Utah lawmakers’ own study found gender-affirming care benefits trans youth. Will they lift the treatment ban?

BCP1928 · May 29, 2025

rjs330 said:
Males and females who have decided they want to show some rebellion and set themselves apart from the group. Making a claim of non-binary or gender fluid is just one of the newer ways to do that. But they are still just boys or girls, males or females. They are just looking for edgy ways to be different.

They are still in the binary and are still boys or girls no matter what kind of proclamations they make.

"In the binary?" What, exactly, is that?

RileyG · May 29, 2025

rjs330 said:
Males and females who have decided they want to show some rebellion and set themselves apart from the group. Making a claim of non-binary or gender fluid is just one of the newer ways to do that. But they are still just boys or girls, males or females. They are just looking for edgy ways to be different.

They are still in the binary and are still boys or girls no matter what kind of proclamations they make. In essence they are just play acting. Playing dress up to make some sort of statement.

Which of course is okay for them as an individual to do.

Yup, and intersex isn’t a third gender.

RileyG · May 29, 2025

BCP1928 said:
"In the binary?" What, exactly, is that?

Human sexuality, male and female, boys and girls, men and women.

Mercy Shown · May 29, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
Utah‘s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth was meant to be a moratorium, giving lawmakers the chance to reevaluate the policy once experts reviewed research on the impacts of treatment.

This week, nearly 2½ years after the law took effect, lawmakers received the findings of that study.

Utah health care experts concluded, in a more than 1,000-page report, “Overall, there were positive mental health and psychosocial functioning outcomes” as a result of gender-affirming care.

Well, now that the results are in, they will change the law to follow the evidence, right?

But some Republican legislators are already dismissing those findings.

I guess it wasn't all about the evidence after all.

While the review prepared for lawmakers acknowledged “an increase in some specific types of benign brain tumors,” it found in studies that included thousands of transgender individuals that “increase risk of mortality was consistently due to increase in suicide, non-natural causes, and HIV/AIDS. Patients that were seen at the gender clinic before the age of 18 had a lower risk of suicide compared to those referred as an adult.”

The number of pages in a report do not make it more or less significant. As far as “evidence“ I see none in your post, but perhaps you could quote from the study the actual facts that they found. My guess is it would be mostly opinion, but I’m open if you can actually quote some hard evidence.

RocksInMyHead · May 29, 2025

Mercy Shown said:
The number of pages in a report do not make it more or less significant. As far as “evidence“ I see none in your post, but perhaps you could quote from the study the actual facts that they found. My guess is it would be mostly opinion, but I’m open if you can actually quote some hard evidence.

The report is linked in the article. You're presumably capable of reading it for yourself. I'd certainly advise that over making baseless speculations like "my guess is that it's mostly opinion."

Hans Blaster · May 29, 2025

BCP1928 said:
"In the binary?" What, exactly, is that?

I really wish they could understand a simple concept like bi-modal and how it is different from bi-nary.

rjs330 · May 29, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Yes, I believe that there are non-religious people who believe that trans is not real and that kids who say they are trans are either seriousy mentally ill or wicked pretenders, but there are also Christians who think trans is real and that trans kids need compassionate treatment. No, I was referring more to the nature of the arguments. All the real arguments that can be raised against trans can be resolved in some way or other, have been solve in the case of boys in girls sports, but still the arguing goes on and now we have federal bullying about a handful of trans kids who have been accepted by their female peers. No, the real objection to trans is based on morality, even for atheists.

First of all, having an actual mental illness has nothing to do with morality. If a person has a delusional disorder it doesn't mean they are immoral. Anymore than having heart disease makes one immoral.

The difficulty is in what do we as a society do with that. That is where the immorality lies. We have been so much malarkey from the trans activists that we dont really have a clue. We dont know what causes the condition. We dont even have a solid grasp on how to diagnose the condition. There is no required therapies, no determination of if they really are or are not trans. No determination if there are other comorbitities or trauma or anything else that may be cause the person to believe they are rhe opposite sex. They are simply, believed and moved on to drug treatments. This is where you get the 100% diagnosis rates with drug treatments. And Planned Parenthood that requires no mental treatment of any kind.

And for children this has devastating lifelong psychological and physiological effects. The immorality is in listening to liars and decievers who have used the poorest of quality research as if it were the gold standard for treatments. And the abhorrent belief that all kids who think rhey are trans must be affirmed and led down the trans pathway or they might kill themselves. That's where one part of the immorality lies.

The other part is with those, mostly men, who ARE faking it due to a bizarre sexual fantasy or perversion.

The last immorality is forcing other people to go along with it or face punishment of some kind including up to losing their job.

BCP1928 · May 29, 2025

RileyG said:
Human sexuality, male and female, boys and girls, men and women.

And if a person decides, for whatever reason, whatever the biology or personal sexual preference, not to adopt the overt gendered behaviors of either males or females, so what?

BCP1928 · May 29, 2025

rjs330 said:
First of all, having an actual mental illness has nothing to do with morality. If a person has a delusional disorder it doesn't mean they are immoral. Anymore than having heart disease makes one immoral.

Yes, those people are gender dysphoric and need clinical intervention. But that's not who we are talking about right now.

rjs330 said:
The difficulty is in what do we as a society do with that. That is where the immorality lies. We have been so much malarkey from the trans activists that we dont really have a clue. We dont know what causes the condition. We dont even have a solid grasp on how to diagnose the condition. There is no required therapies, no determination of if they really are or are not trans. No determination if there are other comorbitities or trauma or anything else that may be cause the person to believe they are rhe opposite sex. They are simply, believed and moved on to drug treatments. This is where you get the 100% diagnosis rates with drug treatments. And Planned Parenthood that requires no mental treatment of any kind.

And for children this has devastating lifelong psychological and physiological effects. The immorality is in listening to liars and decievers who have used the poorest of quality research as if it were the gold standard for treatments. And the abhorrent belief that all kids who think rhey are trans must be affirmed and led down the trans pathway or they might kill themselves. That's where one part of the immorality lies.

The other part is with those, mostly men, who ARE faking it due to a bizarre sexual fantasy or perversion.

The last immorality is forcing other people to go along with it or face punishment of some kind including up to losing their job.

Go along with what? Remember, we are talking about non-binary people here.

rjs330 · May 29, 2025

BCP1928 said:
And if a person decides, for whatever reason, whatever the biology or personal sexual preference, not to adopt the overt gendered behaviors of either males or females, so what?

Totally agree. If somebody female wants to work construction or loves hunting, who cares. If some male wants to clean the house and wear a dress, who cares. I dont.

RileyG · May 29, 2025

BCP1928 said:
And if a person decides, for whatever reason, whatever the biology or personal sexual preference, not to adopt the overt gendered behaviors of either males or females, so what?

Exactly. That’s their choice.

ThatRobGuy · May 29, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Go along with what? Remember, we are talking about non-binary people here.

If you're referring to the non-binary crowd or the people who fancy themselves "allies"... the "going along with" would be the increasing impositions and the ever-moving "speech rules" goalposts.

Which, for some of that, it seems as if the imposition is part of the point.

They've come to see "changing the rules" and "making people scrap old ways/speech/traditions and force them to go along with something new" as accomplishing something. So it becomes a quest for change, for change's sake.

Case in point, the pronoun rules.

It went from
"You have to respect which of the two sets of pronouns they want to go by based on which of the two genders they identify with"
to
"Well, actually, there could be more than two, so you'll need to ask people which set they prefer"
to
"Actually, you can't use the word preferred pronouns anymore"
to
"They can change by the day, so you'll need to regularly ask people what their pronouns are"
to
"You can't refuse to play the pronoun game and refuse to disclose your own pronouns, because that conveys cis-privilege and diminishes the experience of people whose pronouns aren't as easily ascertained by appearance"

...all in a relatively short amount of time.

It became quite clear that the goal was to keep pushing things further so that there was constantly a reason to claim victim status.

For the first few iterations, people went along with it, and they'd chuck another brick up on the "speech rule wall" so that there was always something they could tell other people they were doing wrong, and always an opportunity to "educate people on the subject", and always claim some sort of victim status.

With regards to activism movements, a huge red flag is when there are no clearly defined tangible objectives, and activism itself appears to be the goal.

