smac97 Posted January 16 Posted January 16 (edited) 56 minutes ago, longview said: Quote I do find it rather hypocritical if lawmakers push for limits on gender affirming treatments for minors claiming they are doing so because of the medically invasive, permanent changes that the minors may regret later in their life while ignoring cosmetic surgeries for minors that result in pretty much the same medical outcomes especially given there is a greater dissatisfaction/regret rate for the latter. If it’s about stopping minors from making life altering decisions they will regret later, then cosmetic surgeries done to affirm the gender that matches their biological sex should also be included in any bans. Same medical outcomes? Agonizing regret for loss of procreative functions is FAR more serious than the vain regret of an unsatisfactory change in the "new body image". I really do not understand Calm's point here ("pretty much the same medical outcomes"). I appreciate the concern for consistency in protecting minors from potentially regretful, life-altering decisions—that's a valid principle worth applying evenly. However, the comparison between gender-affirming treatments for minors and typical cosmetic surgeries doesn't quite hold, for a few key reasons: Medical Necessity and Evidence Base: Most cosmetic procedures allowed for minors are either reconstructive (e.g., correcting congenital deformities or severe burns) or address clear physical health issues (e.g., breast reduction for chronic back/neck pain from macromastia, often deemed medically necessary and insurance-covered). These have strong, long-established evidence of safety and benefit. Gender-affirming treatments for minors (hormones, surgeries) lack that—systematic reviews (e.g., UK's Cass Review, restrictions in Sweden/Finland/Norway) find low-quality evidence, with unique risks like permanent sterility or bone loss. Irreversibility and Risks: While both can be permanent, the claim that they have "pretty much the same medical outcomes" overlooks critical ethical and medical distinctions. Outcomes alone don't justify interventions—intent, necessity, and evidence do. Consider this analogy: A surgeon amputating a leg to save a patient from life-threatening necrotizing fasciitis faces no ethical scrutiny. But amputating a healthy leg because a patient with Body Integrity Identity Disorder desperately wants it removed? That doctor would (rightly) face professional consequences, even though both patients end up with "pretty much the same medical outcome" (one fewer leg). The difference is medical necessity treating disease vs. altering healthy tissue based on identity or desire. Gender treatments often fall into the latter category for minors—altering functioning bodies without treating a physical pathology. Scope and Context: Bans target a specific, rapidly growing practice with weak evidence and social contagion concerns, not all elective procedures. Cosmetic surgeries in minors aren't surging similarly or lacking evidence; they're not framed as "lifesaving" (of the "we need to give this child this medical procedure because otherwise she will kill herself" variety) despite risks. The goal is safeguarding vulnerable kids with the highest scrutiny where evidence is weakest and risks unique—not banning everything permanent. True consistency means demanding strong medical justification, not equating dissimilar cases. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 16 by smac97
Calm Posted January 16 Posted January 16 (edited) 3 hours ago, longview said: Same medical outcomes? Agonizing regret for loss of procreative functions is FAR more serious than the vain regret of an unsatisfactory change in the "new body image". I don’t understand your criticism. What reproductive function is lost by inserting saline or silicone implants? Most women can still nurse even because they are careful not to damage the mammary glands and ducts. Edited January 16 by Calm
Calm Posted January 16 Posted January 16 (edited) 7 hours ago, longview said: Same medical outcomes? Agonizing regret for loss of procreative functions is FAR more serious than the vain regret of an unsatisfactory change in the "new body image". Rereading your comment, I think I understand now where you are going with this, repeating the same category error as before. Since I was specifically referring to procedures with similar medical outcomes and not different and not lumping all/any random gender affirming surgeries into my comparison with purely cosmetic surgeries, your comment is a non sequiter to mine. Edited January 17 by Calm
Calm Posted January 16 Posted January 16 (edited) 3 hours ago, smac97 said: really do not understand Calm's point here ("pretty much the same medical outcomes"). Look at my comments as only dealing with procedures that have the same medical outcomes for essentially the same purpose…making one look more like the sex one wants to appear as, at least culturally speaking as I don’t believe bigger breasts make a woman look more feminine nor do I believe bigger muscles make a guy look more masculine, but that is the way our culture has been presenting sexual appearance for quite some time. I am not talking about reconstructive cosmetic surgeries nor am I addressing in my last couple of posts genital gender affirming surgeries as I am not aware of comparable cosmetic surgeries (there are cosemetic surgeries that involve these areas, but I don’t believe they are as extensive in impact, but haven’t studied them either, so guessing here). I am comparing purely cosmetic breast reduction done to gender affirming breast reduction and cosmetic breast augmentation (not reconstructive such as after a mastectomy) to gender affirming breast augmentation and might use other examples if I think of them that have similar issues. Quote Most cosmetic procedures allowed for minors are either reconstructive (e.g., correcting congenital deformities or severe burns) or address clear physical health issues (e.g., breast reduction for chronic back/neck pain from macromastia, often deemed medically necessary and insurance-covered). Unfortunately the desire to get nose jobs, breast implants, liposuction, etc has risen among teens. There are likely many more such purely cosmetic procedures done for teens than gender affirming ones. (Messed up formating, link is below this quote) Quote According to ASPS statistics, 23,527 cosmetic surgery procedures were performed on people aged 19 and under in 2022, while 244,252 minimally invasive cosmetic procedures were also performed. https://premingermd.com/blog/the-social-media-effect-understanding-the-rise-of-teen-plastic-surgery-in-the-digital-age/#:~:text=The intersection of social media,not just aspirational but expected. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/briefing-papers/briefing-paper-plastic-surgery-for-teenagers (this goes with the quote) When done to reduce actual physical discomfort, such as overly large breasts, or bullying, such as removing birthmarks or scars or ear pinning, I don’t have an issue with it. If it’s to make oneself closer to the ideal social image, I do for medical and psychological reasons. I would love to see regret rate for purely cosmetic procedures like breast augmentation for biological females broken out for teens vs adults. I suspect it’s higher for those who had surgery as teens, but can’t be sure. Quote Gender treatments often fall into the latter category for minors—altering functioning bodies without treating a physical pathology Many cosmetic procedures for teens have no underlying physical pathology. Based on this reasoning, should breast augmentation for female teens and breast reduction for male teens when breasts are not large enough to affect the back, etc be discouraged or banned in your view? Quote Bans target a specific, rapidly growing practice with weak evidence and social contagion concerns If this is the primary reason for the push for legal restrictions, can you find a comparable response pushing for bans for purely cosmetic surgery for teens given its rise most likely due to social media along with the rates of dissatisfaction in general for such procedures? I think the evidence for adults that purely cosmetic procedures like augmentation have long lasting positive effects generally speaking is on the weaker side, so I am assuming evidence is even weaker for teens. Why this should be a major concern to the public and lawmakers is that are a lot more boys and girls becoming ashamed or dissatisfied with their appearance because of social media than there are those becoming desirous of transitioning, so potentially there are much greater numbers to be harmed. Not saying this diminishes the need to push for bans on teen gender affirming surgeries (I still would prefer it not to be totally excluded legally as a possibility at this point given the uncertain science, but I would like to see extremely thorough requirements created by the medical oversight boards to ensure such surgeries are of the true very last resort after trying others over a significant amount of time and I would like to see comparable treatment for purely cosmetic surgeries with the same level of physical impact). I would also love to see something done about the culture that pushes teens to think they have to look like 20+ year olds to be attractive, but that ain’t going to happen. Quote True consistency means demanding strong medical justification, not equating dissimilar cases. I most definitely agree. Edited January 16 by Calm
