All Activity

So this is what is debatable in the greater conversation, imo. Most things are debatable. My question is whether reasonable minds can disagree about it. If "woman" is redefined to include men, and vice versa, then the terms lose their utility. We don't redefine "North" to include "South," or "right" to include "left," or "light" to include "darkness." We don't redefine words so that their definitions include their antonyms, except for "man" and "woman?" I have to ask why. Why do we privilege a person's subjective feeling of "identity" as to sex, but not as to age or species or height. The privilege is, I think, purely a product of long-term strategies and pressure tactics. And boy, it sure seems to be succeeding with a lot of people. But it's also not holding up well. I've repeatedly analogized the effort to The Emperor's New Clothes, and I think that may be happening more. For people with some forms of DSD, I think you are correct. Case-by-case exceptions may be appropriate. But we're not really talking about these folks. instead, we are talking about any male who simply declares "I 'identify' as a woman" to be immediately treated like he is a woman. Men in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons. If you can present a limiting principle that allows "trans women" (that is, men who subjectively "identify" as women, which identity is self-designated and not up for discussion or debate) to enter into women's spaces while excluding other men, I would really like to see it. Your benchmark for entry seems to be "{a woman} who looks like {a man}," and vice versa. How would that be legislated. What does "looks like" look like? Who gets to determine the metrics? And what about men who "identify" as women but have done little or nothing to "look like" them? Do they become second-class, sit-in-the-back-of-the-bus set of folks compared to those who do pass this "looks like" test? Public policy arguments fairly often hinge on the details, and so far nobody except CB has made any effort to formulate a proposal with details (and CB's proposal is, I think, a guaranteed non-starter). I'm reminded of a scene from The Hunt for Red October, in which Jack Ryan (played by Alec Baldwin) is a CIA agent trying to figure out how to communicate with a Soviet captain who is defecting with the USSR's newest ballistic sub. Jack is transported to an aircraft carrier, where he speaks with the captain who grills him on the details of his plan. Here's the clip: The dialogue: Executive Officer: That's the craziest notion I've ever heard. A serving line officer? An entire ballistic missile submarine? They can't all want to defect. Even if it's only the officers, it's extremely difficult to believe. Captain: What's his plan? Jack: His plan? Captain: Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan. Senior captains don't start something this dangerous without having thought the matter through. XO: What's he going to do, sail into New York, pop the hatch, and say here I am? Jack: It might be just that simple, yes. XO: Well, things may appear simple in the cubicle at CIA, but in the middle of the Atlantic, with Soviet warships bearing down on us, they get more complex. Captain: And I don't think your notion of a few days inspection's going to wash either. In order to be of any value, you'd have to tear it apart. The metallurgy would take a couple of months. Jack: Then we'd have to keep it. Captain: then what will you do with the crew? Ones that don't defect will go back and say we got the boat. Or do you plan to eliminate them? Jack: We're not at war, sir. Captain: So you have to get them off the boat in such a way that they think we don't have it, and they'll report that we don't have it to their bosses. Otherwise, this whole business is just academic, right? Jack: Yes, sir. I think I see your point. See, in this thread I feel like I am doing what the captain was doing: asking legitimate questions about the particulars, the real-world ramifications, limiting principles, and so on. And those questions have been almost entirely ignored, with regular doses of "Bigot!" from the "squarely on the side of empirical reality" guy and his compatriots: Your denial of their lived experience is your bigotry. This is what makes you a bigot. I can’t help but wonder whether the real problem is them and involves something that rhymes with spigotry. These are just from the last few pages of this one thread. So, what do you propose we do with "an individual who looks like a biological male" and does not want "to use women’s restrooms," and vice versa? I assume you want to accommodate their preference, right? How would that work? Thanks, -Smac

