I don't mean to start a politics topic, but this would be a transgender topic. Will we be able to save them?

[Stargazer]

On 9/26/2025 at 12:15 PM, Calm said:

Is their violence any more associated with their identity as transgender than others who have been violent whose identities are Christian, Antitheists, Republican, Democrats, etc?

If the same, do you see it as reasonable for there to a legitimate concern that some members of those various communities may be dangerous both to themselves and others?

If you see their violence as somehow significantly different in relation to their chosen identity, please explain why.

Irrespective of any greater propensity for violence, I'm going to go out on a limb and hark back 100 years and more. In fact, all the way back. Transgenderism was an outlier, close to unknown. Ultimately a nothingburger. But Satan has obviously been working overtime to do everything possible to destroy civilization and Father's work here on earth, as the time for the Lord's return approaches. And this transgenderism epidemic is one result. It is anti-human. It is also quite pernicious, because even the very elect seem to be deceived in regards to it. 

The leading councils of the Church saw this coming before 1995. This is why the Proclamation on the Family was issued. 

From Sheri Dew's book, "Insights From a Prophet's Life":

One day in 1994, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spent a day in their council room in the Salt Lake Temple discussing issues surrounding the family. They considered everything from the increasingly ubiquitous nature of pornography to potential anti-family legislation of various kinds. This was not a new discussion, but that day the entire agenda revolved around this one vital topic.

The Twelve reviewed both doctrine and policies, considering those things that could not be changed—doctrine—and those things that possibly could be—policies. They discussed issues they saw coming, including an intensified societal push for gay marriage and transgender rights. “But that was not the end of what we saw,” Elder Nelson explained. “We could see the efforts of various communities to do away with all standards and limitations on sexual activity. We saw the confusion of genders. We could see it all coming.” This extended discussion, along with others over a period of time, led to the conclusion that the Twelve should prepare a document, perhaps even a proclamation, outlining the Church’s stand on the family to present to the First Presidency for consideration. “It [the proclamation] was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and family were well understood without restatement,” Elder Dallin H. Oaks would later detail in a general conference address. “Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work. Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year” (Oaks, “The Plan”). Dew, Sheri. Insights from a Prophet’s Life: Russell M. Nelson (pp. 251-252). Deseret Book. Kindle Edition. 

When President Hinckley introduced the Proclamation, in a General Relief Society meeting in September 1995, he said:

“With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family” Dew, Sheri. Insights from a Prophet’s Life: Russell M. Nelson (p. 253). Deseret Book. Kindle Edition. 

Call me an intolerant Neanderthal. Call me an idiot (thanks @Benjamin McGuire). But the transgender movement is anti-human. It is anti-Christian. It is, as President Hinckley said, a "stain." I have compassion for those few who actually suffer from the mental/emotional disorder called gender dysphoria (and I know a couple), but I refuse to bow to the demands of those who use it for self-promotion, -aggrandizement, and other anti-social purposes. 

I don't know what else to say about this.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I think it may be something to study, given the recent mass violence committed by transgenders. They've already certainly studied murders of transgender persons, of which there have been too many.

There are studies out there on this, not just as victims.  I have read them.  I think it wise to study violence in all social groups.  I think it very unwise to assume violence is higher for a group based on a very small percentage of that group without comparing such against other groups.  For example, do you have the stats for known violent American transgender individuals to compare to white American males (chosen because this is the most common group studied in psych in my experience plus they are a significant group in the American population, so useful for comparisons…or you can just use general population for an average if you prefer).

As far as chosen identities (I use this for adopted and openly expressed social identities in contrast to biological nature), some social identities are indeed more likely to be violent.  Suggesting an identity is violent without credible evidence (and even several anecdotes are not sufficient to be labeled credible, imo, when dealing with a population of millions) unless it’s associated with violent rhetoric seems inappropriate to me (the KKK has been associated as a group with violent rhetoric and actual violence, there is no parallel transgender group using such rhetoric even if some individuals have done so).

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Transgenderism was an outlier, close to unknown. Ultimately a nothingburger.

The current type of expression, yes, that was absent or low incidence because of lack of accessibility just as certain social identities that exist today were also absent, but likely tendencies that might lead to such expression could have been present…such as what attracts a person to high risk sports or adventure.  Since personality types and tendencies were barely beginning to be studied in depth, we don’t know if the underlying personality structures that get expressed today existed in the same amount in the general population back then.

