smac97

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

That simply isn't true. I think it's manifestly true. I think the more we learn about the history of the Americas, the more plausible the book's claims are. What's interesting about our utterly divergent claims is that I can review extensive scholarly literature that substantiates the point I make above, whereas you have been reduced to vague notions of supposed "Bayesian methodological empiricism" culminating in your declaration that "space aliens" and/or "Satan" and/or "demaons" are "more likely" explanations for the text as compared to Joseph's narrative, which is "just not possible." You have this exactly backwards. I don't think I do. Well, no. Obfuscation would have involved not showing the Plates to anyone, and not publishing the purported translation to the world. Joseph did both of these things. Yes. "If." But Joseph said he was commanded to give the Plates back to Moroni, and he did. We deal with the evidence we have, not what we would like to have. Yes. "{T}hey" were also shown to the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses. And Joseph then published the translated text to the world. Says the guy who thinks that "space aliens" are a "more likely" explanation for The Book of Mormon. Says the guy who unequivocally accepts the late, biased, questionable historical sources describing the death of Caesar. You have never accounted for the witness statements, you just dismiss them as having been "curated." That conclusory stuff works for you, but not for me. Your studied lack of curiosity about the witnesses is another point of interest for me. Meanwhile, the "unofficial" witnesses are also here for us to examine, and they aren't "curated" in any sense, and you haven't addressed them either. And then there's the text... Says who? What metric are you using here? You're just making this up. You have "Special Pleading" poured all over your analysis. You accept weak tea evidence for Caesar, but disregard far stronger evidence as to The Book of Mormon. And your expectation of empirical analysis is just silly. Do you go about tut-tutting belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ because His resurrected body was not "examined by somebody impartial" and "qualified"? What sort of experts do you imagine were around Jerusalem 2,000 years ago? And if Jesus Christ really is the Son of God, is it possible that the absence of empirical evidence is part of the plan? That we are supposed to take these things on faith? Why is that not extendable to The Book of Mormon? Do you negate all religions' truth claims on this unreasonable expectation of empirical verification of miraculous events? I appreciate you saying it isn't dispositive. The fact remains that we don't know what the real nature of the plates were, because they were deliberately withheld from the scrutiny of anybody that was qualified to authenticate them. "The fact remains that we don't know what the real nature of the {resurrected body of Jesus Christ was, because it was} He only showed himself to his Disciples, and not to CSI-Jerusalem, the only experts in Judea at the time who were qualified to authenticate {His resurrection}." Do you find that statement reasonable? That is because Joseph Smith deliberately chose to withhold the evidence from anybody who was qualified to evaluate it. Well, no. He was commanded to return the Plates to Moroni, and he did. Meanwhile, Joseph sent Martin Harris to have some of the characters evaluated by experts. Joseph also showed the Plates to the Three Witnesses. Joseph also showed the Plates to the Eight Witnesses. Joseph also published the translated work to the entire world. Joseph left us lots to work with. Not to your satisfaction, I get that. But you are not the arbiter of such things. We have an extraordinary amount of evidence, given what is being examined. Yes, we know. 200 years of anti-mormonism, and the most you have to offer is "tin" and "space aliens." Thanks, -Smac

Could you elaborate? Why isn't "character evidence" relevant to our inquiry as to the credibility and probative value of statements made by these folks? Wouldn't a person of stellar reputation and character be presumptively more credible than someone with a long history of dishonest/dissolute behavior? I'm not sure I understand your point here. There are dishonest people out there tricking people, including experts. What does that have to do with Joseph Smith and the Witnesses? Okay. This seems to presuppose, rather than demonstrate, that the Plates were "a 'con job.'" Thanks, -Smac

It certainly can be and I say this as the sister-in-law of a psychologist who has specialized in adult clients who wish to change sexual behaviour they see as dysfunctional, disrupting their lives. Pretty much any human endeavor can be be distorted and misused. Hence my comment about "per se 'twisted.'" So the results have been . . . mixed? Not "per se 'twisted'"? Does that include "gender-affirming" therapy? Is it also possible that therapists and parents (like Claire Deacon, see above) are doing damage by pushing children into medical treatments that end up being harmful? That's an odd scenario. Do you think Claire Deacon did that? That may be so. I think it is okay for people to find homosexual behavior sinful, unhealthy, wrong, etc. Same goes for believing that sex should be limited to between a husband and wife. Is it also possible that "gender affirming care" as gone wrong in some instances? Fox Varian, for example? Would that reasoning also apply to therapists advancing "gender affirming care" techniques? I think "talk only"-type jobs are hard to regulate without running afoul of the First Amendment. What sort of training? Should bishops receive training to encourage minors to obey the Law of Chastity? Isn't that already part of the gig? If a teen is encountering mental health difficulties, I think they should seek reputable therapy and medical options. A bishop can be a part of the process, but he would need to stay in his lane. Thanks, -Smac

The desire for the child to not be queer. Could you elaborate? "Queer" being such a nebulous concept these days, I don't know what you are saying here. Also, "for the child to be queer" seems somewhat opaque. Can parents legitimately hope that their children will refrain from certain types of sexual behaviors, without being denigrated as "twisted"? Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their minor children to abstain from underage sex? Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their teen children to abstain from sexual relationships with someone with a significant age difference? Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their minor children to abstain from sexual behaviors that fall outside a particular moral/religious framework (such as the one espoused by the Church)? It seems like there should be a fairly broad spectrum of socially acceptable stances on matters of sexuality. What about subduing "their queerness" (still not sure what that means), at least as regarding sexual behaviors? If the parents of non-"queer" children are justified in exhorting their children to stay within particularizes sexual boundaries, why can't they do the same for "queer" children? I agree that "scaring" children about sex is, in the main, a bad idea. But then, so are laissez-faire attitudes in this increasingly sexualized world. I think sex is an important and sacred topic, and should be treated as such. Nobody is talking about or condoning "abuse." Are you suggesting that "talk only" therapy calculated to dissuade a minor away from sexual behavior is wholly improper? Yes, because this scenario you present is incredible naive and unrealistic. I am not persuaded this is so. Talk therapy for youth who want to "reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical bodies" seems eminently doable. I would not be in favor of coercion. That said, I think parents have parental authority precisely because minors are not yet situated to wholly govern themselves, particularly in relation to matters of sexual behavior and gender identity. I have difficulty with this characterization. Nothing new here. The parameters of parental authority are fairly well-established in the law. Yes, they have substantial, though not plenary, decision-making authority for their minor children. I have difficulty with this characterization. Talk therapy as per se harmful and unethical? I think not. For my part, I think therapists who are actively encouraging minors with Gender Dysphoria run a very real risk of doing harm, even if the therapy is "just talk." We saw this play out just a few weeks ago: This landmark ruling could change the future of gender-related treatments for minors My sense is that you are, or might be, ideologically predisposed to, and in support of, therapists who are encouraging minors with Gender Dysphoria to undergo medical treatments such as hormone therapy, sex trait modification surgery, etc. Is that accurate? "{The plaintiff and her mother testified that} Varian’s psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, was an 'enabler,' who assured Varian that the mastectomy would improve her mental health, and said that he 'browbeat' Deacon into consenting to the irreversible surgery so Varian wouldn’t take her life." To paraphrase a guy: "Pretending {so-called 'gender-affirming care'} is always harmless because it is ‘just talk’ is ridiculous." This young woman had a doctor cut off her healthy breasts. She will never be the same. Yes, that would be problematic. That said, I see a world of difference between a A) therapist trying to lure a minor away from his/her religious beliefs and B) a therapist pressuring a young woman with Gender Dysphoria to have her healthy breasts cut off. We don’t have a broad spectrum of equally valid viewpoints. I didn't say they were "equally valid." I think I would agree with you that the spectrum would entail a hierarchy, with some viewpoints more reasoned and principled than others. For example, I think that viewpoints endorsing things like the sexualization of children, justifying hugely impactful medical treatments for minors based on "If we don't do it they'll kill themselves" rationale, alienating children from their parents, subverting parental authority, unelected persons using the power of the State to do these things, etc., are all problematic and less valid than viewpoints opposed to these things. No, I don't think we do. In fact, I find this to be a substantially factually erroneous assertion. The Tide Goes Out on Youth Gender Medicine American doctors are no longer united on the wisdom of medicalizing gender dysphoria in minors. That second link goes to an October 2022 Reuters article with the following parts: The Turning Tide on Medicalized Gender Interventions for Kids "{W}idely touted 'Standards of Care' were infected by political pressure and conflicts of interest." The entire article is worth a read. The section entitled "The Discredited Standards of Care" is particularly good. Ah, okay. I think this does seem to be largely beyond dispute (far less so for "gender affirming care" stuff). That said, I found this interesting: What Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Change: Evidence From a United States Sample of 72 Exposed Men This topic is hugely politicized, so soberness and moderation should hold real sway. And others will say that much of gender-affirming care for minors is, or can be, "intrusive and creepy." Not sure what that has to do with the Church. And I find the notion that state actors subverting parental decision-making as to their minor children to be hugely creepy and wrong. Indeed, it is stuff like this that I think has causes large swathes of the general public to turn against the "trans" movement. State actors keeping secrets from parents about the welfare of their minor children is about as creepy as you can get. Including their parents? I think alienating trans kids from their parents, and subverting parental rights relative to their children, and using the organs of the State to do these things, is very problematic. If you have evidence of the Church weighing in on this law, I'd be happy to consider it. I think there are segments of the "trans" community that are targeting children for ideological purposes (rather than the welfare of the kids), with a primary vector being to scare and alienate this kids from their own parents. Again, I think it stuff like this that is turning people away from "trans" ideology. Sexualizing children. Subverting parents. Using the organs of the State to do this. Creepy as all get-out. Visceral. I think trans ideologues are doing far more damage to their movement by doing this stuff than any outside opposition. Anyway, I have, for some time now, been trending toward a notion of "sexual fluidity," which per this article posits that "people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time," and that such shifting is or can be "bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)." I frame this issue in as pertaining to sexual attraction/orientation, not "identity," and to behavior (not a state of being). Thanks, -Smac

Could you elaborate? What sort of motives and objectives would you see as defining what makes parents "twisted?" The SCOTUS decision addresses only "talk only" therapy. From the article: Are you saying that talk therapy for youth who want to "reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical bodies" is "twisted?" More: I appreciate that we currently have a broad spectrum of viewpoints regarding fundamental elements of Gender Dysphoria and sexual orientation/behavior. It just seems odd to me that "talk only" therapy geared based on one area of that spectrum is per se "twisted." I think that area of the spectrum is entitled to the same sort of legal treatment as most other areas of the spectrum. What are your thoughts? Thanks, -Smac

This? Thanks, -Smac