Speaker 1: Welcome to the nonprofits. For our second segment.
Speaker 2: This week, we go all the way to Utah, where
Speaker 2: the science seems to be slapping legislators in the face. AJ,
Speaker 2: what's going on down in the Beehive State?
Speaker 3: Very true? Yes, So. Although Utah's Governor, Spencer Cox is
Speaker 3: a Republican, he has been very open about his support
Speaker 3: for transgender young people's rights. In twenty twenty three, he
Speaker 3: introduced a bill in order to get the Utah Health
Speaker 3: Department to conduct a review of medical evidence so that
Speaker 3: they could collect data regarding the effects of medical treatment
Speaker 3: for transgender kids. He hoped to get a deeper understanding
Speaker 3: of the science in order to better serve them. However,
Speaker 3: legislators that supported transgender care bands hope to prove that
Speaker 3: this kind of medical care was harmful. But now that
Speaker 3: the review has arrived after two years, those that supported
Speaker 3: the ban and wanted the review you are not really
Speaker 3: happy about the results, and they've decided to do what
Speaker 3: they do best, ignore them, just like they do the
Speaker 3: entire Old Testament.
Speaker 1: Easy, busy.
Speaker 3: So this story is from mother Jones by Madison Paully
Speaker 3: on May twenty four, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: All Right, AJ, let's just keep it going.
Speaker 2: I want you to talk a little bit about these results.
Speaker 2: And so the headlines call them inconvenient. You know, we've
Speaker 2: said that, you know, it's kind of slapping them in
Speaker 2: the face.
Speaker 1: What were some of those results? What did they find out?
Speaker 3: Yeah, So the authors of this studies said that the
Speaker 3: consensus of the evidence supports that the treatments are effective
Speaker 3: in terms of mental health, psychosocial outcomes, and induction of
Speaker 3: body changes consistent with the affirmed gender in pediatric patients.
Speaker 3: So the evidence also supports that the treatments are safe
Speaker 3: in the terms of things like changes the bond density,
Speaker 3: cardiovascular risk factors, metabolic changes, and cancer. So it's their
Speaker 3: expert opinion that policies to prevent access to the use
Speaker 3: of gender affirming hormone therapy for treatment of gender dysphoria
Speaker 3: and pediatric patients cannot be justified based on the quality
Speaker 3: or the quantity of the medical science findings or concerns
Speaker 3: about potential regard in the future. So they say that
Speaker 3: high quality guidelines are available to guide qualified providers in
Speaker 3: treating pediatric patients who meet the diagnostic criteria. And here
Speaker 3: the keyword is experts in qualified providers. Okay, this is
Speaker 3: how it should be, Like, yeah, we trust the advice
Speaker 3: of these people that have studied, that have worked in
Speaker 3: the fields. And this is not blind trust. Again, it's
Speaker 3: not blind out theo he trust. Yeah, what we trust
Speaker 3: is that this science is proving itself over and over again,
Speaker 3: you know, based on repeated testing.
Speaker 2: And then it couldn't be more obvious, it seems to me.
