New Study Re: Harmful Effects of Trans Surgery

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

When it agrees with you

I don't necessarily agree with everything I post here.  I brought it here to open up a discussion, knowing the article and the study would be picked apart.  And I was correct.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

you are willing to write up a thread title that is a lie

Well, no.  

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

and fawn over its wisdom without any critical thought or study.

Also no.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

When it disagrees with you

I often post content with which I disagree in one way or another.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

you argue that we don’t yet have enough evidence to support this,

Well, no.  I have, for some years now, been pointing to an overall lack of longitudinal data on the efficacy of these medical treatments.  Indeed, this is one of my principal concerns about them.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You swallow outright lies that tell you what you want to hear

Well, no.

I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life.  I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good.

If my assessment is wrong, I want to know that.  Hence my bringing these items to this board, where there are some people who can provide perspectives and insights on these matters.

Alas, you aren't one of these.  Ben, though nearly as nasty as you in the ad hominem department, can certainly present some thought-provoking commentary.  Pretty much all you post is snark and vitriol.  

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

while downplaying actual evidence as completely insufficient even though the evidence is overwhelming compared to the propaganda tripe you feed on.

Respectfully, I disagree with this assessment of the evidence.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then you demand reasoned discourse based on evidence.

Request, not demand.  

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The devil has taught you well.

And more ad hominem.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

39 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, that is quite apropos. I wish I had thought of it. Just a few pages in, and smac is called a pervert, a liar, and a bigot while defending a moral position. This always happens here. 

Actually, every time you post "Gui's Law," is just a deflection away from the issues at hand.

For the record, he's done nothing to "defend a moral position" in this thread. He opened the thread with a link to a story that has been repeatedly shown to be false. In doing so, he has also repeatedly doubled down on the false rhetoric despite it having been shown to him that the headlines and quote mining in that story are false and misleading. There has been zero defense of morality of any kind. What there has been is a shameless attack on people he (and you) do not even try to understand using "data" and "statements" from a right-wing news source. Unless you are about to tell me that such news source (and related sources) are part of your religion, nothing in this thread is or has been about defending the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its positions on transgender matters. What this thread amounts to is a bomb throwing exercise by Spencer and, predictably, it has blown up in his face.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Actually, every time you post "Gui's Law," is just a deflection away from the issues at hand.

I think the ad hominem stuff is quite a deflection.  Indeed, that is the very purpose of the fallacy.

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

For the record, he's done nothing to "defend a moral position" in this thread.

I think I have.  Here it is again: 

I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life.  I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good.

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

He opened the thread with a link to a story that has been repeatedly shown to be false.

The article points to a study.  And I don't think it has been "shown to be false."

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

In doing so, he has also repeatedly doubled down on the false rhetoric despite it having been shown to him that the headlines and quote mining in that story are false and misleading.

Respectfully, I disagree with this characterization.  The "false rhetoric," the "false and misleading" stuff.  All of it.

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

There has been zero defense of morality of any kind.

I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life.  I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good.

I think this is quite a morally defensible position.

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

What there has been is a shameless attack on people he (and you) do not even try to understand using "data" and "statements" from a right-wing news source.

Well, no. 

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Unless you are about to tell me that such news source (and related sources) are part of your religion, nothing in this thread is or has been about defending the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its positions on transgender matters.

The opening thread started with an explanation of the Church's position.

I think the church's position has both religious and practical dimensions.

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

What this thread amounts to is a bomb throwing exercise by Spencer and, predictably, it has blown up in his face.

Well, as you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Actually, every time you post "Gui's Law," is just a deflection away from the issues at hand.

For the record, he's done nothing to "defend a moral position" in this thread. He opened the thread with a link to a story that has been repeatedly shown to be false. In doing so, he has also repeatedly doubled down on the false rhetoric despite it having been shown to him that the headlines and quote mining in that story are false and misleading. There has been zero defense of morality of any kind. What there has been is a shameless attack on people he (and you) do not even try to understand using "data" and "statements" from a right-wing news source. Unless you are about to tell me that such news source (and related sources) are part of your religion, nothing in this thread is or has been about defending the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its positions on transgender matters. What this thread amounts to is a bomb throwing exercise by Spencer and, predictably, it has blown up in his face.

Actually, it’s an accurate description of how this once dynamic board has sadly devolved into bickering and name calling among Latter-day Saints. This thread, for example.

I deny that he or I have attacked anyone. The attacks regularly come from the other side as proven here when participants are called perverts, liars, and bigots.

CFR that I have shamelessly attacked anyone in this thread or in any discussion of transgenderism. I’ll even settle for a shameful attack. Please answer.

If removing healthy body parts from children with mental health issues is not a moral problem, then I don’t know what is. 

