When you are looking at Anorexia, Dr Sir William Gull in the 19th century was tbe man who coined the term and also worked out a way to treat patients with it. I have copies of his notes.
In terms of body free choice..,or the concept that a person can do whatever they like to their own body due to personal body autonomy, I would say there are limits.
When body modification goes over the line into self harm, wherher direct by the individual or via aiding, abetting, actively involved by a third party, civilised society should be saying no. That No should be interventions to protect the at risk person from themselves, putting limits on the type of modifications available, sectioning if need be.
Those who suffer from anorexia are not encouraged to lose weiggt....because it is self harm.
Young people cannot have tattoos until 18.
Most piercings are nit permitted before 16 or 18 except ear lobe.
Most cosmetic surgeries purely for vanity reasons, are not permitted before 18.
Maybe some *cosmetic* surgeries such as genital surgeries of *any kind* but particularly those specifically for "trans" such as mastectomies, penile inversion, fake penis etc should be utterly banhed as there is no clinical need for such surgeries and a whole lot of harm.
There are limits on bodily autonomy....self harm is that line.
Thank for your thoughts. It made me think as well, about how we would always intervene if a person is attempting suicide. We don't say 'well it's your body it's your choice'. And yet you could make an argument for that - even though as an option it's unthinkable and wrong. This is a rather fascinating article about elective amputation, if you can bear to let those thoughts enter your head. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-way-to-be-mad/304671/
You are very welcome. Apologies for typos. I hate using screen keyboards.
Suicide is the ultimate in self harm. Society recognises this which is why there is a lot of resistence to assisted suicide...except in Canada which is again effectively shrugging its shoulders and saying ok with what seems to be no limits. Even the clinic in Europe has strict limits on who can seek their services.
Amputation of limbs is the next level after cutting. No doctor would seriously suggest handing a supply of scalpels to a person cutting themselves.
These self harm actions, including trans of all levels from sterotype dressing/"social transition" to the full surgical choices, indicate severe mental ill health...to me any doctor who even half thinks any of these or trans ideology is acceptable should be struck off as a danger to society.
Patients who are so mentally unwell that they are a danger to society *or themselves* used to be taken into care to protect themselves from themselves/others.
Its anger inducing that society has collectively lost its mind on this.
Thankyou for what you do. I've not had children (by choice and for many reasons), but if I had gone that route, I would have loved to have resources like those you create.
Really interesting when you think about some of the cosmetic surgery trends though. Labiaplasty actually fits the exact WHO description of FGM - but we allow one whilst condemning the other.
Absolutely this Milli. When I was working on an advanced degree, I wrote a paper comparing and contrasting FGM and breast augmentation, which I consider to be harms that women willingly perpetrate on themselves at the behest of the male gaze. Even just the one in their head as Margaret Atwood memorably wrote about.
Informed consent (which is more lip service than reality in many health care settings) requires giving information to people that they may not want to hear. I had a father to be confront me in antenatal classes because in his mind I "was biased against epidurals in labour". Well, actually I am against their routine use because of the potential harms they can precipitate. If you are going to choose to have an epidural, the time to do your thinking about this is before you are screaming in the midst of a contraction; this is not an informed choice situation, although everyone in the room will pretend otherwise. All I do is give women the facts to think about, and then support them in whatever choice they make.
My take on ‘choice’ as an independent midwife was first and foremost introducing the idea to women of initially who they choose for information. So if wanting a home birth ask the ‘expert’ an experienced homebirth midwife not an obstetrician... which brought me to the concept of choice meaning just that - fact is not always relevant. Eg - (actual case) a single mother with 2 small children who lived in a block of flats (not ground floor) the lift often broken was advised on good medical grounds to have a caesarean section. She declined and obstetrician thought she was taking too high a risk. On medical grounds I agreed. But she was thinking of her recovery alone and having to negotiate her environment after major surgery. This took me to the concept of ‘advice’ - we all knew doctors who were happy to say ‘well... I wouldn’t let my wife have a homebirth...’ you could write a whole book on that. But I believe that when it comes to choosing around birth it is actually irrelevant (to a certain degree) what research and facts tell us. Women taught me that - I can’t tell you how many of my clients defied the odds to give birth without intervention at home having been advised to have sections or hospital deliveries... in the end it is all about trust - trusting self, body, and who is supporting. I think it is valid to ask advice of a trusted health professional - I do not believe it is appropriate for women to trawl data for such decisions themselves. After all midwives and doctors have babies but make differing choices - therefore with all their knowledge they choose differently. Trust and ideology as well as belief is key - knowledge is only a tiny bit of the scenario for me. Anyway - this article is interesting and I will be following up by reading the paper it refers to. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/26/advising-others-on-crucial-life-choices-immoral-says-cambridge-philosopher. Really interesting reading your thoughts behind your writing Milli. We should all write a biography of writing’.
