smac97

I appreciate the acknowledgment. I think this is an important point, and I am glad we are more or less in agreement about it. I am not sure what you mean by "anti-trans" sentiments. Could you clarify what you mean? I also am not sure what you mean by "trans people don't exist." Is this a rhetorical or substantive point? For example, a person who goes by "Lia Thomas" exists. That person, formerly known as "William Thomas," clearly "exists," and he purports to "identify" as a "trans woman." So in that sense, "trans people" do "exist." On the other hand, this person is biologically male, and will always be so. Putting on cosmetic affectations to approximate the appearance of a woman, or even undergoing some medical/surgical interventions, will not make him a woman. There is no way for a human to "transition" from male to female, or vice versa. Calling this person a "trans person" might, for some, involve making an implicit concession that is contrary to reality (that a person can "transition" from one sex to the other). So in that sense, some folks might subscribe to the sentiment that "trans people" do not "exist." This would be in the same sense as declining to acknowledge someone as a "trans racial" (Rachel Dolezal) or "trans species" (Eva Tiamat Medusa) or "trans disabled" (the British woman who wants to have a doctor sever her spinal cord). Subjective self-identification, no matter how intensely felt, cannot supersede reality and biology. I appreciate you bringing this up, particularly in tandem with the "trans people don't exist" concept. You seem to be interpreting these sentiments substantively/literally (e.g., "Lia Thomas," a self-described "trans woman," literally does not exist), whereas I think the sentiment is intended in another way (e.g., the biological male f/k/a William Thomas n/k/a Lia Thomas is not, and never will be, a "woman," as there is no such thing as a human being who can "transition" from one sex to another). Elder Bednar was, I think it must be acknowledged, speaking in the latter sense. See, e.g., here: What the Media Got Wrong About Elder Bednar's Comments on Gay Members And yet Elder Bednar is still being criticized for his comment. I think those who have trumpeted Elder Bednar's decontextualized remark are indeed hoping to elicit "emotional, negative reactions." I think Elder Bednar is declining to go along with the notion of "sexual identity" in the modern sense (gay, bi, etc.). He is not alone. I think more and more people are declining to be "defined by sexual behavior" for themselves, and decline to view others through that lens. I think that is a reasonable position to take. I like the bolded part. I think it is a fair and accurate characterization of Elder Bednar's position. The context here really helps clarify what Elder Bednar meant. I think the foregoing sentiments, particularly the bolded part, bear frequent emphasis and repetition. I can and do identify nuance. For example, an appropriate and fair interpretation of Elder Bednar's comments requires some measure of nuance. Thanks, -Smac

I do not actively "oppose" same-sex marriage. I disagree with it in principle, as I think marriage is, or ought to be, per se as between a man and a woman. That said, I acknowledge and respect that same-sex marriage is the law of the land in the U.S., that such marriages are legally valid, that such marriages are valued by those participating in them, etc. In a somewhat similar vein, I likewise disagree with sex outside of marriage, but I do not "oppose" it in any active sense. Well, the thread is about "trans" issues, so I thought your comment about other people's "genitals" pertained to that (rather than to SSM). Broadly, no. I hold individual autonomy in high regard. I do have concerns/qualms with "transition surgery" for adults that does not sufficiently take into account comorbidities, informed consent, longitudinal data, and so on. I am concerned that such treatments are sometimes excused or privileged, on ideological and/or coercive grounds, from the normative vetting and oversight procedures intended to ensure medical ethics are observed. This is perhaps most obvious, to me, in the "I need this surgery otherwise I will kill myself"-style sentiments that are not only declared by the patients, but cited by the "medical professionals" as a fundamental basis and justification for the procedure, with phrasing like "life-saving." Broadly, yes, I believe people who identify as "trans" should be protected from discrimination in areas like employment and housing. I do not think this extends to women's spaces, though. Okay. Well, not totally. I think the "genitals" dig was, well, a dig. I think we can and should frame these issues in ways that are less loaded, provocative, etc. I say this globally, including to myself. Thanks, -Smac

I have been reading a book with my wife: Habits of a Peacemaker: 10 Habits to Change Our Potentially Toxic Conversations into Healthy Dialogues. It's quite good. One of the points he raises is the tendency to strawman or caricature the position/perspective of the other person, and to resist that tendency. I think the issue is better and more accurately framed this way: Many people (including, but not limited to, "conservatives") are broadly indifferent to and accommodating of the private lives and behaviors of others. The calculus changes, though, when children/minors are involved (much of this thread is taken up with discussion about the propriety of medical/surgical interventions on children as treatment for Gender Dysphoria). This is not, I think, because of some prurient or otherwise inappropriate "concern ... about what other people do with their genitals." Rather, sex trait modification procedures appear to give rise to substantial concerns about effectiveness, longitudinal data, comorbidities, informed consent, and so on. Adults have, for quite a while now, had access to medical procedures intended to cosmetically modify sex traits (mastectomies, penectomies, hormone treatments, tracheal shaving, etc.). Recent discussions have tended to center on whether these treatments are appropriate for children/minors, but also delve into concerns as to adults as well (such as comorbidities not being properly addressed). However, the calculus also changes for adults when "trans women" (that is, biological males) start entering into women's spaces: bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things, I suppose. I think the concerns about minors are both potent and important. I think the concerns and objections about men in women's spaces are likewise potent and important. I have a theory about why, when we have had "trans"-identifying persons for quite a while, we have only in the last few years ended up with a substantial amount of societal discord and controversy about these matters. Pediatric sex trait modifications are, I think, a novelty. So too are efforts by "trans women" (that is, biological males) to conspicuously - and sometimes even provocatively ("Lilly Tino" being perhaps the most obvious example) - enter into women's spaces. It's a seemingly new spate of problems arising from a long-time circumstance. I assume, then, that you would reject a description of your position along these lines: "I admit I continue to be baffled by the concern some people have about what children/minors do with their genitals." See, I think that just as you are justified in staking out a position on "trans matters for minors" without being subtly accused of having prurient motives, so too is the rest of society - including "conservatives" - justified in expressing concerns about, and staking out positions on, "trans women" (that is, biological males) entering into women's spaces: bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons. You and I appear to have the same position relative to minors/children. I am glad that we have some common ground. Thanks, -Smac

