Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JVW said:

I see Smac get hit a lot with "you're cherry picking what you're reading and what you're presenting." He is selecting specific articles to support his views, but that doesn't mean that he's ignorant or uneducated about mainstream arguments. It's impossible for him to cherry pick when it comes to a view alternative to the mainstream, because all of the mainstream sources that he's exposed to every day on every social media platform, on every news channel, every search engine, all espouse the "mainstream consensus" view. It is virtually impossible for him to live without being exposed to views that are contrary to his own.

 

I find it relatively easy to avoid politics outside of headlines on google and news sites. Pretty much any other topic or point of view can be avoided beyond a very shallow exposure.

Some topics I feel it’s important to know a wide range of perspectives, most I limit myself to stuff I trust already because of time.  I just don’t open the article and read it. 

Even if you get fooled by a headline, within a few sentences you can tell bias in most news articles I find and you just stop reading and move on to another article. No one is forcing people to read stuff they don’t want to read except themselves.

I am not saying smac isolates himself, I am saying it is possible. 
 

And even with exposure…that doesn’t mean someone has taken the time to digest the other’s POV enough to understand it and examine it in depth.  Some will refuse to conceive of certain premises as reasonable and so fail to understand the logic of a perspective for example. 

Edited October 25, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So you are speaking as an actuary on this board?  I don't quite buy that.

No. But my background does make me acutely aware of how difficult it is to draw valid inferences from a large body of complicated research that is outside my field of expertise, and I do have a deeply ingrained instinct to consider my qualifications before weighing on things.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think you are ideologically compromised, and that claims of subject matter agnosticism are undermined by your extensive commentary on this topic (which even by your own invocation of ChatGPT is "ideological").

Here’s what I believe:

There are a ton of nuances to understanding the totality of what the medical research indicates on this or that topic, to understanding how the studies relate to medical protocols, and to understanding what those protocols actually suggest should be done in any given clinical situation. I don’t think you or I are qualified to evaluate what the totality of the evidence is on this or that medical issue, much less how this or that study affects it.  

I believe medical decisions ought to be made by doctors and patients. I believe in general, doctors and patients should be cautious about prescribing and taking drugs, and they should be extremely cautious about recommending or agreeing to surgery.

If me believing that makes me ideologically compromised, then so be it.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, you have spent years, and thousands of hours writing thousands of posts, about a religion to which you do not belong.  Clearly you think your opinion about the Latter-day Saints is "relevant" there.  And yet when it comes to opining about pediatric sex trait modification, your "agnostic" and your opinion about minors with Gender Dysphoria is "irrelevant."

I've spent something on the order of about 10 or 20 hours studying transgender issues.

In contrast, I’ve spent many, many thousands of hours studying and living Mormonism by going to Mormon church, earnestly reading the Mormon scriptures from cover to cover over and over and over again, going to and graduating from seminary and institute, going through long temple ceremonies, sitting in bishop interviews, sitting in priesthood meetings, serving as an official representative of the church on a mission for two long years on two continents,  teaching gospel doctrine, etc., etc., etc.

It shouldn’t be surprising that I feel more confident offering my opinion on one of these topics and not the other.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wouldn't blame you if you are afraid of speaking publicly on this issue, even from behind a pseudonym.

It isn’t a manner of being afraid. It’s a matter acknowledging that I just don’t know.

Don’t get me wrong. If somebody reads a cartoonishly biased editorial and swallows it hook. line, and sinker, the cartoonish bias pops out at me and I’m not afraid to call them on it and provide a link to an unbiased reference that tells the whole story. But just because I’m confident doing that doesn’t mean I’m interested in debating with you about whether the sources you cherry pick prove what you think they do.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

For someone who is supposedly "agnostic" about this issue, you sure seem to be heavily invested in discussing it and advancing a particular ideological point of view about it.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Just so I know, what is my particular ideological point of view? 

Edited October 25, 2024 by Analytics

[smac97]

On 10/16/2024 at 6:58 PM, Analytics said:

It’s an overwhelming amount of research to read, of course. Which makes me want to turn to organizations of doctors who have a vested interest in the wellbeing of their patients. In general, I’d say these groups are committed to providing evidence-based care, their members are important stake holders in providing actual care, and they are qualified to offer these opinions.

For example:

...

American Counseling Association: Gender-affirming interventions are not new or novel and have a well-established use for both cisgender and transgender youth. Gender-affirming medical procedures and mental health care are essential and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, the United States Association for Transgender Health, and the World Professional Association of Transgender Health. SAIGE’s own Competencies for Counseling Transgender Clients, which have been endorsed by the American Counseling Association, call for counselors to embrace the full spectrum of gender identity and expression, affirm transgender mental and medical care, and serve as advocates for transgender individuals. Provision of affirming medical care is evidence-based best practice when working with transgender individuals.

Since @Analytics has touted World Professional Association of Transgender Health ("WPATH") as one of the organizations he deems to have "a vested interest in the wellbeing of their patients," let's talk about that.

See, e.g., this article:

Quote

Naturally, data about gender interventions in minors can only come from providers who already believe in those interventions — lack of evidence and significant risks notwithstanding — so when data come back with adverse results, those results are simply not published.
...
{W}e now know that when the World Professional Association of Transgender Health commissioned systematic reviews of the evidence before publishing its latest standards, Johns Hopkins “found little to no evidence about children and adolescents” — so WPATH simply did not publish most of the reviews. And the Times notes that a British attempt to replicate a small study suggesting limited improvements was unsuccessful — but that result was “not made public” for years.

See also this very recent (October 2024) amicus brief of Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Some excerpts:

Quote

Like Tennessee and half the other States,1 Alabama determined that sex-change procedures should not be made available to kids. That legislative determination should not be controversial. Until a few years ago, the notion of providing sex-change procedures to children was practically unthinkable.
...
How did we get here? Alabama has at least part of the answer. Through years of litigation defending its own age limits against challenges by private plaintiffs and the United States, Alabama has exposed a medical, legal, and political scandal that will be studied for decades to come. The federal government, “social justice lawyers” from prominent activist organizations, and self-appointed experts at the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) conspired to abolish age limits for sterilizing chemical treatments and surgeries. Central to their strategy was the WPATH Standards of Care 8 (SOC-8)2—a purportedly evidence-based set of recommendations that would be used by their lawyers to convince courts to enshrine in law the previously unimaginable.  

I realize that this brief is written in an adversarial context, but the evidence it cites is pretty solid.  A state attorney general submitting an amicus brief to SCOTUS is going to bring a lot of evidence to the table, and this above brief does that a lot.  Look at the links starting on page 3 of the PDF.

Back to the brief:

Quote

Their job wasn’t easy. When WPATH hired Johns Hopkins to review the evidence behind permanently altering children’s bodies to address gender confusion, the team “found little to no evidence about children and adolescents,” a fact shared with (and privately acknowledged by) the federal government.3 Perhaps for that reason, WPATH suppressed publication of most of those reviews. Some SOC-8 authors opted to conduct no systematic evidence reviews precisely because doing so would “reveal[] little or no evidence and put[] us in an untenable position in terms of affecting policy or winning lawsuits.”4 And after finalizing SOC-8, WPATH shared a copy with Admiral Rachel Levine, the Assistant Secretary for Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Levine demanded that WPATH remove from the guideline all age limits for chemical treatments, chest surgeries, and even surgeries to remove children’s genitals. After some initial consternation “about allowing US politics to dictate international professional clinical guidelines,”5 WPATH obliged. 

I think this is pretty clear evidence that WPATH is ideologically/sociopolitically compromised.  

Quote

The strategy for “winning lawsuits” was initially a success. Like Tennessee, Alabama had its law preliminarily enjoined.6 And like Tennessee, Alabama had its legislative determination overruled by the United States’ appeal to the imprimatur of WPATH. While acknowledging that “[k]nown risks” of transitioning treatments “include loss of fertility and sexual function,” the Alabama court dismissed the Legislature’s concerns with two words: “Nevertheless, WPATH.”7 “Nevertheless,” the court said, “WPATH recognizes transitioning medications as established medical treatments,” and interest groups like the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics “endorse” the WPATH “guidelines as evidence-based methods for treating gender dysphoria in minors.”8 Because Alabama did not defer to those guidelines, the court held, its law to the contrary had to be enjoined.9 

I find this very troubling.  WPATH "suppressed publication" about pediatric sex trait modification, some of the Standard-of-Care authors "opted to conduct no systematic evidence reviews precisely because doing so would 'reveal[] little or no evidence and put[] us in an untenable position in terms of affecting policy or winning lawsuits,'" a political appointee - Rachel Levine - then "demanded that WPATH remove from the guideline all age limits for {pediatric sex trait modifications}," and WPATH complied.

This sure sounds a lot like "ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care" and "compromised assessments of the best interests of the child."