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 9/26/2025 at 10:29 AM, longview said:

Tyler Robinson is a homosexual co-inhabiting with a man who claims to be transgendered. Just imagine the two getting themselves worked-up to a feverish pitch with their continual consumption of leftist propaganda with their vile and violent hate speech against conservatives and patriots and traditionalists. It looks like the partner is making "himself" scarce so "he" won't have to deal with the crush of reporters.

In the wise words of @Stargazer found in his signature block:

"Advocating for the punching of Nazis is in principle no different from shooting Charlie Kirk because you believe he was a homophobe, transphobe, fascist, racist, sexist, or some other -ist. He was none of those things, but because elements of one side decided to label him as such, it gave license to a "true believer" to eliminate him. Christ said love your enemies, not punch them."

@The Nehor seriously needs to repent for advocating the punching of anyone. Especially if they are unjustly "mislabeled".

💯👏🏻👍🏻

[Chum]

On 9/20/2025 at 1:45 PM, Tacenda said:

"GOP U.S. Reps. Nancy Mace and Ronny Jackson both called for the institutionalization of transgender people"
How does this sit with you?

I will assume the reps are not unfathomably ignorant.  Assuming that, they know that there is no excess capacity at the institutions they are hand-waving at. They know these facilities tend to be overcrowded to the point of being fatally dangerous, to patient and worker alike. 

While I understand that mass interring a systemically demonized group into America's worst conditions is appealing to these reps, they know it's numerically impossible.

However, prisons aren't impossible.  We send 670k actual MI patients there every year. 

In short, these reps know this bill will mass-render trans Americans into prisons.

And in keeping with the spirit of the bill, I expect it would be the most dangerous prisons America has.  Again, not the life-ruining hellholes they'd like but pretty close.

 

Edited September 28, 2025 by Chum

[manol]

On 9/24/2025 at 5:35 PM, Calm said:

We have a transgender young woman in our ward, one of our most active, devout families, who are still active, still devout.  She has socially transitioned for a couple of years now, don’t know about any medical interventions.  I believe she is still attending as well...

I think that's beautiful.

Imo:

The kingdom of heaven is like a great mansion with many windows. Out of each window there is a different view. Some views are slightly different, and some are completely different. But inside, we are all family.

Edited September 29, 2025 by manol

[The Nehor]

On 9/26/2025 at 4:49 AM, Stargazer said:

Ah, yes. Thanks.

Given the recent spate of fatal violence committed by trans persons, wouldn't it be reasonable for there being a legitimate concern that some members of that community may be dangerous both to themselves and others? Obviously blanket institutionalization of persons with gender dysphoria is ridiculous, but on a case by case basis there may be some justification for concern. Or do you feel there's no cause for concern?

Cis men are more dangerous on both an absolute and a per-capita level in terms of committing violence. Picking on transgender people for the few among them that are violent is unfair, insane, and vile.

Transgender people are safer then men so why do transgender people need to be singled out for concern? Because propagandists are making it seem like they are a threat?

Since the beginning of 2013 there have been 5,748 mass shootings in the United States. 5 of the shooters identified as transgender. And one of those is dicey. That person actually identified as non-binary which is a different thing usually though there can be overlap. That shooting was an attack on a gay bar. There are three others that might have been transgender but nothing to support they were. This still makes transgender people safer on a per capita basis than cis men in general.

Again, if anyone needs to be singled out as dangerous to themselves and others it is just men. They do almost all the mass shootings.

Ask yourself why there are people out there telling you that transgender people are inherently dangerous when the numbers do not back this up. Why would they lie about this?

Source for Numbers: https://www.factcheck.org/2025/09/few-mass-shooters-have-been-transgender/

Edited September 29, 2025 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Chum said:

I will assume the reps are not unfathomably ignorant.  Assuming that, they know that there is no excess capacity at the institutions they are hand-waving at. They know these facilities tend to be overcrowded to the point of being fatally dangerous, to patient and worker alike. 

While I understand that mass interring a systemically demonized group into America's worst conditions is appealing to these reps, they know it's numerically impossible.

However, prisons aren't impossible.  We send 670k actual MI patients there every year. 

In short, these reps know this bill will mass-render trans Americans into prisons.

And in keeping with the spirit of the bill, I expect it would be the most dangerous prisons America has.  Again, not the life-ruining hellholes they'd like but pretty close.

 

Considering this administrations willingness to send people convicted of no crimes to a prison in El Salvador you will not be surprised to know that transgender people are terrified of what this rhetoric could lead to.

I have transgender friends that have moved to blue states hoping they will be safer. A few have left the country. Some hope it will be temporary.

Some don’t have those options and are just trying to lay low and hope for the best. Citizens of a nation fleeing to locales where they are less likely to be persecuted or incarcerated or institutionalized when they haven’t committed any crime is not a sign of a healthy liberal democracy.

[Benjamin McGuire]

18 hours ago, Stargazer said:

OK, I'm an idiot. 

The fact that this is all you got out of that comment speaks volumes.

[JVW]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Considering this administrations willingness to send people convicted of no crimes to a prison in El Salvador you will not be surprised to know that transgender people are terrified of what this rhetoric could lead to.

I have transgender friends that have moved to blue states hoping they will be safer. A few have left the country. Some hope it will be temporary.

Some don’t have those options and are just trying to lay low and hope for the best. Citizens of a nation fleeing to locales where they are less likely to be persecuted or incarcerated or institutionalized when they haven’t committed any crime is not a sign of a healthy liberal democracy.

Dude that guy (Maryland Man) that got sent to El Salvador prison was a human trafficker.

[Chum]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have transgender friends that have moved to blue states hoping they will be safer. A few have left the country. Some hope it will be temporary.

Same and family, same, same. 

[Chum]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

Dude that guy (Maryland Man) that got sent to El Salvador prison was a human trafficker.

This is presented as if the former was the reason for the latter. 
It uses 'human trafficker' descriptor which allows for the assumption of sex slavery or other fully non-consensual labor. 

However, on the ever-revolving stack of grievances that was given
in the (not insubstantial) effort to develop animosity for this man,
this particular claim (stemming from driving a van of workers between locations)
didn't appear until long after he was returned from the El Salvador torture facility.  

[The Nehor]

On 9/29/2025 at 12:55 PM, JVW said:

Dude that guy (Maryland Man) that got sent to El Salvador prison was a human trafficker.

Only if you cross your eyes and squint really hard and believe people who have lied repeatedly. Also it is not really relevant to the real problem.

That wasn’t discovered until after he was sent and returned. I am old-school though on the whole classical liberalism thing and believe that everyone deserves basic human rights and am dubious of people who insist some people don’t deserve a day in court or a chance to defend themselves. Finding some people that don’t deserve the protections of law is an old authoritarian trick. Once you accept that some people don’t you can slide that line wherever you want. Hence the endless quest to convince people that at least some immigrants deserve to have no rights (“they’re eating the pets”). Sending people straight to a foreign gulag so they could pretend they were beyond recovery was cruel, inhuman, and vile. The pushback was extreme because it was wrong. It was Guantanamo on steroids.

I am proud of the pushback. We were near to the point where being labeled as a gang member without a day in court or a chance to refute that claim meant that that claim alone was enough to send someone to hellish conditions. This kind of cruelty is shameful and disgusting.

[manol]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am old-school though on the whole classical liberalism thing and believe that everyone deserves basic human rights and am dubious of people who insist some people don’t deserve a day in court or a chance to defend themselves. 

Does this include Nazis, and/or those accused of being Nazis? 

(Just to be clear, I'm not defending Nazism.  I am advocating for that aspect of classical liberalism.)

 

Edited September 30, 2025 by manol

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, manol said:

Does this include Nazis, and/or those accused of being Nazis? 

(Just to be clear, I'm not defending Nazism.  I am advocating for that aspect of classical liberalism.)

 

For a government to act against them? Yes, except in cases of war and the like.

Do they get due process before getting punched by a private citizen? Probably not. Said private citizen could be prosecuted for assault though.

[manol]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

For a government to act against them? Yes, except in cases of war and the like.

Do they get due process before getting punched by a private citizen? Probably not. Said private citizen could be prosecuted for assault though.

Good answer! 

[sunstoned]

On 9/26/2025 at 1:29 PM, longview said:

Tyler Robinson is a homosexual co-inhabiting with a man who claims to be transgendered. Just imagine the two getting themselves worked-up to a feverish pitch with their continual consumption of leftist propaganda with their vile and violent hate speech against conservatives and patriots and traditionalists. It looks like the partner is making "himself" scarce so "he" won't have to deal with the crush of reporters.

