Yes, been mulling over this a while. Suicide, for instance, give it some thought, isn't actually suicide in the sense a person killed himself/herself. — Agent Smith

What about someone driven to suicide by bullying and harassment or bad parenting?

You don't actual have to strike a fatal blow to be accused of causing or arranging a persons death.

Americans like to say guns don't kill people people kill people. make of that what you will.

Layman usage is pretty close to the legal meaning though and I'm pretty confident that societies without laws still can tell the difference between a natural death and someone dying from a knife in his back. — Benkei

As I said to in my last post to Javi killing someone does not entail murder or intent.

Someone could be shot in war, in self defence , in a hunting accident, by suicide, by a mad man etc. The dead body looks the same.

The attitude we have towards things classified murder however is that of a terrible crime and we don't usually have this response to lawful killing such as war and self defence.

What strikes me is that we have an ethical plane of perception where we perceive the world under a lens of ethical, emotional resonance which makes certain acts seem desirable or undesirable etc whether or not they actually are. For example in some countries and among some people homosexual acts are seen as a terrible and people are still executed for them in places like Iran.

This moral perception is very compelling and motivating but it may be illusory.

Unless you want to say our perception of an event as criminal and malicious etc is tapping into some real domain of reality where ethics/values exist concretely.

As an antinatalist/anti-harm person I view so called natural harm as as bad and as harmful as behaviour deliberately carried out by humans. That is what you might say is described as natural evil. If nature is not evil and we are just another part of nature that makes us not suitable moral agents.

I think not. You are just misunderstanding the typified crime in a code book with the act per se. One precedes to the other. — javi2541997

Murder is defined as unlawful killing so the law is deciding which acts should be described as murder. In some cases abortion is claimed to be murder. But the death penalty is not considered murder.

The act of killing someone is not what makes something murder. You can kill in self defence, in abortion you can kill someone by accident. So the legal statement is the only thing making something a murder.

For example some philosophers and psychologists and scientist believe we have no freewill and due to laws of causality our actions are predetermined by natural forces therefore nothing could be described as murder and we are essentially robots carrying out our programming.

For something to be proven to be murder you have to prove issues like freewill and mental intention.

Is there any dictatorship that has not used censorship and "cancelled" it's opponents?

Cancel culture is emotionally loaded censorship or even emotional terrorism.

If you want to immediately validate someone's opinion cancel them.

If you want their book sales to soar.

This is shocking insanity but is apparently the new norm: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/gabriel-mac-essay.html

"On the day I heard that my penis would be huge, I sobbed."

"When I’d asked the surgeon how big my impending penis was going to be, he could only guess, pointing to the reusable water bottle in my hand, a metal cylinder nine inches in circumference: “Smaller than that.”

“I would rather have died on the table than not had the surgery,” one Korean American guy with great sweaters responded (and, like everybody here, gave me permission to repeat), to a chorus of nodding Zoom heads."

"One of the nodding heads in the group belonged to a nonbinary white person who was still horizontal in recovery from having had, a week prior, the worst happen, which was that after their procedure, in which all the fat and skin had been stripped from their left forearm from wrist to nearly elbow, along with major nerves, an artery, and veins, and then shaped into a tube and connected, in careful layers, to skin and blood vessels and nerves in their pelvis, their new penis had failed."

"But here they were, already getting ready for their surgeons to harvest a whole other part of their body within the month with zero hesitation. Because those three days they’d had their penis, they said, before being rushed into an eight-hour surgery that couldn’t save it — the feeling of it, even just for one moment, even still bloody and painful and packed with stitches: worth it."

"I woke up last December in a hospital bed and before even glancing toward my lap, the room spinning from anesthesia and my lungs partially collapsed from four and a half hours on surgical ventilation and hundreds — plural — of stitches and a 40-square-inch hole in my thigh where I’d been skinned down to the muscle, I could suddenly feel, in a way I could never have fathomed, that this was what being alive was."

Anecdotal evidence as found on social media has no validity. The accounts are not verified and they provide no statistical validity because there's no way to determine if the outliers are over-represented. — Hanover

I posted evidence of real Trans identified people including one person who committed suicide after a botched attempt to turn a penis into a vagina.
It is not anecdotal. It is not social media. It is news reports on what trans peoples said and did.

You presented a study which averaged to ten people a year which claimed they said they were satisfied with gender confirmation surgery.

