Breaking News Trans Activists Breach Oklahoma Capitol

[Cherico]

Do you not see an inherent moral problem with this kind of self-destruction?

No.

Sometimes you have to let the chainsaw of natural selection do its job. Like when a preditor eats a smaller stupider animal you have to let nature cruel as it is do its job. That said children should be off limits to these kinds of operations for very obvious reasons.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

We are not talking about someone doing something to their own body.

We are talking about someone doing something destructive to someone else's body.

I believe it is immoral to mutilate yourself because you're pursuing an insane dream. It is your body however, and even if it is immoral, you have ownership over your own body, so you generally get to do what you like with it.

It's quite a different thing for someone else to do that to your body.

Now please answer the question; do you not see an inherent moral problem with this kind of self-destruction?

putting in my two cents, IF the person is given the full truth about what is likley to happen then I'd rather people have the option to harm themselves (or ask for a procedure that would harm them) than not and this is for one reason and one reason only. If government can control what you do with your body, what other aspects can they control a lot of the pro-abortion people (Who weren't clueless hypocrites) found themselves running into this wall when it came to dealing with anti-vaxers. It's not a slippery slope anymore. the powers that be have shown "Give them an inch they will take a mile" I refer to this quote from Demolition Man

"See, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy. Cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind if guy who wants to sit in a greasy spoon and think, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in a non-smoking section. I wanna run through the streets naked with green Jello all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to. Okay, pal? I've seen the future, you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sittin' around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake singing "I'm an Oscar-Meyer Wiener"

Except it's not just a 47-year-old virgin sittin' around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake singing "I'm an Oscar-Meyer Wiener" It's persecution, imprisonment and death for anyone who is not lock step with the political trends. today they will demand you worship (Thier version of) God. Tomorrow they will demand you worship Satan....oh wait it's already tommorow.

 

[LordsFire]

Except it's not just a 47-year-old virgin sittin' around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake singing "I'm an Oscar-Meyer Wiener" It's persecution, imprisonment and death for anyone who is not lock step with the political trends. today they will demand you worship (Thier version of) God. Tomorrow they will demand you worship Satan....oh wait it's already tommorow.

And this is why the concept of limited government is so important. The government is not the arbitrator of all morality in society, it is not its job to enforce all moral law and punish every moral infraction.

However, permanently crippling someone is a pretty serious thing to do. I do think it is something that can fall within the purview of government to punish someone for doing that.

Obviously exceptions made for things like emergency amputations of gangrenous limbs, etc.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Ha! Trans Lives Matter.

So who's lives matter more? Who should we prioritize in protecting and saving? Trans or Black lives?

Gonna gettem to say All Lives Matter

They won't fall for that for a simple reason, chant "White Lives Matter" at these crowds and they'll throw a hissy fit. Hypocrisy is their number one tactic and it works VERY well for them.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

However, permanently crippling someone is a pretty serious thing to do. I do think it is something that can fall within the purview of the government to punish someone for doing that.

Considering how our government has managed to stretch the words "Phobia" "Violence" and "Hate Crime" I don't trust them to define crippling someone. "Do we make being fat a crime as that can be defined as crimpling yourself? What about socially or emotionally crippling someone, don't you dare homeschool your kids or let them watch cartoons. Oh and let's not forget the most heinous form of crippling economic crippling. don't you know inequality is violence, comrade? into the gas chambers with you.

Nah I'm at the point where I'd much rather nature take its natural course than trust a bureaucratic government. I wouldn't trust them with keeping sand in the Sahara desert.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Depriving people of human rights is illegal. Everywhere. It's international law.

Nitpick but the people who made 'international law' are also the same people who think that you are the 'carbon that needs to be reduced'.

I can hardly say they're in the interest of flawless morals or legality.

But it does raise the question of "What do you actually do with people who want your entire civilization to either be subverted or destroyed?"

I'm not even going to try to answer such a risky question but alas it remains.

