SeekingUnderstanding

Complaint driven response is based on gender presentation not biological sex. What percentage of the time does "gender presentation" align with "biological sex"? I don’t know, but I imagine it’s over 90%. some portion of those 10% are trans. I would imagine most are just individuals that look more androgynous than average. Could you elaborate here? Again, I am not advocating for the above enforcement mechanism, and instead provide it as my understanding of the historical status quo. I acknowledge that we are currently have a societal debate about this stuff, but are you and I in agreement on that (re: historical status quo)? i’m saying that the historic status quo was based on gender presentation not on biological sex as you presume. Because no one has access to someone else’s biological sex without invasive search or testing. So in arguing for the preservation of how it worked before from my point of view you’re arguing to let trans people use the bathroom of their choice. And I’d argue that for the vast majority of trans people passing as the gender of their choice is the ultimate goal. So letting them use the bathroom of their choice works under your historic system in the vast vast majority cases. And if we start trying to catch edge cases, not only is it harassing for those involved, but is equally likely to target cis people that look more androgynous than average.

Is observing the external sex organs all that’s required to determine whether someone is a woman or man in your point of view?

I'm going to respond more later (if I can), but I will just remark here that your efforts in communicating in a less adversarial way are remarkable. Honestly, I tend to try and reflect the energy of the poster I respond to (as I perceive it) in online settings (a personal failing of mine), and it is a particular challenge for me in this instance due to our past interactions but I will try.

It’s a wedge issue propped up recently by the rich and powerful to win elections.

How the &$@? am I supposed to know? I’m not a pervert lol. But seriously how is anyone supposed to know what another persons dna looks like? All I can go off is how they look to me. And I’ve seen many “obvious” women that claim to be have been male at birth. And I’ve seen many “obvious” men who claim to have been female at birth. On a personal note, my Aunt is a trans woman. I still see her as male sometimes in photos. But I asked an older coworker onetime if my Aunt or mother was more attractive and he ( a heterosexual male) said my aunt was better looking. Do you see the problem?

Complaint driven response is based on gender presentation not biological sex. Until you get around that it’s a nonstarter. Social norms and bathrooms are also around gender presentation not biological sex. Until you get around that it’s a non-starter.

I missed this but will assume this is true and moderate accordingly. Any restriction based on biological sex is inherently problematic. No one without being completely invasive has access to what someone else’s biological sex is. All that normal people in society have access to is how someone presents themselves. That’s it. And gender presentation is a continuous spectrum and heavily culturally influenced. When I meet someone I instinctively categorize them as male or female, but there are many times I genuinely don’t know. Add to this, some people intentionally present their gender as opposite of their biological sex. That’s life and that’s the society we live in. We have no access to any strangers biological sex. Any law that bases bathroom access on biological sex is inherently problematic because it will inherently rely on how people “appear” which doesn’t map onto biological sex for many individuals - subjecting them to continued harassment. In an ideal world people go into bathrooms to pee, poop and wash their hands free of harassment. I see no problems letting people use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity as long as they don’t bother anyone. I really don’t see a need to think beyond that point? What’s the problem?

Edited to add, the law (as far as I can tell) is replete with ambiguity. What’s a “reasonable” person. What’s “cruel” punishment. If you have to for some reason legislate bathrooms beyond preventing harassment and assault, why not pass a “reasonable” effort to pass as the gender of your choice? What’s the problem here? The threat that trans men pose to biological women is so far down the list of problems in a society that elected a civilly liable rapist as president (one that openly bragged about invading women’s dressing rooms to ogle women) that this whole side show full of pearl clutchers is just absurdly laughable to me.

This part. This is the correct limiting principle. You want “ obvious” males to use women’s bathroom. I do not. I’m not sure what’s wrong with this standard. In my system people use the restroom that matches their gender presentation. In your system obvious men are forced into women’s spaces and vice versa.

Yes, there are difficulties no matter which way we go. Thanks, Since you are super concerned about limiting principles, what’s your here? You propose that passable men (AFAB) use women’s bathrooms. Men with beards and muscles. Forced to use women’s bathrooms. What’s your limiting principle to prevent these people from being harassed in the women’s bathroom? What’s the enforcement mechanism? Do we need DNA tests to use the bathroom? Bathroom guards that check state issued ID? See from my end that world looks way worse and more complicated than mine where people just go by how they present.

Disclaimer seems very reasonable. I wonder what open stories response will be since they implied your churches demands were unreasonable.

A sampling for those not on twitter: "The castration of LDS men will countine until morale improves." "I have a no problem with anyone doing this. BUT I have a massive problem with anyone holding htis up as a thing to do." "Strongly disagree here, and I’m in medicine. Church messaging has become too sensationalized and main-stream conformist in regard to fluidity in gender roles." "Yeah, this bodes great for the future of your church..." "I’ll say it again, is it understanding/support vs promotion. These types of posts make it hard to tell. Stand for Something." "Is this really the kind of rhetoric our society needs when traditional gender roles designed by God are being torn apart every day?"

Or a failed visionary with a reputation inflated by his followers. Anytime someone wants to push extreme dichotomies I am immediately wary. Human's are complex, full of shades of gray - nothing outside of fairy tales is ever black and white.

