Calm

No, I am not. I am not addressing purpose at all as the focus of my criticism though it does apply to the greater context, but simply how a particular procedure affects day to day functioning, whether with little functional impact or extreme and then I am suggesting it’s better to compare like with like. Comparing low impact to high impact is inappropriate, similar to someone comparing the best behaviour of one group to the worst behaviour of another and acting as if both are equivalent, standard behaviour of these groups or equating inoffensive behaviour with destructive behavior. I would be making a similar argument if someone was arguing our faith is dangerous and inherently evil by claiming our temple covenants were equivalent to following the leaders of the MMM in massacring the victims. The issue is for me claiming equivalence where it doesn’t exist, I am not claiming all GD treatments are not extreme any more than I would claim no Saint has engaged in destructive behaviour. Using extreme, radical treatments as equivalents also appears to me to look like emotional manipulation even if unintended. False equivalence and emotional manipulation are both signs of weak arguments…so it’s best imo to avoid such comparisons and use others that are more appropriate to present a stronger argument. No, I have asserted the specific medical interventions you have chosen for examples of BIID are extreme in their disruption of life while the examples you have chosen for GD are less disruptive to life. There are no doubt procedures of BIID that are not extreme in my view (such as a nose job) and procedures to treat GD that are extreme, very extreme imo…perhaps someone with GD is quite tall, which is more typical for males than females and so in transitioning from man to woman, they desire to decrease their height by having significant parts of their leg bones removed etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/1fq18q4/height_reduction_surgery/ I would not say a nose job that shaves a bit of bone and removes cartilage is equivalent to removing parts of leg bones and having to plate them together, relearn how to walk, etc. Your reasoning in saying you saw top surgery for example as equivalent to spinal severance seems to me to imply you would also see a nose job for BIID as equivalent to limb reduction surgery for GD. If I am wrong, perhaps you will want to explain why you don’t see those as equivalent, but I am okay if you don’t believe it will clear up where we are missing each other’s reasoning. I feel the same way at this point as when I am discussing math with others who can’t see the logical steps I am using. Doesn’t mean they are stupid or anything because mental blocks can occur with anyone for pretty much anything in my experience. I know I have had to simply accept a person’s own summary of what and why they are reasoning a certain way that is obscure to me when I can’t connect the dots for whatever reason (I sometimes find out later it’s because I didn’t understand the premises they were using). And sometimes, back to my math example, I discover that I instinctively understand the math and skip the usual logic steps demonstrating why a function works or a proof is valid, which means it has been not a mental block for the other, but an incomplete explanation/argument on my part…which this might be, but it seems relatively straightforward to me. The rest of your comments don’t apply to my reasoning since you are using different premises than I am, so I am not going to address them, but it appears I may have a mental block with your reasoning as well because I don’t see how you are avoiding arguing the irrationality plainly seen in the extreme procedures that remove healthy tissue should be applied in the same way in the nonextreme (in terms of functionality) procedures that also remove healthy tissue (since you are not arguing using the examples of facelifts or nose jobs which to me would be a much closer equivalence). In one last attempt to understand your premises, I will ask if you see your argument as essentially the same if you did use face lifts or nose jobs as the examples of procedures addressing Body Integrity Identity Disorder*** and if so, I am asking why you chose not to use them, but the more radical ones. We are definitely talking past each other at this point in my view. It’s always an interesting discussion though, so thanks for putting up with me. ***just to be clear, I am assuming you see all treatments that alter the body for BIID as inappropriate because they address a symptom and not the cause, but I am wondering if you are okay with procedures such as a nose job if their only BIID was seeing their nose shape as wrong and surgery resolved that issue for them or you see it as medically unethical even if therapy to address why they had that sense of wrongness was also part of their longterm treatment? Iow, remove both the immediate source of anxiety while still addressing the cause of anxiety.

