Church takes public position on the transgender law

[carbon dioxide]

17 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

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.  

Yes God did give us our agency.  But there are limits to that.  Just because a person self identifies themselves as a 7 foot basketball center does not mean they are one.  If they are 5'10" tall that is how tall they are.  We don't assign them to be 7 feet tall because they think they are 7 feet tall.  A white guy who self identifies himself as a black guy is still not a black guy and vice versa.  Sometimes things are as they actually are regardless of how one wishes they are different.  I don't think this will backfire on the church because I still have confidence that our society has not fully entered the twilight zone yet.  The bulk of the population does not need to be told what a male and female is and they reject the notion that one can gender switch.  If the church took the opposite position, that would put us outside the mainstream of the population and even more importantly put us way, way, way out of bounds of our doctrine. 

Do I personally care if a transgender person uses the wrong bathroom.  No,   I rarely use public restrooms and prefer the single stall bathrooms as I can stink up the place in peace.  But I will say, expect a lot more violence against transgendered people if this happens more.  There are a lot of people who will not put up with this.  Especially those that are going into the bathrooms where their wives/girlfriends are.  The unintended consequences of this are real. 

Edited February 19, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[california boy]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

Interesting data.  Do you think the reason for the increase in men coaching is because given the choice between having a male coach a woman's team and a female coaching a female team, men are looked upon as being more qualified say because they have coached mens teams in the past?  I guess what I am asking is why are more men being chosen to coach.  I certainly see why more men are applying. The increased funding as was pointed out.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Church spent virtually no money on Prop 8. Individual members contributed or not as they pleased.

A bit disingenuous.  The church directed the members to contribute.  To pretend that all those millions raised just happen to be members of the church is laughable.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

The bulk of the population does not need to be told what a male and female is and they reject the notion that one can gender switch. 

But I will say, expect a lot more violence against transgendered people if this happens more.  There are a lot of people who will not put up with this.  Especially those that are going into the bathrooms where their wives/girlfriends are.  The unintended consequences of this are real. 

I believe in the ultimate good in people.  I believe that most people embrace diversity and don't find people that are different than them threatening.  I personally don't find accepting someone who feels the need to live the life of another sex any more difficult than someone wanting to be Mormon.  This country allows people to choose to be Mormon.  In the end, they will allow people to be transgender.

Privacy issues, what ever they are can be easily addressed.  I am pretty sure people would be just as uncomfortable having a muscle up guy with a heavy beard and chest hair and a reconstructed penis in the woman's shower just because he was once a biological woman. Let's be reasonable here.  Google transgender men.  Then stand on your soap box and tell me you want these men dressing in the woman's locker just because they once were biological women

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Well, that is remains to be seen. There would be no such problem with a "don't care" room. One for men who are biologically male, one for women who are biologically female, and one for whomever wants to go in. Or maybe

two. Or 58???

[Bernard Gui]

19 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

You Victorian morals are showing. Ever been on an aircraft? The "facilities" are used by both sexes.

Not simultaneously. There are single-user restrooms in many places. No problemo. 

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, sjdawg said:

Seems to me we should just have big washrooms that are shared by both genders.   A shared area for washing your hands and a lots of stalls with floor to ceiling doors to protect privacy.  (sort of like the family washrooms and change rooms that already exist.   they don't seem to cause any issues)

Some of us like a little more privacy than that affords. Our feelings are just as valid and deserve respect as well.

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

It seems to me combining and having more private and secure individual stalls solves most of the issue in a cost effective way.  Normally you have to set aside twice as much floor space and plumbing for two gender facilities and then add in completely separate single user rooms at times for family or whatever in larger buildings.  Makes sense to use less floor space and piping by not being redundant and use the money saved or made to make more secure stalls.  Lose the urinals which stink up the place anyway.

The only significant problem (besides getting used to it) would be the messier bowls and floors from males who don't aim correctly or won't lift the seat.  Would be nice to add some wet wipes for clean up, but otherwise just get in the habit of grabbing a couple of wet paper towels to wipe down surfaces when one goes into the stall.  That way one doesn't dirty one's clothing if it touches the ground or bowl.  Not a bad idea normally since even women/little girls don't always hit the target.

For those who believe there is a significant additional safety issue, a guy can keep an eye on a restroom to learn when a woman walks into it alone so women only restrooms might be just as dangerous.  Having no door on the common area as many restrooms are now would cut down some on predators hanging around.  No need to have the door as greater privacy with the more secure stalls.  Unfortunately more secure stalls backfire if the predator pushes you into one and shuts the door behind.  Perhaps peepholes to look out of the stall to see if suspicious individuals are standing around could be helpful.  Have phone numbers of building security on inside of stalls to call and perhaps have women employees if all male security who are willing to deal with frightened women customers...a guy in uniform may be a predator after all (a woman as well, but less likely).  There are likely many adjustments that can be made with experience.

Doesn't solve the locker room issue though.  

It's an odd world in which we are living. Then there's the little old lady or man standing in the doorways of European restrooms selling sheets of toilet paper. Maybe they could do double duty donning uniforms and guarding against strange folks.

