Transgender pronouns and baptism

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Come again? Under whose definition is a fallacy not a fallacy if done intentionally?

Meaning I’m not arguing against the idea that using preferred pronouns is politically correct. If I was doing that I would be committing a fallacy. I’m just calling you a hypocrite for complaining about political correctness. See the difference?

[carbon dioxide]

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m sorry but Latter-day Saints lost access to this argument when they asked the world to stop calling them Mormon. If that’s not PC I don’t know what is. 

Not aware of any demand they stop using the word and claim they are latter day saint phobic or bigots if they use the word Mormon.  

Edited January 5, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[Nofear]

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is my go to word choice.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One person's riot is another's political speech.
The objection to homophobia or transphobia is generally not that it implies the perception of bigotry by the accuser. We latter-day saints understand full well that mere act of saying we don't think God looks upon same-sex sexual acts with divine approbation will cause us to be labeled bigots by those that disagree. The word phobia carries the baggage of implying an irrational fear. That is an implicit accusation that the purveyors of the term may sometimes choose to deny but at the same time like that the message of fear is conveyed (even if "technically" incorrectly).

Want to call us bigots? Go ahead. It's expected; after all it feeds our persecution complex, right? The Savior did tell his disciples, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."
By the same token, we don't like being told that we are afraid for we are told "Fear not, little flock".

Edited January 5, 2022 by Nofear

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

follow the teaching of the prophet

And the prophet has issued the following guidelines for the world to follow: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/mormon-is-out-church-releases-statement-on-how-to-refer-to-the-organization?lang=eng

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Nofear said:

Want to call us bigots? Go ahead. It's expected; after all it feeds our persecution complex, right? The Savior did tell his disciples, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."

My favorite was 2 Nephi “despise the shame of it”. 
 

BTW I myself avoid those words due to the associated baggage (see my first post in thread)

My point is that despite complaints it’s hard to fight how a word is used. That’s just not how language works. No one thinks about standing under something when the word “understand” is used and I don’t know how many people think “irrational fear” when homophobic is used. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Not aware of any demand they stop using the word and no claim they are latter day saint phobic or bigots if they use the word Mormon.  

The word you are searching for is anti-Mormon and that pejorative is used quite frequently around here. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If I express the opinion that women should never work outside the home and those that do sin, but do not impose my will on others am I a misogynist?

Sure.  But I wouldn't say that you're gynophobic.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, bluebell said:

Sure.  But I wouldn't say that you're gynophobic.

What single word would be analogous to misogynist referring specifically to gay or transgendered people?

[Nofear]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My favorite was 2 Nephi “despise the shame of it”. 
 

BTW I myself avoid those words due to the associated baggage (see my first post in thread)

My point is that despite complaints it’s hard to fight how a word is used. That’s just not how language works. No one thinks about standing under something when the word “understand” is used and I don’t know how many people think “irrational fear” when homophobic is used. 

It is hard to fight how a word is used. Still, sometimes it has been done. Mormon was first used as an epithet. The Big Bang was first used by a detractor (though, for the record, the name is bad on just about every level). Though I say go ahead and call me a bigot, I won't use the word to describe myself. But, it does have a greater precision, albeit it not great. Phobia -- not so much. It all but deliberately mischaracterizes our position.

2 Nephi 9:18 is a fun phrase ... "despise the same of it". For we have endured the crosses of the world and despised (i.e. rejected, disposed of, shunned, let it roll of our shoulders, etc.) the shame of it. Example, the Church putting an ad on the flier for the broadway show The Book of Mormon.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What single word would be analogous to misogynist referring specifically to gay or transgendered people?

Bigot is probably the closest that we have.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, bluebell said:

Bigot is probably the closest that we have.

Which is completely non-specific. So either word choice is a trade off. 

[Nofear]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What single word would be analogous to misogynist referring specifically to gay or transgendered people?

We could call those who have sexual relations outside of marriage fornicators. We tend not to do that very often (though the position is very clear).
We could call those who engage in same-sex relationships fornicators too. But, it's not our intentions to do that (though the position is very clear).
We could call transgender individuals potentially confused, but we aren't sure, so it's generally not our place to judge. So we don't. The position is we usually don't know what is going on and God will likely need to sort that out directly.

There doesn't have to be term specifically for it. I suppose you could call us anti-fornicators. Meh.
Maybe you could call us those "think people should obey the Law of Chastity folk", but that's long. Some maybe just "chastity believers". But that starts to mix in with the sex-is-bad group and we latter-day saints believe sex (in its place) is very good.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Nofear

[LoudmouthMormon]

Question for folks comfortable with the modern definition of the word "transphobia":   Are genital preferences transphobic?

Meaning, when you're seeking romance or marriage, do you get to be a plain old person who has no discrepancy between their birth sex and their gender, who is attracted solely and exclusively to another person who has no discrepancy between their birth sex and their gender, without being considered transphobic?    A person may not be attracted to every single member of the bio sex to which you are attracted, but when someone automatically excludes from consideration, anyone coming to the table with the "wrong parts", are they being transphobic?

