SCOTUS Decision: Ban on "Talk" Conversion Therapy is Unconstitutional

[Daniel2]

On 3/31/2026 at 5:02 PM, Notatbm said:

Along with that acknowledgement a double down by oaks that it absolutely never happened while he was president at byu… well the shocking part of it. 

I'm curious about this comment that Oak's has doubled-down that electro-shock therapy wasn't happening at BYU during his time there... I'd love to read more.  Do you have links to any of his comments?

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

As someone who underwent talk conversion therapy with two different LDS therapists in the early 1990's (having been referred to both by my LDS bishops at the time on two separate occasions, one while still single and attending BYU, the other after years after I was married to a woman--both employees of LDS Social Services), I'm grateful to read how far The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has come in terms of disavowing and distancing itself from conversion therapy.  I find it gratifying that The Church has really demonstrated a willingness to harmonize its approach to sexual orientation with evidence-based findings of modern science, medicine, and psychology, as well as compromises in its approach to equal civil rights for same-gender couples in recent years. And while The Church is still far more progressive than many Christian Conservatives with regards to transgender individuals, I remain hopeful that as the years continue to unfold, they will increasingly do the same in their approach to those with gender dysphoria, as well. 

Thank you for sharing all those examples, Smac.  

I appreciate your comments as well.

I would like to see more substantive and reasoned and civil discussion about gender dysphoria and how we as a society should address it.  Before we do that, however, I think we need to take a few steps back from the Culture Wars and reassess where we are and how the discussion should proceed.

I've been reading an excellent book, Habits of a Peacemaker by Steven T. Collis, that is causing me to fundamentally alter how I approach such matters and how I discuss them.  Here's a brief outline of the book:

Quote

Detailed Outline of Habits of a Peacemaker: 10 Habits to Change Our Potentially Toxic Conversations into Healthy Dialogues by Steven T. Collis (2024)

Introduction

Core Thesis: Modern discourse is broken—polarized, angry, and unproductive. Collis, a First Amendment law professor who routinely discusses divisive issues (abortion, religious liberty, free speech, etc.), argues that we can turn hard conversations into productive, peaceful dialogues by adopting 10 practical habits of “peacemakers.” The book is not about solving society’s problems but about how to talk about them so that we can find solutions together. It is practical, not scholarly, and aimed at ordinary people who want better family dinners, workplace discussions, and civic conversations.

Main Points:

• We have “staked upon it our all” (quoting Learned Hand) that free speech and diverse viewpoints will produce better outcomes than enforced uniformity.

• The Supreme Court’s West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) is a foundational example: the Court reversed itself on the Pledge of Allegiance cases, showing that even justices can change their minds when presented with better reasoning.

• Most of us recognize the sickness in our discourse but don’t know what to do. This book provides concrete habits.

• Peacemaking is both preparation (daily habits) and execution (during conversations).

• The book is for everyone—believers, atheists, left, right—because the habits transcend politics. Collis explicitly states he does not care about your politics; he cares about how you talk to people who disagree with you.

Key quote: “The test of [freedom’s] substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order” (Barnette).

 

Practical Takeaways:

• Read the book in any order; each chapter stands largely alone.

• Add your own faith tradition’s insights to the habits.

• The habits are about becoming a peacemaker, not just performing peacemaking in the moment.

Habit One:
Intellectual Humility and Reframing

Core Idea: Most of us know far less than we think we do (Dunning-Kruger effect). Recognizing our ignorance is the foundation of peacemaking. We must reframe conversations from “winning” to “solving a shared problem.”

 

Habit Two:
Seek Real Learning

Core Idea: We generate knowledge collectively through dialogue, evidence, criticism, and revision—not in isolation or echo chambers. Peacemakers actively seek accurate information and resist manipulation by dopamine-driven platforms, foreign actors, and heuristics.

 

Habit Three:
Assume the Best About People

Core Idea: Default to assuming good faith and moral luck in others’ lives. This reduces defensiveness and opens the door to understanding rather than condemnation.

 

Habit Four:
Don’t Feed People’s Worst Fears

Core Idea: Avoid language or framing that triggers fear or defensiveness. Fear shuts down dialogue; calm curiosity opens it.

 

Habit Five:
Hunt for the Best Argument Against You

Core Idea: Actively seek the strongest counterarguments to your own views. This combats confirmation bias and makes your positions stronger (or leads you to change them).

 

Habit Six:
Be Open to Change

Core Idea: Be willing to revise your views when better evidence or reasoning appears. This is not weakness—it is intellectual honesty.

 

Habit Seven:
Spend Time with People

Core Idea: Build genuine relationships through shared, non-political activities. It is hard to demonize people you know and like.

 

Habit Eight:
A Sliver of Humor

Core Idea: Well-timed, appropriate humor disarms tension, builds rapport, and keeps conversations human.

 

Habit Nine:
Seek Inner Peace

Core Idea: Inner tranquility allows outward calm. Peacemakers cultivate peace through daily practices so they can respond rather than react.

 

Habit Ten:
Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure

Core Idea: Not every conversation needs a winner or final resolution. Be comfortable with ongoing dialogue and incremental progress.

I am finding myself lacking in a number of these habits, and so have started to work on them.

Gender dysphoria seems to be a topic about which people who are talking about it have already reached strongly-held conclusions, and so state them at the beginning of conversations as thought they (the conclusions) are The Facts, The Way Things Are.

I would like to change that for myself.  Part of Habit One: "We must reframe conversations from 'winning' to 'solving a shared problem.'"  I have found this to be quite a challenge for myself regarding the controversial aspects of this topic.  From Habit Three:

Quote

If you assume the best about your interlocutors, your goal in any conversation with them will shift. Instead of trying to persuade them of their bigotry or foolishness, you will want to increase understanding for everyone involved. Asking sincere questions helps others better understand their own positions and it helps you better understand others’ motivations. What you will usually find is (1) people are often not as firm as they think they are in their own views; and (2) they generally hold good motivations. One of the fruits of this will be to better understand where you disagree. Sometimes you will find you don’t disagree at all.

In an attempt to deploy the foregoing advice (which is quite good, though more potent when read in context), here is a question for you:

You state: "I find it gratifying that The Church has really demonstrated a willingness to harmonize its approach to sexual orientation with evidence-based findings of modern science, medicine, and psychology, as well as compromises in its approach to equal civil rights for same-gender couples in recent years. ... I remain hopeful that as the years continue to unfold, they {the leaders of the Church, and/or the "Church" in a collective sense} will increasingly do the same in their approach to those with gender dysphoria."

You seem to be framing what you hope to see in the context of "equal civil rights."  If that is the framework, could you clarify what you would like to see in the future relative to "those with gender dysphoria"? 

Thank you,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Quote

Along with that acknowledgement a double down by oaks that it absolutely never happened while he was president at byu… well the shocking part of it. 

I'm curious about this comment that Oak's has doubled-down that electro-shock therapy wasn't happening at BYU during his time there... I'd love to read more.  Do you have links to any of his comments?

See here (YouTube video).  From the description:

Quote

On November 12th, 2021, at the University of Virginia School of Law, Dallin H. Oaks told a brazen lie about his involvement with BYU's conversion therapy program as president of BYU. When asked about the program, he replied; “When I became president of BYU, that had been discontinued earlier, and it never went on under my administration.” When later given a chance to correct this statement, he declined.

Dallin's administration was between 1971 and1980.

A 1976 study titled "Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy," was written by a graduate student in the psychology department of BYU named Max Ford McBride. This study attempted to convert 14 gay students into heterosexuals through exposure to gay and straight pornography in conjunction with painful electric shocks to their biceps. It was ineffective, and incredibly damaging to its subjects. John Cameron, one of the 14, has spoken openly about his experience and wrote a play about it. Their pain was real, and Dallin H. Oaks wants you to believe it never happened. He is a liar.

From Grok:

Quote

Context and Contradiction

• Historical records show that aversion therapy did continue at BYU into the mid-1970s. Psychology graduate student Max Ford McBride conducted a documented 1975–1976 study involving electroshock aversion therapy on 14 homosexual men (using penile plethysmography and electric shocks). His master’s thesis was accepted in 1976—well into Oaks’ presidency.
• Some university officials and later church statements have acknowledged past use of such therapies, though the church and BYU have distinguished between formal “counseling center” programs and individual student research projects.
• Oaks has not publicly retracted or corrected the 2021 denial.

No earlier public denials by Oaks appear in the record, but the 2021 statement is explicit, on-record, and has been the focus of criticism and discussion ever since.

Not sure if the 2021 statement is supposed to be the "double down" statement.

Gerald J. Dye (head of the University Standards Office / Honor Code Office under Oaks) stated that, for students referred for “less serious” homosexual behavior, the standard process included requiring some form of therapy to remain at BYU. In “special cases,” this could include “electroshock and vomiting aversion therapies.” This may indicate that aversion techniques were part of the disciplinary/counseling referral system in the 1970s, but it does not describe a separate, organized clinical program outside the McBride-era research environment.

AFAICS, no sources identify any other named researchers, theses, or large-scale clinical programs running parallel to or separate from McBride’s during Pres. Oaks’ presidency. It appears that all references to electroshock aversion therapy in the 1970s at BYU ultimately trace back to the McBride study and/or the Standards Office referral practices that sometimes routed students into aversion techniques.

