All Activity

Enforced by whom? For starters: trans advocacy groups. Individuals (such as we've seen in this thread). Again, here's the basic list of presuppositions: If I were to present these to @SeekingUnderstanding as a set of principles, would he agree that they exist and are broadly accepted in the "transgender community?" I think he would. If I were to use reasoning and evidence and analysis, largely free of emotionalisms, logical fallacies, personalized invectives, etc., to critique and disagree with some of these principles (which is what I have been trying to do in this thread and in others), would @SeekingUnderstanding sooner or later repeat his frequently-repeated accusation that I am a "bigot?" I think he would. Moreover, I think he would do it not because he reports to "the community" or received specific marching orders from anyone, but rather because "allies" are expected to do "ally" sorts of things, which includes silencing opposing viewpoints. There is no specific "Manifesto" about what trans "allies" must believe, so it's possible that such "allies" might actually depart from one or more of the foregoing presuppositions, as @california boy has done in this thread by advancing a proposal re: bathrooms that explicitly and necessarily differentiates between "trans women" who ought to be able to go into women's bathrooms, while agreeing that the remaining "trans women" can be legally excluded from women's bathrooms. And SU has endorsed this proposal, and so is fully on board with this differentiation. I find this quite interesting. In reviewing CB's proposal, a quote from Animal House came to mind, namely, when the Seven Commandments are abridged to just one phrase: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Now here we have CB and SU, advancing a proposal that privileges some "trans women" over others. I would be really interested in hearing them present this proposal on a "pro trans" message board. I think we'd see something like this: "All trans women are equal, but some trans women are more equal than others." And frankly, I think that critique - from other "trans allies" applying the foregoing ideological presuppositions - would be fair. Would CB and SU then be derided by their fellow "allies" as "bigots" for advancing this proposal? I suspect so. Meanwhile, my philosophical and presuppositional position doesn't need to navigate through the minefield of "trans" ideology (that is, its flawed presuppositions as noted above and itemized in further detail below). Instead, I agree with some presuppositions about trans folks (such as that they are deserving of presumptive measures of respect and civility), but I am otherwise free to critique the foregoing presuppositions, hopefully by using evidence and reasoned discourse, and by avoiding logical fallacies and emotionalisms. I'll get called a "bigot" anyway, but the baseless accusation has long lost whatever potency it had to begin with. And the "Bigot!" response will only further inform and validate my sense of things, because if ad hominem distractions are the best that well-informed and intelligent "allies" like SU can do, then reasoned discourse is effectively over. Here's an interesting thought experiment: Would CB and SU be willing to have their proposal published, perhaps as a "Letter to the Editor" or other form, in a recognized "trans advocacy" organization media outlet, such as GLAAD, HRC or GLSEN? And would they be willing to publish this proposal under their IRL names? And would GLAAD and these other groups be willing to publish such a proposal? Anyway, here are some quotes of advocacy groups referencing the above presuppositions: These advocacy groups lay out the ideological presuppositions, and self-identified "allies" go around enforcing them by, inter alia, vilifying people who do not agree with those presuppositions (hasty and unsubstantiated leaps into "Bigot!" accusations are a good example of this). Well, that's an interesting point. On the one hand, we are told that there is such a thing as "the transgender community." But if and when we try to define this "community" or identify its attributes or otherwise quantify it and its ideology, then apparently there is no "community," in that there are no commonly-understood-and-accepted ideological principles. Advocacy has institutions. HRC, GLAAD, A4TE/NCTE, Transgender Law Center, Stonewall, WPATH, and the rest publish policy, sue, and fundraise. So can they speak for the "transgender community?" If not them, then who? The "transgender community" is not the only amorphous and seemingly leaderless "movement" out there. Antifa. Anonymous. QAnon. #MeToo. Sovereign Citizens. ELF/ALF. Manosphere. Furry Fandom. "The Right." "The Left." These names work as coalition brands. Journalists and pundits and commentators and opponents need a noun. Participants need a flag. Neither fact creates a roster, a budget, or a binding platform. Here's an interesting test about a "community": Can you resign from it? You can leave HRC. You cannot resign from “the transgender community,” “Antifa,” or “the manosphere.” It does not mean the underlying people or the funded NGOs are imaginary. Thanks, -Smac

That lack of ‘awareness’ of the ubiquitousness of CBT, if accurate, is a huge red flag.

