Anonymous Mormon Posted February 27, 2021 Posted February 27, 2021 The Equality Act just passed the House again and is headed to the Senate. This makes me wonder, if it passes in its current form in the Senate, what specific real-world impact would it have on the Church (and the Church's appendages such as BYU)? What are specific real-world scenarios we would expect to see with its passing that will influence church policy, members, and institutions? IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not interested in people's opinions about the Church's stance on the Equality Act or LGBT issues - that was already hashed out here: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71857-church-statement-on-equality-act/ (and I doubt anyone has changed their views) If you want to talk about your feelings and opinions on whether the church is right or wrong on LGTB issues, start a new thread please. This thread is only intended to discuss real-world impacts that this specific legislation would / could have on the church if it passes. Thanks! 2
CA Steve Posted February 27, 2021 Posted February 27, 2021 For those, like me, who are unaware of what this Act proposes, here is a good summary of it along with the pros and cons from NPR. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted February 27, 2021 Posted February 27, 2021 The end of gender-segregated housing at schools sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Robert F. Smith Posted February 27, 2021 Posted February 27, 2021 52 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: The end of gender-segregated housing at schools sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not likely at religious schools. The focus instead is on regular businesses, or public accommodations. Thus, if you have a cake shop, you are not now required to do a gay decoration of a cake if you have religious objections. Under this Act, you may be required to do so. Also, it is possible that some man who has decided to identify as a woman could no longer be prevented from competing against women in sports -- which the obvious genetic difference in musculature would give the trans person an advantage. That could create havoc in major competition.
Calm Posted February 27, 2021 Posted February 27, 2021 (edited) 19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Not likely at religious schools. The focus instead is on regular businesses, or public accommodations. Thus, if you have a cake shop, you are not now required to do a gay decoration of a cake if you have religious objections. Under this Act, you may be required to do so. Also, it is possible that some man who has decided to identify as a woman could no longer be prevented from competing against women in sports -- which the obvious genetic difference in musculature would give the trans person an advantage. That could create havoc in major competition. Women’s shelters where accommodations are shared have already have had some issues with requiring trans women share the same facilities. Of course there are also issues with trans women being required to share space with men. With limited resources and some groups criticizing separate facilities for trans groups if there were funding available, no easy solution. https://apnews.com/article/85494d367c2d4a38b1749f76a89f49c3 It is claimed that education of residents to relieve fears is quite successful (women who are in shelters due to domestic violence may be triggered by the appearance of some transgender women). I would like to see a number of actual studies dealing directly with residents, ensuring they do not fear getting kicked out or targeted if they respond negatively. I am not sure it is appropriate to require a population already in crisis, in fear for their safety to deal with additional issues given many women go back to their abuser in part because they feel safer with the abuse. There is also the issue of fear preventing women from leaving abusive situations in the first place. If they hear stories of transgender women in shelters, they may not even take the risk in the first place. While in terms of percentages transgender may be at greater risk, in terms of absolute numbers there may be a result of more nontransgender women victims in unsafe situations than trans women protected if policy requires no discrimination. My practical nature is with limited resources, we should put the money where it helps the most victims get to safe spaces, let ideals be promoted after safety. If it turns out I am wrong and the number of women who walk away from shelters is less than transgender helped by such policies, then I would suggest policy change is good and let’s figure out how to drop the number of women walking away even lower. Added: this might be off topic for the thread, as while I know the Church helps fund a number of shelters, including one specifically for LGBT in SL iirc, I don’t know if the Church owns any. Add on: I should add it seems very dangerous for transgender women to be in men’s prisons and shelters as well, I would hope those supporting more open expression with more choosing to transition would also donate heavily to providing options for those who choose that path, similar to how I feel those pushing for prolife laws should be donating heavily to social supports for those with children in need. Edited February 28, 2021 by Calm 4
carbon dioxide Posted February 28, 2021 Posted February 28, 2021 7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Also, it is possible that some man who has decided to identify as a woman could no longer be prevented from competing against women in sports -- which the obvious genetic difference in musculature would give the trans person an advantage. That could create havoc in major competition. The way around that is women just refusing to compete with a trans athlete. At some point, changes will have to be made or those athletic programs would close. 1
carbon dioxide Posted February 28, 2021 Posted February 28, 2021 I can't think of any direct impact it will have on the Church. The Church has the First Amendment backing it which is the supreme law of the land. Far above any act of Congress. 2
2BizE Posted February 28, 2021 Posted February 28, 2021 22 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: The end of gender-segregated housing at schools sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I think the whole housing situation at BYU schools needs to change. It has been a terrible hindrance to students of non-BYU schools in areas where BYU schools are located.
