california boy Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 2 minutes ago, Calm said: So you would be okay with female circumcision if the child was 5, 10, 15? and wanted it done? Trying to understand your position here, not accuse you. I believe the same guidelines should be followed that I have suggested in gender reassignment. If the government is going to be involved in these decisions the parents as well as the child and doctor if he has not been medically trained in the implications of the operations should be required to take a course that is factually based on what is involved and the implications of those choices. A test given to make sure they all understand the training they have received. I don't think a 5 or 10 year old is capable of understanding all of the implication of that kind of training. 15 is probably even on the border of fully understanding the training and implications of that decision. And there is no real compelling reason why that surgery can not wait until the child reaches legal age. Is there any data that suggests minors are killing themselves because they are being prevented from being circumcised before they reach legal age? To just hand over this decision to a politician or neighbor or stranger who has absolutely no knowledge of the person involved and are not trained to understand the full ramifications of what is involved will more often just be a decision based on emotional bias feelings they may have. This is not the way to make a decision that is in the best interest of the child. 3
smac97 Posted October 9, 2024 Author Posted October 9, 2024 6 minutes ago, california boy said: Quote 1. I am curious as to your thoughts about Chloe. "'I did find a surgeon in another country who would be prepared to do femoral and sciatic nerve transections to paralyse my legs." "Chloe is still determined to have surgery that will render her paralysed. 'When I have that surgery I just know, it will be the happiest day of my life.'" Do you think Chloe's friends and family should encourage her in her pursuit? Should they help her pay this surgeon for a procedure to permanently sever her nerves and render her paralyzed for the rest of her life? I think it is Chloe's life. Yes, we all agree on that. But the question here is about an elective surgery to render her paralyzed for life. 6 minutes ago, california boy said: She has to decide how to live that life. Broadly, yes. But again, the question here is about an elective surgery to render her paralyzed for life, and whether her friends and family should encourage her in her pursuit, whether they should help her in pursuing surgery that will render her paralyzed for the rest of her life. 6 minutes ago, california boy said: If she has the financial means to do the operation and support herself and can do this without forcing others to provide services to her, and her friends and family have all tried to convince her not to take those steps, then ultimately it is her choice to make. Okay. But that is not really responsive to my question: Do you think Chloe's friends and family should encourage her in her pursuit? Should they help her pay this surgeon for a procedure to permanently sever her nerves and render her paralyzed for the rest of her life? 6 minutes ago, california boy said: Quote 2. Do you think Chloe "should be allowed to choose {her} path in life where ever that leads and no matter who might disagree with {her} choices as long as {she} not harming others"? yes. Okay. 6 minutes ago, california boy said: Quote 3. More specifically, do you think her friends and family should encourage her to go through with the "surgery that will render her paralysed"? From my perspective not knowing anything about what she is going through or has gone through, I would absolutely make every effort to convince her to not do the operation. Okay. Why would you do this? And again, do you think her friends and family should encourage her to go through with the "surgery that will render her paralysed"? 6 minutes ago, california boy said: What I do know as a complete stranger, is that I should have absolutely no say in the choices she made. Do you think society should "have absolutely no say" as well? 6 minutes ago, california boy said: Quote 4. What are your thoughts about informed consent? We generally do not let children enter into contracts or do other significantly life-altering things because they lack the ability to form it (informed consent). Do you think an exception to this principle should be made and children allowed to choose whether or not to take puberty blockers, undergo a mastectomy or penectomy, etc.? We do allow children to enter into contracts when their parents or guardians also think it is in the best decision for the child. Who is the "we" here? Society? So society, through its systems of laws, defines the parameters in which a child may act re: entering into a contract, correct? If so, does society also have a role to play in defining the parameters of whether a minor can receive life-altering, irreversible, sterilizing medical treatment? 6 minutes ago, california boy said: What we don't do is let complete strangers decide whether a child should enter into a contract. Actually, that is exactly what we do. Legislatures and judges are involved in these decisions all the time, and they are "complete strangers" to the children in view. 6 minutes ago, california boy said: The child, the parents and in medical decisions, the doctors are the very best people who should have a say in the final decision. So legislatures and judges have no role in this? 6 minutes ago, california boy said: Now, is there a role where the government requires certain courses or training on the implications of those decisions? Absolutely. The decision should be made after fully and completely understanding the ramifications of those decisions. Let's say that a child, Grace, wants her legs amputated, for essentially the same reasons as Chloe in the above YouTube video, and "the government" has no role in the decisionmaking process except to "require certain courses or training on the implications" of Grace's decision to have her legs amputated, and Grace's parents are fully onboard with Grace's decision, and they can find a doctor and facility willing to perform the amputations. Assuming all of the above, is it your position that the doctor should go ahead and amputate Grace's legs? Is it your position that we as a society should be okay with this? Is it your position that the state government should limit its regulation of the practice of medicine within its jurisdiction to the foregoing parameters ("requir{ing} certain courses or training on the implications" of the procedure, but nothing else)? 6 minutes ago, california boy said: Quote Quote Now, can you tell me in complete honesty that in all of the situations you listed that YOU know more about the situation and the people involved in these choices than their own parents, the person themselves and the doctor? I have not interjected myself into the decision. My comments have been about society and society's laws and lawmakers being involved in these decisions. Quote Are you making those judgements without any personal bias? Personal bias against whom? What are you referencing here? Do you think that society Hold up. Personal bias against whom? What are you referencing here? 6 minutes ago, california boy said: can have an uninformed or complete misunderstanding of issues like this and are deciding how a decision should be made in a bias and unjustified way about someone else's medical decisions? I suppose. But the same can be said of parents and doctors, who may be emotionally or ideologically compromised in their ability to gauge the best interests of the child. Meanwhile, a legislature can take time to investigate the issues, seek professional input and guidance, and craft legislation and regulations that lay out parameters regarding the practice of medicine within the state's jurisdiction. Judges than then apply these statutes/regulations when needed. No system is perfect, but there are few mandates of a state legislature closer to the fundamental purpose of our system of laws than ensuring the safety and well-being of minors. 