Quote

As part of her independent review for England’s National Health Service, Dr. Hilary Cass commissioned a team of researchers to assess the various guidelines for treating gender dysphoria in minors. They found that all the guidelines that recommended sex-change procedures for minors flunked the “bedrock” criterion of developmental rigor.13 The researchers also found that those guidelines were really WPATH’s all the way down: WPATH authored the initial guideline, which other groups used as the basis for their recommendations, which WPATH then cited as “evidence” for the next edition of its guideline.14 “The circularity of this approach,” Dr. Cass concluded, “may explain why there has been an apparent consensus on key areas of practice despite the evidence being poor.”15 

Analytics has repeatedly referenced a long list of medical organizations endorse the proposition that "affirming medical care is evidence-based best practice when working with transgender individuals."  I wonder how many of these groups have adopted similar "circular" approaches, that is, just rubber-stamping and adopting what WPATH has said.

Quote

There is another “circularity” at work. While the United States points to WPATH’s “evidence-based guidelines” to support its disagreement with Tennessee’s law, U.S.Br.3, it fails to disclose its own role in the creation of those guidelines—and that its interference caused WPATH authors to complain of “making changes based on current US politics.”16

Huh.  

Quote

The United States is also mum about other influences on SOC-8. As it learned in discovery (if not before), some WPATH authors, acting on the advice of “social justice lawyers we spoke with,” intentionally chose not to seek a systematic review of the evidence before making treatment recommendations.21 The reason? Because “evidence-based review reveals little or no evidence and puts us in an untenable position in terms of affecting policy or winning lawsuits.”22 Other contributors drew on their experiences as expert witnesses in cases like this one to suggest removing “language such as ‘insufficient evidence,’ ‘limited data,’ etc.” that could “empower” groups “trying to claim that gender-affirming interventions are experimental.”23 The WPATH Board also had litigation in mind, commissioning one of the plaintiff’s lawyers in Alabama’s case to conduct a legal review of SOC-8.24 As a former president of WPATH explained, such review was “necessary” “because we will have to argue it in court at some point.”25 So they have. See Amicus Br. of AAP, WPATH et al. 8 (asking Court to defer to WPATH guideline). 

Boy, WPATH sure seems compromised.

Quote

Then there is the lack of evidence underlying the United States’ preferred guideline. The federal government promises that SOC-8 is “evidence-based.” U.S.Br.3. But well before the United States made that representation, officials at HHS received word from the SOC-8 evidence review team that it “found little to no evidence about children and adolescents”—and that WPATH was “trying to restrict [its] ability to publish” the findings.26 The United States wrote back to confirm: “Knowing that there is little/no evidence about children and adolescents is helpful.”27 Yet when seeking certiorari, the United States said the exact opposite, assuring this Court that giving gender dysphoric kids “puberty blockers and hormones” was supported by “overwhelming evidence.” U.S.Pet.7.  

Suppression of medical findings.

Finding a lack of evidence about PSTM "helpful."

The mind reels.

Quote

The WPATH scandal confirms the wisdom of leaving policy disagreements to political branches. When courts transfer political power from legislatures to self-appointed experts, they don’t end political disputes; they just move them from democratically accountable bodies to opaque institutions. And by conferring such power on these “expert” groups, courts incentivize turning those institutions into sites and then “weapons of political warfare” for those seeking “victories” in court “that elude[] them in the political arena.”28 Power is still exercised, but it’s less clear who is pulling the levers, how, or why. That lack of accountability here led to serious abuses, helping create what Dr. Cass described as the only “area of paediatric care where we give young people a potentially irreversible treatment and have no idea what happens to them in adulthood.”29  

Irreversibility.

Informed consent lacking.

Longitudinal data lacking.

And so on.  

WPATH, perhaps the lynchpin to Analytlics' "consensus" argument, looks to be pretty obviously compromised and corrupt.

Quote

WPATH published Standards of Care 8 in September 2022. Dr. Eli Coleman, a sexologist at the University of Minnesota, chaired the guideline committee, and WPATH hired an outside evidence-review team, led by Dr. Karen Robinson at Johns Hopkins University, to conduct systematic evidence reviews for authors to use in formulating their recommendations.31 Two WPATH presidents, Dr. Walter Bouman, a clinician at the Nottingham Centre for Transgender Health in England, and Dr. Marci Bowers, a surgeon in California who has performed over 2,000 transitioning vaginoplasties, oversaw development and publication of the guideline.  

WPATH selected 119 authors—all existing WPATH members—to contribute to SOC-8.32 According to Dr. Bowers, it was “important” for each author “to be an advocate for [transitioning] treatments before the guidelines were created.”

Wow.

Quote

Many authors regularly served as expert witnesses to advocate for sex-change procedures in court; Dr. Coleman testified that he thought it was “ethically justifiable” for those authors to “advocate for language changes [in SOC-8] to strengthen [their] position in court.”34 Other contributors seemed to concur. One wrote: “My hope with these SoC is that they land in such a way as to have serious effect in the law and policy settings that have affected us so much recently; even if the wording isn’t quite correct for people who have the background you and I have.”35 Another chimed in: “It is abundantly clear to me when I go to court on behalf of TGD [transgender and gender-diverse] individuals” that “[t]he wording of our section for Version 7 has been critical to our successes, and I hope the same will hold for Version 8.”36 

Perhaps for this reason—and because it knew that “we will have to argue it in court at some point”37— WPATH commissioned a legal review of SOC-8 and was in regular contact with movement attorneys.38 Dr. Bouman noted the oddity: “The SOC8 are clinical guidelines, based on clinical consensus and the latest evidence based medicine; [I] don’t recall the Endocrine Guidelines going through legal reviews before publication, or indeed the current SOC?”39 When informed by Dr. Coleman that “[w]e had agreed long ago that we would send [the SOC-8 draft] … for legal review,” Dr. Bouman replied that he would “check what Rachel Levine’s point of view is on these issues” when he met with the Assistant Secretary for Health the following week.40 The WPATH Executive Committee discussed various options for the review—“ideas; ACLU, TLDEF, Lambda Legal…”41—before apparently settling on the senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD (now counsel for the plaintiffs in Alabama’s case) to conduct the review.42  

Authors were also explicit in their desire to tailor SOC-8 to ensure coverage for an “individual’s embodiment goals,”43 whatever they might be. As Dr. Dan Karasic, one of the plaintiffs’ experts in Alabama’s case, explained to other SOC-8 authors: “Medical necessity is at the center of dozens of lawsuits in the US right now,”44 “one or more of which could go to the Supreme Court[] on whether trans care is medically necessary vs. experimental or cosmetic. I cannot overstate the importance of SOC 8 getting this right at this important time.”45 Another author was more succinct: “[W]e need[] a tool for our attorneys to use in defending access to care.”46  

WPATH thus included a whole section in SOC-8 on “medical necessity” and took to heart Dr. Karasic’s advice to list the “treatments in an expansive way.”47 It assigned the designation to a whole host of interventions, including but “not limited to hysterectomy,” with or without “bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy”; “bilateral mastectomy, chest reconstruction or feminizing mammoplasty”; “phalloplasty and metoidioplasty, scrotoplasty, and penile and testicular prostheses, penectomy, orchiectomy, vaginoplasty, and vulvoplasty”; “gender-affirming facial surgery and body contouring”; and “puberty blocking medication and gender-affirming hormones.”48  

One author aptly concluded of the statement: “I think it is clear as a bell that the SOC8 refers to the necessity of treatment (in its broadest sense) for their gender dysphoria (small ‘d’); because it refers to the symptom of distress—which is a very very very broad category and one that any ‘goodwilling’ clinician can use for this purpose (or: in the unescapable medical lingo we, as physicians are stuck with: those who fulfil a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria and Gender Incongruence as per APA/WHO).”49

WPATH also made sure to sprinkle the “medically necessary” moniker throughout the guideline, even when doing so revealed it had put the cart before the horse. The adolescent chapter, for instance, notes that “[a] key challenge in adolescent transgender care is the quality of evidence evaluating the effectiveness of medically necessary gender-affirming medical and surgical treatments,”50 but WPATH never pauses to ask (or answer) how such treatments can be considered “medically necessary” if the “quality of evidence” supporting their use is so deficient. At least some authors tacitly acknowledged the question and made sure they wouldn’t have to answer it—by following the advice of “social justice lawyers” to avoid conducting systematic evidence reviews lest they “reveal[] little or no evidence and put[] us in an untenable position in terms of affecting policy or winning lawsuits.”51 Others just sought to massage the guideline’s language to avoid “empower[ing]” those concerned that the evidence did not support transitioning treatments,52 all while authors and WPATH leaders raised such concerns internally.53  

The authors of WPATH's guidelines seem to be ideologically compromised.

I am curious if Analytics is still comfortable with deferring to WPATH anyway.