Edited January 5, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Nofear said:

It is hard to fight how a word is used. Still, sometimes it has been done. Mormon was first used as an epithet. The Big Bang was first used by a detractor (though, for the record, the name is bad on just about every level). Though I say go ahead and call me a bigot, I won't use the word to describe myself. But, it does have a greater precision, albeit it not great. Phobia -- not so much. It all but deliberately mischaracterizes our position.

2 Nephi 9:18 is a fun phrase ... "despise the same of it". For we have endured the crosses of the world and despised (i.e. rejected, disposed of, shunned, let it roll of our shoulders, etc.) the shame of it. Example, the Church putting an ad on the flier for the broadway show The Book of Mormon.

I will just say it’s one thing to advocate for a different word choice (which I sympathize with). It’s another to tell another person using a word in a perfectly normal way, well within standard usage (as shown by any modern dictionary) that they are using the word wrong. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Question for folks comfortable with the word "transphobia":   Are genital preferences transphobic?

Meaning, when you're seeking romance or marriage, do you get to be a plain old person who has no discrepancy between their birth sex and their gender, who is attracted solely and exclusively to another person who has no discrepancy between their birth sex and their gender, without being considered transphobic?    A person may not be attracted to every single member of the bio sex to which you are attracted, but when someone automatically excludes from consideration, anyone coming to the table with the "wrong parts", are they being transphobic?

I understand that (on twitter) there are a few people saying this, I disagree with them and don’t really care what they call me. Why would I?

[Nofear]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will just say it’s one thing to advocate for a different word choice (which I sympathize with). It’s another to tell another person using a word in a perfectly normal way, well within standard usage (as shown by any modern dictionary) that they are using the word wrong. 

It is generally a good idea to let the group with opposing idea choose the term that is not objectionable and respect that. It's good social behavior when dealing with others with variances of opinions. While the membership hasn't been perfect and still isn't ... it nonetheless remains the counsel to us that we show others such respect. We are asking for the respect of not being referred to as homophobic and transphobic.

And while the world may not be changed, we can change the behavior on this board. Maybe it should be a new rule in our code of conduct? I'd rather it not be. Voluntarily acting mostly respectable towards others shouldn't be something that needs a club to happen.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Nofear

[LoudmouthMormon]

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I understand that (on twitter) there are a few people saying this, I disagree with them and don’t really care what they call me. Why would I?

I don't know anything about you on twitter, or who is calling you what.  I'm not interested in calling you (or anyone else) anything.

I'm not sure what you mean.  Say someone is in the dating pool looking to find (for example) a man.  This person automatically excludes any individual from consideration who was not born biologically male.  Is that person being transphobic?  Yes or no?

Edited January 5, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Which is completely non-specific. So either word choice is a trade off. 

I just realized that I had completely misread your comment about someone who believes that women who work outside the home are sinning.  I'm so sorry about that.  I was looking at it to quote it for something and realized that it did not say what I thought it said.  

Having re-read it, I would no longer consider such a person as you described to be a misogynist or bigot.  I don't think that such a person can really be labeled.  Maybe a sexist, but even that I'm very iffy about.  I think such a person would be wrong, but being wrong doesn't mean that you need a specific label to describe which group you disagree with.

Going back to what I was saying before.  What of the people who don't agree with everything the transgender community embraces or pushes for (hospitals using chestfeeding instead of breastfeeding, for example) but don't dislike them or think ill of them or think they are going to hell. 

Do those people, who are often given the label of transphobic, deserve that label?  Does it accurately depict their actions and beliefs?

I would say no, it doesn't.  

[california boy]

31 minutes ago, Nofear said:

We could call those who have sexual relations outside of marriage fornicators. We tend not to do that very often (though the position is very clear).
We could call those who engage in same-sex relationships fornicators too. But, it's not our intentions to do that (though the position is very clear).
We could call transgender individuals potentially confused, but we aren't sure, so it's generally not our place to judge. So we don't. The position is we usually don't know what is going on and God will likely need to sort that out directly.

There doesn't have to be term specifically for it. I suppose you could call us anti-fornicators. Meh.
Maybe you could call us those "think people should obey the Law of Chastity folk", but that's long. Some maybe just "chastity believers". But that starts to mix in with the sex-is-bad group and we latter-day saints believe sex (in its place) is very good.

If people attack the beliefs of the Church and do all they can to change people's view of what the Church teaches (Think CES letter) They are called anti Mormons.  If Mormons attack the beliefs of gay couples and call them apostates, shouldn't they be called anti gay?  

And does that come to a completely different level when those anti Mormons start trying to pass laws that are specifically targeted against Mormon beliefs?  Think Prop 8

Is ANYONE suprised that so many call the Mormon Church one of the most anti-gay churches in the world?  What else could you possibly call the Church that would be accurate?