Look at my comments as only dealing with procedures that have the same medical outcomes for essentially the same purpose…making one look more like the sex one wants to appear as, at least culturally speaking as I don’t believe bigger breasts make a woman look more feminine nor do I believe bigger muscles make a guy look more masculine, but that is the way our culture has been presenting sexual appearance for quite some time. Respectfully, I can't go along with this framing. A medical procedure intended to make a biological male look more like a female(re: breasts) is materially distinguishable from a medical procedure intended to make a biological female look more like a female (re: breasts). I cannot agree that these have "essentially the same purpose" because the latter is medically ethical and the former is not. Remember I am solely talking about purely cosmetic procedures and solely top surgery for gender affirming surgery, so when you go to necrotizing tissue removal you are no longer talking about what I am talking about, so to say you disagree based on something that is outside the limits doesn’t make sense to me. This thread is about trans issues. I am speaking about that topic, including commentary that purports to speak on those issues. You now say you are commenting on "purely cosmetic procedures and solely top surgery for gender affirming surgery." At this point I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I think cosmetic surgery to treat Gender Dysphoria has all sorts of actual or potential problems with it. I suspect such surgical interventions are performed despite the presence of important countervailing considerations (comorbidities, lack of informed consent, lack of longitudinal data, etc.). Moreover, I am troubled at the notion that mastectomies and penectomies are ethically appropriate to treat GD, where elsewhere amputating a leg or severing a spinal cord as treatment for BIID is ethically prohibited. I do not understand why the latter is unethical and the former is just fine. I also have substantial qualms about medical interventions to treat GD in children and teens. Informed consent. Comorbidities. Lack of longitudinal data, and so on. For the same reasons that I am okay with amputating a leg when it is medically necessary and appropriate (to address necrotizing fasciitis) and when it is not (to address BIID). From my prior post: Adults can, I suppose, do as they please. I think medical ethics should address the concerns I have (comorbidities, etc.). Thanks, -Smac

Look at my comments as only dealing with procedures that have the same medical outcomes for essentially the same purpose…making one look more like the sex one wants to appear as, at least culturally speaking as I don’t believe bigger breasts make a woman look more feminine nor do I believe bigger muscles make a guy look more masculine, but that is the way our culture has been presenting sexual appearance for quite some time. Respectfully, I can't go along with this framing. A medical procedure intended to make a biological male look more like a female(re: breasts) is materially distinguishable from a medical procedure intended to make a biological female look more like a female (re: breasts). I cannot agree that these have "essentially the same purpose" because the latter is medically ethical and the former is not. Again, I see a world of difference between A) surgical interventions for someone with necrotizing fasciitis or gynecomastia and B) surgical interventions for someone with Gender Dysphoria or Body Integrity Identity Disorder. The "purpose" of the former is to treat well-known and well-established medical issues, the evidence for which treatment is substantial. The "purpose" of the latter is to treat a mental health disorder, the evidence for which treatment is very poor. The purposes are quite different. Again, I (respectfully) reject this framing. Cutting off a leg yields "the same medical outcomes" in the two scenarios I have referenced above (amputation due to necrotizing fasciitis and amputation to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder), but why these procedures are being done are vastly different from each other. It is reductionist to shrug off the vast differences in the circumstances of the two patients by saying, effectively, "Meh, they both end up without a leg, so potato, po-tah-to." Okay. I'm not really interested in debating the merits of cosmetic surgery for teens. I'm presently ambivalent about cosmetic surgeries for teens based on cosmetic/aesthetic preferences. My comments here pertain to medical interventions to treat Gender Dysphoria as compared to medical interventions to treat Body Integrity Identity Disorder. I most definitely agree. Okay. Thanks, -Smac

No, addressing only surgery right now, so that would be biological males who use breast implants to appear more feminine in their own eyes. So surgery on biological males as a "gender affirming" thing (i.e., to make them look more like women)? Thanks, -Smac

Matthew 25:16-17.

What "same purpose" are you referencing here? I see a world of difference between A) surgical interventions for someone with necrotizing fasciitis or gynecomastia and B) surgical interventions for someone with Gender Dysphoria or Body Integrity Identity Disorder. The "purpose" of the former is to treat well-known and well-established medical issues, the evidence for which treatment is substantial. The "purpose" of the latter is to treat a mental health disorder, the evidence for which treatment is very poor. The purposes are quite different. And then there's the risks, the irreversibility, the comorbidities, the impairment of sexual function and sensation and reproductive capacity, and so on. Pretty big difference there. If I want a medical procedure to make me look more like a male human, I think that is generally okay because I am a male human. In contrast, if I want a medical procedure to cut off my healthy leg because I "want to appear as" a one-legged person, or sever my spinal cord because I "want to appear as" a paraplegic, then those are very different purposes. That is, mastectomies? Cutting off a woman's or girl's perfectly healthy breasts because she "identifies" as a man, and so wants the procedure to help her look more like one? Not sure what this means. Are you referencing biological males who want to grow female-looking breasts as a "gender affirming" thing? Nor do I. I have a family member who had a pretty big nose in his teen years. He had surgery to make his nose smaller. It worked. I think we as a society need to allow each other substantial individual autonomy to do what we like with our bodies. There do, however, need to be limits, such as consideration of comorbidities, long-term efficacy, and so on. Okay. I would generally be against purely aesthetic breast augmentation for female teens. I think they need to wait until they are 18. Re: boys and gynomastia, I would leave that to him and his parents and his doctor and current ethical standards and evaluations (which, hopefully, including assessing for comorbidities and such). "This" being . . . what? No. I'm not sure how prevalent this issue (teen girls getting breast augmentations) is. Thanks, -Smac

Same medical outcomes? Agonizing regret for loss of procreative functions is FAR more serious than the vain regret of an unsatisfactory change in the "new body image". I really do not understand Calm's point here ("pretty much the same medical outcomes"). I appreciate the concern for consistency in protecting minors from potentially regretful, life-altering decisions—that's a valid principle worth applying evenly. However, the comparison between gender-affirming treatments for minors and typical cosmetic surgeries doesn't quite hold, for a few key reasons: Medical Necessity and Evidence Base: Most cosmetic procedures allowed for minors are either reconstructive (e.g., correcting congenital deformities or severe burns) or address clear physical health issues (e.g., breast reduction for chronic back/neck pain from macromastia, often deemed medically necessary and insurance-covered). These have strong, long-established evidence of safety and benefit. Gender-affirming treatments for minors (hormones, surgeries) lack that—systematic reviews (e.g., UK's Cass Review, restrictions in Sweden/Finland/Norway) find low-quality evidence, with unique risks like permanent sterility or bone loss. Irreversibility and Risks: While both can be permanent, the claim that they have "pretty much the same medical outcomes" overlooks critical ethical and medical distinctions. Outcomes alone don't justify interventions—intent, necessity, and evidence do. Consider this analogy: A surgeon amputating a leg to save a patient from life-threatening necrotizing fasciitis faces no ethical scrutiny. But amputating a healthy leg because a patient with Body Integrity Identity Disorder desperately wants it removed? That doctor would (rightly) face professional consequences, even though both patients end up with "pretty much the same medical outcome" (one fewer leg). The difference is medical necessity treating disease vs. altering healthy tissue based on identity or desire. Gender treatments often fall into the latter category for minors—altering functioning bodies without treating a physical pathology. Scope and Context: Bans target a specific, rapidly growing practice with weak evidence and social contagion concerns, not all elective procedures. Cosmetic surgeries in minors aren't surging similarly or lacking evidence; they're not framed as "lifesaving" (of the "we need to give this child this medical procedure because otherwise she will kill herself" variety) despite risks. The goal is safeguarding vulnerable kids with the highest scrutiny where evidence is weakest and risks unique—not banning everything permanent. True consistency means demanding strong medical justification, not equating dissimilar cases. Thanks, -Smac