Edited March 7, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[ttribe]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Actually, it’s an accurate description of how this once dynamic board has sadly devolved into bickering and name calling between Saints. This thread, for example  

I deny that he or I have attacked anyone. The attacks regularly come from the other side. CFR that I have attacked anyone in this thread of in any discussion of transgenderism. Please answer.

If removing healthy body parts from children with mental health issues is not a moral issue, then I don’t know what is. 

Your CFR is nonsense since I did not say YOU attacked anyone. Geez, work on your reading comprehension. I stated the purpose of this thread is to attack a group of people neither Spencer understands, nor do you apparently understand.

For the record, transition surgery on minors is EXTREMELY rare.

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Your CFR is nonsense since I did not say YOU attacked anyone. Geez, work on your reading comprehension. I stated the purpose of this thread is to attack a group of people neither Spencer understands, nor do you apparently understand.

For the record, transition surgery on minors is EXTREMELY rare.

Really? Your words…

34 minutes ago, ttribe said:

What there has been is a shameless attack on people he (and you) do not even try to understand using "data" and "statements" from a right-wing news source. Unless you are about to tell me that such news source (and related sources) are part of your religion, nothing in this thread is or has been about defending the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its positions on transgender matters.

Minors or anyone else. CFR stands. 
 

PS. I’m not interested in rehashing the previous 7 pages, thank you. 

Edited March 7, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Actually, it’s an accurate description of how this once dynamic board has sadly devolved into bickering and name calling between Saints. This thread, for example  

Sadly, indeed.

Also sad is that I've become used to it.  Huge portions of American society have reservations, concerns, etc. re: some aspects of trans ideology, such as:

• Men in women's sports, bathrooms, changing rooms, and prisons (and vice versa).
• Gender-related medical procedures on children and all the attendant concerns with that (informed consent, comorbidities, etc.). 
• The efficacy of these 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've said this a few times now: I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life.  I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good.

Not only is this a pretty mainstream sentiment (not extreme, not hateful, etc.), Ben actually has the chutzpah to say that I am "disingenuous" when I state the above.

When Ben is presuming to know more about my thoughts than I do, and when a participant of his apparent stature, and others, casually slander others for holding an eminently reasonable position, calling it bigotry/hatred, then yeah, the devolution of this board is real.

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I deny that he or I have attacked anyone. The attacks regularly come from the other side. CFR that I have attacked anyone in this thread of in any discussion of transgenderism. Please answer.

If removing healthy body parts from children with mental health issues is not a moral issue, then I don’t know what is. 

I have elsewhere discussed GAS as to minors, and my various concerns about that:

• 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).

Several of these concerns overlap with concerns re: GAS as to adults.  

The attempted suppression of discussion of these concerns is . . . troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Really? Your words…

Minors or anyone else. CFR stands. 

I did NOT say YOU attacked anyone. I did say you do NOT understand the people being attacked by the misleading story posted by Spencer. This should not be difficult for you to understand.

There is literally no "CFR" to respond to. If you are so concerned, report me and let the mods deal with it.

Edited March 7, 2025 by ttribe

[jkwilliams]

On 3/6/2025 at 3:18 PM, smac97 said:

All evidence to the contrary.  I cannot recall a single instance of you setting aside your vitriol and snark and having a reasoned, evidence-based discussion and debate.  It's just not in you.

You have nothing of substance to offer.  Just vitriol and accusations and emotionalisms.

I have never condemned transgender people generally (I have specifically condemned people who are, in my view, grooming children by exposing them to highly sexualized stuff at parades, drag shows, etc.).  I have some real compassion for people with Gender Dysphoria.

See the OP.

I am not "dictating" to anyone.  I started a thread to have a conversation and a debate.  And you, as usual, have nothing substantive to offer in response.

No.  Free Speech is a wonderful thing.  I decline to be censored, least of all by you.

Vitriol and invective.  Emotionalisms and accusations.  That's all you've got.  That's all you ever post.  No substance.  No reasoning.

Says the guy who endorses actual physical violence against anyone he arbitrarily labels a "nazi" or a "fascist," even including little old Canadian ladies crossing the street.

Your moral pronouncements carry no weight with me.  None.  I could not care less about what you think "better" means.

Thanks,

-Smac

He has a point; you aren’t discussing data, just a biased article that misrepresents the data. That’s pretty shameful. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I did NOT say YOU attacked anyone. I did say you do NOT understand the people being attacked by the misleading story posted by Spencer. This should not be difficult for you to understand.

There is literally no "CFR" to respond to. If you are so concerned, report me and let the mods deal with it.

Yeah, you did, and yeah, there is. The more you deny it, the more you contrive to prove it. As Spencer correctly said, it’s sad that we have gotten used to this kind of treatment.

I have had a number of students and friends with this issue. I have felt nothing but compassion for them and have never attacked them, nor would I ever. CFR that I have on this board at any time and in any way. 