Speaker 2: I mean it was completely unambiguous against what, you know,
Speaker 2: what they were saying, or actually in favor of what
Speaker 2: the governor was going for. You know, the governor wanted
Speaker 2: support for these kind of programs. Opponents say, no, no,
Speaker 2: we can't do that. Let's see what the science has
Speaker 2: to say. And then the science comes back and it
Speaker 2: is totally in favor of those kids.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean even more so. He wanted truth. So
Speaker 4: even if he wanted support, didn't want support. He funded
Speaker 4: like shit with some really good controls put in place,
Speaker 4: and like he just wanted to like settle it. Like
Speaker 4: and that's where I can appreciate somebody. It's like the
Speaker 4: dude like irrespective of you know, the team that he
Speaker 4: plays for, Like he's a decent guy. Like fuck, yeah,
Speaker 4: this dude, like Yeah, we need more of these guys
Speaker 4: for this guy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, if you're doing good things, it doesn't to me,
Speaker 3: it doesn't really matter. Like there is a local representative
Speaker 3: in Texas that has been fighting against things like the
Speaker 3: same commandments and he's a Christian like that kind of things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, bro.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But then of course now they're backtracking right now
Speaker 2: now that the science has come through, you know, they
Speaker 2: have at least the the facade or the image of well,
Speaker 2: let's see what the science has to say, and then
Speaker 2: the science comes back and then they're like, oh, who
Speaker 2: cares what the science says, here's what we want to do. Anyway,
Speaker 2: it seems like it like they've just kind of whipped
Speaker 2: it out right there. I mean, it's like they're totally
Speaker 2: exposing their their their motivations. I don't know, agy what
Speaker 2: do you think about that? What do you think about
Speaker 2: how does this affect, you know, the perception or at
Speaker 2: least the know. It seems like the facade is not
Speaker 2: even a good word, because it's like they almost don't
Speaker 2: even care what the what the optics look like, and
Speaker 2: it seems like it's just.
Speaker 1: All about the goal, all about the end goal.
Speaker 2: We need to end up we need to take whatever
Speaker 2: we need to say or do or ask or research
Speaker 2: any particular you know, whatever whatever is possible to get
Speaker 2: us to this predetermined outcome.
Speaker 1: I don't know any anybody have any thoughts on that.
Speaker 3: Oh man, Yeah, I really think that it doesn't really
Speaker 3: matter what the results were. Those that were in support
Speaker 3: of their healthcareman for transgender kids, weren't going to do
Speaker 3: whatever they wanted to do in the end, Like there
Speaker 3: were just that was the plan the entire time, to
Speaker 3: ignore the results and be like, hey, you know what,
Speaker 3: now we get to design what we already knew we
Speaker 3: wanted to do. They just wasted out of that time,
Speaker 3: Like they don't even like they ignore the science that's
Speaker 3: eventually going to be guiding these qualified providers that we
Speaker 3: just talk about, like that's what's showed matter, Like, you
Speaker 3: do the research, then you give that information to the
Speaker 3: providers and let them and their patients make these decisions
Speaker 3: like doctor, surgeon, psychologists. They let them do their jobs
Speaker 3: and understanding of the treatments to the patients.
Speaker 4: Dude, all those all those providers are they're representative of truth.
Speaker 4: I mean, what's the job that I do right now?
Speaker 4: It's I represent international codes that are like very strict.
Speaker 4: And when I go to these job sites and I
Speaker 4: do these inspections and we do these tests and these
Speaker 4: chemical tests and all this nerdy science shit, and I'm like, well,
Speaker 4: this obviously fucking failed. They're like, well, blah blah blah.
Speaker 4: I'm like, dude, look at look read my fucking code Bible.
Speaker 4: You know this is this is what the Code Bible says.
Speaker 4: You can't argue with this. This is what you also
Speaker 4: agreed to and signed. So even if you say the
Speaker 4: code you too, you agreed to do this, and this
Speaker 4: isn't the thing you agreed to, So like, you just
Speaker 4: have to fucking do it. So you can cry at
Speaker 4: me all day if you want. But I'm just representing
Speaker 4: the truth at this point. So that's where the whole
Speaker 4: experts are. All they are are people who have been
Speaker 4: vetted and trained to take things that are true and
Speaker 4: in the medical sense, and what I do as well
Speaker 4: make sure that the things that are happening do no harm.
Speaker 4: Right at that point, we're just doing quality control on humanity.
Speaker 4: And I don't know what the fucking problem is other
Speaker 4: than what aj in Scott, what you guys are saying
Speaker 4: is that they have a fucking ideological motivation. And I'm
Speaker 4: sure somebody's lining their fucking pockets because let's face it,
Speaker 4: this is America. Somebody's making money on everybody, you know.
Speaker 4: So this is an ideologically based exactly. So if you
Speaker 4: say you believe a fucking thing in an area where
Speaker 4: it's saturated with people who are purposely ignorant, and you
Speaker 4: have campaigned for their ignorance in that area and in
Speaker 4: theun data and inculcated them with your own version of shit,
Speaker 4: that makes you money, and then you all everybody gets
Speaker 4: a job because everybody who fucking knows each other, you know,
Speaker 4: I know you, you know me, We get each other
Speaker 4: a job. That's how it works everywhere in America. I
Speaker 4: don't pretend like it doesn't. I mean, that's why Johnny
Speaker 4: Depp's fucking daughter gets that fancy ass role in that movie.
Speaker 4: I mean, come on, you know, so when you look
Speaker 4: at what's really happening and you admit what's really fucking
Speaker 4: happening in this world, somebody is being incentivized to be
Speaker 4: a piece of fucking shit and to treat people like shit.
Speaker 4: And that's it. There's no mystery behind it.
Speaker 2: Right right, exactly. I do have some research I wanted
Speaker 2: to bring up. But before we do that, aj, I
Speaker 2: wanted to ask you, I know that you had a
Speaker 2: little bit about the scope of the research. I mean,
Speaker 2: it wasn't just a just a single paper that they
Speaker 2: were looking at. What tell us a little bit about
Speaker 2: the about what it was that they were looking at.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I wanted to point out that what was published
Speaker 3: on the whole thing that happened throughout all of these
Speaker 3: two years wasn't a single study. It wasn't like a
Speaker 3: clinical trial type of results. Rather what's called medical evidence review.
Speaker 3: And so the Drug regi Review Center at the University
Speaker 3: of Utah spent those two years compiling all that data
Speaker 3: and the results of other studies and literature regarding the
Speaker 3: effectiveness of gender affirming care for trans youth. So the authors,
Speaker 3: after they collected everything, they said that the conventional was
Speaker 3: domb among non experts has long been that there is
Speaker 3: limited data on gender affirming pediatric care. However, the results
Speaker 3: from our exhaustive literature have led us to the opposite conclusion.
Speaker 3: So basically, the federal government recently tried to do a
Speaker 3: similar review, right, and except that they didn't like three
Speaker 3: months and do that. Unlike right, unlike the University of
Speaker 3: view that review the government papers cited fake experts and
Speaker 3: papers that never existed. So I mean you can decide here, Okay,
Speaker 3: which one would you trust more? An artificial intelligence review
Speaker 3: with fake sources or a University of review that took
Speaker 3: two years and the high proper citations.
Speaker 2: Really, you can't get a stronger scientific statement than that
Speaker 2: a literature review of all available evidence compiled into a
Speaker 2: single report.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can't get stronger evidence than that.
Speaker 3: Cited cited, which is the most important.
Speaker 2: Part cited with real citations at should point out, which is,
Speaker 2: you know, that's it's not just citation need. We need
Speaker 2: to add the you know, we need to change the
Speaker 2: you know, the common phrase citation needed, real citation needed.
Speaker 2: We need to add to that, yeah, citing citations. I
Speaker 2: do want to throw out a little bit of research
Speaker 2: here because one of the main non religious arguments against
Speaker 2: gender affirming care and youth is that is that this
Speaker 2: type of care can make changes to the patient's bodies,
Speaker 2: which of course is the whole point and the intention
Speaker 2: that it can, But they say that it can be
Speaker 2: difficult or impossible to reverse, and so but again, not surprisingly,
Speaker 2: the actual real research shows that this is just not
Speaker 2: an issue.
Speaker 1: Here is.