I question that statistic. See, e.g., here: Accurate transition regret and detransition rates are unknown This is by SEGM (Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine). "Hormone discontinuation, detransition, and regret rates are largely unknown." "Nearly two thirds of detransitioners in a recent convenience sample survey said they would not have had medical intervention had they known what they know now." Very small sample, so more data is needed. Reliance on biased samples or samples with poor generalizability. The “low regret” narrative stems from older studies that sought legal record changes to identify individuals who detransitioned. However, these more carefully vetted older samples are not generalizable to the population of young gender dysphoric people who have multiple mental health comorbidities, and are transitioning currently under the “informed consent” model of care which requires no psychological evaluations. Inadequate follow-up. High rates of loss to follow-up. Imprecision of the measurement of detransition and regret. Reliance on biased samples or samples with poor generalizability. I am concerned that some medical research and analysis on trans issues has been ideologically tainted/compromised. "Detransitioners who realigned with their biological sex were excluded from the study." "The likelihood of regret, detransition, and discontinuation is unknown." "More than 17,000 children aged 6–17 started puberty blockers or hormones from 2017 to 2021, and there were at least 56 genital surgeries and 776 double mastectomies in the 13–17 age range from 2019 to 2021." Troubling stuff, this. From the last link above: "Gender detransition is a complex, heterogeneous, under-researched, and poorly understood reality. A systematic study and approach to the topic is needed to understand its prevalence, implications, and management from a healthcare perspective." "A sample in a well-publicized study, which concluded that most detransitioners did not regret their transition, paradoxically only allowed in the detransitioners who still identified as transgender. This was not disclosed in the published study." Another: Regretting Transition for Gender Dysphoria "Impressively high rates of loss to follow up [in studies and surveys commonly cited to prove that regret after transition." "Exceedingly strict definitions for regret [in studies and surveys commonly cited to prove that regret after transition], e.g. requiring formal application to change their legal documents back to the original sex." "Insufficient periods of follow up, usually only six months to two years post-transition, despite the existing evidence that post-surgical regret is known to manifest eight years or so post-transition." "Sampling usually taken from gender clinics, to which those with regret repeatedly report they do not return." How Many People Regret Transitioning and Why? Troubling. The Dutch Leaks: Trans Regret is Possibly 33% The Detransition Rate Is Unknown Thanks, -Smac

Writing this stuff up also helps me synthesize and collate data for myself as well. We live in turbulent times. Lots of insistent voices out there. I like to listen to the Brethren, and read and apply the scriptures ("liken all scriptures unto us" and all that), and then also do my own research and analysis, and reach my own conclusions. This board used to be a venue for seeking out voices and perspectives to critique and "steel man" alternative positions on this or that issue. Not so much any more. Thanks, -Smac