Edited March 8, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yeah, you did, and yeah, there is. The more you deny it, the more you contrive to prove it. As Spencer correctly said, it’s sad that we have gotten used to this kind of treatment.

I have had a number of students and friends with this issue. I have felt nothing but compassion for them and have never attacked them, nor would I ever. CFR that I have in on this board in any way. 

Wow. Just report me. This is so bizarre.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I stated the purpose of this thread is to attack a group of people

No, that is not the purpose of this thread.  I should know, since I started it.

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

neither Spencer understands,

Strange, then, that so many want to suppress and censor discussion and exploration and learning, rather than accommodate such things.

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

For the record, transition surgery on minors is EXTREMELY rare.

Huh.  Sexual abuse by bishops is also "EXTREMELY rare."  Does that mean we should not pay attention to it?

I'm reminded of a scene from Star Trek: Insurrection.  A mediocre movie, but this scene was pretty good:

Quote

Admiral Matthew Dougherty: Jean-Luc, we're only moving 600 people.

Captain Picard: How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? Hmm? A thousand, fifty thousand, a million? How many people does it take, Admiral?

Well?  How many such procedures on children does it take?

And anyway, are you sure about that "EXTREMELY rare" thing?

Thousands of Minors Have Received ‘Gender-Affirming Surgeries’

Quote

A new study has been published by the Journal of the American Medical Association about the number of people who have had “gender-affirming” surgeries — including minors — between 2016-2019. The numbers are startling:

A total of 48 019 patients who underwent GAS were identified, including 25 099 (52.3%) who were aged 19 to 30 years. The most common procedures were breast and chest procedures, which occurred in 27 187 patients (56.6%), followed by genital reconstruction (16 872 [35.1%]) and other facial and cosmetic procedures (6669 [13.9%]).

The absolute number of GAS procedures rose from 4552 in 2016 to a peak of 13 011 in 2019 and then declined slightly to 12 818 in 2020. Overall, 25 099 patients (52.3%) were aged 19 to 30 years, 10 476 (21.8%) were aged 31 to 40, and 3678 (7.7%) were aged 12 to 18 years. When stratified by the type of procedure performed, breast and chest procedures made up a greater percentage of the surgical interventions in younger patients, while genital surgical procedures were greater in older patients. [Emphasis added.]

It is worth noting that for some strange reason, the analysis included the younger category at ages 12–18, when it would have been much more elucidating to segregate minors 12–17 so we could know for sure how many children are having mastectomies, facial reconstructions, and genital redesigns. But it is clear that children’s bodies are being surgically altered. Indeed, another study out of Vanderbilt University found that 489 minors — ages 12–17, median age 16 — had mastectomies in 2019.

How many of the 3,678 surgeries between ages 12–18 were of the genitals? According to the report, “405 patients (11.0%) aged 12 to 18 years underwent genital surgery.” I suspect — hope — that most of these were age 18, but surely not all. If I am right, that means at least some minors have had their genitals destroyed, rendering them infertile and almost surely incapable of orgasm for the rest of their lives.

And remember, these statistics end at 2019. If anything, the transgender hysteria is far more intense in 2023, meaning that potentially more minors are being put under the knife.

To me, this study should indicate the importance of hitting the brakes for transgender surgeries and puberty blocking in minors — as much of Western Europe is now doing. But the authors have a different take:

The rapid rise in the performance of GAS suggests that there will be a greater need for clinicians knowledgeable in the care of transgender individuals and with the requisite expertise to perform GAS procedures. However, numerous reports have described the political considerations and challenges in the delivery of transgender care. Despite many medical societies recognizing the necessity of gender-affirming care, several states have enacted legislation or policies that restrict gender-affirming care and services, particularly in adolescence. These regulations are barriers for patients who seek gender-affirming care and provide legal and ethical challenges for clinicians. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, they want more doctors doing these procedures — and this at a time when there are physician shortages around the country generally.

Bottom line: Children are being surgically transitioned in appalling numbers, including at least some genital mutilations that often require life-long continuing medical support — when studies show that gender confusion in children and teenagers is often “transitory,” as the “de-transition” phenomenon is growing.

I hope more states pass laws barring these procedures for anyone who is underage. Children should be protected from being permanently disfigured.

And here: Over 5,700 children in 5-year period had gender surgeries

Quote

Do No Harm, a national advocacy group of medical professionals against "woke" hospital agendas, shared the database, called "Does My Hospital Transition Kids?", with Fox News Digital this week. In total, the group conservatively identified 5,747 minor patients who received sex-change surgery, and 13,994 received some sort of gender reassignment treatment between 2019 and 2023.

And here:

Quote

Please do your due diligence. Review the literature on the DI-AG site (di-ag.org) and fact-check their sources. Check Do No Harm’s methodology (donoharmmedicine.org). We certainly can no longer make the claim that surgeries and life-altering interventions are rare. And we also cannot say this is a Republican or right-wing discrimination agenda (stoptheharmdatabase.com).

What Do No Harm found in the United States between 2019 and 2023: 

— 13,994 minors underwent sex change treatments 

— 5,747 minors had sex change surgeries 

— 8,579 minors received hormones and puberty blockers 

— 62,682 sex change prescriptions were written for minors

 — Total submitted charges: $119,791,202

See also here: https://stoptheharmdatabase.com/

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

42 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Wow. Just report me. This is so bizarre.

Challenging me to report you is not cool. One should have the integrity to back up an accusation without resorting to that. 

[ttribe]

36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Challenging me to report you is not cool. One should have the integrity to back up an accusation without resorting to that. 

Just report me if you're so convinced. Your nonsense is tiresome.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Perhaps. What did the study use that you reference in the OP? I am asking because it seems clear to me that you are applying a standard of analysis here that you didn't begin to use toward the material that you referenced.

This is what registered for me too.  Where were these first response questions for the study mentioned in the OP…or for other studies Smac has appealed to in the past. 

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's not my study.  I didn't write it.  I brought it here for discussion, knowing that it would be picked apart.  And it has been.

When you show skepticism (look at the details questioning reliability, etc) as your first reaction to one study that contradicts your position and leave it to others to pick apart the ones you present, yet ignore their findings when they do****, that doesn’t appear like you are bringing studies to the board in part to get factchecked or any evidence of skepticism of them.

It does not demonstrate a balanced approach.

****see your lack of reaction in the link below to the multiple posts of Lott corrective info with the Texas study in this thread as one example, you responded to a number of posts around the corrections, but no response to the correction.

The link is to your posting of the Lott info.  Corrections start on the next page.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/76211-trib-article-re-the-church-members-and-mass-deportations/page/14/#findComment-1210205815

Please notice I am not making any personal accusations beyond the apparent lack of skepticism for studies you post and how this contrasts with how you treat studies that do not support your position, so please don’t assume I think this demonstrates you are a bigot or any other label that has been applied to you.

I did point to your shaming of others by the use of Great and Spacious Building earlier, but only because two sentences above you said you didn’t use shaming.  It made me wonder.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/76344-new-study-re-harmful-effects-of-trans-surgery/page/2/#findComment-1210212638

I have also reported the thread as too many personal attacks quite a few pages back and I am assuming Nemesis will lock it when he gets back since he can’t depend on us to abide by board rules.

Edited March 8, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

When you show skepticism as your first reaction to one study that contradicts your position

My "position" being . . . what?

This? "I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life.  I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good."

I am not coming to this discussion with a blank slate.  I have read quite a bit about it, and have come to some general, though still provisions, conclusions about it.  So given the totality of what I have read and considered, I am not an equal opportunity skeptic as to every article or study. 

Frankly, that's a pretty strange expectation.  If we were discussing the merits of the First Amendment, would you expect me to show equal measures of "skepticism" to articles opposing Free Speech?  Wouldn't it be rather unsurprising to see me, an American lawyer for the past 20+ years, start out predisposed toward a particular point of view on that topic?  And wouldn't it be sort of weird for you to then find fault with me for having that predisposition?

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

and leave it to others to pick apart the ones you present,

Oh, brother. 

Show me the board rule that requires me to vet and scrutinize and parse out every cited reference before posting about it.

Take your time.  I'll wait.

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

yet ignore their findings when they do****,

I have no idea what you are talking about.  I started this thread, and of the 80 posts in it, 56 - 70% - are mine.  I have responded to virtually every comment directed at me, so how is this "ignor{ing} their findings"?

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

that doesn’t appear like you are bringing studies to the board in part to get factchecked

And yet, that is precisely why I started this thread.  I know because I was there.  I am the world's leading authority on what I think, so you'll pardon me if I don't give much probative weight to your pronouncements disputing the accuracy of my own statements about my own thoughts.

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

or any evidence of skepticism.

See my above comments ("So given the totality of what I have read and considered, I am not an equal opportunity skeptic as to every article or study.").

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

It does not demonstrate a balanced approach.

Again, I am not coming to this discussion with a blank slate.

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

****see your lack of reaction in the link below to the multiple posts of Lott corrective info with the Texas study in this thread as one example, you responded to a number of posts around the corrections, but no response to the correction.

The link is to your posting of the Lott info.  Corrections start on the next page.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/76211-trib-article-re-the-church-members-and-mass-deportations/page/14/#findComment-1210205815

I'm pretty comfortable with my record of engaging others who disagree with me.

Honestly, I have no recollection of reading this "Lott info."  

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please notice I am not making any personal accusations

I have said: "I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life.  I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good."  And Ben, in response, accused me of being "disingenuous" in stating this as my own thoughts.

I have said that brought the article "here for discussion, knowing that it would be picked apart," and above you are contradicting me about my own stated motive ("that doesn’t appear like you are bringing studies to the board in part to get factchecked").