There was not enough detail to validate these claims. I am very certain I can link to you to more cases other than the dozens I have already highlighted of people regretting affirmation surgeries.

Do you think a 214 people is an adequate representation of a study effecting 7-8 billion humans? In my university studies I was taught these kind of small figures are not significant.

Your study was based on 10 people a year having these surgeries not the thousands of young woman trying to raise funds to have healthy breasts removed on Just giving so. I feel you are acting in bad faith. It would be great if only 10 people a year were having these surgeries!!

As a Gay male. If I saw a study involving 214 people I would assume it didn't represent me.

I am not sure what your stance is. Whether you are actually pushing for more men to have their penises turned into pseudo vaginas?

What makes it unethical for a person to knowingly consent to the procedure?

This study of 214 patients evaluated 20 years after their surgery states, "One hundred eighty-one (85 percent) patients in our series were able to have regular sexual intercourse, and no individual regretted having undergone GAS."

That is, after 20 years, zero regrets. — Hanover

Before I examine your study let us point this out.

I gave links to several people people who regretted having surgery, or had serious health problems and some even committed suicide.

So before I even click on the link to your study I doubt it's validity.

Reddit's detransition now has nearly 30,000 members and there are many stories on there of peoples regretting transition.

So presenting me something that mentions zero regrets I find almost laughable.
Before I even click on the study I assume it is self report on a minority of people who had the surgeries.

I was unaware that surgical ethics revolved solely around subjective feedback if so I find that rather staggering. I have no doubt medical ethics is a highly flawed area but having no objective measure of harm is ridiculous.

Jazz Jennings and several other children have been minors when having life altering irreversible treatments on them. Do you actually want to post pictures of botched surgeries and mutilated bodies on here.
Also 214 people out of nearly 8 Billion humans. Very persuasive.

You've read the horror stories and have decided you wouldn't have this surgery done regardless of how you identify. That's a fair call, but not everyone is like you and others choose otherwise. Why do you get to choose for them? — Hanover

Society should have a say in medical ethics.

I have being wondering about starting a separate thread on enforced beliefs for months now. But if I do the point is very important philosophically.

I agree with Descartes that the only thing I can't doubt is my own existence. So any other belief I formulate is going to be constantly subject to scrutiny and scepticism.

Legally making me call a male a female and vice versa or lose my job is anathema to this. It is a good reason to oppose censorship.

Maybe harness those feelings of being an outsider and empathize with others who feel ostracized. — Hanover

What feelings of being an outsider?

You just randomly introduced that sentiment to me.

Being in a minority does not make someone an outsider.

Everyone is is some kind of minority but socialise based on shared human traits. Indulging someone else's delusions is not my idea of embracing someone into the human fold.

Thanks for telling me about your nads. Mine are bold and made of brass. A true sight to behold. — Hanover

This response suggests you are not really interested in real peoples real identities over pandering to an touchy feely (as portrayed) ideology. Just because people didn't identify under the attention seeking gender umbrella doesn't mean they are all virile confident stereotypical members of some stupid cis gender identity forced on us by the gender religion, with perfect lives and bodies.

Accepting your biological sex reality does not say anything about you other than that you are in touch with one aspect of reality. Do we support acknowledging reality or not?

You are aware it's possible to be supportive of the trans community without supporting trans MtF competing in biological female sports? — Hanover

Caitlyn Jenner has spoken out against biological men in women's sports and he has been derided as a transphobe on trans subreddits likewise any other trans person who doesn't agree.

The point about sports and acting awards and the like is that calling a man legally a woman entitles him to compete with women in this sphere. Otherwise if you don't let these men in women's, sports, prisons and acting competitions you are essential acknowledging they aren't women.

Only a few trans people have spoken out in favour of limiting men's access to spaces and awards but most of these still want access to some women's spaces like toilets.

They seek no gain from making you believe they're a woman. — Hanover

Yes they do. If I want to make people believe I was in the twin towers on 9/11 I want to implant a false belief about me in peoples mind.

People get gratification arousing responses in other people. Isn't that the whole point of wanting to be a celebrity?

Reading on trans subreddits and elsewhere people clearly need almost everyone to affirm their identity whereas I don't need anyone to affirm my identity and you will not find me asking you to believe or affirm anything about myself.
Sometimes my nieces and nephews call me aunty probably because they have one uncle (alive) and 5 + aunties.
A personal identity that needs validating by everyone else is unstable in my opinion.

