Out of the 151 breast reductions that were performed in 2019 on American minors, 146 (97 percent) were performed on cisgender males.
The thing is, growing up in an evangelical church they don’t want these people getting breast reduction surgery either. they firmly believe that any change to the body is going against God’s will regardless of the physical or mental harm it may cause.
pretty sure they're okay with women getting boob implants, though.
Idk, the #1 thing people said behind Dolly Parton's back and held against her was that she had fake tits.
People are awful. If there’s nothing that they can be mean about, they’ll make shit up. I suspect most of that was more because she was rich/famous/influential in her own right rather than being tied to a husband.
(though she’s married. I looked it up outta curiosity. He doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page…
Dolly's husband has never been a part of her public persona. He's always been in the background and almost everyone has respected his/her choice on the matter.
absolutely true but Dolly Parton did not have to face transphobic harassment and violence
very very very important distinction
That one did oddly enough draw less of a stink, though it did still get whispered about when it suited one’s purpose.
Except male genital mutilation, aka circumcision. (Please don't take this as me saying FGM and MGM are equally bad. FGM is much, much worse.)
There are other forms of MGM too. Fortunately most of them are rare these days. Castration, subincision, penectomy.
And then there’s intersex people. That are routinely subject to “corrective surgery” in infancy. As adults they tend to be firmly of the opinion they should have been left alone and that the surgeries were harmful.
IMO bodily integrity and autonomy is a fundamental human right that should be absolutely respected for every human being.
III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
There are five grades of FGM; MGM is equivalent to hoodectomy, which is grade III.
The worst FGM is much, much worse that MGM, but the least-worst FGM is much less-worse than MGM.
where do you cite this five grade model?
the world health organization is not quite in line with you here (CW, hopefully obvious explicit discussion of mutilation) thanks !
Hm, it's been a while since I've been active in this space, I'm quoting from memory. I'll look up some stuff.
ty!
Honestly, that's only because the Bible says it's a thing that should be done (apparently)
The Hebrew Bible maybe, but it's pretty clearly outlined by Paul in the new testament that non-jewish Catholics definitely don't have to follow Jewish custom (and don't have to be circumcised in particular)
True. It's been a while, heh.
You're good, I just think it's worth saying out loud. There's probably plenty of parents who do think the Bible says it, even though it doesn't
this should hilight to us the outsized effect transphobia has on discourse.
if we were to believe the line that “we’re just concerned about people getting mutilated” we must naturally expect to see that 97% margin of outrage at breast implants, hair implants, weight management surgery etc. for cis folk.
and we don’t. here and there you might hear an evangelical getting upsetti spaghetti avout Ozempic et al but transphobic talking points dominate, in vast disproportion to actual individual cases.
Although they're usually fine with things like wearing glasses and getting stents. Odd, isn't it?
Well except for giant fake titties, God wants those. If we can get those on some minors, I'm pretty sure Republicans would shut the fuck up for decades.
My mother (religious) once told me my tattoos make her sad. There are only two that are visible on a forearm (the third is under my shirt). I told her that they make me feel happy. She’s never brought it up again. But hers is less fervent, still rooted in the same origin.
I'm guessing that's because the Bible says no tattoos in the same book where it says not to eat pork and shellfish, but Christians only believe the passages in the Pentateuch if they're okay with them.
Bible says no pork, pork is ok.
Bible says not to be gay in the exact same book, being gay is an abomination unto the lord.
What it actually says is not to lay with a man as you would with a woman. It's not about being gay, it's about topping!
My mother is fond of saying "God doesn't make junk". Easily disproven whether or not you believe in a god, but she's a "if I don't like it, it didn't happen" variety of Trump supporter, so I err on the side of changing the subject over arguing.
I'm so sorry you have to deal with that.
There's no way I could continue having a relationship with anyone who is a trump supporter.
Thank you. It is really difficult. It's especially hard to find the line. (Un)fortunately for me she's always been unreasonable per se, so I already had her at arm's length before Trump flopped onto the scene.
Oh they absolutely do. The alternative is men with breasts. They’ll say they don’t, but when the time comes to accept cis men’s bodies when they fall outside “male” expectations they won’t.