6 minutes ago, california boy said: Has society gone thorough the same courses and training on this subject to be fully informed before deciding public policy? "Training" by whom? Who gets to decide the content of this "training"? 6 minutes ago, california boy said: Quote I think the role of government is generalized. I do not think the government should abdicate its responsibilities if it cannot "guarantee" that in "each and every individual case" it "will make the very best decision for every single person involved" in decisions addressing whether minors should undergo important and life-altering and permanent medical procedures. I think the State (that is, the state government, more so than the federal government) should pass laws regulating whether minors should undergo important and life-altering and permanent medical procedures. I don't think those in government crying for regulation have all the medical training and indepth knowledge on this and many similar restrictions. Neither do parents. Moreover, legislatures can and should seek out medical and ethical advice when regulating the practice of medicine within the state's jurisdictions. 6 minutes ago, california boy said: Until they do go through such training, they would probably be in the worse possible situation to make an informed decision on a person's life choices. Just because they are the government does not make them authorities on gender reassignment. The same can be said of parents, who may be both ignorant and emotionally and/or ideologically compromised. The same can be said of doctors, who may ideologically compromised, and/or who may not be familiar with, or may not really care about, the long-term ramifications of such medical treatment of minors. Four-Year Study on Gender Affirming Care in the UK Warns of the Dangers of 'Gender Transition' for Kids Quote Four years ago, the doctors at the National Health Service (NHS) in Great Britain became alarmed about the treatment for children with gender dysphoria at the Gender Identity Development Services (GIDS) at the Tavistock in London. The NHS ordered a thorough study of Tavistock patients which was carried out by Dr. Hillary Cass, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health at NHS. The review of 9,000 patient records revealed what many professionals have suspected for years. "This is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint. The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress," Cass writes in the forward of the review. Pretty troubling, this. I think it merits attention. I am all for helping people with Gender Dysphoria. We need to be cautious and circumspect about such things. Quote It's a devastating indictment of gender care for kids. The study debunks almost every common myth advanced by the transgender fanatics, including the idea that if kids don't get care, they'll kill themselves. "Michael Biggs’ work in this field showed that over a period of ten years (between 2010 and 2020), there were four known or suspected suicides among fifteen thousand children and adolescents on the GIDS waiting list. Two of these suicides were in people who were receiving treatment, two were on the waiting list. Every suicide is a tragedy, however, these numbers align with the risks associated with other mental health challenges," writes Stella O'Malley of Genspect, an organization that promotes "high-quality, evidence-based care for gender-nonconforming individuals all around the world." I have previously objected to the weaponization of suicide in discussions such as these. I do so again here. Quote The report recommends that no one under the age of 18 receive any kind of gender-affirming care, including hormone shots, and that “great caution” should be shown for patients under 25. Hmm. I think this merits attention and discussion. Quote The Dispatch: The report included a variety of recommendations to improve care but concluded that “for most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress.” Consequently, the NHS reversed its decade-long practice of prescribing puberty-suppressing hormones (PSH) to children with gender dysphoria—“a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender of at least six months duration, as manifested” in delineated criteria, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. “We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of PSH to make the treatment routinely available at this time,” the NHS said last month. PSH treatment will still be available for participants in clinical trials and at private clinics, although some British lawmakers are now pushing for a ban across the board. The most important finding of the Cass Report may be that it confirms that gender dysphoria in children has been consistently — perhaps deliberately — misdiagnosed when the feelings of gender confusion could very well be related to some other comorbidity. I have also noted issues regarding insufficient attention paid to comorbidities. I do so again here. Quote The Atlantic: When it comes to alleviating gender-related distress, “for the majority of young people, a medical pathway may not be the best way to achieve this.” That conclusion will now inform the creation of new state-provided services in England. These will attempt to consider patients more holistically, acknowledging that their gender distress might be part of a picture that also includes anxiety, autism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, eating disorders, or past trauma. Again, this merits attention. Quote The New York Post points out that "Cass slams the World Professional Association for Transgender Healthcare guidelines for transitioning children as lacking 'developmental rigor and transparency.'" The Post also criticizes "health-care practitioners who 'abandoned normal clinical approaches' in order to start the process of 'transition.'" The Post points out that "the kids should first get screened for neurological conditions, autism and mental illness." I've heard a lot of things about WPATH. That this report formally itemizes its shortcomings is welcome data. Quote Trans activists will probably come back by quoting results from a 2011 Dutch study that showed positive outcomes for children given puberty blockers. The Cass report debunked much of that study. The Dispatch: But the Cass Review highlighted some significant issues with the 2011 study. For example, some of the study participants didn’t complete questionnaires after their treatments designed to assess their improvement, potentially biasing the results towards individuals who decided to come forward with positive outcomes. Plus, all the patients saw psychiatrists or psychologists during the PSH treatment, making it difficult to isolate the positive outcomes to the effects of the drugs. What’s more, subsequent research found that young people who experienced gender dysphoria as well as separate psychiatric issues reported no improvement in their well-being after taking PSH. Cass argued in The British Medical Journal that the early research showed success in a “small number of birth-registered males” but that the current population of people seeking gender treatment in the U.K. are largely “birth-registered”—or biological—females, and there is not sufficient evidence showing that that cohort benefits from PSH treatment. “It is unusual for us to give a potentially life-changing treatment to young people and not know what happens to them in adulthood,” Cass told BBC last week. See also here: Sex is biological fact, NHS declares in landmark shift against gender ideology Quote The NHS is to declare that sex is a matter of biology in a landmark shift against gender ideology. I think we will see more of this in the days ahead. Reconciling ourselves with basic biological facts such as these has been a long time coming. And I think that many parents and doctors are in an ideological thrall that ignores and/or denies these basic biological facts. Quote Changes to the health service’s written constitution proposed by ministers will for the first time ban trans women from women-only wards, and give women the right to request a female doctor for intimate care. The NHS constitution, a document that aims to set out the principles and values of the health service and legal rights for patients and staff, was last updated in 2015. It has to be updated at least every 10 years by the Secretary of State. Campaigners for women’s rights welcomed the significant shift, which comes after years of wrangling and follows accusations that the health service had been captured by “gender ideology”. Ideological pressures have, in some quarters, predominated over scientific and empirically demonstrable realities. I am glad we are getting past this sort of thing. Quote In 2021, NHS guidance said trans patients could be placed in single-sex wards based on the gender with which they identified. The new constitution will state: “We are defining sex as biological sex.” "We are defining sex as biological sex" seems like a tautology. A truism. An axiom. This definition ought be no more necessary than "we are defining circles as round, and water as wet." We are living in strange times. Cutting off a minor's healthy arm or leg? Of course not! That would preposterous! Cutting off a minor's healthy breasts or a penis and scrotum? Well, if the parents and a doctor are on board, who are we to say no? Quote The clarification means that the right to a single-sex ward means patients would “not have to share sleeping accommodation with patients of the opposite biological sex”. Until now, no commitment was made to biological sex, meaning some female patients complained that they were forced to share sleeping space with trans women – those who are born male but identify as female. Women’s rights campaigners said the move was a “return to common sense and an overdue recognition that women’s wellbeing and safety matter.” However, NHS leaders raised concerns that the health service was being “dragged into a pre-election culture wars debate”. Perhaps the NHS is being dragged out of the "culture wars debate." And perhaps parents and doctors who are in the "culture wars debate" are compromised in their assessment of important issues like whether a minor should receive permanent, life-altering, sterilizing medical treatment. Quote The changes to the constitution are a further indication of a change in attitudes after the Cass review into the NHS’s gender identity services found evidence that allowing children to change gender was built on weak foundations. Dr Hilary Cass, a paediatrician, said allowing “social transitioning” for young people – when they are treated as the opposite gender – could “change their trajectory” and lead to them pursuing a potentially damaging medical pathway in later life. I am glad that we are having more of these discussions. Quote The updates to the constitution will also include the introduction of a duty to help patients get back to work and embed “Martha’s Rule” into the framework of the health service. This follows pledges by Victoria Atkins, the Health Secretary, to give families the right to access a rapid review from an outside team if a patient is deteriorating. It is named after 13-year-old Martha Mills, who died in 2021 after medics missed signs of sepsis and failed to heed warnings from her parents that their daughter’s condition was getting worse. Women will also be given the right to request that intimate care is provided, where reasonably possible, by someone of the same biological sex. It follows warnings that some female patients have been pressured into accepting such care from trans-identifying staff who were born male. Oi. I am glad to see this change. Quote The proposed changes will also see discrimination requirements updated, with the word gender replaced with sex. Gender reassignment remains a protected characteristic, meaning that a transgender patient could be given their own room in a hospital to protect their right to a single-sex service. The document also places a duty on health providers to use “clear terms” to communicate and take account of biological differences. It follows pledges from ministers to stop NHS trusts using terms like “chestfeeding” and “people who give birth”. I am glad to see this too. The neologisms were weird, unnecessary, confusing, and unscientific. Quote In February, Ms Atkins highlighted her concerns, telling The Telegraph: “We need to be making this robust case to refuse to wipe women out of the conversation.” On Tuesday, she said: “We want to make it abundantly clear that if a patient wants same-sex care they should have access to it wherever reasonably possible. “We have always been clear that sex matters and our services should respect that. “By putting this in the NHS constitution we’re highlighting the importance of balancing the rights and needs of all patients to make a healthcare system that is faster, simpler and fairer for all.” Maya Forstater, chief executive of gender critical group Sex Matters, said: “It is excellent news that the NHS constitution is being revised to put ‘sex’ in its rightful place – at the heart of principle 1, which sets out that the NHS must treat everyone with equality and respect for their human rights. “The confusion between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in official policies like the NHS constitution is what has enabled women’s rights to be trampled over in the name of transgender identities. I think attempting to materially differentiate "sex" and "gender" has been a prolonged exercise in equivocation. Quote “Sex, of course, is a matter of biology, not identity, and it is welcome that the NHS is now spelling this out in relation to single-sex accommodation and intimate care.” Ms Forstater said too many female patients seeking that intimate care be given by a woman had been pressured into accepting a trans-identifying male instead. “Healthcare providers have become confused and frightened by the idea that a gender recognition certificate, or even just a personal identity claim, overrides other people’s rights when it comes to same-sex care from healthcare professionals.” She said the shift was “simply a return to common sense and an overdue recognition that women’s wellbeing and safety matter.” This is one of several practical ramifications that merit attention. Perhaps some parents and doctors need to consider a comparable "return to common sense" as regarding whether a minor should have her healthy body parts cut off, her body sterilized and subjected to medical treatments that will affect her the rest of her life, and so on. Quote Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents healthcare leaders, said its members would review the proposals in detail. However, he added: “What is absolutely clear at this stage is that a focus on high-quality care for all is maintained and that the NHS is not dragged into a pre-election culture wars debate. This is not where energies should be focused.” Quite so. Ideological propositions such as "gender identity" and "sex assigned at birth" do not, in the main, have much to do with medical treatment and science. And yet, I think there are parents and doctors who are ideologically compromised as to these issues, even to the extent of impairing their capacity to