 

[Abhorsen]

We are talking about someone doing something destructive to someone else's body.

With both people's consent. There's 100% a problem using violence to stop this.

I believe it is immoral to mutilate yourself because you're pursuing an insane dream. It is your body however, and even if it is immoral, you have ownership over your own body, so you generally get to do what you like with it.

It's quite a different thing for someone else to do that to your body.

It's only different if someone does it without consent.

Now please answer the question; do you not see an inherent moral problem with this kind of self-destruction?

No. How is it morally different than other plastic surgeries people get, which make one look absurd (like Madonna?). Take Blaire White. She's done all the surgeries but the bottom one, and takes horomones. Which of her surgeries was immoral to you, and why isn't it immoral for a woman to get the same surgeries, and then on what moral basis should government step in to stop this?

You are protecting no one's rights when the government stops this. In fact, you are violating them. You are violating someone's ability to choose what is done to them, and violating another's right to work (do consensual surgeries) without government interference.

What you are proposing is simply a nanny state of the Right, despite your supposed belief in limited government.

 

[DarthOne]

With both people's consent. There's 100% a problem using violence to stop this.

It's only different if someone does it without consent.


No. How is it morally different than other plastic surgeries people get, which make one look absurd (like Madonna?). Take Blaire White. She's done all the surgeries but the bottom one, and takes horomones. Which of her surgeries was immoral to you, and why isn't it immoral for a woman to get the same surgeries, and then on what moral basis should government step in to stop this?

You are protecting no one's rights when the government stops this. In fact, you are violating them. You are violating someone's ability to choose what is done to them, and violating another's right to work (do consensual surgeries) without government interference.

What you are proposing is simply a nanny state of the Right, despite your supposed belief in limited government.

No, what we propose is not enabling people who are mentally unwell. It’s no different then refusing someone with body dysmorphia who wants their legs cut off or something.

 

[Rocinante]

With both people's consent. There's 100% a problem using violence to stop this.

It's only different if someone does it without consent.


No. How is it morally different than other plastic surgeries people get, which make one look absurd (like Madonna?). Take Blaire White. She's done all the surgeries but the bottom one, and takes horomones. Which of her surgeries was immoral to you, and why isn't it immoral for a woman to get the same surgeries, and then on what moral basis should government step in to stop this?

You are protecting no one's rights when the government stops this. In fact, you are violating them. You are violating someone's ability to choose what is done to them, and violating another's right to work (do consensual surgeries) without government interference.

What you are proposing is simply a nanny state of the Right, despite your supposed belief in limited government.

The concern here, is that perhaps the person consenting is not mentally fit to consent to their body being mutilated.

I say this as someone who has seen these surgeries both help and destroy people personally. I say this as someone who tends to lean toward your opinion on this, that consenting adults should be able to do as they please.

It's something to consider, though.

My issues with trans insanity is doing this to children and the issues with sports/restrooms and enforcing pronouns, things like that.

If an adult wants to get breast implants and chop their nuts off, I don't give a fuck.

Though we should be considering some kind of method to determine if these people are sane enough to actually consent. I'm not sure how that would work, so at this time, I will categorize it as a discussion that needs to be had.

 

[King Arts]

We are not talking about someone doing something to their own body.

We are talking about someone doing something destructive to someone else's body.

I believe it is immoral to mutilate yourself because you're pursuing an insane dream. It is your body however, and even if it is immoral, you have ownership over your own body, so you generally get to do what you like with it.

It's quite a different thing for someone else to do that to your body.

Now please answer the question; do you not see an inherent moral problem with this kind of self-destruction?