This appears to be an issue with accurate reporting. Considerations like this would make the data make a lot more sense.
The problem is the interpretation by those running the study.
I’m not sure I am perfectly following you—what should the authors have said?
I am definitely mistakenly misreading you here, sorry for the inconvenience!
(significantly edited to reflect my intent; also if any others could help me out, i don’t mean to bug this person and annoy them)
just because I had something to add doesn’t mean I missed you point.
well i am missing your point i guess, sorry. could you rephrase what you are saying ? im quite lost
edit: like what is “the problem” involved here? what are the journalists saying that is misleading?
well i am missing your point i guess
Yes, despite it being very simple and my having explained it clearly…
sorry
No, being “confusing and distracting” by muddying the waters was you whole point. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith. It’s just that I called you out.
Facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.
i literally don’t know what you are talking about, lol. just asking for clarification because my initial reading was clearly wrong :)
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".[8]
Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: "🤔🤔🤔"[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
Gender affirmation only counts to them if it defies the sex or gender binary. They're completely fine with people modifying their bodies to affirm their masculinity or femininity so long as they were assigned male or female at birth accordingly.
Trans people pursuing medical transition are such a small percentage of the population that cis people getting hormone therapy or affirming surgeries will always dwarf the number of trans people who are. Throw in all of the ways we affirm the gender of cis people, through language and fashion and culture and so on, and it's evident what their gripe is. It's never been about children receiving gender affirmation, merely their conviction that transgender people do not exist or are immoral and evil and shouldn't exist. There's a reason modern transphobia is highly intertwined with fascism. To believe that an entire group of people, based solely on their gender, is immoral and evil is only possible through a lense of dehumanization and conspiracy. Something they are especially good at. We are too few in number and too disparate to counteract the efforts of fascists, who by themselves outnumber us in every way.
They may be fine with it, but the laws they are passing are not.
And I won't be shocked if they decide that it's actually a good thing like the anti-IVF stuff that happened as a result of the anti-abortion laws.
You know damn well as soon as some politician needs some work done or their wife does, the laws will be changed to adjust the definition to "affirming a gender other than what was assigned at birth"
In no world does America ban boob jobs or any of the whatever the fuck insecure men get done.
Easy enough to get around for everyone then. Are you male to female trans? You're not getting a vagina, you're getting a penis reduction.
Why are so many cis males getting breast reduction surgery tho?
Edit I didn't know that many dudes had boobs. Makes sense, thanks :3
Especially when you can get them enlarged! C’mon fellas. Have fun with it.
Seriously though, I get that this could be terribly embarrassing if you have boobs as a man. I feel bad for kids in gym locker rooms getting teased.
Now, imagine how bad it would be if you were a man with breasts and a vagina and woman's name and you were forced to stay that way. Truly sounds like a nightmare.
Sometimes you just need some round things in your face, even if they are your own
Dude, I saw that picture of Elliot Page after he got his breasts removed. He looked HAPPY. Rejuvenated. I want to get rid of mine to. I've never wanted gender affirming care as much as I do now as a cis gender man, these guys are getting it done. It's clearly making them feel better.
Because the alternative is a brossiere.
I believe the options were the manssiere or the bro.
Brossieres are known to cause medical issues, mostly back, spine, wear and damage.
All dudes have boobs. They have nipples and breast tissue. They can lactate (small amounts) and get breast cancer.
This is because, in mammals, the default sex leans towards more female. An XY-chromosome 'male' foetus that doesn't respond to androgens in the womb will not develop male external genitalia, and will probably be assumed to be female on birth.
Sex is not binary, because biology isn't simple. Gender, which is more complex than that, is not, either.
I believe that male lactation, while possible, is rare.
Rare cam be a deceptive term, with the current population of the human race 'one in a million' is still 8,000 people.
But also, male lactation, other than infants at birth who have a high exposure to their mother's hormones, is always a significant medial concern, so it isn't something that just sometimes happens.
Males are born with breast tissue, hence the fact they can get breast cancer.
One or more hormones (I assume prolactin is involved) are required to activate lactation.
