Hegseth requires testosterone deficiency screening for service members over 30

Hans Blaster said:

I'm not going to discuss this because it is irrelevant to your unproved claim the judge in Talbott v. Trump is biased and that case has nothing to do with this low-T thread.

Click to expand...

Let the record show that it was another poster who brought up the judge, I simply replied to that and that started off the chain of posts.

My recommendation would be, if people don't want to go down that rabbit hole of evaluating the judge, then they shouldn't be invoking "what the judge thinks" as a talking point.

ThatRobGuy said:

Let the record show that it was another poster who brought up the judge, I simply replied to that and that started off the chain of posts.

Click to expand...

In response to no one in particular. You could have ignored that post. Everyone else on your side did. Every subsequent post that derives from that unrooted post by @Belk has been you replying to a reply to you or a reply to you. It has been nothing but another exercise where you exhibit your disdain for anyone fighting to be treated equally.

ThatRobGuy said:

My recommendation would be, if people don't want to go down that rabbit hole of evaluating the judge, then they shouldn't be invoking "what the judge thinks" as a talking point.

Click to expand...

You are the one who made it about the judge and not the notion that the judges thought was interesting or worth considering. Do you think it was all an argument from authority and you need to tear down the authority in question? Don't worry, I'm sure she knows far more about civil rights law and the associated medical issues that have come up than you ever will.

Hans Blaster said:

You are the one who made it about the judge and not the notion that the judges thought was interesting or worth considering. Do you think it was all an argument from authority and you need to tear down the authority in question? Don't worry, I'm sure she knows far more about civil rights law and the associated medical issues that have come up than you ever will.

Click to expand...

Well, the basis of her questioning seems to indicate that she doesn't know the difference between testosterone replacement therapy for males vs. testosterone supplementation for females who are trying to look like males.

Does that go both ways? Would you accept "Clearance Thomas said..." (or insert any other staunch conservative judge here) as an authoritative defense? Or does the credentialism tend to be dependent on whether or not the authority figure agrees with a particular viewpoint?

ThatRobGuy said:

If you're going to accuse me of libel, that should be substantiated.

Federal Judges having biases isn't a bug, it's a feature in the current system.

Hence the reason why presidents try to appoint friendly judges, and it's always a tug of war and political dust-up to get them in.

If every judge was impartial, then presidents would just draw names out of a hat and not particularly care who fills a vacancy.

Click to expand...

Anyone who wants can follow the posts back and see your unsubstantiated claims of lack of impartiality of a sitting federal judge.

Belk said:

Anyone who wants can follow the posts back and see your unsubstantiated claims of lack of impartiality of a sitting federal judge.

Click to expand...

Apparently only conservative judges are allowed to advocate for their pet projects.

ThatRobGuy said:

Well, the basis of her questioning seems to indicate that she doesn't know the difference between testosterone replacement therapy for males vs. testosterone supplementation

Click to expand...

What an odd thing to think. (or is it ignorance?) Do you think the judge hasn't read all of the briefing materials in the case, reviewed the law and the technical material?

The difference is the initial level and target level and body mass which go into the dosing and frequency. Just like anyone getting testosterone supplements.

The sudden interest in providing (en masse) testosterone supplements to servicemen by the DoD does rather highlight the similarity unless this is all about...

ThatRobGuy said:

for females who are trying to look like males.

Click to expand...

bigotry and disdain.

ThatRobGuy said:

Does that go both ways? Would you accept "Clearance Thomas said..." (or insert any other staunch conservative judge here) as an authoritative defense? Or does the credentialism tend to be dependent on whether or not the authority figure agrees with a particular viewpoint?

Click to expand...

Belk said:

Anyone who wants can follow the posts back and see your unsubstantiated claims of lack of impartiality of a sitting federal judge.

Click to expand...

They weren't unsubstantiated, I provided sources showing that she gave thousands of dollars to democratic causes as well as had membership in overtly progressive organizations and groups (including one that was dedicated to opposing Trump, by name)

Pommer said:

Apparently only conservative judges are allowed to advocate for their pet projects.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, people just need to be honest about what's going on.

As your hinting at, conservative judges absolutely advocate for their personal viewpoint...nobody has any qualms with accurately identifying the biases of conservative judges (and the overarching concept of "presidents appoint friendly judges, precisely because it'll make their agenda easier to accomplish")

...but yet, we're supposed to believe that democratic-appointed judges are perfectly objective and aren't swayed by personal/party ideology.

