Where you are on the issues vs how you vote

[McLoofus 35,182]

Oh, death penalty... I didn't have strong feelings until I learned that it's actually more expensive to put someone to death than to keep them in prison for life. That kind of removed any incentive, in my mind, to keep the death penalty. I don't have a single problem with the concept of death as punishment for certain crimes, but there has to be some sort of tangible benefit. As long as life without parole is a thing and it is less burden on the taxpayer than putting a person to death, then I don't see any tangible benefit to the death penalty. 

[TexasTiger 12,827]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Oh, death penalty... I didn't have strong feelings until I learned that it's actually more expensive to put someone to death than to keep them in prison for life. That kind of removed any incentive, in my mind, to keep the death penalty. I don't have a single problem with the concept of death as punishment for certain crimes, but there has to be some sort of tangible benefit. As long as life without parole is a thing and it is less burden on the taxpayer than putting a person to death, then I don't see any tangible benefit to the death penalty. 

While I think some crimes justify the death penalty, I am surprised that many folks that think the government can’t be trusted to do basic services can be trusted to assure when someone should be killed. Our justice system is too imperfect for that penalty.

[AU9377 4,919]

On 4/18/2022 at 1:59 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

So what if I had said, "Your characterization of people carrying AR-15s in public seems to be a bit narrow, as groups such as the Black Panthers or the people who took over part of Seattle during the George Floyd protests carried them as well.  What—if any—characteristics differentiate those people carrying AR-15s in public from the people you were talking about?  Or in your opinion, does your characterization apply to anyone who carries an AR-15 in public for any reason?"

What then?  Because I got to exactly the same place with a lot fewer words with my original post.

And if you're still going to claim that the above isn't a serious inquiry, in order to have any credibility whatsoever you're going to have to explain why.  I already asked what the big difference between the clarifying questions you asked above and what I asked, and you didn't answer.  You posted a link to your question, but I already knew that (I'm the one who brought it up, remember?). So we could start with that.

Wouldn't the argument be that there are few, if any, situations where regular citizens should be carrying assault weapons openly in public?  Nobody was more pro gun ownership than my grandfather.  He fought in Europe during WWII.  He had no problem with someone carrying a licensed concealed weapon.  However, he thought it was trouble looking for an excuse for someone to walk around showing off a weapon. 

Is that the America we want the world to see?  I cannot imagine that it is.

[McLoofus 35,182]

36 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

While I think some crimes justify the death penalty, I am surprised that many folks that think the government can’t be trusted to do basic services can be trusted to assure when someone should be killed. Our justice system is too imperfect for that penalty.

I never looked at it that way. Very good point.

Edited April 20, 2022 by McLoofus

[TitanTiger 20,472]

On the death penalty, case in point:

Why is Toforest Johnson still on Alabama's death row?

Drayton Nabers, Jr.

Special to the Advertiser

 

 

As a former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I believe in our state’s criminal justice system.  It’s not only that we have good laws and a strong framework for seeking justice.  It’s also that the people who lead our system serve with honor and professionalism.  That’s why I’m troubled by this question: Why is Toforest Johnson still on death row?

Mr. Johnson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1998, twenty-four years ago, for the killing of Deputy Sheriff William G. Hardy in Birmingham.  But over time, the State’s case has fallen apart, and there’s now substantial evidence that Mr. Johnson is innocent.  Both the District Attorney in Birmingham and the lead prosecutor from Mr. Johnson’s 1998 case support a new trial.  Yet our State continues to defend the conviction, and Mr. Johnson remains on death row.

We trust prosecutors to pursue criminal charges, to resolve cases, to present evidence, and to argue to juries.  If we’re going to do all of that, we also should trust prosecutors when they say that we need to correct a mistake.  And that’s what both the District Attorney and the lead trial prosecutor in Toforest Johnson’s case are saying.

To be clear, I support the death penalty in cases that warrant it.  When I served as Chief Justice, I voted with my colleagues to uphold death sentences.  But supporting the death penalty shouldn’t mean ignoring signs that a person on death row may have been wrongfully convicted.  In fact, it should mean the opposite.  If we’re going to use the power of the state to execute someone, we should do everything possible to make sure that the person had a fair trial and that the evidence proves his guilt.

So what was the evidence against Mr. Johnson?  There was all too little.  There was no physical evidence.  No eyewitness testimony.  No police confession.  The State’s case relied entirely on a woman who said she overheard a three-way jail phone call in which a man who referred to himself as “Toforest” admitted to the crime.  This woman had never met Mr. Johnson, and she didn’t know his voice.  But her testimony was enough for the jury to convict.

It turns out that the woman was paid $5,000 for her testimony after the trial, which was never disclosed to Mr. Johnson or his lawyers.  As for Mr. Johnson’s actual whereabouts at the time Deputy Hardy was killed, multiple witnesses have told the District Attorney in Birmingham, Danny Carr, that Mr. Johnson was across town and could not have committed the murder.  DA Carr met with these witnesses, and he found them credible.

There are other red flags in the case as well.  In various court proceedings, the police and prosecutors cycled through alternative theories as to who shot Deputy Hardy.  Even after Mr. Johnson was convicted and sentenced to death on the theory that he shot Deputy Hardy, the State asserted a completely different theory in a separate case.

I commend the District Attorney and the lead trial prosecutor for supporting a new trial instead of defending a flawed conviction.  This type of prosecutorial support for a person on death row is unprecedented to my knowledge, and I think it speaks volumes about the uniqueness of the case and the evidence.

Earlier this year, I joined other former Alabama judges in a brief urging the Jefferson County Circuit Court to grant a new trial to Mr. Johnson.  Another brief in support of Mr. Johnson was filed by former Alabama prosecutors, including Bill Baxley, who was instrumental in bringing the death penalty back to Alabama when he served as Attorney General in the 1970s.  As Mr. Baxley has written, “Johnson’s murder trial was so deeply flawed, the evidence presented against him so thin, that no Alabamian should tolerate his incarceration, let alone his execution.” I agree.

I continue to have confidence in our system, so I’m hopeful and optimistic that Mr. Johnson will be given a new trial soon.  Then no longer will we ask — in a case in which the evidence is so problematic that even the District Attorney and the trial prosecutor support a new trial — why, after 24 years, is Toforest Johnson still on death row?

 

Drayton Nabers, Jr. served as Chief Justice of Alabama from 2004 to 2006.

https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/opinion/2022/04/20/why-toforest-johnson-still-alabamas-death-row/7384281001/

[AUFAN78 3,892]

Voting Record
Voted for Democrats twice in presidential elections in the last 25 or so years, third party twice and Republican for the remainder. Struggled with democrats messaging/agenda post Obama first term and particularly the last few years. 

 

The Issues

Conservative

Parental rights re: their children's education

2nd Amendment issues

Lean Conservative

Free Trade

Mixed 

Abortion (no late term)
Immigration (no open border/path to citizenship)
Energy policy
Environmental issues
Unions

Opinions of Trump (not a fan of the man nor do I consider him presidential, approved of many of his policies)

Lean Progressive/Liberal

Legalize marijuana

Death Penalty

Marriage and sexuality issues

Prison reform (primarily drug related)

Progressive/Liberal

Paid parental leave after having a baby (3 months)
Universal healthcare (healthcare shouldn't be a privilege, open to public/private hybrid systems - just get everyone covered)


Other/Neither

Free speech - People do not have a constitutional right to not be offended or to not have to encounter ideas they don't like or challenge their own.  

Edited April 21, 2022 by TitanTiger
edited to make it more clear these were your responses and not just quoting me

[aubiefifty 16,736]

On 4/13/2022 at 2:59 PM, TitanTiger said:

In another thread there got to be this back and forth over what I am - Republican, conservative, liberal, Democrat, whatever.  I started to answer there but it's in the smack forum where no one really discusses much of anything seriously, but the more I thought about it I thought it might be interesting to talk about for me and other people too.

What I did say over there is that my voting record says one thing, but I don't really call myself a Republican anymore.  I used to, but I'd sort of moved toward using "conservative" for a while because I didn't really believe the GOP was conservative by any rational measure any more.  Then I realized that really didn't always makes sense because what it really comes down to is that it depends on what issue we're talking about.  Sometimes I'm conservative, sometimes more progressive/liberal, and other times it's a mixed bag or somewhere in between.

And then there's how I tend to vote, which doesn't really correlate with the above much at all since we don't have a parliamentary system with multiple parties across the spectrum.  We just have this damned two party thing where the loudmouths and extreme voices on either side disproportionately steer the agenda and viable candidates for each party.

So I'll go first.  I'd love to hear where others fall.  I'll throw out some issues under each heading and you can feel free to use those or you can add some I didn't think of.

Voting Record
99% Republican.  I can probably count on one hand how many times I've voted for a Democrat in anything outside a local election.  Trump was the first GOP presidential candidate I refused to cast a vote for.  I hope to have a viable candidate in 2024 to support but ain't holding my breath.

 

The Issues

Conservative
Abortion
Marriage and sexuality issues
Parental rights re: their children's education


Lean Conservative
2nd Amendment issues
Free Trade


Mixed (by this I mean, I cherry pick good points I think either side makes to form a new position)
Immigration
Energy policy
Environmental issues
Unions


Lean Progressive/Liberal
Legalize marijuana (but not in favor of decriminalizing other harder drugs)

Progressive/Liberal
Paid parental leave after having a baby (3 months minimum, 6 months preferable)
Universal healthcare (healthcare shouldn't be a privilege, open to public/private hybrid systems - just get everyone covered)
Opinions of Trump


Other/Neither
Free speech - it's perhaps our most precious right.  People do not have a constitutional right to not be offended or to not have to encounter ideas they don't like or challenge their own.  Neither side is really getting it right on this.

 

If there were such a thing these days as a socially conservative Democrat, maybe my voting record would be different.  But a lot of the social issues on the conservative side have moral dimensions that I can't compromise on.  I've said ever since Trump gave the GOP a frontal lobotomy that all the Democrats have to do to absolutely dominate politically is not be insane, but they just can't resist on some of this stuff.

Your turn.  Let's hear it - if you dare.

Titan have youever smoked pot in your life? just curious. i am not here to condemn either way.

[aubiefifty 16,736]

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Voting Record
Voted for Democrats twice in presidential elections in the last 25 or so years, third party twice and Republican for the remainder. Struggled with democrats messaging/agenda post Obama first term and particularly the last few years. 

 

The Issues

Conservative

Parental rights re: their children's education

2nd Amendment issues

Lean Conservative

Free Trade

Mixed 

Abortion (no late term)
Immigration (no open border/path to citizenship)
Energy policy
Environmental issues
Unions

Opinions of Trump (not a fan of the man nor do I consider him presidential, approved of many of his policies)

Lean Progressive/Liberal

Legalize marijuana

Death Penalty

Marriage and sexuality issues

Prison reform (primarily drug related)

Progressive/Liberal

Paid parental leave after having a baby (3 months)
Universal healthcare (healthcare shouldn't be a privilege, open to public/private hybrid systems - just get everyone covered)


Other/Neither

Free speech - People do not have a constitutional right to not be offended or to not have to encounter ideas they don't like or challenge their own.  

this makes me feel a little better about you 78......not that i am anyone. One thing tho............if people are slandered they DO have a right to pursue legal action.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

Titan have you ever smoked pot in your life? just curious. i am not here to condemn either way.

No, I haven't.  It just wasn't much of a thing in my circles in high school and college for one.  I was around it once or twice that I know of at concerts but that's about it.

But also, getting me into any sort of illegal drugs was always going to be an uphill climb.  I tried a cigarette once and it was awful - burned my throat, tasted terrible and made me cough.  So I wasn't necessarily inclined to try weed.  Similar feelings for other drugs.  Needles were a non-starter, I don't really even like using nasal spray, and I've tried to avoid taking pain killers unless I couldn't get rid of the pain any other way.  So shooting up, snorting stuff or gobbling down pills weren't great vectors for getting me into them.

[aubiefifty 16,736]

pot guy. no needles meth crack or in a long time no pain pills. my head dr told me to self medicate with pot because i cannot tolerate most of the head meds i took in the past. lexapro change my personality that i stayed mad at the world and did and said things i would never do or say and as i have little filter that is saying a lot.the suicidal tendencies were the scary part. i mentioned a night of pure hell and told a friend and he told me to stop them "right now". i did and my doc told me most of his elderly patients use pot because they have the same problems i have. i would admit i stay confused and mixed up and thought about trying adderall but i was told i had a better chance winning the lotto than getting those meds. also they run your blood pressure up. i was just curious but any little insight into someone helps to understand them better.

[AUFAN78 3,892]

9 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

this makes me feel a little better about you 78......

Why? 

9 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

.if people are slandered they DO have a right to pursue legal action.

Yes.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

Continuing on, I do not believe in the death penalty.  At all, in any case.

I don't believe that government can handle that sort of responsibility adequately, and the numbers for capital punishment are my evidence for that claim.  it's applied unjustly with regard to race and far, far too many people are convicted and sentenced to death who are innocent.

Also, the only reason IMO that the death penalty even exists is that we follow a mostly retributive model of justice, which IMO is the worst model possible.  I don't believe in the state punishing citizens.  

I believe in the state removing people from the general population to protect other citizens.  I believe in the deterrent model (which seems to be irrelevant to the death penalty, but which does seem to have some value for lesser crimes).  I believe in at least the possibility of a rehabilitative model, although we are far, far away from even attempting that.  I believe in a restorative model, at least for some crimes.  Instead of rotting in a tiny cell trying to avoid prison rape, what if the inmate was instead doing something productive to compensate his or her victims in some way?

But we are too obsessed with the retributive model for any of that to get much traction.  Our societal goal is to punish people as much as possible, so people go into prison maybe non-violent offenders and come out with a master's degree in crime that now includes violence.  Can't get a job on the outside, but the ex-con did learn several things inside and he can't earn honestly, so he puts those new tricks into action.  Ends up going in for a second run and now he comes out with a PhD.

And we've got to stop with this War on Drugs that Nixon's cabinet member admitted was just to put black people in prison.  Enough already.

[aubiefifty 16,736]

On 4/20/2022 at 3:44 PM, TitanTiger said:

On the death penalty, case in point:

Why is Toforest Johnson still on Alabama's death row?

Drayton Nabers, Jr.

Special to the Advertiser

 

 

As a former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I believe in our state’s criminal justice system.  It’s not only that we have good laws and a strong framework for seeking justice.  It’s also that the people who lead our system serve with honor and professionalism.  That’s why I’m troubled by this question: Why is Toforest Johnson still on death row?

Mr. Johnson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1998, twenty-four years ago, for the killing of Deputy Sheriff William G. Hardy in Birmingham.  But over time, the State’s case has fallen apart, and there’s now substantial evidence that Mr. Johnson is innocent.  Both the District Attorney in Birmingham and the lead prosecutor from Mr. Johnson’s 1998 case support a new trial.  Yet our State continues to defend the conviction, and Mr. Johnson remains on death row.

We trust prosecutors to pursue criminal charges, to resolve cases, to present evidence, and to argue to juries.  If we’re going to do all of that, we also should trust prosecutors when they say that we need to correct a mistake.  And that’s what both the District Attorney and the lead trial prosecutor in Toforest Johnson’s case are saying.

To be clear, I support the death penalty in cases that warrant it.  When I served as Chief Justice, I voted with my colleagues to uphold death sentences.  But supporting the death penalty shouldn’t mean ignoring signs that a person on death row may have been wrongfully convicted.  In fact, it should mean the opposite.  If we’re going to use the power of the state to execute someone, we should do everything possible to make sure that the person had a fair trial and that the evidence proves his guilt.