rationally ascertain the best interests of the child. Quote Mr Taylor said staff worked hard to show fairness and compassion towards all patients. “In particular, groups of people, including trans and non-binary patients, continue to receive some of the worst health outcomes of any group in our society and NHS leaders and staff will want to do all they can to support these patients, as well as their trans and non-binary staff to reduce inequalities. “Whatever changes are eventually introduced following the consultation need to be clear and workable for NHS staff, who should not expect to have to interpret ambiguous guidance at a local level.” The eight-week consultation will be the first stage of a review of the constitution. The Government will consider responses from everyone, including the public, clinicians and medical professionals, patients, carers and organisations representing patients and staff and health stakeholders, before publishing the consultation response and the new NHS constitution. Louise Ansari, chief executive of Healthwatch England said: “The NHS constitution plays a crucial role in shaping the culture of our NHS and helping the public to know their rights. “Since the NHS constitution launched, it has helped to shift the balance of power from services towards patients and their families. But, with only a third of people knowing their rights, there is still a long way to go. “Given the challenges our NHS faces, a conversation to reaffirm and raise awareness of the most important rights to the public has never been more timely. “We urge everyone to take part in the consultation and have their say. This is your opportunity to send a clear message about the rights you hold most dear.” We all should be treated with respect, decorum, compassion, etc., particularly in a medical context. This does not extend to denying biological reality. The Proclamation had things right in 1995, and the NHS appears to be getting back on the right track. I think other groups and institutions will follow this same tack, and I'm glad of that. Thanks, -Smac 2
Popular Post Calm Posted October 9, 2024 Popular Post Posted October 9, 2024 3 minutes ago, Dario_M said: Yes but in this situation i choose to agree with smac97 in this matter. I don’t require everyone or anyone to agree with me, even though I am always right. 😛 7
Dario_M Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 3 minutes ago, Calm said: I don’t require everyone or anyone to agree with me, even though I am always right. 😛 🤣
california boy Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 9 minutes ago, Calm said: At one point do you believe mental illness should render a person legally incompetent to make medical decisions? yes
smac97 Posted October 9, 2024 Author Posted October 9, 2024 25 minutes ago, Calm said: Do you believe male circumcision should be banned or at least heavily regulated? I have no formulated position on the subject. Thanks, -Smac
california boy Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 8 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes, we all agree on that. But the question here is about an elective surgery to render her paralyzed for life. Broadly, yes. But again, the question here is about an elective surgery to render her paralyzed for life, and whether her friends and family should encourage her in her pursuit, whether they should help her in pursuing surgery that will render her paralyzed for the rest of her life. Okay. But that is not really responsive to my question: Do you think Chloe's friends and family should encourage her in her pursuit? Should they help her pay this surgeon for a procedure to permanently sever her nerves and render her paralyzed for the rest of her life? Okay. Okay. Why would you do this? And again, do you think her friends and family should encourage her to go through with the "surgery that will render her paralysed"? Do you think society should "have absolutely no say" as well? Who is the "we" here? Society? So society, through its systems of laws, defines the parameters in which a child may act re: entering into a contract, correct? If so, does society also have a role to play in defining the parameters of whether a minor can receive life-altering, irreversible, sterilizing medical treatment? Actually, that is exactly what we do. Legislatures and judges are involved in these decisions all the time, and they are "complete strangers" to the children in view. So legislatures and judges have no role in this? Let's say that a child, Grace, wants her legs amputated, for essentially the same reasons as Chloe in the above YouTube video, and "the government" has no role in the decisionmaking process except to "require certain courses or training on the implications" of Grace's decision to have her legs amputated, and Grace's parents are fully onboard with Grace's decision, and they can find a doctor and facility willing to perform the amputations. Assuming all of the above, is it your position that the doctor should go ahead and amputate Grace's legs? Is it your position that we as a society should be okay with this? Is it your position that the state government should limit its regulation of the practice of medicine within its jurisdiction to the foregoing parameters ("requir{ing} certain courses or training on the implications" of the procedure, but nothing else)? Hold up. Personal bias against whom? What are you referencing here? I suppose. But the same can be said of parents and doctors, who may be emotionally or ideologically compromised in their ability to gauge the best interests of the child. Meanwhile, a legislature can take time to investigate the issues, seek professional input and guidance, and craft legislation and regulations that lay out parameters regarding the practice of medicine within the state's jurisdiction. Judges than then apply these statutes/regulations when needed. No system is perfect, but there are few mandates of a state legislature closer to the fundamental purpose of our system of laws than ensuring the safety and well-being of minors. "Training" by whom? Who gets to decide the content of this "training"? Neither do parents. Moreover, legislatures can and should seek out medical and ethical advice when regulating the practice of medicine within the state's jurisdictions. The same can be said of parents, who may be both ignorant and emotionally and/or ideologically compromised. The same can be said of doctors, who may ideologically compromised, and/or who may not be familiar with, or may not really care about, the long-term ramifications of such medical treatment of minors. Four-Year Study on Gender Affirming Care in the UK Warns of the Dangers of 'Gender Transition' for Kids Pretty troubling, this. I think it merits attention. I am all for helping people with Gender Dysphoria. We need to be cautious and circumspect about such things. I have previously objected to the weaponization of suicide in discussions such as these. I do so again here. Hmm. I think this merits attention and discussion. I have also noted issues regarding insufficient attention paid to comorbidities. I do so again here. Again, this merits attention. I've heard a lot of things about WPATH. That this report formally itemizes its shortcomings is welcome data. See also here: Sex is biological fact, NHS declares in landmark shift against gender ideology I think we will see more of this in the days ahead. Reconciling ourselves with basic biological facts such as these has been a long time coming. And I think that many parents and doctors are in an ideological thrall that ignores and/or denies these basic biological facts. Ideological pressures have, in some quarters, predominated over scientific and empirically demonstrable realities. I am glad we are getting past this sort of thing. "We are defining sex as biological sex" seems