An SOCE win

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10604

D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cv-80771-RLR
ROBERT W. OTTO, JULIE H. HAMILTON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CITY OF BOCA RATON, FLORIDA,
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH, FLORIDA,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida

(November 20, 2020)
Before MARTIN, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges
...

Defendants say that the ordinances “safeguard[] the physical and psychological well-being of minors.” Together with their amici, they present a series of reports and studies setting out harms. But when examined closely, these documents offer assertions rather than evidence, at least regarding the effects ofpurely speech-based SOCE. Indeed, a report from the American Psychological Association, relied on by the defendants, concedes that “nonaversive and recent approaches to SOCE have not been rigorously evaluated.”7 In fact, it found a “complete lack” of “rigorous recent prospective research” on SOCE. As for speech-based SOCE, the report notes that recent research indicates that those who have participated have mixed views: “there are individuals who perceive they have been harmed and others who perceive they have benefited from nonaversive SOCE.” What’s more, because of this “complete lack” of rigorous recent research, the report concludes that it has “no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone” SOCE.8 We fail to see how, even completely crediting the report, such equivocal conclusions can satisfy strict scrutiny and overcome the strong presumption against content-based limitations on speech.

[footnotes:]

7 The dissent’s claim that a “mountain of rigorous evidence” supports the ordinances is in serious tension with this acknowledgment of the lack of rigorous research on nonaversive SOCE. Dissenting Op. at 42.

8 We focus our attention on the APA’s 2009 task force report because it “performed a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature” to assess SOCE. Many of the other reports cited by the dissent—including those from the World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—primarily rely on the APA’s task force report to draw their own conclusions about SOCE. So we choose instead to discuss the APA’s report directly. Additionally, we discuss the APA’s 2009 report, rather than its 1998 resolution, because the 2009 task force was specifically asked to “[r]eview and update” the 1998 resolution. Finally, we note that very little of the APA report considers evidence solely related to purely speech-based therapy.

What to do about gender dysphoria: If you are a progressive, as I am, you should never jump on a bandwagon full of people telling you that anything and everything any non-progressives believe or say is wrong

The truth shall set you free. The following is NOT anti-progressive:

... the original study had been celebrated by the media and was then used in social media against anyone with a dissenting viewpoint to accuse them of being against science.

This "does show that the cultural moment in which we're living suggests that there's only one allowed conclusion to this question," he said. "And the only allowed conclusion is that transition is the best solution. The biggest data set now shows and that's what this study uses, the biggest data set shows that there's no benefits, psychological benefits to patients of hormonal and surgical transition."
...
"Right now, parents are being told that they need to put their children on the prescribed puberty-blocking drugs, Cross X hormones, etc, etc," he said. "That is entirely an unstudied experimental treatment protocol. And so I think in particular we need more research on what we can do for young people, children who feel uncomfortable in their own bodies and how we can help them feel comfortable once again. But we shouldn't be running to prescribe puberty-blocking drugs and Cross X hormones. Parents should know the facts about this as well."

Prestigious Psychiatry Journal Retracts Findings, Admits Sex-Reassignment Surgery Didn't Fix Mental Health

The study, published October 4, 2019 in the American Journal of Psychiatry, purported to show that “gender-affirmation” treatment improves transgender mental health. The study utilized data from the Swedish Total Population Register, with information from more than 9.7 million Swedes, or about 95 percent of the country.

The claimed findings from the study led to headlines in mainstream media outlets proclaiming things like “Long-Term Mental Health Benefits of Gender-Affirming Surgery for Transgender Individuals” (American Psychiatric Association), “Sex-reassignment surgery yields long-term mental health benefits” (NBC News), and “Transgender surgery linked with better long-term mental health, study shows” (ABC News).

But University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regneus pointed out last year that the study “found no mental health benefits for hormonal interventions in this population,” and the claim that “gender-reassignment” surgery helped mental health hinged on the outcomes of only three people -- from a total dataset of 9.7 million people.

The authors of the study have now conceded that “the results demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care.”

Moreover, the authors also note that gender-confused people who undergo “gender-reassignment” surgery are more likely to be treated for anxiety disorders than those who don’t have such surgery.

Authors of study showing benefits of ‘gender-affirming’ treatment issue ‘correction,’ admit they’re wrong

As the post's title states, if you are a progressive, as I am, you should never jump on a bandwagon full of people telling you that anything and everything any non-progressives believe or say is wrong.

The same hold true for non-progressives vis-a-vis progressives.

Why I founded the Christian Commons Project

This is why I founded the Christian Commons Project in 2007.

... the food to feed people and the money with which to buy that food has to come from somewhere. And just as it has for the past few decades, it’s the alliance between anti-hunger organizations, the USDA, and corporate America, or the hunger industrial complex, that provides. It is this paradigm that is filling the vacuum left by Trumpian sociopathy, and as James Bailey, a management professor at George Washington University says, “Every crisis creates a void. And whatever force fills that void, inherits power.”