Kenngo1969 Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 I think we will see a lot of the things that the Brethren warned us would happen if the Equal Rights Amendment were passed happen if the Equality Act is signed into law. If it is, we will have sown the wind, and will reap the whirlwind. We'll see.
Duncan Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: I think we will see a lot of the things that the Brethren warned us would happen if the Equal Rights Amendment were passed happen if the Equality Act is signed into law. If it is, we will have sown the wind, and will reap the whirlwind. We'll see. in the States though, the rest of the world though we get off scot free😇
smac97 Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 On 2/27/2021 at 10:13 AM, Anonymous Mormon said: The Equality Act just passed the House again and is headed to the Senate. This makes me wonder, if it passes in its current form in the Senate, what specific real-world impact would it have on the Church (and the Church's appendages such as BYU)? What are specific real-world scenarios we would expect to see with its passing that will influence church policy, members, and institutions? IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not interested in people's opinions about the Church's stance on the Equality Act or LGBT issues - that was already hashed out here:https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71857-church-statement-on-equality-act/ (and I doubt anyone has changed their views) If you want to talk about your feelings and opinions on whether the church is right or wrong on LGTB issues, start a new thread please. This thread is only intended to discuss real-world impacts that this specific legislation would / could have on the church if it passes. Thanks! See here: Quote Among those in opposition are the National Association of Evangelicals, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Coalition for Jewish Values, representing Orthodox rabbis. Together, the groups represent a broad swath of U.S. religious denominations. “The Equality Act as written actually is devastating to the institutions that I represent,” says Shirley Hoogstra, president of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, institutions that engage in racial discrimination can be barred from receiving federal funds. The Equality Act would extend that provision to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Many faith-affiliated schools, however, require that students abide by strict moral codes related to sexual conduct, or they have gender-segregated housing that does not accommodate transgender people. Critics of the Equality Act say such policies would mean that students attending those schools could lose access to government aid programs. “I couldn’t have gone to Southern Adventist University without student loans, which I’m still paying off,” says Todd McFarland, associate general counsel for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. “The threat is there, that we would lose that funding and the ability of our students to get Pell Grants, to get student loans.” Critics of the Equality Act also fear it could open the door to lawsuits based on perceived employment discrimination based on religious beliefs. Support for the Equality Act among Republicans has actually slipped since it passed the House in 2019, when eight Republican members voted to approve it. Just three House Republicans voted for the measure this year. Although Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, co-sponsored the 2019 bill, she has declined to sponsor the Equality Act this year. Hoogstra, from the Christian colleges organization, thinks Democrats may also rethink their support for the bill when they recognize the depth of religious opposition. “You think Democrats don’t want school lunch money going to religious schools? Really? Once they study the unintended or intended consequences, they’re going to want amendments,” she says. “We’re going to have Democrats who say, ‘I’ve got religious people. I’ve got Christian colleges. I’ve got yeshivas. I’ve got Latter-day Saints, Seventh-day Adventists. And I’m not going to pass a draconian bill.’ “ Hoogstra’s group, along with Seventh-day Adventists, Latter-day Saints and members of some other denominations, support an alternative approach, called the Fairness for All Act, which also extends anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people, but with more religious exemptions. And here (from 2019) : Quote Leaders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement Monday on the Equality Act, which the U.S. House of Representatives could vote on as soon as this week. The legislation would expand federal nondiscrimination law to protect gay, lesbian and transgender Americans and also limit federal religious freedom protections. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is deeply concerned that the ongoing conflicts between religious liberty and LGBT rights is poisoning our civil discourse, eroding the free exercise of religion and preventing diverse Americans of good will from living together in respect and peace. Lawmakers across the nation, including members of Congress, are working to enact or strengthen laws that ensure LGBT persons fair access to important rights, such as nondiscrimination in areas like housing, employment and appropriate public accommodations. The Church is on record favoring reasonable measures that secure such rights. At the same time, we urgently need laws that protect the rights of individuals and faith communities to freely gather, speak out publicly, serve faithfully and live openly according to their religious beliefs without discrimination or retaliation, even when those beliefs may be unpopular. This includes the right of religious organizations