Edited January 5, 2022 by california boy

[LoudmouthMormon]

Hey @california boy!  Say someone is in the dating pool looking to find (for example) a man.  This person automatically excludes any individual from consideration who was not born biologically male.  Is that person being transphobic?  Can we consider that person anti-trans?

[Nofear]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

If people attack the beliefs of the Church and do all they can to change people's view of what the Church teaches (Think CES letter) They are called anti Mormons.  If mormons attach the beliefs of gay couples and call them apostates, shouldn't they be called anti gay?  

And does that come to a completely different level when those anti Mormons start trying to pass laws that are specifically targeted against Mormon beliefs?  

Is ANYONE suprised that so many call the Mormon Church anti-gay?  What else could you possibly call the Church that would be accurate?

In some ways the membership is anti-gay in the sense that we don't believe some aspects of a sexually active gay lifestyle carry God's approbation. Anti-gay is perhaps more accurate than homophobic but we aren't anti the individual certainly.

I wouldn't object if you call us purveyors or advocates of LDS level chastity*. By the same token I wouldn't be entirely opposed to using the term gay level chastity. Although, since I don't believe same-sex sexual interactions is chaste chastity becomes somewhat a misnomer. But if one really wanted that and objected to the term gay sex or such I could see myself showing the linguistic respect they want (I'm often not good at that though).


* There could also be Catholic level chastity, which views abstinence as a higher plane of chasteness. We don't.

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Nofear

[california boy]

1 minute ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Hey @california boy!  Say someone is in the dating pool looking to find (for example) a man.  This person automatically excludes any individual from consideration who was not born biologically male.  Is that person being transphobic?  Can we consider that person anti-trans?

Evidently I have a different view of someone who is transphobic. For me, it crosses the line the minute that person starts insulting someone for being transgender, calling them sinners, refusing them access to bathrooms  beating them up and murdeering them.  To start worrying about who is transgender, or whether they are really transgender, or whether a transgender is elected to public office, or moves next door, then they cross the line from a belief that I would never be transgender, to and I don't want anyone else to be transgender or live a transgender life.  

People on this thread that are complaining about transgenders and how they live their lives have crossed the line.  People who want to impose their religious beliefs on a transgender that doesn't even want to be a part of a religion has crossed the line.  People who worry about what the world is coming to by allowing so many transgenders have crossed the line. Why would any person on this tread care what a transgender person does or how they live their lives?  

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Hey @Nofear!  Let's say someone is in the dating pool looking to find (for example) a man.  This person automatically excludes any individual from consideration who was not born biologically male.  Is that person being transphobic?  Can we consider that person anti-trans?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, Nofear said:

It is generally a good idea to let the group with opposing idea choose the term that is not objectionable and respect that. It's good social behavior when dealing with others with variances of opinions. While the membership hasn't been perfect and still isn't ... it nonetheless remains the counsel to us that we show others such respect. We are asking for the respect of not being referred to as homophobic and transphobic.

And while the world may not be changed, we can change the behavior on this board. Maybe it should be a new rule in our code of conduct? I'd rather it not be. Voluntarily acting mostly respectable towards others shouldn't be something that needs a club to happen.

All I can say is that as long as people are referencing scriptures calling certain acts abominations, and Prophets are calling out “counterfeit” lifestyles, and members are leading the charge to take away constitutionally granted rights (a la prop 8 ) Latter-day Saints don’t have much credibility as a group. 

That said, other than establishing one’s actual views, there is little accomplished by using language like “bigot” and “sinner” in a dialogue. It does little to further a discussion or change minds. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

14 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Hey @california boy!  Say someone is in the dating pool looking to find (for example) a man.  This person automatically excludes any individual from consideration who was not born biologically male.  Is that person being transphobic?  Can we consider that person anti-trans?

Evidently I have a different view of someone who is transphobic. For me, it crosses the line the minute that person starts insulting someone for being transgender, calling them sinners, refusing them access to bathrooms  beating them up and murdeering them.  To start worrying about who is transgender, or whether they are really transgender, or whether a transgender is elected to public office, or moves next door, then they cross the line from a belief that I would never be transgender, to and I don't want anyone else to be transgender or live a transgender life.  

People on this thread that are complaining about transgenders and how they live their lives have crossed the line.  People who want to impose their religious beliefs on a transgender that doesn't even want to be a part of a religion has crossed the line.  People who worry about what the world is coming to by allowing so many transgenders have crossed the line.

Forgive me, but I'm missing your answer.   Someone willfully excludes any and all trans people permanently from their own personal dating pool.  This person isn't saying anything about electing a politician or having a neighbor.  This person is merely refusing to ever consider dating someone whose biological sex at birth does not match their current gender identity.  Is that person being transphobic/anti-trans?

 

Quote

Why would any person on this tread care what a transgender person does or how they live their lives?  

Some folks on this thread are single and looking for love.  If they attract the interest of a transgender person, and automatically dismiss them without a second's thought, are they being transphobic/anti-trans?

Edited January 5, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon