Coerced sterilization and torture
“On 1 February 2013, "United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture (SRT) issued a report on abusive practices in health care settings that has important implications for LGBT people and people with intersex conditions" and:[8] In section 88, the SRT says States should:
repeal any law allowing intrusive and irreversible treatments, including forced genital-normalizing surgery, involuntary sterilization, unethical experimentation, medical display, "reparative therapies" or "conversion therapies", when enforced or administered without the free and informed consent of the person concerned. He also calls upon them to outlaw forced or coerced sterilization in all circumstances and provide special protection to individuals belonging to marginalized groups.[8]
In May 2014, the World Health Organization, OHCHR, UN Women, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA and UNICEF issued a joint statement on "Eliminating forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary sterilization". The report references the involuntary sterilization of a number of specific population groups.[citation needed] They include:
Women, especially in relation to coercive population control policies, and particularly including women living with HIV, indigenous and ethnic minority girls and women. Indigenous and ethnic minority women often face "wrongful stereotyping based on gender, race and ethnicity".
Disabled people, especially those with intellectual disability. Women with intellectual disabilities are "often treated as if they have no control, or should have no control, over their sexual and reproductive choices". Other rationales include menstrual management for "women who have or are perceived to have difficulties coping with or managing menses, or whose health conditions (such as epilepsy) or behaviour are negatively affected by menses." Men with intellectual disabilities are also sterilized, sometimes using the justification that it provides greater sexual freedom.[10]
Intersex persons, who "are often subjected to cosmetic and other non-medically indicated surgeries performed on their reproductive organs, without their informed consent or that of their parents, and without taking into consideration the views of the children involved", often as a "sex-normalizing" treatment.
Transgender persons, "as a prerequisite to receiving gender-affirmative treatment and gender-marker changes". This being a practice that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has described as a violation of the Yogyakarta Principles.[11]
The report recommends a range of guiding principles for medical treatment, including ensuring patient autonomy in decision-making, ensuring non-discrimination, accountability and access to remedies.[12]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compulsory_sterilization&diffonly=true
If you accept a transgender individual is in a marginalized group, then how is the special Rapporteur viewing any surgery that results in their sterilization?
How do you insure sterilization is voluntary? How can the loss of fertility be understood in prepubescent youth? What is informed consent in those circumstances? Does the new concept of mature minor grease government sterilization of minors or act protectively of minors?
What constitutes informed consent in those instances?
Coercive sterilization? Is that when no medical professional can suggest a pause in “affirmation” without walking into penal consequences for themselves? Because that is the law in Canada. Failure to affirm the child may result in the view it is conversion to the child's birth sex, which is punishable by prison for Canadian medical doctors, and other medical professionals.
So no conflict of interest. No coercive sterilization?
What if the professional just stated the law. Yes I can take off your dick. You might not have kids because of that. And if I try to talk you out of it, I go to jail and could lose my medical licence and right to earn a living, oh and pay fines. So off with the dick shall we?
Should treatments that results in sterilization be paused, until the individual has reached an age to appreciate the consequences? Is the special Rapporteur right?
Is it torture? Is taking a good penis and flaying it stuffing it into a wound, torture. Or health care. Medically necessary care.
only torture in 2013.
Or torture in 2024 now if you don't remove genitalia. Keeping intact healthy tissue is the torture?
I'd ask, where are we headed.
But I know.
And we aren't headed.
We are being led.
According to Wikipedia involuntary sterilization was once more common.
“At the beginning of the twentieth century, the sterilisation of people carrying what were considered to be hereditary defects and in some cases those exhibiting what was thought to be hereditary "antisocial" behaviour, was a respectable field of medicine. Canada, Denmark, Switzerland and the US had passed laws enabling coerced sterilisation. Studies conducted in the 1920s ranked Germany as a country that was unusually reluctant to introduce sterilisation legislation.[19] In his book Mein Kampf (1924), Hitler wrote that one day racial hygiene "will appear as a deed greater than the most victorious wars of our present bourgeois era".[20][21]
In July 1933, the "Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring" prescribed compulsory sterilisation for people with conditions thought to be hereditary, such as schizophrenia, epilepsy, Huntington's chorea and "imbecility". Sterilisation was also legalised for chronic alcoholism and other forms of social deviance. The law was administered by the Interior Ministry under Wilhelm Frick through special Hereditary Health Courts (Erbgesundheitsgerichte), which examined the inmates of nursing homes, asylums, prisons, aged-care homes and special schools, to select those to be sterilised.[22] It is estimated that 360,000 people were sterilised under this law between 1933 and 1939.[23]
The policy and research agenda of racial hygiene and eugenics were promoted by Emil Kraepelin.[24] The eugenic sterilisation of persons diagnosed with (and viewed as predisposed to) schizophrenia was advocated by Eugen Bleuler, who presumed racial deterioration because of "mental and physical cripples" in his Textbook of Psychiatry,
The more severely burdened should not propagate themselves... If we do nothing but make mental and physical cripples capable of propagating themselves, and the healthy stocks have to limit the number of their children because so much has to be done for the maintenance of others, if natural selection is generally suppressed, then unless we will get new measures our race must rapidly deteriorate.[25][26][27]”
Looking back to see our direction is sometimes useful.
Our governments seem to have a callous regard for the fertility of citizens. If indeed it is love, or necessary, it should bear scrutiny, stand up to challenge or inquiry.
If the government is hurriedly advancing this position of coercive sterilization based on the view that marginalized individuals are mentally weak or deficient, then we owe trans individuals particularly minors the force of our voices.
The government (not trans) should be held to account for any sterilization program. Particularly when the same government is also simultaneously advancing galloping euthanasia Programs
Another pillar of eugenics.
If the bedfellow to the trans marginalized youth desires euthanasia as a right for citizens, forced or coerced inoculation, then should the government's action be always viewed as innocent.
Imagine a government that believes climate change or insert malthusian goal is solved with less people on the planet.
Imagine that is the bedfellow to the trans youth considering medical interventions.
What would the torture guy say.
Take down the beast.