smac97

I retract the comparison, and apologize. Thanks, -Smac

My "position" being . . . what? This? "I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life. I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good." I am not coming to this discussion with a blank slate. I have read quite a bit about it, and have come to some general, though still provisions, conclusions about it. So given the totality of what I have read and considered, I am not an equal opportunity skeptic as to every article or study. Frankly, that's a pretty strange expectation. If we were discussing the merits of the First Amendment, would you expect me to show equal measures of "skepticism" to articles opposing Free Speech? Wouldn't it be rather unsurprising to see me, an American lawyer for the past 20+ years, start out predisposed toward a particular point of view on that topic? And wouldn't it be sort of weird for you to then find fault with me for having that predisposition? Oh, brother. Show me the board rule that requires me to vet and scrutinize and parse out every cited reference before posting about it. Take your time. I'll wait. I have no idea what you are talking about. I started this thread, and of the 80 posts in it, 56 - 70% - are mine. I have responded to virtually every comment directed at me, so how is this "ignor{ing} their findings"? And yet, that is precisely why I started this thread. I know because I was there. I am the world's leading authority on what I think, so you'll pardon me if I don't give much probative weight to your pronouncements disputing the accuracy of my own statements about my own thoughts. See my above comments ("So given the totality of what I have read and considered, I am not an equal opportunity skeptic as to every article or study."). Again, I am not coming to this discussion with a blank slate. I'm pretty comfortable with my record of engaging others who disagree with me. Honestly, I have no recollection of reading this "Lott info." I have said: "I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life. I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good." And Ben, in response, accused me of being "disingenuous" in stating this as my own thoughts. I have said that brought the article "here for discussion, knowing that it would be picked apart," and above you are contradicting me about my own stated motive ("that doesn’t appear like you are bringing studies to the board in part to get factchecked"). Yeesh. I used to harbor some notions of common cause and fellowship with the other Latter-day Saints on this board. I guess that's gone now. Again: "I am not coming to this discussion with a blank slate. I have read quite a bit about it, and have come to some general, though still provisions, conclusions about it. So given the totality of what I have read and considered, I am not an equal opportunity skeptic as to every article or study." Well, I appreciate that you are not joining in the various and sundry declarations that I am a bigot, hate trans people, etc. That's . . . something. -Smac

FAIR. BookofMormonCentral. More Good Foundation. Private entities which speak and act in support of the Church, though not being affiliated with it. Yeah. But even outside the abuse, I have philosophical qualms with the State giving money to Dehlin (and to "pro-Mormon" outfits also). We are more than $35 trillion in debt. We have done our children, and our children's children, great harm. Thanks, -Smac

The wordplay only works when you call tax exemptions "tax subsidies." Well, no. Apples are not oranges, and oranges are not apples. Meanwhile, you did not address the rest of my post, including how tax exemptions differ from subsidies in terms of A) the source of the money, B) the legal distinction (boy, you really don't want to address Walz and Regan), C) the behavior of the State, and D) the Oprahification of the concept of "subsidy." I think you're a bit too mired in credentialism. Meanwhile, tax exemptions differ from subsidies because the source of the money is different. Tax exemptions also differ from subsidies because the State, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court, says they are different. Tax exemptions also differ from subsidies because the State is behaving differently (not acting in one instance, acting in another). Tax exemptions allow people to keep their own money, whereas subsidies involve redistributing taxpayer money—a fundamental difference. Tax exemptions also differ from subsidies because conflating them falls apart pretty much immediately. If tax exemptions = subsidies, then the government subsidizes nearly everyone who files taxes. That clearly isn't how subsidies work. And you apparently have not read Walz and Regan. That is one of my points. To dismiss something "out of hand" means "to reject or disregard it immediately and without careful consideration or thought." I have not done that. I have, instead, examined the law (Walz and Regan, which you have not addressed), and also provided fairly extensive explanation and reasoning for why I am rejecting your notion that "tax exemptions are subsidies," and that this claim "is not up for debate." Apples have some similarities with oranges, but those similarities do not mean that apples are oranges. In case you're curious, Walz was decided by SCOTUS in 1970, and Regan in 1983, also by SCOTUS. By your reasoning, a Nobel laureate is saying that an apple and an orange are both fruit, therefore an apple is an orange, and an orange is an apple. Meanwhile, the reasoning I am using comes principally from the U.S. Supreme Court (though I think the other arguments I have made, and which you have ignored, are also pretty solid). Thanks, -Smac

