Should SRS be illegal? - Discuss ethics on tranny-self mutilation here.

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Should it be illegal?

  • Nope

    Votes: 34 21.0%

  • Ahem, fuck trannies. Let them do the snip

    Votes: 102 63.0%

  • IDK

    Votes: 26 16.0%
  • Total voters
    162
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.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Character from a movie, Apis mellifera and Kiwisee
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.
 
  • Agree
  • TMI
Reactions: ⚞⛇⚟, Retink, DiscoRodeo and 1 other person
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.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Kiwifarmsname, Apis mellifera and lolcow yoghurt
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: topsikrets
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Apis mellifera
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.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: woduqu, ⚞⛇⚟, SIMIΔN and 2 others
Cow-Lovin' Fool said:
I think it ought to be restricted to patients age 20 and over.
Click to expand...
Reviving an old thread: 25 would actually be better. Nothing permanent should be done unless the person has lived full time as the preferred gender for at least a year, and two years is better.

I am, of course, not talking about people who have chromosomal or hormonal disorders, for which they must be screened for ahead of time.
 
booklover said:
Reviving an old thread: 25 would actually be better.
Click to expand...
Total ban would be even better. There's no reason we should allow doctors to violate the Hippocratic Oath.

booklover said:
Nothing permanent should be done unless the person has lived full time as the preferred gender for at least a year, and two years is better.
Click to expand...
They can't live as the preferred gender for even a second, because you can't change genders.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Kuroyuri and Moopy
At least the ones that are sex pests can't reproduce, and rape is probably harder for those that get the chop. Legalize it, but make it so that they have to pay for everything out of pocket and wait until they are 18-21. Maybe restrict the access that mentally ill people get to it to prevent easily impressionable autists from getting groomed into mutilating themselves.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: woduqu
⚞⛇⚟ said:
At least the ones that are sex pests can't reproduce, and rape is probably harder for those that get the chop. Legalize it, but make it so that they have to pay for everything out of pocket and wait until they are 18-21. Maybe restrict the access that mentally ill people get to it to prevent easily impressionable autists from getting groomed into mutilating themselves.
Click to expand...
This doesn't mean that either party can't sexually abuse them in other ways.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: ⚞⛇⚟
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back