like a tautology. A truism. An axiom. This definition ought be no more necessary than "we are defining circles as round, and water as wet." We are living in strange times. Cutting off a minor's healthy arm or leg? Of course not! That would preposterous! Cutting off a minor's healthy breasts or a penis and scrotum? Well, if the parents and a doctor are on board, who are we to say no? Perhaps the NHS is being dragged out of the "culture wars debate." And perhaps parents and doctors who are in the "culture wars debate" are compromised in their assessment of important issues like whether a minor should receive permanent, life-altering, sterilizing medical treatment. I am glad that we are having more of these discussions. Oi. I am glad to see this change. I am glad to see this too. The neologisms were weird, unnecessary, confusing, and unscientific. I think attempting to materially differentiate "sex" and "gender" has been a prolonged exercise in equivocation. This is one of several practical ramifications that merit attention. Perhaps some parents and doctors need to consider a comparable "return to common sense" as regarding whether a minor should have her healthy body parts cut off, her body sterilized and subjected to medical treatments that will affect her the rest of her life, and so on. Quite so. Ideological propositions such as "gender identity" and "sex assigned at birth" do not, in the main, have much to do with medical treatment and science. And yet, I think there are parents and doctors who are ideologically compromised as to these issues, even to the extent of impairing their capacity to rationally ascertain the best interests of the child. We all should be treated with respect, decorum, compassion, etc., particularly in a medical context. This does not extend to denying biological reality. The Proclamation had things right in 1995, and the NHS appears to be getting back on the right track. I think other groups and institutions will follow this same tack, and I'm glad of that. Thanks, -Smac I think I have been clear enough on what I believe. You seem to be fisking my answers as a way to get back on your soap box rather than trying to actually understand my point of view or responding to what I have actually said. 1
Calm Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 1 minute ago, smac97 said: I have no formulated position on the subject. Thanks, -Smac This procedure certainly happens much more often than any gender affirming care and has life long implications for the males it is given to. I am quite surprised you have invested all this time in a procedure that has a much more limited scope, but have not a position in male circumcision. 4
Calm Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 7 minutes ago, california boy said: yes So not going to get into that? Dang, as I find that a very important and troubling issue. As in at what point is society responsible for helping a person achieve their best possible life? If we encourage society to step in when others abuse a person, why not when a person harms themselves? Difficult questions. 2
smac97 Posted October 9, 2024 Author Posted October 9, 2024 2 minutes ago, california boy said: I think I have been clear enough on what I believe. Not really. 2 minutes ago, california boy said: You seem to be fisking my answers as a way to get back on your soap box rather than trying to actually understand my point of view or responding to what I have actually said. I am trying to understand your point of view by asking you questions: Do you think Chloe's friends and family should encourage her in her pursuit of elective surgery that will render her paralyzed for the rest of her life? Should Chloe's friends and family help her pay this surgeon for a procedure to permanently sever her nerves and render her paralyzed for the rest of her life? I don't think you have answered these questions. Of course, you are not obligated to. But your unwillingness to answer them is, I think, indicative of the social and ideological pressures and influences that are affecting society's approaches to some pretty important topics. Thanks, -Smac 2
Calm Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 27 minutes ago, Dario_M said: But you can also trust me. You have been a very consistent poster as well, so yes, I trust that you are as you describe yourself. 3
Dario_M Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 Just now, Calm said: You have been a very consistent poster as well, so yes, I trust that you are as you describe yourself. Thank you Calm. I appreciate that. 🫂 1
smac97 Posted October 9, 2024 Author Posted October 9, 2024 12 minutes ago, Calm said: Quote I have no formulated position on the subject. This procedure certainly happens much more often than any gender affirming care and has life long implications for the males it is given to. What implications are those? And how are those implications comparable to a minor undergoing an elective mastectomy, or a penectomy, or a course of treatment that renders them sterile for life, etc.? 12 minutes ago, Calm said: I am quite surprised you have invested all this time in a procedure that has a much more limited scope, but have not a position in male circumcision. Okay. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted October 9, 2024 Author Posted October 9, 2024 14 minutes ago, Calm said: Quote Quote At one point do you believe mental illness should render a person legally incompetent to make medical decisions? yes So not going to get into that? Dang, as I find that a very important and troubling issue. Same here. Comorbidities rank amongst my biggest concerns on this topic. 14 minutes ago, Calm said: As in at what point is society responsible for helping a person achieve their best possible life? If we encourage society to step in when others abuse a person, why not when a person harms themselves? Difficult questions. Indeed. I think the questions become less difficult in the context of minors undergoing irreversible, life-altering, sterilizing medical procedures. Thanks, -Smac
bluebell Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 15 minutes ago, Calm said: This procedure certainly happens much more often than any gender affirming care and has life long implications for the males it is given to. I am quite surprised you have invested all this time in a procedure that has a much more limited scope, but have not a position in male circumcision. I would guess most of the reason that we don't really blink at male circumcision is because God condones it (even commands it) in the bible. If God was condoning/commanding gender reassignment surgery, I think it would equally be mostly a moot point in western society. There is a lot of pushback now on circumcision though because it is rarely medically necessary, and it would be interesting to know if gender reassignment surgery would have gone the same route if it had started out the same way. We can never know of course, but it's an intriguing consideration. How something's attachment to God and the bible might change how current society views it. 4
Calm Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: What implications are those? And how are those implications comparable to a minor undergoing an elective mastectomy, or a penectomy, or a course of treatment that renders them sterile for life, etc.? Okay. Thanks, -Smac Btw, have you decided whether you will continue to claim someone in the MeToo movement is claiming a new epidemic of sexual assault without substantiating that claim, you are going to substantiate it before ever using it again as an example of mission creep or anything else, or you will just drop the use of it as something not sufficiently in evidence? Or something else? I would prefer to know your position on this claim at this time so I am not shocked if you use it again.