He is clearly a huckster and a shill. I doubt he has any concern at all for facts beyond the ones that can be cherry-picked for rhetorical purposes.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evil-deeds/202606/the-trouble-with-therapy-today? Hmmm….makes me wonder what else he is choosing to ignore if he is pretending that CBT is not the most common therapy out there these days and has been for awhile, probably since he started practicing himself. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5797481/

Decided to look into what psychologists may say about Alpert’s claims. Not claiming this stuff is a consensus. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/therapy-matters/201204/response-jonathan-alpert? Looks like Alpert does cite studies, but possibly only those who agree with him, which is not good science and is unlikely to lead to accurate conclusions. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10401237261457751? This one summaries his book and suggests it’s a good view to add to the conversation, but definitely presents it as more ideas than data.

Enforced by whom? Trying to follow your reasoning. By the transgender community…which has multiple groups with different goals or by some institution?

Except this is exactly what this solution does. In both cases, the state punishing speech by changing classes, ordering non-contact, and imposing disciple. All based on constitutionally protected(?) speech. You are not addressing the Substantial Disruption jurisprudence which I have cited several times. If speech passes the Tinker test, then it is not constitutionally protected speech, such that the school - part of the State - has the legal authority to regulate speech that in other circumstances would be protected. In contrast, the article I posted about the UC lawsuit shows how school policies, mandates, "speech codes" and such can run afoul of the First Amendment and fail the Tinker test. Thanks, -Smac

I just wonder if you, having publicly endorsed a proposal that conflicts with so many tenets of trans ideology, might end up being targeted for the same sorts of invective that you so frequently dole out to others. From a previous post: I am curious about how you reconcile your willingness to stray from "trans"-related presuppositions that are rather vigorously enforced. I'm not ranking anyone. You are endorsing a proposal that differentiates and privileges (which I think is pretty much what "ranking" means in this context) one set of "trans" persons (those who meet CB's A-E criteria) over others (those that do not). One group gets access to women's bathrooms, the other - presumably much larger - group does not. And your response to complaints about bestowing this differentiated privilege is (A) state that "Politics is about compromise" and (B) make sarcastic comments about "the trans-mafia" knocking on your door. Nobody is suggesting that would happen, but what I think would happen is that you would be subjected to the same vitriolic anonymous online condemnation that you so regularly dole out here. The shoe would be on the other foot. I think all people deserve to be addressed and treated with respect. So do I, and yet you regularly accuse me of "bigotry" despite the absence of any hateful/intolerant commentary from me, and despite the presence of numerous affirmations of what you state above. As long as the knee-jerk and first-out-of-the-box response to effectively any form of disagreement with trans orthodoxy is unreasoned and unsubstantiated vitriolic denunciations (e.g. "Bigot!"), advocates for trans folks are signaling that their position is weak, that it cannot withstand scrutiny or even civil discussion, such that any departure from orthodoxy - from without or within - must be immediately shouted down. And the longer this goes on, the less potent the denunciations become. They are presented to silence and squelch and intimidate and coerce, not to contribute to reasoned discourse. I agree. The challenge with your endorsement, though, is that a large portion - perhaps a substantial majority - of the "trans women" folks are going to be legally excluded from women's bathrooms. And because "trans women are women," their "rights and freedoms" are being trampled on. And because of that, those endorsing the differentiation between these folks and those relative few who have the desire and opportunity and financial resources to complete Steps (A) through (E), may well end up being the target of the same sort of accusatory ugliness that they utilize against others. I would be interested in the justification for that. And that doesn't really resolve the issue, as any line among “trans women” is itself bigotry. Distinguishing social-only from medically transitioned, or pre-op from post-op, is “transmedicalism” or “dividing the community.” Self-identification is sufficient. No medical diagnosis, surgery, hormones, or even consistent presentation is required for the identity to be valid. Single-sex spaces, sports, prisons, and shelters must follow identity, not sex. Ipso facto, exclusion of males who identify as women - and your endorsed proposal is discrimination. These are not my views. Those are explicitly your views. Not at all. I reject the foregoing perspective, which I understand to be an important tenet of trans ideology. Per trans ideology, any line among “trans women” is itself bigotry. Distinguishing social-only from medically transitioned, or pre-op from post-op, is “transmedicalism” or “dividing the community.” The proposal you are endorsing differentiates between "trans women." Some of them are sufficiently "women" so as to be allowed entry into women's bathrooms, and that sufficiency is explicitly connected to "medical procedures," rather than "identity." Meanwhile, huge swaths of "trans women" will be excluded under the endorsed proposal because they are not sufficiently within the ambit of "woman" to be allowed into women's bathrooms. This, per trans ideology, mimics patriarchal and essentialist definitions of gender, and negates lived experiences, negates "identity" (which is supposed to be sufficient), and erases trans women, and discriminates, and so on. These ideological tenets are not mine, and I feel no obligation to align myself with them. Candidly, I am surprised and impressed to see that you are willing to step apart, violate some of these tenets, and risk the sorts of denunciations that others have been receiving for so long. How do you reconcile this with the proposal you are endorsing, which by design and intent excludes likely the substantial majority of "trans women" from women's bathrooms? How does this proposal respect and acknowledge the "lived experiences" of those excluded by it? Invalidating someone's identity is entirely your schtick, not mine. We are explicitly talking about some type of bathroom or lockerroom standard. In that limited context I am happy to support CB's proposal as outlined. When viewed through the lens of trans ideology, the proposal you are endorsing negates the womanhood of what I think is the substantial majority of "trans women." You are invalidating their "identity" as women by saying, in effect, "Hey, you're just not enough to qualify as a 'woman,' so I think you should be excluded from women's bathrooms. Politics is about compromise. Here, I am endorsing a proposal that compromises your identity so that other trans women who have the desire and financial means to undergo stringent steps ((A) through (E)) can go into women's bathrooms, whereas you cannot." It's a gutsy thing you are doing here. Identity is sufficient lol. My aunt felt was a girl her entire life. That was her lived experience. She didn't transition until she was in her forties. She's lived openly as a woman since then. She passes. I asked a coworker that was her age (the coworker didn't know her trans status), and he said she was more attractive than my mom. Restricting her access to women's private spaces until after she transitions does not deny her womanhood or her identity. Well, that is certainly illuminating. You affirm "her womanhood," but are on board with denying her - and most of those like her - entry into women's bathrooms until and unless they meet the stringent medical and other criteria laid out by CB, which you are "happy to support." Your denial of their lived experience is your bigotry. If by "lived experience" you mean "identifying as something they are not," then yes, I deny the validity of that identity. A man does not "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, nor does he "become" a reptile, or a space alien, or a dog, by "identifying" as one. Even if these identifications are truly and sincerely felt and held - a point I am quite willing to acknowledge - they are not congruent with reality. Characterizing these incongruent-with-reality notions of "identity" as "lived experience" seems like a semantic trick to isolate these notions from scrutiny and critique, and to fabricate a "Bigot!" accusation against anyone who declines to acquiesce the them. Yes. I explained that previously. I was speaking in a legal sense. I generally refer to Caitlyn Jenner by that name because of a legal name change. On the other hand, I generally refer to Michael Sorrentino by his name, rather than his "fabricated" one ("The Situation"). Yes, but not because I "want to humiliate them," but because biological sex is, in my view, the most reasonable basis upon which to create and maintain sex-segregated spaces. That you cannot or will not acknowledge this reasoning, and that you instead fabricate an assign a malign motive, is further evidence of how unworkable and irrational trans ideology is. You can't defend it, so you vilify anyone who reasonably disagrees with it. To silence discussion. To squelch expression of reasoned viewpoints. To distract. To humiliate. Meanwhile, you want to force the substantial majority of trans women into men's bathrooms. And you want to send most "trans women" into men's spaces. Is that "horrifying?" I want men to stay out of women's spaces. Not through harassment, but through voluntary compliance with the law and, short of that, enforcement of the law against those not willing to follow it. Meanwhile, your proposal is going to be far more invasive. From a prior post: Yeesh. My proposal rests on voluntary compliance and, where appropriate and necessary, showing an ID. Most of what you say is slanted and mean-spirited caricature and imputed motives, without a scintilla of supporting evidence or reasoning. The rest is simple ideological disagreement. I think sex-segregated spaces ought to be maintained. I think the best way to do that is by segregating sex. Biological sex. This is based on reasoning and evidence and cumulative experience. I have said nothing which explicitly or implicitly does any such thing. I am speaking of policy proposals which I find acceptable under the dictates of my own conscience, and based on reasoning and evidence and so on. You are, I assume, doing the same. I don't think you are doing it very well, though, since your reasoning begins and ends with the same worn-out contrivance, namely... I disagree with you on matters of public policy. I have itemized the basis for my disagreement, and have done so using reasoning, evidence and explanation. Disagreement is often just that. That you are incapable or unwilling to substantively address reasoned argument on these matters is, to me, an indication that you are in the thrall of an ideology that is so internally incoherent that it cannot be defended through reason, and so can only be defended by ad hominem and other distracting tactics. I don't find that persuasive. Our prior interactions were more civil, but it seems things have taken a turn. I am striving to be civil in my comments, but perhaps I have failed to do so in some respects. If so, please point them out, and I will work to improve myself. Thanks, -Smac

