New Study Re: Harmful Effects of Trans Surgery

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Transphobes think about transgender people more than transgender people do.

This isn’t just a joke. The more transphobic an area is the more they search for transgender and transgender-adjacent “material”. Far too many hate it because they secretly want it in some way:

https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/

This is also why a lot of transgender people end up being assaulted. Being closeted is a hell of a drug.

I mean, we're talking about less than 1% of the U.S. population, and here we have another hand-wringing, pearl clutching, thread created by Spencer on this issue. It's honestly a bit baffling to me.

[smac97]

Just now, ttribe said:

Quote

And the effort to shame/silence continues.

I just think it's odd that you care what other people do with their genitals. I mean, really, is it any of your business?

Nope.  Until, of course, men start going into women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons, etc.  Then the calculus has changed.

Just now, ttribe said:

Who, specifically, is trying to force you to do something, Spencer?

See, e.g., here.  And here:

Quote

 I then provide a few examples of what seems to be a burgeoning tolerance for (and even advocacy of and demand for) compelled speech:

• Zoey Tur physically assaulting Ben Shapiro and threatening to send him "home in an ambulance" because of his (Shapiro's) comments.  He (Tur) did this right in front of a bunch of witnesses.  He did this knowing the discussion was ben recorded.  And he subsequently got away with it.
• A video compilation of various trans persons screaming and threatening people who had failed to use "preferred pronouns."
• A doctor in the UK who was fired for not using transgender pronouns.
• A law in Scotland that may make non-use of preferred pronouns a hate crime.
• A similar law in Canada.
• A similar law in Norway.
• A similar law in New York.
• A similar law in Virginia (a county school district policy).
• And, of course, the law in California.

Regarding the California law, I specifically observed: "I find it noteworthy that nowhere in your summary of California's effort to coerce speech do you actually, you know, say that you were or are opposed to it."

See also various threads about Masterpiece Cakeshop.

See also various threads about women being forced to compete against men in sports, and having men in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, and prisons.

My concerns are not centered on me, but on society in general.

Just now, ttribe said:

If by "forcing" you actually mean someone asked you to be respectful and not misgender them,

Asking is fine.  Demanding is not.  Using the force of law is not.

And I reject the premise that declining to call a man "ma'am" is "misgender{ing}," or that it is per se lacking in respect.

Just now, ttribe said:

that sure seems to be a mild inconvenience being "forced" on you.

Until the request turns into a demand.  Until the the force of law is deployed.  Until people are put in jail over such things.  We're seeing this stuff happen in Europe more and more, with its noxious tendrils creeping over the pond into Canada and into the U.S.

Just now, ttribe said:

Unlike, oh...I don't know, being ostracized, shunned, mocked, discriminated against, and being subjected to violent threats for being trans.

I have nowhere advocated or endorsed any such things.  I unequivocally condemn them.

Just now, ttribe said:

If we are going to measure who is being "forced" to do something, the "calculus" sure doesn't seem to be in your favor.

Not sure what you mean here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I just think it's odd that you care what other people do with their genitals. I mean, really, is it any of your business?

If the kids find out they don’t have to hide and be closeted then they might not stay in the neat little box they are supposed to stay in. They must stay divided, alone, scared, and contained where they won’t make anyone feel at all uncomfortable.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Who, specifically, is trying to force you to do something, Spencer? If by "forcing" you actually mean someone asked you to be respectful and not misgender them, that sure seems to be a mild inconvenience being "forced" on you. Unlike, oh...I don't know, being ostracized, shunned, mocked, discriminated against, and being subjected to violent threats for being trans. If we are going to measure who is being "forced" to do something, the "calculus" sure doesn't seem to be in your favor.

The privileged see equality as a violation of their long held “rights”.

[Dario_M]

Woow, this topic goes fast. 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

And the effort to shame/silence continues.

Smac is the true victim of the transgender movement.

Well, no.  I'm still here speaking.  Your effort to shame/silence continues, but it's ineffectual.

