All Activity

Everyone please remember we do t allow personal attacks. Please be above that and attack the criticism not the critic.

You did. You cited it's ordinance. I have not said that. The efforts to distract from the topic and personalize this thread are continuing. I hope you can get past this. Trans issues are ubiquitous these days. What was previously a rare and private (or else not overtly publicize) set of behaviors and preferences are now trumpeted to the skies 24/7. And social media did not exist back then, so all of us have fairly limited and provincial outlooks. Nah. Trans folks get a lot of attention these days because no small number of them go out of their way to attract and invite it. I would have much preferred to let drag queens do their thing in adult venues. We live in a pluralistic society, after all. But then came the use of these shows to sexualize and groom children. Well, that's quite problematic. I think it is very much your side of the debate that is moving heaven and earth to make trans issues a source for daily discussion and debate and news. And then there's Lili Tino. And Lia Thomas. And Imane Khelif, Laurel Hubbard, Fallon Fox, etc. The whole "men in women's sports" thing. And Dylan Mulvaney and his grotesque caricature of womanhood. And Jessica Yaniv (Jonathan Yaniv) and his various efforts to use the power of the State to coerce estheticians to wax his genitals. And the lawsuits. United States v. Skrmetti (2025) — Upheld Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors with gender dysphoria. 6–3 decision; Court applied rational-basis review and rejected heightened scrutiny arguments. West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox (June 2026) — Upheld state laws (West Virginia and Idaho) barring transgender-identifying males from girls’/women’s school sports teams. Court held the bans do not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX. Trans folks are going out of their way to attract attention in one way or another, and the media and social media accentuate and amplify it, and now people are paying attention and finding some things about the trans movement to be problematic: Tavistock GIDS (UK): The Gender Identity Development Service was shut down after the Cass Review found weak evidence for puberty blockers/hormones, poor data collection, and a rushed affirmative model. Multiple clinicians and whistleblowers raised concerns about inadequate assessment and social contagion factors. WPATH Files / internal documents: Leaked files and the “WPATH Files” (and later SOC8-related materials) showed members acknowledging weak evidence, high rates of comorbidities (autism, trauma, mental illness), inability of many minors to consent, and pressure to affirm rather than explore underlying issues. Critics describe this as institutional capture and suppression of dissent. Medicalization of minors: Rapid rise in youth referrals (especially adolescent females), use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries with limited long-term evidence of net benefit and known risks (infertility, sexual dysfunction, bone density loss, cardiovascular effects). European countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway, England) sharply restricted these interventions after systematic reviews. Desistance and detransition: Historical data showed most childhood gender dysphoria resolved by adulthood without transition; modern “affirmative” approaches and social transition may lock in identity. Growing numbers of detransitioners report inadequate exploration of trauma, autism, or same-sex attraction, plus medical regret. Social contagion / rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD): Hypothesis (Lisa Littman and others) that peer groups, social media, and online communities drive sudden-onset cases in adolescents, particularly girls. Heavily contested but supported by referral pattern shifts and parent reports. Sports, prisons, and single-sex spaces: Biological males identifying as women competing in female categories, accessing women’s shelters/prisons, and using female facilities — raising fairness, safety, and privacy concerns. Multiple high-profile cases and policy reversals. Suppression of debate and research: Clinicians, researchers, and journalists (e.g., SEGM, Genspect, Cass-associated figures) facing professional retaliation, deplatforming, or loss of funding for questioning the affirmative model. Some journals and medical bodies accused of prioritizing activism over evidence. And on and on. The claim that “nothing is new, wrong, or dangerous” and that this is merely about “letting people choose their own toilets” misstates both the history and the stakes. What is new is the formal demand that sex is irrelevant and that self-declared identity must override it. For decades, restrooms were sex-segregated by near-universal social norm and expectation. People who presented ambiguously or who quietly used the facility that matched their appearance were rarely the subject of a political campaign to redefine the categories themselves. The shift came when activists and institutions began insisting that biological males who identify as women must be treated as women for access purposes, and that any sex-based boundary is illegitimate. That change is not neutral. Single-sex spaces exist because of material differences between the sexes—privacy, safety, and the documented pattern of male-pattern criminality and voyeurism. Removing the sex criterion and replacing it with an unverifiable internal state eliminates the limiting principle. Once access is based on self-identification, any male can claim entry. Evidence from prisons, shelters, sports, and multiple documented incidents shows this is not a theoretical concern. Calling enforcement of longstanding sex-based rules “the heavy hand of government” inverts the situation. The government (and institutions) is being asked to compel people to share intimate spaces on the basis of identity rather than sex. Defending the original organizing principle—sex—is not novel interference; abandoning it is the novelty. Edge cases and polite individual exceptions never required rewriting the rule for everyone. Thanks, -Smac

