Calm Posted August 6, 2023 Posted August 6, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, pogi said: don't recall any discussions about breast augmentation I definitely remember it being mentioned at least a few times but no one challenging that it was inappropriate, so my guess is it hasn’t had its own thread multiple times because there is no one who cares enough to debate the issue on this board believes anyone else seriously considers this an appropriate surgery that can’t be put off till someone is 18 (in the case it is for increasing size), though I know some girls who hated their bodies because of lack of development (my case was the opposite). But I agree that the percentage of posts spent discussing transgender is much higher than the minuscule percentage discussing minor cosmetic surgery. Mentioned briefly as a high school grad gift…which is how I remember most references, talking about adults with passing remarks to how young it starts. https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71692-mormons-have-plastic-surgery/ Teenage, but not a minor… https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65528-breast-augmentation/ Edited August 6, 2023 by Calm
Calm Posted August 6, 2023 Posted August 6, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, pogi said: Both. It includes data for 13 years old and older. It would be best to separate those who had procedures done as youth data out given the attitudes of the much lower numbers of minors having these procedures could be overshadowed by the much higher percentage of adult transitioners. Edited August 6, 2023 by Calm
pogi Posted August 6, 2023 Posted August 6, 2023 4 minutes ago, Calm said: It would be best to separate the who had procedures done as youth data out given the attitudes of the much lower numbers of minors having these procedures could be overshadowed by the much higher percentage of adult transitioners. Agreed
pogi Posted August 6, 2023 Posted August 6, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said: Chloe Cole is an autistic individual. She is a real human. She deserves to not have her lived experience ignored/dismissed by people who would have their worldview threatened if she really does exist, and really does have the experiences she claims to have experienced. As someone who claims to value marginalized people in greater risk of harm, please do better. Since you keep bringing this name up, I looked her up. Here is some info from wikipedia: Quote Cole has said that her doctor did not follow the standards of care from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and that she did not know detransitioners existed until she was one. Perhaps this all would have been avoided if the already established standards of care were followed. There are dumb doctors who do not follow standards of care in all practices - this does not and should not reflect on their field of practice per se, nor should it overshadow the lived experiences of all patients who benefit from that field of practice. Hence risk vs benefit. Her experience is important to inform us of the potential risks, but it needs to be grounded in the larger picture of benefits and harms experienced by all patients of these treatments. It sounds like her doctor screwed up on multiple levels and hopefully pays the price for it: Quote According to the lawsuit, that Cole's care included "off label" treatment and "amounted to medical experimentation." According to the suit, Cole was not given adequate information to provide informed consent to her hormone therapy and later developed joint pain, weak bone density, and ongoing urinary tract infections.[3][41] Cole says that doctors did not inform her parents (or other parents) of alternative, less invasive treatments like psychiatric care, and that they told her that her gender dysphoria would "never resolve unless she chemically and surgically transitioned".[5] The case is the second known lawsuit filed in the United States on this topic; Camille Kiefel, a 32-year-old woman, filed a similar case in Multnomah County, Oregon, in 2022.[39] The fact that there are only 2 know lawsuits in the US on this topic, tells me that this is a huge outlier. Edited August 6, 2023 by pogi 3
Harry T. Clark Posted August 6, 2023 Posted August 6, 2023 16 hours ago, The Nehor said: Is it allowed? What? Are you aware there are US states where teenagers can legally marry at 14? Where are all these situations where parents are forcing kids to get gender-affirming surgeries? Are you consistent on this belief that all important decisions should wait until 18? Including things like baptism? It is worth noting that in general transgender surgeries are postponed until the person is of age. There are exceptions but they are not the norm. No state allows marriage at 14 (and my example used 13) - https://www.findlaw.com/family/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.html Maybe do a little searching before answering? Kids are unable to make these important life changing decisions and so parents are the force behind the transition surgeries in minors that you admit occur. Here is an article on consent for puberty blockers, a precursor to the transitioning surgery: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20502877.2022.2088048 You may not realize that baptism requires permission from the parent or legal guardian: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng Here is the passage: Quote A minor child age 8 or older may be baptized with the permission of his or her custodial parent(s) or legal guardian(s). The custodial parent(s) or legal guardian(s) should understand the Church doctrine their child will be taught and support the child in making and keeping the baptismal covenant. (See 38.2.8.2.)