Prolactin and oxytocin, mostly.
yeah you're cis alright
Obviously I meant biologically male, come on. I acknowledge that men can lactate.
no, like, their comment was chock-full of good stuff & that's what you decide to focus on? apologies for the "no u," but like, come on.
What was I supposed to have focused on? Because the person I replied to didn't think what I said was so beyond the pale.
explaining the joke ruins the joke
What joke? What on Earth are you talking about? OP didn't tell a joke. I didn't respond with a joke. You didn't respond to me with a joke.
I was wondering when they would start to figure out that maybe it's a bad idea for the government to get between people and their doctors.
Most will only realize its a bad idea when it affects them. Just like they can only empathize with someone who is experiencing the exact same thing they are.
Easy, they don't see trans folk as "people".
100% and they're trying to work on the definition of 'Doctor' too.
"Getting between people and doctors" is maybe the wrong wording, that's the excuse snake oil salesmen and antivaxxers use. The FDA and other regulatory bodies should get between people and doctors, the opiod crisis peddled by big pharma is enough proof.
Remember during the height of COVID when quacks (and the president) were prescribing dewormers?
Please, don't call it that. It was, yes, technically "the president" at the time, but we don't have to call it that anymore, or ever again — even when referring to that (not brief enough) period in history.
or ever again
Well they do vastly outnumber us and have a ton of their own gender based insecurities so it makes sense
This is ABSURD! Somebody needs to AMEND these laws to allow little girls to get Breast Implants!
-Republicans that totally aren't Sex Offenders like DRAG QUEENS ARE!
All those dudes getting breast reduction and not a single one getting a penis enlargement?
It also said it's on minors which means they didn't choose to have this done; their parents/guardians did. It's all cool if you're choosing for yourself. It's pretty disgusting to force this stuff on a child that can't legally choose for themselves; whether it's cisgendered or not.
Where does it say the kids aren’t in agreement?
It's a technicality. The parents have the authority.
There's no mention of the minor's choice.
It’s pretty disgusting to force this stuff on a child that can’t legally choose for themselves
Lol, what? Sure, they need parental permission... but you're assuming they don't have the mental capacity to choose to have a procedure?
The thing is, growing up in an evangelical church they don’t want these people getting breast reduction surgery either. they firmly believe that any change to the body is going against God’s will regardless of the physical or mental harm it may cause.
pretty sure they're okay with women getting boob implants, though.
Idk, the #1 thing people said behind Dolly Parton's back and held against her was that she had fake tits.
People are awful. If there’s nothing that they can be mean about, they’ll make shit up. I suspect most of that was more because she was rich/famous/influential in her own right rather than being tied to a husband.
(though she’s married. I looked it up outta curiosity. He doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page…
Dolly's husband has never been a part of her public persona. He's always been in the background and almost everyone has respected his/her choice on the matter.
absolutely true but Dolly Parton did not have to face transphobic harassment and violence
very very very important distinction
That one did oddly enough draw less of a stink, though it did still get whispered about when it suited one’s purpose.
Except male genital mutilation, aka circumcision. (Please don't take this as me saying FGM and MGM are equally bad. FGM is much, much worse.)
There are other forms of MGM too. Fortunately most of them are rare these days. Castration, subincision, penectomy.
And then there’s intersex people. That are routinely subject to “corrective surgery” in infancy. As adults they tend to be firmly of the opinion they should have been left alone and that the surgeries were harmful.
IMO bodily integrity and autonomy is a fundamental human right that should be absolutely respected for every human being.
https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets
There are five grades of FGM; MGM is equivalent to hoodectomy, which is grade III.
The worst FGM is much, much worse that MGM, but the least-worst FGM is much less-worse than MGM.
where do you cite this five grade model?
the world health organization is not quite in line with you here (CW, hopefully obvious explicit discussion of mutilation) thanks !
Hm, it's been a while since I've been active in this space, I'm quoting from memory. I'll look up some stuff.
ty!
Honestly, that's only because the Bible says it's a thing that should be done (apparently)
The Hebrew Bible maybe, but it's pretty clearly outlined by Paul in the new testament that non-jewish Catholics definitely don't have to follow Jewish custom (and don't have to be circumcised in particular)
True. It's been a while, heh.
