Underage tattoos? No!
-
@George-K Waiting for your funny saying on tattoos: " I have seen alot......." 555
I think that the % of people getting tattoos will decrease starting about now. They were definitely part of the generation from maybe 1995 until 2020, but I think their use will decrease. Probably not go away, but will not be a obvious.
-
@Axtremus said in Underage tattoos? No!:
@George-K said in Underage tattoos? No!:
Circumcision (for reasons other than health)?
Orthodontics, braces, permanent tooth extraction, for cosmetic purpose?You never fail to fail, do you?
@George-K said in Underage tattoos? No!:
@Axtremus said in Underage tattoos? No!:
@George-K said in Underage tattoos? No!:
Circumcision (for reasons other than health)?
Orthodontics, braces, permanent tooth extraction, for cosmetic purpose?You never fail to fail, do you?
"Permanence" is not a sufficiently strong sole reason to prohibit minors from medical or cosmetic procedures. After all, various cultures have a long history of making deliberate, artificial changes to young people's bodies, many of which are still practiced today (examples of which were cited in the previous post).
Repair of cleft lips, repair of congenital heart defects, separation of conjoined twins, surgical corrections to various birth defects, etc. are all very permanent, yet most societies do not object to these very permanent procedures being performed on minors, in fact many actively support them materially.
Why? Because the benefits outweighs the risks, and some of these "benefits" and "risks" are dependent on a culture or society's perception of how one should look or behave.
So objecting to "gender affirmation" therapy/procedures for minors merely on the grounds that "it's permanent" does not hold water.
May be a minor asking for "gender affirmation" is going through a phase, may be a minor really will suffer great/permanent psychological harm without "gender affirmation." As a society we only started to openly talk about "gender affirmation" recently. It looks to me the societal and medical understandings and therapeutic options related to "gender affirmation" are still in the early phase of development, and we do not know enough to issue a blanket ban on "gender affirmation" for minors. So I am inclined to let the patient, the legal guardians, and the doctors deal with this on a case by case basis for now.
If individual healthcare groups want to tweak their guidelines for when and what sorts of "gender affirmation" therapies/procedures to provide under what conditions, that's fine. They can tweak as they learn, the broader society will continue to learn as well. I don't think I want national or even state politics to issue any blanket ban just yet.
-
@George-K said in Underage tattoos? No!:
@Axtremus said in Underage tattoos? No!:
@George-K said in Underage tattoos? No!:
Circumcision (for reasons other than health)?
Orthodontics, braces, permanent tooth extraction, for cosmetic purpose?You never fail to fail, do you?
"Permanence" is not a sufficiently strong sole reason to prohibit minors from medical or cosmetic procedures. After all, various cultures have a long history of making deliberate, artificial changes to young people's bodies, many of which are still practiced today (examples of which were cited in the previous post).
Repair of cleft lips, repair of congenital heart defects, separation of conjoined twins, surgical corrections to various birth defects, etc. are all very permanent, yet most societies do not object to these very permanent procedures being performed on minors, in fact many actively support them materially.
Why? Because the benefits outweighs the risks, and some of these "benefits" and "risks" are dependent on a culture or society's perception of how one should look or behave.
So objecting to "gender affirmation" therapy/procedures for minors merely on the grounds that "it's permanent" does not hold water.
May be a minor asking for "gender affirmation" is going through a phase, may be a minor really will suffer great/permanent psychological harm without "gender affirmation." As a society we only started to openly talk about "gender affirmation" recently. It looks to me the societal and medical understandings and therapeutic options related to "gender affirmation" are still in the early phase of development, and we do not know enough to issue a blanket ban on "gender affirmation" for minors. So I am inclined to let the patient, the legal guardians, and the doctors deal with this on a case by case basis for now.
If individual healthcare groups want to tweak their guidelines for when and what sorts of "gender affirmation" therapies/procedures to provide under what conditions, that's fine. They can tweak as they learn, the broader society will continue to learn as well. I don't think I want national or even state politics to issue any blanket ban just yet.
