Gangleri wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:57 pm
Aquila wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 9:52 amI say this because it seems you only accept views that support your opinion and discard everything that does not.
Are you sure you are not simply projecting your own liberal intolerance on me? If you read my posts carefully without a prejudice, you can see that I have pondered the issue from several different viewpoints and also from a larger point of view (bringing the issue of minors into the discussion, for example), and one can also understand that I'm playing the Devil's Advocate, who has a crucial role to play in the declaration of sainthood.
Discussion is not about considerations that we leave unsaid but what we actually write here. It's pointless if you answer to my or someone else's argument that of course you have considered it and you accept those views and then move on to continue with the same as before without making any visible attempts at showing how you have considered other ideas and what you think about them. Playing the devil's advocate is also somewhat unnecessary if you only bring up opinions you agree with. You can easily express different opinions without taking any roles. Disagreements are allowed and even necessary. Disagreeing with your writings is not about judging you but being critical of some of the things you say.
If you want to discuss the medical ethics behind the issue, you have to define those ethics in some way. Others have no intuitive knowledge of what the said ethics include. How do they work in this situation? How is it possible that other ethics lead to suicide clinics and everyone losing their responsibility and no longer being able to consider other options? Should we place these ethics in some specific context and think that they might not work similarily in other contexts? Gender transition and suicide clinics might follow somewhat different ethics and every situation should be looked at individually like you said. But whatever we decide to use as ethical guidelines, there's always situations they don't work in. Even with ethics that generally work well, there will be mistakes. But if those mistakes are rare and risks are relatively small, it is better than denying the freedom.
You say that human liberty logically leads to suicide clinics (and probably some other ends as well?). The problem with this argument is that you seem to think about human liberty like it was separated from all considerations that humans are able to, from all reactions that our actions will cause and generally from the living situations that life brings us to. It is like saying that if you allow more freedom in the world, people will only start following their blind desires. People are much more nuanced and multileveled than that. They have desires that are in conflict with each other. They have the ability of considering things from rational, emotional, maybe even spiritual points of views. They are well-adapted in accepting some suffering in their lives and not hurrying to suicide clinic to end it before thinking of other options. The same goes with genders and sexes. You don't just book a meeting with the doctor to see if maybe you should have some operation and the doctor immediately takes you to the surgery. After all there is no such thing as complete human liberty. There's always a lot things that keep us from following simple desires, starting from our own selves and continueing to the social situation around us. Such human liberty is a strawman that does not exist and no one can ever achieve it in the way you present it.
I'm completely fine with different opinions and I'm not really interested whether I'm liberal, conservative or something else. I'm interested in what is the best information and knowledge available, what are the most credible arguments AND what potential counter-arguments could either complement or contest them. Most discussions are not about finding the one argument that wins all but searching for complete and nuanced views where it is possible to reach a holistic picture of the issue.
When you wish to present arguments based on science, you can not say that the information you provide is free of ideology and the information others brought up was ideologically biased. With this kind of arguments you can basically say whatever you want and always claim that arguments criticizing yours are ideological, they are projecting liberal intolerance etc. I encourage you to remain sceptical but I know you could do it much better.
I will later return to your example of medical Conan Hulk transition and how it compares in this context. I believe a little closer look at it can bring some beneficial clarity to the topic.