Quote

Outside political actors also influenced SOC-8. Most notably, Admiral Rachel Levine, the Assistant Secretary for Health at HHS, met regularly with WPATH leaders, “eager to learn when SOC 8 might be published.”54 According to one WPATH member who met with Levine, “[t]he failure of WPATH to be ready with SOC 8 [was] proving to be a barrier to optimal policy progress” for the Biden Administration.55 Another member reported: “I am meeting with Rachel Levine and her team,” “as the US Department of Health is very keen to bring the trans health agenda forward.”56 

A few months before SOC-8 was to be published in September 2022 (and long after the public comment period had closed that January57), WPATH sent Admiral Levine an “Embargoed Copy – For Your Eyes Only” draft of SOC-8 that had been “completed” and sent to the publisher for proofreading and typesetting.58 The draft included a departure from Standards of Care 7, which, except for so-called “top surgeries,” restricted transitioning surgeries to patients who had reached the “[a]ge of majority in a given country.”59 (That guidance was not generally followed by American surgeons affiliated with WPATH—including Dr. Bowers—but that was the guidance.60) The draft SOC-8 relaxed the age minimums: 14 for cross-sex hormones, 15 for “chest masculinization” (i.e., mastectomy), 16 for “breast augmentation, facial surgery (including rhinoplasty, tracheal shave, and genioplasty),” 17 for “metoidioplasty, orchiectomy, vaginoplasty, hysterectomy and fronto-orbital remodeling,” and 18 for “phalloplasty.”61 Each recommendation was paired with a qualifier that could allow for surgery at an even earlier age: “unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach when considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment time frame.”62 

After reviewing the draft, Admiral Levine’s office contacted WPATH at the beginning of July with a political concern: that the listing of “specific minimum ages for treatment,” “under 18, will result in devastating legislation for trans care.”63 Admiral Levine’s chief of staff suggested that WPATH hide the recommendations by removing the age limits from SOC-8 and creating an “adjunct document” that could be “published or distributed in a way that is less visible.”64 WPATH leaders met with Levine and HHS officials to discuss the age recommendations.65 According to a WPATH participant, Levine “was very concerned that having ages (mainly for surgery) will affect access to health care for trans youth … and she and the Biden administration worried that having ages in the document will make matters worse.”66 Levine’s solution was simple: “She asked us to remove them.”67 

The authors of the adolescent chapter wrestled with how to respond to the request:  

• “I really think the main argument for ages is access/insurance. So the irony is that the fear is that ages will spark political attacks on access. I don’t know how I feel about allowing US politics to dictate international professional clinical guidelines that went through Delphi.”68
• “I need someone to explain to me how taking out the ages will help in the fight against the conservative anti trans agenda.”69
• “I’m also curious how the group feels about us making changes based on current US politics.… I agree about listening to Levine.”70
• “I think it’s safe to say that we all agree and feel frustrated (at minimum) that these political issues are even a thing and are impacting our own discussions and strategies.”71 

Again, Analytics is telling us to defer to the guidelines from WPATH.  Perhaps, given what we are uncovering, we ought to be discussing the wisdom of that idea.

Quote

WPATH initially told Levine that it “could not remove [the age minimums] from the document” because the recommendations had already been approved by SOC-8’s “Delphi” consensus process.72 (Indeed, Dr. Coleman said that consensus was “[t]he only evidence we had” for the recommendations.73) But, WPATH continued, “we heard your comments regarding the minimal age criteria” and, “[c]onsequently, we have made changes to the SOC8” by downgrading the age “recommendation” to a “suggestion.”74 Unsatisfied, Levine immediately requested—and received— more meetings with WPATH.75 

Following Levine’s intervention, and days before SOC-8 was to be published, pressure from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) tipped the scales when it threatened to oppose SOC-8 if WPATH did not remove the age minimums.76 WPATH leaders initially balked. One of the co-chairs of SOC-8 complained that “[t]he AAP guidelines … have a very weak methodology, written by few friends who think the same,”77 while Dr.  Bouman “struggle[d] to find any sound evidence-based argument(s)” in AAP’s comments and was “surprised that a ‘reputable’ association as the AAP is so thin on scientific evidence.”78 But then the political reality set in: AAP was “a MAJOR organization,” and “it would be a major challenge for WPATH” if AAP opposed SOC-8.79 WPATH thus caved and “agreed to remove the ages.”80  

Thanks to the Biden Administration and AAP, SOC-8 does not contain age minimums for any transitioning hormonal or surgical intervention except for one: phalloplasty, the surgical creation of a neopenis. “Given the complexity of” that procedure, SOC-8 states, “it is not recommended this surgery be considered in youth under 18 at this time.”81 WPATH considers all other surgeries and interventions “medically necessary gender-affirming medical treatment[s] in adolescents.”82

That is concerning enough. But perhaps even more worrisome is what the episode revealed. First, it showed that both the United States and AAP sought, and WPATH agreed, to make changes in a clinical guideline recommending irreversible sex-change procedures for kids based purely on political considerations. Dr. Coleman was clear in his deposition that WPATH removed the age minimums “without being presented any new science of which the committee was previously unaware.”83 In fact, despite assuring that “formal consensus for all statements was obtained using the Delphi process (a structured solicitation of expert judgments [of its contributing authors] in three rounds),”84 WPATH did not send the last-minute change through Delphi.85 Instead, it treated its decision as “highly, highly confidential.”86 

Second, as soon as WPATH made the change, it began covering it up. Rather than explaining what actually happened, WPATH leaders promptly sought for “all [to] get on the same exact page, and PRONTO.”87 Dr. Bowers encouraged contributors to submit to “centralized authority” so there would not be “differences that can be exposed.”88 “[O]nce we get out in front of our message,” Bowers urged, “we all need to support and reverberate that message so that the misinformation drone is drowned out.”89 

Having decided the strategy, Bowers then crafted the message, circulating internally the “gist of my[] response to Reuters” about the missing age minimums: “[S]ince the open comment period, a great deal of input has been received and continued to be received until the final release. [I] feel the final document puts the emphasis back on individualized patient care rather than some sort of minimal final hurdle that could encourage superficial evaluations and treatments.”90 Another leader responded: “I like this. Exactly—individualized care is the best care—that’s a positive message and a strong rationale for the age change.”91 Apparently, it didn’t matter that the explanation itself could be considered “misinformation”; as Dr. Bowers explained in a similar exchange, “it is a balancing act between what i feel to be true and what we need to say.”92

Third, when evidence of Levine’s tinkering became public,93 the federal government immediately flipped positions and “opposed gender-affirming surgery for Third, when evidence of Levine’s tinkering became public,93 the federal government immediately flipped positions and “opposed gender-affirming surgery for minors.”94 But it has yet to explain either (1) its past support for such surgeries (even to the point of pressuring WPATH (and suing Alabama) to make them available for kids of any age),95 or (2) its current disagreement with the very guideline it tells this Court is evidence-based and “reflect[s] the accepted standard of care for treating gender dysphoria.” U.S.Br.3.  

Given that WPATH’s hormonal and surgical recommendations for adolescents are in the same chapter and based on much of the same evidence, this is a serious problem for the United States. Either WPATH is reliable when it says that surgeries are “medically necessary” for gender dysphoric adolescents, or it is not. If the United States agrees with the WPATH position, it should say so—and then explain whether it thinks a public hospital’s decision to limit “penile-inversion vaginoplasty” surgeries to males would be a sex-based classification warranting heightened scrutiny. And if it disagrees with WPATH’s recommendation, it should explain why it has nonetheless suggested the guideline to the Court as the constitutional standard—and why it believes the federal government can take and leave parts of that standard but Tennessee cannot. Either way, the United States owes the Court an explanation. 

• "{P}ressure from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) tipped the scales when it threatened to oppose SOC-8 if WPATH did not remove the age minimums."
• "{Dr. Wouman was} 'surprised that a ‘reputable’ association as the AAP is so thin on scientific evidence."
• "'AAP was “a MAJOR organization,' and 'it would be a major challenge for WPATH' if AAP opposed SOC-8.79 WPATH thus caved and 'agreed to remove the ages.'"
• "WPATH removed the age minimums 'without being presented any new science of which the committee was previously unaware.'"
• "{A}s Dr. Bowers explained in a similar exchange, 'it is a balancing act between what i feel to be true and what we need to say.'"

@Analytics, is any of this giving you any pause or grounds for reconsidering your deference to WPATH, AAP, etc.?

Like abortion, same-sex marriage, and a few other hot-button topics, pediatric sex trait modification treatments have, for me, a pretty important moral/ethical dimension.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2024 by smac97

[JVW]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

I find it relatively easy to avoid politics outside of headlines on google and news sites. Pretty much any other topic or point of view can be avoided beyond a very shallow exposure.

