All Activity

The last time you said this about me, I corrected you and explained that is the opposite of my position. You did not "explain." You asserted, without explanation: That is the opposite of what I said. I said people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate. I see no legal daylight between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate." And you have not articulated one. Not only that, you have endorsed a laissez faire approach and denounced any legislated solution as "heavy-handed laws." I would be happy to listen to you differentiate, in a legal context, between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate." Thanks, -Smac

You have endorsed a laissez faire approach, with no limiting principles. I don't see how that is anything but "arguing that girl's bathrooms should be wide open to anybody." I think I understand why you have spent many pages avoiding consideration of any limiting principle. I think as soon as you do, the jig is up. You want men - under any rubric ("people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate") - to be able to legally enter into women's spaces. Trans ideology does not allow folks like you to differentiate between different "kinds" of trans women. There is no differentiation because "a woman is someone who identifies as one." So it's all or nothing, and the "all" obliterates sex-segregated spaces, which you have also studiously avoided acknowledging. Some of the exceedingly small number of persons with DSDs, perhaps. Otherwise, women's bathrooms were created for women, not men. A very small exception to the rule should not swallow or negate the rule. The “minimum number of rules” principle is fine as a starting point. The disagreement is over what counts as necessary. Sex-based boundaries in bathrooms, locker rooms, and similar spaces existed for a long time precisely because of physical differences, privacy, and safety. Those were not novel or “heavy-handed” restrictions. They were the ordinary background rules. What changed is the push to replace sex with self-declared identity as the access criterion. That is not a minor adjustment. It removes the ability to maintain single-sex spaces whenever someone asserts an identity. Calling the defense of the prior rule “creating new heavy-handed laws” reverses what actually happened. It is not a strawman to describe self-ID policies accurately. When the rule becomes “anyone who identifies as a woman may enter,” the practical effect is that men can enter on their say-so. That is the policy that has been adopted or proposed in multiple jurisdictions. Pointing out the consequences of that standard is not inventing an extreme position. On the claim that the issue is mostly manufactured for television: policy changes, school guidelines, prison placements, shelter rules, and sports eligibility decisions have occurred across many places. Some high-profile provocations exist, and media incentives amplify conflict. That does not erase the underlying shift in rules or the cases in which female safety, privacy, or fairness have been affected. The existence of opportunistic coverage does not make the category problem disappear. The core question remains practical: should single-sex spaces be organized by sex or by identity? “Minimal rules” does not automatically answer that in favor of self-ID. It requires showing why the older boundary is no longer justified. That showing has not been made simply by asserting that any defense of sex-based rules is authoritarian or hysterical. Thanks, -Smac

that is the only communication we have received other than the attempt at putting me in a calling. The only communication in a couple years. Last year we were not solicited to tithing settlement. I know what tithing settlement is. I’ve been a member nearly sixty years. Personal email to my wife addressed to both of us. It wasn’t a canned message blasted to all. Both our emails are on lds tools. We don’t get communication about anything else. Previously we would get emails about ward activities, etc on both our accounts. After about six months after we bailed those stopped. That is a calculated decision which is fine.

I don’t know about giving me any space. We just stopped showing up. No fanfare just disappeared. The fact our subdivision is the boundary of our ward and my property along borders with three other ward members just on my side of the street alone people know we have not gone anywhere and are alive. no one has reached out. That said I don’t really care, just surprised as my whole existence in the church we as home teachers and the women in relief society were essentially tasked with borderline harassing people to come back. Since that’s not going on I’m thankful.

The last time you said this about me, I corrected you and explained that is the opposite of my position. Clearly, you aren't interested in understanding my point of view. I'm out.

