The Nehor Posted December 29, 2025 Posted December 29, 2025 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Newsweek: Liberals Should Read the HHS Review of Pediatric ‘Gender Affirming’ Care | Opinion This aspect of the trans ideological movements is, I think, dying. I think this is a very positive development. "{M}any of the organizations and individuals we trust have gotten this issue wrong." "{T}he medical practice now known euphemistically as pediatric 'gender affirming care' is based on methodologically weak research that sterilized a group of gay or bisexual youth and left one of them dead." "{B}uried unfavorable research..." "{M}inimized concerning findings (including completed suicides in minors...)" "{M}ale patients who were puberty-blocked early never developed the ability to experience sexual pleasure. A year later, her organization, {WPATH}, released guidelines that recommend early use of puberty blockers. ... The risk of lifelong sexual dysfunction was left unmentioned." "This should be concerning to anyone who cares about protecting vulnerable populations." "{T}here is no longer any legitimate scientific controversy about the weak evidence underlying the purported benefits of the 'gender affirming' model for youth." "{T}he harms of pediatric medical transition far outweigh the unproven mental health benefits." "Research suggests that for many minors with gender-related distress, this discomfort will resolve during the course of normal adolescent development." Thanks, -Smac You trust vaccine-denier and known quack RFK Jr’s politicized HHS to tell the truth about medicine? LMAO Oh, and that opinion piece is written by well known anti-transgender activists and wants to explain that it is okay, this was mostly written by liberals so you can trust us. I guess it fooled you but I don’t think many who support transgender rights will fall for it. Credulity does seem to abound in many these days. This isn’t a shift in the general medical consensus which is still in the developed world following the consensus of data on how to help transgender people. That rogue cranks have been handed control over a government agency doesn’t change that. It just means we have idiots in charge of the HHS who are hard at work making measles great again. This is pathetic. 2
smac97 Posted December 29, 2025 Posted December 29, 2025 (edited) 17 hours ago, The Nehor said: You trust vaccine-denier and known quack RFK Jr’s politicized HHS to tell the truth about medicine? LMAO First, I am willing to listen. Your endless non-substantive responses don't move the needle, but I am happy to listed to substantive arguments and sources. The authors seem to have some training in the field: Quote Moti Gorin, PhD, MBE, is a bioethicist and philosopher at Colorado State University. He was a contributor to HHS’ Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices and has published on issues at the intersection of pediatric medical transition and medical ethics. Kathleen McDeavitt, MD, is a psychiatrist and associate professor at Baylor College of Medicine. She was a contributor to HHS’ Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices and has published on topics related to the evidence base and clinical guidelines in pediatric gender medicine. Second, there have been all sorts of politicization going on (particularly, and far more so, on your side of the discussion), hence my efforts to consider multiple sources. Third, it's not like these findings are outliers: Quote While it may sound jarring to readers who have, reasonably, deferred to U.S. medical societies and civil rights advocacy groups on this issue, there is no longer any legitimate scientific controversy about the weak evidence underlying the purported benefits of the “gender affirming” model for youth. Readers may also be surprised to learn that the first countries to restrict these practices were politically progressive Finland and Sweden, whose socialized health care systems are widely admired. It was these Scandinavian social democracies—not U.S. red states—that were first to conduct systematic reviews and conclude there is no reliable evidence supporting pediatric medical transition. Finland sharply restricted the practice in 2020, followed by Sweden in 2022. The U.K. was next, and other nations are pulling back, too. Finland. Sweden. UK. Norway. Denmark. Australia. Cass Report. WPATH shenanigans. The Bad Orange Man had little or nothing to do with their conclusions and pullbacks, as much of this started before he took office. And lots and lots and lots of additional sources: Why disturbing leaks from US gender group WPATH ring alarm bells in the NHS Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence Dr. Paul McHugh's SCOTUS Amicus Brief Opinion: Europe’s example on gender treatment Affirming Deception: Dishonesty in Gender-Medicine British Medical Journal: Gender Ideology Not Settled Science Why Europe and America are going in opposite directions on youth transgender medicine Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Transgender Care Needs Better Science, More Transparency You never address any of this stuff, and instead summarily waive it off as "bad evidence." Fourth, the "it may sound jarring" comment in the above article seems to be aptly applied here. You sound jarred. The radical and absurd elements of the trans movement are failing all over the place, both in theory and practicality. The most obvious fails are A) the movement's incursion into healthcare for children, and B) the current and pending legal matters which I predict will undo much of the movement's incremental efforts over the past few years. And then there is the question of how much violence will be expressed by the extremist ideologues as things no longer trend toward their preferences, and how much of that violence will be tolerated by society. I suspect that we will see some developments when the SCOTUS decision in the consolidated referenced in the OP is published. I hope there is no violence, or that it is limited. 17 hours ago, The Nehor said: Oh, and that opinion piece is written by well known anti-transgender activists and wants to explain that it is okay, this was mostly written by liberals so you can trust us. I guess it fooled you but I don’t think many who support transgender rights will fall for it. Credulity does seem to abound in many these days. We wrote the HHS review on treatment for minors with gender dysphoria. We hope our critics actually read our report Quote By Evgenia Abbruzzese, Alex Byrne, Farr Curlin, Moti Gorin, Kristopher Kaliebe, Michael K. Laidlaw, Kathleen McDeavitt, Leor Sapir, and Yuan Zhang Dec. 8, 2025 The nine authors wrote the recent HHS review of medical care for minors with gender dysphoria. The Department of Health and Human Services recently published its final version of “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices.” The review confirmed what several European health authorities recognized as early as 2019: the assumed benefits of pediatric medical transition are profoundly uncertain, while the risks are significant. As the authors of the HHS review, we understand that some may be skeptical of our conclusions. After all, the report was commissioned by an administration whose policies are unpopular with many in the medical community. But we are a politically diverse group. Most of us are liberals and longtime Democratic Party supporters. All of us share a commitment to evidence-based medicine and have been willing to stick our necks out, often at personal or professional cost, to speak the truth. We did not expect HHS to entrust this sensitive task to us; it could have chosen a team that was ideologically aligned with the current administration. We are grateful that the administration set aside coalition politics and chose us instead. ... Evgenia (Zhenya) Abbruzzese is a co-founder of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. Alex Byrne is a professor of philosophy at MIT. Farr Curlin is an internist and professor at Duke University School of Medicine. Moti Gorin is a bioethicist and philosopher at Colorado State University. Kristopher Kaliebe is a psychiatrist and professor at the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine. Michael K. Laidlaw is an endocrinologist at Michael K. Laidlaw, M.D., Inc. Kathleen McDeavitt is a psychiatrist and associate professor at Baylor College of Medicine. Leor Sapir is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Yuan Zhang is a Canadian researcher and the founder of Evidence Bridge. Abbruzzese, Curlin, Kaliebe, Laidlaw, and Sapir have received payments and honoraria for work related to pediatric gender medicine, such as expert testimony, legal consultations, speaking engagements, or conference attendance. I find this ... persuasive. Your because-I-say-so invectives are less so. I hope you read the report. I suspect you have not done so. Quote Our process for producing this review was independent of the current administration. Our findings are transparently laid out; our methods are reproducible. After publication of the initial review in May, HHS sought critical feedback from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, and the American Psychiatric Association, among others, in a peer review process. The APA, to its credit, agreed to participate. Because the other two organizations refused, we decided to respond to two published critiques of the initial review by some two dozen of the top gender clinicians in the United States. If anyone could find significant errors in the review, surely it would be them. And yet, the APA’s peer review and the two critiques failed to identify any significant errors. Meanwhile, other peer reviewers commended the report overall, identifying only minor issues and in some cases arguing that our assessment of the field wasn’t critical enough. A past president of the Endocrine Society agreed with the report’s evidence review and incorporation of evidence from physiology, pharmacology, and human sexual development. Experts in methodology at Belgium’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine commended the report’s methodology as “robust” and “transparent.” Declaring the report’s “findings and conclusions” to be “correct,” a distinguished professor of bioethics (and critic of claims that vaccines cause autism) concluded: “Given the lack of demonstrable benefit and concern about potential harms, the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender transition surgery in minors with gender dysphoria cannot be ethically justified.” This seems like pretty solid evidence-based analysis. Quote The HHS review comes out against a backdrop of growing international skepticism about pediatric medical transition. Scholarly criticism, including research authored by one of us, Abbruzzese, has shown that even the seminal studies that launched the field are unreliable due to significant methodological limitations. Researchers in this field greatly exaggerate or misrepresent their findings, and studies are regularly spun or go unpublished if their results do not support the medical model. Systematic appraisal of medical guidelines used in U.S. health care settings found them to be untrustworthy. In Sweden and Finland, evidence reviews (like the one we conducted) and practice reversals were initiated under liberal governments. The ban on puberty blockers outside of clinical trials in the U.K. was endorsed by Conservative and Labour governments alike. In America, by contrast, the debate over pediatric gender medicine has split mainly along party lines, though Democratic-leaning voters, unlike their representatives, are mostly critical of the practice. Lots of links in there. I've reviewed most of them. I suspect you have not. Quote The review also presents evidence of a medical scandal at home. Leading gender clinicians have misled their colleagues and the public not only about the evidence, but about what pediatric gender clinics actually do. In 2023, the author of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement on youth gender medicine said the quiet part out loud: “the child’s sense of reality and feeling of who they are is the navigational beacon to sort of orient treatment around.” Boston Children’s Hospital is a good example. In 2021, the director of its gender clinic admitted in a private video that the clinic was giving out puberty blockers “like candy.” Court proceedings later revealed that assessment times at the clinic had collapsed from 20 hours or more in 2013 to two hours by 2018. We discuss other examples of how safeguards have been systematically dismantled in the HHS review. Of note, neither the APA nor the gender clinicians who criticized the review disputed any of these findings. "'{T}he child’s sense of reality and feeling of who they are is the navigational beacon...'" "{T}he {Boston Children’s Hospital} clinic was giving out puberty blockers 'like candy.'" "{A}t the clinic had collapsed from 20 hours or more in 2013 to two hours by 2018." "{E}xamples of how safeguards have been systematically dismantled." Quote One of the main criticisms of our report has been that none of us prescribe hormonal interventions to or perform gender surgeries on minors. But is it wise to trust experts who are committed to a certain treatment model to impartially evaluate the evidence base for their practice? The tragedy of opioid overprescription is proof enough that physicians strongly committed to their favored treatment model are capable of great error. The suggestion that a review of pediatric gender medicine “should be authored by experts who have dedicated their careers” to the practice should be taken with a large grain of salt. "{I}s it wise to trust experts who are committed to a certain treatment model to impartially evaluate the evidence base for their practice?" Quote Evidence appraisal requires specialized expertise. For good reason, Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. entrusted such evidence evaluation to methodology experts. The HHS review’s evidence appraisal was also performed by a professional in evidence evaluation — and confirmed as accurate by researchers at Cochrane Belgium, who served as peer-reviewers. If you can provide competent critiques of the HHS assessment, please do so. I would like to hear what they have to say. Meanwhile, WPATH seems awash in ideology-based activists and activism, hence my concern about its influence. From the article: Quote Last year, court documents revealed what happens when doctors in a specialist subfield have free rein to grade their own homework. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) suppressed evidence reviews whose conclusions it disliked and eliminated age minimums in response to political pressure when drafting its latest medical guidelines. That guideline was promptly adopted across American health care settings. Systematic reviews of guideline quality finding it unfit for use, and detailed coverage of the WPATH scandal in outlets such as The New York Times and the Economist, didn’t help: The WPATH guideline continues to form the foundation for medical education in this area. "{WPATH} suppressed evidence reviews whose conclusions it disliked and eliminated age minimums in response to political pressure when drafting its latest medical guidelines." Quote Some critics might respond that very low-quality evidence doesn’t mean a treatment doesn’t work and that it should be provided nonetheless, especially when some patients say they are benefitted by it. We address this line of reasoning explicitly in the HHS review and find it unpersuasive, even when applied to experimental settings. Evidence-based medicine was developed to counter the overreliance on expert opinion and clinical anecdote. Decades of research have failed to demonstrate convincing evidence of benefit from puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries in minors. Meanwhile, some of their harms are known (infertility, decreased bone density accrual, inability to breastfeed, arrested genitalia development) and some can plausibly be expected (sexual dysfunction, delayed neurocognitive development). As these significant harms outweigh speculative benefits, the continued insistence by some medical groups that hormones and surgeries should be routine practice —meaning, offered outside of strictly controlled clinical trials — is inconsistent with principles of evidence-based medicine and medical ethics. "{T}hese significant harms outweigh speculative benefits." The article goes on to address your airy critique: Quote Some of our critics have alleged that we are “anti-LGBTQ+.” This is a baseless smear that rests entirely on the fact that we have questioned the evidence base for using endocrine and surgical interventions to treat gender dysphoria in minors. The fallaciousness of the allegation is obvious: our skepticism of the evidence is dismissed because we are “anti-LGBTQ+,” and we are called “anti-LGBTQ+” because of our skepticism of the evidence. Medical professionals in the United States should look past the partisan framing and engage with the substance of this debate about how to help vulnerable adolescents. Unlike the gender clinicians who, along with the medical organizations that represent their interests, urge the public to “trust the experts,” we are not asking people to take our word for it. We encourage everyone to read the supplement to the HHS review, which contains all the peer reviews and our responses to them, and judge for themselves. "We encourage everyone to read the supplement to the HHS review, which contains all the peer reviews and our responses to them, and judge for themselves." Yep. 17 hours ago, The Nehor said: This isn’t a shift in the general medical consensus which is still in the developed world following the consensus of data on how to help transgender people. There has been a massive shift in medical consensus in the developed world re: pediatric "gender affirming" care. There is also strong evidence that many professional associations have been deeply compromised by sociopolitical preferences and pressures regarding "trans" issues. A sampling: I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle Tavistock trust whistleblower David Bell: ‘I believed I was doing the right thing’ The Responsibility to Inform The pullback from youth gender transition has begun A Slow Trek Back to Truth? Puberty Blockers, Cross-Sex Hormones, and Youth Suicide DC children's hospital offered 'gender affirming' hysterectomies for kids, audio and deleted webpage reveal Putting numbers on the rise in children seeking gender care Why disturbing leaks from US gender group WPATH ring alarm bells in the NHS Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence Dr. Paul McHugh's SCOTUS Amicus Brief I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery Gender dysphoria and psychiatric comorbidities in childhood: a systematic review Most kids grow out of their desire to change their sex The Cass Report Four-Year Study on Gender Affirming Care in the UK Warns of the Dangers of 'Gender Transition' for Kids Opinion: Europe’s example on gender treatment Affirming Deception: Dishonesty in Gender-Medicine British Medical Journal: Gender Ideology Not Settled Science Why Europe and America are going in opposite directions on youth transgender medicine Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Transgender Care Needs Better Science, More Transparency Second Thoughts on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Discussing So-Called “Gender-Affirming Care” With Dr. Elliot Kaminetzky Money Is Driving Medicine’s Embrace of Child Transgenderism Woke doc refused to publish $10 million trans kids study that showed puberty blockers didn’t help mental health Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement Thousands of Minors Have Received ‘Gender-Affirming Surgeries’ All you are showing is a "whistling past the graveyard" or "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"-style mindset. 17 hours ago, The Nehor said: That rogue cranks have been handed control over a government agency doesn’t change that. Tavistock. Finland. Sweden. UK. Norway. Denmark. Australia. Cass Report. The HHS report is not an outlier in any sense. 17 hours ago, The Nehor said: It just means we have idiots in charge of the HHS who are hard at work making measles great again. This is pathetic. I have sometimes pondered the source of the vicious and visceral posture some folks take re: defending the more problematic elements of trans ideology, particularly in the context of imputing, as you so frequently do, horrible motives and character defects onto strangers with viewpoints that find both the ideology and its real-world effects to be troubling and problematic. My surmise is that this reaction is borne of a manifest lack of substantive evidence, analysis and reasoning to support these problematic elements (pediatric regimens where longitudinal data, informed consent, etc. are lacking, incoherent re-definitions of basic terms like "woman," industrial-scale equivocation, definitional whack-a-mole evasions, etc.). If you could marshal such things, I think you would. Instead, all we get is invective ("well known anti-transgender activists," "idiots," "this is pathetic," etc.). Normally, I would be more or less content to reach my own conclusions, explain them and how I reached them, vote in ways congruent with my views, and then move on with life. But where violence is not only justified/rationalized and threatened, but is also an actualized response to disagreement about such things, I think we need to pay more attention and be more vigilant in addressing the ideologies and pathologies that are giving rise to such violent proclivities. Same goes for other real-world ramifications (e.g., men in women's sports, bathrooms, prisons). I am grateful that society is now addressing these issues. Thousands of children have been permanently and profoundly affected by the importation of trans ideology into the practice of medicine. Thousands of children have had healthy body parts removed, have had their reproductive capacity eliminated or drastically reduced, have had their ability to enjoy sexual sensation eliminated or drastically reduced, and so on. And this has happened despite the lack of longitudinal data, lack of informed consent, the substantial presence of comorbidities, and so on. All under the rubric of "healthcare." Thanks, -Smac Edited December 29, 2025 by smac97
