What should the penalty be when a 'transgender diagnosis' is wrong?

Let's say a confused young kid (not even old enough to consent to sex, let along gential mutliation) - has the bad luck of being approved for a sex change by an incompetant shrink and his parents - with no actual biological evidence presented, such as a brain scan - all the parents had to do is say "the kid wants to wear a dress" or some nonsense like that to get the A-okay for the proceedure.

So they start injecting him/her with chemicals and drugs to disrupt his/her natural puberty, and then eventually slice off his genitals, attach a fake penis/breast, or whatever.

Then a year or so later the kid realizes it was a mistake - maybe he was just an effiminate gay male, or a young guy into art or music but not into sports, and got picked on in school, and felt like he'd identity more with girls. Or just a tomboyish girl who liked to play football with her brother.

So at that point all you're left with is a "Franken-kid" - like something that managed to escape one of Josef Mengale's labs, who'll never be able to have sex again.

What should the penalties be? Should the doctor be criminally charged? Should the parents be criminally charged? Or should they just get a slap on the wrist for the sake of promotion "diversity" and having a mind as open as Josef Mengale? Discuss.

 

Why does there need to be biological (physical_ evidence to support transgender? Is that a requirement for a sex change in today's' medical profession?

 

Why shouldn't there be? Seeing as the proceedure eventually involves removing genitals, and injecting the patient with chemicals to disrupt their natural bodily functions.

What if there was no biological evidence required for a surgery or amputation? A doctor doesn't need physical evidence of a tumor to amputate an arm or a leg, all that's needed is a psych exam or for the patent to say "my arm hurts" and the doc can just start chopping off limbs? So much for the Hippocratic Oath.

 

Give the "doctor" that made he mistake a sex change!!!!!!

 

I can see plenty of opportunity for abuse if that becomes precedented.

That's why.

And that's equivocation. Biological proof of amputation is severed injury or infection, and is not the same thing for something that's wholly psychological.

I'm sorry, but I will not support biological proof is needed.

We can't even provide biological proof for either heterosexuality OR homosexuality, for that matter, at least as far as I know.

And you know? If our sexual orientation is hardwired by genetic code of some sort, then you know that with the right kinds of technology that genetic code can be messed with and changed around. That means that homosexuality can be "Cured" and so can heterosexuality, and maybe even people having no orientation of any sort. We can change genetic code so that people have no attraction to anything and will only procreate out of duty to help the human species survive.

I'm sorry, but I really don't like that.

I really like looking at attractive naked ladies.

 

That contradicts what the advocates say - they say that biologically the individuals are born with the brain structure of one sex, but the body/genitals of the opposite sex, and this can be shown in brain scans.

If it was "wholly psychological" then the only proper treatment would be therapy, not genital removal.

 

Personally, I think they're full of it. And until I see their actual evidence for this sort of thing...

And as far as therapy goes, what kind of therapy? Do mean therapy to help them accept the sex they were born to or therapy to help them deal with the gender they want to change to?

Oh, and for the record, I don't care if they want to get a sex change.I won't hold it against them and i'm not going to demonize them like the other haters will.

 

Depends on the case. If it was a balatant case of malpractice, then that's ground for losing a license. Otherwise I'm not sure what should happen. There are a lot of things that could have gone wrong.

 

Problem is that you and a lot of other apologists seem to believe that any kid/parent who says "they are transgendered" must be right, even without seeing any evidence.

 

What are you talking about? There's evidence.

 

Horsepatties.

Supporting choice is not an apologist.

Secondly, I would recommend that they see a counselor of some sort to help them be certain that they are transgendered. However, I would not allow them to have a sex change until after the age of 18.

Secondly, I'm getting the gist that you think that a person has to accept the gender they're born with, and must not have a sex change.

 

I support it for adults, not for kids.

I don't believe that the majority of supposedly "transgendered" people fit the diagnosis, I think they just have other psychological disorders and could cure it with therapy as opposed to irreversible surgery

 

That surgery is not irreversible.

 

So how does a kid get his penis back?

 

Penis reattachment surgery.

There have been cases of guys whose girlfriends castrated them and the penis was successfully reattached. But, it is not a simple procedure.

 

What "evidence"?

 

This should never happen to kids because sex change operations should be permitted only after the person is 18.

Some hormonal therapy should be permitted even before that time (puberty delaying drugs), but that is largely reversible and at worst would lead to a slightly more effeminate but otherwise normal male. Thats a risk I am willing to take.

 

Any investigative and criminal process and any set of penalties imposed as a result should be on exactly the same basis as for any other incompetent or flawed clinical diagnosis. The fact you hold a personal moral objection to this field of medical treatment doesn't make the slightest difference.

 

What transgenders say is evidence.

 

No it isn't. If a paranoid schizophrenic says that he's Jesus, that's not "evidence" that he's Jesus - lmao

Evidence is something concrete, like a brain scan proving the alleged brain development - someone "saying something" isn't evidence.

 

You've created a ridiculously unrealistic scenario. Why? And why are you focusing on sex changes for kids? Why not medication, or general surgical procedures? All of these things can have devastating effects with a highly incompetent doctor. Seems like you have an ulterior motive.

And what about kids who aren't diagnosed or treated and SHOULD be? What should be the consequence for THOSE doctors?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/sexchanging-treatment-for_n_1288871.html

btw, actual gender-reassignment surgery doesn't happen until one is an adult:

As for the drugs:

And people who have sex changes are "Franken-Kids?" Could you come up with a more offensive term?

 

Basically they should just not allow such a decision to be made until the person is 18 and of legal age to decide. Does that mean a horrible childhood for those who feel trapped in the so called wrong body? Yes, but so be it, the default should be that your sex is what your body says it is and anything else, you must be over 18 to decide.

 

That's what I believe, the doctors that invented that procedure commited a crime against humanity. They went against the Hypocratic Oath of "Do no harm".

 

So how does this harm a child?

What is the scientific evidence to show that this harms a child? Or anyone else for that matter?

Let me put it to you this way, if the color of you hair made you miserable, wouldn't you want to cchange the color of your hair to one that makes you feel better?

 

If your hair color 'makes you miserable' then you have deeper psychological issues. Changing your hair color won't make you "happy" - but unlike sex change surgery it doesn't involve body mutilation.