I have looked for editorial/commentary articles published subsequent to yesterday's oral argument. I found virtually nothing published by outlets sympathetic to trans ideology and its efforts to justify incursions of biological men into women's sports, etc., but plenty of commentary from those opposed to those efforts. The Federalist: SCOTUS Signals Willingness To Uphold State Laws Protecting Women’s Sports What follows is an audio recording of the following exchange between Justice Alito and Ms. Hartlett that reflects the definitional incoherence that I have seen, in dozens and dozens of discussions, from advocates of trans ideology about one of the most fundamental questions that needs to be answered in a legal setting, and which instead is endlessly evaded and danced around. From this transcript: Ms. Hartnett's refusal to define sex abdicates the core dispute, as classifying teams requires a fixed meaning to evaluate discrimination claims. And I think she knows she is doing that. Her core stance—"We do not have a definition for the Court"—while strategically evasive, is logically weak for several interconnected reasons: 1. Concession Undermines the Premise of Sex-Segregated Categories: Hartnett explicitly agrees that schools may have sex-segregated teams and that equal protection analysis requires understanding what "boy," "girl," "man," or "woman" means. This implicitly acknowledges that a workable, objective definition of sex is necessary to justify and administer such separations (e.g., for fairness, safety, or privacy). Yet she immediately refuses to provide or endorse any definition. This creates an internal contradiction: if no coherent definition exists (or if the court should not require one), then the justification for maintaining separate teams at all collapses. The argument concedes the need for a definition but abdicates responsibility for supplying one, leaving the foundational classification system undefended. 2. Evasion of the Core Discriminatory Classification Question: Alito's questioning targets the heart of sex-discrimination claims: to determine if a policy discriminates "on the basis of sex" (or violates equal protection via sex-based classification), courts must know what "sex" denotes. Hartnett sidesteps this by claiming acceptance of the states' biological-sex definitions while attacking only the application (categorical exclusion is overbroad). This is intractably inconsistent. If biological sex is the accepted definition, then transgender women (born male) are properly classified as male, and exclusion from women's teams follows logically without needing exceptions. To demand case-by-case exceptions without altering the definition effectively argues for rewriting the category boundaries sub silentio (Latin for "under silence," referring to something decided, implied, or accepted without explicit mention or discussion) but without articulating what the new boundaries are. It begs the question rather than answering it. 3. Strategic Avoidance Highlights Definitional Circularity or Indefinability: Challengers in these cases often seek to include transgender women in female categories, which typically requires arguing that "sex" encompasses gender identity (or that discrimination against transgender status is per se sex discrimination, per Bostock v. Clayton County). Hartnett avoids this route, likely because defining "woman" as "anyone who identifies as a woman" risks circularity (critics call it tautological or unfalsifiable) or opens the door to unbounded inclusion (e.g., self-ID without medical transition). The trans-inclusive definition is at once the sine qua non of the ideology, and also the part that is the most logically problematic, and the one that is so assiduously papered over elided around and protected (often with shrill "You're a Bigot!"-style reactions). Hartnett actually stood in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, in a hearing about laws that differentiate based on "sex," and she refused to explain what her argument posits to be the definition of "sex." By pleading "no definition," she dodges pitfalls but at the cost of intellectual coherence—essentially admitting that no robust, non-biological alternative definition can withstand scrutiny in this context. This turns the argument into a negative one (categorical rules bad) without a positive alternative (what rule should apply?). 4. Practical and Judicial Impossibility: Courts cannot adjudicate classification-based claims in a vacuum. Without a definition, administering policies becomes impossible (e.g., how to verify team eligibility?). Hartnett's position implies deference to undefined or fluid understandings, which Justice Alito exposed as inadequate for constitutional review. It shifts the burden improperly: challengers bear the onus to show why the state's definition and application fail, yet here they disclaim the need to engage the definition at all. In sum, the argument is poor because it is evasive and self-undermining—it relies on the necessity of sex-based distinctions (to preserve separate teams) while refusing to define the central term, rendering the equal protection challenge incomplete and circular. This highlights a broader difficulty in transgender sports cases: redefining protected categories to include gender identity often conflicts with the rationales for sex segregation itself. Back to the Federalist article: There is a 5-minute video clip of the above exchange here. Worth a listen. It looks like Justice Coney-Barrett wants to address the constitutional component ("suspect class") we have discussed earlier in this thread. I hope SCOTUS does this. I have obviously never encountered Justice Gorsuch personally, but I have encountered his published opinions for the Tenth Circuit. The man's legal prowess is, in my view, very good. Some of the best legal reasoning I have encountered in 20+ years of law practice. Justice Gorsuch is an interesting fellow. I wonder where he will land on this. Politico: 5 takeaways from the Supreme Court’s showdown over transgender athletes It's a long article. A Grok summary: I'm not sure what to make of this. My understanding is that Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded programs but does not dictate exactly how schools must structure sports teams. It has historically allowed significant state and local variation. Several justices seemed interested in narrower paths that would let states continue to disagree. Several justices signaled discomfort with the Court becoming the arbiter of a single national sports policy on a culturally divisive issue. Allowing state variation—however messy in practice—aligns with the principle that states can serve as “laboratories of democracy” on contested social questions. I asked Grok: The response: Interesting, but also troubling, stuff. Back to the Grok summary of the Politico article: National Review: There’s No Sex Discrimination Without Sex An excerpt: A few more resources: Prescott News: States Poised to Win Supreme Court Battle Over Men in Women’s Sports, Legal Experts Predict Alabama Attorney General: States Made Strong Case for States’ Authority to Enforce Laws Protecting Girls’ Sports from Biological Males Idaho Capital Sun: US Supreme Court appears poised to affirm trans athlete bans in Idaho, West Virginia The New Republic: Supreme Court Seems Ready to Ban Trans Kids From Playing Sports News items from sources sympathetic to efforts to include biological males in women's sports were, I think, fewer and farther between, and they did not seem to address much of yesterday's proceedings. Washington Blade: Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans This article does a good job of being candid with what happened yesterday. Human Rights Campaign: HRC President Reacts to Supreme Court Oral Arguments in West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox, Cases that Challenge Discriminatory Sports Bans for Transgender Youth The above article is notable for what it does not address, which is what actually happened during yesterday's oral argument. Instead, the article commentates about what should be happening. I sense that even HRC sees the writing on the wall. Financial Content: LGBTQI+ Leaders Gather in Los Angeles to Support the Rights of All Americans to Live Their Lives Freely and Fairly This article is, like the HRC article, fairly sparse in addressing yesterday's oral argument, and instead opting for public statements about what should be happening. There is this bit tho: Not really optimistic, this. I am firmly opposed to biological males competing in women's sports. It is unfair and erodes the integrity of female athletics. Yesterday's SCOTUS arguments were encouraging: conservative justices pushed back hard on redefining "sex" under Title IX to include gender identity, and even some others explored narrow rulings that could uphold state bans without forcing inclusion nationwide. Fairness for women and girls first. Biological reality matters. This could be a turning point against the more extreme aspects of trans ideology—equivocating basic terms, mandatory pronouns, males in women's prisons/lockers, etc.—while still preserving core protections like nondiscrimination in housing and employment. The decision from SCOTUS will likely come out in June, but yesterday's oral argument was very important. I wonder if January 13, 2026 will go down in history as, to paraphrase Don McLean, "The Day the Extremist Trans Movement Died." I find much of the more recent and extreme aspects of trans ideology to be unworkable when put into practice. I appreciate the Church's guidance on these matters: Handbook, Section 38.6.23: Church Website: Transgender - Love, Inclusion, and Respect for All of God’s Children Church Website: Transgender - Love, Inclusion, and Respect for All of God’s Children: Understanding Yourself Church Website: Transgender - Love, Inclusion, and Respect for All of God’s Children: Supporting Others I have a very close friend whose son has been caught up in trans ideology. A few years back he kinda sorta "transitioned." He grew his hair out, started using "she/her" pronouns, took a feminine/androgynous name, etc. My friend, who some years prior to that had left the Church with some acrimony against it and some of its members, initially supported her son's decisions with some real enthusiasm. But then he started talking about medical interventions, such as hormone treatment and perhaps surgical procedures. At this point my friend found herself in something of a quandary. My understanding is that her son wanted to know why she she was enthusiastic about some of his "transitioning" decisions (pronouns, new name, etc.), but not others (hormone treatments). The more extreme forms of trans ideology espouse the notion that "gender identity" is simply who that person is, that children are situated to adopt an "identity" incongruent with their biological sex, that children should be able to decide for themselves regarding medical interventions, and - perhaps most potently - that resistance or opposition to any of these matters is per se bigotry. My friend is a beautiful soul. She does hate trans people at all. And she dutifully supported her son's initial and incremental movements toward "transitioning." But now she has had to come up with a rationale justifying her "Yes on this stuff, but no on that stuff" position. I think she is really struggling to do that without running afoul of the "You're a Bigot!"-style histrionics that are so baked into the extreme trans stuff. At present, there is apparently some measure of detente between her and her son. He is not insisting on the female pronouns and new name stuff, letting family and friends call him by his given (male) name. And he does not seem to be pushing as much for medical intervention. My surmise is that my friend is hoping that he does not advance his transitioning, and that he instead "grows out of it." Sadly, I think she must harbor these sentiments in secret, as otherwise she opens herself up to the "You're a Bigot!", both from her son (if he buys into that ideological presupposition) and from outside her family as well. And having left the Church, she does not really have much of a philosophical or ideological counterweight to the radical "trans" ideas that have affected her son and her relationship with him. In contrast, I think Latter-day Saints do have a philosophical counterweight in the doctrines of the Restored Gospel, and in counsel from living prophets and apostles. The above resources illustrate this. The Proclamation illustrates this. I think we as a society are mostly moving away from the more extreme aspects of trans ideology, and I am grateful for that. I hope we can do so in ways that minimize conflict and maximize comity and mutual respect. Thanks, -Smac

Minority is not the only concern. Comorbidities. Informed consent lacking. Irreversibility. Sterilization. Insufficient longitudinal studies. Compromised medical decision-making processes (and perverse financial incentives). Lifelong medical regimens. Social contagion risks. Ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. Huge financial expenditures. Thanks, -Smac

Long. My understanding is that 60 minutes is the typical duration. For both sides. I had oral argument last month before the Utah Court of Appeals, with each side limited to 15 minutes. Do you think it’s likely? Just curious. I don't know enough. It's possible that SCOTUS will review the cases on narrow/limited grounds, and so not "reach" the more substantive issues, such as whether or not "trans" people qualify as a quasi-suspect class. No SCOTUS precedent is totally immune from being overturned, so the more appropriate inquiry is not whether it's "possible" but whether it's probable. I can't speak to that, either. There are some areas of the law that change at a glacial pace. Contract law, for example, is very well settled, and changes to it are mostly incremental tweaks. Constitutional law can be a bit more turbulent. Here, the central issue is whether our society's laws can accommodate a re-definition of "sex" to include within it "gender identity." I find that quite unlikely. I also think there is notably waning in the public's enthusiasm for "trans" advocacy. Letting people of the same sex get married plucks at heartstrings, and does not contravene reality. Men in women's bathrooms, sports, and prisons, and the sexualization of children, and permanent and sterilizing medical procedures on children, and coercive "person pronouns," and large scale equivocation and obfuscation, and denial of the sexual binary, on the other hand... Thanks, -Smac