What this means is that if I live in a society where the social norm is for men to wear pants and not skirts, then that ideology is forced upon me — Hanover

I disagree with this analogy obviously. I don't think most men look good in women's clothes. Women's clothes are designed for the reality of women's bodies and their feminine appearance. Some women look better in less feminine clothes.

I wear what feels comfortable and am glad that sensible looking clothes are available.

There is a difference between someone wearing women's clothes to deceive someone into thinking they are female and someone wearing feminine clothes to conform or not conform.

I would certainly not deny society operates by force. You won't get another argument out of my on that but at the same time we can reject societies ideals in our head and reject society without being told that we cannot even disagree with a societal norm. Saying I have to call a man "she" is undermining my evidence based logically formed beliefs.

Anyhow. There is a difference between societal norms and biological facts. A woman is a biological immutable reality with a womb, ovaries and in whom we all grew as babies, not a societal trend. A woman is not a cervix haver or people carrier. It is not an imposition to state biological reality.

I went bald in my mid twenties and have never attempted to rectify that. I was born with undescended testes and then I discovered I only actually had one testicle and that has since went back up inside my body leaving me with an empty scrotum. (I Don't no whether I am infertile). I mainly hung around with girls in primary school/kindergarten and I don't like sport and mechanics or guns. I am hardly a male stereotype or rampant conformist.

However if you conform to the latest fashions and standards for men and women it doesn't usually entail self harm or body modification/mutilation.

The only way you can say trans ideology is harmless is if you say any harm is automatically negated by the mental state of a trans person. So allowing a man to beat women in swimming is no longer a harm because it increases the overall good feeling in a trans persons brain. It is insane and it is being forced on us. I grew up in a religious cult I am well versed in brainwashing and psychological manipulation.

Reread the articles and links to the extreme distress people face after having genital mutilation. I can provide loads more links and don't ask me to accept this. Fistulas, adhesions, UTI's arterial bleeds etc

No one is unhappy about surgeons in general, or the government, or about straight people who endanger their bodies to accentuate their sex. Straight men ruin their bodies with steroids. Straight women overdo plastic surgeries and suffer from bulimia. No one has expressed their disapprovement of straight people, — pfirefry

Lots of people are unhappy with botched surgeries and people who have cosmetic surgeries are often criticised and the surgeons condemned as unethical. Most people want to avoid surgery and medication wherever possible and don't want to become life long patients.

I personally do not believe trans people exist because I don't believe you can transition from one sex to another or one gender to another. I disapprove of people trying to make me believe they were either born in the wrong body, have changed sex, deserve to be treated as the opposite sex and a range of other beliefs under the trans umbrella. This the only ideology where people are allowed to try and force people into sharing someone else's mental states.

If there was no trans activism or trans ideology this combative situation wouldn't have a risen but people are trying to force other people to share their false and delusional beliefs about sex and gender. People are being interviewed by the police for "misgendering people on line" and being fired from jobs for thought crimes/not being rehired.

Unfortunately. I think on top of the untold harm that has already happened we have many more years of this. No Frankenstein surgeons or, academic ideologs or trans advocates will be held accountable.

Tom Storm expressed support towards transgender people, and got criticized with a dumb argument that being transgender equals to a specific set of extreme examples. That's a gross generalization, and it's a clear example of inappropriate transphobia.

Andrew said: You support thousands of young women including teenage girls having healthy breasts removed, the indoctrination of children, undermining women's rights, the existence of 100 genders and so on. — pfirefry

What extreme examples are you referring to? I have highlighted several cases of people having gender affirmation surgeries that ruined their health. Most trans "women" don't have their penis inverted and castration (70-90 + percent.) Those that do usually have complications.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvzpy8/sex-reassignment-surgery-india-trans-death

"Days before her death, Alex told a media outlet called The Cue that she became a victim of “gross medical negligence” during her gender confirmation surgery in June 2020 at a private hospital called Renai Medicity. “My private part looks like a piece of meat,” she said in a video interview. “I want to conduct a resurgery. I want justice.”

Lia Thomas has undermined all women's right to a fair sporting arena.

Thousands of young women on just giving asking for money to remove breasts is not an extreme example it is the new norm and a historical anomaly.

I feel Your only object here is to get people censored. No trans identified person is being forced to read this thread.