smac97 Posted October 9, 2024 Author Posted October 9, 2024 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Calm said: Btw, have you decided whether you will continue to claim someone in the MeToo movement is claiming a new epidemic of sexual assault without substantiating that claim, you are going to substantiate it before ever using it again as an example of mission creep or anything else, or you will just drop the use of it as something not sufficiently in evidence? Or something else? From the article I had quoted: Quote In the spring of 1979, a few weeks after the partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, more than 65,000 people marched on the United States Capitol chanting “No Nukes, No Nukes.” As a young reporter at the Washington Star assigned to cover this new movement, I interviewed march organizers and noticed that all of them had previously organized protests against the Vietnam War. This struck me as curious: How had they suddenly become so passionate and knowledgeable about nuclear power? I later learned that a term exists for this phenomenon—the March of Dimes syndrome—and that the tendency affects many other movements, too. Why, last year, did the Human Rights Campaign declare a “national state of emergency” for LGBT people? Why was the election of the first black American president followed by the Black Lives Matter movement? Why have reports of “hate groups” risen during the same decades that racial prejudice has been plummeting? Why, during a long and steep decline in the incidence of sexual violence in America, did academics, federal officials, and the #MeToo movement discover a new “epidemic of sexual assault”? "'{E}pidemic of sexual assault'" is in quotes. So the phrase appears to have had some common use. That said, it's a fairly generalized statement. But if you want to press the matter, see here: Quote Louise Burke, a reporter for The Daily Telegraph, wrote that #MeToo “exposed an epidemic of sexual assault and harassment across every corner of the world and unbottled a collective fury which can no longer be contained.” And here: Quote Stipek , Jesse. (2021). The Persistent Epidemic of Sexual Assault on College Campuses in the #MeToo Era (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA). The #MeToo movement has sparked conversations around sexual assault, prompting increased discussion of sexual violence along with a shift in reporting sexual assault. Universities are increasingly under pressure to take sexual assault more seriously and make their campuses safer for students, staff, and faculty. These cases, specifically in collegiate athletics highlight the potential unhealthy nature of sexual assault and toxic masculinity, and specifically how universities can create a breeding ground for sexual assault. My focus of this study is to identify the epidemic of sexual violence on college campuses and explore sexual violence under the microcosm of collegiate athletics. More specifically, it is to expose the arbitrary policies through a political spectacle theory within collegiate administrations. In this case, I examine how policies implemented, once implemented, only compliment the confusing nature of Title IX’s specific job, and what universities are doing to correct the issues previously outlined. This case also explores the administration’s view of action and the culture within a Division1, Power five conference institution by discovering campus backstage through the lens of political spectacle theory. In this case, I define the actors as the participants who will be interviewed and have personal experience with the lack of action taken by the proposed policies. In this case I analyzed the university’s policies and practices within the athletic department regarding sexual assault. This case specifically focuses on the perspectives of former student athletes who were participants. The university is a major Division 1, Power 5 conference university in the Midwest with a reputation among other institutions for their handling cases of sexual assault. I have chosen this institution to better understand the preventative measures they are using to mitigate sexual violence on their campus. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (2018), this campus has previously been under investigation for numerous former cases. Preliminary case analysis was inclusive of data collection of current program policies from the specific university, organizational bylaws, university mission and vision statements, a timeline of previous cases, and the university conduct codes and handbooks. Further, there is a cursory document analysis to form the foundation for my interview protocol. The purpose of my research is to study the most effective ways to curb the epidemic of sexual assault on college campuses and implement mandatory programs for athletes, specifically within athletics at the university from the case study. I coded interviews of the former student athletes and analyzed them based on the topics pertaining to campus culture, team culture, social hierarchy, and lack of resources. The data has been triangulated for validity to determine what beliefs, behaviors and structures are utilized by the university to promote and carry out educational resources for success in terms of sexual assault on campus. Additionally, the university’s policies are analyzed and compared with surveys conducted on campus in the years 2009 and 2015 to gain understanding on the confusing nebulous of how sexual assault cases are handled. The study concluded that the university’s athletic department lacks in consistent educational resources for student athletes and is also lacking in creating a culture geared towards curbing the hierarchical systems of power that have been implemented. Additionally, according to the former student athletes, the coaches and administration did not create the educational resources to promote a respectful culture within their own teams. Other findings indicated a lack of discipline or accountability by the administration that can impose a crippling trickle-down effect through the entire campus. One potential conclusion that implicates further research is in what ways the population of students outside of the athletics portion of the university might be affected by the structure of a hierarchical athletic structure at the forefront of campus. Here: Quote While strides have been made, such as through the #MeToo movement, speaking out about and against sexual assaults still lacks commonality. The reasoning: survivors fear the backlash, questioning, and minimization that often comes