Oral argument on the two cases in the OP occurred today before SCOTUS. A review from SCOTUSBlog: Supreme Court appears likely to uphold transgender athlete bans 3.5 hours. Wow. I hope SCOTUS comes out with a "sweeping" ruling, one that fully disposes of the varied legal disputes centering on Title IX and "gender identity," on the Equal Protection Clause, and even more fundamentally the importation into the law of the more radical elements of trans ideology (“Trans women are women," “A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman," etc.). I think those advocating for the more radical policy preferences re: trans issues would much prefer to have these issues endlessly churning in the lower courts. A SCOTUS decision will be definitive, and not in the day these advocates what. I think the 9th Circuit's analysis was fundamentally flawed. Title IX addresses sex, not "gender identity." I think this is a good argument. Protect everyone as pertaining to biological sex, yes. Not as pertaining to "gender identity." I think there are other reasons in addition to unfairness. Yep as to the bold part. The decision will likely come out in the summer. Thanks, -Smac

It sure seems like it. You are characterizing medical procedures to address Gender Dysphoria as not extreme, and differentiating them from medical procedures to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder. And you are doing so in the context of a thread specifically about Gender Dysphoria and "trans" issues. I do not understand how so many people can "normalize" the former and stand aghast at the latter. We started all this because I compared medical procedures to address Gender Dysphoria with procedures to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder. I find all of these "extreme," yet you take exception to comparison by characterizing only the latter as "extreme" and the former as "little functional impact." But at this point we seem to be talking past each other. No. No. I have said nothing like this. As a medical treatment to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder, right? And so would, in my mind, penectomies and mastectomies to address Gender Dysphoria. Both treatments are "extreme" and problematic and disturbing. I am not speaking of medical procedures being "ridiculous." That's your thing. I think it is very troubling to suggest that a profound mental health disorder like Body Integrity Identity Disorder should be addressed by allowing a person afflicted with it to have herself blinded, or her healthy leg amputated, or her spinal cord severed. I also think it is very troubling to suggest that a profound mental health disorder like Gender Dysphoria should be addressed by allowing a person afflicted with it to undergo a penectomy, or mastectomy, or hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, or medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc. Why can't we say the same about penectomies, etc. as a treatment for Gender Dysphoria? Other major and "extreme" medical treatments include, in my view, those used to "treat" Gender Dysphoria which I have noted over and over (penectomies, mastectomies, hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc.). Are these, in your view, also "extreme"? Do they also have "a major life changing impact"? I am genuinely unsure what you think on this subject. Right. We seem to be on the same page here. And yet when we pivot to talk about people afflicted with Gender Dysphoria, and the propriety of them receiving what I find to be "extreme" medical interventions as treatment (penectomies, mastectomies, etc.), there are large segments of society who find these treatments to be just hunky dory. I don't have have to "argue mental disturbance" about Gender Dysphoria because it is treated as such under DSM-V. I also don't have to "argue mental disturbance" about Body Integrity Identity Disorder because it is treated as such in the International Classification of Diseases, and also because there seems to be a societal willingness to say "Well, duh" to this being a serious disorder, and also because life-altering medical treatments (intentional blinding, amputation of a healthy leg, severing a spinal cord, etc.) are treated as facially "extreme" and "ridiculous," and as obviously morally and ethically objectionable. But then, I think life-altering medical treatments used to address Gender Dysphoria (penectomies, mastectomies, hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc.) are also morally and ethically objectionable. Cutting off a healthy penis to "treat" Gender Dysphoria does not have a big impact on someone's life? Cutting off healthy breasts to "treat" Gender Dysphoria does not have a big impact on someone's life? I could not disagree more strongly with you. Penectomies, mastectomies, hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc. to treat Gender Dysphoria = "Little functional impact." Cutting off a leg or severing a spinal cord to treat Body Integrity Identity Disorder = "Ridiculous" and "extreme." I just do not understand this reasoning. You have not moved the needle at all. You are just making conclusory statements here. You have asserted, but not demonstrated, that medical interventions to "treat" BIID such as I have noted are "extreme" and "ridiculous" and whatnot, but that medical interventions to "treat" GD are just ho-hum and normal. That is an ideological differentiation that I do not share, and that I instead reject and facially unsound and unreasonable. Thanks, -Smac

Calm frequently uses circular reasoning as a way to soft pedal the controversy or to show "broadmindedness" as a way to comfort certain "victim classes". I've known Calm for a very long time, and I hold her in high regard, both as to her intellect and analytical capacity, and as to her character. It appears that she and I have some fundamentally different views on medical interventions for Gender Dysphoria, such that she finds comparisons to medical interventions for Body Integrity Identity Disorder to be beyond the pale. I'm okay with that. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things. Thanks, -Smac

You are misrepresenting what I said. Didn't seem like it. I was speaking of penectomies and mastectomies on people with gender dysphoria, saying they are as "extreme" as medical interventions to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder. You then seemed to be defending/rationalizing those procedures by conflating them with procedures as to people with other medical conditions. So are you defending/rationalizing/justifying penectomies and mastectomies on people with gender dysphoria, or not? If no, then I am confused. If yes, then I am troubled. Cutting off a healthy penis to address Gender Dysphoria? No prob. Cutting off a leg or severing a spinal cord to address BIID? Ridiculous. Yes, you are. Because that is the discussion under way. I have never spoken against breast reduction for someone with gynecomastia, but you are treating that paired treatment/condition (surgical intervention for the medical condition) as being undifferentiated from penectomies and mastectomies for people with gender dysphoria. I see huge differences here. I illustrated the problematic nature of this by comparing A) penectomies and mastectomies as a treatment for gender dysphoria with B) amputating a leg or severing a spinal cord as a treatment for Body Integrity Identity Disorder. You come along and, it seems, justify the former (by suggesting such procedures are comparable to treatment for gynecomastia) and dismiss the latter as "extreme" (even though, in my view, (A) and (B) seem very comparable). Again, I find penectomies as a treatment for gender dysphoria to be "extreme and highly unusual" as well, and you have not demonstrated otherwise, or even bothered to try. And again, I would first like to see this stuff addressed substantively, rather than summarily and conclusorily dismissed as "ridiculous," emotionally manipulative, "inappropriate," etc., which is what you are doing. I invite you to reconsider the suggestion here that A) some medical interventions to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder (elective amputation of a leg or severing of a spinal cord as a treatment for Body Integrity Identity Disorder) are "extreme" and "major," but that B) other medical interventions to address Gender Dysphoria (penectomies, mastectomies, hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc.) are not "extreme" and "major" (and instead have merely "limited impact"). That seems to be what you are saying. Cutting of a penis has "little functional impact" on a person's life? Are you sure about that? Yeah, well, so far you are not persuading me that one set of medical interventions (amputation or paralysis to address BIID) is "extreme" and another set of medical interventions (penectomies, mastectomies, hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc. to address Gender Dysphoria) has "little functional impact." Respectfully, right back atcha. You are arguing that medical interventions to address Gender Dysphoria (penectomies, mastectomies, hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc. to address Gender Dysphoria) have "little functional impact." Tell that to minors who have been sterilized for life, who have had their body chemistry irreversibly and profoundly altered, who have had body parts removed, who have permanently lost most or all capacity for sexual function/sensation. I find this stuff extreme and appalling. I find this stuff as problematic as medical interventions to address Body Integrity Identity Disorder (elective amputation of a leg or severing of a spinal cord as a treatment for Body Integrity Identity Disorder). You agree that the latter is extreme, but that the former is has "little functional impact," and that it is "emotional manipulation" to argue otherwise. My principal argument has long centered on medical interventions on minors/children with Gender Dysphoria, though I also have comparable concerns about adults with this disorder. I acknowledge that adults with GD have more autonomy to request such treatments, but the concerns about comorbidities, informed consent, longitudinal studies, etc. are still very much in play. And I find these interventions just as extreme, and just as ethically problematic, as the cited interventions for BIID. I don't think I did. But I'm okay with disagreement about that. I think you are culturally/sociologically acclimatized to medical interventions for Gender Dysphoria, such that you do not see them as "extreme," but that cutting of a leg or severing a spinal cord as a medical intervention for Body Integrity Identity Disorder is extreme. If so, we just have a difference of opinion borne of sociopolitical acclimatization, as I find both categories to be "extreme" and problematic. Both Gender Dysphoria and Body Integrity Identity Disorder are profound mental health disorders, but the former is treated very differently from the latter, even to the point that Penectomies, mastectomies, hormone treatments and other regiments which cause sterilization, medical interventions which eliminate sexual function and sensation, etc. to treat Gender Dysphoria = "Little functional impact." Cutting off a leg or severing a spinal cord to treat Body Integrity Identity Disorder = "Ridiculous" and "extreme." Thanks, -Smac

