smac97

No, biological women is the broader category, the two subsets being ciswomen and trans men. I'm not sure I understand you. If "woman" is re-defined to eliminate its biological component, then "woman" becomes a category that includes subsets: biological women and biological men ("trans women"). Do you disagree with this? What is the difference between a "ciswoman" and a "biological woman?" Thank you, -Smac

In general the advice to transwomen and transmen is not to switch public bathroom usage until you are androgynous or passable. So the "limiting principle" is being "androgynous or passable"? A "trans woman" who does not look sufficiently like a "woman" would, under color of law, be prohibited from entering a woman's bathroom? Is "passing" the limiting principle, then? Self-identification and also for law enforcement not to be involved at all. They weren’t before. It is a self-policing situation. Would this have the functional effect of abolishing sex-segregated bathrooms? "Self-identification" is an entirely subjective thing, after all. How about doing nothing then? Yes, that is certainly an option. Some (many?) women, though, might want something to be done to preserve women-only spaces (with "women" being biological women). I understand this is the bone of contention. I think the safety concern is broader than that, and the privacy concern is there too. I appreciate you laying that out directly. I agree that the vast majority of men ("cishet" or "trans" or otherwise) are not predators, and that bad actors have always existed. I also agree that we should focus on actual behavior and prosecute assault or voyeurism to the fullest extent of the law. The concern isn’t that a bathroom sign magically stops every determined criminal. The concern is that changing the rule itself from biological sex to self-identified gender identity removes the clear, objective boundary that used to exist. Before self-ID policies, a man entering the women’s bathroom was immediately out of place and likely to be challenged. Now, under a self-ID rule, he can simply claim a female identity and there’s no objective standard left to push back on. That shift has already produced documented cases of voyeurism, filming, and assaults in women’s facilities — not mass invasions, but enough real incidents to make many women and girls feel their privacy and safety have been compromised in spaces that were designed to protect them. I’m not trying to make life harder for trans people. I just struggle with the idea of solving one group's discomfort (that of trans women) at the expense of another group (biological women) by asking/requiring that other group to surrender the sex-based protections they’ve always had. Single-occupancy bathrooms or third spaces seem like a far better way to accommodate everyone without creating new risks. But even then, the solution is not plenary, as there will be plenty of private and public places with sex-segregated bathrooms. So "doing nothing" would seem to be a de facto elimination of sex-segregated bathrooms. I think plenty of women would object to that. I’m curious what you think: If we kept the biological-sex standard for women’s facilities and expanded single-use options for anyone who wants privacy, would that at least partially address the legitimate concerns on both sides? Thank you, -Smac

it is clunky much like AMAB and AFAB are clunky. Those neologisms ("AMAB" = "Assigned Male at Birth" and "AFAB" = "Assigned Female at Birth") are also fairly loaded with ideological presuppositions, which I think makes their utility difficult. Is there any context in which "biological women" does not include "trans men"? I think its implicit and ideological connotations make it something other than a "simple identifier," but I can understand how people could disagree about this. Thank you, -Smac

The challenge I have with "Cisgender women" is that fundamentally alters the meaning of "woman." It makes "biological women" a subcategory, alongside "trans women," and thus presupposes the re-definition of "woman" that severs the word from biology, which I think is encountering a lot of resistance. "Cisgender," as a neologism, also seems to have a strong sociopolitical bent. Thanks, -Smac