This thread is an utter nonsense. — pfirefry

Then refute some of the points being made. This is a philosophy forum for presenting arguments.

People express negative attitudes towards the minorities. — pfirefry

Being in a minority is not a protected or virtuous status. Serial killers are a minority.

I am not attacking a minority just not believing an ideology. There are lots of different people using the trans label including nonbinaries and a-sexual's and they don't even agree amongst themselves about definitions.

The so called "truscum" (not my name for them) believe you have suffer from gender dysphoria and have surgeries to be classed as true trans but other like Eddie Izzard believe you simply have to identify as the opposite sex to earn your preferred pronouns and enter women's spaces.

but the thread is filled with negative attitude towards transgenders. — pfirefry

I don't believe anyone can change sex or that anyone should be able to legally be declared the opposite sex because I value truth, facts and reality.

I cannot change my evidence based beliefs due to peoples feelings and their desire to impersonate the opposite sex.

You can silence me on the internet but not change the way I perceive the facts of reality about the immutability of biological sex. Why not try and defend trans ideology rather than attack the tone of the thread?
Trans advocates have successfully censored numerous people on twitter and YouTube and got governmental support and institutional capture and this one place where can can freely give our opinions.

Forcing people believe in trans identities is like forcing people to believe in someone else's religion.

No one should be forced to endorse your beliefs about your self or compromise their own values for someone's self perception.

"9 Transgender Patients Complain Of Mutilation, Botched Sex-Change Surgeries In Oregon"

All gender affirmations surgeries are botched because by nature the are mutilating healthy body parts. But I can link you to endless stories of the side effects of these surgeries which are being promoted as health care. Hippocrates would be rolling in his mausoleum.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/06/9-transgender-patients-complain-mutilation-botched-sex-change-surgeries-oregon/

"A devastated young transgender woman says she has been left 'disfigured and feeling like a freak' following two botched gender reassignment operations.

Kia, 26, from Wales, says she was forced to seek private treatment after the NHS procedures left her in near-constant pain and with her urethra permanently exposed, which she says means she is unable to have sex or urinate properly.

She says doctors also failed to inform her she had effectively been 'castrated' by the operations - as the procedures have left her with limited sensation.

The 26-year-old, who is suffering from anxiety, says she is still a virgin, has never had a boyfriend, and is desperate to lead a 'normal life'."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5191129/Transgender-woman-castrated-botched-surgery-NHS.html

"What eventuated was a botched job, mutilating her genitals to the point where she can't perform the simplest physical tasks and leaving her stranded on an invalids benefit."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/90412433/botched-overseas-sex-change-leaves-auckland-woman-mutilated-and-facing-lifetime-of-chronic-pain

I can't pretend to understand this phenomenon experientially but I can support people and wish them the best. — Tom Storm

You support thousands of young women including teenage girls having healthy breasts removed, the indoctrination of children, undermining women's rights, the existence of 100 genders and so on.

So there is nothing noble about your position. Maybe you didn't read any of the thread?


"Lia Thomas, 22, smashed two U.S. swimming records at an Akron, Ohio contest
Thomas won the 1,650 freestyle in a record time of 15:59.71 beating her closest rival Anna Sofia Kalandaze by 38 seconds
She left rivals floundering in a 500 freestyle beating them by 14 seconds "

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10282301/Transgender-UPenn-swimmer-Lia-Thomas-smashes-records-weekend-meets-14-SECONDS-ahead-rival.html

I would say judging nature to be harmful would be factual and irrefutable. This is one reason I am opposed to vegetarianism and veganism. It portrays humans as an anomaly in nature. Don't feel guilty about being human. You didn't choose it. Many religions have popped up to try and justify the human angst about their condition.

I think life makes us face a suicide dilemma. I am in it myself at the moment. Do I want to experience more of this? Apparently I didn't choose to come into existence then I have to decide how I feel about endorsing existence and it's continuation.

Definitely a cruel dilemma I would say.

The reason I won't call you "king" is that you don't think yourself a king. — Hanover

Schizophrenics have real delusions so are you going to affirm a paranoid schizophrenics delusion that they are being hunted by the mafia because it is a firmly held belief?

You don't know what exactly the content of another persons mind is when they make statement.

I just refuse to make/utter untrue statements unless they are a little white lie to spare someone's feelings or a fiction for entertainment purpose.