Speaker 2: This is from a twenty twenty three study published in
Speaker 2: the Journal of American Medical Association Surgery. It says, quote
Speaker 2: evidence suggests that less than one percent of transgender people
Speaker 2: who undergo gender affirming surgery report regret. That proportion is
Speaker 2: even more striking when compared to the fact that fourteen
Speaker 2: point four percent of the broader population reports regrets after
Speaker 2: similar surgeries. For example, studies have found that between five
Speaker 2: and fourteen percent of all women who receive mastectomies to
Speaker 2: reduce the risk of developing breast cancer say they regret
Speaker 2: to do so. However, less than one percent of transgender
Speaker 2: men who receive the same procedure report regret.
Speaker 1: And so if we.
Speaker 2: Compare the exact and so, they are making changes to
Speaker 2: their bodies. They're trying to, you know, make their outer
Speaker 2: self look like what they feel like their inner self
Speaker 2: is right. They want to make themselves whole, They want
Speaker 2: to make themselves complete. They want to they feel like
Speaker 2: it's their destiny. And I feel like I'm I'm going
Speaker 2: too far and what I'm saying here, so please rain
Speaker 2: me in if I am I don't want to. I
Speaker 2: don't want to speak to anyone else's experience. But the
Speaker 2: evidence shows that the regret levels are just way way lower,
Speaker 2: and I don't know. It seems like it should undermine
Speaker 2: that argument. Obviously it doesn't. Some people don't listen to
Speaker 2: things like actual research and that kin kind of thing.
Speaker 1: Sorry, Jason, go ahead, what were you going to say?
Speaker 4: No? No, the look man even And I don't want
Speaker 4: to call it extreme because body modification. I mean, look
Speaker 4: at me, I'm covered. I don't give a fuck. You know,
Speaker 4: it's your body, dude, you are your body. Not even
Speaker 4: it's your body. You are your body. Do what the
Speaker 4: fuck you want. I don't care that said. Let's let's
Speaker 4: let's let's take out surgical, hormonal chemical. Let's let's get
Speaker 4: rid of that. If you look at transgender youth, let's say,
Speaker 4: ages thirteen to seventeen, what's amazing is then this is
Speaker 4: consistent across the board. Is that just a we're talking
Speaker 4: a singular like primary socialite, primary agent, like a singular parent,
Speaker 4: like a singular person who shows unbridled support for their explorations,
Speaker 4: for their for their social transitions, for the name changes,
Speaker 4: for all the things that anybody who has a transgender
Speaker 4: or gender fluid kid understands speaking about this. Things like
Speaker 4: again trigger warning, things like suicidality are drastically impact. What
Speaker 4: we see is for those who do not have a
Speaker 4: primary agent who is supporting you again one parent, one
Speaker 4: very like one very close family member, Like it's got
Speaker 4: to be like inner circle shit. Like if you're not supported,
Speaker 4: your suicidality risk goes up like across the board, like
Speaker 4: eight to nine hundred percent. Like we're talking it is
Speaker 4: ridiculous how much risk you are at as a trans
Speaker 4: and I mean, and it's very similar for just literally
Speaker 4: for queer youth in general. As an umbrella statement, we're
Speaker 4: talking five six hundred percent on average suicidality, suicide attempt,
Speaker 4: suicidal ideation, Depression, I mean, we're talking depression. If you
Speaker 4: listen to Sebalski, is the number two killer in the world,
Speaker 4: like true depression. Depression. Depression is a physiological, physical illness
Speaker 4: that just annihilates humanity. It's it's up there with heart
Speaker 4: disease and what it does you physically and physiologically and socially,
Speaker 4: what it does to your whole being is is just insidious.
