Transgender policy? No RS/Priesthood class

[Duncan]

18 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

It might be easy for a short man who claims he is a woman and dresses the part to go into a woman bathroom and few would notice.  Now a 6 foot 6 inch guy who does that will be noticed.   Men and women have different body types and though some might be able to pass themselves off as the opposite sex, most will not.  When I saw the picture of "Misty" Snow, even before I read he is a transgender I looked at that picture and thought, that is a weird looking woman.  My impression was confirmed when I read the article.  You don't have to look at the privates of people to know what sex they are.  Most of the time, if you look at their face long enough, you can tell.

would you be comfortable if someone were to stare at you, in the washroom no less, maybe thinking you were transgendered? I can't imagine it would be comfortable for them either

[mfbukowski]

The ridiculousness of the idea of keeping transgender people out of meetings:

How is anyone supposed to know?  Start asking people if they look like they "might be"?   What if they are not??

How is anyone supposed to tell if they are or are not transgender?  Is every outsider to be questioned or searched?

The entire notion is absurd.  Perhaps the bishop could tell by inspiration and send the goon squad after them to make sure they don't go to the bathroom or the wrong class.

[Duncan]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The ridiculousness of the idea of keeping transgender people out of meetings:

How is anyone supposed to know?  Start asking people if they look like they "might be"?   What if they are not??

How is anyone supposed to tell if they are or are not transgender?  Is every outsider to be questioned or searched?

The entire notion is absurd.  Perhaps the bishop could tell by inspiration and send the goon squad after them to make sure they don't go to the bathroom or the wrong class.

"Nevertheless ye are commanded never to cast any one out from your public meetings, which are held before the world", DC 46:3. I guess to some Priesthood/RS doesn't count as before the world, heck I've always thought we were welcoming!

Edited September 27, 2016 by Duncan

[Storm Rider]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

"Nevertheless ye are commanded never to cast any one out from your public meetings, which are held before the world", DC 46:3. I guess to some Priesthood/RS doesn't count as before the world, heck I've always thought we were welcoming!

An efficient way to truncate scripture to meet one's personal agenda.  Let's actually look at the verse in context:

      3 Nevertheless ye are commanded never to cast any one out from your public meetings, which are held before the world.

      4 Ye are also commanded not to cast any one who belongeth to the church out of your sacrament meetings; nevertheless, if any have trespassed, let him not partake until he makes reconciliation.

So, now we realize that we don't cast people out of public meetings held before the world - which Sacrament Meeting, Sunday School, and Priesthood/RS is not held before the world.  What meetings do we hold before the world?  The only ones I can think of off the cuff is General Conference.  Of course, the Priesthood Session appears to be reserved for priesthood holders and not women, particularly those wanting to protest.

It is interesting that we are directed not to cast any one who belongs to the church - it does not address non-members at all.  Then there is another limitation about the Sacrament.  The Lord has many limitations set up in his Kingdom - everyone can obtain and receive all the Father has, but there are conditions required.  It is not without responsibility or foresight.  

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

An efficient way to truncate scripture to meet one's personal agenda.  Let's actually look at the verse in context:

      3 Nevertheless ye are commanded never to cast any one out from your public meetings, which are held before the world.

      4 Ye are also commanded not to cast any one who belongeth to the church out of your sacrament meetings; nevertheless, if any have trespassed, let him not partake until he makes reconciliation.

So, now we realize that we don't cast people out of public meetings held before the world - which Sacrament Meeting, Sunday School, and Priesthood/RS is not held before the world.  What meetings do we hold before the world?  The only ones I can think of off the cuff is General Conference.  Of course, the Priesthood Session appears to be reserved for priesthood holders and not women, particularly those wanting to protest.

It is interesting that we are directed not to cast any one who belongs to the church - it does not address non-members at all.  Then there is another limitation about the Sacrament.  The Lord has many limitations set up in his Kingdom - everyone can obtain and receive all the Father has, but there are conditions required.  It is not without responsibility or foresight.  

I hear what you are saying but as for sacrament mtgs the last bit of verse appears 5 is  "I speak this concerning those who are not of the church. " I don't know why that can't extend to Priesthood mtg/RS as well. We can't know who are earnestly seeking the Kingdom or not, God does though

[rpn]

Quote

You don't have to look at the privates of people to know what sex they are.  Most of the time, if you look at their face long enough, you can tell.

So how many people here stare at the faces of others "long enough" who are in the restrooms they are in?    And what if it really is a masculine looking woman you accuse of being inappropriately in a women's restroom?  Is that okay in an effort to protect you or your family from the indignity of sharing a bathroom with someone you don't think should be sharing a bathroom?  

I say save our concern for actual risky or bad things, not for boogie(wo)men who are simply different than we are but still need to use the restroom.

