Calm

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.

Those can be dang painful. I drink warm water if it’s available That is likely to cause some serious bloat even for those with a healthy gut.

One of our stake Patriarchs practically commanded us to “pass on what happens in the Temple” to our children. Said we weren’t preparing them enough and it was our duty to overcome our reluctance. He stated only the very specific things that were identified were the only things that were restricted. We should feel comfortable sharing anything else in a respectful manner in a respectful setting. He suggested a great time would be when we were preparing temple clothing to go to the temple, packing or ironing and kids were hanging around. FHE as well. Our children were his focus but respectful neighbours and friends were fine to answer their questions as well. He might have even labeled our cultural tradition of not saying anything as Pharisaical, way too big of a hedge. He did say it was harmful and not respectful in the right way as we should be embracing our chances to show our joy and commitment by sharing what we can rather than feeling awkward and worried. Fantastic presentation (it was a Sunday evening fireside, room was packed)

That was what I was going to say. They have a purpose inherently attached to them that hopefully will get taken seriously in teaching young women their value to the Church since imo that is currently missing.

Looks like it happened between Feb 15 (not there) and 27 (there)

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/04/19/lds-church-sues-mormon-stories/#:~:text=LDS Church sues 'Mormon Stories,that name for 20 years. Because it’s so cooperative to commit to not using copyright images only to go ahead and do so….kind of like promising one wasn’t going to record a private meeting or publish it and then doing so.

I assume most commandments about death are in consideration of mortal feelings. Possibly most commandments about anything. I don’t think we would require so many layers of instruction if we were capable of seeing things in an eternal, godly sense. It would be rather straightforward. “Love one another as I have loved you.” After all the “one” includes God. If we could see the consequences of our behaviour before we acted, we could see what the ultimate acts of love we could perform would be….and everything just falls in line.

It was mentioned in the Trib article from last year I posted earlier.

I wanted to mention the whole confusion thing is real and problematic for more than just thinking critical sites are friendly towards the Church when they are not. When FAIR owned this website, we had people condemning the Church for allowing such unChristlike behaviour (arguments between critics and members). Anytime FAIR pushes the envelope and often when it doesn’t, we get condemnation of the Church as if it’s the puppet master controlling our strings, vetting all our content (they don’t)….from both members and nonmembers. Plus when I worked at a non affiliated LDS bookstore in Canada (Beehive Books in Calgary, associated with Cardston Books), I lost track of people coming in saying “the Church has vetted all this, right?”. We had nonChurch related books like Harry Potter and Judy Blume on our shelves, so that always made me smile. We did sell some stuff from Church Distribution and Deseretbooks, but there are nonChurch ownrd LDScentric publishers out there. We even had one or two church critical books on the shelves, possibly by mistake because when I pointed out one to the manager, though she did nothing right away, it was gone next time I came into work. People assumed we had oversight just like Church Distribution, it was as good as church published if in our store. In and out of the Church, there seems to be many who assume the Church puts a lot more effort into overseeing and making sure members conform than they do. It is more honor system than Big Brother in my experience.

Shocker! PS: just in case it comes across that way, not saying the Church would refuse permission to nonaffiliated prochurch member sites for everything they don’t want on nonmember sites. I think there is likely a difference, just makes sense. I don’t know about the specifics of getting permission and what was required for licensing, haven’t seen the letters, etc. I do know FAIR chooses to abide by the Church’s direction if they ever bother to give it to us (I do know we have wanted it at times and not gotten it, I assume the reverse is probably true as well ) as not upper management (my only official roles besides volunteering with email questions have been with the bookstore for a bit and then membership clerk). I do know that avoiding confusion is one of the reasons given by the Church for trademark compliance to prochurch sites as well as critical ones.

So I decided I had to go view a YouTube episode and noticed the Spotify and other options. As far as I can see there is no disclaimer on their Spotify page. You have to open the description to see the one liner disclaimer with the trademark on YouTube, not in the video anywhere that I saw or heard (just watched the beginning and ending). Not seeing a disclaimer anywhere on the Apple podcast version either.