[Calm]

Not strange folk, but aggressive ones.  There is a difference.  If only because they are more common, it is more likely the typical looking people we should be cautious towards.  There are likely to be more predators from them than the very small numbers of transgenders.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

16 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

Some transgendered people maintain the appearance of their biological sex. Of course there are bigger problems, such as world hunger and the question of evil; however, some folks may not wish to share their daily, private, and intimate bodily functions with members of the opposite sex present, even if that member believes he/she is not what appears on the surface, and without having to wonder aloud why they are sharing it with you. 

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, bsjkki said:

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.

My daughter Modestia and two of her friends were touring Greece. Of course, the showers were uni-sex and open to all, even the so-called private stalls. Some of the Greek

guys hanging around used the opportunity to check out the American forms of femininity. Fortunately, the two friends were members of the BYU volleyball team and were able to physically and

forcefully let the guys know that they were being boorish.

[Bernard Gui]

17 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

Ummmm......not. Modesty, safety, and privacy are not political Left vs Right issues. Much of the resistance to the Washington State laws is coming from "liberal" people who don't want their daughters sharing restrooms and locker rooms with men who have men plumbing.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 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.    

 

 

Just to play devil's advocate, what is disgusting about an older man or woman marrying a younger woman or man? Why is that offensive if both are consenting? Even that tiny minority of Mormons deserves respect for their rights and feelings. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

When I gotta go I identify with the gender with the vacant restroom. :-)

That could create a problem.

[Bernard Gui]

6 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. 

In Warsaw, Poland, I went into the men's room at a beautiful city park. The facilities consisted of a two rows of 6 holes in the floor about 4 feet apart with footprints indented in the concrete in front of each hole. At the door a little old lady sold toilet paper by the square.

Gotta love those European ways.  Especially those open-air French urinals. Wonderfully civilized.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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.  

Doesn't take much money or time to issue a press release and sign on to a petition to the government. Anyone has the right to do that. 

It's what is done in a democracy. Expressing a desire for privacy and modesty is hardly contentious.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Just to play devil's advocate, what is disgusting about an older man or woman marrying a younger woman or man? Why is that offensive if both are consenting? Even that tiny minority of Mormons deserves respect for their rights and feelings. 

When your daughter was 15 would you have given her permission to marry someone 4 decades older than her and be part of his harem?  Because those opportunities still exist today in some cultures.  If not, why not.

Would it help you if the guy told you it was God's will that he marry your daughter?

Edited February 20, 2017 by california boy

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not strange folk, but aggressive ones.  There is a difference.  If only because they are more common, it is more likely the typical looking people we should be cautious towards.  There are likely to be more predators from them than the very small numbers of transgenders.

By strange, I meant folk that would enter the restroom for purposes other than the obvious biological necessities, whatever they might look like. There are strange folks who do that. Some are dangerous, some are not.

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you really think a 15 year old is capable of making a life time decision to marry someone that is 57 years old, claims to be a prophet of God and tells her that this is what God wants her to do?  

Perhaps she could. What if he were not a prophet of God? Only prophets are dirty old men? What if the old man or prophet isn't dirty? Women who marry younger men? Ulterior motives all of them?

Edited February 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Glenn101]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

When your daughter was 15 would you have given her permission to marry someone 4 decades older than her and be part of his harem?  Because those opportunities still exist today in some cultures.  If not, why not.

Would it help you if the guy told you it was God's will that he marry your daughter?

I would myself have to have a spiritual confirmation of such. And even then, it would have to have her own confirmation.

Glenn

Edited February 20, 2017 by Glenn101
An additional thought.

[california boy]

57 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps she could. What if he were not a prophet of God? Only prophets are dirty old men? What if the old man or prophet isn't dirty? Women who marry younger men? Ulterior motives all of them?

Those that claim to be prophets often use the "will of God" card.  15 year old girls are not normally sexually attracted to a grandfather.  15 year old boys are not normally sexually attracted to a grandmother

There is a BIG difference between even a 10 year difference in age and a 40 year difference in age.  Do you sincerely not see that?  Or is this one of those defend the church leaders at all costs things for you?

[california boy]

49 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I would myself have to have a spiritual confirmation of such. And even then, it would have to have her own confirmation.

Glenn

Really?  Even if the prophet of God told you that he had received a revelation that your 15 year old daughter should marry him.  And if you didn't get a confirmation then you should keep praying until you do?  I know how these things work.  It is a pattern that happens over and over and over again.

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Just to play devil's advocate, what is disgusting about an older man or woman marrying a younger woman or man? Why is that offensive if both are consenting? Even that tiny minority of Mormons deserves respect for their rights and feelings. 

I'm amazed that you are trying to find a way to make older men marrying young girls seem right.  The problem is, it's not...and the laws of the land prohibit such behavior here in the US (and other countries).  

Warren Jeffs deserves those rights, too?  

"Jeffs, the 55-year-old self-proclaimed prophet and leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, was last week convicted of two counts of sexually assaulting a child - one 12 and one 14-year-old."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024150/Warren-Jeffs-trial-Paedophile-gets-life-sentence-50-brides-photo-emerges.html

Joseph Smith 37:  married a 14 year old

Brigham Young 45: married a 16 year old

Wilford Woodruff 56:  married a 15 year old

Lorenzo Snow 57: married a 15 year old