Yeesh.  I used to harbor some notions of common cause and fellowship with the other Latter-day Saints on this board.  I guess that's gone now.

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

beyond the apparent lack of skepticism for studies you post and how this contrasts with how you treat studies that do not support your position,

Again: "I am not coming to this discussion with a blank slate.  I have read quite a bit about it, and have come to some general, though still provisions, conclusions about it.  So given the totality of what I have read and considered, I am not an equal opportunity skeptic as to every article or study."

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

so please don’t assume I think this demonstrates you are a bigot or any other label that has been applied to you.

Well, I appreciate that you are not joining in the various and sundry declarations that I am a bigot, hate trans people, etc.  That's . . . something.  

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Show me the board rule that requires me to vet and scrutinize and parse out every cited reference before posting about it.

I never said it was a board rule.  Please don’t put words in my mouth.  

You pointed to you putting studies out and leaving it to others to pick apart as if that meant you were at least partially involved in the actual picking apart of them (as in recognition and response to the data) since you presented it as an answer to the challenge you only expressed skepticism in this thread in the case of the study that contradicted the OP study.  I put up evidence this didn’t happen.

Your choice of what you don’t respond to includes quite a few corrections of studies you put up in my experience.

When you ignore documentation showing weaknesses of the studies you present, you are not engaging with that documentation. There is a lack of recognition there is evidence you are wrong in your conclusions because you are depending on faulty studies as your evidence.

Quote

Honestly, I have no recollection of reading this "Lott info."  

Which tends to support my claim you ignore information that contradicts studies you put up.

And you again do not engage with the actual evidence showing you were mistaken, just respond with ‘no recollection’.  That is not engagement.  It doesn’t even show that you clicked on the link and looked at the example of behavior I gave (I am not saying you didn’t, but if I can’t tell whether or not you did, that is pretty solid lack of engagement imo.

I will retract my claim that you lack the motive of bringing your studies to be factchecked, you may even intend to engage with such factchecking. I will change that to you often ignore in your responses such actual factchecking. 

Edited March 8, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life.  I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good.

You want to take from them options that have brought many of them great peace and happiness and fulfillment.

Let me assure you that they hate what you are doing and if they read the tripe you post many of them would hate you personally.

Don’t pretend this is some selfless mission of charity. You want to ‘normalize’ them and make them go away so they don’t make you uncomfortable. Your approach leads to them being closeted, alone, and scared with no way to find support or help for what they are experiencing. I have been closeted. It is not conducive to mental health.

That is the real world result. You aren’t the hero here. You’re the villain. Support horrible policies in defiance of the medical and psychiatric consensus to prohibit procedures and treatments that bring help and relief to people if you want but you can’t also claim you are helping them. You are hurting them. There is already a slow exodus of transgender people to states where their treatment is more likely to not get cut off. Some of my friends are leaving for a safer environment. I loathe the people who are driving them away from their homes and communities. They are malicious and cruel and are causing pain. You are on their side.

Own it!

 

Poster removed

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

Just report me if you're so convinced. Your nonsense is tiresome.

I’m not a tattler. You made the accusation, back it up with proof. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think I have used "abusive language."  That's your gig.  And SU's.  And Nehor's.

So using language like "killing babies" and the like isn't really abusive. I think that you have a double standard Spencer. Your actions here are certainly not as benign as you try to claim they are.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think I have posted any "false narratives."

And yet, you have, all the time. And that leaves us at sort of an impasse - because even when you are corrected, you don't really bother to actually change your voice - you simply wait a while and repeat yourself. I would list some examples, but I suspect it would derail the conversation.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

And more ad hominem.

I love how you both predict that you will be labeled a bigot and then label it ad hominem when it occurs. It is a beautiful thing. The thing is, this isn't ad hominem. Why, you might ask? Because I don't substitute my counter points against you with the suggestion that you are a bigot. If all I said was that your opinion doesn't count because you are a bigot - now that would be ad hominem. Making the observation that you are acting as a bigot and responding to your points - that's not ad hominem. Of course, using that term as a way of deflecting my arguments is itself a logical fallacy. But whatever.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nobody likes being publicly disparaged in the ways you and Nehor mete out.  And all I have to do to avoid it is . . . submit.  Knock on your door and ask you to not call me a bigot.  Conform.  "Think the way you want me to think."  Capitulate.  Praise the emperor's beautiful clothes.  Don't speak.  Don't give voice to my thoughts.  Don't do these things, or else Ben will publicly disparage my character.  "It is that simple."

I really no longer care whether you like it or not. I am simply tired of the fact that you have filled this forum with your venom. I am tired of the fact that the vast majority of your comments are political in a forum that is supposed to avoid political discourse - and just starting with a link to an LDS web page doesn't actually redirect your political commentary into some acceptable place. Your character is on full display here. If I am disparaging it (as you suggest) then perhaps it should be justification for some self reflection. But, after all this time, I don't see that happening.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, I am not.  The vitriol has been from you, SU, Nehor, etc.