Apples are like oranges - they are both oranges. Doesn't really work, does it? There may be botanically nuanced reasons why we treat different fruits differently, but those differences do not concern the reality that apples and oranges are equivalent. Except, well, they aren't equivalent. They have some similarities, but also some fundamental differences. Apples are not oranges, and oranges are not apples. Yes, there is a real difference. A few, actually. Difference #1: The source of the money is different. There is a key distinction between keeping your own money and receiving it from another source. Tax exemption = I keep my own money because the government has decided not to tax certain income or activities. Subsidy = the government takes money from someone else and redistributes it to me. The source of the money is different. Let's say State stops charging you a toll on a public road. Is that the same as the State handing you a check for the toll amount? In my view, the answer is "No." One is the State not taking your money; the other is the State giving you someone else’s money. Difference #2: The legal distinction matters. Legally, tax exemptions are not subsidies. Taxes and subsidies fall squarely within the ambit of the law, so your effort to circumvent Walz and Regan does not work. In the latter, the Court held that tax exemptions can function like subsidies in some cases, but it did not overrule Walz, and it specifically disclaimed what you have been asserting (that tax exemptions are subsidies, and that this "is not up for debate"). Difference #3: There are also practical and fiscal differences in play here. A tax exemption simply allows someone to retain what they earned, but a subsidy requires the government to collect money from other taxpayers and redistribute it. The State is behaving differently. Difference #4: Your reasoning falls apart pretty quick when applied in other contexts. By your reasoning, if a tax exemption is a subsidy, the State is "subsidizing" every single person who gets a standard deduction on their taxes. By your logic, everyone who gets any deduction or exemption is receiving government money, every person making a charitable donation receives government money, every person deducting a business expense is receiving government money. If tax exemptions = subsidies, then the government subsidizes nearly everyone who files taxes. That clearly isn't how subsidies work. You are equating the State's non-interference with the State's direct financial support. Legally, practically, and fiscally, the two are not the same. Tax exemptions allow people to keep their own money, whereas subsidies involve redistributing taxpayer money—a fundamental difference. Thanks, -Smac

No, that is not the purpose of this thread. I should know, since I started it. Strange, then, that so many want to suppress and censor discussion and exploration and learning, rather than accommodate such things. Huh. Sexual abuse by bishops is also "EXTREMELY rare." Does that mean we should not pay attention to it? I'm reminded of a scene from Star Trek: Insurrection. A mediocre movie, but this scene was pretty good: Well? How many such procedures on children does it take? And anyway, are you sure about that "EXTREMELY rare" thing? Thousands of Minors Have Received ‘Gender-Affirming Surgeries’ It is worth noting that for some strange reason, the analysis included the younger category at ages 12–18, when it would have been much more elucidating to segregate minors 12–17 so we could know for sure how many children are having mastectomies, facial reconstructions, and genital redesigns. But it is clear that children’s bodies are being surgically altered. Indeed, another study out of Vanderbilt University found that 489 minors — ages 12–17, median age 16 — had mastectomies in 2019. How many of the 3,678 surgeries between ages 12–18 were of the genitals? According to the report, “405 patients (11.0%) aged 12 to 18 years underwent genital surgery.” I suspect — hope — that most of these were age 18, but surely not all. If I am right, that means at least some minors have had their genitals destroyed, rendering them infertile and almost surely incapable of orgasm for the rest of their lives. And remember, these statistics end at 2019. If anything, the transgender hysteria is far more intense in 2023, meaning that potentially more minors are being put under the knife. To me, this study should indicate the importance of hitting the brakes for transgender surgeries and puberty blocking in minors — as much of Western Europe is now doing. But the authors have a different take: In other words, they want more doctors doing these procedures — and this at a time when there are physician shortages around the country generally. Bottom line: Children are being surgically transitioned in appalling numbers, including at least some genital mutilations that often require life-long continuing medical support — when studies show that gender confusion in children and teenagers is often “transitory,” as the “de-transition” phenomenon is growing. I hope more states pass laws barring these procedures for anyone who is underage. Children should be protected from being permanently disfigured. And here: Over 5,700 children in 5-year period had gender surgeries And here: See also here: https://stoptheharmdatabase.com/ Thanks, -Smac

Sadly, indeed. Also sad is that I've become used to it. Huge portions of American society have reservations, concerns, etc. re: some aspects of trans ideology, such as: Men in women's sports, bathrooms, changing rooms, and prisons (and vice versa). Gender-related medical procedures on children and all the attendant concerns with that (informed consent, comorbidities, etc.). The efficacy of these medical interventions. Public events involving exposing children to highly sexualized behavior. Compelled/coerced speech. Increasing risks of violence (see, e.g., Nehor's comments in this thread about how "securing" "transgender rights" "requires" (his wording) "shooting authoritarians and fascists," "fighting," "burning things," and "all the rest"). I've said this a few times now: I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life. I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good. Not only is this a pretty mainstream sentiment (not extreme, not hateful, etc.), Ben actually has the chutzpah to say that I am "disingenuous" when I state the above. When Ben is presuming to know more about my thoughts than I do, and when a participant of his apparent stature, and others, casually slander others for holding an eminently reasonable position, calling it bigotry/hatred, then yeah, the devolution of this board is real. I have elsewhere discussed GAS as to minors, and my various concerns about that: Comorbidities. Informed consent. Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. Irreversibility. Sterilization. Electively removing healthy body parts of minors. Longitudinal studies essentially absent. Lifelong medical regimens. Ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. Social contagion risks. Risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society). Several of these concerns overlap with concerns re: GAS as to adults. The attempted suppression of discussion of these concerns is . . . troubling. Thanks, -Smac

I think the ad hominem stuff is quite a deflection. Indeed, that is the very purpose of the fallacy. I think I have. Here it is again: I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life. I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good. The article points to a study. And I don't think it has been "shown to be false." Respectfully, I disagree with this characterization. The "false rhetoric," the "false and misleading" stuff. All of it. I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life. I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good. I think this is quite a morally defensible position. Well, no. The opening thread started with an explanation of the Church's position. I think the church's position has both religious and practical dimensions. Well, as you like. Thanks, -Smac

Smac argues like a lawyer. My practice as an attorney influences how I think, write, research, etc. I'll own that. Nope. This is not an accurate characterization of my position. As a lawyer, I think the pursuit of "truth" is the fundamental purpose of our legal system. As a lawyer, I acknowledge that people can, when addressing a contested issue, have varying perspectives on what "truth" is. As a lawyer, I participate in an adversarial system in which two independent counsel present evidence, arguments and authorities to argue points of fact and of law before an impartial judge and jury. This adversarial system is designed to suss out, as best we can, the "truth." Meh. This is facile nonsense. We all come here with our own presuppositions, opinions, biases, etc. Including you. I am as interested in getting past these and "to the truth of the matter" as much as you are. Thanks, -Smac

I don't necessarily agree with everything I post here. I brought it here to open up a discussion, knowing the article and the study would be picked apart. And I was correct. Well, no. Also no. I often post content with which I disagree in one way or another. Well, no. I have, for some years now, been pointing to an overall lack of longitudinal data on the efficacy of these medical treatments. Indeed, this is one of my principal concerns about them. Well, no. I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life. I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good. If my assessment is wrong, I want to know that. Hence my bringing these items to this board, where there are some people who can provide perspectives and insights on these matters. Alas, you aren't one of these. Ben, though nearly as nasty as you in the ad hominem department, can certainly present some thought-provoking commentary. Pretty much all you post is snark and vitriol. Respectfully, I disagree with this assessment of the evidence. Request, not demand. And more ad hominem. Thanks, -Smac

And more ad hominem. Thanks, -Smac

It was there. Everyone can read it. Yes, but you did not quote it or address it. Not a big deal normally, but here the omission seems to matter quite a bit. Don't make the mistake of reading the text in isolation from the footnote, as you seem to be doing. Funny, then, that Justice Rehnquist did not say that "tax exemptions are a functional subsidy," and that he instead - in Footnote 5 - expressly stated that "{i}n stating that exemptions and deductions, on the one hand, are like cash subsidies, on the other, we of course do not mean to assert that they are in all respects identical" (emphases added). If I say "apples are like oranges," I am acknowledging their similarities (they are both fruits, both grow on trees, both are about the same size and shape, both are sweet, both have flesh that is preferable to the outer skin, etc.), but I am not saying the "are in all respects identical," that an apple is - to use your wording - "a functional" orange. I think your disregard of Footnote 5 materially undermines your reliance on Regan, even to the point that you are trying to argue that Justice Rehnquist said that an apple is "functionally" an orange. Footnote 5 clarifies that he "of course" did not mean what you are imputing to him. Thanks, -Smac

