smac97

Okay. Okay. I think many of the events I have described, and provided extensive citations and quotes about, are sexualizing children. Okay. True. But society also has some right and duty to speak about the welfare of children as well. It is a balancing act, to be sure. Thanks, -Smac

I think I did define things fairly well here: By “sexualize,” I mean exposing children to adult sexual themes, behaviors, imagery, costumes, or performances — whether explicit or suggestive — that treat sexuality as public entertainment or spectacle rather than something private, intimate, and sacred. This includes highly sexualized dancing, revealing or exaggerated costumes, simulated sexual acts, sexual humor, or adults presenting themselves in overtly sexualized ways in front of minors. I apply this same standard across the board. I wouldn’t want young children at a strip club, a Hooters-style event with sexualized waitstaff, a burlesque show, or a wet T-shirt contest either. The issue isn’t the orientation of the adults — it’s the introduction of adult sexual expression into spaces where children are present. I believe sexuality is a beautiful and sacred gift from God, intended for marriage between a man and a woman and for creating eternal families. Because it is sacred, it deserves decorum and reverence — not casual public spectacle. Children are still developing their understanding of gender, modesty, and healthy boundaries. Exposing them to adult sexual contexts (even if not “explicit” in every moment) confuses that development and robs them of a protected childhood. Kids should be allowed to be kids. I’m not trying to ban adults from having adult spaces. I’m simply saying adult sexual performances and displays belong in adult-only environments, not mixed with children. I appreciate you clarifying what you mean by “sexualizing children.” I agree that one common usage of the phrase refers to turning children themselves into sex objects — for example, child beauty pageants that have little girls in heavy makeup, bikinis, and provocative poses. That is disturbing and I also oppose it (as I have noted previously). However, that is not the only meaning of the phrase, nor the one I’m using here. I’m using “sexualizing children” to mean exposing children to adult sexual themes, behaviors, or performances — even when the adults are the ones being sexualized. Examples: Highly sexualized dancing, simulated sex acts, or nudity at certain Mardi Gras parades where children are present. Some Pride parades that include provocative costumes, grinding, or adult cabaret-style performances in sections marketed as family-friendly. Drag shows or “Drag Queen Story Hours” aimed at or attended by young children, when the performers are in exaggerated sexualized attire and use adult-oriented humor or movements. Here are additional real-world parallels (heterosexual or otherwise) that introduce kids to adult sexual contexts, themes, or performances, even if not “explicit” in every moment. These mirror my concern about drag: the context and presentation sexualize or confuse, regardless of intent: Child beauty pageants (e.g., “Toddlers & Tiaras”-style events): Young girls (often preschool age) in heavy makeup, fake tans, hair extensions, bikinis, and provocative poses/outfits. Critics across the spectrum note this prematurely sexualizes children by equating worth with adult-style “sexiness.” Burlesque or pole-dancing performances at community festivals, fairs, or “family-friendly” events: Teasing, revealing costumes, and suggestive choreography that mimic strip-club or adult-entertainment styles. Certain cheerleading/dance recitals or competitions for preteens/teens: Routines with grinding, thrusting, or highly sexualized moves and skimpy costumes, often performed in school or public settings. Prime-time broadcasts like some Super Bowl halftime shows: Pole dancing, gyrating, crotch grabs, and near-nude costumes viewed by millions of families — widely criticized as soft-core burlesque in a family viewing slot. Carnivals/festivals with wet T-shirt contests, body-paint events, or bawdy sideshows: Public displays of adult sexual humor, partial nudity, or objectification. Overly provocative music concerts, award shows, or music videos marketed to general audiences but featuring explicit dancing, lyrics, and costumes (especially when children attend or watch at home). These examples keep the focus on any adult sexual expression invading children’s spaces — not orientation. The consistent principle: if it would be inappropriate at a strip club or Hooters, it doesn’t belong around kids. In each case, the children are not being turned into sex objects — they are being exposed to adult sexual expression as entertainment. That is the distinction I’m drawing. My position is consistent: adult sexual content and performances (whether at Mardi Gras, certain Pride events, strip clubs, burlesque shows, or anywhere else) belong in adult-only environments. Children should be protected from that exposure so they can develop a healthy, age-appropriate understanding of sexuality, modesty, and boundaries. Sexuality is sacred — not something to be turned into public spectacle for kids. That’s why I draw the line at events that mix adult sexual displays with children, regardless of the orientation of the adults involved. Does that make sense, or would you like me to clarify further? I appreciate you clarifying your view. I’m not claiming that every child who sees something “sexy” is being “sexualized” in the narrow sense of being turned into a sex object. That’s a different (and also wrong) thing. What I’m saying is this: exposing children to adult sexual themes, behaviors, costumes, or performances — whether it’s highly sexualized dancing, simulated sex acts, nudity, or cabaret-style entertainment — is inappropriate and does sexualize the environment for those children. That is the definition I’m using. It’s the same standard I would apply to a strip club, a burlesque show, or a wet T-shirt contest. The issue isn’t the orientation of the adults. It is the presence of adult sexual expression in spaces where children are present or invited. I’m not “fixating on queer people.” I’ve said repeatedly that I oppose the same thing at Mardi Gras parades, certain music festivals, or any event where highly sexualized behavior is on display around kids. My concern is consistent across the board. You’re right that there are very real sexual crimes against children. Protecting children from those crimes includes protecting their innocence and their developing understanding of sexuality. That’s not “pearl clutching.” It’s basic safeguarding. Children cannot meaningfully consent to or process adult sexual contexts. That’s why we draw lines around age-appropriate spaces. Sexuality is sacred — not something to be turned into public entertainment for kids. I believe adult sexual performances belong in adult-only environments. That’s the principle. It applies equally to everyone. Does that clarify where I’m coming from? I understand why you might see this as discomfort or bigotry — that’s a common accusation. But it’s not accurate here. My concern is not about discomfort with any particular group of adults. It’s about protecting children from exposure to adult sexual themes, performances, and imagery — whether at Mardi Gras parades with flashing and simulated sex acts, certain Pride events with highly provocative dancing and nudity in family sections, or Drag Queen Story Hours where performers use exaggerated sexualized attire and adult cabaret-style humor in front of young kids. I apply this standard consistently. I would object just as strongly to children being at a strip club, a burlesque show, a wet T-shirt contest, or any other event where adult sexual expression is the entertainment. The issue isn’t the orientation or identity of the adults. It’s the presence of sexual spectacle around children. “Protect the children” is not a smokescreen here. Children cannot consent to or meaningfully process adult sexual contexts. Their developing understanding of modesty, boundaries, and healthy sexuality deserves to be safeguarded. That’s not bigotry — it’s basic parental responsibility and common sense. Dismissing every concern about age-inappropriate sexual content as “bigotry” or “Satanic panic” simply shuts down discussion instead of engaging the actual principle. As a Latter-day Saint, and as a father, I believe sexuality is sacred — a gift from God meant for marriage and family, not public entertainment for kids. That belief leads me to draw a clear line: adult sexual performances belong in adult-only spaces. I’m not trying to ban adults from living as they choose. I’m saying children should be allowed to be children. If you genuinely believe no line should ever be drawn around children and adult sexual content, then we simply disagree on first principles. But please don’t assume my motive is hatred or fear. It’s concern for kids. I’ll wrap up with this: I find it disconcerting that our society appears to be granting a kind of special exemption — a sort of “No True Scotsman” privilege — to certain events that expose children to highly sexualized adult behavior. This double standard is especially noticeable with some Pride parades and Drag Queen events aimed at or attended by kids. We rightly call out the same kind of content at Mardi Gras, music festivals, or any other venue, yet with these particular events the concern is often dismissed as bigotry rather than taken seriously. I don’t believe that’s sustainable or fair. Children’s innocence and healthy development should be protected consistently, regardless of the identity or politics of the adults involved. I think I am not alone in this view. I think there are substantial numbers of people within the LGBT community who also object to sexualizing children at “gay” events in the ways I’ve described. Many of them have publicly said the same thing: adult sexual expression belongs in adult spaces, not around kids. We should be able to agree on that basic principle without accusations of hatred. Protecting children isn’t a partisan issue — it’s a human one. Thanks, -Smac

I commented on this previously here I Can a person have faith in The Book of Mormon while simultaneously rejecting The Book of Mormon as to its historicity? I don't think so. Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing. But The Book of Mormon declares itself to be the word of God through inspired prophets. Can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Christ a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save. I think the Inspired Fiction folks have not really thought through the ramifications of their proposal. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship." This is why I find advocacy of this approach problematic. Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejecting the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time. I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of The Book of Mormon. I've also previously quoted Elder Oaks (same link) (emphasis added) : I don't think we (that is, members of the Church) can say, regarding Jesus Christ, that quotations of Him in the Bible merely contain "high-minded sentiments and beautiful turns of phrase," and that we can enjoy such things while also rejecting His claims to be the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind. I have yet to see the Inspired Fiction folks (that is, those who are members of the Church) address this issue, which I believe is fatal to their proposal. If The Book of Mormon can be rejected for what it claims to be, and instead construed as fiction, then so can Jesus' claims of being the Son of God and our Savior. The value of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which, for me, includes the Book of Mormon) is, for me, inextricably linked with its realness and authenticity, with what it claims to be. There are, of course, portions of the scriptures which are figurative, or which otherwise do not need to have historicity. But Jesus Christ really needs to have been an actual person and the actual Son of God. And the Book of Mormon really needs to be what it claims to be. A fictional Jesus puts Him on par with other fictional heroes. Admirable, but not needed, not the source of salvation. Some value, yes (again, like Gandalf or Atticus Finch or Captain America), but not salvific value. Thanks, -Smac

I got the point, I just disagreed with and chose not to address portions of it, as it was not very responsive to my post. I am expressing concern about the sexualization of children. You are finding fault with that. I find that weird. I have done nothing of the sort. I have specifically and emphatically condemned all forms of sexualizing children. Meanwhile, you have effectively nothing to say about the bulleted list describing events which, in my view, are clearly sexualizing children. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine someone coming forward with credible evidence that the following events were taking place at events sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: "This...er...performer? In spandex, standing next to men in thongs, shouting 'We have bandanas and lube!' from a float parading in front of young kids." "Christina Aguilera sporting a green strap-on penis at a concert advertised as an 'all-ages' pride event in Los Angeles." "This man in drag exposing his pantyhose-clad crotch at a 'kid-friendly' brunch." "A toddler watches as men in thongs and bondage gear whip one another at a pride parade." "A group of half-naked people - including men and women - gyrate on stage and simulate sex acts at a 'family-friendly' drag and pride event in Austin, Texas." "This drag queen wearing pop-up prosthetic genitalia that actually sprayed liquid on to a crowd that included kids." "Drag queens and men in women's lingerie danced provocatively in front of a crowd that included one very confused little girl." "This bare-breasted person twerking and gyrating near a cop, only feet from children marching in the same parade in Washington, D.C. " Children watching a public event involving "a bunch of men that are butt naked and they’re riding around on bicycles ... exposing their genitalia to children who came to attend the event, which was advertised as a family friendly event." "{S}ome of these cyclists were covered in body paint while the majority were fully exposed, leaving nothing unseen to the eye." "{D}ozens of fully naked men and women playing in the fountain with children." "'{A} man with breasts' marching ahead of young children wearing little more than a bikini bottom walking straight up to a police officer, bending over, and shaking his rear at the cop." "{O}ther men walked by {children}, clad in rainbow-colored speedos with tight bulges on display." "{A} drag queen standing on an eggplant emoji float, proclaiming — with young children present — 'We have genitals and lube.'" "{C}hildren were present at a drag show featuring several men disrobing and suggestively dancing on stage." "Christina Aguilera was seen wearing a green, bejeweled phallus, with which she repeatedly stroked during her performance at the all-ages event on Saturday night." "{A}n adult forcing her reluctant child to watch the Pride parade." "Young children can be seen handing money to twerking drag queens. A bright pink neon sign saying 'It’s Not Going to Lick Itself!' added an extra layer of creepiness." "{Yale University associate professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Joseph J. Fischel} attempts to justify his argument that children should be exposed to public displays of kink and gay sexuality by taking the laughable position that such exposure will help combat 'racism and homophobia.'" "{Fischel inquires} 'What is the presumptive harm if a child …. sees an adult’s butt cheeks, or even an adult’s genitals or breasts?'" "Fischel continues, asking if a child would feel violated after witnessing any of these things, or if they’d be 'as likely to respond with curiosity?'" "{Fischel states that 'children might like'} public indecency at Pride." "'Kids in general aren't at all fazed by seeing nudity.' ... 'It's such a fun and colorful day, it helps to let the little ones express themselves as well. Go with an open mind and be ready to have fun.'" "{T}wo men pantomiming perverse sexual practices, as their truck rolled slowly down the street before gazing hordes of adults and children." “{W}e’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.” “The ‘coming for your children’ chant has been used for years at Pride events." "{R}eporter Taylor Hansen interviewed multiple nude men on the street who attempted to justify their public nudity in front of children as natural and sometimes even good for them." "{N}aked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." "A 9-year-old girl Hansen spoke to recounted how she saw a man wearing a Darth Vader helmet and cape 'with nothing else,' which she said made her feel 'grossed out.' "Hansen also posted a thread on X detailing more footage he captured of naked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." Would you find these behaviors objectionable in that situation? I sure would. In fact, I would separate myself from any group or subgroup or ideology that not only tolerates, but celebrates these behaviors, platforms them, endorses them. You have nothing to say about the bulleted list of behaviors. Says the guy who is personalizing this thread. I asked you a number of questions, all of which you have ignored. Stay away from events which involve exposing children to heavily sexualized behavior, and don't ignore or condone or attempt to justify such behaviors. That is my point. Henry was right. So is Andrew Sullivan: "{A}n unspoken golden rule: Leave children out of it." Seems like we need to make it a spoken golden rule. Thanks, -Smac

I think it would be productive to tell me what you think of those examples, since those are the types of events which I have found problematic. I hope the event does not include sexualized behaviors. Alas... A guide to taking kids to San Francisco's Gay Pride Parade SF Cop Says Nudity Around Kids is OK at Pride Parade Sounds like the event you are describing is pretty much par for the course. Graphic “Pride” Parades Attacking the Innocence of Children I won't ask if you are in favor of this stuff. “{W}e’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.” “The ‘coming for your children’ chant has been used for years at Pride events." San Francisco Pride Parade features public nudity around kids, 'Fetish Zone' with urine "A 9-year-old girl Hansen spoke to recounted how she saw a man wearing a Darth Vader helmet and cape 'with nothing else,' which she said made her feel 'grossed out.' "Hansen also posted a thread on X detailing more footage he captured of naked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." Again: "This...er...performer? In spandex, standing next to men in thongs, shouting 'We have bandanas and lube!' from a float parading in front of young kids." "Christina Aguilera sporting a green strap-on penis at a concert advertised as an 'all-ages' pride event in Los Angeles." "This man in drag exposing his pantyhose-clad crotch at a 'kid-friendly' brunch." "A toddler watches as men in thongs and bondage gear whip one another at a pride parade." "A group of half-naked people - including men and women - gyrate on stage and simulate sex acts at a 'family-friendly' drag and pride event in Austin, Texas." "This drag queen wearing pop-up prosthetic genitalia that actually sprayed liquid on to a crowd that included kids." "Drag queens and men in women's lingerie danced provocatively in front of a crowd that included one very confused little girl." "This bare-breasted person twerking and gyrating near a cop, only feet from children marching in the same parade in Washington, D.C. " Children watching a public event involving "a bunch of men that are butt naked and they’re riding around on bicycles ... exposing their genitalia to children who came to attend the event, which was advertised as a family friendly event." "{S}ome of these cyclists were covered in body paint while the majority were fully exposed, leaving nothing unseen to the eye." "{D}ozens of fully naked men and women playing in the fountain with children." "'{A} man with breasts' marching ahead of young children wearing little more than a bikini bottom walking straight up to a police officer, bending over, and shaking his rear at the cop." "{O}ther men walked by {children}, clad in rainbow-colored speedos with tight bulges on display." "{A} drag queen standing on an eggplant emoji float, proclaiming — with young children present — 'We have genitals and lube.'" "{C}hildren were present at a drag show featuring several men disrobing and suggestively dancing on stage." "Christina Aguilera was seen wearing a green, bejeweled phallus, with which she repeatedly stroked during her performance at the all-ages event on Saturday night." "{A}n adult forcing her reluctant child to watch the Pride parade." "Young children can be seen handing money to twerking drag queens. A bright pink neon sign saying 'It’s Not Going to Lick Itself!' added an extra layer of creepiness." "{Yale University associate professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Joseph J. Fischel} attempts to justify his argument that children should be exposed to public displays of kink and gay sexuality by taking the laughable position that such exposure will help combat 'racism and homophobia.'" "{Fischel inquires} 'What is the presumptive harm if a child …. sees an adult’s butt cheeks, or even an adult’s genitals or breasts?'" "Fischel continues, asking if a child would feel violated after witnessing any of these things, or if they’d be 'as likely to respond with curiosity?'" "{Fischel states that 'children might like'} public indecency at Pride." "{Fischel states that} we ought to celebrate kink, butts, and boobs… especially for {children}." I have asked whether you agree or disagree with this stuff. And you have not answered, and instead referenced the San Francisco, which is elsewhere described in similar ways as the above: "'Kids in general aren't at all fazed by seeing nudity.' ... 'It's such a fun and colorful day, it helps to let the little ones express themselves as well. Go with an open mind and be ready to have fun.'" "{T}wo men pantomiming perverse sexual practices, as their truck rolled slowly down the street before gazing hordes of adults and children." “{W}e’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.” “The ‘coming for your children’ chant has been used for years at Pride events." "{R}eporter Taylor Hansen interviewed multiple nude men on the street who attempted to justify their public nudity in front of children as natural and sometimes even good for them." "{N}aked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." "A 9-year-old girl Hansen spoke to recounted how she saw a man wearing a Darth Vader helmet and cape 'with nothing else,' which she said made her feel 'grossed out.' "Hansen also posted a thread on X detailing more footage he captured of naked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." The San Francisco Pride, which apparently involves all sorts of sexual depravities exhibited in front of children, is pretty much in line with quite a few events where children are exposed to highly sexualized adult behaviors. When it comes to Latter-day Saints going to church services: "It is definitely not the environment I want to live or the environment I wanted to raise my children." We live in a pluralistic society. Okay. Not sure what you are saying here. I don't think parents should be taking their children to watch highly sexualized public behaviors. Did I really need to say that? To be clear: The "high horse morality judgment" which you are condemning is my disagreement with children being exposed to the following behaviors: "This...er...performer? In spandex, standing next to men in thongs, shouting 'We have bandanas and lube!' from a float parading in front of young kids." "Christina Aguilera sporting a green strap-on penis at a concert advertised as an 'all-ages' pride event in Los Angeles." "This man in drag exposing his pantyhose-clad crotch at a 'kid-friendly' brunch." "A toddler watches as men in thongs and bondage gear whip one another at a pride parade." "A group of half-naked people - including men and women - gyrate on stage and simulate sex acts at a 'family-friendly' drag and pride event in Austin, Texas." "This drag queen wearing pop-up prosthetic genitalia that actually sprayed liquid on to a crowd that included kids." "Drag queens and men in women's lingerie danced provocatively in front of a crowd that included one very confused little girl." "This bare-breasted person twerking and gyrating near a cop, only feet from children marching in the same parade in Washington, D.C. " Children watching a public event involving "a bunch of men that are butt naked and they’re riding around on bicycles ... exposing their genitalia to children who came to attend the event, which was advertised as a family friendly event." "{S}ome of these cyclists were covered in body paint while the majority were fully exposed, leaving nothing unseen to the eye." "{D}ozens of fully naked men and women playing in the fountain with children." "'{A} man with breasts' marching ahead of young children wearing little more than a bikini bottom walking straight up to a police officer, bending over, and shaking his rear at the cop." "{O}ther men walked by {children}, clad in rainbow-colored speedos with tight bulges on display." "{A} drag queen standing on an eggplant emoji float, proclaiming — with young children present — 'We have genitals and lube.'" "{C}hildren were present at a drag show featuring several men disrobing and suggestively dancing on stage." "Christina Aguilera was seen wearing a green, bejeweled phallus, with which she repeatedly stroked during her performance at the all-ages event on Saturday night." "{A}n adult forcing her reluctant child to watch the Pride parade." "Young children can be seen handing money to twerking drag queens. A bright pink neon sign saying 'It’s Not Going to Lick Itself!' added an extra layer of creepiness." "{Yale University associate professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Joseph J. Fischel} attempts to justify his argument that children should be exposed to public displays of kink and gay sexuality by taking the laughable position that such exposure will help combat 'racism and homophobia.'" "{Fischel inquires} 'What is the presumptive harm if a child …. sees an adult’s butt cheeks, or even an adult’s genitals or breasts?'" "Fischel continues, asking if a child would feel violated after witnessing any of these things, or if they’d be 'as likely to respond with curiosity?'" "{Fischel states that 'children might like'} public indecency at Pride." "'Kids in general aren't at all fazed by seeing nudity.' ... 'It's such a fun and colorful day, it helps to let the little ones express themselves as well. Go with an open mind and be ready to have fun.'" "{T}wo men pantomiming perverse sexual practices, as their truck rolled slowly down the street before gazing hordes of adults and children." “{W}e’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.” “The ‘coming for your children’ chant has been used for years at Pride events." "{R}eporter Taylor Hansen interviewed multiple nude men on the street who attempted to justify their public nudity in front of children as natural and sometimes even good for them." "{N}aked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." "A 9-year-old girl Hansen spoke to recounted how she saw a man wearing a Darth Vader helmet and cape 'with nothing else,' which she said made her feel 'grossed out.' "Hansen also posted a thread on X detailing more footage he captured of naked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." You think it is wrong to object to or be concerned about the foregoing behaviors in front of children? You are simply incorrect here. I have elsewhere condemned pornography and other sexualized materials and events. See, e.g., here (re-posted in this thread for the second time, as you apparently missed the first) : Yes, I am repulsed at that. Same goes with Mardi Gras and other public displays of sexual licentiousness and depravity. And those are the events I find problematic. I think plenty of people are repulsed at any sort of efforts to sexualize/groom children. Consider these: Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade ‘GROOMING FESTIVAL’: Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride Children as Sex Objects: Why NYC Gay Pride Parade Is Being Called a 'Celebration of Pedophilia' DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance Pride Month Jumps the Shark Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’ And on and on and on. If and when you find articles endorsing the sexualization of children in a "heterosexual" context, feel free to post them and I will join you in condemning them. Again: "I have never previously excused or rationalized exposing children to other-than-drag-queen sexualized behaviors." Again: You have essentially nothing to say about the behaviors in the bulleted list above. You instead critique me for not sufficiently objecting to the sexualization of children in other contexts (while ignoring several instances in this thread where I have done precisely that). And then you accuse me of sitting on a "moral judgment high horse" for objecting to the sexualization of children. Henry was right. Thanks, -Smac

I don't quite understand this. You admit that drag shows are not inherently "sexual" "Drag shows are not inherently 'sexual' in the strict sense that every single one must involve explicit sex acts or pornography-level content." Yes. "However, the honest answer is, I think, more nuanced: Drag shows are very frequently and deliberately sexualized, and the art form itself is built on gender parody, exaggeration, and adult-oriented performance traditions that often incorporate sexual humor, innuendo, and provocative elements." What is it about this do you not understand? I don't think I said that. No. Again: "{Other than drag queens who are engaging in highly sexualized behavior in the presence of children,} I don't give much thought to drag queens. While I think they would be better off abandoning such behaviors, they are adults and can do as they please, within the confines of the law." Are all drag queens gay? If they are doing so while engaging in highly sexualized behavior in the presence of children, yes. Otherwise, I don't give much thought to women dressing up as men. Adults can do as they please, within the confines of the law. Back in 2022 you and I were in a thread that discussed instances of events which, in my view, sexualize children: That one was about a Pride parade. What is your perspective? Do you support an public event where children watch "a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong ... {being} spanked playfully by a partner with a flog"? Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids I disapprove and am opposed to events such as those described above. What is your perspective? Do you support children attending events exhibiting the above behaviors? Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade What is your perspective? Do you support children attending events in which they will see nude adults engaging in sexualized behavior, including behaviors like "Beanie Babies with giant penises on them"? Do you think children should "laugh and enjoy" these things? Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride Children watching a public event involving "a bunch of men that are butt naked and they’re riding around on bicycles ... exposing their genitalia to children who came to attend the event, which was advertised as a family friendly event." "{S}ome of these cyclists were covered in body paint while the majority were fully exposed, leaving nothing unseen to the eye." "{D}ozens of fully naked men and women playing in the fountain with children." I am opposed to events such as those described above being characterized as "family friendly" and having children as attendees (and, to an extent, participants ("fully naked men and women playing in the fountain with children")). Are you? DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing "'{A} man with breasts' marching ahead of young children wearing little more than a bikini bottom walking straight up to a police officer, bending over, and shaking his rear at the cop." I am opposed to events including stuff like this. Are you? Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance "{O}ther men walked by {children}, clad in rainbow-colored speedos with tight bulges on display." "{A} drag queen standing on an eggplant emoji float, proclaiming — with young children present — 'We have genitals and lube.'" "{C}hildren were present at a drag show featuring several men disrobing and suggestively dancing on stage." "Christina Aguilera was seen wearing a green, bejeweled phallus, with which she repeatedly stroked during her performance at the all-ages event on Saturday night." "{A}n adult forcing her reluctant child to watch the Pride parade." What are your thoughts about children being exposed to these behaviors? Pride Month Jumps the Shark "Young children can be seen handing money to twerking drag queens. A bright pink neon sign saying 'It’s Not Going to Lick Itself!' added an extra layer of creepiness." Do you approve or disapprove of events such as the one described above? Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’ "{Yale University associate professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Joseph J. Fischel} attempts to justify his argument that children should be exposed to public displays of kink and gay sexuality by taking the laughable position that such exposure will help combat 'racism and homophobia.'" "{Fischel inquires} 'What is the presumptive harm if a child …. sees an adult’s butt cheeks, or even an adult’s genitals or breasts?'" "Fischel continues, asking if a child would feel violated after witnessing any of these things, or if they’d be 'as likely to respond with curiosity?'" "{Fischel states that 'children might like'} public indecency at Pride." "{Fischel states that} we ought to celebrate kink, butts, and boobs… especially for {children}." I disagree with Prof. Fischel. Do you agree or disagree with Prof. Fischel? How do you account for the events described above? I have never attended a drag show. I recall this story about a drag show in a bar in which children were invited, and which venue included a big neon sign declaring "It's not gonna lick itself!" Dallas protesters show up to 'Drag the kids to pride' family-friendly drag show "Drag the Kids to Pride." "It's not gonna lick itself!" I have never attended a drag show. Some parents apparently were in attendance at the Dallas event noted above. I have never attended a Drag Queen Story Hour. Yeah me too. I am glad we agree on that. I wonder if we agree on the parameters of what constitutes sexualization of children." Again: "Drag shows are very frequently and deliberately sexualized, and the art form itself is built on gender parody, exaggeration, and adult-oriented performance traditions that often incorporate sexual humor, innuendo, and provocative elements." I reject the characterization of "attacking." I also reject the reference to "them." I have not been speaking of all drag queens, but rather the subset that are engaging in highly sexualized behavior in the presence of children. Other than this subset, I don't give much thought to drag queens. While I think they would be better off abandoning such behaviors, they are adults and can do as they please, within the confines of the law. Again: I am likewise critical of exposing children to sexualized behaviors in other venues that do not necessarily involve drag queens or "Pride" stuff. As a Latter-day Saint, I believe sex is a beautiful and sacred gift from Heavenly Father, reserved for marriage between a man and a woman and intended to create eternal families (see ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World’). Because it is sacred, it deserves decorum and reverence — not casual public spectacle. Exposing children to any adult sexualized context — whether Drag Queen Story Hour, burlesque shows, child beauty pageants, suggestive dance routines, or events like Mardi Gras and Hooters-style venues — confuses their developing understanding of gender, modesty, and healthy boundaries. Even if a specific performance isn’t overtly explicit, the context (exaggerated sexual stereotypes, provocative costumes/moves, or adult entertainment norms) sexualizes childhood and erodes innocence. I apply this standard equally across the board because the Lord’s counsel on chastity and modesty protects all of His children, not just one group. In my view, we should let kids be kids, and reserve adult expressions for adult spaces. People on this board do not seem to spend much time trying to defend / rationalize / justify exposing children to sexualized behaviors, with the troublingly notable exception of sexualized behaviors as Pride parades, Drag Shows, etc. Thanks, -Smac

It "seems" to you that "the whole world wants," in 2026, "to shame you"? Really? My sense is that support of gay people has never been higher in the history of the world. Considering where it started, that doesn’t have to be that high. And yet it is "that high." Support for same-sex marriage has more than doubled in my adult lifetime. See, e.g., here: This is an remarkable level of support, even in a pluralistic society such as ours. Human Rights Campaign in 2023: ICYMI: New Data Shows Support for LGBTQ+ Rights Reaches Highest Rates Ever Recorded And yet CB, in 2026, is stating: "Healing from that trauma are the first steps in realizing that it is ok to be gay, even if it seems the whole world wants to shame you out of it." I'm not sure what you are saying here. To what do you attribute this "big difference"? Are people just lying? Mouthing what they think they need to say ("public appearance of support") even though it may not actually reflect what they genuinely thing ("private respect and acceptance")? I found this article interesting: Have Young Americans Turned Against Gay Rights? An excerpt: And this (from The Advocate in March 2026) : Fewer young Americans support LGBTQ+ protections, survey finds "Just." The article goes on to speculate as to the decrease: Radical trans ideology seems to be dragging down the "LGBT Community." And here (November 2025) : Support for Same-Sex Marriage Has Dropped, Amid Conservative Attacks I wonder if the explanation pertains to what could be called "Activism Fatigue." I have previously commented on "March of Dimes Syndrome" here: Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law" The article itself is here: The March of Dimes Syndrome A Grok summary of the article: As regarding LGBT groups (from the article) : Mr. Tierney is, I think, not alone in perceiving a substantial drift away from what the Gay Rights Movement originally was intended to achieve. See here (June 2025) : Gay journalist says LGBTQ movement has gone from civil rights success to 'madness' "{R}ewrite rules of biology" = Trans ideologies positing positing that a man can become a woman by "identifying" as one, "trans women are women," biological men in women's sports, bathrooms, prisons, re-defining "woman," etc. "{A}dvocating for child transgender treatment" is self-explanatory. I think he has a point. This stuff has been a bridge too far. I think that regular folks, regardless of where they originally stood and now stand on the core topics in "gay and lesbian rights" (particularly same-sex marriage), are getting wary of, and/or tired of, the endless emphasis and discussion and activism associated with this "seemingly infinite number of new niche identities." Fair questions, these. Hoo, boy. Is he spot-on with this observation. The other "bridge too far." I think he has a solid point here, as does Tierney above. The "they," is the "gender revolutionaries," not all gay/lesbian folks. I've previously stated in this thread: "Self-appointed State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to scare children, and to secretively alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, are engaging in wrongful and deeply creepy behavior." I agree with Mr. Sullivan on this point. "{T}he most radical of all." I suspect that he is correct about the adverse effects of this "radicalism," but I would like to see more discussion/data about it. This is where Tierney's article comes back into focus. I don't think activists are willing to close up shop, so they continue to push and push and push, even to the point of doubling and tripling down on what Sullivan aptly calls the "madness" associated with "abolishing the sex binary for the entire society" and "preoccupation with children’s sexual orientations." Thanks, -Smac

I would prefer you read my post first, as otherwise you seem to end up imputing things onto me that are incorrect, as you did here. But do as you please. This is just a message board. Not a biggie. Just a preference. Sounds good. Thanks, -Smac

Yes. Nehor started that. Well, not quite. From "queer" we went to gender dysphoria: Nehor responded: I responded: Nehor responded: And here: An unsubstantiated charge that is assumed to be true because all non cishet people are assumed to be child predators. This despite the evidence that in our society on a per capita basis pedophile predators are most likely to be cishet white men. And the people in power are the ones sexualizing children and who is in power? Stop blaming marginalized communities with limited power for pervasive social problems. This is just blood libel style anti-semitism with a new coat of paint. I responded: And here: An apparent and clearly accurate charge. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Nope. Just the ones that are exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on. Note that this is not just about sexualizing children at "drag queen" events, but also "at Pride parades" and "in literature, and so on." Nehor responded: A guy crossdressing is highly sexualized behavior? Ummmmm……you’re weird. Is everything about sex with you? I mean, I’m a pervert but you are in a league of your own if seeing a guy in a dress is making you think sexy thoughts. And you imagine that seeing that makes prepubescent kids think about sex? That is REALLY WEIRD. It was Nehor, not me, that narrowed the discussion to "drag queens." Indeed, he started to ask prurient questions: Do you get turned on by Drag Queen Story Hour where a crossdresser reads a cute children’s story? What do you think is going on in the heads of children in that setting that would warp them? How does this sexualize the children? You are just throwing around the word because you happen to think crossdressing is deeply deviant. Children really don’t. I responded: No. Just the ones exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, or endorsing such things. This, in my view, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. There are plenty of "straight" people that are likewise engaging this in wholly improper and creepy and perverted behavior. The difference, I guess, is that the sexualization in the LGBT community seems to be much more "mainstream," as evidenced by the public events (Pride parades, drag shows, etc.) at which children are being sexualized. Again, please note that I acknowledged and addressed the sexualization of children by people in Pride events (typically involving gay people engaging in sexualized behavior), drag shows (trans people engaging in sexualized behavior), Mardi Gras ("straight" people engaging in sexualized behavior), and so on. My condemnation of the sexualization of children has been plenary. It was Nehor that focused on "trans" in this context ("Do you get turned on by Drag Queen Story Hour..."). I think you are mischaracterizing what I have said. Substantially. Thanks, -Smac

We all should follow the chastity rule whether we are gay or straight or otherwise. Zero sex outside of marriage. I don’t think anyone needs to debate this on an LDS forum. And yet, here we are. The law of Chastity prohibits same-sex behavior. Some participants here find that problematic. While I reject the premise (of "sexual identity"), I understand, but still reject, your overall point. The Law of Chastity is the same rule for all of us, but it has a disparate impact on each of us based on our choices and circumstances. I am married, and one of my best friends is divorced. I can engage in behavior he cannot. That doesn't mean there is some separate Law of Chastity for him, just that there is a disparate impact of that law. I don't know what you are referencing here. I have not presented by "life experience ... as an example of righteousness against" anyone. Thanks, -Smac

That answer still doesn’t address your hyperfocus on drag queens of the sexualized versions**** when the reality is kids are much more likely to be exposed on a daily basis to sexualized portrayals of women and men for that matter. I reject the "hyperfocus" premise. The discussion did not previously involve discussion of sexualization of children via "sexualized portrayals of women and men." Now that this has been introduced into the discussion, I have said: "I think any sexualization of children is wrong." I have elsewhere condemned pornography and other sexualized materials and events. See, e.g., here: Yes, I am repulsed at that. Same goes with Mardi Gras and other public displays of sexual licentiousness and depravity. And those are the events I find problematic. I think plenty of people are repulsed at any sort of efforts to sexualize/groom children. Consider these: Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade ‘GROOMING FESTIVAL’: Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride Children as Sex Objects: Why NYC Gay Pride Parade Is Being Called a 'Celebration of Pedophilia' DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance Pride Month Jumps the Shark Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’ And on and on and on. If and when you find articles endorsing the sexualization of children in a "heterosexual" context, feel free to post them and I will join you in condemning them. I have never previously excused or rationalized exposing children to other-than-drag-queen sexualized behaviors. Yet your implication here seems to be that I have. How many posts can you find where I have endorsed or excused such music videos? How many posts can you find where I have endorsed or excused any of these things? Fallacy of Relative Privation. I reject the premise. Thanks, -Smac

But isn’t it about self perception? Yes. That is how I can reject the premise. I acknowledge that. Also, the separation may be controversial, as I think there are people who conflate the two concepts and find the differentiation of them as offensive and wrong. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things. For my part, I do claim an "identity" of "husband and father," among others. "Sexual identity" is not one of them. As you like. Some people, though having American citizenship, are ashamed of it or indifferent to it, or else otherwise do not think of it as an "identity." I served in the U.S. Army National Guard, and my parents raised me to love America, so I do value my citizenship, and so consider that an "identity." Thanks, -Smac

Again: Again: Yes, giving the boy up for adoption could be very difficult for them. Hence the "best interests of the child" comment above. This is a message board. I'm often writing quickly and off-the-cuff. I do anticipate that you would read and grasp what I write before responding to it, but no biggie if you don't. Why? That's the way the law operates. I should have said "by the mother and the father," since the father is known and in the picture, and both have parental rights. I am not speaking of "belief." Parental rights are a matter of law, and they are presumptive, not "earned." Broadly, a parent has parental rights until and unless the State takes action to limit or terminate those rights. I should have said the mother and the father. Does that clarify? Thanks, -Smac

Again: Drag shows are not inherently “sexual” in the strict sense that every single one must involve explicit sex acts or pornography-level content. However, the honest answer is, I think, more nuanced: Drag shows are very frequently and deliberately sexualized, and the art form itself is built on gender parody, exaggeration, and adult-oriented performance traditions that often incorporate sexual humor, innuendo, and provocative elements. I reject the premise. My comments have been measured and reasonable, not a "rant." I think any sexualization of children is wrong. I think you meant "hypocritical." I reject the accusation. Again: “Family-friendly” or “kid-friendly” drag story hours are the ones that spark controversy. Performers usually tone down the raunch, but they still feature exaggerated sexualized costumes (breast pads, hip pads, heavy makeup, high heels, etc.) and read books that introduce gender/sexuality concepts to children. In my view, this is still sexualizing because it exposes kids to adult gender performance and ideological messaging about sex and identity. Thanks, -Smac

Possibly because you have never had to wonder about what people expect of you in this area. Or possibly because your question/comment was kind of unclear. Or, put another way, "It means you don’t need to fear disappointing or angering someone because of your sexual behavior." As long as I obey the Law of Chastity, I don't need to fear. Otherwise, I do. The same goes for all of us. Thanks, -Smac

I don't claim to know "what it is like grow{ing} up hating that you are gay and why can't I just be normal like everyone else." This also is a bit out of left field, as we have not been discussing "what it is like." Also, I respectfully reject the premise, as I think sexual attraction is something a person experiences, not something a person is. Or they could view same-sex attraction as something they may always experience (or not, as "sexual fluidity" sure seems to be a thing), and then figure out how to address that without violating their covenants with God. It "seems" to you that "the whole world wants," in 2026, "to shame you"? Really? My sense is that support of gay people has never been higher in the history of the world. Thanks, -Smac

We have seen you taking shots at drag queens numerous times. At those who are engaging in highly sexualized behavior in the presence of children, yes. Otherwise, I don't give much thought to drag queens. While I think they would be better off abandoning such behaviors, they are adults and can do as they please, within the confines of the law. I reject the accusation. I think there are large segments of the LGBT community are likewise disgusted by exposing children to highly sexualized behaviors. I have previously provided extensive quotes from such community members. I can track them down and re-post them if you like. Drag queens who are exposing children to sexualized behavior and Mormon bishops convicted of child abuse have both done very morally wrong and reprehensible things. Maybe you should reconsider your hobby of torturing puppies for fun and profit. I reject the premise. But I will reconsider my position on whether children should be exposed to highly sexualized behavior. <Pause> Yep. I stand by my position. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Thanks, -Smac

This is exactly why the vast majority of queer people leave the church. I reject the premise (the notion of "sexual identity"), but I understand and acknowledge your point. If a person wants to include in his life behavior that is incompatible with the Law of Chastity and other important commandments, then they will have difficulty remaining in the Church. If prioritize those incompatible behaviors over their membership in the Church and its associated covenants, I can understand why they "leave the Church." Actually, I think that is when things can become emotional. Moral clarity can become more acute. Again, I reject the notion that sexual attraction is a state of being. It is something a child experiences, and is not what the child is. I have an acquaintance, a young man (the son of a friend), who got a girl pregnant. Both are quite young. The young man has little work experience and income, and the young woman has substantial mental health and addiction issues. Fortunately, she did not abort the child. She gave birth and is keeping the baby, a little boy. While I think the little boy would probably be better off being adopted, I am glad she did not kill him, as he will have an opportunity to grow up. We have yet to see how this all plays out in the long term. The parents are unmarried and have no intention of getting married. The mother in unemployed and is anxious to get past nursing so that she can return to her use of drugs and alcohol. The young man also has some issues in his life (including, I think, some drug/alcohol use). Is this "murky"? Emotionally and logistically, yes. Morally? No. The decisions being made are mostly morally clear. The substantive moral ambiguity, I think, is the "best interests of the child" (give him up for adoption or have him stay with his mentally ill and destitute and unemployed (by choice) mother with substantial substance abuse issues). And even then, the ambiguity is something to be resolved, in the end, by the mother, perhaps with guidance from trusted sources. Please don't introduce unserious questions into what should be a serious discussion. I think this becomes an issue for the parents based on the circumstances. If a teenage girl is dating, say, a 23 year old man, I could see the parents as reasonably imposing constraints on that, within the confines of the law. The girl can do as she please once she's an adult, but while a minor her parents still have some authority over her. For myself, I would have difficulty "forbidding" a teen child (say, 16 or older) from having a same-sex relationship (except that I would have reservations if there were a sexual component, as I would with a heterosexual relationship). For myself, I would operate with the confines of the law. I would offer advice if asked. And that advice would be to encourage them to discern what the Lord wants them to do, and then encourage them to do that. I would also tell them that I would respect their decisions, regardless of whether I actually agree with them. I would support them as best I could, in ways that I feel appropriate. Thanks, -Smac

My concern is primarily about sexualized behavior. I think parents generally have autonomy to expose their children to behaviors such as "men wearing women's clothing." I think that could be confusing to children, but the absence of sexualized behavior matters. A non-sexualized drag show? I suppose not "inherently." Drag shows are not inherently “sexual” in the strict sense that every single one must involve explicit sex acts or pornography-level content. However, the honest answer is, I think, more nuanced: Drag shows are very frequently and deliberately sexualized, and the art form itself is built on gender parody, exaggeration, and adult-oriented performance traditions that often incorporate sexual humor, innuendo, and provocative elements. Some examples: For myself, no. “Family-friendly” or “kid-friendly” drag story hours are the ones that spark controversy. Performers usually tone down the raunch, but they still feature exaggerated sexualized costumes (breast pads, hip pads, heavy makeup, high heels, etc.) and read books that introduce gender/sexuality concepts to children. In my view, this is still sexualizing because it exposes kids to adult gender performance and ideological messaging about sex and identity. A while back there were social media videos of a "Cast Member" at Disneyland who was very clearly a man and dressed up as a princess. The performer is shown interacting directly with young girls — hugging them, posing for photos, dancing with them, and engaging in playful physical contact in the park’s public areas. Some videos show the performer being very affectionate or “motherly” toward the little girls while in full drag/princess attire. Disney has defended these appearances as part of its commitment to “inclusion” and “diversity.” The company has increasingly allowed or hired gender-nonconforming and drag performers for certain events, parades, and character interactions, especially during Pride Month or special ticketed nights. However, many parents and observers (across political lines) have called these specific interactions inappropriate for young children because: A grown man in heavy makeup and a sexualized/feminine costume is engaging in close physical contact with little girls. The performance style often includes exaggerated feminine mannerisms, hip swaying, and flirtatious or theatrical elements that many adults consider adult-oriented or sexualized, even if no explicit sex acts are occurring. It blurs the line between family-friendly character entertainment and adult drag performance. Disney’s character guidelines are supposed to keep all interactions wholesome and age-appropriate, but some argue (legitimately, I think) that allowing biological males in feminine drag costumes around young girls violates that standard in practice. Not every interaction is overtly sexual, but the context is highly sexualized for many viewers: adult male in drag makeup and gown performing femininity in front of and with prepubescent girls. My understanding is that developmental psychology and child-protection experts generally conclude that exposing young children to adult cross-dressing or drag performance in an intimate setting can be confusing, boundary-blurring, or emotionally disruptive, even if the performer is not behaving maliciously. The videos struck a nerve, I think, with parents who expect Disneyland to remain a traditionally safe, non-sexualized space for young children. While Disney and others frame this as “inclusion,” I suspect a large number of parents view it as introducing adult sexualized gender performance into a space meant for children. The concern is not that every drag performer is a predator, but that the performance itself is inherently adult-oriented and crosses normal boundaries when directed at or involving very young girls. Thanks, -Smac

You never flirted with anyone else when you were single? I did. But not with married women. Or with men. Both behaviors are, by inference and extrapolation and common sense, prohibited by the Law of Chastity. Thanks, -Smac

I suppose. I don't know what this means. I don't know what this means, either. Who has to "defend" their sexual behavior? To whom? About what? As a Latter-day Saint, I am - by choice - constrained in my sexual behavior by the Law of Chastity. Those constraints include "heterosexual" ones. No adultery. No fornication. Thanks, -Smac

I think most observant Latter-day Saint parents encourage their children to obey the Law of Chastity. I think many/most observant Latter-day Saint parents differentiate between divinely-authorized-and-mandated sexual relations (between husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the relationship between them) and other forms of sexual behavior (fornication, adultery, same-sex behavior, etc.). So to clarify, you just answered cb with an extended “No, they don’t tell their kids they don’t care about about the biological sex of their child’s romantic partners as long as no extramarital sex”….which seems to mean they do care if their child ends up in a same sex marriage. Candidly, I don't really know how "most" parents approach this topic. I think most parents, not just those who are Latter-day Saints, anticipate - and perhaps hope - that their children will grow up, get married, and have children. I sense that "heteronormativity" is supposed to have some sort of pejorative connotation, but heterosexual behavior is the only way to procreation. Our bodies are designed for it. Same-sex behavior is biologically incoherent. As humans, then, we can add a moral/religious layer to these matters. I think observant Latter-day Saint parents hope their children will keep the Law of Chastity. I don't think these parents frame this in relation to same-sex behavior in some sort of default sense. This may be changing, though, as some flavor same-sex status is growing at a very advanced rate. But to directly answer your question, I think most observant Latter-day Saints would prefer their children to keep the commandments, which would preclude a same-sex marriage. I'm not sure what you are saying here. I don't know how Latter-day Saint parents are approaching this, if at all. “If at all” meaning what? They don’t talk about future relationships with their kids or about what the future holds for those with homosexual attractions? Or something else? I don't know how often Latter-day Saint parents presuppose that their child is gay, or how often they approach that notion. By "if at all" I meant to suggest that some parents don't address this point at all. When I think about what I have "hoped" for my children, it has involved them living out the Plan of Salvation. Same-sex marriage is not a part of that Plan, nor is same-sex behavior. Same-sex attraction might be, depending on the individual. Thanks, -Smac

Thus demonstrating the nebulous, amorphous nature of the word. It's changing. It's broad. It's vague. I consider it much less important than the child’s safety and security. Broadly, this is not an either/or situation. I think it is quite creepy and wrong for State actors and strangers to intentionally and actively and secretively seek to scare children, to alienate them from their parents, and to subvert parental rights and authority, and to do so under pretextual stuff like "the child’s safety and security." This is grooming-style behavior. So if you live your entire life based around a law around sexuality you are going to talk about sex constantly? I do not claim an "identity" based on my sexual orientation or proclivities. I know, you are the default. No. I am speaking for myself. Well, no. The notion of "sexual identity" is quite a new concept and a First World and Western Civ one at that. I think most of humanity is not really occupied with claiming and broadcasting an "identity" pertaining to sexual orientation and proclivity. Yes. I do claim an "identity" as a Latter-day Saint and disciple of Jesus Christ and a son of God. These are the primary ones, really, along with husband and father and son and brother. Next comes American. Any other "identities" are more about convenience and circumstance than substantive meaning and purpose. As for "sexual identity," I reject it altogether (for myself). You throw out these inane analogies all the time and they never work. You taunt and insult and generally fail to meaningfully and substantively contribute to conversations. Not with anyone other than my wife. Whatever "queer" means. And all Latter-day Saints are, I surmise, proscribed from "flirt{ing} in a non-het way." There are all sorts of ways to violate the letter and/or the spirit of the Law of Chastity. I think I am correct. There is only one Law of Chastity, and it applies to everyone in the same ways. Same law, disparate impact. Yes. I am glad we can agree on this point. I agree that parents should not use coercive or other abusive means to influence their children. I don't think it is the place of State actors and strangers to interpose themselves as judge and jury as to what parents do with their children, or to to intentionally and actively and secretively seek to scare children, to alienate them from their parents, and to subvert parental rights and authority. That you think it is all about sex. I don't think that. I think this is mostly about sex. Sex and sexuality are the sine qua non of the "sexual minority" identity. No. Just the ones exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, or endorsing such things. This, in my view, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. There are plenty of "straight" people that are likewise engaging this in wholly improper and creepy and perverted behavior. The difference, I guess, is that the sexualization in the LGBT community seems to be much more "mainstream," as evidenced by the public events (Pride parades, drag shows, etc.) at which children are being sexualized. I am not sure if you are kidding here. I think these sorts of topics should be discussed with decorum and seriousness. It is not just sexual boundaries that are being enforced. Even so, it is not the province of State actors and strangers to interfere with parental rights, particularly using secretive, subversive, manipulative means to influence minor children. It is hilarious that the state is acting to out queer kids via mandatory reporting and you are whining about the state subverting parental rights when I suggest that state actors should not be policing kids for non gender conforming behaviors. I don't know what you are referencing here. Which "state actors" are "policing kids for non gender conforming behaviors"? Biological males can't go into women's spaces. Is that what you have in mind as a "non gender conforming behavior"? Are there other behaviors you have in mind? Your various denigrating usage of terms like "bigot" and "transphobe" and "nazi" and "fascist" just don't have any impact. Your accusations are fundamentally unserious and irrational and unsubstantiated. Yes, all that great scriptural and prophetic authority. I was under the impression that you are a Latter-day Saint. Is it just a nominal affiliation? A former one? None at all? The Law of Chastity really hasn't changed much. In recent years the Brethren have had to implement a "Circles Are Round"-style clarification that the Law of Chastity presupposes a man-woman relationship. But that's about it. But it doesn’t work. That generally depends on the individual and the way they are facing. There is no compulsion here, so each individual is "free to choose." Nice weasel wording. That could be harmed a lot. They can be abused a lot. "A lot" is within the ambit of "to some extent." Ummm….yes. Huh. Well, I appreciate your candor. Parents of minor children can and should monitor and regulate the behavior of their children. This dissipates as the child nears majority, and thereafter the parents lack legal authority to do so, and should instead stay within an advisory role. I don't know what you mean here. Someone violating all therapeutic standards is not relevant to a discussion of whether the therapeutic standards as they stand work. I think there has been large-scale instances of damaging medical and psychological treatment of children, particularly those induced into profound medical treatments such as hormone therapy, puberty blockers and set trait modifications. These people will be impacted by these misbehaviors for the rest of their lives. Fortunately, these terrible experiments have been, I think relatively short-lived. From Grok: I am glad that "gender-affirming care" is on its way out. I am not sure if you are agreeing with me about that, or if you are acting as if these procedures and this model of care never actually happened. Again, from Grok: Starting around 2010–2015, a new "gender-affirming" model rapidly became dominant in many U.S. pediatric gender clinics. WPATH’s Standards of Care 7 (2011) and especially SOC-8 (2022), along with Endocrine Society and AAP guidelines, began endorsing puberty blockers as early as Tanner Stage 2, followed by hormones and (in some cases) surgeries for adolescents. This represented a profound departure from prior standards. It moved from a cautious, desistance-aware psychological approach to one that prioritizes social transition and medicalization. This sounds about right. I have. CBS Austin: Nearly 14,000 Minors Underwent Sex-Change Procedures in Recent Years, According to New Watchdog Database I am happy to consider any critique you have of these numbers. From the above article: Again, I'm happy to consider whatever resources you have. WRONG! Prove it. Put up or shut up. See here ("28 detransitioner lawsuits are now in different stages of legal proceedings across the US."). This seems like a dodge. Again: The women upstairs believed that they are men, but they were not men (unless we radically re-define the term and detach it from its biological moorings, which I am not willing to do). I am nevertheless expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. The young man downstairs believed that he is a dog, but he was not a dog. And I am not expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. I genuinely do not understand how the one incongruent-with-reality notion is acceptable for ratification (women who "identify" as men), but the other (a boy who "identifies" as a dog) is not. A guy crossdressing is highly sexualized behavior? Ummmmm……you’re weird. Is everything about sex with you? Again, exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Somehow this is a controversial statement. I guess you are being serious here. Again, exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Temporarily, it is unlikely to last. Enjoy it while you can I suppose. We'll see, I guess. So minors who are terrified because they realize they are queer in some way and know their parents will not accept them I think many such minors are feeling "terrified" and alienated from their parents because State actors and strangers are going out of their way to inculcate children with these fears and sentiments. This is not an apt characterization of my position. You are worried about the parents who have most of the power in that relationship. I am disturbed at the notion of self-appointed State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to interpose themselves as judge and jury of parents, and to substitute their own ideological preferences in the place of the parents', and to scare children, and to alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, and to do these things secretively and/or with the power of the State. This is wrongful and deeply creepy behavior. I think these kids need help. I don't think this help should come in the form of self-appointed State actors and strangers doing the deeply creepy and subversive things noted above. Yet they are. Routinely. It is pretty much standard. The answer is not to have self-appointed State actors and strangers doing the deeply creepy and subversive things noted above. Yep, all those support hotlines are wrongful and deeply creepy. No. Just the ones that involve State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to interpose themselves as judge and jury of parents, and to substitute their own ideological preferences in the place of the parents', and to scare children, and to alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, and to do these things secretively and/or with the power of the State. This is wrongful and deeply creepy behavior. What you characterize as "being accepting of kids" I see as self-appointed strangers traumatizing children by secretly subverting parental rights and authority, alienating children from their parents and presenting themselves as people children should trust instead (a classic groomer tactic), scaring them with doom-and-gloom stuff, and so on. I was working with kids who had been removed from the care of their parents due to abuse or negligence. Okay. I think it is not the province of self-appointed persons to secretly subvert family relationships. Civil authorities and the courts, yes. Not self-selected ideologues who presume to interfere with familial relationships, particularly in secret. I understand it is a controversial theory, and I think the jury is still out on it. I do think we need to account for the substantial changes noted by Bill Maher. Do you get turned on by Drag Queen Story Hour where a crossdresser reads a cute children’s story? No. I find it creepy and weird and perverted. I likewise find your prurient question creepy and weird and perverted. I think children can become confused and troubled about sexuality. I think this is why groomers groom, so they can manipulate children into viewing sexuality in aberrant and improper ways. Children’s brains and nervous systems are wired for gradual, age-appropriate exposure to sexuality. Premature or intense exposure overwhelms them in several ways: Prefrontal cortex is immature (until mid-20s): Children lack the impulse control, abstract reasoning, and emotional regulation needed to process explicit sexual material. They cannot contextualize or “compartmentalize” what they see the way adults can. Sexualization creates confusion and hyperarousal: Seeing adult sexual behavior (nudity, simulated sex, kink, etc.) floods a child’s developing limbic system with stimuli they are not equipped to handle. This can trigger anxiety, shame, dissociation, or inappropriate sexual curiosity/behavior. Boundary violation: Children rely on adults to maintain safe boundaries. When adults expose them to sexual content or environments, it signals that sexual material is normal and acceptable for them. This erodes their sense of safety and can lead to long-term boundary issues, trust problems, or reenactment of what they witnessed. Desensitization and distorted expectations: Early porn exposure (the most studied form) is linked to viewing sex as transactional, violent, or performative rather than intimate and relational. It distorts healthy sexual development and increases risk of compulsive sexual behavior later. There is substantial clinical and research evidence that exposing children to pornography or highly sexualized adult environments is traumatic and disruptive to normal development. It violates the child’s need for protection, safety, and gradual maturation. The idea that children can “handle” or “benefit from” adult-level sexual content is not supported by developmental science. Responsible adults (parents, educators, event organizers) have an obligation to shield children from this kind of exposure. You seem to be defending these events. I find that deeply troubling. I have come to the conclusion that this whole “the gays are sexualizing our children” I reject this characterization. Most "gays" do not sexualize children. Those who do are exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, or endorsing this sort of thing. This seems like an apologetic for grooming behavior. Very troubling. FBI behavioral analysis reports, child-protection studies, and grooming research (e.g., from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and academic reviews in Child Abuse & Neglect) consistently note that many online and offline groomers describe their actions in ideological or “liberatory” terms. They portray parents as “closed-minded,” “bigoted,” “religious fanatics,” or “transphobic/homophobic” obstacles to the child’s “authentic” sexual or gender exploration. My understand is that this mindset is not representative of the broader LGBTQ+ community or most mental-health professionals. The vast majority of people working with gender-questioning or same-sex-attracted youth are not grooming and genuinely believe they are helping distressed children. However, the “savior from repressive parents” framing does appear in some activist and clinical subcultures, especially when parental rights are framed as inherently oppressive to “queer” or “trans” youth. Grooming literature shows that predators almost never see themselves as villains. They nearly always construct a narrative in which they are the hero, the child is “mature” or “ready,” and the parents are the problem. The sexualization-as-liberation ideology provides a ready-made intellectual framework for that self-deception. Some groomers (and some people who enable boundary violations with minors) do see themselves as saviors freeing children from supposedly repressive parents. This is a well-documented psychological tactic, not a conspiracy theory. It is one of the reasons child-protection experts emphasize the importance of parental involvement and age-appropriate boundaries around sexuality. And want teachers to monitor the kids for deviant behavior! I have not said nor implied that. It is not. I have not said it because I do not think it. Your comments here are coming across as an apologetic for exposing children to highly sexualized events and behaviors. I find that deeply troubling. And already scared kids should not be supported. I don't think State actors and strangers should portray the secretive and subversive efforts I have described as "support." That starts to sound like justification for grooming. I find it deeply weird and creepy that self-appointed strangers feel justified in interfering with familial relationships. If parents are engaging in misconduct, those who know about it should report the matter to civil authorities. The stuff you describe and rationalize is, in my view, deeply wrong. Thanks, -Smac

I think most observant Latter-day Saint parents encourage their children to obey the Law of Chastity. I think many/most observant Latter-day Saint parents differentiate between divinely-authorized-and-mandated sexual relations (between husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the relationship between them) and other forms of sexual behavior (fornication, adultery, same-sex behavior, etc.). I don't know how Latter-day Saint parents are approaching this, if at all. I dislike the coercive element implicit in your statement. I don't think parents should emotionally coerce their children into staying in the Church and keeping the commandments. I also don't think children should emotionally coerce their parents into endorsing/ratifying same-sex relationships if that conflicts with the parents' religious beliefs. I think that in the end we each of us must do what we think is right. For observant Latter-day Saints, that may involve acknowledging, but not agreeing with, the world's re-definition of marriage, and being willing to resist strong social/cultural/political trends and pressures regarding matters of sexuality, and to instead embrace and uphold the Law of Chastity. That may also involve Latter-day Saints preserving relationships without the sort of "my way or the highway" impositions that can come into play from either or both sides. Thanks, -Smac

It is not at all a nebulous concept. "Nebulous" means "lacking definite form, shape, or content; vague or amorphous." Dictionary.com: "noting or relating to a sexual orientation or gender identity that falls outside the heterosexual mainstream or the gender binary." Does this definition work for you? Columbia Journalism Review: Do you accept the first bolded statement above? The second bolded statement seems to characterize the term as "lacking definite form, shape, or content; vague or amorphous." Wikipedia: "Queer" is "an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities." Per https://lgbtqia.fandom.com/wiki/Umbrella_term, "umbrella term" means "a word or a phrase that covers a broad range of related things instead of just one." Such a word or phrase can, in my view, be reasonably characterized as "nebulous." "Queer" is also "alternately used to refer to people who reject sexual and gender norms and share radical politics characterized by solidarity across lines of identity" and is also "a self-identity term for many people (similar to but distinct from gay, lesbian, and bisexual), characterized by rejection or disruption of binary categories of sexual orientation and gender." Do you accept all of these definitions? One? Some? None? As I see it, the Wikipedia article seems to characterize the term as "lacking definite form, shape, or content; vague or amorphous." lgbtqia.fandom.com: Boy, "queer" sure seems to cover a lot of ground. QueerMajority.com (article by David Link) : The bolded parts sure seem to characterize the term as "nebulous." What Does “Queer” Even Mean? (Medium.com article) : This article even uses the word "nebulous" as I did. What Does "Queer" Mean Anyway? Minus18.org article) : That sure sounds "nebulous." Merriam-Webster: The terms sure seems to cover a lot of ground. 9 LGBTQ+ People Explain How They Love, Hate, and Understand the Word "Queer": "A million conflicting meanings for the word." This is a stupid tangent. I think parental rights is an extremely important aspect of this topic. Not exclusively, no. But broadly, people whose life and worldview coheres around sexuality will generally bring "sexual conduct" into the discussion. For my part, I reject the notion of "sexual identity." Although I have never been sexually attracted to men, either categorically or individually, I do not "identify" myself as "straight" or "heterosexual," just as I do not "identify" myself as being right-handed. It's a matter of perspective and emphasis, I guess. If I drive down the road and stay within the speed limit, the police will not stop me for violating the speed limit. If my neighbor drives down the road and exceed the speed limit, the police may stop him for violating the speed limit. Are we "being treated the same"? The answer is "no" insofar as pertains to our respective behaviors, and "yes" insofar as pertains to our compliance with the law. Which leads to the question of why so many want government to enforce their standards for them. Sounds pretty authoritarian. Again, there should be a fairly broad spectrum of socially acceptable stances on matters of sexuality. This should include the Church's stance. Do you agree? Which is not what the Church wants or teaches. Yes, I think it is. The Church has, for many years now, taught that same-sex attraction and such is not itself sinful, but that acting on it is. The Church encourages its members to abstain from same-sex behaviors. The Church has never condoned parents doing this, and has instead taught parents to respond with love and patience and compassion and understanding. I'm not sure what you are saying here. I think it does exist. The Law of Chastity pertains to all Latter-day Saints. Same standard, disparate impact. LOL Not really a response. I think parents are generally justified in exhorting their children to stay within particularized sexual boundaries. I think it is quite creepy and wrong for state actors and other actors to actively seek to subvert parents in this regard. Which is not what is being achieved. So if the methods don’t accomplish the goal. I think sex is often treated as an important and sacred topic. I also think sex is treated in much diminished, or even perverted and licentious, ways. The difference arises in which voices are speaking, and to which voices each individual chooses to listen. I am grateful that, as a Latter-day Saint, I have substantial scriptural and prophetic guidance on these important matters. I choose to listen to them more than to voices which profane and distort and diminish and pervert sexuality. No, Thank you for the clarification. I think I previously acknowledged that "talk therapy" to "fix" someone's sexual orientation does not appear to be efficacious. Of course it is doable. It is just very often harmful. Again, I think this depends on which way the individual is facing. If a Latter-day Saint is seeking to discern and follow the will of God, and decides that this includes complying with the Law of Chastity, and if this is all a matter of choice and free will, then such talk therapy may well offer a lot of help. A Latter-day Saint who is not contemplating the foregoing matters and making such determinations, and/or who is being coerced/compelled into such therapy, could very well be harmed to some extent. Which is where the abuse happens which you dismiss. The abuse is a natural byproduct of what you want to do. Pretending that it doesn’t exist is just willful ignorance. Policies impact the real world, not your imagined ideal one where abuse wouldn’t happen for some reason. You seem to presuppose that parents acting in the best interests of their children are committing "abuse" if that involves efforts to dissuade their children away from, say, same-sex behavior, Gender Dysphoria-related behaviors, and so on. If so, I respectfully disagree with that presupposition. You keep pretending this isn’t what it is. Talk therapy for the purpose of conversion of someone’s sexual orientation. I do not think I have advocated for such therapy. I do not support that idea. Ah, whataboutism. We're talking about damaging therapeutic approaches. I think Fox Valerian's experience is a relevant part of the discussion. No, the general consensus is to limit surgical interventions regarding minors until they are of age. Exceptions exist due to extreme distress but they are rare. Use of puberty blockers are sometimes used in cases where dysphoria is acute. If this is the "general consensus," then I am glad to hear it. "If." He was convicted of medical malpractice for what he did. He didn’t follow approved practices. He wasn’t trained to treat transgender patients. And he was far from alone in his therapeutic approach. There are currently dozens of lawsuits against therapists and medical doctors along the same lines as the Fox Valerian lawsuit. We're not speaking of "one rogue doctor." That said, it's fascinating to apparently see WPATH and other endorsers of pediatric sex trait modification characterized as being "rogue." Reasoned and principled disagreement is not a phobia. It's disagreement. This "criminal doctor" did what a lot of doctors did, and what WPATH and many other supposedly "professional" medical associations endorsed and advanced. I agree that this conduct has been very wrong ("criminal," as you put it). I had previously been under the impression that you had generally endorsed and approved of pediatric sex trait modification procedures, hormone therapy, etc. I should stand corrected, then? I don't understand what you are saying here. "Dysphoria" in this context typically means "a state of severe distress or unhappiness caused by feeling that one's gender identity does not match one's sex as registered at birth; gender dysphoria." I don't think anyone is denying the "state of severe distress or unhappiness." Rather, I think the conflict here is about whether or not the "feeling" causing the distress/unhappiness (that a boy can "become" a girl by "identifying" as one, or vice versa) is congruent with reality. I shared the following experience back in 2024 and posed questions about it: I would like to better understand this concept. I have heard it many times, but I do not understand it. To me, this seems Orwellian to the extent it is predicated on a fundamental re-definition of "woman" so as to sever that meaning from biological sex. If "woman" means "an adult biological human female and also anyone who 'identifies' as a woman," then what sort of limiting principle is there? Can "dog" be re-defined to include "anyone who identifies as a dog"? Can "space alien" be re-defined to include "anyone who identifies as a space alien"? Earlier this year I attended visited Encircle House in Provo, Utah. My daughter had asked that I go there and attend meetings wherein trans individuals share their thoughts, experiences, etc. So I went, just to listen to what they have to say. There were four other people in attendance, all (apparently) biological women who "identified" as trans men. We went around the room and introduced ourselves, then each of the other participants spoke for a few minutes, then it concluded. It was not particularly illuminating, as most of their comments seemed to be complaining about mundane stuff (school, work, friends, etc.). Several of them added that these things are harder for trans people, but that was about it as far as "trans"-specific commentary. After the meeting I walked downstairs to the main floor, where I encountered a larger group of mostly teenagers. They were all talking animatedly. Two or three of them were dressed up as "furries." One of them, who was kneeling on the ground with dog ears on his head and a collar around his neck, turned and saw me. He smiled and said "Hi! My name is Jack, and I identify as a dog. Woof!" (I can't remember the name he gave, but it was a generic male name.) I said hello back to him, and asked him about his day. He said it had been fine. As I had already been there for over an hour, I then exited the building and drove home. On the drive home, I wondered about the expectations I had just encountered. The people I had met upstairs all stated that they were "trans men," that is, biological women who "identify" as man. None of them was dressed in any particularly "masculine" way. They all had their hair in unremarkable cuts/styles. None of them had beards, low voices, or anything. All of them appeared to look female in every normative respect ("feminine" facial features, breasts, hips, etc.). And yet each of them stated their identity as a "trans man." And I think they had an expectation for this identity to be acknowledged, accepted, ratified, etc. Then I thought about the teenager I had met downstairs. He specifically said he "identifies" as a dog. Was I supposed to accept that statement as congruent with reality and biological fact? Left to my own devices, I would think not, because notwithstanding how he "identifies," this kid was not a dog. He was a human being. In my brief interaction with him, I treated him with kindness and respect, but I did not acknowledge (or endorse, or ratify, etc.) his self-identification as a dog. It was a passing interaction, so there was no particular need to do so. But if he and his family were to move in next door, and if his parents were to ask me to "respect" his "identity" as a dog, to treat him like a dog, to act as if I think he is actually a dog, etc., should I go along with that? I sure would like to have a reasoned discussion about this, one that doesn't devolve into insults and "Transphobe!" accusations. The women upstairs believed that they are men, but they were not men (unless we radically re-define the term and detach it from its biological moorings, which I am not willing to do). I am nevertheless expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. The young man downstairs believed that he is a dog, but he was not a dog. And I am not expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. I genuinely do not understand how the one incongruent-with-reality notion is acceptable for ratification, but the other is not. Or perhaps the ideologies and philosophies of men which conflict with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ are the problem. It depends, I think, on what the perspective of the individual is. Sexualizing children? Yes. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Nope. I think both public consensus and the law are substantially changing and firming up in opposition to children undergoing pediatric sex trait modification procedures, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, etc. And by soberness and moderation you mean banning everything and making sure trans kids are alone, afraid, and can’t access any help because there is a small chance the help might hurt them or a doctor might violate standards of care and give improper treatment. No, I do not mean that. I mean soberness and moderation. We need to avoid histrionics and polarizing emotionalisms such as what you are demonstrating here. I love how not behaving in a ‘correctly gendered way’ is considered to be a crucial element of a child’s welfare. This seems like a dodge. Again, State actors keeping secrets from parents about the welfare of minor children is about as creepy as you can get. You have previously demonstrated a propensity for putting horrible labels on people who diverge from your point of view. "Nazi." "Fascist." "Bigot." And now, "abusive parents." Nobody wants to enable or endorse abusive parenting, including me. But that does not justify State actors keeping secrets from parents about the welfare of minor children, which is about as creepy as you can get. I am skeptical of this claim. Can you provide references for it? I asked Grok: "Are there any laws in the U.S. which prohibit a suicide hotline from talking to a minor unless they have parental consent?" The response: FWIW. Including their parents? Definitely don’t trust their parents. I reject the notion that State actors and self-appointed strangers should go around actively seeking to alienate minor children from their parents, and/or subvert parental authority. If a specific parent is engaging in abusive behavior, the matter should be referred to law enforcement. This messaging ("trans kids ... had better keep their heads down and they must TRUST NO ONE" and should "definitely" not "trust their parents") is quite troubling. I don't think State actors and strangers should be trying to use such messaging to scare kids, alienate them from their parents, and subvert parental authority. Kids struggling with this stuff should seek help from appropriate sources, and should not be subjected to secretive State actors and strangers who are actively seeking to scare them, alienate them from their parents, and subvert parental authority. I am sorry to hear that. Nobody should be treated this way. Someone in their early 20s is no longer a child. Self-appointed State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to scare children, and to secretively alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, are engaging in wrongful and deeply creepy behavior. So we are going to pretend that the majority religion in Idaho is somehow not (directly or indirectly) leading politicians to vote this way. Again, if you have evidence of the Church weighing in on this law, I'd be happy to consider it. You’re wrong. DEAD WRONG. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope you did not secretively seek to scare children, to alienate them from their parents, and to subvert parental rights and authority. All sorts of reasons. Self-validation. Perpetuation of the ideology,. Animus against diverging/conflicting points of view. Broadly speaking, I think much (most?) of the "sexual minority" community is not self-perpetuating. Same-sex behavior by design does not result in children. Hormone therapy and puberty blockers and sex trait modification procedures impair or destroy fertility and sexual function. Sex is more about "identity" and validation and community and such, rather than about procreation. The ideology and the "community" housing it cannot sustain itself by having children, so they have to go proselytize the children of other people. I copied the previous paragraph into Grok. The response: FWIW. "Trans identification, however, is different. It has risen dramatically in youth cohorts (especially adolescent females) over the last 15 years. This is well-documented in multiple countries (U.S., UK, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands). The increase is far too rapid to be explained solely by reduced stigma or better diagnostics. Studies and clinical data (e.g., Littman’s rapid-onset gender dysphoria hypothesis, Tavistock whistleblower reports, Cass Review in the UK, Swedish and Finnish policy reversals) show strong evidence of social contagion, peer influence, social media exposure, and co-occurring mental health issues (autism, trauma, eating disorders, depression). This is not 'proselytizing' in the conspiratorial sense, but it is real social/ideological transmission among adolescents." (Emphasis added.) "Studies and clinical data (e.g., Littman’s rapid-onset gender dysphoria hypothesis, Tavistock whistleblower reports, Cass Review in the UK, Swedish and Finnish policy reversals) show strong evidence of social contagion, peer influence, social media exposure, and co-occurring mental health issues (autism, trauma, eating disorders, depression)." An unsubstantiated charge An apparent and clearly accurate charge. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Nope. Just the ones that are exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on. Parents are not angels sent from heaven with a divine mandate. I reject the notion that State actors and self-appointed strangers should go around actively seeking to alienate minor children from their parents, and/or subvert parental authority. If a specific parent is engaging in abusive behavior, the matter should be referred to law enforcement. I don't think State actors and strangers should be trying to scare kids, alienate them from their parents, or subvert parental authority. Of course this is the opposite of what is happening. I asked Grok: "Are there any jurisdictions which authorize (or require) State actors (such as school teachers) to not disclose (hide) information about a child from their parents?" The response: I don't think State actors and strangers should be trying to scare kids, alienate them from their parents, or subvert parental authority, or withhold information about children in State supervision (such as in school) from their parents. This would be the one part of queer focused research you would accept and then completely misunderstand. Well, I am willing to listen to what you have to say. I have been influenced by, inter alia, this 2018 article: "Previous research has suggested that women’s sexuality can change throughout their life between lesbian, straight and bisexual." I think it may be possible that social/cultural influences can play about in these changes. The transcript: I find this clip to be interesting, both because he is citing statistics that do not appear to be in dispute, and because those statistics show a remarkable and abrupt increase in "self-identification as LGBTQ," and because Maher, though addressing a serious topic, approaches it with a bit of a sardonic edge, and because the audience laughs and claps. I think this is a valid point. And perhaps they should be allowed to pose questions without being endlessly shouted down with accusations and insults. Bolded parts are worth some evaluation. Thanks, -Smac