So what was the evidence against Mr. Johnson?  There was all too little.  There was no physical evidence.  No eyewitness testimony.  No police confession.  The State’s case relied entirely on a woman who said she overheard a three-way jail phone call in which a man who referred to himself as “Toforest” admitted to the crime.  This woman had never met Mr. Johnson, and she didn’t know his voice.  But her testimony was enough for the jury to convict.

It turns out that the woman was paid $5,000 for her testimony after the trial, which was never disclosed to Mr. Johnson or his lawyers.  As for Mr. Johnson’s actual whereabouts at the time Deputy Hardy was killed, multiple witnesses have told the District Attorney in Birmingham, Danny Carr, that Mr. Johnson was across town and could not have committed the murder.  DA Carr met with these witnesses, and he found them credible.

There are other red flags in the case as well.  In various court proceedings, the police and prosecutors cycled through alternative theories as to who shot Deputy Hardy.  Even after Mr. Johnson was convicted and sentenced to death on the theory that he shot Deputy Hardy, the State asserted a completely different theory in a separate case.

I commend the District Attorney and the lead trial prosecutor for supporting a new trial instead of defending a flawed conviction.  This type of prosecutorial support for a person on death row is unprecedented to my knowledge, and I think it speaks volumes about the uniqueness of the case and the evidence.

Earlier this year, I joined other former Alabama judges in a brief urging the Jefferson County Circuit Court to grant a new trial to Mr. Johnson.  Another brief in support of Mr. Johnson was filed by former Alabama prosecutors, including Bill Baxley, who was instrumental in bringing the death penalty back to Alabama when he served as Attorney General in the 1970s.  As Mr. Baxley has written, “Johnson’s murder trial was so deeply flawed, the evidence presented against him so thin, that no Alabamian should tolerate his incarceration, let alone his execution.” I agree.

I continue to have confidence in our system, so I’m hopeful and optimistic that Mr. Johnson will be given a new trial soon.  Then no longer will we ask — in a case in which the evidence is so problematic that even the District Attorney and the trial prosecutor support a new trial — why, after 24 years, is Toforest Johnson still on death row?

 

Drayton Nabers, Jr. served as Chief Justice of Alabama from 2004 to 2006.

https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/opinion/2022/04/20/why-toforest-johnson-still-alabamas-death-row/7384281001/

so basically we want to kill someone who did not kill anyone? is that not murder? i am dead serious. why is it so hard for folks to admit they are wrong? and especially if it might take ones life unfairly. i am not big on the death penalty. it has nothing to do with money. i would much rather them be give hard labor bussting rocks or something of that nature. i read all the time where someone has been locked up for years wrongly convicted for something they did not do. you have the right to protect yourself and your family if it is you or them but other than that i am not for taking anyone's life. and it shames me when a man is killed by a state when he is mentally handicapped.

[jj3jordan 2,043]

On 4/20/2022 at 3:44 PM, TitanTiger said:

On the death penalty, case in point:

Why is Toforest Johnson still on Alabama's death row?

Drayton Nabers, Jr.

Special to the Advertiser

 

 

As a former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I believe in our state’s criminal justice system.  It’s not only that we have good laws and a strong framework for seeking justice.  It’s also that the people who lead our system serve with honor and professionalism.  That’s why I’m troubled by this question: Why is Toforest Johnson still on death row?

Mr. Johnson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1998, twenty-four years ago, for the killing of Deputy Sheriff William G. Hardy in Birmingham.  But over time, the State’s case has fallen apart, and there’s now substantial evidence that Mr. Johnson is innocent.  Both the District Attorney in Birmingham and the lead prosecutor from Mr. Johnson’s 1998 case support a new trial.  Yet our State continues to defend the conviction, and Mr. Johnson remains on death row.

We trust prosecutors to pursue criminal charges, to resolve cases, to present evidence, and to argue to juries.  If we’re going to do all of that, we also should trust prosecutors when they say that we need to correct a mistake.  And that’s what both the District Attorney and the lead trial prosecutor in Toforest Johnson’s case are saying.

To be clear, I support the death penalty in cases that warrant it.  When I served as Chief Justice, I voted with my colleagues to uphold death sentences.  But supporting the death penalty shouldn’t mean ignoring signs that a person on death row may have been wrongfully convicted.  In fact, it should mean the opposite.  If we’re going to use the power of the state to execute someone, we should do everything possible to make sure that the person had a fair trial and that the evidence proves his guilt.

So what was the evidence against Mr. Johnson?  There was all too little.  There was no physical evidence.  No eyewitness testimony.  No police confession.  The State’s case relied entirely on a woman who said she overheard a three-way jail phone call in which a man who referred to himself as “Toforest” admitted to the crime.  This woman had never met Mr. Johnson, and she didn’t know his voice.  But her testimony was enough for the jury to convict.

It turns out that the woman was paid $5,000 for her testimony after the trial, which was never disclosed to Mr. Johnson or his lawyers.  As for Mr. Johnson’s actual whereabouts at the time Deputy Hardy was killed, multiple witnesses have told the District Attorney in Birmingham, Danny Carr, that Mr. Johnson was across town and could not have committed the murder.  DA Carr met with these witnesses, and he found them credible.

There are other red flags in the case as well.  In various court proceedings, the police and prosecutors cycled through alternative theories as to who shot Deputy Hardy.  Even after Mr. Johnson was convicted and sentenced to death on the theory that he shot Deputy Hardy, the State asserted a completely different theory in a separate case.