provoman Posted August 6, 2023 Posted August 6, 2023 15 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: We don't make rules based on exceptions. We don't make policy based on exceptions. When you put an exception as the poster child, it creates bad arguments. It doesn't matter if you can put a name and a face to your argument in these circumstances. The "exceptions" are often used as the basis to make a law/rule. There are about 4 million lawfully possessed and lawfully used "firearms in the United States. The exception to lawful possession and lawful use is terrible tragedy. But after these tragedies people cling to the exception to demand more and more laws. The ineffective Brady Bill was based on an exception to lawful use of a firearm. Covid restrictions and covid mandates were based on the exceptions - death being and/or severe complications being the exception. It could said that our criminal code is based on the exception of those people who commit crime whilst the majority of society does not. 2
Popular Post BlueDreams Posted August 6, 2023 Popular Post Posted August 6, 2023 On 8/5/2023 at 9:04 AM, MrShorty said: Some thoughts on regrets. Yes, I can see that a certain, small percentage of transitioners end up regretting their transition. One challenge I see is that regret is a part of many decisions in life. In circles where women discuss breast augmentation surgeries, there are frequently a small number who regret having their augmentation surgery for a variety of reasons. There are also a small percentage of women who regret not getting an augmentation or regret waiting as long as they did. Expanding further, you can also find people who regret going to college or not going to college, who regret a career choice, or regret marrying someone or regret not marrying someone. As difficult as regret can be, regret seems to be an inevitable part of life and making choices without the benefit of crystal balls or other methods of perfectly knowing the future. In my own case of colon cancer, I find after completing the treatment regimen that the final surgery that removed a portion of my GI tract potentially leaves with some long term digestive consequences. On bad days, I kind of regret that surgery and wonder if it would have been better to live with cancer. If I wanted, I could blame the medical establishment who, the year I was diagnosed right as I turned 50, decided that it would be better for people to start screening for colon cancer at 45. Based on what I've learned about colon cancer, one nagging regret I have is that I did not get screened sooner, and the reason I didn't was because the medical establishment did not judge that the risk of cancer at 45 (when I was 45) was great enough to merit regular screening. But I also know that, in the world of cancer screening, there can be a long debate over when and how often to screen, as the system needs to balance costs against benefits, risks against rewards, false positives against true positives and false negatives against true negatives, and so on and so forth. I think the point I am trying to make is that we need to be prepared to accept that this sort of thing often does not result in clear, bright lines for making decisions. Even when the process in untainted by politics and informed by the best science, the final best practice recommendations will often be a balance between risks and rewards and even balancing patients who regret receiving a treatment against patients who regret not receiving a treatment. Specifically here, balancing those who regret transitioning and seek to detransition against those who regret choosing not to transition or are denied transitioning treatment. I didn't see a response to this and can't keep up with anything online right now as we have guests. I think you raise some fair points around regret. There will always be some degree of regret or at least detransitioning and always has been. No one can be 100% sure about anything for all their lives. But most areas of medicine and therapy still want to reduce risk and weigh out benefits. They go through rigorous trials and research to help suss medical and quality of life implications. There will always be exceptions to relatively safe treatment. But it should always be the goal to make sure the exceptions are and remain rare. We don't actually know how much regret or detransitioning is happening. A lot of the research that's technically more solid is old and a lot of the new research has some concerning limitations, such as rates of attrition and how one gains sampling. There's inevitably philosophical questions around this as well and questions around modality. It's extremely weird in therapy to have only one main method of treatment for a concern. When I work with someone with say depression, I can lean on several different schools of thought, all with research to help back it up. I can explore root causes of depression. Is this trauma or circumstance based? What's their work life balance? Their diet? Is there family history of this? What's their thoughts patterns that fuel it? Etc. Based on that I may change my method of treatment to best serve my client. There's questions that are deemed non-supportive or transphobic at times that I don't think should be. Things like, should serious hormonal and body modification be the best answer for most people experiencing gender dysphoria? Should gender dysphoria automatically lead to people identifying as their non-natal gender? Are there other causes for gender dysphoria and is it good to then try and help them resolve it and maintain congruency with their birth sex? Is sudden shifts in gender identity the same concern as those with consistent trans identity? How