Calm

You are saying the meaning itself won’t be debated? But won’t the right to label certain money as tithing funds or not tithing funds be debated?

Oh wow, sorry this is happening. It is not concerning in itself since most things do not require the acceptance of this particular fact, but the problem is if they apply the same reasoning to other things. I can see why it’s not just something you feel amused by, like an obsession with Lord of the Rings for example (because that is a sensible obsession). How invested are they in this? Is it just the novelty perhaps? They like to argue?

The reality in my belief is it will likely be more (number wise simply because there are so many more than trans women) cisgender women who do have life harder (though not as hard most likely as trans women who pass as female who have to use male spaces) because of a law requiring only biological females to use certain spaces for two reasons…there are likely quite a few (I am speculating more in absolute numbers) cisgendered women who others will start guessing are trans women rather than biological ones and start demanding these cis women prove it to be allowed to use bathrooms. One of my girlfriends in high school could be easily confused for male if she hadn’t worn long hair (actually two with the second depending on her clothing and if she chose to wear makeup) was tall, bony, and athletic and worn jeans and cowboy and plaid shirts (she was into horses and went riding after school when she could). Wearing makeup and long hair may help in some cases as that can lean the face more feminine, but since trans women are likely to wear makeup, that’s not a guaranteed sign of biological female. And plenty of women don’t want to or can’t wear makeup, like wearing masculine clothing and having short hair. Second, by making this a thing…women now having to worry about whether someone using their safe space who looks female is really biologically male rather than just ignoring that possibility, you will be increasing anxiety and discomfort for women in situations where it wouldn’t have occurred before and overall create more anxiety because even if some current anxiety exists over biological males entering women’s bathrooms gets removed by such laws (and I don’t see why it would given the ones who assault and voyeur ignore social norms already), the incidence of females looking like men in bathrooms is likely a lot higher than someone with the appearance of male trying to use a women’s only bathroom, which means more occurrences of “is she a he and not supposed to be here? What should I do?’ and therefore more anxiety and confusion.

I think it might be a possibility in high tourist locations where they have the room, but not really necessary given the stuff officially online now. It would be much cheaper to do virtual walkthroughs.

If they present as biological male from what we can see (in most bathrooms that would be fully clothed, in locker rooms more exposure more likely), I would agree since we have learned not to be near semi naked men, especially in vulnerable situations. But I have major doubts if many women will care in reality if trans women who present as female (look biologically female or at least ambiguously leaning towards female) use the restrooms. We aren’t trained yet to expect attacks from anyone who appears to be female and shouldn’t expect such from biological males who present as biological females to the eye given the very, very low probability of it happening (it’s not tracked it’s so low apparently)…..and if we cannot tell they are biologically male, why would we be triggered?

Because it is somewhat subjective when not all the needed information is checked, but the doctor goes on probabilities….which are quite high, of course. If they did chromosomal testing for each baby, that would help, but unlikely to happen unless it gets much cheaper and easier. And chromosomes aren’t the only determinant either, so there might be some ambiguity still unresolved even with that test globally done. Assigned makes sense as there are cases where it’s ambiguous and the doctor assumes it is not ambiguous based on external genitalia. Those cases are not a large percentage. Several sources I just checked have it between 1 in 4,500-2000, I didn’t check what source they used, so it might have been all the same one, but wiki is good with it). That would make it around 116,000 such individuals in the US. To me that’s enough to be recognized in the language rather than ignored as an exception. Not really, the arbitrariness is something people infer. A “best guess” is not arbitrary when it is based on high probability and observable data, but it is still a guess if the actual determinant of biological sex is not the appearance of genitalia, but chromosomes and other factors not immediately apparent. The doctor in most cases is dealing with incomplete data, which in most cases is not an issue, but in a small, but imo significant percentage is. Not really if I understand correctly. A person who is colorblind who assumes based on other cues that a stop sign on a bedroom door is red (now I used this example I am imagining Mark speaking up and saying ‘red is subjective!’, but hopefully this conveys what I mean), but is wrong because someone customized it as orange does not mean the color red is subjective, it means the person’s best guess was inaccurate. I like the idea of female as a biological term and woman as a social construct because there is biology and then there is the role and it would make conversation quicker if biology and expectations (roles are a collection of expectations imo) were more easily separated to determine what is actually required vs what is wanted by society, etc. Is the separation of female as biology and woman as role likely to happen? Nope, but a female can dream, can’t she? I agree. I also believe having only one word always used for biology, male or female applicable for the vast majority of the population, would make for more precision than having more than one term, especially when those other terms are also used at times for something besides biology.

