Transgender pronouns and baptism

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

Hi @SeekingUnderstanding!  I was confused by your earlier answer, and I am hoping you can clarify.  Let's say someone willfully excludes any and all trans people permanently from their own personal dating pool, specifically because their gender doesn't match their sex at birth.  Is this person acting transphobic/anti-trans?

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Nofear said:

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.

 

So would you ever consider the author of the CES letters as not being anti-Mormon, but rather a purveyor of spreading their views of Mormonism and not really anti-Mormon?

I would say the membership is anti-gay in every sense of the word just as much as members consider the author of the CES letter. Or John Dehlin as being anti-Mormon.  You can't nuance one situation and not the other.  I have yet to hear a single member TBM say that the CES letter was not anti-Mormon.

[bluebell]

10 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 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?

Maybe "Anti" used to be a useful term, but now it's just another way to say "That person is not as moral or "good" as I am" so it's usefulness is waning. 

I don't personally agree with using the term anti-mormon unless the person really has it in for mormons, like, thinks we are evil and hates us.  If someone called everyone who really disagreed with our religion, anti-mormon though, then I suppose they would deserve to be called 'anti' anything they really disagreed with as well.  That would probably be fair. 

Would it be useful to decide what labels are appropriate based on how the person you are trying to label responds in a similar situation?  Not really.  

I don't think that people who really disagree with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints need a label at all.  They disagree; ok.  That says all I need to know I guess.  I don't see the point in having to label people based on what they disagree with.  Similarly, I don't see why people who disagree with the gay lifestyle (for lack of a better term), need to be labeled either.  

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

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?

 

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?

Well a great deal is dependent on why the person is excluding a transgender person from the dating pool.  If you can tell me the reason for their excluding, then I can give you a better answer.

[Nofear]

5 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

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?

No. That person need not having anything against trans people any more than he does of women. I wouldn't call him gynophobic just because he is attracted to other men (though, that doesn't exclude the possibility of him being gynophobic for other reasons).
Similarly, I'm attracted really only to my wife by deliberate choice (fluid demisexual). That I exclude the rest of the world by choice doesn't make me anti people (though, I am that too).

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe "Anti" used to be a useful term, but now it's just another way to say "That person is not as moral or "good" as I am" so it's usefulness is waning. 

I don't personally agree with using the term anti-mormon unless the person really has it in for mormons, like, thinks we are evil and hates us.  If someone called everyone who really disagreed with our religion, anti-mormon though, then I suppose they would deserve to be called 'anti' anything they really disagreed with as well.  That would probably be fair. 

Would it be useful to decide what labels are appropriate based on how the person you are trying to label responds in a similar situation?  Not really.  

I don't think that people who really disagree with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints need a label at all.  They disagree; ok.  That says all I need to know I guess.  I don't see the point in having to label people based on what they disagree with.  Similarly, I don't see why people who disagree with the gay lifestyle (for lack of a better term), need to be labeled either.  

So would you consider John Dehlin or the author of the CES letter to not be anti-Mormon?  

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Well a great deal is dependent on why the person is excluding a transgender person from the dating pool.  If you can tell me the reason for their excluding, then I can give you a better answer.

In my example, we can say the only reason is plain old genital preference.  They don't have any ill feelings towards transgender folk, they might even be an trans ally.  They just refuse to consider anyone without the preferred parts as a potential dating partner/mate.  The thought of dating someone with the wrong parts makes 'em feel all icky.  

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 minutes ago, Nofear said:

No. That person need not having anything against trans people any more than he does of women. I wouldn't call him gynophobic just because he is attracted to other men (though, that doesn't exclude the possibility of him being gynophobic for other reasons).
Similarly, I'm attracted really only to my wife by deliberate choice (fluid demisexual). That I exclude the rest of the world by choice doesn't make me anti people (though, I am that too).

That's a clear and understandable answer.  Thank you.

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

In my example, we can say the only reason is plain old genital preference.  They don't have any ill feelings towards transgender folk, they might even be an trans ally.  They just refuse to consider anyone without the preferred parts as a potential dating partner/mate.  The thought of dating someone with the wrong parts makes 'em feel all icky.  

Transgenders have  genitalia.  If the person prefers male genitalia, then there are transgenders that have that.  If the person prefers female genitalia, then there are transgenders that have that.  

Not seeing the problem here.  The question remains, why are they excluded from their dating choices?

 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

So would you consider John Dehlin or the author of the CES letter to not be anti-Mormon?  

Exactly.  Not anti-mormon in my belief.