Pres. Oaks’ 2021 public denial (“it never went on under my administration”) has been widely criticized precisely because of the McBride thesis and the Dye statement. Apologetic sources emphasize that McBride’s work was a student research project and that there is no evidence Oaks personally knew about it. Critical sources treat the McBride study + referral practices as sufficient evidence that such treatments occurred on campus during his tenure.

From FAIR:

Quote

Research Project on Aversion Therapy 

President Oaks was president of BYU from 1971 to 1980. During that time, psychology graduate student Max McBride conducted research on aversion therapy, or the use of weak electric shocks to the arm to decrease unwanted homosexual attraction. McBride’s research was overseen by BYU professor Eugene Thorne.

Thorne also used aversion therapy as part of his private psychology practice. Both used nearly identical methods, and McBride’s research was intended to finesse the techniques used by Thorne and other mainstream psychologists.

Some church critics have made unsupported claims about the research and about President Oaks.  The accompanying explainer provides thorough documentation showing why those claims are misleading and irresponsible.

Important Points to Remember about the Research

Some of the most important points are:

1. There is no evidence President Oaks had knowledge of the research during his time as president of BYU.

BYU is a large university with many students conducting many research projects. There is no reason why Oaks would have known about the research, and no evidence that he did know.

2. The research on aversion therapy was thoroughly mainstream at the time of Thorne’s practice and McBride’s study.

Aversion therapy research was still being conducted by numerous secular and religious practicing psychologists and researchers, and was still considered a mainstream treatment for unwanted sexual attraction leading to unwanted behavior.

3. The electric shocks used in the aversion therapy were extremely weak and not at all dangerous.

Subjects were shocked only on the arm or leg, and never on the genitals. The study participants had control over the amplitude of the current, and gave full informed consent to everything that happened. There are FDA-cleared devices purchased for voluntary use today that use far stronger shocks to treat pain.

4. Thorne’s patients and McBride’s research subjects were voluntary participants.

Indeed, if they had been under duress they would have tainted the results of the research, so McBride had no incentive to accept reluctant or unwilling participants.

5. The aversion therapy was not meant to change sexual orientation in the way we understand the term today.

It was meant to help the patients control their desires and behaviors. It is different from “conversion therapy” as the term is used today.

6. McBride’s disclosure statement to the study participants explicitly disclaimed endorsement by BYU.

All subjects signed and had witnessed a prepared statement explaining

• the experimental nature of the treatment procedure,
• the use of aversive electric shock,
• the showing of images that might be construed by subject as offensive, and
• that Brigham Young University was not endorsing the procedures used.

Invitation to Review the Full Explainer

Any journalists or others who are interested in this subject should review the full explainer, which includes citations to an interview with Thorne, and a detailed review of the psychology research literature from the 1950s to the early 1980s. False and defamatory accusations against Dallin H. Oaks should not be published by reputable outlets.

Consider Aversion Therapy at BYU in Full Context

Full context is often much less salacious than wild claims on the internet. There were no “torture chambers” at BYU where gay students were subject to vile harm. There were, instead, responsible researchers applying the best knowledge as understood at the time to try to help men who wanted help. Today’s very different understanding of homosexuality and psychology doesn’t change the facts of what happened in the past, or the motives of those involved.

See also here: Aversion Therapy for Homosexuality in Scientific Historical Context

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 17 by smac97

[Daniel2]

On 4/1/2026 at 4:52 PM, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  "Queer" being such a nebulous concept these days, I don't know what you are saying here.

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)?

It seems like there should be a fairly broad spectrum of socially acceptable stances on matters of sexuality.

What about subduing "their queerness" (still not sure what that means), at least as regarding sexual behaviors?

If the parents of non-"queer" children are justified in exhorting their children to stay within particularizes sexual boundaries, why can't they do the same for "queer" children?

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.

Nobody is talking about or condoning "abuse."

Are you suggesting that "talk only" therapy calculated to dissuade a minor away from sexual behavior is wholly improper?

I am not persuaded this is so.

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.

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.

I have difficulty with this characterization.

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.

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

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?

"{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."

To paraphrase a guy: "Pretending {so-called 'gender-affirming care'} is always harmless because it is ‘just talk’ is ridiculous."  This young woman had a doctor cut off her healthy breasts.  She will never be the same.

Yes, that would be problematic.

That said, I see a world of difference between a A) therapist trying to lure a minor away from his/her religious beliefs and B) a therapist pressuring a young woman with Gender Dysphoria to have her healthy breasts cut off.

I didn't say they were "equally valid."  I think I would agree with you that the spectrum would entail a hierarchy, with some viewpoints more reasoned and principled than others.

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.

No, I don't think we do.  In fact, I find this to be a substantially factually erroneous assertion.

The Tide Goes Out on Youth Gender Medicine
American doctors are no longer united on the wisdom of medicalizing gender dysphoria in minors.

That second link goes to an October 2022 Reuters article with the following parts:

The Turning Tide on Medicalized Gender Interventions for Kids

"{W}idely touted 'Standards of Care' were infected by political pressure and conflicts of interest."

The entire article is worth a read.  The section entitled "The Discredited Standards of Care" is particularly good.

Ah, okay.  I think this does seem to be largely beyond dispute (far less so for "gender affirming care" stuff).

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 others will say that much of gender-affirming care for minors is, or can be, "intrusive and creepy."

Not sure what that has to do with the Church.

And I find the notion that state actors subverting parental decision-making as to their minor children to be hugely creepy and wrong.  Indeed, it is stuff like this that I think has causes large swathes of the general public to turn against the "trans" movement.

State actors keeping secrets from parents about the welfare of their minor children is about as creepy as you can get.

Including their parents?

I think alienating trans kids from their parents, and subverting parental rights relative to their children, and using the organs of the State to do these things, is very problematic.

If you have evidence of the Church weighing in on this law, I'd be happy to consider it. 

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.  Again, I think it stuff like this that is turning people away from "trans" ideology.  Sexualizing children.  Subverting parents.  Using the organs of the State to do this.  Creepy as all get-out.  Visceral.  I think trans ideologues are doing far more damage to their movement by doing this stuff than any outside opposition.  

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).

Thanks,

-Smac

It's worth noting, as others have said, that conversion therapy is NOT about changing sexual behaviors, but about changing individuals' innate attractions. I have no problem with anyone encouraging their children of any sexual orientation to abstain from sexual behaviors that are held to be both harmful and illegal by all major medical and mental health organizations, as well as the laws of our nation (i.e. sex between minors and adults, which is non-consensual by definition, since minors are unable to give legal consent to such behaviors).  I think any implication that conversion therapy's goals are solely related to rational and otherwise medically-supported efforts to control unhealthy and illegal behaviors are unproductive and unnecessarily confuse the issue. 

With regards to parental authority... while I agree that the default should be that parents are and should be empowered to make choices for their own children, as you note, there are legitimate cases when the law's goal of protecting minors can require government intervention that supersedes parent's own authority over their children, such as in cases of abuse or neglect. Some previous political progressive administrations in the US have held that gender-affirming care is medically necessary and contributes to the health and wellbeing of children.  Other previous political conservative administrations (and, indeed, our current one) have held that gender-affirming case is abusive and harmful to the health and wellbeing of children.  Both types of administrations--progressive and conservative--have sought to override parents' autonomy in making choices for their children, including using 'organs of the state,' so I believe it would be inaccurate to implying that's something that only progressives do. From a legal perspective and speaking generally, it seems to me that whether or not gender-affirming care is either abusive or healthy depends entirely on the viewpoint of whomever is in control. Additionally, what is healthy for one individual may be destructive for another, and what is destructive for one may be healthy for another; this isn't a one-size-fits-all issue. 

For my part, I personally believe that gender-affirming care is something that is far too nuanced to be a one-size-fits-all rule decided by lawmakers or from the bench; IMO, it's an issue best left to individuals themselves, or in the case of minors, to the parents, the minor, and the minor's licensed medical and mental health professionals. I have had the pleasure of knowing several transgender and gender-f individuals in my personal and professional life--none that I know had mental health professionals that urged reclass, careless, laissez-faire attitudes when it came to the decision whether or not to seek out gender-affirming care, and especially make permanent alterations to one's one body.  I know some that moved forward with such permanent changes, and some that decided against it and decided not to pursue changing their gender and returned to the gender-identity of their birth.  As far as I'm concerned, both outcomes can be appropriate and correct, so long as they are informed choices that conform with the individual's personal choice, made in careful consideration with their medical and mental-health professionals.  Parents' personal beliefs and autonomy over their minor children with regards to this issue remain a complicated issue, regardless of where one falls on the progressive<->conservative spectrum. 

My two cents,

D

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

It's worth noting, as others have said, that conversion therapy is NOT about changing sexual behaviors, but about changing individuals' innate attractions. I have no problem with anyone encouraging their children of any sexual orientation to abstain from sexual behaviors that are held to be both harmful and illegal by all major medical and mental health organizations, as well as the laws of our nation (i.e. sex between minors and adults, which is non-consensual by definition, since minors are unable to give legal consent to such behaviors). 

I concur.