In this case it does. There wouldn't be an issue if the guys on your side didn't fabricate it. The WNBA was working fine on this, 100% of the time, for 30 years and counting. Buildings generally have a ton of stored chemical energy and exist in an oxygen rich environment. The energy of massive fires is always there. They need some activation energy to start burning and once they start, entire cities can burn down. We know all of this both from basic chemistry and from historical experience. The purpose of fire codes is to prevent this runaway process from happening. You seem to think that like a wooden house full of chemical energy that "wants" to burn, the world is brimming with cis-gender men who really, really, want to participate in women's sports. You seem to think that because of this overwhelming desire men have of going into the lady's room, we need heavy-handed laws with extremely sharp lines that are based on biological sex to keep them out. You seem to think there are so many guys who want to do this that they'd completely take over women sports if given half the chance. I'll refrain from speculating about why you think there are so many guys out there that want to play women's sports and hang out in women's locker rooms. However, the truth is there are very few transgender people. Of those, very few are interested in sports. Of those, very few are good enough or strong enough to make a difference in terms of competitiveness or safety. It's a tiny, marginal issue that rarely affects anybody. Not really. The default should be living in a free society with a minimum number of rules. Only create laws when doing so is absolutely necessary. That is a general principle. Nobody is arguing that girl's bathrooms should be wide open to anybody who says the right magic word before entering. That is a strawman. Even you concede that some biological males (e.g. Emily Quinn) may use the lady's room. The question is whether we need the government to create heavy-handed laws with bright, inflexible lines about who may and may not go into this or that bathroom. It's clear that giant swath of Fox's viewers want to be very, very upset about men entering women spaces. It's also clear that not enough men do that in order to keep the topic in the headlines. Thus, they are dispatching their own people into women's spaces and putting the resulting "controversy" on the front page.

From previous post: Julie Tétart entry into the WNBA may be the push that moves @Analytics on to Step 2. From another earlier post: Men in women's bathrooms is not an isolated issue. It is interconnected with men in women's changing rooms, and sports, and prisons. @Analytics wants no limiting principles as to who can enter into women's spaces. None. At all. Anyone can go in legally for any reason or no reason at all. Thanks, -Smac

The site does have a disclaimer but the Church argues the current disclaimer isn't good enough and is potentially misleading as well (people sometimes don't read the full text and just see the Church's name and so assume a connection). This is what is in the Church's response (starting on page 32):

There was a transwoman who just recently expressed a desire to play in the WNBA. It is possible that this is what triggered it all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Tétart. She is a player on the French women's division. She expressed the desire on Aug 6. I believe the men that smac is talking about made their announcement on Aug 7.

Does the site include a disclaimer? If the issue is potential confusion, a simple disclaimer such as: BE ADVISED. THIS SITE AND THE RELATED PODCAST ARE NOT SPONSORED BY, AFFILIATED WITH, OR ENDORSED BY THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS. ALL VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE THOSE OF MR. DEHLIN AND HIS GUESTS. I wonder if the Church has indicated it will dismiss its claims if Dehlin makes a clear and prominent disclaimer.

Thank you for replying. I can see the utility of the hierarchy you advocate as a tool for resolving apparent contradictions within the canon, and/or between the canon and subsequent teachings and commentary, at least among parties agreeing to its basic assumptions. For instance, it would be interesting to open-mindedly examine plural marriage through the lense of the hierarchy you advocate, rather than starting out with “the answer” having already been determined in one's mind. Must admit that would be challenging for me! It sounds like you might have in mind limiting the scope of application for the heirarchy you propose to a particular type of discussion, in which case the following reservations don't apply: My first thought when reading your post was, what you're describing is all about the intellect. The hierarchy you advocate decrees how to go about making a reasonable intellectual categorization of scriptures and other teachings. It looks to me like this completely leaves out personal responsibility for connecting with God and receiving guidance. It's like a formula whose infallibility and exclusivity is assumed, such that progression within this paradigm becomes a matter of logical application of the formula. Does God the Holy Spirit have a primary role, or a secondary role, or any role, within this paradigm? Second, it seems to me the hierarchy you advocate decrees that God must communicate according to its criteria in order to be taken seriously. 2 Nephi 29:11 (arguably Class 1?) envisions God speaking through multiple channels in multiple locations: “I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them”. It looks to me like the hierarchy you advocate would not even notice, much less attribute any credibility to, communication from God which does not come exclusively through the channel it approves of. So right now God could be revealing “many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God” through one or more intermediaries other than Dallin H. Oaks and such would never be taken seriously. Third, applying the thinking the hierarchy advocates to the hierarchy itself, does it have more Class 1 scriptural support than any other competing paradigm? I understand that the hierarchy makes logical sense if we make a few foundational assumptions about the infallibility and exclusivity of what has made its way into the canon, but from within the canon itself, what are the scriptures that support it? And, applying the hierarchy's formula, are those scriptures more persuasive than scriptures which support any other paradigm? Is the priority the pursuit of truth, or the pursuit of correctly understanding the canon, or are the two assumed to be one and the same? As I said, the above reservations might not apply. To give some context to where I'm coming from: My personal belief is that we have the calling and the privilege of being the same manner of men and women as Christ. I think this would be “being filled with the pure love of Christ”. And I think being filled with the pure love of Christ is not primarily an intellectual pursuit; rather, it is something felt, something experienced, something embodied, something we are to deliberately return to again and again and again whenever we notice we've slipped into any lesser state of consciousness. Imo.

The demand is still extremely high... I assume??? I don't know how they missed gaging how popular the new garments would be. But at this point I don't know if there's a way they could have properly prepared for it. Every once and a while I check at the local DB for garments I'm a little between sizes ATM so I've tried to grab a couple of the smaller pairs as well. There is ALWAYS a consistent flow of people there, hunting for the elusive garments. The only time I get them is if I hit it just right, shortly after they've restocked a little. The sales people there said they never know exactly what they'll get in a shipment. But whatever they get, most of them are sold well before the end of the day. And that's with a limit on how many of the new garments you can buy. You know. If they're there. I have never seen something like it. Ever. Not with any other previous garment change. And I assume their warehouses/manufacturers are limited structurally to meet the needs of previous rushes. You can't exactly make that bigger all the sudden...Still at some point there should be a moment where supply will meet demand and sales normalize. That will just take a while. It's causing a cultural shift along the way. My ward is a little slow on said shifts. But I've been to other wards where a loose tank style dress is quickly becoming the norm, particularly among younger ages. Again, I can't think of a garment that has done that. Personally, it has changed my relationship with my body, somewhat with my husband, and with the garment itself. All in positive ways. And I felt pretty solid in all of those beforehand. I can explain more later. But I'm delaying the day as it is. With luv, BD

oopps just saw the other thread

That makes sense.

Huh. I look forward to @Analytics' response. Thanks, -Smac

Aren't demons real? Doesn't the Bible refer to these other gods as demons? Or are demons just idols with names? You can't have it both ways. Pick one. Deuteronomy 32:17 says Israel sacrificed to "demons" who are also "gods." Psalm 106:37 similarly says they sacrificed their children to demons. 1 Corinthians 10:19–20 says an idol is nothing in itself, but that pagan sacrifices are offered to demons rather than to God. The "gods" can refer to spiritual beings or objects of worship depending on context. Demons are depicted as real, and as gods, who have idols. If gods are just idols, then demons are just idols.

Are they real gods or just man-made idols with names?

The Church is going to pwn Mormon Stories, and now the ACLU and EFF. Keep digging that hole.

should society stoop to accommodate the "insanity" of woke social engineers?

It does seem like Dehlin was going out of his way to design his website so as to mimic the Church's designs, themes, color palette, motifs, etc. Thanks, -Smac

They are different varieties of the same terrible thing: the sexualization and grooming of children. I have not been speaking of all drag shows, just those that involve children and highly sexualized performances. Thanks, -Smac

You are right that there has never been a transgender woman playing in the WNBA. That fact is not in dispute. But it does not follow that the underlying issue is therefore “fabricated.” The substance is not dependent on one specific league having already admitted a male player. It is about the principle of sex-based categories and what happens when those categories are redefined. Across multiple sports, governing bodies (such as the IOC) have already faced cases in which male-bodied athletes entered female categories and displaced female competitors or altered the competitive landscape. The pattern exists even if the WNBA itself has not yet produced a high-profile example. Treating the absence of a current WNBA case as proof that the entire concern is imaginary is like saying a fire code is unnecessary until a particular building burns down. You also shift the burden in a useful way: if someone wants a sex-based rule, they should explain why the benefits outweigh the costs. That standard cuts both ways. Maintaining female-only categories is not a novel restriction. It is the long-standing default that made women’s sports possible in the first place. Changing that default — so that men can enter on the basis of identity — also requires justification. Instead, it is merely assumed. This is especially when the performance gap between male and female bodies remains large and well-documented. The question is not whether anyone is currently “forcing” the WNBA to admit such athletes. The question is whether the eligibility rules should preserve sex as the relevant category or subordinate it. On the broader point about living in a pluralistic society and extending grace: I agree. People should be treated with dignity. That does not automatically settle how sex-based spaces and competitions are defined. Pluralism can and should include the recognition that sex is binary and materially relevant in some domains. Dismissing every attempt to preserve those distinctions as “speculation” or “manufactured controversy” avoids the actual trade-offs rather than resolving them. The WNBA example may be amplified, and some activists clearly seek test cases. Lawrence v. Texas was apparently based on a contrivance. Amplification does not make the underlying policy question disappear. It is still legitimate to ask whether female categories should remain female, and to expect that question to be answered with evidence about performance, fairness, and safety rather than by declaring the discussion itself illegitimate. Thanks, -Smac

@Analytics is, nearly to the exclusion of discussion of the topic at hand. I would look at evidence. Quite a few in the "trans" community actively court public attention. Dylan Mulvaney. Lia Thomas. Lily Tino. So do some groups (such as those who are grooming children by exposing them to highly sexualized drag show and other live performances). Politicians did not coordinate with Dylan Mulvaney. The massive backlash against Bud Light was not orchestrated in backrooms in Washington D.C. Political operatives did not plant Riley Gaines on the UPenn women's swim team. From a previous post: I think those who endorse the sorts of trans-related controversies, such as men in women's bathrooms, are trying very hard to stay at Step 1 as long as possible. The longer Steps 1 and 2 are drawn out, the easier Steps 3 and 4 are. Frog and boiling water and all that. America has transformed substantially in the last many decades, including as to LGBT issues. I think if there were anything that could reverse acceptance of the Ts, it would be the sexualization and grooming of children mostly, but also the incursion of men, both de facto and de jure into women's sports and other sex-segregated spaces. thanks, -Smac

A huge part of the problem is that that the "substance" is largely built on speculations, slippery slopes, strawmen, outlier anecdotes, and amplified hypotheticals. It doesn't address whether the proposed solutions (e.g. the Kansas bathroom law) cause more good or harm in the real world. I would suggest in general, as a society we should allow people the freedom to live their own lives: treat others the way you'd like to be treated, give people different than you some grace, recognize we live in a pluralistic society, and try to get along. If you think new laws are necessary (e.g. requiring all biological females to use the female restroom), it is incumbent upon you to explain why the cost of that law is worth it and explain why such a law would do more good than harm. The example you brought up to kick off this thread is the WNBA. If there were big scarry men who really wanted to play in the WNBA, and somehow the system was forcing the league to admit them as players, then that would be interesting news. But that has never happened. Not once. But apparently some activists got tired of waiting for this hypothetical to occur naturally and decided to manufacture the test case themselves. Today (August 24) if you go to FoxNews.com, top stories include: The lead story on the entire homepage: Enes Kanter Freedom discussing his confrontation at a WNBA game and his campaign to enter the WNBA. One of Fox’s four “Hot Topics”: “WNBA CONTROVERSY,” second only to the war with Iran. Another prominent story: “Fever coach urges press don’t ‘give it any gas’ as transgender firestorm rages.” The OutKick section promotes that story again, plus another about the Sky coach defending Natasha Cloud after her argument with Freedom. Notice what is missing: an actual transgender WNBA player (there have been ZERO in history). An actual displaced female player. An actual injury caused by the policy. None of the harm the controversy is supposedly about has actually occurred. It's a manufactured controversy built to push your buttons. And this is the specific story that you used to steer the discussion in this direction.

If anyone is interested, when we were faithful nonmember participants in the ward, we were not allowed to tithe. We were, however, allowed to donate to the fast offering. They gave us envelopes to do so.