 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

So how many people here stare at the faces of others "long enough" who are in the restrooms they are in?    And what if it really is a masculine looking woman you accuse of being inappropriately in a women's restroom?  Is that okay in an effort to protect you or your family from the indignity of sharing a bathroom with someone you don't think should be sharing a bathroom?  

I say save our concern for actual risky or bad things, not for boogie(wo)men who are simply different than we are but still need to use the restroom.

 

I understand your desire to be tolerant; however, your prescription easily allows for abuse and may end up with an incident of embarrassment for a young adult or a child or even an incident of sexual abuse.  It may not happen but rarely, but what do we do then?  Who is to blame?

What if it is simply a situation of a cross dresser?  Who decides what is best?  Do you know the difference, by appearance only, of a cross dresser and a transgendered person?  How many wards have people that can quickly, easily tell the difference?

This is not the simple situation you want it to be and you are not coming close to defining how to handle each situation.  

In my opinion, since you don't know how, we use some degree of latitude in actually talking to the person involved.  Allow them to explain their own situation and then making decisions about how to handle the different situations that individuals will meet in Church.  After all, these individuals have been living with their situation a lot longer than any of us and they might actually have a better, easier answer than all the hand wringing we are going through. 

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I understand your desire to be tolerant; however, your prescription easily allows for abuse and may end up with an incident of embarrassment for a young adult or a child or even an incident of sexual abuse.  It may not happen but rarely, but what do we do then?  Who is to blame?

What if it is simply a situation of a cross dresser?  Who decides what is best?  Do you know the difference, by appearance only, of a cross dresser and a transgendered person?  How many wards have people that can quickly, easily tell the difference?

This is not the simple situation you want it to be and you are not coming close to defining how to handle each situation.  

In my opinion, since you don't know how, we use some degree of latitude in actually talking to the person involved.  Allow them to explain their own situation and then making decisions about how to handle the different situations that individuals will meet in Church.  After all, these individuals have been living with their situation a lot longer than any of us and they might actually have a better, easier answer than all the hand wringing we are going through. 

What risk do you think there is that is not already present in the bathroom? 

[rpn]

Quote

however, your prescription easily allows for abuse and may end up with an incident of embarrassment for a young adult or a child or even an incident of sexual abuse.

Garbage!  What makes you think cross dressing or transgendered persons are going to commit child abuse if they share a bathroom.  I'd think if anyone was so inclined, the bathroom would be the last place they would do it (though it is true that for pedophiles (not transgendered or cross dressing) bathrooms can be the places where predators lurk).   And the person who commits abuse is the one responsible for doing so.    I'm not suggesting we ignore behavior that suggests a problem.   I'm just saying that being transgendered or a cross dresser is NOT such behavior, and thinking and acting like it is is unkind and unwarranted.   Yes, look out for strangers interacting with children not their own in the bathroom.   But don't go looking for people who are weird to us because that is NOT  a risk factor.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I understand your desire to be tolerant; however, your prescription easily allows for abuse and may end up with an incident of embarrassment for a young adult or a child or even an incident of sexual abuse.  It may not happen but rarely, but what do we do then?  Who is to blame?

What if it is simply a situation of a cross dresser?  Who decides what is best?  Do you know the difference, by appearance only, of a cross dresser and a transgendered person?  How many wards have people that can quickly, easily tell the difference?

This is not the simple situation you want it to be and you are not coming close to defining how to handle each situation.  

In my opinion, since you don't know how, we use some degree of latitude in actually talking to the person involved.  Allow them to explain their own situation and then making decisions about how to handle the different situations that individuals will meet in Church.  After all, these individuals have been living with their situation a lot longer than any of us and they might actually have a better, easier answer than all the hand wringing we are going through. 

That would make an interesting conversation to have while needing to pee.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

That would make an interesting conversation to have while needing to pee.

Of course you could be proactive about it and bring the conversation up prior to coming to Church.  These are topics that they deal with daily.  I don't see a problem if they are serious about learning about the restored Church of Jesus Christ.  Of course, if they have a different agenda then that would be readily identified also.  

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, rpn said:

Garbage!  What makes you think cross dressing or transgendered persons are going to commit child abuse if they share a bathroom.  I'd think if anyone was so inclined, the bathroom would be the last place they would do it (though it is true that for pedophiles (not transgendered or cross dressing) bathrooms can be the places where predators lurk).   And the person who commits abuse is the one responsible for doing so.    I'm not suggesting we ignore behavior that suggests a problem.   I'm just saying that being transgendered or a cross dresser is NOT such behavior, and thinking and acting like it is is unkind and unwarranted.   Yes, look out for strangers interacting with children not their own in the bathroom.   But don't go looking for people who are weird to us because that is NOT  a risk factor.

Garbage to you too.  Does that make this a better conversation or should I just be flippant in my response about how stupid one can be as to state problems will NEVER happen???