and religious schools to establish faith-based employment and admissions standards and to preserve the religious nature of their activities and properties. This does not represent a change or shift in Church doctrine regarding marriage or chastity. It does represent a desire to bring people together, to protect the rights of all, and to encourage mutually respectful dialogue and outcomes in this highly polarized national debate. Conflicts between rights are common and nothing new. When conflicts arise between religious freedom and LGBT rights, the Church advocates a balanced “fairness for all” approach that protects the most important rights for everyone while seeking reasonable, respectful compromises in areas of conflict. The Church affirms this as the best way to overcome sharp divisions over these issues. The Church supported the 2015 "fairness for all" legislation in the Utah Legislature that successfully protected both religious freedom and LGBT rights in employment and housing and that has helped facilitate greater understanding and respect. The Equality Act now before Congress is not balanced and does not meet the standard of fairness for all. While providing extremely broad protections for LGBT rights, the Equality Act provides no protections for religious freedom. It would instead repeal long-standing religious rights under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, threaten religious employment standards, devastate religious education, defund numerous religious charities and impose secular standards on religious activities and properties. The Church joins other religious organizations that also strongly oppose the Equality Act as unbalanced, fundamentally unfair and a path to further conflict. The Church calls upon members of Congress to pass legislation that vigorously protects religious freedom while also protecting basic civil rights for LGBT persons. It is time for wise policymakers to end this destructive conflict and protect the rights of all Americans. And here (from March 2019) : Quote Would the Equality Act harm religious freedom? Here's what you need to know By Kelsey Dallas and Matthew Brown Mar 13, 2019, 5:54pm MDT ... Cicilline and others argue the bill benefits more than gay and transgender Americans. But some religious freedom advocates say it supports the LGBTQ community at the expense of religious objectors to same-sex marriage. "The Equality Act fails to provide essential religious liberty protections that would allow a diverse group of social service and civic institutions to continue to thrive," said Shapri LoMaglio, senior vice president for government and external relations for the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, in an email. In addition to creating new protections for gay and transgender Americans, the act would limit the scope of federal religious freedom protections, preventing religious people and organizations from using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense against discrimination claims. If it passes, religiously affiliated schools and other faith-based organizations could face lawsuits over policies on gay, lesbian or transgender students, customers or employees, said Tim Schultz, president of 1st Amendment Partnership, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that promotes religious freedom protections. "There would be an effort to punitively sue them into oblivion and they would not be able to use (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) in their defense," he said. Some people of faith see limiting the scope of religious freedom law as a good thing. "Claiming a religious right to discriminate is the antithesis of genuine faith commitments and moral teaching," said Rabbi Jack Moline, president of Interfaith Alliance, on a Wednesday press call. ... People of faith should celebrate a world in which members of the LGBTQ community won't live in fear of discrimination, said the Rev. Jennifer Butler, CEO of Faith in Public Life, during the Wednesday press call. "The Equality Act will clarify that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be misused to allow entities to discriminate and violate civil rights laws," she said. This clarification could lead to significant consequences for religious objectors to same-sex marriage, according to opponents of the Equality Act. For example, faith-based schools, which have always been part of America's diverse higher education system, might have to sacrifice their religious convictions in order to be eligible for federal aid money. "It is essential that any protections for LGBTQ persons be paired with the essential religious freedoms that maximize freedom for all," LoMaglio said. Cicilline warned supporters that conservative opposition will use religious freedom as a defense against the bill. "They'll make outrageous claims because they know they can only succeed by scaring the American people," he said. "We cannot allow people to use religious freedom as a basis to discriminate against an LGBT individual." Here (from February 2021) : Quote In response to media inquiries, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following statement, which can be attributed to spokesman Doug Andersen. On Thursday, February 25, 2021, the House of Representatives in the United States passed H.R.5, also known as the Equality Act. We stand by our statements from 2019 and reiterate the Church’s support for equality and fairness. We could support legislation that provides protection for LGBT persons as well as people and institutions of faith. Both are possible and clearly required in a just society. The Church supports legislation, like that introduced by Rep. Chris Stewart, that accomplishes both of these critical requirements and is confident that a balanced, fair, and unifying approach can be