36 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

With regards to parental authority... while I agree that the default should be that parents are and should be empowered to make choices for their own children, as you note, there are legitimate cases when the law's goal of protecting minors can require government intervention that supersedes parent's own authority over their children, such as in cases of abuse or neglect.

I am glad we agree on that.

I am a bit concerned about "Mission Creep" relative to both "abuse" and "neglect." 

I once had a client who was reported to DCFS because his daughter had a "dime-sized bruise" on her shin after her stay with him.  His ex-wife called police, who contacted DCFS.  He explained that she had knocked her chin against a swing will climbing onto it, hence the bruise.  The police report stated that the bruise did not break the skin, and was about the size of a dime.  The police did not disclose the photographs taken during their investigation.  I had to file a motion to compel the police to turn over the photos.  The police responded that they did not have the photographs anymore because they had deleted them, and they deleted them because the bruise did not show up in the photos.  I saw this as destruction of exculpatory evidence, and so filed a motion to dismiss.  It was denied.  My client had a choice between going to trial (and paying an attorney to represent him) or agree to a plea in abeyance.  He chose the latter, though it frustrated him mightily because, according to him, the whole thing had been ginned up by his ex-wife.

Then there is the "neglect" thing, which in many jurisdictions is a pretty nebulous and eye-of-the-beholder and depending-on-the-mood-of-the-DCFS-caseworker concept.

36 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Some previous political progressive administrations in the US have held that gender-affirming care is medically necessary and contributes to the health and wellbeing of children.  Other previous political conservative administrations (and, indeed, our current one) have held that gender-affirming case is abusive and harmful to the health and wellbeing of children.  Both types of administrations--progressive and conservative--have sought to override parents' autonomy in making choices for their children, including using 'organs of the state,' so I believe it would be inaccurate to implying that's something that only progressives do. From a legal perspective and speaking generally, it seems to me that whether or not gender-affirming care is either abusive or healthy depends entirely on the viewpoint of whomever is in control.

Professional organizations and governments are now taking varied approaches, and I think some professional organizations' assessments have been compromised and problematic, so the issue does not seem settled.

36 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Additionally, what is healthy for one individual may be destructive for another, and what is destructive for one may be healthy for another; this isn't a one-size-fits-all issue.

You may well have a point.  We need to have an extensive and evidence-based approach to these issues.

36 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

For my part, I personally believe that gender-affirming care is something that is far too nuanced to be a one-size-fits-all rule decided by lawmakers or from the bench; IMO, it's an issue best left to individuals themselves, or in the case of minors, to the parents, the minor, and the minor's licensed medical and mental health professionals.

What are your thoughts about ethical guidelines from professional organizations like the AMA?

36 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I have had the pleasure of knowing several transgender and gender-f individuals in my personal and professional life--none that I know had mental health professionals that urged reclass, careless, laissez-faire attitudes when it came to the decision whether or not to seek out gender-affirming care, and especially make permanent alterations to one's one body. 

Do you think there is, or ought there be, a difference between minors and adults relative to "gender-affirming care"?  

36 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I know some that moved forward with such permanent changes, and some that decided against it and decided not to pursue changing their gender and returned to the gender-identity of their birth.  As far as I'm concerned, both outcomes can be appropriate and correct, so long as they are informed choices that conform with the individual's personal choice, made in careful consideration with their medical and mental-health professionals.  Parents' personal beliefs and autonomy over their minor children with regards to this issue remain a complicated issue, regardless of where one falls on the progressive<->conservative spectrum. 

Indeed.  Parental authority regarding the welfare and decisions about their children ought to be broad and strong, but they cannot be unlimited.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I appreciate your comments as well.

I would like to see more substantive and reasoned and civil discussion about gender dysphoria and how we as a society should address it.  Before we do that, however, I think we need to take a few steps back from the Culture Wars and reassess where we are and how the discussion should proceed.

I've been reading an excellent book, Habits of a Peacemaker by Steven T. Collis, that is causing me to fundamentally alter how I approach such matters and how I discuss them.  Here's a brief outline of the book:

I am finding myself lacking in a number of these habits, and so have started to work on them.

Gender dysphoria seems to be a topic about which people who are talking about it have already reached strongly-held conclusions, and so state them at the beginning of conversations as thought they (the conclusions) are The Facts, The Way Things Are.

I would like to change that for myself.  Part of Habit One: "We must reframe conversations from 'winning' to 'solving a shared problem.'"  I have found this to be quite a challenge for myself regarding the controversial aspects of this topic.  From Habit Three:

In an attempt to deploy the foregoing advice (which is quite good, though more potent when read in context), here is a question for you:

You state: "I find it gratifying that The Church has really demonstrated a willingness to harmonize its approach to sexual orientation with evidence-based findings of modern science, medicine, and psychology, as well as compromises in its approach to equal civil rights for same-gender couples in recent years. ... I remain hopeful that as the years continue to unfold, they {the leaders of the Church, and/or the "Church" in a collective sense} will increasingly do the same in their approach to those with gender dysphoria."

You seem to be framing what you hope to see in the context of "equal civil rights."  If that is the framework, could you clarify what you would like to see in the future relative to "those with gender dysphoria"? 

Thank you,

-Smac

"Habits of a Peacemaker" looks and sounds like a great book, and certainly sorely needed in today's divisive times.  I just added it to my Audile library and will be listening to it, myself. Thanks for sharing!

I, too, would like to see more substantive and reasoned and civil discussion about gender dysphoria and how we as a society should address it.  I appreciate your desire to implement both habits 1 (humility and reframing) and 3 (assuming the best in others) in asking the follow-up question you did regarding my comment expressing hope that "as the years continue to unfold, they {the leaders of the Church, and/or the "Church" in a collective sense} will increasingly do the same in their approach to those with gender dysphoria."

In response to framing what I personally hope to see in the context of "equal civil rights" with regards to those with gender dysphoria, I think

• First: honoring and allowing the liberty of adults to decide their own identity and gender-affirming healthcare for themselves, without government interference, coercion, or prohibition, is a good place to start. Recent efforts by some in the political/legal realm target not only minors' access to gender-affirming care, but adults' access, as well. 
• Another issue would be the ability for transgender individuals to hold a birth certificate, driver's licens, and passport that reflects their gender identity, allowing for safe travel across the nation and around the world.
• A third issue would be prohibiting efforts to force medical or other professionals to create state- or nation-wide registries of those seeking gender-affirming care.
• Lastly, the ability for transgender individuals to use the bathroom that conforms with their own gender identity.  (As a US citizen born and raised outside the United States (mostly in Europe) and raised in the LDS Faith, and as someone who travels extensively outside the United States both for pleasure and for my vocation, I am endlessly perplexed by Americans' preoccupation (I would say bordering on obsession) with who's using which bathroom.  In my experience from travel across the globe, from Asia to Africa to Europe, most other countries have men and women either sharing bathrooms (as in... totally gender-neutral, with men and women using the same space--even with urinals on one way and stalls on another!--looking at you, Greece...) or in having both men and women attendants entering/cleaning bathrooms while the bathrooms are open and totally in use (by males, in my case, since I am male and don't use the female restrooms). I also find it puzzling in the sense that most transgender individuals I know (which is likely more than most--not because I'm gay, but because my workplace is VERY progressive and openly promotes itself as a safe-space for everyone, regardless of religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.) have fully or mostly transitioned, and would CLEARLY be out-of-place if they ended up having to use the bathroom of their gender at birth. Lastly, I find the hullabaloo about the topic mostly to be a mute point, since most (dare-I-say 'all'?) public places in the states have single-use restrooms and/or changing spaces, so individuals who prefer more privacy, regardless of as-whom or how they identify, are able to do so...

Hope that answers your question, Smac. 

I will also admit, as mentioned in a separate, previous post of mine, that the issue of parental rights vs. minor's autonomy is a complicated issue, and one that I am troubled by, seeing both sides of the issue, and uncertain of how to resolve. 

Lastly, I feel it's important to note that though I self-identify as a gay man, I believe that gender dysphoria is a separate issue than sexual orientation.  Being gay gives me no more insight into being transgender or authority to opine about transgender issues than being straight does, other than sharing historical prejudices and discrimination collectively shared by many minority groups, especially as they may relate to socially held gender roles. 

D

 

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

"Habits of a Peacemaker" looks and sounds like a great book, and certainly sorely needed in today's divisive times.  I just added it to my Audile library and will be listening to it, myself. Thanks for sharing!

I, too, would like to see more substantive and reasoned and civil discussion about gender dysphoria and how we as a society should address it.  I appreciate your desire to implement both habits 1 (humility and reframing) and 3 (assuming the best in others) in asking the follow-up question you did regarding my comment expressing hope that "as the years continue to unfold, they {the leaders of the Church, and/or the "Church" in a collective sense} will increasingly do the same in their approach to those with gender dysphoria."

In response to framing what I personally hope to see in the context of "equal civil rights" with regards to those with gender dysphoria, I think

• First: honoring and allowing the liberty of adults to decide their own identity and gender-affirming healthcare for themselves, without government interference, coercion, or prohibition, is a good place to start. Recent efforts by some in the political/legal realm target not only minors' access to gender-affirming care, but adults' access, as well.

I am not aware of efforts to curb adults' access to "gender-affirming healthcare."  Could you elaborate on that?