You seem to think that transgendered and cross dressers are never, ever, predators or pedophiles.  Who knew?  Gosh, maybe we should come to you for answers to all the problems because you know better than...well, God as to who will and who will not committ sins of a sexual nature.  I am impressed.

BTW, did you flippin read my post or just have a knee-jerk response to it?  Hmm, I quote, " It may not happen but rarely, but what do we do then?  Who is to blame?"  That is what I wrote and you come off as some all-knowing god of who will and will not sin.  You think you might have just overstepped yourself?  Or do you really think you actually know all things?

I suspect you are not quite as informed as you think you are.  How about the tide of abuse coming from those who pose as transgendered seen here in the article entitled, "Gender Identity Specialists warn of “ever increasing tide” of Transwoman Sex Offenders".  Or were you aware that crossdressers have a higher potential to be sexual sadists?  

You know, just once it would be nice to see a liberal all bent out of shape remove their emotional knee-jerk response from the conversation and flippin study the problem first.  No, Johnny, it is not as simple as you want it to be.  Yes, Johnny, we can be tolerant, but first we must be informed. 

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The ridiculousness of the idea of keeping transgender people out of meetings:

How is anyone supposed to know?  Start asking people if they look like they "might be"?   What if they are not??

How is anyone supposed to tell if they are or are not transgender?  Is every outsider to be questioned or searched?

The entire notion is absurd.  Perhaps the bishop could tell by inspiration and send the goon squad after them to make sure they don't go to the bathroom or the wrong class.

By way of clarification I intended this post to show the foolishness of anyone thinking that the church would actually have such a policy, NOT as a condemnation of the church for having such. 

The church has no such policy secretly or publicly.

It would be impossible to enforce, among other very obvious problems

[rpn]

Quote

You know, just once it would be nice to see a liberal all bent out of shape remove their emotional knee-jerk response from the conversation and flippin study the problem first.  No, Johnny, it is not as simple as you want it to be.  Yes, Johnny, we can be tolerant, but first we must be informed

The problem is that I'm a pretty well informed conservative.   Suggesting that people who think the arguments about transgender in bathrooms must be liberals, doesn't help.   You've done it twice in this thread to me. 

  And the article you link to saying it refers to transexual sex offenders actually says it is talking about pretend transexuals.

Quote

 They outline how sex-offending transwomen whom they describe as “pretend transsexuals” adopt a transgender identity for various nefarious purposes, often involving increased access to vulnerable women and child victims.

And it talks about transexuals in prisons.   Where is the info that is pertinent to the bathroom debate?

The other link is to a book about treating non-offending parents in child sexual abuse cases, which I can't see any relevance to.

We just don't have to be afraid of people who are transgendered acting inappropriately in our restroom because they are transgendered --- a fact that we will literally never know unless we confirm intact privates which I seriously doubt we could even do in a public bathroom without ourselves violating the law.    Fear of those who are different often results in bad policy.   We just don't have to go there because someone is transgendered (or even cross dresser, though admittedly if caught that would be a different case).

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

....your prescription easily allows for abuse and may end up with an incident of embarrassment for a young adult or a child or even an incident of sexual abuse.  It may not happen but rarely, but what do we do then?...

Abuse is more likely to occur between a nontransgendered person and a child (of the same sex or not) than a transgendered individual, but no one is suggesting an adult accompany all children to the bathroom as far as I can see.  I think awkwardness and confusion may be a valid reason, at least until children have been introduced to the individual and parents have had a chance to explain, but fear of abuse...well, if that is the reason, we should be taking same precautions for the more general population.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Abuse is more likely to occur between a nontransgendered person and a child (of the same sex or not) than a transgendered individual, but no one is suggesting an adult accompany all children to the bathroom as far as I can see.  I think awkwardness and confusion may be a valid reason, at least until children have been introduced to the individual and parents have had a chance to explain, but fear of abuse...well, if that is the reason, we should be taking same precautions for the more general population.

Calm, I agree that we should not encourage ourselves or others to live their lives in fear.  I also believe that the probability for abuse is far more likely to occur between individuals that know one another.  However, I am also think that this entire subject of transgenderedness is blown way out of proportion.  They are not the norm; they are not met everyday; and very few of our wards will need to confront this situation.  In the event that it does arise and IF there is a concern by any members of the ward the bishop or someone appointed by him should just talk to the individual.  

It is helpful to confirm whether someone is really a transgendered individual or a crossdresser or something else.  If it is simply a crossdresser I don't see any reason to say, "Hey, Joe. How about leaving the dress at home when you come to church?  Is there a problem with that?"  This is particularly an issue when he clearly looks like a man dressed up in a dress.  I have not known a crossdresser or, at least, one that cross dresses in their professional life.  Even talking about this is odd because I think the probability is just so small as to be insignificant that they would want to come to church dressed as a woman. 

