Calm

Against the rules unless things have changed.

I don’t see an issue with making exceptions for exceptional cases. The law doesn’t have to be all or nothing. There could be a process to be declared an exception by a committee if it turns out that self appraisal of how much one passes is not enough. This would not make it so anyone who wants to can use any facilities.

Somethings had been wiggling in my brain for sometime on this and I think I may have pinpointed what it is. You keep saying in response to pictures where the person has not only fully transitioned (except perhaps for bottom surgery, with clothes on, one can’t determine that) but truly looks like the opposite of their biological sex…the cases where I believe they should be allowed to use the restrooms of their appearance, not their biology to avoid biological women feeling unsafe because an apparent male had invaded women’s only spaces, that edge cases should not decide law. But why would we need to indicate biological sex on IDs except for those edge cases? Those are the cases where the IDs provide information one’s eyes do not. Serious question, not a gotcha as I am trying to understand the reasoning.

No, whether or not the person has transitioned As would putting biological sex on the ID of a person who clearly looks like the opposite of that sex. At the very least hormonal treatment.

And if all Elder Shumway was doing was taking credit for all the work the general membership was doing you might have a point, but he wasn’t. He was sharing his own past experiences as a member who served without financial support (last I heard activities planner is not a paid calling), he was honoring those who now served and then he shared reasons why we do this. His past experiences and ability to reflect on those was not invalidated because now he gets a living allowance. Giving recognition to volunteers is important. I think it’s a good thing when leadership doesn’t act like such work should be a given no matter what and instead show appreciation for it. I have always found it unfortunate when appreciation of our own turns into condemnation of the ways others serve God. Choosing to devote one’s whole career to serving God and his people is a major sacrifice, imo, for the vast majority of those who feel called to the ministry. That sacrifice should be recognized even if one believes there are difficulties a professional clergy can create. It’s not as if there aren’t major difficulties by having amateurs and more or less an honor system being the backbone of our teaching and missionary service. Both have pros and cons.

Thinking more of the hassle as in additional work and personnel needed and added inconvenience for others, those types of costs, not just financial. I suspect most prophets wouldn’t want to put a significant additional burden on others to keep him safe just so he was in his own home when there was another, already secured and paid for most likely place for him to stay. And just because the money is there doesn’t mean someone feels okay spending the Church’s money on themselves for a personal reason.

They were quite fun.

I am pretty sure it’s not in terms of at least links either he or others have posted. I have recently read an article or two (can’t remember if one article contain multiple stories or each article had one) where the individual describe where every case now they share the experience of others seeing their ID now and recognizing they are transgender and has transitioned, etc. I don’t believe I went looking for articles on this on my own lately, so it would have been here I got them. The number of transgenders who has access to medical treatment wasn’t that high in the past and just because society didn’t care at the time to protect this type of information doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. There is more reason to have my opioid use marked on my license as that could affect driving and issues with incarceration if I didn’t have access to my medication. I still don’t want that info to be on my license as I get enough looks from doctors and other medical professionals when they learn that I take them. If doctors have had a problem with seeing me like a drug addict (thankfully none of my long term ones treat me that way…they probably would not be long term if they did, then I really don’t want anyone else who has no clue on why or how I take them (20years at same prescribed or lower dose, tried every other med recommended and a few just suggested as possible for my disorder that my doctors offered me). I am sharing the above as an example of why I don’t believe sensitive and/or controversial medical information should be required on a license if the more relevant medical info like blood type and drug that affect driving use isn’t.