Seriously? That's an odd question. I have demonstrated that I am addressing these issues with the seriousness and gravity they deserve. Look again at what I said: "I don't think the the above example is any more 'extreme' than a woman with gender dysphoria having her healthy breasts removed, or a man with that disorder having his genitals removed." Elective mastectomies preclude nursing. Forever. Penectomies preclude sexual function and sensation. Forever. Meanwhile, comorbidities, informed consent, etc. need to be addressed. Prior to the last several years of extremist trans ideological efforts, nor was I. AFAICS, a person suffering from Body Integrity Identity Disorder is treated for the disorder. The disorder is not used as a justification to cut the person's leg off or sever her spinal cord. And yet we as a society have decided that Gender Dysphoria should be treated with, inter alia, cutting off otherwise healthy body parts? Well, no need to address it on its merits then. As you like. Cutting off a healthy penis to address Gender Dysphoria? No prob. Cutting off a leg or severing a spinal cord to address BIID? Ridiculous. Respectfully, I don't understand the distinction you are making here. "Cisboys" = boys? Biological males? AFAF. "Trans boys" = girls? Biological females? It's not the same reason. Some few in one category (boys) have an appearance (excess breast tissue) incongruent with their biological sex, and they are uncomfortable with that. I don't think that is a mental health disorder. Some few in the other category (girls) have an appearance (breast tissue) that is totally congruent with their biological sex, and they are uncomfortable with that because they have a mental health disorder. I find this distinction in circumstance, diagnosis and treatment to be quite significant. Respectfully, I reject the premise. I find penectomies as a treatment for gender dysphoria to be "extreme and highly unusual" as well, and you have not demonstrated otherwise, or even bothered to try. See above. Cutting off a healthy penis to address Gender Dysphoria? No prob. Cutting off a leg or severing a spinal cord to address BIID? Ridiculous. Okay. I would first like to see it addressed substantively, rather than summarily and conclusorily dismissed as "ridiculous," emotionally manipulative, "inappropriate," etc. Thanks, -Smac

California boy has explained many times he has family members (both as immediate family members and extended family) who are Saints and who have attitudes influenced by the Church that affect their interaction with him. Okay. And I know a young woman who is in the thrall of gender dysphoria. She is a self-described "trans gay" (she is biologically female, "identifies" as male, and is romantically attracted to biological males). She is not functioning well and is not happy. Does that give me sufficient bona fides to allow me to speak on trans issues? I reject the "Does it really affect your life" rebuttal. It's fallacious. Thanks, -Smac

It’s getting to the point where it is relatively easy if you have the money to noninvasively test different types of muscle mass, skeletal mass, bone density, and hormone levels. Do you really think the "Trans Women are Women!" brigade would go along with differentiating some of their number as sufficiently "trans" and some not? We'll see. Thanks, -Smac

I still don’t get how you won’t accept extreme cases for arguments from others in some cases, First, could you provide an example? Second, I don't think the the above example is any more "extreme" than a woman with gender dysphoria having her healthy breasts removed, or a man with that disorder having his genitals removed. I also noted the example of the surgeon in Scotland who got in trouble a while back for amputating the healthy legs of two patients. How is the amputation of healthy limbs "extreme" but a double mastectomy of a woman's (or girl's) perfectly healthy breasts not "extreme"? Third, trans ideology is based on substantial logical errors, such as the absence of limiting principles, equivocation, and emotional manipulation ("Failure to use 'preferred pronouns' drives trans people to suicide"). Trans ideology broadly lacks limiting principles, allowing definitions to expand indefinitely without clear boundaries. For instance, a "woman" is defined as a biological adult female and also anyone who identifies as one, creating an open-ended category that includes virtually anyone, regardless of biology, age, or intent. This absence of constraints leads to absurdities, like self-ID policies enabling convicted male sex offenders to access women's prisons simply by claiming identity, with no objective criteria to prevent abuse or ensure consistency. Without limiting principles, the ideology risks undermining the very concepts it seeks to redefine. It turns "inclusion" into an unlimited free-for-all that erodes protections for women and girls. Equivocation is a core tactic, where proponents conflate or differentiate "sex" (biological reality) and "gender" (social construct or identity) in arbitrary or convenient ways. When pushing for access to women's spaces or sports, they conflate the terms—arguing "trans women are women" as if identity overrides sex-based differences. But when challenged on biology (e.g., "men can't get pregnant"), they differentiate: "Gender is fluid, sex is assigned." This sleight-of-hand avoids addressing contradictions, like claiming sex is a "spectrum" to justify "inclusion" while ignoring that 99.98+% of humans are unambiguously male or female. It is rhetorical gamesmanship that shifts goalposts to evade scrutiny. Emotional manipulation is rampant, using coercive messaging to silence dissent and compel compliance (such as we so often see on this board). Claims like "Failure to use 'preferred pronouns' drives trans people to suicide" weaponize mental health statistics (often misrepresented—suicide rates are high but not directly caused by misgendering) to guilt-trip opponents into submission. This creates a false choice: Affirm or be responsible for harm. It's manipulative because it equates disagreement with violence, stifling debate and pressuring institutions (schools, workplaces) to enforce policies without evidence. In reality, studies (e.g., from the Cass Review in the UK) show gender distress is complex, often linked to comorbidities, not societal rejection alone—yet this tactic demands unquestioning acceptance under threat of moral condemnation. I am open to a critique on this point. Please give me some examples. Thanks, -Smac