Some topics I feel it’s important to know a wide range of perspectives, most I limit myself to stuff I trust already because of time.  I just don’t open the article and read it. 

Even if you get fooled by a headline, within a few sentences you can tell bias in most news articles I find and you just stop reading and move on to another article. No one is forcing people to read stuff they don’t want to read except themselves.

I am not saying smac isolates himself, I am saying it is possible. 
 

And even with exposure…that doesn’t mean someone has taken the time to digest the other’s POV enough to understand it and examine it in depth.  Some will refuse to conceive of certain premises as reasonable and so fail to understand the logic of a perspective for example. 

You speak like someone who likes to think critically. Do you think most people have a similar mind as you?

It is possible for anyone to isolate themselves into a 'wind tunnel' using an algorithm on the platform of their choice and eventually diminish in their ability to think critically. But before the wind tunnel exists they need to express their interests by interacting with things on the platform. The default narrative that's pushed before the algorithm can really kick in is the mainstream narrative, and even after it's kicked in there are still suggestions for default narrative things that pop up from time to time.

Let's take it off of social media platforms and just consider a person who wants to learn about a topic, let's say they want to learn about 9/11. Using any search engine, if they search for 9/11 history articles, the top results in the first few pages will not be sites like ae911truth dot org. They will all be anti-terrorist, 'planes and fires collapsed the buildings' articles. Even after doing a thorough research on the topic they may never even hear of WTC building 7, because it's not part of the mainstream narrative. There is, by default, a lack of critical thought, because no contrarian articles are found without intentionally questioning the mainstream narrative or specifically searching for them. I know of many sites that have straight up been delisted by Google and other major search engines simply because they espouse contrarian views to the mainstream. Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

To take a position against the mainstream narrative is to swim upstream, against the current, which means you are keenly aware of the current and are intentionally moving against it. I might be suggesting that it's impossible to hold an alternative viewpoint to the mainstream without being aware of it, but I haven't actually thought about this topic that much so I don't know if I believe that or not.

Now I am not suggesting here that the contrarian is correct in their views, or that they are always excellent critical thinkers. Critical thinking is a rare thing to observe regardless of one's position on any given topic, and generally people do not have the bandwidth to research any given topic enough in order to hold a proper position on it. But I am suggesting that a critical thinker is more likely to have a non-mainstream view, or have seriously engaged with non-mainstream views, as the truth often falls outside of the mainstream, somewhere in the middle road between the two extremes. The mainstream directly encourages those who engage with it to not research alternative views, and mocks and belittles those who do. (This is true regardless of politics, I don't view there as being two mainstreams in America, just one.)

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Since @Analytics has touted World Professional Association of Transgender Health ("WPATH") as one of the organizations he deems to have "a vested interest in the wellbeing of their patients," let's talk about that.

See, e.g., this article:

See also this very recent (October 2024) amicus brief of Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Some excerpts:

I realize that this brief is written in an adversarial context, but the evidence it cites is pretty solid.  A state attorney general submitting an amicus brief to SCOTUS is going to bring a lot of evidence to the table, and this above brief does that a lot.  Look at the links starting on page 3 of the PDF.

Back to the brief:

I think this is pretty clear evidence that WPATH is ideologically/sociopolitically compromised.  

I find this very troubling.  WPATH "suppressed publication" about pediatric sex trait modification, some of the Standard-of-Care authors "opted to conduct no systematic evidence reviews precisely because doing so would 'reveal[] little or no evidence and put[] us in an untenable position in terms of affecting policy or winning lawsuits,'" a political appointee - Rachel Levine - then "demanded that WPATH remove from the guideline all age limits for {pediatric sex trait modifications}," and WPATH complied.

This sure sounds a lot like "ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care" and "compromised assessments of the best interests of the child."

Analytics has repeatedly referenced a long list of medical organizations endorse the proposition that "affirming medical care is evidence-based best practice when working with transgender individuals."  I wonder how many of these groups have adopted similar "circular" approaches, that is, just rubber-stamping and adopting what WPATH has said.

Huh.  

Boy, WPATH sure seems compromised.

Suppression of medical findings.

Finding a lack of evidence about PSTM "helpful."

The mind reels.

Irreversibility.

Informed consent lacking.

Longitudinal data lacking.

And so on.  

WPATH, perhaps the lynchpin to Analytlics' "consensus" argument, looks to be pretty obviously compromised and corrupt.

Wow.

The authors of WPATH's guidelines seem to be ideologically compromised.

I am curious if Analytics is still comfortable with deferring to WPATH anyway.

Again, Analytics is telling us to defer to the guidelines from WPATH.  Perhaps, given what we are uncovering, we ought to be discussing the wisdom of that idea.

• "{P}ressure from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) tipped the scales when it threatened to oppose SOC-8 if WPATH did not remove the age minimums."
• "{Dr. Wouman was} 'surprised that a ‘reputable’ association as the AAP is so thin on scientific evidence."
• "'AAP was “a MAJOR organization,' and 'it would be a major challenge for WPATH' if AAP opposed SOC-8.79 WPATH thus caved and 'agreed to remove the ages.'"
• "WPATH removed the age minimums 'without being presented any new science of which the committee was previously unaware.'"
• "{A}s Dr. Bowers explained in a similar exchange, 'it is a balancing act between what i feel to be true and what we need to say.'"

@Analytics, is any of this giving you any pause or grounds for reconsidering your deference to WPATH, AAP, etc.?

Like abortion, same-sex marriage, and a few other hot-button topics, pediatric sex trait modification treatments have, for me, a pretty important moral/ethical dimension.  

Thanks,

-Smac

tl;dr

[Calm]

6 hours ago, JVW said:

Do you think most people have a similar mind as you?

In some ways no doubt my mind uses common processes, other ways I am unusual (according to tests and others’ observations, for example the way I did math intuitively in my youth)

I can’t see in others’ minds though so I have no clue how different my brain is. Perhaps the only significant difference is my level of transparency, which I have been told is rather high. 

Or one can just look at it as over sharing, lol. 

Edited October 26, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

On 10/25/2024 at 12:34 PM, JVW said:

But before the wind tunnel exists they need to express their interests by interacting with things on the platform. The default narrative that's pushed before the algorithm can really kick in is the mainstream narrative, and even after it's kicked in there are still suggestions for default narrative things that pop up from time to time.

I agree that one’s first exposure in a search with relatively general terms will first yield mainstream ideas. But often mainstream news and opinions will have criticisms or buzz words of its own and if one is curious or even put off by the mainstream position for whatever reason, one can easily search on those terms and quickly find the alternative view…

In fact, I would guess all one has to do is search on “criticism of such and such mainstream view” and the alternative stuff pops up.

If the alternative views weren’t easy to find, my guess is they wouldn’t be so massive themselves.   So I don’t think one is forced to get more than a superficial exposure to mainstream thought if you aren’t naturally inclined to it. 
 

However, to suggest that the mainstream news, etc is people’s automatic first stop ignores the other influences on them in their life, such as parents and friends. People don’t start out as a tabula rasa when they are looking for something on the internet.  

As a person who did a lot of volunteer work, I saw a lot of kids accepting uncritically the views of parents and friends when they were not mainstream. Quite a few of those I knew for several years never questioned the narrative they were imprinted with in their early years.  Some of the kids whose parents were contrary to the mainstream were quite proud of being ‘freethinkers’ even though the reality was they were just conforming to a minority position and let little impact that confidence.

My guess is the influence of one’s near and dear has as great an impact on one’s position as any exposure to mainstream propaganda.

Edited October 26, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

On 6/18/2024 at 11:24 AM, smac97 said:

Having referenced (and linked to) then-Bro. Corbitt's talk against activism, and also to then-Elder Oaks' talk about addressing disagreements in the Church, and in the spirit of "start{ing} a conversation" about activism in the Church, I submit the following article: The March of Dimes Syndrome

The above article was written by John Tierney.  Mr. Tierney recently spoke to John Stossel about this concept:

A transcript:

Quote

{VIDEO}: 0:00 Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Fossil fuels have got to go! 0:05

STOSSEL: Activists say our future is dismal. 0:07

{VIDEO}: We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. 0:11

{VIDEO}: I’m here because I don’t have a future. 0:13

STOSSEL: If it’s not climate change, its homophobia. 0:16

{VIDEO}: It's very stressful, like, people don't know whether 0:18 we're going to have rights next year or not. 0:19

STOSSEL: The activists say they fight to save people from 0:23 homophobia, racism, hate groups and climate change. 0:27

{VIDEO}: Time's up! We've got to rise up! 0:29 We've got to end fossil fuels! 0:31

STOSSEL: Listening to them, you’d think 0:33 these threats are getting worse. 0:35 But the opposite is true. 0:37 Our air and water are cleaner. 0:39 We live longer, healthier lives. 0:42 There's less racism than there used to be. 0:45 Less homophobia too. 0:47 But if the protesters acknowledged that, 0:49 what would they do with their lives? 0:51 Journalist John Tierney covered activists for years. 0:54

This is the introduction to Tierney:

Quote

TIERNEY: In 1979, I was a reporter at the Washington Star 0:57 and I was assigned to cover the first anti-nuclear march. 1:00

STOSSEL: Thousands protested nuclear power. 1:03

{VIDEO}: An end to the nuclear age in its entirety. 1:07

TIERNEY: And I interviewed the organizers 1:08 and I was just struck that all of them 1:11 were veterans of the anti-war movement. 1:13 How did they all suddenly become so passionate 1:16 and so knowledgeable about nuclear power? 1:19 And then it was later I realized, 1:21 well, of course the Vietnam War was over. 1:23 They'd succeeded, so they needed to find a new cause. 1:26 For activists, success is a threat. 1:29 You know, it is going to put you out of business 1:31 unless you find a new cause. 1:33

From anti-war to anti-nuclear power.  This is the "March of Dimes Syndrome" in action.  Money and notoriety/influence/power are its primary ingredients.