You're good, I just think it's worth saying out loud. There's probably plenty of parents who do think the Bible says it, even though it doesn't
this should hilight to us the outsized effect transphobia has on discourse.
if we were to believe the line that “we’re just concerned about people getting mutilated” we must naturally expect to see that 97% margin of outrage at breast implants, hair implants, weight management surgery etc. for cis folk.
and we don’t. here and there you might hear an evangelical getting upsetti spaghetti avout Ozempic et al but transphobic talking points dominate, in vast disproportion to actual individual cases.
Although they're usually fine with things like wearing glasses and getting stents. Odd, isn't it?
Well except for giant fake titties, God wants those. If we can get those on some minors, I'm pretty sure Republicans would shut the fuck up for decades.
My mother (religious) once told me my tattoos make her sad. There are only two that are visible on a forearm (the third is under my shirt). I told her that they make me feel happy. She’s never brought it up again. But hers is less fervent, still rooted in the same origin.
I'm guessing that's because the Bible says no tattoos in the same book where it says not to eat pork and shellfish, but Christians only believe the passages in the Pentateuch if they're okay with them.
Bible says no pork, pork is ok.
Bible says not to be gay in the exact same book, being gay is an abomination unto the lord.
What it actually says is not to lay with a man as you would with a woman. It's not about being gay, it's about topping!
My mother is fond of saying "God doesn't make junk". Easily disproven whether or not you believe in a god, but she's a "if I don't like it, it didn't happen" variety of Trump supporter, so I err on the side of changing the subject over arguing.
I'm so sorry you have to deal with that.
There's no way I could continue having a relationship with anyone who is a trump supporter.
Thank you. It is really difficult. It's especially hard to find the line. (Un)fortunately for me she's always been unreasonable per se, so I already had her at arm's length before Trump flopped onto the scene.
Oh they absolutely do. The alternative is men with breasts. They’ll say they don’t, but when the time comes to accept cis men’s bodies when they fall outside “male” expectations they won’t.
This appears to be an issue with accurate reporting. Considerations like this would make the data make a lot more sense.
The problem is the interpretation by those running the study.
I’m not sure I am perfectly following you—what should the authors have said?
I am definitely mistakenly misreading you here, sorry for the inconvenience!
(significantly edited to reflect my intent; also if any others could help me out, i don’t mean to bug this person and annoy them)
just because I had something to add doesn’t mean I missed you point.
well i am missing your point i guess, sorry. could you rephrase what you are saying ? im quite lost
edit: like what is “the problem” involved here? what are the journalists saying that is misleading?
Yes, despite it being very simple and my having explained it clearly…
No, being “confusing and distracting” by muddying the waters was you whole point. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith. It’s just that I called you out.
Facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.
i literally don’t know what you are talking about, lol. just asking for clarification because my initial reading was clearly wrong :)
Sealioning
Just asking questions
The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
Gender affirmation only counts to them if it defies the sex or gender binary. They're completely fine with people modifying their bodies to affirm their masculinity or femininity so long as they were assigned male or female at birth accordingly.
Trans people pursuing medical transition are such a small percentage of the population that cis people getting hormone therapy or affirming surgeries will always dwarf the number of trans people who are. Throw in all of the ways we affirm the gender of cis people, through language and fashion and culture and so on, and it's evident what their gripe is. It's never been about children receiving gender affirmation, merely their conviction that transgender people do not exist or are immoral and evil and shouldn't exist. There's a reason modern transphobia is highly intertwined with fascism. To believe that an entire group of people, based solely on their gender, is immoral and evil is only possible through a lense of dehumanization and conspiracy. Something they are especially good at. We are too few in number and too disparate to counteract the efforts of fascists, who by themselves outnumber us in every way.
They may be fine with it, but the laws they are passing are not.
And I won't be shocked if they decide that it's actually a good thing like the anti-IVF stuff that happened as a result of the anti-abortion laws.
You know damn well as soon as some politician needs some work done or their wife does, the laws will be changed to adjust the definition to "affirming a gender other than what was assigned at birth"
In no world does America ban boob jobs or any of the whatever the fuck insecure men get done.