Excellent point, imo. Especially with the real world example of the confusion it caused. Smac, do you have any actual examples, not just hypotheticals where having the sex on a driver’s license helped clarify anything other than someone’s biological sex? I remember some general hypotheticals you posted, but can’t remember specific real world examples. If you have posted them, no need to repost as extremely long posts actually make it harder for me to remember details. I would prefer just a link to your post that has that info. The medical info is the only one I can think of that might be helpful due to the person being unconscious and unable to supply info themselves. I asked Chat if a biological sex marker on an id could prevent confusion for first responders in an emergency. Blood type seems more relevant to me to have on an ID to save crucial time, so it doesn’t seem like medical necessity is a valid reason lawmakers insisted a biological sex marker be on an ID or they would be including blood type as well.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/08/17/kearns-shooting-1-killed-2-injured/ Chat claimed the funeral was for a gang member, but I am not seeing that in the links it gave me, so could have made it up. Maybe mixed up with previous shooting? You don’t have to be LDS to use our chapels for funerals, but the family likely were imo. Now gang members being active or devout…that is more debatable. Iirc, one of the people involved in the previous case had spoken at the funeral and then went outside to smoke…again doesn’t mean not active and devout as we had a neighbour who had reactivated, but struggled with a smoking addiction, beat it too eventually, but it took its toll, died recently. Good guy. Still someone smoking or being in a gang…bet that links with a significant drop in activity level

Have no clue. Family probably originally was, but many have been here for several generations (started coming in the 1920s, really established in the 1950s). Not all who came were LDS converts though. https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=52551592&itype=cmsid

In Utah if using the chapel for a funeral, you tend to live in the same neighborhood. Gangs can overlap the same neighborhood surely? A church parking lot is an easy gathering place whether one is there or not for church. Our chapel parking lot in CA was a school bus stop and often where people carpooling would meet as they headed up to the freeway. I suspect very few parking there were LDS. It was the only place to park safely on that somewhat long stretch….think there was also an empty lot at the intersection with the freeway (or the road that went to the freeway, should doublecheck the map). 1/3 of the kids waiting for the bus were LDS for high school because of seminary. Just me for junior high because we lived down the street. added: memory was right, it was the freeway. They have a Caltrans Park and Ride there now. The busstop by the Church is even officially marked. Only one on the road…which wasn’t as long as I remembered it, but very wooded. I would always get lost driving around up there in my dreams, lol. The Church parking lot is really the best meeting place in the area with easy access to the freeway. The rest of the road is residential except for a little fruit stand.

It makes as much sense to me as anything I or any other LDS has come up with about the ultimate…the ultimate is grounded in mystery.

Correct. I had forgotten them. My memory remembers the MP in Moscow as having both college age kids and a three year old, but now I am wondering if I am mixing up his family with the bishop’s. We took the little girl to the zoo with our 5 year old. (Who is now 36, so reasonable my memory is uncertain). There weren’t a lot of animals and the ones there often looked pretty sad as they had been suffering, sometimes starving, heard a few got stolen and sold, some maybe even eaten during the previous turmoil. Anyway, the MP would have had to be rich to have his family with him there added to clarify: and not get a stipend for that from the Church. Added: My husband confirms he had his family. Can’t remember who the girl belonged to though. Half our life ago almost, he pointed out. More I think about it, the more I think the little one was the bishop’s. She was born in Finland as at that time it was safer to fly mummy there to deliver than stay in Moscow’s hospitals. Which means they were there longer than three years.

Perhaps for a different kind of gas since she’s teaching teenagers?

Does everyone with a living allowance live in Utah? At least longterm. Iirc, those who lived elsewhere had to move to Utah once called as a General Authority, but I am not sure for those besides Apostles. I could see if having a calling where they lived outside the US temporarily, having an additional stipend if necessary to cover additional expenses relevant to a particular country/countries while still getting the same overall allowance. We could have never lived in Moscow without a stipend from the US government on top of the usual salary, for example, when my husband taught there on a Fulbright grant.

Not quite similar because General Authorities have spent a very significant amount of their service not being paid even a living allowance, so it would be closer to a General who had extensive combat experience themselves but now sent people into combat. While I don’t see this talk not mentioning it as a lie or hidden and he certainly was personally familiar with the experience of serving without pay, so could speak directly to that experience with accuracy and intimacy, my nitpicking nerve does think it would be a good idea to mention the living allowance in perhaps a footnote. I would say in the talk itself, but not sure how that wouldn’t create an awkward transition. That offends my aesthetic side, lol.