Where has this actually happened outside of possibly high school where the individual may not have had access yet to medical transitioning. Whether they have had access to, and used, "medical transitioning" or not, these "trans women" (that is, biological males) retain the physiological advantages of having male bodies and gone through male puberty. As for how many "trans" (male) athletes there are competing against women/girls? I don't know. Not many, fortunately. That it has not become widespread does not, in my view, negate the need to address and oppose it. "Nip it in the bud" comes to mind. And this: The "Fallacy of Relative Privation" (also "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") dismisses a problem or complaint by pointing to a worse one, arguing the initial issue isn't significant enough for attention. This fallacy wrongly implies that we cannot or should not address multiple issues or that a lesser problem isn't valid just because bigger ones exist. I think this is where CB is going ("Why are you even concerned with the choices these people choose. Does it really affect your life?"). Or perhaps this is the "Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion" or "Ignoratio Elenchi" (Latin for "ignorance of refutation"). The core of the phrase suggests the argument, though perhaps facially valid ("Does it really affect your life?"), fails to address the actual point or question at issue, effectively "missing the point" or presenting an irrelevant conclusion. It's a mistake in reasoning where someone proves something related but not what needed proving, like answering "Did you finish your homework?" with "I cleaned my room!". Similarly, responding to "Males should not be participating in women's sports because of substantial safety, fairness and privacy considerations" with "Why are you even concerned about this?" Thanks, -Smac

I am not sure any answer I give you is going to be something you would consider. It is pretty clear that you have made up your mind completely on this subject. I have reached some conclusions, yes. But they are not etched in stone. I am willing to listen to what others have to say. The problem is that substantive and evidence-based arguments appear to be lacking, which is why advocates like @The Nehor resort to "You're a Bigot!"-style ad hominems and such. Thank you for your response. I think your proposal is a non-starter when you dig into the actual science and reality of male vs. female athletic performance. A few thoughts: 1. Testosterone isn't "the most defining edge." It is one factor, but the real advantages come from male puberty itself: irreversible changes like greater muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, heart size, height, and skeletal structure. Even after years of hormone suppression and estrogen therapy, biological males who "identify" as women retain substantial physical advantages in terms of strength, recovery time, biomechanics, and so on. No amount of estrogen erases these physiological advantages. 2. Transitioning doesn't level the playing field. It mitigates some things but leaves the core male advantages intact. That's why elite "trans" athletes like Lia Thomas, a biological male, dominate women's swimming or why we have seen records shattered in weightlifting and cycling. If hormones were the fix, we wouldn't see these outcomes. 3. As a practical matter, what you are suggesting seems deeply impractical and problematic. Individual testing is a nightmare: invasive blood draws, fluctuating levels (what's the cutoff? How often test?), huge costs, and endless appeals/loopholes. Meanwhile, many (most?) trans (biologically male), particularly those who have not undergone hormone therapy and wish to participate against women based on their subjective and self-designated "identity" as "women" will have retained all of the physiological advantages of having gone through male puberty. Is it really your proposal that these "trans women" be differentiated from other "trans women" who *have* undergone hormone therapy (hoo boy, the trans ideologues will really not be happy about that)? Seems like this proposal turns women's sports into a bureaucratic mess, while at the same time ignoring safety risks in contact sports (e.g., higher injury rates from retained strength). 4. Women's categories in sports exist for a reason: to protect fair competition based on sex, not self-ID or hormone lottery. Your approach erodes or obliterates that. 5. Why not just open categories if "individual evaluation" is the answer? 6. This issue is not, as is so often alleged, about hate; it is about biology and fairness. Acting as if hormones addresses the categorical biological advantages men have over women ignores the evidence and punishes female athletes. We as a society protect sex-based categories or we lose them. I have seen this argument several times. A few thoughts: 1. Yes, sports aren't perfectly "level" across all members of the male sex or the female sex. Tall people dominate basketball, fast-twitch fibers help sprinters. However, these are natural variations within the same sex category. Women's sports exist precisely to give females a fair shot against other females, excluding the massive, systemic/categorical advantages from male puberty that no female can match naturally. 2. You are equating random genetic luck (height, stride) with an entire biological class advantage—greater muscle mass, bone density, strength, lung capacity, etc., which advantages persist even after hormone therapy. Science (World Athletics, BJSM reviews) shows "trans women" (that is, biological males) keep 10-30% edges post-transition. That's not 'individual variation'; it's a category mismatch. 3. "Individual basis" sounds fair, but it is not realistic. Invasive testing. Arbitrary cutoffs. Endless appeals. This proposal would turn women's sports into a hormone lottery while ignoring safety (contact sports injuries) and erasing the purpose of sex-based divisions. 4. If everything is just "individual attributes," why have women's categories at all? We could just open division for everyone, but then males would dominate and women's sports would be destroyed. Fairness and opportunity and safety for female athletes matter. 5. This isn't about equality of outcomes; it's about not pretending biology doesn't exist. Your approach sacrifices women's opportunities, and fairness, and safety, in the name of performative and unreasoned "inclusivity." We as a society should protect the categories or watch women's sports vanish. Who better to evaluate a child's needs better than their own parent and trained professionals. "Trained professionals" are beholden to the law. So are parents. So are children. Again, consider the situation of the woman in the UK who wants to have her spinal cord severed. She is an adult, and her family apparently supports her. The only missing component is a "trained professional." Doctors in the UK, though they are "trained professionals," are not unfettered in their ability to practice medicine. They are constrained by ethical and legal provisions which are in effect in that jurisdiction. She has sought to circumvent those laws by going into another country (she does not name it), where she has found a doctor who is willing to help her: "I have found a doctor in another country who would be prepared to do femoral and sciatic nerve transections to paralyze my legs." Why do you think she is looking for a doctor in "another country" rather than the UK? Assuming she could accumulate the funds necessary to pay the doctor, would you support her course of action described here? "Who better to evaluate..." and all that? Again, what are your thoughts about a child who tells his parents he "identifies" as "trans-disabled" and wants his spinal cord severed, or his legs chopped off? Would you be okay with that? Or would oppose it? Indifferent? Who should be given that power, then? Do doctors, in your view, have unfettered decision-making authority? Or are they properly subject to legal and ethical constraints in the jurisdiction in which they practice medicine? Fine sentiments in the abstract, and I largely share them. But what happens when that adult male in this 50s wants society to treat him like a six year old girl and ratify that "identity"? Or when a teenager with gender dysphoria wants society to allow a doctor to cut off her breasts? Are these "'who cares' concerns"? The caveat ("as long as they obey the laws of the land that believes in individual determination") is an interesting one. I'm not sure how laws "believe" in anything, as they are inanimate objects. Rather, laws may reflect the principle of "individual determination," so I assume that is what you mean. In many, even most, ways, our system of laws does reflect and respect the concept of individual determination, but not in an unfettered way. Minors can't drink or smoke or get tattoos, for example. Adults cannot legally use illicit substances. So it's not an all-or-nothing sort of concept. There is the general principle (the Constitution protects our individual and group civil liberties), but with some constraints parameters (yes to "Free Speech," no to "Yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater"). Alternatively, if your caveat is intended to convey the notion that, in an individual's subjective and personal opinion, the laws of the land that do not sufficiently reflect/respect individual determination, are bad, or should be disregarded on that basis, then that would be a different scenario. I am assuming, though, that you did not mean this. For you as an individual, yes. Frankly, I think the vast majority of Americans were doing precisely that until just the last few years, then the calculus changed and biological males started to participate in women's sports, or go into women's bathrooms, or be housed in women's prisons. While "it is pretty easy" for you "to ignore them," society cannot. We must make decisions as to such matters. I agree. I think this becomes more difficult when a disorder is ratified and celebrated, rather than addressed as a disorder. Ratified and celebrated by who? What are you talking about? People with gender dysphoria, such as a biological male who really really believes he is, and "identifies" as, a "woman" are "ratified and celebrated" all over the place for having and acting on and expressing that incongruent-with-reality notion. In contrast, consider this anecdote from 2024: My perception was that the group at Encircle House was "ratifying and celebrating" the group of "trans men" (biological women who "identify" as men). We as a society are apparently supposed to do the same, 'cuz otherwise we're "bigots" and our "hate" will drive them to suicide, or something. I find this to be a large scale re-enactment of "The Emperor's New Clothes," but suffice it to say that there is all sorts of "ratifying and celebrating" going on. But what about the teenager's "identity" as a dog? As noted above, Am I - and the rest of society -supposed to go long with that kid's notion as being "congruent with reality and biological fact"? Apparently not. And a person who "identifies" as a species he is not is somehow distinguishable from a person who "identifies" as a sex he is not. The former is absurd, the latter is perfectly sensible. Here's the point, though: I think Jack (the teenage boy I met who "identifies" as a dog) is, in the long run, going to be better off than some other boy who "identifies" as a woman. See, nobody is really taking Jack seriously. Yes, he can put on dog-themed accessories (ears, collar, etc.), and he can act like a dog (sitting on his haunches, having someone hold his leash, saying "Woof!"), but in the end it's just an elaborate sort of cosplay. He wears clothes (real dogs don't), goes to school (real dogs don't), speaks English (real dogs don't), will eventually have a job and get paid (real dogs don't), will get a driver's license (real dogs don't), will be treated as a human under the law (dogs aren't), and so on. Society tolerates Jack "identifying" as a dog, but doesn't ratify it in any real sense, nor doe society allow this "identity" to be carried to its logical conclusion (he still has to go to school, wear clothes in public, etc.). And sooner or later, Jack will probably grow out of this behavior and move on with life. In contrast, a "trans" person is being "ratified and celebrated" in his "identity" as a "trans woman" in a number of ways (for now, anyway). Hence Lia Thomas, a biological male, has been allowed to participate in women's sports. Thousands of examples are in view here. Jack's "identity" as a dog is not socially recognized (not really), whereas "trans" identity has been recognized in many ways. Both are incongruent with reality, but only the latter is ratified and celebrated. Says the guy who left the Church years and years ago, and yet still comes to this board to commentate on it. Why are you even concerned with the choices these people choose. Does it really affect your life? Again, until the last few years I did not care about "trans" stuff. I have, since then, been made to care about this issue. I would have preferred to let it alone, but zealots and idealogues have brought it to society's front door. Men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons. Thousands of children receiving medical treatments which permanently impair sexual function and procreative capacity and have lifelong effects. Large-scale and very public sexualization and grooming of children. Laws compelling speech and other substantial damage to Free Speech. Substantial damage to familial and other relationships. Substantial injury to gender dysphoric persons. No. Have you served in the military? Do you have "training in dealing with" how the military is used? If not, do you still have a right to have an opinion on that issue, and speak on it? I am not outraged. And happily, we as a society are "moving on." The advances by trans ideologues have been overwhelmingly rolled back. The ideology's essential tenets are being repudiated all over the place. SCOTUS is, in my view, on the cusp of holding that "trans" is not a suspect or quasi-suspect class. The UK high court has defined what a "woman" is. Sport associations are returning to excluding biological males from women's sports. State legislatures are criminalizing "gender affirming" medical treatments for minors. Most of Europe and the U.S. have drastically pulled back from such treatments. We are cumulatively waking up from the "Emperor's New Clothes" fever dream that arose subsequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage (activists gotta get their pay somehow). I am quite happy to see this. And yet here you are, speaking on the subject. As am I. I think people who care about safety, privacy, fairness, and other concerns affecting women can and should publicly speak out on these issues. Thanks, -Smac

