LDS Church Files Brief In Trans Supreme Court Case

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Many, many children have been highly sexualized and groomed at the events I have previously noted.

The sexualization and grooming of children has been extensively documents.  A sampling:

This was compiled in 2022.  I suspect a lot more could be added to the list.

You are, it seems, ideologically obligated to either A) pretend/insist that these things aren't happening, or B) admit that these things are happening, but deny that this amounts to the sexualization/grooming of children.

That is not documentation. It is propaganda. Also even if it were accurate that is not what sexualization and grooming even mean as I have explained to you before ad infinitum.

You aren’t nearly as worried about kids being exposed to sexuality as you are queer sexuality because kids drown in heterosexual sex material and demonstrations yet the rare pride parade in a city with especially loose laws on public decency that usually have limited numbers of children attending that show some skin is somehow a great offense. You’re straining at gnats while swallowing camels. If you actually cared about this you would be targeting the real dangers.

You don’t, so you aren’t. Unless you are willing to condemn all real dangers to children instead of fixating on the small amount coming from the people that your puppetmasters are pointing you at I refuse to take this seriously.

Show some substantive and reasoned opposition to the general sexualization of culture and maybe I will bother to engage with you. Until then you are clearly just picking on the marginalized because you are afraid to call out the powerful. And that is cowardly, pathetic, and sad.

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Many, many children have been highly sexualized and groomed at the events I have previously noted.

The sexualization and grooming of children has been extensively documents.  A sampling:

This was compiled in 2022.  I suspect a lot more could be added to the list.

You are, it seems, ideologically obligated to either A) pretend/insist that these things aren't happening, or B) admit that these things are happening, but deny that this amounts to the sexualization/grooming of children.

That is not documentation. It is propaganda.

Oh, piffle.

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also even if it were accurate

It think it is patently unreasonable to dispute the existence of these perversions.

Denial.  It ain't just a river in Africa.

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

that is not what sexualization and grooming even mean as I have explained to you before ad infinitum.

As said: "You are, it seems, ideologically obligated to either A) pretend/insist that these things aren't happening, or B) admit that these things are happening, but deny that this amounts to the sexualization/grooming of children."

"Sexualization" and "grooming" are not really legally precise terms of art, but this stuff really is going on.  

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You aren’t nearly as worried about kids being exposed to sexuality as you are queer sexuality

I object to the sexualization and grooming of children, regardless of the nature of the sexual proclivities of the perverts who are doing it.

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Unless you are willing to condemn all real dangers to children

Gladly.  Again: I object to the sexualization and grooming of children, regardless of the nature of the sexual proclivities of the perverts who are doing it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 31, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Many, many children have been highly sexualized and groomed at the events I have previously noted.

The sexualization and grooming of children has been extensively documented.  A sampling:

That is not documentation. It is propaganda.

Sadly, no, it's really happening.  And that compilation was from 2022.  It's still going on:

June 2023 NY Post Article (no link b/c the photos are NSFW) : This Pride month, fellow gays, keep your kinks at home — and away from kids

Quote

A disturbing incident at a California Pride parade has prompted a familiar discussion: Do public kink and fetish displays really belong at “family friendly” LGBT Pride events?

Onlookers at West Hollywood Pride celebrations Sunday were treated to a public sex display during the event’s parade.

Riding in the back of a parade truck, a man clad in “dominatrix” gear choked and whipped another man, scantily clad, to a cheering audience.

This startling act occurred despite the city describing its parade as “a colorful and entertaining event for the whole family.”

 

Belissa Cohen, a journalist who filmed the incident and posted it to Twitter, reported, “Tons of kids were present — thousands of people, including families, lined both sides of the public boulevard, yelling & cheering. Sunny Sunday afternoon. No gatekeeping possible.”

It should go without saying that performing or even simulating king-related sex acts in front of children is wildly wrong.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t some one-off incident.

While many Pride parades and events are genuine celebrations of love and family that aren’t inherently inappropriate, many are often hypersexualized or in part include near-nudity or explicit conduct.

This isn’t something the far-left activists who constitute the mainstream “LGBT” community deny.

On the contrary, many openly defend having kink at Pride events.

But when a select few gay people do openly engage in simulated sex acts in front of children — something all normal, everyday gay people would denounce — and it goes viral, it plays into these unfair stereotypes and sets back the progress we’ve made, even though it’s not representative.

It’s time for the LGBT community to step up and reassert some basic standards over Pride events.

Kink and fetish displays shouldn’t be welcome at Pride — and if they’re going to occur, we absolutely must demand they be limited to 18+ environments.

And to the broader public understandably outraged by these viral incidents, please don’t hold the actions of a small minority against our entire community when many of us want nothing to do with such indecency.

"And to the broader public understandably outraged by these viral incidents, please don’t hold the actions of a small minority against our entire community when many of us want nothing to do with such indecency."

That is a reasonable request.  I also like this statement: "It’s time for the LGBT community to step up and reassert some basic standards over Pride events."

Instead of, as you do, deny and/or justify these behaviors.

June 2023 CBS Austin: Video of man twerking while children watch at Minneapolis Pride goes viral

Quote

As communities across the U.S. hold Pride parades and events, some actions and displays during those celebrations have been heavily scrutinized for featuring questionable behavior in the presence of children.

A recent addition to that collection of criticized behavior has apparently gone viral, with a social media video of it racking up over five million views in less than a couple of days.

In the now-viral video, an older man can be seen wearing nothing but white briefs, white socks and a rainbow garter while "twerking" in the middle of a road in front of a group of onlooking children.

"Twerking" is, according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, "sexually suggestive dancing characterized by rapid, repeated hip thrusts and shaking of the buttocks especially while squatting."

The clip is from Sunday's Minneapolis Pride parade, Newsweek reports. People can be heard cheering while the man "twerks." The video clip pans over to the onlooking kids, who watch quietly and laugh and then, in some cases, dance and jump.

One parent is seen in the clip turning a child away from the display, according to Newsweek. Others in the video can be seen recording the man on their cell phones. Some kids are holding rainbow Pride flags. Both sides of the street are filled with onlookers as the man continues his performance.

The video clip sparked fierce backlash from critics. Social media personality Joey Mannarino, who posted the clip that went viral, called the incident "a total stain on the LGBTQ+ community and if they don't remove this stuff from their parades, they want it there."

Quote

Even if you vote for Joe Biden, you can't possibly think that having kids watch this man with more hair on his back than his head twerk is appropriate," Mannarino said in the caption of his video tweet. "What kind of man decides that he wants to twerk for children anyway?"

 

But according to you, none of this is happening.  And it's not sexualizing/grooming children.  Or something.  

April 2023: Florida ‘Pride’ Parade Canceled After Law Against Exposing Kids to Sexually Explicit Events

Quote

Organizers of an LGBTQ “Pride Fest” in Florida canceled their “Pride” parade after lawmakers passed legislation that would forbid exposing children to sexually explicit and lewd forms of entertainment.

“The Pride Alliance of the Treasure Coast posted Wednesday on Facebook that the decision to change this Saturday’s Pridefest events was made after multiple conversations with Port St. Lucie officials,” the Associated Press reported. 

“As all of you know, the political climate that we are currently in has us all very concerned for our community,” the Facebook statement said. “After multiple meetings with city officials, it is with a heavy heart that Pride Alliance of the Treasure Coast has to announce that this weekend’s Pridefest will now be a 21 and older event.” 