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Can we have a moment of silence for all he has lost in this grand struggle?

Okay, that is long enough. Moving on…

You pretty much never offer anything of substance.  Just snark and vitriol.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Just snark and vitriol.

I think you are stuck in a loop here.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No, Ben.  I haven't publicly called anyone a bigot.  I have not endorsed physical violence (as Nehor has).  I have, instead, cited news items, medical journal articles, and Church publications.  I am attempting to persuade, not coerce.

I agree with you. You haven't publicly called anyone a bigot. However, you sure did name John Dehilin and publicly accuse him here. You don't get to make the claim that you aren't trying to shame others. Most of your posts aimed at transgender issues are in fact an attempt to do just this for that community (as are your posts aimed at LGBTQ issues more broadly). You remind me a great deal of a woman I had discussions with thirty years ago, who kept insisting that there was no hatred or bigotry towards LDS in her remarks - it was all righteous indignation.

When I am pointing out your behavior as bigotry - it is because your behavior fits that description. I frequently find your comments to be more than a little offensive. Now, I realize that my pointing this out isn't going to encourage any sort of introspection or change on your part. But, it may certainly help others recognize that your voice is not representative of all LDS believers.

It was, of course, this comment of mine that you focused on, instead of the other issues that I raised. We all know that you introduced this topic knowing exactly the sort of response it was going to get. Both of us have been around long enough to not have to bother playing that little game. And you shouldn't act so surprised when (again) you get called out for it.

Edited March 6, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[Peacefully]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Including an 80-year old woman crossing the street with a walker, whom you designated a "nazi," and against whom you endorsed physical violence.

My wife's grandfather fought in the Ardennes.  Amazing story.  I met him several times.  He would not have endorsed your sentiments.  The use or threatened use of violence in a political context is something the brownshirts did in Germany, and the blackshirts did in Italy.  How very sad and ironic, then, to see you adopt those tactics.  And proudly, too.

In extremis, possibly.  But we are nowhere near that.  Meanwhile, you are endorsing physical violence, including murder, as legitimate means to advance trans ideology.  I think that is deeply disturbing.

Thanks,

-Smac

My father was in WW2. I believe he would have punched Nazis if he had been in Germany, but, alas, he was in Japan. Nazis should be punched, imo. 

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Until the request turns into a demand.  Until the the force of law is deployed.  Until people are put in jail over such things.  We're seeing this stuff happen in Europe more and more, with its noxious tendrils creeping over the pond into Canada and into the U.S.

Yeah, the big threat right now is transgender authoritarian rule.

I mean, the President is threatening to deport and/or jail protesting college students but the real danger to freedom of expression or speech is the great pronoun menace.

Meanwhile the current number of people in jail for using incorrect pronouns is *checks notes* still zero.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Peacefully said:

My father was in WW2. I believe he would have punched Nazis if he had been in Germany, but, alas, he was in Japan. Nazis should be punched, imo. 

It is the kind thing to do. It is the only way they will learn.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

the President

The very guy who has bragged about invading women's changing room. But yeah the real danger are "The Trans".

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  Until, of course, men start going into women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons, etc.  Then the calculus has changed.

I'm curious, Spencer, have you ever been in a multi-gender bathroom? I can assure you it's not the prurient experience you seem to want to make it out to be.

 

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See, e.g., here.  And here:

See also various threads about Masterpiece Cakeshop.

See also various threads about women being forced to compete against men in sports, and having men in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, and prisons.

And here we go with Spencer's effort to blow the whole issue out of proportion by citing a small number of examples to create fear that this is a widespread and critical problem.

BTW, just a little reminder from a previous thread - Less than 10 transgender athletes in NCAA sports in 2024 (https://www.kget.com/sports/ncaa-president-says-there-are-less-than-10-transgender-athletes-in-college-sports/)

 

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My concerns are not centered on me, but on society in general.

SMac, the Great White Knight! Society owes you incalculable debts of gratitude!

 

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Asking is fine.  Demanding is not.  Using the force of law is not.

