# Should SRS be illegal?



## Pitere pit (Aug 24, 2019)

Good morning, afternoon and night where ever all of you are! 
Since looking religiously the reddit's trans community thread and falling down into a rabbit hole, I've been wondering the legality of these operations. We know that, as that famous Swedish study have shown us, that SRS doesn't complete the mission that is to make the patient more happy, almost the half kill themselves when they realize that they are botched for life. 
But what kind of person takes this surgeries? 
Of course they aren't normal because they suffer from an illness that, despite the opposite being told by the woke psychiatrists, affect them to not be able to live a good life. They suffer dysphoria (most of them I believe) and their body doesn't match the perception that their brains have and they need surgery.
So this person takes it. First a female chops off her tits; a male would throw into the bin his balls; then a woman extracts her lady parts ( even the vagina in some cases); the man flays his penis or cut a piece of the colon in order to carve it into his pelvis; the woman gets a bone removed, some pieces of skin too to create a ''penis''. 
Years later, when the euphoria has passed, they see themselves with huge problems. The ''vagina'' that was promised to a man will be a myriad of nightmares, it creates hairballs and expels goo, it doesn't really smell good too. The woman with a frankendong sewn into her mons pubis sees herself with a numb flesh tube, no vagina, she can't walk right (if she took the removal of bone procedure) or she has frankenscars surrounding her body, the erection implants didn't work and the ''penis'' is rotting (fun fact, phalloplasty has a huge failure rate, up to 95% in some cases)
And one day, for no reason at all, people kill themselves for what they have done to their bodies. 
Now, I think that these procedures are so primitive and horrifying that somebody must regulate it, I don't want to go full nanny state like the pirates of La Perfida Albión (just kidding, some brits are fine I think so, just not the over progressive or professional drunk jumpers from balconies) but this, it doesn't feel right to me.
As we have seen on this website, if one person want to hurt themselves they will do it. Like food (our dainty princess Amberlynn), alcohol, drugs or just being a shithead. And nothing will stop them. We like to think that anyone can be redeemed into salvation, but mostly, is not the case. If some people want to hurt their body and soul they will do it no matter what. 
The problem with these procedures is that while alcohol, drug or food abuse and being a shithead are very much sanctioned in our minds, these operations are not. You can see it everyday as how it's framed by the media and other people, this confused woman is now a man because she has a flesh tube on her groin, or, this man is now a female because he has a piece of colon carved on its pelvis. 
The silver lining of this is that it prevents extreme mentally ill from reproducing, as someone would say. But there are innocent people too trapped into these delusions, like kids who where cobbled by the munchie parents just because they wanted to be famous for 5 minutes in their neighbourhood.
So what it is?
My take is that no transgender surgery should be covered by public healthcare, period. I have talked in the past that these surgeries are funded by our public healthcare in a country, while teeth and eyes are not. (We are one of the worst country in matters of vision, a lot of people wear glasses and are expensive) If they say that is not a mental illness, then, why we taxpayers should pay for it? Is like a woman wanting big titties or a man desiring the biggest dong, a pure cosmetic procedure. If someone wants to do that, then go to a private healthcare service. 
And two, no minors should be allowed to do this surgeries, and someone who is 18 and trans since 11 should receive instead counselling and therapy, there is something bigger out there. 
Finally, maybe srs could be illegal, but people find a way to do such things. Drugs like heroine or cocaine are forbidden but people finds a way to pursue them and consume.
What are your thoughts kiwis?


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Aug 24, 2019)

No SRS, only LOL


----------



## Varg Did Nothing Wrong (Aug 24, 2019)

>no transgender surgery should be covered by public healthcare, period 

Agreed. We may as well waste taxpayer money sewing elaborate costumes for people who believe they are Napoleon.


----------



## Recoil (Aug 24, 2019)

I'm of the opinion that self destruction should be allowed. If you own nothing else, you own your meat. Do with it what you will. Drug it, mutilate it, nourish it, cherish it, it's all on you - at least in the dimension of legality.
If you really want to stop people from mutilating themselves, you have to address cultural issues, not lay down legislation that's gonna end up framing dick choppers as rebellious martyrs for daring to defy the law.


----------



## Unog (Aug 24, 2019)

At first I thought the title was asking about ShitRedditSays.

I don't give a fuck if someone wants to get their limbs amputated so long as the state isn't paying for it, they're of age, and people are able to call it mental illness without getting their lives ruined.


----------



## Clop (Aug 24, 2019)

As long as you're 18, do whatever. If you advocate that shit for anyone under the age, you should be labelled a child abuser.


----------



## Pitere pit (Aug 24, 2019)

Unog said:


> At first I thought the title was asking about ShitRedditSays.
> 
> I don't give a fuck if someone wants to get their limbs amputated so long as the state isn't paying for it, they're of age, and people are able to call it mental illness without getting their lives ruined.


Of course ShitRedditSays should be illegal, too much faggotry in there. Like a Chernobyl of SJWism.


----------



## spurger king (Aug 24, 2019)

You've all seen what the procedure actually looks like right? Imo it's fine if a few people don't wanna conform to gender roles or whatever but I find it baffling how SRS is allowed at all. 



Spoiler: Extremely Islamic; consider yourself warned







Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## IN 041 (Aug 24, 2019)

I just don't understand why SRS is so popular. At best all you end up with is a laughable parody of actual genitals.


----------



## byuu (Aug 24, 2019)

Getting sex perverts to castrate themselves does have a certain appeal.


----------



## CheezzyMach (Aug 24, 2019)

Jesus Wept said:


> I just don't understand why SRS is so popular. At best all you end up with is a laughable parody of actual genitals.


Lobotomy was a butcher literally taking a power drill to your head or shoving an icepick under your eye that at best resulted in you becoming a bumbling idiot/at worst a vegetable and it was the defacto treatment of mental illness for 30+ years.

And people used to think you could "cure" homosexuality by drugs/torture or prayer which was still a thing even in the 90s.

Never under estimate the power of delusion and human idiocy.