 

Tyler Robinson is also a Mormon and a registered Republican, raised in a conservative Second Amendment family with access to an unregistered firearm.  See how that works?  You can spin anything.

[longview]

On 10/1/2025 at 6:41 PM, sunstoned said:

Tyler Robinson is also a Mormon and a registered Republican, raised in a conservative Second Amendment family with access to an unregistered firearm.  See how that works?  You can spin anything.

Tyler was fully versed in Antifa radical speech. So yes, he pretty much a lefty wannabe. He probably had to struggle against the teachings of his parents.

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 minutes ago, longview said:

Tyler was fully versed in Antifa radical speech. So yes, he pretty much a lefty wannabe. He probably had to struggle against the teachings of his parents.

I love how we get these vague sorts of statements that are supposed to mean something. What is "Antifa radical speech"?

At the same time, the Jewish affiliated Anti-defamation League listed Kirk's Turning Point USA as an extremist group beginning in 2019. So much is simply in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

[longview]

36 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I love how we get these vague sorts of statements that are supposed to mean something. What is "Antifa radical speech"?

At the same time, the Jewish affiliated Anti-defamation League listed Kirk's Turning Point USA as an extremist group beginning in 2019. So much is simply in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

Does this mean you sympathize with the elimination of the martyr Kirk? Please outline the "extreme" positions taught by Kirk that so offends you. You did not provide the reference for ADL and their reasons. Also provide sourcing for all of Kirk's teachings, both on college campuses and elsewhere. Much appreciated!

[Benjamin McGuire]

57 minutes ago, longview said:

Does this mean you sympathize with the elimination of the martyr Kirk?

No. How would you get that from my comments?

57 minutes ago, longview said:

Please outline the "extreme" positions taught by Kirk that so offends you.

I never said I was offended. I pointed out that others were offended. You have this huge chip on your shoulder. It isn't doing you any favors.

57 minutes ago, longview said:

You did not provide the reference for ADL and their reasons.

That was what the link was for ... it is a long page (well was, since they removed the whole database from the internet - hence my link to the internet archive).

57 minutes ago, longview said:

Also provide sourcing for all of Kirk's teachings, both on college campuses and elsewhere. Much appreciated!

No. I won't. You need to stop with the double standard here. If you are going to make demands like this - then you need to be willing to back up your claims in exactly the same way. Get to it ...

Edit: My point in bringing up the ADL, which until this whole thing in the last few days was considered a reasonably good judge of hate groups in America (except generally by those on that list), was simply to point out that it there is always some degree of subjectiveness, and the use of labels isn't particularly helpful - especially when you just pull them out of thin air. It was a serious question I was asking when I asked you to define "antifah radical speech". It's not something I am particularly familiar with, and I was hoping you could help me out.

Edited October 3, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Tyler was fully versed in Antifa radical speech. So yes, he pretty much a lefty wannabe. He probably had to struggle against the teachings of his parents.

CFR. No that is not correct.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, longview said:

Does this mean you sympathize with the elimination of the martyr Kirk?

Seriously going there?  Disagreement means death in your thought now…as in if you think someone is extreme, you think they deserve to be killed?

And if it’s not what you think (which I am guessing it’s not), why are you assuming anyone else here believes that?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It isn't doing you any favors.

You can say that again.

[longview]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

4 hours ago, longview said:

Also provide sourcing for all of Kirk's teachings, both on college campuses and elsewhere. Much appreciated!

No. I won't. You need to stop with the double standard here. If you are going to make demands like this - then you need to be willing to back up your claims in exactly the same way. Get to it ...

You made a shocking post that implied that Charlie Kirk was an extremist. You are not playing fair.

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

CFR. No that is not correct.  

I am surprised by your demand. Are you NOT aware of the inscriptions Tyler made on his bullets?

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Seriously going there?  Disagreement means death in your thought now…as in if you think someone is extreme, you think they deserve to be killed?

And if it’s not what you think (which I am guessing it’s not), why are you assuming anyone else here believes that?

Ben is engaging in character assassination of a highly regarded peacemaker. His efforts were to invite as many of the students to have a sincere exchange of perspectives. His persona exuded graciousness and good will. Ben's shocking assertions of extremism is so baseless that it requires him to justify the slander.