smac97 Posted January 16 Posted January 16 (edited) On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: Look at my comments as only dealing with procedures that have the same medical outcomes for essentially the same purpose… What "same purpose" are you referencing here? I see a world of difference between A) surgical interventions for someone with necrotizing fasciitis or gynecomastia and B) surgical interventions for someone with Gender Dysphoria or Body Integrity Identity Disorder. The "purpose" of the former is to treat well-known and well-established medical issues, the evidence for which treatment is substantial. The "purpose" of the latter is to treat a mental health disorder, the evidence for which treatment is very poor. The purposes are quite different. And then there's the risks, the irreversibility, the comorbidities, the impairment of sexual function and sensation and reproductive capacity, and so on. On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: making one look more like the sex one wants to appear as, at least culturally speaking as I don’t believe bigger breasts make a woman look more feminine nor do I believe bigger muscles make a guy look more masculine, but that is the way our culture has been presenting sexual appearance for quite some time. Pretty big difference there. If I want a medical procedure to make me look more like a male human, I think that is generally okay because I am a male human. In contrast, if I want a medical procedure to cut off my healthy leg because I "want to appear as" a one-legged person, or sever my spinal cord because I "want to appear as" a paraplegic, then those are very different purposes. On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: I am comparing purely cosmetic breast reduction done to gender affirming breast reduction That is, mastectomies? Cutting off a woman's or girl's perfectly healthy breasts because she "identifies" as a man, and so wants the procedure to help her look more like one? On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: and cosmetic breast augmentation (not reconstructive such as after a mastectomy) to gender affirming breast augmentation. Not sure what this means. Are you referencing biological males who want to grow female-looking breasts as a "gender affirming" thing? On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: Unfortunately the desire to get nose jobs, breast implants, liposuction, etc has risen among teens. There are likely many more such purely cosmetic procedures done for teens than gender affirming ones. (Messed up formating, link is below this quote) https://premingermd.com/blog/the-social-media-effect-understanding-the-rise-of-teen-plastic-surgery-in-the-digital-age/#:~:text=The intersection of social media,not just aspirational but expected. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/briefing-papers/briefing-paper-plastic-surgery-for-teenagers (this goes with the quote) When done to reduce actual physical discomfort, such as overly large breasts, or bullying, such as removing birthmarks or scars or ear pinning, I don’t have an issue with it. Nor do I. I have a family member who had a pretty big nose in his teen years. He had surgery to make his nose smaller. It worked. On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: If it’s to make oneself closer to the ideal social image, I do for medical and psychological reasons. I think we as a society need to allow each other substantial individual autonomy to do what we like with our bodies. There do, however, need to be limits, such as consideration of comorbidities, long-term efficacy, and so on. On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: Many cosmetic procedures for teens have no underlying physical pathology. Okay. On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: Based on this reasoning, should breast augmentation for female teens and breast reduction for male teens when breasts are not large enough to affect the back, etc be discouraged or banned in your view? I would generally be against purely aesthetic breast augmentation for female teens. I think they need to wait until they are 18. Re: boys and gynomastia, I would leave that to him and his parents and his doctor and current ethical standards and evaluations (which, hopefully, including assessing for comorbidities and such). On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: If this is the primary reason for the push for legal restrictions, "This" being . . . what? On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: can you find a comparable response pushing for bans for purely cosmetic surgery for teens given its rise most likely due to social media along with the rates of dissatisfaction in general for such procedures? No. On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: Why this should be a major concern to the public and lawmakers is that are a lot more boys and girls becoming ashamed or dissatisfied with their appearance because of social media than there are those becoming desirous of transitioning, so potentially there are much greater numbers to be harmed. I'm not sure how prevalent this issue (teen girls getting breast augmentations) is. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 21 by smac97
Calm Posted January 17 Posted January 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: What "same purpose" are you referencing here? Being closer to match one’s preferred appearance. Again, I am focusing on basic cosmetic surgeries. Edited January 17 by Calm
Calm Posted January 17 Posted January 17 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: That is, mastectomies? Cutting off a woman's or girl's perfectly healthy breasts because she "identifies" as a man, and so wants the procedure to help her look more like one? Cutting off healthy breast tissue whether that’s too look skinnier or too look more manly whatever the biological sex. Quote Are you referencing biological males who want to grow female-looking breasts as a "gender affirming" thing? No, addressing only surgery right now, so that would be biological males who use breast implants to appear more feminine in their own eyes. Edited January 17 by Calm
Calm Posted January 17 Posted January 17 (edited) 4 hours ago, smac97 said: have a family member who had a pretty big nose in his teen years. He had surgery to make his nose smaller. It worked. I would have preferred he wait till he was an adult unless there were other issues involved such as a deviated septum. No one should feel the need to cut themselves imo to make oneself closer to the norm/ideal. I would prefer therapy to help teens to learn to accept themselves rather than surgery. I think in the long run that is much more helpful as there will always be something that doesn’t measure up. If something creates physical impediments such as a cleft palate, then it makes sense to operate when young…and the parent and doctor should be closely supervising to ensure correct care and caution is being used by the youth. It is not a time to see how independent a kid can be, imo. I am getting interrupted a lot, so rereading and deciding to respond where I didn’t before, so things may be out of order. Quote This" being . . . what? The claim that one is primarily concerned with the medical, physical consequences of the surgeries I am discussing and not using what they see as moral, religious, or emotional judgment in promoting laws be made to restrict surgeries as a treatment for certain disorders. Quote I think we as a society need to allow each other substantial individual autonomy to do what we like with our bodies. There do, however, need to be limits, such as consideration of comorbidities, long-term efficacy, and so on. For minors as well? Because I am only discussing minors when it comes to law making. Edited January 17 by Calm
Calm Posted January 17 Posted January 17 (edited) 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I'm not sure how prevalent this issue (teen girls getting breast augmentations) is. You didn’t look at the stats I linked to? It’s more prevalent than gender affirming surgeries. Quote I would generally be against purely aesthetic breast augmentation for female teens. I think they need to wait until they are 18. Boys by gynomastia, I would leave that to him and his parents and his doctor and current ethical standards and evaluations (which, hopefully, including assessing for comorbidities and such). We are in general agreement here if it’s significant tissue amount for the boy and not just mostly a weight issue. I would also want both to be encouraged to undergo therapy because there would be emotional needs that aren’t being met if they are willing to get cut to improve appearance in their view and chances are the surgery won’t get rid of them even if it corrects a current obsession. I have a close relative who was anorexic and is still so obsessed with weight she has to limit food she has in her home, this impacts her health to some extent because her diet isn’t as varied as it should be as she has a limited income (she probably still eats better than most people as we were taught good nutrition by Mom). I have several other relatives with body image issues that have weighed on them all their lives. I have three things that occupy too much space in my head, including having a skull on the large side (my youngest brother has photos where he looks like a bobble head doll, my dad was tall and could carry it, I am 9 inches shorter than he was and proportionately having his size of head throws things off…besides being only able to wear extra large men’s hats). Would have been great if this had been addressed in our youth. But none of us were tempted to go so far as surgery, so I suspect issues run deeper at that point for those who turn to surgery even if surgery itself is much more commonplace. Hope I am wrong, but seen so many lives burdened over what were unnecessary body worries, even shame. Edited January 17 by Calm
smac97 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 On 1/16/2026 at 5:16 PM, Calm said: Quote Are you referencing biological males who want to grow female-looking breasts as a "gender affirming" thing? No, addressing only surgery right now, so that would be biological males who use breast implants to appear more feminine in their own eyes. So surgery on biological males as a "gender affirming" thing (i.e., to make them look more like women)? Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: Quote I really do not understand Calm's point here ("pretty much the same medical outcomes"). Look at my comments as only dealing with procedures that have the same medical outcomes for essentially the same purpose…making one look more like the sex one wants to appear as, at least culturally speaking as I don’t believe bigger breasts make a woman look more feminine nor do I believe bigger muscles make a guy look more masculine, but that is the way our culture has been presenting sexual appearance for quite some time. Respectfully, I can't go along with this framing. A medical procedure intended to make a biological male look more like a female(re: breasts) is materially distinguishable from a medical procedure intended to make a biological female look more like a female (re: breasts). I cannot agree that these have "essentially the same purpose" because the latter is medically ethical and the former is not. Again, I see a world of difference between A) surgical interventions for someone with necrotizing fasciitis or gynecomastia and B) surgical interventions for someone with Gender Dysphoria or Body Integrity Identity Disorder. The "purpose" of the former is to treat well-known and well-established medical issues, the evidence for which treatment is substantial. The "purpose" of the latter is to treat a mental health disorder, the evidence for which treatment is very poor. The purposes are quite different. On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: I am comparing purely cosmetic breast reduction done to gender affirming breast reduction and cosmetic breast augmentation (not reconstructive such as after a mastectomy) to gender affirming breast augmentation and might use other examples if I think of them that have similar issues. Again, I (respectfully) reject this framing. Cutting off a leg yields "the same medical outcomes" in the two scenarios I have referenced above (amputation due to necrotizing fasciitis and amputation to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder), but why these procedures are being done are vastly different from each other. It is reductionist to shrug off the vast differences in the circumstances of the two patients by saying, effectively, "Meh, they both end up without a leg, so potato, po-tah-to." On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: Unfortunately the desire to get nose jobs, breast implants, liposuction, etc has risen among teens. Okay. I'm not really interested in debating the merits of cosmetic surgery for teens. On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: Many cosmetic procedures for teens have no underlying physical pathology. Based on this reasoning, should breast augmentation for female teens and breast reduction for male teens when breasts are not large enough to affect the back, etc be discouraged or banned in your view? I'm presently ambivalent about cosmetic surgeries for teens based on cosmetic/aesthetic preferences. My comments here pertain to medical interventions to treat Gender Dysphoria as compared to medical interventions to treat Body Integrity Identity Disorder. On 1/16/2026 at 2:37 PM, Calm said: Quote True consistency means demanding strong medical justification, not equating dissimilar cases. I most definitely agree. Okay. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted January 20 Posted January 20 (edited) 14 hours ago, smac97 said: cannot agree that these have "essentially the same purpose" because the latter is medically ethical and the former is not Remember I am solely talking about purely cosmetic procedures and solely top surgery for gender affirming surgery, so when you go to necrotizing tissue removal you are no longer talking about what I am talking about, so to say you disagree based on something that is outside the limits doesn’t make sense to me. I am trying to comprehend what the fundamental differences are for you between cosmetic surgery for gender affirming when it’s for support of one’s biological sex and for when it’s not supporting biological sex. I am narrowing it to this limited, very similar in medical, physical impact so I can focus on what is seen as different…similar to how in an experiment all variable are openly the same because then when one changes just one variable and the results shift, you can confidently focus on the variable as what caused the effect and then start looking at why. Few things in life outside the lab allow for such precise examinations and greater context is important, but sometimes too many things getting examined at once confuses the picture for me, so that is why when I want to get to the core, I try to limit the number of different variables. Edited January 20 by Calm 1
smac97 Posted January 20 Posted January 20 15 hours ago, Calm said: Quote Quote Quote I really do not understand Calm's point here ("pretty much the same medical outcomes"). Look at my comments as only dealing with procedures that have the same medical outcomes for essentially the same purpose…making one look more like the sex one wants to appear as, at least culturally speaking as I don’t believe bigger breasts make a woman look more feminine nor do I believe bigger muscles make a guy look more masculine, but that is the way our culture has been presenting sexual appearance for quite some time. Respectfully, I can't go along with this framing. A medical procedure intended to make a biological male look more like a female(re: breasts) is materially distinguishable from a medical procedure intended to make a biological female look more like a female (re: breasts). I cannot agree that these have "essentially the same purpose" because the latter is medically ethical and the former is not. Remember I am solely talking about purely cosmetic procedures and solely top surgery for gender affirming surgery, so when you go to necrotizing tissue removal you are no longer talking about what I am talking about, so to say you disagree based on something that is outside the limits doesn’t make sense to me. This thread is about trans issues. I am speaking about that topic, including commentary that purports to speak on those issues. You now say you are commenting on "purely cosmetic procedures and solely top surgery for gender affirming surgery." At this point I am not sure what point you are trying to make. 15 hours ago, Calm said: I am trying to comprehend what the fundamental differences are for you between cosmetic surgery for gender affirming I think cosmetic surgery to treat Gender Dysphoria has all sorts of actual or potential problems with it. I suspect such surgical interventions are performed despite the presence of important countervailing considerations (comorbidities, lack of informed consent, lack of longitudinal data, etc.). Moreover, I am troubled at the notion that mastectomies and penectomies are ethically appropriate to treat GD, where elsewhere amputating a leg or severing a spinal cord as treatment for BIID is ethically prohibited. I do not understand why the latter is unethical and the former is just fine. I also have substantial qualms about medical interventions to treat GD in children and teens. Informed consent. Comorbidities. Lack of longitudinal data, and so on. 15 hours ago, Calm said: when it’s for support of one’s biological sex and for when it’s not supporting biological sex. For the same reasons that I am okay with amputating a leg when it is medically necessary and appropriate (to address necrotizing fasciitis) and when it is not (to address BIID). From my prior post: Quote However, the comparison between gender-affirming treatments for minors and typical cosmetic surgeries doesn't quite hold, for a few key reasons: Medical Necessity and Evidence Base: Most cosmetic procedures allowed for minors are either reconstructive (e.g., correcting congenital deformities or severe burns) or address clear physical health issues (e.g., breast reduction for chronic back/neck pain from macromastia, often deemed medically necessary and insurance-covered). These have strong, long-established evidence of safety and benefit. Gender-affirming treatments for minors (hormones, surgeries) lack that—systematic reviews (e.g., UK's Cass Review, restrictions in Sweden/Finland/Norway) find low-quality evidence, with unique risks like permanent sterility or bone loss. Irreversibility and Risks: While both can be permanent, the claim that they have "pretty much the same medical outcomes" overlooks critical ethical and medical distinctions. Outcomes alone don't justify interventions—intent, necessity, and evidence do. Consider this analogy: A surgeon amputating a leg to save a patient from life-threatening necrotizing fasciitis faces no ethical scrutiny. But amputating a healthy leg because a patient with Body Integrity Identity Disorder desperately wants it removed? That doctor would (rightly) face professional consequences, even though both patients end up with "pretty much the same medical outcome" (one fewer leg). The difference is medical necessity treating disease vs. altering healthy tissue based on identity or desire. Gender treatments often fall into the latter category for minors—altering functioning bodies without treating a physical pathology. Scope and Context: Bans target a specific, rapidly growing practice with weak evidence and social contagion concerns, not all elective procedures. Cosmetic surgeries in minors aren't surging similarly or lacking evidence; they're not framed as "lifesaving" (of the "we need to give this child this medical procedure because otherwise she will kill herself" variety) despite risks. The goal is safeguarding vulnerable kids with the highest scrutiny where evidence is weakest and risks unique—not banning everything permanent. True consistency means demanding strong medical justification, not equating dissimilar cases. Adults can, I suppose, do as they please. I think medical ethics should address the concerns I have (comorbidities, etc.). Thanks, -Smac
ttribe Posted January 21 Posted January 21 I admit I continue to be baffled by the concern conservatives have about what other people do with their genitals. Whether it be same sex marriage or trans issues, the alleged societal concerns are weak, at best. FOR THE RECORD: I am not in favor of surgical solutions to trans matters for minors, with the exception of very rare intersex situations.
