LDS Church Files Brief In Trans Supreme Court Case

[longview]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

If yes, do you believe Riley Gaines has enough experience with harassment and cyber bullying herself that she would recognize that such information would increase the risk of such for these minors?  If not, why do you think she would be unaware of such risks?

A hate storm has deluged over Riley. But she heroically remained steadfast, courageous, and brave in fighting back against the demonic hordes. She stood with Charlie Kirk at several campus events standing for what is right, decent, fair, and faithful. She keeps going DESPITE the murderous hostility of the social engineers and radicals. She remains undaunted in carrying forth the memory of the national (and world) hero worthy of endless praises. She was labelled phobic and fascist (a tactic favored by Nehor) then subjected to actual mob punching (much to the delight of Nehor).

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, longview said:

A hate storm has deluged over Riley.

I agree.  I assume you believe as I do this is wrong and shouldn’t have happened.  Disagreement, even massive disagreement, doesn’t have to devolve into hate.  No one should be a target of hate in my view.

This also means she should be fully aware of the risks, correct?

There is one big difference between Gaines and the ones she mentioned.  She is an adult and they are minors.  It appears her brain is mature enough to cope with the deluge though I suspect she has been wounded and it’s very difficult for her at times.

Could you answer my questions, please?  I am trying to understand how you view the whole situation, not just Gaines’ experiences of being targeted, etc., but the minors’ ones as well.

Edited Tuesday at 09:43 PM by Calm

[longview]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Could you answer my questions, please?  I am trying to understand how you view the whole situation, not just Gaines’ experiences of being targeted, etc., but the minors’ ones as well.

I strongly agree with SMAC that it is social contagion.  That it moves too many youngsters to foolishly glom onto the radical chic fad trend of the day.

[Calm]

Okay, but why the youth are transgender has nothing to do with my questions, so perhaps you misunderstood?  I am trying to understand where you think I slandered  her or misrepresented what she did, so I am clarifying what you believe the evidence is and where you differ from me about the implications of what she did.

Here they are again:

 Do you recognize that she posted in the cases above actual photos of transgender minors that includes the information of their school along with other info that would allow readers to identify these minors?  The evidence she did this are screenshots of her account.  Perhaps you believe these are fakes (I don’t believe she has denied they were posted by her.)

Do you believe that posting such information likely draws negative attention to these youth?  If not, why do you believe this does not result in some cyber bullying or other negative attention?

If you do believe posting such likely draws negative attention, do you believe Riley Gaines has enough experience with harassment and cyber bullying herself that she would recognize that such information would increase the risk of such for these minors?  If not, why do you think she would be unaware of such risks?

Edited Wednesday at 02:59 AM by Calm

[longview]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

Okay, but why the youth are transgender has nothing to do with my questions, so perhaps you misunderstood?  I am trying to understand where you think I slandered  her or misrepresented what she did, so I am clarifying what you believe the evidence is and where you differ from me about the implications of what she did.

You targeted Riley by insinuating falsely that she is behaving as a "bigot" and for wanting to harm trans in any way. Not the case al all.

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

Here they are again:

 Do you recognize that she posted in the cases above actual photos of transgender minors that includes the information of their school along with other info that would allow readers to identify these minors?  The evidence she did this are screenshots of her account.  Perhaps you believe these are fakes (I don’t believe she has denied they were posted by her.)

In your three links that you posted, Riley did NOT post any pictures herself. In Media Matters, she was being interviewed and had no control over what pictures were being shown. It was the interviewer's and her staff that compiled and produce the show. As point in fact, she used the picture released by the second runner up's parents who put obscuring circles on all the heads of participants EXCEPT second runner up (their daughter). If any of them were going to be targeted, it would be the second runner up! Her parents understood that BUT the 3 of them were willing to stand for protecting female athletes and making it fair.

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe that posting such information likely draws negative attention to these youth?  If not, why do you believe this does not result in some cyber bullying or other negative attention?

That is definitely NOT the concern or intention of Riley. Her focus is to put pressure on administrators for their gross unfairness in forcing females to put up with the insanity of tran thugs being allowed to smash women/girls records. And even dangerously harming actual females.

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you do believe posting such likely draws negative attention, do you believe Riley Gaines has enough experience with harassment and cyber bullying herself that she would recognize that such information would increase the risk of such for these minors?  If not, why do you think she would be unaware of such risks?

The radical social engineers absolutely do NOT care. They love putting on a propaganda show. AND IF people do object, they relish the opportunity to slam them for being "intolerant bigots" or transphobic.

Those trannies? They exult in being vanguards of the "REVOLUTION" and love to flaunt their radicalism and "daring". All mostly social contagion.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, longview said:

You targeted Riley by insinuating falsely that she is behaving as a "bigot" and for wanting to harm trans in any way. Not the case al all.

No, I did not.