If a trans identified individual said they would commit suicide if not called the correct pronoun that would suggest they were very mentally ill. Most biological males and females don't care about misgendering because they don't have a problem with recognising the immutability of their sex or need their identity propped up by others.

What is classed as misgendering is usually correctly recognising someone's sex and what is considered preferred pronouns is being forced to indulge in someone else's fantasies. I will always side with reality and the truth, telling people they can change sex/gender will just increase the number of people fostering and trying to enact this belief.

There is no delusionary thinking and there is no confusion. — Hanover

What an astonishing comment. Detransitioners have said that they were deluded about their identity.

However. Delusionary thinking can be identified by the content of speech.

If a statement is untrue or concerns an impossibility, speculating about what is in the speakers mind is irrelevant.
The idea that a man can become in any way near to being a biological female or that enacting female stereotypes earns someone the right to be called she is either delusion or pure misogyny. Real women experience what thousands of years of biological females have faced which is often second class status to men (or worse). No man should be entitled to claim that identity. That is why white people claiming to be black are scorned for trying to claim an identity of great historical importance due to persecution.

Nevertheless you apparently have limited access to claims made by trans identified people where several, in the case of men , are adamant that they are biological women and experience period cramps and the menopause. Apparently a man in France has one the right to the legal fallacy of being identified as the child's mother so the child now has no legal biological father. A completely narcissistic, self absorbed request and verdict celebrated by many in the trans community.

Read the whole thread and refute the evidence I have presented and arguments I have made.

Otherwise I can't take thee seriously.

Yes, it is probably unlikely that time reversal could happen as a real possibility because it would involve the reverse chains of causality. It would sort of mean that the injury of the car crash would have to then happen backwards with the crash being later. However, the book was well written and as far as the memory aspects that is more complex because it involves aspects of knowledge being outside of time, from the perspective of eternity. That would make sense in terms of precognitive experiences because it would be about people being able to perceive beyond 3 dimensional world experience. — Jack Cummins

All interpretation of experience it seems is done in consciousness. Causality is a schema we have interpreted or perceived through consciousness.

I think idealism or the idea that reality is a big mind or collection of minds and mental events allows for far more flexibility than an assumption of materialism. I say this taking in mind dreams.

In dreams it is clearly an all mental experience because I assume we are asleep and any experience we have is being created by the brain/mind. So this says to me that anything we can experience in dreams is independent of immediate perception of an external world or external causes. So things like colour and causation and sound etc in dreams are purely mental at that point.

We could then view a dream like a cartoon and in cartoon there can be time and causal reversal. So for example a dropped cup that shattered in reverse would be bits of ceramic or glass on a floor randomly lifting into the air and rearranging into cup object. We might need a causal explanation for this or if it is like the dream world it might just be another mental event and mental events need a different explanation than physical causality models.

I think therefore that what is impossible or even inexplicable in a physical world model might be far more explicable in a mental world model including consciousness itself.

Just rambling.

The proper referent to a pronoun is however people use it. That's how language works. I use "her" to denote people who wish to be recognized as female — Hanover

Please refer to me as King Andrew now or just your majesty because that is how I prefer to be referred to. I also am a real monarch because that is what my brain is telling me. I can't be wrong about my own intuitions.

Lili Elbe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lili_Elbe

"In 1931, she had her fourth surgery, to transplant a uterus and construct a vaginal canal.[6][7][31][5] This made her one of the earliest transgender women to undergo a vaginoplasty surgery, a few weeks after Erwin Gohrbandt performed the experimental procedure on Dora Richter.[25]

Elbe's immune system rejected the transplanted uterus, and the operation and a subsequent surgical revision caused infection, which led to her death from cardiac arrest on 13 September 1931, three months after the surgery"

Magnus Hirschfeld of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft oversaw her surgeries.

This was some of the institutes prior experiments:

"Working off of the research of Eugen Steinach, who had recently succeeded in reversing the sexual behavior of animal test subjects, the institute began testing whether or not transplanting the testicles from a heterosexual man to a homosexual man would cure homosexuality. This method of "curing" homosexuality more often than not grew necrotized and resulted in the testicles having to be castrated and was abandoned by 1924"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft

But there are gay people who I am sure would love to jump on top of me and have their way with me while I'm standing at the urinal, but I have no way of distinguishing the gay from the straight, so I stand there vulnerable, hoping to have uneventful toilet experience. — Hanover

Gay men have been known to congregate in toilets for sexual intimacy. I suppose I feel sorry for the straight men who may have walked in on this.