well can children/teens seriously understand long term ramifications for hormone treatments and surgeries? Could there be other legitimate models than just gender affirming care to help manage cases of gender dysphoria, especially in clients with serious comorbitities? And if so, how does one decide which methodology to lean on first? Etc. There's also social questions on how trans people are oriented with the larger society. Is it best to insist they're fully their felt gender? What's the balance between sex and gender? Should there be limits to how far identity governs access to certain sex-based spaces? A lot of these questions get lost or dismissed by our current culture that strongly touts gender affirming care and the medical model to treatment or dismissing trans identity all together and marginalizing trans folk. But that doesn't make these questions less important. Exploring and answering them would be crucial in my mind to reduce negative consequences and better integrate people into society and their bodies. With luv, BD 9
CV75 Posted August 6, 2023 Posted August 6, 2023 1 hour ago, provoman said: The "exceptions" are often used as the basis to make a law/rule. There are about 4 million lawfully possessed and lawfully used "firearms in the United States. The exception to lawful possession and lawful use is terrible tragedy. But after these tragedies people cling to the exception to demand more and more laws. The ineffective Brady Bill was based on an exception to lawful use of a firearm. Covid restrictions and covid mandates were based on the exceptions - death being and/or severe complications being the exception. It could said that our criminal code is based on the exception of those people who commit crime whilst the majority of society does not. Rules are set up to promote the optimum balance of safety, fairness, order and justice as the norm and reduce imbalance to a rare or prevented anomaly. They are based on common experience and common sense, no matter how rare the desired or dreaded outcome may be. Regarding the role of the commonality of experience, sense, consent, etc. in making the rules, Mosiah 29:26-27 is a good rule of thumb for good rules: 26 Now it is not common that the avoice of the people desireth anything bcontrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the cpeople to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. 27 And aif the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land. 2
The Nehor Posted August 7, 2023 Posted August 7, 2023 (edited) 11 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said: No state allows marriage at 14 (and my example used 13) - https://www.findlaw.com/family/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.html Maybe do a little searching before answering? Yeah they can in some states. Just need a court to agree to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States Florida (it is always Florida) has had children as young as thirteen marry within the last decade. 51 13 year olds and 6 12 year olds have reportedly been married since the year 2000 in the United States So maybe do a little searching before consdescendingly suggesting others should do some searching? 11 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said: Kids are unable to make these important life changing decisions and so parents are the force behind the transition surgeries in minors that you admit occur. Here is an article on consent for puberty blockers, a precursor to the transitioning surgery: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20502877.2022.2088048 Duh. 11 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said: You may not realize that baptism requires permission from the parent or legal guardian: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng I literally collect and enter baptismal permission forms. So your argument is that major life-changing decisions are okay if the parent or parents consent? Or does that not apply with gender dysphoria? Edited August 7, 2023 by The Nehor
The Nehor Posted August 7, 2023 Posted August 7, 2023 10 hours ago, provoman said: The exception to lawful possession and lawful use is terrible tragedy. But after these tragedies people cling to the exception to demand more and more laws. The regular and almost daily tragedy exceptions. Definitely outliers.
The Nehor Posted August 7, 2023 Posted August 7, 2023 10 hours ago, BlueDreams said: There's questions that are deemed non-supportive or transphobic at times that I don't think should be. Things like, should serious hormonal and body modification be the best answer for most people experiencing gender dysphoria? Should gender dysphoria automatically lead to people identifying as their non-natal gender? Are there other causes for gender dysphoria and is it good to then try and help them resolve it and maintain congruency with their birth sex? Is sudden shifts in gender identity the same concern as those with consistent trans identity? How well can children/teens seriously understand long term ramifications for hormone treatments and surgeries? Could there be other legitimate models than just gender affirming care to help manage cases of gender dysphoria, especially in clients with serious comorbitities? And if so, how does one decide which methodology to lean on first? Etc. There's also social questions on how trans people are oriented with the larger society. Is it best to insist they're fully their felt gender? What's the balance between sex and gender? Should there be limits to how far identity governs access to certain sex-based spaces? Many transgender people never seek surgery. Some never want hormone therapy. There isn't a "one size fits all" treatment.
