smac97

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 chin 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