with exposing their traumatic experiences. The overall change that needs to be made is on a societal level; sexual assault should not be tolerated by any means and, everyone, especially college students, should be educated on the matter. ... Altogether, the hope is that by helping, colleges can break the patterns of sexual assault that affect their female students at an all time high. To reverse this epidemic of sexual assault, taking active methods that ensure prevention and support could one day make sexual assault a foreign issue for colleges and society as a whole. Here: Quote The #metoo movement has brought down many powerful men who abused their positions to sexually harass and abuse women and men. NPR has a series on an epidemic of sexual assault that has been persistent, under reported, and rarely prosecuted. Here: Quote Given recent and growing societal movements focusing on sexual assault, such as the #MeToo Movement, it is imperative to understand current attitudes about sexual assault and these movements. ... There are a wide variety of beliefs and attitudes about sexual assault documented in the literature; these beliefs are influenced by rape culture and help drive an epidemic of sexual assault. Here: Quote This piece is part of Not Your Fault, a Teen Vogue campaign that aims to educate people about the epidemic of sexual assault. For more on this series, click here. In this op-ed, author Jaclyn Friedman explains why the #MeToo movement needs to amplify more stories about survivors reclaiming their sexuality and using it to heal their trauma. Here: Quote #MeToo : The Epidemic of Sexual Assault Here: Quote While national movements like #MeToo have opened the door to establishing a growing and collective awareness about sexual harassment and assault, there remains a general lack of awareness—even a feeling of apathy—regarding the epidemic of sexual assault against people with disabilities, and how little is being done about it. And on and on and on. Which of these was Tierney quoting? I'm not sure. But the concept sure seems pretty common. 42 minutes ago, Calm said: I would prefer to know your position on this claim at this time so I am not shocked if you use it again. Again, the question posed in the article: "Why, during a long and steep decline in the incidence of sexual violence in America, did academics, federal officials, and the #MeToo movement discover a new 'epidemic of sexual assault'”? If there is evidence of some vast, nationwide, and undiscovered-prior-to-#MeToo "epidemic of sexual assault" ("assault," mind you), I would like to see it. Let's take a look at a federal definition of the term: Quote Sexual Assault.—Any person subject to this chapter who— (1)commits a sexual act upon another person by— (A) threatening or placing that other person in fear; (B) making a fraudulent representation that the sexual act serves a professional purpose; or (C) inducing a belief by any artifice, pretense, or concealment that the person is another person; (2)commits a sexual act upon another person— (A) without the consent of the other person; or (B) when the person knows or reasonably should know that the other person is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual act is occurring; or (3)commits a sexual act upon another person when the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to— (A) impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person; or (B) a mental disease or defect, or physical disability, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person; is guilty of sexual assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. See also here: Quote What Is Sexual Assault? The term “sexual assault” means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent. And here: Quote What is the difference between sexual harassment and sexual assault? What about sexual misconduct? Sexual harassment is a broad term, including many types of unwelcome verbal and physical sexual attention. Sexual assault refers to sexual contact or behavior, often physical, that occurs without the consent of the victim. Sexual harassment generally violates civil laws—you have a right to work or learn without being harassed—but in many cases is not a criminal act, while sexual assault usually refers to acts that are criminal. Some forms of sexual assault include: Penetration of the victim’s body, also known as rape. Attempted rape. Forcing a victim to perform sexual acts, such as oral sex or penetration of the perpetrator’s body. Fondling or unwanted sexual touching. Sexual misconduct is a non-legal term used informally to describe a broad range of behaviors, which may or may not involve harassment. For example, some companies prohibit sexual relationships between coworkers, or between an employee and their boss, even if the relationship is consensual. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 9, 2024 by smac97 1
california boy Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 45 minutes ago, Calm said: So not going to get into that? Dang, as I find that a very important and troubling issue. As in at what point is society responsible for helping a person achieve their best possible life? If we encourage society to step in when others abuse a person, why not when a person harms themselves? Difficult questions. Well I think mental illness is a difficult question and the lines are very blurry. Living in California, I do see mentally ill people on the streets occasionally. Some just seem to be in their own world and talk to themselves. Others can be yelling at every one and every thing they see with none of it making much sense. Some can physically be abusive, wander into traffic and seem to be unaware of the danger they are putting themselves and others. For some, perhaps their best life is living on the street combined with receiving necessary social services. For others, especially those that can cause harm to themselves and others, they need more around the clock care and supervision. So I can't easily make some pronouncement that will fit every single case. The state of California allows for those in authority take the most troubled ones off the street and allowing a qualified credentialed therapist help determine what is the best way to help them. I think that is appropriate. The reason for my short answer is I don't think that people dealing with gender identity automatically pushes them into some kind of mental illness catagory, which is what we have been discussing. I don't think it is appropriate to read a newspaper article and decide the person is mentally ill based on what is written.