If someone has ownership of their body and gives consent to someone else to destroy their property how is it a problem. If I went and hit your car with my baseball bat I would be violating your rights. But if you said I could then it wouldn't be a crime. Your standards of "limited government" are inconsistent. I mean if you were consistent you would either go with Abhorsen's libertarianism that let's them do it as it's completely their choice, OR you'd go with a more traditional Christian approach of where you actually don't have ownership of your body it's more like on loan from God. Same reason why Christians oppose suicide.

putting in my two cents, IF the person is given the full truth about what is likley to happen then I'd rather people have the option to harm themselves (or ask for a procedure that would harm them) than not and this is for one reason and one reason only. If government can control what you do with your body, what other aspects can they control a lot of the pro-abortion people (Who weren't clueless hypocrites) found themselves running into this wall when it came to dealing with anti-vaxers. It's not a slippery slope anymore. the powers that be have shown "Give them an inch they will take a mile" I refer to this quote from Demolition Man



Except it's not just a 47-year-old virgin sittin' around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake singing "I'm an Oscar-Meyer Wiener" It's persecution, imprisonment and death for anyone who is not lock step with the political trends. today they will demand you worship (Thier version of) God. Tomorrow they will demand you worship Satan....oh wait it's already tommorow.

Yeah this is a good argument for a live and let live approach. Because even if we use force to make them live a Christian life if in their hearts they hate it and resent it they won't be saved and all our effort would be wasted. I might be willing to tolerate letting them do that so that we won't be at each others throats as long as they did not try to convert and spread for lack of a better world.

With both people's consent. There's 100% a problem using violence to stop this.

It's only different if someone does it without consent.


No. How is it morally different than other plastic surgeries people get, which make one look absurd (like Madonna?). Take Blaire White. She's done all the surgeries but the bottom one, and takes horomones. Which of her surgeries was immoral to you, and why isn't it immoral for a woman to get the same surgeries, and then on what moral basis should government step in to stop this?

You are protecting no one's rights when the government stops this. In fact, you are violating them. You are violating someone's ability to choose what is done to them, and violating another's right to work (do consensual surgeries) without government interference.

What you are proposing is simply a nanny state of the Right, despite your supposed belief in limited government.

I mean Blair White has mutilated his body he is a man who LOOKS like a cute girl but is not actually a cute girl. He does not have a working vagina can't be impregnated, doesen't menstruate etc. Looking at everything from a purely materialistic perspective the face surgery, and boob job those are just cosmetic and you can make the argument that it's not mutilation and it's not any diffrent from women who get that to look how they want(I disagree with all cosmetic surgery and believe that natural way is best and cosmetic surgery is kinda vain unless you have severe disfigurement or you had acid thrown on your face and you can't go out in public looking normal anymore.) However SRS the bottom one is mutilation it's removing a functioning organ and replacing it with a simulcra(a badly made one at that) of nature/God's perfection. You aren't switching from a penis that can get a woman pregnant to a vagina that can be impregnated by a man. You are removing a natural function to put in place something that looks like what the half of humanity has but you don't actually have it. As for hormones your body is a finely tuned machine hormone levels can fuck you up female hormones going to men will alter them make them weaker etc.

I do respect your libertarianism however since it IS consistent even though it's the opposite of my beliefs just like with Muslims and Islam I disagree with them but I can respect the seriousness of other's beliefs.

 

[Abhorsen]

No, what we propose is not enabling people who are mentally unwell. It’s no different then refusing someone with body dysmorphia who wants their legs cut off or something.

And this is also wrong? Again, if the person is otherwise sane, just hates there left leg that much, then sure, why shouldn't they have the right to have it cut off, if they can get a surgeon to agree to do it? It isn't your business.

Understand my bar for someone stepping in and using force to stop this is a person who's gone full crazy (delusions, voices in head, etc), not someone who willingly goes to therapy and asks, knowing what they are asking for and the likely end result.

The concern here, is that perhaps the person consenting is not mentally fit to consent to their body being mutilated.

I say this as someone who has seen these surgeries both help and destroy people personally. I say this as someone who tends to lean toward your opinion on this, that consenting adults should be able to do as they please.

It's something to consider, though.

My issues with trans insanity is doing this to children and the issues with sports/restrooms and enforcing pronouns, things like that.

If an adult wants to get breast implants and chop their nuts off, I don't give a fuck.

Though we should be considering some kind of method to determine if these people are sane enough to actually consent. I'm not sure how that would work, so at this time, I will categorize it as a discussion that needs to be had.

Agreed. Kids cannot consent, to sex or surgery or hormones. An adult, however, can.

As for not being medically capable of consent, you have to be a lot crazier than just dysphoria. Yes, this will result in detransition and regret. But that's life: people do stupid shit. The government does not exist to protect people from their own bad decisions.

I mean Blair White has mutilated his body he is a man who LOOKS like a cute girl but is not actually a cute girl. He does not have a working vagina can't be impregnated, doesen't menstruate etc. Looking at everything from a purely materialistic perspective the face surgery, and boob job those are just cosmetic and you can make the argument that it's not mutilation and it's not any diffrent from women who get that to look how they want(I disagree with all cosmetic surgery and believe that natural way is best and cosmetic surgery is kinda vain unless you have severe disfigurement or you had acid thrown on your face and you can't go out in public looking normal anymore.) However SRS the bottom one is mutilation it's removing a functioning organ and replacing it with a simulcra(a badly made one at that) of nature/God's perfection. You aren't switching from a penis that can get a woman pregnant to a vagina that can be impregnated by a man. You are removing a natural function to put in place something that looks like what the half of humanity has but you don't actually have it. As for hormones your body is a finely tuned machine hormone levels can fuck you up female hormones going to men will alter them make them weaker etc.

Here's the thing, you can believe all of the above, and also believe it's Blaire White's right to transition (not it being provided for her free of charge, but for her to pay someone willing to do it, and that person doing it). Basically, it's not the job of the government to nanny state you.

I do respect your libertarianism however since it IS consistent even though it's the opposite of my beliefs just like with Muslims and Islam I disagree with them but I can respect the seriousness of other's beliefs.

Thanks! What view do you have of government in regards to this, that allows the government to step in and use violence to stop this?

 

[LordsFire]

With both people's consent. There's 100% a problem using violence to stop this.

It's only different if someone does it without consent.


No. How is it morally different than other plastic surgeries people get, which make one look absurd (like Madonna?). Take Blaire White. She's done all the surgeries but the bottom one, and takes horomones. Which of her surgeries was immoral to you, and why isn't it immoral for a woman to get the same surgeries, and then on what moral basis should government step in to stop this?

You are protecting no one's rights when the government stops this. In fact, you are violating them. You are violating someone's ability to choose what is done to them, and violating another's right to work (do consensual surgeries) without government interference.

What you are proposing is simply a nanny state of the Right, despite your supposed belief in limited government.

And this is why 'pure' Libertarianism will never be a meaningful political force. You do not seem to be able to comprehend that it is inherently good for a person to have a healthy, fully-functional body, and that anything that violates that is to at least some degree bad, even if different levels of it can be justified for different reasons.

Further, you seem to be completely unaware of the problem of people being coerced into giving 'consent', corrupt members of the medical establishment who make their money doing certain things lying about it, and the root problem of if you are insane enough to want to mutilate your body for no good reason, you are not sane enough to give consent for someone else to do so.

If someone has ownership of their body and gives consent to someone else to destroy their property how is it a problem. If I went and hit your car with my baseball bat I would be violating your rights. But if you said I could then it wouldn't be a crime. Your standards of "limited government" are inconsistent. I mean if you were consistent you would either go with Abhorsen's libertarianism that let's them do it as it's completely their choice, OR you'd go with a more traditional Christian approach of where you actually don't have ownership of your body it's more like on loan from God. Same reason why Christians oppose suicide.

A human body has an inherent moral value that a car lacks. I'd still say it's a minor moral failing to damage a functional car for no other reason than a fit of pique, but not something the state should get involved with.