achieved. Here (also from February 2021) : Quote Utah Rep. Chris Stewart reintroduced legislation Friday that aims to reduce anti-LGBTQ discrimination and, unlike the competing Equality Act that passed the House Thursday, boost protections for people of faith. The Fairness for All Act, which Stewart originally introduced in December 2019, would update federal civil rights law to require fair treatment of gay and transgender Americans in housing, hiring and many other areas of public life. It would also expand existing faith-based exemptions to anti-discrimination law to ensure that religiously affiliated schools, adoption agencies and other organizations could continue to operate according to their beliefs about sexuality and marriage. “It is hard to really love our neighbors when we are fighting with them over whose rights are more important. This country can accommodate both civil liberties for LGBT individuals and religious freedom. We have wasted enough time, energy, and money fighting over who deserves which legal protections. It is time to define the federal protections for our LGBT and religious friends and neighbors,” said Stewart, a Republican who was elected to his fifth term in November 2020, in a statement. The bill has 20 Republican co-sponsors in the House, including Utah Reps. John Curtis, Blake Moore and Burgess Owens. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities and other faith and advocacy groups have also expressed support for the legislation. The Fairness for All Act will compete with the Equality Act, which passed the House on Thursday in a largely party-line vote. Both bills would outlaw sexual orientation and gender identity-based discrimination, but only Stewart’s would expand legal protections for people of faith. The Equality Act would actually limit the application of existing religious freedom law, making faith groups more vulnerable to lawsuits over beliefs, teachings and practices that conflict with LGBTQ rights. The bill’s proponents argue that such a change is necessary in order to reduce discrimination, but many conservative policymakers and religious leaders disagree. “Rather than affirm human dignity in ways that meaningfully exceed existing practical protections, the Equality Act would discriminate against people of faith,” wrote five Catholic bishops in a letter to Congress opposing the bill’s reintroduction. The Fairness for All Act tries to show that it’s possible to protect LGBTQ rights without threatening the future of religious organizations, Tim Schultz, who is president of the 1st Amendment Partnership and served as an adviser for the Fairness for All Act, said to the Deseret News in 2019. “The starting point for the whole negotiation was how can we maximize freedom on both sides,” he said. The bill was drafted with input from a variety of religious organizations and advocacy groups, including the National Association of Evangelicals, the American Unity Fund and the Center for Public Justice. On Saturday, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement of support for Stewart’s bill. “We stand by our statements from 2019 and reiterate the Church’s support for equality and fairness. We could support legislation that provides protection for LGBT persons as well as people and institutions of faith. Both are possible and clearly required in a just society. The Church supports legislation, like that introduced by Rep. Chris Stewart, that accomplishes both of these critical requirements and is confident that a balanced, fair, and unifying approach can be achieved,” said Doug Andersen, a spokesman for the church. The Council for Christian Colleges & Universities also issued a statement applauding the legislation’s reintroduction. “In pairing religious freedom and LGBT civil rights, the Fairness for All Act underscores that all persons, including LGBT people, are created in the image of God, and therefore possess full dignity, value, and worth. This approach represents civic pluralism at its best, in a society where people with deep differences can live alongside each other with respect and understanding,” the statement, released Friday, said. The coalition behind the Fairness for All Act drew inspiration from a 2015 Utah policy that banned anti-LGBTQ discrimination in housing and employment. Like Stewart’s bill, that law paired new protections for gay and transgender residents with additional protections for religious organizations in the state. “Religious freedom and LGBTQ rights can coexist. Utah demonstrated that to the nation,” said Utah Senate President Stuart Adams, a Republican, to the Deseret News in 2019. Utah GOP Gov. Spencer Cox released a statement praising the Fairness for All Act on Friday. “I’m grateful for Rep. Stewart’s work to find a nuanced and good faith policy that both protects religious freedom and the rights of LGBTQ individuals to be free from discrimination. This is the type of common sense solution that Utah does best,” he said. The Fairness for All Act aims to be a unifying piece of legislation, but, like the Equality Act, it has faced strong pushback. Gay rights advocates and more liberal faith leaders argue that the bill does not do nearly enough to protect members of the LGBTQ community from discrimination. “Carve-outs for religious exemptions in commerce, family definition, medical care or other legal and legally defined benefits of citizenship are, by any other name, a repudiation of the very principles of equality that are foundational to the United States,” said Rabbi Jack Moline, president of Interfaith Alliance, in a 2019 statement. Thanks, -Smac 1