Came across this and immediately thought of your comment. Strategic gleaning… https://www.thechurchnews.com/1992/1/25/23259884/some-things-uniquely-lds/

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1992/1/25/23259884/some-things-uniquely-lds/ Take your pick

This would be a problem with anything that wasn’t a common concrete word or it’s the connotation that matters, like Laurels (though laurel wreaths are originally Greek iirc, would this be associated with honor in Asian and other areas that don’t draw much of their heritage from the Greek civilization even if familiar with the tree because of cooking as Asian cooking at least includes the laurel version of bay leaves as well as others?). Builders, Messengers, Gatherers are as concrete roles as Priests and Teachers. Deacons take a little religious info to understand probably. I have seen Deacon used with non Christian faiths when translating, I haven’t paid close enough attention to what is said rather than the subtitles to hear if “deacon” was actually used or if it’s the translation only.

To me safety is of prime importance. Choose the method that doesn't just create the greatest perception of safety for the most people, whoever they are, but the one that actually lowers violence, bullying, etc the lowest and then if people are unhappy, provide education and if they refuse to accept the facts, then it will just have to penetrate their awareness by living it.

While this is ideal imo, this is still a problem in preexisting buildings such as schools that would require significant investment to create single use options that are not out of the way. And what if there are multiple users besides the likely few transgendered individuals who want to use single use during the breaks between classes? Autistic, sensory sensitive, socially shy, kids with health issues…physical or emotional, etc all would likely prefer single use options (that would have been so lovely if allowed when I was a kid as smells, noise, and lights were stressful for me as well as always wondering what do I need to say if I see someone in the bathrooms so I preferred use during class time to breaks, but knew my teachers disliked that…which caused other issues). —— Anyone know if bathrooms in elementary and secondary schools are sex segregated in countries that have mixed sexes in other public spaces? Curious because issues of bullying seem like they would be more likely to happen in elementary and secondary schools where kids know each other than total strangers. And the whole lack of impulse control in youth makes me think that might be asking for trouble. Not that there isn’t bullying by the same sex, just that it adds another layer to for youth to deal with.

What would you considered not loaded and not ambiguous?

Okay, I get what you mean now….I think. The sets in my view overlap more like Venn diagrams rather than a tree (can’t remember the most accurate word) because “woman” and “man” are used in multiple ways. I don’t see it an issue for biological men to be called “trans women” or some other variation using “women” if they look like females. I am in transition over whether it makes sense to ask others to call oneself a woman when one presents (outward appearance is biologically male), haven’t made up my mind yet because expectations are so dependent are appearance and roles are about expectations more than anything else in my experience. While I think it is polite to call someone the label they wish to be called, especially if the only work it adds amounts to the same level as remembering a name, if what is wanted is more complicated than that for some reason, while it may be uncomfortable for the transgendered individual, it makes sense to me to have realistic expectations of others and that means their habitual practices will be the default unless asking first becomes required by their job. But I could change my mind on this. Racial segregation would still be going on (and is in some ways) if we waited until it became comfortable for people. I don’t know well enough how much being treated as one’s preferred gender even when one doesn’t look like that affects quality of life. Extrapolating from my own experience of discrimination against females growing up, how my appearance excluded me from many opportunities just because I was never considered because I was a “girl” even though I didn’t feel like a “girl” to myself (didn’t feel like a boy for sure either in case someone was wondering, my gender has always been “me” in the sense of it was the only ‘place’ I fit) likely isn’t that accurate because I didn’t want to be a part of something because of my gender identity, but only if I was interested in what was going on in a group. I have always thought as “woman” as more of an appearance or social role myself. I don’t have the least problem calling myself female, that’s my biology. “Woman” is different though. I always feel it’s off to call myself that. It doesn’t describe who I am in the way I was taught to understand “woman”, which was a particular role or set of expectations (and there were so many I hated) more than my biology. Up until meeting other females on this board, I never felt a part of any women’s social group. I hung out with girls when younger only because it was what I was told I had to do, I was more interested and enjoyed the boys’ company more. I wasn’t interested in what girls talked about back then except for a few girls who were into horses, I wanted to do workshop, not home ec; boys gravitated towards science and math, which was my center. I didn’t like being called a girl. I loved my name (short form) because it was used by boys more than girls at that time. As an adult, I was bored to death talking about family and extended family with women, in church, at family reunions, practically everywhere women gathered. I don’t want to approach the scriptures in a devotional way which was all I got in RS or from other women (until I got into apologetics), but with scholarship and treating scripture from an academic POV. I found men who enjoyed this, no women. I have always thought men’s clothing was more comfortable, hated dresses. Since I have been choosing my clothing, it’s always pants if I have a choice. Never wore a skirt in 4 years of high school. My closet has no lace, but lots of collared button-down ‘boy shirts’. My husband always gives me his hand me downs. If my shape allowed it, you would only see me shop in the men’s aisles. You get better made clothing for less. My chosen haircuts were all male style except when I was trying to see how long I could grow my hair out (got down to my hips, but new babies pull on it so). It’s not that I wanted to be male or a man, they just had better options for what I wanted. I just wasn’t invested in most things “women”. Even the motherhood thing…it was just me doing it, it never made me feel “female” or “womanly” or bonding with other females generally speaking. So this whole idea that “women” has this inherent meaning of female just doesn’t gel with me. All it’s meant to me all my life is people making the wrong assumptions about me and having to work hard to inform them and failing a great deal. Others might not feel that way, I get it, but making “woman” the social identity and female the biology one is my preference. I could convey my personal stance a lot quicker if it was understood that way generally. In my head, female is always biology, woman is social most often (if I am repeating or modifying in my head what others say, woman may be used for female because they used it that way). Having said that, with my spoken or written language, I typically go with what’s the default understanding because I don’t like making waves when I have to deal with them immediately, lol. I need time to deal with intensity, especially aggressiveness/confrontation or even confusion and only writing gives me that typically. —— A cis woman is always a biological woman whose appearance is typically seen as feminine, female. This is in most people’s views in my experience at this time what is meant when they only see one word alone, “woman”. I doubt if those who see “woman” as a social identity is even a large minority yet. A ciswoman presents the same as her biology. “Cis” is Latin for “on the same side”, iow presentation/cosmetic matches what’s underneath (cellular/physical state at birth) A “biological woman” however includes the possibility of being a cis woman, but includes other possibilities as well. Adding a descriptor to “woman” here signals one sees a need to be more precise, which does imply an understanding that “woman” means more than just “female”.