The Nehor Posted December 30, 2025 Posted December 30, 2025 7 hours ago, smac97 said: First, I am willing to listen. Your endless non-substantive responses don't move the needle, but I am happy to listed to substantive arguments and sources. The authors seem to have some training in the field: Second, there have been all sorts of politicization going on (particularly, and far more so, on your side of the discussion), hence my efforts to consider multiple sources. Third, it's not like these findings are outliers: Finland. Sweden. UK. Norway. Denmark. Australia. Cass Report. WPATH shenanigans. The Bad Orange Man had little or nothing to do with their conclusions and pullbacks, as much of this started before he took office. And lots and lots and lots of additional sources: Why disturbing leaks from US gender group WPATH ring alarm bells in the NHS Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence Dr. Paul McHugh's SCOTUS Amicus Brief Opinion: Europe’s example on gender treatment Affirming Deception: Dishonesty in Gender-Medicine British Medical Journal: Gender Ideology Not Settled Science Why Europe and America are going in opposite directions on youth transgender medicine Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Transgender Care Needs Better Science, More Transparency You never address any of this stuff, and instead summarily waive it off as "bad evidence." Fourth, the "it may sound jarring" comment in the above article seems to be aptly applied here. You sound jarred. The radical and absurd elements of the trans movement are failing all over the place, both in theory and practicality. The most obvious fails are A) the movement's incursion into healthcare for children, and B) the current and pending legal matters which I predict will undo much of the movement's incremental efforts over the past few years. And then there is the question of how much violence will be expressed by the extremist ideologues as things no longer trend toward their preferences, and how much of that violence will be tolerated by society. I suspect that we will see some developments when the SCOTUS decision in the consolidated referenced in the OP is published. I hope there is no violence, or that it is limited. We wrote the HHS review on treatment for minors with gender dysphoria. We hope our critics actually read our report I find this ... persuasive. Your because-I-say-so invectives are less so. I hope you read the report. I suspect you have not done so. This seems like pretty solid evidence-based analysis. Lots of links in there. I've reviewed most of them. I suspect you have not. "'{T}he child’s sense of reality and feeling of who they are is the navigational beacon...'" "{T}he {Boston Children’s Hospital} clinic was giving out puberty blockers 'like candy.'" "{A}t the clinic had collapsed from 20 hours or more in 2013 to two hours by 2018." "{E}xamples of how safeguards have been systematically dismantled." "{I}s it wise to trust experts who are committed to a certain treatment model to impartially evaluate the evidence base for their practice?" If you can provide competent critiques of the HHS assessment, please do so. I would like to hear what they have to say. Meanwhile, WPATH seems awash in ideology-based activists and activism, hence my concern about its influence. From the article: "{WPATH} suppressed evidence reviews whose conclusions it disliked and eliminated age minimums in response to political pressure when drafting its latest medical guidelines." "{T}hese significant harms outweigh speculative benefits." The article goes on to address your airy critique: "We encourage everyone to read the supplement to the HHS review, which contains all the peer reviews and our responses to them, and judge for themselves." Yep. There has been a massive shift in medical consensus in the developed world re: pediatric "gender affirming" care. There is also strong evidence that many professional associations have been deeply compromised by sociopolitical preferences and pressures regarding "trans" issues. A sampling: I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle Tavistock trust whistleblower David Bell: ‘I believed I was doing the right thing’ The Responsibility to Inform The pullback from youth gender transition has begun A Slow Trek Back to Truth? Puberty Blockers, Cross-Sex Hormones, and Youth Suicide DC children's hospital offered 'gender affirming' hysterectomies for kids, audio and deleted webpage reveal Putting numbers on the rise in children seeking gender care Why disturbing leaks from US gender group WPATH ring alarm bells in the NHS Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence Dr. Paul McHugh's SCOTUS Amicus Brief I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery Gender dysphoria and psychiatric comorbidities in childhood: a systematic review Most kids grow out of their desire to change their sex The Cass Report Four-Year Study on Gender Affirming Care in the UK Warns of the Dangers of 'Gender Transition' for Kids Opinion: Europe’s example on gender treatment Affirming Deception: Dishonesty in Gender-Medicine British Medical Journal: Gender Ideology Not Settled Science Why Europe and America are going in opposite directions on youth transgender medicine Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Transgender Care Needs Better Science, More Transparency Second Thoughts on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Discussing So-Called “Gender-Affirming Care” With Dr. Elliot Kaminetzky Money Is Driving Medicine’s Embrace of Child Transgenderism Woke doc refused to publish $10 million trans kids study that showed puberty blockers didn’t help mental health Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement Thousands of Minors Have Received ‘Gender-Affirming Surgeries’ All you are showing is a "whistling past the graveyard" or "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"-style mindset. Tavistock. Finland. Sweden. UK. Norway. Denmark. Australia. Cass Report. The HHS report is not an outlier in any sense. I have sometimes pondered the source of the vicious and visceral posture some folks take re: defending the more problematic elements of trans ideology, particularly in the context of imputing, as you so frequently do, horrible motives and character defects onto strangers with viewpoints that find both the ideology and its real-world effects to be troubling and problematic. My surmise is that this reaction is borne of a manifest lack of substantive evidence, analysis and reasoning to support these problematic elements (pediatric regimens where longitudinal data, informed consent, etc. are lacking, incoherent re-definitions of basic terms like "woman," industrial-scale equivocation, definitional whack-a-mole evasions, etc.). If you could marshal such things, I think you would. Instead, all we get is invective ("well known anti-transgender activists," "idiots," "this is pathetic," etc.). Normally, I would be more or less content to reach my own conclusions, explain them and how I reached them, vote in ways congruent with my views, and then move on with life. But where violence is not only justified/rationalized and threatened, but is also an actualized response to disagreement about such things, I think we need to pay more attention and be more vigilant in addressing the ideologies and pathologies that are giving rise to such violent proclivities. Same goes for other real-world ramifications (e.g., men in women's sports, bathrooms, prisons). I am grateful that society is now addressing these issues. Thousands of children have been permanently and profoundly affected by the importation of trans ideology into the practice of medicine. Thousands of children have had healthy body parts removed, have had their reproductive capacity eliminated or drastically reduced, have had their ability to enjoy sexual sensation eliminated or drastically reduced, and so on. And this has happened despite the lack of longitudinal data, lack of informed consent, the substantial presence of comorbidities, and so on. All under the rubric of "healthcare." Thanks, -Smac Cool, you reposted a bunch of stuff I have previously refuted yet again. And your conclusion at the end there is a lot of meaningless untrue rhetoric. And violence against transgender people is much much more pervasive than violence by transgender people as all studies show so you again demonstrate you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Unless of course you are victim-blaming and suggesting violence would decrease if transgender people would just stop existing so the transphobes you align with didn’t have targets to unleash their anger at. Of course even if that were the case they would just attack and ostracize cis people who look a little androgynous. Gotta have your moral panic that will hurt a lot of people before again being shown to be nonsense. Then nothing will be learned and the next moral panic will start. Hooray for useless moralizing religious bigots! 1
smac97 Posted December 30, 2025 Posted December 30, 2025 28 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Cool, you reposted a bunch of stuff I have previously refuted yet again. I reposted a bunch of stuff you have never addressed in any substantive way, let alone "refuted." 28 minutes ago, The Nehor said: And your conclusion at the end there is a lot of meaningless untrue rhetoric. It's a statement of my opinion. It is, however, an informed and substantiated and evidence-based opinion. 28 minutes ago, The Nehor said: And violence against transgender people is much much more pervasive than violence by transgender people as all studies show I wonder about that. I watched this video and found it quite interesting: Documentation for the above video. The key bit: Quote The numbers, prologue Now, violence obviously comes in MANY FORMS. But when analyzing violent crime statistics, MURDER stands out. Not only because it’s the worst crime someone can commit, but it’s also the easiest to track. There’s usually a BODY … so there’s very little UNDER REPORTING of murder. On the flip side, you can make a false claim of assault, but it’s pretty rare to have a FALSE ACCUSATION of MURDER. And police agencies take them seriously, so the statistics are about as good as you can get. That said … when it comes to identifying a murder victim as a trangender, there’s room for error. And not many sources. The only real numbers are the ones I use here …from the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT activist organization. They publish a yearly report called “EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE” … Fatal Violence Against Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming People in the United States. Now, I'm often wary of using numbers from advocacy groups, because they tend to spin facts or definitions in ways that help their cause. I’ve seen homeless and anti-hunger advocates use SUPER BROAD definitions of the problem, to make that problem look as bad as possible. Here, the HRC doesn’t track just murders, but calls it “FATAL VIOLENCE” against transgenders because they’ve expanded the definition beyond murder and manslaughter. They include things such as a hit and run crash or any death at the hands of police or in police custody, even a justified killing. For instance, when Krys Brandon Ruiz wrote a suicide note, wore this mask and charged at police with a knife, that police shooting counts here in these numbers of transgender killing. Transgenders can be the perpetrator of violence, even murder, yet end up in this Epidemic of Violence. That inflates these numbers somewhat but they’re still the best we have. The Numbers With those caveats, over the last decade, the HRC cited an average of 31.6 transgender killings per year. It also highlights numbers showing huge percentages of those victims were people of color and transgendered women. So how does that stack up to the rest of the country? First, we need to turn those into per capita numbers … how many deaths per 100,000 people? Estimates of the number of transgenders vary, but the most cited number comes from a study by a transgender supporting institute at the UCLA law school. Their study estimates there are 1.6 million transgenders over the age of 13 living in U.S.. That gives us a per capita “fatal violence” rate of just about 2 deaths per hundred thousand peopleYou . So how does that compare to the country? Actually, pretty good. In the last decade, the per capita murder in the United States averaged 5.25 per 100,000 people. That means a typical American is 266% MORE LIKELY to be murdered than a transgendered person in any given year. THAT blew me away. One thing that jumps out in the statistics is that murder isn’t equitable. It varies dramatically by race, class, sex and age. For instance, males make up 78% of murder victims, and people in their 20s and 30s are MUCH more at risk. When you combine those demographic factors, you get even greater discrepancies. Black males, for instance, represent just 6 and a half percent of the country, but almost HALF of murder victims. Over the last decade, black men have a per capita murder rate of about 37 per 100,000 people, which is almost 19 TIMES that of transgenders. These numbers also largely explain the supposed targeting of black transgendered women. WH spokesperson: “Year after year, we see that these victims are disproportionately black women and women of color. No one should face violence or live in fear or be discriminated against simply for being themselves. Let’s look at those Human Rights campaign numbers in depth. It says 62% of victims were black transgender women which is a massive discrepancy to black non-transgender women, who make up only 7% of murder victims. … 85% were people of color, who make up about 73% of victims among non-transgenders. … finally, 83% of victims were transgender women when non-transgender women make up only 22% of victims. But we can also look at that from a biological perspective. If you compare not stated genders but people physically born male … the numbers match up more closely. A final point to make about the transgender victims … they were killed for all sorts of reasons. By lovers. In robberies. In drive bys. The numbers killed because they were transgender are a small fraction of that. The HRC identified NONE in 2023 and two in 2022 who were murdered at the Q Club shooting in Colorado. In these videos, I sometimes hesitate to give you a clear conclusion because issues are complex, with layers that don't fit into a neat little box. That's not the case here. Not only is there no genocide, the numbers show there’s ABSOLUTELY NO EPIDEMIC of violence against transgenders in America. Virtually no news organizations have reported this correctly. Conservative outlets generally ignore it altogether, while other media focuses on anecdotes or misleading statistics, like comparing the general population to a narrow subgroup or highlighting variations of relatively small numbers that fluctuate yearly. [Fox clip]: THEIR NUMBERS SHOW AT LEAST 37 SUCH DEATHS OCCURRED IN 2020 AND AT LEAST 47 IN 2021. THAT IS A 27% INCREASE But what still doesn’t make much sense, is WHY ARE THOSE NUMBERS SO LOW? It’s hard to believe that transgenders have some quality that makes them less than half as likely to be murdered. I don’t have SOLID DATA here, but do have some theories. One possibility is that transgender murders were undercounted by the HRC. They’re a serious organization with annual budgets over 40 million dollars, and as I said, they defined “transgender fatalities” in a way to INCREASE those numbers, but it’s possible that some murders just didn’t make the news or the victims weren't reported as trans. Another is that the UCLA institute number was wrong and there are fewer transgenders in America. If instead of 1.6 million there’s 800 thousand … the murder numbers would be closer to the national average. Finally, transgenders may have different demographics than the general population. I explained some of the vast discrepancies in murder rates. We know that kids aged 13-17 years old have the HIGHEST reports of being transgendered and that’s an age group where murder is low. Perhaps they skew wealthier or are part of groups less likely to be killed. The data just isn’t there. ALL of these theories could play a role, or even reasons I haven’t considered. "{The HRC} study estimates there are 1.6 million transgenders over the age of 13 living in U.S. That gives us a per capita “fatal violence” rate of just about 2 deaths per hundred thousand people. So how does that compare to the country? Actually, pretty good. In the last decade, the per capita murder in the United States averaged 5.25 per 100,000 people. That means a typical American is 266% MORE LIKELY to be murdered than a transgendered person in any given year." From the YouTube automated transcript: Quote A 6:47 final point to make about the 6:48 transgender victims. They were killed for 6:50 all sorts of reasons, by lovers, by 6:52 robberies and drive-bys. The number 6:54 killed because they were transgender are 6:57 a very small fraction of that overall 6:59 death rate. The HRC identified no 7:01 targeted killings in 2023 and two in 2022. 7:05 who were murdered at the Q club shooting 7:06 in Colorado. In these videos I often 7:09 hesitate to give you a clear conclusion 7:11 because issues are complex with layers 7:13 that don't fit into neat little boxes. 7:15 But that's not the case here. Not only is 7:17 there no genocide, the numbers clearly 7:19 show there's absolutely no epidemic of 7:22 violence against transgenders in America, 7:24 at least when it comes to murder. 7:25 Virtually no news organizations have 7:27 reported this correctly. If you have data about targeted violence against trans folks, I would like to see it. The above video came out in December 2023. HRC's 2024 list identifies 32 trans persons killed in that year. AFAICS, none of the 32 cases listed are described as officially classified or prosecuted as hate crimes targeted specifically because of the victim's transgender status. While there might be some direct anti-trans motive is present in some few of these cases (see Kassim Omar and Camp Thompson), no such motive appears to have been substantiated by law enforcement. Meanwhile, others in the list involve indirect vulnerability (e.g., poverty or survival work) or unrelated factors like intimate partner violence (42% of known-perpetrator cases) or acquaintances. 28 minutes ago, The Nehor said: so you again demonstrate you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I am, or try to be, a data-driven guy. I'm willing to both listen and research. You help with neither, as all you have on offer is invective and insults. 28 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Unless of course you are victim-blaming and suggesting violence would decrease if transgender people would just stop existing so the transphobes you align with didn’t have targets to unleash their anger at. I am not. I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. I do, however, question the narrative that there is an "epidemic" of such violence. Again, if you have data, I would like to see it. 28 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Hooray for useless moralizing religious bigots! Insults in lieu of substantive comment. One more: No, There’s No ‘Epidemic’ of Anti-Transgender Violence It's behind a paywall, but there is this summary: Quote Human Rights Campaign’s own data suggest trans Americans suffer a homicide risk that’s actually less than the U.S. average. The 2023 Epidemic Of Violence report focuses heavily on the most serious kind of violence: homicide. In this regard, the authors identify a grand total of 33 “transgender or gender non-conforming” Americans who were killed over the one-year time period ending on November 20, 2023. Another: There is no ‘epidemic’ of anti-trans violence Quote Following the example of various activist organisations, the White House recently stated that there is an ongoing “epidemic” of violence against transgender people in the United States. Many, including Twitter CEO Elon Musk, have responded by questioning whether this assertion is rooted in fact. To cut through the speculation, it’s worth looking at the data. I think we should look at the data. Quote Claims of an “epidemic” of violence against transgender Americans have been around since at least 2015. It’s unclear exactly what is meant, but a reasonable way of interpreting these headlines is that transgender people experience substantially higher rates of violence than non-transgender people. There’s an added complication: if transgender people do experience higher rates of violence, that could be for reasons other than their gender identity. They could be overrepresented in certain high-risk categories, with gender identity itself having no independent effect. In that case, it might still be reasonable to speak of an “epidemic of violence” — though the statement would need to be qualified. That seems reasonable. Quote In 2021, Andrew Flores and colleagues analysed data from the National Crime Victimisation Survey — a large, nationally representative survey administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. They found that transgender people experienced personal violence at a rate four times higher than non-transgender people — albeit with a large confidence interval (owing to the small number of transgender people in the sample). This finding would seem to support the “epidemic of violence” narrative. Yet the comparison was unadjusted, and evidence from homicide rates appears to go in the other direction. In 2017, Alexis Dinno of Portland State University estimated homicide rates for transgender people using data from publicly available databases compiled by activists. She then compared these to homicide rates for non-transgender people under different assumptions about the size of the transgender population and the extent of undercounting of transgender homicides. Dinno found that in eight out of 12 comparisons, homicide rates for transgender people were lower. In a subsequent analysis of one activist-compiled database, the political scientist Wilfred Reilly observed that the murder rate for transgender Americans was lower than that for the general population. These findings were replicated in a 2022 study by Tom Fouché and colleagues at the University of Chicago, who used the CDC’s National Violent Death Reporting System — a large database that collates data from a number of sources, such as health authorities and law enforcement. The researchers found that transgender people made up 0.1% of homicide victims, compared to a typical population estimate of 0.6% (though they suggest this may be due to inaccurate reporting.) Overall, then, the evidence is mixed. One recent study found that transgender people face higher rates of personal violence than non-transgender people, whereas several others have found that they face lower rates of homicide. Given this lack of consistency, and the general paucity of research, referring to an “epidemic of violence” does not seem justified. The White House should moderate its language. "{R}eferring to an 'epidemic of violence' does not seem justified." Another: Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime Quote Key Findings Transgender people (16+) are victimized over four times more often than cisgender people. In 2017-2018, transgender people experienced 86.2 victimizations per 1,000 people compared to 21.7 victimizations per 1,000 people for cisgender people. Transgender women and men had higher rates of violent victimization (86.1 and 107.5 per 1,000 people, respectively) than cisgender women and men (23.7 and 19.8 per 1,000 people, respectively). One in four transgender women who were victimized thought the incident was a hate crime compared to less than one in ten cisgender women. In 2017-2018, transgender households had higher rates of property victimization (214.1 per 1,000 households) than cisgender households (108 per 1,000 households). About half of all violent victimizations were not reported to police. Transgender people were as likely as cisgender people to report violence to police. Who is doing the victimizing, and why, are important questions. In any event, all such violence is reprehensible. Thanks, -Smac
The Nehor Posted December 30, 2025 Posted December 30, 2025 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I reposted a bunch of stuff you have never addressed in any substantive way, let alone "refuted." I recognize some of those articles. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: It's a statement of my opinion. True. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: It is, however, an informed and substantiated and evidence-based opinion. False. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I wonder about that. I watched this video and found it quite interesting: Just say it flatters what you want to believe so you believe it. You don’t have to pretend to finding it interesting on some neutral level. I found this “INTERESTING”: https://reports.hrc.org/an-epidemic-of-violence-2024 1
The Nehor Posted December 30, 2025 Posted December 30, 2025 Okay, maybe I was being unfair. You took the time to copy and paste a lot of links to articles and videos that ostensibly support your positions so I should do the same. A transgender group discussing how pursuing fashion options brings fulfillment. A group of transgender people discussing how to help a friend who wants to detransition President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance discussing transgender issues in a nuanced way And for those who think there is an epidemic of minors getting transgender surgeries enjoy this handy chart: An article refuting common anti-transgender talking points Let me know if you need more.
smac97 Posted December 30, 2025 Posted December 30, 2025 13 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote I wonder about that. I watched this video and found it quite interesting: Just say it flatters what you want to believe so you believe it. I have read a lot about this topic. A lot. I have also frequently welcomed the presentation of varying viewpoints and evidences. The overwhelming evidence is against so-called "gender affirming" care for minors. I'm not sure what you mean by what I "want to believe." I want to know the truth. I want to perceive reality as clearly and accurately as I can. I readily admit that I have found many (most?) of the essential tenets of trans ideology to be facially absurd and incongruent with reality. I have nevertheless spent years listening to people like you, inviting information and analysis that contravenes my initial assessment. The overwhelming response from people like you is melodrama, histrionics, coercive assertions and, of course your favorite: the "You're a bigot!" schtick. Very little in the way of dispassionate, clinical evidence and reasoning and analysis. You and yours look to manipulate and coerce and shame others into capitulating to your point of view (see your various comments in this thread and in many others), and precious little effort is made to marshal evidence and persuade either the "hearts" or "minds" of society. Rhetoric along the lines of "Hooray for useless moralizing religious bigots!" and the like are pretty much all you have. 13 hours ago, The Nehor said: You don’t have to pretend to finding it interesting on some neutral level. I have never claimed to be "neutral." I did not come to this issue with a blank slate. Again, I initially found the tenets and presuppositions of trans ideology to be facially absurd: “Trans women are women.” Endless equivocation (e.g., both conflating and differentiating "sex" and "gender"). "Sex is a spectrum" / denial of the sexual binary. Biological sex is merely a social construct, “A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.” “Men can get pregnant (or have periods, etc.)," "Men can menstruate," "Women can have penises," etc. Linguistic tyranny (preferred pronouns, etc.). Using DSDs to legitimatize/justify/compel going along with gender dysphoria. “Assigned at birth.” Men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons makes sense. And your a bigot if you think otherwise. Coercive/manipulative messaging (e.g., society must accept trans ideology or people will kill themselves). Children are competently situated to decide about radical medical interventions as to their body parts and chemistry. School teachers and administrators and state governments can override parental rights re: matters of minor children's "gender identity." The sexualization of children (e.g., Drag Queen Story Hour, showing children kink and nudity and simulated sex at Pride parades, etc.) is a great idea. “You are a bigot/hater [because you disagree with X].” In the many years I have been assessing trans ideology, I have tested and read and listened and considered. I have found considerable evidence which corroborates my initial assessment, and found exceedingly little that meaningfully contravenes it. I have had dozens and dozens of interactions with you, whom I would think would be incentivized to put your best foot forward and present meaningful evidence. And yet virtually all you have to offer is insults and accusations and conclusory assertions. 13 hours ago, The Nehor said: I found this “INTERESTING”: https://reports.hrc.org/an-epidemic-of-violence-2024 So did I, but perhaps for different reasons. HRC seems to do a lot with vagueness. Trans folks are "victims of fatal violence in the United States." I acknowledge that. But is there an "epidemic" going on? Are these folks being targeted for violence because they are trans? Some certainly are, but HRC seems to lard its numbers by treating all "violence" against trans persons as violence because they are trans. I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. I do, however, question the narrative that there is an "epidemic" of such violence. Who is doing the victimizing, and why, are important questions. The HRC page is notably opaque and vague. And where it does get specific, the particulars don't seem to substantiate the "epidemic" narrative: Quote INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE—INCLUDING DATING/INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE— IS A SIGNIFICANT CAUSE OF FATAL VIOLENCE In one-third of all cases the killer is unknown (33.9%: n=126). Kinda hard to advance the "He was killed because he was trans" "epidemic" narrative when the killer is unknown in more than 1/3 of cases. Quote In cases where the killer(s) have been identified, half of all victims knew their killer prior to their death (55.3%; n=136). This includes: 26% (n=64) of victims who were killed by an intimate (e.g., sexual, dating, or romantic) partner. Again, this does not advance the "He was killed because he was trans" or the "epidemic" narratives. It seems unlikely that a sexual/dating/romantic partner who is knowingly involved with a trans person would kill the trans person because he is trans. Quote 9.3% (n=23) killed by a friend or family member. 16.3% (n=40) killed by an acquaintance. Tragic. But what evidence that there is an "epidemic" of friends and family members killing trans people because they are trans? That HRC does not tell us this is itself telling. If HRC had evidence of causality/motive, I am sure it would present it. And yet that does not seem to happen, even when HRC is pulling out all the stops to advance the "epidemic" narrative. Quote However, random acts of violence occurred as well. One-quarter (23.2%: n=57) were killed by someone with whom they had no known relationship. Any evidence that these "random acts of violence" against trans people happened because they were trans? Quote One-tenth (11.8%; n=29) were killed by a sex work client. In terms of violence against trans people, a substantial amount of it seems to involve trans folks involved in sex work / prostitution. See, e.g., here: Quote Likely several factors in play here. Sex work inherently carries elevated risks of violence. The nature of the work—often involving isolated encounters with strangers—exposes workers to danger from clients, and street-based work (common due to limited options) amplifies this. These risks may be increased if a "trans" prostitute (that is, a biological male dressing and acting like a woman) deliberately conceals or fails to disclose this fact. Some ethicists and commentators argue there is a moral duty to disclose transgender status before sexual intimacy, including in paid encounters. The reasoning is that many heterosexual men seek female partners based on biological sex (chromosomes, reproductive anatomy, etc.), and nondisclosure misleads them about a core aspect of the transaction or encounter. This view frames it as akin to other material omissions that could induce participation under false pretenses—e.g., not disclosing a serious STI if it fundamentally alters risk or preference. In this lens, a trans woman presenting as female without clarifying her trans status (especially pre- or non-op) is seen as deceptive if the client reasonably assumes biological femaleness. This topic is addressed in further detail here (the author was a law professor) : Is There a Moral Duty to Disclose That You’re Transgender to a Potential Partner? Some excerpts: Quote Recently, I was listening to a podcast, and a caller asked the following question of the hosts: Does a transgender person have an ethical or moral obligation to inform a potential sex partner of his or her transgender status before the two people have sexual relations? The hosts both responded “no” to this question but added that given the prevalence of transphobia in the population (and the associated violence), prior disclosure would probably maximize the safety of the transgender person. ... I informally surveyed about nine of my colleagues at Cornell by posing the same question and found the group about evenly split on the answer, though everyone agreed that disclosure would constitute a “best practice” in terms of safety and all-around satisfaction. ... When I first posed my question, only one colleague (“Colleague 1”) was sitting in the faculty lounge. This colleague’s answer to the question was that yes, a transgender person does have a duty to disclose this fact to a potential sexual partner before there is any intimacy. At the same time, Colleague 1 voiced the concern that answering in this way required some courage, given the potential accusations of being transphobic (or a “prude,” as later turned out to be the accusation by another colleague), suggesting a bigotry on the part of anyone believing that there might be an ethical duty to disclose in the situation. As several more colleagues entered the faculty lounge (which is where a number of faculty convene informally for lunch each day), I posed the question to each of them. ... The two following people who entered the lounge, Colleagues 2 and 3, both indicated that they believed the transgender person lacks any moral duty to disclose his or her status. All three colleagues agreed, by contrast, that a person who has HIV or another sexually transmitted infection (“STI”), such as gonorrhea or chlamydia, does have a duty to disclose this fact to a potential sexual partner, and all of the colleagues who followed them into the lounge agreed as to the STI question, as well. Because of the physical harm that can result from exposure to an STI, everyone maintained, it would be unethical to have sexual relations without first warning a partner about this risk of contagion. I asked whether perhaps some people might feel traumatized by having had sex, unwittingly, with a person of the same gender assigned at birth (or perhaps, if gay or lesbian, with a person of the opposite gender assigned at birth) and whether that trauma ought to count as a “harm.” One of my colleagues, Colleague 5, who had said “no” to the initial question (about whether there is a disclosure duty) and who had followed Colleague 4, who had said “yes” to the initial question, responded to my query by saying “I don’t care about people [who would be traumatized by learning that they had been sexually intimate with someone of the same sex or of the same gender assigned at birth.]” It's a long article. Discussion of "informed consent" comes into play. The STI comparison is interesting. So too would be comparisons to marriage and/or childbearing capacity. Would it be "wrong" for a "trans" woman (a biological male who presents himself as if he were a woman) to not disclose his biological sex to someone he is going to marry? Anyway, back to the HRC page: Quote In the last 12 months, over 30% of the 23 victims with a known killer were killed by an intimate partner (21.7%; n=5), friend, or family member (8.7%; n=2). FATAL VIOLENCE AT THE HANDS OF THE POLICE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR WHILE IN CUSTODY Since 2013, a total of 18 people have died either at the hands of, or while in custody of, law enforcement or other security forces. This includes 11 people who were killed by the police—all of whom were killed by officer-involved shooting. Seven people died while in police custody, either in jail or ICE detention facilities, including Yella (Robert) Clark Jr. who was killed in the last year. Any evidence that these killings were attributable to "anti"-trans sentiments? I suspect that some violence against trans persons is attributable to anti-trans sentiments, but I question whether this amounts to an "epidemic." That supporting/corroborating data just do not seem to be there. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted December 30, 2025 Posted December 30, 2025 (edited) 12 hours ago, The Nehor said: Okay, maybe I was being unfair. You took the time to copy and paste a lot of links to articles and videos that ostensibly support your positions so I should do the same. And the unseriousness and lack of reasoning and analysis and evidence continues ever on. I have repeatedly asked for evidence and analysis and reasoning, and you trot out taunts irrelevant links. I think you can't marshal a coherent explanation/defense for your position, and so you resort to ridicule and insults. 12 hours ago, The Nehor said: And for those who think there is an epidemic of minors getting transgender surgeries enjoy this handy chart: Not sure anyone has spoken of "an epidemic." Many thousands, yes. 12 hours ago, The Nehor said: An article refuting common anti-transgender talking points Let me know if you need more. "More" presupposes you have already presented something substantive. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 30, 2025 by smac97
