Former Stake President Excommunicated for being a woman.

[_Chap]

As far as what you believe regarding a transgender person, I guess at the end of the day I really don't care, so long as you treat other people with respect. [...] My primary point in all of this is that we should probably go out of our way to give other people the benefit of the doubt in subjective matters, treating all with respect and politeness.

What else is there to say of any importance on this issue?

[_Lemmie]

Getting away from the OP, one of the points I've made is that generally speaking this phenomenon could lead to harm in society. Trendy progressive parents subjecting their kids to hormone therapy and whatnot. And this is where I think it's very important that there exists a clear distinction between polite everyday talk and serious discussions. I don't care if this person wants to be called "she," when it comes to the safety of my kids, or the scholarship fund I'm managing, or the welfare of my business, or whatever, I have to be an adult and look at the objective truths of a situation. Maybe those truths result in a decision that accommodates the desires of this person, but maybe they don't.

There are a lot of different issues packed into this paragraph, and I don't know that I will address all of them. I don't know what to do with the "trendy progressive parents" issue you are talking about...

I would agree, so I did some research into whether this is really an issue. According to Kristina Olson (associate professor of psychology and the founder and director of the TransYouth Project at the University of Washington) and Lily Durwood (project coordinator at the TransYouth Project at the University of Washington), it's a non-issue that is used as a smoke-screen to advocate against affirmative transgender care:

Despite the focus of most of the recent articles on prepubescent children, nearly all of these pieces raise alarm about medical intervention. Our experience is that everyone gets nervous when 5-year-olds are mentioned in the same sentence or paragraph as hormones and surgery—and for good reason. Once again, though, care is needed in interpretation. First, and most critically, the only intervention that is being made with prepubescent transgender children is a social, reversible, non-medical one—allowing a child to change pronouns, hairstyles, clothes, and a first name in everyday life. No one in mainstream medicine (or elsewhere, to our knowledge) is performing surgery on or providing hormones to prepubescent transgender children. Thus, sentences such as Soh’s, “We don’t allow children to vote or get tattoos, yet in the name of progressive thinking we are allowing them to choose serious biomedical interventions with permanent and irreversible results” are simply irrelevant to the discussion of social transitions and prepubescent children.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016 ... wrong.html

[_Jersey Girl]

I would agree, so I did some research into whether this is really an issue.

It's not and that's why WD remains a vortex of ignorance and irrelevant attempted analogies.

[_Kishkumen]

According to Kristina Olson (associate professor of psychology and the founder and director of the TransYouth Project at the University of Washington) and Lily Durwood (project coordinator at the TransYouth Project at the University of Washington), it's a non-issue that is used as a smoke-screen to advocate against affirmative transgender care:

Despite the focus of most of the recent articles on prepubescent children, nearly all of these pieces raise alarm about medical intervention. Our experience is that everyone gets nervous when 5-year-olds are mentioned in the same sentence or paragraph as hormones and surgery—and for good reason. Once again, though, care is needed in interpretation. First, and most critically, the only intervention that is being made with prepubescent transgender children is a social, reversible, non-medical one—allowing a child to change pronouns, hairstyles, clothes, and a first name in everyday life. No one in mainstream medicine (or elsewhere, to our knowledge) is performing surgery on or providing hormones to prepubescent transgender children. Thus, sentences such as Soh’s, “We don’t allow children to vote or get tattoos, yet in the name of progressive thinking we are allowing them to choose serious biomedical interventions with permanent and irreversible results” are simply irrelevant to the discussion of social transitions and prepubescent children.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016 ... wrong.html

But pubescent kids are getting hormonal treatment? I am curious because the issues of eligibility for various responsibilities is fairly arbitrary, and yet we seem very culturally committed to the protected class of "child." We postpone drinking age until 21, but we allow children drivers at 16. The whole thing is kind of messy and results in its own fair share of injustices and silly outcomes. At what age is hormonal treatment deemed OK?

Here is a random article I pulled from the internet:

Furthermore, the use of pubertal blockers does not begin until the patient reaches Tanner Stage 2, and the use of cross-sex hormones typically does not begin until age 16 years old. This allows time for the child to work with a mental health therapist to confirm their gender identity. Finally, children who have gender dysphoria beginning at puberty or persisting after puberty generally have persistent gender dysphoria in adulthood.

I note that Tanner Stage II ranges from 8 to 15 years of age.

