New Study Re: Harmful Effects of Trans Surgery

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

578 in the ENTIRE WORLD. 8.2 BILLION people in the entire world, and you are pointing to 578 alleged incidents?

I've seen this on X a few times  now:

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Step 1: It's not really happening

Step 2: Yeah, it's happening, but it's not a big deal

Step 3: It's a good thing, actually

Step 4: People freaking out about it are the real problem

I think you started on Step 1, and how we're at Step 3.  Eventually, you'll pivot to Step 3, and finish up with Step 4. 

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Again - https://www.kget.com/sports/ncaa-president-says-there-are-less-than-10-transgender-athletes-in-college-sports/

First, rare does not mean insignificant.  You yourself are investing yourself in the argument, so it must have some relevance.

Second, precedent and the rule of law matter.  Men competing in women’s sports may be uncommon now, but allowing it sets a precedent that could grow over time. The policies and legal rulings made today will shape the future of women’s sports, so the issue should be examined carefully now rather than when it becomes widespread.

Third, competitive integrity matters.  Even a few cases can have a major impact. If a males take a championship spot or scholarship meant for women, it directly affects the female competitors who trained their whole lives for those opportunities. The fairness of the competition is at stake, no matter how rare the scenario.  And I think this scenario is going to become markedly less rare unless counteracted.

Fourth, your "rarity" argument is a deflection.  If you were to post an article about a Latter-day Saint bishop committing abuse, I think you would not accept a rebuttal of "Yeah, but this doesn't happen very often.  Of the 8.2 BILLION people in the entire world, you are pointing to one incident of a bishop abusing a child?"  If something is fundamentally unfair or problematic, the frequency of its occurrence does not determine whether it should be addressed.  Principles, not just prevalence, matter.

Fifth, women's sports exist for a reason.  We do this because biological differences create an uneven playing field. Even a few instances of males competing in women’s divisions undermine that fundamental protections that have been in place for a long time and for good reason.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I suspect the specific person who posted the threat had specific criteria in mind regarding what would make such a protest "illegal." I further suspect that said person did not have the actual law in mind when the threat was made.

I don't know what you are referencing here.

The State taking actions against illegal protests is not an affront to the First Amendment.  

The State taking actions against legal protests is an affront.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Respectfully, first you’ll need to find a study that looks at patients pre and post surgery to draw any takeaways. Best not to make any take aways on the subject based on what you read or hear from SMAC97 (aka chief anti trans propagandist)

"It surely is a challenging topic, without any name calling."

Yep.

I think the trans movement is complex and difficult.  I think its essential tenets are not congruent with reality, and are based on poor reasoning.

I am generally indifferent to private behavior.

I am concerned about trans ideology when it adversely spills into the public sphere:

• Men in women's sports, bathrooms, changing rooms, and prisons (and vice versa).
• Medical procedures on children and all the attendant concerns with that (informed consent, comorbidities, etc.). 
• The efficacy of medical interventions. 
• Public events involving exposing children to highly sexualized behavior. 
• Compelled/coerced speech.
• Increasing risks of violence (see, e.g., Nehor's comments in this thread about how "securing" "transgender rights" "requires" (his wording) "shooting authoritarians and fascists," "fighting," "burning things," and "all the rest").

I have read a lot about these issues, and feel that they should be discussed and debated.  I think those discussions and debates should proceed on the merits of the topic, and not devolve into hecklers shouting down and suppressing viewpoints they don't like (by, for example, going ad hominem, as you and several others have done in this thread).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Edited March 7, 2025 by smac97

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Medical procedures on children and all the attendant concerns with that (informed consent, comorbidities, etc.). 

Do you consider all medical procedures part of the public sphere? (I am surprised if so as it seems to me to be considered private by most given confidentiality laws).

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think we'll just need to disagree about this.  I think exposing children to highly sexualized behavior in public venues, such as parades, drag shows, etc., is sexualizing and grooming children.  I find that to be terrible, even evil.