The Nehor Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 On 2/27/2021 at 3:16 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Not likely at religious schools. The focus instead is on regular businesses, or public accommodations. Thus, if you have a cake shop, you are not now required to do a gay decoration of a cake if you have religious objections. Under this Act, you may be required to do so. Also, it is possible that some man who has decided to identify as a woman could no longer be prevented from competing against women in sports -- which the obvious genetic difference in musculature would give the trans person an advantage. That could create havoc in major competition. The transgender sporting thing has been played up for scare value. It is not a new thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renée_Richards 3
Tacenda Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: The transgender sporting thing has been played up for scare value. It is not a new thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renée_Richards Agree! And if they are transgender, meaning the real deal, it is only a blip on the map. Also, can't believe people are thinking that women will be harmed by them. A transgender male to female will be female and not want to sexually abuse another female, IMO. Also, the same thing with sports, I see no problem, there are many females that sports wise could compete well enough especially with teamwork. But many on here will think I'm a dolt for saying so.
longview Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: The transgender sporting thing has been played up for scare value. It is not a new thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renée_Richards It is NOT a "scare thing". It was done deceptively or stealthfully in previous decades which led to various organizations requiring tests. But not this time. The social engineers want transgenders to come completely out in the open and mandate the inclusion of people who declare their genders different from their biology. This is very dangerous and unfair for women's sport programs. In kick boxing, there have been a few actual women who were willing to battle transgenders (I don't think this will last for much longer). But in certain sports such as track and field and basketball, women have been completely shut out of championships and prizes. They are rightfully objecting to being robbed in this manner. They love the sport and want to have meaningful competitions with their own peers. Has anyone seen transgenders (women declaring to have male gender) compete on male teams? I would be very surprised to learn of some!
Calm Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: A transgender male to female will be female and not want to sexually abuse another female, IMO Because females don’t sexually abuse or are violent towards other women?Are you certain? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5321207/ Quote Although exact prevalence rates are difficult to determine, IPV among lesbian women seems to occur at rates equal to or higher than rates among heterosexual women (Edwards, Sylaska, & Neal, 2015; Walters, Chen, & Breiding, 2013). Based on a recent meta analysis, the mean prevalence estimates of lesbians’ physical IPV victimization and perpetration are 15% and 12%, respectively As for actual transgender sexual violence, we already have examples of it. https://www.yahoo.com/news/female-prisoners-greater-risk-sexual-174606887.html Quote Speaking on the first day of the two-day remote hearing, Karon Monaghan QC, representing FDJ, told the court that trans inmates account for one per cent of the population of the women's estate but "they are responsible for 5.6 per cent of sexual assaults". "There's a disproportionality," she said, adding that trans inmates are "more likely to be committing sexual assaults in the prison estate". She also quoted MoJ statistics detailing the population estimates for trans prisoners in England and Wales. The hearing, taking place before Lord Justice Holroyde and Mr Justice Swift, was told that there were 125 trans prisoners in 2017, 60 of whom were serving sentences for sexual offences. Of those 60, 27 were serving a prison sentence for rape. Ms Monaghan also told the hearing that, between 2016 and 2020, there were seven sexual assaults against females in women's prisons by trans women. Having said that, transgender women are at massive risk in men’s prisons, so something does need to be done to increase protection for them, possibly separate facilities. I personally think there should be completely separate facilities for anyone committing sexual violence in or out of prison, I thought it was standard practice for some reason...thinking hearing “sexual offenders wing” probably. Edited March 10, 2021 by Calm
bluebell Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: Agree! And if they are transgender, meaning the real deal, it is only a blip on the map. Also, can't believe people are thinking that women will be harmed by them. A transgender male to female will be female and not want to sexually abuse another female, IMO. Also, the same thing with sports, I see no problem, there are many females that sports wise could compete well enough especially with teamwork. But many on here will think I'm a dolt for saying so. There are lesbian trans women, just as their are lesbian women, so the bold isn't a given. The sports thing has caused some girls to lose scholarships/state championships to trans girls, though the number is of course very small. The issue is that biological girls cannot easily compete against biological males, even when those males are on hormone inhibitors. They have a natural advantage due to their biology. But again, the numbers that that would affect are very very small. 1
