smac97

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

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

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

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

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

So why require biological sex as opposed to actual gender appearance? I think the argument is that biological sex on a passport is objective and related to the individual's identity, along with other details like the individual's name, date of birth and nationality. I think the argument about changing government documents to conform to an individual's subjective "gender identity" and not their biological sex can be construed as false information, as the information is supposed to convey information about the latter, not the former. If so, falsifying an official document as to sex would be no more appropriate than falsifying information as to name or date of birth or nationality. I would like to better understand what you are thinking here. For example, let's say that a person, a biological male, arrives in a foreign country and is arrested. The police would likely look at the individual's passport to determine whether to incarcerate him with other men, or with women. It seems like biological sex would be a baseline for that jurisdiction to make a decision as to where to put that person. Or what if the plane crashes and person is seriously injured and burned. Biological sex is a fundamental variable in emergency trauma and burn care. Hospitals do not treat “gender identity”; they treat the patient’s actual physiology. Sex influences how the body handles fluid shifts, capillary leak, and kidney function. Males and females have different average body compositions and baseline lab reference ranges (e.g., creatinine, hemoglobin). Certain critical drugs (antibiotics, sedatives, blood products, vasopressors) have sex-specific metabolism, efficacy, or toxicity risks. Getting the sex wrong can lead to under- or overdosing. I think the argument is that a passport is not a “preferred identity” card, but rather is the primary international identification document used by governments, airlines, border agents, and foreign hospitals in, for example, life-or-death situations. When someone is unconscious, burned beyond recognition, or in a mass-casualty event abroad, the passport sex marker is often one of the only quick, reliable pieces of data available. Biological sex matters immediately for: Correct fluid resuscitation and drug dosing in burns/trauma Ruling out pregnancy in females Interpreting lab values and reference ranges Choosing the right equipment (airway size, catheters) Guiding long-term care (skin grafts, endocrine issues, etc.) If the passport says “F” but the patient is biologically male (or vice versa), doctors can make dangerous errors in the first critical minutes/hours. I think governments what passports to reflect verifiable reality for other reasons as well: Fraud prevention — Self-ID allows a person to legally claim something on an official document that is not true (e.g., a biological male listing as female). Most countries view that as problematic on a government ID. Security and law enforcement — Accurate sex helps match people to criminal databases, prevent identity mismatches at borders, etc. Women’s safety and single-sex spaces — Prisons, shelters, and sports abroad rely on biological sex; mismatched documents create real conflicts. International interoperability — ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization, the global aviation standard) has historically used biological sex; many nations still do. Countries generally want passports to contain objective, immutable facts about the individual — not subjective self-identification — precisely because those documents are used in high-stakes, time-sensitive situations where getting it wrong can cost lives. Accurate information is important for keeping official records truthful and useful for medicine, security, and basic governance. I would be happy to listen to perspectives that vary from the above. Thanks, -Smac

When it comes to healthcare for most people, yes, especially the more expensive variety. "Healthcare" = "medically necessary healthcare"? That designation sure becomes pivotal. Thanks, -Smac

I understand this as a conclusion, but I do not understand the reasoning / analysis you have used to get there. Could you expand on that? Anyone who has a gender matching their biological sex is going to likely have issues at customs/security unless they fork out money to update their IDs. Could you elaborate on what those "issues" are likely to be? Also, I don't understand the reasoning here. The built-in assumption/conclusion, I think, is that transgender individuals should be able to have a passport that designates their "gender identity" rather than their biological sex. I would like to understand the reasoning/analysis that is being used to reach that conclusion. For example, are passports, in your view, intended to convey information about biological sex, or about "gender identity?" If the latter, could you explain how you get to that conclusion? In 2026, it seems like a biological male dressing in women's clothes would be accommodated. Yes. Are passports intended to convey subjective information about "gender appearance" or objective information about biological sex? It seems the latter, but I would like to hear what you have to say. This will be sorted out eventually, but I do appreciate the interim challenges. I end up with the same question as above: Are passports intended to convey subjective information about "gender appearance" or objective information about biological sex? This really goes to the heart of the dispute. A passport is intended to present accurate (as in, verified by the government) information about the individual: Full legal name (given name(s) + surname/family name) Date of birth (DD/MM/YYYY or MM/DD/YYYY format depending on country) Place of birth (city and country, sometimes just country) If a person has strong feelings about his legal name, or date of birth, or place of birth, do we allow him to alter that information on his passport? Should we? Why or why not? Gender/sex (usually listed as M, F, or X in newer passports) This is the one that is creating controversy. I understand the presupposition (that trans folks want their passport to reflect their "gender identity"), but I do not understand the reasoning/justifications used to get there. This is really a "where the rubber hits the road" issue when it comes to differentiating - or conflating - "gender" (or "gender identity") with "biological sex." Nationality / Citizenship (e.g., "United States of America") We do not let an individual use his subjective "identity" in terms of nationality/citizenship to justify altering his passport. "The passport’s purpose is to prove identity and citizenship/nationality for international travel, not to serve as a full personal dossier." Thanks, -Smac