JVW Posted January 21 Author Posted January 21 1 hour ago, ttribe said: I admit I continue to be baffled by the concern conservatives have about what other people do with their genitals. Whether it be same sex marriage or trans issues, the alleged societal concerns are weak, at best. FOR THE RECORD: I am not in favor of surgical solutions to trans matters for minors, with the exception of very rare intersex situations. Did you just express concern about what other people do with their genitals? lol
smac97 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, ttribe said: I admit I continue to be baffled by the concern conservatives have about what other people do with their genitals. I have been reading a book with my wife: Habits of a Peacemaker: 10 Habits to Change Our Potentially Toxic Conversations into Healthy Dialogues. It's quite good. One of the points he raises is the tendency to strawman or caricature the position/perspective of the other person, and to resist that tendency. I think the issue is better and more accurately framed this way: Many people (including, but not limited to, "conservatives") are broadly indifferent to and accommodating of the private lives and behaviors of others. The calculus changes, though, when children/minors are involved (much of this thread is taken up with discussion about the propriety of medical/surgical interventions on children as treatment for Gender Dysphoria). This is not, I think, because of some prurient or otherwise inappropriate "concern ... about what other people do with their genitals." Rather, sex trait modification procedures appear to give rise to substantial concerns about effectiveness, longitudinal data, comorbidities, informed consent, and so on. Adults have, for quite a while now, had access to medical procedures intended to cosmetically modify sex traits (mastectomies, penectomies, hormone treatments, tracheal shaving, etc.). Recent discussions have tended to center on whether these treatments are appropriate for children/minors, but also delve into concerns as to adults as well (such as comorbidities not being properly addressed). However, the calculus also changes for adults when "trans women" (that is, biological males) start entering into women's spaces: bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons. 1 hour ago, ttribe said: Whether it be same sex marriage or trans issues, the alleged societal concerns are weak, at best. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things, I suppose. I think the concerns about minors are both potent and important. I think the concerns and objections about men in women's spaces are likewise potent and important. I have a theory about why, when we have had "trans"-identifying persons for quite a while, we have only in the last few years ended up with a substantial amount of societal discord and controversy about these matters. Pediatric sex trait modifications are, I think, a novelty. So too are efforts by "trans women" (that is, biological males) to conspicuously - and sometimes even provocatively ("Lilly Tino" being perhaps the most obvious example) - enter into women's spaces. It's a seemingly new spate of problems arising from a long-time circumstance. 1 hour ago, ttribe said: FOR THE RECORD: I am not in favor of surgical solutions to trans matters for minors, with the exception of very rare intersex situations. I assume, then, that you would reject a description of your position along these lines: "I admit I continue to be baffled by the concern some people have about what children/minors do with their genitals." See, I think that just as you are justified in staking out a position on "trans matters for minors" without being subtly accused of having prurient motives, so too is the rest of society - including "conservatives" - justified in expressing concerns about, and staking out positions on, "trans women" (that is, biological males) entering into women's spaces: bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons. You and I appear to have the same position relative to minors/children. I am glad that we have some common ground. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 21 by smac97
ttribe Posted January 21 Posted January 21 17 minutes ago, JVW said: Did you just express concern about what other people do with their genitals? lol No. I acknowledged the biological pitfalls in dealing with children whose decision making centers of their brains are not yet fully developed. It is entirely possible to express bafflement about people who aggressively pursue anti-trans (e.g. "trans people don't exist" types of mottos) and anti-gay (e.g. "there are no gay members of the church") sentiments regarding adults and still be reasonable enough to note that there is an exception to the situation when it comes to children. If you continue to see the world through a black and white lens, you'll have nothing but conflict with people who can actually identify nuance.
ttribe Posted January 21 Posted January 21 11 minutes ago, smac97 said: I have been reading a book with my wife: Habits of a Peacemaker: 10 Habits to Change Our Potentially Toxic Conversations into Healthy Dialogues. It's quite good. One of the points he raises is the tendency to strawman or caricature the position/perspective of the other person, and to resist that tendency. I think the issue is better and more accurately framed this way: Many people (including, but not limited to, "conservatives") are broadly indifferent to and accommodating of the private lives and behaviors of others. The calculus changes, though, when children/minors are involved (much of this thread is taken up with discussion about the propriety of medical/surgical interventions on children as treatment for Gender Dysphoria). This is not, I think, because of some prurient or otherwise inappropriate "concern ... about what other people do with their genitals." Rather, sex trait modification procedures appear to give rise to substantial concerns about effectiveness, longitudinal data, comorbidities, informed consent, and so on. Adults have, for quite a while now, had access to medical procedures intended to cosmetically modify sex traits (mastectomies, penectomies, hormone treatments, tracheal shaving, etc.). Recent discussions have tended to center on whether these treatments are appropriate for children/minors, but also delve into concerns as to adults as well (such as comorbidities not being properly addressed). However, the calculus also changes for adults when "trans women" (that is, biological males) start entering into women's spaces: bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things, I suppose. I think the concerns about minors are both potent and important. I think the concerns and objections about men in women's spaces are likewise potent and important. I have a theory about why, when we have had "trans"-identifying persons for quite a while, we have only in the last few years ended up with a substantial amount of societal discord and controversy about these matters. Pediatric sex trait modifications are, I think, a novelty. So too are efforts by "trans women" (that is, biological males) to conspicuously - and sometimes even provocatively - enter into women's spaces. It's a seemingly new spate of problems arising from a long-time circumstance. I assume, then, that you would reject a description of your position along these lines: "I admit I continue to be baffled by the concern some people have about what children/minors do with their genitals." See, I think that just as you are justified in staking out a position on "trans matters for minors" without being subtly accused of having prurient motives, so too is the rest of society - including "conservatives" - justified in expressing concerns about, and staking out positions on, "trans women" (that is, biological males) start entering into women's spaces: bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons. You and I appear to have the same position relative to minors/children. I am glad that we have some common ground. Thanks, -Smac Spencer, are you someone who opposes same sex marriage? If not, my comment has nothing to do with you. Are you someone who believes trans adults shouldn't be allowed to have transition surgery or that trans people should not have rights that protect them from discrimination in areas like employment and housing? Then my comment has nothing to do with you. My caveat speaks for itself and does not require a pages long rebuttal only to arrive at "we agree."