No president is saying "I think I'll appoint this judge that'll try to block me from doing the things I want to do", they're appointing judges so that "if someone tries to challenge me on something, I'll have more allies on the bench"


In reality, "This judge was a member of a group that was overtly anti-Trump" would make for a stronger recusal motion than many recusal motion that have succeeded.

Just as an example, Oregon's motion to reverse the deployment of National Guard troops to the city got reassigned because the originally assigned judge's wife had vocally opposed to the National Guard deployment.


But in the case of Judge Reyes, being a contributor of a Defeat Trump group (that was defined by opposition to Trump by name rather than by generic partisanship), doing pro-bono legal work for entities that opposed Trump by name, and having well-established positions in activism for Migrants/Refugees, as well as on LGBTQ issues... and she ends up being assigned cases about the Haitian migrant bans and trans military cases.


For what it's worth, it sounds like the Chief Judge made a reference to that as well when the administration, instead, tried to file a misconduct complaint instead due to a particular line of questioning.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, based in Washington, D.C., was alleged to have inappropriately questioned a government lawyer on his religious beliefs and attempted to embarrass him with a rhetorical exercise during a February hearing.

Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the complaint in a 29 September order, made public on Monday. He stated that the Justice Department should have pursued a motion for Judge Reyes' recusal to contest her impartiality and seek her removal from the case.

Now, why the administration's lawyers dropped the ball on that (the Chief Judge basically gift-wrapped what their more compelling legal option was), I have no clue.

The only strategic angle I can think of for why, would be because a re-assignment to another Biden appointed judge would have likely met the same fate, and if it happened to be a judge who didn't have the same overt track-record, then it would strip them of one of their talking points.

Sort of a "we we know there's a solid chance we'll lose in this district, we might as well have it be from the judge with an overt anti-Trump bias on record so that we can point to that as the reason why"

Hans Blaster said:

What an odd thing to think. (or is it ignorance?) Do you think the judge hasn't read all of the briefing materials in the case, reviewed the law and the technical material?

Click to expand...

Of course she's read it, she's a lawyer.

And when she was in the private sector, she did a lot of legal work in the advocacy sector.

Meaning, going through case materials, cross referencing it against the law, and looking for anything to seize upon (like a technicality, ambiguity, or procedural misstep) to create a positive outcome for who she's representing was her specialty.
(like most lawyers do)



Let's at least call it for what it is:
A skilled lawyer, formerly part of a Defeat Trump group, with a history of advocacy and pro bono work for left-leaning causes, presiding over cases that intersect their recent advocacy.


Nobody seemed to have an issue with accurately identifying when Trump was appointing certain judges (with established pro-life positions) to pave the way for overturning abortion rights. I didn't hear any "Well, Kavanaugh and Barrett have a lot of experience in the legal field, do you really think that they didn't read all of the materials???", or "you actually think you know more about law than a Supreme Court Justice with a JD from Yale and 25 years experience" kind of talk when that was going on. Pretty sure people were quite eager to point out the biases.

Why is the critique in one instance acceptable, but not in the other?

Hans Blaster said:

bigotry and disdain.

Click to expand...

How is a factual statement bigotry?

Is that not what a transgender man taking testosterone is? A female trying to look more like a male.

Pretty sure that's the whole point of the hormonal intervention in those cases... otherwise why would they be requesting to take it?

ThatRobGuy said:

Of course she's read it, she's a lawyer.

Click to expand...

Good. That's settled. Now we can go back to this low-T thread about a low-T SECDEF and POTUS and their weird ideas about masculinity and not some irrelevant side comment made by a judge in an unrelated case (against said low-T executives, but not on this topic). Whew. That was getting tiresome.

ThatRobGuy said:

And when she was in the private sector, she did a lot of legal work in the advocacy sector.

Meaning, going through case materials, cross referencing it against the law, and looking for anything to seize upon (like a technicality, ambiguity, or procedural misstep) to create a positive outcome for who she's representing was her specialty.
(like most lawyers do)



Let's at least call it for what it is:
A skilled lawyer, formerly part of a Defeat Trump group, with a history of advocacy and pro bono work for left-leaning causes, presiding over cases that intersect their recent advocacy.