----------



## Pitere pit (Aug 24, 2019)

Varg Did Nothing Wrong said:


> >no transgender surgery should be covered by public healthcare, period
> 
> Agreed. We may as well waste taxpayer money sewing elaborate costumes for people who believe they are Napoleon.


It is pretty insane how these surgeries are founded in my country. But, to the deception of troons, you must live at least one year as your opposite sex, self id is banned here, and then they will give you hormones. Seriously guys, dental and eye plan are not covered in my country and happens far more than troonism. And that's what the podemos guys talk about, they would make self id legal. 
And if they aren't mentally ill, then why the heck should we cover it? The idea of tranny surgeries funded by our taxes come from HSTS transexuals in the 80s and the homosexual persecution that took place in Franco's years, but, this is not the case anymore. With the economic crisis suffered 10 years ago, a lot of families didn't care about gender feelings, but now there is a trend growing of ROGD teens. Is not as bad as Canada, as they have a law that says that if a family says no to transition they lost custody, but in a future it will be if the powers that might be let it happen.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Aug 24, 2019)

In all SRSness, it should be highly discouraged and only used in extreme cases, but I feel like it needs to be kept legal because it's still the better option than some fool cutting his dick off with a rusty hacksaw or something


----------



## Nykysnottrans (Aug 24, 2019)

No, it should not be illegal because people who are intersex should have the right to be binary if they want to or to disassociate themselves from the sex they were raised as. I used to follow a transwoman on Twitter who was intersex (had both male and female genitalia, I don't know what their DNA was) and was raised as boy, but she later decided to go through life as a woman and had SRS at 18. I would not want to deny such an intersex person the right to change their sex. I don't think it's ethical to force an intersex person to be intersex if they don't want to. Claire Graham (a British intersex woman who fights the SJW troon cult online) in a Livestream interview with Benjamin Boyce and Miranda Yardley gave the example of an intersex woman with internal testes which would trigger androgenizing effects and said that such an intersex woman should have a right to have her testes removed if she doesn't want the androgenizing effects. This is a great example why this kind of surgery should not be banned across the board. 

With regards to everyone else, I think adults have a right to do what they want, and the historical record shows that sex change operations were performed before the process was even formalized, let alone legalized, so this suggests to me that certain people will seek out a sex change come hell or high water. I do think it's way too easy to get a sex change nowadays, I am totally against the "informed consent" clusterfuck. I am also against pediatric transition, surgical or pharmaceutical, and consider it a form of child abuse, no different from FGM or circumcision and actually immensely worse. I am very cynical though, I think Pandora's Box has been opened. I don't think we can get this genie back into the bottle again. The best we can hope for at this time is containment or maybe rollback as the transition horror stories accumulate, as eventually happened with the tobacco industry. We're gonna have bury a lot of multilated children and adults in the mean time though.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 24, 2019)

Varg Did Nothing Wrong said:


> We may as well waste taxpayer money sewing elaborate costumes for people who believe they are Napoleon.



Skin costumes.

I was born this way.

Skin reveal party, I was white all along.

----

This is probably a bad idea and would only drive up the price of foreskins.


----------



## CheezzyMach (Aug 24, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> In all SRSness, it should be highly discouraged and only used in extreme cases, but I feel like it needs to be kept legal because it's still the better option than some fool cutting his dick off with a rusty hacksaw or something


That's where I stand on this plus Self ID needs to be thrown in the dumpster yesterday. It enables far too many predators to prey on women/children.


----------



## Get_your_kicks_with_30-06 (Aug 24, 2019)

Its's odd how in every other case of mental illness the cure is to avoid and discourage the delusions brought on by the illness. Except when in comes to transgenderism and gender dysphoria the "cure" is to dive head first into your delusions and strive for them.

It's like giving someone with severe depression and suicidal tendencies a gun, a box of ammo, and then calling them a worthless piece of trash that everyone hates.


----------



## ES 195 (Aug 24, 2019)

I think it should be. Being trans is a mental disorder and it should be treated as such. The person who wants to mutilate themselves should be fully aware of how and why it's wrong and be receiving therapy. We don't encourage amputation for Body Integrity Disorder so I believe we shouldn't for Body Dysphoria or Autogynephilia either.
If they still want to go ahead and do it well that's just dumb and they should live with whatever repercussions occur from their delusions.


----------



## Underestimated Nutria (Aug 24, 2019)

No, but it should be prima facie medical malpractice.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Aug 24, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> In all SRSness, it should be highly discouraged and only used in extreme cases, but I feel like it needs to be kept legal because it's still the better option than some fool cutting his dick off with a rusty hacksaw or something


That just shows that they really want it and also that they're deeply disturbed.


----------



## Takodachi (Aug 24, 2019)

Eh, I don't believe it should be a public healthcare issue. But you should be able to mutilate your own body in anyway you want.


----------



## Nobunaga (Aug 24, 2019)

Might as well start making dresses with tits buffalo bill style


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Aug 24, 2019)

Should cutting off your own limbs be illegal? Should having someone else do it for you be illegal?

Of course not. The libertarian doctrine of the Non-Aggression Principle states that one must not initiate force against another.

A state that prohibits sexual reassignment surgery, or amputation confirmation surgery, violates that.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 24, 2019)

3119967d0c said:


> A state that prohibits sexual reassignment surgery, or amputation confirmation surgery, violates that.



A state violates the non-aggression principle too, considering it's a monopoly on force and you can't fund a modern military without taxes.


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Aug 24, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> A state violates the non-aggression principle too, considering it's a monopoly on force and you can't fund a modern military without taxes.


So true. But we must deal with the most important issues first, those of personal liberty. Sexual reassignment surgery only differs from other issues of freedom, like legalizing incest, in that it does not appear to occur naturally in nature (at least before the transgender animals die and their pink bits are eaten by scavengers).


----------



## GenociderSyo (Aug 24, 2019)

Considering we allow consenting adults to get other types of cosmetic surgery they can do as they please. If it's like that cogntively delayed Down syndrome woman whos parents and doctors chose for it to happen or to minors who have been coerced then the people who did that surgery should be dealt with for malpractice.