I commend the District Attorney and the lead trial prosecutor for supporting a new trial instead of defending a flawed conviction.  This type of prosecutorial support for a person on death row is unprecedented to my knowledge, and I think it speaks volumes about the uniqueness of the case and the evidence.

Earlier this year, I joined other former Alabama judges in a brief urging the Jefferson County Circuit Court to grant a new trial to Mr. Johnson.  Another brief in support of Mr. Johnson was filed by former Alabama prosecutors, including Bill Baxley, who was instrumental in bringing the death penalty back to Alabama when he served as Attorney General in the 1970s.  As Mr. Baxley has written, “Johnson’s murder trial was so deeply flawed, the evidence presented against him so thin, that no Alabamian should tolerate his incarceration, let alone his execution.” I agree.

I continue to have confidence in our system, so I’m hopeful and optimistic that Mr. Johnson will be given a new trial soon.  Then no longer will we ask — in a case in which the evidence is so problematic that even the District Attorney and the trial prosecutor support a new trial — why, after 24 years, is Toforest Johnson still on death row?

 

Drayton Nabers, Jr. served as Chief Justice of Alabama from 2004 to 2006.

https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/opinion/2022/04/20/why-toforest-johnson-still-alabamas-death-row/7384281001/

Totally agree with you.  It is atrocious when there is so much evidence that the man is innocent and the state refuses to discuss the new evidence.  How can this be rectified?  Who can apply the pressure needed to reopen the case? There has to be a way.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

On 4/22/2022 at 11:09 PM, jj3jordan said:

Totally agree with you.  It is atrocious when there is so much evidence that the man is innocent and the state refuses to discuss the new evidence.  How can this be rectified?  Who can apply the pressure needed to reopen the case? There has to be a way.

It's amazing that our system tolerates this sort of thing.  And you might be amazed/disgusted to learn that there is no legal way to force the issue.  This is exactly what Bryan Stevenson has been fighting his whole career.  I would have gone crazy with frustration long ago if I had been in his position.

The only pressure that can be applied is political pressure and/or media pressure.  But even after "Just Mercy," you see that this still goes on.

[autigeremt 6,589]

Voting Record
70% Republican. Living in Alabama is part of that (a lot of them run unopposed). I am not afraid to vote for a Democrat if I feel that person is open minded or an independent thinker. 

 

The Issues

Conservative
Taxes
Marriage and sexuality issues (depends on the topic within)
Parental rights re: their children's education2nd Amendment 
Immigration 

Lean Conservative
Free Trade (though depends on the nation on the other side)
Energy Policy 

Mixed 
Environmental issues
Unions (depends on the union)


Lean Progressive/Libertarian
Legalize marijuana (but not in favor of decriminalizing other harder drugs)

Military Industrial Complex

Progressive/Liberal
Paid parental leave after having a baby (3 months minimum, 6 months preferable)

Libertarian
Free Speech, Constitution....

 

[cbo 7,811]

On 4/26/2022 at 3:54 AM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

It's amazing that our system tolerates this sort of thing.  And you might be amazed/disgusted to learn that there is no legal way to force the issue.  This is exactly what Bryan Stevenson has been fighting his whole career.  I would have gone crazy with frustration long ago if I had been in his position.

The only pressure that can be applied is political pressure and/or media pressure.  But even after "Just Mercy," you see that this still goes on.

I hoped that this country's newish obsession with true crime doc's/podcasts, which frequently reveal major flaws within the justice system, would move the needle on capital punishment. But that does not seem to be the case. 

I am against capital punishment primarily for the ethical and moral reasons you skillfully articulated earlier in this thread. But the many clear cases of botched police work, illegal tactics to force confessions, puzzling jury decisions, etc, should be enough to abolish the death penalty. 

[cbo 7,811]

On 4/20/2022 at 6:53 AM, McLoofus said:

 I lean very liberal on gender identity issues, but my natural inclination is to agree that any irreversible gender assignment procedures should be held off on until a certain age. But I need to get a better understanding of what the medical community has to say.

The good news is almost everyone agrees that irreversible procedures should be held off until a certain age. Gender reassignment surgery is widely restricted to those 18 and older. It's expensive and not very accessible and usually occurs later in life. 

With parental consent, pre-teen and teenagers can begin hormone therapy, such as puberty blockers or testosterone injections. One of the primary benefits to starting hormone therapy at a younger age is it allows teenagers to go through puberty as their identified gender. Most effects can be reversed by simply ending the therapy. There are some irreversible effects, but it's less than many would lead you to believe. For example, for male to female, the lasting effects would be more body hair and a deeper voice. Not ideal, but that's it. 

Yet we have certain politicians attempting to pass bills designed to punish transgender kids and their families. In TN, there is a current bill that allows teachers to refuse to use a child's preferred pronoun. In TX, the governor has directed the Department of Family & Protective Services to classify hormone therapy as child abuse under current state laws. They are pushing for parents and healthcare providers to be investigated as possible child abusers. 

We are talking about parents who are caring for transgender children, who have an extremely high rate of depression and suicide. In most cases, it takes years before hormone therapy begins. Not just for the parents to come around, but then to seek medical treatment, which may require mental therapy in advance. They've then decided to help their children, under the direction and supervision of qualified, certified physicians. 

As usual, all of this has nothing to do with any true harm or threat to anyone, and everything to do with appeasing constituents in response to the latest moral outrage. 

