smac97 Posted April 3 Author Posted April 3 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote "Queer" being such a nebulous concept these days, I don't know what you are saying here. It is not at all a nebulous concept. "Nebulous" means "lacking definite form, shape, or content; vague or amorphous." Dictionary.com: "noting or relating to a sexual orientation or gender identity that falls outside the heterosexual mainstream or the gender binary." Does this definition work for you? Columbia Journalism Review: Quote The Dictionary of American Slang says “in the early 1990s queer was adopted as a non-pejorative designation by some homosexuals, in the spirit of ‘gay pride.’” The OED says that transformation began in the late 1980s. ... Since then, “queer” has expanded beyond meaning only “homosexual.” In fact, “queer” does not have a single meaning, except perhaps “not heterosexual.” ... “Queer” is a label, one adopted by some people, rejected by others. So it can’t be used to describe individuals, a group of specific individuals, or their gender orientations, unless their preference is known. Do you accept the first bolded statement above? The second bolded statement seems to characterize the term as "lacking definite form, shape, or content; vague or amorphous." Wikipedia: Quote Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities.[1][2] It is alternately used to refer to people who reject sexual and gender norms and share radical politics characterized by solidarity across lines of identity.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Queer is also a self-identity term for many people (similar to but distinct from gay, lesbian, and bisexual), characterized by rejection or disruption of binary categories of sexual orientation and gender.[9][10][6][11] "Queer" is "an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities." Per https://lgbtqia.fandom.com/wiki/Umbrella_term, "umbrella term" means "a word or a phrase that covers a broad range of related things instead of just one." Such a word or phrase can, in my view, be reasonably characterized as "nebulous." "Queer" is also "alternately used to refer to people who reject sexual and gender norms and share radical politics characterized by solidarity across lines of identity" and is also "a self-identity term for many people (similar to but distinct from gay, lesbian, and bisexual), characterized by rejection or disruption of binary categories of sexual orientation and gender." Do you accept all of these definitions? One? Some? None? As I see it, the Wikipedia article seems to characterize the term as "lacking definite form, shape, or content; vague or amorphous." lgbtqia.fandom.com: Quote Queer is an identifier for individuals who are not exclusively heterosexual in their sexual orientation,[1] who use it in reference to their gender identity, simplify their label if it's long or confusing, and/or gender expression (as a standalone term or part of another like genderqueer),[2][3] or who are fluid in their identities, as well as an umbrella term for the entire community.[4] It is also used instead of lesbian, bisexual, or gay by some people who find those terms too limiting or loaded with connotations that do not apply to them.[2] Boy, "queer" sure seems to cover a lot of ground. QueerMajority.com (article by David Link) : Quote Thirty-two years ago, I wrote an article in Reason Magazine called “I Am Not Queer.” ... I recognized that I was blessed in a way many others weren’t, people whose closeted lives were haunted by the epithet queer, and who couldn’t imagine coming out safely. A lot of other lesbian, bi, and gay people I knew — friends, colleagues, and acquaintances — weren’t feeling all that queer either. At the time, my choice not to call myself queer was mostly a personal preference. I didn’t like the term, but neither did I think it was doing much harm. Over the years, however, I’ve changed my mind. “Queer” today seems to mean anything and everything. While dedicated activism is a necessary part of getting to a moderate, liberal policy, the current strategy of unyielding radical extremism distorts ordinary politics and creates unnecessary confusion in the public around our current discussions of rights and sexual freedom. And “queer” is at the heart of the problem. QUEER TODAY In the three decades since my Reason article, “queer” has become the default description in the mainstream press and other institutions to aggregate the constellation of what were once called “sexual minorities.” Since there is no broadly accepted criteria for what counts as a sexual minority, “queer” today is just a murky inclination rather than a clearly defined term. New entries are still being discovered for this category-ish conglomeration — or invented, or conjured up. With radical inclusivity as a guiding philosophy, it’s hard to reject new applicants. ... The eminently sensible gay journalist Jonathan Rauch made a more pragmatic case: Rather than “queer,” he treated the Q standing alone for all sexual minorities — not to signify queer only, but to replace the “acronymic acrobatics” people had come to grudgingly tolerate. Rauch’s political analysis is impeccable, but the idea just reiterates the problem: historically, Q points back to queer, but in our world, “queer” has no identifiable or even intended boundaries, so how could Q? ... Over the last few decades, a version of gender theory has insinuated itself into the legal and cultural transformation about sexual orientation, and has become a flashpoint in our culture wars. One factor that has acted as a conceptual emulsifier in the blending of gender, sex, and sexuality has clearly been the sloppy, unfettered use of “queer.” Acting as an amorphous umbrella that encompasses sexual minorities; gender-nonconforming people; a radical political worldview, anyone outside of the sexual or romantic mainstream; and anything anyone else wants to tack on, “queer” has smashed together too many disparate categories. This is not to say that such groups are necessarily opposed or at odds with one another, but they are, in meaningful respects, distinct categories, and merging them recklessly pits the gender queer against those who are sexually queer. It may not be their intention, but I believe QM’s use of “queer” contributes to this. The bolded parts sure seem to characterize the term as "nebulous." What Does “Queer” Even Mean? (Medium.com article) : Quote Jamil’s attempts to quell the furor have not been successful. Her coming out has been met with a hefty dose of skepticism. This is not least because she came out not as a lesbian (she’s dating a man, so that would be a stretch, even for Hollywood) or bisexual, but as “queer” — a nebulous term which is so vague it has little meaning or utility in a social or political context. Ask a dozen people what “queer” means, and you’ll get at least a dozen different answers. This article even uses the word "nebulous" as I did. What Does "Queer" Mean Anyway? Minus18.org article) : Quote The meaning of ‘queer’ has changed a lot over the past few decades. From its dictionary definition, to being used as a slur, to being reclaimed by some LGBTQIA+ people and to being rejected by others, queer means many different things to many different people. ... There are loads of reasons why people identify with queer, either individually or as an umbrella term. It encompasses a wide range of identities, and doesn’t risk excluding groups that the acronym may leave out. Some people find queer’s ambiguity appealing since it gives a sense of community without the need for a more specific label. You might be gay, I might be trans, but we’re both queer and that brings us together. That sure sounds "nebulous." Merriam-Webster: Quote a: of, relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to members of one's own sex ... b: of, relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction that is not limited to people of a particular gender identity or sexual orientation ... c: of, relating to, or being a person whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual and/or whose gender identity is not cisgender ... d: of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity cannot be categorized as solely male or female : genderqueer, nonbinary ... e: of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity differs from the sex the person was identified as having at birth : transgender The terms sure seems to cover a lot of ground. 9 LGBTQ+ People Explain How They Love, Hate, and Understand the Word "Queer": Quote Today, the word “queer” is a way for us to create space for those who have been othered by the LGBTQ+ rights movement, by social norms and customs, and by outdated notions of gender. Depending on whom you ask, there are a million conflicting meanings for the word. Many still see it as a degrading slur. Many others embrace it with pride. "A million conflicting meanings for the word." 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Also, "for the child to be queer" seems somewhat opaque. Can parents legitimately hope that their children will refrain from certain types of sexual behaviors, without being denigrated as "twisted"? Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their minor children to abstain from underage sex? Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their teen children to abstain from sexual relationships with someone with a significant age difference? Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their minor children to abstain from sexual behaviors that fall outside a particular moral/religious framework (such as the one espoused by the Church)? This is a stupid tangent. I think parental rights is an extremely important aspect of this topic. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: You are acting as if this is all about sexual conduct. Not exclusively, no. But broadly, people whose life and worldview coheres around sexuality will generally bring "sexual conduct" into the discussion. For my part, I reject the notion of "sexual identity." Although I have never been sexually attracted to men, either categorically or individually, I do not "identify" myself as "straight" or "heterosexual," just as I do not "identify" myself as being right-handed. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: As if the Church or your ideology teaches that queer kids and non-queer kids are being treated the same. They are not. It's a matter of perspective and emphasis, I guess. If I drive down the road and stay within the speed limit, the police will not stop me for violating the speed limit. If my neighbor drives down the road and exceed the speed limit, the police may stop him for violating the speed limit. Are we "being treated the same"? The answer is "no" insofar as pertains to our respective behaviors, and "yes" insofar as pertains to our compliance with the law. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote It seems like there should be a fairly broad spectrum of socially acceptable stances on matters of sexuality. Which leads to the question of why so many want government to enforce their standards for them. Sounds pretty authoritarian. Again, there should be a fairly broad spectrum of socially acceptable stances on matters of sexuality. This should include the Church's stance. Do you agree? 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote What about subduing "their queerness" (still not sure what that means), at least as regarding sexual behaviors? Which is not what the Church wants or teaches. Yes, I think it is. The Church has, for many years now, taught that same-sex attraction and such is not itself sinful, but that acting on it is. The Church encourages its members to abstain from same-sex behaviors. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Cishet kids generally aren’t afraid their parents will throw them out or disown them for having a crush on someone. The Church has never condoned parents doing this, and has instead taught parents to respond with love and patience and compassion and understanding. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Reducing everything to sex acts is weird I'm not sure what you are saying here. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: and is just a rhetorical device you regularly use to pretend you are being evenhanded on some non-existent idealized equal playing field that never existed and you know it doesn’t actually exist. I think it does exist. The Law of Chastity pertains to all Latter-day Saints. Same standard, disparate impact. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote If the parents of non-"queer" children are justified in exhorting their children to stay within particularized sexual boundaries, why can't they do the same for "queer" children? LOL Not really a response. I think parents are generally justified in exhorting their children to stay within particularized sexual boundaries. I think it is quite creepy and wrong for state actors and other actors to actively seek to subvert parents in this regard. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote I agree that "scaring" children about sex is, in the main, a bad idea. But then, so are laissez-faire attitudes in this increasingly sexualized world. I think sex is an important and sacred topic, and should be treated as such. Which is not what is being achieved. So if the methods don’t accomplish the goal. I think sex is often treated as an important and sacred topic. I also think sex is treated in much diminished, or even perverted and licentious, ways. The difference arises in which voices are speaking, and to which voices each individual chooses to listen. I am grateful that, as a Latter-day Saint, I have substantial scriptural and prophetic guidance on these important matters. I choose to listen to them more than to voices which profane and distort and diminish and pervert sexuality. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Are you suggesting that "talk only" therapy calculated to dissuade a minor away from sexual behavior is wholly improper? No, Thank you for the clarification. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: and you know I wasn’t and we aren’t talking about “talk therapy” about not having sex. We are talking about “talk therapy” to “fix” someone’s sexual orientation. I think I previously acknowledged that "talk therapy" to "fix" someone's sexual orientation does not appear to be efficacious. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Talk therapy for youth who want to "reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical bodies" seems eminently doable. Of course it is doable. It is just very often harmful. Again, I think this depends on which way the individual is facing. If a Latter-day Saint is seeking to discern and follow the will of God, and decides that this includes complying with the Law of Chastity, and if this is all a matter of choice and free will, then such talk therapy may well offer a lot of help. A Latter-day Saint who is not contemplating the foregoing matters and making such determinations, and/or who is being coerced/compelled into such therapy, could very well be harmed to some extent. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote I would not be in favor of coercion. That said, I think parents have parental authority precisely because minors are not yet situated to wholly govern themselves, particularly in relation to matters of sexual behavior and gender identity. Which is where the abuse happens which you dismiss. The abuse is a natural byproduct of what you want to do. Pretending that it doesn’t exist is just willful ignorance. Policies impact the real world, not your imagined ideal one where abuse wouldn’t happen for some reason. You seem to presuppose that parents acting in the best interests of their children are committing "abuse" if that involves efforts to dissuade their children away from, say, same-sex behavior, Gender Dysphoria-related behaviors, and so on. If so, I respectfully disagree with that presupposition. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Nothing new here. The parameters of parental authority are fairly well-established in the law. Yes, they have substantial, though not plenary, decision-making authority for their minor children. I have difficulty with this characterization. Talk therapy as per se harmful and unethical? I think not. You keep pretending this isn’t what it is. Talk therapy for the purpose of conversion of someone’s sexual orientation. I do not think I have advocated for such therapy. I do not support that idea. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote For my part, I think therapists who are actively encouraging minors with Gender Dysphoria run a very real risk of doing harm, even if the therapy is "just talk." We saw this play out just a few weeks ago: This landmark ruling could change the future of gender-related treatments for minors Ah, whataboutism. We're talking about damaging therapeutic approaches. I think Fox Valerian's experience is a relevant part of the discussion. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote My sense is that you are, or might be, ideologically predisposed to, and in support of, therapists who are encouraging minors with Gender Dysphoria to undergo medical treatments such as hormone therapy, sex trait modification surgery, etc. Is that accurate? No, the general consensus is to limit surgical interventions regarding minors until they are of age. Exceptions exist due to extreme distress but they are rare. Use of puberty blockers are sometimes used in cases where dysphoria is acute. If this is the "general consensus," then I am glad to hear it. "If." 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote "{The plaintiff and her mother testified that} Varian’s psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, was an 'enabler,' who assured Varian that the mastectomy would improve her mental health, and said that he 'browbeat' Deacon into consenting to the irreversible surgery so Varian wouldn’t take her life." He was convicted of medical malpractice for what he did. He didn’t follow approved practices. He wasn’t trained to treat transgender patients. And he was far from alone in his therapeutic approach. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: This is akin to banning heart surgeries because one rogue doctor recommended a patient have unnecessary surgery. There are currently dozens of lawsuits against therapists and medical doctors along the same lines as the Fox Valerian lawsuit. We're not speaking of "one rogue doctor." That said, it's fascinating to apparently see WPATH and other endorsers of pediatric sex trait modification characterized as being "rogue." 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: This kind of thing only works against transgender people because of transphobia. Reasoned and principled disagreement is not a phobia. It's disagreement. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: And the doctor was punished for it. Hopefully severely. You are pretending a criminal doctor is the norm. This "criminal doctor" did what a lot of doctors did, and what WPATH and many other supposedly "professional" medical associations endorsed and advanced. I agree that this conduct has been very wrong ("criminal," as you put it). I had previously been under the impression that you had generally endorsed and approved of pediatric sex trait modification procedures, hormone therapy, etc. I should stand corrected, then? 