BCP1928 · May 29, 2025

rjs330 said:
Totally agree. If somebody female wants to work construction or loves hunting, who cares. If some male wants to clean the house and wear a dress, who cares. I dont.

That's not what we are talking about, of course.

BCP1928 · May 29, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
If you're referring to the non-binary crowd or the people who fancy themselves "allies"... the "going along with" would be the increasing impositions and the ever-moving "speech rules" goalposts.

The non-binary people I know and know about tend to use their biological pronouns, depending on the environment. But they are not activists. They don't want to get involved with either side.

ThatRobGuy said:
Which, for some of that, it seems as if the imposition is part of the point.

They've come to see "changing the rules" and "making people scrap old ways/speech/traditions and force them to go along with something new" as accomplishing something. So it becomes a quest for change, for change's sake.

Case in point, the pronoun rules.

It went from
"You have to respect which of the two sets of pronouns they want to go by based on which of the two genders they identify with"
to
"Well, actually, there could be more than two, so you'll need to ask people which set they prefer"
to
"Actually, you can't use the word preferred pronouns anymore"
to
"They can change by the day, so you'll need to regularly ask people what their pronouns are"
to
"You can't refuse to play the pronoun game and refuse to disclose your own pronouns, because that conveys cis-privilege and diminishes the experience of people whose pronouns aren't as easily ascertained by appearance"

...all in a relatively short amount of time.

It became quite clear that the goal was to keep pushing things further so that there was constantly a reason to claim victim status.

For the first few iterations, people went along with it, and they'd chuck another brick up on the "speech rule wall" so that there was always something they could tell other people they were doing wrong, and always an opportunity to "educate people on the subject", and always claim some sort of victim status.

With regards to activism movements, a huge red flag is when there are no clearly defined tangible objectives, and activism itself appears to be the goal.

Back to the pronouns. I never did get that. I am happy to use preferred pronouns if requested by the person to which they apply. I don't see that it hurts me any, and if it makes the other person happy, that's fine with me. In using the pronouns I don't feel that I have made any ontological statements about reproductive organs anyway. I can see that being ordered to do it would be annoying, but here I have to disclose fully. I am a (retired) machinist and have always worked in environments where gender performance is optional. You can be weird, but you have to make your own place. In any case nobody cares as much about such things as they seem to in bourgeois workplaces. I wonder, sometimes, why people put up with it, or why they can't find something better. As a machinist I don't have to put up with such things. If somebody from HR (which is where that kind of crap comes from) orders me to "use pronouns" I will tell him to kiss it. If he gets too pushy with too many members of the crew he might find when he goes to drive home from work that someone has let the air out of all four of his tires. But you guys are whining and moaning that unless you "use pronouns" you will lose your jobs. I haven't got much sympathy for people who think of "using pronouns" as some kind of an existential threat, on either side, but you don't have to be craven about it.

ThatRobGuy · May 29, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Back to the pronouns. I never did get that. I am happy to use preferred pronouns if requested by the person to which they apply. I don't see that it hurts me any, and if it makes the other person happy, that's fine with me. In using the pronouns I don't feel that I have made any ontological statements about reproductive organs anyway. I can see that being ordered to do it would be annoying, but here I have to disclose fully. I am a (retired) machinist and have always worked in environments where gender performance is optional. You can be weird, but you have to make your own place. In any case nobody cares as much about such things as they seem to in bourgeois workplaces. I wonder, sometimes, why people put up with it, or why they can't find something better. As a machinist I don't have to put up with such things. If somebody from HR (which is where that kind of crap comes from) orders me to "use pronouns" I will tell him to kiss it. If he gets too pushy with too many members of the crew he might find when he goes to drive home from work that someone has let the air out of all four of his tires. But you guys are whining and moaning that unless you "use pronouns" you will lose your jobs. I haven't got much sympathy for people who think of "using pronouns" as some kind of an existential threat, on either side, but you don't have to be craven about it.

I will go along with it until I detect that it's not sincere and merely a way of making me "say the thing"

I've mentioned on here before that I have a trans employee. We get along just fine, it's pretty obvious which gender they're trying to identify as, I'm not going out of my way to upset anyone, and they're good at what they do...