The Nehor Posted December 30, 2025 Posted December 30, 2025 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I have read a lot about this topic. A lot. I have also frequently welcomed the presentation of varying viewpoints and evidences. The overwhelming evidence is against so-called "gender affirming" care for minors. I'm not sure what you mean by what I "want to believe." I want to know the truth. I want to perceive reality as clearly and accurately as I can. I don’t believe you. If it were only this topic I might but I have seen you buy into many ridiculous arguments. The common factor is that when you do so it is an argument in service to church dogma. It is a blind spot. Perhaps you are reasonable in other areas. I don’t know. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I readily admit that I have found many (most?) of the essential tenets of trans ideology to be facially absurd and incongruent with reality. I have nevertheless spent years listening to people like you, inviting information and analysis that contravenes my initial assessment. The overwhelming response from people like you is melodrama, histrionics, coercive assertions and, of course your favorite: the "You're a bigot!" schtick. Very little in the way of dispassionate, clinical evidence and reasoning and analysis. You and yours look to manipulate and coerce and shame others into capitulating to your point of view (see your various comments in this thread and in many others), and precious little effort is made to marshal evidence and persuade either the "hearts" or "minds" of society. Rhetoric along the lines of "Hooray for useless moralizing religious bigots!" and the like are pretty much all you have. You act like we are holding some monumental debate. We aren’t. You post opinion pieces that occasionally appeal to facts. I sometimes refute them. Even if the refutation is sound you refuse to accept it. There is nothing being established or clarified here. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I have never claimed to be "neutral." I did not come to this issue with a blank slate. Again, I initially found the tenets and presuppositions of trans ideology to be facially absurd: “Trans women are women.” Endless equivocation (e.g., both conflating and differentiating "sex" and "gender"). "Sex is a spectrum" / denial of the sexual binary. Biological sex is merely a social construct, “A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.” “Men can get pregnant (or have periods, etc.)," "Men can menstruate," "Women can have penises," etc. Linguistic tyranny (preferred pronouns, etc.). Using DSDs to legitimatize/justify/compel going along with gender dysphoria. “Assigned at birth.” Men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons makes sense. And your a bigot if you think otherwise. Coercive/manipulative messaging (e.g., society must accept trans ideology or people will kill themselves). Children are competently situated to decide about radical medical interventions as to their body parts and chemistry. School teachers and administrators and state governments can override parental rights re: matters of minor children's "gender identity." The sexualization of children (e.g., Drag Queen Story Hour, showing children kink and nudity and simulated sex at Pride parades, etc.) is a great idea. “You are a bigot/hater [because you disagree with X].” We know you are a gender essentialist. Also that you think kids knowing that queer people exist is somehow “sexualizing’ them. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: HRC seems to do a lot with vagueness. Trans folks are "victims of fatal violence in the United States." I acknowledge that. But is there an "epidemic" going on? Are these folks being targeted for violence because they are trans? Some certainly are, but HRC seems to lard its numbers by treating all "violence" against trans persons as violence because they are trans. I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. I do, however, question the narrative that there is an "epidemic" of such violence. Who is doing the victimizing, and why, are important questions. So at first you claimed that transgender people were dying at a lower rate per capita and now you seem to be acknowledging that is not true but are instead going to argue that they aren’t being killed because they are transgender. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: The HRC page is notably opaque and vague. And where it does get specific, the particulars don't seem to substantiate the "epidemic" narrative: Kinda hard to advance the "He was killed because he was trans" "epidemic" narrative when the killer is unknown in more than 1/3 of cases. Ugh……..of course we must give the benefit of doubt to the murderer. When everyone is demonizing transgender people and them being killed is on the rise we should assume the attacker wasn’t targeting them for their (often) obvious characteristic. Also I love that you put “he” in there. I am guessing you are thinking of transwomen here and intentionally misgendering them while (as usual) erasing transmen. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Again, this does not advance the "He was killed because he was trans" or the "epidemic" narratives. It seems unlikely that a sexual/dating/romantic partner who is knowingly involved with a trans person would kill the trans person because he is trans. This is why I am convinced that you know nothing and despite your claims of being well read haven’t actually read stuff you disagree with. After sex is one of the most dangerous times for a transgender person. They know this. They will tell you this. They warn new transgender people about this. Particularly if it is a casual sex or sex worker hookup. Many transphobes (usually cis men) are attracted to transgender people. When horny they seek one out. Their lust carries them through the encounter and then they hit what is sometimes called post-nut clarity. They are no longer horny and driven by lust and they realize what they have done and hate it. Instead of hating themselves and taking responsibility they blame their partner and imagine they have been tricked or seduced. Their masculinity is at risk and they lash out in defense of it and assault and (more rarely) kill their partner. A similar thing can happen with cishet men with cishet women if they are attracted to someone they also hate. Sometimes this is racism or classism or some other form of bigotry. It is less common per capita as it is less of a threat to their sense of masculinity. I can say I have experienced a similar reaction. In my days of sin and vice I hooked up with some “straight” guys looking to experiment with another guy. When sex was over they would clearly be disgusted with themselves. Most fled. A few turned violent. Luckily I was able to repel the few times I was physically attacked. This is what good wholesome Christian homophobia and transphobia does to a lot of men. Makes them hate people they are attracted to. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Tragic. But what evidence that there is an "epidemic" of friends and family members killing trans people because they are trans? So they are somehow being killed more than cis people because……what? 1 hour ago, smac97 said: That HRC does not tell us this is itself telling. If HRC had evidence of causality/motive, I am sure it would present it. And yet that does not seem to happen, even when HRC is pulling out all the stops to advance the "epidemic" narrative. Any evidence that these "random acts of violence" against trans people happened because they were trans? Few acts of violence are totally random. If you attack someone “at random” and the chosen target is a transgender person it is probably transphobia. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: In terms of violence against trans people, a substantial amount of it seems to involve trans folks involved in sex work / prostitution. See, e.g., here: Likely several factors in play here. Sex work inherently carries elevated risks of violence. The nature of the work—often involving isolated encounters with strangers—exposes workers to danger from clients, and street-based work (common due to limited options) amplifies this. These risks may be increased if a "trans" prostitute (that is, a biological male dressing and acting like a woman) deliberately conceals or fails to disclose this fact. Some ethicists and commentators argue there is a moral duty to disclose transgender status before sexual intimacy, including in paid encounters. The reasoning is that many heterosexual men seek female partners based on biological sex (chromosomes, reproductive anatomy, etc.), and nondisclosure misleads them about a core aspect of the transaction or encounter. This view frames it as akin to other material omissions that could induce participation under false pretenses—e.g., not disclosing a serious STI if it fundamentally alters risk or preference. In this lens, a trans woman presenting as female without clarifying her trans status (especially pre- or non-op) is seen as deceptive if the client reasonably assumes biological femaleness. Congrats, you discovered what I said above. So now you are focusing on transgender people having a “duty to disclose” to avoid being assaulted. Most would agree there is a duty to disclose. I know almost every transgender person I have been with has. Instead you focus on deception and give rhetorical cover to the person assaulting. It is fun finding areas where ostensible Christians get deeply interested in the rights of people soliciting casual sex and johns seeking out sex workers. When a transgender person involved they must not victimize the cishet person by not being completely up front. Do I need to go into the endless deceptions cishet men frequently use to get someone into bed with them? 1 hour ago, smac97 said: This topic is addressed in further detail here (the author was a law professor) : Is There a Moral Duty to Disclose That You’re Transgender to a Potential Partner? Some excerpts: It's a long article. Discussion of "informed consent" comes into play. The STI comparison is interesting. So too would be comparisons to marriage and/or childbearing capacity. Would it be "wrong" for a "trans" woman (a biological male who presents himself as if he were a woman) to not disclose his biological sex to someone he is going to marry? I am trying to imagine how you get married without realizing your partner is transgender. There is so much paranoia about this. We must not be tricked!!!!!!!! Transgender people might give me funny feelings for the WRONG kind of person. Fear turns to hate. Why do you keep asking for reasons transgender people are targeted for violence when you are bringing up the reasons yourself? A poster on this site once talked openly and matter of factly about how being “tricked” by a transgender woman would lead him to attacking her when he found out. There are incidents where a guy catcalls at a transgender woman on the street, discovers she is transgender, and then assaults her for ‘tricking’ him. That is toxic masculinity for you. Existing while transgender is a threat. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Anyway, back to the HRC page: Any evidence that these killings were attributable to "anti"-trans sentiments? I suspect that some violence against trans persons is attributable to anti-trans sentiments, but I question whether this amounts to an "epidemic." That supporting/corroborating data just do not seem to be there. Welp, throw it out then. We don’t have signed confessions from every act of violence against a transgender person so the fact that they are being assaulted more per capita must have nothing to do with transphobia. “I don’t want to think about how my rhetoric might contribute to violence so I am not listening.” 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Thanks, Not welcome. 2
The Nehor Posted December 30, 2025 Posted December 30, 2025 1 hour ago, smac97 said: And the unseriousness and lack of reasoning and analysis and evidence continues ever on. I have repeatedly asked for evidence and analysis and reasoning, and you trot out taunts irrelevant links. I think you can't marshal a coherent explanation/defense for your position, and so you resort to ridicule and insults. When I respond with analysis and reasoning you dismiss it for fallacious reasons. Why bother being serious if you won’t be? There is no one to be won over. If a position disagrees with church dogma you will reject it. Insisting you are using critical analysis while adhering to dogma is a contradiction. There is no way for me to win. The game is rigged. Also you didn’t enjoy the Lady Gaga song parody? YOU PHILISTINE!!!!!!! 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Not sure anyone has spoken of "an epidemic." Many thousands, yes. I am sure. I have seen people refer to it as such. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: "More" presupposes you have already presented something substantive.
smac97 Posted December 30, 2025 Posted December 30, 2025 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Quote I have read a lot about this topic. A lot. I have also frequently welcomed the presentation of varying viewpoints and evidences. The overwhelming evidence is against so-called "gender affirming" care for minors. I'm not sure what you mean by what I "want to believe." I want to know the truth. I want to perceive reality as clearly and accurately as I can. I don’t believe you. Okay. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: If it were only this topic I might but I have seen you buy into many ridiculous arguments. All you have as taunts and ridicule. You pretty much never offer substantive analysis, evidence or argument. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Quote I readily admit that I have found many (most?) of the essential tenets of trans ideology to be facially absurd and incongruent with reality. I have nevertheless spent years listening to people like you, inviting information and analysis that contravenes my initial assessment. The overwhelming response from people like you is melodrama, histrionics, coercive assertions and, of course your favorite: the "You're a bigot!" schtick. Very little in the way of dispassionate, clinical evidence and reasoning and analysis. You and yours look to manipulate and coerce and shame others into capitulating to your point of view (see your various comments in this thread and in many others), and precious little effort is made to marshal evidence and persuade either the "hearts" or "minds" of society. Rhetoric along the lines of "Hooray for useless moralizing religious bigots!" and the like are pretty much all you have. You act like we are holding some monumental debate. We aren’t. I know. It's a very one-sided effort. I present reasoned argument, evidence and analysis. You present taunts and sneering. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: You post opinion pieces that occasionally appeal to facts. I sometimes refute them. Even if the refutation is sound you refuse to accept it. There is nothing being established or clarified here. Oh, I think we have covered a lot of substantive issues. The analysis of the pending SCOTUS decision has been, for me, pretty clarifying and worthwhile. I have provided fairly extensive citation to legal authorities and analysis. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: We know you are a gender essentialist. Yes and no. From Google's AI: Quote Gender essentialism is the belief that men and women have inherent, fixed, and biologically determined essences or traits, making them fundamentally different and categorizing them into distinct male/female groups with innate roles and characteristics, which fuels stereotypes and discrimination but is challenged by the understanding that gender is also socially constructed and fluid. It suggests that things like interests (pink for girls, trucks for boys) or aptitudes (math/science for boys, caregiving for girls) stem from biology, not environment, impacting views on everything from toys to leadership, notes this ScholarBlogs article and this Verywell Health article. Not sure what this means. In my view, "gender" is either (A) a co-extensive synonym to "biological sex," or else it is (B) a undefinable and infinitely malleable pastiche of subjective generalizations and stereotypes about biological sex. We as a society have some few, but very important, compartmentalizations based on biological sex, such as women's medicine, women's sports, women's spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons, etc.). We legally segregate based on these. Conversely, we pretty much do not care much about regulating generalizations and stereotypes. So biological differences as "essential" as to gender (sex), yes. Generally, I am indifferent to stereotypes or rigid gender roles. I like to cook, my wife likes to paraglide. I like to work with my hands, my wife likes to hold tea parties. Our tastes and behaviors sometimes conform to stereotypes, sometimes they do not. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Also that you think kids knowing that queer people exist is somehow “sexualizing’ them. Drag Queen Story Hour, showing children kink and nudity and simulated sex at Pride parades, etc. are examples of sexualizing children. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Quote HRC seems to do a lot with vagueness. Trans folks are "victims of fatal violence in the United States." I acknowledge that. But is there an "epidemic" going on? Are these folks being targeted for violence because they are trans? Some certainly are, but HRC seems to lard its numbers by treating all "violence" against trans persons as violence because they are trans. I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. I do, however, question the narrative that there is an "epidemic" of such violence. Who is doing the victimizing, and why, are important questions. So at first you claimed that transgender people were dying at a lower rate per capita I cited a reference which presented data indicating that (where "dying" = homicide). 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: and now you seem to be acknowledging that is not true I am presenting various forms of evidence and analysis from sources with diverging points of view. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: but are instead going to argue that they aren’t being killed because they are transgender. I think "epidemic" is intended to suggest that trans people are being killed because they are trans. This seems to be a substantial exaggeration/mischaracterization. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Ugh……..of course we must give the benefit of doubt to the murderer. I think we need to be honest and accurate in assessing these things, and not give undue credence to emotionalisms and activism. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Quote The HRC page is notably opaque and vague. And where it does get specific, the particulars don't seem to substantiate the "epidemic" narrative: Kinda hard to advance the "He was killed because he was trans" "epidemic" narrative when the killer is unknown in more than 1/3 of cases. When everyone is demonizing transgender people I don't think ideological disagreement constitutes "demonizing." I think trans folks who are involved in the sexualization and grooming of children are being vilified, and rightly so. I think there are many in the LGBT community to condemn this behavior. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: and them being killed is on the rise I would like to see evidence of that. Where is the "on the rise" evidence? And killed by whom? For what reason(s)? If there really is an "epidemic" of such violence, we need to know and address that. If the claim is an exaggeration and substantial mischaracterization, we need to know and address that as well. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: we should assume the attacker wasn’t targeting them for their (often) obvious characteristic. I think we should look at data more than rely on emotion-driven assumptions. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Also I love that you put “he” in there. See my prior comment: "Linguistic tyranny (preferred pronouns, etc.)." I may or may not refer to a "trans woman" (that is, a biological male who "identifies" as a woman) using female pronouns. But the more efforts I see to compel an ideologically-driven usage, the more resistant I become to such usage. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I am guessing you are thinking of transwomen here and intentionally misgendering them while (as usual) erasing transmen. I respectfully reject the concept of "misgendering." Calling a biological male "he" or "him" is an acknowledgment of reality. Calling a biological male "she" or "her" is a rhetorical fiction. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Quote Again, this does not advance the "He was killed because he was trans" or the "epidemic" narratives. It seems unlikely that a sexual/dating/romantic partner who is knowingly involved with a trans person would kill the trans person because he is trans. This is why I am convinced that you know nothing I think I have demonstrated that I know quite a bit, that I have done a lot off reading, that I have listened a lot. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: and despite your claims of being well read haven’t actually read stuff you disagree with. I am open to correction and clarification. If you have competent evidence of an "epidemic" of trans people being killed because they are trans, please present it. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Quote But what evidence that there is an "epidemic" of friends and family members killing trans people because they are trans? So they are somehow being killed more than cis people because……what? Again, what evidence that there is an "epidemic" of friends and family members killing trans people because they are trans? 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Few acts of violence are totally random. Agreed. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: If you attack someone “at random” and the chosen target is a transgender person it is probably transphobia. This does not make sense. Choosing a "target" because of "transphobia" is not "random." 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Quote In terms of violence against trans people, a substantial amount of it seems to involve trans folks involved in sex work / prostitution. See, e.g., here: Likely several factors in play here. Sex work inherently carries elevated risks of violence. The nature of the work—often involving isolated encounters with strangers—exposes workers to danger from clients, and street-based work (common due to limited options) amplifies this. These risks may be increased if a "trans" prostitute (that is, a biological male dressing and acting like a woman) deliberately conceals or fails to disclose this fact. Some ethicists and commentators argue there is a moral duty to disclose transgender status before sexual intimacy, including in paid encounters. The reasoning is that many heterosexual men seek female partners based on biological sex (chromosomes, reproductive anatomy, etc.), and nondisclosure misleads them about a core aspect of the transaction or encounter. This view frames it as akin to other material omissions that could induce participation under false pretenses—e.g., not disclosing a serious STI if it fundamentally alters risk or preference. In this lens, a trans woman presenting as female without clarifying her trans status (especially pre- or non-op) is seen as deceptive if the client reasonably assumes biological femaleness. Congrats, you discovered what I said above. Yeesh. You sneer when I disagree with you, and sneer when I agree with you. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: So now you are focusing on transgender people having a “duty to disclose” to avoid being assaulted. Plenty of reasons for a "duty to disclose" outside of "to avoid being assaulted." To avoid deception is a biggie. I think the "duty to disclose" issue is a substantial mortal/ethical quandary. The law prof's article was interesting to me. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Most would agree there is a duty to disclose. I know almost every transgender person I have been with has. Instead you focus on deception and give rhetorical cover to the person assaulting. Again: I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. That is, I think, the third time I have said this. Hard to square this with the accusation of "giv{ing} rhetorical cover to the person assaulting." But then, that's your way. All you to is sneer and attack and accuse. No substance. No evidence. No reasoning. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: It is fun finding areas where ostensible Christians get deeply interested in the rights of people soliciting casual sex and johns seeking out sex workers. In the context of discussing an ostensible "epidemic" of violence against trans people because they are trans, I think it is important to be accurate and honest with the data, and to avoid emotionalisms and ideologically-driven characterizations and claims. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: When a transgender person involved they must not victimize the cishet person by not being completely up front. Do I need to go into the endless deceptions cishet men frequently use to get someone into bed with them? No. Tu quoque arguments don't work well, and I subscribe to the Law of Chastity, so I find extramarital sex to be wrong in the first instance. Using deceit to get there is an added wrong. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I am trying to imagine how you get married without realizing your partner is transgender. Well, the "partner" could deliberately conceal his biological sex. And the couple might abstain from sexual behavior prior to marriage. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: A poster on this site once talked openly and matter of factly about how being “tricked” by a transgender woman would lead him to attacking her when he found out. Again: I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: There are incidents where a guy catcalls at a transgender woman on the street, discovers she is transgender, and then assaults her for ‘tricking’ him. That is toxic masculinity for you. Existing while transgender is a threat. Again: I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Quote Anyway, back to the HRC page: Any evidence that these killings were attributable to "anti"-trans sentiments? I suspect that some violence against trans persons is attributable to anti-trans sentiments, but I question whether this amounts to an "epidemic." That supporting/corroborating data just do not seem to be there. Welp, throw it out then. I am leaning that way. That you aren't even trying to defend the claim of an "epidemic" indicates that not even you buy into it. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: We don’t have signed confessions from every act of violence against a transgender person so the fact that they are being assaulted more per capita must have nothing to do with transphobia. I sure fear or hatred of trans persons plays a role in some instances of violence against trans persons. It also seems like there are a variety of other factors and motives (intimate partner violence, for example). In any event, the claim of an "epidemic" happening appears to be a substantial falsehood/mischaracterization. For pete's sake, even you aren't trying to substantiate or defend it. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: “I don’t want to think about how my rhetoric might contribute to violence so I am not listening.” This is just a variation of the manipulative stuff you and yours trot out all the time. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 30, 2025 by smac97
smac97 Posted December 30, 2025 Posted December 30, 2025 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Quote I have repeatedly asked for evidence and analysis and reasoning, and you trot out taunts irrelevant links. I think you can't marshal a coherent explanation/defense for your position, and so you resort to ridicule and insults. When I respond with analysis and reasoning you dismiss it for fallacious reasons. Candidly, I don't recall you doing this. Ever. I can't say the same about, say, Analytics or Teancum or Ben. They have disagreed with me and my analysis, and provided their own, all the time. You never have. All you have is taunts and sarcasm and sneers. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Why bother being serious if you won’t be? I have provided extensive and substantive sources and commentary. You have not. I have treated these matters with decorum and gravity. You have not. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: There is no one to be won over. Not sure about that. Over the years I have received quite a few PMs indicating that I have persuaded or influenced others by what I have written and presented and analyzed. I have no expectation of persuading you. Other readers, perhaps. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: If a position disagrees with church dogma you will reject it. In Latter-day Saint belief, revelation is the source of doctrine, not dogma. Doctrine evolves and is clarified and expanded as God reveals more, distinguishing it from static dogma. Core eternal principles remain, but policies and understanding change through living prophets (particularly the President of the Church) who receive ongoing guidance, with personal revelation also crucial for individual lives (though only the prophet can guide the entire Church). While some teachings are eternal, the Church emphasizes a "line upon line" process of revelation, meaning some past teachings and policies can be either clarified or, in some very few instances, set aside. This is quite unlike rigid dogma in other faiths and paradigms. In any event, the doctrines of the Church seem largely unproblematic in relation to the current topic. The Church's stated position is quite enlightened and good, so I gladly accept it: Quote Some people feel their inner sense of gender does not align with their biological sex at birth. The Church does not take a position on the causes of these feelings. Some who experience these feelings identify as transgender. They—and their family and friends—face complex challenges and should be treated with sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love. And here: Quote Does God love me {as a transgender person}? Yes, God loves you. He knows and loves all of His children, and He is aware of the challenges you face. President Thomas S. Monson explained: “That love never changes. … It is there for you when you are sad or happy, discouraged or hopeful. God’s love is there for you whether or not you feel you deserve [it]. It is simply always there” (“We Never Walk Alone,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2013, 123–24). President Russell M. Nelson taught: “More than anything, our Father wants His children to choose to return home to Him. Everything He does is motivated by His yearning desire” (“The Love and Laws of God” [Brigham Young University devotional, Sept. 17, 2019], speeches.byu.edu). Nothing better expresses the love of Jesus Christ than His willingness to give His life to atone for the sins of mankind, compensate for all suffering and injustice, and break the bands of death for all (see Alma 7:11–13). Sister Sharon Eubank taught: “I testify you are beloved. The Lord knows how hard you are trying. You are making progress. Keep going. He sees all your hidden sacrifices and counts them to your good and the good of those you love. Your work is not in vain. You are not alone” (“Christ: The Light That Shines in Darkness,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2019, 75–76). ... Do I {as a transgender person} belong as a member of the Church? Yes. Church members need you and want you. If you identify yourself as transgender, we know you face complex challenges. You and your family and friends are just as deserving of Christlike love as any of God’s children and should be treated with sensitivity, kindness, and compassion. The Church is “for the perfecting of the saints” (Ephesians 4:12). Members are not yet perfect but are striving to become more like the Savior. Not everyone around you will be perfect in expressing love, compassion, or sensitivity. In the world today, it is easy to find offense and to cause offense. Significant challenges can make us vulnerable to unintended offenses due to misplaced words or misguided comments. As members of the Church, we are all learning and growing. ... Does the Savior really understand what I’m going through? The Savior has a perfect understanding of our unique circumstances. As mortals, our understanding is limited. We can declare with Nephi that we “know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, [we] do not know the meaning of all things” (1 Nephi 11:17). As you seek answers and direction for your personal journey, you can trust Heavenly Father and the power inherent in the atoning sacrifice of His Son. As Jesus Christ took upon Himself the sins of the world, He also bore every pain and affliction any human being might experience (see Alma 7:11–12). The Church does not pronounce a position on each and every sociopolitical issue and topic. When it does, I give the Church's teachings and position substantial and presumptive credence. I can't say I am totally aligned with the Church's viewpoints in every respect, but largely so. I find the Church to be a far more reliable and trustworthy moral guide and arbiter than social trends and personal preferences. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Insisting you are using critical analysis while adhering to dogma is a contradiction. I do not adhere to dogma. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: There is no way for me to win. The game is rigged. So you excuse yourself from any need to engage in reasoned, evidence-based discussion. I have lost track of how many times I have observed the dearth of substance, evidence and reasoning in your posts. And you continue to prove my point. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 30, 2025 by smac97
The Nehor Posted December 30, 2025 Posted December 30, 2025 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: Candidly, I don't recall you doing this. Ever. I can't say the same about, say, Analytics or Teancum or Ben. They have disagreed with me and my analysis, and provided their own, all the time. You never have. All you have is taunts and sarcasm and sneers. I have provided extensive and substantive sources and commentary. You have not. I have treated these matters with decorum and gravity. You have not. Decorum is overrated and no, no gravity. I care about the issue. I have transgender friends who have been assaulted because they are transgender. You are playing with abstract concepts that have no meaning to you beyond church dogma and the stupid culture war authoritarians use as a destraction. 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: Not sure about that. Over the years I have received quite a few PMs indicating that I have persuaded or influenced others by what I have written and presented and analyzed. I have no expectation of persuading you. Other readers, perhaps. I had an envoy of magical cookie making elves visit me and give me the Keebler Peace Prize for my efforts. 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: In Latter-day Saint belief, revelation is the source of doctrine, not dogma. Doctrine evolves and is clarified and expanded as God reveals more, distinguishing it from static dogma. Core eternal principles remain, but policies and understanding change through living prophets (particularly the President of the Church) who receive ongoing guidance, with personal revelation also crucial for individual lives (though only the prophet can guide the entire Church). While some teachings are eternal, the Church emphasizes a "line upon line" process of revelation, meaning some past teachings and policies can be either clarified or, in some very few instances, set aside. This is quite unlike rigid dogma in other faiths and paradigms. Nope, it is the same. All religions regularly set aside things or come up with “clarifications” about things. Catholicism for example has not been static in its beliefs or practices for over a millenium. 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: In any event, the doctrines of the Church seem largely unproblematic in relation to the current topic. The Church's stated position is quite enlightened and good, so I gladly accept it: And here: This is what they provide to transgender people? Generic quotes that have no special bearing or focus on transgender people? Wow, how uninspiring. 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: The Church does not pronounce a position on each and every sociopolitical issue and topic. When it does, I give the Church's teachings and position substantial and presumptive credence. I can't say I am totally aligned with the Church's viewpoints in every respect, but largely so. I find the Church to be a far more reliable and trustworthy moral guide and arbiter than social trends and personal preferences. I do not adhere to dogma. Yeah you do. You’ll make every imaginable excuse for the church and if even a smidgen of doubt exists hold onto that as a victory. What is probable or likely, even overwhelmingly probable, can be dismissed by the small possibility it is wrong. 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: So you excuse yourself from any need to engage in reasoned, evidence-based discussion. If I wanted such a debate I definitely wouldn’t have it with you. Your approach primarily involves opinion pieces and scare articles. It would be like arguing in Congress. 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: I have lost track of how many times I have observed the dearth of substance, evidence and reasoning in your posts. And you say that whether it is true or not so what does it matter what I say. 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: And you continue to prove my point. 1
The Nehor Posted December 30, 2025 Posted December 30, 2025 49 minutes ago, smac97 said: Okay. All you have as taunts and ridicule. You pretty much never offer substantive analysis, evidence or argument. I know. It's a very one-sided effort. I present reasoned argument, evidence and analysis. You present taunts and sneering. Oh, I think we have covered a lot of substantive issues. The analysis of the pending SCOTUS decision has been, for me, pretty clarifying and worthwhile. I have provided fairly extensive citation to legal authorities and analysis. Yes and no. From Google's AI: Not sure what this means. In my view, "gender" is either (A) a co-extensive synonym to "biological sex," or else it is (B) a undefinable and infinitely malleable pastiche of subjective generalizations and stereotypes about biological sex. We as a society have some few, but very important, compartmentalizations based on biological sex, such as women's medicine, women's sports, women's spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons, etc.). We legally segregate based on these. Conversely, we pretty much do not care much about regulating generalizations and stereotypes. So biological differences as "essential" as to gender (sex), yes. Generally, I am indifferent to stereotypes or rigid gender roles. I like to cook, my wife likes to paraglide. I like to work with my hands, my wife likes to hold tea parties. Our tastes and behaviors sometimes conform to stereotypes, sometimes they do not. Drag Queen Story Hour, showing children kink and nudity and simulated sex at Pride parades, etc. are examples of sexualizing children. I cited a reference which presented data indicating that (where "dying" = homicide). I am presenting various forms of evidence and analysis from sources with diverging points of view. I think "epidemic" is intended to suggest that trans people are being killed because they are trans. This seems to be a substantial exaggeration/mischaracterization. I think we need to be honest and accurate in assessing these things, and not give undue credence to emotionalisms and activism. I don't think ideological disagreement constitutes "demonizing." I think trans folks who are involved in the sexualization and grooming of children are being vilified, and rightly so. I think there are many in the LGBT community to condemn this behavior. I would like to see evidence of that. Where is the "on the rise" evidence? And killed by whom? For what reason(s)? If there really is an "epidemic" of such violence, we need to know and address that. If the claim is an exaggeration and substantial mischaracterization, we need to know and address that as well. I think we should look at data more than rely on emotion-driven assumptions. See my prior comment: "Linguistic tyranny (preferred pronouns, etc.)." I may or may not refer to a "trans woman" (that is, a biological male who "identifies" as a woman) using female pronouns. But the more efforts I see to compel an ideologically-driven usage, the more resistant I become to such usage. I respectfully reject the concept of "misgendering." Calling a biological male "he" or "him" is an acknowledgment of reality. Calling a biological male "she" or "her" is a rhetorical fiction. I think I have demonstrated that I know quite a bit, that I have done a lot off reading, that I have listened a lot. I am open to correction and clarification. If you have competent evidence of an "epidemic" of trans people being killed because they are trans, please present it. Again, what evidence that there is an "epidemic" of friends and family members killing trans people because they are trans? Agreed. This does not make sense. Choosing a "target" because of "transphobia" is not "random." Yeesh. You sneer when I disagree with you, and sneer when I agree with you. Plenty of reasons for a "duty to disclose" outside of "to avoid being assaulted." To avoid deception is a biggie. I think the "duty to disclose" issue is a substantial mortal/ethical quandary. The law prof's article was interesting to me. Again: I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. That is, I think, the third time I have said this. Hard to square this with the accusation of "giv{ing} rhetorical cover to the person assaulting." But then, that's your way. All you to is sneer and attack and accuse. No substance. No evidence. No reasoning. In the context of discussing an ostensible "epidemic" of violence against trans people because they are trans, I think it is important to be accurate and honest with the data, and to avoid emotionalisms and ideologically-driven characterizations and claims. No. Tu quoque arguments don't work well, and I subscribe to the Law of Chastity, so I find extramarital sex to be wrong in the first instance. Using deceit to get there is an added wrong. Well, the "partner" could deliberately conceal his biological sex. And the couple might abstain from sexual behavior prior to marriage. Again: I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. Again: I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. I am leaning that way. That you aren't even trying to defend the claim of an "epidemic" indicates that not even you buy into it. I sure fear or hatred of trans persons plays a role in some instances of violence against trans persons. It also seems like there are a variety of other factors and motives (intimate partner violence, for example). In any event, the claim of an "epidemic" happening appears to be a substantial falsehood/mischaracterization. For pete's sake, even you aren't trying to substantiate or defend it. This is just a variation of the manipulative stuff you and yours trot out all the time. Thanks, -Smac You are whining because I won’t provide evidence for an “epidemic” of violence when there is no evidential standard for what constitutes an “epidemic” of violence. Am I supposed to pull out a peer-reviewed study that quantifies that it is an epidemic? Do you realize how abstract and stupid your supposed “substantive” argument is? I can (and have) shown that violence against transgender people has been steadily increasing along with the rhetoric and demonization that you are rhetorically supporting. You are just upset that you think the word “epidemic” is too strong because it doesn’t serve your interests for it to be characterized like that. The actual increase in violence is, of course, unimportant. You just don’t want people calling attention to it or being hyperbolic about it? And you think you are being serious and scholarly? Wow….just wow. 1