Many thanks Mustard seed. I have been fortunate to get great advice and thoughts here on the Dialogue to get me going.

Navidad, For what it is worth, LDS who are familiar with Ostler have seemed to me, in my limited experience, to be much more understanding and less dismissive about my belief in an unchanging God.

I wish you the best in your pursuit of health and happiness, Tony.

It seems we do the same push ups on the wall. I live in a house, so able also to use the stairs to strengthen my legs. Although I do so in moderation, arthritis starting in the knee. The pickle ball sounds great fun. Sure you and the other ladies rock. 👍

One of the reasons those living in certain places in Asia have greater life span is the habit of sitting and sleeping on the floor rather than furniture. The constant getting up and down does for them what squats are supposed to do for us who sit on chairs, etc. Don’t have to lose your furniture though, just do squats. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/09/09/1198047149/blue-zones-health-centenarians-healthy-habits

You really out to get out more and maybe actually talk to trans people. I'll let you know if the trans-mafia knocks on my door though. I'm not ranking anyone. I think all people deserve to be addressed and treated with respect. That their lived experience should be respected as long as that lived experience doesn't impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. I think that any legislation to address this, should include stipulations that require health insurance to cover transisitions as well as increase access to gender affirming care. Including with tax payer subsidies if necessary. I am happy to entertain exceptions. But honestly I expect this situation to be vanishingly small. In talking with family and friends who are trans, including in reading on trans forums on reddit, most people just want a safe place to pee. And most people want to choose the gendered bathroom where they will be noticed the least. These are not my views. Those are explicitly your views. I think people's lived experiences ought to be respected and acknowledged. Invalidating someone's identity is entirely your schtick, not mine. We are explicitly talking about some type of bathroom or lockerroom standard. In that limited context I am happy to support CB's proposal as outlined. Identity is sufficient lol. My aunt felt was a girl her entire life. That was her lived experience. She didn't transition until she was in her forties. She's lived openly as a woman since then. She passes. I asked a coworker that was her age (the coworker didn't know her trans status), and he said she was more attractive than my mom. Restricting her access to women's private spaces until after she transitions does not deny her womanhood or her identity. Your denial of their lived experience is your bigotry. You call their names fabricated. You want to humiliate them by forcing manly men into women's bathrooms. You want to send passing females into mens spaces. That is horrifying. You want to deputize the general population to openly harass and sue them. This is what makes you a bigot. You aren't protecting women in their spaces (since you literally want to force passing men into the women's bathroom). You are explicitly forcing your religious world view on others. This is what makes you a bigot.