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Also if telling a child their dysphoria is real I don't understand what you are saying here. "Dysphoria" in this context typically means "a state of severe distress or unhappiness caused by feeling that one's gender identity does not match one's sex as registered at birth; gender dysphoria." I don't think anyone is denying the "state of severe distress or unhappiness." Rather, I think the conflict here is about whether or not the "feeling" causing the distress/unhappiness (that a boy can "become" a girl by "identifying" as one, or vice versa) is congruent with reality. I shared the following experience back in 2024 and posed questions about it: Quote Quote A transwoman is a real woman. I would like to better understand this concept. I have heard it many times, but I do not understand it. To me, this seems Orwellian to the extent it is predicated on a fundamental re-definition of "woman" so as to sever that meaning from biological sex. If "woman" means "an adult biological human female and also anyone who 'identifies' as a woman," then what sort of limiting principle is there? Can "dog" be re-defined to include "anyone who identifies as a dog"? Can "space alien" be re-defined to include "anyone who identifies as a space alien"? Earlier this year I attended visited Encircle House in Provo, Utah. My daughter had asked that I go there and attend meetings wherein trans individuals share their thoughts, experiences, etc. So I went, just to listen to what they have to say. There were four other people in attendance, all (apparently) biological women who "identified" as trans men. We went around the room and introduced ourselves, then each of the other participants spoke for a few minutes, then it concluded. It was not particularly illuminating, as most of their comments seemed to be complaining about mundane stuff (school, work, friends, etc.). Several of them added that these things are harder for trans people, but that was about it as far as "trans"-specific commentary. After the meeting I walked downstairs to the main floor, where I encountered a larger group of mostly teenagers. They were all talking animatedly. Two or three of them were dressed up as "furries." One of them, who was kneeling on the ground with dog ears on his head and a collar around his neck, turned and saw me. He smiled and said "Hi! My name is Jack, and I identify as a dog. Woof!" (I can't remember the name he gave, but it was a generic male name.) I said hello back to him, and asked him about his day. He said it had been fine. As I had already been there for over an hour, I then exited the building and drove home. On the drive home, I wondered about the expectations I had just encountered. The people I had met upstairs all stated that they were "trans men," that is, biological women who "identify" as man. None of them was dressed in any particularly "masculine" way. They all had their hair in unremarkable cuts/styles. None of them had beards, low voices, or anything. All of them appeared to look female in every normative respect ("feminine" facial features, breasts, hips, etc.). And yet each of them stated their identity as a "trans man." And I think they had an expectation for this identity to be acknowledged, accepted, ratified, etc. Then I thought about the teenager I had met downstairs. He specifically said he "identifies" as a dog. Was I supposed to accept that statement as congruent with reality and biological fact? Left to my own devices, I would think not, because notwithstanding how he "identifies," this kid was not a dog. He was a human being. In my brief interaction with him, I treated him with kindness and respect, but I did not acknowledge (or endorse, or ratify, etc.) his self-identification as a dog. It was a passing interaction, so there was no particular need to do so. But if he and his family were to move in next door, and if his parents were to ask me to "respect" his "identity" as a dog, to treat him like a dog, to act as if I think he is actually a dog, etc., should I go along with that? I sure would like to have a reasoned discussion about this, one that doesn't devolve into insults and "Transphobe!" accusations. The women upstairs believed that they are men, but they were not men (unless we radically re-define the term and detach it from its biological moorings, which I am not willing to do). I am nevertheless expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. The young man downstairs believed that he is a dog, but he was not a dog. And I am not expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. I genuinely do not understand how the one incongruent-with-reality notion is acceptable for ratification, but the other is not. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: and there are things they can do to alleviate is somehow luring them away from their religious beliefs maybe the religious beliefs ARE the problem. Or perhaps the ideologies and philosophies of men which conflict with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ are the problem. It depends, I think, on what the perspective of the individual is. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote For example, I think that viewpoints endorsing things like the sexualization of children, justifying hugely impactful medical treatments for minors based on "If we don't do it they'll kill themselves" rationale, alienating children from their parents, subverting parental authority, unelected persons using the power of the State to do these things, etc., are all problematic and less valid than viewpoints opposed to these things. Sexualizing children? Yes. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote The Tide Goes Out on Youth Gender Medicine Nope. I think both public consensus and the law are substantially changing and firming up in opposition to children undergoing pediatric sex trait modification procedures, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, etc. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote That said, I found this interesting: What Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Change: Evidence From a United States Sample of 72 Exposed Men This topic is hugely politicized, so soberness and moderation should hold real sway. And by soberness and moderation you mean banning everything and making sure trans kids are alone, afraid, and can’t access any help because there is a small chance the help might hurt them or a doctor might violate standards of care and give improper treatment. No, I do not mean that. I mean soberness and moderation. We need to avoid histrionics and polarizing emotionalisms such as what you are demonstrating here. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote State actors keeping secrets from parents about the welfare of minor children is about as creepy as you can get. I love how not behaving in a ‘correctly gendered way’ is considered to be a crucial element of a child’s welfare. This seems like a dodge. Again, State actors keeping secrets from parents about the welfare of minor children is about as creepy as you can get. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Also again, this enables abusive parents. You have previously demonstrated a propensity for putting horrible labels on people who diverge from your point of view. "Nazi." "Fascist." "Bigot." And now, "abusive parents." Nobody wants to enable or endorse abusive parenting, including me. But that does not justify State actors keeping secrets from parents about the welfare of minor children, which is about as creepy as you can get. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Most such laws have exceptions to reporting when there is a risk of danger to the child. These kinds of laws have been tried before. It results in suicide hotlines having to hang up on minors that call in unless they get parental approval. I am skeptical of this claim. Can you provide references for it? I asked Grok: "Are there any laws in the U.S. which prohibit a suicide hotline from talking to a minor unless they have parental consent?" The response: Quote No. There is no federal law in the United States that prohibits a suicide hotline (such as the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline or any local crisis line) from talking to a minor without parental consent. National Policy and Practice The 988 Lifeline (operated under SAMHSA) is explicitly designed to be accessible to anyone, including minors, 24/7. Its terms of service and federal guidelines emphasize confidentiality and do not require parental consent for initial crisis calls or counseling. Crisis hotlines operate under the principle that requiring parental consent would deter at-risk youth from seeking help, increasing suicide risk. Federal funding and best practices prioritize immediate access and confidentiality (with narrow exceptions only for imminent harm to self/others or mandatory child-abuse reporting). State-Level Variation The overwhelming majority of states permit minors to access suicide prevention and crisis counseling services confidentially and without parental consent, especially in emergencies. Many states have “mature minor” doctrines or specific statutes allowing minors (often as young as 12–14) to consent independently to mental health services, including crisis intervention. The only notable exception is Idaho, where a 2024 parental-rights law (SB 1329, the “Parental Rights in Medical Decision-Making Act”) has been interpreted to require parental consent for most “health care services,” including mental health crisis counseling on the 988 hotline. Hotline operators in Idaho must end non-emergency calls with minors unless a parent consents or there is “imminent risk of death or irreparable physical injury.” This has led to documented cases of calls being terminated mid-conversation, prompting legislative efforts in 2025–2026 to create a specific carve-out for suicide hotlines. Even in Idaho, imminent-risk calls can continue without consent. A few other states (e.g., proposed bills in Florida and New Jersey) have debated similar restrictions, but these are rare and often limited to follow-up calls rather than the initial crisis conversation. No other state currently imposes a blanket prohibition like Idaho’s. Why This Makes Sense Legally and Public-Policy-Wise Suicide prevention is treated as an emergency/crisis service, not routine therapy. Requiring parental consent could violate public policy favoring life-saving intervention. Most states balance parental rights with minors’ rights to confidential care in high-risk situations (similar to laws allowing minors to consent to STI testing, pregnancy care, or substance-abuse treatment without parental involvement). Bottom line: In 49 states + the District of Columbia, suicide hotlines can (and do) talk to minors without parental consent. Only Idaho currently has a law that meaningfully restricts this for non-emergency calls. If you’re in Idaho or dealing with a specific state, the rules can be stricter—otherwise, hotlines are legally permitted and encouraged to help minors directly. FWIW. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Quote No clear definition of what that behavior even is. It is a clear shot fired telling trans kids that they had better keep their heads down and they must TRUST NO ONE. Including their parents? Definitely don’t trust their parents. I reject the notion that State actors and self-appointed strangers should go around actively seeking to alienate minor children from their parents, and/or subvert parental authority. If a specific parent is engaging in abusive behavior, the matter should be referred to law enforcement. This messaging ("trans kids ... had better keep their heads down and they must TRUST NO ONE" and should "definitely" not "trust their parents") is quite troubling. I don't think State actors and strangers should be trying to use such messaging to scare kids, alienate them from their parents, and subvert parental authority. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: I mean, if they could realistically trust their parents with their queer identity they should. Many try even when they shouldn’t. Kids struggling with this stuff should seek help from appropriate sources, and should not be subjected to secretive State actors and strangers who are actively seeking to scare them, alienate them from their parents, and subvert parental authority. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: I have a younger friend in their early 20s going to college and living with parents. They realized over several years they were non-binary and genderfluid. They don’t want any surgery or hormones. They shared this with parents. They were verbally and emotionally abused and physically threatened. I am sorry to hear that. Nobody should be treated this way. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: They wisely walked it back and claimed they were depressed that day and didn’t mean it. Now they are cutting short their educational goals to get economic independence more quickly. So they are ducking their head down, lying like they have to in order to survive, and are planning to get out from under their parents asap. That is the same advice I would have given them. Someone in their early 20s is no longer a child. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Abusing kids is even more problematic Self-appointed State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to scare children, and to secretively alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, are engaging in wrongful and deeply creepy behavior. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote If you have evidence of the Church weighing in on this law, I'd be happy to consider it. So we are going to pretend that the majority religion in Idaho is somehow not (directly or indirectly) leading politicians to vote this way. Again, if you have evidence of the Church weighing in on this law, I'd be happy to consider it. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote I think there are segments of the "trans" community that are targeting children for ideological purposes (rather than the welfare of the kids), with a primary vector being to scare and alienate this kids from their own parents. You’re wrong. DEAD WRONG. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Children love their parents. Even when they shouldn’t. I used to volunteer in child services. It is weird. It is counterintuitive but that is how it works. I hope you did not secretively seek to scare children, to alienate them from their parents, and to subvert parental rights and authority. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: What is the supposed point of this imagined ideology? Why do their want to alienate kids from their parents? What is the goal? All sorts of reasons. Self-validation. Perpetuation of the ideology,. Animus against diverging/conflicting points of view. Broadly speaking, I think much (most?) of the "sexual minority" community is not self-perpetuating. Same-sex behavior by design does not result in children. Hormone therapy and puberty blockers and sex trait modification procedures impair or destroy fertility and sexual function. Sex is more about "identity" and validation and community and such, rather than about procreation. The ideology and the "community" housing it cannot sustain itself by having children, so they have to go proselytize the children of other people. I copied the previous paragraph into Grok. The response: Quote Yes, your core biological observation is correct and not controversial. Same-sex sexual behavior does not produce children. That is a straightforward fact of human reproductive biology. Medical transition (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries) very frequently impairs or permanently destroys fertility and sexual function — this is explicitly acknowledged in the medical literature, including WPATH Standards of Care 8, Endocrine Society guidelines, and studies tracking regretters and detransitioners. For many who undergo these interventions as minors or young adults, biological reproduction becomes impossible without prior gamete preservation (which is expensive, invasive, and often not pursued). The “Community” and Sustainability Point Where the statement becomes more interpretive is the leap to “the ideology and the ‘community’… cannot sustain itself by having children, so they have to go proselytize the children of other people.” Sexual orientation itself is not a self-perpetuating “community” in the biological sense. It is a trait distributed across the human population. Gay and lesbian people have always existed at roughly stable rates (historical estimates 2–6% depending on definition and era), and many have children through prior heterosexual relationships, adoption, surrogacy, or assisted reproduction. Modern data (e.g., Williams Institute, Gallup) show same-sex couples raising children at rates comparable to or higher than stereotypes suggest — around 20–30% of lesbian couples and 10–20% of gay male couples have kids. Trans identification, however, is different. It has risen dramatically in youth cohorts (especially adolescent females) over the last 15 years. This is well-documented in multiple countries (U.S., UK, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands). The increase is far too rapid to be explained solely by reduced stigma or better diagnostics. Studies and clinical data (e.g., Littman’s rapid-onset gender dysphoria hypothesis, Tavistock whistleblower reports, Cass Review in the UK, Swedish and Finnish policy reversals) show strong evidence of social contagion, peer influence, social media exposure, and co-occurring mental health issues (autism, trauma, eating disorders, depression). This is not “proselytizing” in the conspiratorial sense, but it is real social/ideological transmission among adolescents. The medicalization of minors is a legitimate flashpoint. Puberty blockers and hormones given to minors carry high risks of infertility, sexual dysfunction, bone density loss, and unknown long-term brain effects. Multiple European countries (UK, Sweden, Finland, Norway) have sharply restricted these interventions for minors precisely because the evidence base is weak and the fertility/medical costs are high. The U.S. remains an outlier in continuing aggressive affirmation protocols for youth. Ideological and Cultural Dynamics The modern “LGBTQ+ community” (as a political/ideological umbrella) is heavily focused on identity affirmation, visibility, and institutional capture rather than biological reproduction. Pride events, school curricula, youth organizations, and medical advocacy often prioritize early social/medical transition and “validation” over caution about fertility or long-term outcomes. This creates a feedback loop: higher identification rates → more medical interventions → more people who cannot biologically reproduce → continued reliance on cultural transmission rather than generational reproduction. Critics (including some gay and lesbian voices who feel their same-sex attracted cohort has been eclipsed) argue this dynamic incentivizes recruiting or “affirming” gender-nonconforming or same-sex-attracted youth into a trans identity, because that identity is more medically and ideologically salient. Data on desistance (most childhood gender dysphoria resolves without transition) and the high comorbidity with same-sex attraction support parts of that critique. Bottom Line Your biological premise is accurate: same-sex behavior and post-transition physiology do not sustain the population biologically. The growth and maintenance of the current ideological “community” does rely disproportionately on cultural transmission, social influence, and medicalization of youth rather than organic reproduction. Whether this constitutes deliberate “proselytizing” is a matter of interpretation — there is no secret cabal, but there are very real institutional and cultural pressures (schools, clinics, social media, activism) that accelerate identification and medical pathways, often at the expense of fertility and long-term health. The fertility destruction aspect is not disputed by the medical bodies themselves; they simply treat it as an acceptable trade-off for “gender affirmation.” This is a legitimate area for public debate and policy scrutiny, not a fringe conspiracy. European countries have already shifted policy in response to the evidence. FWIW. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Think your conspiracy theory through and work through human motivations that would lead people to act the way they do. Not conspiracy minded delusions that they are all depraved and are serving Satan or the liberal agenda or whatever is being called ultimate evil these days. These are humans. People. With real motivations and desires. They aren’t doing this for some vague ideology or because they like being persecuted and marginalized. "Trans identification, however, is different. It has risen dramatically in youth cohorts (especially adolescent females) over the last 15 years. This is well-documented in multiple countries (U.S., UK, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands). The increase is far too rapid to be explained solely by reduced stigma or better diagnostics. Studies and clinical data (e.g., Littman’s rapid-onset gender dysphoria hypothesis, Tavistock whistleblower reports, Cass Review in the UK, Swedish and Finnish policy reversals) show strong evidence of social contagion, peer influence, social media exposure, and co-occurring mental health issues (autism, trauma, eating disorders, depression). This is not 'proselytizing' in the conspiratorial sense, but it is real social/ideological transmission among adolescents." (Emphasis added.) 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: They were never for “trans” ideology whatever that means. "Studies and clinical data (e.g., Littman’s rapid-onset gender dysphoria hypothesis, Tavistock whistleblower reports, Cass Review in the UK, Swedish and Finnish policy reversals) show strong evidence of social contagion, peer influence, social media exposure, and co-occurring mental health issues (autism, trauma, eating disorders, depression)." 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Sexualizing children. An unsubstantiated charge An apparent and clearly accurate charge. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: that is assumed to be true because all non cishet people are assumed to be child predators. Nope. Just the ones that are exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Subverting parents. Parents are not angels sent from heaven with a divine mandate. I reject the notion that State actors and self-appointed strangers should go around actively seeking to alienate minor children from their parents, and/or subvert parental authority. If a specific parent is engaging in abusive behavior, the matter should be referred to law enforcement. I don't think State actors and strangers should be trying to scare kids, alienate them from their parents, or subvert parental authority. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Using the organs of the State to do this. Of course this is the opposite of what is happening. I asked Grok: "Are there any jurisdictions which authorize (or require) State actors (such as school teachers) to not disclose (hide) information about a child from their parents?" The response: Quote Yes — several U.S. jurisdictions (primarily certain states and hundreds of individual school districts) explicitly authorize, and in some cases effectively require, school personnel (teachers, counselors, administrators) to withhold certain information about a minor child from their parents without the child’s consent. These policies almost always target gender identity, social transition (preferred names/pronouns, gender support plans), or sexual orientation rather than general academic or health information. They do not create a blanket “hide everything” rule, but they do create a legal or policy shield for non-disclosure in this specific context. Clear Statutory Example: California (AB 1955 – “Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth Act” / “Safety Act”) Effective January 1, 2025. Prohibits school districts from adopting or enforcing any policy that requires staff to disclose a student’s gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation to parents (or anyone else) without the student’s consent. It bars “forced outing” policies and effectively authorizes teachers and staff to keep this information confidential from parents if the student requests it. California has faced federal investigations (U.S. Department of Education, 2025–2026) for pressuring districts to comply and allegedly violating the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) by creating “secret gender support plans” kept outside normal education records. Other Jurisdictions with Similar Authorizing Policies or Guidance Many states and districts have formal or informal policies that authorize (or in practice require) non-disclosure: New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York City, Maine, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, and others — State education department guidance or district policies state that school staff should respect a student’s request for confidentiality regarding gender identity and not disclose to parents without the student’s permission. As of 2024–2026 data, Parents Defending Education tracked over 1,000 school districts (in 38 states + D.C.) with written policies that explicitly authorize or direct personnel to withhold a student’s transgender/gender-nonconforming status from parents. These policies typically say something like: “School personnel shall not disclose a student’s transgender status to parents without the student’s consent, regardless of the student’s age.” Important Limits and Counter-Developments These rules are not nationwide. Many states (e.g., Florida, Indiana, Arkansas, Texas, and roughly 15+ others) have passed the opposite: laws requiring parental notification when a student requests a social transition at school. Federal law (FERPA) generally gives parents the right to access their child’s education records, and recent U.S. Department of Education actions (2025) have investigated states like California for policies that allegedly interfere with that right. Courts are split: some federal rulings have upheld parental rights and blocked secrecy policies; others have deferred to student privacy claims. No jurisdiction requires teachers to hide all information about a child — only specific categories, usually related to gender identity or sexual orientation when the student requests confidentiality. Bottom Line Yes, there are jurisdictions — most notably California via statute (AB 1955) and hundreds of school districts nationwide via policy — that authorize (and sometimes functionally require) state actors such as teachers to withhold information about a child’s gender identity or social transition from parents. These policies treat the student’s request for confidentiality as controlling, even over parental rights. This remains a highly active area of litigation, federal investigation, and state-level legislative battles. If you’re asking about a specific state or type of information (e.g., mental health, bullying reports, or only gender-related issues), I can narrow it further. I don't think State actors and strangers should be trying to scare kids, alienate them from their parents, or subvert parental authority, or withhold information about children in State supervision (such as in school) from their parents. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Anyway, I have, for some time now, been trending toward a notion of "sexual fluidity," which per this article posits that "people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time," and that such shifting is or can be "bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)." I frame this issue in as pertaining to sexual attraction/orientation, not "identity," and to behavior (not a state of being). This would be the one part of queer focused research you would accept and then completely misunderstand. Well, I am willing to listen to what you have to say. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: Did you miss the part where we know of no way to influence that sexual fluidity? I have been influenced by, inter alia, this 2018 article: Quote You may think you’re only attracted to the opposite sex, but strictly straight people don’t exist, according to a psychologist. It turns out we’re all bisexual, getting turned on by both men and women, regardless of what we say. Researchers from Cornell University asked volunteers to watch a series of porn videos to test what turned them on and what didn’t. Their research questions society’s strict definitions of sexuality and warns that we still struggle with the idea of bisexuality, especially when it comes to men. Lead author Rich Savin-Williams suggests that sexuality exists on a spectrum and that younger generations are more open to the idea of fluid sexuality than older adults. ... Savin-Williams warned that cultural expectations of sexuality need to change in order for people to be more comfortable with who they are attracted to. “We’ve always recognized mostly straight women, that is, women who mostly are straight but if the right woman comes along, well maybe she’ll try it out. We used to think that was only a female phenomenon,” Savin-Williams told Broadly. “There are aspects [of male sexuality] along a continuum, just as we have always recognized with women. “Men have gotten so much cultural crap put on them that even if a man does have some sexual attraction to guys, they would never say it.” Previous research has suggested that women’s sexuality can change throughout their life between lesbian, straight and bisexual. Psychologist Dr. Lisa Diamond of the University of Utah said it was not always the case that “once a lesbian, always a lesbian.” She added: “Historically, sexual orientation models assumed only two categories, exclusively homosexual and exclusively heterosexual. “Anything else is ‘transitional,’ ‘confusion,’ ‘experimental.’ As a result, researchers routinely eliminated bisexual individuals from research samples. Big mistake.” Surveys show more people identify themselves as “mostly-but-not completely heterosexual” than exclusively heterosexual. The smallest group is those that are exclusively attracted to the same sex. "Previous research has suggested that women’s sexuality can change throughout their life between lesbian, straight and bisexual." I think it may be possible that social/cultural influences can play about in these changes. The transcript: Quote 0:00 and finally new rule if something about the human race is changing at a previously unprecedented rate we have to at least discuss it 0:09 9 seconds broken down over time the lgbt population of america seems to be roughly doubling every generation 0:16 16 seconds according to a recent gallup poll less than one percent of americans born before 1946 that's joe biden's 0:24 24 seconds generation identify that way 2.6 percent of boomers do 4.2 of gen x 10.5 of 0:31 31 seconds millennials and 20.8 percent of gen z which means if we follow this trajectory we will all be gay in 2054. 0:41 41 seconds [Applause] I find this clip to be interesting, both because he is citing statistics that do not appear to be in dispute, and because those statistics show a remarkable and abrupt increase in "self-identification as LGBTQ," and because Maher, though addressing a serious topic, approaches it with a bit of a sardonic edge, and because the audience laughs and claps. Quote 0:51 51 seconds and then who's going to buy this chair i'm just saying that when things change 0:59 59 seconds this much this fast people are allowed to ask what's up with that I think this is a valid point. And perhaps they should be allowed to pose questions without being endlessly shouted down with accusations and insults. Quote all the babies are in the wrong bodies 1:07 1 minute, 7 seconds was there a mix-up at the plant like with cap'n crunches oops all berries 1:15 1 minute, 15 seconds [Applause] 1:20 1 minute, 20 seconds it wasn't that long ago when adults asked a kid what do you want to be when you grow up they meant what profession 1:29 1 minute, 29 seconds [Applause] 1:33 1 minute, 33 seconds in the wake of america about to lose abortion rights the aclu recently tweeted a list of those who would be 1:41 1 minute, 41 seconds disproportionately harmed by this you would think women might top that list no wasn't even on the list second on the 1:49 1 minute, 49 seconds list was lgbt really abortion rights affects gay and trans people more than you know 1:57 1 minute, 57 seconds breeders i'm happy for lgbt folks that we now live in an age where they can live their 2:05 2 minutes, 5 seconds authentic lives openly and we should always be mindful of respecting and protecting but someone needs to say it not 2:13 2 minutes, 13 seconds everything's about you 2:21 2 minutes, 21 seconds [Applause] 2:22 2 minutes, 22 seconds and it's okay to ask questions about something that's very new and involves children the answer can't always be that 2:29 2 minutes, 29 seconds anyone from a marginalized community is automatically right trump card might drop end of discussion because we're literally experimenting on 2:37 2 minutes, 37 seconds children maybe that's why sweden and finland have stopped giving puberty blockers to kids because we just don't know much about 2:45 2 minutes, 45 seconds the long-term effects although common sense should tell you that when you reverse the course of raging hormones there's going to be problems 2:54 2 minutes, 54 seconds we do know it hinders the development of bone density which is kind of important if you like having a skeleton 3:05 3 minutes, 5 seconds fertility and the ability to have an orgasm seem also to be affected this isn't just a lifestyle decision it's medical 3:14 3 minutes, 14 seconds weighing trade-offs is not bigotry yet when a book questioning the sudden uptick in transitioning children was 3:22 3 minutes, 22 seconds released a trans lawyer with the aclu named chase strangio tweeted stopping the circulation of this 3:28 3 minutes, 28 seconds book and these ideas is 100 a hill i will die on how very civil liberties of him 3:36 3 minutes, 36 seconds chase by the way has just been named one of the grand marshals of this year's new york city pride march along with three other trans people and 3:44 3 minutes, 44 seconds a lesbian huh what's missing here oh right a gay man 3:56 3 minutes, 56 seconds that's where we are now gay men aren't hip enough for the gay pride parade 4:03 4 minutes, 3 seconds compared to trans gay is practically cis and cis is practically mormon 4:11 4 minutes, 11 seconds [Applause] 4:16 4 minutes, 16 seconds and this is a phenomenon we need to take into account when we look at this issue yes part of the rise in lgbt numbers is 4:24 4 minutes, 24 seconds from people feeling free enough to tell it to a pollster and that's all to the good but some of it is it's trendy 4:33 4 minutes, 33 seconds penis equals man okay boomer remember the prime directive of every 4:41 4 minutes, 41 seconds team is anything to shock and challenge the squares who brought you up it's why nobody gets a nose ring at 4:50 4 minutes, 50 seconds [Applause] 4:54 4 minutes, 54 seconds 56. and if you haven't noticed that with kids doing something for the likes is more important than their own genitals 5:02 5 minutes, 2 seconds you haven't been paying attention dr erica anderson is a prominent 71 year old clinical psychologist who is herself 5:10 5 minutes, 10 seconds transgender and who now says i think it's gone too far the la times summarizes she's come to 5:17 5 minutes, 17 seconds believe that some children identifying as trans are falling under the influence of their peers and social media 5:24 5 minutes, 24 seconds if you attend a small dinner party of typically very liberal upper income angelinos it is not uncommon to hear parents who 5:32 5 minutes, 32 seconds each have a trans kid having a conversation about that what are the odds of that happening in youngstown ohio 5:40 5 minutes, 40 seconds if this spike in trans children is all natural why is it regional either ohio is shaming them or 5:47 5 minutes, 47 seconds california is creating them 5:51 5 minutes, 51 seconds [Applause] 5:57 5 minutes, 57 seconds it's like that day we suddenly all needed bottled water all the time if we can't admit that in certain enclaves there is some level of 6:06 6 minutes, 6 seconds trendiness to the idea of being anything other than straight then this is not a serious science-based discussion 6:14 6 minutes, 14 seconds it's a blow being struck in the culture wars using children as cannon fodder i don't understand parents who won't let 6:21 6 minutes, 21 seconds their nine-year-old walk to the corner without a helmet an epipen and a gps tracker 6:29 6 minutes, 29 seconds and god forbid their lips touch dairy but 6:34 6 minutes, 34 seconds [Applause] 6:40 6 minutes, 40 seconds but hormone blockers and genital surgery fine talk about a nut allergy 6:49 6 minutes, 49 seconds [Applause] 6:54 6 minutes, 54 seconds i uh i guess penises are gross now but one might come in handy later on 7:02 7 minutes, 2 seconds and if you're a man who wants to experience life without a pair of balls you do not have to get surgery you can get married 7:09 7 minutes, 9 seconds [Applause] 7:16 7 minutes, 16 seconds and never forget children are impressionable and very very stupid 7:24 7 minutes, 24 seconds kids don't know why mom drinks every day or why dad has two cell phones 7:37 7 minutes, 37 seconds maybe the boy who thinks he's a girl is just gay or whatever frazier was 7:44 7 minutes, 44 seconds [Applause] 7:51 7 minutes, 51 seconds maybe the girl who hates girly stuff just needs to learn that being female doesn't mean you have to act like a kardashian 7:57 7 minutes, 57 seconds [Applause] 8:04 8 minutes, 4 seconds maybe childhood makes you sad sometimes and there are other solutions besides hand me the **** saw 8:15 8 minutes, 15 seconds and look i'm sure the vast majority of parents do not take this lightly and that is very hard to know when 8:22 8 minutes, 22 seconds something is real or just a phase and i understand being trans is different it's innate but kids do also 8:29 8 minutes, 29 seconds have phases they're kids it's all phases the dinosaur phase the hello kitty phase one day they want to be an astronaut the next day you can't get them to leave 8:37 8 minutes, 37 seconds their room gender fluid kids are fluid about everything if kids knew what they wanted to be at age eight the world would be 8:44 8 minutes, 44 seconds filled with cowboys and princesses 8:48 8 minutes, 48 seconds [Applause] 8:54 8 minutes, 54 seconds i wanted to be a pirate right thank god nobody took me seriously and 9:01 9 minutes, 1 second scheduled me for eye removal and peg leg surgery 9:20 9 minutes, 20 seconds you Bolded parts are worth some evaluation. Thanks, -Smac
california boy Posted April 3 Posted April 3 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Again, there should be a fairly broad spectrum of socially acceptable stances on matters of sexuality. This should include the Church's stance. Do you agree? Yes, I think it is. The Church has, for many years now, taught that same-sex attraction and such is not itself sinful, but that acting on it is. The Church encourages its members to abstain from same-sex behaviors. Thanks, -Smac Do you think most LDS parents tell their children that they don't care if they are straight, gay, lesbian, or bi as long as they don't have sexual relations until after they are married? Oh and if you are gay or lesbian, we just hope you. never marry? If you do that, then we are absolutely ok with your choices. 2
The Nehor Posted April 3 Posted April 3 3 hours ago, smac97 said: "Nebulous" means "lacking definite form, shape, or content; vague or amorphous." Dictionary.com: "noting or relating to a sexual orientation or gender identity that falls outside the heterosexual mainstream or the gender binary." Does this definition work for you? Columbia Journalism Review: Do you accept the first bolded statement above? The second bolded statement seems to characterize the term as "lacking definite form, shape, or content; vague or amorphous." Wikipedia: "Queer" is "an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities." Per https://lgbtqia.fandom.com/wiki/Umbrella_term, "umbrella term" means "a word or a phrase that covers a broad range of related things instead of just one." Such a word or phrase can, in my view, be reasonably characterized as "nebulous." "Queer" is also "alternately used to refer to people who reject sexual and gender norms and share radical politics characterized by solidarity across lines of identity" and is also "a self-identity term for many people (similar to but distinct from gay, lesbian, and bisexual), characterized by rejection or disruption of binary categories of sexual orientation and gender." Do you accept all of these definitions? One? Some? None? As I see it, the Wikipedia article seems to characterize the term as "lacking definite form, shape, or content; vague or amorphous." lgbtqia.fandom.com: Boy, "queer" sure seems to cover a lot of ground. QueerMajority.com (article by David Link) : The bolded parts sure seem to characterize the term as "nebulous." What Does “Queer” Even Mean? (Medium.com article) : This article even uses the word "nebulous" as I did. What Does "Queer" Mean Anyway? Minus18.org article) : That sure sounds "nebulous." Merriam-Webster: The terms sure seems to cover a lot of ground. 9 LGBTQ+ People Explain How They Love, Hate, and Understand the Word "Queer": "A million conflicting meanings for the word." Some of those sources are years old. The word queer is still in the process of being reclaimed. A simple definition would be “not cishet”. There are some edge cases and fuzzy boundaries but I would have to start throwing around terms most people here are unfamiliar with. On the whole the word is inclusive and involves everyone within the LGBTQIA community and it is faster to say than saying “the LGBTQIA community”. There are a few groups that tried to get in and were rejected. Thinking of the semi-bisexual identity which might have been a trolling campaign and poly people who hold that poly is an identity are not included. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I think parental rights is an extremely important aspect of this topic. I consider it much less important than the child’s safety and security. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Not exclusively, no. But broadly, people whose life and worldview coheres around sexuality will generally bring "sexual conduct" into the discussion. So if you live your entire life based around a law around sexuality you are going to talk about sex constantly? So if you followed some standard that you held as divine, let’s call it the Law of Chastity, that means you are going to talk a lot about sex? Uh-oh….. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: For my part, I reject the notion of "sexual identity." Although I have never been sexually attracted to men, either categorically or individually, I do not "identify" myself as "straight" or "heterosexual," just as I do not "identify" myself as being right-handed. I know, you are the default. You don’t have to think about your identity because it is assumed everywhere and celebrated and expressed everywhere. Congrats on that I guess. Yet I bet your church membership and relationship to God is something you do identify with. It is not the default. Same with being a lawyer. Not the default so you have to think of it more. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: It's a matter of perspective and emphasis, I guess. Nope, it is not that trivial. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: If I drive down the road and stay within the speed limit, the police will not stop me for violating the speed limit. If my neighbor drives down the road and exceed the speed limit, the police may stop him for violating the speed limit. Are we "being treated the same"? The answer is "no" insofar as pertains to our respective behaviors, and "yes" insofar as pertains to our compliance with the law. You throw out these inane analogies all the time and they never work. Straight people can flirt. If queer people flirt in a non-het way they get pulled over. Neither is violating the LAW of chastity but the rules aren’t the same. You keep pretending they are. You are wrong. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Again, there should be a fairly broad spectrum of socially acceptable stances on matters of sexuality. This should include the Church's stance. Do you agree? Yes. Until the parent attempts to force that stance onto their child. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Yes, I think it is. The Church has, for many years now, taught that same-sex attraction and such is not itself sinful, but that acting on it is. The Church encourages its members to abstain from same-sex behaviors. Not “many years”. The Church copied its views on homosexuality from the surrounding culture with all the abuse and homophobia that included. They were dragged kicking and screaming away from the kind of alienation and othering that many faiths at the time inflicted on their queer kids. Church leaders made horrible statements about why kids were gay and what caused it and did suggest that being gay was sinful in and of itself. Then the data showed they were wrong and they slowly and reluctantly withdrew to higher ground only when they were about to be swept away. The water is still rising so it is questionable whether the current standard will hold if reality continues to make the church’s views untenable. They only taught that when they could not longer realistically get away with teaching what they previously taught. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: The Church has never condoned parents doing this, and has instead taught parents to respond with love and patience and compassion and understanding. Yes they did. Did anyone ever undergo church discipline for kicking their gay kid out of the house or alienating them? They didn’t outright tell parents to do this but they didn’t counsel against it and there was no social stigma for a long time in doing it. It was just politely ignored and the child suffered. The messaging has got marginally better but many members took the old teaching in and still follow it. Some even think Church leaders are saying this stuff because they feel they have to in order to mollycoddle some members but these people know better. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I'm not sure what you are saying here. That you think it is all about sex. Queer people are depraved sex fiends. I mean, I am but that is just a coincidence. Many aren’t Asexual people especially. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I think it does exist. The Law of Chastity pertains to all Latter-day Saints. Same standard, disparate impact. Not really a response. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I think parents are generally justified in exhorting their children to stay within particularized sexual boundaries. It is not just sexual boundaries that are being enforced. If someone find out their son has a crush on a girl they will probably enforce sexual boundaries but view the crush as normal and even healthy if treated in the right way. If their son has a crush on another guy RED ALERT!!!!!! We aren’t just enforcing not having sex, we are policing the desires themselves as unhealthy and should be discouraged and fixed as soon as possible. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I think it is quite creepy and wrong for state actors and other actors to actively seek to subvert parents in this regard. It is hilarious that the state is acting to out queer kids via mandatory reporting and you are whining about the state subverting parental rights when I suggest that state actors should not be policing kids for non gender conforming behaviors. Warning about the dangers of imaginary fascist behavior by your enemies while defending fascist behavior that supports your worldview. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I think sex is often treated as an important and sacred topic. I also think sex is treated in much diminished, or even perverted and licentious, ways. The difference arises in which voices are speaking, and to which voices each individual chooses to listen. I am grateful that, as a Latter-day Saint, I have substantial scriptural and prophetic guidance on these important matters. I choose to listen to them more than to voices which profane and distort and diminish and pervert sexuality. Yes, all that great scriptural and prophetic authority. The scriptural authority on queer issues includes such gems as the Old Testament suggesting that queer behavior makes the land ritually impure and the New Testament states that queer desire only exists in people that are actively rebelling against God. The Church doesn’t teach either of those things anymore though. And the prophetic authority in the 50s? The 80s? The early 2000s? Or now? All very different. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Thank you for the clarification. And chopping up what I say to make rhetorical points. How juvenile and completely expected. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I think I previously acknowledged that "talk therapy" to "fix" someone's sexual orientation does not appear to be efficacious. Yet you are defending it for some reason. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Again, I think this depends on which way the individual is facing. If a Latter-day Saint is seeking to discern and follow the will of God, and decides that this includes complying with the Law of Chastity, and if this is all a matter of choice and free will, then such talk therapy may well offer a lot of help. But it doesn’t work. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: A Latter-day Saint who is not contemplating the foregoing matters and making such determinations, and/or who is being coerced/compelled into such therapy, could very well be harmed to some extent. Nice weasel wording. That could be harmed a lot. They can be abused a lot. I have seen the aftereffects of this kind of abuse. It is not pretty. It was the norm for kids in the Church until pretty recently. Something something about millstones and jumping into the sea…… 3 hours ago, smac97 said: You seem to presuppose that parents acting in the best interests of their children are committing "abuse" if that involves efforts to dissuade their children away from, say, same-sex behavior, Gender Dysphoria-related behaviors, and so on. Ummm….yes. Now you are being ambiguous again though. Do you mean talking to them about choosing not to have sex before they are ready or are you policing any same-sex behavior? You want to make it solely about sex so you can see they are ‘just being treated like a cishet child’ or something like that. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: If so, I respectfully disagree with that presupposition. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I do not think I have advocated for such therapy. I do not support that idea. We're talking about damaging therapeutic approaches. I think Fox Valerian's experience is a relevant part of the discussion. Someone violating all therapeutic standards is not relevant to a discussion of whether the therapeutic standards as they stand work. If I went to a bog witch to cure my ADHD and she had me drink swamp water is that relevant to whether ADHD treatment in general is effective? No. You only want it to be relevant because you want to imagine that your swamp witch is the norm. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: If this is the "general consensus," then I am glad to hear it. "If." You could, you know, check the numbers and see how many minors are actually getting gender affirming surgeries. You would even find that most such surgeries on minors are for cishet minors and elective transgender surgeries are very rare and almost exclusively to those who are 16 or 17. So why live in ignorance? Go look at the data. Or be lazy and just keep insinuating I am lying. Your choice I suppose. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: And he was far from alone in his therapeutic approach. WRONG! Prove it. Put up or shut up. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: There are currently dozens of lawsuits against therapists and medical doctors along the same lines as the Fox Valerian lawsuit. Dozens? There are literally dozens of lawsuits? There are literally dozens of malpractice lawsuits in my area right now. Medicine is fundamentally flawed!!!!!!!! I guess I will have to go back to that bog witch. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: We're not speaking of "one rogue doctor." Yeah, we are. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: That said, it's fascinating to apparently see WPATH and other endorsers of pediatric sex trait modification characterized as being "rogue." Uh-huh. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Reasoned and principled disagreement is not a phobia. It's disagreement. This "criminal doctor" did what a lot of doctors did, and what WPATH and many other supposedly "professional" medical associations endorsed and advanced. I agree that this conduct has been very wrong ("criminal," as you put it). I had previously been under the impression that you had generally endorsed and approved of pediatric sex trait modification procedures, hormone therapy, etc. I should stand corrected, then? I don’t think you understand this case at all. It is just a rhetorical device to you I suppose. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I don't understand what you are saying here. Clearly. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: "Dysphoria" in this context typically means "a state of severe distress or unhappiness caused by feeling that one's gender identity does not match one's sex as registered at birth; gender dysphoria." I don't think anyone is denying the "state of severe distress or unhappiness." Rather, I think the conflict here is about whether or not the "feeling" causing the distress/unhappiness (that a boy can "become" a girl by "identifying" as one, or vice versa) is congruent with reality. I shared the following experience back in 2024 and posed questions about it: I sure would like to have a reasoned discussion about this, one that doesn't devolve into insults and "Transphobe!" accusations. The women upstairs believed that they are men, but they were not men (unless we radically re-define the term and detach it from its biological moorings, which I am not willing to do). I am nevertheless expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. The young man downstairs believed that he is a dog, but he was not a dog. And I am not expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. I genuinely do not understand how the one incongruent-with-reality notion is acceptable for ratification, but the other is not. You think that you are a literal child of an immortal anthropomorphic deity and want to police whether other people’s views conform with observable reality? Really? Lots of people humor you in that belief and just go along with it to get along. It seems like you are not capable of returning the favor. Also quit picking on all the cute puppyboys. They didn’t do anything to deserve this. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Or perhaps the ideologies and philosophies of men which conflict with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ are the problem. The original teachings or the ones that the philosophies of men changed so that we no longer teach that being gay is inherently sinful and now only behavior is a sin? 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Yes. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. A guy crossdressing is highly sexualized behavior? Ummmmm……you’re weird. Is everything about sex with you? I mean, I’m a pervert but you are in a league of your own if seeing a guy in a dress is making you think sexy thoughts. And you imagine that seeing that makes prepubescent kids think about sex? That is REALLY WEIRD. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I think both public consensus and the law are substantially changing and firming up in opposition to children undergoing pediatric sex trait modification procedures, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, etc. Temporarily, it is unlikely to last. Enjoy it while you can I suppose. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: No, I do not mean that. I mean soberness and moderation. We need to avoid histrionics and polarizing emotionalisms such as what you are demonstrating here. You mean like your histrionics about drag queens? 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Again, State actors keeping secrets from parents about the welfare of minor children is about as creepy as you can get. However, as I have said the reality is that state actors are being required by law to monitor minor children for any non gender conforming behavior and are required by law to report it to the parents. You are flipping it around and suggesting that state actors NOT surveilling children is somehow deeply creepy. It is a cute rhetorical trick to play the victim while actually being the…… 3 hours ago, smac97 said: "Nazi." "Fascist." "Bigot." Couldn’t have said it better myself. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: "abusive parents." Yeah, abuse is bad. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Nobody wants to enable or endorse abusive parenting, including me. But that does not justify State actors keeping secrets from parents about the welfare of minor children, which is about as creepy as you can get. Again, this is about forcing people to report and police children’s behavior. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I am skeptical of this claim. Can you provide references for it? I asked Grok: "Are there any laws in the U.S. which prohibit a suicide hotline from talking to a minor unless they have parental consent?" The response: FWIW. It has changed since then. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I reject the notion that State actors and self-appointed strangers should go around actively seeking to alienate minor children from their parents, and/or subvert parental authority. In this context meaning that you fully support state actors actively seeking to monitor children for even innocuous non-gender conforming behavior and reporting it to parents and that failure to do so is criminal behavior. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: If a specific parent is engaging in abusive behavior, the matter should be referred to law enforcement. Law enforcement is unlikely to be able to do anything and reporting will likely make the matter worse for the queer kid. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: This messaging ("trans kids ... had better keep their heads down and they must TRUST NO ONE" and should "definitely" not "trust their parents") is quite troubling. I don't think State actors and strangers should be trying to use such messaging to scare kids, alienate them from their parents, and subvert parental authority. So minors who are terrified because they realize they are queer in some way and know their parents will not accept them should be just left alone to hide and suffer. Got it. No giving hope that it will get better or encouragement to do what you have to do to survive. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Kids struggling with this stuff should seek help from appropriate sources, and should not be subjected to secretive State actors and strangers who are actively seeking to scare them, alienate them from their parents, and subvert parental authority. You are worried about the parents who have most of the power in that relationship. I am worried about the kids who are nearly powerless and feel alone and scared and trapped and hopeless. No one has to scare them. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I am sorry to hear that. Nobody should be treated this way. Yet they are. Routinely. It is pretty much standard. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Someone in their early 20s is no longer a child. Which I said after that but your need to splice everything up leads to such inane commentary. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Self-appointed State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to scare children, and to secretively alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, are engaging in wrongful and deeply creepy behavior. Yep, all those support hotlines are wrongful and deeply creepy. Being accepting of kids in online spaces that are scared and need reassurance that life will not always be this hard should be left to twist in the wind lest we damage the (clearly very healthy) parent-child relationship. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Again, if you have evidence of the Church weighing in on this law, I'd be happy to consider it. I am going to live in the world where obvious cause and effect don’t need to be proven. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I hope you did not secretively seek to scare children, to alienate them from their parents, and to subvert parental rights and authority. I was working with kids who had been removed from the care of their parents due to abuse or negligence. I sometimes advocated for the parent to regain custory and sometimes advocated for parents to permanently lose their rights so yeah, I guess you could say I subverted parent-child relationships. Sometimes that volunteer work made it hard to sleep at night but not because of that part of it. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: All sorts of reasons. Self-validation. Perpetuation of the ideology,. Animus against diverging/conflicting points of view. So people are taking puberty blockers and hormones and having elective surgery for the glory of the cause? And to spite people? I am kind of scared of you now. You think this is how people think? Is this how you think? 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Broadly speaking, I think much (most?) of the "sexual minority" community is not self-perpetuating. Same-sex behavior by design does not result in children. Hormone therapy and puberty blockers and sex trait modification procedures impair or destroy fertility and sexual function. Sex is more about "identity" and validation and community and such, rather than about procreation. The ideology and the "community" housing it cannot sustain itself by having children, so they have to go proselytize the children of other people. Oh, nice. The old disproven the gays are converting our children so they can have sex with them rebranded. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I copied the previous paragraph into Grok. The response: FWIW. "Trans identification, however, is different. It has risen dramatically in youth cohorts (especially adolescent females) over the last 15 years. This is well-documented in multiple countries (U.S., UK, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands). The increase is far too rapid to be explained solely by reduced stigma or better diagnostics. Studies and clinical data (e.g., Littman’s rapid-onset gender dysphoria hypothesis, Tavistock whistleblower reports, Cass Review in the UK, Swedish and Finnish policy reversals) show strong evidence of social contagion, peer influence, social media exposure, and co-occurring mental health issues (autism, trauma, eating disorders, depression). This is not 'proselytizing' in the conspiratorial sense, but it is real social/ideological transmission among adolescents." (Emphasis added.) "Studies and clinical data (e.g., Littman’s rapid-onset gender dysphoria hypothesis, Tavistock whistleblower reports, Cass Review in the UK, Swedish and Finnish policy reversals) show strong evidence of social contagion, peer influence, social media exposure, and co-occurring mental health issues (autism, trauma, eating disorders, depression)." Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is pseudoscience. It is based entirely on surveying the parents of transgender children who answered that the whole transgender thing came out of nowhere and that it must be those new kids the child is hanging out with. Everything was fine before they showed up. When you ask the actual transgender person they almost always talk about dysphoria lasting for years and finally having the courage to open up about it. So ROGD is based on observers guessing what is going on in someone else’s head. It is junk science. And we are going to trust Grok, the AI owned by a guy who is in an ongoing feud with his transgender daughter…..uh huh. Sure Jan. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: An apparent and clearly accurate charge. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Do you get turned on by Drag Queen Story Hour where a crossdresser reads a cute children’s story? What do you think is going on in the heads of children in that setting that would warp them? How does this sexualize the children? You are just throwing around the word because you happen to think crossdressing is deeply deviant. Children really don’t. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Nope. Just the ones that are exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on. I have come to the conclusion that this whole “the gays are sexualizing our children” is more about the parents being uncomfortable with things and the children are fine and don’t think any of it is sexual in any way. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I reject the notion that State actors and self-appointed strangers should go around actively seeking to alienate minor children from their parents, and/or subvert parental authority. And want teachers to monitor the kids for deviant behavior! Which is really what you are defending but you won’t say that because it sounds horrible. Because it is horrible and creepy and dehumanizing in a way that drag queens aren’t. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I don't think State actors and strangers should be trying to scare kids, alienate them from their parents, or subvert parental authority. The scriptures do warn about vain repetitions. Be careful. Wouldn’t want you to start sinning. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I asked Grok: "Are there any jurisdictions which authorize (or require) State actors (such as school teachers) to not disclose (hide) information about a child from their parents?" The response: That is a really badly worded question and the kind AI will flub. Which it did. Congrats. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I don't think State actors and strangers should be trying to scare kids, alienate them from their parents, or subvert parental authority, or withhold information about children in State supervision (such as in school) from their parents. And already scared kids should not be supported. Parents should be allowed to isolate them if that is their desire. This is not at all creepy and disturbing and my repeating this line endlessly is winning this discussion in so many ways. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Well, I am willing to listen to what you have to say. Doubt it. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I have been influenced by, inter alia, this 2018 article: "Previous research has suggested that women’s sexuality can change throughout their life between lesbian, straight and bisexual." I think it may be possible that social/cultural influences can play about in these changes. So in an article on bisexuality you reached the conclusion that social and cultural factors shift sexuality based on…..what? Your intuition? The intuition of a cishet guy who stated earlier that you have never ever ever ever been attracted to another guy but somehow your intuition is going to suss out what impacts sexual fluidity when you say you have never experienced it. Well, here I am a bit of a subject matter expert. My sexuality can be fluid. I experience something called the bi-cycle. Many bisexual women experience the same thing. It is where your attractions shift over time for no discernible reason. It is annoying. Thankfully mine settled down most of the time to somewhere in the middle. For a time I would really be attracted to women for a while with only marginal attraction to men and then it would reverse. This is what that study is describing. If there was a simple intuitive way to calm down or influence this cycle I think we would have figured it out by now. The only thing a lot of bisexual people agree on that self-acceptance tends to calm the cycle down. Not always, but often. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Oh, so it the queer equivalent of all those insane projections of China’s economic growth. ”It is growing really fast now and if that continues indefinitely they will rule the world” When anyone who understood the situation would tell you that is not how modernizing economies work. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: The transcript: I find this clip to be interesting, both because he is citing statistics that do not appear to be in dispute, and because those statistics show a remarkable and abrupt increase in "self-identification as LGBTQ," and because Maher, though addressing a serious topic, approaches it with a bit of a sardonic edge, and because the audience laughs and claps. The statistics aren’t in dispute? Which ones? The real ones or the projected ones? Only Alex “they’re turning the frogs gay” Jones thinks this plan for queer world domination is viable. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I think this is a valid point. And perhaps they should be allowed to pose questions without being endlessly shouted down with accusations and insults. I guess the “Islam is outbreeding us” conspiracy got dull and now somehow the queers are infecting us is coming back? How exciting and original. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Bolded parts are worth some evaluation. No, not really. It is standard “just asking questions” which have been answered repeatedly and pretending that there are no answers. Standard right-wing schtick. It is ironic to see a cishet white guy telling queer people that “it is not always about you”. We know that already. It is almost always about heteronormativity. It is everywhere in our culture and is celebrated and accepted without anyone consciously trying to do so. That is why your claims that queer representation in media is so intrusive are hilarious to us. It is the majority that can’t handle it not always being about them. Then they project it onto us. le sigh 2
smac97 Posted April 3 Author Posted April 3 21 minutes ago, california boy said: Do you think most LDS parents tell their children that they don't care if they are straight, gay, lesbian, or bi as long as they don't have sexual relations until after they are married? I think most observant Latter-day Saint parents encourage their children to obey the Law of Chastity. I think many/most observant Latter-day Saint parents differentiate between divinely-authorized-and-mandated sexual relations (between husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the relationship between them) and other forms of sexual behavior (fornication, adultery, same-sex behavior, etc.). 21 minutes ago, california boy said: Oh and if you are gay or lesbian, we just hope you. never marry? I don't know how Latter-day Saint parents are approaching this, if at all. I dislike the coercive element implicit in your statement. I don't think parents should emotionally coerce their children into staying in the Church and keeping the commandments. I also don't think children should emotionally coerce their parents into endorsing/ratifying same-sex relationships if that conflicts with the parents' religious beliefs. 21 minutes ago, california boy said: If you do that, then we are absolutely ok with your choices. I think that in the end we each of us must do what we think is right. For observant Latter-day Saints, that may involve acknowledging, but not agreeing with, the world's re-definition of marriage, and being willing to resist strong social/cultural/political trends and pressures regarding matters of sexuality, and to instead embrace and uphold the Law of Chastity. That may also involve Latter-day Saints preserving relationships without the sort of "my way or the highway" impositions that can come into play from either or both sides. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted April 3 Posted April 3 (edited) 17 minutes ago, The Nehor said: They didn’t outright tell parents to do this but they didn’t counsel against it and there was no social stigma for a long time in doing it. It was just politely ignored and the child suffered. Usually framed in my experience as ‘the kid ran away because they refused to live by the parents’ standards’, equating it with using drugs at home, stealing parents’ cash and valuables, getting their siblings into drug or alcohol use. Edited April 3 by Calm 1
The Nehor Posted April 3 Posted April 3 18 minutes ago, Calm said: Usually framed in my experience as ‘the kid ran away because they refused to live by the parents’ standards’, equating it with using drugs at home, stealing parents’ cash and valuables, getting their siblings into drug or alcohol use. Yeah, and then when the minor that suddenly loses the people that are supposed to care for them and are homeless and dealing with all kinds of emotions they very often turn to drugs to cope and then using drugs is blasted as “the gay lifestyle”. 4
Calm Posted April 3 Posted April 3 (edited) 45 minutes ago, smac97 said: 1 hour ago, california boy said: Do you think most LDS parents tell their children that they don't care if they are straight, gay, lesbian, or bi as long as they don't have sexual relations until after they are married? I think most observant Latter-day Saint parents encourage their children to obey the Law of Chastity. I think many/most observant Latter-day Saint parents differentiate between divinely-authorized-and-mandated sexual relations (between husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the relationship between them) and other forms of sexual behavior (fornication, adultery, same-sex behavior, etc.). So to clarify, you just answered cb with an extended “No, they don’t tell their kids they don’t care about about the biological sex of their child’s romantic partners as long as no extramarital sex”….which seems to mean they do care if their child ends up in a same sex marriage. Is that correct and if not where did I miss the part that says LDS parents won’t care about same sex behavior after marriage as long as it’s within the marriage. Quote I don't know how Latter-day Saint parents are approaching this, if at all. “If at all” meaning what? They don’t talk about future relationships with their kids or about what the future holds for those with homosexual attractions? Or something else? Edited April 3 by Calm 2
smac97 Posted April 3 Author Posted April 3 (edited) On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Some of those sources are years old. Thus demonstrating the nebulous, amorphous nature of the word. It's changing. It's broad. It's vague. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote I think parental rights is an extremely important aspect of this topic. I consider it much less important than the child’s safety and security. Broadly, this is not an either/or situation. I think it is quite creepy and wrong for State actors and strangers to intentionally and actively and secretively seek to scare children, to alienate them from their parents, and to subvert parental rights and authority, and to do so under pretextual stuff like "the child’s safety and security." This is grooming-style behavior. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote Not exclusively, no. But broadly, people whose life and worldview coheres around sexuality will generally bring "sexual conduct" into the discussion. So if you live your entire life based around a law around sexuality you are going to talk about sex constantly? I do not claim an "identity" based on my sexual orientation or proclivities. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote For my part, I reject the notion of "sexual identity." Although I have never been sexually attracted to men, either categorically or individually, I do not "identify" myself as "straight" or "heterosexual," just as I do not "identify" myself as being right-handed. I know, you are the default. No. I am speaking for myself. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: You don’t have to think about your identity because it is assumed everywhere and celebrated and expressed everywhere. Well, no. The notion of "sexual identity" is quite a new concept and a First World and Western Civ one at that. I think most of humanity is not really occupied with claiming and broadcasting an "identity" pertaining to sexual orientation and proclivity. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Yet I bet your church membership and relationship to God is something you do identify with. Yes. I do claim an "identity" as a Latter-day Saint and disciple of Jesus Christ and a son of God. These are the primary ones, really, along with husband and father and son and brother. Next comes American. Any other "identities" are more about convenience and circumstance than substantive meaning and purpose. As for "sexual identity," I reject it altogether (for myself). On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote If I drive down the road and stay within the speed limit, the police will not stop me for violating the speed limit. If my neighbor drives down the road and exceed the speed limit, the police may stop him for violating the speed limit. Are we "being treated the same"? The answer is "no" insofar as pertains to our respective behaviors, and "yes" insofar as pertains to our compliance with the law. You throw out these inane analogies all the time and they never work. You taunt and insult and generally fail to meaningfully and substantively contribute to conversations. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Straight people can flirt. Not with anyone other than my wife. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: If queer people flirt in a non-het way they get pulled over. Whatever "queer" means. And all Latter-day Saints are, I surmise, proscribed from "flirt{ing} in a non-het way." There are all sorts of ways to violate the letter and/or the spirit of the Law of Chastity. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Neither is violating the LAW of chastity but the rules aren’t the same. You keep pretending they are. You are wrong. I think I am correct. There is only one Law of Chastity, and it applies to everyone in the same ways. Same law, disparate impact. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote Again, there should be a fairly broad spectrum of socially acceptable stances on matters of sexuality. This should include the Church's stance. Do you agree? Yes. I am glad we can agree on this point. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Until the parent attempts to force that stance onto their child. I agree that parents should not use coercive or other abusive means to influence their children. I don't think it is the place of State actors and strangers to interpose themselves as judge and jury as to what parents do with their children, or to to intentionally and actively and secretively seek to scare children, to alienate them from their parents, and to subvert parental rights and authority. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote I'm not sure what you are saying here. That you think it is all about sex. I don't think that. I think this is mostly about sex. Sex and sexuality are the sine qua non of the "sexual minority" identity. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Queer people are depraved sex fiends. No. Just the ones exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, or endorsing such things. This, in my view, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. There are plenty of "straight" people that are likewise engaging this in wholly improper and creepy and perverted behavior. The difference, I guess, is that the sexualization in the LGBT community seems to be much more "mainstream," as evidenced by the public events (Pride parades, drag shows, etc.) at which children are being sexualized. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: I mean, I am but that is just a coincidence. I am not sure if you are kidding here. I think these sorts of topics should be discussed with decorum and seriousness. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote I think parents are generally justified in exhorting their children to stay within particularized sexual boundaries. It is not just sexual boundaries that are being enforced. Even so, it is not the province of State actors and strangers to interfere with parental rights, particularly using secretive, subversive, manipulative means to influence minor children. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote I think it is quite creepy and wrong for state actors and other actors to actively seek to subvert parents in this regard. It is hilarious that the state is acting to out queer kids via mandatory reporting and you are whining about the state subverting parental rights when I suggest that state actors should not be policing kids for non gender conforming behaviors. I don't know what you are referencing here. Which "state actors" are "policing kids for non gender conforming behaviors"? Biological males can't go into women's spaces. Is that what you have in mind as a "non gender conforming behavior"? Are there other behaviors you have in mind? On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Warning about the dangers of imaginary fascist behavior by your enemies while defending fascist behavior that supports your worldview. Your various denigrating usage of terms like "bigot" and "transphobe" and "nazi" and "fascist" just don't have any impact. Your accusations are fundamentally unserious and irrational and unsubstantiated. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote I think sex is often treated as an important and sacred topic. I also think sex is treated in much diminished, or even perverted and licentious, ways. The difference arises in which voices are speaking, and to which voices each individual chooses to listen. I am grateful that, as a Latter-day Saint, I have substantial scriptural and prophetic guidance on these important matters. I choose to listen to them more than to voices which profane and distort and diminish and pervert sexuality. Yes, all that great scriptural and prophetic authority. I was under the impression that you are a Latter-day Saint. Is it just a nominal affiliation? A former one? None at all? On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: And the prophetic authority in the 50s? The 80s? The early 2000s? Or now? All very different. The Law of Chastity really hasn't changed much. In recent years the Brethren have had to implement a "Circles Are Round"-style clarification that the Law of Chastity presupposes a man-woman relationship. But that's about it. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote Again, I think this depends on which way the individual is facing. If a Latter-day Saint is seeking to discern and follow the will of God, and decides that this includes complying with the Law of Chastity, and if this is all a matter of choice and free will, then such talk therapy may well offer a lot of help. But it doesn’t work. That generally depends on the individual and the way they are facing. There is no compulsion here, so each individual is "free to choose." On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote A Latter-day Saint who is not contemplating the foregoing matters and making such determinations, and/or who is being coerced/compelled into such therapy, could very well be harmed to some extent. Nice weasel wording. That could be harmed a lot. They can be abused a lot. "A lot" is within the ambit of "to some extent." On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote You seem to presuppose that parents acting in the best interests of their children are committing "abuse" if that involves efforts to dissuade their children away from, say, same-sex behavior, Gender Dysphoria-related behaviors, and so on. Ummm….yes. Huh. Well, I appreciate your candor. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Now you are being ambiguous again though. Do you mean talking to them about choosing not to have sex before they are ready or are you policing any same-sex behavior? Parents of minor children can and should monitor and regulate the behavior of their children. This dissipates as the child nears majority, and thereafter the parents lack legal authority to do so, and should instead stay within an advisory role. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: You want to make it solely about sex so you can see they are ‘just being treated like a cishet child’ or something like that. I don't know what you mean here. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote I think Fox Valerian's experience is a relevant part of the discussion. Someone violating all therapeutic standards is not relevant to a discussion of whether the therapeutic standards as they stand work. I think there has been large-scale instances of damaging medical and psychological treatment of children, particularly those induced into profound medical treatments such as hormone therapy, puberty blockers and set trait modifications. These people will be impacted by these misbehaviors for the rest of their lives. Fortunately, these terrible experiments have been, I think relatively short-lived. From Grok: Quote Historical standards of care for minors with gender dysphoria (prior to roughly 2010–2015) did not involve puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or sex-trait modification surgeries as routine or recommended treatment. Pre-2010s Standard Approach The prevailing model was "watchful waiting" or exploratory/psychological-first therapy. Multiple long-term studies (e.g., Steensma et al. 2011, Zucker et al., Singh et al.) showed that 60–90 % of children with gender dysphoria desisted naturally by or shortly after puberty and grew up to be gay, lesbian, or heterosexual adults without medical intervention. Guidelines from the American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and Endocrine Society at the time emphasized: Thorough mental-health evaluation. Addressing co-occurring conditions (autism, trauma, anxiety, depression, eating disorders). No medical interventions (blockers/hormones/surgery) for prepubertal children. Very rare, highly restricted use of blockers only in extreme, persistent cases under strict research protocols (the original Dutch Protocol from the early 2000s was extremely conservative). Puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries were considered experimental and not part of mainstream standards of care for minors. The Shift (2010s–Present) Starting around 2010–2015, a new "gender-affirming" model rapidly became dominant in many U.S. pediatric gender clinics. WPATH’s Standards of Care 7 (2011) and especially SOC-8 (2022), along with Endocrine Society and AAP guidelines, began endorsing puberty blockers as early as Tanner Stage 2, followed by hormones and (in some cases) surgeries for adolescents. This represented a profound departure from prior standards. It moved from a cautious, desistance-aware psychological approach to one that prioritizes social transition and medicalization. Current International Reality (2024–2026) European countries (UK Cass Review 2024, Sweden 2022, Finland 2020, Norway, Denmark) conducted systematic evidence reviews and reversed course. They now treat puberty blockers/hormones as experimental, restrict them to strict research protocols or ban them outright for minors outside of exceptional cases, and have returned closer to the pre-2010s watchful-waiting/psychological-first model. The U.S. remains an outlier: many major organizations still endorse the affirming model, but even here the practice is under intense scrutiny, with growing state-level restrictions and ongoing lawsuits. Bottom Line No — “standards of care” governing mental health and medical treatment of minors with gender dysphoria did not previously involve routine or recommended use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or sex-trait modification procedures. Those interventions only became part of mainstream guidelines in the last 10–15 years, largely driven by the affirmative-care model. The earlier, evidence-based standard was psychological support and watchful waiting, reflecting the high natural desistance rate in children. This rapid change in standards is one of the central points of debate in the current medical and legal controversies. I am glad that "gender-affirming care" is on its way out. I am not sure if you are agreeing with me about that, or if you are acting as if these procedures and this model of care never actually happened. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: If I went to a bog witch to cure my ADHD and she had me drink swamp water is that relevant to whether ADHD treatment in general is effective? No. You only want it to be relevant because you want to imagine that your swamp witch is the norm. Again, from Grok: Starting around 2010–2015, a new "gender-affirming" model rapidly became dominant in many U.S. pediatric gender clinics. WPATH’s Standards of Care 7 (2011) and especially SOC-8 (2022), along with Endocrine Society and AAP guidelines, began endorsing puberty blockers as early as Tanner Stage 2, followed by hormones and (in some cases) surgeries for adolescents. This represented a profound departure from prior standards. It moved from a cautious, desistance-aware psychological approach to one that prioritizes social transition and medicalization. This sounds about right. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: You could, you know, check the numbers and see how many minors are actually getting gender affirming surgeries. I have. CBS Austin: Quote Hospitals across the U.S. have made nearly $120 million combinedsince 2019 by providing sex change procedures to minors, according to new findings by watchdog group Do No Harm. The group’s “Stop The Harm” database includes information on procedures such as surgery, hormone treatments and puberty blockers given to U.S. children. It estimates hospitals have made at least $119,791,202 since 2019 by offering such services to minors. Nearly 14,000 children have received such treatments since 2019, the database shows. Over 5,500 children reportedly received surgeries and over 8,500 received hormones and puberty blockers. A total of 62,682 prescriptions for hormone treats and puberty blockers have been written, according to the report. Nearly 14,000 Minors Underwent Sex-Change Procedures in Recent Years, According to New Watchdog Database I am happy to consider any critique you have of these numbers. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: You would even find that most such surgeries on minors are for cishet minors and elective transgender surgeries are very rare and almost exclusively to those who are 16 or 17. From the above article: Quote From January 2019 to December 2023, 13,994 minor patients received gender-transition treatments, with 5,747 undergoing sex-change surgeries and 8,579 getting hormones and puberty blockers, according to Do No Harm's database. Again, I'm happy to consider whatever resources you have. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote And he was far from alone in his therapeutic approach. WRONG! Prove it. Put up or shut up. See here ("28 detransitioner lawsuits are now in different stages of legal proceedings across the US."). On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: You think that you are a literal child of an immortal anthropomorphic deity and want to police whether other people’s views conform with observable reality? Really? This seems like a dodge. Again: The women upstairs believed that they are men, but they were not men (unless we radically re-define the term and detach it from its biological moorings, which I am not willing to do). I am nevertheless expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. The young man downstairs believed that he is a dog, but he was not a dog. And I am not expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Also quit picking on all the cute puppyboys. They didn’t do anything to deserve this. I genuinely do not understand how the one incongruent-with-reality notion is acceptable for ratification (women who "identify" as men), but the other (a boy who "identifies" as a dog) is not. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. A guy crossdressing is highly sexualized behavior? Ummmmm……you’re weird. Is everything about sex with you? Again, exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Somehow this is a controversial statement. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: I mean, I’m a pervert I guess you are being serious here. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: but you are in a league of your own if seeing a guy in a dress is making you think sexy thoughts. And you imagine that seeing that makes prepubescent kids think about sex? That is REALLY WEIRD. Again, exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote I think both public consensus and the law are substantially changing and firming up in opposition to children undergoing pediatric sex trait modification procedures, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, etc. Temporarily, it is unlikely to last. Enjoy it while you can I suppose. We'll see, I guess. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote This messaging ("trans kids ... had better keep their heads down and they must TRUST NO ONE" and should "definitely" not "trust their parents") is quite troubling. I don't think State actors and strangers should be trying to use such messaging to scare kids, alienate them from their parents, and subvert parental authority. So minors who are terrified because they realize they are queer in some way and know their parents will not accept them I think many such minors are feeling "terrified" and alienated from their parents because State actors and strangers are going out of their way to inculcate children with these fears and sentiments. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: should be just left alone to hide and suffer. Got it. This is not an apt characterization of my position. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote Kids struggling with this stuff should seek help from appropriate sources, and should not be subjected to secretive State actors and strangers who are actively seeking to scare them, alienate them from their parents, and subvert parental authority. You are worried about the parents who have most of the power in that relationship. I am disturbed at the notion of self-appointed State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to interpose themselves as judge and jury of parents, and to substitute their own ideological preferences in the place of the parents', and to scare children, and to alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, and to do these things secretively and/or with the power of the State. This is wrongful and deeply creepy behavior. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: I am worried about the kids who are nearly powerless and feel alone and scared and trapped and hopeless. No one has to scare them. I think these kids need help. I don't think this help should come in the form of self-appointed State actors and strangers doing the deeply creepy and subversive things noted above. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote I am sorry to hear that. Nobody should be treated this way. Yet they are. Routinely. It is pretty much standard. The answer is not to have self-appointed State actors and strangers doing the deeply creepy and subversive things noted above. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote Self-appointed State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to scare children, and to secretively alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, are engaging in wrongful and deeply creepy behavior. Yep, all those support hotlines are wrongful and deeply creepy. No. Just the ones that involve State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to interpose themselves as judge and jury of parents, and to substitute their own ideological preferences in the place of the parents', and to scare children, and to alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, and to do these things secretively and/or with the power of the State. This is wrongful and deeply creepy behavior. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Being accepting of kids in online spaces that are scared and need reassurance that life will not always be this hard should be left to twist in the wind lest we damage the (clearly very healthy) parent-child relationship. What you characterize as "being accepting of kids" I see as self-appointed strangers traumatizing children by secretly subverting parental rights and authority, alienating children from their parents and presenting themselves as people children should trust instead (a classic groomer tactic), scaring them with doom-and-gloom stuff, and so on. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote I hope you did not secretively seek to scare children, to alienate them from their parents, and to subvert parental rights and authority. I was working with kids who had been removed from the care of their parents due to abuse or negligence. Okay. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: I sometimes advocated for the parent to regain custory and sometimes advocated for parents to permanently lose their rights so yeah, I guess you could say I subverted parent-child relationships. Sometimes that volunteer work made it hard to sleep at night but not because of that part of it. I think it is not the province of self-appointed persons to secretly subvert family relationships. Civil authorities and the courts, yes. Not self-selected ideologues who presume to interfere with familial relationships, particularly in secret. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is pseudoscience. I understand it is a controversial theory, and I think the jury is still out on it. I do think we need to account for the substantial changes noted by Bill Maher. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote An apparent and clearly accurate charge. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Do you get turned on by Drag Queen Story Hour where a crossdresser reads a cute children’s story? No. I find it creepy and weird and perverted. I likewise find your prurient question creepy and weird and perverted. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: What do you think is going on in the heads of children in that setting that would warp them? I think children can become confused and troubled about sexuality. I think this is why groomers groom, so they can manipulate children into viewing sexuality in aberrant and improper ways. Children’s brains and nervous systems are wired for gradual, age-appropriate exposure to sexuality. Premature or intense exposure overwhelms them in several ways: Prefrontal cortex is immature (until mid-20s): Children lack the impulse control, abstract reasoning, and emotional regulation needed to process explicit sexual material. They cannot contextualize or “compartmentalize” what they see the way adults can. Sexualization creates confusion and hyperarousal: Seeing adult sexual behavior (nudity, simulated sex, kink, etc.) floods a child’s developing limbic system with stimuli they are not equipped to handle. This can trigger anxiety, shame, dissociation, or inappropriate sexual curiosity/behavior. Boundary violation: Children rely on adults to maintain safe boundaries. When adults expose them to sexual content or environments, it signals that sexual material is normal and acceptable for them. This erodes their sense of safety and can lead to long-term boundary issues, trust problems, or reenactment of what they witnessed. Desensitization and distorted expectations: Early porn exposure (the most studied form) is linked to viewing sex as transactional, violent, or performative rather than intimate and relational. It distorts healthy sexual development and increases risk of compulsive sexual behavior later. There is substantial clinical and research evidence that exposing children to pornography or highly sexualized adult environments is traumatic and disruptive to normal development. It violates the child’s need for protection, safety, and gradual maturation. The idea that children can “handle” or “benefit from” adult-level sexual content is not supported by developmental science. Responsible adults (parents, educators, event organizers) have an obligation to shield children from this kind of exposure. You seem to be defending these events. I find that deeply troubling. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote Nope. Just the ones that are exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on. I have come to the conclusion that this whole “the gays are sexualizing our children” I reject this characterization. Most "gays" do not sexualize children. Those who do are exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, or endorsing this sort of thing. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: is more about the parents being uncomfortable with things and the children are fine and don’t think any of it is sexual in any way. This seems like an apologetic for grooming behavior. Very troubling. FBI behavioral analysis reports, child-protection studies, and grooming research (e.g., from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and academic reviews in Child Abuse & Neglect) consistently note that many online and offline groomers describe their actions in ideological or “liberatory” terms. They portray parents as “closed-minded,” “bigoted,” “religious fanatics,” or “transphobic/homophobic” obstacles to the child’s “authentic” sexual or gender exploration. My understand is that this mindset is not representative of the broader LGBTQ+ community or most mental-health professionals. The vast majority of people working with gender-questioning or same-sex-attracted youth are not grooming and genuinely believe they are helping distressed children. However, the “savior from repressive parents” framing does appear in some activist and clinical subcultures, especially when parental rights are framed as inherently oppressive to “queer” or “trans” youth. Grooming literature shows that predators almost never see themselves as villains. They nearly always construct a narrative in which they are the hero, the child is “mature” or “ready,” and the parents are the problem. The sexualization-as-liberation ideology provides a ready-made intellectual framework for that self-deception. Some groomers (and some people who enable boundary violations with minors) do see themselves as saviors freeing children from supposedly repressive parents. This is a well-documented psychological tactic, not a conspiracy theory. It is one of the reasons child-protection experts emphasize the importance of parental involvement and age-appropriate boundaries around sexuality. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote I reject the notion that State actors and self-appointed strangers should go around actively seeking to alienate minor children from their parents, and/or subvert parental authority. And want teachers to monitor the kids for deviant behavior! I have not said nor implied that. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Which is really what you are defending It is not. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: but you won’t say that because it sounds horrible. I have not said it because I do not think it. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Because it is horrible and creepy and dehumanizing in a way that drag queens aren’t. Your comments here are coming across as an apologetic for exposing children to highly sexualized events and behaviors. I find that deeply troubling. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Quote I don't think State actors and strangers should be trying to scare kids, alienate them from their parents, or subvert parental authority, or withhold information about children in State supervision (such as in school) from their parents. And already scared kids should not be supported. I don't think State actors and strangers should portray the secretive and subversive efforts I have described as "support." That starts to sound like justification for grooming. On 4/3/2026 at 3:19 PM, The Nehor said: Parents should be allowed to isolate them if that is their desire. I find it deeply weird and creepy that self-appointed strangers feel justified in interfering with familial relationships. If parents are engaging in misconduct, those who know about it should report the matter to civil authorities. The stuff you describe and rationalize is, in my view, deeply wrong. Thanks, -Smac Edited April 5 by smac97
smac97 Posted April 3 Author Posted April 3 1 hour ago, Calm said: Quote Quote Do you think most LDS parents tell their children that they don't care if they are straight, gay, lesbian, or bi as long as they don't have sexual relations until after they are married? I think most observant Latter-day Saint parents encourage their children to obey the Law of Chastity. I think many/most observant Latter-day Saint parents differentiate between divinely-authorized-and-mandated sexual relations (between husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the relationship between them) and other forms of sexual behavior (fornication, adultery, same-sex behavior, etc.). So to clarify, you just answered cb with an extended “No, they don’t tell their kids they don’t care about about the biological sex of their child’s romantic partners as long as no extramarital sex”….which seems to mean they do care if their child ends up in a same sex marriage. Candidly, I don't really know how "most" parents approach this topic. I think most parents, not just those who are Latter-day Saints, anticipate - and perhaps hope - that their children will grow up, get married, and have children. I sense that "heteronormativity" is supposed to have some sort of pejorative connotation, but heterosexual behavior is the only way to procreation. Our bodies are designed for it. Same-sex behavior is biologically incoherent. As humans, then, we can add a moral/religious layer to these matters. I think observant Latter-day Saint parents hope their children will keep the Law of Chastity. I don't think these parents frame this in relation to same-sex behavior in some sort of default sense. This may be changing, though, as some flavor same-sex status is growing at a very advanced rate. But to directly answer your question, I think most observant Latter-day Saints would prefer their children to keep the commandments, which would preclude a same-sex marriage. 1 hour ago, Calm said: Is that correct and if not where did I miss the part that says LDS parents won’t care about same sex behavior after marriage as long as it’s within the marriage. I'm not sure what you are saying here. 1 hour ago, Calm said: Quote Quote Oh and if you are gay or lesbian, we just hope you. never marry? I don't know how Latter-day Saint parents are approaching this, if at all. “If at all” meaning what? They don’t talk about future relationships with their kids or about what the future holds for those with homosexual attractions? Or something else? I don't know how often Latter-day Saint parents presuppose that their child is gay, or how often they approach that notion. By "if at all" I meant to suggest that some parents don't address this point at all. When I think about what I have "hoped" for my children, it has involved them living out the Plan of Salvation. Same-sex marriage is not a part of that Plan, nor is same-sex behavior. Same-sex attraction might be, depending on the individual. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted April 4 Posted April 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: do not claim an "identity" based on my sexual orientation or proclivities. Because it’s not something you have to negotiate with others. You know what is expected of you by others and they know what to expect. You don’t have to defend your sexual behaviour because it’s heterosexual and well within cultural norms. Edited April 4 by Calm 1
Calm Posted April 4 Posted April 4 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Not with anyone other than my wife. You never flirted with anyone else when you were single?