See http://www.mdedge.com/pediatricnews/article/109858/mental-health/how-young-too-young-optimal-age-transitioning-transgender

[_Jersey Girl]

Our current research study is recruiting children aged 3–12 who are transgender, gen­der non­con­form­ing, and sib­lings of gen­der non­con­form­ing chil­dren. We are recruit­ing fam­i­lies from across the U.S. and Canada for this lon­gi­tu­di­nal study. For more spe­cific infor­ma­tion about the project, please con­tact Dr. Kristina Olson at transyp@uw.edu, the prin­ci­pal inves­ti­ga­tor, or sign up online via the Par­tic­i­pate tab above. All sign-ups and con­tact information are treated confidentially.

AGED THREE!!!!! This is insanity. You're going to give a three year old chemicals to alter their normal physiological development while brainwashing them with all sorts of sexual ideas? Oh, but Kristina Olson says don't worry about it and requests access to your child for her research project. Anybody who acts like this could not have a hugely negative impact is a total idiot. This is like Nazis doing medical experiments on jewish prisoners. It will be 50 years before we really understand the effects of this, probably in the wake of our civilization's total collapse.

Where in the above (or anywhere else) do you see an indication that the proposed study is going to give chemicals to three year olds?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Just don't ask me to recognize a person born as a male to be called female or a person born as a female and wants to be called a male.

What about that woman, Rachel Dolezal, who was born WHITE but has attempted to "identify" as black?

Gender means "Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones" https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender

The Oxford dictionary is "Considered the most authoritative and comprehensive English language dictionary in the world."
http://library.princeton.edu/resource/t ... oed-online

[_DoubtingThomas]

Water Dog,

You believe Heavenly Father created male and female?

[_Jersey Girl]

But pubescent kids are getting hormonal treatment?

This is an important point. The proponents of all this will claim that prepubescent kids aren't being subjected to chemical treatment and that isn't true. They are giving them pills, just not hormonal treatment, because there is no point when they are pre-puberty. The moment they start to hit puberty, when the developmental changes take place, is when they start to those drugs... to prevent said development. That's why they are called "blockers." But even before they hit puberty they are given other types of drugs not dealing with hormones.

You're an illiterate ass.

It's a freaking psych-soc study. READ what is right in front of you.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here, WD...effing READ what you yourself were responding to.

According to Kristina Olson (associate professor of psychology and the founder and director of the TransYouth Project at the University of Washington) and Lily Durwood (project coordinator at the TransYouth Project at the University of Washington), it's a non-issue that is used as a smoke-screen to advocate against affirmative transgender care:

Now read the "about" page of the study that you partial copied from.

The TransYouth Project aims to help sci­en­tists, edu­ca­tors, par­ents, and chil­dren bet­ter under­stand the vari­eties of human gen­der devel­op­ment. Based out of the Social Cognitive Development Lab at the University of Washington, we are cur­rently leading the largest, national, lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of trans­gen­der and gen­der diverse youth. Our research focuses early gender development, mental health, and well-being, as well as exploring the impact of early life experiences on later life outcomes in our participants.

Our current research study is recruiting children aged 3–12 who are transgender, gen­der non­con­form­ing, and sib­lings of gen­der non­con­form­ing chil­dren. We are recruit­ing fam­i­lies from across the U.S. and Canada for this lon­gi­tu­di­nal study. For more spe­cific infor­ma­tion about the project, please con­tact Dr. Kristina Olson at transyp@uw.edu, the prin­ci­pal inves­ti­ga­tor, or sign up online via the Par­tic­i­pate tab above. All sign-ups and con­tact information are treated confidentially.

It's a psych-soc longitudinal study of transgender youth, their SIBLINGS and their FAMILIES.

No one is shooting anyone up with hormones or any other kinds of chemicals. What on earth is wrong with you? Your ignorance and inability to read what you are responding to are smeared throughout the pages of this entire thread.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl, to your question, google Nicole Maines.

My questions posed had to do with the study you referenced and responded to, and exactly nothing else. Nicole Maines has exactly nothing to do with the study.

You don't know what a longitudinal study is.
You can't read, interpret and apply, the credentials spelled out in the excerpt you were responding to.
You cherry picked a portion of their website instead of noting who/what department is doing the study itself.

You're either ignorant or you're disingenuous as all get out.