[california boy]

Just now, bluebell said:

Exactly.  Not anti-mormon in my belief.

I think you are a rare member of the Church.  

[Nofear]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

So would you ever consider the author of the CES letters as not being anti-Mormon, but rather a purveyor of spreading their views of Mormonism and not really anti-Mormon?

I would say the membership is anti-gay in every sense of the word just as much as members consider the author of the CES letter. Or John Dehlin as being anti-Mormon.  You can't nuance one situation and not the other.  I have yet to hear a single member TBM say that the CES letter was not anti-Mormon.

I would say the CES letter author is anti-Mormonism. I am willing to bet the author is pretty "against" true believers in our religion too. In that sense anti-Mormon would apply.
I would say that our theology is anti-fornication, anti-pornography, anti-stealing, anti-murder, anti-sin. But we are never anti-people, not even anti-sinners. Inasmuch as anti-gay could imply anti-person-who-is-gay than that is a mischaracterization. Alas, English has that fuzziness. Sometimes the same suffix or prefix or linguistic root can mean different things. Indeed, that was the whole point of the homophobe discussion. Phobe everywhere else means this but not in this one instance they argue. And I concede that such could be the case--I just don't think that people or excluding the fear aspect nearly as much as "the definition" supposes.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you are a rare member of the Church.  

I don't think so.  I don't think I'm even a rare latter-day saint member of this board.   I hardly ever hear people use that term anymore. 

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

22 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

In my example, we can say the only reason is plain old genital preference.  They don't have any ill feelings towards transgender folk, they might even be an trans ally.  They just refuse to consider anyone without the preferred parts as a potential dating partner/mate.  The thought of dating someone with the wrong parts makes 'em feel all icky.  

Transgenders have  genitalia.  If the person prefers male genitalia, then there are transgenders that have that.  If the person prefers female genitalia, then there are transgenders that have that.  

Not seeing the problem here.  The question remains, why are they excluded from their dating choices?

Ok. I was hoping to avoid a clinical exploration of what I'm talking about, using direct names of parts.  But perhaps it would be useful.  Please everyone, understand that I'm not tossing out these terms lightly or disrespectfully, but in an attempt to use precise language, so there can be meaningful discussion. 

My hypothetical person that I am asking you about, has a genital preference.  They are seeking a relationship only with a biological male who has a fully formed and functional penis.  They are not interested in dating anyone who has had a penis surgically installed.  The notion of a trans-man who has not had "bottom surgery" is an absolute turn-off to this person.   

So I ask again - is this person acting transphobic/anti-trans, because they will never, not ever, consider dating a trans man?

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[california boy]

1 minute ago, Nofear said:

I would say the CES letter author is anti-Mormonism. I am willing to bet the author is pretty "against" true believers in our religion too. In that sense anti-Mormon would apply.
I would say that our theology is anti-fornication, anti-pornography, anti-stealing, anti-murder, anti-sin. But we are never anti-people, not even anti-sinners. Inasmuch as anti-gay could imply anti-person-who-is-gay than that is a mischaracterization. Alas, English has that fuzziness. Sometimes the same suffix or prefix or linguistic root can mean different things. Indeed, that was the whole point of the homophobe discussion. Phobe everywhere else means this but not in this one instance they argue. And I concede that such could be the case--I just don't think that people or excluding the fear aspect nearly as much as "the definition" supposes.

For me, actions say otherwise.  I would point to Elder Hollands wonderful talk at BYU as an example of anti-gay language.  I would say not allowing minor children baptism of gay couples as an example of unnecessarily targeting gay families.  I would say calling gay married couples apostates an example.  I would say Prop 8 and an example.  

I am fine with the Church not believing in gay marriage for members.  I am not ok with the Church actively trying to take away the civil rights of gay couples any more than I would be fine with John Dehlin or Jeremy Runnells actively trying to take away the right of Mormons to marry in the temple or Kate Kelly forcing the Church to ordain women.  That is where the line is crossed for me.  And that line has been crossed by the Church. 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What single word would be analogo

Why do we need a single word?  While convenient if available, many things require more than a one word label.

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Ok. I was hoping to avoid a clinical exploration of what I'm talking about, using direct names of parts.  But perhaps it would be useful.  Please everyone, understand that I'm not tossing out these terms lightly or disrespectfully, but in an attempt to use precise language, so there can be meaningful discussion. 

My hypothetical person that I am asking you about, has a genital preference.  They are seeking a relationship only with a biological male who has a fully formed and functional penis.  They are not interested in dating anyone who was born with a a medically-installed penis.  The notion of a trans-man who has not had "bottom surgery" is an absolute turn-off to this person.   