Someone can unintentionally harm others by being careless.  That happens a lot with adults and it bothers me, especially if I know they have the information available to them to help them avoid harming others.

My guess is Gaines believes her comments won’t make much difference when it comes to bullying.  She might very well assume the bullies are all on the other side targeting her and her side are the reasonable ones.

A lot of people don’t want to deal with cleaning up the mess those they see as their friends are making.  They don’t want to believe people who think like they do can be dangerous.

Thanks for explaining how you interpreted the information.

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, longview said:

As point in fact, she used the picture released by the second runner up's parents who put obscuring circles on all the heads of participants EXCEPT second runner up (their daughter).

And it troubles me when parents do this.  I think social media should be highly restricted in terms of juvenile pictures and info, limited to private only viewing and anyone who takes it public should have to pay fines where possible (as in money pulled from their website if it is monetized) and where not, get accounts blocked.  And that includes anyone reposting someone else’s material.

It will never happen, but I wish it would.  We need to protect our children better even when our intent is to celebrate them.

Edited Wednesday at 04:44 AM by Calm

[smac97]

On 1/31/2026 at 2:16 PM, smac97 said:

October 2024:

I noted: "I suspect the lawsuits about [pediatric sex trait modification treatments] will be legion."

I think this is starting to gain steam.  From December 2024:

The above lawsuit was dismissed in November 2025 (see also here).  Not on its merits, but because it was filed after the applicable statute of limitations.  The article mentions an intent to appeal.  Not sure if that has happened.

January 2026: Jury Awards Detransitioner $2 Million in Historic Medical-Malpractice Lawsuit

I think this will be the first of many lawsuits.  Some will fail due to statute of limitations and other legal impediments, but I think a lot will succeed.

"This man was just so emphatic, and pushing and pushing . . . I think it was a scare tactic."

Yes, I think it was too.  I think we will be seeing similar stories emerge from these lawsuits.

"{A}nd was even at risk of suicide should she not receive a mastectomy."

What other medical/surgical interventions are based on such reasoning?  Any?

From that last link:

See also here.  From the comments:

Litigation and constraints on insurance will kill this industry.  And good riddance to bad rubbish.

Thanks,

-Smac

An update:

House Judiciary Approves Bill Establishing Right to Sue for Damages on Trans Surgery

Quote

House Judiciary Committee Republicans unanimously approved a legislative proposal Wednesday that establishes a Private Right of Action enabling an individual child, or her parents or guardian, to seek compensatory damages from a provider of transgender surgery or treatments.

I think this is an excellent idea. 

Quote

“An individual subjected as a child to a covered intervention, or the parents or legal guardians of such individual, may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States for damages against any health care professional, hospital, or clinic who participates in the covered intervention on that child. Such a cause of action shall be available regardless of whether the alleged covered intervention occurred before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act,” the proposal states, entitled the “Chloe Cole Act of 2026,” introduced by Rep. Bob Onder (R-Wis.) and co-sponsored by 86 other House Republicans.

I have, for quite a while now, been posting and re-posting a set of bullet points as to the most acute concerns about pediatric sex trait modification treatments.  I anticipate some or all of these will be heavily litigated:

• Comorbidities. 
• Informed consent. 
• Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. 
• Irreversibility. 
• Sterilization. 
• Cutting off healthy body parts. 
• Longitudinal studies essentially absent. 
• Lifelong medical regimens. 
• Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. 
• Massive social contagion risks. 
• Massive risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society).

I guess we'll see.

Quote

Onder introduced the proposal in the House in February following President Donald Trump’s issuance of Executive Order 14187, which provided a comprehensive statement of opposition to all forms of transgender surgery and treatment on minors, subject to exceptions such as individuals born with both male and female genitalia.

Here is a Grok summary of this EO:

Quote

Summary of the Executive Order: "Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation" (January 28, 2025)

This presidential executive order directs federal policy to end what it describes as the "chemical and surgical mutilation" of minors in the context of gender transition, framing such interventions as harmful, irreversible, and based on "junk science" (particularly guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or WPATH).

Key Policy Stance

• Core Purpose: The U.S. government will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support efforts to "transition" children from one sex to another. It calls for rigorous enforcement of laws limiting these procedures.
• Rationale: Highlights risks including regret, sterility, inability to breastfeed, lifelong medical complications, and the view that children cannot consent to such changes. It aims to protect "impressionable children" from interventions promoted under the "false claim" that adults can change a child's sex.

Definitions

• Child: Individual under 19 years old.
• Chemical and Surgical Mutilation (sometimes called "gender affirming care"):
  • Puberty blockers (e.g., GnRH agonists) to delay normal puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex.
  • Cross-sex hormones (e.g., estrogen, testosterone, androgen blockers) to align appearance with an identity differing from biological sex.
  • Surgeries that alter appearance, sexual organs, or biological functions to match a differing gender identity.