Also, my previous question: Do you think there is, or ought there be, a difference between minors and adults relative to "gender-affirming care"? 

37 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

• Another issue would be the ability for transgender individuals to hold a birth certificate, driver's licens, and passport that reflects their gender identity, allowing for safe travel across the nation and around the world.

I would like to better understand this.  I understand this as a conclusion, but I do not understand the reasoning / analysis you have used to get there.  Could you expand on that?

(Again, I am trying to deploy Habit Three, so I hope this question fits within it.)

37 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

• A third issue would be prohibiting efforts to force medical or other professionals to create state- or nation-wide registries of those seeking gender-affirming care.

I have not previously given this much thought.  I will do that now.

37 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

• Lastly, the ability for transgender individuals to use the bathroom that conforms with their own gender identity. 

As above, I understand this as a conclusion, but I do not understand the reasoning / analysis you have used to get there.  It seems like your reasoning re: birth certificates, etc. would be more or less identical to reasoning relating to bathrooms.  If I am in error, could you expand on the reasoning that gets you to this conclusion?

Also, do you have similar preferences for transgender individuals participating in sports based on "gender identity" (as opposed to biological sex)?  Same question re: prisons?  Changing rooms?

37 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

• (As a US citizen born and raised outside the United States (mostly in Europe) and raised in the LDS Faith, and as someone who travels extensively outside the United States both for pleasure and for my vocation, I am endlessly perplexed by Americans' preoccupation (I would say bordering on obsession) with who's using which bathroom.  In my experience from travel across the globe, from Asia to Africa to Europe, most other countries have men and women either sharing bathrooms (as in... totally gender-neutral, with men and women using the same space--even with urinals on one way and stalls on another!--looking at you, Greece...) or in having both men and women attendants entering/cleaning bathrooms while the bathrooms are open and totally in use (by males, in my case, since I am male and don't use the female restrooms).

Hmm.  My understanding is that the majority of the world still uses sex-segregated public restrooms as the default.  Am I wrong in that impression?

37 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

• I also find it puzzling in the sense that most transgender individuals I know (which is likely more than most--not because I'm gay, but because my workplace is VERY progressive and openly promotes itself as a safe-space for everyone, regardless of religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.) have fully or mostly transitioned, and would CLEARLY be out-of-place if they ended up having to use the bathroom of their gender at birth.

One concern I have seen, and find relevant, is about what could be termed a "lack of limiting principle," that is, it seems like there is no "limiting principle" as to sex-segregated bathrooms if, as you propose, entry into them is based on subjective self-identity (rather than biological sex).  Is there any such principle in your view?  Or do you think we should abolish sex-segregated bathrooms?

37 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Lastly, I feel it's important to note that though I self-identify as a gay man, I believe that gender dysphoria is a separate issue than sexual orientation. 

What do you think the material differences between them are?

37 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Being gay gives me no more insight into being transgender or authority to opine about transgender issues than being straight does, other than sharing historical prejudices and discrimination collectively shared by many minority groups, especially as they may relate to socially held gender roles. 

Do you think there are any non-prejudiced perspectives that differ from yours regarding, for example, biological males in women's sports?

Thank you,

-Smac

Edited April 17 by smac97

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

am not aware of efforts to curb adults' access to "gender-affirming healthcare."  Could you elaborate on that?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/09/09/trump-moves-to-restrict-gender-affirming-care-to-federal-workers-families

I assume he means something like the above

Quote

The proposed changes to FEHB would apply to cover individuals regardless of age and significantly hamper access to medical care, such as hormone therapies and gender-affirming surgeries, for federal workers, their spouses, children, and dependents. While mental health counseling for gender dysphoria would remain covered – and carriers would establish a case‑by‑case exceptions process for individuals already receiving care – these carveouts will not create a uniform or reliable system to ensure continuity of care.

I believe the federal administration is also trying to do the same for anything under the ACA.

https://www.cms.gov/files/document/MarketplacePIRule2025.pdf

I believe the relevant stuff starts around page 155, but just got a call about insurance coverage myself and my brain is now unhinged, so this is it for now.

Edited April 17 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

  I understand this as a conclusion, but I do not understand the reasoning / analysis you have used to get there.  Could you expand on that?

Anyone who has a gender matching their biological sex is going to likely have issues at customs/security unless they fork out money to update their IDs.  Are those IDs that show gender as presented and not biological illegal now? (Passports are not, but REAL IDs are needed in addition to them now apparently?)

Plus what will be the reaction of security people when how they present is the opposite of the ID? (Talking about those who “pass”)

Here is an AI summary of issues…which includes the ones I thought of.

Invalidation of Existing Documents: While previously issued passports with "X" markers or updated genders remain valid until they expire, any new, renewed, or replacement passports will reflect the sex assigned at birth.

Documentation Mismatches: Transgender individuals may now have "F" or "M" markers that do not match their gender appearance, leading to increased scrutiny, potential harassment, or delays at airport security and border checkpoints.

Suspension of "X" Markers: As of October 2025, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) required airlines to only submit M or F markers in their systems for international travel, meaning "X" markers may cause technical issues, check-in confusion, or boarding denials.

Legal and Privacy Concerns: Individuals are forced to present documents that do not reflect their identity, which can cause emotional distress and force them to disclose their transgender status.

Application Delays and Denials: Applicants who attempt to use updated birth certificates or request an "X" marker may experience delays or have their applications suspended.

State-Level Restrictions: Several states (e.g., Kansas, Tennessee, Florida, Montana) have passed laws prohibiting the update of gender markers on state-issued IDs and, in some cases, invalidating previously updated licenses. 

U.S. Department of State (.gov) +9

Edited April 17 by Calm

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/09/09/trump-moves-to-restrict-gender-affirming-care-to-federal-workers-families

I assume he means something like the above

So "access" = insurance coverage?

From Grok:

Quote

Are these medical treatments generally treated as "cosmetic"?

No — not uniformly. The classification varies significantly by context, and the landscape shifted in 2025–2026.

• U.S. insurance / pre-2025 mainstream view: Many major insurers (Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, Blue Cross, etc.) and the ACA-era rules treated core gender-affirming surgeries and hormones as medically necessary for diagnosed gender dysphoria (when WPATH/Endocrine Society criteria are met). Purely cosmetic add-ons (e.g., facial feminization, hair removal, voice surgery in some cases) were often excluded or classified as cosmetic.
• Post-2025 shifts under Trump policies:
  • New federal rules (2025–2026) removed gender-affirming care from essential health benefits (EHB) status for ACA plans. This allows insurers to treat more of it as non-covered or elective.
  • Medicare and TRICARE have tightened criteria; some procedures are now case-by-case or excluded.
  • Red states increasingly classify youth interventions as experimental or not medically necessary.
• International / evidence-based view (2024–2026):
  • The Cass Review (UK, 2024) and subsequent Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway) concluded that puberty blockers and hormones for minors have weak evidence of benefit and significant risks. They reclassified routine use as experimental and restricted them to research protocols only. They are not treated as standard "medically necessary" care for youth.
  • Adult care remains more accepted as medically necessary in many places, but even there, some procedures (especially non-genital) are often viewed as cosmetic.

Summary: In progressive U.S. insurance and activist contexts, they are framed as medically necessary. In evidence-focused medical reviews (Cass, Europe) and recent U.S. policy changes, especially for minors, they are increasingly treated as experimental, elective, or cosmetic-like due to poor long-term data. The debate is not settled — it is highly contested, and classification often follows ideology more than robust evidence.

So the issue seems to be mostly about whether these treatments are characterized as "medically necessary" or not ("experimental, elective, or cosmetic-like due").  Is that a correct assessment?

If so, I would like to hear perspectives about this point.  There seem to be substantial ideological influences in play (both for and against the "medically necessary" designation), but what are your thoughts about "medically necessary" as a point of "evidence-based medicine"?  Is there substantial evidence justifying the designation?

Again from Grok:

Quote

Query: So what is the current status of the "medically necessary" designation? Putting political/ideological positions aside, and examining "gender-affirming care" from as close to an "evidence-based medicine" standpoint as possible, are these treatments "medically necessary," or are they more accurately treated as "experimental, elective, or cosmetic-like?"

Response:

Current evidence-based status (2026)

"Medically necessary" is a specific regulatory and insurance term. It means a treatment has:

• Strong, high-quality evidence of net clinical benefit (benefits clearly outweigh harms),
• Established standards of care,
• Proven long-term safety and efficacy,
• And is not primarily cosmetic or elective.

From a strict evidence-based medicine standpoint (systematic reviews, long-term outcome data, not guidelines or activist statements), here is where the field stands right now:

For Minors / Adolescents (the most contested group)

Classification: Experimental / Investigational Not medically necessary under current rigorous standards.

• The Cass Review (UK, 2024 — the most comprehensive systematic review to date) concluded the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in youth is "remarkably weak". Benefits are uncertain; harms (infertility, sexual dysfunction, bone density loss, cardiovascular risks, potential impacts on brain development) are significant and poorly quantified.
• Multiple European countries that pioneered these treatments have restricted or banned routine use for minors:
  • Sweden (2022), Finland (2020), Norway (2023), UK/NHS England (2024) now limit them to research protocols only or prohibit them outright outside of strict clinical trials.
  • France’s Académie Nationale de Médecine (2022) and the French National Authority for Health have issued strong cautions.
• U.S. data shows rapid rise in referrals (especially natal females), high rates of psychiatric comorbidities (autism, trauma, anxiety, depression), and emerging desistance/detransition signals in recent cohorts.
• Major U.S. insurers and Medicaid programs in many states now treat youth gender-affirming interventions as not medically necessary or experimental.