@Axtremus I think that many of the things allowed to be done to kids by parents have a proven benefit to their health (cleft lips, heart surgery, etc.)
I am not sure that it applies to things like tattoos and gender surgery.
For example, if there are 100 kids 10 years old with heart problems. I think everyone will agree that without surgery, 100 kids will have WORSE outcomes in the future.
If there are 100 kids 10 years old who say that they want to be the opposite sex. I dont think that ANYONE can say that without surgery, 100 kids will have worse outcomes. I think it is very possible that if the 100 kids get surgery, many/most/all will have WORSE outcomes in the future.
-
My parenting heuristic is “will this matter 10 years from now”.
So yes, do what you want with your hair. No tats. And have good grades. After that Bob is your uncle.
-
@George-K said in Underage tattoos? No!:
@Axtremus said in Underage tattoos? No!:
@George-K said in Underage tattoos? No!:
Circumcision (for reasons other than health)?
Orthodontics, braces, permanent tooth extraction, for cosmetic purpose?You never fail to fail, do you?
"Permanence" is not a sufficiently strong sole reason to prohibit minors from medical or cosmetic procedures. After all, various cultures have a long history of making deliberate, artificial changes to young people's bodies, many of which are still practiced today (examples of which were cited in the previous post).
Repair of cleft lips, repair of congenital heart defects, separation of conjoined twins, surgical corrections to various birth defects, etc. are all very permanent, yet most societies do not object to these very permanent procedures being performed on minors, in fact many actively support them materially.
Why? Because the benefits outweighs the risks, and some of these "benefits" and "risks" are dependent on a culture or society's perception of how one should look or behave.
So objecting to "gender affirmation" therapy/procedures for minors merely on the grounds that "it's permanent" does not hold water.
May be a minor asking for "gender affirmation" is going through a phase, may be a minor really will suffer great/permanent psychological harm without "gender affirmation." As a society we only started to openly talk about "gender affirmation" recently. It looks to me the societal and medical understandings and therapeutic options related to "gender affirmation" are still in the early phase of development, and we do not know enough to issue a blanket ban on "gender affirmation" for minors. So I am inclined to let the patient, the legal guardians, and the doctors deal with this on a case by case basis for now.
If individual healthcare groups want to tweak their guidelines for when and what sorts of "gender affirmation" therapies/procedures to provide under what conditions, that's fine. They can tweak as they learn, the broader society will continue to learn as well. I don't think I want national or even state politics to issue any blanket ban just yet.
@Axtremus said in Underage tattoos? No!:
"Permanence" is not a sufficiently strong sole reason to prohibit minors from medical or cosmetic procedures. After all, various cultures have a long history of making deliberate, artificial changes to young people's bodies, many of which are still practiced today (examples of which were cited in the previous post).
Repair of cleft lips, repair of congenital heart defects, separation of conjoined twins, surgical corrections to various birth defects, etc. are all very permanent, yet most societies do not object to these very permanent procedures being performed on minors, in fact many actively support them materially.
Why? Because the benefits outweighs the risks, and some of these "benefits" and "risks" are dependent on a culture or society's perception of how one should look or behave.
So objecting to "gender affirmation" therapy/procedures for minors merely on the grounds that "it's permanent" does not hold water.And your opinion of elective amputation of a child's left arm, because it was a socially trending thing to do, would be?
-
@Axtremus said in Underage tattoos? No!:
"Permanence" is not a sufficiently strong sole reason to prohibit minors from medical or cosmetic procedures. After all, various cultures have a long history of making deliberate, artificial changes to young people's bodies, many of which are still practiced today (examples of which were cited in the previous post).
Repair of cleft lips, repair of congenital heart defects, separation of conjoined twins, surgical corrections to various birth defects, etc. are all very permanent, yet most societies do not object to these very permanent procedures being performed on minors, in fact many actively support them materially.