Threads got reported as spam again.

So since the church has clarified its position, and you disagree with it, and instead hold on to a talk given in the 70s, it appears you do not trust the present leadership or at least its position on this topic. Which is fine, you don’t have to trust current leadership, but if you’re going to preach to us it’s helpful if you can clarify your absence of faith in present leadership.

That is a smart way to do it.

Except this is exactly what this solution does. In both cases, the state punishing speech by changing classes, ordering non-contact, and imposing disciple. All based on constitutionally protected(?) speech.

It's a softer tone than throwing previous leaders under the bus.

I just found out I have an inguinal hernia, so I need to watch what I do. And by the way, I do push ups on the wall, is that the same as your press ups? There's no way I can do them on the ground. Also, I wish I had done this earlier in life, I do squats while I'm brushing my teeth but hold onto the bathroom counter as I go down and other exercises such as standing on my toes or side to side knee bends. And it also helps me to brush my teeth longer, haha. Or other times of the day I'll use my kitchen counter or my stairs to run up and down. And walking, plus weights as well. I don't like going to the gym much. I play pickleball with other ladies around my age and it's so much fun and a great work out. Senior ladies rock at pickleball a lot of times. For a drink, I make fruit smoothies and keep them in my freezer. I wish you well on your journey, you got this!!

It's proper to correct false teachings.

May future generations look at my own barbarism with compassionate understanding, but also not fall into the trap of making excuses for it. I should be better, regardless of this time that I live in. Light may shine more dimly based on where we are, and the society we find ourselves immersed in, but it shines nonetheless. The fault of my inability to be an enlightened version of me, that future generations won't look upon with uncomfortable distain, ultimately falls on me. Or so go my pre-caffeine smarmy thoughts while reading [at the time, Elder] Kimball's talk. Here's to those eventual awkward Thanksgiving dinners where my grandkids look on in shocked embarrassment, and proclaim, "Grandpa, you can't say that!" Hopefully I'll have my wits enough to still to listen and change.

Greetings! I’m an unusual case in light of the fact that when seniors perform squats it’s strongly recommended they never dip lower than the point where their thighs are parallel to the floor, and this so as to prevent potential injury. The only reason why I’m able to easily do 100 deep knee bends every other day is because I’ve gradually and cautiously improved my leg strength and mobility to the point that I’ve now demonstrated to my satisfaction that I’m very likely not going to incur injury. And while it’s true that there’s added physical benefit to squatting down as low as possible, I’m definitely an outlier because deep knee bends for seniors are not recommended. In addition, it’s important to let you know that almost all physical therapists and trainers will tell you that if you were only able to do one exercise for the rest of your life that squats would win hands down. As we age, the legs are normally the first thing to go, so keeping your legs strong and flexible will pay enormous benefits! And remember to be sure you get adequate quality protein in your diet because sarcopenia (age related muscle wasting) will actually accelerate if you exercise without supplying enough protein for post exercise muscle recovery. Finally, my 6 days per week workout program is quite varied with 20 different weight resistance and calisthenic exercises, with an added 30 minutes on an exercise bike on each of the six days. It’s no fun, but my health is excellent (I take zero prescribed drugs) and when I’m not huffing and puffing I feel great! An added benefit is that I’ve definitely noticed disciplining the will to face the rigors of an uncomfortable exercise program toughens and sharpens the mind. All the best!

They seem more restricted. 4 new topics a day?

Our XBOX which art in Redmond, Halo be thy name. Thy Game Pass come, thy updates done, on console as in Windows XI. Give us this day our daily achievement. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who PlayStation against us. And lead us not into microtransactions, but deliver us from the Red Ring of Death. For thine is the console, the power, and the gamerscore, forever and ever. Achievement Unlocked P.S. Kind of hope this thread doesn't get deleted, but I've reported all these as SPAM, so enjoy it while it's here.