Quote

STOSSEL: But it’s not a business. 1:35 They're not making money doing this. 1:37

TIERNEY: Oh, yes, they are. 1:38

STOSSEL: Environmental activists probably collect the most. 1:40 Their leaders pay themselves hundreds of thousands, 1:44 sometimes millions of dollars. 1:46 Racial equity groups have gotten rich too. 1:49 Although when it comes to deceitful self-dealing, 1:52 Tierney says: 1:53

TIERNEY: The ultimate example is the 1:54 Southern Poverty Law Center. 1:56

{VIDEO}: The Southern Poverty Law Center 1:57 released a chilling report. 1:59

STOSSEL: When the center opened, it promised legal help 2:01 to those harmed by racism. 2:03 After their lawsuits bankrupted chapters 2:05 of the Ku Klux Klan, the center changed 2:08 “klanwatch” to “hatewatch.” 2:10

TIERNEY: Fabricating these, you know, the idea that there's a 2:13 rising tide of hate in this country. 2:15 And they just fundraise with that 2:17 and it scares people and they get money. 2:19

STOSSEL: They think they're making the world a better place. 2:22

TIERNEY: But they're not. They're viciously attacking and smearing. 2:25

STOSSEL: Groups like “Moms for Liberty,” “Moms for America.” 2:29

VIDEO OF MORRIS DEES: We put about ten of these major 2:31 hate groups out of business. 2:32

TIERNEY: They're just scaremongering and giving people 2:34 the idea that there's all this hatred and racism 2:37 in the country when all the evidence 2:39 shows just the reverse. 2:40

STOSSEL: The head of the group once said he'd stop fundraising 2:43 if they ever got to $55 million. 2:45

TIERNEY: Well, now they have over $600 million in the bank, 2:49 and they haven't stopped fundraising. 2:50

Huge amounts of money is to be made in "activism."

Quote

STOSSEL: Tierney wrote a book detailing why 2:53 people fall for such bad news. 2:55 In “The Power of Bad,” you explain that 2:57 we're programmed to see bad because 3:00 if our ancestors didn't see the saber-tooth tiger, 3:03 they were dead and they didn't give birth to us. 3:06

TIERNEY: Exactly, the ones who paid attention to threats 3:08 were the ones who survived. 3:09

STOSSEL: Our brains are hardwired to react strongly to fear 3:13 and activists take advantage of that. 3:16

TIERNEY: There's this industry, the merchants of bad, 3:18 who get more money by creating crises 3:21 or pretending the crises exist. 3:23 They're journalists, they're activists, they're lawyers, 3:26 they're academics, and they're bureaucrats. 3:28 Because, you know, the bigger the problem sounds, 3:31 the bigger your budget. 3:32

STOSSEL: And the more attention you get. 3:33

TIERNEY: You get more attention, you get more money. 3:35 I mean, nobody gives you money to 3:37 study something that isn't a problem. 3:39 But if it's a crisis, then we all have to pay attention. 3:42 And you get, not only money, but you get power. 3:44

STOSSEL: That appeals to politicians. 3:46

{VIDEO}: Climate change is literally an existential threat 3:49 to our nation and to the world. 3:51

TIERNEY: Now, climate change is kind of the perfect crisis 3:54 because you can attribute anything to it 3:57 and it's always in the future. 3:59

{VIDEO}: What do we want? Less coal! 4:01 When do we want it? Now! 4:03

TIERNEY: And it's bizarre that environmentalists 4:04 call this an "existential threat." 4:07

{VIDEO}: An existential threat to us as human beings. 4:10

STOSSEL: I don't even think most Americans know what 4:12 the word “existential” means. 4:14 4:15 And yet they're all using it. 4:17

{VIDEO}: The greatest existential threat. 4:19

{VIDEO}: This is the existential threat. 4:21

{VIDEO}: The existential threat of climate change. 4:24

TIERNEY: Yeah, it’s a great phrase. 4:26 You know, during the 20th century, 4:28 environmentalists warned us that overpopulation, 4:30 we were all going to starve to death. 4:32

{VIDEO}: In the next 15 years, the end will come. 4:34 And by the end, I mean an utter breakdown of 4:36 the capacity of the planet to support humanity. 4:38

STOSSEL: The opposite happened. 4:40 Now there are more than twice as many people, 4:42 and fewer starve. 4:44 Now, it’s climate activists predicting human extinction. 4:48

{VIDEO}: What I'm saying is, the planet's on ******* fire. 4:51

TIERNEY: The idea that with our advanced technology today, 4:54 we can't survive a slight rise in temperatures, 4:58 it is just absurd. 5:00

STOSSEL: But wait, news channels like NBC now say 5:03 storms are getting stronger and more dangerous 5:06 because of: 5:07

{VIDEO}: Human-driven climate change. 5:09

{VIDEO}: These events that are boosted by climate change. 5:12 Stronger, wetter, lasting longer. 5:16

STOSSEL: But that’s just not true. 5:17

TIERNEY: There's been no long-term growth in the intensity 5:21 or the number of hurricanes, but every time one comes, 5:23 it's a great photo op for the crisis industry to say, 5:27 “Oh, this is climate change.” 5:29

Activism, money, and power/influence.

Quote

STOSSEL: The crisis industry also claims, in America, 5:32 its unsafe to be gay. 5:34

{VIDEO}: You do realize that outside countries 5:36 view America as oppressive, right? 5:37 Like, we literally have travel warnings to go to 5:40 your country because of how many people 5:41 are killed but also, for queer people, 5:43 it's not a safe country. 5:44

TIERNEY: There's no place on earth where gays are 5:46 more welcome than in the United States. 5:48

STOSSEL: Cities compete to have the best gay pride parade. 5:51

{VIDEO}: Nobody in the world celebrates pride like our city. 5:56

STOSSEL: Yet the Human Rights Campaign declared: 5:59

{VIDEO}: A national emergency for members 6:00 of the LGBTQ+ community. 6:03

STOSSEL: Aren't they talking about a real problem? 6:05

TIERNEY: No. Last year, public support for gay rights 6:09 reached an all-time high. 6:10

STOSSEL: Strangely, that was reported by the very same group 6:13 that declared the national emergency. 6:16

TIERNEY: Gays can marry in every state, 6:18 there's no stigma against homosexuality. 6:20 I mean, gay characters used to be taboo on television. 6:24 Now, they're practically obligatory. 6:26

{VIDEO}: You and daddy are gay, so I’m gay. 6:29 Oooooh 6:30

TIERNEY: An anti-gay slur is this career suicide today. 6:34 But these activists need to declare 6:36 some kind of emergency. 6:37

STOSSEL: After Florida passed laws restricting things like 6:40 discussion of sexual identity in 6:43 government-funded schools, activists issued: 6:45

{VIDEO}: A travel advisory for Florida in particular. 6:49

TIERNEY: It wasn't safe for gays to go to Florida. 6:51 I mean, it's absurd telling gays, 6:53 you're not safe in Miami. 6:54 I mean, it's just crazy. 6:56

STOSSEL: Trans activists even claim genocide. 7:00

{VIDEO}: I am going to spend the next minute screaming. 7:04 That is what the trans genocide in this country, 7:07 in this city, has brought me to. 7:11 [screaming] 7:13

TIERNEY: I have no idea what she's even talking about. 7:15

{VIDEO}: Imagine that! 7:17 [screaming] 7:19

TIERNEY: There has never been more public acceptance 7:22 than now, of trans people. 7:24 The idea that it's not safe for them or that 7:26 there's a genocide is just ridiculous. 7:30

STOSSEL: But she really believes it. They're really upset. 7:34

TIERNEY: They're professional activists who need a cause 7:36 and then they're emotionally disturbed people who 7:38 you know, who glom onto something to 7:41 work out their personal problems. 7:42

"{P}rofessional activists."  Yep.