Nope. But, as I said before, you remind me of that vitriolic anti-mormon woman who kept reminding me that it wasn't vitriol either - it was righteous indignation. And see here, this abusive language that you don't use? Directed at people who disagree with you? Seriously? Where does all this nonsense come from about you taking the high road? Because I don't see it.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Labeling viewpoints you disagree with as "false narratives" puts the cart before the horse.

I might even agree with you if this was the first time this discussion had come up. It isn't. And you keep searching for things that will support your point of view while doing your best to ignore everything that doesn't. When I present something that disagrees with you, you attack it with a skepticism and rigor that you have never applied to your friendly sources. Cart before the horse? Really?

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Here is that position: I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life.  I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good.

The sleight of hand here is simple. I'll explain. There is a range of ways that people with Gender Dysphoria can have a better quality of life. Some of the things that can apparently help them are therapeutic. This includes at the extreme end of Gender Dysphoria having surgical treatments. If the research supports the idea that surgical responses will help, would you be in favor of them? I want an answer to that question. Another option is not surgical but involves living life as the gender that they believe that they are (even in pretense). If the research supports this, do you believe that this should be encouraged by society? I want an answer to this question. On an entirely different scale, much of the quality of life issues that those with gender dysphoria face is the social stigma created by them publicly doing things to have a better quality of life. If you are really in favor of them having a better quality of life, shouldn't you be advocating for the de-stigmatization of those with gender dysphoria? I would like an answer to that question.

The challenge here is that your actions, your posts, your comments all point in the other direction. You do not believe that surgery helps create a better quality of life and so you treat any literature that makes that argument as the gospel truth while treating anything that suggests otherwise with absolute skepticism. You do not believe that people should participate in society as something other than their "biological sex". You post frequently on the terrible damage to society that comes from this happening. And you clearly are no advocate for destigmatizing those with gender dysphoria. So you can keep telling yourself that this is your position - but in the ends, I am just not seeing it. What you aren't articulating here is what the "better quality of life" should look like. And this is where that sleight of hand comes into play. By concealing that, you completely leave open then meaning of your position.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think we are mostly lacking in "evidence based research."  That said, I have done a lot of reading and thinking and writing on this stuff.

I think that this is true only if we recognize that your reading and thinking has largely been one directional (and there is evidence of that here in this thread).

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think some appreciable portions of the extant "research" are ideologically compromised. There is strong evidence of ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on this area of medical care.

Again, this only seems to be an issue in one direction for you.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think we are lacking in meaningful longitudinal data.

And, while I agree, you seem to be supportive of policies that will prevent the collection of meaningful longitudinal data.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think these absences essentially negate the possibility of "informed consent."

And I think that this is nonsense. Of course, we could agree with this, in which case, any experimental procedure or therapy would be absent "informed consent" and there could be no significant medical progress. I don't agree with this position though. Your perspective that anything related to gender affirmation care can only have bad outcomes is really what seems to be behind this claim - that is, that all gender affirming care (at least when it affirms a gender that is different from that represented by what you call "biological sex" can only lead to harm, and so there cannot be "informed consent" without notifying them of that harm.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think comorbidities are not getting nearly enough attention as they deserve.

And what are these comorbidities that you think aren't getting nearly enough attention? I am not sure that this term means quite what you think it means in the context of this discussion ... or are you suggesting that Gender Dysphoria is really caused by something else that should be treatable (and so get rid of the dysphoria)?

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think there is cause for real concern re: "social contagion" aspects of this issue.

Ah yes. Much like being Jewish or Mormon. Gender Dysphoria is really a choice that we all engage in on the basis of peer pressure. Let me ask you, does having a gay friend make you more gay? Does having a transgender friend give you gender dysphoria? We probably need to start being really careful here, because maybe getting a blood transfusion from a transgender person could start our transition ...

I have really serious skepticism here because I know of absolutely zero transgender people whose gender dysphoria was either something that they enjoyed or that they envied in someone else.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think these medical treatments are largely irreversible, often result in permanent sterilization, often require lifeline medical regimens, and so on.  

And? I think that you seem to be using your "quality of life" measurement here as the way to evaluate this. These are the cons (although let's be realistic, top surgery doesn't lead to sterility, and that is by far the most common GAS). I could go into this one a bit more, but probably its not worth it.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think many people, including you, are ignoring these concerns, and that you are also attempting to suppress or censor discussion of them by shouting them down with accusations of "bigotry," "hatred," and so on.