Easy enough to get around for everyone then. Are you male to female trans? You're not getting a vagina, you're getting a penis reduction.
Why are so many cis males getting breast reduction surgery tho?
Edit I didn't know that many dudes had boobs. Makes sense, thanks :3
Especially when you can get them enlarged! C’mon fellas. Have fun with it.
Seriously though, I get that this could be terribly embarrassing if you have boobs as a man. I feel bad for kids in gym locker rooms getting teased.
Now, imagine how bad it would be if you were a man with breasts and a vagina and woman's name and you were forced to stay that way. Truly sounds like a nightmare.
Sometimes you just need some round things in your face, even if they are your own
Don't have to tell me twice
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynecomastia
I've got to get to a damn gym right now
Dude, I saw that picture of Elliot Page after he got his breasts removed. He looked HAPPY. Rejuvenated. I want to get rid of mine to. I've never wanted gender affirming care as much as I do now as a cis gender man, these guys are getting it done. It's clearly making them feel better.
Because the alternative is a brossiere.
I believe the options were the manssiere or the bro.
Brossieres are known to cause medical issues, mostly back, spine, wear and damage.
All dudes have boobs. They have nipples and breast tissue. They can lactate (small amounts) and get breast cancer.
This is because, in mammals, the default sex leans towards more female. An XY-chromosome 'male' foetus that doesn't respond to androgens in the womb will not develop male external genitalia, and will probably be assumed to be female on birth.
Sex is not binary, because biology isn't simple. Gender, which is more complex than that, is not, either.
I believe that male lactation, while possible, is rare.
Rare cam be a deceptive term, with the current population of the human race 'one in a million' is still 8,000 people.
But also, male lactation, other than infants at birth who have a high exposure to their mother's hormones, is always a significant medial concern, so it isn't something that just sometimes happens.
Males are born with breast tissue, hence the fact they can get breast cancer.
One or more hormones (I assume prolactin is involved) are required to activate lactation.
Prolactin and oxytocin, mostly.
yeah you're cis alright
Obviously I meant biologically male, come on. I acknowledge that men can lactate.
no, like, their comment was chock-full of good stuff & that's what you decide to focus on? apologies for the "no u," but like, come on.
What was I supposed to have focused on? Because the person I replied to didn't think what I said was so beyond the pale.
explaining the joke ruins the joke
What joke? What on Earth are you talking about? OP didn't tell a joke. I didn't respond with a joke. You didn't respond to me with a joke.
Those others are all the same, amiright
Because of dem tiddis fool.
I was wondering when they would start to figure out that maybe it's a bad idea for the government to get between people and their doctors.
Most will only realize its a bad idea when it affects them. Just like they can only empathize with someone who is experiencing the exact same thing they are.
Easy, they don't see trans folk as "people".
100% and they're trying to work on the definition of 'Doctor' too.
"Getting between people and doctors" is maybe the wrong wording, that's the excuse snake oil salesmen and antivaxxers use. The FDA and other regulatory bodies should get between people and doctors, the opiod crisis peddled by big pharma is enough proof.
Remember during the height of COVID when quacks (and the president) were prescribing dewormers?
Please, don't call it that. It was, yes, technically "the president" at the time, but we don't have to call it that anymore, or ever again — even when referring to that (not brief enough) period in history.
Well they do vastly outnumber us and have a ton of their own gender based insecurities so it makes sense
This is ABSURD! Somebody needs to AMEND these laws to allow little girls to get Breast Implants!
-Republicans that totally aren't Sex Offenders like DRAG QUEENS ARE!
All those dudes getting breast reduction and not a single one getting a penis enlargement?
It also said it's on minors which means they didn't choose to have this done; their parents/guardians did. It's all cool if you're choosing for yourself. It's pretty disgusting to force this stuff on a child that can't legally choose for themselves; whether it's cisgendered or not.
Where does it say the kids aren’t in agreement?
It's a technicality. The parents have the authority.
There's no mention of the minor's choice.
Lol, what? Sure, they need parental permission... but you're assuming they don't have the mental capacity to choose to have a procedure?