Calm

If you read the talk, he is definitely talking generally imo. He is talking to the audience as one community of which he is part.

I agree. I think one could point out the difference by looking at someone when their health gets to the point they can no longer serve. Do they get severance pay or does the allowance continue? If no cut in pay for less or no service, it’s not a salary imo.

It was just strange to me you referenced solely the men who would feel awkward and not the women. I was trying to figure out what you were talking about….I assumed you yourself were referring to trans women, the edge cases in your view who do not visually look like they should be in a woman’s bathroom and was wondering if you saw something different between the cases. I didn’t mean you to repeat everything, didn’t mean to make you work, could have just said something along the lines of left out the biological women, but they are included, of course, in the same line of reasoning.

What about transgender men/biological women? Di you think they may have difficulties using women’s restrooms, they might be harassed, recorded, threatened as well? (Maybe not hands on physically threatened in that moment though might be given some behaviour by offended women I have seen, but put at risk by being recorded, doxxed, etc)?

Quite possibly, would need to think about it. I would assume it would be a list of behaviors that would be outlawed. I think for me the male/female appearance is a predictor of behaviour and I am uncomfortable with behaviours that are more typically performed by males (aggressiveness, intrusiveness, loudness). Therefore a more aggressive (violent graphic T-shirt, hair and jewelry reminiscent of bike gangs, etc) male appearance even in obvious women I think triggers alarms for me. OTOH, someone who has made an effort to be dressed in typical every day female apparel is going to read to me “they aren’t here to be noticed or make trouble” and so it’s likely I will feel safe around them. But given my mild face blindness, maybe I focus more on clothes and hair than others do. I would like to see studies on what signals “safe” to a variety of people to see how others think about safety.

At this point, this is probably the closest to my actual position if you are interested in that, smac. It is not what I am currently exploring though. I also recognize that for many “appearance” counts as what someone “does”, so not sure how to achieve this.

Like I said I know people—and they aren’t mostly wealthy—that pay tithing on any money that comes to them, no matter how (not change back on the dollar kind of thing, but what they consider significant). This included in one case a scholarship.

Nope. At this point it seems to me any new law is going to screw it up given what I am seeing. I am not decided for anything at this point beyond I want people to be safe and feel safe (and when positions contradict, I would go for maximum benefit determined by number of individuals) and I would like that to be the purpose of the laws, but the laws themselves as well as how they are being enacted too quickly and too vaguely different do not seem to be heading in a safe direction to me.

Yes….if you mean my position for this discussion only. At this point I am avoiding ideological or morality arguments and am simply examining what law, if any, could maximize women’s sense of safety. Even if it’s a statistically small amount of transgender individuals that clearly pass as the sex they want to be, anticipation of a possible occurrence can drive up anxiety and the feeling of being threatened and cause someone to completely avoid a situation…and anticipation is not always connected to statistical reality. So dismissing something as not necessary to think about because it’s unlikely doesn’t apply when talking about sense of safety. For that sense of safety, seems to me it could be useful to create an exception biological females could apply for if they believe they would pass as male in a visual evaluation. If the evaluator agrees, they could be granted some sort of ID showing an exception…though with their appearance I don’t see any reason why someone would ever challenge them. And same thing for biological females who would clearly pass as male to avoid not only awkwardness and embarrassment of men using the facilities, but remove the likelihood of harassment and violence that someone who looks like a woman too often encounters if they go in men dominated spaces. This above is a discussion meant to help me understand what you see as the purpose of the law because for the life of me, I can’t understand how it improves safety or the sense of safety to require the cases where there would be overwhelming consensus someone is male to use the women’s restrooms or the reverse of someone who the vast majority of people would assume to be female using the men’s restrooms.

Elder Erying paid tithing on his. Whether that was by choice, iow an exception among apostles, or standard understanding (there are those who tithe on gifts, etc), I have no clue. We just have the calculation on the back of his pay stub iirc.

I mean those who actually look like men but are biologically female. Not interested in the why or how practically speaking when it’s my instinct for protection involved. See the pictures Analytics posted of biological women. Could you tell they were transgender from those photos given their very significant masculine attributes? If so, how? They are more masculine than most men I know in real life.

But if the point of the law is to increase both the safety and the perception of safety for women and girls in general in sex segregated spaces, how is requiring someone who looks predominantly male and likely sounds male (the voice can change with meds as well as there’s voice therapy to help with a more masculine sounding voice) to use the women’s bathroom going to not backfire and cause more fear?

How is using a driver’s license not requiring ID in those cases? I get there is no guard at the door (unless self appointed) checking IDs every time. That is why I am curious on how it will be practically done. Seems problematic to set up a law that gets implemented immediately without at least a general outline of safeguards against using the law for harassment.