I am more than happy to discuss these concerns. The problem is that you want evidence for these discussions when you aren't willing to put any up front yourself. And then when you get the evidence based discussion, your skepticism kicks into high gear - because most of the evidence we have doesn't support your position. The bigotry claims come because of all of these secondary problems. That is, for you, the discussion isn't really about any of these issues that you list here. It is instead about the "fairness" of transgender athletes, the problems of transgender individuals using public bathrooms, the concerns over transgenders being public at all (because that might cause "social contagion"). I am going to spend just a moment on that last term. The use of this idea of gender dysphoria as a social contagion - and the public discussion of that idea as a way of spreading fear about transgender people is itself an example of "social contagion". It's catching, so we have to hide them (or better yet, make them go away). This is the bigotry. I am not shouting you down. If anything, I post rather infrequently on these topics. But you ... how many times have you posted on these issues in the last month? The last six months? How many times have you felt the need to get in that last word. This isn't shouting you down - this is trying to point out to you the problems with your position. You just (as you said) don't like being labeled like this because it points the fundamental problems with some of your arguments.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life.  I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good.

No. You don't. We would be having an entirely different set of conversations is you were really interested in them having a better quality of life.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, i see that.

Meanwhile, despite your attempt to speak for me, I'll lay out my general position: I want people with Gender Dysphoria to have a better quality of life.  I question whether gender-affirming surgery is facilitating that, or if it is doing more harm than good.

Spencer, you keep repeating this mantra, as if it will make it true. It won't. You aren't. Nearly everything you have posted here about transgendered people has been negative, stereotyped, and encouraged social isolation of them.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have substantially larger concerns with GAS as pertaining to minors.

Ok. So, of the breast surgeries performed on minors, approximately 96% of them are performed for cisgendered males who identify as males. These are all GAS. You have concerns with them?

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Assuming comorbidities are absent or sufficiently managed, meaningful longitudinal data is available and validated, and the patient has provided informed consent (I question whether minors can do this, but mentally competent adults can), sure.  

I work in health care. You keep using this word (comorbidities). I do not think it means what you think it means.

I'll provide a definition:

Comorbidities are medical conditions that coexist alongside a primary diagnosis and affect your health, including your treatment and outlook. Common comorbidities among hospitalized people include hypertension, diabetes and chronic lung disease. Multimorbidity is a similar term that means one person has two or more chronic conditions.

When a cisgender minor male gets a breast reduction surgery (as a GAS) there is no gender dysphoria diagnosis. The primary diagnosis is gynecomastia. There are sometimes triggers for it (both disease and medication) - and in these cases, the gynecomastia is the comorbidity. Without those causes, gynecomastia can evidence comorbidities including breast cancer, disorders related to the endocrine glands, disorders related to affected musculoskeletal/connective tissue, and so on. These comorbidities don't generally appear in young people because they take time to develop. So, the treatment often occurs in minors to both provide gender affirming treatment but also to prevent comorbidities. The surgery is generally very safe (there are the normal risks of course). These are rather routine. So this makes me question your statement here. I wonder what you think it means?

By the same token, comorbidities associated with gender dysphoria would be problems associated with the primary diagnosis. It is hard to talk about sufficiently managed comorbidities of gender dysphoria when the depression and other mental health issues are directly caused by the primary diagnosis. Managing those comorbidities is the precise purpose of gender affirming care. Unless, of course, you think that the real approach should be to up their anti-depressants until they stop feeling anything about themselves. Although maybe that's what you mean by "quality of life".

[Tacenda]

My distant cousin and former ward member's son came out trans about a year or so ago. They or she is a returned missionary and BYU alum. A very faithful active family, I'm sure it was a change that they weren't expecting but are handling it in a very accepting loving way. And this isn't the only family that has trans or gays in my former ward. I think people need to get over it by now. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

And anyway, are you sure about that "EXTREMELY rare" thing?

Thousands of Minors Have Received ‘Gender-Affirming Surgeries’

So let's review -

First, that study mentions something that ought to be significant to Spencer given the earlier discussions:

Quote

While numerous surgical interventions can be considered GAS, the procedures have been broadly classified as breast and chest surgical procedures, facial and cosmetic interventions, and genital reconstructive surgery. 2,4 Prior studies 2-7 have shown that GAS is associated with improved quality of life, high rates of satisfaction, and a reduction in gender dysphoria. Furthermore, some studies have reported that GAS is associated with decreased depression and anxiety. 8 Lastly, the procedures appear to be associated with acceptable morbidity and reasonable rates of perioperative complications. 2,4

Apart from that, there was a follow-up study that came out a year later in the same journal: Prevalence of Gender-Affirming Surgical Procedures Among Minors and Adults in the US. It's open source, so you can see the article. There is something really important here that is discussed with specific regard to the study listed above. While the study Spencer linked included everyone with a trasngender indicator, it based its inclusion for chest related surgeries only on the ICD10 codes: 19303, 19304, and 19325. This caused problems. As the more recent study indicates specifically of the study Spencer linked:

Quote

However, there are limited national data; while 1 study provided national estimates, it did not capture minors under the age of 12 years and did not exclude procedures with clinical justifications outside of gender affirmation.