Why? Because the benefits outweighs the risks, and some of these "benefits" and "risks" are dependent on a culture or society's perception of how one should look or behave.
So objecting to "gender affirmation" therapy/procedures for minors merely on the grounds that "it's permanent" does not hold water.And your opinion of elective amputation of a child's left arm, because it was a socially trending thing to do, would be?
@Horace said in Underage tattoos? No!:
@Axtremus said in Underage tattoos? No!:
"Permanence" is not a sufficiently strong sole reason to prohibit minors from medical or cosmetic procedures. After all, various cultures have a long history of making deliberate, artificial changes to young people's bodies, many of which are still practiced today (examples of which were cited in the previous post).
Repair of cleft lips, repair of congenital heart defects, separation of conjoined twins, surgical corrections to various birth defects, etc. are all very permanent, yet most societies do not object to these very permanent procedures being performed on minors, in fact many actively support them materially.
Why? Because the benefits outweighs the risks, and some of these "benefits" and "risks" are dependent on a culture or society's perception of how one should look or behave.
So objecting to "gender affirmation" therapy/procedures for minors merely on the grounds that "it's permanent" does not hold water.And your opinion of elective amputation of a child's left arm, because it was a socially trending thing to do, would be?
Maybe George knows, but there is some type of mental disease where people are compelled to amputate their limbs.
-
Before long the number of people removing tattoos will exceed the number getting them.
-
@Copper said in Underage tattoos? No!:
Before long the number of people removing tattoos will exceed the number getting them.
More likely there will be a huge number of middle aged people who have ugly and meaningless tattoos. But if it earned them slightly more friends when they were young I suppose it’s still a fair trade. Even if they have to advertise that they used to be young douches in desperate search of an identity. Imagine if hair styles were permanent. Those who grew up in the 80s would be mortified.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Copper said in Underage tattoos? No!:
Before long the number of people removing tattoos will exceed the number getting them.
More likely there will be a huge number of middle aged people who have ugly and meaningless tattoos. But if it earned them slightly more friends when they were young I suppose it’s still a fair trade. Even if they have to advertise that they used to be young douches in desperate search of an identity. Imagine if hair styles were permanent. Those who grew up in the 80s would be mortified.
@Horace said in Underage tattoos? No!:
@Copper said in Underage tattoos? No!:
Before long the number of people removing tattoos will exceed the number getting them.
More likely there will be a huge number of middle aged people who have ugly and meaningless tattoos. But if it earned them slightly more friends when they were young I suppose it’s still a fair trade. Even if they have to advertise that they used to be young douches in desperate search of an identity. Imagine if hair styles were permanent. Those who grew up in the 80s would be mortified.
Some of us would just be happy we had hair.
“Don’t make me repeat myself”
- history
-
@Horace said in Underage tattoos? No!:
@Copper said in Underage tattoos? No!:
Before long the number of people removing tattoos will exceed the number getting them.
More likely there will be a huge number of middle aged people who have ugly and meaningless tattoos. But if it earned them slightly more friends when they were young I suppose it’s still a fair trade. Even if they have to advertise that they used to be young douches in desperate search of an identity. Imagine if hair styles were permanent. Those who grew up in the 80s would be mortified.
Some of us would just be happy we had hair.
@jon-nyc said in Underage tattoos? No!:
@Horace said in Underage tattoos? No!:
@Copper said in Underage tattoos? No!:
Before long the number of people removing tattoos will exceed the number getting them.
More likely there will be a huge number of middle aged people who have ugly and meaningless tattoos. But if it earned them slightly more friends when they were young I suppose it’s still a fair trade. Even if they have to advertise that they used to be young douches in desperate search of an identity. Imagine if hair styles were permanent. Those who grew up in the 80s would be mortified.
Some of us would just be happy we had hair.
Look in your ears.