Speaker 4: And it gets perpetuated by by fucking monsters like these
Speaker 4: people who are who are promoting this insidious, horrific goal
Speaker 4: that they're capitalizing on. So if people actually cared about
Speaker 4: things like truth, actual truth, like real things like I'm
Speaker 4: talking into a microphone talking to two people that I
Speaker 4: really like. I got a bag of chips next to
Speaker 4: me that I can't wait to dive into in the
Speaker 4: next five minutes. And some apple juice I've been drinking
Speaker 4: that tastes great. That's the true shit. So true shit
Speaker 4: also is if you affirm these kids and you affirm adults,
Speaker 4: they keep on living. And what's really funny is queer
Speaker 4: people in general, whenever their lives are just as normal
Speaker 4: as everybody else is, actually report a higher quality of
Speaker 4: life than straight people, which is fucking hilarious to me.
Speaker 4: So less suicidality, more joy in life, less, less death,
Speaker 4: anxiety less, I mean every thing, like more straight report,
Speaker 4: more hobbies, more and more advancements. I mean, yeah, so
Speaker 4: you know, maybe they're just scared. You know, maybe it's
Speaker 4: scared because they hate us. You know, you're gonna hate
Speaker 4: on us because we're so fucking awesome. So I don't know,
Speaker 4: those are my feelings.
Speaker 2: That's really part of the asenine, the most asenine part
Speaker 2: of this whole thing is that all of the research
Speaker 2: you know, you mentioned all these different psychological outcomes, emotional outcomes,
Speaker 2: social outcomes, uh, physical outcomes.
Speaker 1: It's across the board. It is it is uh.
Speaker 2: Definitely significantly one sided and unambiguous that there is that
Speaker 2: there are benefits to to supporting call me crazy, supporting
Speaker 2: human beings for to be themselves. I mean, it seems
Speaker 2: it seems impossible to me that somebody could not appreciate that.
Speaker 1: It's just I mean it. I would try to.
Speaker 2: Get into the mind of that of that mindset if
Speaker 2: I if it didn't terrify.
Speaker 4: Me, not that hard man, Why does that seem impossible
Speaker 4: to you?
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't I want to understand, but I want I'm
Speaker 2: worried about what is that? How is that going to
Speaker 2: smudge my Soul's simple?
Speaker 4: It's cognitive dissonance.
Speaker 3: Man.
Speaker 4: If if you people people use that word all the time,
Speaker 4: that term cognitive dissonance. What they don't realize cognitive dissonance
Speaker 4: has to do with your self esteem, right, and it
Speaker 4: is one of the most well studied things in psychology.
Speaker 4: Your dissonance will push you to do horrendous things. And
Speaker 4: that's it. Anybody wants to look into it, feel free
Speaker 4: to look into if you care about how human beings
Speaker 4: think and why they act the way they do. Cognitive
Speaker 4: fucking dissonance, that's it.
Speaker 2: Yes, ye, sorry, I want to make sure we get
Speaker 2: into AJ, but I want to direct you with a
Speaker 2: little question here first and okay, sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, you go first to a.
Speaker 2: Right because I wanted to make sure it because we're
Speaker 2: running out of time here, and I wanted to make
Speaker 2: sure that we touched on that. I wanted to make
Speaker 2: sure that we touched on the religious art against against
Speaker 2: this kind of thing, and so supposedly the argument is
Speaker 2: that this goes against the will and intention of God
Speaker 2: and we're changing God's perfect work. But I want I
Speaker 2: want to hear from you AJA comment on that in
Speaker 2: regard in the context of other types of body changing
Speaker 2: treatments that seem to be okay. I mean, we have
Speaker 2: things that are simple and superficial, things like hair plugs,
Speaker 2: things like cosmetic surgeries and stuff like that, all the
Speaker 2: way up to you know, the more severe end of
Speaker 2: things like congenital heart defects and cleft palates and stuff
Speaker 2: like that. It seems that some kinds of body modification
Speaker 2: are acceptable and some of them are not. What are
Speaker 2: what are your thoughts on that? Is this really just
Speaker 2: basic hypocrisy or is there some kind of significance that
Speaker 2: we're that we're missing.