Thanks for sharing that 2016 clip — I appreciate the historical context. I agree that politicians on both sides have used this issue for political gain, and that can make things feel more heated than they need to be. At the same time, I think the noticeable rise in concern since around 2016–2018 isn’t just political spin. That period coincided with a very visible shift in policy and culture: the move from “live and let live” toward self-ID policies that allowed biological males into women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and especially sports. High-profile examples like Lia Thomas competing in women’s swimming, Dylan Mulvaney’s very public campaign, Drag Queen Story Hours in schools, and the sharp increase in medical interventions on minors all made the practical consequences of those policy changes much more visible to average people. I think that in 2016, most Americans had never encountered a self-ID bathroom policy in practice. Once those policies were implemented and the effects became real (women and girls reporting discomfort, loss of privacy, and documented incidents), public concern grew — not because trans people suddenly appeared, but because the rules changed in ways that affected sex-segregated spaces that had been stable for generations. I don’t think this is purely a “right-wing wedge issue.” Some segments of the trans activist community and their allies pushed hard for self-ID policies that went far beyond basic tolerance. Is it possible that this activism, combined with institutional adoption of those policies, have contributed to the new social friction we have been experiencing? Also, do you think the concerns women have raised about privacy and safety in bathrooms and locker rooms are entirely manufactured by politicians, or do you see some of those concerns as legitimate reactions to real policy changes? Thank you for explaining your position clearly. I appreciate you wanting to keep things practical and minimize conflict for everyone. I agree that in an ideal world we would have enough single-use bathrooms so that anyone who feels uncomfortable can have privacy. That would be a compassionate solution. But it won't work in all places. For example, I co-own an RV park, and we have recently installed private single-use bathrooms, each of which has its own locked door. So we won't be encountering any problems along the lines of what we are discussing here. However, down the road there may be an older RV park that has sex-segregated bathrooms. Do you think it would be incumbent on the owners of such a facility to spend a substantial sum revamping their facilities to turn them into single-use bathrooms? Also, I think that the “leave it the way it is — let people use the bathroom of their choice” is actually a new policy, not the status quo of the last several decades. For generations, the limiting principle for women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers has been biological sex, not self-identified gender. That bright-line rule was simple, enforceable, and grounded in the real differences between males and females that make sex-segregated spaces necessary for safety and privacy. Allowing biological males into women’s facilities (even if they identify as women) changes the fundamental nature of those spaces. Many women and girls experience that change as a loss of privacy and safety — not because they assume every trans woman is a threat, but because biological sex is the reason those spaces were segregated in the first place. I’m not asking anyone to harass trans people. I’m just trying to explore the perspective your are presenting here, which perspective, if enacted, would seemingly solve one person’s discomfort at the expense of others' discomfort (i.e., requiring women and girls to surrender the privacy and safety protections they’ve always had). Single-use bathrooms or third spaces are a much better way to accommodate trans individuals without compromising those protections. But even that does not seem to be a comprehensive solution. Nevertheless, if we keep the traditional biological-sex rule for women’s facilities, do you see single-use or family bathrooms as a reasonable way to give trans people privacy and dignity? I appreciate you sharing that routine — it’s funny, and I get the point it’s trying to make. No reasonable person believes a bathroom sign magically stops every determined predator. We both agree that anyone who commits sexual assault or physical violence should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, regardless of gender or identity. The bathroom policy debate isn’t about pretending signs are foolproof barriers. It’s about whether we should keep the long-standing, objective limiting principle of biological sex for women’s facilities. That clear, enforceable standard has protected women’s privacy and safety in vulnerable spaces for generations. Changing it to self-identified gender identity removes that objective boundary, such that it seems to make things easier for bad actors to gain access without raising any red flags. The comedian’s bit assumes the only thing stopping predators is a sign on the door. In reality, the policy itself matters: when we remove the biological-sex rule, we lower the practical and social barriers that used to deter opportunistic behavior in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. That’s the concern many women have expressed. I am trying to weigh those concerns while evaluating your proposal. Any thoughts on how I should do that? Thank you for the thoughtful reply — I really appreciate that we’re finding some common ground on intersex conditions and the need to prosecute violence regardless of identity. That’s helpful. Where I see the issue differently is that the approach you describe — “everyone use the bathroom that makes you most comfortable” — seems to be a recent policy shift, not the way things have always been. For decades the clear, objective standard for women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers was biological sex. That bright-line rule was simple, enforceable, and grounded in the real physical differences between males and females. Allowing access based on self-identified gender identity (or personal comfort) removes that objective boundary. It’s not about assuming every trans person is dangerous — it’s about recognizing that biological males as a group retain male-pattern strength and sexual offending risks, and that many women and girls experience a genuine loss of privacy and safety when the rule changes. I agree that single-use bathrooms are a compassionate way to accommodate people who prefer more privacy. But I struggle with the idea of solving one group’s discomfort by asking another group (women and girls) to give up the sex-based protections they’ve always had in those spaces. Do you see any downside to keeping the traditional biological-sex standard for women’s facilities while expanding single-use options for anyone who wants them? And meanwhile, what do we do with facilities that are already in place? Do we impose on private property owners (such as RV park owners) an obligation to retrofit sex-segregated bathrooms, or else add single-use bathrooms? Or do we just abolish sex-segregated bathrooms altogether? Thanks, -Smac

