Calm Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 8 minutes ago, bsjkki said: Middle school aged girls everywhere would rejoice to have private changing spaces in schools! I think a temple locker room set up should become popular in schools and rec centers. Not a bad idea. Even if one has dressing stalls available, not everyone will use them so those offended by nudity of whatever still have that difficulty.
Sky Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 0.6 of the U.S. population is transgender. What's the likelihood of knowingly encountering a transgender person in a restroom at any given time? How would you know? Where have they been going to the bathroom before? Why are we so concerned about where people go to the bathroom? There are bigger problems in the world, me thinks. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/health/transgender-population.amp.html?client=safari 4
bsjkki Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 9 minutes ago, Calm said: Not a bad idea. Even if one has dressing stalls available, not everyone will use them so those offended by nudity of whatever still have that difficulty. But with how the temple is set up...it would be weird to change outside a stall. Most showers I see in locker rooms are single person.
bsjkki Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Sky said: 0.6 of the U.S. population is transgender. What's the likelihood of knowingly encountering a transgender person in a restroom at any given time? How would you know? Where have they been going to the bathroom before? Why are we so concerned about where people go to the bathroom? There are bigger problems in the world, me thinks. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/health/transgender-population.amp.html?client=safari Just so we're clear on who started the bathroom wars. Second: "Who started this fight?" Yes, that's a crude way of putting it. But if we contain ourselves to the last decade or so, the answer is: liberals. Before then, the status quo was simple: men used one bathroom and women used another. It was liberals who started pressing for change, and the conservative protest was a response to that. As I've said before, we should be proud of this. Most of the right-wing culture war is a backlash against changes to the status quo pushed by liberals. And good for us for doing this. The culture war is one of our grandest achievements of the past half century. It's helped blacks, gays, women, immigrants, trans people, the disabled, and millions more. Sure, conservatives have fought it all, but that's only natural: they're conservatives. What do you expect?http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/05/timeline-bathroom-wars Edited February 19, 2017 by bsjkki 2
carbon dioxide Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Sky said: 0.6 of the U.S. population is transgender. What's the likelihood of knowingly encountering a transgender person in a restroom at any given time? How would you know? Where have they been going to the bathroom before? Why are we so concerned about where people go to the bathroom? There are bigger problems in the world, me thinks. Yes there are bigger problems in the world but one does not ignore small problems simply because there are bigger problems. Edited February 19, 2017 by carbon dioxide
Ouagadougou Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: 1. Churches can take moral and even political stances and be tax exempt. They just can't endorse and candidate or party. Trump might even try to get rid of that part too. 2. Gender is an important issue. Gender is an eternal principle. Those who are born males will be resurrected as males. Those born females will be resurrected as females. 3. Nothing wrong with early LDS leaders marrying teen brides. It was not illegal in those days. There is no eternal law that gives an age of when a person can marry. Hate to tell you but this age 18 thing did not come from God. Its a fairly recent concept in western societies. If you lived in those days you probably would not mind as well. You mind because you were brought up in a different time. 4. The Church does have a business to declare to the world eternal principles. People are free to reject it but God is not changing with the calendar. 5. Are there more important things than the transgender issue? YES. Should the Church spend much time on it. NO. Just because there are more important things does not mean one can't hold a position on the subject. There are many issues of right and wrong, truth verses error and they vary in degrees of importance. 1+1=2. If there are people out there saying 1+2=3 that is not a huge problem especially if it involves a tiny part of the population but its not incorrect to make a statement that even though there are people that say 1+1=3 that the truth is 1+1=2 regardless if it hurts people or regardless of what century or decade on lives in. If Warren Jeffs and others marry teen brides, then it is wrong? Hate to tell you this, but old men marrying teenage girls is disgusting and not of God, IMO. I mind because I don't believe in a God that would want a 57 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl. Who uses a restroom is "an eternal principle?" Haha 😀 IMO, God and Christ do not care...they prefer we help the suffering and not worry about such issues. There are WAY more gay people in the world than there are members of the church. Even if you took 1% of humanity right now in Earth as being gay (which is way low), that is: 70,000,000 people! So, in reality, you probably have hundreds of millions of gay people in the world (don't know the exact number), but then you have a church with 15-16 million members worrying about transgenders using a certain restroom? No church will ever stop people from being gay...and focusing on such meaningless issues is a waste of time and not what Christ taught, IMO. 2
Ouagadougou Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: This surely is getting irrational and contentious. Perhaps it's time to shut it down. You are right, perhaps the church's stance on this issue (along with using time and $) is contentious and it's time to shut it down.
