Miles Mathis thinks so … and so do I. I certainly don’t think the state should pay for them, since sex is a behavior issue to me. That means only very rich people can afford them, and they’ve got other things to do with their money.
Where would one find a doctor? Good surgeons get good by repeating the same surgeries thousands of times – so who do they practice on? The more thought one gives this very fringe and distasteful subject, the more it falls apart under scrutiny.
In other words, as highlighted by the Bruce Gender psyOp, its point is to disrupt the orderly way of nature and to create yet another divisive social construct.
No tags for this post.
While we are on the subject—and while I am disbelieving now everything I have been told—I am not so sure that we have been told the truth about sex change operations. Think of it this way: do you really believe trained surgeons are lopping off healthy, undiseased body parts just to suit someone’s body image? Wouldn’t that go against their Hippocratic oath? You know, do no harm. The actual phrase is “noxamvero et maleficium propulsabo”: “I will reject doing harm and mischief”. And yes, doctors still take this oath. I don’t doubt other parts of the story, but it seems strange that our hyperactive legal system would allow doctors to remove healthy genitals for cosmetic reasons. It doesn’t seem like something that would be legal. After all, these procedures are risky. Even straight women have died from botched boob jobs, which would seem to be one of the least invasive procedures. Once you start rebuilding genitals—which, after all, are also the locus of urination—the risk of complications goes way up. Just a few decades ago, they were throwing people in jail for homosexuality, and there are still some very strange laws on the books concerning anal sex between consenting heterosexuals. But we are supposed to believe that the lawmakers have reversed field to the extent that they now allow licensed surgeons to rebuild genitals and re-assign sex? It doesn’t add up. It looks the hectic swing from one species of madness to another, and since we have seen that much of the madness of the past century has been manufactured, I suggest this madness may be as well. Another thing that no one ever questions is the lumping in of transsexuality with homosexuality. We have the LGBT classification, which has never made any sense to me. What does the fourth category have to do with the first three? Most homosexuals are not any more sexually dysphoric than the rest of us. Most gays don’t want to be women, they just want to have sex with men. And most lesbians don’t want to be men. Many seem to be repulsed by men, so why would they wish to be one? I have talked to a lot of gays about this, and most seem as mystified by it as the rest of us. Some have said they don’t like being lumped in with trannies, because it may harm the cause just when they are making progress. A couple even suggested to me that may be the point, which I hadn’t thought of. In other words, what if the movement had been infiltrated with the goal of pushing it too far and creating a backlash? I do see some signs of that, so maybe—like everything else—it is not an accident. Something to think about. Just to be clear, I have nothing against cross-dressing or cross-identifying. Sexually, people can do whatever they wish and not offend me—as long as I don’t have to watch it. But when we see the government underwriting and seeming to promote not only gender re-assignment but radical body surgery, I get suspicious. It doesn’t seem like something the government should be doing, or would be doing, so it strains logic. Also a red flag is the fact that I am not allowed to question this. According to the current rules of social discourse, I am supposed to clap wildly for everything reported in the media as an advance, without looking closely at it. That by itself is a reason to look closely at it.