Security costs would be an issue now, imo.

Gas money….

Just to be clear as I am assuming you are specifically speaking to webbles here, maybe in general men, while this may be how men view the situation, with women there is also “will they assault me?” often in the thought process. Which is not something to “get over” in my view given it is a real possibility and occurrence for too many (since typically one can’t tell if someone is gay or not from appearance plus violence against women isn’t always sexually driven). You can ignore looks, ignoring assaults isn’t healthy.

I am assuming clothing and wig are just the usual vibe, nothing exotic about them. First I would ask their preference, talk about likely occurrences as well. I don’t see if they use the men’s restroom they are being as safe or feeling as safe as they should be even if it’s only looks they get and not snide remarks or even verbal abuse in your building. But maybe the vibe in your building is more open. If they are there for therapy, it’s hardly helpful they have to worry about possible harassment at a time it’s better they are opening up. At the very least they are risking getting filmed. This needs to be protected against if possible. So choice of restroom should be their choice with adjustments to avoid potential confrontations. Is there someone in the office able to go with them to the restroom, safety in numbers kind of thing? Whichever one they choose? For me as a woman using the facilities, the dynamic is very much changed if I know a woman is with them. That reads to me this is a sincere person doing what they need to do, not a risk, just life as usual for them…or even if there is a risk, I don’t need to worry about it, stepping in to help or reassure because there is someone else there and at most I can follow their lead (trying to imagine various scenarios, the most likely bad one being another woman being upset and making harsh comments or taking pictures imo, I would want to step in to try and defuse the situation, but it would make me very anxious as it’s an unpredictable situation for me, I am not sure if my help would be wanted to begin with and that anxiety could easily be misread as rejection, which would be unfortunate). The companion can stay outside the restroom if there is no one else is using it if your client would prefer. Could even let anyone entering what’s going on…”my friend, who is transgender, is using the facility for a few minutes; feel free to go in if you are comfortable, but they thought you should have a choice rather than be surprised’ perhaps? Depends on how common this kind of thing is, if unexpected or not. If there is no one available to go in with them, maybe discuss options of approach and see what could work for both of you in order to find something they are comfortable with, but also lowers the possibility of confrontation as that can be detrimental for them as well. And of course, ensure they know clothes need to be fully back in place before leaving the stall. No exposure allowed. Since it’s a restroom and not a locker room, there should be no exposure, so it’s primarily a safety issue, imo. Unless there is additional mental health signals or aggressive moves, a dress signals nonaggressive to me. But best if another woman with them. Who is going to attempt an assault with a witness there? (There are predators who function in teams, but rare and if the vibe is “acquaintances” and not best buddies, probability is so low.) . Locker room, if they aren’t okay with dressing more male for the activity and using the men’s locker room until they more fully transition if they are going to do so (jeans and tshirt is female attire as well), I would push them to use only a woman’s locker room if possible with individual curtain or otherwise closed off stalls or change in the restroom or even a shower if it’s dry enough. On a practical point, I hope they sit down to avoid overspray for the next person. When using a woman’s restroom, use it like a woman would and leave it clean, please.

Different mission presidents I bet or whoever makes the decision.

I don’t care as long as they behave themselves. How would I even know to care if they pass as a woman?

Just like is and isn’t porn.

I completely agree. I don’t myself. That’s why I see an issue with the edge cases where someone can visually pass as the other sex. I would prefer to have a passing trans woman use the restroom I am in rather than a passing trans man. If that ever happens to me, I will be mildly freaked. Added: that freak will include significant vicarious anxiety and discomfort I assume the other will be feeling as most likely they really, really don’t want to be there.