No, biological women is the broader category, the two subsets being ciswomen and trans men. This is the most common usage, I don’t remember seeing it used a different way except by someone intentionally trying to be confusing with a parody (badly done, so I am assuming it was a parody), guessing from what they said they were conservative as they were mocking the use of trans or transgendered women for biological males.

It is confusing because technically “biological women” could mean trans men because people often use female and women interchangeably and indeed it’s become a political issue for some to try and require female and women to be seen as identical and not applied to trans women (biologically male or assigned male at birth). Cisgender women works best in my view as it means female in both biology and appearance.

I just stumbled across this FB clip on a Ted talk about language where precise language of north-northeast, etc is used by a culture, in the case referred to instead of left and right even, which results a population who stays much better oriented than was expected. I am not saying ancient Jews used such Precise directional language or whoever Lehi’s family hung out with (I have heard claims they were involved in trade) were trained this way. I am wondering if it is possible because it seems like traders might require such precise language. https://www.ted.com/talks/lera_boroditsky_how_language_shapes_the_way_we_think

Out of curiosity, why is “look” in quotes? Not challenging, trying to understand what you are trying to convey since it appears you mean something different than simple appearance.

This…Seeking is presenting what I think better than I am, so I will leave it to him for now.

Yeah, I think our greater culture is such now that these terms are generic enough that it wouldn’t take that long to get used to using them for both males and females. But then you have to explain why the young women are called priests and deacons, but hold no priesthood authority (unless that change also occurred). I think too many would think it’s political correctness trying to appear like equality…either from one side thinking the Church is giving into social pressure or the other thinking it’s the Church trying to look like they are changing things without actually changing anything. It’s logical choice to me given how priesthood is now taught from the pulpit, teaching those labels are indicative of both a greater role shared by both male and females, but that also includes a subset of those who ordained to perform certain services. Kind of like how Levities had priests and nonpriests.

I want to see that stats that show we needed the laws in the first place, that this isn’t a cause looking for a problem before I see the need to start figuring out a new limiting principle.

Good, because with a law requiring trans men to use women’s public bathrooms no matter how transitioned they are, women will still have to guess whether that individual who looks like a biological male and who even has a penis has a legal right or not to be in that bathroom or locker room.

Lawyers or others familiar with the process, your input is being requested… This is the “Prayer for Relief” section below. What are the implications of this? Is it likely besides requiring removal of any copyright and insisting on a disclaimer or removal of anything that looks similar that damages would be given? From webbles’ link, I can repost it if wanted.

Since light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum with a wide range of effects like radiation, seems like any advanced race would eventually figure out light exists and therefore ways to measure it. I don’t see how they would have been able to survive space without some concept of light/EM radiation. They therefore had to have some form of perception and measurement. (All electromagnetic radiation has the same speed limit, has photons, etc) We filled in the gaps where we couldn’t naturally perceive this radiation added: haven’t read book or seen movie, so when I saw advanced race, I assumed space faring. Pretty sure you would have knowledge of relativity before you left the planet (needing to understand why time was different, be able to successfully track, etc). Apparently they were not though. This was the most informative answer I found on Reddit; since it makes sense to me, I assume it’s right, lol: https://www.reddit.com/r/ProjectHailMary/comments/1mceo56/why_didnt_the_eridians_know_about_relativity/

My daughter’s was from a fantasy role playing ham.

Profound or meaningful in purpose…I am waffling. Profound needs to come naturally and it doesn’t feel like that in this case. It also doesn’t feel quite there, not particularly insightful for example. I hope they tested them out on actual young women and made it explicit they wanted sincere answers even if they hated them. They are the ones that matter. The names are quite proactive, doing something in assertive ways. I like that a lot.