----------



## Mrs Paul (Aug 25, 2019)

Eh, if you're a consenting adult, and that's what makes you happy, go for it.  It has no effect on me whatsoever, so I really don't give a shit.


----------



## Mimic (Aug 25, 2019)

It shouldn't be illegal but it should be hard classified as cosmetic surgery and nothing more (except in the rare extreme case such as intersex condition).


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 25, 2019)

3119967d0c said:


> So true. But we must deal with the most important issues first, those of personal liberty. Sexual reassignment surgery only differs from other issues of freedom, like legalizing incest, in that it does not appear to occur naturally in nature (at least before the transgender animals die and their pink bits are eaten by scavengers).



You're wrong. Cushion star, clownfish, parrotfish, water fleas, aftican reed frogs, blue banded goby all change sex under various circumstances.

Incest though rare and having various mechanisms to avoid it, can happen (mouse brother and sister would mate if there are no other non siblings; though if a non-sibling is then introduced, the female mouse will auto-abort and mate with the non-sibling instead).


----------



## Clapping Party (Aug 25, 2019)

I don't think SRS should be illegal but I do think you'd have to be a fucking idiot to get it as is. If I were a troon (shudder) I'd wait until fake pussy surgery was far along enough that it wouldn't start decomposing and it actually looked somewhat like a real vagina instead of a hairy abomination.


----------



## Mrs Paul (Aug 25, 2019)

Look at it this way too:  humans have been messing with their bodies in all kinds of fucked up ways for centuries.  At least in this case you have someone who's a consenting adult who's doing this willingly, seeking out a professional, in a sterile environment.  This isn't like footbinding, FGM, or Chinese eunuchs.  

Someone mentioned lobotomies?  The method was basically take an icepick, jam it through someone's eye socket and swirl around.  The guy who was most famous for it would travel around with a screwdriver in his pocket, and perform them on the go.  And they were done for the flimsiest of reasons.  No tests, or examinations, nothing.  A lot of times it was because the person was an embarassment to the family, and most likely would have grown of their behavior, or could have benefited more from counseling.  (Like poor Rosemary Kennedy)

In fact, I'd be willing to bet more than a few of the victims of this treatment were LGBT.  Very sickening chapter in this history of psychiatry.


----------



## CheezzyMach (Aug 26, 2019)

Mrs Paul said:


> Look at it this way too:  humans have been messing with their bodies in all kinds of fucked up ways for centuries.  At least in this case you have someone who's a consenting adult who's doing this willingly, seeking out a professional, in a sterile environment.  This isn't like footbinding, FGM, or Chinese eunuchs.
> 
> Someone mentioned lobotomies?  The method was basically take an icepick, jam it through someone's eye socket and swirl around.  The guy who was most famous for it would travel around with a screwdriver in his pocket, and perform them on the go.  And they were done for the flimsiest of reasons.  No tests, or examinations, nothing.  A lot of times it was because the person was an embarassment to the family, and most likely would have grown of their behavior, or could have benefited more from counseling.  (Like poor Rosemary Kennedy)
> 
> In fact, I'd be willing to bet more than a few of the victims of this treatment were LGBT.  Very sickening chapter in this history of psychiatry.


Fun fact: That was actually considered the "cleaner" method. The original way it was done was drilling into the skull.

That's also why I consider SRS to be the new age lobotomy you have boys and girls with feminine and masculine * or at least perceived as by quacks* interests being pushed into SRS by online cults and medical quacks who have done everything they can to make SRS easier to get.


----------



## Syaoran Li (Aug 26, 2019)

I think SRS and transition should be illegal for minors.

As for adults who knowingly and consent to such a procedure, I honestly don't know.


----------



## JambledUpWords (Aug 26, 2019)

I’d say they should be able to do it. Tax payers shouldn’t have to fund it though. The more people who try this over time will make it more unpopular. That said, puberty blockers and giving hormones to kids should be banned. Adults should deal with the consequences of their choices though. Hopefully with more unpopularity from the many errors from SRS, it will make people realize how bad it truly is. It might take decades however. I long for a day when this practice is viewed the same way as lobotomies.


----------



## CheezzyMach (Aug 26, 2019)

Syaoran Li said:


> I think SRS and transition should be illegal for minors.
> 
> As for adults who knowingly and consent to such a procedure, I honestly don't know.


The only issue I have with adults getting this procedure is the mentally vulnerable.

Well that and the perverts and failures using it to force themselves on women's spaces.

Personally I agree with Progking this procedure should be heavily discouraged and only used as a last resort for medical treatment of GD and the risks/actual results should be fully and bluntly disclosed before the procedure is done.

As a cosmetic surgery though? Meh no different from a bimbo getting a set of bolt ons. If people wanna fuck their bodies up not my business.


----------



## GenociderSyo (Aug 26, 2019)

JambledUpWords said:


> Tax payers shouldn’t have to fund it though.


This is the thing that pisses me off that you can get money for SRS but not other procedures.



Spoiler: Slight Powerlevel



I had to have a hemangioma removed because it kept bursting and bleeding all over. It was not covered by insurance since it was "cosmetic" to have it removed.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Aug 26, 2019)

I think they say that over half of surgery patients regret it, so it seems logical to ban it on those grounds.



ProgKing of the North said:


> In all SRSness, it should be highly discouraged and only used in extreme cases, but I feel like it needs to be kept legal because it's still the better option than some fool cutting his dick off with a rusty hacksaw or something



This is a fair point. There's a question to be raised of which is worse, having more trannies or having trannies butcher themselves. But definitely needs considering.


----------



## MaoBigDong (Aug 26, 2019)

Let everyone do whatever they want to their body and have the taxpayers pay for it fuck it. If y’all wanna get an arm chopped off be my guest just be prepared to deal with the aftercare needed and don’t bitch and moan because you made a stupid decision and regret it. Turn me into a fucking cyborg and if it ain’t workin out just throw me into the sun.

That reminds me, legalize euthanasia too since so many fake trannies are going to off themselves after they obliterate their greasy cock and balls.