california boy Posted December 31, 2025 Posted December 31, 2025 I am not going to get into the middle of this discussion because I think it is pretty pointless. But I will say this. WHO CARES HOW OTHER PEOPLE CHOOSE TO LIVE THEIR LIVES. It is their life, not yours. While transgender pushback of how they should live their lives is about 5 minutes old, the concept of self determination was part of this country from the beginning. I started on this site when the church started to wage its war against gay marriage. Members of the Church were claiming that if gay marriage was made legal, people would want to marry farm animals, the idea of marriage would be relegated to the scrap heap, people wouldn't know what being married means, yada, yada, yada. I have a sincere question to ask all of you. Exactly what harm has happened to anyone on this board because of gay marriage being legal that is worth banning all who is gay from this legal right? What harm has happend to anyone on this board because someone came out transgender that deserves all transgender people of their individual rights? What harm has anyone on this board personally had because someone's skin is black or brown that makes it ok to discriminate against all who is not white. What harm has anyone on this board had from a religion that deserves the entire religion to be denied rights. Seriously, prejudicial beliefs about ANYONE just because they are different from you is the most stupid idea anyone has ever had. It should all be regulated to the dustbin of history. Let people live their lives the way they see fit. Learn to treat others that are different from yourself with respect and dignity. Forget all this nonsense. It should be embarrassing that people feel like they should even have to fight at all for individual rights just because they don't look like those in power. 4
smac97 Posted December 31, 2025 Posted December 31, 2025 (edited) On 12/30/2025 at 2:07 PM, The Nehor said: Decorum is overrated and no, no gravity. I think serious topics should be discussed with decorum. You disagree. Okay. On 12/30/2025 at 2:07 PM, The Nehor said: I care about the issue. I have been made to care about this issue as well. I would have preferred to let it alone, but zealots and idealogues have brought it to society's front door. Men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons. Thousands of children receiving medical treatments which permanently impair sexual function and procreative capacity and have lifelong effects. Large-scale and very public sexualization and grooming of children. Laws compelling speech and other substantial damage to Free Speech. Substantial damage to familial and other relationships. Substantial injury to gender dysphoric persons. Live and let live my foot. On 12/30/2025 at 2:07 PM, The Nehor said: I have transgender friends who have been assaulted because they are transgender. As I have said several times now: I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. On 12/30/2025 at 2:07 PM, The Nehor said: You are playing with abstract concepts that have no meaning to you beyond church dogma and the stupid culture war authoritarians use as a destraction. Well, no. I have known several people who have been damaged by this toxic ideology. On 12/30/2025 at 2:07 PM, The Nehor said: Quote In Latter-day Saint belief, revelation is the source of doctrine, not dogma. Doctrine evolves and is clarified and expanded as God reveals more, distinguishing it from static dogma. Core eternal principles remain, but policies and understanding change through living prophets (particularly the President of the Church) who receive ongoing guidance, with personal revelation also crucial for individual lives (though only the prophet can guide the entire Church). While some teachings are eternal, the Church emphasizes a "line upon line" process of revelation, meaning some past teachings and policies can be either clarified or, in some very few instances, set aside. This is quite unlike rigid dogma in other faiths and paradigms. Nope, it is the same. It is not. On 12/30/2025 at 2:07 PM, The Nehor said: Quote In any event, the doctrines of the Church seem largely unproblematic in relation to the current topic. The Church's stated position is quite enlightened and good, so I gladly accept it: And here: This is what they provide to transgender people? Generic quotes that have no special bearing or focus on transgender people? Wow, how uninspiring. For people who have faith in the Restored Gospel, or who are willing to cultivate it, the doctrines of the Church are a solid bulwark against the facially absurd tenets of trans ideology. On 12/30/2025 at 2:07 PM, The Nehor said: Quote So you excuse yourself from any need to engage in reasoned, evidence-based discussion. If I wanted such a debate I definitely wouldn’t have it with you. And more excuses. You have nothing substantive or evidence-based to say about this, a topic that is supposedly very important to you. You have behaved this way for years. I think this is because you are in the thrall of an ideology that, in the end and deep down, is incoherent and indefensible. So lacking evidence or reasoning, you sidestep reasoned discourse and endlessly turn to taunts, sneers and insults. Thanks, -Smac Edited April 29 by smac97
smac97 Posted December 31, 2025 Posted December 31, 2025 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: You are whining because I won’t provide evidence for an “epidemic” of violence when there is no evidential standard for what constitutes an “epidemic” of violence. Fine. Present what you think constitutes an "epidemic." I'm willing to listen. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Am I supposed to pull out a peer-reviewed study that quantifies that it is an epidemic? Do you realize how abstract and stupid your supposed “substantive” argument is? I am not the one on the side making declarations about an "epidemic." You are. You even quoted the HRC: Quote I found this “INTERESTING”: https://reports.hrc.org/an-epidemic-of-violence-2024 "An epidemic of violence." You cite this article, then refuse to address its validity. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: I can (and have) shown that violence against transgender people has been steadily increasing You have not. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: along with the rhetoric and demonization that you are rhetorically supporting. And again: I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. Full stop. Categorically. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: You are just upset that you think the word “epidemic” is too strong because it doesn’t serve your interests for it to be characterized like that. I think the claim of "epidemic" is a substantial exaggeration and mischaracterization, to the point of falsehood. Falsehoods need to be rebutted. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: The actual increase in violence is, of course, unimportant. I think an increase in violence is very important. I would like to see data about this, particularly violence against trans persons because they are trans. But I won't hold my breath, as you pretty much never present anything of substance. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: You just don’t want people calling attention to it or being hyperbolic about it? I want people calling attention to unlawful and unhealthy behaviors against trans persons. We as a society are better off in curbing such things. But using falsehoods to "call attention to it" is not the way to go, particularly if the "it" is a non-existent "epidemic," the narrative of which may have ulterior motives (see my prior posts about "March of Dimes Syndrome"). 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: And you think you are being serious and scholarly? Wow….just wow. You pretty much never have anything substantive to say. I won't feign a "wow" because, well, this is all you do, all you have ever done. For years now. Other readers, however, may be interested in reviewing evidence and arguments. If our arguments facilitate that, then they have some value. And in any event, your years-long inability to articulate any meaningful and evidence-based defense of trans ideology has been instructive for me personally. You present yourself as an advocate for trans folks, but you are utterly incapable of advancing what I find to be a toxic and incoherent ideology about trans issues. If you had decent and reasoned arguments, you would have presented them by now. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted December 31, 2025 Posted December 31, 2025 (edited) On 12/30/2025 at 5:14 PM, california boy said: I am not going to get into the middle of this discussion because I think it is pretty pointless. He said, right before he put himself in the middle of this discussion. On 12/30/2025 at 5:14 PM, california boy said: But I will say this. WHO CARES HOW OTHER PEOPLE CHOOSE TO LIVE THEIR LIVES. As I said previously: I have been made to care about this issue as well. I would have preferred to let it alone, but zealots and idealogues have brought it to society's front door. Men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons. Thousands of children receiving medical treatments which permanently impair sexual function and procreative capacity and have lifelong effects. Large-scale and very public sexualization and grooming of children. Laws compelling speech and other substantial damage to Free Speech. Substantial damage to familial and other relationships. Substantial injury to gender dysphoric persons. Live and let live my foot. On 12/30/2025 at 5:14 PM, california boy said: It is their life, not yours. Yes. Until and unless a biological male goes into a woman's bathroom while my daughter is in there, or competes against women when my daughter is in the competition, or laws are passed which compel or punish speech, or thousands of children are sterilized and mutilated, or children are sexualized and groomed at drag shows and pride parades, and on and on and on. If a man wants to "identify" as a woman in his own private sphere, I couldn't care less. But we've spent some years watching some segments of the trans community go out of their way to force their ideology into the lives of people who previously didn't really care. I think the pivot point came with the grooming/sexualization of children at drag queen events and pride parades. I think the "Ls" and "Gs" and "Bs" will come to regret welcoming the "Ts" to their acronym party. See, e.g., here: Quote The Economist/YouGov’s 2025 annual poll surveyed 1,623 adult U.S. citizens between October 24 and October 27, 2025. When asked if they think same-sex marriage should be legal, 54% said yes, 33% said no, and 13% were unsure. These numbers mark a considerable drop from just a few years ago, when Gallup’s 2021 poll found that a record-high 70% of Americans supported same-sex marriage. ... This year’s Economist/YouGov poll found that, on average, Americans are still markedly less supportive of trans rights. 41% of 2025 respondents agreed with the statement “our society has gone too far in accepting people who are transgender,” and 64% opposed allowing transgender students to play on sports teams that align with their gender identity. Same topic covered here: Quote For years, the cultural narrative in the United States has treated certain social revolutions as irreversible. Once the Supreme Court, in its landmark 2015 «Obergefell v. Hodges» decision, legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, it seemed that the debate had reached its definitive conclusion. The arc of history, we were told, had bent decisively in one direction. Yet history, as it often does, appears less linear and more cyclical than many progressives assumed. A decade later, new data suggest a surprising shift in the American mood. According to a recent YouGov/The Economist survey, public support for same-sex marriage has dropped to 54 percent, while opposition has climbed to 33 percent, with 13 percent undecided. The numbers may still show a majority in favor, but the decline is striking when compared to the euphoric majorities of the post- Obergefell years—when national approval soared well above 65 percent, even reaching 70 percent in Gallup’s 2021 report. ... What we may be witnessing is the early fruit of a quiet countercurrent: a resistance not necessarily born of animosity, but of fatigue with ideological absolutes. Across the political spectrum, some Americans are beginning to question whether the so-called “progressive line of history” truly points forward, or merely away from meaning. The same YouGov poll also addressed another contentious issue—the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. Here, the results were far less ambiguous: 64 percent of respondents opposed it, compared to just 19 percent in favor. This overwhelming disapproval has remained consistent across several studies in recent years, reflecting a rare area of consensus in a deeply divided nation. Skeptics might argue that the sample leans conservative or pro-Trump, but the data undermine that assumption. Only 57 percent of respondents described themselves as non-Trump supporters, and 35 percent said they never attend religious services—hardly a profile of a traditionalist base. Even so, the instinct to draw moral boundaries remains palpable among large segments of the population, religious or not. ... The United States, then, finds itself in a peculiar moral interregnum—caught between two ages, neither of which can fully claim victory. On one side stands the belief that moral progress is inevitable, that history always bends toward greater individual autonomy. On the other is a growing skepticism, a sense that some “advances” may have come at the cost of coherence, community, and truth. It's just a guess that trans overreach - particularly as pertaining to children (medical procedures and sexualization/grooming) - may be souring significant segments of society who previously were moving toward a more inclusive perspective on marriage. I would be curious to see more data and research on this. On 12/30/2025 at 5:14 PM, california boy said: I started on this site when the church started to wage its war against gay marriage. Members of the Church were claiming that if gay marriage was made legal, people would want to marry farm animals, the idea of marriage would be relegated to the scrap heap, people wouldn't know what being married means, yada, yada, yada. Hamba provided this list back in 2016: Quote Death of marriage = "progress" 1. "Opting out of marriage altogether will provide a quicker path to progress, as only the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality for all." -- Dr. Meagan Tyler, Lecturer in Sociology at Victoria University Who needs marriage anymore 2. "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?" -- David Vakalis Redefine the institution 3. "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.” -- Michelangelo Signorile, OUT magazine, December/January 1994 We are advocating destruction 4. "And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ." -- Ryan Conrad Next step: Abolish 5. "But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships." -- Sally Kohn, Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead! The death of marriage 6. "Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution? ...Scrap the civil register; make no distinction in the state's eyes between married and unmarried citizens." -- Alex Gabriel, Politics.co.uk Stoke the flames 7. "Marriage is the proverbial burning building. Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!" -- National Conference on Organized Resistance Marriage erodes "freedom" 8. "Marriage should not be a goal; it should be a choice. One choice available out of many recognized as valid by society. But it isn’t. Not yet. Right now, as far as society is concerned, you are married or you are not yet married. And as that notion becomes further codified our freedom to make other choices steadily erodes." -- David McGee A moral revolution 9. "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." -- Paul Varnell, Chicago Free Press Abolish the family 10. "We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there." -- Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto, London, 1971, revised 1978 Transform society 11. “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality." [source] -- Paula Ettelbrick National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Marriage should not exist 12. "... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist." -- Masha Gessen, journalist During a pannel discussion at the Sydney Writers Festival (link) Seems like the concerns then were well-founded. On 12/30/2025 at 5:14 PM, california boy said: I have a sincere question to ask all of you. Exactly what harm has happened to anyone on this board because of gay marriage being legal that is worth banning all who is gay from this legal right? Respectfully, I reject the framing of this question. None of my children has been harmed by a teacher committing abuse, but that does not mean I am somehow prevented from having an opinion on the subject, speaking on it, acting on it, and so on. The same goes for abortion, FGM, and all sorts of social issues, including same-sex marriage. It's also not really relevant to trans issues in this thread. On 12/30/2025 at 5:14 PM, california boy said: What harm has happend to anyone on this board because someone came out transgender that deserves all transgender people of their individual rights? Again, I respectfully reject the framing of this question. Social issues can and should be addressed by all of us, not just those who have been directly and personally affected. I also reject the framing in that it presupposes "rights" that are very much in dispute. Does a "trans woman" (that is, a biological male who subjectively "identifies" as a woman) have a "right" to participate in women's sports, use women's bathrooms, or be incarcerated in women's prisons? This is mostly up to the jurisdiction, but the overwhelming answer, both present and trending, seems to be "no." But putting aside the framing, I think there has been substantial "harm" to Free Speech (mostly in Europe, but incursions have been made into the U.S.). And women athletes have been harmed by being forced to compete against males, forced to have males in their changing rooms, etc. And women prisoners have been harmed in some instances. Many thousands of children have been permanently sterilized, lost sexual function, had healthy body parts removed, and so on. Many thousands more have been injured by being told things that just ain't so (i.e. that a man can become a woman by "identifying" as one). Men in women's DV shelters appears to be happening to some extent. On 12/30/2025 at 5:14 PM, california boy said: What harm has anyone on this board personally had because someone's skin is black or brown that makes it ok to discriminate against all who is not white. How many puppies have your tortured for fun and profit? (Loaded questions sure are fun.) On 12/30/2025 at 5:14 PM, california boy said: What harm has anyone on this board had from a religion that deserves the entire religion to be denied rights. I do not understand this question. On 12/30/2025 at 5:14 PM, california boy said: Seriously, prejudicial beliefs about ANYONE just because they are different from you is the most stupid idea anyone has ever had. It should all be regulated to the dustbin of history. Or even relegated there. On 12/30/2025 at 5:14 PM, california boy said: Let people live their lives the way they see fit. How utterly facile. If a girl does not want to be forced to compete against a boy in sports, are you willing to let her "live the way she sees fit"? The "live and let live" sentiment has become incompatible with the substantial overreach of the radical elements of the trans movement. On 12/30/2025 at 5:14 PM, california boy said: Learn to treat others that are different from yourself with respect and dignity. Well said. Respect and dignity and coexist with principled and reasoned disagreement. Right? Thanks, -Smac Edited Friday at 02:48 PM by smac97