provoman Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: 1. Churches can take moral and even political stances and be tax exempt. They just can't endorse and candidate or party. Trump might even try to get rid of that part too. Churches can loose tax exempt status for promoting legislation, or particular laws. There is no "moral stance" exception for Churches engaged in political activity or promoting specific legislation. "An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation."
mrmarklin Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 When I gotta go I identify with the gender with the vacant restroom. :-) 3
Kenngo1969 Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, provoman said: Churches can loose tax exempt status for promoting legislation, or particular laws. There is no "moral stance" exception for Churches engaged in political activity or promoting specific legislation. "An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation." a. There's a difference between "lose" and "loose"; just sayin'! b. To the best of my knowledge (though I welcome correction if I'm wrong) an organization adopting a particular position with respect to legislation, and urging its members to adopt a particular position with respect to legislation, does not violate the regulation you quoted. The regulation would only be violated if leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ, were to say (e.g.), "We urge members to contact their local legislator for the purpose of persuading (or of dissuading) that legislator to vote for the measure under discussion." In any case, the Internal Revenue Service has been winking and nodding for decades at clergy who openly endorse or oppose candidates directly from the pulpit. It would be inconsistent (to say the least) for the IRS to announce that it now will pursue legal action against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for alleged activities which violate its tax exempt status, yet to continue to ignore churches and clergy who openly endorse or oppose candidates. And since presidential executive orders have the force of legislation but do not go through the legislative process in which it is verboten for churches to participate, surely, you're not suggesting that churches would simply need to shut up and suck it up if a president were to get a wild hair and order his Department of Education to start allowing students whose gender identity doesn't match their outward biology to begin using restrooms based on the former rather than the latter, are you? But of course, not to worry: that would never happen. Would it? Edited February 19, 2017 by Kenngo1969
Kenngo1969 Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said: ... (I)n reality, you probably have hundreds of millions of gay people in the world (don't know the exact number), but then you have a church with 15-16 million members worrying about transgenders using a certain restroom? No church will ever stop people from being gay...and focusing on such meaningless issues is a waste of time and not what Christ taught, IMO. As has already been noted, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is less concerned with who uses which restroom that it is with the ongoing overall effort to eliminate any gender-based legal distinctions. You obviously don't agree that eliminating such distinctions is a problem; fine. However, even if you disagree that it's a problem, for a Church which teaches that, ideally, men and women fulfill respective roles "by Divine Design" and that gender "is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose," it's certainly not logically inconsistent for such a Church to advocate positions which are consistent with that belief and to oppose those which are not. 2
mrmarklin Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 I was in Rotterdam NL last October. I went to a restroom in a restaurant that had the symbol for men and women both above the entrance. I went inside to a private locking stall to do my business. When I came out there were two adolescent girls washing their hands at the common long sink for doing so. It was very obvious that they too had just emerged from one or more of the stalls to take care of their business. I observed no parents with them. Is this transgender stuff moot? The Europeans seem to be dealing with it. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 28 minutes ago, mrmarklin said: When I gotta go I identify with the gender with the vacant restroom. :-) Although I'm quite spry given my circumstances (I have a disability and mobility issues), I simply don't feel isolated, marginalized, and stigmatized if whatever building I happen to be in happens to have main restrooms on another floor but has a one-user-at-a-time restroom on the floor I happen to be on. How convenient! Thankyouverymuch! As such, I'm at a loss to explain why the best solution to the gender identity problem is to allow those whose gender doesn't match their outward biology to use a communal restroom which matches the former rather than the latter (and if anyone else is uncomfortable with that, too bad: in the name of political correctness, they'll simply have to suck it up and deal with it.
Bernard Gui Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 11 hours ago, Calm said: How does that solve the issue of transgenders using their chosen gender restroom? The "don't care" (unigender) would be for those who don't mind being in the presence of any of the 58 genders.
thesometimesaint Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 11 hours ago, bsjkki said: Just so we're clear on who started the bathroom wars. Second: "Who started this fight?" Yes, that's a crude way of putting it. But if we contain ourselves to the last decade or so, the answer is: liberals. Before then, the status quo was simple: men used one bathroom and women used another. It was liberals who started pressing for change, and the conservative protest was a response to that. As I've said before, we should be proud of this. Most of the right-wing culture war is a backlash against changes to the status quo pushed by liberals. And good for us for doing this. The culture war is one of our grandest achievements of the past half century. It's helped blacks, gays, women, immigrants, trans people, the disabled, and millions more. Sure, conservatives have fought it all, but that's only natural: they're conservatives. What do you expect?http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/05/timeline-bathroom-wars Take a seat this might take a while. SEE http://www.livescience.com/54692-why-bathrooms-are-gender-segregated.html
bsjkki Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Take a seat this might take a while. SEE http://www.livescience.com/54692-why-bathrooms-are-gender-segregated.html I am very happy I am not a Victorian era woman.