The statement came on the same day that Florida lawmakers passed the Protection of Children Act, which forbids exposing children to “adult live performances.” The bill defines such forms of adult entertainment as “any show, exhibition, or other presentation that is performed in front of a live audience and in whole or in part, depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, specific sexual activities,” or includes “lewd conduct, or the lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts.”

Huh.  It's almost as if the parade was going to run afoul of a law that . . . wait for it . . . criminalizes exposing children to sexually explicit stuff (“any show, exhibition, or other presentation that is performed in front of a live audience and in whole or in part, depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, specific sexual activities,” or includes “lewd conduct, or the lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts.”).

June 2023 Newsweek: Nudity at Seattle Pride Sparks Outrage: ‘Why Were They Not Arrested?’

Quote

Images of attendees said to be at Seattle's LGBTQ+ Pride parade have drawn outrage online after some appeared naked in public.

Pictures posted on social media, which Newsweek could not immediately verify, show people with rainbow flags riding bikes in the nude, and later standing on a street where children were walking past. The story was promptly picked up by several right-wing news outlets.

The safety and wellbeing of children has become a key arguing point for those opposed to greater LGBTQ+ inclusion, especially in school curricula. Some say LGBTQ+ ideology indoctrinates younger people into thinking they are in the wrong body or "grooms" them to be sexualized at a young age.
...

Seattle's 49th annual LGBTQ+ Pride event took place on Sunday, beginning in the city's downtown district at 11 a.m. local time (2 p.m. ET) and finishing at 3 p.m. (6 p.m. ET) near the Space Needle north of Belltown.

According to its official website, the parade usually attracts around 300,000 people.

But images of the nude cyclists posted online by Libs of Tiktok, a conservative account known for anti-LGBTQ+ content, and right-wing news outlet Breitbart, among others, sparked a debate among social media users.

"I'm all for pride, but this is not that. Why were they not arrested?" William Scott Lowe tweeted. "Like I said, I believe in LGBTQ rights, but being naked in front of kids is a crime."

"I believe it is called indecent exposure," Chase Lanford wrote. "It is not an acceptable standard for anyone else, why should it be acceptable for him to do simply because he is homosexual?"
...
"If you live in Seattle and don't want your children exposed to the genitalia of adults, don't take them to the Pride parade. Simple," one Twitter user wrote. "If the law in your city allows public nudity, move."

Huh.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Oh, piffle.

And fiddle faddle and rot.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It think it is patently unreasonable to dispute the existence of these perversions.

I don’t think you know what perversion is. You should take my course.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Denial.  It ain't just a river in Africa.

As said: "You are, it seems, ideologically obligated to either A) pretend/insist that these things aren't happening, or B) admit that these things are happening, but deny that this amounts to the sexualization/grooming of children."

"Sexualization" and "grooming" are not really legally precise terms of art, but this stuff really is going on.  

And the impact appears to be negligible. You’re uncomfortable with it. Don’t project that on some kids.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I object to the sexualization and grooming of children, regardless of the nature of the sexual proclivities of the perverts who are doing it.

Yet you only obsess about queer “sexualization and grooming” which is a vague and meaningless phrase that seems to encompass things that make you uncomfortable.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Gladly.  Again: I object to the sexualization and grooming of children, regardless of the nature of the sexual proclivities of the perverts who are doing it.

As a pervert I don’t believe you.

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sadly, no, it's really happening.  And that compilation was from 2022.  It's still going on:

June 2023 NY Post Article (no link b/c the photos are NSFW) : This Pride month, fellow gays, keep your kinks at home — and away from kids

"And to the broader public understandably outraged by these viral incidents, please don’t hold the actions of a small minority against our entire community when many of us want nothing to do with such indecency."

That is a reasonable request.  I also like this statement: "It’s time for the LGBT community to step up and reassert some basic standards over Pride events."

Instead of, as you do, deny and/or justify these behaviors.

And thus transgender people should be denied rights.

Welp, I’m convinced. No idea what the article said. The link was broken.

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

June 2023 CBS Austin: Video of man twerking while children watch at Minneapolis Pride goes viral

But according to you, none of this is happening.  And it's not sexualizing/grooming children.  Or something.

Seeing someone twerking is “sexualizing/grooming children”? What do these terms even mean to you? Do you have any concept of them beyond you personally not liking them and interpreting that to mean that they will transform children into lust-crazed queers? That is not how kids work.

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  

April 2023: Florida ‘Pride’ Parade Canceled After Law Against Exposing Kids to Sexually Explicit Events

Huh.  It's almost as if the parade was going to run afoul of a law that . . . wait for it . . . criminalizes exposing children to sexually explicit stuff (“any show, exhibition, or other presentation that is performed in front of a live audience and in whole or in part, depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, specific sexual activities,” or includes “lewd conduct, or the lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts.”).

In Florida being queer in public is sexually explicit. Books that mention queer people existing is sexually explicit.

It is Florida. They’re insane. Of course the parade is nervous. They have an authoritarian governor targeting queer people because he is a bigot. Keeping their heads down makes sense and counting on the courts and law enforcement to be fair and balanced to queer people is a sucker’s game.

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

June 2023 Newsweek: Nudity at Seattle Pride Sparks Outrage: ‘Why Were They Not Arrested?’

Huh.

They weren’t arrested because *checks notes* Seattle doesn’t have anti-nudity laws.

Womp, womp, waaaahhhh.

This is outrage porn. I mean the reporting on it. Not the original incident. It is “sexualizing/grooming” children to hate and should not be tolerated.

That is assuming it happened. If the only sources are Breitbart and noted liar Libs of TikTok I am dubious. For those unfamiliar with Libs of TikTok they have become particularly famous for stating that mass shooters are transgender when they aren’t. They have occasionally acknowledged the errors but doesn’t take the posts down and keeps doing it. They are a transphobic bigot. 

 

Edited December 31, 2025 by The Nehor

[smac97]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And thus transgender people should be denied rights.

There is no right to sexualize/groom children.

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Welp, I’m convinced. No idea what the article said. The link was broken.

I did not include the link because the content - photographs/videos of the behavior to you excusing/justifying - was too NSFW.

But I gave you the title to the article.  You can find it if you want to.  

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Seeing someone twerking is “sexualizing/grooming children”?

From the video:

Quote

In the now-viral video, an older man can be seen wearing nothing but white briefs, white socks and a rainbow garter while "twerking" in the middle of a road in front of a group of onlooking children.
...

The video clip sparked fierce backlash from critics. Social media personality Joey Mannarino, who posted the clip that went viral, called the incident "a total stain on the LGBTQ+ community and if they don't remove this stuff from their parades, they want it there."

Even if you vote for Joe Biden, you can't possibly think that having kids watch this man with more hair on his back than his head twerk is appropriate," Mannarino said in the caption of his video tweet. "What kind of man decides that he wants to twerk for children anyway?"

 

And you are excusing / justifying / ratifying / endorsing this stuff?

Thanks,

-Smac

[JVW]

On 12/30/2025 at 7:14 PM, california boy said:

WHO CARES HOW OTHER PEOPLE CHOOSE TO LIVE THEIR LIVES.  It is their life, not yours.  ... the concept of self determination was part of this country from the beginning.

Seriously, prejudicial beliefs about ANYONE just because they are different from you is the most stupid idea anyone has ever had.  It should all be regulated to the dustbin of history.  Let people live their lives the way they see fit.  Learn to treat others that are different from yourself with respect and dignity.  Forget all this nonsense.  It should be embarrassing that people feel like they should even have to fight at all for individual rights just because they don't look like those in power.

I am genuinely curious how you view anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, and covid-deniers?