The Nehor Posted December 31, 2025 Posted December 31, 2025 6 hours ago, smac97 said: Fine. Present what you think constitutes an "epidemic." I'm willing to listen. I am not the one on the side making declarations about an "epidemic." You are. You even quoted the HRC: "An epidemic of violence." You cite this article, then refuse to address its validity. It is an expression. What the writer thinks constitutes an epidemic are the numbers you see in that very report. You’re nitpicking verbiage. 6 hours ago, smac97 said: You have not. And again: I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. Full stop. Categorically. Doesn’t matter. If you are rhetorically providing cover for those who use violence that fig leaf is about as effective as Pilate’s hand washing. 6 hours ago, smac97 said: I think the claim of "epidemic" is a substantial exaggeration and mischaracterization, to the point of falsehood. Falsehoods need to be rebutted. You’ve basically just slipped into tone policing. 6 hours ago, smac97 said: I think an increase in violence is very important. I would like to see data about this, particularly violence against trans persons because they are trans. The number of trans people murdered doubles over four years when rhetoric demonizing trans people is used as a tool by bigots and you are trying to pretend that it might be a coincidence because the perpetrators aren’t loudly saying they are bigots doing it for bigoted reasons? Do you consistently apply this standard of evidence? No. I have seen you react to crimes against LDS people and you assume bigotry played a role until proven otherwise. You’re being ridiculous. In 1930s Germany would you have been demanding evidence that the increased violence against Jewish people had nothing to do with Nazi rhetoric because it might just be a coincidence? 6 hours ago, smac97 said: But I won't hold my breath, as you pretty much never present anything of substance. 6 hours ago, smac97 said: I want people calling attention to unlawful and unhealthy behaviors against trans persons. We as a society are better off in curbing such things. But using falsehoods to "call attention to it" is not the way to go, particularly if the "it" is a non-existent "epidemic," the narrative of which may have ulterior motives (see my prior posts about "March of Dimes Syndrome"). Yes, we know. Every time a marginalized group wants rights it is part of a larger conspiracy. Aboltiionist only want the slaves freed because they would make money due to having investments in other industries that would benefit from slavery ending. The Civil Rights movement was a Communist plot. The Gay Rights movement was actually trying to turn children (and the frogs) gay. Everything has to be a conspiracy. March of Dimes Syndrome is ridiculous and you are ridiculous for believing it. 6 hours ago, smac97 said: You pretty much never have anything substantive to say. I won't feign a "wow" because, well, this is all you do, all you have ever done. For years now. Other readers, however, may be interested in reviewing evidence and arguments. If our arguments facilitate that, then they have some value. And in any event, your years-long inability to articulate any meaningful and evidence-based defense of trans ideology has been instructive for me personally. You present yourself as an advocate for trans folks, but you are utterly incapable of advancing what I find to be a toxic and incoherent ideology about trans issues. If you had decent and reasoned arguments, you would have presented them by now. If anyone seriously comes to this message board specifically to get informed about transgender issues I suspect they aren’t the brightest bulbs. That would be like going to a Catholic message board to learn about the Pro-Choice position. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: You present yourself as an advocate for trans folks, but you are utterly incapable of advancing what I find to be a toxic and incoherent ideology about trans issues. Awww…..thanks. And no, I am not really an advocate. More of a defender. You love to share your toxic tales of their depravity. I push back. I am defending my friends. If that means making transgender rights deniers look ridiculous I do that. If that means sharing some statistics I sometimes do that. I am not looking to build the ultimate case against the anti-transgender weirdos. Much better informed people have already done that elsewhere. You aren’t looking to be convinced or informed. You have your dogma to defend. You just like to fight. 1
The Nehor Posted December 31, 2025 Posted December 31, 2025 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I think serious topics should be discussed with decorum. You disagree. Okay. Talking about whether my friends deserve basic human rights is not something I can politely sit back and debate in my tweed jacket in my armchair in the Ivory Tower as if it is an abstract philosophical discussion. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I have been made to care about this issue as well. I would have preferred to let it alone, but zealots and idealogues have brought it to society's front door. Men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons. Thousands of children receiving medical treatments which permanently impair sexual function and procreative capacity and have lifelong effects. Large-scale and very public sexualization and grooming of children. Laws compelling speech and other substantial damage to Free Speech. Substantial damage to familial and other relationships. Substantial injury to gender dysphoric persons. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Trans people were generally flying under the radar contentedly until the Right saw it as a great issue to distract their witless followers with. A bright shining moral panic just waiting to be unleashed. I watched it happen. Trans people saw the signs and knew it was coming. They didn’t want it. They knew it would put many of them physically in danger. No laws were compelling speech. You were lied to. No children were being groomed. It was all a big chunk of lies and you swallowed it all. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Live and let live my foot. How have transgender people actually impacted your life? How? Did one of them steal your lunch money or something? Instead you are running around like a headless chicken repeating scripted hypotheticals about the damage they might be DOING THIS VERY MOMENT….. Just like every other moral panic. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: As I have said several times now: I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. That doesn’t make you a good person or your views healthy or inoffensive. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Well, no. I have known several people who have been damaged by this toxic ideology. By that you mean you know some queer people? 7 hours ago, smac97 said: It is not. For people who have faith in the Restored Gospel, or willing to cultivate it, the doctrines of the Church are a solid bulwark against the facially absurd tenets of trans ideology. And this is why substantive reasoning would be pointless if it were needed to rebut you. Which it isn’t. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: And more excuses. You have nothing substantive or evidence-based to say about this, a topic that is supposedly very important to you. You have behaved this way for years. I think this is because you are in the thrall of an ideology that, in the end and deep down, is incoherent and indefensible. So lacking evidence or reasoning, you sidestep reasoned discourse and endlessly turn to taunts, sneers and insults. You can’t even decide if this topic is “supposedly” important to me or if I am “in thrall” to the ideology. Pick a lane. I have every reason not to defend “trans ideology”. My life would be simpler if I didn’t. Like my other disagreements with the Church I would probably be better off socially if I would just shut up and toe the party line. The idea that I did this out of some warped self-interest is deeply weird and smells of projection. My accepting transgender people as worthy of support hurt. It took painful steps to get to. Just like accepting the rights of other queer people did. It was unpleasant. It involved self-loathing. It wasn’t fun. If anyone has a vested interest in their position it is you. You would have to say the apostles are wrong to change course. That is hard. The idea that the person turning against their background is the easy path is a lie many in in-groups tell themselves to cast themselves as the strong and stalwart ones. Most religions use this kind of rhetoric against dissidents. So do many political groups. Families sometimes do it. 1
The Nehor Posted December 31, 2025 Posted December 31, 2025 7 hours ago, california boy said: I am not going to get into the middle of this discussion because I think it is pretty pointless. But I will say this. WHO CARES HOW OTHER PEOPLE CHOOSE TO LIVE THEIR LIVES. It is their life, not yours. While transgender pushback of how they should live their lives is about 5 minutes old, the concept of self determination was part of this country from the beginning. I started on this site when the church started to wage its war against gay marriage. Members of the Church were claiming that if gay marriage was made legal, people would want to marry farm animals, the idea of marriage would be relegated to the scrap heap, people wouldn't know what being married means, yada, yada, yada. I have a sincere question to ask all of you. Exactly what harm has happened to anyone on this board because of gay marriage being legal that is worth banning all who is gay from this legal right? What harm has happend to anyone on this board because someone came out transgender that deserves all transgender people of their individual rights? What harm has anyone on this board personally had because someone's skin is black or brown that makes it ok to discriminate against all who is not white. What harm has anyone on this board had from a religion that deserves the entire religion to be denied rights. Seriously, prejudicial beliefs about ANYONE just because they are different from you is the most stupid idea anyone has ever had. It should all be regulated to the dustbin of history. Let people live their lives the way they see fit. Learn to treat others that are different from yourself with respect and dignity. Forget all this nonsense. It should be embarrassing that people feel like they should even have to fight at all for individual rights just because they don't look like those in power. The same people who bought into the doomerism about gay marriage, the Civil Rights Movement, desgregation, the Satanic panic, the abortion panic, the racially charged drug panic, and the transgender “ideology” panic never learn. They are doomed to fall for each new moral panic because the people behind these panics are telling them what they want to hear. They are shameless about being wrong and just move on without guilt at any damage their support of these movements cause when it goes out of fashion or becomes impossible to defend and then jump through the next hoop they are pointed at. I can’t understand how they don’t get suspicious that this is a vicious cycle and they keep falling for it every time. 1
The Nehor Posted December 31, 2025 Posted December 31, 2025 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Respect and dignity and coexist with principled and reasoned disagreement. Right? LOL!
smac97 Posted December 31, 2025 Posted December 31, 2025 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: It is an expression. Apparently a highly misleading, exaggerating, mischaracterizing one. 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. Full stop. Categorically. Doesn’t matter. The mind reels. It's no wonder the trans movement is failing all over the place. 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: If you are rhetorically providing cover for those who use violence that fig leaf is about as effective as Pilate’s hand washing. Unserious and absurd. 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote I think the claim of "epidemic" is a substantial exaggeration and mischaracterization, to the point of falsehood. Falsehoods need to be rebutted. You’ve basically just slipped into tone policing. Claims of an "epidemic" is more than just "tone." 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote I think an increase in violence is very important. I would like to see data about this, particularly violence against trans persons because they are trans. The number of trans people murdered doubles over four years Again: I would like to see data about this. Particularly as regarding violence against trans persons because they are trans. 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: when rhetoric demonizing trans people is used as a tool by bigots Yawn. You never offer anything of substance. Just sneers and insults. Again, it's no wonder the trans movement is failing. With friends/advocates like you... 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: Do you consistently apply this standard of evidence? No. Do I ask for data? Yes. All the time. 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: I have seen you react to crimes against LDS people and you assume bigotry played a role until proven otherwise. CFR. But I won't hold my breath. You pretty much never provide substantive commentary or information, nor do you substantiate what you claim. 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: You’re being ridiculous. In 1930s Germany would you have been demanding evidence that the increased violence against Jewish people had nothing to do with Nazi rhetoric because it might just be a coincidence? Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Yawn. 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote I want people calling attention to unlawful and unhealthy behaviors against trans persons. We as a society are better off in curbing such things. But using falsehoods to "call attention to it" is not the way to go, particularly if the "it" is a non-existent "epidemic," the narrative of which may have ulterior motives (see my prior posts about "March of Dimes Syndrome"). Yes, we know. Every time a marginalized group wants rights it is part of a larger conspiracy. Aboltiionist only want the slaves freed because they would make money due to having investments in other industries that would benefit from slavery ending. The Civil Rights movement was a Communist plot. The Gay Rights movement was actually trying to turn children (and the frogs) gay. Everything has to be a conspiracy. And once again you dodge. You never offer anything of substance. 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: March of Dimes Syndrome is ridiculous and you are ridiculous for believing it. No substantive argument or reasoning or evidence. Just sneers. 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote You pretty much never have anything substantive to say. I won't feign a "wow" because, well, this is all you do, all you have ever done. For years now. Other readers, however, may be interested in reviewing evidence and arguments. If our arguments facilitate that, then they have some value. And in any event, your years-long inability to articulate any meaningful and evidence-based defense of trans ideology has been instructive for me personally. You present yourself as an advocate for trans folks, but you are utterly incapable of advancing what I find to be a toxic and incoherent ideology about trans issues. If you had decent and reasoned arguments, you would have presented them by now. If anyone seriously comes to this message board specifically to get informed about transgender issues I suspect they aren’t the brightest bulbs. And the insults continue. 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: That would be like going to a Catholic message board to learn about the Pro-Choice position. This board has previously included participants with diverse perspectives and the willingness and ability to substantiate and discuss those perspectives. Most of that is in our rearview mirror. 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: Awww…..thanks. And no, I am not really an advocate. More of a defender. You're pretty terrible at it either way. You have every opportunity to present argument and evidence and analysis, but you never do. 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote You present yourself as an advocate for trans folks, but you are utterly incapable of advancing what I find to be a toxic and incoherent ideology about trans issues. You love to share your toxic tales of their depravity. I push back. I am defending my friends. I condemn the sexualization and grooming of children. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted December 31, 2025 Posted December 31, 2025 (edited) 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: Talking about whether my friends deserve basic human rights I would be happy to have that discussion, but I'm not sure it's in dispute. Trans people do indeed "deserve basic human rights." The topics under discussion (men in women's bathrooms, sports, prisons; sexualizing/grooming children, etc.) are not "basic human rights." 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: is not something I can politely sit back and debate in my tweed jacket in my armchair in the Ivory Tower as if it is an abstract philosophical discussion. Not only can you not debate "politely," you can't debate at all. No substance. No evidence. No reasoning. Just sneers and invective and emotionalisms. You are a pretty terrible advocate/defender of the ideology under discussion. 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote I have been made to care about this issue as well. I would have preferred to let it alone, but zealots and idealogues have brought it to society's front door. Men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons. Thousands of children receiving medical treatments which permanently impair sexual function and procreative capacity and have lifelong effects. Large-scale and very public sexualization and grooming of children. Laws compelling speech and other substantial damage to Free Speech. Substantial damage to familial and other relationships. Substantial injury to gender dysphoric persons. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Again, no substance, evidence or reasoning. Just ALL CAPS SHOUTING AND EXCLAMATION MARKS! 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: Trans people were generally flying under the radar contentedly until the Right saw it as a great issue to distract their witless followers with. Nah. The intrusion into women's spaces has been very public and deliberate. Lia Thomas, Dylan Mulvaney. Lilly Tino. Men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons. Laws mandating preferred pronouns. These are all recent, and nothing close to "flying under the radar." Again: I would have preferred to let it alone, but zealots and idealogues have brought it to society's front door. And this stuff is no longer a thing "the Right" opposes. Polling shows supermajority opposition to your position on many trans issues, including large numbers (even, IIRC, a majority of) "the Left." 