Your approach to this issue reminds me of a clip from Family Guy:

 

Breaking News: Family Guy is still a transphobic show. I’m shocked.

Okay, we have a token drag queen who agreed to appear on Fox News. So, standard useful idiot. And that line. HAHA! Yes, I am sure many parents book drag shows just for kids to be inclusive. Yeah, this is a thing that definitely happens. Uh-huh.

Remember this whole “controversy” was started by drag queens reading appropriate children’s books in libraries. Then it became everyone is doing drag queen shows.

And you find it so evil to the point you want…..what? Legislation against it? Just want to whine about it? And you continue to ignore children being exposed to much more sexual stuff in explicitly heterosexual spaces. You say you condemn up but you don’t. You just want to hurt the weirdos for….reasons.

I pointed out the distinction between sexualizing children which is a much bigger deal than exposing them to sexual material. One is active, the other is passive. The former is much more dangerous. You conflated the two to make it sound worse. Just like you keep incorrectly calling it grooming when it is not. Just like I can say you are a rapist for attacking trans people even though it isn’t true. There, now the discussion can be more balanced.

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've seen this on X a few times  now:

I think you started on Step 1, and how we're at Step 3.  Eventually, you'll pivot to Step 3, and finish up with Step 4. 

First, rare does not mean insignificant.  You yourself are investing yourself in the argument, so it must have some relevance.

Second, precedent and the rule of law matter.  Men competing in women’s sports may be uncommon now, but allowing it sets a precedent that could grow over time. The policies and legal rulings made today will shape the future of women’s sports, so the issue should be examined carefully now rather than when it becomes widespread.

Third, competitive integrity matters.  Even a few cases can have a major impact. If a males take a championship spot or scholarship meant for women, it directly affects the female competitors who trained their whole lives for those opportunities. The fairness of the competition is at stake, no matter how rare the scenario.  And I think this scenario is going to become markedly less rare unless counteracted.

Fourth, your "rarity" argument is a deflection.  If you were to post an article about a Latter-day Saint bishop committing abuse, I think you would not accept a rebuttal of "Yeah, but this doesn't happen very often.  Of the 8.2 BILLION people in the entire world, you are pointing to one incident of a bishop abusing a child?"  If something is fundamentally unfair or problematic, the frequency of its occurrence does not determine whether it should be addressed.  Principles, not just prevalence, matter.

Fifth, women's sports exist for a reason.  We do this because biological differences create an uneven playing field. Even a few instances of males competing in women’s divisions undermine that fundamental protections that have been in place for a long time and for good reason.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is stupid. Professional sports leagues are all coming up with rules to accommodate and/or disqualify transgender people based on standards specific to their sport. They can make these decisions. We don’t need laws. Sports leagues are not government entities. This whole thing is ridiculous. You want government to intervene where it is not wanted by the owners of the league, the players, or anyone else because you are suddenly a protector of women’s sports which I doubt you view. It is just a weapon to you. And because it is a weapon you are mindlessly advocating for active government intervention in the private sphere. Madness.

The only place government should have any potential involvement is in public schools which just let the kids play the sports and where they aren’t handing out these medals you are so worried about because……who know why?

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"It surely is a challenging topic, without any name calling."

Yep.

I think the trans movement is complex and difficult.  I think its essential tenets are not congruent with reality, and are based on poor reasoning.

The movement has existed for a long time. It only got complex and difficult when your handlers pointed you and others at the proper targets for hating. Before that you probably barely knew it existed and it didn’t impact you at all. The transgender movement definitely did not seek out your attention.

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am generally indifferent to private behavior.

Unless you find it weird in which case you ascribe it to mental illness.

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am concerned about trans ideology when it adversely spills into the public sphere:

• Men in women's sports, bathrooms, changing rooms, and prisons (and vice versa).

Unless it is the President bragging about perving on women in their changing areas and then you elect him. You truly are a complicated man.