I agree with DCP. I think the Plates, both their physical reality and their claimed origins, are extremely important. The truth claims of the Church essentially stand or fall on The Book of Mormon, which claims to be a translation of an ancient record contained in the Plates. I agree with DCP here as well. Our critics have had nearly 200 years to formulate a plausible counter-explanation, but have failed to do so. I found it particularly intriguing when you, a self-described "Bayesian methodological empiricist," offered to answer questions from me about these matters. I have been trying to explore similar issues with you. I have no time to debate anything on this topic, but appreciate those here actually putting in time. I just want to make sure I understand your position. These statements really make it sound like your opinion is thus: An honest complete and thorough analysis of the extant evidence (not talking spiritual witness at all) for the production of the book of Mormon weighs so heavily in favor of authenticity, that a man-made book is a non starter. Every other alternative has "lethal" flaws. Does that represent your view of it?

That’s just it though. If there is no timetable, it really makes the believability that something comes from God rather suspect. God answers prayers, but sometimes he gives us the wrong answer on purpose. Sometimes his answer is silence. Sometimes we get what we need but other times the answer is no which of course is God helping us grow. No matter what happens, it’s interpreted as a divine answer to prayer. And when everything that happens is a divine answer, nothing is.

Oh, I don't know about that. BTW, this is hilarious. You break up a paragraph to such an extent as to remove all context and meaning.

"Why the Negro was denied the Priesthood from the days of Adam to our day is not known." More recently, the Church has provided a markedly more clear - and accurate - assessment: I will take this as an acknowledgement that you agree the FP in 1947 did not acknowledge the ban was of unknown provenance. Your quoted passage is merely an acknowledgment that we [i.e. the 1947 FP] don’t exactly know why the ban was in place. As for the modern statement, it’s always amazing how clear things are in retrospect. Apologists have perfected it. To paraphrase Dan McClellan - if you think God is anti-slavery you have all the tools you need to conclude God is fine with homosexual relationships.

Interesting that you left off this part of that letter, found in the very next paragraph: Here the First Presidency acknowledged the lack of revelatory provenance, while earlier speaking of "{t}he attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes" as being "not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time." No. They didn’t acknowledge any such thing. “Why” is unknown. Just like why people are born intersex or gay is unknown. What’s known? It’s a revelation from God based on scripture and prophetic declaration. Unknown? Why. see Dallin Oaks: “If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, ‘Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,’ you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here [race and the priesthood], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong.

This is just a laughable falsehood. From the FP in 1949: It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." From Mormon doctrine with scripture support: https://mormonheretic.org/2013/03/13/mormon-doctrine-blacks/ See Cain, Ham, Pre-existence, Priesthood, Races of Men.In the pre-existent eternity various degrees of valiance and devotion to the truth were exhibited by different groups of our Father’s spirit offspring. One-third of the spirit hosts of heaven came out in open rebellion and were cast our without bodies, becoming the devil and his angels. (D&C 29:36-41; Rev 12:3-9.) The other two-thirds stood affirmatively for Christ; there were no neutrals. To stand neutral in the midst of war is a philosophical impossibility. The Lord said: “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” (Matt. 12:30) Of the two-thirds who followed Christ, however, some were more valiant than others. Adam and all the prophets so distinguished themselves by diligence and obedience as to be foreordained to their high earthly missions. (Abr. 3:20-24) The whole house of Israel was chosen in pre-existence to come to mortality as children of Jacob. (Deut. 32:7-8) Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8, 12, 22.) Noah’s son Ham married Egyptus, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood. (Abr. 1:20-27.) Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abr. 1:20-27) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them (Moses 7:8, 12, 22), although sometimes negroes search out the truth, join the Church, and become by righteous living heirs of the celestial kingdom of heaven. President Brigham Young and others have taught that in the future eternity worthy and qualified negroes will receive the priesthood and every gospel blessing available to any man. (Way to Perfection, pp. 97-111.)

Not the child but the parents sure. Do you think this is a beyond the pale for KKK members? Enough to make them blush? The lynching squads?

I’m familiar with the letter. Brigham Young’s statements on interracial marriage are horrific. What damages your message is that you think the material in there would make clan members who view black people as sub-human, who have no problem with extra judicial killing of the same would somehow blush at this rhetoric. When you make such statements you undermine your own credibility. There is enough wrong with church history that there is no need to make stuff up.

Um, KKK blush? Really. As an exmo critic, you really ought to tone it down. There is some really crappy rhetoric in the church’s archive but you belittle it and undermine your credibility when you say it would make the people doing the lynching blush. Get a hold of yourself.

And when the enforcement of law is evil for acts that are merely male prohibita. We don’t even need to look at today’s enforcement which is designed to be as cruel as possible. Think back to the late 1800s and anti-polygamy laws. Families were ripped apart, sent into hiding, lived in fear. Complying with such a law by turning people in was much more evil than hiding such people.

lol. I had an undocumented mission companion whose undocumented dad was bishop.

And we know this isn’t Zionist propaganda how? Who’s defining extremist