Thanks! I highly recommend the Habits book. It really is making an impact in my life. The General Authorities (and the Scriptures, and my Patriarchal Blessing, and my wife) have long spoken of the need to be peacemakers. Hollis's book has, for me, created a framework to pursue that objective. Thanks, -Smac

Thanks. I really am trying to turn over a new leaf. Old habits die hard, which is why I am specifically and repeatedly referencing the Collis book. It provides a sort of visible benchmark by which I hope to measure my words. Thanks, -Smac

I quite understand. In fact, I would not be surprised if you suspected that my change in tone and approach, being both abrupt and substantial, is pretextual or a ruse or something. That is why I cited the book. It has been a catalyst for me (along with numerous discussions with my wife, with whom I have been reading the book). Leaders of the Church have often spoken of being "peacemakers." My Patriarchal Blessing speaks of it. But twenty+ years of litigation has created some default habits that are sufficiently - as you put it - "adversarial" as to keep "peacemaking" at a distance. I can only declare my intentions. Time will tell if those intentions - of striving to be a peacemaker - are borne out. The Hollis book is providing a solid framework, but I still need to utilize it. I am working on that. Thanks, -Smac

Same here. It may well end up being a paradigm shift for me, and one that has been needed for a long time. I quite agree with you here. But this goes back to the "limiting principle" inquiry. Assuming that the vast majority of trans women (biological males) in women's bathrooms "are not threats," is there a risk of biological males who are "threats" going into women's bathrooms? If so, how would we propose to differentiate between the two groups? What limiting principle would allow non-threatening biological males into women's spaces but disallow potentially threatening biological males into women's space? Also, it seems like safety is not the only factor under consideration. I think many (most? even a supermajority?) of women want to have private spaces from which biological males are excluded. Do you think that is a legitimate expectation? My concern isn’t about trans individuals as a group — it’s about the policy of allowing biological males (regardless of identity) into women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Biological sex is the reason those spaces were segregated in the first place: to protect female privacy and safety from male-pattern physical advantages and sexual offending risks. The proposal here, which I am evaluating, seems to be that entry into women's spaces should be based on "gender identity" and/or "presentation." And the purpose of this proposal is to solve one group’s discomfort (that is, trans women). However, this solution seems to compromise many women's preferences and expectations regarding privacy and safety in vulnerable spaces. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, even when you were short on time. I appreciate the summary and the spirit in which you wrote it. I agree that in everyday life most people simply walk into the bathroom that matches how they present, and for the vast majority of adults that presentation aligns with their biological sex. The reason sex-segregated bathrooms have been the norm for over a century isn’t because we were checking birth certificates at the door — it’s because biological sex is observable and the spaces were designed around the real, average differences between males and females (privacy, safety, and modesty). The shift that has created the current controversy is the move from that long-standing biological-sex standard to self-identified gender identity as the deciding factor. That change is, I think, quite recent. When a biological male (regardless of "presentation") enters women’s facilities, many women and girls experience it as a loss of privacy and safety — even if that individual has no bad intent. That concern is based on biological reality and documented incidents, not politics. DSD (intersex) conditions are real and deserve compassionate care, but they are extremely rare (roughly 0.018% of births that involve ambiguous genitalia) and don’t change the fact that sex is binary for the overwhelming majority of humans. Public policy is typically built on for the 99.98%, not the exception. That being the case, are single-occupancy or third-space options a better way to accommodate everyone without creating new problems? What do you think is the best way to balance those competing needs? I’d genuinely be interested in your thoughts on that approach whenever you have time. Thank you, -Smac

Complaint driven response is based on gender presentation not biological sex. What percentage of the time does "gender presentation" align with "biological sex"? Could you elaborate here? Again, I am not advocating for the above enforcement mechanism, and instead provide it as my understanding of the historical status quo. I acknowledge that we are currently have a societal debate about this stuff, but are you and I in agreement on that (re: historical status quo)? I appreciate you pushing back on this — I can see you’re genuinely concerned about making enforcement practical and avoiding harassment for everyone. That’s a goal we both share. You’re right that in everyday life, people often make quick judgments based on how someone presents (clothing, hair, mannerisms, etc.). That’s normal human perception. However, the reason the traditional complaint-driven response and social norms around bathrooms have worked so effectively for generations is that, for the vast majority of adults, presentation aligns very strongly with biological sex. When there is a clear mismatch (a biological male entering the women’s bathroom), women in that space tend to notice and complain — not out of malice, but because they feel their safety or privacy is being compromised in a vulnerable area. The complaint is the trigger, but the standard being enforced has always been biological sex, not “does this person look feminine enough?” I sense that you are in favor of shifting societal rules so that entry into women's spaces is determined by "gender identity" or "presentation." Am I correct on that point? If so, is there a risk that this standard, rather than solving problems associated with subjectivity, will actually increase them? It would seem like this standard would compel everyone in society (other users, staff, property owners) to guess at someone’s internal sense of identity rather than rely on the clear, observable biological reality that these spaces were designed to accommodate. Alternatively or additionally, wouldn't this standard have the practical effect of abolishing sex-segregated spaces altogether? Also, I think the concern about altering the historical status quo to solve one group’s discomfort is that doing so ends up creating discomfort, risk, or loss of privacy for women and girls in spaces that were built to protect them. I anticipate that you disagree with this sentiment, but I would like to better understand the particulars of why you disagree. Could you lay out your reasoning here? The "historical" system — objective signage + biological sex as the boundary + complaint-driven response — has been low-conflict and practical precisely because it uses a verifiable standard instead of a subjective one. I am, nevertheless, trying to better understand perspectives that find this system unacceptable. I’m curious about your view: In practice, do you think a policy based on self-identified gender identity or presentation actually creates clearer, more consistent boundaries than one based on biological sex? I’d genuinely like to hear your thoughts. Thank you, -Smac I’m curious about your view: In practice, do you think a policy based on self-identified gender identity or presentation actually creates clearer, more consistent boundaries than one based on biological sex? I’d genuinely like to hear your thoughts.

It’s a wedge issue propped up recently by the rich and powerful to win elections. I appreciate that perspective. What are your thoughts as to how long it has been a topic in society? It seems to be a very new thing, just a few years old. Am I incorrect in this perception? As I survey discussions on this topic, it seems like quite a few women have a lot to say about it. Some in favor (of allowing biological males in women's spaces), and some against. Do you think it is a legitimate topic for social discussion and debate? Thank you, -Smac

I thought he was saying the opposite. That he's speaking about obvious males that are trans women using women's private spaces. But I could be misunderstanding the statement. You are mostly correct. I did not say "'obvious' males." I said "obvious biological males." However, it might be incorrect to infer that all "biological males" found in women's bathrooms are "trans women." See the first video in my above post, with the father of the young girl opening the door to the woman's bathroom and finding a bearded person there. That person sure looks like a biological male, but is he a "trans woman?" How would anyone know, given that "trans" is a wholly subjective "identity?" Until fairly recently, it seems like the phrase "biological male" would have been a tautology, like "canine dog" or "new innovation." And perhaps it still is, except in discussions centering on trans issues, in which words like "man" and "male" and "woman" and "female" have been, in some quarters, re-defined to remove their biological component. Thanks, -Smac

This part. This is the correct limiting principle. You want “ obvious” males to use women’s bathroom. I do not. I’m not sure what’s wrong with this standard. In my system people use the restroom that matches their gender presentation. In your system obvious men are forced into women’s spaces and vice versa. In your system obvious men are forced into women’s spaces and vice versa. Are the "obvious men" here biological women? Are the "obvious{wo}men" here biological men? How the &$@? am I supposed to know? I’m not a pervert lol. I am trying to understand your statement. I am presently not trying to advance any "system," but to understand alternative perspectives to my own. I noted: "Women and girls (and parents) routinely notice and challenge obvious biological males {in women's bathrooms}." You responded: "This is the correct limiting principle. You want 'obvious' males to use women’s bathroom. I do not." You omitted an important, even essential, word in my statement: "biological." So when you say "In your system obvious men are forced into women’s spaces and vice versa," whom are you describing with your reference to "obvious men?" I was referring to "obvious biological males." Are you doing the same? I think the normative system has been more or less along these lines: "Objective signage" would put the onus on the individual (who would know his or her biological sex) to enter into the correct bathroom. "Complaint-driven response" would, in virtually all circumstances, not require examination of DNA because in almost all circumstances, people of normative intelligence and experience can identify an "obvious biological male" by physical appearance, visible secondary sex characteristics, and so on. An example: Now, this person might be a biological woman who has undergone extensive medical procedures to make herself look like a man. Or this person may just be a biological male. I assume we are in agreement on that? This video is interesting: This person, the one with stubble and a receding hairline, states that he is a "trans woman," that is a biological male. So there is, I think, no question about his biological sex. But if we were to nevertheless take a poll and ask 1,000 people to guess if this person is a biological male, I think 99+% would say "yes." And they would be correct. There is no need for Person A to know what Person B's "dna looks like" because biological sex is, in virtually all circumstances, obvious and clear. Now, the video also shows a clip of a well-known trans woman named Blair White who is commenting on the above person: I am not denying that some biological males can dress and act in such a way as to give the impression that they are women, and lead others to surmise that they are (biological) women. Blair White is a good example of this. That surmise would be in error, correct? The vast majority of the the time, "how they look" yields an accurate assessment of a person's biological sex. Would you agree with that? See, e.g., this article: Sex perception from facial structure: Categorization with and without skin texture and color Perceiving Sex Directly and Indirectly: The Role of Body Motion and Morphology in Sex Categorization Key finding: Body shape cues (shoulder-to-hip ratio, waist-to-hip ratio) alone allow correct sex categorization at rates well above 90% (according to Grok, as I could not access the article directly). I would like to better understand if this proposition - that an individual's biological sex is overwhelmingly clear to most people based on apparent visual indicators - is in dispute. What are your thoughts about that? Again, I am not trying to advance my perspective, but to better understand yours. Okay. But again, I did not say "'obvious' men." I said: "Women and girls (and parents) routinely notice and challenge obvious biological males {in women's bathrooms}." I appreciate you sharing this, as you have a few times before. I recognize that this might create a strong personal investment in this topic for you, and I am working to respect and acknowledge that. When you say "my Aunt is a trans woman," I take the implication to be that this person is a biological male who identifies as a woman. Is that correct? When you say "I still see her as male sometimes in photos," are you referring to this person's biological sex? In relation to public policy re: biological males in women's bathrooms and other spaces? I am not sure what "problem" you are referencing. Could you clarify? Thanks, -Smac

Thank you. I appreciate you laying this out clearly — I can see you’re genuinely trying to find a fair way to let people use the bathroom without harassment or tension. That is a goal we both share. I agree that most of us instinctively categorize people by how they present, and that presentation exists on a spectrum influenced by culture and personal style. I also get why you arre concerned that a biological-sex rule could lead to awkward situations or harassment for people who don’t “look” like their birth sex. Here’s where I see the limiting principle differently. The reason we have sex-segregated bathrooms (and why they’ve been the norm for over a century) isn’t based on “how someone looks.” It’s based on the objective, observable reality of biological sex — the same reality that determines physical strength differences, crime patterns, and the need for privacy from the opposite sex in vulnerable spaces. In practice, we have never needed invasive checks at the door. The rule has always been enforced through: Clear signage (“Women” / “Men”) Property owners’ right to set and enforce reasonable rules Social norms and complaint-driven response when someone clearly of the opposite sex enters That system worked for generations without the seemingly constant conflict we are seeing now (though perhaps more in discussion than in reality). Basing the rule on “gender presentation” or “how someone looks” would seem to create the very subjectivity and enforcement problems you are worried about — because appearance is in the eye of the beholder, and predators have already used that ambiguity to gain access. The data on male-pattern violence and sexual offending doesn’t change based on clothing, makeup, or self-identification. That’s why, I think, biological sex has been the consistent, workable limiting principle. It protects the safety and privacy of women and girls (and, frankly, gives everyone clearer boundaries) without requiring anyone to police appearances. Nevertheless, I am trying to understand perspectives that disagree with the foregoing assessment. Nobody deserves to be harassed. The solution should not require us to pretend biological sex does not exist or that presentation is a reliable proxy for it. Single-occupancy options, family bathrooms, or third spaces seem like a much more compassionate way to accommodate everyone without compromising the original purpose of sex-segregated facilities. Curious to hear your thoughts on that. What do you think is the strongest reason a presentation-based rule would actually protect privacy and safety better than a sex-based one? I agree that in an ideal world, bathrooms should just be places where people can pee, poop, and wash their hands in peace, without any harassment or fear. That’s a goal we both share. The reason I think we do need to think beyond “as long as they don’t bother anyone” is that the rule itself shapes what counts as normal and expected in those spaces. When access is based on gender identity rather than biological sex, it removes the clear, objective boundary that has protected women’s and girls’ privacy and safety for generations. I think privacy and safety are the principal problems with abolishing sex-segregated bathrooms. Further, even if the vast majority of people using the bathroom aligned with their gender identity have no ill intent, the policy still creates real problems: It gives any biological male (including those with bad intentions) easy access to women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, or changing areas simply by claiming a female identity. We’ve already seen documented cases of voyeurism, filming, and assaults in women’s facilities after self-ID policies went into effect. This is part of why I have been asking about "limiting principles." For many women and girls, the mere presence of a biological male in that intimate space feels violating. Privacy isn’t just about behavior in the moment; it’s about not being exposed to the opposite sex while undressed or vulnerable. “Don’t bother anyone” puts the burden on women and girls to decide whether someone is crossing the line in a private space. That’s the kind of subjective judgment that clear sex-based rules helped avoid. Biological sex has been the limiting principle because it’s objective, verifiable, and directly tied to the reasons we segregate these spaces in the first place (physical differences and the need for privacy from the opposite sex). The argument in view is that "gender identity" or "presentation" is too subjective to serve as a reliable safeguard. That is obviously the perspective I hold, but I am not seeking to advance it right now. I am, instead, trying to better understand contrary points of view. I am not against treating people with dignity or finding compassionate solutions. The challenge here is that one solution (eliminating sex-segregated spaces) solves one person’s discomfort by creating discomfort, risk, and loss of privacy for others (women and girls) in spaces that were designed to protect them. What are your thoughts about single-occupancy bathrooms or third spaces? Are they a better way to accommodate everyone without compromising those protections? Or do you think those protections are not worth maintaining? What do you see as the strongest safeguard if we base bathroom access on gender identity instead of biological sex? Thanks, -Smac

From Grok: I think the issue of biological males going into women's spaces is a dispute of very recent derivation. Do you disagree? Thanks, -Smac

Do you have any thoughts about the "limiting principle" issue I have raised? Also, what do you think of this "enforcement mechanism"? Thanks, -Smac

This part. This is the correct limiting principle. Okay. What are your thoughts about the other parts? Also, what happens if the law does not exclude "biological males" from women's bathrooms? This is not an accurate statement of my position. Are the "obvious men" here biological women? Are the "obvious{wo}men" here biological men? Thanks, -Smac

I think this is attributable almost entirely to Kay Burningham. Although she was raised in Utah and got her law degree at BYU. she is pretty clearly antagonistic to the Church, as in 2011 she published "An American Fraud: One Lawyer's Case against Mormonism." I can't help but wonder if the Gaddy lawsuit was just a means for her to grind her axe. From the book's Amazon summary: Thanks, -Smac

I am re-evaluating my perspective on this topic, and am attempting to do so in ways that improve on my prior communications. See here: I am not saying I don't have an opinion on these matters, but I am attempting to re-evaluate that opinion using the Collis book as a framework. Actually, I'm not proposing this, nor anything else. I am, instead, attempting to better understand perspectives that vary from mine, and do so by asking questions, such as this exchange with Daniel: One concern I have seen, and find relevant, is about what could be termed a "lack of limiting principle," that is, it seems like there is no "limiting principle" as to sex-segregated bathrooms if, as you propose, entry into them is based on subjective self-identity (rather than biological sex). Is there any such principle in your view? Or do you think we should abolish sex-segregated bathrooms? I am not trying to maneuver Daniel, or Nehor, or you into answering these questions in an adversarial or "gotcha" kind of way. I am instead trying to apply Habits One, Two and Three from the Collis book: "We must reframe conversations from 'winning' to 'solving a shared problem.'" Biological men in women's spaces is, I think, a "shared problem" because of its controversy. "Winning" is not my objective, both because I am attempting to turn over a new leaf, and also because there is no such thing as "winning" in an online forum like this one. So I'm trying to explore the "solving a shared problem" approach. You and Nehor (not sure about Daniel) are apparently in favor of trans women (biological men) in women's spaces, so I am attempting, per Habit Two, to "actively seek accurate information and resist manipulation." I want to hear what you and Nehor and others have to say. Not to "win," but to help me to better understand your perspective and to re-assess mine. Yes, I can see the problem when framed this way. I can also see it from women's perspectives "Women forced to use bathrooms and changing rooms with biological men present." Both sides are making a fair point. Are we at an impasse? Or can the discussion continue? If the latter, then what questions ought we be asking? If the one about "limiting principles" (posed to Daniel above) appropriate? I don't want anyone to be harassed. And any "limiting principle" would be one implemented by a legislature or civil body, not by me. In the past, the "limiting principle" was, it seems, based on biological sex. Is subjective self-identity a better limiting principle? Physical appearance? Or do we just abolish sex-segregated bathrooms altogether? I'm interested in hearing what you have to say and your reasoning for it. To segregation based on sex? I'm not sure I understand your question. Law enforcement, I suppose. Bathroom segregation by biological sex has been the default in the U.S. (and most societies) for a long time. Enforcement is not primarily by police or genital checks at the door. It relies on, I think, three layered and practical mechanisms (from Grok) : But before we discuss enforcement of the rule, I would like to better understand what the rule is or ought to be. I appreciate that, but that brings us back to the "limiting principle" question. The Grok summary above presents some interesting concepts. Which parts of it, if any, do you find objectionable? Thanks, -Smac

I came here to hear perspectives other than my own, so I am glad we are getting that. I guess this goes back to my prior comments about "limiting principles," or the lack thereof. Again, it seems like there is no "limiting principle" as to sex-segregated bathrooms if entry into them is based on subjective self-identity (rather than biological sex). The "variety" you reference is about visual appearance, which is indeed varied. Is visual appearance, in your view, a viable "limiting principle?" It seems that this (visual appearance) or subjective self-identity both end up at the same place, which is no regulation at all. Many biological males who identify as women do not "pass," especially post-puberty. The policy would either A) arbitrarily exclude some while admitting others based on aesthetics rather than any principled line, or else B) not exclude anyone for fear of "gate-keeping." Self-ID advocates reject appearance-based gatekeeping precisely because it is seen as gatekeeping. I also sense that women are concerned about predators and opportunists who would have increased access either way to women's spaces for voyeurism, assault, filming, etc. There are also substantial privacy concerns for women and girls. Which brings me back to the question of "limiting principles." Is there one? If so, what is it? By "transmen" you are referring to biological females, correct? Assuming you disagree with biological sex as the delineating/limiting principle re: access to women's bathrooms, what alternative principle would you propose? Yes, there are difficulties no matter which way we go. Thanks, -Smac

My initial and kneejerk response was similar to Senator's ("Comes across a bit kitschy"), but for me I wonder if that reaction stems more from anticipating de facto cynicism and sarcasm and sneering and ridicule that is fairly prevalent online. If so, that can't be good. Cynicism and sarcasm ruin pretty much everything. And add the online component, these behaviors become way too indiscriminate. As per usual, I'm going to give the leaders of the Church a lot of leeway as to their discretionary decisions. Thanks, -Smac

The Gaddy lawsuit is officially over: Supreme Court’s rejection of a final major case shuts the door on LDS tithing lawsuits — or does it? "{K}ey legal questions are likely to linger." Not really. I disagree with the above. We already know that the church autonomy doctrine cannot "shield religious organizations from liability for criminal conduct." That question was never in view in this lawsuit. Rather, the question was whether characterizing doctrinal disputes as "criminal conduct" is a viable legal tactic. I do not think it is. The statute of limitations. I think this was correct. Burningham ended up helping create a rather strong precedent that will likely discourage, if not altogether preclude, lawsuits similar to hers in the future. Thanks, -Smac

A study from Finland: Mental health worsened after gender transitions for youth, major new study finds It will be interesting to see how (or if) this study holds up under scrutiny. That second paragraph is troubling. Longitudinal data has been largely absent from evaluations of having minors undergo "gender-affirming" medical treatments. "{A}dolescents suffering from gender dysphoria 'showed significantly higher psychiatric morbidity' before being referred to gender clinics than their peers, which continued even after being referred to gender transition clinics." "{F}indings indicate gender dysphoria 'may be secondary to other mental health challenges.'" I have previously listed my concerns about potential issues pertaining to "gender-affirming care" for minors: Comorbidities. Informed consent. Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. Irreversibility. Sterilization. Electively removing healthy body parts of minors. Longitudinal studies essentially absent. Lifelong medical regimens. Ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. Social contagion risks. Risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society). Longitudinal data and comorbidities are both being addressed in this article. "{G}uidelines promoted by some U.S. professional medical groups that children with gender dysphoria do not need significant mental health counseling before receiving life-altering interventions." Has that been the case? Is this an accurate statement and characterization of these medical groups? I have struggled to identify any other medical regimen or procedure that is medically authorized in response to the patient's threat to commit suicide. I am glad that longitudinal data is coming out. I look forward to it being scrutinized by those with the skillsets to do it. "The need for further psychiatric treatment increased significantly during follow-up for patients who underwent medicalized gender transition, rising from roughly 10% to 61% for male-to-female transitioners and from 22% to 55% for female-to-male transitioners." Wow. Those are astonishing numbers. Do No Harm is clearly activist, so I would prefer to see more clinical assessments. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac

Do you think there are any non-prejudiced perspectives that differ from yours regarding, for example, biological males in women's sports? It seems like a lot of "sports organizations" have governmental authority. State schools may need to set policy regarding biological males in women's sports, for example. What are your thoughts about the question I posed? State schools have government funding but they don’t need the government to write rules for them. In fact they would do better to fund state schools so they are more affordable. That is one of the reasons tuition has gotten so high. Instead universities being supportive of transgender students is being used as a wedge issue to further decrease funding because that is just where we are as a people right now. "Habit Ten" in the Habits book is titled: "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." From that chapter: These days there seem to be a few topics that are stridently framed in what the above author describes as "dichotomous thinking," and this thread's topic is clearly one of them. I have found it challenging to identify this "Real of Reasonableness" as pertaining to some trans issues, such as biological men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons. One question I would like to explore is whether the perspective I tend to find reasonable, even axiomatic (that is, that biological men should not be in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons) is actually more "extreme" than I perceive. Conversely, I would also like to evaluate whether the other end of the issue (that is, that biological males should be allowed to be in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons) is perhaps more "extreme" that its advocates perceive. For example, one concern I have seen, and find relevant, is about what could be termed a "lack of limiting principle," that is, it seems like there is no "limiting principle" as to sex-segregated bathrooms if entry into them is based on subjective self-identity (rather than biological sex). Is there any such principle in your view? Or do you think we should abolish sex-segregated bathrooms? Also, although Habit Ten recommends that we acclimatize ourselves to "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure," it also notes that we cannot always do this: The decided are always gentle—we could probably spend days pondering that phrase. It has stuck with me ever since I first read it. To me, it means that there is a calmness and tranquility that comes to us once we have already made up our minds on a particular issue. We need not revisit it again and again every time we face it. The obvious dilemma lies in determining the difference between those issues on which we should keep an open mind and those on which we should be “decided.” Biological men should in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons does not seem to be one of those topics about which "nonclosure" is feasible. Jurisdictions in the U.S. seem to need to allow it or not allow it. I asked Grok: The response: As a citizen with voting rights, it seems like "non-closure" is not really an option on this topic. Regarding biological men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons, I have, for some time now, been in the "decided" category ("decided" in that I think biological men should not be in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons). I will here evaluate whether this topic is one about which I "should keep an open mind," or whether I should keep it in the "decided" category. What questions/factors do you folks think I should take into account when conducting this evaluation? Thanks, -Smac

Sports organizations are working on rules to govern this stuff. It is not an insurmountable problem and doesn’t need government intervention... It seems like a lot of "sports organizations" have governmental authority. State schools may need to set policy regarding biological males in women's sports, for example. What are your thoughts about the question I posed? Thanks, -Smac