For Adults

Classification: Medically necessary in carefully selected cases, but with important caveats

• Short- to medium-term relief of gender dysphoria is better supported than for minors.
• Long-term data remain limited; regret rates in older studies were low (~1–2%), but newer studies (especially post-2010 cohorts with rapid-onset cases) show higher rates.
• Mental health outcomes are mixed: some improvement in dysphoria, but overall psychiatric burden often persists.
• Many procedures (facial feminization, breast augmentation, voice surgery) are still routinely classified as cosmetic by insurers even when the core diagnosis is gender dysphoria.
• The Endocrine Society and WPATH guidelines still call it medically necessary for adults meeting criteria, but these guidelines have come under heavy criticism for low-quality evidence and conflicts of interest.

Overall Consensus Shift (2024–2026)

• The strongest independent evidence reviews (Cass, Swedish NBHW, Finnish COIN, UK NICE) have moved the field toward experimental / investigational status for minors and cautious, individualized status for adults.
• In the U.S., the Trump administration’s 2025–2026 policy changes (removing coverage from FEHB, tightening Medicare/TRICARE criteria, and allowing states to exclude it from essential health benefits) reflect this evidence shift.
• The American College of Pediatricians, Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), and growing numbers of European medical bodies now classify routine youth medical transition as not medically necessary and experimental.

Bottom Line (Evidence-Based)

• Minors: Not medically necessary. More accurately described as experimental with significant risks and uncertain benefits.
• Adults: Can be medically necessary for core dysphoria relief in rigorously screened patients, but many components (especially non-genital surgeries) remain elective/cosmetic.
• The field has moved away from the pre-2022 "affirmation-only" model toward caution, especially for youth. Treatments are not treated like standard, well-established interventions (e.g., antibiotics for infection or insulin for diabetes).

This assessment is based on systematic reviews and national health authority decisions, not political ideology. The evidence base is still evolving, but the direction since 2022 has been toward greater caution and restriction, particularly for adolescents.

I wonder how accurate this is.  Any input?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So "access" = insurance coverage?

When it comes to healthcare for most people, yes, especially the more expensive variety.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Quote

• Another issue would be the ability for transgender individuals to hold a birth certificate, driver's licens, and passport that reflects their gender identity, allowing for safe travel across the nation and around the world.

I understand this as a conclusion, but I do not understand the reasoning / analysis you have used to get there.  Could you expand on that?

Anyone who has a gender matching their biological sex is going to likely have issues at customs/security unless they fork out money to update their IDs.  

Could you elaborate on what those "issues" are likely to be?

Also, I don't understand the reasoning here.  The built-in assumption/conclusion, I think, is that transgender individuals should be able to have a passport that designates their "gender identity" rather than their biological sex.  I would like to understand the reasoning/analysis that is being used to reach that conclusion.

For example, are passports, in your view, intended to convey information about biological sex, or about "gender identity?"  If the latter, could you explain how you get to that conclusion?

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Plus what will be the reaction of security people when how they present is the opposite of the ID? (Talking about those who “pass”)

In 2026, it seems like a biological male dressing in women's clothes would be accommodated.

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Here is an AI summary of issues…which includes the ones I thought of.

Invalidation of Existing Documents: While previously issued passports with "X" markers or updated genders remain valid until they expire, any new, renewed, or replacement passports will reflect the sex assigned at birth.

Yes.

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Documentation Mismatches: Transgender individuals may now have "F" or "M" markers that do not match their gender appearance, leading to increased scrutiny, potential harassment, or delays at airport security and border checkpoints.

Are passports intended to convey subjective information about "gender appearance" or objective information about biological sex?  It seems the latter, but I would like to hear what you have to say.

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Suspension of "X" Markers: As of October 2025, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) required airlines to only submit M or F markers in their systems for international travel, meaning "X" markers may cause technical issues, check-in confusion, or boarding denials.

This will be sorted out eventually, but I do appreciate the interim challenges.

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Legal and Privacy Concerns: Individuals are forced to present documents that do not reflect their identity, which can cause emotional distress and force them to disclose their transgender status.

I end up with the same question as above: Are passports intended to convey subjective information about "gender appearance" or objective information about biological sex?

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Application Delays and Denials: Applicants who attempt to use updated birth certificates or request an "X" marker may experience delays or have their applications suspended.

State-Level Restrictions: Several states (e.g., Kansas, Tennessee, Florida, Montana) have passed laws prohibiting the update of gender markers on state-issued IDs and, in some cases, invalidating previously updated licenses.

This really goes to the heart of the dispute.  A passport is intended to present accurate (as in, verified by the government) information about the individual:

• Full legal name (given name(s) + surname/family name)
• Date of birth (DD/MM/YYYY or MM/DD/YYYY format depending on country)
• Place of birth (city and country, sometimes just country)

If a person has strong feelings about his legal name, or date of birth, or place of birth, do we allow him to alter that information on his passport?  Should we?  Why or why not?

• Gender/sex (usually listed as M, F, or X in newer passports)

This is the one that is creating controversy.  I understand the presupposition (that trans folks want their passport to reflect their "gender identity"), but I do not understand the reasoning/justifications used to get there.  This is really a "where the rubber hits the road" issue when it comes to differentiating - or conflating - "gender" (or "gender identity") with "biological sex."

• Nationality / Citizenship (e.g., "United States of America")

We do not let an individual use his subjective "identity" in terms of nationality/citizenship to justify altering his passport.  

• Quote

   

  • Passport number (unique alphanumeric identifier)
  • Date of issue (when the passport was issued)
  • Date of expiration (usually 10 years for adults, 5 years for minors in the U.S.)
  • Issuing authority (e.g., "U.S. Department of State" or equivalent)
  • Holder’s photograph (standardized passport photo)
  • Signature of the passport holder (in many countries)

  Additional Encoded / Machine-Readable Information

  Machine Readable Zone (MRZ) at the bottom of the data page — a standardized strip of text that encodes the above information for scanners at borders/airports. Biometric chip (in e-passports) — contains a digital copy of the photo plus fingerprints and/or iris data (not visible; read by machines).

   

  The passport’s purpose is to prove identity and citizenship/nationality for international travel, not to serve as a full personal dossier.

  Quick U.S.-Specific Notes

  U.S. passports list:

  “United States of America” as the country Sex as M/F/X (X was added for non-binary in recent years) Place of birth as city + state/country

  • Religion
  • Occupation
  • Political affiliation

  What is not typically included

  Address

  Social Security Number / national ID number

  Medical information

  Marital status

   

"The passport’s purpose is to prove identity and citizenship/nationality for international travel, not to serve as a full personal dossier."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 17 by smac97

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

So "access" = insurance coverage?

When it comes to healthcare for most people, yes, especially the more expensive variety.

"Healthcare" = "medically necessary healthcare"?

That designation sure becomes pivotal.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

what are your thoughts about "medically necessary" as a point of "evidence-based medicine"?  Is there substantial evidence justifying the designation?

Currently, I’m not up on the more recent releases as well actual academic reports (evidence based science/medicine) as opposed to news, so my opinion isn’t that relevant for now imo.  One of these days I will do a deep dive again.  But since you asked….

As far as I can tell, the current state of evidence suggests improvements may be less, but still there.  The recent studies I am aware of are being criticized, need to study those and anything else out the last year or so.  If the criticism is accurate, medical necessity for adults would likely still apply in most cases that were so defined before imo. 
 

Added:  As someone who currently has a severe disorder most likely because doctors didn’t take me seriously in my teens and 20s, wouldn’t listen to me and therefore misdiagnosed me in my 30s and 40, and then when I finally found what was wrong with me beyond all doubt refused to agree that the expert recommended medical treatment was medically necessary for me and so instead gave me drugs known for years by the experts to make things worse (and I knew it too, but since I couldn’t sleep without them didn’t exactly have a choice to refuse them), as someone who therefore is totally screwed up because doctors didn’t do what was medically necessary because it wasn’t mainstream at the time, I tend to have a cautious view on telling patients what they see as medically necessary isn’t. 

My daughter went through the same thing, refused the best treatment for juvenile diabetes (the pump) because it wasn’t seen as medically necessary (she was not able to go to school because her sugars were consistently so high she was sick half the time, once she was on the pump her sugars dropped to healthy levels, but the damage was done and she never got back to regular schooling due to anxiety) and then not mainstream (doctor gave her anxiety meds contraindicated for RLS because “he didn’t treat RLS” and since he was the only pediatric psychiatrist around, I gave in like an idiot as he assured me it would get her back in school…instead her RLS screwed up so bad even if her anxiety was controlled…it wasn’t…she would be asleep till school was almost out).  

I am very pro patient driven care, though I insist the science be there as well.  But our doctors wouldn’t even look at the research I printed up and brought in both cases because it wasn’t the usual, wasn’t covered by insurance, was discouraged by the government. 