Oh so are you telling me this isn’t a thing? as for you thinking I’m just being judgmental… ok . Does this make anything I said not true?

Yea my pops was the stake pres in the 80s. Never heard of trips to byzoo. Must not have been a thing here and this is mesa az area

I said nothing about “the management of the City of Minneapolis.” I said they’ve explicitly given transgender people the freedom to use the restrooms of their choice over 50 years ago. This proves 3 things: 1- Your belief that transgender people using the bathroom will cause the downfall of civilization is false. 2- This is an issue that existed decades before you got upset about it. 3- You tipped your hand—you are taking cues from the Right Wing Grievance Industrial Complex—the management of Minneapolis is a made-up non-issue that has nothing to do with this conversation, other than being another made-up target of the Right Wing Grievance Industrial Complex. None of these things means there is anything new or wrong or dangerous about letting people choose their own toilets without interference from the heavy hand of government.

The criteria our culture typically uses. Just like it can decide what is and isn’t porn, what is indecent exposure and what isn’t, sets an arbitrary standard for adulthood and access to alcohol, tobacco, voting, joining the army, etc (if we go by something more objective like brain development, adulthood might be later), driving at 16 instead of adulthood, etc.

So we are all equal opportunity criticizers! That sounds to me like something @The Nehor would enjoy!

Asolutely no- i do not accept this as being non judgemental at all. Your observations are most certainly judgy. Your tone is very clear. I would invite you to be a little more self reflective.

Lily Tino is not right wing. Tavistock clinic. Children undergoing radical and permanent and ill advised medical procedures. WPATH's shenanigans. And on and on.

They’ve had a form of FSY for decades. At least since the 80s I think. But it was called EFY and you had to travel to BYU (or maybe a couple other locations around the US, I’m not sure) to attend. Worship band type music has been a staple of those events for just as long. You could even by the tape or CD at Deseret Book each year.

We have had identity-based access as the norm, either implicitly (Kansas 1861-2025) or explicitly (Minneapolis 1975 - now). The reason you only started noticing recently is because the right-wing grievance industria complex has only recently started to tell you this is what you should worry about. It isn’t driven by a real-world issue. It is driven by psychological manipulation.

I disagree as well, in fact the best sermon I have ever heard was from a military chaplain. I'll post it below. Its about 30 min, but it is a good one In the normal definition like seminary trained, parochial school, masters degrees in counseling like a lot of churches require? No. Perhaps a few seminary and institute teachers could qualify and definitely the LDS military chaplains, but in general those folks are not bishops or stake presidents except for happenstance. If we believe that God qualifies those he calls and these people have the Melchizedek priesthood with the power to heal and keys and such then sure they should be considered professional clergy on the Mormon side of things. In terms of bible bashing with most regular Christian preachers...virtually every LDS leader would get destroyed to include the members of the Q15. The quotes I posted all stated " no paid clergy." nothing mentioned about professional or professionally trained.

I hadn’t seen that specific February 2025 Williams Institute brief circulated in this thread yet. It appears it is essentially an update and reframing of their earlier 2018 Massachusetts study (and related work). The core claim is familiar: they find no statistically significant increase in reported safety or privacy crimes in restrooms/locker rooms after gender-identity inclusive public-accommodations policies, and they emphasize that transgender people report higher rates of harassment or denial when required to use facilities matching their sex. The article is real and has been public since early 2025. It does not resolve the underlying disagreement about whether sex remains a legitimate basis for single-sex spaces. It measures a narrow set of outcomes under a particular set of assumptions. Thanks, -Smac

You mentioned virtue signaling…which implies some believe that it’s more virtuous to serve unpaid than paid. I disagree with those who believe that. You think we have a professional clergy? Serious question. I would thought even if one sees the beginning as ambiguous, the ending was clear.

So now we r talking about other church’s leaders? LDS have been using the word “ministry” so much lately could have sworn you were talking about Mormons since those leaders paychecks are what is being discussed. my bad In that case I agree that Mormons have long poo poo’d other church leaders who get paid .. to include mega churches. Funny thing is the lds conference center sure looks like a mega church and now we are starting to adopt their practices little by little. We have crucifixes, worship bands at FSY and now sleeveless garments.? What other things is the lds church gonna adopt that we have historically criticized other church’s for? Paying Sunday school teachers? that said I kind wish I would have had some kind of FSY as a youth with worship bands. Looks like it is probably fun for the kids. Back in my day would have been of the devil 😈

Well, the restriction is intended to simply ensure that, first and foremost the sacred marks sewn in remain intact and positioned correctly and to stop people from shortening hems or lowering necklines to fit modern fashion trends, but the rule itself is written as a blanket instruction. Officially, the instruction is to let the Church handle fit and medical needs through specific official channels. If standard off-the-rack garments do not fit, the Beehive Clothing department provides custom orders for sizes or fabrics, or you can request a special size or custom tailoring directly through Church Distribution Services rather than altering the items at home.

Someone else refusing to accept appearance as a meaningful limiting principle does not mean a meaningful limiting principle has not been articulated, imo. By "meaningful" I mean workable and enforceable in the real world. The State gets to arbitrarily decide who does and does not "look" enough like a woman to enter bathrooms? Using what criteria? Also, @Analytics preferred policy is not based on "appearance," but by the individual's choice. There is no limiting principle there, "meaningful" or otherwise. Physical appearance as a limiting principle A) is statutorily - and perhaps constitutionally - unworkable, B) will never be accepted as sufficient because such a policy "discriminates" against, and is even bigoted and hateful towards, "trans women" who have not socially/medically transitioned, or not transitioned enough, and causes them "harm," "denies their existence," and so on, and C) will still result in the de jure or de facto eradication of sex-segregated spaces, or nearly so. Thanks, -Smac

Maybe he is and maybe he isn’t. I’m sure you don’t care along with many other folks. After CEO of ensign peak admitted one of the purposes of hiding money in shell companies was to conceal the church’s wealth so members would continue to pay tithing,I’m fresh out of any kind of support for these guys when it comes to obfuscation of the uses of church funds. the church should be transparent and provide a full accounting of the funds down to the cent. Instead every year at gen conf the church cfo ( or whatever he is called) gets up and says yep we checked our books and everything is up to snuff according to GAAP. It might be now, but for many years that was a straight up lie. Falsifying government financial disclosures are not found anywhere in the list of GAAP. also anyone drawing a paycheck from the church for being ga shouldn’t be up at the pulpit saying “we” don’t get compensated financially. “ you don’t get compensated”would be more accurate and truthful.

It is not just Tongans but Samoans, Maoris and other islanders that generally appreciate living in Utah.

There is no evidence that the laissez fair stopped working I'm not sure about that. Under your policy, sex-segregated bathrooms would be eliminating, since anyone could go into them. Safety is not the only concern. And the management of the City of Minneapolis is not really a bragging point. The claim that nothing changed except “conservative grievance” is not accurate. What changed is the formal assertion—and the institutional adoption—of a new rule: that sex is irrelevant and that self-identified gender must determine access to spaces segregated by sex. For decades, the background expectation in Kansas (and everywhere else) was that restrooms were segregated by sex. People who presented in a way that made their sex ambiguous or who quietly used the facility that matched their appearance were not the subject of a legal or cultural campaign to redefine the categories themselves. What is new is the demand that biological males who identify as women must be treated as women for purposes of restroom access, and that any refusal to do so is illegitimate. That demand was accompanied by policy changes, institutional guidance, and activism that treated sex-based boundaries as discriminatory. The resulting conflicts—males in female spaces, the erosion of sex-based rules in schools, prisons, shelters, and sports—are what produced the legislative response. Pointing to earlier decades of low-profile cases does not prove that sex-based rules were always optional. It shows that shared norms about sex made formal enforcement largely unnecessary. Once those norms were openly rejected and replaced with identity-based access, the prior informal arrangement no longer held. The laws have been responding to that change, not the other way around. Thanks, -Smac

Not judgmental, just an observation. I’m don’t wear em at all. The workout clothes deal has been a TBM workaround for several years.

Has this been posted yet and analyzed yet? The search function says no and I haven’t read each post or all of the posts (I tend to skip over what appears to be repetition). https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/safety-in-restrooms-and-facilites/

Someone else refusing to accept appearance as a meaningful limiting principle does not mean a meaningful limiting principle has not been articulated, imo. I have a very strong concern about women who are forced to share spaces with those who appear to be biological males, whether they are one or not.

There is no evidence that the laissez fair stopped working and that sex-segregated bathrooms would be in peril without new draconian laws. Conservatives being afraid of diversity isn't new. You remind me of Archie Bunker singing, "....and you knew who you were then! Girls were girls and men were men! Mr. we could could use a man Like Herbert Hoover again Didn't need no welfare state Everybody pulled his weight! Gee, our old LaSalle ran great! Those were the days!" The city of Minneapolis has explicitly let transgender people use the restroom of their choice since 1975. And guess what. After 51 years, sex-distinct restrooms there are still the norm and are still as safe as anywhere. Transgender people existing and using their own judgement on which restroom to use isn't a new phenomenon--they've lived in Kansas for decades and decades, and have been minding their own business and using the restrooms they thought were most appropriate. What's changed isn't that they started using the restrooms that matched their identity. What changed is the fact that the conservative grievance-industrial complex decided this was a winning issue.

My comments started because Analytics said we would still be able to prosecute such cases. And I just don't see how. It seems like these crimes could be prosecuted like any other crime, with law enforcement and prosecutors gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and so on. Yes. "Nefarious" can be a legitimate concern. There are others. From a prior post: In a women’s prison, is the purpose defeated only after a certain number of male-bodied people are housed there, or after a single assault, or after female inmates report that they no longer feel safe, or after they express a desire for privacy from biological males? In elite women’s sports, are there any other legitimate "purposes" in addition to competitive advantages (of biological males)? Safety? Privacy? In a domestic-violence shelter, is the purpose defeated when women stop using the shelter, or only when a formal incident is documented? What is the purpose of a women’s bathroom or locker room? Is it solely about toilets and sinks, or does it also include privacy, dignity, and the expectation of not undressing or performing intimate functions in the presence of biological males? Under the “doesn’t defeat the purpose” test, how would we know when that purpose has been defeated? Does it require a documented incident of voyeurism, assault, or exposure? Or is the loss of perceived safety and privacy by female users enough? Should the women who feel uncomfortable, or unsafe, or who want privacy from biological males, be required to provide evidence of harm before the boundary can be enforced? If so, what form of evidence is sufficient? Once access to a facility is opened on the basis of self-identification, how is the line drawn for the next person who identifies as a woman? Is there a limiting point, or does each case simply get evaluated after the fact for whether harm occurred? AFAICS, nobody has tried to answer any of these questions. I'm not sure there is a requirement for "more proof." However, I think the issue is whether the State can/ought enact measures to preserve sex-segregated spaces, and what those measures are, and whether those measures are workable and constitutionally sufficient. I think the part that gives me the most pause is the overarching lack of concern about - or event the wholesale elimination of - sex-segregated spaces, and the substantial number of women who want, for a variety of reasons (not just safety), to have such spaces in our society, the ongoing refusal to articulate any meaningful limiting principles, and so on. They were never fully safe, but they will become markedly less so if we as a society implement policies which have the de jure and/or de facto effect of eliminating such spaces. Thanks, -Smac