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• Medical procedures on children and all the attendant concerns with that (informed consent, comorbidities, etc.). 

Which are rare but screaming about children has validated every moral panic because it neatly hides the fact that the adults are scared of it. Kids don’t get confused by transgender people nearly as much as adults do. Same with gay, lesbian, and bi people. The adults are the fragile ones.

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• The efficacy of medical interventions. 

Well established.

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• Public events involving exposing children to highly sexualized behavior. 

Most of which are heterosexual and you likely encounter them regularly but do not speak out against.

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• Compelled/coerced speech.

A fictional threat.

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• Increasing risks of violence (see, e.g., Nehor's comments in this thread about how "securing" "transgender rights" "requires" (his wording) "shooting authoritarians and fascists," "fighting," "burning things," and "all the rest").

Now my comments on the history of how human rights have been secured is now a threat. My, you are a frightened little man aren’t you?

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have read a lot about these issues, and feel that they should be discussed and debated.  I think those discussions and debates should proceed on the merits of the topic, and not devolve into hecklers shouting down and suppressing viewpoints they don't like (by, for example, going ad hominem, as you and several others have done in this thread).

Truly you are the victim of the transgender movement. You courageously come to a Mormon discussion board and post against the rules topics disparaging transgender people and when you are corrected and it is pointed out that the stuff you are sharing is riddled with inaccuracies you bleat about being shouted down for *checks notes* being wrong.

Yet you keep posting these things so it must fill some kind of emotional need. Keeping dormant dysphoria or attraction repressed? Shouting out into the void trying to be noticed? Some kind of need to feel victimized or persecuted? Who knows? Shine on you crazy diamond!

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The movement has existed for a long time.

Sort of.  The medical procedures have been around since what, the 50s? 

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It only got complex and difficult when your handlers pointed you and others at the proper targets for hating.

Disagreement with incongruent-with-reality claims is not hatred.

And a lot of the complexity and difficulty arose when men started to export their private behaviors into the public sphere, such as men participating in women's sports, being in women's bathrooms and changing rooms, getting transferred to women's prisons, etc.

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Before that you probably barely knew it existed and it didn’t impact you at all.

I agree.  But then the calculus changed.

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The transgender movement definitely did not seek out your attention.

It has gone out of its way, for years, to seek out attention.

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I am generally indifferent to private behavior.

Unless you find it weird in which case you ascribe it to mental illness.

You have said that a person who "identifies" as a wolf is doing so under a mental illness.  

If "identifying" as a species you are not is a mental illness, then so is "identifying" as a gender you are not.

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

• Medical procedures on children and all the attendant concerns with that (informed consent, comorbidities, etc.). 

Which are rare

IIRC, there have been about 17,000 documented cases of children receiving these treatments.  Just because something is rare does not mean it is not important.

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

but screaming about children has validated every moral panic because it neatly hides the fact that the adults are scared of it.

I think there is lots of justification for being concerned, even disturbed, at what has been going on with children and minors in this context.

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

• The efficacy of medical interventions. 

Well established.

Not so.  Very much in dispute.

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

• Compelled/coerced speech.

A fictional threat.

Not so.  This stuff is happening all over Europe and Canada.  And I have repeatedly documented incursions into NY and CA.

This is very much a threat, albeit one that is lessened robust First Amendment jurisprudence.

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

• Increasing risks of violence (see, e.g., Nehor's comments in this thread about how "securing" "transgender rights" "requires" (his wording) "shooting authoritarians and fascists," "fighting," "burning things," and "all the rest").

Now my comments on the history of how human rights have been secured is now a threat. My, you are a frightened little man aren’t you?

Appeal to ridicule.

I'm content to let readers review your comments and construe them as they see fit.

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I have read a lot about these issues, and feel that they should be discussed and debated.  I think those discussions and debates should proceed on the merits of the topic, and not devolve into hecklers shouting down and suppressing viewpoints they don't like (by, for example, going ad hominem, as you and several others have done in this thread).