Now the treatments are mainstream and seen as medically necessary.  Though it is still a major fight to get insurance to pay for the more expensive drugs even after decades of use showing effectiveness. 

Legislatures and insurance getting involved in the medical discussion determining what is and isn’t medically necessary is highly problematic, imo.  Malpractice as well (should be limits) is a disaster, imo.

Can you tell I just had another crisis due to insurance?

Edited April 17 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"The passport’s purpose is to prove identity and citizenship/nationality for international travel, not to serve as a full personal dossier."

 

So why require biological sex as opposed to actual gender appearance?  Wouldn’t that be more appropriate in proving identity?  
 

If the passport says male and they look female or it says female and they look male, what steps will be taken to ensure they are who they claim to be on the passport?  Won’t they need to provide more information and not less if these cases?

Edited April 17 by Calm

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am a bit concerned about "Mission Creep" relative to both "abuse" and "neglect." 

I once had a client who was reported to DCFS because his daughter had a "dime-sized bruise" on her shin after her stay with him.  His ex-wife called police, who contacted DCFS.  He explained that she had knocked her chin against a swing will climbing onto it, hence the bruise.  The police report stated that the bruise did not break the skin, and was about the size of a dime.  The police did not disclose the photographs taken during their investigation.  I had to file a motion to compel the police to turn over the photos.  The police responded that they did not have the photographs anymore because they had deleted them, and they deleted them because the bruise did not show up in the photos.  I saw this as destruction of exculpatory evidence, and so filed a motion to dismiss.  It was denied.  My client had a choice between going to trial (and paying an attorney to represent him) or agree to a plea in abeyance.  He chose the latter, though it frustrated him mightily because, according to him, the whole thing had been ginned up by his ex-wife.

How did we go from a discussion of laws mandating that mandatory reporters now be required to report all incidents of gender non-conforming behavior to parents worrying about spurious abuse and neglect charges.

And worried about “Missiion creep” in that direction and not at how vague “gender non-conforming behaviour” is and the potential for a lot of “mission creep” there?

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Professional organizations and governments are now taking varied approaches, and I think some professional organizations' assessments have been compromised and problematic, so the issue does not seem settled.

Climate change denialism with a new coat of paint.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you think there is, or ought there be, a difference between minors and adults relative to "gender-affirming care"?  

Yes, and there is. A huge difference. It is also important to note that the vast majority of “gender affirming care” surgeries given to minors is gynecomastia (breast reduction surgery) for cisgendered boys who have large breasts because those breasts cause them emotional and psychological distress. This is also an irreversible procedure and poses significant health risks but the controversy never was and never will be about the actual surgery. It is about the person being transgender. If it were about cosmetic surgery on minors in general or even gender affirming surgery on minors most of those surgeries are on cis-gendered minors whose body appearance doesn’t match their preferred gender and it causes distress. There is no outcry about this or warnings about how it can’t be reversed and how minors aren’t ready to ‘choose’ this yet.

[The Nehor]

 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not aware of efforts to curb adults' access to "gender-affirming healthcare."  Could you elaborate on that?

*spit take*

Say what?

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

One concern I have seen, and find relevant, is about what could be termed a "lack of limiting principle," that is, it seems like there is no "limiting principle" as to sex-segregated bathrooms if, as you propose, entry into them is based on subjective self-identity (rather than biological sex).  Is there any such principle in your view?  Or do you think we should abolish sex-segregated bathrooms?

It is important to note that previous to transgender issues steaming to the forefront that there weren’t any laws about being in the wrong gendered bathroom. There were even reasons to ignore those rules like the men’s bathroom not having a changing table.

There wasn’t a rash of perverts rushing into women’s bathrooms. Weirdos spinning tales of how they would have claimed they “felt like a woman” in High School in order to change in the girl’s locker room are just weirdos outing themselves.

Transgender people rarely switch which restrooms they use until they are passable or androgynous at least and many actually plan around not having to use public restrooms out of fear. They just want to pee. They aren’t excited to use them or anything.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you think there are any non-prejudiced perspectives that differ from yours regarding, for example, biological males in women's sports?

Sports organizations are working on rules to govern this stuff. It is not an insurmountable problem and doesn’t need government intervention from mindless zealots wanting a say. The only decent studies I know of about the effects of hormone replacement therapy on sports performance have been done by transgender researchers.

As a practical matter most transgender people on HRT have more estrogen or testosterone than a cis gendered person. In other words ironically the biggest unfairness might be AFAB transmen competing in men’s sports. All this varies of course on how long and how consistently you are on HRT. I can say anecdotally that having done wrestling with a lot of queer people that transwomen rapidly lose a lot of upper body strength. One transwoman friend is five inches taller than me, ten years younger than me, and was well muscled before hormone therapy. She is still big and looks swole but after two years of HRT I can wrestle her down. After six months on T a really twinky and small transguy I know just about matches my strength.

This doesn’t need to be a controversy. It can be figured out and no one really needs to advocate while the pros figure out how to tackle this and amateur level stuff it just doesn’t matter that much. It is about participation so let them play.

 

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

"The passport’s purpose is to prove identity and citizenship/nationality for international travel, not to serve as a full personal dossier."

So why require biological sex as opposed to actual gender appearance?  

I think the argument is that biological sex on a passport is objective and related to the individual's identity, along with other details like the individual's name, date of birth and nationality.  I think the argument about changing government documents to conform to an individual's subjective "gender identity" and not their biological sex can be construed as false information, as the information is supposed to convey information about the latter, not the former.  If so, falsifying an official document as to sex would be no more appropriate than falsifying information as to name or date of birth or nationality.

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Wouldn’t that be more appropriate in proving identity?

I would like to better understand what you are thinking here.  

For example, let's say that a person, a biological male, arrives in a foreign country and is arrested.  The police would likely look at the individual's passport to determine whether to incarcerate him with other men, or with women.  It seems like biological sex would be a baseline for that jurisdiction to make a decision as to where to put that person.

Or what if the plane crashes and person is seriously injured and burned.  Biological sex is a fundamental variable in emergency trauma and burn care. Hospitals do not treat “gender identity”; they treat the patient’s actual physiology.  Sex influences how the body handles fluid shifts, capillary leak, and kidney function. Males and females have different average body compositions and baseline lab reference ranges (e.g., creatinine, hemoglobin).  Certain critical drugs (antibiotics, sedatives, blood products, vasopressors) have sex-specific metabolism, efficacy, or toxicity risks. Getting the sex wrong can lead to under- or overdosing.  

I think the argument is that a passport is not a “preferred identity” card, but rather is the primary international identification document used by governments, airlines, border agents, and foreign hospitals in, for example, life-or-death situations. When someone is unconscious, burned beyond recognition, or in a mass-casualty event abroad, the passport sex marker is often one of the only quick, reliable pieces of data available.  Biological sex matters immediately for:

• Correct fluid resuscitation and drug dosing in burns/trauma
• Ruling out pregnancy in females
• Interpreting lab values and reference ranges
• Choosing the right equipment (airway size, catheters)
• Guiding long-term care (skin grafts, endocrine issues, etc.)

If the passport says “F” but the patient is biologically male (or vice versa), doctors can make dangerous errors in the first critical minutes/hours.

I think governments what passports to reflect verifiable reality for other reasons as well:

• Fraud prevention — Self-ID allows a person to legally claim something on an official document that is not true (e.g., a biological male listing as female). Most countries view that as problematic on a government ID.
• Security and law enforcement — Accurate sex helps match people to criminal databases, prevent identity mismatches at borders, etc.
• Women’s safety and single-sex spaces — Prisons, shelters, and sports abroad rely on biological sex; mismatched documents create real conflicts.
• International interoperability — ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization, the global aviation standard) has historically used biological sex; many nations still do.

Countries generally want passports to contain objective, immutable facts about the individual — not subjective self-identification — precisely because those documents are used in high-stakes, time-sensitive situations where getting it wrong can cost lives.

Accurate information is important for keeping official records truthful and useful for medicine, security, and basic governance.

I would be happy to listen to perspectives that vary from the above.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Do you think there are any non-prejudiced perspectives that differ from yours regarding, for example, biological males in women's sports?

 

Sports organizations are working on rules to govern this stuff.   It is not an insurmountable problem and doesn’t need government intervention...

It seems like a lot of "sports organizations" have governmental authority.  State schools may need to set policy regarding biological males in women's sports, for example.

What are your thoughts about the question I posed?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

think the argument is that a passport is not a “preferred identity” card, but rather is the primary international identification document used by governments, airlines, border agents, and foreign hospitals in, for example, life-or-death situations

I didn’t go that deep.  I was thinking of the most common day to day experiences and how mismatched in appearances would affect that.

Is it appropriate to add complications, even risk of detainment for the vast majority of those who would be using nonbiological ID if Nehor is accurate (if they won’t switch bathrooms in most cases until they won’t draw attention, seems likely they won’t change ID till then as well) for the few that are placed in jail or need medical care?

There is a lot of medical info probably more important than biological sex that isn’t listed on passports, etc.  Why not require those if this is an actual purpose of passports? (Best to carry a medical information card for that necessity).  This feels like an ad-hoc reasoning.  Allergies to medication are most likely to cause issues I am guessing, more so than sex linked care in emergencies and those aren’t listed on a passport. Heart attacks are the most likely most important sex linked treatment, but are complications due to wrong sex more common than allergic responses to medicines?