So "access" = insurance coverage? From Grok: So the issue seems to be mostly about whether these treatments are characterized as "medically necessary" or not ("experimental, elective, or cosmetic-like due"). Is that a correct assessment? If so, I would like to hear perspectives about this point. There seem to be substantial ideological influences in play (both for and against the "medically necessary" designation), but what are your thoughts about "medically necessary" as a point of "evidence-based medicine"? Is there substantial evidence justifying the designation? Again from Grok: I wonder how accurate this is. Any input? Thanks, -Smac

I am not aware of efforts to curb adults' access to "gender-affirming healthcare." Could you elaborate on that? Also, my previous question: Do you think there is, or ought there be, a difference between minors and adults relative to "gender-affirming care"? I would like to better understand this. I understand this as a conclusion, but I do not understand the reasoning / analysis you have used to get there. Could you expand on that? (Again, I am trying to deploy Habit Three, so I hope this question fits within it.) I have not previously given this much thought. I will do that now. As above, I understand this as a conclusion, but I do not understand the reasoning / analysis you have used to get there. It seems like your reasoning re: birth certificates, etc. would be more or less identical to reasoning relating to bathrooms. If I am in error, could you expand on the reasoning that gets you to this conclusion? Also, do you have similar preferences for transgender individuals participating in sports based on "gender identity" (as opposed to biological sex)? Same question re: prisons? Changing rooms? Hmm. My understanding is that the majority of the world still uses sex-segregated public restrooms as the default. Am I wrong in that impression? One concern I have seen, and find relevant, is about what could be termed a "lack of limiting principle," that is, it seems like there is no "limiting principle" as to sex-segregated bathrooms if, as you propose, entry into them is based on subjective self-identity (rather than biological sex). Is there any such principle in your view? Or do you think we should abolish sex-segregated bathrooms? What do you think the material differences between them are? Do you think there are any non-prejudiced perspectives that differ from yours regarding, for example, biological males in women's sports? Thank you, -Smac

I concur. I am glad we agree on that. I am a bit concerned about "Mission Creep" relative to both "abuse" and "neglect." I once had a client who was reported to DCFS because his daughter had a "dime-sized bruise" on her shin after her stay with him. His ex-wife called police, who contacted DCFS. He explained that she had knocked her shin against a swing will climbing onto it, hence the bruise. The police report stated that the bruise did not break the skin, and was about the size of a dime. The police did not disclose the photographs taken during their investigation. I had to file a motion to compel the police to turn over the photos. The police responded that they did not have the photographs anymore because they had deleted them, and they deleted them because the bruise did not show up in the photos. I saw this as destruction of exculpatory evidence, and so filed a motion to dismiss. It was denied. My client had a choice between going to trial (and paying an attorney to represent him) or agree to a plea in abeyance. He chose the latter, though it frustrated him mightily because, according to him, the whole thing had been ginned up by his ex-wife. Then there is the "neglect" thing, which in many jurisdictions is a pretty nebulous and eye-of-the-beholder and depending-on-the-mood-of-the-DCFS-caseworker concept. Professional organizations and governments are now taking varied approaches, and I think some professional organizations' assessments have been compromised and problematic, so the issue does not seem settled. You may well have a point. We need to have an extensive and evidence-based approach to these issues. What are your thoughts about ethical guidelines from professional organizations like the AMA? Do you think there is, or ought there be, a difference between minors and adults relative to "gender-affirming care"? Indeed. Parental authority regarding the welfare and decisions about their children ought to be broad and strong, but they cannot be unlimited. Thanks, -Smac

I'm curious about this comment that Oak's has doubled-down that electro-shock therapy wasn't happening at BYU during his time there... I'd love to read more. Do you have links to any of his comments? See here (YouTube video). From the description: From Grok: Not sure if the 2021 statement is supposed to be the "double down" statement. Gerald J. Dye (head of the University Standards Office / Honor Code Office under Oaks) stated that, for students referred for “less serious” homosexual behavior, the standard process included requiring some form of therapy to remain at BYU. In “special cases,” this could include “electroshock and vomiting aversion therapies.” This may indicate that aversion techniques were part of the disciplinary/counseling referral system in the 1970s, but it does not describe a separate, organized clinical program outside the McBride-era research environment. AFAICS, no sources identify any other named researchers, theses, or large-scale clinical programs running parallel to or separate from McBride’s during Pres. Oaks’ presidency. It appears that all references to electroshock aversion therapy in the 1970s at BYU ultimately trace back to the McBride study and/or the Standards Office referral practices that sometimes routed students into aversion techniques. Pres. Oaks’ 2021 public denial (“it never went on under my administration”) has been widely criticized precisely because of the McBride thesis and the Dye statement. Apologetic sources emphasize that McBride’s work was a student research project and that there is no evidence Oaks personally knew about it. Critical sources treat the McBride study + referral practices as sufficient evidence that such treatments occurred on campus during his tenure. From FAIR: See also here: Aversion Therapy for Homosexuality in Scientific Historical Context Thanks, -Smac

I appreciate your comments as well. I would like to see more substantive and reasoned and civil discussion about gender dysphoria and how we as a society should address it. Before we do that, however, I think we need to take a few steps back from the Culture Wars and reassess where we are and how the discussion should proceed. I've been reading an excellent book, Habits of a Peacemaker by Steven T. Collis, that is causing me to fundamentally alter how I approach such matters and how I discuss them. Here's a brief outline of the book: I am finding myself lacking in a number of these habits, and so have started to work on them. Gender dysphoria seems to be a topic about which people who are talking about it have already reached strongly-held conclusions, and so state them at the beginning of conversations as thought they (the conclusions) are The Facts, The Way Things Are. I would like to change that for myself. Part of Habit One: "We must reframe conversations from 'winning' to 'solving a shared problem.'" I have found this to be quite a challenge for myself regarding the controversial aspects of this topic. From Habit Three: In an attempt to deploy the foregoing advice (which is quite good, though more potent when read in context), here is a question for you: You state: "I find it gratifying that The Church has really demonstrated a willingness to harmonize its approach to sexual orientation with evidence-based findings of modern science, medicine, and psychology, as well as compromises in its approach to equal civil rights for same-gender couples in recent years. ... I remain hopeful that as the years continue to unfold, they {the leaders of the Church, and/or the "Church" in a collective sense} will increasingly do the same in their approach to those with gender dysphoria." You seem to be framing what you hope to see in the context of "equal civil rights." If that is the framework, could you clarify what you would like to see in the future relative to "those with gender dysphoria"? Thank you, -Smac

I assume you are assuming this is all he has unless he said so and I missed it (always possible the way I typically pop in and out of the board). Yes, I guess that's my assumption. If he has other references, I would like to review them. But I don't think he does. Thanks, -Smac

Here is the article @The Nehor is referencing: Fossil fuel billionaires are bankrolling the anti-trans movement From that article: The linked Google doc tracks 45 groups. Columns include: Group name Evidence of “transphobia” (articles, policies, SPLC designations, etc.) Evidence of fossil fuel ties (direct or indirect) Specific billionaires (Kochs, Phil Anschutz, Farris & Dan Wilks, etc.) It shows connections (some direct, many indirect via intermediaries like the National Christian Foundation) for virtually all 45 groups. Specific donation amounts are rare and mostly small/old (e.g., Shell gave ADF $58k over 9 years; Anschutz gave ADF $110k years earlier). As is common in discussion such as these, loaded terms and conclusions are presumed rather than demonstrated. Reasoned disagreement, even if framed in the most clinical and dispassionate terms, is "transphobia." I think there are some concerns with the validity of the article's conclusions. A few thoughts: Selection Bias / Cherry-Picking: The 45 groups were not randomly or comprehensively sampled. Researchers started by looking for “right-wing groups advancing anti-trans lobbying, events, and publications.” This produced a list dominated by broad conservative/Christian organizations (ADF, Family Research Council, ALEC, AEI, etc.) that have opposed many progressive causes for decades (abortion, same-sex marriage, religious liberty, school curricula, etc.). Trans issues are only one small part of their portfolios. The sample was constructed to find fossil-fuel ties, not to test whether such ties are unusually common or causal. Correlation, Not Causation: Fossil fuel donors (Koch network, Anschutz, Wilks brothers) have long funded conservative causes for economic, religious, and limited-government reasons. There is no evidence in the article or spreadsheet that these donors earmark money specifically for trans issues or that anti-trans work is their primary motivation. The article simply assumes the funding exists because of trans opposition, when the far more plausible explanation is that donors support conservative groups that happen to also oppose certain trans policies. Inflated and Indirect Ties: Many “connections” are indirect (e.g., donations to the National Christian Foundation, which then funds multiple groups). The spreadsheet marks indirect ties, yet the article presents them as straightforward “bankrolling.” Specific donation amounts are often tiny relative to group budgets and span many years. No Scale or Percentage Context The article never discloses what fraction of any group’s total funding comes from fossil fuel sources. For many/most groups it may be a very small percentage. No comparison is made to other major conservative donors (religious foundations, individual philanthropists, etc.). Activist-Driven, Non-Peer-Reviewed Source The researchers are climate and LGBTQ+ advocates. The analysis is explicitly not peer-reviewed and was shared exclusively with activist-oriented climate outlets. The framing is narrative-driven: fossil fuels = bigotry = distraction from climate action. Guilt-by-Association and One-Sided Scrutiny The piece implies that because some conservative groups receive fossil fuel money and oppose certain trans policies, the fossil fuel industry must be orchestrating the opposition. This is classic guilt-by-association. No equivalent scrutiny is applied to pro-trans organizations, which receive substantial funding from left-leaning foundations, tech billionaires, and other sources. Overbroad Definition of “Advocating Against Trans Rights” The list includes mainstream conservative groups that have taken positions on sports fairness, youth medicalization, bathroom privacy, or religious liberty — not single-issue “hate groups.” Bottom Line: As I see it, the 80% statistic is technically “true” within the narrow, hand-picked sample of 45 groups, but it is highly misleading. It exaggerates the significance and purpose of the funding, ignores broader patterns of conservative philanthropy, and serves a clear political narrative: fossil fuels are the hidden driver of opposition to gender ideology. The article and underlying analysis are textbook examples of motivated reasoning and selective data presentation. They prove correlation and donor overlap, not causation or a coordinated “bankrolling” campaign. This does not mean fossil fuel money has no influence on conservative politics — it does, just as other large donors influence progressive politics. But the claim as presented is overstated, methodologically flawed, and designed more for activism than rigorous analysis. Thanks, -Smac

I assume you are referencing and relying on this article? Fossil fuel billionaires are bankrolling the anti-trans movement A Grok summary: Is this a fair summary? More from Grok regarding this claim (in relation to the above article) : Hmm. Thanks, -Smac

.

No. Society meaning society. Again: "No. Parental rights are, and should be, broad and strong, but they are not unlimited." You and Nehor have amply demonstrated that the sexualization of children has plenty of eye-of-the-beholder components to it. The bulleted list I have provided several times now cumulatively describe grossly indecent, perverted, creepy sexualization of children. You and Nehor apparently have few or no objections to these events. Virtually no point of view is "universally agreed upon." I have never suggested otherwise. I think plenty of people agree with me about whether the events I have noted involve the sexualization of children. And some folks agree with your perspective that varies from mine on this matter. Quite an irrelevant aside. And yet I would not oppose other people from expressing their disagreement about that or any other topic. Would you? I've made no such assumption. My concern is 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. This is, in some quarters, a controversial statement. Henry was right. Thanks, -Smac

I doubt it. Broadly, yes. But not in an unlimited way. Parents are constrained by the laws of the land. None of this is accurate. No. Parental rights are, and should be, broad and strong, but they are not unlimited. My concern is not about discomfort with any particular group of adults, nor am I seeking to impose my own morality (except insofar as I am a part of the electorate). Rather, my concern is 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, which I find creepy and weird and perverse. Somehow, the foregoing is seen by some as an unreasonable or extreme position. Henry was right. Thanks, -Smac

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