No, I am not defending or rationalizing the procedures. I am not arguing anything about gender dysphoria either. I am strictly discussing whether it’s justified or not to describe these procedures as “extreme” procedures while comparing them to major surgeries—with life altering results in terms of care and day to day functioning—that would qualify as extreme because of their effect on someone’s functioning. It has nothing to do with the ultimate purpose of these procedures, but rather comparing the physical (and you could include financial here) impact/cost of them. The argument is essentially whether or not they are justified if not needed for an immediate need such as gangrene in a limb is a different argument or if anyone who desires them is irrational. Blinding oneself would also fall in this category, but I had forgotten to used it as an example. They were among several other examples you also see as irrational. I am not even discussing in these set of posts if the other examples are irrational or not (I might have mentioned animal identification depends on whether or not it’s literal or a more symbolic identity, but I think that was a different post). You are using, if I understand correctly, the examples of limb removal and spinal severance and blinding because the physical cost of all is so high, even crippling at least initially for two, permanently for spinal severance, that that it seems ridiculous/irrational to most to allow someone to voluntarily choose to intentionally cause these states in themselves. It would be seen as sadistic to do it to others just to experiment or curiosity or whatever. Both limb and spine procedures are such major injuries that “extreme” is not that much of a stretch. Blinding also has a major life changing impact. That is their value as examples as far as I see, that everyone agrees those should not be desirable states and anyone seeking them intentionally is mentally disturbed. Linking other procedures to such by labeling them as similarly extreme means you don’t have to argue mental disturbance, it’s a given. Problem is the other procedures you are linking do not have the same impact on someone’s life, so they are not extreme in that way where it shows inherent mental disturbance to desire them. It is not a double standard to accept one as okay but reject the other as a sign of mental illness on this basis. This does not mean someone who desires the gender affirming procedures I mentioned is not suffering from mental illness, but just that using this one line of reasoning is faulty. This is also not saying those who accept gender affirming care for trans individuals don’t have other double standards either, just that theses are not examples of a double standard.

It’s been quite awhile since I have engaged with his arguments. The accusation against Holland is so riddled with errors based on lack of follow through plus his refusal to address criticisms that it stuck in my head (especially what is to me a sign of disrespect for Bathsheba Smith, not only getting her husband wrong but refusing to take the wee moment it would need to correct the spelling of her name…but he never cared). It is a prime example, imo, of how he used others’ claims and rather than doing the research himself and just repeated it with more drama before ensuring it was accurate….or if he actually did look at the actual video and complete news articles rather than the cherry picked version on the anti site that first posted the info (assuming he got the stills from there, but he might have seen them after someone else posted them), just not bothering to question the criticisms once he adopted them himself. I think that one topic serves for many examples myself, shows his methodology at least up to that time, but I also watched him in action overtime while he was here and at FAIR and saw him arguing with those much better versed in sociology, etc and refusing to alter his opinions and methods when better options were suggested and gaps pointed out to him. That’s sloppy to me. He had his pet arguments and would rarely alter them to improve them from what I saw. He pulled in a lot, but either didn’t make the effort to organize so he could see the weaknesses and do something about them or perhaps lacked the skill but wasn’t willing to accept others’ constructive criticism. Not a major issue if pursuing a topic for fun…unless one sets oneself up as an authority or well of knowledge and insight or worse, engages in moral judgment of others based on faulty conclusions. (And I have mentioned before that if something is a bad argument, I don’t care what the point of the argument is; it falls into the category of ‘bad argument, should not be used’ if it’s not decently structured with solid claims, not because I don’t agree with its conclusion.) The only other thing that pops into my head since he brought it up a lot once he stumbled across it was his overdependence on Fowler, which lacked to the best of my knowledge when I researched it strong empirical support (iirc its earlier stages which he borrowed from others had the best support, the latter not so much) and it’s limited in its usefulness. In my view, it’s a rather overly simplistic, Western/Christian-centric, hierarchical framework of faith development too focused on the abstract and not behavior, so it’s weighted heavily in favor of higher education levels. Spirituality is seen as more mature more if one says the right things rather than if one lives a compassionate, faithful life. Perry’s approach is better supported empirically and has much broader application. It did have the same problem of using a limited sample size, but others have remedied that issue a great deal in areas of gender, culture, economic status, etc. I don’t remember him ever engaging with the benefits of using Perry over Fowler when others tried to open the conversation into that direction, but I may be wrong on that. If you require more specific examples, that would take time and interest I lack at the moment, so I wouldn’t count on more, but who knows, it might happen if your request takes up residence in my brain.

My bad, something was telling me I needed to double-check that.

The mind is an odd, twisty thing. Gut reaction wise, I would say definitely yes everytime and probably be rather indignant about it, but unfortunately I have seen evidence that people can unintentionally block out or misunderstand or most likely misremember what seems clear to me and that includes corrections. I assume being human I am doing the same kind of misinterpretations, etc. I base my judgment about intentional ignoring on behaviour (do they disappear as soon as a correction is made, is there any recognition of a correction at all, if they can explain their reasoning of why they didn’t include the correction without downvaluing it, etc), but generally the more opportunities to encounter corrected info and the simpler the correction, the more likely I judge it as intentional.

That is quite kind of you to say. I have the time to put into it, including corrections. I am sure that makes a major difference….that and the amount of posts I make. I have twice as many posts as the next highest (Mfb), eminency is rather automatic at that point, lol.

I dealt with the only point I cared about, the comparison of spinal severing and limb removal as equivalent to top and bottom surgeries. I based my analysis on my own personal experience with that type of surgery as well as my knowledge of many other women who also chose to have said surgeries. For the male bottom surgery I do not know what recovery would be like, haven’t read or heard anything about that, but it’s pretty easy to reason that such will not be confined to wheelchairs or need help to be moved, fed, cleaned, etc (the extent depends on where the spine or limb is severed and how extensive rehab is for the latter before prosthetics can be used, if prosthetics are available that is). My purpose was to suggest to Smac he dump that comparison as I saw it as weakening his arguments. It would actually make more sense to compare like to like if he felt a need to compare, iow those getting reductions or enhancements or taking medications because of dislike of the appearance of their body and not for any health reasons. There are long term health implications to cosmetic procedures even if not much day to day functional differences or as severe an impact as spinal severance or limb amputation. IMO, medication that needs to be taken lifelong is even more problematic, but that may be based on my own personal experience being very prone to side effects. Maybe you have made some assumptions about why I am posting that are misleading you. PS: perhaps I should mention that while many people in the US can get decent medical care after amputations such that at times it may be hardly noticeable to those around them (and I see that as a wonderful thing), when we were in Russia in 1995, there were amputees in many places in the city begging. They either had no or poor quality prosthetics. No doubt some was just staging for more pity from passersby, but we were told by people with personal experience that there was an extensive lack of basic medical supplies, let alone the specialized stuff, as well as reading articles in the news about shortages in hospitals and clinics around the country (they even lacked enough ibuprofen or Tylenol to hand out in some places). It was seen as a national tragedy by many.*** It was very obvious how much a difference losing a leg or legs could make and even the loss of a hand required major adjustments. Given the amount of work that needs to be invested to maintain quality of life, comparing the surgeries for change of appearance to surgeries resulting in major physical disability just doesn’t add up logically. ***looks like things haven’t changed that much in this regard unfortunately, boards on wheels were not uncommon sights while we were there: https://cepa.org/article/putins-limbless-generation-struggles-for-support/

You are misrepresenting what I said. I was not even discussing gender dysphoria but comparing the functional impact of different surgeries to show why one would be viewed as an extreme procedure in terms of requiring a major change in care, specifically with spinal cord severing and limb removal would have its major physical adjustments as and others that have very limited impact on required changes…one does not need a wheelchair or other mobility aids or caregivers, etc after a mastectomy or when ovaries and uterus is removed. I assume the same goes for penile removal. I did not say that little functional impact (outside of reproductive function) justified having any of the operations for transitioning. I was solely addressing how it diminished your argument to categorize these operations with spinal severing or the removal of a limb. It looks more like emotional manipulation to me, trying to shock people, than informed reasoning. My guess is women who have experienced these operations and know how much they typically affect one’s life will not see the comparison as useful. I based this on my discussions over the last 50 years with young and old women on this subject (and I have had a lot). I will mention here I was not dealing with emotional impact as that can be high depending on the person, but less easy to quantify and compare…though the fact that more younger women are choosing early preventative mastectomies seems to indicate the emotional impact has shifted to less than what it was for mastectomies. ——— How does misrepresenting what my criticism was help your argument?

I don’t think you know what circular reasoning is. Nor do you mind read me very well. I don’t like bad arguments no matter who makes them. Smac would do himself a favour to remove the weak parts of his reasoning and stick with the more solid ones. But his choice.

20% is not a few to me, I was thinking you meant at most a half dozen people who put any effort into their callings and more. Don't forget there are a lot of members who do care a great deal, but can’t. Many were powerhouses for the Church in the past, but health and age or other life situations (having to work on Sundays because now a single parent or caregiver) prevent them from attending. I don’t think it’s fair or respectful to use activity as a sign of “caring”.