So they can sue for up to $1000 if they believe a transgender person has invaded the wrong space and they have standing (they were using that space or wanted to use it). Again, besides carrying ID at all times, what can a woman who looks or sounds rather masculine or for another reason gets challenged do to avoid having to prove she is not transgender to stop such actions before they occur? To not have to get into discussions with police and others demanding she prove her biological sex? How do you imagine this going down if someone decides to take advantage of the law to get some money for whatever reason, valid or not? I am curious as to not just the law, but how you see it working. Texas has this example: https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2026-02-24/kansas-bathroom-law-transgender-texas

The lack of centralization of most Protestant churches as well as some other denominations makes for a very different history. Do you just document since the specific group started to be considered “open” or do you trace back to Luther and others, then down through the Catholic Church back to Christ? Then there’s the fact one could go to the library and find pretty detailed histories of Catholic and Protestant faiths in general. Iirc, some of the Catholics here have reported part of the catechism of investigators in the Catholic Church is teaching the history. That’s quite accessible and open history (assuming it’s accurate and somewhat detailed, but that’s a lot to cover, so I assume some stuff gets left out unless asked about) imo if my memory is correct.

Yes, eventually it all gets down to “it just is” whether it’s God alone or all eternally existent beings and a material something they exist within.

I very much agree with this. There might be some frustration and sorrow with what some have inferred from this belief, including what follows from God being the only one who existed before he created. For example, If it leads some to deny we are his literal children and we actually are. (which belief comes first and which follows?) God is the only one who has always existed or God created everything else out of nothing). So…..the only thing God could exist within would be God. Hmmm…

In the sense of reason yes, in the sense of being able to visualize or comprehend it…nope. The closest I get to it is thinking how I create by first visualizing in my head what I want and then I take what is required to create it. But if I understand correctly, you are saying God simply thinking (or what he does in this process) of something is enough for it to take form. Nothing else shifts in any way, material or immaterial. The creation just is.

If people can collect bounties by identifying lawbreakers, how do you think women are going to able to respond to accusations?

To clarify: “ex nihilo” simply refers to the physical world of matter and energy, nothing physical?

Can you get where the Journal got it from?

No, they don’t. They may claim to be true (and even that is not precise) but not all claim uniqueness in being the “one true church”. And technically (at least for revealed truth) it’s “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased” which may not be the same thing. https://benspackman.com/2017/01/quick-thoughts-dc-130-true-living-church/ https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70969-what-does-it-mean-that-this-is-the-true-church/page/2/#findComment-1209849454 It helps to read carefully, in particular to consider that the Biblical uses of the words "true" and "living" in passages like "living waters", "true vine", living bread, etc. match the themes of D&C 1 overall. https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69911-one-true-church-virtue-or-vice/page/12/#findComment-1209789097 added: I see Navidad already addressed this sufficiently

Wiki says Midway, Utah (if what you meant is you didn’t know where he was originally from as the article is only telling you where he is currently from; the “but” is confusing me ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_David_Hendry

Title? Author please?

Possibly. Another possibility is the sad fact that gabepentin loses effectiveness for many over time and what might look like augmentation is simply return of symptoms, unlike the dopamine agonists that increase symptoms from the original baseline. There is a difference between a med slowly not working and so upping the dose to try to get the same relief and the drug making symptoms worse so one increases it, compounding the problem. Also note it’s a pediatric case. That rate for adults is much lower than for the dopamine agonists (given in an above study), but I did overstate that there was no augmentation. Good you corrected me. Thank you, Most people revert to pretreatment levels with the dopamine agonists after a few weeks, though it may be more gradual, thankfully. However some won’t completely reverse. Can be hard to tell because the disorder is progressive. I suspect mine had a substantial increase that wasn’t resolved given the dramatic difference between the increase over the 3-4 years I was on them vs the 25 years I have been on the other drug (RLS never increased for ten years based on no change in meds and has decreased some the last ten years). I know I am not the only one with permanent significant effects because of the group I was in, but I am grateful that I am atypical at least in this way. But thanks for bringing this study to my notice. It appears to be new, so may end up with other studies countering the usual explanation. Gabapentin has been used much more extensively in general than the dopamine agonists, so there’s some related data that’s been available through that already. I don’t know the extent of RLS studies on Gabapentin to know if the issue is not enough cases of long term use, I will be rather surprised if it is, but will research it before making any conclusion. Added: sorry for the additional post. There was actually a valid, informative link in this one, I felt it appropriate to respond to since I had already responded to the rest.