I've done this thought experiment before and I have a difficult time thinking of anything someone does that truly does not have an impact on another person. We are all so interconnected.

What do you think? Thanks for your consideration brother. Cheers!

[JVW]

@smac97 Be careful not to burn yourself out. It's fun to argue but I'd hate to see you take an extended hiatus from this forum again. I value your perspective on a variety of topics and I believe that there were many others on the forums that missed your contribution.

[Calm]

On 1/1/2026 at 9:47 AM, JVW said:

have a difficult time thinking of anything someone does that truly does not have an impact on another person. We are all so interconnected.

Level of impact does vary though as well as type.  That needs to be taken into consideration when making laws, especially those with far reaching and likely unintended consequences.

Edited January 2 by Calm

[california boy]

On 1/1/2026 at 8:47 AM, JVW said:

I am genuinely curious how you view anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, and covid-deniers?

My position is not really different.  People make all kinds of decisions that I disagree with.  But it is their lives, not mine.  They are the parents, not me.  If they make wrong choices in how they raise their children then they will have to deal with the consequences of their decisions.  

I do think that the state has a responsibility to protect their children if there is real harm being done.  But I also recognize that what I consider harmful and what they consider harmful may not be the same.  I have to trust the law when it comes to defining whether real physical harm is being done.  Extreme caution by the state must look at each and every case on an individual basis and careful evaluation must be used.  

I also might add that what is being discussed seems to be more baseless attacks on an entire group of people using extreme outliner stories that if true, may not really be telling the entire story in order to justify their position.  I think it is pretty easy to tell one side is trying to say that if one parent is putting their child in danger, then they all are putting their child at risk.  Of course I strongly object to any parent who is forcing their child to transition if that is truly is what is happening. In those cases, if they are actually happening, they should be handled on an individual case by case basis through child protective services.  I don't think general laws should be passed that supersede all parental rights to raise their children as they seem fit just because of cherry picked stories that might not even be telling the entire story of what went into the parents decision.  

I have no idea what it must be like to be transgender,  but I do know that it is a real human condition for a very small percentage of the population.  It is pretty apparent that the life a transgender person has to live is not an easy road to take.  It would be an extremely difficult task as a parent to know exactly how to handle that and what is in the best interest of my child.  I would have to look to professionals to help guide me in making the best decisions for my child.  Someone who has actual experience in dealing with these issues, certainly not make decisions based on some internet warrior on either side of the debate.  

On 1/1/2026 at 8:47 AM, JVW said:

I've done this thought experiment before and I have a difficult time thinking of anything someone does that truly does not have an impact on another person. We are all so interconnected.

What do you think? Thanks for your consideration brother. Cheers!

Honestly I am not sure what this means.  Maybe you could explain your thinking.

Edited January 3 by california boy

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

My position is not really different.  People make all kinds of decisions that I disagree with.  But it is their lives, not mine.  They are the parents, not me.  If they make wrong choices in how they raise their children then they will have to deal with the consequences of their decisions.

Sounds good.  Not sure what this means relative to biological males in women's spaces.  It seems like a zero sum proposition.  Either we allow males in women's sports, or we do not.  We can't really be ambivalent about it, because a decision needs to be made.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I do think that the state has a responsibility to protect their children if there is real harm being done.  But I also recognize that what I consider harmful and what they consider harmful may not be the same.  

A salient and astute point.  I assume you would feel the same about "privacy" and "fairness."  Biological males in women's sports, for example, involves these concerns.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I have to trust the law when it comes to defining whether real physical harm is being done.  

Should the State also evaluate "real" privacy and fairness concerns?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Extreme caution by the state must look at each and every case on an individual basis and careful evaluation must be used.

I am curious how this would play out in, say, males in women's sports.  I don't think it can be an "on an individual basis" sort of thing.  Extremely rare marginal circumstances excepted (people with DSDs), males are to be excluded or allowed into women's spaces.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I also might add that what is being discussed seems to be more baseless attacks on an entire group of people using extreme outliner stories that if true, may not really be telling the entire story in order to justify their position.  

I think there is plenty of reason to object to the more extreme and irrational elements of trans ideology.  But to paraphrase what you said above: But I also recognize that what I consider legitimate concerns and objections and what they consider legitimate concerns and objections may not be the same.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course I strongly object to any parent who is forcing their child to transition if that is truly is what is happening.

What about a child who tells his parents he "identifies" as "trans-disabled" and wants his spinal cord severed, or his legs chopped off?  Are we as a society prepared to say "Well, okay.  Whatever the parents and the child want...")?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I have no idea what it must be like to be transgender,  but I do know that it is a real human condition for a very small percentage of the population.

There are also very small percentages of people who "identify" as trans-racial (Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug), an adult (50s) male who "identifies" perpetually six-years-old girl (Stefoknee Wolscht), a woman who "identifies" as handicapped and wants to have her spinal cord severed, a 5'9" white guy who "identifies" as a six-foot-tall Chinese woman (as a hypothetical), a woman who "identifies" as a dragon (Eva Tiamat Medusa), a woman who "identifies" as a wolf (Naia Ōkami), a young women who "identifies" as a red-tailed hawk ("Horus"), a teenage boy who "identifies" as a dog, people who well and truly want to have healthy body parts (legs) removed, or to be intentionally blinded, and so on.

These people all seem to be genuine in their expressed "human conditions," and yet nobody suggests that the rest of society ought to go along with these incongruent-with-reality notions of "identity."  I am genuinely curious as to why a person can "identify" as a gender they are not, but cannot identify as a species they are not, or an age they are not, etc.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

It is pretty apparent that the life a transgender person has to live is not an easy road to take.

I agree.  I think this becomes more difficult when a disorder is ratified and celebrated, rather than addressed as a disorder.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

It would be an extremely difficult task as a parent to know exactly how to handle that and what is in the best interest of my child.  I would have to look to professionals to help guide me in making the best decisions for my child.  Someone who has actual experience in dealing with these issues, certainly not make decisions based on some internet warrior on either side of the debate.

The woman noted above who "identifies" as handicapped has not found a doctor in the UK willing to operate on her and render her intentionally paralyzed.  I think this is because there are legal and ethical and moral issues that can transcend what a child wants, even if the child's parents are on board and find "professionals" who are on board.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sounds good.  Not sure what this means relative to biological males in women's spaces.  It seems like a zero sum proposition.  Either we allow males in women's sports, or we do not.  We can't really be ambivalent about it, because a decision needs to be made.

A salient and astute point.  I assume you would feel the same about "privacy" and "fairness."  Biological males in women's sports, for example, involves these concerns.

Should the State also evaluate "real" privacy and fairness concerns?

I am curious how this would play out in, say, males in women's sports.  I don't think it can be an "on an individual basis" sort of thing.  Extremely rare marginal circumstances excepted (people with DSDs), males are to be excluded or allowed into women's spaces.

I am not sure any answer I give you is going to be something you would consider.  It is pretty clear that you have made up your mind completely on this subject.  But, I am willing to take a stab at this.  Yes I do believe there is a way to evaluate a person's eligibility on an individual basis.  Sports could take into account the level of testosterone/estrogen a person has for example.  That is the most defining edge that males have over females.  It is why a male transitioning to female is given increase amounts of estrogen  I think it is also important to realize that sports are never a level playing field for anyone.  Physical attributes such as height, body mass, quickness, stride, etc are never equal and to some extent can't learned or changed.  So yes, I do believe things can be looked at on an individual basis.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think there is plenty of reason to object to the more extreme and irrational elements of trans ideology.  But to paraphrase what you said above: But I also recognize that what I consider legitimate concerns and objections and what they consider legitimate concerns and objections may not be the same.  

What about a child who tells his parents he "identifies" as "trans-disabled" and wants his spinal cord severed, or his legs chopped off?  Are we as a society prepared to say "Well, okay.  Whatever the parents and the child want...")?

Who better to evaluate a child's needs better than their own parent and trained professionals.  I think they are infinitely more qualified to evaluate the child's needs more that some congressmen who has no qualifications to pass laws determining a child's needs that he has never even ment or knows nothing about.  They shouldn't be given that power over medical decisions.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are also very small percentages of people who "identify" as trans-racial (Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug), an adult (50s) male who "identifies" perpetually six-years-old girl (Stefoknee Wolscht), a woman who "identifies" as handicapped and wants to have her spinal cord severed, a 5'9" white guy who "identifies" as a six-foot-tall Chinese woman (as a hypothetical), a woman who "identifies" as a dragon (Eva Tiamat Medusa), a woman who "identifies" as a wolf (Naia Ōkami), a young women who "identifies" as a red-tailed hawk ("Horus"), a teenage boy who "identifies" as a dog, people who well and truly want to have healthy body parts (legs) removed, or to be intentionally blinded, and so on.

These people all seem to be genuine in their expressed "human conditions," and yet nobody suggests that the rest of society ought to go along with these incongruent-with-reality notions of "identity."  I am genuinely curious as to why a person can "identify" as a gender they are not, but cannot identify as a species they are not, or an age they are not, etc.

These are certainly "who cares" concerns.  I certainly don't care if someone thinks they are a six year old girl or a dragon.  It is their life to live, not mine to impose my beliefs on.  As long as they obey the laws of the land that believes in individual determination, I am ok with that.  If I don't want people like that in my life, then it is pretty easy to ignore them.  

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I agree.  I think this becomes more difficult when a disorder is ratified and celebrated, rather than addressed as a disorder.

The woman noted above who "identifies" as handicapped has not found a doctor in the UK willing to operate on her and render her intentionally paralyzed.  I think this is because there are legal and ethical and moral issues that can transcend what a child wants, even if the child's parents are on board and find "professionals" who are on board.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Ratified and celebrated by who?  What are you talking about?  Why are you even concerned with the choices these people choose.  Does it really affect your life?  Do you have training in dealing with any of these situations?  Have you evaluated their medical and mental conditions yourself?  Of course not.  You are just reading click bate headlines and feel you have a need to be outraged by THE HEADLINE with no personal knowledge of the situation.  Move on.  It certainly isn't something I need to worry about.  No one in my life or your life have any relationship to your outliner examples.

[smac97]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

I am curious how this would play out in, say, males in women's sports.  I don't think it can be an "on an individual basis" sort of thing.  Extremely rare marginal circumstances excepted (people with DSDs), males are to be excluded or allowed into women's spaces.

I am not sure any answer I give you is going to be something you would consider.  It is pretty clear that you have made up your mind completely on this subject.  

I have reached some conclusions, yes.  But they are not etched in stone.  I am willing to listen to what others have to say.  The problem is that substantive and evidence-based arguments appear to be lacking, which is why advocates like @The Nehor resort to "You're a Bigot!"-style ad hominems and such.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

But, I am willing to take a stab at this.  Yes I do believe there is a way to evaluate a person's eligibility on an individual basis.  Sports could take into account the level of testosterone/estrogen a person has for example.  That is the most defining edge that males have over females.  It is why a male transitioning to female is given increase amounts of estrogen.

Thank you for your response.  I think your proposal is a non-starter when you dig into the actual science and reality of male vs. female athletic performance.  A few thoughts:

1. Testosterone isn't "the most defining edge."  It is one factor, but the real advantages come from male puberty itself: irreversible changes like greater muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, heart size, height, and skeletal structure. Even after years of hormone suppression and estrogen therapy, biological males who "identify" as women retain substantial physical advantages in terms of strength, recovery time, biomechanics, and so on.  No amount of estrogen erases these physiological advantages.

2. Transitioning doesn't level the playing field.  It mitigates some things but leaves the core male advantages intact. That's why elite "trans" athletes like Lia Thomas, a biological male, dominate women's swimming or why we have seen records shattered in weightlifting and cycling. If hormones were the fix, we wouldn't see these outcomes.

3. As a practical matter, what you are suggesting seems deeply impractical and problematic.  Individual testing is a nightmare: invasive blood draws, fluctuating levels (what's the cutoff? How often test?), huge costs, and endless appeals/loopholes.  Meanwhile, many (most?) trans (biologically male), particularly those who have not undergone hormone therapy and wish to participate against women based on their subjective and self-designated "identity" as "women" will have retained all of the physiological advantages of having gone through male puberty.  Is it really your proposal that these "trans women" be differentiated from other "trans women" who *have* undergone hormone therapy (hoo boy, the trans ideologues will really not be happy about that)?  Seems like this proposal turns women's sports into a bureaucratic mess, while at the same time ignoring safety risks in contact sports (e.g., higher injury rates from retained strength).

4. Women's categories in sports exist for a reason: to protect fair competition based on sex, not self-ID or hormone lottery. Your approach erodes or obliterates that.

5. Why not just open categories if "individual evaluation" is the answer? 

6. This issue is not, as is so often alleged, about hate; it is about biology and fairness.  Acting as if hormones addresses the categorical biological advantages men have over women ignores the evidence and punishes female athletes.  We as a society protect sex-based categories or we lose them.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I think it is also important to realize that sports are never a level playing field for anyone.  Physical attributes such as height, body mass, quickness, stride, etc are never equal and to some extent can't learned or changed.  So yes, I do believe things can be looked at on an individual basis.

I have seen this argument several times.  A few thoughts:

1. Yes, sports aren't perfectly "level" across all members of the male sex or the female sex.  Tall people dominate basketball, fast-twitch fibers help sprinters. However, these are natural variations within the same sex category. Women's sports exist precisely to give females a fair shot against other females, excluding the massive, systemic/categorical advantages from male puberty that no female can match naturally.

2. You are equating random genetic luck (height, stride) with an entire biological class advantage—greater muscle mass, bone density, strength, lung capacity, etc., which advantages persist even after hormone therapy.  Science (World Athletics, BJSM reviews) shows "trans women" (that is, biological males) keep 10-30% edges post-transition. That's not 'individual variation'; it's a category mismatch.

3. "Individual basis" sounds fair, but it is not realistic.  Invasive testing. Arbitrary cutoffs. Endless appeals. This proposal would turn women's sports into a hormone lottery while ignoring safety (contact sports injuries) and erasing the purpose of sex-based divisions.

4. If everything is just "individual attributes," why have women's categories at all?  We could just open division for everyone, but then males would dominate and women's sports would be destroyed.  Fairness and opportunity and safety for female athletes matter.

5. This isn't about equality of outcomes; it's about not pretending biology doesn't exist. Your approach sacrifices women's opportunities, and fairness, and safety, in the name of performative and unreasoned "inclusivity."  We as a society should protect the categories or watch women's sports vanish.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

What about a child who tells his parents he "identifies" as "trans-disabled" and wants his spinal cord severed, or his legs chopped off?  Are we as a society prepared to say "Well, okay.  Whatever the parents and the child want...")?

Who better to evaluate a child's needs better than their own parent and trained professionals.

"Trained professionals" are beholden to the law.  So are parents.  So are children.