Transformative experience and the right to revelatory autonomy
Farbod Akhlaghi
Published: 31 December 2022
Abstract
Sometimes it is not us but those to whom we stand in special relations that face transformative choices: our friends, family or beloved. A focus upon first-personal rational choice and agency has left crucial ethical questions regarding what we owe to those who face transformative choices largely unexplored. In this paper I ask: under what conditions, if any, is it morally permissible to interfere to try to prevent another from making a transformative choice? Some seemingly plausible answers to this question fail precisely because they concern transformative experiences. I argue that we have a distinctive moral right to revelatory autonomy grounded in the value of autonomous self-making. If this right is outweighed then, I argue, interfering to prevent another making a transformative choice is permissible. This conditional answer lays the groundwork for a promising ethics of transformative experience.
Bias is bad because it judges based on improper criteria, usually self-interest (bribe $) or favoritism (hence a judge cannot sit in judgment of their own sibling or spouse; they must recuse).
One often sees a similar confusion with prejudice. Prejudice is bad because it's a form of bias, pre-judging something based on improper criteria - based on race or sex most insidiously.
A determination based on sufficient data or facts and done by applying proper criteria or standards to them is sound judgment - literally what we pay experts and professionals for, and a value you are providing to your readers.
I'm sorry a confused or malicious critic is confusing and confounding these points to malign your work.
Oh don't worry Paul, Amazon reviews are not something to get hung up on, I only referenced it because it is definitely not the first time I've heard the idea of bias in that way and so I've given it thought over the years. My favourite Amazon review says 'Absolute nonsense written by a Tory'. Luckily there are lots of positive ones too!LOL!
How sad you keep referring to the person in the Burberry add as 'she". Obviously, if they identify as trans, the pronoun will definitely not be "she". If you don't know how they identify, use proper English and use 'they'.
I am so sad that someone who wrote such empowering books, is not capable of using the proper pronouns, the ones they could give consent to, to people who were born in a female body but do not identify as female or vv.
I used the pronoun 'she' because that is how to be clear with language for a reader. We can see what happens when that clarity is abandoned in the name of 'kindness' in all of the news coverage at the moment about rapists and violent males in women's prisons, which almost always refer to them as 'she'. I won't lie in that way to appease anyone's feelings. It's because I'm the personality type that doesn't go along with other people's BS that I have made some kind of difference in the world of childbirth. Eventually I hope people like you come to see that rather than being 'sad' I am in fact standing up for women. (for clarity - the one's without penises)
It could be argued that in “proper English” it is usual that the speaker chooses pronouns based on his or her perception of the sex of the person being referred to.
That young woman is a she. That is the truth. She is female. She is probably a lesbian but has been persuaded she is a man be ause of her sexual attraction. That is homophobic in the extreme.
Trans and non-binary is a lie and does not help her to embed or "affirm" that lie. Trans is not a state. There is nothing biological about it. Its a fantasy, a whim, a wish....that cannot be achieved.
Its utterly cruel to pretend that it is possible to "change sex". Its cruel to promise that if one removed body parts and takes drugs toxic to that sexed body, that the person will achieve their dream. They get progressive ill health due to endocrine disease created for a lie. They get a cascade of harmful health outcomes affecting the entire body which cannot be reversed. It limits and reduces life span and quality of life. All for a lie.
When you are looking at Anorexia, Dr Sir William Gull in the 19th century was tbe man who coined the term and also worked out a way to treat patients with it. I have copies of his notes.