Well, you seem to have just the "right people" in the White House to make sure no one will ever "force" this inconvenience upon you.

 

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And I reject the premise that declining to call a man "ma'am" is "misgender{ing}," or that it is per se lacking in respect.

Why should I care whether you "reject" the premise, or not? That's just a convenient way for you to dismiss other people's feelings.

BTW, do you correct people when they call you a Mormon, after Pres. Nelson's edict?

 

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have nowhere advocated or endorsed any such things.  I unequivocally condemn them.

I didn't say you had. I'm pointing out that their suffering vastly outweighs your imagined plight of *gasp* being "forced" to call someone by a gender you think might not apply.

Are you aware that there are no less than four genetic combinations which are deemed "intersex"? Are you going to "demand" a genetic test before you refer to a person with a jaw you decide is too large for you to call them a "woman"?

This really is a very stupid hill to die upon, Spencer.

 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The very guy who has bragged about invading women's changing room. But yeah the real danger are "The Trans".

True, we have more accounts of the President of the United States creeping on women in women’s changing areas (and confessing he did it for the sense of power and control it gave him) than we do transgender people. Maybe we should focus on the more pressing threats first.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Quaere, 

I'm not trying to take the thread in any direction the OP does not wish to, but I do think I have a worthwhile, not irrelevant comparison to consider that might shed light on what should be done about Gender Dysphoria.  How far should the "alter-the-body-[purportedly]-to-protect-the-psyche" paradigm be taken?  After all, Gender Dysphoria isn't the only such disorder extant.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_dysphoria

My suggestion is to use a more comparable surgery like breast enhancement in girls and breast reduction in boys.

Should we refuse to allow male minors to reduce breast size because they are emotionally distressed by their size?  Or allow girls to get enhancements (less intrusive than reductions) because they believe they will look better with bigger breasts? 
 

These are much more common gender affirming care than transgender surgeries and about as parallel as one can get, so quite useful imo.

Edited March 7, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Asking is fine.  Demanding is not.  Using the force of law is not.

So preventing by law someone from having surgery or other medical interventions when they want it is wrong?

Edited March 6, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

So preventing by law someone from having surgery or other medical interventions when they want it is wrong?

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” - Frank Wilhoit

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

BTW, just a little reminder from a previous thread - Less than 10 transgender athletes in NCAA sports in 2024 (https://www.kget.com/sports/ncaa-president-says-there-are-less-than-10-transgender-athletes-in-college-sports/)

UN study reveals transgender athletes have won nearly 900 medals in women's competitions

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

SMac, the Great White Knight! Society owes you incalculable debts of gratitude!

Appeal to ridicule.  Got it.

I'm posting on a message board.  That's all.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

Asking is fine.  Demanding is not.  Using the force of law is not.

Well, you seem to have just the "right people" in the White House to make sure no one will ever "force" this inconvenience upon you.

Compelled speech is a dangerous thing.  I am glad the risk of it is being reduced.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

I reject the premise that declining to call a man "ma'am" is "misgender{ing}," or that it is per se lacking in respect.

Why should I care whether you "reject" the premise, or not? That's just a convenient way for you to dismiss other people's feelings.

I was explaining my position.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

BTW, do you correct people when they call you a Mormon, after Pres. Nelson's edict?

No.  And I would vigorously oppose efforts to use the force of law to compel speech in any context.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

Quote

Unlike, oh...I don't know, being ostracized, shunned, mocked, discriminated against, and being subjected to violent threats for being trans.

I have nowhere advocated or endorsed any such things.  I unequivocally condemn them.

I didn't say you had.

Ah.  So you were just resorting to the "Fallacy of Relative Privation," then.

Your compatriots have been free in imputing all sorts of terrible sentiments onto me, so I surmised you were doing the same.  I stand corrected, sort of.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm pointing out that their suffering vastly outweighs your imagined plight of *gasp* being "forced" to call someone by a gender you think might not apply.