And "emotionally disturbed people who ... glom onto something to work out their personal problems."  Also yep.

Quote

STOSSEL: And then there’s today’s spin on racism. 7:45

{VIDEO}: We know that America, systemically, 7:47 structurally, is a racist country. 7:49

{VIDEO}: Of course, America is a racist country. 7:51

TIERNEY: How did this fundamentally racist country 7:54 elect Barack Obama and reelect him? 7:56 And public surveys about racism have 7:59 just shown this consistent decline. 8:01 I mean, there's even been a decline, for instance, 8:03 in the search for racist jokes on the internet. 8:05 People are more committed than ever 8:07 to treating everyone the same. 8:09

STOSSEL: There was the George Floyd killing. 8:11

TIERNEY: But that was a very rare event. 8:13 Studies do not show there's any 8:15 racial bias in police shootings. 8:18 And taking one death and turning that into a 8:20 national reckoning with race, 8:22 that was incredibly lucrative for activists. 8:25

STOSSEL: It sure was. They collected billions. 8:28 BLM itself collected $90 million. 8:31 Where did it go? 8:33 They bought mansions. 8:35

TIERNEY: Right. It was a great business opportunity for them. 8:37

STOSSEL: BLM leaders spent millions on themselves. 8:40 $12 million on luxury properties. 8:43

{VIDEO}: These racist cops have got to go! 8:45

STOSSEL: Also, their protests got police to pull back. 8:48

TIERNEY: And the fact that, that it actually led to 8:52 thousands of additional black deaths, 8:54 that hasn't stopped them. 8:55

STOSSEL: What do you mean led to black deaths? 8:58

TIERNEY: The war on the police that was started has caused 9:00 police to stop doing things they used to do. 9:02 It’s called the Ferguson Effect. 9:04

{VIDEO}: Anger exploding in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri. 9:07

TIERNEY: And as a result of that, there's been a huge spike 9:09 in homicides and in violence. 9:11 And the chief victims of that have been black. 9:14

{VIDEO}: The post George Floyd riots resulted in an 9:16 excess of over 15,000 black male deaths. 9:18

STOSSEL: Better not point that out on CNN. 9:20

{VIDEO}: You’re literally making a connection 9:22 out of your own conjecture. 9:24

{VIDEO}: No. It’s a real thing. 9:24

{VIDEO}: You cannot do that. 9:25

{VIDEO}: Look up the Ferguson Effect, look up the Floyd effect. 9:27 It is a real term. 9:28

{VIDEO}: You cannot— 9:28

{VIDEO}: It is a real term. I didn't make this up. 9:31

{VIDEO}: You cannot just invent a connection between two things. 9:33

TIERNEY: The activists and most of the public 9:35 have no idea that this is what has happened. 9:38

STOSSEL: Activists are often oblivious to 9:40 the problems their activism creates. 9:43 A final example, the deceitful attack on vaping. 9:46

"Activists are often oblivious to the problems their activism creates."

Yep.

Quote

{VIDEO}: Chris, no amount of nicotine is safe. 9:49

{VIDEO}: Stop flavored e-cigarettes. 9:51 Get the facts at Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. 9:54

TIERNEY: One of the great public health advances 9:56 this century has been vaping. 9:58 Once vaping devices were introduced, 10:00 smoking rates plummeted to historic lows. 10:04

STOSSEL: Lots of lives are saved because vaping is 10:07 much less harmful than smoking. 10:09

TIERNEY: But this was a huge threat to the anti-smoking activists. 10:12 Because if people were quitting on their own, 10:15 what happens to us? 10:16 So, they started scaring people about vaping. 10:19

{VIDEO}: It can release dangerous chemicals like 10:21 formaldehyde into your bloodstream. 10:23 And they have succeeded in persuading most people, 10:27 according to polls, that vaping is 10:28 as dangerous as smoking. 10:30 That is a horrible thing to do to the public, 10:32 but it's been very good for the 10:34 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. 10:36 It's great for their careers. 10:37 It's terrible for public health. 10:39

STOSSEL: We invited the Campaign to appear here 10:41 to argue their side. They didn’t respond. 10:45 I repeatedly ask activists to appear here, 10:48 tell your side of the story. 10:50 They almost never do. 10:52

STOSSEL: Are there any examples of activist groups 10:55 where they said, “Okay, great, we've solved it now,” 10:58 and they dissolve? 11:00

TIERNEY: I can't think of any.

Professional activism is pretty terrible for society.  

Activism in the Church is also pretty terrible, for fairly similar reasons.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 31, 2024 by smac97

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

The above article was written by John Tierney.  Mr. Tierney recently spoke to John Stossel about this concept:

A transcript:

This is the introduction to Tierney:

From anti-war to anti-nuclear power.  This is the "March of Dimes Syndrome" in action.  Activism and money are its primary ingredients.

Huge amounts of money is to be made in "activism."

Activism, money, and power/influence.

"{P}rofessional activists."  Yep.

And "emotionally disturbed people who ... glom onto something to work out their personal problems."  Also yep.

"Activists are often oblivious to the problems their activism creates."

Yep.

Professional activism is pretty terrible for society.  

Activism in the Church is also pretty terrible, for fairly similar reasons.

Thanks,

-Smac

If anti-vaping stuff has been incredibly good for the tobacco-free-kids fight, why would the tobacco companies be pushing it?  No one seems to be quitting vaping and going back to cigarettes, so I'm confused by their angst over anti-vaping stuff and it makes me doubt their arguments over other "activism" stuff as well.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If anti-vaping stuff has been incredibly good for the tobacco-free-kids fight, why would the tobacco companies be pushing it? 

My understanding is that the nicotine in vaping products is extracted from tobacco.  So tobacco companies still stand to make money.

In the end, I suspect their motivations are about money.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

As the harms from conventional products have become better understood, and tobacco control measures have been put in place, the cigarette market – from which tobacco companies make most of their profits – has started to shrink. To secure the industry’s longer-term future, transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) have invested in, developed and marketed various newer nicotine and tobacco products.¹

Since the early 2000s TTCs have developed interests in e-cigarettes (also known as electronic delivery systems, or ENDS), heated tobacco products (HTPs), snus and nicotine pouches.  Companies have referred to these types of product as ‘next generation products’ (NGPs) although terminology changes over time.

We've seen this sort of pivot before.  Consider the Prohibition Era and its aftermath: From ChatGPT:

Quote

 

After Prohibition ended in 1933, organized crime groups, such as the Mafia, pivoted to other illicit activities, with gambling becoming one of their primary focuses. During Prohibition, criminal syndicates built extensive networks, amassed wealth, and gained political influence through bootlegging operations. When alcohol became legal again, the profits from bootlegging dried up, forcing these groups to seek new revenue streams. 

Gambling offered a lucrative opportunity. Mob figures such as Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky became heavily involved in illegal gambling operations, ranging from underground casinos to sports betting. In cities like Chicago, New York, and eventually Las Vegas, these organizations dominated the gambling industry, using both legal and illegal establishments to generate revenue.

 

Is legal gambling better than illegal bootlegging?  Morally and overall, perhaps not.  

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

No one seems to be quitting vaping and going back to cigarettes,

I think vaping is being characterized as an arguably better alternative to smoking.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

so I'm confused by their angst over anti-vaping stuff

I think they are using it as an example of "mission creep," of activism that cares less about the subject matter and the welfare of society, and more about the business of making money by and through activism as a profession.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

and it makes me doubt their arguments over other "activism" stuff as well.

They may be incorrect about vaping.  I think the Church's position, that we should avoid mind-altering and addictive substances, is the best way to go.  

Consider this article:

Quote

5 Vaping Facts You Need to Know

Reviewed By:

Michael Joseph Blaha, M.D., M.P.H.

1: Vaping is less harmful than smoking, but it’s still not safe.

E-cigarettes heat nicotine (extracted from tobacco), flavorings and other chemicals to create an aerosol that you inhale. Regular tobacco cigarettes contain 7,000 chemicals, many of which are toxic. While we don’t know exactly what chemicals are in e-cigarettes, Blaha says “There’s almost no doubt that vaping exposes you to fewer toxic chemicals than smoking traditional cigarettes.”

However, there has been an outbreak of lung injuries and deaths associated with vaping. In February 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed 2,807 cases of e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury (EVALI) and 68 deaths attributed to that condition.

“These cases appear to predominantly affect people who modify their vaping devices or use black market modified e-liquids. This is especially true for vaping products containing THC,” explains Blaha.

The CDC has identified vitamin E acetate as a chemical of concern among people with EVALI. Vitamin E acetate is a thickening agent often used in THC vaping products, and it was found in all lung fluid samples of EVALI patients examined by the CDC.