I have no opinion on this at the moment. Matthew 28 is apparently viewed as original as it is consistent across the extant versions. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit …” (Matt 28:19) The question to me is would the ones baptizing for the dead be following the same pattern and purpose as those baptizing for the living and if so, what would that be if not to be made a part of the Christian community as well as a ritual cleansing/sign of repentance? Do you have anything in mind beyond it was not equivalent?

lol, I was feeling the same way, but it was both a Sunday and the end of the holidays so I figured everyone was busy.

Are you assuming the group Peter (or whoever it is) is talking about is not Christian? Or did you just mean the Christian group he was talking to and identifying with at that moment? If you see the baptizing group as nonChristian, could you explain why, please?

Seriously? Lots of boys get their breasts removed because they don’t want to look feminine and lots of women get some (lots for me, actually requested more be chopped off, but doctor decided otherwise for some reason…could have been for the very good reason of making reconstruction safer and not just easier, if so I don’t fault him) of their healthy breasts removed because they want smaller breasts. Besides some uncomfortable pulling on scar tissue and clothes fitting much better, functioning of life doesn’t change at all while this woman getting her spinal cord severed makes her much more dependent on others, limited in mobility, future medical issues much more likely, etc. That you consider them equivalent significantly changes my view of your reasoning. The impact of one is much more severe than the other. While many get breast reductions because of back pain and posture issues, many are like me and also got it done for aesthetic reasons while others have no problems, but simply prefer a better proportion body. Apparently women are getting smaller augmentation typically now for a more balanced look, which is smart imo. https://www.eliteplasticsurgeryaz.com/blog/breast-augmentation-trends-in-2025-what-phoenix-patients-should-know/ When I was in the hospital for the above, there was a woman in my room who had a radical mastectomy done who was in her early 20s even though she was perfectly healthy with no sign of breast cancer. Her sister, however, had just been diagnosed with breast cancer and her mother and several aunts and iirc her grandmother had died of said cancer. 10% of mastectomies involve removing a healthy breast when cancer is found in the other. I couldn’t find absolute numbers for mastectomies in healthy women, just that the rate is going up quite a bit. Iirc, at least the vast majority of breast removal in teens were for cis males. I and others have referenced that stat before. Removal of healthy breasts (the only current issue is having too much, potentially there is often a high risk of cancer for many who do choose, but that might never happen) is not an extreme procedure. One could even call it commonplace, imo. The doctor didn’t quibble one bit when I requested it even though I was not abnormally top heavy, just well endowed and annoyed with them, and that was over 30 years ago (while partial, it had pretty much the same medical impact as a full as far as I am aware, just more nerves cut and tissue and skin removed in a full version, the only real difference would have been positive imo, easier on my back and even better fitting clothes lol to get all removed). I am not as familiar with removal of healthy genitals as I am with breast reduction/removal, but since a person can fully function in society without requiring prosthetics or mobility aids or caregivers if a penis is removed and women have ovaries and uteruses removed all the time and often the long term effects are great (they have been for me, life is so much better, I only regret I waited so long), I see comparisons to spinal severance or limb removal as ridiculous to be frank. Obviously a lot of women may need hormonal therapy, but that can happen anyway even without any surgery, so not seeing it as extreme in the least. I do believe long term medical effects need to be considered with any surgery (wish my doctor had been clearer about potential for scar tissue so I would have been more proactive) and that is the reason I believe bottom surgery, which has significantly more medical impact than top surgery, should not be undergone until older, preferably over 25. I have a major problem allowing cisboys who are younger than 18 getting top surgery because they don’t want to appear feminine while refusing to allow trans boys to get the identical surgery for the same reason…because they don’t want to appear feminine, though I would hope in both cases counseling is extensive beforehand if surgery is an option because the cutting of nerves and the scar tissue discomfort is not trivial in my very personal experIence, even if not particularly life altering. Also, getting limbs removed and spines severed as part of your argument….how is using those extreme and highly unusual procedures (if there is no physical reason to cut) not attempting emotional manipulation and inappropriate comparisons (logical error in my view)? Again, there are some points in your arguments I agree with even if I find this aspect highly problematic. I think your arguments would be much stronger over all if you got rid of this not just weak, but quite bad argument imo.