Again, consider the situation of the woman in the UK who wants to have her spinal cord severed.  She is an adult, and her family apparently supports her.  The only missing component is a "trained professional."  Doctors in the UK, though they are "trained professionals," are not unfettered in their ability to practice medicine.  They are constrained by ethical and legal provisions which are in effect in that jurisdiction.  She has sought to circumvent those laws by going into another country (she does not name it), where she has found a doctor who is willing to help her: "I have found a doctor in another country who would be prepared to do femoral and sciatic nerve transections to paralyze my legs."

Why do you think she is looking for a doctor in "another country" rather than the UK?

Assuming she could accumulate the funds necessary to pay the doctor, would you support her course of action described here?  "Who better to evaluate..." and all that?

Again, what are your thoughts about a child who tells his parents he "identifies" as "trans-disabled" and wants his spinal cord severed, or his legs chopped off?  Would you be okay with that?  Or would oppose it?  Indifferent?

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I think they are infinitely more qualified to evaluate the child's needs more that some congressmen who has no qualifications to pass laws determining a child's needs that he has never even ment or knows nothing about. They shouldn't be given that power over medical decisions.

Who should be given that power, then?  Do doctors, in your view, have unfettered decision-making authority?  Or are they properly subject to legal and ethical constraints in the jurisdiction in which they practice medicine?

7 hours ago, california boy said:

These are certainly "who cares" concerns.  I certainly don't care if someone thinks they are a six year old girl or a dragon.  It is their life to live, not mine to impose my beliefs on.  

Fine sentiments in the abstract, and I largely share them.  But what happens when that adult male in this 50s wants society to treat him like a six year old girl and ratify that "identity"?  Or when a teenager with gender dysphoria wants society to allow a doctor to cut off her breasts?  Are these "'who cares' concerns"?

7 hours ago, california boy said:

As long as they obey the laws of the land that believes in individual determination, I am ok with that.  

The caveat ("as long as they obey the laws of the land that believes in individual determination") is an interesting one.  I'm not sure how laws "believe" in anything, as they are inanimate objects.  Rather, laws may reflect the principle of "individual determination," so I assume that is what you mean. 

In many, even most, ways, our system of laws does reflect and respect the concept of individual determination, but not in an unfettered way.  Minors can't drink or smoke or get tattoos, for example.  Adults cannot legally use illicit substances.  So it's not an all-or-nothing sort of concept.  There is the general principle (the Constitution protects our individual and group civil liberties), but with some constraints parameters (yes to "Free Speech," no to "Yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater").

Alternatively, if your caveat is intended to convey the notion that, in an individual's subjective and personal opinion, the laws of the land that do not sufficiently reflect/respect individual determination, are bad, or should be disregarded on that basis, then that would be a different scenario.  I am assuming, though, that you did not mean this.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

If I don't want people like that in my life, then it is pretty easy to ignore them.

For you as an individual, yes.  Frankly, I think the vast majority of Americans were doing precisely that until just the last few years, then the calculus changed and biological males started to participate in women's sports, or go into women's bathrooms, or be housed in women's prisons.  While "it is pretty easy" for you "to ignore them," society cannot.  We must make decisions as to such matters.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

Quote

It is pretty apparent that the life a transgender person has to live is not an easy road to take.

I agree.  I think this becomes more difficult when a disorder is ratified and celebrated, rather than addressed as a disorder.

Ratified and celebrated by who?  What are you talking about?  

People with gender dysphoria, such as a biological male who really really believes he is, and "identifies" as, a "woman" are "ratified and celebrated" all over the place for having and acting on and expressing that incongruent-with-reality notion.

In contrast, consider this anecdote from 2024:

Quote

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?

My perception was that the group at Encircle House was "ratifying and celebrating" the group of "trans men" (biological women who "identify" as men).  We as a society are apparently supposed to do the same, 'cuz otherwise we're "bigots" and our "hate" will drive them to suicide, or something.  I find this to be a large scale re-enactment of "The Emperor's New Clothes," but suffice it to say that there is all sorts of "ratifying and celebrating" going on.

But what about the teenager's "identity" as a dog?  As noted above, Am I - and the rest of society -supposed to go long with that kid's notion as being "congruent with reality and biological fact"?  Apparently not.  And a person who "identifies" as a species he is not is somehow distinguishable from a person who "identifies" as a sex he is not.  The former is absurd, the latter is perfectly sensible.

Here's the point, though: I think Jack (the teenage boy I met who "identifies" as a dog) is, in the long run, going to be better off than some other boy who "identifies" as a woman.  See, nobody is really taking Jack seriously.  Yes, he can put on dog-themed accessories (ears, collar, etc.), and he can act like a dog (sitting on his haunches, having someone hold his leash, saying "Woof!"), but in the end it's just an elaborate sort of cosplay.  He wears clothes (real dogs don't), goes to school (real dogs don't), speaks English (real dogs don't), will eventually have a job and get paid (real dogs don't), will get a driver's license (real dogs don't), will be treated as a human under the law (dogs aren't), and so on.  Society tolerates Jack "identifying" as a dog, but doesn't ratify it in any real sense, nor doe society allow this "identity" to be carried to its logical conclusion (he still has to go to school, wear clothes in public, etc.).  And sooner or later, Jack will probably grow out of this behavior and move on with life.

In contrast, a "trans" person is being "ratified and celebrated" in his "identity" as a "trans woman" in a number of ways (for now, anyway).  Hence Lia Thomas, a biological male, has been allowed to participate in women's sports.  Thousands of examples are in view here.  Jack's "identity" as a dog is not socially recognized (not really), whereas "trans" identity has been recognized in many ways.  Both are incongruent with reality, but only the latter is ratified and celebrated.    

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Why are you even concerned with the choices these people choose.  Does it really affect your life?  

Says the guy who left the Church years and years ago, and yet still comes to this board to commentate on it.  Why are you even concerned with the choices these people choose.  Does it really affect your life?  

Again, until the last few years I did not care about "trans" stuff.  I have, since then, been made to care about this issue.  I would have preferred to let it alone, but zealots and idealogues have brought it to society's front door.  Men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons.  Thousands of children receiving medical treatments which permanently impair sexual function and procreative capacity and have lifelong effects.  Large-scale and very public sexualization and grooming of children.  Laws compelling speech and other substantial damage to Free Speech.  Substantial damage to familial and other relationships.  Substantial injury to gender dysphoric persons.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you have training in dealing with any of these situations?

No.  

Have you served in the military?  Do you have "training in dealing with" how the military is used?  If not, do you still have a right to have an opinion on that issue, and speak on it?

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Have you evaluated their medical and mental conditions yourself?  Of course not.  You are just reading click bate headlines and feel you have a need to be outraged by THE HEADLINE with no personal knowledge of the situation.  Move on.

I am not outraged.  And happily, we as a society are "moving on."  The advances by trans ideologues have been overwhelmingly rolled back.  The ideology's essential tenets are being repudiated all over the place.  SCOTUS is, in my view, on the cusp of holding that "trans" is not a suspect or quasi-suspect class.  The UK high court has defined what a "woman" is.  Sport associations are returning to excluding biological males from women's sports.  State legislatures are criminalizing "gender affirming" medical treatments for minors.  Most of Europe and the U.S. have drastically pulled back from such treatments.

We are cumulatively waking up from the "Emperor's New Clothes" fever dream that arose subsequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage (activists gotta get their pay somehow).  I am quite happy to see this.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

It certainly isn't something I need to worry about.  

And yet here you are, speaking on the subject.  As am I.

I think people who care about safety, privacy, fairness, and other concerns affecting women can and should publicly speak out on these issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3 by smac97

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, many (most?) trans (biologically male), particularly those who have not undergone hormone therapy and wish to participate against women based on their subjective and self-designated "identity" as "women" will have retained all of the physiological advantages of having gone through male puberty.

Where has this actually happened outside of possibly high school where the individual may not have had access yet to medical transitioning? (CFR please). The only ones I remember hearing of were ones who were trying to make the point allowing this was ridiculous.  Not saying that this hadn’t happened, just thinking that claiming “many (most)” isn’t accurate.

Edited January 3 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

We could just open division for everyone, but then males would dominate and women's sports would be destroyed. 

It’s getting to the point where it is relatively easy if you have the money to noninvasively test different types of muscle mass, skeletal mass, bone density, and hormone levels.  Divisions could be set up based on these.  It is not workable yet for schools, but probably would be now for any profit producing professional team in quite a few relevant categories, though possibly there are still highly significant ones are not that accessible and won’t be for awhile.

Not saying that it should be that way, just that such an argument of hormone testing is not enough (I agree) and thorough testing is invasive and costly isn’t going to be valid much longer, I am speculating.  I am not aware of all the necessary testing though, so I could be wrong, but I am thinking enough factors will be able to be quickly and noninvasively tested as well as others more thorough testing such as detailed MRIs could be occasional tests to set up divisions around basic physical strength and speed, etc.

Then create a program that amalgamates such measures and creates enough divisions based first on safety and then on competitive edges.

Would be a hassle setting it up, but think of weight divisions in boxing.

Dexa scans currently show bone density, Inbody scans show skeletal muscle mass, body fat percentage, visceral fat level, and water distribution, various tests (some taking just a few minutes of breathing into a tube) for metabolism and oxygen use and these are just the ones I know from general health testing.  Given the interest in sports and the importance on maximizing financial and time investment, we will be getting easier, more effective testing of more and more relevant factors over time.  And given the increasing abilities of AI, determining reasonable, less arbitrary divisions will be possible as well.

Edited January 3 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, consider the situation of the woman in the UK who wants to have her spinal cord severed.  She is an adult, and her family apparently supports her.  The only missing component is a "trained professional."  Doctors in the UK, though they are "trained professionals," are not unfettered in their ability to practice medicine.  They are constrained by ethical and legal provisions which are in effect in that jurisdiction.  She has sought to circumvent those laws by going into another country (she does not name it), where she has found a doctor who is willing to help her: "I have found a doctor in another country who would be prepared to do femoral and sciatic nerve transections to paralyze my legs."

I still don’t get how you won’t accept extreme cases for arguments from others in some cases, but then frequently appeal to them yourself. (Serious observation and not a challenge as I do want to understand your reasoning).

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Why are you even concerned with the choices these people choose.  Does it really affect your life?  

California boy has explained many times he has family members (both as immediate family members and extended family) who are Saints and who have attitudes influenced by the Church that affect their interaction with him.

Edited January 3 by Calm

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Meanwhile, many (most?) trans (biologically male), particularly those who have not undergone hormone therapy and wish to participate against women based on their subjective and self-designated "identity" as "women" will have retained all of the physiological advantages of having gone through male puberty.

Where has this actually happened outside of possibly high school where the individual may not have had access yet to medical transitioning.

Whether they have had access to, and used, "medical transitioning" or not, these "trans women" (that is, biological males) retain the physiological advantages of having male bodies and gone through male puberty.

As for how many "trans" (male) athletes there are competing against women/girls?  I don't know.  Not many, fortunately.  That it has not become widespread does not, in my view, negate the need to address and oppose it.  "Nip it in the bud" comes to mind.  And this:

 

The "Fallacy of Relative Privation" (also "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") dismisses a problem or complaint by pointing to a worse one, arguing the initial issue isn't significant enough for attention.  This fallacy wrongly implies that we cannot or should not address multiple issues or that a lesser problem isn't valid just because bigger ones exist.  I think this is where CB is going ("Why are you even concerned with the choices these people choose.  Does it really affect your life?"). 

Or perhaps this is the "Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion" or "Ignoratio Elenchi" (Latin for "ignorance of refutation").  The core of the phrase suggests the argument, though perhaps facially valid ("Does it really affect your life?"), fails to address the actual point or question at issue, effectively "missing the point" or presenting an irrelevant conclusion. It's a mistake in reasoning where someone proves something related but not what needed proving, like answering "Did you finish your homework?" with "I cleaned my room!".  Similarly, responding to "Males should not be participating in women's sports because of substantial safety, fairness and privacy considerations" with "Why are you even concerned about this?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's the point, though: I think Jack (the teenage boy I met who "identifies" as a dog) is, in the long run, going to be better off than some other boy who "identifies" as a woman.  See, nobody is really taking Jack seriously.

What is his identification though?  Does he really believe himself to be that animal or is it a symbolic, emotional, or subcultural identification?

I don’t think using him as an example works unless you know for sure he has the same category of identification that occurs with transgender individuals.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As for how many "trans" (male) athletes there are competing against women/girls?  I don't know.  Not many, fortunately.  That it has not become widespread does not, in my view, negate the need to address and oppose it.

Yet you claimed “many (most)”?  Do you have one actual documented example even?  If not, aren’t you arguing using a hypothetical claim as if it’s actually factual?  It may actually be a nonissue (I came across several trans athletes who did not see it as appropriate to compete professionally until after medically transitioned, so this could be a line that very few might argue against) not just dismissed as one.

You have also stated in the past you won’t argue against hypotheticals iirc, so it seems appropriate not to use a hypothetical to support your own arguments unless you have solid documentation that something has occurred

I want to make clear there are points in your arguments I very much agree with, for example I don’t believe hormone therapy is enough in many sports to overcome the biological advantage, safety being my primary concern here.  I just think you have some weak arguments you should dump.

Edited January 3 by Calm

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Again, consider the situation of the woman in the UK who wants to have her spinal cord severed.  She is an adult, and her family apparently supports her.  The only missing component is a "trained professional."  Doctors in the UK, though they are "trained professionals," are not unfettered in their ability to practice medicine.  They are constrained by ethical and legal provisions which are in effect in that jurisdiction.  She has sought to circumvent those laws by going into another country (she does not name it), where she has found a doctor who is willing to help her: "I have found a doctor in another country who would be prepared to do femoral and sciatic nerve transections to paralyze my legs."

I still don’t get how you won’t accept extreme cases for arguments from others in some cases,

First, could you provide an example?

Second, I don't think the the above example is any more "extreme" than a woman with gender dysphoria having her healthy breasts removed, or a man with that disorder having his genitals removed.  I also noted the example of the surgeon in Scotland who got in trouble a while back for amputating the healthy legs of two patients.  How is the amputation of healthy limbs "extreme" but a double mastectomy of a woman's (or girl's) perfectly healthy breasts not "extreme"?

Third, trans ideology is based on substantial logical errors, such as the absence of limiting principles, equivocation, and emotional manipulation ("Failure to use 'preferred pronouns' drives trans people to suicide").

Trans ideology broadly lacks limiting principles, allowing definitions to expand indefinitely without clear boundaries. For instance, a "woman" is defined as a biological adult female and also anyone who identifies as one, creating an open-ended category that includes virtually anyone, regardless of biology, age, or intent. This absence of constraints leads to absurdities, like self-ID policies enabling convicted male sex offenders to access women's prisons simply by claiming identity, with no objective criteria to prevent abuse or ensure consistency. Without limiting principles, the ideology risks undermining the very concepts it seeks to redefine.  It turns "inclusion" into an unlimited free-for-all that erodes protections for women and girls.