My standard of government is quite consistent. I don't go with Abhorsen's libertarianism because it is blind to reality. I do hold a Christian standard, because God has given us stewardship of our own bodies. That's part of why physical self-destruction is not moral, but because I have stewardship of my own body, I can still do so if I wish.



On the whole, 'it is acceptable for a doctor to help a patient self-harm' is a terrible door to leave open, fraught with massive abuse potential and perverse incentives. And that's before we get into political types using this open door to push for various undesireables to be given 'treatments,' such as what some people on this forum like to talk about with lobotomization having once been considered a 'treatment' for homosexuality.

And this is also wrong? Again, if the person is otherwise sane, just hates there left leg that much, then sure, why shouldn't they have the right to have it cut off, if they can get a surgeon to agree to do it? It isn't your business.

There is moral good aside from 'free will.' There are multiple different moral values that exist in tension with each other, and your apparent failure to recognize this is indicative of why pure libertarianism is so culturally weak.

 

[Rocinante]

And this is also wrong? Again, if the person is otherwise sane, just hates there left leg that much, then sure, why shouldn't they have the right to have it cut off, if they can get a surgeon to agree to do it? It isn't your business.

Understand my bar for someone stepping in and using force to stop this is a person who's gone full crazy (delusions, voices in head, etc), not someone who willingly goes to therapy and asks, knowing what they are asking for and the likely end result.


Agreed. Kids cannot consent, to sex or surgery or hormones. An adult, however, can.

As for not being medically capable of consent, you have to be a lot crazier than just dysphoria. Yes, this will result in detransition and regret. But that's life: people do stupid shit. The government does not exist to protect people from their own bad decisions.


Here's the thing, you can believe all of the above, and also believe it's Blaire White's right to transition (not it being provided for her free of charge, but for her to pay someone willing to do it, and that person doing it). Basically, it's not the job of the government to nanny state you.


Thanks! What view do you have of government in regards to this, that allows the government to step in and use violence to stop this?

I respect your opinion, but I tend to agree with @LordsFire that if you're dismorphia is bad enough that you want to cut off your own body parts, you may not be sane enough to meaningfully consent.

I'm a little stuck in between issues here, though, as I also do not agree with just outlawing the surgeries all together, and I'm not sure how we'd measure sanity in this instance.

Butnm generally, "if you're insane enough to want to cut odd your own leg, you're too insane to consent to it," is something I can agree with.

I'm actually beginning to get behind this 25 year limit to wait until the brain is done developing, but my issue here is that I also agree with the idea behind "you're old enough to sign up for war and get killed, so you're old enough to choose how to live your life. "


I am aware I am not making solid arguments here. Rather, I am just pondering on my thoughts and trying to decide how I really feel about this stuff, so I am interested in multiple perspectives.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Strictly speaking people should be allowed to mutilate themselves as they see fit, being retarded/insane isn't a crime in and of itself.

But when you start involving others and money into the mix, it raises questions.

If people make a LOT of money when they chop parts off of insane people, it might incentivize making insane people to chop parts off of them.

 

[Abhorsen]

And this is why 'pure' Libertarianism will never be a meaningful political force. You do not seem to be able to comprehend that it is inherently good for a person to have a healthy, fully-functional body, and that anything that violates that is to at least some degree bad, even if different levels of it can be justified for different reasons.

It's irrelevant whether it's good or bad, what matters is that you want to go to daddy government to solve problems that daddy government is causing through the educational system, and can't see the inherent problem here.

Further, you seem to be completely unaware of the problem of people being coerced into giving 'consent', corrupt members of the medical establishment who make their money doing certain things lying about it, and the root problem of if you are insane enough to want to mutilate your body for no good reason, you are not sane enough to give consent for someone else to do so.

If people are coerced, that's fine to punish. If people are lied to, that's fraud.

As for that statement, it has no limiting principle besides what the government decides to call sanity. Watch the government bend that term until it means "if you are insane enough to tell your kids to not trust the government, you shouldn't be a parent." And again with mutilating the body for no good reason. They have a plenty good reason: they want to look different. How is this different from all manner of plastic surgery?

