I think I'd support jail time for this abuse, FWIW (to be fair I've only read the one article). I'm reacting to the gendered reasoning among the poster above. It's bad because it's an unnecessary medical process used (apparently) as a punishment, not because it stole his manhood or whatever.
I'm fine if you're super upset. But if you're MORE upset because of the gendering interaction, that's wrong. The poster above clearly was.
It depends on the motivation, if it was ideologically motivated I would be outraged at the ideology that lead to it and people justifying it, just like I would be outraged at state of high school sports that lead to a coach doing this and people defending that.
But I sort of agree, there is no proof this is ideological (in fact it sounds just as likely that the doctor was experimenting), the other guy is spinning it his way as well - I think you can say that without the need to defend/downplay the action.
Ah, this strikes right at the core of the primary differences underlying American society today.
I don’t care at all what the doctor’s motivations were - I only care about their actions. In this case, those actions were taken without consent and had a significant negative impact on the patient. Whether they “meant well” or either of us agree with their motivation is completely irrelevant to me.
I understand that others see it differently, and that’s fine. My observation is that this disconnect is almost always always unstated and caused a ton of misunderstandings.
> (in fact it sounds just as likely that the doctor was experimenting)
I can think of another prison "doctor" who's known for "experimenting" on unwilling victims. Claiming to be doing experiments, yet without any hint of scientific rigor.
If the claims made in the article are true, this guy belongs in prison no matter his excuse. Whether or not an ideological motivation can be proven or ruled out is completely irrelevant.
I should have put "experimenting" in quotes - just saying there is no evidence this is based on gender ideology so insinuating it is also spinning this in to ideological terms.
> you're MORE upset because of the gendering interaction, that's wrong.
I strongly disagree.
This isn’t about gender as a social construct. This is about a licensed medical professional causing significant changes to a person’s body without their consent.
Completely irrespective of how an individual perceives their own gender, that perception is a core part of who they are. So yes - I am absolutely more upset about this because of the “gendering interaction”. I would be equally upset if this person saw themselves as asexual or androgynous and was administered sex hormones without their consent.
I'm fine if you're super upset. But if you're MORE upset because of the gendering interaction, that's wrong. The poster above clearly was.