Calm Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: The "don't care" (unigender) would be for those who don't mind being in the presence of any of the 58 genders. You assume that all transgenders are okay with such it would seem. Perhaps there are some who are not, who feel more likely to be bullied or criticized because their outward appearance is fully feminine or masculine and in the past they have had bad experiences having gone into the opposite gender restrooms because that was required by law, so as men in appearance they don't want to encounter women in the restrooms or the reverse. Edited February 19, 2017 by Calm
Ouagadougou Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: As has already been noted, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is less concerned with who uses which restroom that it is with the ongoing overall effort to eliminate any gender-based legal distinctions. You obviously don't agree that eliminating such distinctions is a problem; fine. However, even if you disagree that it's a problem, for a Church which teaches that, ideally, men and women fulfill respective roles "by Divine Design" and that gender "is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose," it's certainly not logically inconsistent for such a Church to advocate positions which are consistent with that belief and to oppose those which are not. The church's fight over gender and sexuality is a lost cause -- they are not changing anything with regard to how people live. Good thing the church spent all that $ and time on Prop 8 in California, right? Churches need to stay out of political issues.
thesometimesaint Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 The Church spent virtually no money on Prop 8. Individual members contributed or not as they pleased.
Tacenda Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: The Church spent virtually no money on Prop 8. Individual members contributed or not as they pleased. Good wordage, it was proven they actually did, but it wasn't that much. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-clarifies-proposition-8-filing-corrects-erroneous-news-reports
thesometimesaint Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 4 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Good wordage, it was proven they actually did, but it wasn't that much. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-clarifies-proposition-8-filing-corrects-erroneous-news-reports I use words for a reason.
california boy Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 3 hours ago, mrmarklin said: I was in Rotterdam NL last October. I went to a restroom in a restaurant that had the symbol for men and women both above the entrance. I went inside to a private locking stall to do my business. When I came out there were two adolescent girls washing their hands at the common long sink for doing so. It was very obvious that they too had just emerged from one or more of the stalls to take care of their business. I observed no parents with them. Is this transgender stuff moot? The Europeans seem to be dealing with it. It is a moot point in most of Europe. I spend months at a time in Europe every year. Most of their bathroom stalls go from floor to ceiling and are completely sealed when closed. I have never ever been in a bathroom or heard a discussion with any problem letting a transgender person use the bathroom. In fact, most mens bathrooms are cleaned by women. They don't close the bathroom. They just clean it when there are men using it. Mop the floor, clean the sinks and tidy up the empty stalls. Am I suppose to feel violated because a woman is cleaning the restroom while I am in there? Am I suppose to freak out and pass laws prohibiting women from cleaning the restrooms? Has the church reared its might in protesting this obvious mixing of genders in restrooms all over Europe? If it ever did, people would laugh over such a suggestion.
carbon dioxide Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 5 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: If Warren Jeffs and others marry teen brides, then it is wrong? Hate to tell you this, but old men marrying teenage girls is disgusting and not of God, IMO. I mind because I don't believe in a God that would want a 57 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl. Who uses a restroom is "an eternal principle?" Haha 😀 IMO, God and Christ do not care...they prefer we help the suffering and not worry about such issues. There are WAY more gay people in the world than there are members of the church. Even if you took 1% of humanity right now in Earth as being gay (which is way low), that is: 70,000,000 people! So, in reality, you probably have hundreds of millions of gay people in the world (don't know the exact number), but then you have a church with 15-16 million members worrying about transgenders using a certain restroom? No church will ever stop people from being gay...and focusing on such meaningless issues is a waste of time and not what Christ taught, IMO. There is a difference between morally wrong and being wrong legally. Marrying a teen bride is not necessarily morally wrong. By the way, a 19 year old is a teenager. Would God want or not want a 57 year old to marry a 15 year old? I don't know the answer to that. The scriptures do not declare God's position on that. Your conclusion is based on your personal belief. You believe that it is wrong therefore God must also hold that view since surely God would not disagree with your opinion. Using the restroom is not an eternal principle. Male and Female is. It is a scriptural view. God created male and female. God did not create males and females that could transition to another gender. That is not a scriptural idea nor an idea that anyone accepted in the thousands of years of human history. There are way more gays than members of the Church. There are way more heterosexual than there are gays. There are way more Catholics and Muslims than gays. So what is your point? My point is simple. Men should use bathrooms for men and women should use bathrooms for women. Now unless you want all bathrooms to become "coed" then state that. This is not hard. Male is male and female is female. Male can not become female and female can not become male. 1
Ouagadougou Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said: There is a difference between morally wrong and being wrong legally. Marrying a teen bride is not necessarily morally wrong. By the way, a 19 year old is a teenager. Would God want or not want a 57 year old to marry a 15 year old? I don't know the answer to that. The scriptures do not declare God's position on that. Your conclusion is based on your personal belief. You believe that it is wrong therefore God must also hold that view since surely God would not disagree with your opinion. Using the restroom is not an eternal principle. Male and Female is. It is a scriptural view. God created male and female. God did not create males and females that could transition to another gender. That is not a scriptural idea nor an idea that anyone accepted in the thousands of years of human history. There are way more gays than members of the Church. There are way more heterosexual than there are gays. There are way more Catholics and Muslims than gays. So what is your point? My point is simple. Men should use bathrooms for men and women should use bathrooms for women. Now unless you want all bathrooms to become "coed" then state that. This is not hard. Male is male and female is female. Male can not become female and female can not become male. God also created freedom of choice. If somebody wants to identify as a certain gender, then who cares? This is yet another issue that will backfire in the church's face. And my point is this: Churches should stay out of political issues.