Truly you are the victim of the transgender movement.  

Well, no.

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You courageously come to a Mormon discussion board and post against the rules topics disparaging transgender people

I don't think this topic is against the board rules.

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yet you keep posting these things so it must fill some kind of emotional need.

Because I keep encountering articles and studies and such.  It's an important topic, including in the Church.  It is divisive, as evidenced by the vitriol and ugliness you bring to these threads.

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Keeping dormant dysphoria or attraction repressed?

And more ad hominem.  No substance.  No reasoning.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

This is stupid. Professional sports leagues are all coming up with rules to accommodate and/or disqualify transgender people based on standards specific to their sport. They can make these decisions. We don’t need laws. Sports leagues are not government entities.

Sports leagues are subject to the Police Power of the Tenth Amendment, just like everything else in America.

And much of the controversy pertains to males in women's sports in schools.  The State typically has a legitimate interest in that sort of thing.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

This whole thing is ridiculous.

Well, the status quo - women's sports being for women - was disrupted a few years ago, and we now seem to be moving away from that pretty quickly.  I am glad about that.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You want government to intervene where it is not wanted by the owners of the league, the players, or anyone else

Well, that's not so.  Public polls show overwhelming support for getting males out of women's sports.  And plenty of women seem to care about this.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

because you are suddenly a protector of women’s sports which I doubt you view.

I also find men in women's bathrooms and changing rooms and prisons problematic, even though I am not personally involved in any of those.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is just a weapon to you.

No.  This is a social issue that members of society ought to discuss with candor and civility.  You are, it seems, incapable of that.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

And because it is a weapon you are mindlessly advocating for active government intervention in the private sphere. Madness.

I have marshaled fairly extensive scientific, medical and legal sources to document and substantiate my position.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The only place government should have any potential involvement is in public schools which just let the kids play the sports and where they aren’t handing out these medals you are so worried about because……who know why?

I've explained why:

I am concerned about trans ideology when it adversely spills into the public sphere:

• Men in women's sports, bathrooms, changing rooms, and prisons (and vice versa).
• Medical procedures on children and all the attendant concerns with that (informed consent, comorbidities, etc.). 
• The efficacy of medical interventions. 
• Public events involving exposing children to highly sexualized behavior. 
• Compelled/coerced speech.
• Increasing risks of violence (see, e.g., Nehor's comments in this thread about how "securing" "transgender rights" "requires" (his wording) "shooting authoritarians and fascists," "fighting," "burning things," and "all the rest").

I have read a lot about these issues, and feel that they should be discussed and debated. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

And you find it so evil to the point you want…..what? Legislation against it?

Yes.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Just want to whine about it?

I would like to have a substantive, reasoned, evidence-based discussion about these issues.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I pointed out the distinction between sexualizing children which is a much bigger deal than exposing them to sexual material. One is active, the other is passive.

I'm content to let readers look at videos of children watching highly sexualized drag shows (and being invited to participate in them), and watching highly sexualized behaviors at pride parades, and decide for themselves if this is healthy or not.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The former is much more dangerous. You conflated the two to make it sound worse.

Well, no.  It's hard to make the depravities "sound worse" than they are.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Just like you keep incorrectly calling it grooming when it is not.

It is.  Exposing children to highly sexualized material is the sine qua non of grooming.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Just like I can say you are a rapist for attacking trans people even though it isn’t true. There, now the discussion can be more balanced.

More ad hominem.

Nothing of substance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

Medical procedures on children and all the attendant concerns with that (informed consent, comorbidities, etc.). 

Do you consider all medical procedures part of the public sphere?

Pretty much.  They are regulated by the State.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

(I am surprised if so as it seems to me to be considered private by most given confidentiality laws).

Doctors are licensed.  Facilities are licensed.  Medical procedures are regulated.  Medications are regulated.  All by the State.  You can't get much more "public sphere" than that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sort of.  The medical procedures have been around since what, the 50s? 