Popular Post bluebell Posted October 9, 2024 Popular Post Posted October 9, 2024 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: From the article I had quoted: "'{E}pidemic of sexual assault'" is in quotes. So the phrase appears to have had some common use. That said, it's a fairly generalized statement. But if you want to press the matter, see here: And here: Here: Here: Here: Here: Here: Here: And on and on and on. Which of these was Tierney quoting? I'm not sure. But the concept sure seems pretty common. Again, the question posed in the article: "Why, during a long and steep decline in the incidence of sexual violence in America, did academics, federal officials, and the #MeToo movement discover a new 'epidemic of sexual assault'”? If there is evidence of some vast, nationwide, and undiscovered-prior-to-#MeToo "epidemic of sexual assault," I would like to see it. Thanks, -Smac If I've been following this argument correctly, Calm isn't denying that MeToo was about an epidemic of sexual assault and harassment. What she disagrees with is that it was about a new epidemic. Her argument (and the argument of everyone else I've ever heard speak about it) is that the epidemic of sexual assault and harassment against women has existed for as long as history has been around to record it. MeToo simply highlighted and acknowledged it on a national scale for the first time. 7
Teancum Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 3 hours ago, Dario_M said: Like? We can start a thread about it if you want. 3 hours ago, Dario_M said: I think it's more about the fact that you've left the church and now take every opportunity to criticize the church wherever you can. Oh sure. Every opportunuity. I spend most my day out attacking and criticizing the church. My goal in life it to expose and destroy the church. Mwaaaaahahaaaahaahaaa! 😏🙄🤣 1
Teancum Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 2 hours ago, smac97 said: The same can be said for every institution run by men. I think I noted that. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: The same can be said for all men and women. Sure. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Faultfinders will never run out of targets. Some faults need to be targeted. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I agree. Career activists are endlessly moving the goalposts. That's how they make money and gain notoriety. Whether the new target/topic of their activism is worthwhile is . . . uneven. I am not buying your argument and I think you are spinning things to self serve your points. Is there somewhere I can find a job description for a career activists? Who are these people and what does the job pay. Might be a good gig when I retire.🙄 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Tying activism to a career in which making money and garnering social notoriety/praise tends toward a substantial untethering effect. Who does this? Who are they? Are there career activist consulting firms? Who is at the top of this career. Who are the notables? 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Not so. I have repeatedly acknowledged that the Church is not immune from such things. It is a part of society, and so can and should expect to have its decisions and positions evaluated and critiqued. Yea you say this. You pay lip service to it. But based on your posting history I don't believe you really mean it. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: As far as "activism," that would need to be reviewed on case-by-case basis. I find much of the external activism to be unfair, unhelpful, unreasonable, etc. Of course you do. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: As far as internal "activism," I have markedly less patience for that, as I find it largely incompatible with the principles of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course you do. Like Oaks said, criticizing church leaders is always wrong, even if the criticism is true. Same applies to the church. And you buy into it. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I think this is a substantial mischaracterization. Thanks, -Smac It is not. You are wrong. Your leaders say this. And guess what gets you kicked out the the church almost always. Activism and criticism of the church leaders in a public way. Just ask Nemo The Mormon.
Calm Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 (edited) 23 minutes ago, smac97 said: So the phrase appears to have had some common use. Facts not in evidence, counselor! What bluebell said about the critical “new” being the critical part of the criticism. Edited October 9, 2024 by Calm 4
Teancum Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Hoo, boy. Underneath his name there is a notation: "9.5K." This is in reference to Teancum's approximately 9,500 posts on this board, the vast majority of which are taken up with criticizing and finding fault with the Church. I think Teancum gave the Church an attaboy for its announcement of starting a medical school at BYU. That was a nice thing to see. Overwhelmingly, though, the "there is much to criticize about the church" dictum (which you aptly describe as "take every opportunity to criticize the church wherever you can") is the order of the day. Abraham Maslow famously said: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." If one's perspective on the Church is principally defined by implacable hostility and a desire to tear down and find fault (the "hammer"), then pretty much every story about the Church can be construed as a basis for criticism ("as if it were a nail"). And that's really too bad, because although the Church is not perfect. it is, in my view and experience and estimation, overwhelmingly good in both motivations and behaviors/actions. I love it a lot. It deserves nowhere near the endless and relentless faultfinding that Teancum has spent nearly 10,000 posts heaping on it. Thanks, -Smac Oh sure. Poor pitiful all of you believers. But I had thousands of posts when I was a believer as well. I don't think that is in the total though. But yea I am out to destroy the church. Sure. My posts on this board, the only place I really post criticisms, is going to bring the church down. 😏You poor persecuted things. Whether you like it or note there is much to criticize. Foremost is it is not true and the leadership has a history of deceiving its member, expecting total devotion members and converts without full disclosure and so on. Such things deserve to be exposed. and it is clear that in the information age where the church cannot hide things, that the church is losing members as well as obtaining and keeping converts. And that is a good thing. Hopefully those who devote their time talent and money to Mormonism decide to do it understanding the history and actual facts before the commit.
Calm Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 (edited) 37 minutes ago, smac97 said: there is evidence of some vast, nationwide, and undiscovered-prior-to-#MeToo "epidemic of sexual assault" ("assault," mind you), I would like to see it. There was a very well known epidemic of sexual assaults prior to MeToo#… which is why so many women came forward sharing their history of surviving such assaults, because they were part of it. The history of those assaults was the very foundation of MeToo#. To claim it was claiming a “ new” or “undiscovered” in your view is to create a caricature of the movement, which is why this has now turned into a CFR. Where is there any evidence of a MeToo# career activist making that claim? Not just that there is an epidemic, but that there was a “new” one. Do a search on “new epidemic of sexual assault”. There are 9 hits I get from Google, one of them this thread. All appear to be related to the March of Dimes Syndrome article since this is mentioned. This is not a common claim. Only one might not be connected and that total phrase is “there is no new epidemic of sexual assault”. Edited October 9, 2024 by Calm 2
Teancum Posted October 9, 2024 Posted October 9, 2024 1 hour ago, Calm said: Teancum limits his criticism to mostly, if not only the board if he is being truthful and given I have known him online for over 20 years and he’s been very consistent in the content of his posting in the sense nothing has ever seen odd or unlikely, I see no reason not to trust him in this. Which means there are tons of opportunities to criticize the Church he does not take. His personal POV has always been more complex than many, from when he was a devoted member to now. I would definitely not call him an anti Mormon. Thank you. You summarize me accurately. I actually do care about Mormonism still as well as so many who are close to me who are still believers. My critical "activism" is limited to this board. 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