So I ask again - is this person acting transphobic/anti-trans, because they will never, not ever, consider dating a trans man?

 

Well isn't that what dating is for?  To find out whether two people are compatible? I don't look at a certain sex act as being the main and only criteria for who a person marries.  Heck, I married a woman and I had no interest in her private parts.  How is that any different?

So I will answer you again. There are transgenders that have fully functional male body parts.  Would that person be immediately ruled out?  If so, why?  Would that same person not date someone just because he had a micropenis?

Edited January 5, 2022 by california boy

[BRMC]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A dictionary doesn’t define words, it describes how words are used. 

Then why does it say "definition"?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why do we need a single word?  While convenient if available, many things require more than a one word label.

When there is a convenient word available that matches close enough, it’s going to be difficult to change the usage to a short phrase (the only point I’m making won this particular issue). It’s why it is so hard to get people to abandon the “Mormon” descriptor in “Mormon Studies” and even harder for words like “Mormonism”. 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think so.  I don't think I'm even a rare latter-day saint member of this board.   I hardly ever hear people use that term anymore. 

 

Anti-Mormon requires some maliciousness involved in their behaviour for me.  Generally speaking I will use critic for someone who says a lot of negative things about the Church.  Simple disagreement, they just believe differently than me.  I usually know about personal interactions that I believe were uncalled for if I call anyone anti Mormon.  Most people I know who use anti-Mormon use it to describe behaviour that is intended to cause trouble for the Church, especially if they desire to help make it cease to exist.  The only time I heard it at church was about two people who were giving lectures about the Church and lying about it and themselves in the process…one claimed to be a former member who hadn’t been.  Another claimed his family had been abandoned by the Church when his late wife got sick with cancer.  Since I was one of those who went over to his home to clean his bathrooms and other messes in the house and knew the Primary Presidency would pick the kids up for Sunday and activities and others watched the kids when the wife had chemo, etc and pretty much everyone else in the ward knew about the help because it was a massive ongoing effort, not surprised to hear him labeled that way…but it was done in sorrow, as in we couldn’t understand why he would do that and worried about the kids.  I don’t remember hearing here in Utah at church, but I don’t go that often for a number of years.  I do hear it with FAIR, but in every case there has been good reason IMO (known maliciousness or deception).

Edited January 5, 2022 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Then why does it say "definition"?

People “define” the word by using it in language. This has been going on for thousands of years well before people had dictionaries. Dictionaries are a snapshot of a words “definition” which can change over time. 

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So you want eat your cake and have it too. I want to preach from the roof tops that “Mormons” are baby eaters and going to hell, but then chafe at the label anti-Mormon?

I think you're misunderstanding me. Those were honest questions without an agenda. I think at some point just the spoken word can reveal another's sexism/racism/misogyny though at the same time I can take a stand about marriage ideally being between a man & women and avoid the label of homophobe.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Vanguard

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I think you're misunderstanding me. Those were honest questions without an agenda. I think at some point just the spoken word can reveal another's sexism/racism/misogyny though at the same time I can  take a stand about marriage ideally being between a man & women and avoid the label of homophobe.

I’m sorry about misunderstanding. It’s hard enough in person and online is pretty much impossible.
 

For me Just like “ideal marriages should not mix-race” is seen as inherently bigoted by a large swath of people, likewise, to a large swath of people “ideal marriages are between men and women” is seen as inherently bigoted (myself included). 

Edited January 5, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just like “ideal marriages should not mix-race” is seen as inherently bigoted by a large swath of people, likewise, to a large swath of people “ideal marriages are between men and women” is seen as inherently bigoted (myself included). 

I agree completely.  Just because a marriage is between a man and a woman does not automatically make it an ideal marriage.  And just because two people of the same sex are married does not mean that their marriage can not be ideal.  The idea is ridiculous.  That is not what makes an ideal marriage.

Edited January 5, 2022 by california boy

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When there is a convenient word available that matches close enough, it’s going to be difficult to change the usage to a short phrase (the only point I’m making won this particular issue). It’s why it is so hard to get people to abandon the “Mormon” descriptor in “Mormon Studies” and even harder for words like “Mormonism”. 

I agree practically speaking it will likely stick, just as Mormon will.  But while I love the fluidity of English for the potential beauty of prose and poetry as well as the fun of playing with words, I can still be troubled by trends that I see are likely to lead to miscommunications and  verbal conflict.