However, if it's one of the "non-binary activists" like my cousin, where they have a list of 10 different new rules they try to get people to follow every time you see them, and will nitpick why some random thing someone said was "problematic" and "well, Accccthhuuallly, asking do you guys want any more chips is reinforcing the patriarchy and people need to make a better effort to not use gendered language in casual conversation"...then yeah, that's where I'll draw the line...and quite forcefully on some occasions.

I even went as far as saying "you're an upper middle class male who exclusively sleeps with females, and quite a few of them...you're not a victim, you're a straight white dude whose family has money, your Baldwin Wallace persona was just a way to inject yourself into certain social circles"

And that's what a lot of the "non-binary" movement is... as soon as well-to-do white kids found out that there was "social credit" in being in a "marginalized group" on campuses, a lot of them flocked to the one that was the "easiest" to join.

A straight guy having to have sex with men would be "uncomfortable"...and obviously a white person can never be a person of color, ...but the "non-binary" identity involves a quick wardrobe change and some pink and/or blue hair dye and you're in.

And the "social credit" I'm referring to is on certain campuses, being part of a "victim group" automatically gives one artificial credibility or having their statements taken more seriously due to "lived experiences".

Hans Blaster · May 29, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
However, if it's one of the "non-binary activists" like my cousin, where they have a list of 10 different new rules they try to get people to follow every time you see them, and will nitpick why some random thing someone said was "problematic" and "well, Accccthhuuallly, asking do you guys want any more chips is reinforcing the patriarchy and people need to make a better effort to not use gendered language in casual conversation"...then yeah, that's where I'll draw the line...and quite forcefully on some occasions.

Is that what much of this is about to you, Rob -- an annoying, overbearing cousin? Is that why you keep posting on this topic?

rjs330 · May 29, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Go along with what? Remember, we are talking about non-binary people here.

Oh, nevermind. I thought we were discussing transgendered people. I already shared my thoughts on kids calling themselves non-binary and why. They really aren't non-binary. They are just going through a teenage or young adult phase in trying to stand out as a form of rebellion. Often just to be different. Which is nothing more than a performative act.

Often non-binary is used as a "I'm neither male nor female." Actually you are, but if you dont want to hint or fish, do laundry or cook, then fine, do whatever. I dont really care, and neither does anyone else really.

They are still a male or female, but are entitled to like whatever they want to like, just like the rest of us.

rjs330 · May 29, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Go along with what? Remember, we are talking about non-binary people here.

Oh, nevermind. I thought we were discussing transgendered people. I already shared my thoughts on kids calling themselves non-binary and why. They really aren't non-binary. They are just going through a teenage or young adult phase in trying to stand out as a form of rebellion. Often just to be different. Which is nothing more than a performative act.

Often non-binary is used as a "I'm neither male nor female." Actually you are, but if you dont want to hint or fish, do laundry or cook, then fine, do whatever. I dont really care, and neither does anyone else really.

BCP1928 said:
That's not what we are talking about, of course.

Then what are we talking about? I thought you were the one who mentioned behaviors.

RileyG · May 29, 2025

BCP1928 said:
That's not what we are talking about, of course.

Then what is the “gender is a social construct” stuff? If not “stereotypes?”

RileyG · May 29, 2025

rjs330 said:
Oh, nevermind. I thought we were discussing transgendered people. I already shared my thoughts on kids calling themselves non-binary and why. They really aren't non-binary. They are just going through a teenage or young adult phase in trying to stand out as a form of rebellion. Often just to be different. Which is nothing more than a performative act.

Often non-binary is used as a "I'm neither male nor female." Actually you are, but if you dont want to hint or fish, do laundry or cook, then fine, do whatever. I dont really care, and neither does anyone else really.

Then what are we talking about? I thought you were the one who mentioned behaviors.

I know a female at work who calls herself nonbinary and they. Weird she’s feminine, presents herself as female, and has a husband.

No, I don’t get it, either.

Utah lawmakers’ own study found gender-affirming care benefits trans youth. Will they lift the treatment ban?

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

One nation indivisible

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

One nation indivisible

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads