Daniel2

One other thought, Smac... Again, I think we both don't want to expose women to violence or put them at risk of assault. Everything that I have read, when it comes to actual stats of that happening, indicates that allowing trans women to use their restrooms of choice does nothing to increase violence, or even reports of violence among cisgender (biological) women, and in fact, show trans women are actually most at-risk... This is the most recent one, from January of this past year:

I know that the 'limiting principle" is part of your main focus regarding the issue of bathroom usage. And I think we both can agree that we'd like everyone, cisgender men, cisgender women, trans men, and transwomen of all ages to be able to feel safe with whatever level of privacy they personally find most comfortable. I also agree that most concerns regarding who's using which bathroom are a fairly new phenomenon, though it seems to me that that that is most likely because the issue has become more political and is being intentionally used as a wedge issue to divide voters and spur fundraising and increase voting, and is not actually correlated to any increase in transgender individuals, themselves. Just today, I watched a 2016 Town Hall in which our current president insisted that there have been "very few problems or complaints" with trans people using bathrooms/people with using the bathrooms of their choice, to "leave it the way it is," and that Caitlyn Jenner would be more than welcome to use the women's bathroom (or the bathroom of her choice) at Trump Tower (see below). Indeed, the following week after that Town Hall, Ms. Jenner made her own video entering the women's bathroom at a Trump property to reinforce the point. So far as that "limiting principle,' then, my position echo's that same 2016 position as our current president: leave it the way it is now--let people use their bathroom of choice. That means still having gendered bathrooms, still allowing anyone--cisgender or trans of either gender--to use a gendered bathroom, OR use a singe-use bathroom, if they're not comfortable sharing a bathroom with other people, regardless of gender. Cisgender women (whom you refer to as biological women--a term that I personally don't feel is helpful, but understand others may) are entirely free to use a private, single-use bathroom, if they don't want to share a space with transwomen. When it comes to policing behaviors including sexual assault and/or physical violence, I believe in prosecuting and punishing whomever is committing any acts of sexual or physical violence to the full extent of the law, regardless of gender. That said, the absurdity of attempting to ‘protect’ cisgender women from sexual violence by passing bathroom access bills is highlighted in a routine by comedian Raanan Hershberg, as follows: This argument, that bathroom restrictions do not stop potential predators, is a common theme in debates surrounding transgender rights, and from what I see online, is often supported by safety organizations that argue existing laws already criminalize assault. Tying it back to the "limiting principle," again... my belief is that all patrons can and should be using whatever bathroom in which they feel best, most private, and safest--be they men's, women's, or single use. I am glad we both agree that intersex people, while rare, are real and deserve compassionate consideration. I also agree that their existence doesn't change the fact that binary biological sex is a reality for the majority of people, and that public policy is typically built on for the 99.98%, not the exception. Indeed--we've spoken about this in the past, and there's an actual legal term for this phenomenon: "legislating from the margins." I don't believe that transgender individuals' ability to use the bathroom of their choice--with trans men and women, as well as non-binary/gender non-conforming individuals, also all being a small minority of our population--require us to make any change to our current approach to gendered or single-use bathrooms, and we can apply the same standard for all: everyone, use the bathroom that makes you most comfortable, each maintaining our preferred privacy and safety level. That's the way, in the words of our president, that "it already is," and has been, for decades. Sexual assault or physical violence should likewise be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any other personal characteristic. My two cents, Daniel

Just wanted to pop in and apologize for my lack of response in this thread, especially to Smac. I don't have the time I once did to post, other than the other day when I had some down time and randomly checked in and posted a few times in this post. I simply don't have time to review and answer lengthy posts posing questions sentence-by-sentence. I really appreciate the recommendation of "Habits of a Peacemaker," Smac. I continue to listen to it via Audible when commuting to/from work and other travel times in my car. I'm really enjoying it and hope to adopt many of its principles in my own communication styles in both written and verbal forms in all aspects of my life. My views very much echo SeekingUnderstanding's posts on this page, above. SU, thank you for articulating that transmen and transwomen are not threats in bathrooms. This issue actually isn't based on biological sex (no one, ever, to my knowledge, has to 'prove' their biological sex to enter a bathroom, in the US). It also seems to me that any recent complaints are actually based on perception of gender, not actual 'biological gender' (which I think is a too-simple reduction of the issue, anyway). There's no need to change anything as far as how it's been done the last 50 years of my life: gendered bathrooms are fine, gender-neutral/single-use bathrooms are almost universally available for those that prefer to use them, and patrons using bathrooms can choose which bathrooms they use based on their own gender identity, with no one having to prove otherwise. I also agree this issue, and the attention around it, has been almost entirely driven by a political agenda by those on the right to drive people to support their political agenda. Lastly, it seems to me that this whole controversy ignores the biological reality of intersex people--gender is NOT limited to male vs. female, regardless of any personal belief system that refuses to acknowledge that reality. I realize the above 'info dump/summary' doesn't comport with the habits outlined in "Habits of a Peacemaker"--but since my time was limited, I wanted to at least explain my lack of response and at least summarize my views, since I just don't have time to respond point-by-point. Thanks everyone for the good conversation--I'll continue to chime in as/when I'm able. Daniel

"Habits of a Peacemaker" looks and sounds like a great book, and certainly sorely needed in today's divisive times. I just added it to my Audile library and will be listening to it, myself. Thanks for sharing! I, too, would like to see more substantive and reasoned and civil discussion about gender dysphoria and how we as a society should address it. I appreciate your desire to implement both habits 1 (humility and reframing) and 3 (assuming the best in others) in asking the follow-up question you did regarding my comment expressing hope 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." In response to framing what I personally hope to see in the context of "equal civil rights" with regards to those with gender dysphoria, I think First: honoring and allowing the liberty of adults to decide their own identity and gender-affirming healthcare for themselves, without government interference, coercion, or prohibition, is a good place to start. Recent efforts by some in the political/legal realm target not only minors' access to gender-affirming care, but adults' access, as well. Another issue would be the ability for transgender individuals to hold a birth certificate, driver's licens, and passport that reflects their gender identity, allowing for safe travel across the nation and around the world. A third issue would be prohibiting efforts to force medical or other professionals to create state- or nation-wide registries of those seeking gender-affirming care. Lastly, the ability for transgender individuals to use the bathroom that conforms with their own gender identity. (As a US citizen born and raised outside the United States (mostly in Europe) and raised in the LDS Faith, and as someone who travels extensively outside the United States both for pleasure and for my vocation, I am endlessly perplexed by Americans' preoccupation (I would say bordering on obsession) with who's using which bathroom. In my experience from travel across the globe, from Asia to Africa to Europe, most other countries have men and women either sharing bathrooms (as in... totally gender-neutral, with men and women using the same space--even with urinals on one way and stalls on another!--looking at you, Greece...) or in having both men and women attendants entering/cleaning bathrooms while the bathrooms are open and totally in use (by males, in my case, since I am male and don't use the female restrooms). I also find it puzzling in the sense that most transgender individuals I know (which is likely more than most--not because I'm gay, but because my workplace is VERY progressive and openly promotes itself as a safe-space for everyone, regardless of religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.) have fully or mostly transitioned, and would CLEARLY be out-of-place if they ended up having to use the bathroom of their gender at birth. Lastly, I find the hullabaloo about the topic mostly to be a mute point, since most (dare-I-say 'all'?) public places in the states have single-use restrooms and/or changing spaces, so individuals who prefer more privacy, regardless of as-whom or how they identify, are able to do so... Hope that answers your question, Smac. I will also admit, as mentioned in a separate, previous post of mine, that the issue of parental rights vs. minor's autonomy is a complicated issue, and one that I am troubled by, seeing both sides of the issue, and uncertain of how to resolve. Lastly, I feel it's important to note that though I self-identify as a gay man, I believe that gender dysphoria is a separate issue than sexual orientation. Being gay gives me no more insight into being transgender or authority to opine about transgender issues than being straight does, other than sharing historical prejudices and discrimination collectively shared by many minority groups, especially as they may relate to socially held gender roles. D

It's worth noting, as others have said, that conversion therapy is NOT about changing sexual behaviors, but about changing individuals' innate attractions. I have no problem with anyone encouraging their children of any sexual orientation to abstain from sexual behaviors that are held to be both harmful and illegal by all major medical and mental health organizations, as well as the laws of our nation (i.e. sex between minors and adults, which is non-consensual by definition, since minors are unable to give legal consent to such behaviors). I think any implication that conversion therapy's goals are solely related to rational and otherwise medically-supported efforts to control unhealthy and illegal behaviors are unproductive and unnecessarily confuse the issue. With regards to parental authority... while I agree that the default should be that parents are and should be empowered to make choices for their own children, as you note, there are legitimate cases when the law's goal of protecting minors can require government intervention that supersedes parent's own authority over their children, such as in cases of abuse or neglect. Some previous political progressive administrations in the US have held that gender-affirming care is medically necessary and contributes to the health and wellbeing of children. Other previous political conservative administrations (and, indeed, our current one) have held that gender-affirming case is abusive and harmful to the health and wellbeing of children. Both types of administrations--progressive and conservative--have sought to override parents' autonomy in making choices for their children, including using 'organs of the state,' so I believe it would be inaccurate to implying that's something that only progressives do. From a legal perspective and speaking generally, it seems to me that whether or not gender-affirming care is either abusive or healthy depends entirely on the viewpoint of whomever is in control. Additionally, what is healthy for one individual may be destructive for another, and what is destructive for one may be healthy for another; this isn't a one-size-fits-all issue. For my part, I personally believe that gender-affirming care is something that is far too nuanced to be a one-size-fits-all rule decided by lawmakers or from the bench; IMO, it's an issue best left to individuals themselves, or in the case of minors, to the parents, the minor, and the minor's licensed medical and mental health professionals. I have had the pleasure of knowing several transgender and gender-f individuals in my personal and professional life--none that I know had mental health professionals that urged reclass, careless, laissez-faire attitudes when it came to the decision whether or not to seek out gender-affirming care, and especially make permanent alterations to one's one body. I know some that moved forward with such permanent changes, and some that decided against it and decided not to pursue changing their gender and returned to the gender-identity of their birth. As far as I'm concerned, both outcomes can be appropriate and correct, so long as they are informed choices that conform with the individual's personal choice, made in careful consideration with their medical and mental-health professionals. Parents' personal beliefs and autonomy over their minor children with regards to this issue remain a complicated issue, regardless of where one falls on the progressive<->conservative spectrum. My two cents, D

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?

As someone who underwent talk conversion therapy with two different LDS therapists in the early 1990's (having been referred to both by my LDS bishops at the time on two separate occasions, one while still single and attending BYU, the other after years after I was married to a woman--both employees of LDS Social Services), I'm grateful to read how far The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has come in terms of disavowing and distancing itself from conversion therapy. 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. And while The Church is still far more progressive than many Christian conservatives with regards to transgender individuals, I remain hopeful that as the years continue to unfold, they will increasingly do the same in their approach to those with gender dysphoria, as well. Thank you for sharing all those examples, Smac.