Speaker 3: I think it's a little bit of what Jason what
Speaker 3: was talking about? The cognitive dissonance? Okay, because there is
Speaker 3: no other way to explain it, really, how somebody cannot
Speaker 3: support Joinder affirming care for transgender people only because they
Speaker 3: supported in any other context. I you know a woman
Speaker 3: who has had both implants, and she's recently had a
Speaker 3: whole facial surgery with like neck stuff done, and like
Speaker 3: what they like pull your skin and they literally like
Speaker 3: peel the outer layer of your skin. It's like the
Speaker 3: whole thing. She looks way different than she did before
Speaker 3: the surgeries. All right, So how are you not changing
Speaker 3: what God the way that God made you? How does
Speaker 3: how does that not change?
Speaker 1: Right? Exactly?
Speaker 3: Yeah? So, like I completely support her right to do that, Okay,
Speaker 3: but just the way we support that, we should be
Speaker 3: supporting transgender people's rights to do the same with their
Speaker 3: bodies and it can't even be more simple things like
Speaker 3: not superficial things like that. If I am definitely right,
Speaker 3: I was one with pretty severe hearing loss and what
Speaker 3: was that twenty seventeen, I had a cochlear implant, and
Speaker 3: I was like a year ago I was talking to
Speaker 3: a Catholic family member and we were talking about drungender
Speaker 3: people and like the way that they, you know, they
Speaker 3: should be allowed to have whatever surgery they want to.
Speaker 3: And I was like, what about like something like my implant?
Speaker 3: Should I not have heard that? And he's like, well,
Speaker 3: you should have really like been happy with the body
Speaker 3: that you would give.
Speaker 1: Oh seriously, like somebody even say that. I think it's
Speaker 1: a good thing to say, fuck you there.
Speaker 2: Way is exactly what Jason was talking about. That's the
Speaker 2: kind of thing that you get pushed into saying. That's
Speaker 2: the corner that you get painted into. Not this type
Speaker 2: of approach.
Speaker 3: You yeah, because you have to, because if you don't
Speaker 3: support one, then you cannot logically support any kind of surgery,
Speaker 3: not even not even life say mean sogery.
Speaker 4: It's fucking insane. That's how people can morally bankrupt. Dude,
Speaker 4: You're right, they can't support They have to keep fucking
Speaker 4: they have to keep fucking letting it go. And it's
Speaker 4: just fucking lies in the leveolence all the way down
Speaker 4: until they like sacrifice their own kids for their own
Speaker 4: fucking appearance. It's crazy. It's them.
Speaker 1: I need to go out.
Speaker 2: I think I need to go for a run or
Speaker 2: something after or I need to work out some of
Speaker 2: this some of this energy here. But uh, but excellent,
Speaker 2: excellent conversation. I really appreciate both of you sharing, uh,
Speaker 2: some very personal information too. I mean it's it's uh,
Speaker 2: I mean that just really kind of adds the exclamation
Speaker 2: point to the to the to the opinions that you know,
Speaker 2: with this kind of thing affects real.
Speaker 1: People, and you know, it's easy, it's easier, I.
Speaker 2: Should say, to to push things off if it's not
Speaker 2: it's if it's not in your backyard or not in
Speaker 2: your family, or not in you But you know, we
Speaker 2: we all know people that that this is affecting one
Speaker 2: not you know, directly, and so it's, uh, I don't know,
Speaker 2: it's it's you know, I thought people were supposed to
Speaker 2: care about each other. I thought people were supposed to
Speaker 2: help each other. I thought people were supposed to work together.
Speaker 2: I thought we were supposed to be a societal animal.
Speaker 2: You know, maybe my expectations are just too high.
Speaker 4: They are it's by design, man, There's no ethical consumption
Speaker 4: or interaction in a capitalistic state.
Speaker 2: So excellent words to end on here. So thank you
Speaker 2: both again for participating, Thank all of you for listening.
Speaker 2: I really appreciate that. I hope that you get riled
Speaker 2: up about this this topic, just like like we did.