smac97 Posted January 22 Posted January 22 (edited) 20 hours ago, ttribe said: Spencer, are you someone who opposes same sex marriage? I do not actively "oppose" same-sex marriage. I disagree with it in principle, as I think marriage is, or ought to be, per se as between a man and a woman. That said, I acknowledge and respect that same-sex marriage is the law of the land in the U.S., that such marriages are legally valid, that such marriages are valued by those participating in them, etc. In a somewhat similar vein, I likewise disagree with sex outside of marriage, but I do not "oppose" it in any active sense. 20 hours ago, ttribe said: If not, my comment has nothing to do with you. Well, the thread is about "trans" issues, so I thought your comment about other people's "genitals" pertained to that (rather than to SSM). 20 hours ago, ttribe said: Are you someone who believes trans adults shouldn't be allowed to have transition surgery Broadly, no. I hold individual autonomy in high regard. I do have concerns/qualms with "transition surgery" for adults that does not sufficiently take into account comorbidities, informed consent, longitudinal data, and so on. I am concerned that such treatments are sometimes excused or privileged, on ideological and/or coercive grounds, from the normative vetting and oversight procedures intended to ensure medical ethics are observed. This is perhaps most obvious, to me, in the "I need this surgery otherwise I will kill myself"-style sentiments that are not only declared by the patients, but cited by the "medical professionals" as a fundamental basis and justification for the procedure, with phrasing like "life-saving." 20 hours ago, ttribe said: or that trans people should not have rights that protect them from discrimination in areas like employment and housing? Broadly, yes, I believe people who identify as "trans" should be protected from discrimination in areas like employment and housing. I do not think this extends to women's spaces, though. 20 hours ago, ttribe said: Then my comment has nothing to do with you. Okay. 20 hours ago, ttribe said: My caveat speaks for itself and does not require a pages long rebuttal only to arrive at "we agree." Well, not totally. I think the "genitals" dig was, well, a dig. I think we can and should frame these issues in ways that are less loaded, provocative, etc. I say this globally, including to myself. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 22 by smac97 3
smac97 Posted January 22 Posted January 22 (edited) On 1/21/2026 at 1:24 PM, ttribe said: No. I acknowledged the biological pitfalls in dealing with children whose decision making centers of their brains are not yet fully developed. I appreciate the acknowledgment. I think this is an important point, and I am glad we are more or less in agreement about it. On 1/21/2026 at 1:24 PM, ttribe said: It is entirely possible to express bafflement about people who aggressively pursue anti-trans (e.g. "trans people don't exist" types of mottos) I am not sure what you mean by "anti-trans" sentiments. Could you clarify what you mean? I also am not sure what you mean by "trans people don't exist." Is this a rhetorical or substantive point? For example, a person who goes by "Lia Thomas" exists. That person, formerly known as "William Thomas," clearly "exists," and he purports to "identify" as a "trans woman." So in that sense, "trans people" do "exist." On the other hand, this person is biologically male, and will always be so. Putting on cosmetic affectations to approximate the appearance of a woman, or even undergoing some medical/surgical interventions, will not make him a woman. There is no way for a human to "transition" from male to female, or vice versa. Calling this person a "trans person" might, for some, involve making an implicit concession that is contrary to reality (that a person can "transition" from one sex to the other). So in that sense, some folks might subscribe to the sentiment that "trans people" do not "exist." This would be in the same sense as declining to acknowledge someone as a "trans racial" (Rachel Dolezal) or "trans species" (Eva Tiamat Medusa) or "trans disabled" (the British woman who wants to have a doctor sever her spinal cord). Subjective self-identification, no matter how intensely felt, cannot supersede reality and biology. On 1/21/2026 at 1:24 PM, ttribe said: and anti-gay (e.g. "there are no gay members of the church") I appreciate you bringing this up, particularly in tandem with the "trans people don't exist" concept. You seem to be interpreting these sentiments substantively/literally (e.g., "Lia Thomas," a self-described "trans woman," literally does not exist), whereas I think the sentiment is intended in another way (e.g., the biological male f/k/a William Thomas n/k/a Lia Thomas is not, and never will be, a "woman," as there is no such thing as a human being who can "transition" from one sex to another). Elder Bednar was, I think it must be acknowledged, speaking in the latter sense. See, e.g., here: What the Media Got Wrong About Elder Bednar's Comments on Gay Members Quote What was meant to be a loving, encouraging remark to homosexual members within the Church has quickly been twisted, pulled out of context, and cut up by members of the media, making it appear as if Elder Bednar and the other leaders of the Church are anything but loving and supportive of its members. It's a popular tactic in the media, using an inflammatory title in hopes that the shock value will grab attention. And it works. Unfortunately, for those who don't take time to read beyond the headline, they are left thinking that our inspired Church leaders are insensitive, out of date, and even a bit naïve. But we know this isn't the case. And yet Elder Bednar is still being criticized for his comment. Quote Maybe you've seen the headlines carried by magazines like The Huffington Post and The Independent: "Mormon Leader Claims Church Has No Homosexual Members." If you have, please understand the context of the situation before jumping to conclusions or the emotional, negative reactions these media outlets want to elicit. I think those who have trumpeted Elder Bednar's decontextualized remark are indeed hoping to elicit "emotional, negative reactions." Quote Elder Bednar was offering encouragement to Church members who struggle with same-sex attraction by making a strong, though surprising point. Here's the rest of his comment that has been overlooked: "There are no homosexual members of the Church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior." I think Elder Bednar is declining to go along with the notion of "sexual identity" in the modern sense (gay, bi, etc.). He is not alone. I think more and more people are declining to be "defined by sexual behavior" for themselves, and decline to view others through that lens. I think that is a reasonable position to take. Quote As a member who has heard and loved the powerful words Elder Bednar has shared over the pulpit for over a decade, I know and have felt of his empathy and love for all Latter-day Saints. It's clear to me that Elder Bednar was not dismissing members of the Church who are gay, lesbian, transgender, or who experience other struggles regarding sexual attraction, identity, or gender; he didn't want to simplify their situation by labeling it. I believe that he, like our Heavenly Father and the other Brethren, understands that each person is unique—each person's challenges, trials, and temptations as well as their life path are so extremely personal that they cannot be reduced to a single label. Nor can their struggles be addressed in the same way. And that's the beauty of the Atonement and a Church that believes in personal revelation. No matter our pains, our isolation, our struggles, our heartbreaks, and our experiences, the Savior will succor us, heal us, and strengthen us right where and when we need healing. I like the bolded part. I think it is a fair and accurate characterization of Elder Bednar's position. Quote This misused quote came up during Elder Bednar's trip to Chile, when he participated in a question and answer session with local Church members. One member asked, “How can homosexual members of the Church live and remain steadfast in the gospel?” Elder Bednar then gave this surprising response: “First I want to change the question–there are no homosexual members of the Church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior. We are sons and daughters of God and all of us have different challenges in the flesh. . . . Simply being attracted to someone of the same gender is not a sin." The context here really helps clarify what Elder Bednar meant. Quote This counsel reminds me of the advice Elder Holland shared with a young man struggling with same-sex attraction: “You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you. "What’s more, I love you. My Brethren among the General Authorities love you. I’m reminded of a comment President Boyd K. Packer made in speaking to those with same-gender attraction. ‘We do not reject you,’ he said. ‘… We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.’” I think the foregoing sentiments, particularly the bolded part, bear frequent emphasis and repetition. On 1/21/2026 at 1:24 PM, ttribe said: sentiments regarding adults and still be reasonable enough to note that there is an exception to the situation when it comes to children. If you continue to see the world through a black and white lens, you'll have nothing but conflict with people who can actually identify nuance. I can and do identify nuance. For example, an appropriate and fair interpretation of Elder Bednar's comments requires some measure of nuance. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 23 by smac97 1