Try ancient Egypt and ancient Rome.

In more modern history the biggest center of learning for what we now call queer sexualities and transgender people was in Germany. It was one of the first targets of the Nazi regime. They destroyed irreplaceable books about gender-affirming treatments and put back transgender studies and studies of other sexualities by decades.

Reminder to punch Nazis. They deserve it. So this sudden backlash against queer people is pretty much straight out of the fascist playbook. Hooray for history rhyming.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Disagreement with incongruent-with-reality claims is not hatred.

True, it is the hatred and the fear that is the hatred. You can believe that the Catholic church is wrong without hating them. If you go about deliberately spreading false propaganda about them thought that would make you a hater.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And a lot of the complexity and difficulty arose when men started to export their private behaviors into the public sphere, such as men participating in women's sports, being in women's bathrooms and changing rooms, getting transferred to women's prisons, etc.

Many of which have gone on for decades before they were noticed.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But then the calculus changed.

Yeah, the far-right needed a new target now that the gay marriage fight was a loss. Gotta have someone to punch down at. Otherwise people might look around for the real people causing problems and might punch up. They made a nice set with immigrants which have been a favored group in the US to punch down on since we won our independence.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It has gone out of its way, for years, to seek out attention.

Nope.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You have said that a person who "identifies" as a wolf is doing so under a mental illness.

I did not. Unless you mean that they believe they are a biological wolf. In that case they are denying reality.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  If "identifying" as a species you are not is a mental illness, then so is "identifying" as a gender you are not.

Gender is a presentation. Biological sex is a more solid category but filled with intersex people and other non-typical sexual expressions.

You want to pretend they are one and the same. They are not.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

IIRC, there have been about 17,000 documented cases of children receiving these treatments.  Just because something is rare does not mean it is not important.

Be specific. Surgeries? Hormones? What are you talking about? You keep claiming you want to have a reasonable discussion but then throw out vague propaganda figures without knowing what they mean.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think there is lots of justification for being concerned, even disturbed, at what has been going on with children and minors in this context.

The bulk of the medical and psychiatric community disagrees. 

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not so.  Very much in dispute.

Nope. If it were in dispute you would have credible articles about it to post and not mangled politicized summaries.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not so.  This stuff is happening all over Europe and Canada.  And I have repeatedly documented incursions into NY and CA.

People are being jailed for using incorrect pronouns. CFR!!!!!!!

And no, that one Irish guy who got fired and kept coming into work in violation of a court order telling him to stop doesn’t count as being jailed for saying the wrong pronouns.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is very much a threat, albeit one that is lessened robust First Amendment jurisprudence.

The current threat to the First Amendment comes from elsewhere.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Appeal to ridicule.

Correcting you is ridiculing you? No wonder you have such a victim complex going on.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm content to let readers review your comments and construe them as they see fit.

As am I. 😈

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.

Then why do transgender people live rent-free in your head all the time?

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think this topic is against the board rules.

Sweet, I’m in the clear!

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because I keep encountering articles and studies and such.  It's an important topic, including in the Church.  It is divisive, as evidenced by the vitriol and ugliness you bring to these threads.

And when they are discredited you go back and hunt for more from the same sources. Don’t you get tired of being lied to and deceived?

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And more ad hominem. 

No, ad hominem would mean I expect what I said to discredit what you said. I already did the discrediting thing. Now I am just having fun.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No substance.  No reasoning.

You have a bunch of lying articles on your side that are so obviously politicized I was giggling before I finished knowing it was a lie. I have the medical and psychiatric establishment of the developed world on my side but sure, you are the one presenting substance.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

You are very welcome.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

Nice, let’s get big government involved in medical decisions. This always goes well.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would like to have a substantive, reasoned, evidence-based discussion about these issues.

Then bring something better then something from baby’s first propaganda piece.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm content to let readers look at videos of children watching highly sexualized drag shows (and being invited to participate in them), and watching highly sexualized behaviors at pride parades, and decide for themselves if this is healthy or not.

