All Activity

I could explain the existence of intersex people to you for what? The tenth time? Maybe more? Why bother? Go ahead and stick your head in the sand and pretend that religious dogma and reality somehow match up perfectly but you should give up arguing about it if you are just going to selectively edit reality or suggest some people don’t matter because there are relatively few of them or whatever. Oh, and about the brain imaging. I wasn’t claiming there is a hard and strict dichotomy. I was arguing that it showed a spectrum, the very thing you deny exists. The studies show that *checks notes* there is a spectrum and transgender people lean more towards their self-identified gender in terms of brain function than cisgender people assigned the same gender at birth. I don’t see how saying there is a spectrum which you do to refute me suggests you are right about there being a strict binary. PICK A LANE!

And you didn’t answer any of the core idea of what I said and instead just broke what I said up into small pieces and repeated pat phrases after them. Also no, sex-segregated spaces were created by men for men long before women got any meaningful spaces for themselves. Also I am personally tired of the people who support restricting the rights of women in general pretending they care about women’s spaces and women’s sports. They don’t unless it serves as a bludgeon against someone else they don’t like. Same with the mostly mythical LGB mythos. While their side is gutting adoption rights for gay couples they want to pretend they are helping the LGBTQ community defend itself from an interloper when they want to hack away at the rights of everyone in the community.

Wouldn’t they don’t believe they are transgender, but tell people they are be that option? Just like pretending to be a doctor means someone doesn’t believe they are a doctor but tell people they are? Or if you want something purely subjective, they don’t believe they are shy, don’t feel shy, but tell people they are and act in ways they think shy people act….that’s pretending to be shy. And being shy can fen become an identity or part of one’s identity. It certainly was for me for a good chunk of my life, more important than being female as it felt Ike it had a much greater impact on what I could an couldn’t do.

It’s Utah Valley, it was a long shot even if not that far from the church (1/2 mile to the southwest)

The real life ramifications of requiring all biological women to use the same facilities no matter what they present as is that real biological women will not be able to tell when real people who present as real men walk into their space whether or not they have a right to be there (because they are actually trans men who are biologically female) or do not (because they are not trans, but actually men who present as male deciding to invade female spaces, sometimes for reasonable reasons such as helping a daughter use the facility and feel safe ). I am not interested at this point until dealing with that reality is explained in detail how that will be dealt with rather than being dismissed as not important enough for whatever reason, something besides what is being thrown out there again, which likely will end up imposing on women and again forcing them to deal with laws others make “for them” without actual consideration for what women actually want…which from what I have seen is they want sex separated spaces (that’s me), but a majority of women lean towards gender identity inclusive (me: if they look like women, then for their safety and mine, please come in; if not, show me how your plan is going to make me and other women feel safer because not seen it so far. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/09/28/3-public-split-over-bathroom-use-by-transgender-people/ Unfortunately most surveys appear to just use questions about gender assigned at birth or gender identity and not actual gender presentation, which is what is going to matter more in real life where it’s faces and bodies that get the once over, not ids or birth certificates vs the theoretical, where this reality moot even be mentioned, just the reality of those who do not in physical appearance pass as the gender they identify as. If they can make laws excluding any males from using women’s restrooms, why can’t they make laws excluding men from holding coaching positions in women’s sports. (Of course that would cut into the benefits of a typical white male with 1/3 to over 1/2 of women’s teams are likely coached by white males, probably around 5200 head coach jobs alone). After all, there’s pretty solid documentation that having male coaches—whose aggressive behavior is more often seen as acceptable where women coaches doing the same is generally interpreted as abusive, out of control—put the girls and women at greater risk for grooming and sexual abuse if you want to address an actual case of such and not just theoretical. https://www.propublica.org/getinvolved/what-parents-should-know-sexual-abuse-youth-sports-aau-safesport https://uscenterforsafesport.org/impact-report/

There are no such people. There are only two sexes. "Gender is a spectrum" if we are speaking of "gender" as something other than a synonym for biological sex. If we are speaking of "gender" as a synonym for biological sex, then it is not a spectrum. Equivocation and obfuscation are both frequent and fundamental in discussion about trans ideology. That the proponents of this ideology must so frequently resort to these logical fallacies is, to me, one of the more clear indicators about just how incoherent and incongruent with reality the ideology is. Also, I would like to see some sources to substantiate the "brain scan" thing, as it seems more like an urban legend or wishful thinking than something that really has happened. Distributions in brain activity would seem to heavily overlap. I don't think we look look at one brain and read off sex the way we read gonads. Machine-learning can beat chance from many weak features; that is still a statistical sex difference, not a third sex or a slider. And even if some circuits correlate with dysphoria or identity, that would be a possible correlate of a psychological condition, not proof that sex is a "spectrum" or that "identity" is sex. Height is on a spectrum; that does not make “adult” a spectrum of sexes. My sense is that yes, there is some literature about this topic, but it is not “extensive proof of matching brains.” It does not justify the “gender is a spectrum” claim as a biological conclusion. Sex remains a reproductive binary. Brain sex differences are overlapping averages. I found this 2023 study interesting: Accurate sex prediction of cisgender and transgender individuals without brain size bias. The question examined was whether a computer could tell male from female brains from MRI scans without cheating on total brain size (TIV), and also whether "transgender" people’s brains then look like their identity or their sex. Men’s brains are larger on average, so a lazy model just learns that “bigger = male.” That looks like a sex difference and will mis-sort anyone whose size is in the middle—including many trans people. The study's conclusion: Once brain size is handled, the pattern that predicts sex still works for transgender as well as cisgender brains. They found no evidence that "sex" and "gender identity" interact in a way that would make the classifier fail on trans people. Put in simple terms: the model is still reading natal sex, not "identity." And this 2025 study: Brain Sex: Differences That Do Not Differentiate From the intro: A summary of the conclusion: Differences that do not differentiate cannot carry the claim that gender identity is brain sex, or that sex itself is a spectrum. It looks like the affirming "studies" and articles and such are not carrying forward very well. I am open to more information on this, though. You haven't given me anything to ignore. Just an assertion. I question both the premise of the question and its relevance. I think many women and girls want sex segregated spaces. Thanks, -Smac