----------



## Positron (Aug 26, 2019)

It should not be illegal, but
1)  There should be stringent guideline on the selection of cases.
2)  Non surgical treatment of gender confusion, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, must be encouraged before surgery is on the table.
3)  The medical community must be upfront about what they are doing.  No stupid euphemisms like "gender reaffirmation surgery" or "neovagina".  You are doing "penile reduction and perineal invagination".
3)  And of course, no taxpayers money, except in a handful of cases in training hospitals where rookie surgeons learn to make sashimi out of geoduck clams.



Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> I think they say that over half of surgery patients regret it, so it seems logical to ban it on those grounds.


On the contrary regret rates seems to be very very low, at least according to the large Amsterdam series.  But keep in mind that the troons in this studies are mostly pre-internet trannies.   How are today's ROGDs different from them is anyone's guess.


----------



## Annoying Thick Bitch (Aug 26, 2019)

3119967d0c said:


> Should cutting off your own limbs be illegal? Should having someone else do it for you be illegal?
> 
> Of course not. The libertarian doctrine of the Non-Aggression Principle states that one must not initiate force against another.
> 
> A state that prohibits sexual reassignment surgery, or amputation confirmation surgery, violates that.



So what happens when my hypothetical Mum gets to a stage in her mental condition where she starts to bang her head against the wall?  Do I just stand there and use the "Non-Aggression Principle"?


----------



## Bi Eraser (Aug 26, 2019)

On the one hand, it's a example of horrific forever mutilation but on the other it's self inflicted done with a legally defined sound mind by a (hopefully) legitimate doctor. Although seeing some of the results I'm not so sure about that last bit, but at the very least they provide more jobs to the field of medical reconstruction and also may act as a testing ground for reconstructive techniques so economically I guess let em, but morally I'd say also let them because they deserve to have the freedom to dismember themselves and such, but they should not be covered by insurance and other health care systems, should be 100% self funded.


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Aug 26, 2019)

Annoying Thick Bitch said:


> So what happens when my hypothetical Mum gets to a stage in her mental condition where she starts to bang her head against the wall?  Do I just stand there and use the "Non-Aggression Principle"?


Yes. The rights of the individual cannot be overridden by societal needs, or family feeling.


----------



## Manwithn0n0men (Aug 26, 2019)

Pitere pit said:


> It is pretty insane how these surgeries are founded in my country. But, to the deception of troons, you must live at least one year as your opposite sex, self id is banned here, and then they will give you hormones. Seriously guys, dental and eye plan are not covered in my country and happens far more than troonism. And that's what the podemos guys talk about, they would make self id legal.



That USED to be the standard here


----------



## DoodleBerry (Aug 27, 2019)

I feel that in the very rare case of a person being born truly "intersex" (with definite sets of two sexual organs), SRS should be performed after a long period of therapy which leads to a conclusion of a definite gender predilection and a medical determination.

What I feel is happening now is that mentally ill, unhappy and confused people are jumping on the bandwagon of what they somehow feel is a societal acceptance of exceptionally different people because they need a sense of belonging. This is leading to a booming business for some medical "professionals" who should be under higher scrutiny due to the mental states ofbthe patients they agree to mutilate in order to "fix" disordered gender identity.


----------



## Terrorist (Aug 27, 2019)

Yes. 

If their gender retardation is really that important to them, they can simply get the surgery for probably cheaper in another country where it’s allowed. Which will stop most of them from transitioning, because trannies are ultimately a bunch of lazy faggots doing it mostly for attention.


----------



## Neozeonian (Aug 27, 2019)

SRS is malpractice so, no, a licensed doctor should not be allowed to do it. Same goes for HRT unless you are trying to normalize your natural sex hormones. Hopefully we'll look at trannyism in a few years the way we look at lobotomy now.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Aug 27, 2019)

I don't think they should be legal.

I believe the Hippocratic Oath is still taken that demands Doctors do no harm, which SRS procedures at the current time does because changing sex is not physically possible at the moment and all the data suggests deeply and profoundly negative outcomes are highly likely.

(I'm aware that the Hippocratic argument is this same one often used to justify banning abortion, but they forget that the mother and not the fetus is the patient and it does her a great deal of good.)


----------



## queerape (Aug 29, 2019)

Adults should be allowed to do whatever they want to their body, as they are more capable of understanding the risks.  Children on the other hand, should not have any surgery done, and it should be a crime to counsel or a abet a minor to get SRS while underage.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Aug 30, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> I don't think they should be legal.
> 
> I believe the Hippocratic Oath is still taken that demands Doctors do no harm, which SRS procedures at the current time does because changing sex is not physically possible at the moment and all the data suggests deeply and profoundly negative outcomes are highly likely.
> 
> (I'm aware that the Hippocratic argument is this same one often used to justify banning abortion, but they forget that the mother and not the fetus is the patient and it does her a great deal of good.)


Should cosmetic surgery be outlawed?  Beyond extreme reconstructive cases, it causes permanent harm with a high chance of complications for mere vanity. 
Should doctors be morally opposed to alcohol?  It causes long-term harm and is a poison that is consumed for foolish pleasure.


----------



## Stoneheart (Aug 30, 2019)

first a lobotomy than castration by cutting off the dick.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Aug 30, 2019)

Stoneheart said:


> first a lobotomy than castration by cutting off the dick.


>Let's physically and mentally mutilate a minority group/the mentally ill because fuck them
Woke.


----------



## Stoneheart (Aug 30, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> >Let's physically and mentally mutilate a minority group/the mentally ill because fuck them
> Woke.


Thats a big step for a german... we tried it the old fashion way... #Dieselgate


----------



## Genkoda (Aug 30, 2019)

Long as it is not covered by health insurance and the person in question is at least 18(I would say 25 since that is when the brain typically stops developing, but that would be very unpopular)


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Aug 30, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Should cosmetic surgery be outlawed?  Beyond extreme reconstructive cases, it causes permanent harm with a high chance of complications for mere vanity.