smac97 Posted January 23 Posted January 23 Just came across this video: A Grok summary: Quote Summary of the YouTube Video Transcript The video is by Buck Angel, a transsexual man who transitioned as an adult 34 years ago and acknowledges he is biologically female. He strongly criticizes modern transgender activism and ideology, particularly its impact on young people, while sharing multiple clips and stories of detransitioners to support his views. Main Themes and Content: Detransitioner Stories and Regrets: Buck features clips of people (mostly young) expressing deep regret over transitioning, hating being transgender, regretting surgeries/hormones, and realizing transition didn't resolve underlying emotional/mental health issues. Examples include psychotic breaks, drug-induced "awakenings" (e.g., mushrooms/psilocybin), and realizing they were influenced by trends or social contagion. Criticism of Trans Activism: He accuses activists of lying about transition benefits, pushing rapid affirmation (hormones/surgery) without adequate therapy, ostracizing detransitioners, and blaming them (e.g., claiming they "were never truly trans"). He argues detransition rates are rising because many transition for wrong reasons, not innate gender dysphoria. Health Risks and Side Effects: Highlights irreversible effects of cross-sex hormones (e.g., infertility, body disproportion, vaginal atrophy, unstable sex drive, potential heart/liver issues). Shares a detransitioner's warning about these, especially for youth. Mental Health and Therapy Issues: Claims therapists are "captured" by ideology, pushing transition/re-transition instead of neutral exploration. Calls for more genuine mental health support over quick medical intervention. Personal Views: Buck says transition worked for him as a mature adult but opposes youth transitions and the idea of being "born trans." He views current trends as a "fad" creating confusion (e.g., non-binary struggles, performing gender roles). Tragic Ending: Discusses Apollo Moon, a young trans influencer who died at 26 from an enlarged heart/liver with fluid buildup—Buck alleges (based on limited sources) this may relate to testosterone/bodybuilding, criticizing hormone use in youth. Tone and Message: Heartbreaking and tragic; Buck expresses compassion for detransitioners, calls for empathy/apologies from activists, and urges better mental health care. He promotes his channel/TikTok for exposing these issues, ending on a lighter note about his baby. The video is explicitly critical of contemporary trans ideology, focusing on caution, detransition risks, and protecting vulnerable youth. I think the perspective of this person, who is a "trans man," is interesting. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted January 31 Posted January 31 October 2024: Quote From September 2023: The pullback from youth gender transition has begun Quote First comes the pushback, then the pullback. Yesterday, the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital announced that doctors there will no longer prescribe puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to children and adolescents. This decision follows months of controversy and comes in the wake of a new law that just went into effect in Missouri, which limits hormonal and surgical interventions for gender transition to patients over the age of 18. Under a “grandfather clause” in the new law, the Transgender Center could have continued to prescribe puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to current patients. However, it decided to back away from these interventions altogether: We are disheartened to have to take this step. However, Missouri’s newly enacted law regarding transgender care has created a new legal claim for patients who received these medications as minors. This legal claim creates unsustainable liability for health-care professionals and makes it untenable for us to continue to provide comprehensive transgender care for minor patients without subjecting the university and our providers to an unacceptable level of liability. - Washington University Transgender Center The Center first came under intense scrutiny earlier this year, when former case manager Jamie Reed blew the whistle on what she had come to see as dangerous practices within the clinic. Hmm. "{T}he Transgender Center could have continued to prescribe puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to current patients. However, it decided to back away from these interventions altogether." This seems to vindicate at least a substantial portion of Reed's concerns. Quote The Transgender Center rejected Reed’s assessment and conducted their own internal investigation — an investigation in which they never bothered to speak to Reed — before declaring her allegations “unsubstantiated”. But the case for youth gender transition has been unravelling this year, under pressure from state officials and legislators and increased scrutiny from the media. At the end of August, St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Steven Ohmer allowed Missouri’s ban on hormonal and surgical interventions for youth to go into effect, writing that the evidence for youth transition “raises more questions than answers”. Hence the “unsustainable liability” Washington University cited in its decision to pull back from this area of healthcare. That’s because Missouri’s new law also extended the period of time former patients have to sue for damages to 15 years. Perhaps, when the Washington University investigated themselves, they found more merit to Reed’s allegations than they were willing to acknowledge publicly. They fear being made to pay for it. Medical scandals tend to end quietly: the “chemical lobotomy” phased out the lobotomy-lobotomy. The Satanic Panic choked not on its own absurdities but in courtrooms and insurance offices. Public reckonings are few and far between. “Unsustainable liability” may be the beginning of the end for youth gender transition. We'll see, I suppose. I suspect the lawsuits about this will be legion. I suspect a lot of issues in my list of bullet points will be heavily litigated (centering on "Informed Consent" about the other bulleted items not being sufficiently disclosed/addressed) : Comorbidities. Informed consent. Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. Irreversibility. Sterilization. Cutting off healthy body parts. Longitudinal studies essentially absent. Lifelong medical regimens. Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. Massive social contagion risks. Massive risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society). I noted: "I suspect the lawsuits about [pediatric sex trait modification treatments] will be legion." I think this is starting to gain steam. From December 2024: Quote UCLA student sues California doctors, says she was 'fast-tracked' into transgender surgery Quote A UCLA student is suing multiple California health care providers and hospitals for medical negligence, alleging she was wrongly diagnosed with gender dysphoria and then “fast-tracked onto the conveyor belt of irreversibly damaging” puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery, according to her lawsuit. Kaya Clementine Breen, 20, said she experienced sexual abuse as a young child, and by the time she was 11, she “began struggling with the thought of developing into a woman and began to believe that life would be easier if she were a boy,” according to her suit filed last week in Los Angeles County Superior Court. When she expressed this to her then-school counselor, the counselor told her “that she was transgender and called her parents to tell them the same.” Breen, who was also suffering from anxiety, depression and undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the lawsuit, was then taken by her parents to the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, where she said she was diagnosed with gender dysphoria — the distress one can experience when their gender identity and birth sex are in conflict — and began to receive transition-related care at 12 years old. “This case is about a team of purported health care providers who collectively decided that a vulnerable girl struggling with complex mental health struggles and suffering from multiple instances of sexual abuse should be prescribed a series of life-altering puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, ultimately, receive a double mastectomy at the age of 14,” Breen’s lawsuit states. Breen began receiving puberty-suppressing medication at 12, was prescribed cross-sex hormones from 13 to 19 and underwent a double mastectomy at 14, according to court documents, which stated that her “her mental health progressively declined” following these treatments. ... The defendants in Breen’s lawsuit include Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, an adolescent medicine physician specializing in gender-affirming care; Children’s Hospital Los Angeles; Dr. Scott Mosser, a plastic surgeon specializing in gender-affirming surgery; the Gender Confirmation Center of San Francisco; UCSF Health Community Hospitals; and psychotherapist Susan P. Landon. ... The politics surrounding gender-affirming care for minors were also reportedly behind a decision by Olson-Kennedy, one of the defendants in Breen’s lawsuit, to delay publication of a study she conducted on the effects of puberty blockers. Olson-Kennedy told The New York Times in an article published in October that she didn’t publish the results, which found the medication did not improve the mental health of minors with gender dysphoria, because she feared the findings might fuel the types of political attacks that led to state bans on gender-affirming care. I suspect there will be more, likely many more. We'll see. The above lawsuit was dismissed in November 2025 (see also here). Not on its merits, but because it was filed after the applicable statute of limitations. The article mentions an intent to appeal. Not sure if that has happened. January 2026: Jury Awards Detransitioner $2 Million in Historic Medical-Malpractice Lawsuit Quote A woman who received a double mastectomy at the age of 16 under the guise of transgender-related healthcare was just awarded $2 million in the first successful medical-malpractice lawsuit brought by a destransitioner. Fox Varian sued her New York-based psychologist and plastic surgeon for facilitating her gender-transition double mastectomy in 2019, independent reporter Benjamin Ryan who attended Varian’s recent trial, said. Although a host of detransitioners have sued doctors who rush to “affirm” gender confusion with life-altering surgeries, Varian’s is the first known successful lawsuit. I think this will be the first of many lawsuits. Some will fail due to statute of limitations and other legal impediments, but I think a lot will succeed. Quote Claire Deacon, Varian’s mother, was led by her daughter’s psychologist to believe that breast removal was the only way to heal Varian’s gender dysphoria, she told the jury. At first Deacon told Varian’s psychologist Kenneth Einhorn that top surgery was “never gonna happen” if she could help