Or an even better example: signing up for a combat role in the military is taking up a risk to life, and in the war in Iraq, for no good reason IMO (there was no reason to be there in the first place). Does that make those soldiers insane, and they must be prevented from signing up? Of course not.

I respect your opinion, but I tend to agree with @LordsFire that if you're dismorphia is bad enough that you want to cut off your own body parts, you may not be sane enough to meaningfully consent.

If you can give consent to sex, you can give consent to surgery. Both are potentially lifechanging events. We don't stop dysphoric people from having sex. Why should we stop them from having surgery?

 

[Rocinante]

It's irrelevant whether it's good or bad, what matters is that you want to go to daddy government to solve problems that daddy government is causing through the educational system, and can't see the inherent problem here.


If people are coerced, that's fine to punish. If people are lied to, that's fraud.

As for that statement, it has no limiting principle besides what the government decides to call sanity. Watch the government bend that term until it means "if you are insane enough to tell your kids to not trust the government, you shouldn't be a parent." And again with mutilating the body for no good reason. They have a plenty good reason: they want to look different. How is this different from all manner of plastic surgery?

Or an even better example: signing up for a combat role in the military is taking up a risk to life, and in the war in Iraq, for no good reason IMO (there was no reason to be there in the first place). Does that make those soldiers insane, and they must be prevented from signing up? Of course not.


If you can give consent to sex, you can give consent to surgery. Both are potentially lifechanging events. We don't stop dysphoric people from having sex. Why should we stop them from having surgery?

Comparing having sex to irreversible surgeries is where you completely lose me.

Yes. Sex CAN have lifelong effects, like disease and pregnancy, but steps are available to prevent that, and it doesn't happen every time, and sex is one of the most basic drives and activities our species partakes in.

One is normal, basic, instinctual behavior, one is highly abnormal behavior.

Sorry, but the comparison to cutting off body parts just falls completely flat to me.

 

[Bear Ribs]

And this is also wrong? Again, if the person is otherwise sane, just hates there left leg that much, then sure, why shouldn't they have the right to have it cut off, if they can get a surgeon to agree to do it? It isn't your business.

No man is an island. It is not moral or fair to offload your externalities onto the community. You don't get to drive a car with no brakes because you're doing so with your own property, you don't get to dump pollutants into the air because you're doing so with your own factory and land, and crippling yourself will impose an unfair burden on society in the form of needing constant care, which inevitably will be provided by the community because humans are social animals and pretending they aren't is blatant delusion.

The problem with "it's my body/property/land/" is that you are not living on the moon in isolation in a base you built yourself. Your noise, pollution, body odor, appearance, lifestyle, and clothing choices all travel past the boundaries of your property and affect everybody around you. It's unfair to force other people to subsidize your lifestyle. And make no mistake, so long as you're participating in a society and not living on the moon in splendid isolation, you are forcing your externalities on other people.

 

[Abhorsen]

No man is an island. It is not moral or fair to offload your externalities onto the community. You don't get to drive a car with no brakes because you're doing so with your own property, you don't get to dump pollutants into the air because you're doing so with your own factory and land, and crippling yourself will impose an unfair burden on society in the form of needing constant care, which inevitably will be provided by the community because humans are social animals and pretending they aren't is blatant delusion.

The problem with "it's my body/property/land/" is that you are not living on the moon in isolation in a base you built yourself. Your noise, pollution, body odor, appearance, lifestyle, and clothing choices all travel past the boundaries of your property and affect everybody around you. It's unfair to force other people to subsidize your lifestyle. And make no mistake, so long as you're participating in a society and not living on the moon in splendid isolation, you are forcing your externalities on other people.

... No one here is forcing externalities onto others. I'm advocating that they get a surgery for themselves that they pay for and the surgeon consents to doing.