Benjamin McGuire Posted August 7, 2023 Posted August 7, 2023 17 hours ago, provoman said: The "exceptions" are often used as the basis to make a law/rule. There are about 4 million lawfully possessed and lawfully used "firearms in the United States. The exception to lawful possession and lawful use is terrible tragedy. But after these tragedies people cling to the exception to demand more and more laws. The ineffective Brady Bill was based on an exception to lawful use of a firearm. Covid restrictions and covid mandates were based on the exceptions - death being and/or severe complications being the exception. It could said that our criminal code is based on the exception of those people who commit crime whilst the majority of society does not. It seems to me that you are making my point for me. Which simply tells me that you don't understand the original proposition ...
Harry T. Clark Posted August 7, 2023 Posted August 7, 2023 (edited) 10 hours ago, The Nehor said: Yeah they can in some states. Just need a court to agree to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States Florida (it is always Florida) has had children as young as thirteen marry within the last decade. 51 13 year olds and 6 12 year olds have reportedly been married since the year 2000 in the United States So maybe do a little searching before consdescendingly suggesting others should do some searching? Duh. I literally collect and enter baptismal permission forms. So your argument is that major life-changing decisions are okay if the parent or parents consent? Or does that not apply with gender dysphoria? No. My argument is that certain decisions like underage drinking, drug use, hormone blocking, etc. are areas where parental discretion should not be allowed. These areas are so detrimental to children that parents should be required to give their children until adulthood to make these decisions for themselves and/or parents should be required to protect their children from certain possible bad decisions. There are basic duties that parents are required to perform on behalf of their children, like feeding them, clothing them, taking them to school. Gender dysphoria and the pain it causes, if it is really going on or if it is just a phase like my son wanting to wear a dress when he was three, does not justify treatments that cannot be undone and will affect the child for the rest of his/her life. Hormone blockers and surgery are hard to undo if not impossible and because children are not capable of making these decisions on their own, parents should not be allowed to impose their views on their children in this area. A few years time to wait isn't asking much. Edited August 7, 2023 by Harry T. Clark
Popular Post Benjamin McGuire Posted August 7, 2023 Popular Post Posted August 7, 2023 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said: My argument is that certain decisions ... hormone blocking, etc. are areas where parental discretion should not be allowed. These areas are so detrimental to children that parents should be required to give their children until adulthood to make these decisions for themselves and/or parents should be required to protect their children from certain possible bad decisions. There are two things I would like to say about this. The first is something from the current Church Handbook on the subject of children born into a biologically ambiguous sexual state (38.7.7): Quote In extremely rare circumstances, a baby is born with genitals that are not clearly male or female (ambiguous genitalia, sexual ambiguity, or intersex). Parents or others may have to make decisions to determine their child’s sex with the guidance of competent medical professionals. Decisions about proceeding with medical or surgical intervention are often made in the newborn period. However, they can be delayed unless they are medically necessary. Special compassion and wisdom are required when youth or adults who were born with sexual ambiguity experience emotional conflict regarding the gender decisions made in infancy or childhood and the gender with which they identify. So my related question is this - shouldn't we also (on the basis of your argument) disallow parents from making decisions in areas like this - where the decision that is made can clearly have a detrimental impact on the children that will last a lifetime? My second point is this - hormone blocking is reversible (which is not the same thing as hormone replacement). These blockers aren't just used for transgender youth, they are also used for youth with precocious puberty (when puberty starts much earlier than it should). The reason why parents use hormone blockers is to delay certain developments in young people until they can become better advocates for themselves. Your argument in this case is actually the opposite. By preventing developmental delay, you put transgender young people in a position where later interventions may be much more invasive. Whether intended or not, the claim that hormone blockers is a terrible thing is simply an attempt to affirm that transgender care as a whole is a terrible thing. Edited August 7, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire 5