california boy Posted April 4 Posted April 4 This is the question I asked. Do you think most LDS parents tell their children that they don't care if they are straight, gay, lesbian, or bi as long as they don't have sexual relations until after they are married? Maybe I wasn't clear, the part I wanted you to tell me what you thought about that question is this part: Do you think most LDS parents tell their children that they don't care if they are straight, gay, lesbian, or bi I am acknowledging that observant members would expect no sex until after marriage. So you can skip that part of the question, but I would like a response to the part you didn't address. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I think most observant Latter-day Saint parents encourage their children to obey the Law of Chastity. I think many/most observant Latter-day Saint parents differentiate between divinely-authorized-and-mandated sexual relations (between husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the relationship between them) and other forms of sexual behavior (fornication, adultery, same-sex behavior, etc.). That wasn't really the question I asked. I accept that members want their children to only have sex after marriage. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I don't know how Latter-day Saint parents are approaching this, if at all. Why would members not approach the subject of whether their children would or should marry if their children are gay or lesbian. Do you think that not addressing marriage is a normal response from a believing member? How would you handle it? 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I dislike the coercive element implicit in your statement. I don't think parents should emotionally coerce their children into staying in the Church and keeping the commandments. I also don't think children should emotionally coerce their parents into endorsing/ratifying same-sex relationships if that conflicts with the parents' religious beliefs. Even if they are minors? Just curious. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I think that in the end we each of us must do what we think is right. For observant Latter-day Saints, that may involve acknowledging, but not agreeing with, the world's re-definition of marriage, and being willing to resist strong social/cultural/political trends and pressures regarding matters of sexuality, and to instead embrace and uphold the Law of Chastity. That may also involve Latter-day Saints preserving relationships without the sort of "my way or the highway" impositions that can come into play from either or both sides. Thanks, -Smac A couple of other followup questions I am curious about. Do you think a gay or lesbian minor should tell their parents their orientation? Or pretend to be straight until they move out of the house? You mentioned to Nehor that you thought a drag queen reading a story in a library was highly sexual and children shouldn't be exposed to those kinds of sexual situations. What do you think is more sexual to straight children, a drag queen or a bunch of women/children at the beach in very revealing bikinis? Should children not be allowed to go to the beach?
Calm Posted April 4 Posted April 4 (edited) 5 hours ago, california boy said: You mentioned to Nehor that you thought a drag queen reading a story in a library was highly sexual and children shouldn't be exposed to those kinds of sexual situations. What do you think is more sexual to straight children, a drag queen or a bunch of women/children at the beach in very revealing bikinis? Should children not be allowed to go to the beach? To Smac: I’m trying to understand your position more clearly. Is your concern primarily about men wearing women’s clothing (and vice versa), or is it about the style of clothing and behavior being presented? I ask because sometimes it sounds like you view drag as inherently sexual. So to clarify: Would a man dressed as a princess, behaving respectfully and modestly, be acceptable for a children’s storytime in the same way a woman would be? And conversely, would a woman dressed and behaving in a way you consider typical of drag (if you see that as sexualized) also be inappropriate? For more concrete examples: Would you consider it inappropriate for Dolly Parton, who is a drag queen icon, to host a children’s storytime? Would you consider it inappropriate for Dame Edna Everage, who is a drag queen, to do the same? Edited April 4 by Calm 1
california boy Posted April 4 Posted April 4 1 hour ago, smac97 said: When I think about what I have "hoped" for my children, it has involved them living out the Plan of Salvation. Same-sex marriage is not a part of that Plan, nor is same-sex behavior. Same-sex attraction might be, depending on the individual. Thanks, -Smac This is exactly why the vast majority of queer people leave the church. It is all cut and dried until the moment you find out your child is gay. Then everything becomes a bit murky. Do you lock them up in their room and never allow them to date? Do you forbid them from having a boyfriend if they are gay And if they don't do what you ask, how do you enforce your will upon them? Would you encourage them to not get married? Would you be supportive of their decisions? 1
california boy Posted April 4 Posted April 4 (edited) Sorry. Double post Edited April 4 by california boy
The Nehor Posted April 4 Posted April 4 (edited) 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Thus demonstrating the nebulous, amorphous nature of the word. It's changing. It's broad. It's vague. Broadly, this is not an either/or situation. I think it is quite creepy and wrong for State actors and strangers to intentionally and actively and secretively seek to scare children, to alienate them from their parents, and to subvert parental rights and authority, and to do so under pretextual stuff like "the child’s safety and security." This is grooming-style behavior. I do not claim an "identity" based on my sexual orientation or proclivities. No. I am speaking for myself. Well, no. The notion of "sexual identity" is quite a new concept and a First World and Western Civ one at that. I think most of humanity is not really occupied with claiming and broadcasting an "identity" pertaining to sexual orientation and proclivity. Yes. I do claim an "identity" as a Latter-day Saint and disciple of Jesus Christ and a son of God. These are the primary ones, really, along with husband and father and son and brother. Next comes American. Any other "identities" are more about convenience and circumstance than substantive meaning and purpose. As for "sexual identity," I reject it altogether (for myself). You taunt and insult and generally fail to meaningfully and substantively contribute to conversations. Not with anyone other than my wife. Whatever "queer" means. And all Latter-day Saints are, I surmise, proscribed from "flirt{ing} in a non-het way." There are all sorts of ways to violate the letter and/or the spirit of the Law of Chastity. I think I am correct. There is only one Law of Chastity, and it applies to everyone in the same ways. Same law, disparate impact. I am glad we can agree on this point. I agree that parents should not use coercive or other abusive means to influence their children. I don't think it is the place of State actors and strangers to interpose themselves as judge and jury as to what parents do with their children, or to to intentionally and actively and secretively seek to scare children, to alienate them from their parents, and to subvert parental rights and authority. I don't think that. I think this is mostly about sex. Sex and sexuality are the sine qua non of the "sexual minority" identity. No. Just the ones exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, or endorsing such things. This, in my view, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. There are plenty of "straight" people that are likewise engaging this in wholly improper and creepy and perverted behavior. The difference, I guess, is that the sexualization in the LGBT community seems to be much more "mainstream," as evidenced by the public events (Pride parades, drag shows, etc.) at which children are being sexualized. I am not sure if you are kidding here. I think these sorts of topics should be discussed with decorum and seriousness. Even so, it is not the province of State actors and strangers to interfere with parental rights, particularly using secretive, subversive, manipulative means to influence minor children. I don't know what you are referencing here. Which "state actors" are "policing kids for non gender conforming behaviors"? Biological males can't go into women's spaces. Is that what you have in mind as a "non gender conforming behavior"? Are there other behaviors you have in mind? Your various denigrating usage of terms like "bigot" and "transphobe" and "nazi" and "fascist" just don't have any impact. Your accusations are fundamentally unserious and irrational and unsubstantiated. I was under the impression that you are a Latter-day Saint. Is it just a nominal affiliation? A former one? None at all? The Law of Chastity really hasn't changed much. In recent years the Brethren have had to implement a "Circles Are Round"-style clarification that the Law of Chastity presupposes a man-women relationship. But that's about it. That generally depends on the individual and the way they are facing. There is no compulsion here, so each individual is "free to choose." "A lot" is within the ambit of "to some extent." Huh. Well, I appreciate your candor. Parents of minor children can and should monitor and regulate the behavior of their children. This dissipates as the child nears majority, and thereafter the parents lack legal authority to do so, and should instead stay within an advisory role. I don't know what you mean here. I think there has been large-scale instances of damaging medical and psychological treatment of children, particularly those induced into profound medical treatments such as hormone therapy, puberty blockers and set trait modifications. These people will be impacted by these misbehaviors for the rest of their lives. Fortunately, these terrible experiments have been, I think relatively short-lived. From Grok: I am glad that "gender-affirming care" is on its way out. I am not sure if you are agreeing with me about that, or if you are acting as if these procedures and this model of care never actually happened. Again, from Grok: Starting around 2010–2015, a new "gender-affirming" model rapidly became dominant in many U.S. pediatric gender clinics. WPATH’s Standards of Care 7 (2011) and especially SOC-8 (2022), along with Endocrine Society and AAP guidelines, began endorsing puberty blockers as early as Tanner Stage 2, followed by hormones and (in some cases) surgeries for adolescents. This represented a profound departure from prior standards. It moved from a cautious, desistance-aware psychological approach to one that prioritizes social transition and medicalization. This sounds about right. I have. CBS Austin: Nearly 14,000 Minors Underwent Sex-Change Procedures in Recent Years, According to New Watchdog Database I am happy to consider any critique you have of these numbers. From the above article: Again, I'm happy to consider whatever resources you have. See here ("28 detransitioner lawsuits are now in different stages of legal proceedings across the US."). This seems like a dodge. Again: The women upstairs believed that they are men, but they were not men (unless we radically re-define the term and detach it from its biological moorings, which I am not willing to do). I am nevertheless expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. The young man downstairs believed that he is a dog, but he was not a dog. And I am not expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. I genuinely do not understand how the one incongruent-with-reality notion is acceptable for ratification (women who "identify" as men), but the other (a boy who "identifies" as a dog) is not. Again, exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Somehow this is a controversial statement. I guess you are being serious here. Again, exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. We'll see, I guess. I think many such minors are feeling "terrified" and alienated from their parents because State actors and strangers are going out of their way to inculcate children with these fears and sentiments. This is not an apt characterization of my position. I am disturbed at the notion of self-appointed State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to interpose themselves as judge and jury of parents, and to substitute their own ideological preferences in the place of the parents', and to scare children, and to alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, and to do these things secretively and/or with the power of the State. This is wrongful and deeply creepy behavior. I think these kids need help. I don't think this help should come in the form of self-appointed State actors and strangers doing the deeply creepy and subversive things noted above. The answer is not to have self-appointed State actors and strangers doing the deeply creepy and subversive things noted above. No. Just the ones that involve State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to interpose themselves as judge and jury of parents, and to substitute their own ideological preferences in the place of the parents', and to scare children, and to alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, and to do these things secretively and/or with the power of the State. This is wrongful and deeply creepy behavior. What you characterize as "being accepting of kids" I see as self-appointed strangers traumatizing children by secretly subverting parental rights and authority, alienating children from their parents and presenting themselves as people children should trust instead (a classic groomer tactic), scaring them with doom-and-gloom stuff, and so on. Okay. I think it is not the province of self-appointed persons to secretly subvert family relationships. Civil authorities and the courts, yes. Not self-selected ideologues who presume to interfere with familial relationships, particularly in secret. I understand it is a controversial theory, and I think the jury is still out on it. I do think we need to account for the substantial changes noted by Bill Maher. No. I find it creepy and weird and perverted. I likewise find your prurient question creepy and weird and perverted. I think children can become confused and troubled about sexuality. I think this is why groomers groom, so they can manipulate children into viewing sexuality in aberrant and improper ways. Children’s brains and nervous systems are wired for gradual, age-appropriate exposure to sexuality. Premature or intense exposure overwhelms them in several ways: Prefrontal cortex is immature (until mid-20s): Children lack the impulse control, abstract reasoning, and emotional regulation needed to process explicit sexual material. They cannot contextualize or “compartmentalize” what they see the way adults can. Sexualization creates confusion and hyperarousal: Seeing adult sexual behavior (nudity, simulated sex, kink, etc.) floods a child’s developing limbic system with stimuli they are not equipped to handle. This can trigger anxiety, shame, dissociation, or inappropriate sexual curiosity/behavior. Boundary violation: Children rely on adults to maintain safe boundaries. When adults expose them to sexual content or environments, it signals that sexual material is normal and acceptable for them. This erodes their sense of safety and can lead to long-term boundary issues, trust problems, or reenactment of what they witnessed. Desensitization and distorted expectations: Early porn exposure (the most studied form) is linked to viewing sex as transactional, violent, or performative rather than intimate and relational. It distorts healthy sexual development and increases risk of compulsive sexual behavior later. There is substantial clinical and research evidence that exposing children to pornography or highly sexualized adult environments is traumatic and disruptive to normal development. It violates the child’s need for protection, safety, and gradual maturation. The idea that children can “handle” or “benefit from” adult-level sexual content is not supported by developmental science. Responsible adults (parents, educators, event organizers) have an obligation to shield children from this kind of exposure. You seem to be defending these events. I find that deeply troubling. I reject this characterization. Most "gays" do not sexualize children. Those who do are exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, or endorsing this sort of thing. This seems like an apologetic for grooming behavior. Very troubling. FBI behavioral analysis reports, child-protection studies, and grooming research (e.g., from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and academic reviews in Child Abuse & Neglect) consistently note that many online and offline groomers describe their actions in ideological or “liberatory” terms. They portray parents as “closed-minded,” “bigoted,” “religious fanatics,” or “transphobic/homophobic” obstacles to the child’s “authentic” sexual or gender exploration. My understand is that this mindset is not representative of the broader LGBTQ+ community or most mental-health professionals. The vast majority of people working with gender-questioning or same-sex-attracted youth are not grooming and genuinely believe they are helping distressed children. However, the “savior from repressive parents” framing does appear in some activist and clinical subcultures, especially when parental rights are framed as inherently oppressive to “queer” or “trans” youth. Grooming literature shows that predators almost never see themselves as villains. They nearly always construct a narrative in which they are the hero, the child is “mature” or “ready,” and the parents are the problem. The sexualization-as-liberation ideology provides a ready-made intellectual framework for that self-deception. Some groomers (and some people who enable boundary violations with minors) do see themselves as saviors freeing children from supposedly repressive parents. This is a well-documented psychological tactic, not a conspiracy theory. It is one of the reasons child-protection experts emphasize the importance of parental involvement and age-appropriate boundaries around sexuality. I have not said nor implied that. It is not. I have not said it because I do not think it. Your comments here are coming across as an apologetic for exposing children to highly sexualized events and behaviors. I find that deeply troubling. I don't think State actors and strangers should portray the secretive and subversive efforts I have described as "support." That starts to sound like justification for grooming. I find it deeply weird and creepy that self-appointed strangers feel justified in interfering with familial relationships. If parents are engaging in misconduct, those who know about it should report the matter to civil authorities. The stuff you describe and rationalize is, in my view, deeply wrong. Thanks, -Smac Okay, so I ask why you think something is sexualizing children and you take that to mean I am a predator. You also continually misrepresent what I said throughout your response even when I said the exact opposite. You’re also denying that your responses had anything to do with what you were responding to and deliberately misunderstanding, and assume knowledge of queer culture you don’t have. And we’re also back to the generic “grooming” accusations and misuse that word yet again. And one important point. No one is scaring these kids. They are already scared. If anything we are trying to tell them things will (eventually) be okay. If your whole premise is that helping children trapped in potentially dangerous situations is grooming then you are beyond hopeless. I really hope none of your children are going through this right now. They would be scared to say anything and they would be right to be scared to do so. And we aren’t seeking these teens out. They show up on queer websites and subreddits and forums and ask or beg for help. Characterizing this as manipulation is just you being malicious and viewing us all as sexual deviants which is not surprising at all considering how you talk about us. Edited April 4 by The Nehor 4