Calm Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, california boy said: Has the church reared its might in protesting this obvious mixing of genders in restrooms all over Europe? If it ever did, people would laugh over such a suggestion. I think it is a significant misrepresentation to narrow the brief down to a dispute over restroom usage. Instead, it is challenging the alteration of the application of a law that has a massive impact on education at almost all levels: "The brief's purpose "is to inform the court about the sharp clashes with religious belief and practice that will arise if the court interprets the term 'sex' in Title IX to include gender identity," according to a copy of the brief posted by scotusblog.com." http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865673693/Utah-LDS-Church-join-friend-of-court-briefs-in-transgender-bathroom-case.html Would anyone laugh if they realized the attention was focused on Title IX language? A law that Is seen by some as one of the greatest achievements of the woman's movement? https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/seventies/essays/impact-title-ix "Most people think Title IX only applies to sports, but athletics is only one of ten key areas addressed by the law. These areas include: access to higher education, career education, education for pregnant and parenting students, employment, learning environment, math and science, sexual harassment, standardized testing, and technology." Not all consequences of laws can be easily predicted. For example, Title IX while increasing participation of women in sports has actually diminished by half the number of female coaches. Besides the less access to coaching jobs for women, there is the added danger it puts youth in due to the higher abuse rate from male coaches: "The growing prominence of women's sports has also changed the dynamic in the locker room. Though Title IX has increased opportunities for female players, the number of female coaches has actually declined, even as the total number of jobs has expanded dramatically. "The most significant unintended consequence of Title IX is the dearth of women in leadership positions," says Mary Jo Kane, Director of the Tucker Center for Research on Girls and Women in Sports at the University of Minnesota. When women's sports programs started gaining prestige and funding in the 1970s, they began to attract male coaches. Prior to Title IX's passage, women comprised more than 90 percent of the head coaches of women's college teams. Shortly thereafter, their share of the available positions dropped by half and has remained at about that level ever since, according to the 33-year longitudinal study, "Women in Intercollegiate Sports, 1977-2010," conducted by the Acosta and Carpenter. In 2010, the proportion of women coaching women's teams stood at the second lowest in history, 42.6 percent, with 21 fewer female coaches than two years prior. "Title IX has been a boon to male employment opportunities," says Kane. For Stanford women's basketball coach Tara VanDerveer, recently inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame, this gap represents Title IX's greatest failure. She calls the lack of opportunities for women coaches a "disturbing trend" that says to girls, "It's okay for you to play, but you don't have what it takes to coach." For female players, the gravest consequence of having male coaches has been an increased risk of sexual abuse. Pediatrician Ken Feldman, the recently retired medical director of the Children's Protection Program at Seattle Children's Hospital, says that although there is no formal tracking of sexual abuse by coaches per se, "girls will be more victimized than boys." Dr. David Finkelhor, Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire believes that the physical nature of sports can make them sexually charged. "There's tremendous intimacy in coaching situations, between men and girls," he says. "Young people are sexually attractive, and they don't turn that off in their interactions with adults." Since 1999, 36 coaches from the U.S. national swim team—including the former director—have resigned or been banned from the sport following allegations of sexual misconduct or inappropriate sexual behavior. In November, USA Gymnastics named Don Peters, coach of the 1984 U.S. Olympic women's team, "permanently ineligible" for membership after two of his former gymnasts reported having sexual intercourse with him when they were 17 and 18 years old." https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/02/how-title-ix-hurts-female-athletes/253525/ It is wise to be cautious with laws that have such extensive impact and sometimes uncontrolled negative drawbacks. Edited February 19, 2017 by Calm 1
Recommended Posts