This study filters out all clinical justifications outside of gender affirmation. Since this was time consuming work, they limited their investigation to just 2019 (the year with the most procedures in the data set). It arrives at this description of the data:

Quote

The rate of undergoing a gender-affirming surgery with a TGD-related diagnosis was 5.3 per 100 000 total adults compared with 2.1 per 100 000 minors aged 15 to 17 years, 0.1 per 100 000 minors aged 13 to 14 years, and 0 procedures among minors aged 12 years or younger (Figure 1). Of gender-affirming surgical procedures identified among adults and minors, 1591 of 2664 (59.7%) and 82 of 85 (96.4%) were chest-related procedures, respectively. Of the 636 breast reductions among cisgender male and TGD adults, 507 (80%) were performed on cisgender males. Of the 151 breast reductions among cisgender male minors and TGD minors, 146 (97%) were performed on cisgender male minors (Figure 2).

In other words, in 2019, there is a much smaller figure.

Quote

Thus, these findings suggest that concerns around high rates of gender-affirming surgery use, specifically among TGD minors, may be unwarranted. Low use by TGD people likely reflects adherence to stringent standards of gender-affirming care. 2,3

So there we have it ... right back to low numbers. But wait - where was all of Spencer's skepticism?

Edited March 8, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[MustardSeed]

I know especially for people of my age and older, the concept of transitioning can be extremely upsetting.  I will admit that I have two huge anxieties for my grandchildren, and this is one.  At the same time, I am trying my best to never do harm. 
Perhaps I do harm by admitting my fear, in that I perpetuate the problem of unacceptance?   I admit I have work to do.  I am deeply flawed. But I can say when my children were babies, I was sure we would face LGBTQ issues, and I told my very southern husband we would love our kids “no matter what” .  He got on board and it has paid off- our kids have all made choices outside the lines we drew and we have strong relationships with all of them.  I trust I’ll weather all my fears in this life (Except my worst fear. I’ll not tempt fate and I’ll keep that to myself)

It would be nice to have a place to process our discomforts without being accused of bigotry and racism. Maybe I’m a bigot and a racist but the accusations will only force a digging in to protect myself.  
 

 

Edited March 8, 2025 by MustardSeed

[ttribe]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m not a tattler. You made the accusation, back it up with proof. 

I have clarified my statement multiple times to you. Either report me or leave me alone. Your choice.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

When a cisgender minor male gets a breast reduction surgery (as a GAS) there is no gender dysphoria diagnosis. The primary diagnosis is gynecomastia. There are sometimes triggers for it (both disease and medication) - and in these cases, the gynecomastia is the comorbidity. Without those causes, gynecomastia can evidence comorbidities including breast cancer, disorders related to the endocrine glands, disorders related to affected musculoskeletal/connective tissue, and so on. These comorbidities don't generally appear in young people because they take time to develop. So, the treatment often occurs in minors to both provide gender affirming treatment but also to prevent comorbidities. The surgery is generally very safe (there are the normal risks of course). These are rather routine. So this makes me question your statement here. I wonder what you think it means?

By the same token, comorbidities associated with gender dysphoria would be problems associated with the primary diagnosis. It is hard to talk about sufficiently managed comorbidities of gender dysphoria when the depression and other mental health issues are directly caused by the primary diagnosis. Managing those comorbidities is the precise purpose of gender affirming care. Unless, of course, you think that the real approach should be to up their anti-depressants until they stop feeling anything about themselves. Although maybe that's what you mean by "quality of life".

Thank you for posting this info.  I do sincerely wish we had a more detailed discussion here about gender affirming care for cisgendered minors because I am lacking information in this area and your description here is causing me to reconsider my relatively strong position against such surgery for minors if the reality is it’s not being done primarily for cosmetic purposes, but for preventative care.  I would like to learn more to see if the advantages of having surgery several years earlier are that significant.

Having gone through breast reduction surgery with some minor complications post surgery, I don’t look on the result as free of negative consequences (scar tissue can be painful even after 25 years and the scars themselves are disfiguring in my case, I hate them) even though I would definitely do the surgery again and earlier if I had one of those redo lives fantasy show writers seem to love.  The positive effects on my health out weigh the negatives for me but I am concerned about a minor’s ability to be able to weigh such consequences when it’s hard for me even years after the fact.  If I knew for sure back pain would be less with earlier treatment, I would likely sacrifice the possible protection against allergies of breastfeeding for my kids which is the reason I delayed, but I imagine if I had these scars as a minor I would have even worse body image problems than I had from being on the large size because at least others viewed my shape as attractive even if I wanted a less feminine looking body myself, so for me surgery as a minor would probably been a negative even though I likely would have been much more physically active (supportive enough sports bras were nonexistent back then).