In my perfect world where I as supreme overlord could ban whatever I liked? I would ban it beyond reconstructive surgery for the deformed or victims of accidents. You ain't a great beauty, so what neither are most of us and neither are many of the so-called beauties once the honey lights and filters are off.  The beauty of the kind of say Grace Kelly is rare, and that can't be replicated with surgery (yet) anyway so in my mind the effort is futile.

That said, while it does have the potential to be as lethal and damaging as SRS such as in the case of the "Human Ken Doll" Rodrigo Alves who's near enough a shambling zombie at this point (several body parts are apparently at risk of literally "falling off") this is the extreme rather than the norm. 

The more normal and minor procedures do carry minor risks such as infection normal to any surgery, but they do not fundamentally damage a person. A woman who alters her nose to allay her fears of ugliness might be better treated in other ways I agree, but it is not as fundamentally destructive as literally neutering themselves for no net gain. I can't say cosmetic surgery doesn't have a net gain however because many a young lady has gained quite a lot through plastic tits and rear enhancements wheras most of the studies from Dr Money onward demonstrate that the gender dysphoria is rarely ever cured, and indeed SRS often amplifies the trauma.



Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Should doctors be morally opposed to alcohol?  It causes long-term harm and is a poison that is consumed for foolish pleasure.



In an ideal world yes, we would all make healthy choices that maximize efficiency. 

There's a difference between a bad habit that the doctor doesn't actually have a hand in vs mutilation that has been proven beyond doubt at this point to cause more problems than it actually solves. 

Your first example is a procedure that has the potential to do a lot of good but is employed for bad reasons, and the second is just a health reccomendation the doctor can't do much about either way. SRS is as of writing is about as effective as trying to graft on an extra set of limbs from a corpse.


----------



## Gustav Schuchardt (Aug 30, 2019)

Trannies should be made to pit fight and the survivors only given SRS when the viewers have donated enough to pay for it.

"Two men enter! One man leaves!"


----------



## Gravityqueen4life (Aug 30, 2019)

let them remove themselves from the gen pool. just age restrict it so Children wont be harmed.


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Aug 30, 2019)

Pitere pit said:


> It is pretty insane how these surgeries are founded in my country. But, to the deception of troons, you must live at least one year as your opposite sex, self id is banned here, and then they will give you hormones.


Civilised countries like Iran only allow sexual reassignment surgery in cases where the victim has indicated a true and honest desire to be of the opposite sex- i.e. being a homosexual.


----------



## I wanna Cum Daddy (Aug 30, 2019)

I think it should be because of the anecdotal statements trannies who've done it have made, as well as the higher suicide rate post-surgery and the massive regret after they realize their tranny vagina is just a giant wound that expels pus and requires dilation.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Aug 30, 2019)

3119967d0c said:


> Civilised countries like Iran only allow sexual reassignment surgery in cases where the victim has indicated a true and honest desire to be of the opposite sex- i.e. being a homosexual.


You can like dick while being okay with your own.


----------



## annoyingfuck (Aug 31, 2019)

Terrorist said:


> Yes.
> 
> If their gender exceptionalism is really that important to them, they can simply get the surgery for probably cheaper in another country where it’s allowed. Which will stop most of them from transitioning, because trannies are ultimately a bunch of lazy faggots doing it mostly for attention.



Actually if you spend enough time pursing the trans subs on reddit you'll find that that is exactly what they are doing. They are going to places like Thailand (don't quote me on that, can't remember exactly right now), they even have names for the surgeons that perform the surgery, that are along the lines of who can make the perfect snatch.
It also doesn't cost as much as you think it might. I'm pretty sure I saw $4k spoken about.


----------



## annoyingfuck (Aug 31, 2019)

3119967d0c said:


> Civilised countries like Iran only allow sexual reassignment surgery in cases where the victim has indicated a true and honest desire to be of the opposite sex- i.e. being a homosexual.



Yes but just as in the religious conservative parent cases, that's it's better to have a daughter/son that was a son/daughter, than have a gay child. Homophobia is alive and well all over the world, not just in muslim countries.


----------



## annoyingfuck (Aug 31, 2019)

Gustav Schuchardt said:


> Trannies should be made to pit fight and the survivors only given SRS when the viewers have donated enough to pay for it.
> 
> "Two men enter! One man leaves!"



You mean one woman surely...


----------



## Gustav Schuchardt (Aug 31, 2019)

annoyingfuck said:


> You mean one woman surely...



Well it would be one man leaves up to the point you'd raised the cash for SRS from donations after necessary deductions, like the gruel you fed them on (initially $100 per serving later is increased to $200 with no explanation), board and lodging in the ergastulum ($2000 a day), fines for unenthusiastic performances ($20,000), fines for overly enthusiastic performances ($20,000), miscellaneous blatantly unfair fees levied for the amusement of the fans and to make them have to fight for another whole year (varies).


----------



## ZG 241 (Aug 31, 2019)

Gustav Schuchardt said:


> Trannies should be made to pit fight and the survivors only given SRS when the viewers have donated enough to pay for it.
> 
> "Two men enter! One man leaves!"


That would result in all the daintier trannies, the ones that have been bullied for being feminine and faggots their entire lives getting killed by the Macho Ma'am Tranny Savages, eliminating all those who have a fighting chance of passing and leaving only the big hulking ogres. That said, it's not necessarily a bad thing. If the majority of troons are terrifying, violent quarterbacks, the tide will turn against them a little quicker.


----------



## Gustav Schuchardt (Aug 31, 2019)

bitchtitsdontcount said:


> That would result in all the daintier trannies, the ones that have been bullied for being feminine and faggots their entire lives getting killed by the Macho Ma'am Tranny Savages, eliminating all those who have a fighting chance of passing and leaving only the big hulking ogres. That said, it's not necessarily a bad thing. If the majority of troons are terrifying, violent quarterbacks, the tide will turn against them a little quicker.



This is an excellent point. You'd need a form of contest where the Blaire White type True and Honest transwomen beat the Yaniv types.

Not that I'd send Ms White to The Games of course or indeed anyone else, in fact I'm not sure why I mentioned it. Now if you'll excuse me I've got a Space Colosseum to construct and gene spliced Super Velociraptors to order.