it. “This man was just so emphatic, and pushing and pushing, that I felt like there was no good decision,” she said, according to an Epoch Times report. “I think it was a scare tactic: I don’t believe it was malice, I think he believed what he was saying … but he was very, very wrong.” "This man was just so emphatic, and pushing and pushing . . . I think it was a scare tactic." Yes, I think it was too. I think we will be seeing similar stories emerge from these lawsuits. Quote The idea of her 16-year-old daughter receiving a mastectomy made her “physically ill,” Deacon said. But Deacon was led to believe by Einhorn that Varian would be unhappy unless she was affirmed in her gender dysphoria. It was the “the hardest, most difficult, gut-wrenching” decision, Deacon told the jury. Defendants Einhorn and plastic surgeon Simon Chin implied that Varian wanted the medical procedure, and was even at risk of suicide should she not receive a mastectomy. "{A}nd was even at risk of suicide should she not receive a mastectomy." What other medical/surgical interventions are based on such reasoning? Any? Quote Chin’s attorney called Deacon’s consent a “critical fact” of the case, and asked jurors what might have happened to a potentially suicidal Varian had Chin refused the surgery. Varian’s legal team argued that the matter in question was not if the surgery should have been performed on her because she was a minor, but if the doctors correctly assumed Varian had gender dysphoria. Defendants did not notify Varian of “the risks, hazards, and alternatives” before surgery, her legal team claimed. “This case is not about regret,” Deutsch said, but about healthcare professionals who chose to “empower” a patient instead of treat her. Einhorn and Chin should have ensured that Varian’s other psychological conditions, including anorexia, depression, ADHD, autism, and body dysmorphia were “well-controlled” before approving the surgery, Deutsch added, according to the Epoch Times reporting. Dozens of detransitioner lawsuits have been filed, according to Ryan, who tracks the cases. Varian’s was the first to win a judgement. From that last link: Quote I have identified 28 detransitioner lawsuits filed to date. Varian v. Einhorn was the first to go to trial and the first to win a judgment, making history. If anyone knows of any additional cases that are not on my spreadsheet below or sees any errors, please DM me. See also here. From the comments: Quote Daniel R. Street @DanielRStreet1 · 4h I am a personal injury lawyer and I said for years the claims are coming for these gender mutilations. A lot of these radical healthcare providers are going to pay dearly. The whole corrupt gender mutilation system will be ground to dust. ... Nuclear Herbs @NuclearHerbs · 3h Attorneys are just the catalyst, the reaction will come from malpractice insurers. ... Dr. Clayton Forrester @DrClaytonForre1 · 1h They should ask for 10-figure judgments. In any event, no amount of money can compensate for being mutilated and having your life destroyed. ... Shawn Waugh, MS, MPAS, PA-C @RealOnTheLevel · 1h Our Hippocratic Oath is to “Do no harm” The harm done in the multiplication of children along with filling them full of synthetic hormones their DNA make up is not built to tolerate is more than harm. ... Matt @Heavylifter59 · 4h The insurance companies are going to end up eliminating them by refusing malpractice insurance if they continue. ... Gus Nelson @glnelsoniii · 2h Malpractice insurers will get the message quickly and stop covering this stuff and doctors will respond accordingly. Litigation and constraints on insurance will kill this industry. And good riddance to bad rubbish. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted February 2 Posted February 2 This landmark ruling could change the future of gender-related treatments for minors Quote Lawyers for a plaintiff who sued her doctors after she detransitioned say they think her win in court last week is a harbinger of things to come. At age 16, Fox Varian underwent a double mastectomy as she transitioned from a biological girl to identifying as a boy. The surgery occurred a year after she began meeting with a psychologist and started questioning her gender during sessions. Nearly 3½ years after her surgery, she filed a medical malpractice lawsuit — the first of its kind — against her psychologist and the surgeon who performed the top surgery. I think these lawsuits will be coming sooner rather than later, as they need to be filed within the applicable statute of frauds. Quote Now 22, Varian was awarded $2 million on Friday by a jury in response to her civil case. “Shame and cognitive dissonance, Varian testified, kept her from openly confessing her remorse until three years following the mastectomy,” independent reporter Benjamin Ryan wrote in his court coverage. “At 19, she finally stopped identifying and presenting as male and has since considered herself a woman. But an incomplete one.” The civil suit in Westchester County Supreme Court in White Plains, New York, is one of nearly 30 detransitioner lawsuits nationwide, according to Ryan. He added in a video posted by The Free Press, where his article was published, that Varian’s case and the ones that will follow could be “a reckoning over lax assessment standards by care providers when they consider whether irreversible medical interventions should be offered or given to minors with gender dysphoria.” The jury’s decision was heavily influenced, Ryan said, by Varian and her mother, Claire Deacon’s testimonies. The mother and daughter said that Varian’s psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, was an “enabler,” who assured Varian that the mastectomy would improve her mental health, and said that he “browbeat” Deacon into consenting to the irreversible surgery so Varian wouldn’t take her life. The "We have to cut off healthy body parts or else she'll kill herself" argument. How often does this originate with the therapist/psychologist? Interestingly, Einhort does not presently advertise himself as treating gender identity issues. Quote Even Loren Schechter, who is chief of gender affirmation surgery at Rush University Medical Center, testified that Einhorn was ultimately in the wrong for encouraging Varian to have the mastectomy. “I looked at this case really hoping — and even with an expectation that there would be enough" to sustain Einhorn’s referral to the surgeon to perform top surgery, Schechter said. “And I couldn’t do that.” Deacon said that after Varian’s surgery, “She was still anxious, she was still depressed, she still had all the same issues.” “It’s so hard to face that you are disfigured for life,” Varian told the jury. “No amount of reconstruction,” she said, “is ever going to bring back what I lost.” However, attorneys for Einhorn argued that Varian and Deacon were attempting to shift the responsibility for their decisions onto others. “Deacon was the one, after all, who signed the consent form. She was a licensed practical nurse and, notably, had a history of making nuanced judgment calls about her child’s care,” per Ryan’s coverage. “For example, Varian never received any vaccines due to Deacon’s concerns about vaccine injury.” Ryan also noted that both health care providers claimed to have been outspoken to Varian that surgery “might not meet the teenager’s expectations or address her psychological struggles, and in particular, that she might regret it.” Huh. I suspect "both health care providers" were not able to document these "outspoken" comments. Quote What are the legal ramifications? Charles LiMandri, a partner at LiMandri & Jonna, a California firm that is involved in multiple detransition lawsuits, including activist Chloe Cole in her upcoming case, told the Deseret News that these cases involving “medical malpractice plaintiffs all tend to have similar stories to tell about their abuse by the pediatric health care industry. Therefore, I would expect that these cases should continue to yield similar favorable results for the plaintiff victims of what is considered the worst medical scandal of modern times.” He added that “the recent decision in the Varian case should be seen as a dire warning to all the so-called ‘gender affirming’ doctors, and their medical malpractice insurance carriers, that the financial risks and the risks to these activist doctors’ careers and reputations are looming large against them.” Cole, who underwent a mastectomy at 16, has become a prominent figure in the debate over gender treatments for minors. She recently told the Deseret News that, like Varian, her top surgery was the catalyst for her detransition. “That was the main reason, actually, why I ended up detransitioning,” Cole, now 21, said. “I realized that I wanted to become a mother one day, and this would very possibly bar me from that.” Mark Trammell, CEO of Center for American Liberty, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization, who is also working on Cole’s lawsuit, told the Deseret News in a statement that they were “enormously encouraged” by the results in Varian v. Einhorn. The verdict “confirms that accountability is possible and that doctors are not above the law,” Trammell said. “The Center for American Liberty represents multiple detransitioners, including Chloe Cole, who are bravely seeking justice for irreversible harm. There are countless young people victimized by the gender industrial complex, and this $2 million verdict—especially coming out of New York—gives real hope that their day in court is coming. CAL will continue to advocate tirelessly until justice is done." Cole herself posted on X about Varian’s verdict: “I couldn’t be more happy for Fox Varian. Detransitioners need justice,” she said. “My lawsuit with @Liberty_Ctr will further this precedent by exposing the major medical institution known as Kaiser Permanente.” ‘Detransitioner’ Wins $2 Million Medical-Malpractice Lawsuit Quote The first gender “detransitioner” medical-malpractice case to go to trial resulted in a $2 million dollar verdict against the medical professionals who approved a double mastectomy for the plaintiff, Fox Varian, in 2019 when she was only 16. From the Epoch Times story: A jury on Jan. 30 found a psychologist and surgeon liable for malpractice after they supported and performed breast removal surgery on a 16-year-old girl who at the time identified as transgender. Fox Varian, now 22 and no longer identifying as transgender, was