Church takes public position on the transgender law

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

This really is not an issue of religion. One does not need to be religious to know that boys and girls are not the same.  Also this is an issue of the government forcing people to have to use the restrooms with the opposite gender.  In other words. to protect the rights of a transgender, the rights of everyone else in the restroom must be cancelled out.   Personally I think passing a law is dumb because the police are not going to waste time arresting these people.  I think it is just better to settle the matter personally if one finds the wrong gender using a public restroom.

My take is that gender dysphoria is hellish enough...If we're Christlike, we'll try to help those individuals or at least not worsen everyday life for them.

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

How does where someone goes to the washroom affect religious liberty? what's the thinking behind that?

Well, lets say, just or an example, that this is a church sponsor school  -- let's use some initials to identify this school, such as BYV.  OK, at BYV, they ae soooooo strict in ther religion (again this is theoretical)n that they do not allow mixed gender housing == males only, females only.

Now the big bad government says that you must allow Joe the Bruser to use the female bathrooms because "today I want to express the feminine side of myself".  So he walks into the girls's room with the Federal Government preserving his fight to do so ===============>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  even tho it goes against every teaching of the church.  But, heck no, we will deny your school all federal funding if you don't allow Joe Bruser to explore his "feminine side" to the young ladies in the bathroom or the shower.

Joe really appreciates this experience,  and tells all his friends that the girls were very impressed with his "feminine side" showing, and that they should join him the next time.

Now, do you understand the thinking behind it?  This is the world we live in.

Edited February 18, 2017 by cdowis

[Duncan]

Just now, cdowis said:

Well, lets say, just or an example, that this is a church sponsor school  -- let's use some initials to identify this school, such as BYV.  OK, at BYV, they ae soooooo strict in ther religion (again this is theoretical)n that they do not allow mixed gender housing == males only, females only.

Now the big bad government says that you must allow Joe the Bruser to use the female bathrooms because "today I want to express the feminine side of myself".  So he walks into the girls's room with the Federal Government preserving his fight to do so ===============>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  even tho it goes against every teaching of the church.  But, heck no, we will deny your school all federal funding if you don't allow Joe Bruser to explore his "feminine side" to the young ladies in the bathroom or the shower.

Joe really appreciates this experience,  and tells all his friends that the girls were very impressed with his "feminine side" showing, and that they should join him the next time.

Now, do you understand the thinking behind it?  This is the world we live in.

so they have to build a new washroom? NBD-i'd be more worried about vigilante people attacking transgendered people or transvestite people. I had dinner awhile ago with a transvestite man, he doesn't wear female clothes to work and he doesn't wear them that much but he's transvestite and gay and had to endure a lot of abuse growing up in a small religious community. I thought BYU and all that are privately funded anyways. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

My take is that gender dysphoria is hellish enough...If we're Christlike, we'll try to help those individuals or at least not worsen everyday life for them.

I'm puzzled as to why the best solution to the problem, though (at least according to those who are politically correct) is to put non-gender-conflicted children in a tough, embarrassing spot (there are so many adjectives I could use here!) by allowing gender-conflicted children to use facilities which do not correspond to their outward biology.  We could simply offer single-use-at-a-time restrooms, but ... no-no ... that might hurt someone's feelings.  I don't have children, but I can't imagine any parent being OK with putting their non-gender-conflicted child in such a tough (again, so many adjectives apply!) spot.

[Sky]

18 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

It is sad that a stance even needed to be made.  Some claim that we live in a more enlightened time but if that means people don't understand the difference between male and female, remove me from this enlightenment.  If this is the evolution of this society, a nuclear war might be a good thing.

Nuclear war...a good thing?  Really?  Because the existence of transgender people makes you uncomfortable?  Not good!  

[Kenngo1969]

45 minutes ago, Duncan said:

so they have to build a new washroom? NBD ...

You obviously don't understand: Having a single-use-at-a-time washroom for gender-conflicted people/children might hurt the little darlings' tender feelings. No, no.  The only solution to the problem is to make everyone else uncomfortable by allowing those few who do face such conflict to use facilities which do not correspond to their outward biology.

Get with the program!

Edited February 18, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Sky]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

This really is not an issue of religion. One does not need to be religious to know that boys and girls are not the same.  Also this is an issue of the government forcing people to have to use the restrooms with the opposite gender.  In other words. to protect the rights of a transgender, the rights of everyone else in the restroom must be cancelled out.   Personally I think passing a law is dumb because the police are not going to waste time arresting these people.  I think it is just better to settle the matter personally if one finds the wrong gender using a public restroom.

How are you going to tell if the "wrong gender" is using a public restroom?  Are you going to inspect?  How exactly do you plan to "settle the matter personally"?  

Edited February 18, 2017 by Sky

[provoman]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Mormonism may still believe that but has added additional perspective in the many years since.
As for D&C 134, please note the following:

1. It is NOT a revelation but a statement of belief from the Church in 1835.
2.  At that time, this declaration was given the following preamble: “That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought proper to present, at the close of this volume, our opinion concerning the same.
3. By 1844, just 9 years later Joseph Smith was running for President, the political Kingdom of God (Council of 50) had been established and Joseph was also mayor of Nauvoo, a political office.
4. Mormon doctrine teaches us to look forward to the establishment of a theocracy ruled over by Christ in the Millennial period.  Moving in that direction will obviously eliminate this notion of keeping religion out of government.

 

Civil government is civil government or otherwise the government of mortal imperfect peoples. The separation is not just a notion, it is published canon (more than once) of the LDS Church.

Another example of the separation, which religious people need to preserve; Doctrine and Covenants 58

Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm puzzled as to why the best solution to the problem, though (at least according to those who are politically correct) is to put non-gender-conflicted children in a tough, embarrassing spot (there are so many adjectives I could use here!) by allowing gender-conflicted children to use facilities which do not correspond to their outward biology.  We could simply offer single-use-at-a-time restrooms, but ... no-no ... that might hurt someone's feelings.  I don't have children, but I can't imagine any parent being OK with putting their non-gender-conflicted child in such a tough (again, so many adjectives apply!) spot.

I'm okay with it. No biggie. So far, none of mine seem to suffer from gender dysphoria, but each one of them is able to empathize with others who are in pain.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Duncan]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

You obviously don't understand: Having a single-use-at-a-time washroom for gender-conflicted people/children might hurt the little darlings' tender feelings. No, no.  The only solution to the problem is to make everyone else uncomfortable by allowing those few who do face such conflict to use facilities which do not correspond to their outward biology.

Get with the program!

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, Sky said:

How are you going to tell if the "wrong gender" is using a public restroom?  Are you going to inspect?  How exactly do you plan to "settle the matter personally"?  

And what about intersex people? They can appear to be even more "strange" if they appear as they are biologically, conforming to neither gender exclusively.

So it looks like we who are clearly (to us and to the world) one of either male or female need to educate ourselves and deal with it.

("Mommy, why is that man MY size?" Oh, honey...he was born with a body that cannot grow big like Daddy's" "Oh! Does it hurt, Mommy?" "Yes dear, it can hurt a lot ."

Likewise, we can make similar explanations about transgender individuals to our kids.)

[bsjkki]

Here is the brief if you want to read it in full. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/16-273-amicus-petitioner-major_religious_organizations.pdf 

The Department’s reading of Title IX presupposes a settled clinical understanding of gender identity that does not exist. Some assert that gender identity consists of “the cultural meanings that the sexed body 5 assumes.”4 Others argue for “a fixed, biological basis for gender identity.”5 Still others say that “[a]lthough not all of the factors that contribute to the formation of one’s gender identity are fully understood, it is generally accepted that gender identity has an innate component.”6 The American Psychiatric Association characterizes gender identity as an aspect of “social identity” and defines it as “an individual’s identification as male, female, or, occasionally, some category other than male or female.”7 And then there are those who reject the APA’s guidelines on gender dysphoria in favor of “an inner sense of self as male, female, or other, based on body, on thoughts and feelings, and absorption of messages from the external world.”8

Amici see gender differently. Our core beliefs and practical experience hold that gender is a given, consisting of attributes intrinsically connected with one’s birth sex—not an individual choice. We and other  major religions agree that human beings are the creation of God; that He created them male and female; that to be male or female is an immutable characteristic; and that this characteristic carries certain attributes and responsibilities.

 

[CV75]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It is against policy for a transgendered person to receive the priesthood.  I would assume that would also bar them from temple ordinances.

Yes, and I believe this has mostly to do with elective surgery and carefully deciding what constitutes the transgenderism from a sex assigned or assumed by the parents and not the person’s self-evident or apparent sex. But a "woman in a man's body" might rightly and with integrity decline receiving the priesthood, and a "man in a woman's body" would with integrity not expect to be ordained.

[bsjkki]

The brief gave 3 main arguments: 

I. Interpreting Gender Identity as a Protected Class Under Title IX Would Threaten Religious Liberty.

      A. Major religions teach that personal identity as male or female is a divinely created and immutable characteristic.

      B. Interpreting “sex” to include gender identity places not only Title IX but also Titles VII and VIII in conflict with major faith traditions.

      C. Leaving the issue of gender identity to elected legislators will allow the democratic process to work out solutions that fully preserve religious liberty.

CONCLUSION Unilaterally declaring “sex” to mean “gender identity” would create serious conflicts with religious liberty. Working through the proper channels of democratic self-government offers a more sustainable answer to the problem of preserving religious liberty while protecting the essential interests of those with gender identity issues. By giving effect to the Department’s faulty reinterpretation of Title IX, the court of appeals erred. Its decision should be reversed. Respectfully submitted,

[strappinglad]

While there are definitely people who are born with ambiguous genitalia, in the same way that there are people born with a vestigial twin or some other abnormality, I  have yet to be convinced that the transgender folks , at least a large percentage of them, do not have some form of mental illness that could be addressed by therapy and medication rather than surgery. As a society we try to accommodate some physical handicaps . Do we now try to accommodate all forms of mental unbalance ?  If a man self identifies as a squirrel, do we require the government to enforce a law allowing him to work in costume and spread nut casings around the work place?

[thesometimesaint]

Now do I have to carry my Birth Certificate and submit to a visual sex exam to use the Ward Bathrooms?

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

While there are definitely people who are born with ambiguous genitalia, in the same way that there are people born with a vestigial twin or some other abnormality, I  have yet to be convinced that the transgender folks , at least a large percentage of them, do not have some form of mental illness that could be addressed by therapy and medication rather than surgery. As a society we try to accommodate some physical handicaps . Do we now try to accommodate all forms of mental unbalance ?  If a man self identifies as a squirrel, do we require the government to enforce a law allowing him to work in costume and spread nut casings around the work place?

Even if it is a delusion, sometimes psychology does warrant allowing the person to live the delusion as they work through underlying causes. Males and females people exist and are normalised in society.  Thus, accomodating a person's wishes--psychological need, even--to present themselves as a gender other than their biological sex is not equivalent to accomodating a fantasy of being a squirrel.

[Duncan]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

Now do I have to carry my Birth Certificate and submit to a visual sex exam to use the Ward Bathrooms?

exactley and are we going to have to ask everyone who walks in the church if they have had a sex change? just wait until everyone is out of the washroom and then the person can go in

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Now do I have to carry my Birth Certificate and submit to a visual sex exam to use the Ward Bathrooms?

No.  But you should probably inform the Bishop if you are transgendered.

[Duncan]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

No.  But you should probably inform the Bishop if you are transgendered.

why though? if you had knee surgery do you have to tell him that too? the less they have to deal with the better!

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

so they have to build a new washroom? NBD-i'd be more worried about vigilante people attacking transgendered people or transvestite people. I had dinner awhile ago with a transvestite man, he doesn't wear female clothes to work and he doesn't wear them that much but he's transvestite and gay and had to endure a lot of abuse growing up in a small religious community. I thought BYU and all that are privately funded anyways. 

I don't think a "male" entering a female restroom will resolve that issue.

Student loans are controlled by Big Brother, federal research grants, etc.

 

Edited February 18, 2017 by cdowis

[halconero]

A question for everyone out here, but some context first.

From my university days not too long ago I had two transgendered friends, let's call them Sam and Jess.

I didn't know either of them were transgendered until they told me a couple months into our friendship. Sam had some light facial hair, had an average male voice and haircut, and had a masculine build. Sam could lift waaaaay more than me when we worked out together, and I'm a heavy lifter. I had no clue Sam was born a female until they told me.

Jess was super feminine, about 4'9", and super petite. Long hair, and to be honest I had the biggest crush on Jess for a long time. They did themselves up regularly, and strove to make themselves look attractive. Same dealio where I had zero clue they were born male till they told me.

The funny thing is that while there are many transgendered people who haven't transitioned well, there a huge number who have.

For all the women on this board, would you feel comfortable with someone like Sam walking into a bathroom to use it with you? Likewise, for the men on the board, would you be okay with someone like Jess who looks, sounds, and acts like a woman following you into the bathroom while you were at the urinal?

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, halconero said:

A question for everyone out here, but some context first.

From my university days not too long ago I had two transgendered friends, let's call them Sam and Jess.

I didn't know either of them were transgendered until they told me a couple months into our friendship. Sam had some light facial hair, had an average male voice and haircut, and had a masculine build. Sam could lift waaaaay more than me when we worked out together, and I'm a heavy lifter. I had no clue Sam was born a female until they told me.

Jess was super feminine, about 4'9", and super petite. Long hair, and to be honest I had the biggest crush on Jess for a long time. They did themselves up regularly, and strove to make themselves look attractive. Same dealio where I had zero clue they were born male till they told me.

The funny thing is that while there are many transgendered people who haven't transitioned well, there a huge number who have.

For all the women on this board, would you feel comfortable with someone like Sam walking into a bathroom to use it with you? Likewise, for the men on the board, would you be okay with someone like Jess who looks, sounds, and acts like a woman following you into the bathroom while you were at the urinal?

I would feel fine, honestly. It's the homophobes ad transgenderphobes that scare me.

[Duncan]

Just now, halconero said:

A question for everyone out here, but some context first.

From my university days not too long ago I had two transgendered friends, let's call them Sam and Jess.

I didn't know either of them were transgendered until they told me a couple months into our friendship. Sam had some light facial hair, had an average male voice and haircut, and had a masculine build. Sam could lift waaaaay more than me when we worked out together, and I'm a heavy lifter. I had no clue Sam was born a female until they told me.

Jess was super feminine, about 4'9", and super petite. Long hair, and to be honest I had the biggest crush on Jess for a long time. They did themselves up regularly, and strove to make themselves look attractive. Same dealio where I had zero clue they were born male till they told me.

The funny thing is that while there are many transgendered people who haven't transitioned well, there a huge number who have.

For all the women on this board, would you feel comfortable with someone like Sam walking into a bathroom to use it with you? Likewise, for the men on the board, would you be okay with someone like Jess who looks, sounds, and acts like a woman following you into the bathroom while you were at the urinal?

I don't care who uses the facilities next to me or follows me in or anything-I don't look and I have nothing to be ashamed of  when my son was small I went into the washroom with him and just waited, in case he needed help. People should be concerned about their kids and washrooms but go in with them or wait outside

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I would feel fine, honestly. It's the homophobes ad transgenderphobes that scare me.

One does not have to be anyphobic in order to be uncomfortable sharing a stall.