Calm Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 (edited) 18 minutes ago, bluebell said: There are lesbian trans women, just as their are lesbian women, so the bold isn't a given. Not only that, but sexual abuse is not always tied to orientation. Sexual abuse can be about power as is well demonstrated in men’s prisons. Then there is opportunity. Men and women who identify as heterosexual will engage in homosexual sex if the only sexual partner available (consenting or not) is of the same sex. Whether this is because most people are sexually fluid even if they don’t realize it and so change practice based on circumstances or simple practicality is debatable. Edited March 10, 2021 by Calm 1
Calm Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 (edited) 44 minutes ago, bluebell said: But again, the numbers that that would affect are very very small. However, available championships are also small numbers, there is only one national champion of a sport category, for example. It is not that transgender females will bump all biological female competitors out of the competition, the concern to a great extent is taking the top spots where the recognition and money is. There is also the issue of safety...heavier, more muscular, stronger bones, faster (thus greater momentum when making contact) competitors will more easily, unintentionally of course, injure fellow competitors. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15746999/ Bone mass does not apparently significantly alter with transitioning https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469959/ Muscle mass does not significantly decrease in transgender women: Quote In line with what we expected, the transgender men increased muscle mass and strength significantly after 12 months of testosterone therapy. Perhaps more surprising was that the transgender women did not lose strength at all despite inhibited testosterone production. In addition, the effect on muscle mass of the transgender women was less pronounced than many people previously thought, losing only 5% of the muscle volume over the thigh muscles. https://news.ki.se/new-study-on-changes-in-muscle-mass-and-strength-after-gender-affirming-treatment-may-have-an An alternative would be to divide sports categories not by male and female, but muscle and bone measurements and other similar factors. They do that already in many sports in addition to male/female (boxing). Edited March 10, 2021 by Calm 3
JustAnAustralian Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 I found this PDF the other day comparing the current situation, the equality act, and the fairness for all act (I was looking for a simple comparison so I didn't need to read through the bills themselves) https://www.washingtonblade.com/content/files/2021/03/EqualityAct2R-1-2.pdf It looks like BYU would have the biggest risk rather than the church itself. 2
The Nehor Posted March 11, 2021 Posted March 11, 2021 7 hours ago, longview said: It is NOT a "scare thing". It was done deceptively or stealthfully in previous decades which led to various organizations requiring tests. But not this time. The social engineers want transgenders to come completely out in the open and mandate the inclusion of people who declare their genders different from their biology. This is very dangerous and unfair for women's sport programs. In kick boxing, there have been a few actual women who were willing to battle transgenders (I don't think this will last for much longer). But in certain sports such as track and field and basketball, women have been completely shut out of championships and prizes. They are rightfully objecting to being robbed in this manner. They love the sport and want to have meaningful competitions with their own peers. Has anyone seen transgenders (women declaring to have male gender) compete on male teams? I would be very surprised to learn of some! Still a scare thing. The Soviets might have done it deceptively. Most of those in the US did it openly and were hated. And yes, there are some. 4 hours ago, Calm said: Because females don’t sexually abuse or are violent towards other women?Are you certain? Abuse in lesbian relationships is disproportionately high. There are explanatory factors but it is still a big problem. 4 hours ago, Calm said: Not only that, but sexual abuse is not always tied to orientation. Sexual abuse can be about power as is well demonstrated in men’s prisons. Then there is opportunity. Men and women who identify as heterosexual will engage in homosexual sex if the only sexual partner available (consenting or not) is of the same sex. Whether this is because most people are sexually fluid even if they don’t realize it and so change practice based on circumstances or simple practicality is debatable. Covid quarantines created a lot of “situational homosexuality” relationships. 4 hours ago, Calm said: An alternative would be to divide sports categories not by male and female, but muscle and bone measurements and other similar factors. They do that already in many sports in addition to male/female (boxing). This isn’t practical in most sports and especially on a High School or even college level. Boxing does do something like this but boxing is a ridiculous mess at this point ruled by internal politics. The title holders in boxing are usually not “the best”. It is a weird world and I wish the sport would either die or be reborn with actual competition. Probably prefer it to die to be honest. 1
2BizE Posted March 11, 2021 Posted March 11, 2021 Since the ERA movement really took hold in the early 1970s there have been many impacts on the church. Example, in 1978, the brethren decided it would be kosher to let women give prayers in Sacrament meeting. Just a few years ago, the brethren decided it would be okay for women to give prayers in general conference. It’s these types of changes that the ERA can enlighten. Who knows, maybe women will be given the priesthood....I mean ordained to the priesthood since they apparently already have and use it...