LoudmouthMormon Posted August 7, 2023 Author Posted August 7, 2023 (edited) On 8/5/2023 at 7:30 PM, Benjamin McGuire said: We don't make rules based on exceptions. We don't make policy based on exceptions. When you put an exception as the poster child, it creates bad arguments. It doesn't matter if you can put a name and a face to your argument in these circumstances. On 8/5/2023 at 8:20 PM, The Nehor said: The problem is you value the much rarer exceptions over the norm. I'd like you both to consider how rare trans folks are. At least 98% of 9 billion humans in the world fall comfortably into a solid normal binary. Shall we talk about the rules and policies put into place based on the much rarer trans exceptions? One might look at how we're several years into the process of retooling our culture, bathrooms, sports teams, dress codes, school curricula (including elementary school curricula) - to help the rare exception feel welcome and safe. I've been specifically told, for years now, that avoiding one more trans death warrants all the effort. I'm not valuing the majority binary over the minority trans folks. I'm not valuing the tiny sliver of detrans folks over the trans folks. I posted news about how the American Academy of Pediatrics' policy is going to undergo a review process. I mentioned the current policy is totally devoid of any mention of diagnostic rigor, opined that I find that problematic to the point of lunacy, guessed there will be a revision that adds some. And I offered a bet to anyone who disagrees. On 8/5/2023 at 8:20 PM, The Nehor said: My fault. You were responding to a typo I made. Fair enough. And I'm legitimately glad to hear it. Edited August 7, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon 1
Popular Post BlueDreams Posted August 7, 2023 Popular Post Posted August 7, 2023 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: Many transgender people never seek surgery. Some never want hormone therapy. There isn't a "one size fits all" treatment. I'm well aware that many don't seek surgery and/or hormones. I would wager many many also don't seek or receive therapy as well. Not because it would be unique among them, but because many many people with concerns and conflicts simply don't. I'm talking about the school of thought for psych treatment that is still most commonly taught and focused on in therapy, especially in the us. Which is basically derivatives of the dutch protocol and focuses on gender-affirming care in general. That may include social transitioning, but it does often segue into some form of hormone or surgical treatments over time. Within said school if thought you may use specific tools and methods to accomplish assumed goals. But it's still within a single set of assumptions and approach. It may be helpful if I explain outside of trans issues specifically. As a therapist, we're encouraged to have specific schools of thought or models to base our practice one. Some people gravitated to cognitive-behavioral orientations, some psychoanalytic, some experiential, etc. Many will mix and match a little. All of them have strengths and weaknesses. All of them have blindspots in their underlying assumptions. All of them can be really helpful. All of them can miss the mark for some people and concerns. We often will refer people based on specialties and models used by therapists or help people seek them out. The predominant model that I've seen for gender dysphoria is gender affirming care. I have heard of watchful waiting as well. But it is far less popular currently and often actively pushed back on by those in the gender affirming orientation. I don't think either model is bad or perfect. But even if both were seen as equally valid orientations to care, that's an extremely small pool to draw from and they both have limitations on their assumptions for care. It's not fully institutional problems. It's a numbers problem as well and a social shift problem. As in there were so few people to base the models on in the past and the shifts meant who was there doesn't fully match current demographics and shifts in presentation. Another non-trans related example. Much of PTSD was first explored based on war trauma. Early models of treatment were based on this. If you assumed an all encompassing model based solely of vets and vet concerns you're going to have holes in treatment for other experiences and manifestatuons of PTSD. It doesn't mean these models are bad... they're just bound to run into limitations. And those limitations will effect the bredth and depth of available care. With luv, BD 6
The Nehor Posted August 7, 2023 Posted August 7, 2023 On 8/6/2023 at 1:47 PM, CV75 said: Rules are set up to promote the optimum balance of safety, fairness, order and justice as the norm and reduce imbalance to a rare or prevented anomaly. They are based on common experience and common sense, no matter how rare the desired or dreaded outcome may be. Where do you live and are they accepting immigrants?
Harry T. Clark Posted August 7, 2023 Posted August 7, 2023 6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: There are two things I would like to say about this. The first is something from the current Church Handbook on the subject of children born into a biologically ambiguous sexual state (38.7.7): So my related question is this - shouldn't we also (on the basis of your argument) disallow parents from making decisions in areas like this - where the decision that is made can clearly have a detrimental impact on the children that will last a lifetime? My second point is this - hormone blocking is reversible (which is not the same thing as hormone replacement). These blockers aren't just used for transgender youth, they are also used for youth with precocious puberty (when puberty starts much earlier than it should). The reason why parents use hormone blockers is to delay certain developments in young people until they can become better advocates for themselves. Your argument in this case is actually the opposite. By preventing developmental delay, you put transgender young people in a position where later interventions may be much more invasive. Whether intended or not, the claim that hormone blockers is a terrible thing is simply an attempt to affirm that transgender care as a whole is a terrible thing. First do no harm and I think the jury is out on whether these are actually reversible and whether or not there are long term side effects. I don't think it is a rosy as you portray it. This study talks about possible long term bone density loss. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243894 and this article talks about how little we know about these drugs and the effects and whether the benefits outweigh the risks. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/145/2/e20191606/68237/Long-term-Puberty-Suppression-for-a-Nonbinary?autologincheck=redirected From what I have read, I would be skeptical of those touting these relatively new treatments. We don't know enough about long term effects. Until we know the science and not just the politics, I think we should be cautious.
CV75 Posted August 7, 2023 Posted August 7, 2023 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Where do you live and are they accepting immigrants? I said nothing of quality :)
Calm Posted August 7, 2023 Posted August 7, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said: From what I have read, I would be skeptical of those touting these relatively new treatments. Are you including using puberty blockers in general (in use since the 80’s) or just for teens? Quote Children who are prescribed puberty blockers to treat precocious puberty typically take the medication until they're at least 8 or 9 years old. There are cases of people presenting with signs of precocious puberty as young as 1 year old who then use this medication for 7 or more years, explains Osipoff. https://www.healthline.com/health/are-puberty-blockers-reversible#duration I do think there could be a difference on the body between delaying puberty for a too young for puberty child where other body structures and functions are potentially not physically ready for puberty and delaying puberty in teen years when the body is primed in most cases to develop into adult physical function. I don’t think it is wise to just assume the long term effects of giving puberty blockers to preteens will be the same as giving puberty blockers to teens, we should be doing extensive studies now the opportunities are available, but I also don’t see it as giving the teens untested drugs. It is not just a random physical experiment. There is quite a bit of related data out there. We also give teens drugs that have been primarily tested on adults all the time, including ones that have effect on brain chemistry. I think use is warranted in some cases where the emotional benefit is high and other forms of social/nonmedical transitioning have not provided relief. But doctors need to pay close attention to determine what the actual needs are (it will rarely be one dimensional) and keep a close watch to ensure use does not create more problems (I flash back to my daughter’s psychiatrist who refused to deal with her sleep issue at the same time as her anxiety…quote “I don’t treat sleep issues”, unfortunately only pediatric psychiatrist in Utah Valley at the time…and therefore insisted the only option was an anxiety drug that was known for making her sleep disorder worse; we were desperate and agreed, foolish parents that we were—what harm in just trying, it would just go back to the way it was if it didn’t work since it would just be a couple of months, right?—and she ended up with her sleep disorder being cranked up to severe which made her anxiety even more difficult to treat…all because the doctor couldn’t be bothered to listen to the full story and judge on what she also needed in other areas of her life). Edited August 8, 2023 by Calm 1
Calm Posted August 8, 2023 Posted August 8, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said: This study talks about possible long term bone density loss. This can apparently be addressed by giving the hormone of the desired gender. It is the absence of hormone that is the issue. Edited August 8, 2023 by Calm
provoman Posted August 8, 2023 Posted August 8, 2023 16 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: It seems to me that you are making my point for me. Which simply tells me that you don't understand the original proposition ... the original proposition I addressed is that we don't make law/policy/etc based on a small % outside the "norm". But we do all the time, schools ban all peanut based products because 1 child has an allergy; "forced" vaccinations to attend public schools. Warning labels. 1
