Calm

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. 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 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. 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.

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.”

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.

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.

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

I asked AI “respond to this claim”: “The key logical error in the original claim is treating “binary” and “spectrum” as if they must describe the same property at the same level of analysis. They don’t.”

I think this is important to consider.

I have no clue what the time/stamp would be if it’s not attached to a screenshot already. The offending post was already screenshot and added to this thread in case he disappeared it before nemesis saw it. I don’t think he can remove his account and the other info is in my posts already. In case this gets taken seriously and they contact Nemesis, I think he needs to be aware of it first.

Someone suggested this may be the root of the speculation: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/leadership-instruction-october-2023/summary-how-meetinghouses?lang=eng “ We have been commanded to gather together often to remember Jesus and strengthen each other in Him: “I give unto you … a commandment that you assemble yourselves together, and organize yourselves, and prepare yourselves, and sanctify yourselves” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:74). Meetinghouses provide opportunities for receiving ordinances, teaching and ministering one to another (see 3 Nephi 26:19; Moroni 6:5–6), and welcoming friends. They serve multiple functions: Worship and ordinances Teaching Activities Administration Ongoing efforts are making meetinghouses more Christ centered and inviting. Some of these efforts include: Adapting to local culture and environment. Choosing meetinghouse art that is Christ centered and inclusive. Incorporating policy adjustments in the General Handbook for use of meetinghouses outside of Sunday meetings. We are considering opportunities to improve the focus on the Savior and ordinances and provide a more joyful experience for members and friends. These opportunities include: Flexible and adapted designs for new construction. Adjustments to existing buildings.” Someone else described this YouTuber as the LDS version of the National Enquirer, so accuracy is unlikely to be high if so.

Subjective

Local to who, Germany?

Please show your fiancée this thread so she knows who she is marrying and has a true choice if she is not aware of this side of you already. screenshot saved just in case

And you apparently do as well.

If by Zionism, you mean simply a homeland for Jews, who here besides you is defying it? I am not going to engage with anything else that is conspiracy theories, but didn’t want you to think this was a forum that agreed with your claims against the Jews just because most of us are too polite to engage…plus there is the rule of no politics. You will likely get banned as I believe you were the first time you came here if you are the poster I think you are (I think your account was blocked as I can’t find the post I remember to check). If you want to stick to talking about Catholicism, Christianity, or your criticism of our LDS Christian beliefs and history in a respectful way, you are welcomed to post, but disrespect and worse gets one banned thankfully.

Is this you? https://m.fanfiction.net/u/16874415/OrangeNero

Neither am I. Nor should any LDS be. Is there a reason you mention this in the context of a discussion about the certainty of certain LDS beliefs? Just curious.

What name do you go by, is it Stephan?

I think I mixed up this ‘Dario’ with Dario M. Both are European and I wasn’t reading close enough to get the country and other details as I popped in during a short break between phone errands. I did a search on members and we have 3 Dario’s listed, the other one was a DarioJelks and one Darion (member of the Church though). Stephan Dario, how common is Dario? This ‘Dario’ is German and the other was living in the Netherlands and Portugal when he was posting in the board. I can’t remember if the Netherlands was his birthplace or not.

Isn’t being certain that certainty is a sin or even just wrong contradictory with holding a position of incertitude? ” I have no certainty on what criteria Christ will base his judgment about the eternal destiny of those who appear before Him. ” Are you not certain LDS are wrong in their beliefs about ordinances and authority being required by God as part of our covenant to enter back into his presence? Neither do we. In the end it will be those who want to be of the family of God (those exalted will be of the Church of the Firstborn, the Restored Church is merely a mortal vehicle as should be obvious from the inclusion of “Latter-day” in the name since eternity has no “latter days”, only mortality) and those that don’t. “The faithful saints were made members of the Church of the Firstborn in eternity, since they receive through Jesus Christ the inheritance of the firstborn (D&C 93:21–22).” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/firstborn?lang=eng

You don’t seem to care about objections (in the sense of adapting your preferred approach) from any trans advocacy group, so not seeing why you bring this up for others’ POV as if it’s a weakness.

Looks like Dario has stored up some ideas since last he posted, but is having a problem starting anew thread even in Social, so here’s one for him. Added: probably not Dario M.

Dario, I have wondered how you were doing. I assume you are the same as the poster Dario_M. If you want to discuss them in the main forum, I or someone else can start a thread for you. Otherwise, welcome back!

Someone needs to show me solid documentation, not just anecdotes or worse, speculation that I will not only be safer, but feel safer when I see this man come into a restroom I am currently using, because I know how I will react when I see him walk in and am pretty confident how the vast majority of women will react as well (both in negative ‘what the hell is this guy doing in the restroom’ and positive ‘wow, he is gorgeous’ versions, which may happen at the same time). Because on the level I am interacting with him, he is a man no matter what his biology is. I will only be reacting to him as a man as I won’t have the time or inclination to have a discussion with him about his chromosomes when my purpose is to become more physically comfortable and then clean up and then leave the premises as fast as possible (the hard surfaces of a bathroom create a very uncomfortable environment for me, I don’t like even being in my home bathrooms for the same reasons). Now if I was participating in a discussion about the ideology, biology, politics or something else around transitioning, I likely would use “them” and “they” and “biological female” for accuracy to describe him, but during any casual interaction and perhaps brief verbal conversation, in my head and gut I am going straight to “him” and “man” without a second thought. And it is a guaranteed fact that I would either walk out feeling rather offended and fearful because this guy thought he had a right to ignore the social rules and intrude on my privacy and how screwed up he must be to do that, increasing my sense of vulnerability and exposure by his unjustified use of my space (because that’s how I have always felt when it happens, which it has only once or twice in my life without an explanation of intense need and an apology) or I would be walking out feeling very awkward and embarrassed that I had forced them to share with me their medical and social background I did not need to know out of their concern for my few minutes at most discomfort. And then I would be left uncomfortably wondering how often this was going to be happening in the future, someone who is a man in all ways that they interact with me being forced by law to awkwardly and unfortunately share secluded, but still public space with me based on a law that ignored practical realities…and knowing me, my use of public restrooms would drop way low not because I felt unsafe with them, but because I wouldn’t want them to feel unsafe with me and I know I am too old and too programmed at this point not to react with fear on my face and body language if I see someone who is obviously a man (as far as I can tell) walk into the restroom for some reason without a custodian uniform on. Seriously, looking at pictures like this I find it so hard to believe that biologically this person is female. My gut would never be convinced, my emotional reaction to them will always be “he’s male”.

Men have attacked women in restrooms in the past not because they can walk in unquestioned by others when there are multiple women using it, but because they typically wait until there is one woman alone within. Thus any law barring any biological male from entering a women’s restroom will be highly unlikely to affect these types of attacks, imo.