longview Posted March 11, 2021 Posted March 11, 2021 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Still a scare thing. The Soviets might have done it deceptively. Most of those in the US did it openly and were hated. And yes, there are some. Yet you are not responding to the harm being done to women. Transgenders are too powerful for women to have a safe competition. Are you that oblivious?
The Nehor Posted March 11, 2021 Posted March 11, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, longview said: Yet you are not responding to the harm being done to women. Transgenders are too powerful for women to have a safe competition. Are you that oblivious? Yes, all that harm. I did a bit of a deep dive into that and found that in most every case the supposed harm was unverifiable anecdotes. There is a marginal advantage in some areas for about a year after hormone treatment. The idea there is a huge mismatch has been repeated so often that people take it as proven. The practice seems to be a running theme of this era. Every time a transwoman wins a competition it is held up as “unfair” but when they lose no one explains how they lost with such an inherent advantage. If you want to argue that we should require chromosome testing or something to play in sports I suppose you can. It will mess with the transsexuals trying to participate. You will also get some fun surprises when the tests call people you would unambiguously assume are one sex (and they probably do too) come back as “indeterminate” or even the opposite of what they believe. I almost hope they legalize something like this somewhere in the US so I can watch the parents who rant about the transsexual kids find out their son or daughter are not conclusively male or female. I almost hope that until I remember and realize it is also going to crush and confuse some kid too. I am opposed to gender transition but I am not going to pretend that this is a good excuse to quibble over it. Edited March 11, 2021 by The Nehor 1
Tacenda Posted March 11, 2021 Posted March 11, 2021 This article shares a way to level the playing field: https://www.fox13now.com/news/national/athletes-appeal-to-ncaa-in-protest-of-anti-transgender-laws?fbclid=IwAR2ET27Q7J3CYxCMfQLWXJVrLDFMjO1OA16Kt7DY-xXcAPWkUhZcA7xgn7w
longview Posted March 11, 2021 Posted March 11, 2021 12 hours ago, The Nehor said: 14 hours ago, longview said: Are you that oblivious? Yes I read a true story about a team of high school senior ladies that did very well in basketball and went all the way to the championship. After the season was over, the ladies were together for a workout when on a lark they asked the freshmen boys for a game. The boys wiped the floor with them. https://www.theepochtimes.com/south-dakota-senate-passes-bill-to-ban-biological-males-in-girls-sports_3725551.html "The bill is titled “Promote Continued Fairness in Women’s Sports” and was passed in the House on Feb. 24. It was introduced by Rhonda Milstead, a Republican member of the South Dakota House of Representatives, and Maggie Sutton, a Republican state senator. The bill states that “a team or sport designated as being female is available only to participants who are female, based on their biological sex.” Opponents say the bill will discriminate against transgender girls and transgender women and violate the U.S. Constitution and civil rights laws. Supporters argue that transgender girls naturally have an advantage over those born female. Milstead said it’s not about “excluding anyone from sports.” “This is about including everyone because, for every girl that doesn’t get to play basketball because some male took her place, you’ve displaced that girl,” Milstead said when the State House was discussing the bill, according to the Rapid City Journal.
Recommended Posts