Which of course has little to do with transgender people but gotta take digs at the rest of the LGBTQ community just to prove that it really is about the queerphobia and not just the children. And again you ignore the more pervasive and much more direct sexualization of children done by the heterosexual community.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  It's hard to make the depravities "sound worse" than they are.

It is kind of shocking how tame those photos are. I saw worse than that on TV as a kid back in the 80s. Clean up the whole culture if you think it is depraved. Picking on the small queer segment that far fewer children are exposed to proves it is not about the kids being exposed to sexual material. It is about that material involving crossdressing and transgender people. Does God wink at heterosexual “grooming” and burn with rage at queer “grooming”. And neither of those are grooming. 

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is.  Exposing children to highly sexualized material is the sine qua non of grooming.

Highly sexualized? Oh please. The shock photos you are showing is at best moderate. Also grooming is done with the intent of having or preparing to have a sexual encounter or relationship with the child. That is not the case with a drag show. An adult showing sexual material to a minor to encourage them to experiment with the adult would be grooming.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

More ad hominem.

You keep acting like these are part of an argument.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nothing of substance.

Yet you keep posting outrage porn to distract from what I say.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

Any time.

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sports leagues are subject to the Police Power of the Tenth Amendment, just like everything else in America.

Please tell me you are not referring to the Sports Betting ruling to try to drag the Tenth Amendment into this because that would just be sad.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And much of the controversy pertains to males in women's sports in schools.  The State typically has a legitimate interest in that sort of thing.

Maybe they did but with the impending attempt to dissolve the Department of Education probably not so much going forward.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, the status quo - women's sports being for women - was disrupted a few years ago, and we now seem to be moving away from that pretty quickly.  I am glad about that.

It was not disrupted. It was such a minor thing that states are passing laws restricting transgender athletes even when no transgender athletes are known to be playing sports in that state.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, that's not so.  Public polls show overwhelming support for getting males out of women's sports.  And plenty of women seem to care about this.

Yeah, and I bet those polls were phrased in an incredibly neutral way too.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also find men in women's bathrooms and changing rooms and prisons problematic, even though I am not personally involved in any of those.

You should try it some time. The President said it is quite the rush to perv out on women in their changing areas.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  This is a social issue that members of society ought to discuss with candor and civility.  You are, it seems, incapable of that.

Candor involves truth and facts which you don’t bring.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have marshaled fairly extensive scientific, medical and legal sources to document and substantiate my position.

No, you have marshaled extensive journalistic sources that were found to be misleading propaganda. Extensive might be stretching the truth a bit too.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've explained why:

 

Because you like to meddle in things you don’t understand and pontificate upon topics in which you are deeply ignorant and read bigoted hit-pieces on marginalized populations and share them with all your friends to tut about the depraved weirdos amongst us.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am concerned about trans ideology when it adversely spills into the public sphere:

• Men in women's sports, bathrooms, changing rooms, and prisons (and vice versa).
• Medical procedures on children and all the attendant concerns with that (informed consent, comorbidities, etc.). 
• The efficacy of medical interventions. 
• Public events involving exposing children to highly sexualized behavior. 
• Compelled/coerced speech.
• Increasing risks of violence (see, e.g., Nehor's comments in this thread about how "securing" "transgender rights" "requires" (his wording) "shooting authoritarians and fascists," "fighting," "burning things," and "all the rest").

I have read a lot about these issues, and feel that they should be discussed and debated. 

I think we all heard this list the forty second time you posted this same bullet list but thanks for the reminder.

[Zosimus]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The State taking actions against illegal protests is not an affront to the First Amendment.  

The State taking actions against legal protests is an affront.

Meanwhile, here's the State taking actions against illegal protests vs. the State taking actions against legal protests

Edited March 7, 2025 by Zosimus

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

578+ Male* Victories in Female Sports: A Nine-Month Tally

Thanks,

-Smac

You can tell how honest they are when they suggest sports like Darts give an advantage due to biological sex. 

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Meanwhile, here's the State taking actions against illegal protests vs. the State taking actions against legal protests

A cynical person might think that the law is being unequally applied in some way.

[Zosimus]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A cynical person might think that the law is being unequally applied in some way.

Disrespectful disruption of a joint session of the United States Congress vs good people just "taking a tour" of a joint session of the United States Congress

[Calm]

7 hours 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.

So the thing that determines what needs to be called out are PhDs justifying something and not the something itself?

Edited March 7, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Meanwhile, here's the State taking actions against illegal protests vs. the State taking actions against legal protests

Links aren’t working…oops, it’s because I have “restricted”. I assume there is vulgarity?

Edited March 7, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

If and when you find articles endorsing the sexualization of children in a "heterosexual" context, feel free to post them and I will join you in condemning them.

I suspect if you search out “father takes son…” or something similar and click on a couple, you will keep encountering them as you do the articles you post.  Google and other search engines tend to bring you what you respond to….which is why I don’t feel the need to provide these for you or anyone else.  

Edited March 7, 2025 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, ttribe said:

Am I the only one who finds it odd that Spencer is so very concerned about what other people do with their genitals?

….thus fulfilling Gui’s Law. 

Edited March 7, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Benjamin McGuire]

In any case, getting back to the OP -

2024: Gender-Affirming Surgery Improves Mental Health Outcomes and Decreases Antidepressant Use in Patients with Gender Dysphoria

Quote

A total of 3134 patients with gender dysphoria were included in each cohort. Patients in the surgery group had overall lower rates of mental health conditions, substance misuse, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor use. There was an absolute decrease of 8.8% in selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor prescription after gender-affirming plastic surgery (P < 0.001), and significant decreases were found in postoperative depression (7.7%), anxiety (1.6%), suicidal ideation (5.2%) and attempts (2.3%), alcohol misuse (2.1%), and drug misuse (1.9%).

This article is interesting: Association Between Mental Health Conditions and Postoperative Complications After Gender-Affirming Surgery - the interesting part of it was the statistic that they looked at involving pre-surgical mental health conditions:

Quote

Among 4318 individuals who underwent GAS, 2641 (61.2%) had an established mental health condition diagnosis

In other words, those who opt for surgical interventions, there is an already high rate of mental health issues. What is fascinating is that the OP's study actually shows a decline in mental health concerns if we only look at this group - the percentages in the OP's study would seem to suggest that the numbers - while higher than the broad cohort that did not get surgery - showed a reduction in mental health issues, and not an increase. This points to the problem with that study in the OP (and more a problem with the FOX News interpretation of it) - the assumption is that those that get surgery are starting on the same level playing field as those who don't. This isn't the case. Surgery generally becomes a viable option for those whose dysphoria is extreme - and is already causing significant problems.

This study: Association Between Gender-Affirming Surgeries and Mental Health Outcomes took a different approach. Instead of using the broad comparison taken in the OP of everyone with a dysphoria diagnosis, it compared those who wanted surgery and got it with those who wanted surgery and didn't. The results were reasonably strong:

Quote

After adjustment for sociodemographic factors and exposure to other types of gender-affirming care, undergoing 1 or more types of gender-affirming surgery was associated with lower past-month psychological distress (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.67; P < .001), past-year smoking (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75; P < .001), and past-year suicidal ideation (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64; P < .001). After Bonferroni correction, there was no statistically significant association between gender-affirming surgeries and past-month binge alcohol use or past-year suicide attempts.

In the post hoc analysis stratifying by degree of surgical affirmation, 16 401 respondents were in the reference group who received no desired surgeries. Respondents who had undergone all desired surgeries (n = 2448) had significant reductions in the odds of each adverse mental health outcome, and these reductions were more profound than those among respondents who had received only some desired surgeries (n = 3311).