Other more likely more prominent issues in emergency treatment besides allergies to meds, current meds taking, chronic conditions (diabetes should be listed on passports if we are using them as a medical resource), pacemakers and other devices, blood type….

Not saying treating women medically the same as men is not dangerous, the medical establishment has been doing so for centuries and millions of women have likely died because of it.  That it has only really recently been made into a major issue such that doing research now requires women as well as men shows it isn’t as high as of medical priority as some issues though, so while this may be a side benefit of passports, doesn’t seem like it should be rated highest priority when it comes to safety.

There is potential for danger when people are identified as transgender individuals.  Whether this is enough to justify IDs allowing for identity gender matching appearance rather than biology, I don’t know.  I do believe it should be determined credibly that it is relatively safe, they won’t be targeted more than say women are currently targeted before insisting the IDs be solely biological sex.

As far as jail…

Aren’t people typically searched (pat down if not stripped?) thoroughly before being placed in detention?  If not fully transitioned, it would be quickly known it seems (no experience here, so happy to be correct with documentation, not speculation).  

If fully transitioned so even a search doesn’t throw up a red flag, at this point I want to see documentation showing safety of the other inmates goes down around fully transitioned individuals being placed in jail with those they look like.  Logically putting someone who looks like a man and has musculature like men in with women because of being biologically female seems problematic to me, but I don’t know the stats for violence, including sexual assault.  And I believe putting someone who looks like a woman in with men has already been demonstrated to result in high rates of violence.

Someone who is not transitioned, who is biologically male and also looks male when in typical male clothes should, imo, go into the male side of prisons if they don’t have a separate transgendered facility.

Do you think it is appropriate to put transitioned transgender women (biological men) in jail with csi gender men?

added:  adults should have the choice on whether or not to share medical information publicly.  For those transgender individuals who are concerned about emergency situations just like diabetics, people with life threatening allergies, people with pacemakers, people needing certain medications and not wanting others, etc all are…include a medical information card either in the wallet or inside the passport if the main ID.  Why should they be forced to share medical information when others are not?

Edited April 18 by Calm

[Notatbm]

11 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm curious about this comment that Oak's has doubled-down that electro-shock therapy wasn't happening at BYU during his time there... I'd love to read more.  Do you have links to any of his comments?

I was replying to this comment by Nehor:

“I think an acknowledgement that the Church (through BYU) practiced conversion therapy and then stopped would make this seem more honest as opposed to ‘continuing’ to oppose conversion therapy suggesting it was always that way.”

It’s a joke re oaks previous comment it never happened while he was pres of byu. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

It seems like a lot of "sports organizations" have governmental authority.  State schools may need to set policy regarding biological males in women's sports, for example.

What are your thoughts about the question I posed?

Thanks,

-Smac

State schools have government funding but they don’t need the government to write rules for them.

In fact they would do better to fund state schools so they are more affordable. That is one of the reasons tuition has gotten so high. Instead universities being supportive of transgender students is being used as a wedge issue to further decrease funding because that is just where we are as a people right now.

[smac97]

On 4/17/2026 at 11:35 PM, The Nehor said:

 

Quote

 

Quote

Quote

I've been reading an excellent book, Habits of a Peacemaker by Steven T. Collis, that is causing me to fundamentally alter how I approach such matters and how I discuss them. 

Do you think there are any non-prejudiced perspectives that differ from yours regarding, for example, biological males in women's sports?

It seems like a lot of "sports organizations" have governmental authority.  State schools may need to set policy regarding biological males in women's sports, for example.

What are your thoughts about the question I posed?

 

State schools have government funding but they don’t need the government to write rules for them.

In fact they would do better to fund state schools so they are more affordable. That is one of the reasons tuition has gotten so high. Instead universities being supportive of transgender students is being used as a wedge issue to further decrease funding because that is just where we are as a people right now.

"Habit Ten" in the Habits book is titled: "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure."  From that chapter:

Quote

But certainty is not always a good thing. And when we’re talking about trying to solve all the world’s most complex problems, it can often lead to nothing but fruitless and pointless arguments. The good news is that we don’t need to solve all the world’s problems. Once we recognize that, we will be comfortable no longer experiencing the painful need to win all arguments. More important, we will embrace the exciting proposition that there is always more to learn, new horizons to explore, novel discoveries and concepts to find, alternative ways of looking at our reality.

Think of every conversation you have as an opportunity for exploration. Once you reach a conclusion on something, settle into that uncomfortable reality that you may not have reached your final destination. 
...
Human beings are not wired to acknowledge the gray areas of our lives. Instead, we have developed to engage in what neuroscientists call dichotomous thinking. We often hear this described as all-or-nothing or black-and-white thinking.
...
{I}n a more complex world, when thinking about the complicated issues of an intertwined advanced society, dichotomous thinking doesn’t help us. It hurts us. Consider the complex problems in our world and where dichotomous thinking has left us. On so many of these issues, we are told we have only two options. You can be: 

•    pro-religion or pro-LGBTQ+ rights
•    pro-abortion or pro-life 
•    for immigrants or against them 
•    pro-tax or pro-free markets
•    pro-transgender rights or pro-woman 
•    in favor of full-blown critical race theory in schools or in support of white supremacy 
•    for black lives or against black lives 
•    pro-religion or purely secular 
•    pro-science or anti-science 
•    conservative or progressive
•    pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian
•    pro total gun control or in favor of no regulation whatsoever
•    a believer of nurture or a believer of nature 

The reality is that, on most of these issues, most of us do not fall cleanly on one end of the spectrum or the other. When pressed, or when we’re alone truly thinking through a particular societal problem, we likely find that we lie somewhere between the extremes. But everything about our modern society, including our own natural tendency to engage in dichotomous thinking, pushes us toward the extremes.

Indeed, to even be a part of most modern groups, we are told we must reach an extreme conclusion and refuse to budge. If we do show any nuance in our position, we face excommunication from the group. Although we hate to admit it, the fear of that too often forces us to join one extreme camp or another.

As with most problems, becoming aware of it is the first step toward overcoming it. That is why I highlight dichotomous thinking here. If we know it is a tendency we all have, we can be on the lookout for it in our own lives, especially on the complex issues that so many of us struggle to discuss. Rather than allowing ourselves to fall into the trap of being pulled to extreme positions, we can instead look for those opportunities to feel comfortable in the space between them. 

I call that space the Realm of Reasonableness.
...
You should be aware that landing somewhere in that realm can often be uncomfortable. There is a tension there; it will sometimes feel as if you are being pulled apart by both extremes. Too many of us cannot handle that strain. It is far more comforting to move in to a place of firm conclusion and bask there among like-minded people. Comforting, but ultimately fruitless. Those who allow themselves to get pulled into the extremes will find it increasingly difficult to engage in helpful conversation with those around them. Staying in the Realm of Reasonableness comes from recognizing that there are always costs to every solution, ever-present arguments for why we might be wrong. Recognizing those will keep us from pushing for extreme positions that ignore costs and, in some instances, do more harm than good. 

These days there seem to be a few topics that are stridently framed in what the above author describes as "dichotomous thinking," and this thread's topic is clearly one of them.

I have found it challenging to identify this "Real of Reasonableness" as pertaining to some trans issues, such as biological men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons.  One question I would like to explore is whether the perspective I tend to find reasonable, even axiomatic (that is, that biological men should not be in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons) is actually more "extreme" than I perceive.  

Conversely, I would also like to evaluate whether the other end of the issue (that is, that biological males should be allowed to be in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons) is perhaps more "extreme" that its advocates perceive.  

For example, one concern I have seen, and find relevant, is about what could be termed a "lack of limiting principle," that is, it seems like there is no "limiting principle" as to sex-segregated bathrooms if entry into them is based on subjective self-identity (rather than biological sex).  Is there any such principle in your view?  Or do you think we should abolish sex-segregated bathrooms?

Also, although Habit Ten recommends that we acclimatize ourselves to "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure," it also notes that we cannot always do this:

Quote

Please do not misunderstand me. None of what I have written is meant to suggest we should never be certain about some things. For all the praise I have given in this chapter, and really through this entire book, to uncertainty and humility, allow me to end on what I see as important truths. 

The notion of embracing nonclosure can be a challenge because we all know there are some areas of life where we want to reach conclusions and never budge. Two decades ago, I read the following remarks from a prominent attorney: 

Quote

My recollection has been drawn to a comment made by a professional colleague some years ago. He said that as a young lawyer he inquired of a prominent judge in his community what it takes to be a successful courtroom advocate. This wise jurist responded with five words, words that in my judgment are profound in their own right and reach far beyond the courthouse . . . . He said, “The decided are always gentle.”

The decided are always gentle—we could probably spend days pondering that phrase. It has stuck with me ever since I first read it. To me, it means that there is a calmness and tranquility that comes to us once we have already made up our minds on a particular issue. We need not revisit it again and again every time we face it.

The obvious dilemma lies in determining the difference between those issues on which we should keep an open mind and those on which we should be “decided.”