Nobody seemed to have an issue with accurately identifying when Trump was appointing certain judges (with established pro-life positions) to pave the way for overturning abortion rights. I didn't hear any "Well, Kavanaugh and Barrett have a lot of experience in the legal field, do you really think that they didn't read all of the materials???", or "you actually think you know more about law than a Supreme Court Justice with a JD from Yale and 25 years experience" kind of talk when that was going on. Pretty sure people were quite eager to point out the biases.

Why is the critique in one instance acceptable, but not in the other?

Click to expand...

Oh, wait we need to talk about you for a second first...

ThatRobGuy said:

How is a factual statement bigotry?

Click to expand...

The bigotry comes from call it "pretending". I know such comments go over well here and will not get you in trouble, and the counter arguments showing how it is a real thing are not looked upon favorably here, so I will not present them and we can go back to Sec. "low-T" Pete and his silly plan which looks straight off a supplement ad on the old (not the new, improved) InfoWars.

ThatRobGuy said:

Is that not what a transgender man taking testosterone is? A female trying to look more like a male.

Pretty sure that's the whole point of the hormonal intervention in those cases... otherwise why would they be requesting to take it?

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

Good. That's settled. Now we can go back to this low-T thread about a low-T SECDEF and POTUS and their weird ideas about masculinity and not some irrelevant side comment made by a judge in an unrelated case (against said low-T executives, but not on this topic). Whew. That was getting tiresome.

Click to expand...

Sure...

That's settled. No more talk about "what the judge said" or attempted comparisons or juxtapositions involving transmen...as that would be off-topic from here on out.


So back to the low T thing.... (and we'll discuss that and only that within the context of males, since that's what the proposal was for)

Hegseth proposed that all men over 30 will be screened for it at their yearly physical, and if they're found to be low, receiving the recommended supplementation will be voluntary.

Under the new policy, troops 30 and older will automatically receive testosterone deficiency screenings during their periodic health assessments, the secretary said, citing testosterone's natural decline with age. Troops younger than 30 can choose to have their testosterone measured voluntarily. Receiving any recommended treatment for those found to have low testosterone levels will also be voluntary.


A completely reasonable proposal given that there is scientific evidence showing that T levels are low in the male population, and symptoms of low T impact physical performance and recovery (two things important for soldiers).

So it's a completely reasonable proposal.

ThatRobGuy said:

Worried about low T among warfighters, Pete Hegseth's Pentagon is going to be screening troop testosterone levels

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced new testosterone screenings for troops 30 and older. Screening is automatic, but treatment is voluntary.

www.yahoo.com

So back to the low T thing.... (and we'll discuss that and only that within the context of males, since that's what the proposal was for)

Hegseth proposed that all men over 30 will be screened for it at their yearly physical, and if they're found to be low, receiving the recommended supplementation will be voluntary.

Under the new policy, troops 30 and older will automatically receive testosterone deficiency screenings during their periodic health assessments, the secretary said, citing testosterone's natural decline with age. Troops younger than 30 can choose to have their testosterone measured voluntarily. Receiving any recommended treatment for those found to have low testosterone levels will also be voluntary.


A completely reasonable proposal given that there is scientific evidence showing that T levels are low in the male population, and symptoms of low T impact physical performance and recovery (two things important for soldiers).

So it's a completely reasonable proposal.

Click to expand...

A bit of searching reveals that other than actual gonadal problems, a general "low-T" in younger men (30-45) is typically associated with poor diets, sedentary lifestyle, and obesity. If the military, particularly the "war fighters" have these general problems then our military is in real trouble and I can understand why they would be hesitant to take the EM-50 UAV into Czechoslovakia, or Wisconsin.

ThatRobGuy said:

They weren't unsubstantiated, I provided sources showing that she gave thousands of dollars to democratic causes as well as had membership in overtly progressive organizations and groups (including one that was dedicated to opposing Trump, by name)

Click to expand...

You are much to intelligent to be putting forth arguments that equate donating to a party with judicial bias. It is a pathetic argument and I will no longer play into your attempts to drag the post down this stupid rabbit hole.

ThatRobGuy said:

Ultimately, people just need to be honest about what's going on.

As your hinting at, conservative judges absolutely advocate for their personal viewpoint...nobody has any qualms with accurately identifying the biases of conservative judges (and the overarching concept of "presidents appoint friendly judges, precisely because it'll make their agenda easier to accomplish")

...but yet, we're supposed to believe that democratic-appointed judges are perfectly objective and aren't swayed by personal/party ideology.

No president is saying "I think I'll appoint this judge that'll try to block me from doing the things I want to do", they're appointing judges so that "if someone tries to challenge me on something, I'll have more allies on the bench"


In reality, "This judge was a member of a group that was overtly anti-Trump" would make for a stronger recusal motion than many recusal motion that have succeeded.

Just as an example, Oregon's motion to reverse the deployment of National Guard troops to the city got reassigned because the originally assigned judge's wife had vocally opposed to the National Guard deployment.


But in the case of Judge Reyes, being a contributor of a Defeat Trump group (that was defined by opposition to Trump by name rather than by generic partisanship), doing pro-bono legal work for entities that opposed Trump by name, and having well-established positions in activism for Migrants/Refugees, as well as on LGBTQ issues... and she ends up being assigned cases about the Haitian migrant bans and trans military cases.


For what it's worth, it sounds like the Chief Judge made a reference to that as well when the administration, instead, tried to file a misconduct complaint instead due to a particular line of questioning.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, based in Washington, D.C., was alleged to have inappropriately questioned a government lawyer on his religious beliefs and attempted to embarrass him with a rhetorical exercise during a February hearing.

Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the complaint in a 29 September order, made public on Monday. He stated that the Justice Department should have pursued a motion for Judge Reyes' recusal to contest her impartiality and seek her removal from the case.

Now, why the administration's lawyers dropped the ball on that (the Chief Judge basically gift-wrapped what their more compelling legal option was), I have no clue.

The only strategic angle I can think of for why, would be because a re-assignment to another Biden appointed judge would have likely met the same fate, and if it happened to be a judge who didn't have the same overt track-record, then it would strip them of one of their talking points.

Sort of a "we we know there's a solid chance we'll lose in this district, we might as well have it be from the judge with an overt anti-Trump bias on record so that we can point to that as the reason why"

Click to expand...

Belk said:

You are much to intelligent to be putting forth arguments that equate donating to a party with judicial bias. It is a pathetic argument and I will no longer play into your attempts to drag the post down this stupid rabbit hole.

Click to expand...

If it was just donating to a regular Democratic candidate, that may be different.

Donating to a cause (and participating in a group) that opposes a specific person, by name, calls objectivity into question.

If I was a member of a group called "Defeat Belk by any means necessary", would you want me to a be a judge in a case involving you? Or would you say "Hey, wait a minute, Rob's already made his opinions about me known about me and wants to "defeat" me, this isn't going to be a fair day in court"

Hans Blaster said:

A bit of searching reveals that other than actual gonadal problems, a general "low-T" in younger men (30-45) is typically associated with poor diets, sedentary lifestyle, and obesity. If the military, particularly the "war fighters" have these general problems then our military is in real trouble and I can understand why they would be hesitant to take the EM-50 UAV into Czechoslovakia, or Wisconsin.

Click to expand...

If it is something in the food or environment, then that wouldn't preclude troops from having the issue.


The 2007 Massachusetts Male Aging Study followed 1,532 men from 1987-2004 and found a substantial age-independent decline in testosterone that couldn't be explained by observed changes in health and lifestyle, including obesity. Population-level declines were actually larger than what you'd expect just from aging.



A study of US Air Force veterans followed over 20 years found that men who gained weight had steeper testosterone declines, but even men who kept their weight stable or lost weight still saw testosterone drop by 117 ng/dL (19%) over the two decades. The researchers concluded they could not identify the cause of this secular decline, but explicitly ruled out rising obesity as a sufficient or primary explanation.



So there's clearly something going on that's not well-understood yet...and that while it has some links to diet and lifestyle, isn't solely related to that.


Just as an example...we all know that smoking and exposure to certain industrial chemicals increases the risk of lung cancer. But if we started seeing elevated rates of people having lung cancer who never smoked and worked in a regular office (maybe not to the degree of smokers, but still a noteworthy increase), it would be completely reasonable to start screening for that.

ThatRobGuy said:

If it is something in the food or environment, then that wouldn't preclude troops from having the issue.

Click to expand...

From what I saw it was implied that the "thing in the food" was the same thing I've seen the "nutrition cures all" people talk about, high-salt, high-sugar, high-fat, processed foods. These are also the things that tend to cause higher rates of obesity.

