Calm

Here’s two to get you started. Pretty easy to find, though the science is developing still of course…they need more and larger studies that control for various variables, imo, but it’s something that shouldn’t be dismissed outright. MRI research studies are expensive, so it is understandable why this isn’t something immediately determined. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/

Maybe demand in Utah will slow down a bit for winter. I hope so, because I need to downsize before they start falling off of me and it’s getting close to the point of where I can’t put it off any longer.

Is everyone who posted okay with this thread disappearing? I will request it, if so, though nemesis may still leave it.

In many cases to protect men from having to endure the presence of women…except servers, courtesans or outright prostitutes and probably cleaners. Gentlemen’s clubs, for example. Pubs and bars. Ladies rooms at some of said establishments popped up in late 19 century. Iow, traditionally speaking women were part of the service, not the ones being served, kept safe (more often the reverse). All male gyms date back to Ancient Greece. Women only gyms (independent of schools) I believe early 1900s. Fraternal organizations. Need I say more than the name? Barbershops another ancient tradition where female version showed up in modern times. Same with public restrooms as mentioned by webbles earlier. Prior to 19th century “sex segregated” typically meant “no women…’respectable’ at least…allowed” I would describe truly sex segregated spaces (spaces available for both, but each designated for one sex and still not always in equal numbers, not just including one sex and excluding the other) as a hundred and fiftyish year old tradition. About the same length of time as the flush toilet. Potty parity didn’t start to occur in the US until 1989 though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potty_parity Title IX has been around 17 years longer that equal toilet rights for women…and what those rights mean are still being defined…varies by number of fixtures available, floor space, stalls, wait times, etc. Then there were the race segregated public restrooms only ended in 1964. Acting like restroom laws or policy has been set in porcelain forever with its fine traditions proven by the test of time….nah, that’s just ignorance, which is likely pretty common. The history of the Crapper (named for a plumbing company that is still in existence apparently) is all I remember being taught on the subject or anything related in school…and inaccurately at that, probably in history where mortality rates and such started going down due to inventions and public policy using them. Seems to me we haven’t even moved out of the testing stage yet such things, so adjusting here and there based on information properly gathered about practical realities (and not just anecdotal or even speculative ‘evidence’) seems like a wise idea, imo.

Wouldn’t ‘they don’t believe they are transgender, but tell people they are’ be that option? Just like pretending to be a doctor means someone doesn’t believe they are a doctor but tell people they are? Or if you want something purely subjective, they don’t believe they are shy, don’t feel shy, but tell people they are and act in ways they think shy people act….that’s pretending to be shy. And being shy can fen become an identity or part of one’s identity. It certainly was for me for a good chunk of my life, more important than being female as it felt Ike it had a much greater impact on what I could an couldn’t do.

It’s Utah Valley, it was a long shot even if not that far from the church (1/2 mile to the southwest)

The real life ramifications of requiring all biological women to use the same facilities no matter what they present as is that real biological women will not be able to tell when real people who present as real men walk into their space whether or not they have a right to be there (because they are actually trans men who are biologically female) or do not (because they are not trans, but actually men who present as male deciding to invade female spaces, sometimes for reasonable reasons such as helping a daughter use the facility and feel safe ). I am not interested at this point until dealing with that reality is explained in detail how that will be dealt with rather than being dismissed as not important enough for whatever reason, something besides what is being thrown out there again, which likely will end up imposing on women and again forcing them to deal with laws others make “for them” without actual consideration for what women actually want…which from what I have seen is they want sex separated spaces (that’s me), but a majority of women lean towards gender identity inclusive (me: if they look like women, then for their safety and mine, please come in; if not, show me how your plan is going to make me and other women feel safer because not seen it so far. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/09/28/3-public-split-over-bathroom-use-by-transgender-people/ Unfortunately most surveys appear to just use questions about gender assigned at birth or gender identity and not actual gender presentation, which is what is going to matter more in real life where it’s faces and bodies that get the once over, not ids or birth certificates vs the theoretical, where this reality moot even be mentioned, just the reality of those who do not in physical appearance pass as the gender they identify as. If they can make laws excluding any males from using women’s restrooms, why can’t they make laws excluding men from holding coaching positions in women’s sports. (Of course that would cut into the benefits of a typical white male with 1/3 to over 1/2 of women’s teams are likely coached by white males, probably around 5200 head coach jobs alone). After all, there’s pretty solid documentation that having male coaches—whose aggressive behavior is more often seen as acceptable where women coaches doing the same is generally interpreted as abusive, out of control—put the girls and women at greater risk for grooming and sexual abuse if you want to address an actual case of such and not just theoretical. https://www.propublica.org/getinvolved/what-parents-should-know-sexual-abuse-youth-sports-aau-safesport https://uscenterforsafesport.org/impact-report/

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. (In California in 2024, apparently over 900 cases were opened against individuals attempting this.) 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 besides you 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?