Equivocation is a core tactic, where proponents conflate or differentiate "sex" (biological reality) and "gender" (social construct or identity) in arbitrary or convenient ways. When pushing for access to women's spaces or sports, they conflate the terms—arguing "trans women are women" as if identity overrides sex-based differences. But when challenged on biology (e.g., "men can't get pregnant"), they differentiate: "Gender is fluid, sex is assigned." This sleight-of-hand avoids addressing contradictions, like claiming sex is a "spectrum" to justify "inclusion" while ignoring that 99.98+% of humans are unambiguously male or female. It is rhetorical gamesmanship that shifts goalposts to evade scrutiny.

Emotional manipulation is rampant, using coercive messaging to silence dissent and compel compliance (such as we so often see on this board). Claims like "Failure to use 'preferred pronouns' drives trans people to suicide" weaponize mental health statistics (often misrepresented—suicide rates are high but not directly caused by misgendering) to guilt-trip opponents into submission. This creates a false choice: Affirm or be responsible for harm. It's manipulative because it equates disagreement with violence, stifling debate and pressuring institutions (schools, workplaces) to enforce policies without evidence. In reality, studies (e.g., from the Cass Review in the UK) show gender distress is complex, often linked to comorbidities, not societal rejection alone—yet this tactic demands unquestioning acceptance under threat of moral condemnation.

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

but then frequently appeal to them yourself. (Serious observation and not a challenge as I do want to understand your reasoning).

I am open to a critique on this point.  Please give me some examples.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

We could just open division for everyone, but then males would dominate and women's sports would be destroyed. 

It’s getting to the point where it is relatively easy if you have the money to noninvasively test different types of muscle mass, skeletal mass, bone density, and hormone levels.  

Do you really think the "Trans Women are Women!" brigade would go along with differentiating some of their number as sufficiently "trans" and some not?

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Divisions could be set up based on these.  It is not workable yet for schools, but probably would be now for any professional team in quite a few relevant categories, though possibly a few still are not that accessible.

Not saying that it should be that way, just that such an argument of hormone testing is not enough (I agree) and thorough testing is invasive and costly isn’t going to be valid much longer, I am speculating.  I am not aware of all the necessary testing though, so I could be wrong.

We'll see.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Why are you even concerned with the choices these people choose.  Does it really affect your life?  

California boy has explained many times he has family members (both as immediate family members and extended family) who are Saints and who have attitudes influenced by the Church that affect their interaction with him.

Okay.  And I know a young woman who is in the thrall of gender dysphoria.  She is a self-described "trans gay" (she is biologically female, "identifies" as male, and is romantically attracted to biological males).  She is not functioning well and is not happy.  

Does that give me sufficient bona fides to allow me to speak on trans issues?  

I reject the "Does it really affect your life" rebuttal.  It's fallacious.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have reached some conclusions, yes.  But they are not etched in stone.  I am willing to listen to what others have to say.  The problem is that substantive and evidence-based arguments appear to be lacking, which is why advocates like @The Nehor resort to "You're a Bigot!"-style ad hominems and such.

Thank you for your response.  I think your proposal is a non-starter when you dig into the actual science and reality of male vs. female athletic performance.  A few thoughts:

1. Testosterone isn't "the most defining edge."  It is one factor, but the real advantages come from male puberty itself: irreversible changes like greater muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, heart size, height, and skeletal structure. Even after years of hormone suppression and estrogen therapy, biological males who "identify" as women retain substantial physical advantages in terms of strength, recovery time, biomechanics, and so on.  No amount of estrogen erases these physiological advantages.

2. Transitioning doesn't level the playing field.  It mitigates some things but leaves the core male advantages intact. That's why elite "trans" athletes like Lia Thomas, a biological male, dominate women's swimming or why we have seen records shattered in weightlifting and cycling. If hormones were the fix, we wouldn't see these outcomes.

3. As a practical matter, what you are suggesting seems deeply impractical and problematic.  Individual testing is a nightmare: invasive blood draws, fluctuating levels (what's the cutoff? How often test?), huge costs, and endless appeals/loopholes.  Meanwhile, many (most?) trans (biologically male), particularly those who have not undergone hormone therapy and wish to participate against women based on their subjective and self-designated "identity" as "women" will have retained all of the physiological advantages of having gone through male puberty.  Is it really your proposal that these "trans women" be differentiated from other "trans women" who *have* undergone hormone therapy (hoo boy, the trans ideologues will really not be happy about that)?  Seems like this proposal turns women's sports into a bureaucratic mess, while at the same time ignoring safety risks in contact sports (e.g., higher injury rates from retained strength).

4. Women's categories in sports exist for a reason: to protect fair competition based on sex, not self-ID or hormone lottery. Your approach erodes or obliterates that.

5. Why not just open categories if "individual evaluation" is the answer? 

6. This issue is not, as is so often alleged, about hate; it is about biology and fairness.  Acting as if hormones addresses the categorical biological advantages men have over women ignores the evidence and punishes female athletes.  We as a society protect sex-based categories or we lose them.

I have seen this argument several times.  A few thoughts:

1. Yes, sports aren't perfectly "level" across all members of the male sex or the female sex.  Tall people dominate basketball, fast-twitch fibers help sprinters. However, these are natural variations within the same sex category. Women's sports exist precisely to give females a fair shot against other females, excluding the massive, systemic/categorical advantages from male puberty that no female can match naturally.

2. You are equating random genetic luck (height, stride) with an entire biological class advantage—greater muscle mass, bone density, strength, lung capacity, etc., which advantages persist even after hormone therapy.  Science (World Athletics, BJSM reviews) shows "trans women" (that is, biological males) keep 10-30% edges post-transition. That's not 'individual variation'; it's a category mismatch.

3. "Individual basis" sounds fair, but it is not realistic.  Invasive testing. Arbitrary cutoffs. Endless appeals. This proposal would turn women's sports into a hormone lottery while ignoring safety (contact sports injuries) and erasing the purpose of sex-based divisions.

4. If everything is just "individual attributes," why have women's categories at all?  We could just open division for everyone, but then males would dominate and women's sports would be destroyed.  Fairness and opportunity and safety for female athletes matter.

5. This isn't about equality of outcomes; it's about not pretending biology doesn't exist. Your approach sacrifices women's opportunities, and fairness, and safety, in the name of performative and unreasoned "inclusivity."  We as a society should protect the categories or watch women's sports vanish.

"Trained professionals" are beholden to the law.  So are parents.  So are children.

Calm has answered most of your questions, and I agree with her answers if you are truly looking for answers in your search for truth.  

I would like to put a face on those that you are attacking.  Take a look at THIS PAGE which shows how trans people actually look.  Does that change your mind at all about who should compete in sports or even which bathroom they should use?  I have seen one trans person in the locker room at the gym that I attend.  My gym requires those that are transitioning to go to the locker room that matches their genetilia.  That seems to be working just fine.  Again look at the photos of those that transition that I linked to.  Maybe look at each one individually and decide in your mind which locker room would be most appropriate for them.  

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, consider the situation of the woman in the UK who wants to have her spinal cord severed.  She is an adult, and her family apparently supports her.  The only missing component is a "trained professional."  Doctors in the UK, though they are "trained professionals," are not unfettered in their ability to practice medicine.  They are constrained by ethical and legal provisions which are in effect in that jurisdiction.  She has sought to circumvent those laws by going into another country (she does not name it), where she has found a doctor who is willing to help her: "I have found a doctor in another country who would be prepared to do femoral and sciatic nerve transections to paralyze my legs."