----------



## AF 802 (Aug 31, 2019)

Yes, all of it.

If you would've asked me in 2015, I might've said no, but now that since I'm supposed to acknowlege that transwomen are bioligically women or lose my ability to live a normal life, I've become redpilled and now believe trans people (especially the MtFs) really should have it taken away from them until they stop believing that it changes their gender chromosomes to have hormones injected into them.


----------



## Bum Driller (Aug 31, 2019)

Such procedures should be legal, but only when performed to sane and balanced adults and only if no tax-payer money is used in making them. However, what is more important in my opinion is that they should not be called SRS, but rather some kind of cosmetic surgery. We should make it very clear to everyone that you're not really changing your gender/sex by getting these operations performed to you, as such is impossible with our current level of technology and scientific know-how. If things drastically change and we can at some point literally rewrite living humans chromosomal make-up, then my opinion on this subject is bound to be re-evaluated, but I don't suspect such to happen anytime soon.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 31, 2019)

Bum Driller said:


> Such procedures should be legal, but only when performed to sane and balanced adults and only if no tax-payer money is used in making them. However, what is more important in my opinion is that they should not be called SRS, but rather some kind of cosmetic surgery. We should make it very clear to everyone that you're not really changing your gender/sex by getting these operations performed to you, as such is impossible with our current level of technology and scientific know-how. If things drastically change and we can at some point literally rewrite living humans chromosomal make-up, then my opinion on this subject is bound to be re-evaluated, but I don't suspect such to happen anytime soon.



For someone who frequently gives what I consider stupid ratings to various people's posts, this is a remarkably thoughtful position.


----------



## Apis mellifera (Feb 6, 2022)

It shouldn't be illegal, it is a man's god-given right to exercise free will and do what he will with his own life and fleshy body, same as I have the free will to theoretically pick up a hammer and repeatedly smash my left hand with it.  I wouldn't ever do such a thing because that sounds incredibly stupid and I need that hand, but I'm still legally _allowed _to do so.  That said, it should be entirely self-funded (not covered by the dutiful taxpayer) and be presented as it really is, a pretty pisspoor attempt to replicate the appearance of a vagina, which comes with all the risks to be expected of such a major procedure.  

Nanny laws are obnoxious and unnecessary constructions made by the glowies to be able to exercise authority over the common man and make their neon penises feel bigger.  Fuck more unneeded regulation, I want glowies involved in the citizen's private life less, not more, same reason I hate gun control laws and support substance decriminalisation.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Feb 6, 2022)

Apis mellifera said:


> It shouldn't be illegal, it is a man's god-given right to exercise free will and do what he will with his own life and fleshy body, same as I have the free will to theoretically pick up a hammer and repeatedly smash my left hand with it. I wouldn't ever do such a thing because that sounds incredibly stupid and I need that hand, but I'm still legally _allowed _to do so. That said, it should be entirely self-funded (not covered by the dutiful taxpayer) and be presented as it really is, a pretty pisspoor attempt to replicate the appearance of a vagina, which comes with all the risks to be expected of such a major procedure


I think there is a huge distance between not prosecuting people for something "making it illegal" and doing nothing when an entire industry and degenerates that prey on vulnerable young people and results in them being groomed sexually, being coerced into doing irreperable damage to their bodies, and creating ideological media in order to get them to swallow queer ideology. Queer theory after all had almost all of its founders advocate for pedophilia, the founding document defends pedophilia and none of the founders nor any significant amount of its later adherants have diatanced themselves from the pro pedophilia arguments.

Certainly before I saw through all this shit and was in the middle of two queer communities I had started to notice the extreme nonjudgement towards sexual deviancy, but when I discovered that they weren't anti pedophilia, none of the people I knew, I left them all behind in disgust. Discovering later that they didnt deviate from queer theory but were true to its roots was stunning. Their media savviness struck me as well, as they knew how to present themselves very well to make themselves appealing and to not show those kind of things. And there was always a tv, radio program or something that was willing to highlight what they did, no matter how insignificant.

What I'm saying is that it isn't wrong to have opinions or strong opinions on these things. Smoking isnt illegal, but its very good for health that the practice was mostly curbed. Sugar and obesity isnt illegal, but many people could live better lives if more of society was designed for it; which is why americans are so much fatter than other people for example. There is a lot in the public space that can and even should be tweaked. And pro pedo movements that want seduce kids into destroying their bodies should probably be on top of that list.


----------



## Apis mellifera (Feb 6, 2022)

Lemmingwise said:


> I think there is a huge distance between not prosecuting people for something "making it illegal" and doing nothing when an entire industry and degenerates that prey on vulnerable young people and results in them being groomed sexually, being coerced into doing irreperable damage to their bodies, and creating ideological media in order to get them to swallow queer ideology. Queer theory after all had almost all of its founders advocate for pedophilia, the founding document defends pedophilia and none of the founders nor any significant amount of its later adherants have diatanced themselves from the pro pedophilia arguments.
> 
> Certainly before I saw through all this shit and was in the middle of two queer communities I had started to notice the extreme nonjudgement towards sexual deviancy, but when I discovered that they weren't anti pedophilia, none of the people I knew, I left them all behind in disgust. Discovering later that they didnt deviate from queer theory but were true to its roots was stunning. Their media savviness struck me as well, as they knew how to present themselves very well to make themselves appealing and to not show those kind of things. And there was always a tv, radio program or something that was willing to highlight what they did, no matter how insignificant.
> 
> What I'm saying is that it isn't wrong to have opinions or strong opinions on these things. Smoking isnt illegal, but its very good for health that the practice was mostly curbed. Sugar and obesity isnt illegal, but many people could live better lives if more of society was designed for it; which is why americans are so much fatter than other people for example. There is a lot in the public space that can and even should be tweaked. And pro pedo movements that want seduce kids into destroying their bodies should probably be on top of that list.


You have my agreement, obviously.  The topic of the thread is as to whether an independent, adult, presumably intellectually functioning human should be allowed to undergo SRS or otherwise make drastic, and probably stupid, decisions regarding their health, which is all that I chose to comment on.