In terms of body free choice..,or the concept that a person can do whatever they like to their own body due to personal body autonomy, I would say there are limits.
When body modification goes over the line into self harm, wherher direct by the individual or via aiding, abetting, actively involved by a third party, civilised society should be saying no. That No should be interventions to protect the at risk person from themselves, putting limits on the type of modifications available, sectioning if need be.
Those who suffer from anorexia are not encouraged to lose weiggt....because it is self harm.
Young people cannot have tattoos until 18.
Most piercings are nit permitted before 16 or 18 except ear lobe.
Most cosmetic surgeries purely for vanity reasons, are not permitted before 18.
Maybe some *cosmetic* surgeries such as genital surgeries of *any kind* but particularly those specifically for "trans" such as mastectomies, penile inversion, fake penis etc should be utterly banhed as there is no clinical need for such surgeries and a whole lot of harm.
There are limits on bodily autonomy....self harm is that line.
Thank for your thoughts. It made me think as well, about how we would always intervene if a person is attempting suicide. We don't say 'well it's your body it's your choice'. And yet you could make an argument for that - even though as an option it's unthinkable and wrong. This is a rather fascinating article about elective amputation, if you can bear to let those thoughts enter your head. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-way-to-be-mad/304671/
You are very welcome. Apologies for typos. I hate using screen keyboards.
Suicide is the ultimate in self harm. Society recognises this which is why there is a lot of resistence to assisted suicide...except in Canada which is again effectively shrugging its shoulders and saying ok with what seems to be no limits. Even the clinic in Europe has strict limits on who can seek their services.
Amputation of limbs is the next level after cutting. No doctor would seriously suggest handing a supply of scalpels to a person cutting themselves.
These self harm actions, including trans of all levels from sterotype dressing/"social transition" to the full surgical choices, indicate severe mental ill health...to me any doctor who even half thinks any of these or trans ideology is acceptable should be struck off as a danger to society.
Patients who are so mentally unwell that they are a danger to society *or themselves* used to be taken into care to protect themselves from themselves/others.
Its anger inducing that society has collectively lost its mind on this.
Thankyou for what you do. I've not had children (by choice and for many reasons), but if I had gone that route, I would have loved to have resources like those you create.
Really interesting when you think about some of the cosmetic surgery trends though. Labiaplasty actually fits the exact WHO description of FGM - but we allow one whilst condemning the other.
Absolutely this Milli. When I was working on an advanced degree, I wrote a paper comparing and contrasting FGM and breast augmentation, which I consider to be harms that women willingly perpetrate on themselves at the behest of the male gaze. Even just the one in their head as Margaret Atwood memorably wrote about.
Informed consent (which is more lip service than reality in many health care settings) requires giving information to people that they may not want to hear. I had a father to be confront me in antenatal classes because in his mind I "was biased against epidurals in labour". Well, actually I am against their routine use because of the potential harms they can precipitate. If you are going to choose to have an epidural, the time to do your thinking about this is before you are screaming in the midst of a contraction; this is not an informed choice situation, although everyone in the room will pretend otherwise. All I do is give women the facts to think about, and then support them in whatever choice they make.
100%
My take on ‘choice’ as an independent midwife was first and foremost introducing the idea to women of initially who they choose for information. So if wanting a home birth ask the ‘expert’ an experienced homebirth midwife not an obstetrician... which brought me to the concept of choice meaning just that - fact is not always relevant. Eg - (actual case) a single mother with 2 small children who lived in a block of flats (not ground floor) the lift often broken was advised on good medical grounds to have a caesarean section. She declined and obstetrician thought she was taking too high a risk. On medical grounds I agreed. But she was thinking of her recovery alone and having to negotiate her environment after major surgery. This took me to the concept of ‘advice’ - we all knew doctors who were happy to say ‘well... I wouldn’t let my wife have a homebirth...’ you could write a whole book on that. But I believe that when it comes to choosing around birth it is actually irrelevant (to a certain degree) what research and facts tell us. Women taught me that - I can’t tell you how many of my clients defied the odds to give birth without intervention at home having been advised to have sections or hospital deliveries... in the end it is all about trust - trusting self, body, and who is supporting. I think it is valid to ask advice of a trusted health professional - I do not believe it is appropriate for women to trawl data for such decisions themselves. After all midwives and doctors have babies but make differing choices - therefore with all their knowledge they choose differently. Trust and ideology as well as belief is key - knowledge is only a tiny bit of the scenario for me. Anyway - this article is interesting and I will be following up by reading the paper it refers to. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/26/advising-others-on-crucial-life-choices-immoral-says-cambridge-philosopher. Really interesting reading your thoughts behind your writing Milli. We should all write a biography of writing’.