It was to me personally. Do you need a quote or is a reconstruction enough? I may be able to find a reference to it as I think I have mentioned this refusal at other times because it mystified me, but finding the specific time will be difficult as it was quite awhile ago so simply searching on your name and “hypothetical” probably won’t work (added: it didn’t)

Where is the suggestion in what is written that those who were practicing baptism of the dead doubted? Peter doesn’t ask why are ‘some of you’ being baptized for the dead, is he? (I don’t know Greek, so I suppose it might be interpreted that way.). He is talking to one group about another group’s practices that demonstrate a belief in resurrection. And since he is using that last group as evidence, it seems to me that in other ways the group would be seen as pretty mainstream for that culture (otherwise, why appeal to them as some sort of authority?). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 15&version=NIV

Yet you claimed “many (most)”? Do you have one actual documented example even? If not, aren’t you arguing using a hypothetical claim as if it’s actually factual? It may actually be a nonissue (I came across several trans athletes who did not see it as appropriate to compete professionally until after medically transitioned, so this could be a line that very few might argue against) not just dismissed as one. You have also stated in the past you won’t argue against hypotheticals iirc, so it seems appropriate not to use a hypothetical to support your own arguments unless you have solid documentation that something has occurred I want to make clear there are points in your arguments I very much agree with, for example I don’t believe hormone therapy is enough in many sports to overcome the biological advantage, safety being my primary concern here. I just think you have some weak arguments you should dump.

What is his identification though? Does he really believe himself to be that animal or is it a symbolic, emotional, or subcultural identification? I don’t think using him as an example works unless you know for sure he has the same category of identification that occurs with transgender individuals.

California boy has explained many times he has family members (both as immediate family members and extended family) who are Saints and who have attitudes influenced by the Church that affect their interaction with him.

I still don’t get how you won’t accept extreme cases for arguments from others in some cases, but then frequently appeal to them yourself. (Serious observation and not a challenge as I do want to understand your reasoning).

It’s getting to the point where it is relatively easy if you have the money to noninvasively test different types of muscle mass, skeletal mass, bone density, and hormone levels. Divisions could be set up based on these. It is not workable yet for schools, but probably would be now for any profit producing professional team in quite a few relevant categories, though possibly there are still highly significant ones are not that accessible and won’t be for awhile. Not saying that it should be that way, just that such an argument of hormone testing is not enough (I agree) and thorough testing is invasive and costly isn’t going to be valid much longer, I am speculating. I am not aware of all the necessary testing though, so I could be wrong, but I am thinking enough factors will be able to be quickly and noninvasively tested as well as others more thorough testing such as detailed MRIs could be occasional tests to set up divisions around basic physical strength and speed, etc. Then create a program that amalgamates such measures and creates enough divisions based first on safety and then on competitive edges. Would be a hassle setting it up, but think of weight divisions in boxing. Dexa scans currently show bone density, Inbody scans show skeletal muscle mass, body fat percentage, visceral fat level, and water distribution, various tests (some taking just a few minutes of breathing into a tube) for metabolism and oxygen use and these are just the ones I know from general health testing. Given the interest in sports and the importance on maximizing financial and time investment, we will be getting easier, more effective testing of more and more relevant factors over time. And given the increasing abilities of AI, determining reasonable, less arbitrary divisions will be possible as well.

Where has this actually happened outside of possibly high school where the individual may not have had access yet to medical transitioning? (CFR please). The only ones I remember hearing of were ones who were trying to make the point allowing this was ridiculous. Not saying that this hadn’t happened, just thinking that claiming “many (most)” isn’t accurate.

I don’t have a problem with inspired reinterpretation of scripture as I see that as Nephi’s likening…making scripture more relevant to our times rather than insisting to view it in the same way over time. It would be nice if there was more recognition when this goes on in explaining the text and not just in adapting it for personal use rather than assuming there’s only one way to read scripture. With the Church’s opening up to using different translations of the Bible and greater use of scholarship, I think we will get there eventually.

Reel is sloppy, likely deceptive. He still hasn’t corrected Bathsheba Smith’s husband on his website, (George, not Hyrum and doesn’t even have enough respect to spell her name correctly) and let’s an accusation of lying stand that has been disproven on a thread he was participating on here (all one had to do is watch the video of Pres Holland rotating the Book of Mormon to see the wear patterns on the book are consistent with Elder Holland’s claims as the spine and the corners wore differently as is common on books in my experience), things that have been pointed out to him multiple times here when he’s shown up over the past 7 years.

This is good to hear.