Why do you think she is looking for a doctor in "another country" rather than the UK?

Assuming she could accumulate the funds necessary to pay the doctor, would you support her course of action described here?  "Who better to evaluate..." and all that?

Again, what are your thoughts about a child who tells his parents he "identifies" as "trans-disabled" and wants his spinal cord severed, or his legs chopped off?  Would you be okay with that?  Or would oppose it?  Indifferent?

Who should be given that power, then?  Do doctors, in your view, have unfettered decision-making authority?  Or are they properly subject to legal and ethical constraints in the jurisdiction in which they practice medicine?

So you found a case all the way over in the UK to support your argument.  As Calm has pointed out, this goes against your often argued point to not use outliner situations.  I should also point out that removing breasts or gentile is not disabling.  So you are comparing apples to oranges.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fine sentiments in the abstract, and I largely share them.  But what happens when that adult male in this 50s wants society to treat him like a six year old girl and ratify that "identity"?  Or when a teenager with gender dysphoria wants society to allow a doctor to cut off her breasts?  Are these "'who cares' concerns"?

The caveat ("as long as they obey the laws of the land that believes in individual determination") is an interesting one.  I'm not sure how laws "believe" in anything, as they are inanimate objects.  Rather, laws may reflect the principle of "individual determination," so I assume that is what you mean. 

In many, even most, ways, our system of laws does reflect and respect the concept of individual determination, but not in an unfettered way.  Minors can't drink or smoke or get tattoos, for example.  Adults cannot legally use illicit substances.  So it's not an all-or-nothing sort of concept.  There is the general principle (the Constitution protects our individual and group civil liberties), but with some constraints parameters (yes to "Free Speech," no to "Yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater").

Teenagers can get a tattoo with parents permission.  No jail time for a parent who thinks it is ok for a teen to have a sip of wine.   Some studies have actually supported this practice of parents teaching their children how to drink responsibly rather than some kid who reaches the legal age when they are out on their own, away from parental guidance and have never had any experience in drinkiing.This only supports what I have been saying about who is in the best position to have a say on how to raise their own children.  It is not a decision of some congressmen.  When you use examples like this, I really question if you have actually. thought through your own arguments.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Alternatively, if your caveat is intended to convey the notion that, in an individual's subjective and personal opinion, the laws of the land that do not sufficiently reflect/respect individual determination, are bad, or should be disregarded on that basis, then that would be a different scenario.  I am assuming, though, that you did not mean this.

For you as an individual, yes.  Frankly, I think the vast majority of Americans were doing precisely that until just the last few years, then the calculus changed and biological males started to participate in women's sports, or go into women's bathrooms, or be housed in women's prisons.  While "it is pretty easy" for you "to ignore them," society cannot.  We must make decisions as to such matters.

People with gender dysphoria, such as a biological male who really really believes he is, and "identifies" as, a "woman" are "ratified and celebrated" all over the place for having and acting on and expressing that incongruent-with-reality notion.

In contrast, consider this anecdote from 2024:

My perception was that the group at Encircle House was "ratifying and celebrating" the group of "trans men" (biological women who "identify" as men).  We as a society are apparently supposed to do the same, 'cuz otherwise we're "bigots" and our "hate" will drive them to suicide, or something.  I find this to be a large scale re-enactment of "The Emperor's New Clothes," but suffice it to say that there is all sorts of "ratifying and celebrating" going on.

But what about the teenager's "identity" as a dog?  As noted above, Am I - and the rest of society -supposed to go long with that kid's notion as being "congruent with reality and biological fact"?  Apparently not.  And a person who "identifies" as a species he is not is somehow distinguishable from a person who "identifies" as a sex he is not.  The former is absurd, the latter is perfectly sensible.

Here's the point, though: I think Jack (the teenage boy I met who "identifies" as a dog) is, in the long run, going to be better off than some other boy who "identifies" as a woman.  See, nobody is really taking Jack seriously.  Yes, he can put on dog-themed accessories (ears, collar, etc.), and he can act like a dog (sitting on his haunches, having someone hold his leash, saying "Woof!"), but in the end it's just an elaborate sort of cosplay.  He wears clothes (real dogs don't), goes to school (real dogs don't), speaks English (real dogs don't), will eventually have a job and get paid (real dogs don't), will get a driver's license (real dogs don't), will be treated as a human under the law (dogs aren't), and so on.  Society tolerates Jack "identifying" as a dog, but doesn't ratify it in any real sense, nor doe society allow this "identity" to be carried to its logical conclusion (he still has to go to school, wear clothes in public, etc.).  And sooner or later, Jack will probably grow out of this behavior and move on with life.

In contrast, a "trans" person is being "ratified and celebrated" in his "identity" as a "trans woman" in a number of ways (for now, anyway).  Hence Lia Thomas, a biological male, has been allowed to participate in women's sports.  Thousands of examples are in view here.  Jack's "identity" as a dog is not socially recognized (not really), whereas "trans" identity has been recognized in many ways.  Both are incongruent with reality, but only the latter is ratified and celebrated.    

Answered

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Says the guy who left the Church years and years ago, and yet still comes to this board to commentate on it.  Why are you even concerned with the choices these people choose.  Does it really affect your life?  

Answered

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, until the last few years I did not care about "trans" stuff.  I have, since then, been made to care about this issue.  I would have preferred to let it alone, but zealots and idealogues have brought it to society's front door.  Men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons.  Thousands of children receiving medical treatments which permanently impair sexual function and procreative capacity and have lifelong effects.  Large-scale and very public sexualization and grooming of children.  Laws compelling speech and other substantial damage to Free Speech.  Substantial damage to familial and other relationships.  Substantial injury to gender dysphoric persons.

No.  

Answered

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Have you served in the military?  Do you have "training in dealing with" how the military is used?  If not, do you still have a right to have an opinion on that issue, and speak on it?

I have not served in the military and I don't think I can set policy for the requirements of military personal.  There are people in the service that I think are more qualified,   Once again you are proving my point.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not outraged.  And happily, we as a society are "moving on."  The advances by trans ideologues have been overwhelmingly rolled back.  The ideology's essential tenets are being repudiated all over the place.  SCOTUS is, in my view, on the cusp of holding that "trans" is not a suspect or quasi-suspect class.  The UK high court has defined what a "woman" is.  Sport associations are returning to excluding biological males from women's sports.  State legislatures are criminalizing "gender affirming" medical treatments for minors.  Most of Europe and the U.S. have drastically pulled back from such treatments.

We are cumulatively waking up from the "Emperor's New Clothes" fever dream that arose subsequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage (activists gotta get their pay somehow).  I am quite happy to see this.

And yet here you are, speaking on the subject.  As am I.

I think people who care about safety, privacy, fairness, and other concerns affecting women can and should publicly speak out on these issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

In some areas of this subject, there have been progress.  In other areas, there have been some regression.  For some politicians, they have latched on to this issue as a way of causing unnecessary outrage where none should exist.  Do you know anyone like that?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, could you provide an example?

It was to me personally.  Do you need a quote or is a reconstruction enough?  I may be able to find a reference to it as I think I have mentioned this refusal at other times because it mystified me, but finding the specific time will be difficult as it was quite awhile ago so simply searching on your name and “hypothetical” probably won’t work (added:  it didn’t)

Edited January 4 by Calm