MorningStar Posted August 8, 2023 Posted August 8, 2023 I'm disgusted by the doctor who did a double mastectomy on my niece. She was clearly into self-harm in general, she has autism, and her feelings of being "non-binary" is really more about not feeling like she fits in. She decided it was the easiest label for her, but she doesn't care if the family refers to her by her given name or calls her a woman. She was in her early 20s when she had it done and I'm devastated. She also continues to do extreme things to her body, sabotaging herself in the process when it comes to her future. 2
The Nehor Posted August 8, 2023 Posted August 8, 2023 13 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said: I'd like you both to consider how rare trans folks are. At least 98% of 9 billion humans in the world fall comfortably into a solid normal binary. Shall we talk about the rules and policies put into place based on the much rarer trans exceptions? One might look at how we're several years into the process of retooling our culture, bathrooms, sports teams, dress codes, school curricula (including elementary school curricula) - to help the rare exception feel welcome and safe. I've been specifically told, for years now, that avoiding one more trans death warrants all the effort. I wish the anti-transgender movement would accept how rare they are and leave them alone but they don't. They call them groomers. They push through punitive and humiliating laws. They target transgender children in sports. They do this in states where there aren't even confirmed to be any children the laws would apply to in the entire state. Complaining that those who support transgender rights are focusing on a minority when the movement opposed to that minority is passing punitive laws against a minority of that small minority just shows that it is important. Transgender people were okay mostly sliding under the radar. If they hadn't been chosen because they were vulnerable to be the next target of the new moral panic they would still be rarely noticed. They didn't choose this fight. 2
Benjamin McGuire Posted August 8, 2023 Posted August 8, 2023 6 hours ago, provoman said: the original proposition I addressed is that we don't make law/policy/etc based on a small % outside the "norm". But we do all the time, schools ban all peanut based products because 1 child has an allergy; "forced" vaccinations to attend public schools. Warning labels. Then you aren't reading what I wrote. I said nothing about "the norm". What I said is that policy makes exceptions. This explains why your analogies don't work. I can thumb through the Church Handbook and find example after example of statements that say - Do this, or, if this comes up, contact Salt Lake City. That is an exception. The section I quoted earlier (38.7.7) contains an example - "Questions about membership records, priesthood ordination, and temple ordinances for youth or adults who were born with sexual ambiguity should be directed to the Office of the First Presidency." 38.2.4 (ordinances for individuals with disabilities): "Questions about membership records, priesthood ordination, and temple ordinances for youth or adults who were born with sexual ambiguity should be directed to the Office of the First Presidency." 38.2.5 (ordinances performed by those with disabilities): "If leaders have questions they cannot resolve, the stake president contacts the Office of the First Presidency." 38.3: "The bishop consults with his stake president if he has questions about civil marriage that are not answered in this section. The stake president may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency." 38.4: "Members should counsel with their bishop if they have questions about sealing policies that are not answered in this section. The bishop contacts the stake president if he has questions. Stake presidents may contact the temple presidency in their temple district, the Area Presidency, or the Office of the First Presidency if they have questions." 38.4.2.7: "If a child was born to a surrogate mother, the stake president refers the matter to the Office of the First Presidency (see 38.6.22)." And so on. Practically, we need exceptions to policies - because situations are often unique. I am not saying that exceptions are bad - the opposite is true. We need to have exceptions so that we can deal with the unpredictable, or we can manage ambiguity. This is a very different thing from questions about schools and allergies, or important vaccinations (see, even here you are loading the language politically). Theology on the other hand needs to avoid exceptions. Either a theological principle is valid or it isn't. This is the reason why past racism leaves such a bad taste in our mouths - it was a theology with an exception. Two people living their lives under identical circumstances (with one exception) get two different outcomes - because one of them had a single drop of African blood. This is what I am talking about. The Church distinguishes between those who get gender reassignment surgery on the basis of a single issue - whether or not the surgery was voluntary on the part of the individual. If they chose it, it is bad. If others chose it for them, it is okay. This was the point I was making - it is a policy based principle and not a theologically based principle. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now