This kind of sexual practise doesn't happen among lesbians in women's toilets it is the differing sexual persuasions of men and women why we need separate spaces. I admit I went "cottaging" as a young gay man but not in the women's toilets.

I believe men are well of other men's sexual attitudes and behaviours so when they are confronted with the reality of what alterations in the law means for their daughters, partners, and females in general I think they will join the backlash against undermining protections for biological women and sex differences.

If she believes all the surgeries she's been through are worth it and she's happier as the result, why should your concerns be her concerns? — Hanover

Jazz was operated on and puberty blocked as a child. Jazz started suffering depression after he went on puberty blockers. This was ascertained in a discussion on the reality show.

By the way it is a lie to call a biological male a woman. Pronouns are intended to reflect some semblance of reality.

Jazz wanted to go to Harvard but the process was delayed due to mental health problems.

He said himself he was fine before he went on puberty blockers. Jazz has also said he thinks he'll never have an orgasm and he knows the surgeries have prevented him from creating children.

This is the highest level of self harm we allow other than assisted suicides.

One idea of an imaginary possibility which is unlikely but not cannot be ruled out is that of time's arrow reversing. — Jack Cummins

This depends on whether we have an accurate definition of time.

I feel that once something has happened it has permanently happened so I am not sure what time reversal means.

For example say I am hit by a car and badly injured, time somehow reverses and the process reverses I am not longer hit by the car but it did happen somewhere at some time and I would still have the memory of it. There seems to be a link between memory and the arrow of time and also causal necessity I suppose making causes unidirectional.

Yes, but it has to be generated in tandem with reality and the laws that govern it. — Garrett Travers

But the existence of new entities like the internet and radios reveals that we don't know what is ruled out and what laws exactly exist. These things and others are called emergent properties which are not predicted by physics.

You may be treating the laws of physics like theological commandments rather than scientific formulae that await exceptions or modulations.

The failure of physics and the rest of science to account for consciousness our only access to reality is consciousness) is a big whole and the materialistic project.

It's impossible for an immovable object to exist in the presence of an irresistible force. — universeness

That's good. I'll have to think about that one.

Can't imagine why one would desire such, other than as a means to escape this one. — Garrett Travers

Personally I don't like the idea of permanently ceasing to exist. If you aren't suicidal I don't see why you would welcome the cessation of existence?

What about the cessation of existence of the universe? I suppose you welcome the postulated heat death of the universe?

For me, more serious impossibilities would include:
Feeding 5 thousand people with a loaf and two fishes — universeness

What if the loaves of bread and fish were all huge?

You just need a huge oven and very big fish.

A human virgin birth. — universeness

Maybe a genetic mutation could cause some kind of self fertilisation but then I suppose the woman would cease to be a true human.

Every so-called miracle the theists say actually happened. — universeness

I think theist stories are fictional but not necessarily physically impossible.

Anecdotal reports are not evidence. — Garrett Travers

I am referring to personal evidence from the private realm/sphere of someone's mind. Just because an experience is private or had alone does not make it untrue or not evidence.

I don't know what evidence you would accept for the afterlife.

I have never heard voices like a schizophrenic but I have to accept that they do or just be sceptical of what anyone says about their mental states or events that I didn't witness.

As long as the person understands the various risks you've presented — Hanover

This can be impossible for various reasons. 1. The person can easily be said to be mentally disordered often suffering gender dysphoria and other mental health conditions including severe depression and even schizophrenia and psychosis
2. The surgeries are highly experimental.
3. Some of the risks are so severe or have a high probability of happening so that you would have to be mad to consent to them.

The question is one of consent, with children being unable to consent to having their genitals removed and adults being able to consent — Hanover

Female genital mutilation is called mutilation so that is not a question about consent. This issue is not consent because children don't consent to numerous things. The issue is the surgeries are harmful and stop proper function of a body part and can cause chronic pain. Early transition leads to infertility and patients are even told that.
I mentioned Jazz Jennings earlier whose penis was shrunk by puberty blockers and they needed to do several surgeries with lots of complications to try and turn it into a pseudo vagina because they usually do the surgery on fully developed males.

A woman in her early 30's said she was allowed to consent to gender affirming treatments that could cause infertility but when she desisted and wanted her tubes tied she was told to wait because she might regret it and want children.