Yes, I'm aware of externalities. No, they don't justify the government coming and putting guns to people's heads. If you allow that to be the basis of your argument, what's the basis for the government calling distrust of government a negative externality, and interfering in parenting?

Comparing having sex to irreversible surgeries is where you completely lose me.

Yes. Sex CAN have lifelong effects, like disease and pregnancy, but steps are available to prevent that, and it doesn't happen every time, and sex is one of the most basic drives and activities our species partakes in.

One is normal, basic, instinctual behavior, one is highly abnormal behavior.

Sorry, but the comparison to cutting off body parts just falls completely flat to me.

Fair enough. What about the comparison to signing up for a combat role in the military?

 

[LordsFire]

It's irrelevant whether it's good or bad, what matters is that you want to go to daddy government to solve problems that daddy government is causing through the educational system, and can't see the inherent problem here.


If people are coerced, that's fine to punish. If people are lied to, that's fraud.

As for that statement, it has no limiting principle besides what the government decides to call sanity. Watch the government bend that term until it means "if you are insane enough to tell your kids to not trust the government, you shouldn't be a parent." And again with mutilating the body for no good reason. They have a plenty good reason: they want to look different. How is this different from all manner of plastic surgery?

Or an even better example: signing up for a combat role in the military is taking up a risk to life, and in the war in Iraq, for no good reason IMO (there was no reason to be there in the first place). Does that make those soldiers insane, and they must be prevented from signing up? Of course not.


If you can give consent to sex, you can give consent to surgery. Both are potentially lifechanging events. We don't stop dysphoric people from having sex. Why should we stop them from having surgery?

Your inability to recognize the flaws in your own logic is getting rather tiresome.

1. I do not want 'daddy government' involved in education in the first place. Punishing people for injuring others is one of few roles I believe the government should be involved with, which is why I am arguing for it here.

2. Your comparisons to sex, plastic surgery, and warfare are incredibly disingenuous.
A: Sex results in a chance of pregnancy or STD. It guarantees neither, and pregnancy is you gaining something, while STDs can be avoided by not being promiscuous.
B: Plastic surgery does not cripple bodily function. I honestly still think it's sketchy, because I don't like that level of superficial vanity, but it is still a completely different world than permanently removing your ability to be a fully-functional human being.
C: Joining the military risks injury or death, and in service to a greater cause. It again guarantees neither, and is not in pursuit of a delusional view of self that can never come true.

3. Your argument about the definition of insanity can be applied to literally every single law, and is thus meaningless. A sufficiently malicious actor can redefine 'disturbing the peace' to mean 'not actively and vociferously supporting the party in all things to ensure social harmony.' Does that mean that we should consider it acceptable and legal for someone to move into the middle of a residential neighborhood, then play loud music at deafening volumes 24/7, crippling the other residents ability to work, sleep, or anything else? Obviously not.

If these are the best arguments that you have, you functionally have no argument at all.

 

[Bear Ribs]

... No one here is forcing externalities onto others. I'm advocating that they get a surgery for themselves that they pay for and the surgeon consents to doing.

And then a person is a cripple and needs to be supported for the rest of their life, forcing an externality on the rest of the community. The fact that they paid to become so doesn't mean they aren't inflicting the consequences of their actions on others.

Your next answer is likely to be that you also don't want the community to support the person who crippled themself, but that's just betraying a lack of understanding about basic human nature. Humans are social animals and the community will feel compelled to support the weak because that's how humans work.

To make an analogy, a person is not allowed to put up an advertisement depicting incredibly gory and sexual imagery where other people can see it, just because it's on their own property. The view extends past their property boundaries and saying "people don't have to look at it if they don't want to" is a thin excuse for unloading the externality of disturbing people's mental state for the profit of putting up the advertisement, human nature doesn't work that way.

Yes, I'm aware of externalities. No, they don't justify the government coming and putting guns to people's heads. If you allow that to be the basis of your argument, what's the basis for the government calling distrust of government a negative externality, and interfering in parenting?

This is just a Slippery Slope fallacy.