I don't think I have used "abusive language." That's your gig. And SU's. And Nehor's. I don't think I have posted any "false narratives." These are difficult issues, and reasonable minds can disagree about them. And more ad hominem. Nobody likes being publicly disparaged in the ways you and Nehor mete out. And all I have to do to avoid it is . . . submit. Knock on your door and ask you to not call me a bigot. Conform. "Think the way you want me to think." Capitulate. Praise the emperor's beautiful clothes. Don't speak. Don't give voice to my thoughts. Don't do these things, or else Ben will publicly disparage my character. "It is that simple." I'll pass. Respectfully, I am not. The vitriol has been from you, SU, Nehor, etc. Labeling viewpoints you disagree with as "false narratives" puts the cart before the horse. I think I am. I am providing links to studies and news items, commenting on them, etc. I started this thread to have a discussion. And we are having it. I would like to have it without the vitriol. I brought it here and opened it for discussion. Ok. And your study was better in what way? It is a real question, and I would like a real answer. It's not my study. I didn't write it. I brought it here for discussion, knowing that it would be picked apart. And it has been. Which lack (of longitudinal data) has been a substantial concern of mine for quite a while. I think that this is highly disingenuous. And more ad hominem. I am the world's leading authority on what I think. Yes. Here is that position: I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life. I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good. I think we are mostly lacking in "evidence based research." That said, I have done a lot of reading and thinking and writing on this stuff. I think some appreciable portions of the extant "research" are ideologically compromised. There is strong evidence of ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on this area of medical care. I think we are lacking in meaningful longitudinal data. I think these absences essentially negate the possibility of "informed consent." I think comorbidities are not getting nearly enough attention as they deserve. I think there is cause for real concern re: "social contagion" aspects of this issue. I think these medical treatments are largely irreversible, often result in permanent sterilization, often require lifeline medical regimens, and so on. I think many people, including you, are ignoring these concerns, and that you are also attempting to suppress or censor discussion of them by shouting them down with accusations of "bigotry," "hatred," and so on. Again, I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life. I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good. If we were having that discussion, you would be posting material of an entirely different character. Probably so, since the "material" would not be nearly as prone to being compromised by ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care, which influences/pressures are far more apparent and forceful as regarding GAS. I haven't called anyone a bigot, hater, propagandist, etc. That's all you and yours. Well, yes, they are. Not really. I'm objecting, but that's about it. Yes, i see that. Meanwhile, despite your attempt to speak for me, I'll lay out my general position: I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life. I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good. Yes, it is. I have noted, many times in many posts in many threads over many years, the absence of useful longitudinal data, and our need for it. Um, no. I've never said that. I expressly deny and reject any such a thing. If someone wants GAS, and if comorbidities are absent or sufficiently managed, and if meaningful longitudinal data is available and validated, and if the patient can provide informed consent, and if the person has the financial means to endure the lifelong medical regimen that follows some GAS, and if the person is aware of the irreversibility and sterilization effects (part of having "informed consent"), and if proper authorities and experts have approved a GAS as being medically ethical and legally authorized, then I think individuals ought to have that option. We're in a free country. My concern, though, is that comorbidities are not absent or sufficiently managed, and meaningful longitudinal data is not yet available and validated, and I am concerned that patients are not situated to give informed consent, and so on. And for voicing these concerns, you and yours label me a bigot. I have substantially larger concerns with GAS as pertaining to minors. Assuming comorbidities are absent or sufficiently managed, meaningful longitudinal data is available and validated, and the patient has provided informed consent (I question whether minors can do this, but mentally competent adults can), sure. Again: I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life. I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good. Thanks, -Smac

And more ad hominem. Respectfully, I did no such thing. So are mine. I agree. And more ad hominem. Thanks, -Smac

Stop trying to suppress viewpoints with which you disagree. Respectfully, no. It was a news item. I think it did. Moreover, I looked for, found and provided a link to an abstract of the study. And I provided my own thoughts and commentary. So I did not "parrot" anything. "If." My post was not thoughtless, and the article is not "propaganda." It would be nice if you could get past ad hominem stuff. And more ad hominem. I care about what is going on. I care enough to post articles in a forum where I know people such as you, Ben, Nehor, etc. are going to resort to ugly personal attacks, which I take as an attempt to suppress speech which you dislike. I invite you to consider what has been called the "Counterspeech Doctrine." See, e.g., here: See also this sage observation from Justice Brandeis: As we are in an online forum, physical violence is not really a part of the calculus (though Nehor has ominously declared that "secur{ing}" "{t}ransgender rights" "requires" (his wording) "fighting, shooting authoritarians and fascists, ... burning things, throwing pies into the faces of bigots, and all the rest"). Also, since you and your fellows don't own the board, you cannot get me booted from it. That leaves the "Great & Spacious Building" approach to seek "enforce silence": coercion and suppression through shame. Hence the various and repeated vitriolic accusations of "bigotry," "hate" "propaganda" and all the rest. And more ad hominem. Thanks, -Smac