5 thoughts on “Saturday Night Double Feature

  1. ‘Sandra’ the posterboy for body dysmorphia.
    Not exactly helping the TwanzCamp in their sanity image.

    1. It’s a symptom of cisabled, or cis-disabled (those that are lucky enough to be born disabled without having to cut off their own legs) “privilege” that causes people to question his (er, I mean “her”) actions. Lololol.
      Actually, there is a strong correlation between transgenderism and other forms of body dysmorphia. There’s an interesting piece by a transgender who wants doctors to make him blind to match his inner disability-identity.
      Oh here it is: http://biid-info.org/Transabled_Vs._Transsexual

      1. Actually, there is a strong correlation between transgenderism and other forms of body dysmorphia.
        Yes, I think so too, particularly on those that report a (sexualised) body part such as penis or breasts that “I always felt they should not be there”. If there is no prior CSA, then a sexualised form of BIID is the case. If there is prior history of CSA, then it may solely be trauma from the CSA, or CSA trauma in conjunction with BIID (although most likely the CSA trauma itself).
        In any case, CSA should be investigated, and appropriate therapy given. Or if no CSA, then BIID therapy should be given.
        It is unethical of the medical profession to ‘treat’ in any other way. In no other illness other than GID does the medical profession almost solely rely on patient self-reporting as they do with GID.

    2. FAB stop it; I just snorted tea out of my nose!
      ON a serious note, what kind of topsy turvy upside down world are we living in if a medical establishment gives CREDENCE to these delusions and ridicules radical feminists for questioning people who lop off body parts

  2. Correction, he wants to be made deaf not blind:
    “a transabled person that wishes or feels a need to be deaf should be able to make him or herself deaf without reprecussion from the law. That person being deaf hurts no one. However if they wanted to make absolutely sure they heard no external noise they would want to sever the auditory nerve. This is not without implications: if they were wise they would realise that the vestibular nerve (for balance) and the auditory nerve are very close in proximity to each other and are therefor hard to separate. A consenting surgeon — this means that a surgeon is free to object to doing this surgery — might not be able to separate out the auditory bits from the vestibular bits and so the person may lose vestibular functionality from their inner ear. Or they could do no research and go into it blindly (which is a whole other example!).
    The point is that I, as a person that wants to be deaf, should be legally and ethically free to achieve that deafness however I want. If I want to involve another person (such as a surgeon) we would need to come to an arrangement where we both consent to the procedure. The surgeon might not sever the nerves unless I illustrated an understanding of what will happen if I lose vestibular nerve function. Incidentally the medical community calls what the surgeon might ask (in my example) informed consent.”

Comments are closed.