We should all be concerned that, in the post-pandemic era, the hunger industrial complex becomes more robust at the expense of the movement for fair wages, strong nutrition programs, and universal health care. We should be concerned about the growth of charity because, frankly, the unholy alliance between food banks and corporate America has shown itself to be more interested in maintaining the problem of hunger than actually solving it. Hunger is, after all, good for business.

The COVID Crisis Is Reinforcing the Hunger Industrial Complex

A Marxian critique: hyper-trans-identity-political-correctness toxicity

I waved this red flag (no pun intended), years and years ago. I raised it over the "born that way" meme, which meme was based entirely on deliberately faked data. At the time, the pattern was obvious and that it would lead to exactly the situation described in the quote below and, more thoroughly, in the complete article.

We have yet to be openly confronted by the pedophiles (who are simply waiting for their "time" after the extreme-trans "community" gets its complete way). After that will come the bestial.

Naturally, each step was denied by the step's advocates before each full-on assault. "Give them and inch, and they'll take a mile" simply informed the advocates to insist they'd never ask for even another inch.

The whole edifice is built lie upon lie. It is confusion and deception, including self-deception on the advocates' part because they don't want to struggle against the temptations to further fracturing. They'd rather cave in and then die, falsely imagining that, that "death" is literally permanent unconsciousness, permanent reprieve from responsibility and accountability for their choices.

Society isn't doing itself or any member any favor going down that path. Rather, we should be reinforcing in each other the desire to withstand all temptations to such fracturing. We don't call it wholesome for nothing. Unjustified comfort now means greater suffering later: better to face and overcome inner demons (regardless of their sources) while they're relatively weaker than they otherwise will be.

Trans identified males are biological males who think of themselves as females. Trans identified females are biological females who think of themselves as males. No democratic-minded person questions the right of everyone, including transgender individuals, to their own beliefs, behaviors and lifestyle preferences, free from bigotry or discrimination.

But extreme transgender ideology goes a step further.

It demands not only support for the civil rights of trans people but insists that everyone must also embrace the beliefs of trans extremists.

Not only is the imposition of the belief of one group a violation of the democratic rights of others, this particular belief has negative implications for the rights of women, gays, lesbians and children ....
...
Marxism, the philosophical underpinning for the socialist left, relies heavily on historical materialism. That is, the idea that there are tangible, physical reasons for what we observe in the development and interaction of societies and classes of people within those societies.

This makes it all the more astonishing when some socialists so thoroughly reject biology and material reality in their analysis of transgender ideology and its effect on other oppressed groups.

The left’s abdication on this issue – especially the misdirection of the socialist left – is a gift to the right, as it allows those on the right to pose as the sane ones. The socialist left bears particular responsibility because it presents itself as a collection of thoughtful, considered leaders.

All the more tragic, then, is the fact that this new McCarthyism, which disingenuously wraps itself in the mantle of “woke” leftism, could never have taken hold if the real left had spoken out clearly and forcefully from the start.

At this point, it remains to be seen whether the left will correct its error or be bypassed by the multitudes who will surely punish those who tried to gaslight them into rejecting material reality.

Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Believer in Biological Sex? How the left shares the blame for neo-McCarthyism

The anti-conversion-change-effort "community" has been deliberately lying by omission from the beginning

The Creation and Inflation of Prevalence Statistics: The Case of “Conversion Therapy,” by Christopher H. Rosik, Ph.D.:

Should anyone have enough curiosity to ask, “How does Born Perfect NC define conversion therapy?” that person would discover the following:

Conversion therapy, also referred to as “reparative therapy,” is the practice of attempting to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Techniques can range from extreme electroshock treatments or institutionalization to “counseling” services based on pseudoscience (Born Perfect NC, n.d.).

If citing such statistics is an example of the William Institute’s objectivity and rigor, then they appear to set a very low bar indeed for these standards. That professional change-allowing therapies do not use electroshock or other aversive and coercive practices is well-known with the LGBT academic community, as was recently acknowledged by the acclaimed LGBT legal advocate and University of Utah College of Law professor Clifford Rosky, who stated to the gay press (“Watered down anti-conversion therapy bill,” 2019), “Licensed therapists haven’t been doing electric shock therapy and adversant [sic] practices in decades.” Thus, when one digs into the facts of this polling, the real story is not that 90% of North Carolinians support banning conversion therapy for minors. No one I know would support such practices as they are depicted. The real story of an impartial and honest accounting about this polling, one free of advocacy objectives, is that 10% of respondents apparently support institutionalized electroshock treatments of sexual minority minors. In a less politically contaminated environment, scholars such as those affiliated with the Williams Institute would seek out and align with Alliance professionals to jointly counter such public sentiment. However, by uncritically adopting this polling for advocacy purposes, the Williams Institute seems to have engaged in sloppy science at best or, at worst, a conscious effort to manipulate public opinion about change-allowing talk therapies through their use of a prejudicial and deceptive Born Perfect NC survey. Their independent inquiry and research appears to include independence from exposure to alternate critical perspectives that could have identified and constrained such excesses, which are common to groupthink and confirmation bias dynamics.