The CDC recommends that people:

• Do not use THC-containing e-cigarettes or vaping products.
• Avoid using informal sources, such as friends, family or online dealers to obtain a vaping device.
• Do not modify or add any substances to a vaping device that are not intended by the manufacturer.

Research from The Johns Hopkins University on vape ingredients published in October 2021 reveals thousands of chemical ingredients in vape products, most of which are not yet identified. Among those the team could identify were several potentially harmful substances, including caffeine, three chemicals never previously found in e-cigarettes, a pesticide and two flavorings linked with possible toxic effects and respiratory irritation.

2: Research suggests vaping is bad for your heart and lungs.

Nicotine is the primary agent in regular cigarettes and e-cigarettes, and it is highly addictive. It causes you to crave a smoke and suffer withdrawal symptoms if you ignore the craving. Nicotine is a toxic substance. It raises your blood pressure and spikes your adrenaline, which increases your heart rate and the likelihood of having a heart attack.

Is vaping bad for you? There are many unknowns about vaping, including what chemicals make up the vapor and how they affect physical health over the long term. “People need to understand that e-cigarettes are potentially dangerous to your health,” says Blaha. “Emerging data suggests links to chronic lung disease and asthma, as well as associations between dual use of e-cigarettes and smoking with cardiovascular disease. You’re exposing yourself to all kinds of chemicals that we don’t yet understand and that are probably not safe.”

3: Electronic cigarettes are just as addictive as traditional ones.

Both e-cigarettes and regular cigarettes contain nicotine, which research suggests may be as addictive as heroin and cocaine. What’s worse, says Blaha, many e-cigarette users get even more nicotine than they would from a combustible tobacco product: Users can buy extra-strength cartridges, which have a higher concentration of nicotine, or increase the e-cigarette’s voltage to get a greater hit of the substance.

4: Electronic cigarettes aren’t the best smoking cessation tool.

Although they’ve been promoted as an aid to help you quit smoking, e-cigarettes have not received Food and Drug Administration approval as smoking cessation devices. A recent study found that most people who intended to use e-cigarettes to kick the nicotine habit ended up continuing to use traditional and e-cigarettes.

In light of the EVALI outbreak, the CDC advises people who use e-cigarettes for smoking cessation to weigh the risks and benefits and first consider use of other FDA-approved smoking cessation options.

5: A new generation is getting hooked on nicotine.

Among youth, e-cigarettes, especially the disposable kind, are more popular than any traditional tobacco product. According to the 2021 National Youth Tobacco Survey, more than 2 million U.S. middle and high school students reported using e-cigarettes in 2021, with more than 8 in 10 of those youth using flavored e-cigarettes.

According to Blaha, there are three reasons e-cigarettes may be particularly enticing to young people. First, many teens believe vaping is less harmful than smoking. Second, e-cigarettes have a lower per-use cost than traditional cigarettes. Finally, youths and adults find the lack of smoke appealing. With no smell, e-cigarettes reduce some of the stigma of smoking.

“What I find most concerning about the rise of vaping is that people who would’ve never smoked otherwise, especially youth, are taking up the habit,” says Blaha. “It’s one thing if you convert from cigarette smoking to vaping. It’s quite another thing to start up nicotine use with vaping. And, getting hooked on nicotine often leads to using traditional tobacco products down the road.”

Research from the CDC shows that vaping among youth has declined somewhat since 2020. Kids being stuck at home under their parents’ supervision during the COVID-19 pandemic could contribute to that trend.

But, Blaha says, interpreting the data is tricky, since young people change their preferences often, and, when surveyed, may not consider using disposable products such as “puff bars” as vaping. The same CDC report says disposable e-cigarette use has increased 1,000% among high school students and 400% among middle school students since 2019.

I think the overall point raised by Tierney and Stossel - regarding professional activism, "March of Dimes Syndrome," etc., remains worthy of discussion and consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

When I was in high school in the early 90s, the cool kids smoked cigarettes on the ditch and the stoners smoked joints under the tree in the park across the street.

Now, no one smokes cigarettes and the stoners vape THC in the bathrooms.

Getting stoned under the tree in the park is categorically better, in my opinion  

[longview]

19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Getting stoned under the tree in the park is categorically better, in my opinion  

Were you one of the "burnouts" or a rebel?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It seems like outrage at activists is really just selective outrage at causes the author disagree with. Otherwise why did Moms for Liberty get a pass. Or the NRA? They’ve achieved a Supreme Court ruling enshrining an individual right to bear arms, gun production and ownership in the United States is at an all time high, and guns are ubiquitous. Why did none of SMAC’s sources list them 🤔. It’s almost as if they have a partisan bias. 

Edited October 31, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[JVW]

59 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It seems like outrage at activists is really just selective outrage at causes the author disagree with. Otherwise why did Moms for Liberty get a pass. Or the NRA? They’ve achieved a Supreme Court ruling enshrining an individual right to bear arms, gun production and ownership in the United States is at an all time high, and guns are ubiquitous. Why did none of SMAC’s sources list them 🤔. It’s almost as if they have a partisan bias. 

Who cares if they have a partisan bias? Are the principals they are espousing true or not? Is NRA and Mom's For Liberty raking in the cash and getting rich off of it? They won't move to a new cause because there are plenty of anti-xx activists, and if xx get (un)banned they can still be activists to get xx changed. But, from what I understand from my reading of the transcript, the issue is that activist organizations are professional and their motive is not what they are campaigning for, but for financial and political gain, and power. Is that incorrect? Based off of what I learned from the video transcript, they could have made the entire video using conservative activism groups and it would have made the same point.

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, JVW said:

Who cares if they have a partisan bias? Are the principals they are espousing true or not? Is NRA and Mom's For Liberty raking in the cash and getting rich off of it? They won't move to a new cause because there are plenty of anti-xx activists, and if xx get (un)banned they can still be activists to get xx changed. But, from what I understand from my reading of the transcript, the issue is that activist organizations are professional and their motive is not what they are campaigning for, but for financial and political gain, and power. Is that incorrect? Based off of what I learned from the video transcript, they could have made the entire video using conservative activism groups and it would have made the same point.

I don't think you can paint everyone with that broad of brush. Perhaps there are a few activists that do it to make money, but I think most activists do it because they passionately believe in what they are fighting for.  

So yes, I would say your assumption is incorrect.

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It seems like outrage at activists

I am not "outraged," nor, I think, are Tierney and Stossel.  This is a strawman and/or red herring fallacy.

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

is really just selective outrage at causes the author disagree with.

I respectfully disagree.  I think the criticism here is about "professional" activism.  Activism as an industry.  And the mission creep / March of Dimes Syndrome phenomenon that enables it.  And the corruption that arises from it.  And the corrosive and ill effects of it.

And I think they raise a pretty good point, and one that tends to corroborate the point I raised in the OP, which addresses the issues raised in Brother Corbitt's talk, How activism against the Church can blind, mislead ‘valiant’ souls, and Elder Oaks' article, Criticism.

"Professional activism" might be described as a system of monetized faultfinding.  This is how we get pivots from anti-war activism to anti-nuclear power activism, from activism against racism to activism against law enforcement, and so on.  The objectives of the professional activists are money and power (influence, notoriety, etc.).  The target of their faultfinding is incidental, really.

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Otherwise why did Moms for Liberty get a pass.  Or the NRA?

I don't think Tierney is criticizing all forms of activism, whether "conservative," "liberal," whatever.  

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

They’ve achieved a Supreme Court ruling enshrining an individual right to bear arms, gun production and ownership in the United States is at an all time high, and guns are ubiquitous. Why did none of SMAC’s sources list them 🤔. It’s almost as if they have a partisan bias. 

It seems like the NRA and Moms for Liberty have not materially strayed from their original raisons d'être.  The NRA was originally formed to improve standards of marksmanship, and over time has come to focus on firearms safety, ownership issues, 2nd Amendment issues (including, obviously, legislative/litigation issues), and so on.  

Moms for Liberty is a political activist organization formed in 2021, so it hasn't really had a chance to pivot from its original purpose to some other, unrelated, good-for-making-a-buck one.

That said, you may have a point.  Could you point out instances of "mission creep" / "March of Dimes Syndrome" in organizations that, in your view, align with Tierney's and/or Stossel's sociopolitical worldview(s)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

Who cares if they have a partisan bias? Are the principals they are espousing true or not? Is NRA and Mom's For Liberty raking in the cash and getting rich off of it? They won't move to a new cause because there are plenty of anti-xx activists, and if xx get (un)banned they can still be activists to get xx changed. But, from what I understand from my reading of the transcript, the issue is that activist organizations are professional and their motive is not what they are campaigning for, but for financial and political gain, and power. Is that incorrect? Based off of what I learned from the video transcript, they could have made the entire video using conservative activism groups and it would have made the same point.