For reference this is the paper’s abstract.
Transformative experience and the right to revelatory autonomy
Farbod Akhlaghi
Published: 31 December 2022
Abstract
Sometimes it is not us but those to whom we stand in special relations that face transformative choices: our friends, family or beloved. A focus upon first-personal rational choice and agency has left crucial ethical questions regarding what we owe to those who face transformative choices largely unexplored. In this paper I ask: under what conditions, if any, is it morally permissible to interfere to try to prevent another from making a transformative choice? Some seemingly plausible answers to this question fail precisely because they concern transformative experiences. I argue that we have a distinctive moral right to revelatory autonomy grounded in the value of autonomous self-making. If this right is outweighed then, I argue, interfering to prevent another making a transformative choice is permissible. This conditional answer lays the groundwork for a promising ethics of transformative experience.
thanks Lynn for your thought provoking insight as ever! xx
Yep, it's not bias it's sound judgment.
Bias is bad because it judges based on improper criteria, usually self-interest (bribe $) or favoritism (hence a judge cannot sit in judgment of their own sibling or spouse; they must recuse).
One often sees a similar confusion with prejudice. Prejudice is bad because it's a form of bias, pre-judging something based on improper criteria - based on race or sex most insidiously.
A determination based on sufficient data or facts and done by applying proper criteria or standards to them is sound judgment - literally what we pay experts and professionals for, and a value you are providing to your readers.
I'm sorry a confused or malicious critic is confusing and confounding these points to malign your work.
Oh don't worry Paul, Amazon reviews are not something to get hung up on, I only referenced it because it is definitely not the first time I've heard the idea of bias in that way and so I've given it thought over the years. My favourite Amazon review says 'Absolute nonsense written by a Tory'. Luckily there are lots of positive ones too!LOL!
How sad you keep referring to the person in the Burberry add as 'she". Obviously, if they identify as trans, the pronoun will definitely not be "she". If you don't know how they identify, use proper English and use 'they'.
I am so sad that someone who wrote such empowering books, is not capable of using the proper pronouns, the ones they could give consent to, to people who were born in a female body but do not identify as female or vv.
I used the pronoun 'she' because that is how to be clear with language for a reader. We can see what happens when that clarity is abandoned in the name of 'kindness' in all of the news coverage at the moment about rapists and violent males in women's prisons, which almost always refer to them as 'she'. I won't lie in that way to appease anyone's feelings. It's because I'm the personality type that doesn't go along with other people's BS that I have made some kind of difference in the world of childbirth. Eventually I hope people like you come to see that rather than being 'sad' I am in fact standing up for women. (for clarity - the one's without penises)
It could be argued that in “proper English” it is usual that the speaker chooses pronouns based on his or her perception of the sex of the person being referred to.
That young woman is a she. That is the truth. She is female. She is probably a lesbian but has been persuaded she is a man be ause of her sexual attraction. That is homophobic in the extreme.
Trans and non-binary is a lie and does not help her to embed or "affirm" that lie. Trans is not a state. There is nothing biological about it. Its a fantasy, a whim, a wish....that cannot be achieved.
Its utterly cruel to pretend that it is possible to "change sex". Its cruel to promise that if one removed body parts and takes drugs toxic to that sexed body, that the person will achieve their dream. They get progressive ill health due to endocrine disease created for a lie. They get a cascade of harmful health outcomes affecting the entire body which cannot be reversed. It limits and reduces life span and quality of life. All for a lie.
Its all a lie. Its cruel and inhumane to lie.