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: A bright shining moral panic just waiting to be unleashed. I watched it happen. Trans people saw the signs and knew it was coming. They didn’t want it. They knew it would put many of them physically in danger. I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. I think the Lia Thomas and Dylan Mulvaney stuff started creating unease, but the extensive sexualization and grooming of children via large numbers of "Drag Queen Story Hour" events, children attending highly sexualized drag shows, children being exposes to highly sexualized stuff at Pride parades, revelations about the Tavistock Clinic and thousands of children undergoing permanent and sterilizing and life-altering medical procedures, etc., these things are what really stopped and reversed the momentum and gains your movement had achieved. Targeting children was the overreach, the bridge too far. 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: No laws were compelling speech. You were lied to. Yes, there have been laws compelling speech. Some have been proposed but failed, but others are in place as we speak. It's worse in European countries that lack First Amendment protections, but there have been some beachheads in the United States. California: The LGBTQ+ Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights (Senate Bill 219, effective 2018) prohibits facility staff from willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident's preferred name or pronouns. Violations can result in fines or misdemeanor charges. Source. New York City: The New York City Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or expression in public accommodations, employment, and housing. Commission guidance states that intentionally and repeatedly refusing to use an individual's preferred name or pronouns can constitute unlawful discriminatory harassment. Source. Colorado: The Kelly Loving Act (signed in 2025) amends the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to explicitly include "chosen name and pronouns" as part of protected gender expression. Refusal to use them (including deadnaming or misgendering) in public accommodations, employment, or housing can potentially be treated as discrimination. Source. Massachusetts: Massachusetts passed an LGBTQ+ Long-Term Care Bill of Rights in 2024 (included in a broader long-term care oversight act), enumerating nondiscrimination protections including the use of residents' preferred names and pronouns. Source. New Jersey: New Jersey has an LGBTQI & HIV+ Long Term Care Residents Bill of Rights, which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity (including "misgendering" - that is, using biologically accurate pronouns) in long-term care settings. Source. Oregon: Oregon has LGBTQ+ long-term care protections similar to California's, including requirements around preferred names and pronouns in facilities. Source. 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: No children were being groomed. Many, many children have been highly sexualized and groomed at the events I have previously noted. 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: It was all a big chunk of lies and you swallowed it all. The sexualization and grooming of children has been extensively documented. A sampling: Quote The coverage of many "Pride" parades is not doing that movement any favors. The participants come across as hedonistic, grossly oversexualized, and pervy. And with increasing frequency, the debauchery parades, the "Drag Queen Story Hours," the supposed "Kid-Friendly" drag shows, etc., are coming across pretty clearly as "grooming" behaviors. As sexualizing children. Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Quote Our family often took the train into Philadelphia, but as we rode across the bridge to attend the city’s Pride parade five years ago, my wife’s leg bounced with a nervous jitter. ... When our children grew tired of marching, we plopped onto a nearby curb. Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on. The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes. At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation, but I told them the truth: That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do. Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids Quote Here are just a few of the most recent disgusting, "family-friendly" LGBTQ events billed for kids, and just how horrifically perverse they actually are. This...er...performer? In spandex, standing next to men in thongs, shouting "We have bandanas and lube!" from a float parading in front of young kids. ... Christina Aguilera sporting a green strap-on penis at a concert advertised as an "all-ages" pride event in Los Angeles. ... This man in drag exposing his pantyhose-clad crotch at a "kid-friendly" brunch. ... A toddler watches as men in thongs and bondage gear whip one another at a pride parade. ... A group of half-naked people - including men and women - gyrate on stage and simulate sex acts at a "family-friendly" drag and pride event in Austin, Texas. ... This drag queen wearing pop-up prosthetic genitalia that actually sprayed liquid on to a crowd that included kids. ... Drag queens and men in women's lingerie danced provocatively in front of a crowd that included one very confused little girl. ... This bare-breasted person twerking and gyrating near a cop, only feet from children marching in the same parade in Washington, D.C. where Vice President Kamala Harris would later speak. ... This is what the degenerate left is pushing as normalcy - and they honestly want you to believe they aren't grooming kids. Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade Quote Jenifer McGuire, Ph.D., an associate professor of family social science at the University of Minnesota, has been to Pride celebrations across the world with her family, from Tucson to Amsterdam. McGuire, a lesbian parent, always preps her kids for possible adult content beforehand. After a few events, the kids knew to expect nudity and other surprises. “They just had to learn to laugh and enjoy things. Like there were these Beanie Babies with giant penises on them,” McGuire says. “For a fourth- and fifth-grade kid, that's super funny.” ‘GROOMING FESTIVAL’: Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride Quote It was horrifying. Naked adults were playing with children at Seattle’s Pride fest and the police couldn’t do anything about it, Post Millennial reporter Katie Daviscourt said on the Todd Starnes Show. The following is a rush transcript of the interview. STARNES: [01:47:29] We told you earlier about this disgusting video that came out of Seattle, the pride parade. You got the Boy Scouts marching with the rainbow flags and then you have a bunch of men that are butt naked and they’re riding around on bicycles. ... DAVISCOURT: [01:48:12] You know what? It is so shocking, the events that occurred. You know, it’s evident that the nature of pride has taken a very dark turn in the sense of morality. Pride, you know, it went from being able to love who you want, to if you don’t accept me prancing around naked in front of a crowd of children and trying to groom them. Then, you know, you’re a homophobe. It was a shocking surprise that they were out in the open yesterday. ... DAVISCOURT: [01:48:53] Right. So let’s just start from the top. So I’ve been to many pride events in the past, but this year’s special acts of deviancy reached new heights. I don’t know a single reporter who likes to post footage of children on the Internet, but sadly, the events that occurred need to be exposed. And an estimated 500,000 people took over the streets of Seattle Sunday to celebrate Pride for the first time in about three years because the event was shut down from the pandemic. And out of all of the participants that could have opened the parade, the organizers chose the Boy and Girl Scouts of America, who recently changed their name to The Scouts to be more inclusive. And now, given the history of the Boy Scouts and the sexual molestation and pedophilia that has come out of their group, sadly, having the young children open the parade was a rather bold move. And following shortly behind the Boy Scouts was the group of naked cyclists, both male and female, circling the parade route, exposing their genitalia to children who came to attend the event, which was advertised as a family friendly event. And some of these cyclists were covered in body paint while the majority were fully exposed, leaving nothing unseen to the eye. But that video that you just talked about was nothing compared to what I witnessed at Pride Fest, which happened directly after the parade. ... DAVISCOURT: [01:50:43] Yeah, they are fully nude. And so I was going around Pride Fest interviewing people and I went to the international fountain. It’s our big fountain at the Seattle Center. And there were dozens of fully naked men and women playing in the fountain with children. ... DAVISCOURT: [01:51:03] Exactly! How is this legal? And so I sat there shocked. I have never in the field, you know, Seattle is so insane. I’ve been at a loss for words a couple of times but this has actually left me at a loss for words witnessing grown adults playing in the fountain, naked with children. And so I sat there shocked and I was trying to find Seattle PD. And there’s a back story to this that I’ll explain. But I went up and I did find two officers and I asked them, what is going on? How can people be naked with these children? And they said that due to the city’s indecent exposure laws, public nudity is permissible under them unless someone feels threatened or harmed. And only then they could take action if someone were to file a police report. But I also think that the parents who decided to bring their kids to this seemed to have no problem. And it just goes to show that Pride has become a grooming festival to these young kids. Children as Sex Objects: Why NYC Gay Pride Parade Is Being Called a 'Celebration of Pedophilia' Quote The annual New York City gay pride parade is known for its eccentric themes and over the top, sexually charged floats but this year's headliner has left many in the gay community shaking their heads. The organizers have employed a 10-year-old child as the 'face' of this year's festivities. The young boy, Desmond Napoles says he is unashamedly a boy who likes to dress as a woman but says he is not transgender, rather, he identifies as a "drag kid." On his social networks, "Desi" tells other young children they should not listen to their parents if they are told this is "sin" and advocates for kids to run away from home if they are not accepted. Meanwhile this move to include children who considered themselves drag queens has some in the gay community up in arms. Blogger Chad Felix Greene who writes extensively on the gay lifestyle, warns that the use of a child in suggestive poses crosses the lines of decency and is promoting a culture which views children as sex objects. ... Dr. Michelle Cretella echoes Hughes sentiment that the child should be our main priority. Dr. Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians warns that this year's gay pride parade is nothing more than a "celebration of pedophilia." Cretella says the parents of young Desmond are the ones who should be held accountable for allowing him to be exploited in this way. She adds, "As a pediatrician, I will go one step farther and say that the parents of these children and others promoting this are guilty of pedophilic grooming." DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing Quote The Capital Pride Parade was hosted in Washington, D.C. Saturday and, as has become too common these days, the event that billed itself as “family friendly” was filled with nudity, fetishism and depravity that children were encouraged to watch. Marching through the Logan Circle and Dupont Circle neighborhoods of D.C., the Marriott International sponsored event had anticipated as many as 500,000 attendees. Including marchers and floats from an array of organizations, the Capital Pride Alliance run event stated their purpose as serving “to celebrate, educate, support, and inspire our multi-faceted communities,” and, evidently, this was best accomplished by twerking half-naked in front of kids. One video captured what was described as “a man with breasts” marching ahead of young children wearing little more than a bikini bottom walking straight up to a police officer, bending over, and shaking his rear at the cop. Lest it be construed as an isolated incident, the event was said to have hundreds of children marking along the parade route. Among the participants were representatives from the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), including a banner for Ross DCPS which is an elementary school. ... Other content that was promoted as appropriate for young children to observe included groups engaged in “Puppy Play” where participants wear canine masks and bondage gear and behave as though they are a dog. Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance Quote Cities around the United States held parades and other events over the weekend to celebrate Pride Month. Bizarre displays and antics from attendees have since appeared on social media, with a few videos showing that children were present. Here are several disturbing moments from the latest round of Pride parades. ... Other images from the weekend showed that children were in attendance at Pride-themed events. Dan O'Donnell I regret to inform you that yesterday’s drag show at the Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin farmer’s market wasn’t as family-friendly as advertised. One video showed an adult encouraging a little girl to wave at men dressed in women’s clothing while other men walked by, clad in rainbow-colored speedos with tight bulges on display. ... Another video shows a drag queen standing on an eggplant emoji float, proclaiming — with young children present — “We have genitals and lube.” ... One video appears to show an adult forcing her reluctant child to watch the Pride parade. ... Additional video clips show that children were present at a drag show featuring several men disrobing and suggestively dancing on stage. ... The L.A. Pride music festival on Saturday was described as an “all-ages” event, according to a report by Los Angeles Daily News. Pop star Christina Aguilera was seen wearing a green, bejeweled phallus, with which she repeatedly stroked during her performance at the all-ages event on Saturday night. Pride Month Jumps the Shark Quote “Pride” events started a few decades ago as an activist effort to push back against the stigma attached to homosexuality. Now extended across the whole month of June, it looks more like an effort designed to do the opposite. Last weekend, social media abounded with videos of a Pride event at a gay bar in Dallas called Drag the Kids to Pride. Young children can be seen handing money to twerking drag queens. A bright pink neon sign saying “It’s Not Going to Lick Itself!” added an extra layer of creepiness. This week, the Twitter account Libs of Tiktok alerted followers to a drag show at a San Francisco middle school. In one video, a crowd of students cheers wildly as the performer—Twitter handle @NickiJizz—pulls off his wig in the finale. ... For instance, as The Daily Signal reports, the Smithsonian American Art Museum has gotten in on the action. As part of its Pride Family Day, the taxpayer-supported museum sponsored “what it called an ‘age appropriate’ drag queen show and crafts inspired by the LGBTQ Pride flag for children ages 3 and up.” You can find “age-appropriate drag queen” listed in the dictionary of oxymorons not far from “female penis.” Second, Pride now seems less about gay and lesbian inclusion and more about abolishing the difference between males and females, and between adults and children. ... This targeting of children gives the sea of rainbows a much more sinister hue. The pride-signaling on corporate logos, map and exercise apps, public school hallways, TV networks and streaming services, Google doodles, even on Major League Baseball fields and jerseys, feels ever more oppressive. This rainbow-fest has irked social conservatives for years. And some feminists have objected to drag queens, which are little more than men dressing up as sexualized parodies of women. But now, even some who identify as gay and lesbian have had enough. On Twitter, Storm Robinson observed: “As a gay man, I can’t understand why a parent would take their child to a drag queen story hour. Why does this even exist? … Drag is not for kids. The end.” ... And consider British philosopher Kathleen Stock, author of the terrific book “Material Girls,” who was marching in Pride parades just a few years ago. She now has harsh words about the whole business: This annual festival of naked men and naked political manoeuvring is incredibly dispiriting to any lesbian or gay man who doesn’t believe in the underpinning values—if you can call them values at all. Some of my friends have become positively averse to the sight of the rainbow flag, and shudder whenever they see one. In Brighton, given the ubiquity of rainbows—from buses to shopfronts to lighting displays and beyond—this means you shudder on average about four times an hour. And not in a good way. Rather than feeling proud as robotically instructed, many feel ashamed of what’s being done in their name. Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’ Quote It has become increasingly apparent that LGBT activists want to sexualize children. Just when you think that such attempts couldn’t be any more bold, there’s always a left-wing academic, children’s TV show, or public figure eager to push for the needle towards the acceptance of pedophilia. The latest example comes from Yale University associate professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Joseph J. Fischel, who shamelessly came out in favor of exposing children to public sex acts in his gut-wrenching article titled “Keep Pride Nude” in the Boston Review. Fischel, who proclaims in his Twitter bio that he is “gay for pay,” attempts to justify his argument that children should be exposed to public displays of kink and gay sexuality by taking the laughable position that such exposure will help combat “racism and homophobia.” ... According to Fischel, “Bodies of color, simply by existing, were tantamount to sex in public.” Adding that “Blacks were white folks’ sex public [sic],” capitalizing “Black” while leaving “white” lowercase throughout the article. Then suddenly, the heart of the matter resurfaces, with Fischel writing “My argument, all along really, has been for the children.” With surprising honesty, he notes that the legal jargon, citations of supposed intellectuals, and bizarre invocations of racism simply serve as pretexts, pseudo-intellectual backings for his underlying, wretched desire to expose children to sexual acts. Here Fischel really takes off the mask, writing what are perhaps the most telling lines of the entire article when he inquires “What is the presumptive harm if a child …. sees an adult’s butt cheeks, or even an adult’s genitals or breasts?” ... But Fischel continues, asking if a child would feel violated after witnessing any of these things, or if they’d be “as likely to respond with curiosity?” ... Fischel also writes that “leather chaps and nipple clamps” serve to “model modes of living and loving that many kids… have never seen,” adding that “the more models of queerness the better.” He even bashes parents who seek to shield their children from public sex acts, writing “When parents … oppose public indecency at Pride on the grounds that it may upset children, the opposite is more likely the case.” He continues, “their children might like it, and that upsets the parents, not the children.” The assertion that “children might like it,” with “it” referring to adult nudity and kink, blatantly contradicts the common moral understanding that children should be entirely removed from adult sexuality. Through this statement and the entire article, it becomes apparent that this understanding is one Fischel is actively working to undermine. ... Fischel attacks the family even more blatantly in his concluding paragraph when he writes “we ought to celebrate kink, butts, and boobs… especially for those kids whose opportunities and curiosities are stifled by racist violence, economic inequality, or their heterosexual nuclear family.” And on and on and on. This was compiled in 2022. I suspect a lot more could be added to the list. You are, it seems, ideologically obligated to either A) pretend/insist that these things aren't happening, or B) admit that these things are happening, but deny that this amounts to the sexualization/grooming of children. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 31, 2025 by smac97
The Nehor Posted December 31, 2025 Posted December 31, 2025 4 hours ago, smac97 said: I condemn the sexualization and grooming of children. Yet you back the policies of a perv who brags about walking in on underage girls changing rooms. I doubt your sincerity. 1
Recommended Posts