I'd have to look more deeply into the question of liposuction to have a definite opinion on it. If there is currently a large uptick in poorly-justified liposuction performed on minors, I would find that interesting and concerning. My instinct would probably not be to use the term "mutilation" in that case though, since we're just talking about removing fat cells.
I'd have to look more deeply into the question of liposuction to have a definite opinion on it. If there is currently a large uptick in poorly-justified liposuction performed on minors, I would find that interesting and concerning. My instinct would probably not be to use the term "mutilation" in that case though, since we're just talking about removing fat cells.
Well, I don't know-- are those fat cells healthy tissue? Are they functioning as fat cells? Yes to both, if I'm not mistaken. Sure seems like by your own stated definition of "mutilation," liposuction qualifies.
Now, I realize that your stated definition is not your actual operational definition-- which is that "mutilation" is something that you personally don't like and want to morally condemn, and "cosmetic surgery" is something you don't give a shit about-- but it's still interesting to uncover the ways in which these sorts of arguments are pretextual.
As a side meta-note, I cannot help but be incredibly amused by the positions being taken by the majority of likes on this thread, which are that a. there is too much demonization and polarization in politics and everyone needs to turn down the rhetoric, and also b. anyone who disagrees with me to any degree about youth gender medicine wants to mutilate children. Absolutely chef's-kiss hypocrisy.
IтАЩm probably going to regret wading in here but I think you might be fixating too much on a word.
The original commenter wrote, тАЬThe bigger question about whether these kids should be on hormones or mutilating their bodies gets a little lost sometimes.тАЭ He or she was making a point about the article. There is no reason to fixate on when the commenter does or doesnтАЩt use the word тАЬmutilateтАЭ because itтАЩs not the point.
And then you said the commenter was saying, тАЬтАжanyone who disagrees with me to any degree about youth gender medicine wants to mutilate children,тАЭ and that does not follow from what they said, which again, was a critique of the article and not attacking anyone.
No one has said that at all, in fact. Even if the commenter believes that youth transition тАЬmutilates childrenтАЭ, it does not follow they think that anyone who supports it to *any* degree тАЬwants to mutilate children.тАЭ The commenter may believe that those who support it genuinely believe they are helping children.
The fact that you ignored the original point on the comment and instead fixated on word usage makes people think you arenтАЩt interesting in having a conversation but want to pick fights. If you donтАЩt want to pick fights then you may want to change your approach so people feel you are arguing in good faith.
Well, I already know that many people here think (wrongly) that I am not arguing in good faith, and the feeling is absolutely mutual, so I think that particular ship sailed a long time ago.
At any rate, as far as I'm concerned, the sole point of using deliberately-inflammatory rhetoric like "mutilation" is to pick fights. The reason to fixate on the language is that the language is designed to be fixated on. It's designed to promote murdering doctors who do these kinds of surgeries (after all, it follows apodictically that if they're mutilating children, then killing them is just the defense of others) and imposing total bans on the procedures in question (after all, what right-thinking person could be in favor of mutilation?). It's like calling a group of people cockroaches-- the rhetoric is murderous in intent and quite possibly in action. It is intended to incite attacks. Perhaps an even better example is the constant reference to reproductive health personnel as "baby-killers"-- that language is absolutely intended to inculcate in the listener a willingness to kill in "defense" of the "babies" in question.
I won't allow it to pass unremarked-upon, and if you think that it's just harmless wordplay, you can fuck all the way right off.
Wow I was really feeling respectful toward you and your opinions so IтАЩm taken aback by your harsh last paragraph.
Respectfully, I disagree that calling a procedure тАЬmutilatingтАЭ = promoting murdering doctors who perform it. For example, one can believe that abortion does kill a baby but also believe that in some cases it is the best choice. Some people believe tattoos тАЬmutilate the bodyтАЭ but they donтАЩt think tattoo artists should be murdered: they see it as a personal choice to mutilate oneтАЩs own body. So I disagree with you but I respect that you see things differently.
I'd have to look more deeply into the question of liposuction to have a definite opinion on it. If there is currently a large uptick in poorly-justified liposuction performed on minors, I would find that interesting and concerning. My instinct would probably not be to use the term "mutilation" in that case though, since we're just talking about removing fat cells.
Well, I don't know-- are those fat cells healthy tissue? Are they functioning as fat cells? Yes to both, if I'm not mistaken. Sure seems like by your own stated definition of "mutilation," liposuction qualifies.
Now, I realize that your stated definition is not your actual operational definition-- which is that "mutilation" is something that you personally don't like and want to morally condemn, and "cosmetic surgery" is something you don't give a shit about-- but it's still interesting to uncover the ways in which these sorts of arguments are pretextual.
As a side meta-note, I cannot help but be incredibly amused by the positions being taken by the majority of likes on this thread, which are that a. there is too much demonization and polarization in politics and everyone needs to turn down the rhetoric, and also b. anyone who disagrees with me to any degree about youth gender medicine wants to mutilate children. Absolutely chef's-kiss hypocrisy.
IтАЩm probably going to regret wading in here but I think you might be fixating too much on a word.
The original commenter wrote, тАЬThe bigger question about whether these kids should be on hormones or mutilating their bodies gets a little lost sometimes.тАЭ He or she was making a point about the article. There is no reason to fixate on when the commenter does or doesnтАЩt use the word тАЬmutilateтАЭ because itтАЩs not the point.
And then you said the commenter was saying, тАЬтАжanyone who disagrees with me to any degree about youth gender medicine wants to mutilate children,тАЭ and that does not follow from what they said, which again, was a critique of the article and not attacking anyone.
No one has said that at all, in fact. Even if the commenter believes that youth transition тАЬmutilates childrenтАЭ, it does not follow they think that anyone who supports it to *any* degree тАЬwants to mutilate children.тАЭ The commenter may believe that those who support it genuinely believe they are helping children.
The fact that you ignored the original point on the comment and instead fixated on word usage makes people think you arenтАЩt interesting in having a conversation but want to pick fights. If you donтАЩt want to pick fights then you may want to change your approach so people feel you are arguing in good faith.
Well, I already know that many people here think (wrongly) that I am not arguing in good faith, and the feeling is absolutely mutual, so I think that particular ship sailed a long time ago.
At any rate, as far as I'm concerned, the sole point of using deliberately-inflammatory rhetoric like "mutilation" is to pick fights. The reason to fixate on the language is that the language is designed to be fixated on. It's designed to promote murdering doctors who do these kinds of surgeries (after all, it follows apodictically that if they're mutilating children, then killing them is just the defense of others) and imposing total bans on the procedures in question (after all, what right-thinking person could be in favor of mutilation?). It's like calling a group of people cockroaches-- the rhetoric is murderous in intent and quite possibly in action. It is intended to incite attacks. Perhaps an even better example is the constant reference to reproductive health personnel as "baby-killers"-- that language is absolutely intended to inculcate in the listener a willingness to kill in "defense" of the "babies" in question.
I won't allow it to pass unremarked-upon, and if you think that it's just harmless wordplay, you can fuck all the way right off.
Wow I was really feeling respectful toward you and your opinions so IтАЩm taken aback by your harsh last paragraph.
Respectfully, I disagree that calling a procedure тАЬmutilatingтАЭ = promoting murdering doctors who perform it. For example, one can believe that abortion does kill a baby but also believe that in some cases it is the best choice. Some people believe tattoos тАЬmutilate the bodyтАЭ but they donтАЩt think tattoo artists should be murdered: they see it as a personal choice to mutilate oneтАЩs own body. So I disagree with you but I respect that you see things differently.