The definition is narrowly tied to cases involving gender identity incongruent with biological sex.

Main Directives

• Rescind WPATH reliance: Agencies must amend or rescind policies based on WPATH Standards of Care. HHS must review literature on best practices for children with gender dysphoria and improve data quality.
• Defund procedures: Federal research/education grants to medical institutions must stop supporting these interventions on minors.
• HHS Actions: Use regulatory tools (Medicaid/Medicare conditions, drug reviews, Affordable Care Act Section 1557, etc.) to end the practices. Withdraw prior 2022 guidance on "gender affirming care" and protect whistleblowers.
• TRICARE (military dependents): Exclude coverage for these procedures on children under 18.
• Federal Employee Health Benefits: Require carriers to exclude pediatric transgender surgeries/hormones for 2026 plans, with premium adjustments.
• DOJ Priorities: Enforce laws against female genital mutilation, pursue fraud/misleading claims about procedures, support legislation for private rights of action (with long statute of limitations), and address "sanctuary states" that interfere with parental rights.
• Reporting: Agencies must report progress within 60 days.

Severability, general provisions, and standard disclaimers apply (consistent with law, no new private rights created, etc.).

Exceptions for DSD Treatments

The order contains no explicit carve-outs or exceptions mentioned for Disorders/Differences of Sex Development (DSD, formerly intersex conditions), genuine medical necessities, or non-gender-identity-related treatments.

However, the definition of prohibited "chemical and surgical mutilation" is limited to interventions performed because an individual "does not identify as his or her sex" (i.e., gender dysphoria/identity-based cases). Standard medical care for congenital DSDs, precocious puberty unrelated to gender identity, or other biological conditions would fall outside this definition and thus outside the order's restrictions. The order focuses exclusively on "so-called 'transition'" driven by identity rather than treating underlying physical disorders. No searches of the document turned up references to DSD, intersex, or broader medical exceptions.

This is a federal policy directive affecting funding, federal programs, and enforcement priorities. It does not directly ban private practices but pressures institutions and states through funding and guidance.

Adults can continue to do as they please, but even then I think comorbidities, lack of informed consent, etc. will remain viable grounds for adults to file these sorts of lawsuits.

Quote

Trump signed the order because, according to the text, “Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions. This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation’s history, and it must end.”

The EO continued, “Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding. Moreover, these vulnerable youths’ medical bills may rise throughout their lifetimes, as they are often trapped with lifelong medical complications, a losing war with their own bodies, and, tragically, sterilization.”

We have had ample discussion about these issues, which I think needs to be an ongoing thing.

Quote

It is difficult to know with precision how many minors have experienced transgender surgery in recent years. The largest estimate was issued in October 2024 by Do No Harm, an advocacy group consisting of medical professionals. The Do No Harm database included nearly 5,800 cases of minors receiving gender transition operations and treatment between 2019 and 2023.

Do No Harm, which is based in Salt Lake City, Utah, backs congressional passage of the Chloe Cole Act, and its Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Kurt Miceli, applauded “the elected officials who are fighting for The Chloe Cole Act, which establishes a private right of action for individuals who were harmed as vulnerable children by the sex-change industry. For too long the scandal of sex-rejecting procedures on minors has proliferated to an alarming degree through misinformation and pseudoscience.”

He continued, “These interventions carry significant risks, cause great harms, and often do irreversible damage. Passing The Chloe Cole Act will not only establish a strong deterrent against sex-rejecting procedures in minors by exposing harmful actors to real legal accountability but also mark a meaningful step toward justice for those harmed by the child sex-change industry.”

The Onder proposal is named after Chloe Cole, a self-described 22-year-old “detrans kid,” who, at age 13, began undergoing puberty-blocking and testosterone treatments, and then at age 15 suffered an irreversible double mastectomy. At age 18, she became a national advocate for the growing number of transitioned minors who regret having undergone the controversial procedures.

Chloe, who is a participant in IWF advocacy programs, said of the mark-up vote, “It means more than I can put into words to see the Chloe Cole Act introduced to potentially be made into U.S. law. While I never wanted my story to become the reason this bill exists, I hope it helps ensure that fewer children experience the lifelong consequences that I have.”

And in a statement issued earlier this year by Onder, Chloe observed: “While we’ve made significant strides in raising awareness and enacting protections in recent years, the fight is far from over. Too many children remain at risk of irreversible harm from puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical procedures pushed on them before they can fully understand the consequences. Reintroducing this bill is a vital step in our mission to ensure that no minor in America ever endures the kind of lasting, irreparable damage I experienced,” she underscored. “We must finish what we’ve started and safeguard the next generation from these experimental and barbaric treatments,” Cole said in the statement issued by Onder.

I acknowledge that many people have strong feelings of all sorts about this topic.  I hope Ms. Cole humanizes and puts a face to the children who have been adversely affected by PSTMs.

Thanks,

-Smac