So this is what is debatable in the greater conversation, imo. I have not been persuaded yet that there are no cases where severance with biology should occur nor that there are cases where it should, though I am pretty solid that in the so callled ‘edge cases’ (I say so called because I have doubts about if they should be labeled as edge or not) where trans men are visually indistinguishable from biological men, they should not be required to use female spaces. In fact, I think they should be restricted in the same way biological males are…not because I see them as a greater safety risk, but because I believe there are a significant number of women who would be emotionally harmed by being forced to share vulnerable spaces with them, much more so imo than some women might be harmed by the anticipation that some biological male they have no clue is male could be sharing said space with them. If studies show the latter harm is greater than the former harm, I could change my opinion, but I know my own reaction to having someone who looks male walk into those spaces and other women have shared similar feelings and I have never heard a woman in real life and very few online worry about being exposed to someone who looks female unless you look at body scans or genetic tests. I am very concerned about issues of biological women’s rights for privacy and safety, including perceived safety…which is why I see requiring an individual who looks like a biological male to use women’s restrooms foolish. Then there are rights in the workplace and education. I find the unintended results of Title IX where there are now less available career slots for women as coaches in sports due to men moving in to compete for them once pay was required to be competitive to boys/men’s sports rather appalling, for example. I believe biological males, especially those who went through puberty, should be restricted from participating in sports where that biology gives them a significant advantage or creates potential for harm. Exactly where that point lies for each sport should be scientifically determined with the best science provides, imo, while respecting everyone involved (but adults choose to participate in sports so if not overly intrusive and it’s actually necessary such as blood testing, some intrusive testing could be required imo.

That is a fair tightening, and I can take most of it. I am not saying women cannot be grouped for medicine or statistics—pregnant, postmenopausal, Turner, PCOS. Those are subgroups of women, not additional sexes. That was the point: there is not a spectrum of biological sexes under “woman.” There is one sex class (female) and an age term (adult → woman). I also agree that some current institutional documents use “woman” as a social/identity label and “female” as the sex term. The National Academies report does that on purpose. That is a choice of wording, not a finding that the sexed meaning of woman has been withdrawn from English or from biology. So I will use your sentence: In a biological-sex classification, “woman” denotes an adult human female; it is not itself a biological sex with further sex categories beneath it. If someone then uses “woman” for anyone who subjectively "identifies" as one, they have left that classification. We can argue whether that second use is useful. We should not act as if it is the same use. Neither "woman" nor "female" should be severed from their biological basis so as to add "man" or "male" into one or both of them. Thanks, -Smac

Here some coke:

I asked AI if this was accurate: I like precision, so I agree with its conclusion: “In a biological-sex classification, ‘woman’ denotes an adult human female; it is not itself a biological sex with further sex categories beneath it. That avoids claiming that women can’t be subdivided for other biological, medical, demographic, or social purposes.”

The names don't ring a bell, ward-wise. Thanks, -Smac

Any remote chance you know or knew the Lundquists (Molens were the in-laws they were living with)? Uncle who lived near that church, I think my cousin lives there now, but ever since my mom and uncle died, contact has been minimal….which is too bad, because that was the family I was closest to in my extended family. I can’t remember what church building they were assigned to when I hung out a lot over there (college years). One of my cousins was my son’s age. They were so cute together as wee ones.

Yes, it's a lovely setting. But still, this is hIgh praise from someone living near the Lake District! My wife is a huge fan of Beatrix Potter, and would really like to visit there. She watches "Miss Potter" at least twice a year, and reads the books. We have a photo of Beatrix in her writing corner in our basement (alongside photos of Helen Keller and Laura Ingalls). Not sure if the work will be "repairs" or retrofitting/upgrade/modification sorts of things. Thanks, -Smac

Admiral Byrd learned the hard way 卐

Real Ancient Roman Scutum (tower shield) 卐卐卐

Sieg Heil 卐 12'000 years of history

The building, and area looks a very peaceful place. Have to admit I am almost envious. Hope the repairs needed are resolved.

Our bishop announced last week that our building (in Provo) is shutting down in 2027 for substantial modification. Apart from the boiler, which acts up now and then, the building is apparently in good repair, so a major shutdown to fix something may be less likely. So I wonder if our building is one of the 17 to be retrofitted (assuming this report is accurate). Our building hosts a multi-stake genealogy center (not really used much these days, I think), but otherwise it is a fairly standard late-60s/early-70s building. One interesting note: The old-timers in the ward said that the building was built using, at least in part, funds raised by the ward. The ward members collectively purchased three lots just down the street, purchased materials and built three houses, and then sold them. The proceeds went to the construction of the building. Here's the building: https://local.churchofjesuschrist.org/en/us/ut/provo/1120-n-850-w-st Also, see this part of the above website for this building: "Christian Church in Provo." Kinda odd that a church with "Jesus Christ" in its name nevertheless feels obligated to identify itself as a "Christian Church." Thanks, -Smac

This video makes some good points about "preferred pronouns," particularly the guy at the 1:56 mark: Personal pronouns, "trans women," "cisgender" and so on are not, in my view, the evolution of language, but rather the ideologically-driven imposition of it. And the imposition has worked to some extent, but not perfectly. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, I acknowledge that this view exists. I've discussed it many times on this board. I've never challenged its existence, but rather its coherence and factual accuracy. Disagreement about a fact is not evidence that there is no fact. People argued for centuries about the shape of the earth and the causes of disease. The length of the argument did not make both sides right. It meant at least one side was wrong, or they were talking about different things. Twenty-one pages here prove that we are dug in. They do not prove that sex is a spectrum. Language is fluid, sure. But sex is not. You can use “woman” for an adult human female, or for anyone who claims the word. Those are two definitions. Only one of them names a reproductive class that exists whether or not we like the vocabulary. People with differing backgrounds and perspectives can and do disagree about whether "woman" should be defined in a way that includes men. That is sociology of which sentence people will say. It is not a finding that both sentences are equally true of the body. “No one has the power to control the definition” is true of English in the street. It is false as a claim about biology, law and other important contexts. Biologists did not invent two gamete types by committee. Midwives did not invent male and female by “life experience.” We can fight over which word to put on a form, but we cannot vote ovaries into being a "social construct." So who is right? If the question is “which meaning will win in HR and media,” that is politics, and you are right that no single poster owns the language. If the question is “how many sexes are there, and is a male a woman,” that is not a lifestyle preference. You are certainly free to use “woman” to refer to men socially. I will not agree that the existence of two opinions makes the two definitions equally valid descriptions of reality. The useful split is still the one we already have. Perhaps we should say which definition we are each using, than then argue the policy. I think we should not treat a stalemate about words as proof that the underlying distinction is optional. I think it is beyond dispute that sex-segregated spaces have, until fairly recently, segregated by sex, not by subjective "self-identity." Radically re-defining "woman" to include men within it reminds me of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln asked: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?” He answered: “Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.” Variants of this story sometimes attribute the quote to a calf's tail instead of a dog's tail. The lesson means that words alone cannot alter reality. If someone asks "How many subcategories of 'woman' are there?", the answer, I think would be: "There are no subcategories. There's just "woman." Fabricating neologisms like "cis woman" and "trans woman" to as to facilitate the re-definition of "woman" to include men, doesn't make these men women. Words alone cannot alter reality. Thanks, -Smac

"Christian" is, in terms of religious taxonomy, a category in which "Latter-day Saint" is a subcategory (along with Catholic, Baptist, etc.). "Woman" is, in terms of biological sex taxonomy, a category that ends, with no subcategories underneath it. Activists, apparently understanding the lack of any subcategories have sought to fabricate one. This is, I think how we ended up with "cis woman," above which is "woman" and besides which is "trans woman." "Cis woman" and "trans women" have therefore been presented as new subcategories of "woman." This is an ideological and sociological effort, not really a medical/biological one (though some inroads have been made). This is what creates rhetorical cover for stuff like "trans women are women" (that is, "trans women" are a subcategory of "women"). I think the rhetorical innovation of the "cis" label is worth discussing, if for no other reason than to evaluate its legitimacy in a given context. See, for example, this video: The guy is clearly trolling this woman to make a point, and she is letting herself be trolled, but the point is nevertheless made: I think we all know, in the end, that "trans women" are not really women. The only way we get there is if we radically re-define "women" to include men in it. I think that redefinition is on par to redefining "dog" to include "cat," "planet" to include "comet," "Joseph Smith" to include "Tim Curry," and so on. Dogs and cats have some similarities (both four-legged mammals with fur, etc.), but the differences matter enough that conflating them doesn't work. I would therefore resist ideological efforts to redefine "dog" to include "cat." Planets and comets have some similarities (both are in space, both move, both are visible, orbit the sun, formed at the same time, etc.), but the differences matter enough that conflating them doesn't work. I would therefore resist ideological efforts to redefine "planet" to include "comet." Joseph Smith and Tim Curry have some similarities (both are male humans, known of by millions of people, etc.), but the differences matter enough that conflating them doesn't work. I would therefore resist ideological efforts to redefine "Joseph Smith" to include "Tim Currey." Men and women have some similarities (same species, bipedal, etc.), but the differences matter enough that conflating them doesn't work. I would therefore resist ideological efforts to redefine "woman" to include men. And the movement to an exclusionary definition is ideological, not rational. I am fine if "Mormon" is excluded from "Protestantism" or "Catholicism" or "Baptist." It would be inaccurate and dishonest to conflate the two. Same goes, I think, for excluding "man" from "woman." Conflating the two is dishonest and inaccurate. I am fine with a good deal of this. Male and female are real. Traits can fail to line up. Medicine is not a cocktail party. “Trans women are women” does not mean the karyotype changed. Courtesy is not the same as a sports rule. If the ask is only “define terms and argue the interest at stake,” I am already there. Again, the Mormon/Christian comparison is useful, up to a point. Switching the boundary of “Christian” does not change what Latter-day Saints believe. Switching the boundary of “woman” does not change who produces which gamete. We agree on that. However, the next sentence is the one that matters: Some boundaries are conventional titles, and some name a natural class. “Elder” for an 18-year-old is an office. “Woman” for an adult human female is not. You can ostensibly add a second, social use of the word. But you cannot then treat people who keep the first use as if they had refused to hear you, or that they are "bigots," etc. That is where the analogy fails. When evangelicals say “Mormons aren’t Christians,” they are usually saying “not Nicene.” When I say a male is not a woman, I am not inventing a creed. I am keeping the sexed meaning of the word that still does the work in medicine, sport, and single-sex spaces. You say those are “separate policy questions.” In the institutions that actually write the rules, they are often not treated as separate. “Trans women are women” is used as the reason the bathroom, the prison wing, and the category are already settled. If you personally do not mean that, say so plainly. Many of the groups using the sentence do mean that. On the biology, nobody I know who says “sex is binary” is attempting to convey the idea that thinks every sex-related trait is a two-valued switch. Shared developmental machinery, DSDs, and clownfish sequential hermaphroditism are all real. Clownfish changing reproductive role is still a change from one sex to the other, not evidence that sex is a smear. Nor is it evidence that homo sapiens can change from one sex to the other. There is no substantive comparison between A) a clownfish undergoing actual biologica/physiological changes to go from one sex to the other, and B) a man who has taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as a woman (and also, since there are no boundaries for being "trans" apart from the subjective sel-identity, men who have not undergone these measures, and who therefore still look like men in ever material respect). Atypical alignment is how we describe a disorder or a species with a different life history. It is not a third human sex, and it is not a warrant for “the idea of two sexes is overly simplistic” as a conclusion about how many sexes there are. Magazine essays that grant ovaries and testes, then deny the binary, are doing the split-definition move we already walked through. On “assigned at birth”: in a delivery-room chart it means the clinician recorded the observed sex, almost always from genitalia. That is mundane. The phrase is also used, repeatedly, to recast that observation as a "guess" or arbitrary choice that a person's later subjective "identity" may correct. I did not invent that second use. It is why the wording was adopted in advocacy and then in forms. I can use the medical sense when that is all that is meant. I will not pretend the political sense is a hallucination. On ordinary social life: I can call someone by a requested name without agreeing that they are a woman. We all know that "Eminem" was not born with that name, and we also know that he is not a piece of candy-covered chocolate. He's an adult male named Marshall Mathers. I wouldn't insist on calling him that because social conventions generally aren't worth the fuss. So going along with them is courtesy, but also a refusal to let the social use swallow the sexed one. When relating to another human being, identity and presentation matter more than gonads” is, as you noted a choice of "emphasis." It is coherent as etiquette and avoiding a fuss. It becomes the disputed tenet the moment it is treated as the definition that must govern every use of “woman,” or as proof that keeping the sexed definition is uncharitable or bigoted, or that biologically inaccurate pronouns are inaccurate, or that men should be legally entitled into women's spaces. So I will define terms: Sex = reproductive class (two). Gender identity = self-description / inner sense. "Woman," in the sense I will not give up = adult human female. You may use woman for a social role. We can then argue bathrooms, sports, and prisons as separate questions. What I will not do is accept that because those questions are separate, “trans women are women” is only a harmless social definition, or that noticing how the slogan is used in policy is a failure of good faith. We've hashed and re-hashed the point regarding the definition of "woman." I reject the notion that "woman" can our should be radically redefined so as to sever it from its sexed meaning by including men in its meaning. That simply does not work when we are speaking of a biological binary. You nevertheless accept that notion. I find that notion to be a departure from "empirical reality," you do not. "Trans woman" is a rhetorical shortcut for "a man who claims to be a a woman because he subjectively 'identifies' as one." I'm not sufficiently vested in the argument over whether "trans women" can be further subdivided into Blanchard's typology ("homosexual transsexuals" who are attracted exclusively to men and are feminine in both behavior and appearance, and "autogynephilic transsexuals" who experience sexual arousal at the idea of having a female body (autogynephilia)) or not. My understanding is that this typology is fairly controversial in the trans community for a variety of reasons (pathologization, inconsistent with "lived experience," rhetorical usage by ideological opponents, etc.). I am curious whether "trans women" would object to being labeled a "homosexual transsexual" or a "autogynephile." I suspect many would. Thanks, -Smac

I am sure a dollar store version of Hitler like yourself can easily tell. A handy tool for letting sane people know they should avoid you at first glance. Thank you for doing that.

In certain contexts I believe it is important for language to be very consistent (science, legal, and medical), but even these areas can allow for variation as long as definitions are given. There may be other cases where language needs to be more rigid, but I love the fluidness of language. Makes writing and speaking much more fun. Currently I am trying to see every now and then if I can stump AI by using reasonable, but not typical and often as far as I am aware novel phrasing (though it’s likely that someone somewhere has created ‘new’ words in the same fashion or created a ‘new’ idiom using much the same wording). Something another human would get even if it took a second. Pretty impressed with its predictive ability, but then with the sheer mass of variety of human language data it has to pull from makes it less surprising that it’s capable of matching my snide remarks with some of its own.

ah yes deny it all... you a jew? Let's find out! I have WWG1WGA as a Tattoo on the center of my chest and beneath the initials a christian cross.

Would you agree that not all people view sex as binary and not as clear cut as you want it to be? Who is correct on what that definition of sex is? Could it be that there is no right or wrong answer, just differences in opinion on what the definition of what a woman is and what a man is may differ with different people's life experiences? It is way more likely that a true blue Mormon would narrowly define sex as you have and a person with a more liberal background would have a more broad definition. Who's right and who's wrong? Given completely different point of views, I would say there are no hard answers to who is right. As proof of this truth, I offer you 21 pages of disagreement. Neither side is willing to change their opinion because language is fluid. Each side feels like they have a right to control that definition when in fact, no one has that power.

Exactly. Fixed it.

Is this missing a phrase? As in “when a person says a trans woman is a woman”?

I’ve been considering whether these are two of the most boring questions in the history of this board: Are trans women women? Are Mormons Christian? They are boring because, standing alone, they are arguments about definitions masquerading as arguments about reality. If Christian means someone whose religion centers on Jesus Christ, then Mormons are obviously Christians. If Christian means someone who accepts the historic creeds and orthodox doctrines of traditional Christianity, then Mormons are not Christians. Nothing about Mormonism changed when we switched definitions. We simply moved the boundary around the category Christian. The same problem infects the question, “What is a woman?” That question has become a political gotcha. If an educated person hesitates before answering it, some people take the hesitation as proof that higher education has rendered the person incapable of recognizing something a five-year-old understands. Either that, or the person has joined an ideological conspiracy to redefine woman and subvert Western civilization. There is a more mundane explanation: modern biology is considerably more complicated than the elementary-school model of male and female. Male and female are real and extraordinarily useful biological categories. Of course. But biological sex is manifested through a collection of characteristics: chromosomes, sex-determining genes, gonads, internal and external reproductive anatomy, hormones, secondary sex characteristics, and reproductive function. These characteristics cluster overwhelmingly into two patterns. Of course. But it is also true that they do not line up perfectly in every human being. That is why Nature publishes articles like “Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic,” and Scientific American publishes things like “Beyond XX and XY: The Extraordinary Complexity of Sex Determination,” and “Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary.” Nobody involved has forgotten that ovaries and testes exist. They are describing the actual biology of sexual development. Human males and females are, at the genetic level, overwhelmingly alike. The dramatic differences between typical male and female bodies arise because a relatively small set of genetic signals initiates developmental cascades with enormous downstream consequences. Early in development, the embryonic gonad can develop along either an ovarian or testicular pathway. Signals within the sex-development network push development predominantly down one pathway or the other, after which genes, hormones, receptors, and other developmental processes produce the familiar primary and secondary sex characteristics of male and female bodies. That is a useful consciousness-raiser. Male and female bodies are not two unrelated biological designs. They are variations produced from overwhelmingly shared developmental machinery. Other vertebrates give us even stranger examples. Clownfish can change reproductive sex as adults. When the dominant female of a group disappears, a male can undergo coordinated changes in hormones, gonads, and reproductive function and literally becomes female. Biology is under no obligation to conform to the categories that seem intuitively obvious to us. Then human beings add another layer. We have elaborate psychological and social concepts of men and women: how people dress and wear their hair, how they speak and move, whether boys are encouraged to be tough and girls nurturing, which interests and occupations are coded masculine or feminine, how people present themselves to others, how others perceive them, and their own internal sense of themselves as men or women. Some of these patterns have biological influences. Some are cultural. Most probably involve both. All of them are real features of human psychology and social life. For most people, these dimensions line up so neatly that we never have to think about them separately. A person develops along the typical female reproductive pathway, develops female secondary sex characteristics, grows up thinking of herself as a girl and then a woman, presents herself as a woman, and is perceived and treated by everyone else as a woman. Everything points in the same direction. Intersex people and transgender people are both consciousness-raising for the same reason: they force us to notice that these dimensions are separable. And that is where the interesting questions begin. In a doctor’s office, chromosomes, anatomy, hormone exposure, reproductive history, and every other aspect of biological reality may matter enormously. In competitive sports, particular physiological characteristics may matter. In prisons, bathrooms, driver’s licenses, workplaces, marriages, cocktail parties, and ordinary conversation, we are dealing with different purposes, different interests, and different facts. There is no reason to expect one definition of woman to draw the optimal bright line across every one of these situations. When a person says “a trans-woman is a woman" they are not claiming that a trans woman has ovaries, produces ova, has XX chromosomes, or somehow rewrote her embryological history. Nor are they claiming that this creates an inalienable right to enter every women’s space, compete in every women’s sport, be housed in every women’s prison, or override whatever interests led society to create female-only categories in the first place. Those are separate policy questions, and each has to be argued on its own merits. Rather, they are using woman as a gender and social category rather than exclusively as a synonym for adult human biological female. They are saying that, for the ordinary purposes of relating to another human being, a person’s persistent identity, presentation, social role, and way of living matter more than the developmental history of their gonads. There is nothing scientifically incoherent about that. It is simply the judgment that, in ordinary social life, a person’s gender identity and gender expression are more relevant to how they understand themselves and relate to others than the biology of their gonads. It is a choice about which characteristics should define a psychological and social category when the purpose itself is psychological or social. You can find that definition unhelpful and choose not to use the word that way. You can believe biological sex should control medicine, sports, prisons, bathrooms, or any other context you can justify. You can make exceptions for people whose bodies do not fit the typical male or female pattern because of variations in sex development while refusing to make similar accommodations based on gender identity. Those are coherent positions. We can debate them. But when you refuse to make a serious effort to understand what other people are saying, insist on importing your own definitions into their conceptual framework, and repeatedly interpret their language in the least charitable way—for example, treating “assigned at birth” as carrying some subversive ideological implication rather than its well-defined medical definition—it becomes difficult to see any path toward a productive, good-faith conversation. Which brings us back to Mormons and Christians. We can spend another 200 pages arguing about which definition is the real one. Or we can define our terms, identify the actual interests at stake, look at the evidence, and argue about something interesting.