ThatRobGuy said:

Understanding the Secular Decline in Testosterone: Mechanisms, Consequences, and Clinical Perspectives - PMC

Testosterone is a key regulator of male and female physiology, influencing reproductive function, muscle and bone anabolism, metabolic homeostasis, and psychological well-being. Growing evidence indicates a secular, age-independent decline in ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The 2007 Massachusetts Male Aging Study followed 1,532 men from 1987-2004 and found a substantial age-independent decline in testosterone that couldn't be explained by observed changes in health and lifestyle, including obesity. Population-level declines were actually larger than what you'd expect just from aging.

Is Rising Obesity Causing a Secular (Age-Independent) Decline in Testosterone among American Men? - PMC

The testosterone of men in industrial societies peaks in their twenties and tends to decline with increasing age. Apart from this individual-level decline, there have been reports of a secular (age-independent population-level) decline in ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A study of US Air Force veterans followed over 20 years found that men who gained weight had steeper testosterone declines, but even men who kept their weight stable or lost weight still saw testosterone drop by 117 ng/dL (19%) over the two decades. The researchers concluded they could not identify the cause of this secular decline, but explicitly ruled out rising obesity as a sufficient or primary explanation.

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

So there's clearly something going on that's not well-understood yet...and that while it has some links to diet and lifestyle, isn't solely related to that.

Click to expand...

These are also over periods longer than an actual military career.

ThatRobGuy said:

Just as an example...we all know that smoking and exposure to certain industrial chemicals increases the risk of lung cancer. But if we started seeing elevated rates of people having lung cancer who never smoked and worked in a regular office (maybe not to the degree of smokers, but still a noteworthy increase), it would be completely reasonable to start screening for that.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

From what I saw it was implied that the "thing in the food" was the same thing I've seen the "nutrition cures all" people talk about, high-salt, high-sugar, high-fat, processed foods. These are also the things that tend to cause higher rates of obesity.

Click to expand...

I've seen the opposite...usually the people in the "naturopathic"/"alt-health" realm tend to actually promote salt and fat and claim they were over-demonized. -- hence the reason you see those guys recommending ribeyes, butter, and raw milk as health foods.
(they actually have a bit of a point about the salt aspect, but we don't have to go down that rabbit hole if nobody wants to)

Nevertheless, if that damage has already been done, it would still make sense to screen for it. (a person can't un-eat the Chicken McNuggets of the past 10 years)

Hans Blaster said:

These are also over periods longer than an actual military career.

Click to expand...

And?

What if the person is already low coming in?

The links I provided before would suggest that a normal-BMI, moderately active person has lower T than their 1980's counterpart, and isn't clearly attributed to a specific "thing".

ThatRobGuy said:

I've seen the opposite...usually the people in the "naturopathic"/"alt-health" realm tend to actually promote salt and fat and claim they were over-demonized. -- hence the reason you see those guys recommending ribeyes, butter, and raw milk as health foods.
(they actually have a bit of a point about the salt aspect, but we don't have to go down that rabbit hole if nobody wants to)

Click to expand...

the naturopaths are quacks and no sane person should given them any credence (or more importantly -- money -- that's what they really want -- money.

The items I was mentioning were coming from real medical sites/clinics/hospitals, etc. I avoid the health grifters like the plague they are.

ThatRobGuy said:

Nevertheless, if that damage has already been done, it would still make sense to screen for it. (a person can't un-eat the Chicken McNuggets of the past 10 years)

Click to expand...

Is the food that bad at the commissary?

ThatRobGuy said:

And?

Click to expand...

and?

ThatRobGuy said:

What if the person is already low coming in?

Click to expand...

At 18?

ThatRobGuy said:

The links I provided before would suggest that a normal-BMI, moderately active person has lower T than their 1980's counterpart, and isn't clearly attributed to a specific "thing".

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

If it was just donating to a regular Democratic candidate, that may be different.

Donating to a cause (and participating in a group) that opposes a specific person, by name, calls objectivity into question.

If I was a member of a group called "Defeat Belk by any means necessary", would you want me to a be a judge in a case involving you? Or would you say "Hey, wait a minute, Rob's already made his opinions about me known about me and wants to "defeat" me, this isn't going to be a fair day in court"

Click to expand...

Let us know when the judge is disciplined for judicial misconduct.