I think there are some similarities. The Navy captain is asking Jack some pretty pertinent questions, and Jack is at a loss. He hadn't really thought through the real-world ramifications of his idea. I think we are seeing something similar in this thread. I think the big moving parts need to identified and addressed. Jack Ryan hadn't really thought about what to do with the sub, how long it would take to analyze, what to do with the non-defecting crew, and so on. I'm not pretending to be neutral in this area. I oppose men in women's bathrooms and other spaces. So I'm asking questions, but not just asking questions. And those questions aren't getting answered, and are instead met with "Bigot!" Some will, yes. But there really isn't a "pretend to be transgender" option, since the "identity" is purely subjective. Meanwhile, there are also privacy concerns for women and girls, and for sports, fairness concerns. That is to say, biological men. Sure they can. Sex-segregated spaces exclude all men, including those who purport to "identify" as women. Predators will predate more, yes. But again, privacy and fairness and other concerns are in play as well. Interesting how in all this discussion there is precious little commentary on the impact on women and girls, the persons for whom sex-segregated spaces were created. Instead, almost the entire focus is on men who want to enter into women-only spaces. I think you are attacking a straw man. The "problem" is that some men want to enter into women's spaces. I think the sexualization and grooming of children is deplorable, regardless of who is doing it. Thanks, -Smac

That you are comparing in ‘on the ground’ military operation to transgender people getting rights as somehow equivalent is ridiculous. We don’t need to have every detail of how things will work figured out before we can do anything. This ‘just asking questions’ schtick is as old as institutional bigotry and is one of its primary defenders. If we free the slaves what will keep them from raping all the white women? If we let black people have civil rights what will keep them from persecuting white people or becoming communists and allying with the Soviets? If we stop persecuting gay people what will keep them from converting your children into being gay? And AIDS!!!!!! That proves they are evil. If we allow black people to join the military it will destroy cohesion. If you can’t explain how we will avoid destroying all discipline in the ranks we shouldn’t let them in. Oh, and the same with gay people. If we let them in all the gay recruits will prey on the straight ones. Oh, and letting women in will destroy discipline as well. If we let women have jobs that have historically been open only to men what will keep them from wanting even more rights? If we let them go to the cities to work what will keep them all from becoming hookers? Now it is that if we let transgender transition cis men will pretend to be transgender in order to prey on women. So transgender women cannot have equality because cis men will use their equality to be predatory? That is just disgusting. It is telling that it admits that transgender people aren’t the actual problem. Just like all the talk about grooming and abuse by transgender people is something done more by cis men as well but we can’t try to change society at all so we will just let the cis men be predatory and have a moral panic about another group that doesn’t require actually challenging the powerful because we are moral cowards or something. Le sigh.

But if what is included is not in the biological category but a different category, then while they may be biological males, they might not qualify as male for that category. A trivial analogy…. In my youth, no biologically male babies would be put in pink (except perhaps if the parents had no choice such as laundry day or too poor to buy a separate set for the new baby and family and friends weren’t around to pass on their previously used baby clothing as was the tradition in my family). Any baby in pink could very well end up being seen as a girlby those not familiar with them. My daughter wore her brother’s hand me downs as a baby and on some occasions was mistaken for a boy and treated as such by strangers, mostly occured when shopping (both kids were very cute, happy babies from what was said and they got attention). Now most would point out that the perception doesn’t matter, she was a female whether perceived as male….but if biology is severed, said in a collection of baby portraits where the photographer is showing his collection by splitting into boys and girls…her photo would have been included in the boys group. And why not, since it worked as an example of what the photographer intended to present boys as. The term boy and girl were useful for the photographer no matter what the biology is. To me labeling trans women who visually pass as women works for the use of bathrooms because it’s practical in terms of maximizing the perception of safety in a restroom for women as well as allows trans women to be safer due to less harassment when they use restrooms because they will be perceived by the men in a restroom as women, even if this creates a messy area where some cases will be perceived as female by some and male by others. Life is messy in many areas, I think it can be addressed adequately for the vast majority of cases with a little extra work that could be covered by a fee. I have already discussed possible practical approaches, I don’t see the need to repeat myself. While it would be subjective, it would be the subjectiveness of the community making the decision, not the individual desiring the label. Such is a common practice for many things where community perception trumps individual perception…such as who is a lawyer and who isn’t. (In California in 2024, apparently over 900 cases were opened against individuals attempting this.) To me, insisting that biology is the only relevant variable in determining who uses women’s restrooms is what causes a loss of utility for the label in this case as it no longer functions as a way to exclude those who trigger defensiveness and fear in most women due to being perceived as a man. No, I have never been talking about any male who declares this. I don’t think others besides you have been either, though they can correct me. I have been talking about those who are perceived as male and those perceived as females by others.

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 wording? What does "looks like" look like when reduced to statutory language? Who gets to determine the metrics of who goes in and who is excluded? 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? Yes, unintended consequences of a law. That can happen. That's why I have been asking for limiting principles, etc. 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