smac97 Posted April 4 Author Posted April 4 15 hours ago, Calm said: Because it’s not something you have to negotiate with others. I suppose. 15 hours ago, Calm said: You know what is expected of you by others and they know what to expect. I don't know what this means. 15 hours ago, Calm said: You don’t have to defend your sexual behaviour because it’s heterosexual and well within cultural norms. I don't know what this means, either. Who has to "defend" their sexual behavior? To whom? About what? As a Latter-day Saint, I am - by choice - constrained in my sexual behavior by the Law of Chastity. Those constraints include "heterosexual" ones. No adultery. No fornication. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted April 4 Author Posted April 4 15 hours ago, Calm said: Quote Not with anyone other than my wife. You never flirted with anyone else when you were single? I did. But not with married women. Or with men. Both behaviors are, by inference and extrapolation and common sense, prohibited by the Law of Chastity. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted April 4 Author Posted April 4 15 hours ago, Calm said: To Smac: I’m trying to understand your position more clearly. Is your concern primarily about men wearing women’s clothing (and vice versa), or is it about the style of clothing and behavior being presented? My concern is primarily about sexualized behavior. I think parents generally have autonomy to expose their children to behaviors such as "men wearing women's clothing." I think that could be confusing to children, but the absence of sexualized behavior matters. 15 hours ago, Calm said: I ask because sometimes it sounds like you view drag as inherently sexual. A non-sexualized drag show? I suppose not "inherently." Drag shows are not inherently “sexual” in the strict sense that every single one must involve explicit sex acts or pornography-level content. However, the honest answer is, I think, more nuanced: Drag shows are very frequently and deliberately sexualized, and the art form itself is built on gender parody, exaggeration, and adult-oriented performance traditions that often incorporate sexual humor, innuendo, and provocative elements. Some examples: 15 hours ago, Calm said: So to clarify: Would a man dressed as a princess, behaving respectfully and modestly, be acceptable for a children’s storytime in the same way a woman would be? For myself, no. “Family-friendly” or “kid-friendly” drag story hours are the ones that spark controversy. Performers usually tone down the raunch, but they still feature exaggerated sexualized costumes (breast pads, hip pads, heavy makeup, high heels, etc.) and read books that introduce gender/sexuality concepts to children. In my view, this is still sexualizing because it exposes kids to adult gender performance and ideological messaging about sex and identity. A while back there were social media videos of a "Cast Member" at Disneyland who was very clearly a man and dressed up as a princess. The performer is shown interacting directly with young girls — hugging them, posing for photos, dancing with them, and engaging in playful physical contact in the park’s public areas. Some videos show the performer being very affectionate or “motherly” toward the little girls while in full drag/princess attire. Disney has defended these appearances as part of its commitment to “inclusion” and “diversity.” The company has increasingly allowed or hired gender-nonconforming and drag performers for certain events, parades, and character interactions, especially during Pride Month or special ticketed nights. However, many parents and observers (across political lines) have called these specific interactions inappropriate for young children because: A grown man in heavy makeup and a sexualized/feminine costume is engaging in close physical contact with little girls. The performance style often includes exaggerated feminine mannerisms, hip swaying, and flirtatious or theatrical elements that many adults consider adult-oriented or sexualized, even if no explicit sex acts are occurring. It blurs the line between family-friendly character entertainment and adult drag performance. Disney’s character guidelines are supposed to keep all interactions wholesome and age-appropriate, but some argue (legitimately, I think) that allowing biological males in feminine drag costumes around young girls violates that standard in practice. Not every interaction is overtly sexual, but the context is highly sexualized for many viewers: adult male in drag makeup and gown performing femininity in front of and with prepubescent girls. My understanding is that developmental psychology and child-protection experts generally conclude that exposing young children to adult cross-dressing or drag performance in an intimate setting can be confusing, boundary-blurring, or emotionally disruptive, even if the performer is not behaving maliciously. The videos struck a nerve, I think, with parents who expect Disneyland to remain a traditionally safe, non-sexualized space for young children. While Disney and others frame this as “inclusion,” I suspect a large number of parents view it as introducing adult sexualized gender performance into a space meant for children. The concern is not that every drag performer is a predator, but that the performance itself is inherently adult-oriented and crosses normal boundaries when directed at or involving very young girls. Thanks, -Smac
california boy Posted April 4 Posted April 4 23 hours ago, smac97 said: Yes. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Thanks, -Smac We have seen you taking shots at drag queens numerous times. It seems to be one of you go to arguments to gin up people against the LGBT community. I wondered what the comparison would be between drag queens and Mormon bishops convicted of child abuse. Even I was shocked by the results. This is what Chat GBT reported. Quote 1) Drag queens • There is no centralized dataset tracking crimes by drag performers. • Only a handful of isolated, anecdotal cases are publicly documented. • No credible research shows drag queens as a group having measurable or elevated rates of child abuse. 👉 Bottom line: Documented cases exist, but they are rare and not systematically tracked. ⸻ 2) Mormon bishops (LDS clergy) There are compiled datasets and investigations here: Documented convictions and cases • A database of LDS abuse cases reports: • 132 convicted former bishops for sex crimes • 853 convicted offenders total tied to LDS contexts • Independent tracking projects have identified: • 400+ cases where bishops or top leaders were allegedly involved in abuse or failed to report it • Recent legal actions: • Nearly 100 new child sexual abuse allegations filed in California alone involving LDS leadership • Individual criminal cases (examples): • Multiple bishops convicted and sentenced to prison for abusing minors across different states and years 👉 Bottom line: Hundreds of documented cases and over a hundred convictions involving bishops alone. ⸻ Final takeaway • Drag queens: no evidence of a widespread or measurable problem • Mormon bishops: hundreds of documented cases, including over 100 convictions, plus ongoing lawsuits and investigations That doesn’t mean “all bishops” or “drag queens are safe/unsafe” as groups—it means the available evidence overwhelmingly shows a much larger, documented issue within LDS clergy compared to drag performers. Maybe you should reconsider your regular degrading and unfounded disparity of the horrible drag queens. I think I might just keep this research as a reminder every time you feel the need to attack this group. 1
smac97 Posted April 4 Author Posted April 4 15 hours ago, california boy said: Quote When I think about what I have "hoped" for my children, it has involved them living out the Plan of Salvation. Same-sex marriage is not a part of that Plan, nor is same-sex behavior. Same-sex attraction might be, depending on the individual. This is exactly why the vast majority of queer people leave the church. I reject the premise (the notion of "sexual identity"), but I understand and acknowledge your point. If a person wants to include in his life behavior that is incompatible with the Law of Chastity and other important commandments, then they will have difficulty remaining in the Church. If prioritize those incompatible behaviors over their membership in the Church and its associated covenants, I can understand why they "leave the Church." 15 hours ago, california boy said: It is all cut and dried until the moment you find out your child is gay. Then everything becomes a bit murky. Actually, I think that is when things can become emotional. Moral clarity can become more acute. Again, I reject the notion that sexual attraction is a state of being. It is something a child experiences, and is not what the child is. I have an acquaintance, a young man (the son of a friend), who got a girl pregnant. Both are quite young. The young man has little work experience and income, and the young woman has substantial mental health and addiction issues. Fortunately, she did not abort the child. She gave birth and is keeping the baby, a little boy. While I think the little boy would probably be better off being adopted, I am glad she did not kill him, as he will have an opportunity to grow up. We have yet to see how this all plays out in the long term. The parents are unmarried and have no intention of getting married. The mother in unemployed and is anxious to get past nursing so that she can return to her use of drugs and alcohol. The young man also has some issues in his life (including, I think, some drug/alcohol use). Is this "murky"? Emotionally and logistically, yes. Morally? No. The decisions being made are mostly morally clear. The substantive moral ambiguity, I think, is the "best interests of the child" (give him up for adoption or have him stay with his mentally ill and destitute and unemployed (by choice) mother with substantial substance abuse issues). And even then, the ambiguity is something to be resolved, in the end, by the mother, perhaps with guidance from trusted sources. 15 hours ago, california boy said: Do you lock them up in their room and never allow them to date? Please don't introduce unserious questions into what should be a serious discussion. 15 hours ago, california boy said: Do you forbid them from having a boyfriend if they are gay I think this becomes an issue for the parents based on the circumstances. If a teenage girl is dating, say, a 23 year old man, I could see the parents as reasonably imposing constraints on that, within the confines of the law. The girl can do as she please once she's an adult, but while a minor her parents still have some authority over her. For myself, I would have difficulty "forbidding" a teen child (say, 16 or older) from having a same-sex relationship (except that I would have reservations if there were a sexual component, as I would with a heterosexual relationship). 15 hours ago, california boy said: And if they don't do what you ask, how do you enforce your will upon them? For myself, I would operate with the confines of the law. 15 hours ago, california boy said: Would you encourage them to not get married? I would offer advice if asked. And that advice would be to encourage them to discern what the Lord wants them to do, and then encourage them to do that. I would also tell them that I would respect their decisions, regardless of whether I actually agree with them. 15 hours ago, california boy said: Would you be supportive of their decisions? I would support them as best I could, in ways that I feel appropriate. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted April 4 Author Posted April 4 (edited) 8 minutes ago, california boy said: Quote Yes. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. We have seen you taking shots at drag queens numerous times. At those who are engaging in highly sexualized behavior in the presence of children, yes. Otherwise, I don't give much thought to drag queens. While I think they would be better off abandoning such behaviors, they are adults and can do as they please, within the confines of the law. 8 minutes ago, california boy said: It seems to be one of you go to arguments to gin up people against the LGBT community. I reject the accusation. I think there are large segments of the LGBT community are likewise disgusted by exposing children to highly sexualized behaviors. I have previously provided extensive quotes from such community members. I can track them down and re-post them if you like. 8 minutes ago, california boy said: I wondered what the comparison would be between drag queens and Mormon bishops convicted of child abuse. Drag queens who are exposing children to sexualized behavior and Mormon bishops convicted of child abuse have both done very morally wrong and reprehensible things. 8 minutes ago, california boy said: Maybe you should reconsider your regular degrading and unfounded disparity of the horrible drag queens. Maybe you should reconsider your hobby of torturing puppies for fun and profit. I reject the premise. But I will reconsider my position on whether children should be exposed to highly sexualized behavior. <Pause> Yep. I stand by my position. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Thanks, -Smac 8 minutes ago, california boy said: I think I might just keep this research as a reminder every time you feel the need to attack this group. Edited April 4 by smac97
california boy Posted April 4 Posted April 4 55 minutes ago, smac97 said: I suppose. I don't know what this means. I don't know what this means, either. Who has to "defend" their sexual behavior? To whom? About what? As a Latter-day Saint, I am - by choice - constrained in my sexual behavior by the Law of Chastity. Those constraints include "heterosexual" ones. No adultery. No fornication. Thanks, -Smac Maybe all you "I don't know what this means" explains why you have very little understanding of what it is like grow up hating that you are gay and why can't I just be normal like everyone else. It is a battle that everyone who is gay fights within themselves until they realize that no matter how hard they try, what aversion therapy they are willing to go to, what electrical shock therapy they are willing to try, what loss of family and friends this will mean in their lives, how much they are bullied by not only their peers but adults, at the end of the day they will still be gay. Healing from that trauma are the first steps in realizing that it is ok to be gay, even if it seems the whole world wants to shame you out of it. 2
Calm Posted April 4 Posted April 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: don't know what this means. Possibly because you have never had to wonder about what people expect of you in this area. On a very basic and simplified level….. It means you don’t need to fear disappointing or angering someone because of your orientation. Edited April 4 by Calm 1
smac97 Posted April 4 Author Posted April 4 8 minutes ago, california boy said: Maybe all you "I don't know what this means" explains why you have very little understanding of what it is like grow up hating that you are gay and why can't I just be normal like everyone else. I don't claim to know "what it is like grow{ing} up hating that you are gay and why can't I just be normal like everyone else." This also is a bit out of left field, as we have not been discussing "what it is like." Also, I respectfully reject the premise, as I think sexual attraction is something a person experiences, not something a person is. 8 minutes ago, california boy said: It is a battle that everyone who is gay fights within themselves until they realize that no matter how hard they try, what aversion therapy they are willing to go to, what electrical shock therapy they are willing to try, what loss of family and friends this will mean in their lives, how much they are bullied by not only their peers but adults, at the end of the day they will still be gay. Or they could view same-sex attraction as something they may always experience (or not, as "sexual fluidity" sure seems to be a thing), and then figure out how to address that without violating their covenants with God. 8 minutes ago, california boy said: Healing from that trauma are the first steps in realizing that it is ok to be gay, even if it seems the whole world wants to shame you out of it. It "seems" to you that "the whole world wants," in 2026, "to shame you"? Really? My sense is that support of gay people has never been higher in the history of the world. Thanks, -Smac
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now