Loof, this is way more than you asked for. But you made the mistake of expressing interest in the topic and you know I like talking to you. I also don't think we disagree on this, so any anger reflected is certainly not directed at you. 

 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, cbo said:

Loof, this is way more than you asked for.

It's not what I asked for, but it's what I wanted and needed. Sincere thanks. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, cbo said:

The good news is almost everyone agrees that irreversible procedures should be held off until a certain age. Gender reassignment surgery is widely restricted to those 18 and older. It's expensive and not very accessible and usually occurs later in life. 

With parental consent, pre-teen and teenagers can begin hormone therapy, such as puberty blockers or testosterone injections. One of the primary benefits to starting hormone therapy at a younger age is it allows teenagers to go through puberty as their identified gender. Most effects can be reversed by simply ending the therapy. There are some irreversible effects, but it's less than many would lead you to believe. For example, for male to female, the lasting effects would be more body hair and a deeper voice. Not ideal, but that's it. 

That's the thing though, we're learning more about the long term effects of these puberty blocking treatments and cross-sex hormones and it's not as simple as it was once portrayed.  There are serious long term or permanent effects.  Which is why even Britain National Health Service has recently changed their guidance/warnings on them.  For instance, less than two years ago, their guidance on puberty suppressing treatments said something along the lines of what you state above:

GnRH analogues suppress the hormones produced by your child’s body. They also suppress puberty and can help delay potentially distressing physical changes caused by their body becoming even more like that of their biological sex, until they're old enough for the treatment options discussed below.

GnRH analogues will only be considered for your child if assessments have found they're experiencing clear distress and have a strong desire to live as their gender identity.

The effects of treatment with GnRH analogues are considered to be fully reversible, so treatment can usually be stopped at any time after a discussion between you, your child and your MDT.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200502223746/https:/www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

But now the same section on that page on the NHS site says this:

Puberty blockers (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues) pause the physical changes of puberty, such as breast development or facial hair.

Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.

Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.

It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

From the age of 16, teenagers who've been on hormone blockers for at least 12 months may be given cross-sex hormones, also known as gender-affirming hormones.

These hormones cause some irreversible changes, such as:

breast development (caused by taking oestrogen)

breaking or deepening of the voice (caused by taking testosterone)

Long-term cross-sex hormone treatment may cause temporary or even permanent infertility.

However, as cross-sex hormones affect people differently, they should not be considered a reliable form of contraception.

There is some uncertainty about the risks of long-term cross-sex hormone treatment.

 

Point being, it's often not as simple as coming off the treatments.  And as I mentioned in the other thread on this, there are particular issues for males who use these treatments to suppress puberty with the intent to transition to female.  It stunts the development of male genitalia in a way that doesn't simply "fix itself" upon coming off the blockers, depending on how long they use them or how late into adolescence they use them.  The results for them are bad either way:

1.  If they want to move forward with surgical means to make their bodies look female, there's often too little penis tissue to work with, meaning a penile inversion vaginoplasty is impossible.  This is the far less risky version of this surgery and the one that has the most potential to allow for sexual sensation in that area once completed.  They have to opt for a high risk surgery for a vaginoplasty that usually leaves them incapable of much if any sensation at all, much less the ability to orgasm.

2.  If they decide they are not trans after all and wish to come off the treatments, the same issues with development of male genitalia is present, but they are left with a far smaller, underdeveloped penis than most men, which for various reasons - some psychological and others physiological - can cause permanent problems for them performing sexually.  And that doesn't even get into the issues of sterility.

It's flat out not that simple anymore to just say use the treatments and it's all reversible and it'll be ok.  It's more than just a little more body hair and a deeper voice.

[McLoofus 35,182]

23 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's the thing though, we're learning more about the long term effects of these puberty blocking treatments and cross-sex hormones and it's not as simple as it was once portrayed.  There are serious long term or permanent effects.  Which is why even Britain National Health Service has recently changed their guidance/warnings on them.  For instance, less than two years ago, their guidance on puberty suppressing treatments said something along the lines of what you state above:

GnRH analogues suppress the hormones produced by your child’s body. They also suppress puberty and can help delay potentially distressing physical changes caused by their body becoming even more like that of their biological sex, until they're old enough for the treatment options discussed below.

GnRH analogues will only be considered for your child if assessments have found they're experiencing clear distress and have a strong desire to live as their gender identity.

The effects of treatment with GnRH analogues are considered to be fully reversible, so treatment can usually be stopped at any time after a discussion between you, your child and your MDT.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200502223746/https:/www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

But now the same section on that page on the NHS site says this:

Puberty blockers (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues) pause the physical changes of puberty, such as breast development or facial hair.

Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.

Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.

It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

From the age of 16, teenagers who've been on hormone blockers for at least 12 months may be given cross-sex hormones, also known as gender-affirming hormones.

These hormones cause some irreversible changes, such as:

breast development (caused by taking oestrogen)

breaking or deepening of the voice (caused by taking testosterone)

Long-term cross-sex hormone treatment may cause temporary or even permanent infertility.

However, as cross-sex hormones affect people differently, they should not be considered a reliable form of contraception.

There is some uncertainty about the risks of long-term cross-sex hormone treatment.

 

Point being, it's often not as simple as coming off the treatments.  And as I mentioned in the other thread on this, there are particular issues for males who use these treatments to suppress puberty with the intent to transition to female.  It stunts the development of male genitalia in a way that doesn't simply "fix itself" upon coming off the blockers, depending on how long they use them or how late into adolescence they use them.  The results for them are bad either way:

1.  If they want to move forward with surgical means to make their bodies look female, there's often too little penis tissue to work with, meaning a penile inversion vaginoplasty is impossible.  This is the far less risky version of this surgery and the one that has the most potential to allow for sexual sensation in that area once completed.  They have to opt for a high risk surgery for a vaginoplasty that usually leaves them incapable of much if any sensation at all, much less the ability to orgasm.

2.  If they decide they are not trans after all and wish to come off the treatments, the same issues with development of male genitalia is present, but they are left with a far smaller, underdeveloped penis than most men, which for various reasons - some psychological and others physiological - can cause permanent problems for them performing sexually.  And that doesn't even get into the issues of sterility.

It's flat out not that simple anymore to just say use the treatments and it's all reversible and it'll be ok.  It's more than just a little more body hair and a deeper voice.

Also the kind of info I need to consider more closely. Thank you for sharing.

[cbo 7,811]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

That's the thing though, we're learning more about the long term effects of these puberty blocking treatments and cross-sex hormones and it's not as simple as it was once portrayed.  There are serious long term or permanent effects.  Which is why even Britain National Health Service has recently changed their guidance/warnings on them.  For instance, less than two years ago, their guidance on puberty suppressing treatments said something along the lines of what you state above:

GnRH analogues suppress the hormones produced by your child’s body. They also suppress puberty and can help delay potentially distressing physical changes caused by their body becoming even more like that of their biological sex, until they're old enough for the treatment options discussed below.

GnRH analogues will only be considered for your child if assessments have found they're experiencing clear distress and have a strong desire to live as their gender identity.

The effects of treatment with GnRH analogues are considered to be fully reversible, so treatment can usually be stopped at any time after a discussion between you, your child and your MDT.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200502223746/https:/www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

But now the same section on that page on the NHS site says this:

Puberty blockers (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues) pause the physical changes of puberty, such as breast development or facial hair.

Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.

Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.

It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

From the age of 16, teenagers who've been on hormone blockers for at least 12 months may be given cross-sex hormones, also known as gender-affirming hormones.

These hormones cause some irreversible changes, such as:

breast development (caused by taking oestrogen)

breaking or deepening of the voice (caused by taking testosterone)

Long-term cross-sex hormone treatment may cause temporary or even permanent infertility.

However, as cross-sex hormones affect people differently, they should not be considered a reliable form of contraception.

There is some uncertainty about the risks of long-term cross-sex hormone treatment.

 

Point being, it's often not as simple as coming off the treatments.  And as I mentioned in the other thread on this, there are particular issues for males who use these treatments to suppress puberty with the intent to transition to female.  It stunts the development of male genitalia in a way that doesn't simply "fix itself" upon coming off the blockers, depending on how long they use them or how late into adolescence they use them.  The results for them are bad either way:

1.  If they want to move forward with surgical means to make their bodies look female, there's often too little penis tissue to work with, meaning a penile inversion vaginoplasty is impossible.  This is the far less risky version of this surgery and the one that has the most potential to allow for sexual sensation in that area once completed.  They have to opt for a high risk surgery for a vaginoplasty that usually leaves them incapable of much if any sensation at all, much less the ability to orgasm.

2.  If they decide they are not trans after all and wish to come off the treatments, the same issues with development of male genitalia is present, but they are left with a far smaller, underdeveloped penis than most men, which for various reasons - some psychological and others physiological - can cause permanent problems for them performing sexually.  And that doesn't even get into the issues of sterility.

It's flat out not that simple anymore to just say use the treatments and it's all reversible and it'll be ok.  It's more than just a little more body hair and a deeper voice.

I never said it's all reversible and it'll be ok. You only listed two permanent effects that I didn't. One is breast development, which I didn't mention because I only gave one gender as an example. That's why I said "for example." The other is infertility, which is a good point. Although not necessarily permanent, it may be. It honestly slipped my mind and that is an important issue for some. 

The bolded statements that "little is known about long-term side effects" and "there is some uncertainty about the risks" of long-term effects are extremely common language in discussions of any newish treatments. Sounds a lot like the language surrounding Covid vaccines. Have you ever read the disclaimers for ... any medication? or heard the laughably long disclaimers they throw as quickly as possible at the end of every pharmaceutical commercial? Everyone is afraid of lawsuits and wants to cover their ass. And not much can be certain in the way of medical treatment until proven over time. 

Almost all medical treatment comes with risk. Whether we recognize it as such, we constantly conduct risk assessments when making decisions about our health. We already have systems in place that allow parents to make those decisions for their children, in consultation with licensed physicians. Let's remember parents can't do any of this without authorization and prescriptions from physicians. The same types of physicians who write the guidance that you cited. 

Studies show the number one way to decrease suicide rates in transgender teens is support from parents that includes medical treatment. Why don't we let families make the best decisions for themselves? Why should it be up to the whims or aspirations of politicians? Often, the exact same politicians who insist that parents should be in charge of their child's curriculum.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

And yet for years we’ve just heard “it’s reversible,” but now the NHS feels these warnings and caveats need to be said explicitly. And for what it’s worth, this pumping of the brakes on puberty blockers and cross sex hormones isn’t just happening in Britain. Sweden, France and other European countries are pulling back some on the automatic assumptions of no lasting or permanent effects.  Combine that with the knowledge that close to 8 out of 10 kids that present with gender dysphoria end up deciding later that they aren’t trans after all and it raises serious and reasonable questions about whether these blockers are a good idea after all. 