The transgendered individual is totally different and may actually to an easier thing to handle.  

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I understand your desire to be tolerant; however, your prescription easily allows for abuse and may end up with an incident of embarrassment for a young adult or a child or even an incident of sexual abuse.  It may not happen but rarely, but what do we do then?  Who is to blame?

I have to say, this post really makes me feel less about you.  It is a shame that you would jump to this conclusion without any indication from the person that they have evil intent.

[Storm Rider]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have to say, this post really makes me feel less about you.  It is a shame that you would jump to this conclusion without any indication from the person that they have evil intent.

Cal, I am surprised by your post.  First, I said nothing about this specific individual.  I did not indicate that they would have an evil intent. However, I do recognize that there is evil in the world. 

What I was commenting on the what is essentially an open door policy and allowing anyone to walk in any room where members of the opposite sex are.  It is not the honest or sincere transgendered or crossdresser that is the problem; it is the evil person.  Neither of us can recognize evil people on sight, but the objective that support is that we create policies that minimize when and how evil people can take advantage of other individuals.  

This topic is often confused as an affront to the transgendered when I actually think more people are concerned about policies that unintentionally facilitate the evil person's actions.  Make sense?

 

[BCSpace]

On 9/25/2016 at 4:52 PM, Duncan said:

They weren't there today so who knows if we will see them again but i'd like to think that the visitor's welcome sign out front means that they and others are welcome and aren't barred from simply attending church. Whatever class they feel comfortable attending then go there

Sure, if they're just visiting newbies.

[BCSpace]

On 9/25/2016 at 6:11 PM, Tacenda said:

I remember a poster here, that was transgender. She so badly wanted to go to the temple but it was a no-go.

Has to be that way if the doctrine is that gender is an essential characteristic.

[Duncan]

13 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

Sure, if they're just visiting newbies.

that's the issue is this person was visiting and for all I know may return but now they are banned from class and why is what I want to know

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

that's the issue is this person was visiting and for all I know may return but now they are banned from class and why is what I want to know

You are having such a bad deal Duncan, how come you can't catch a break but have these embecils for ward members sometimes.

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal, I am surprised by your post.  First, I said nothing about this specific individual.  I did not indicate that they would have an evil intent. However, I do recognize that there is evil in the world. 

What I was commenting on the what is essentially an open door policy and allowing anyone to walk in any room where members of the opposite sex are.  It is not the honest or sincere transgendered or crossdresser that is the problem; it is the evil person.  Neither of us can recognize evil people on sight, but the objective that support is that we create policies that minimize when and how evil people can take advantage of other individuals.  

I certainly do not really understand what it would be like to be transgendered.  It must be horrible.  That confusion would only be made worse when people think that because someone is transgender, they mean to do harm to anyone.  I am all for policies that prevent evil people from taking advantage of other individuals.  Who isn't?  Just what policy would you suggest?  Would preventing transgenders from using bathrooms solve the problem?  Like you said, neither of us can recognize evil people on sight.  

 

11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

This topic is often confused as an affront to the transgendered when I actually think more people are concerned about policies that unintentionally facilitate the evil person's actions.  Make sense?

 

This topic is often an affront to the transgendered because people are making policies that have no value towards public safety.  There is no value to public safety simply by not allowing transgendered individuals from using the bathroom.  They are policies not based on any facts, but totally based in fear and prejudice of someone because they are different.  It is already against the law for a man to dress up as a woman and commit a crime. NO LAW can be written to stop that from happening.  

Does any rational person really think banning transgender's from using bathrooms is going to some how magically put an invisible forcefield around bathrooms that will prevent some guy with evil intent to commit a crime?  Why would a criminal bother to wear a dress?  How does that help him commit the crime?  It only takes seconds to walk into a woman's restroom.  Does wearing a dress really help that much?  The heels and trying to get out of some dress alone would probably be more of a deterrent.  Heck, it makes more sense to pass a law requiring all criminals to wear a dress and heels  in order to commit a crime.  The victim has a much better chance of getting away if we passed such a law.  Think about that.

 

[thesometimesaint]

20 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Of course you could be proactive about it and bring the conversation up prior to coming to Church.  These are topics that they deal with daily.  I don't see a problem if they are serious about learning about the restored Church of Jesus Christ.  Of course, if they have a different agenda then that would be readily identified also.  

Oh I can just see it now. Hello Bishop I'm transsexual and I would like to visit your Ward tomarrow. Oh and by way I  may have to pee pee tomorrow too.

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Has to be that way if the doctrine is that gender is an essential characteristic.

Until 1978 skin coloration was the essential characteristic. Are we now going to check birth certificates against presenting genitalia at the Temple for essential characteristics? .