awarded $2 million in damages, with $1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering, and another $400,000 for future medical expenses. The jury found that in many respects the surgeon and psychologist had skipped important steps when evaluating whether she should go forward with the surgery and had not adequately communicated with each other. These missteps were a “departure from the standard of care,” they decided. The surgeon and psychologist "skipped important steps when evaluating whether she should go forward with the surgery." I think this finding will be found in quite a few of these lawsuits. Quote Just as in Chloe Cole’s medical malpractice case — which has yet to be litigated — adults feared Fox would commit suicide: Varian’s mother, Claire Deacon, testified that she was against the surgery, but consented out of fear her daughter would commit suicide if she didn’t get it. Einhorn increased that worry, she told the court. Defense attorneys countered that Varian had made similar threats on multiple occasions, and that ideas of self-harm didn’t come from her therapist. The case did not challenge the general propriety of such “care” of minors with gender dysphoria, but alleged it was not appropriate in Fox’s particular case. This verdict is an important development in the great cause of protecting gender-confused minors from being subjected to irreversible procedures from which they can never be made whole. Why? Trial lawyers! I know this community well. Hell, I was one! Most are liberal politically, but if they smell money in the water, they will sue the “gender-affirming” care industry into the ground just as they do other business sectors with deep pockets. I have been predicting this for a while. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted February 4 Posted February 4 (edited) Another: Quote The news that the first detransitioner, Fox Varian, won her lawsuit went viral a few days ago. I kept waiting for it to become major news at the New York Times, NPR, or the Washington Post. And yet, when I do a search, very few sources pop up, one of them being the Free Press: Quote In December 2019, 11 months after she started this public social transition, Varian underwent surgery to remove her breasts. She was 16 years old. Varian, who adopted the name Fox at 18 and is now 22, is one of thousands of minors who underwent gender-transition surgery over the past decade. And she is just one of the young people who have come to regret permanently addressing what was only a temporary identity shift. Three years after her mastectomy, Varian stopped identifying as transgender and began a process known as detransitioning. In May 2023, she filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the two principal Westchester County, New York, care providers who oversaw her gender transition: her longtime psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, and Dr. Simon Chin, who performed the mastectomy. On Friday, a jury in White Plains, New York, awarded Varian $2 million in damages. Varian’s case is the first malpractice suit from a detransitioner to go before a jury, and I was the only reporter to attend the entire three-week trial. Represented by personal-injury attorney Adam Deutsch, Varian said she had been injured by the defendants due to their deviation from standard practices and a lack of informed consent. While there are no guarantees in medical malpractice lawsuits, legal experts believe Varian’s victory could inspire a wave of similar cases that would significantly disrupt pediatric gender medicine. Other stories followed in the New York Post, Fox News, the Christian Post, the Washington Times, The National Review, Unherd. I have, for quite a while now, expressed concerns about pediatric sex trait modification procedures, including "informed consent" (it being lacking), compromised assessments of the best interests of the child, ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care, and so on. I feel my assessment has been grimly vindicated. I wish we had seen this before "thousands of minors {} underwent gender-transition surgery over the past decade." Quote This is only the beginning. The bubble has burst, and the lawsuits will be coming, as I’ve written about here for many years. Now, as they go to court to sue companies that led them into the lion’s den, they’ll be looking at all of the adults who should have protected them. I wonder if these "adults," and those who have cheered them on, will ever truly recognize and regret their error. Quote Already, we get this: "{I}nsufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio for the pathway of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents." Or, as I have been saying for years, "Longitudinal studies essentially absent" and "Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child" and "Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care." Back in 2024, I quoted a Tribune opinion piece by Patrick Hardy, who said: Quote Never mind that every major medical association in the United States, from the American Medical Association to the American Academy of Pediatrics and more than 20 others, endorses gender-affirming care as safe and evidence-based — if transgender members wish to avoid church discipline, they would need to forgo potentially lifesaving medical care. I noted at the time: Quote As I have extensively addressed in this other thread, I think there is extensive and substantial evidence indicating that these 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’ So contrary to Bro. Hardy's implication, there is plenty of room for reasoned and principled disagreement about trans issues. I strongly suspect that the Church is aware of the ongoing concerns reflected in the above articles. I think Gender Dysphoria, as with so many other mental illnesses, can be a tremendous burden to those afflicted with it. That said, I think the Church is weighing the needs of parents and women in relation to the utter novelty of biological males expecting (some even demanding) to be allowed into women's spaces. It saw that a patchwork approach was not working, so it has implemented church-wide policies. I also sense and hope that we are reaching a point where the "If you disagree with me, you're a bigot"-style forms of advocacy and argument are waning. This calumny is, I think, often a central or ultimate basis for coercing society into accepting demands and arguments that cannot withstand scrutiny on their merits. I think much of the medical establishment has, for some years now, been materially compromised in their professional assessment of "gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents." The ASPS is, as noted above, apparently the first professional medical organization to publicly speak against these procedures. I anticipate that more will follow. The previous "consensus" favoring/justifying these procedures was, I submit, based on ideological and political and financial and other untoward considerations. And not on "the science" or the best interests of the patient. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 4 by smac97 1
smac97 Posted February 4 Posted February 4 More: Quote The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) announced today, in a nine-page position statement, that it opposes gender-related surgeries for individuals under the age 19. The largest association of board-certified plastic surgeons in the world cited “insufficient evidence” that the benefits of such surgeries outweigh the risks. This is the first major medical professional association that has come out in opposition to sex change, or gender transition surgeries for minors. More specifically, the society reports that it has studied the issue of breast/chest, genital, and facial gender surgery in individuals under the age of 19. As a result, it has issued its position statement as guidance to its 11,000 members in North America and abroad. The guidance points out that rapid change in treatment models for people experiencing gender dysphoria or “gender incongruence” required timely attention. For context, it lists the most common treatments provided to minors, which include counseling and therapy, “social transition,” puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and ultimately surgery. The ASPS has determined that “systematic reviews and evidence reassessments have subsequently identified limitations in study quality, consistency, and follow-up alongside emerging evidence of treatment complications and potential harms.” While the society said that its position statement is not a clinical practice guideline for physicians, its board of directors decided the ASPS needed to make clear its stance to “provide professional guidance to ASPS members in a rapidly evolving and controversial clinical area.” It would seem that because the development of formal clinical practice guidelines takes no small amount of time, the position statement route was the more expedient approach for the ASPS based on the red flags it already sees. Clinical practice guidelines include independent systematic evidence assessment, consensus panels, and/or strength-of-recommendation determinations. If the interests of the child are the priority, it only makes sense to issue a position statement that errs on the side of caution as scientific and medical research plays catch-up. The actual position is as follows: Quote ASPS concludes there is insufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio for the pathway of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents. ASPS recommends that surgeons delay gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old. Anticipating that it will be criticized for taking such a strong position without the usual amount of medical evidence, the society preemptively countered by saying in its statement, “ASPS acknowledges that many plastic surgical clinical recommendations and standards rely on lower levels of evidence compared to those of other medical specialties. However, ethical decision-making in medicine does not depend on evidence quality alone, but on the relationship between evidence uncertainty, anticipated benefit, potential harm, and patient vulnerability.” In other words, when it comes to minors, who are very vulnerable and at risk of irreversible lifetime damage, it’s most ethical to consider the uncertainty of the evidence itself as compounding the risk. Thanks, -Smac 1
Recommended Posts