create cloned cells of the right type outside the body within a few decades. Then it's just a matter of growing a big chunk of them and attaching them with surgery.

Well, one approach would be to use the same cell cloning/modification technology to grow sperm cells from samples of skin. With a billion dollars you could easily get it done.

This thread has really opened my eyes. I didn't realize the surgery was that primitive and barbaric.

I'm still supportive of the right to do what you want with your own body, but people need to be made aware of just how horrible the aftermath can be.

Fair enough, though I don't think it's quite that simple. I would expect "remove benis, insert vagoo" has a few more compliations

modifying the body to fix the mind will always result in failure

Definitely. I expect it will be a couple of hundred years before we can perform major body modification surgery and get everything working "good as new".

Always is a very long time and our technological society is still very young. It's definitely possible in theory - it's just a question of how hard it is to manipulate the body in a precise and safe way on a cellular level.

modifying the body which is perfect as God created it, to fix a broken mind will ALWAYS result in failure

Google "thalidomide deformities" and then try saying that again.

I waver between laughing at that retard and feeling really bad for him.

Trannies have a mental illness, I think it would be more beneficial to fix the illness than change the body. There does seem to be high comorbidity in "trans" populations, schizophrenia seems to run high with them.

That said most people would be curious to experience life as the other sex, and if they could *poof* change sex for a period of time, they would. Having a pathological need to "be the other sex" isn't healthy, even if you could do it perfectly and pain free.

It isn't possible for an arbitrary mind to be "wrong" in any objective sense. You can only talk about relative abnormality - not absolute abnormality - since the universe has no laws governing what a "correct" mind looks like.

Notice I did not say "wrong". Depression is a mental illness too.

Shut the fuck up bro, you're destroying my faith in humanity. You know what, maybe islamization will be good for the West after all. No more trans surgery and hopefully no more circumcisions either. And if they're kind enough to limit FGM to feminist women, we're golden.

You can offer them psychological therapy to make them feel more at ease in their body, but at the end of the day it's their decision which route to take. I don't believe anyone can ever lose the right to bodily or mental autonomy.

this is such a stupid argument

We are animals, we have DNA, we have social structure. The fact that you can even distinguish abnormality means there is normality, and it inherently means there is objectivity. Everything we do and are can be boiled down and made objective. The objective of genitals and sexuality is to procreate. It is an evolutionary instrument that social animals have developed. Unless you believe in creationism and that said creator has no objectivity in this creation, then saying there's no such thing as objectivity is just stupid. Even morality is inherently objective. Again it is a very rare evolutionary instrument developed so we can have high trust interactions and accomplish more, thus having more children and being able to protect them. Morality is objective as a evolutionary tool.

What isn't objective is self reflection and philosophical rationalizations, which is what this kind of thinking is. The ability to mentally separate yourself from nature doesn't seem to have any objectivity in it, nor does the ability to justify mutilating yourself. But you can look at it objectively and see when these non-objective things create extreme and dangerous abnormalities and conclude that they're objectively wrong, like mutilating your body in horribly painful and ugly ways that contribute to suicide rates.

Of course they can, and we do it all the time. If someone demonstrates the inability to protect and think for themselves, we remove their autonomy. If someone is a danger to their self or others we take away their autonomy. We are not individuals, we live in a society, and that's a great thing. Maybe you can have the right to hurt yourself, but you shouldn't be able to pay other people to hurt you when you're mentally ill, as a prescribed means of treatment is insane. That is not a rational thing to do in any sense.

degeneracy

I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye. Your argument feels so small-scale and founded in normalcy. Your entire reasoning works in the opposite direction to mine.

It isn't a bad thing, but it is very different.

waste of a get

No it's entirely the opposite. You're thinking small scale. I'm talking about humans as an animal as it relates to society, you're talking about individuals as individuals. Which really has no relevance to anything when you choose to be so abstract about it. When you operate under the pretense that humans are just individuals, and individuality is the only thing that matters, then the premise is also the conclusion. In which case there's not even an argument, it's just an assumption to justify philosophical rationalizations being more legitimate than societal well being.

It's more of a denial of a position than a position to begin with.

Muslims love tranny surgery. Iran makes it mandatory, but also free, if they find out you're gay.

There's that italian doctor that says he's gonna do a head transplant in a couple months. And china is now saying they're gonna get chinese doctors to do it on a chinese patient first (since the italian guy has to do it in china because no other country will let him).

Cutting up a penis and trying to origami it into something that looks like a vagina will always be a horrible solution. That said, if head transplants work out, i could see it being a much better way to go about things. Of course even if the surgery works, I assume you'll need to live on a suppressed immune system forever, and I can't imagine how doctors could recommend someone take a voluntary procedure that results in an eternally suppressed immune system, and pretend that's not hurting the patient, assuming their body was healthy beforehand.

However, if I had a fucked up body and a head transplant would actually make me healthier, then hell yeah I'd choose a female body. I could play with my own vagina and boobs all day, and reap all the social, legal, financial, and other benefits that come with being a woman. I'd probably be a major butterface what with having a man's head, but still worth it.

As I said, we aren't going to see eye to eye. We are working from completely different viewpoints and ways of thinking about the universe.

Your perspective is grounded in the here and now. Your statements are based on what is de facto true about our present society. Your reasoning does not permit the possibility of there being any imperfections or flaws with the way things are, because you define the way things are as the way things should be.

My reasoning begins with counterfactual analysis - trying to understand the universe by considering how things would change if certain parameters were changed. From my perspective, humanity is just one of an almost infinite number of possible forms of sapience. There is nothing special about our corner of the universe, and there's certainly nothing special about a statistic average of the minds on one particular planet.

These approaches are useful for different things and naturally arrive at different conclusions. Obviously I think mine is better in this particular situation, but ultimately any discussion of ethics is completely subjective.

At best, a head transplant using current technology will leave you paralyzed and relying on a respirator to breath. There are millions of neurons inside your spinal cord and there's no way any of them will reconnect properly. It's like cutting the CPU out of your computer with a hacksaw and trying to put it into another computer using superglue.

Well the guy they're planning to do it to is already living a shit life and is paralyzed with all sorts of other issues. He's aware that it's likely he won't be much better off, but he might get a body that's not dying of the weird disease he has.

However, the doctor claims that he expects greater success with reconnecting the spinal cord due to the fact that they are severing the spinal cords themselves as part of the surgery, rather than trying to fix one that broke in some other way. They can make sure they cut it in a very controleed, clean, specific way. I've also heard that they are using some newly invented methods and materials in the procedure, which I've read about, but am far too stupid to explain here.

I want to be hopeful, because it would be the biggest medical breakthrough of all time. Of course, yeah, in western countries it would only be used on trannies, and making rich people immortal. But we'll see in a couple months if they actually go through with it.

I wasn't joking with that computer analogy. Even if they make all of the nerve fibres fuse together - a huge breakthrough worthy of a Nobel prize on its own - there's almost zero chance that any of them would be connected up in the correct pairs.

it's called reality

Yes, it does. That's kinda the whole point of this conversation. Mental illness and abnormality in general is a flaw, it's counterproductive to our objectives as a society

Where did i do that? You're making this up to have something to hold against me but i never said that. There isn't a "should", i'm not making a moral statement, i'm making observations about objectivity. The way things are are the way things are. That's just reality. I'm not basing any of my premises in philosophical rationalizations, that is what you're doing.

Yes obviously any analysis of fiction would be different from reality.

No, any discussion YOU have based in thought exercise nonsense would be subjective. You can easily talk about morality in an object manner as i've shown.

This is just one step removed from applying Harry Potter to everything that happens in the world. You're not using premises based in reality so of course your conclusions are vastly different from analysis of reality.

If you don't see the value in counterfactual thought experiments, I can't help you.
As expected, we each leave thinking the other a fool.

I think where the other user is getting hung up on is that he thinks that "difference != bad", which is true. What he's not understanding is that there are adaptive traits and maladaptive traits.

Geniuses are different, but that's an adaptive trait. Having schizophrenia is a maladaptive trait.

Yeah but they seem serious and keep saying they're gonna do it by the end of the year, so let's see. If it works, I'm one step closer to becoming the qt loli I always wanted to be. Just need to find one with brain cancer and steal her body.

There is no value in separating yourself from reality to the point where your conclusions have no relevance other than to justify negative behavior. The value in this is only relevant to the person doing it. It's working backwards like trickle-down economics or communism. It ignores the actual functions of society and makes up traits to serve the conclusion. That's a retarded thing to do.

this

No. I just reject the notion that life has any purpose. Adaptive traits are not "better" than maladaptive traits. The universe doesn't care how many times your DNA replicates itself.

why in the fuck are you arguing relative to some sort of objectivity while rejecting it? this is what happens when you replace religious impulses with pseudo-philosophy

"Purpose" is a human invention, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

"Better" must always be accompanied by a qualifier, but I didn't think it was necessary in this context because it's so fucking obvious. Adaptive traits are better in so far as they help you adapt to your environment.

Also irrelevant.

It's like you've been smoking post-modernism.

To add, adaptive traits are better than maladaptive traits insofar as gasoline is a better fuel for your car than peanut butter.

I've avoided saying this kind of thing outright because i wanted to see where he'd take this but it's pretty much over now so it doesn't matter.

It's in the words. What he said is as dumb as saying