Sounds good. Not sure what this means relative to biological males in women's spaces. It seems like a zero sum proposition. Either we allow males in women's sports, or we do not. We can't really be ambivalent about it, because a decision needs to be made. A salient and astute point. I assume you would feel the same about "privacy" and "fairness." Biological males in women's sports, for example, involves these concerns. Should the State also evaluate "real" privacy and fairness concerns? I am curious how this would play out in, say, males in women's sports. I don't think it can be an "on an individual basis" sort of thing. Extremely rare marginal circumstances excepted (people with DSDs), males are to be excluded or allowed into women's spaces. I think there is plenty of reason to object to the more extreme and irrational elements of trans ideology. But to paraphrase what you said above: But I also recognize that what I consider legitimate concerns and objections and what they consider legitimate concerns and objections may not be the same. What about a child who tells his parents he "identifies" as "trans-disabled" and wants his spinal cord severed, or his legs chopped off? Are we as a society prepared to say "Well, okay. Whatever the parents and the child want...")? There are also very small percentages of people who "identify" as trans-racial (Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug), an adult (50s) male who "identifies" perpetually six-years-old girl (Stefoknee Wolscht), a woman who "identifies" as handicapped and wants to have her spinal cord severed, a 5'9" white guy who "identifies" as a six-foot-tall Chinese woman (as a hypothetical), a woman who "identifies" as a dragon (Eva Tiamat Medusa), a woman who "identifies" as a wolf (Naia Ōkami), a young women who "identifies" as a red-tailed hawk ("Horus"), a teenage boy who "identifies" as a dog, people who well and truly want to have healthy body parts (legs) removed, or to be intentionally blinded, and so on. These people all seem to be genuine in their expressed "human conditions," and yet nobody suggests that the rest of society ought to go along with these incongruent-with-reality notions of "identity." I am genuinely curious as to why a person can "identify" as a gender they are not, but cannot identify as a species they are not, or an age they are not, etc. I agree. I think this becomes more difficult when a disorder is ratified and celebrated, rather than addressed as a disorder. The woman noted above who "identifies" as handicapped has not found a doctor in the UK willing to operate on her and render her intentionally paralyzed. I think this is because there are legal and ethical and moral issues that can transcend what a child wants, even if the child's parents are on board and find "professionals" who are on board. Thanks, -Smac