I don't think you can paint everyone with that broad of brush.

I don't think JVW is doing this.  He is not characterizing all activists as afflicted with March of Dimes Syndrome, but rather the "professional" activists and organizations who are so afflicted.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Perhaps there are a few activists that do it to make money, but I think most activists do it because they passionately believe in what they are fighting for.  

You may well be right.  I think a lot of people supported BLM because they believed that Black Lives Matter.  However, Tierney and Stossel were critiquing the "professional" activists at BLM, the ones who viewed "the cause" as a money-making venture, who absconded with obscene amounts of donated funds, who were indifferent to the societal damage their irresponsible behavior caused, etc.

Activism has an appropriate sphere and element.  I don't think anyone doubts that.  This thread is about instances where activism goes sideways, or is inappropriately deployed ab initio.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, JVW said:

Who cares if they have a partisan bias? Are the principals they are espousing true or not?

This is an "eye of the beholder" sort of thing, I guess.  While I may disagree with activists who harbor sociopolitical views which vary from my own, I do not begrudge them their existence.  We all have a right to speak, to assemble, to petition the State for redress of grievances, etc. 

Activist organizations to affect political change are, in the main, fine and dandy.  I think Tierney and Stossel are addressing problems arising from "professional" activists who have succumbed to the March of Dimes Syndrome.

29 minutes ago, JVW said:

Is NRA and Mom's For Liberty raking in the cash and getting rich off of it? They won't move to a new cause because there are plenty of anti-xx activists, and if xx get (un)banned they can still be activists to get xx changed. But, from what I understand from my reading of the transcript, the issue is that activist organizations are professional and their motive is not what they are campaigning for, but for financial and political gain, and power. Is that incorrect? Based off of what I learned from the video transcript, they could have made the entire video using conservative activism groups and it would have made the same point.

True.  And that point would be as equally valid.

Then-Elder Oaks, in this 1987 article, Criticism, acknowledged that criticism (often a core component of activism) is good when having a proper time and place and purpose:

Quote

I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members.

I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” (Random House Dictionary, unabridged ed., s.v. “criticism.”) That kind of criticism is inherent in the exercise of agency and freedom. In the political world, critical evaluation inevitably accompanies any knowledgeable exercise of the cherished freedoms of speech and of the press. In the private world, we have a right to expect critical evaluation of anything that is put into the marketplace or the public domain. Sports writers, reviewers of books and music, scholars, investment analysts, and those who test products and services must be free to exercise their critical faculties and to inform the public accordingly. This kind of criticism is usually directed toward issues, and it is usually constructive.

Then-Bro. Corbitt's talk,  addresses the issues of activism head-on, and does so very well: Activism vs. Discipleship, Protecting the Valiant:

Quote

Brother Corbitt defined activism as “the policy or action of using [campaigning or] vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue.”

Does this mean activism and advocacy are bad? Not at all, he said.

Brother Corbitt cited several examples from American history, from the Boston Tea Party to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and the civil rights movement.

“The United States was founded on and through activism and advocacy by activists,” and “you and I are beneficiaries of this activism,” Brother Corbitt said.

“But activism or advocacy directed toward or against the Church is a secular, worldly device misapplied in a spiritual, otherworldly context,” he said. “Change in the kingdom of God is not accomplished in the same way as change is in, say, government.”

So there are appropriate and inappropriate forms and manifestations of activism.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

d

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think JVW is doing this.  He is not characterizing all activists as afflicted with March of Dimes Syndrome, but rather the "professional" activists and organizations who are so afflicted.

You may well be right.  I think a lot of people supported BLM because they believed that Black Lives Matter.  However, Tierney and Stossel were critiquing the "professional" activists at BLM, the ones who viewed "the cause" as a money-making venture, who absconded with obscene amounts of donated funds, who were indifferent to the societal damage their irresponsible behavior caused, etc.

Activism has an appropriate sphere and element.  I don't think anyone doubts that.  This thread is about instances where activism goes sideways, or is inappropriately deployed ab initio.

Thanks,

-Smac

Would you consider the Church to be an activist organization?

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

Activism has an appropriate sphere and element.  I don't think anyone doubts that.  This thread is about instances where activism goes sideways, or is inappropriately deployed ab initio.

Would you consider the Church to be an activist organization?

No.  I think the Church is a religious organization.  Broadly speaking, "activism" 

Quote

consists of efforts to promote, impede, direct or intervene in social, political, economic or environmental reform with the desire to make changes in society toward a perceived common good.  Forms of activism range from mandate building in a community (including writing letters to newspapers), petitioning elected officials, running or contributing to a political campaign, preferential patronage (or boycott) of businesses, and demonstrative forms of activism like rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, or hunger strikes.

The Church does little to none of these things.  It comments on sociopolitical issues for which a substantial moral dimension exists.  It generally does not petition elected officials, it does not run or contribute to political campaigns (and instead works hard to abstain from taking sides on political matters), generally does not encourage or practice preferential patronage or boycotting of businesses (the Church does not invest in "vice" stocks, but that seems like quite a stretch), does not conduct or participate in rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, or hunger strikes, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The NRA was originally formed to improve standards of marksmanship, and over time has come to focus on firearms safety, ownership issues, 2nd Amendment issues (including, obviously, legislative/litigation issues), and so on.  

So you give an example of one thing and then add a number of items which show ‘straying’ and yet that is evidence of not straying?  Is being a nonpolitical organization and then becoming a massive political machine considered the most powerful lobbying organization not a very significant change of mission?  Then there was their pro gun control pivot to low gun controls, partisan to mostly Republican….I see mission drift there.  Then there is the current situation where spending on the original core training programs have become low priority, less than 10% of their budget and administrative and media spending are the top dogs.  CharityWatch has them as ?

https://www.charitywatch.org/charity-donating-articles/over-61-million-payout-to-nonprofit-executive-director

And if you don’t think some of the leaders of the NRA viewed it as a cash cow…the faking bankruptcy and corruption trials would seem to indicate otherwise.

Edited October 31, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

The NRA was originally formed to improve standards of marksmanship, and over time has come to focus on firearms safety, ownership issues, 2nd Amendment issues (including, obviously, legislative/litigation issues), and so on.  

So you give an example of one thing and then add a number of items which show ‘straying’ and yet that is evidence of not straying?  

I see a difference between the NRA's focus on guns (marksmanship/safety, then later ownership/legislative issues) and activists pivoting from opposing Vietnam to opposing nuclear power, from fighting the Klan to fighting Moms for Liberty, etc.

That said, I am open to the possibility that "mission creep" / "March of Dimes Syndrome" can and does affect activism of various political stripes.  I just don't know that NRA is a good example of that.

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is not being a political organization and then becoming a massive one considered the most powerful lobbying organization not a very significant change of mission?   Then there was their pro gun control pivot to low gun controls, partisan to mostly Republican….I see mission drift there.  

Then there is the current situation where spending on the original core training programs have become low priority, less than 10% of their budget and administrative and media spending are the top dogs.

And if you don’t think some of the leaders of the NRA viewed it as a cash cow…the faking bankruptcy and corruption trials would seem to indicate otherwise.

Perhaps so.  I'll think on it.  If so, this would tend to substantiate my point about mission creep.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 31, 2024 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is how we get pivots from anti-war activism to anti-nuclear power activism, from activism against racism to activism against law enforcement, and so on.

So if any people went from working at the heritage foundation to working at Moms for liberty, that would be problematic and a sign of this so called “March of dimes syndrome”?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And if you don’t think some of the leaders of the NRA viewed it as a cash cow…the faking bankruptcy and corruption trials would seem to indicate otherwise.

The lack of any conservative advocacy groups mentioned to date in this thread really shows that the key issue is not advocacy. But perhaps someone can prove me wrong. In any of the articles, links, videos above, are any conservative advocacy groups called out?

Edited October 31, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  I think the Church is a religious organization.  Broadly speaking, "activism" 

The Church does little to none of these things.  It comments on sociopolitical issues for which a substantial moral dimension exists.  It generally does not petition elected officials, it does not run or contribute to political campaigns (and instead works hard to abstain from taking sides on political matters), generally does not encourage or practice preferential patronage or boycotting of businesses (the Church does not invest in "vice" stocks, but that seems like quite a stretch), does not conduct or participate in rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, or hunger strikes, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

The Church seemed pretty political with the whole Prop 8.  There was plenty of rallying members to hold signs and protest in support of Prop 8 all around California.  And it also joins in amicus briefs petitioning the Supreme Court from time to time when wanting to influence the Courts decisions that are in line with their beliefs.  The Church also definitely has a vested interest in how alcohol and other vices is sold and handled in Utah and participates in issues that reflect the Church's values.  To say that it does not participate in activism when it comes to the Church's beliefs I think is pretty disingenuous.