Biological men should in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons does not seem to be one of those topics about which "nonclosure" is feasible.  Jurisdictions in the U.S. seem to need to allow it or not allow it.  I asked Grok:

Quote

Summarize recent trends in terms of legal and regulatory measures affecting biological males in women's bathrooms, sports and prisons. Focus on the United States, but also touch other global trends.

The response:

Quote

In the United States, recent trends (primarily 2024–early 2026) reflect a significant shift toward defining "sex" biologically (based on reproductive biology and genetics at birth) in sex-segregated spaces, driven by concerns over fairness, safety, privacy, and Title IX compliance. This has accelerated under the second Trump administration (inaugurated January 2025), which issued executive orders emphasizing a male-female binary and directing federal agencies to prioritize biological sex over gender identity. States have led much of the action, with over 600 anti-trans bills tracked in early 2026 alone, many targeting sports, facilities, and incarceration.

Sports

• State level: By early 2026, 27–29 states have enacted laws or regulations barring biological males (transgender women/girls) from female-designated school, college, and sometimes club sports. Additional states (e.g., Georgia, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire) passed or strengthened bans in 2025. These typically require participation based on sex assigned at birth.
• Federal level: President Trump's February 5, 2025, Executive Order "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports" directs enforcement of Title IX to prohibit males in female athletic programs/activities, with threats of funding cuts for non-compliant schools. It also addresses international exchanges and Olympic eligibility. The NCAA updated its policy to restrict transgender women from women's teams (while allowing practice). Bills like the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act (2025) codify similar protections.
• Courts: The Supreme Court has taken up challenges to state bans (e.g., Idaho, West Virginia cases argued January 2026), with potential nationwide implications.

This builds on earlier state actions but marks a federal rollback of prior permissive policies.

Bathrooms and Facilities (Locker Rooms, Changing Areas)

• State level: About 25 states ban transgender individuals (particularly youth) from using bathrooms/facilities matching their gender identity in public schools or government buildings; some extend to private settings with penalties or lawsuits (e.g., Kansas SB 244, Idaho HB 752 criminalizing "wrong" bathroom use, effective July 2026).
• Federal level: A February 2026 EEOC decision (Selina S. v. Driscoll) ruled that Title VII allows federal agencies to maintain single-sex bathrooms, locker rooms, etc., based on biological sex and to exclude transgender employees from opposite-sex facilities. Broader executive actions and bills (e.g., Rep. Nancy Mace's Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act) target federally funded spaces, shelters, and prisons.

Earlier Obama/Biden-era guidance favoring gender identity has been reversed.

Prisons

• Federal level: Trump executive orders direct the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house inmates according to biological sex, leading to transfers of transgender women (biological males) out of women's facilities (e.g., a D.C. Circuit appeals court decision in April 2026 allowed transfers of 18 individuals). BOP policy bans gender-affirming surgeries, hormones (with tapering), and social transition items; treatment focuses on therapy/psychiatric care. The DOJ has paused PREA audits emphasizing LGBTQ-specific protections.
• State level: Federal investigations target states (e.g., California) allowing biological males in women's prisons. Bills aim to codify biological-sex housing.

The emphasis is on protecting female inmates from reported safety risks.

Globally, trends parallel the U.S. emphasis on biological sex in elite sports and single-sex spaces, often citing fairness (documented 10–50%+ male performance advantages post-puberty), safety, and evidence from reviews like the UK's Cass Report (2024). Self-ID policies have faced pushback.

• Sports: The IOC's March 2026 policy limits Olympic (and IOC-event) female categories to biological females, verified by one-time SRY gene screening (effective 2028 LA Games). This aligns with prior bans by World Athletics, World Aquatics (swimming), and cycling federations on post-puberty transgender women. National bodies (e.g., UK Football Association, rugby, cricket) have revised policies accordingly.
• UK/Europe: The UK Supreme Court's April 2025 For Women Scotland ruling defined "sex" and "woman" under the Equality Act 2010 as biological (at birth), excluding Gender Recognition Certificates. This has prompted EHRC guidance and revisions to single-sex spaces (toilets, hospital wards, sports, shelters), prisons, and services. Scotland's prison housing policies face challenges. The Cass Review has driven restrictions on youth gender care and a more cautious approach overall.
• Other: Australia has faced criticism over biological males in women's prisons. Some European countries have tightened youth policies or sports rules, though approaches vary (e.g., more self-ID retention in parts of Canada/Spain earlier, now under pressure).

Overall, the 2024–2026 period shows a clear international trend away from gender-identity overrides of biological sex in these contexts, prioritizing empirical evidence on physical differences and vulnerability over self-identification. Policies continue to evolve amid litigation and public debate.

As a citizen with voting rights, it seems like "non-closure" is not really an option on this topic.

Regarding biological men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons, I have, for some time now, been in the "decided" category ("decided" in that I think biological men should not be in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons).

I will here evaluate whether this topic is one about which I "should keep an open mind," or whether I should keep it in the "decided" category.  What questions/factors do you folks think I should take into account when conducting this evaluation?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 20 by smac97

[Rain]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Habit Ten" in the Habits book is titled: "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure."  From that chapter:

These days there seem to be a few topics that are stridently framed in what the above author describes as "dichotomous thinking," and this thread's topic is clearly one of them.

I have found it challenging to identify this "Real of Reasonableness" as pertaining to some trans issues, such as biological men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons.  One question I would like to explore is whether the perspective I tend to find reasonable, even axiomatic (that is, that biological men should not be in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons) is actually more "extreme" than I perceive.  

Conversely, I would also like to evaluate whether the other end of the issue (that is, that biological males should be allowed to be in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons) is perhaps more "extreme" that its advocates perceive.  

For example, one concern I have seen, and find relevant, is about what could be termed a "lack of limiting principle," that is, it seems like there is no "limiting principle" as to sex-segregated bathrooms if entry into them is based on subjective self-identity (rather than biological sex).  Is there any such principle in your view?  Or do you think we should abolish sex-segregated bathrooms?

Also, although Habit Ten recommends that we acclimatize ourselves to "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure," it also notes that we cannot always do this:

Biological men should in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons does not seem to be one of those topics about which "nonclosure" is feasible.  Jurisdictions in the U.S. seem to need to allow it or not allow it.  I asked Grok:

The response:

As a citizen with voting rights, it seems like "non-closure" is not really an option on this topic.

Regarding biological men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons, I have, for some time now, been in the "decided" category ("decided" in that I think biological men should not be in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons).

I will here evaluate whether this topic is one about which I "should keep an open mind," or whether I should keep it in the "decided" category.  What questions/factors do you folks think I should take into account when conducting this evaluation?

Thanks,

-Smac

It's interesting to me that he felt that the "decided are always gentle" means calmness and tranquility. To me, calmness and tranquility are things you feel inside yourself for yourself.  Others may feel it in you and may start to feel it in themselves because of you, but it is definitly a way one feels within for themselves.  Gentleness, on the other hand is a way to treat others (often because of the calmness inside). I think sometimes people feel calm (or think they do when they may just feel "right"), but are not gentle to others. So one should be decided because of the peace they feel inside, but gentle with others affected. 

 

[The Nehor]

On 4/20/2026 at 10:21 AM, smac97 said:

"Habit Ten" in the Habits book is titled: "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure."  From that chapter:

These days there seem to be a few topics that are stridently framed in what the above author describes as "dichotomous thinking," and this thread's topic is clearly one of them.

I have found it challenging to identify this "Real of Reasonableness" as pertaining to some trans issues, such as biological men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons.  One question I would like to explore is whether the perspective I tend to find reasonable, even axiomatic (that is, that biological men should not be in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons) is actually more "extreme" than I perceive.  

Conversely, I would also like to evaluate whether the other end of the issue (that is, that biological males should be allowed to be in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons) is perhaps more "extreme" that its advocates perceive.  

For example, one concern I have seen, and find relevant, is about what could be termed a "lack of limiting principle," that is, it seems like there is no "limiting principle" as to sex-segregated bathrooms if entry into them is based on subjective self-identity (rather than biological sex).  Is there any such principle in your view?  Or do you think we should abolish sex-segregated bathrooms?

Also, although Habit Ten recommends that we acclimatize ourselves to "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure," it also notes that we cannot always do this:

Biological men should in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons does not seem to be one of those topics about which "nonclosure" is feasible.  Jurisdictions in the U.S. seem to need to allow it or not allow it.  I asked Grok:

The response:

As a citizen with voting rights, it seems like "non-closure" is not really an option on this topic.

Regarding biological men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons, I have, for some time now, been in the "decided" category ("decided" in that I think biological men should not be in women's sports / bathrooms / prisons).

I will here evaluate whether this topic is one about which I "should keep an open mind," or whether I should keep it in the "decided" category.  What questions/factors do you folks think I should take into account when conducting this evaluation?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you are approaching this entirely from only one end of the equation. Instead I encourage you to do a Google image search for “transmen”. Look at the variety. These are people that you are saying HAVE to use the women’s restroom. Do you think that will make cis (and transwomen) users feel more comfortable?

Huge muscled guys. Big bearded guys with potbellies. They are biologically female. AFAB. Should they be in the women’s restroom and the women’s locker room? Is this the lane you want to be in? This is what you are advocating for.

Edited April 21 by The Nehor