I do absolutely agree that we should take care to make sure our next generation isn't be groomed into making decisions they can't adequately consent to, but beyond protecting the vulnerable, the general health or relative degeneracy of our overall society doesn't matter much to me.  There will always be degenerate queer people into farting or belly fat, or whatever, and that's their perogative; I don't care much about the private lives or individual decisions of many, unless they are my close IRL family or friends, and as long as I don't have to be involved in it, pop culture can progress in any way it sees fit, even if I personally find it repulsive.  The actions of others are out of my control and it seems to be entirely a waste of time and energy to try to dictate their political persuasion, much less decisions regarding their own body.


----------



## Ilmseil (Feb 6, 2022)

LMAO every single one of these faggots 100% deserves what happens to them for thinking they're God


----------



## Ilmseil (Feb 6, 2022)

Mrs Paul said:


> Look at it this way too:  humans have been messing with their bodies in all kinds of fucked up ways for centuries.  At least in this case you have someone who's a consenting adult who's doing this willingly, seeking out a professional, in a sterile environment.  This isn't like footbinding, FGM, or Chinese eunuchs.
> 
> Someone mentioned lobotomies?  The method was basically take an icepick, jam it through someone's eye socket and swirl around.  The guy who was most famous for it would travel around with a screwdriver in his pocket, and perform them on the go.  And they were done for the flimsiest of reasons.  No tests, or examinations, nothing.  A lot of times it was because the person was an embarassment to the family, and most likely would have grown of their behavior, or could have benefited more from counseling.  (Like poor Rosemary Kennedy)
> 
> In fact, I'd be willing to bet more than a few of the victims of this treatment were LGBT.  Very sickening chapter in this history of psychiatry.


I'd rather be lobotomized than be a faggot


----------



## Hongourable Madisha (Feb 6, 2022)

Apis mellifera said:


> It shouldn't be illegal, it is a man's god-given right to exercise free will and do what he will with his own life and fleshy body, same as I have the free will to theoretically pick up a hammer and repeatedly smash my left hand with it.  I wouldn't ever do such a thing because that sounds incredibly stupid and I need that hand, but I'm still legally _allowed _to do so.  That said, it should be entirely self-funded (not covered by the dutiful taxpayer) and be presented as it really is, a pretty pisspoor attempt to replicate the appearance of a vagina, which comes with all the risks to be expected of such a major procedure.
> 
> Nanny laws are obnoxious and unnecessary constructions made by the glowies to be able to exercise authority over the common man and make their neon penises feel bigger.  Fuck more unneeded regulation, I want glowies involved in the citizen's private life less, not more, same reason I hate gun control laws and support substance decriminalisation.


At what point are you deemed to really have free will, or just compelled by insanity to self-harm?  There's a difference between a terminally ill patient of sound mind carefully choosing euthanasia, and someone committing suicide because they think they're worthless and deserve it, or they think that aliens will blow up the Earth if they don't.

It's certainly debatable, but I think that point where you can be declared mentally ill and unable to give consent is way before you start wanting to have your healthy genitals cut off. There's the social aspect to it too, but it's like any cult that practises self-injury or mass suicide, or more closely, the Skoptsy cult, those people were pretty clearly brainwashed or otherwise fucked in the head and needed psychiatric care and real friends instead of the cult.


----------



## Ilmseil (Feb 6, 2022)

Hongourable Madisha said:


> At what point are you deemed to really have free will, or just compelled by insanity to self-harm?  There's a difference between a terminally ill patient of sound mind carefully choosing euthanasia, and someone committing suicide because they think they're worthless and deserve it, or they think that aliens will blow up the Earth if they don't.
> 
> It's certainly debatable, but I think that point where you can be declared mentally ill and unable to give consent is way before you start wanting to have your healthy genitals cut off. There's the social aspect to it too, but it's like any cult that practises self-injury or mass suicide, or more closely, the Skoptsy cult, those people were pretty clearly brainwashed or otherwise fucked in the head and needed psychiatric care and real friends instead of the cult.


How DARE you tell me not to literally saw off my cock and have a "surgeon" saw a hole in my crotch area then tell me to fuck off as a suppurating wound festers and expels shit and pus while you call me mentally ill???


----------



## Skitzels (Feb 6, 2022)

No, I don’t think it should be illegal but the medical community need to be far more honest about what this procedure actually is, contrary to what TRAs claim. 

It’s surreal to think that just a decade ago, SRS surgeons were far more fourth coming to potential patients about the downsides of SRS surgeries and often made it as clear as day that it’s a cosmetic surgery above all else. Because it’s a cosmetic surgery, it’s not going to look like the real thing; which has the potential to make you more dysphoric than before.

The 41% suicide statistic generally comes from post-op trans people rather than pre-op, contrary to the lies activists tell. Why? Because there’s a lot of trans people who think transitioning will solve all their problems, but in reality the majority of post op end up far worse off than they were before. 

Of course asking for honesty is too much to ask these days


----------



## OlympicFapper (Feb 6, 2022)

Degenerates willingly removing themselves from the gene-pool and permanently destroying their own ability to coom. By their own choice.

What's the problem again?


----------



## Hongourable Madisha (Feb 6, 2022)

Skitzels said:


> No, I don’t think it should be illegal but the medical community need to be far more honest about what this procedure actually is, contrary to what TRAs claim.
> 
> It’s surreal to think that just a decade ago, SRS surgeons were far more fourth coming to potential patients about the downsides of SRS surgeries and often made it as clear as day that it’s a cosmetic surgery above all else. Because it’s a cosmetic surgery, it’s not going to look like the real thing; which has the potential to make you more dysphoric than before.
> 
> ...


People talk shit about the forums, but these surgeons are the real transphobes. The worst we've done is gossip among ourselves and make fun of things that troons put out publicly online, as far as I know no Kiwis have ever done _that_ to someone.