Compelled speech is a dangerous thing.  I am glad we have the First Amendment to protect against such things.  Our friends in Canada and Europe are facing real threats to their individual liberties.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Are you aware that there are no less than four genetic combinations which are deemed "intersex"?

I am.  I have spoken at length about DSDs in various threads.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Are you going to "demand" a genetic test before you refer to a person with a jaw you decide is too large for you to call them a "woman"?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This really is a very stupid hill to die upon, Spencer.

Posting on a message board is not reasonably compared to "dying on a hill."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Woow, this topic goes fast. 

Everyone knows what the other will say so you can post without paying attention to others’ comments.  Speeds things up.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I see rhetoric such as yours coming out of the Great and Spacious Building.

Yeah, no shaming there.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Asking is fine.  Demanding is not.  Using the force of law is not.

So preventing by law someone from having surgery or other medical interventions when they want it is wrong?

I was speaking of compelled speech, not elective medical procedures.

Broadly speaking, I am indifferent to what "someone" may choose to do to their body.  There are some caveats here, though.  Adults are situated to make decisions for themselves regarding medical interventions, whereas children generally are not.  In both instances, "informed consent" appears to be a big issue as pertaining to gender modification treatments, along with comorbidities and a dearth of longitudinal data.  Again, my bullet list of concerns:

• Comorbidities. 
• Informed consent. 
• Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. 
• Irreversibility. 
• Sterilization. 
• Electively removing healthy body parts of minors. 
• Longitudinal studies essentially absent. 
• Lifelong medical regimens. 
• Ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. 
• Social contagion risks. 
• Risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society).

I think the State (at the state, not federal, level) can have a legitimate interest in regulating the practice of medicine in its jurisdiction, particularly to mitigate the foregoing concerns.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is an element of The Emperor Has No Clothes going on here, hence your comment (intended, I think, to shame me into going along with the falsehood that the emperor has clothes). 

Is using a falsehood to fight what you believe is a falsehood appropriate in your view, Smac?

Like maybe it’s the guy down the street but someone is claiming it’s the emperor for more attention?

Edited March 6, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is using a falsehood to fight what you believe is a falsehood appropriate in your view, Smac?

Like maybe it’s the guy down the street but someone is claiming it’s the emperor for more attention?

Don't know what you are saying here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Don't know what you are saying here.

Thanks,

-Smac 

Okay, will try again.

If you believe something is false, but you don’t have the right info to convince others it is false, are you justified using false info (made up but you think it’s right or outright lying or whatever) to try and demonstrate you are right?

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was speaking of compelled speech, not elective medical procedures.

Why should they be treated differently?  Agency is agency, isn’t it? (I am speaking about adults here)

——

Separate question….Are you okay with minors being forced to speak certain ways?  Compelled speech for them since they lack the ability to recognize consequences at times?

Edited March 6, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Show me articles by PhDs attempting to justify and rationalize the sexualization of children, and I'll join you in condemning such things.

And the goal posts go running down the field!

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Feel free to post them, then.

Not really my place. Straight people can fix their own problems. Queer people have enough to deal with. Including weirdo straight people obsessed with our celebrations instead of their much more sexualized ones. They love to condemn but they won’t clean up their own act. It is almost as if they want an excuse to hate us or something.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think issues involving the sexualization and grooming of children by exposing them to highly sexualized content in parades, drag shows, etc. is more than "a gnat" of an issue. 

Of course you do. Because that is what your propaganda tells you to focus on. They have to direct your hate to the proper object. Dance puppet! Dance!

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, yes.  Sexualizing and grooming little kids is "a great evil."  I endorse that statement.

Again, that is not grooming. It is also not even sexualizing little kids. That would be those beauty pageants mostly cishet men and women run which I am sure you silently condemn while focusing on the less prevalent queer menace. This would potentially be exposing children to sexuality.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Vitriol and snark.  That's all you've got.

And I am still running circles around you. Ouch.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I figured as much.

Nice crop on what I actually said there. Trademark Smac editing by cutting up someone else’s post.

Have you ever considered working in propaganda? You have a knack for willful misrepresentation.