In other words, not only did those who received surgeries see a remarkably improvement in mental health, but when we do a direct comparison with those who want the procedure(s) but didn't get it, the results were even stronger.

These kinds of studies show that the study referenced in the OP isn't revealing anything new or unusual. Those who get gender affirmation surgery are generally starting from a worse mental health standpoint among those with gender dysphoria than those who don't. However, the conclusion that it is the surgery itself that causes the high rate of mental health issues is wrong - those that get the surgery tend to show pronounced improvements in mental health - especially when the procedures go well. But, they do still have to deal with the societal issues that follow in our current context. The "trans-surgeries" themselves are not the source of harm that Spencer suggests they are in the threads title.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

It surely is a challenging topic, without any name calling."

Yep.

I think the trans movement is complex and difficult.

Do you acknowledge that the study you linked to in the OP does not follow people before and after surgery and therefore says nothing about the efficacy of said surgery? 
 

Its a simple yes or no question. 
 

If yes, how is the article titled “Trans surgeries increase risk of mental health conditions, suicidal ideations: study” anything other than anti-trans propaganda? How does you sharing it without even a modicum of thought or critical thinking make you anything but a propagandist?

 

If after reading the study you actually believe it shows “Trans surgeries increase risk of mental health conditions, suicidal ideations” you are just willfully ignorant at this point. So thoughtful dialogue would be pointless. You know how when some evangelical anti-Mormon comes on here and everyone gangs up on him, including the post Mormons? That’s you on this issue. Engaging with willfully ignorant people is pointless. That just leaves the name calling. 
 

This is a complex issue for sure, one that deserves nuance. If you think you can advance that conversation by posting inflammatory propaganda then you are not very good at dialogue. 

Edited March 7, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

In any case, getting back to the OP -

2024: Gender-Affirming Surgery Improves Mental Health Outcomes and Decreases Antidepressant Use in Patients with Gender Dysphoria

This article is interesting: Association Between Mental Health Conditions and Postoperative Complications After Gender-Affirming Surgery - the interesting part of it was the statistic that they looked at involving pre-surgical mental health conditions:

In other words, those who opt for surgical interventions, there is an already high rate of mental health issues. What is fascinating is that the OP's study actually shows a decline in mental health concerns if we only look at this group - the percentages in the OP's study would seem to suggest that the numbers - while higher than the broad cohort that did not get surgery - showed a reduction in mental health issues, and not an increase. This points to the problem with that study in the OP (and more a problem with the FOX News interpretation of it) - the assumption is that those that get surgery are starting on the same level playing field as those who don't. This isn't the case. Surgery generally becomes a viable option for those whose dysphoria is extreme - and is already causing significant problems.

This study: Association Between Gender-Affirming Surgeries and Mental Health Outcomes took a different approach. Instead of using the broad comparison taken in the OP of everyone with a dysphoria diagnosis, it compared those who wanted surgery and got it with those who wanted surgery and didn't. The results were reasonably strong:

In other words, not only did those who received surgeries see a remarkably improvement in mental health, but when we do a direct comparison with those who want the procedure(s) but didn't get it, the results were even stronger.

These kinds of studies show that the study referenced in the OP isn't revealing anything new or unusual. Those who get gender affirmation surgery are generally starting from a worse mental health standpoint among those with gender dysphoria than those who don't. However, the conclusion that it is the surgery itself that causes the high rate of mental health issues is wrong - those that get the surgery tend to show pronounced improvements in mental health - especially when the procedures go well. But, they do still have to deal with the societal issues that follow in our current context. The "trans-surgeries" themselves are not the source of harm that Spencer suggests they are in the threads title.

A much more accurate reading of what is going on. Thank you for taking the time to do the hard research into finding the truth.  Unfortunately, I predict this will make zero difference to those who have an agenda that only want to attack transgenders and not actually want facts to understand the conclusions of these studies including the study he has used to start this latest tirade.