----------



## YourFriendlyLurker (Feb 6, 2022)

In public heathcare? Totally. For minors? Totally. But for deranged adults - no plz. let them do that, I need my daily portion of LUL


----------



## kittyfucker (Feb 6, 2022)

They are going to do it anyways so you may as well have it be provided... lest they do the "shotgun orchiectomy" method...
100% illegal on minors and 100% NOT funded by public healthcare though. It has to be EXTREMELY hard to get into, but still possible - we're talking years long waiting lists and several doctors 'approving' it - and they make sure you are COMPLETELY AWARE of ALL side effects. At that point if you STILL go in and still have your clit/dick inverted... it really is your fault.

People can straight up do coke(?) in those Scandinavian(??) countries, but no one wants to do it because it's easy now and there are so many good resources for quitting/weaning/etc. But, those that do it anyway are safer and better cared for and typically won't die from it. Same logic should apply here but obviously more restricted.


----------



## DiscoRodeo (Feb 6, 2022)

I'd say that it should be legal, for the outliers,

But relative to societal context today, where doctors really dont seem like people who can be trusted to act in their patients favor any more, if a right wing government came in and banned it outright,

they'd do more good in saving more people from this procedure, than they would be doing bad in denying it.

Ideally it does exist and like a decade ago, its a rare choice, but I think that once pandora's box has been opened, its sure as hell hard to close it once more.


----------



## Welsh Catgirl Enjoyer (Feb 6, 2022)

No. But we do need to be really fucking careful with it.

SRS has the potential to be the best decision someone has ever made, or the worst decision they ever made. And can either end up in the patient living a full, happy and healthy life. Or them jumping in front of a train in a couple months when the reality sets in. It should be accessible, but only if it can be demonstrated the patient knows literally everything, the consequences of the surgery, other options have been exhausted, the patient has undergone a clean psychoanalysis and they wait between 6 months and a year so that they do not rush the decision and are not affected by short-term situations that will pass in month or two.

Unfortunately, I fear this position kinda ends up being unpopular with everyone. If you're against SRS, you're going to argue that "none of that matters they're still mental ill people cutting off their cocks", and if you're in support of SRS, you're going to argue that the amount of hoops you need to jump through is excessive and that it just means that a doctor can deny the surgery for the smallest thing.

Though if your immediate response is just "they're mentally ill, fuck them", then I guess that will simplify the answer for many and make things a lot easier.


----------



## Trapitalism (Feb 10, 2022)

Yes. Why destroy something as beautiful as a feminine cock?


----------



## SSj_Ness (Feb 11, 2022)

"Do no harm". That answers that fucking question, ban it and prosecute anyone practicing it.


----------



## Berserk Fury (Mar 16, 2022)

Ethically yes (destroying functional parts is wrong), but logically no (tons of cash to be earned off of these fuckwits).


----------



## Clown Balls (Mar 20, 2022)

I think it ought to be restricted to patients age 20 and over.


----------



## Mayor Adam West (Mar 20, 2022)

I don't think it should be legal at all. This has all gone way too far and we need to actually help these people, not let them mutilate themselves.


----------



## John Freeman (Mar 26, 2022)

Trannies are human beings. Regardless of your views on transgenderism or gender dysphoria, I think we can agree on that. These SRS surgeons are, at best, mad scientists making trannies into their guniea pigs, and at worst masochistic butchers with a medical lisence. They silence criticism and foster a community and culture of censorship via angry mob. 

I think the morals of SRS are unquestionably nonexistent. There’s absolutely nothing ethical about permanently destroying a human body beyond recovery. And they lobby and pay off researchers to bias results and legislation in their favor. Even if they genuinely believe they’re doing the right thing, they aren’t. Hitler genuinely believed the Jews were awful. Doesn’t make what he did okay at all. Yes, I compared SRS surgeons to Hitler. They are equally insane and fascinated with medical experimentation.

Overall, for me it’s a big fat fucking no. If society was at all decent this wouldnt even be a fucking debate. Who’s brilliant idea was it to treat a mental ailment with an irreversible surgery with a 41% failure rate? Trannies need some happy pills and a shrink, not their cock and balls skewered.

Overall, don’t blame trannies. They’re hapless victims of a world that’s constantly pushing this shit on them, and when you’re that desperate you accept drastic options without question. Feel free to hate the angry mob on Twitter who are just assholes, and would be assholes even if they didn’t have their sexual function permanently revoked, but don’t hate the ones who were sold on it by some snake-oil-salesman surgeon. 

So fuck surgeons, and fuck assholes.


----------



## topsikrets (Mar 26, 2022)

Euthanasia>SRS


----------



## Penrowe (Mar 27, 2022)

Éamon de Valera said:


> I don't think it should be legal at all. This has all gone way too far and we need to actually help these people, not let them mutilate themselves.


At this point I'd be comfortable with a policy of total liquidation. Unfortunately some of those you eliminate may not be pedophiles but overall it'd be worth it.


----------



## gang weeder (Mar 27, 2022)

Yes, it should be banned. One of the easiest topics on here.


----------



## Retink (Mar 27, 2022)

Welsh Catgirl Enjoyer said:


> Unfortunately, I fear this position kinda ends up being unpopular with everyone. If you're against SRS, you're going to argue that "none of that matters they're still mental ill people cutting off their cocks", and if you're in support of SRS, you're going to argue that the amount of hoops you need to jump through is excessive and that it just means that a doctor can deny the surgery for the smallest thing.


That's just how things go, people assume there's a one size fits all solution, when in reality most problems need a variety of solutions to meet the varying needs of those who pursue those solutions. 

As for me, I view SRS as a horrifying thing and the amount of shit that goes wrong with it makes me think anyone attempting it is insane. Though at the same time, if someone goes in knowing all of the risks and other bullshit, then it's no business of mine if they want to willing mutilate themselves, but it does become my problem when they try to pass laws that force myself or others to pretend like there's no difference between them and an actual woman.


----------



## neverendingmidi (Mar 27, 2022)

I don't care if they pay for it, but it should not be covered by insurance any more than the weird extreme body mods are. No insurance company is going to pay for you to have screw holes put in your skull to swap out different horns, so neither should any be required to pay for this. And I count Medicare/Medicaid/any tax payer funded medical as well.


----------