And along with sterility there’s the whole thing of “yeah you might also have a severely undeveloped penis and be unable to really even have sex later” that seems rather concerning. 

Support is one thing. Medical treatments for any kid that expresses these feelings when near 80% don’t persist in feeling that way and you have potentially life altering and permanent damage done to their body seems borne more of ideology than sound science. 

[TexasTiger 12,827]

8 hours ago, cbo said:

The good news is almost everyone agrees that irreversible procedures should be held off until a certain age. Gender reassignment surgery is widely restricted to those 18 and older. It's expensive and not very accessible and usually occurs later in life. 

With parental consent, pre-teen and teenagers can begin hormone therapy, such as puberty blockers or testosterone injections. One of the primary benefits to starting hormone therapy at a younger age is it allows teenagers to go through puberty as their identified gender. Most effects can be reversed by simply ending the therapy. There are some irreversible effects, but it's less than many would lead you to believe. For example, for male to female, the lasting effects would be more body hair and a deeper voice. Not ideal, but that's it. 

Yet we have certain politicians attempting to pass bills designed to punish transgender kids and their families. In TN, there is a current bill that allows teachers to refuse to use a child's preferred pronoun. In TX, the governor has directed the Department of Family & Protective Services to classify hormone therapy as child abuse under current state laws. They are pushing for parents and healthcare providers to be investigated as possible child abusers. 

We are talking about parents who are caring for transgender children, who have an extremely high rate of depression and suicide. In most cases, it takes years before hormone therapy begins. Not just for the parents to come around, but then to seek medical treatment, which may require mental therapy in advance. They've then decided to help their children, under the direction and supervision of qualified, certified physicians. 

As usual, all of this has nothing to do with any true harm or threat to anyone, and everything to do with appeasing constituents in response to the latest moral outrage. 

Loof, this is way more than you asked for. But you made the mistake of expressing interest in the topic and you know I like talking to you. I also don't think we disagree on this, so any anger reflected is certainly not directed at you. 

 

 

Most of this proposed legislation is an overreaction to an overreaction that’s not based on solid science. As is often the case, the best answer is in between.
 

There is a huge trend in adolescents developing gender dysphoria who don’t meet the longstanding DSM standard for a diagnosis supporting medical transition of having had it since a young age. Most of these young people have other mental health issues that many providers ignore or too quickly assume are caused by the dysphoria, instead of the other way around. It’s particularly prevalent amongst autistic teens. Most are not being assisted by folks with the proper qualifications.

https://thecritic.co.uk/trans-activism-before-medical-standards/
 

There is grave harm being done to many young people and I’m confident we’ll see a ton of lawsuits in the next few years. Young people can socially transition if they want without subjecting their body to hormones and puberty blockers that are handed out far more easily than you seem to think.

This article is by two professionals who’ve assisted numerous young people in transitioning. One of them is trans. They’re seeing very alarming trends. Everyone remotely interested in this topic should read it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/24/trans-kids-therapy-psychologist/

[cbo 7,811]

59 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And yet for years we’ve just heard “it’s reversible,” but now the NHS feels these warnings and caveats need to be said explicitly. And for what it’s worth, this pumping of the brakes on puberty blockers and cross sex hormones isn’t just happening in Britain. Sweden, France and other European countries are pulling back some on the automatic assumptions of no lasting or permanent effects.  Combine that with the knowledge that close to 8 out of 10 kids that present with gender dysphoria end up deciding later that they aren’t trans after all and it raises serious and reasonable questions about whether these blockers are a good idea after all. 

And along with sterility there’s the whole thing of “yeah you might also have a severely undeveloped penis and be unable to really even have sex later” that seems rather concerning. 

Support is one thing. Medical treatments for any kid that expresses these feelings when near 80% don’t persist in feeling that way and you have potentially life altering and permanent damage done to their body seems borne more of ideology than sound science. 

"And yet for years we’ve just heard “it’s reversible,'"

No we haven't. No one in the mainstream was even having a serious conversation about this a few years ago. 

"Combine that with the knowledge that close to 8 out of 10 kids that present with gender dysphoria end up deciding later that they aren’t trans after all"

This isn't true. Maybe you will point me to some random study. I can point you to many that refute this. Common sense will tell you this makes no sense. Why would anyone chose this life?

"And along with sterility there’s the whole thing of “yeah you might also have a severely undeveloped penis and be unable to really even have sex later” that seems rather concerning."

If you knew anything about what transgender people experience, you would know that having an undeveloped penis is not at the top of their list of problems. Of course it's a concern. But not compared to the bullying they constantly receive for being who they are.  Feeling completely out of place in your own body.

Also, there are many different ways to have sex and the younger generation is much more open-minded than the people on this board. Don't be cute by saying what "seems rather concerning" to people you know nothing about. 

I noticed that, for the second time, you did not address the main point of my argument. Why do politicians get to make these decisions for these kids and their families? Hell, why does it matter so much to you what anyone else does? The only damage that could be done is damage done to themselves. Why is that a problem for anyone else?

You also did not address suicide rates for transgender youth, which is a very real threat. If you are so concerned about all the risks, why not?