What love isn't

[Chum]

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Prisons often house at risk prisoners separate from the general population. 

Are you referring to the same way that Chelsea Manning was housed separate from the general population?

[Analytics]

On 1/5/2022 at 3:15 PM, smac97 said:

My biological sex was not "assigned" or chosen by the doctor who delivered me in a tiny hospital in Kahuku, Hawaii.  Instead, my biological sex was, and is, and always will be, built into every cell of my body.

I have great sympathy and compassion for people facing difficulties like gender dysphoria.  These issues have become hugely politicized, and there is a lot of bullying and menacing about them.  Very unfortunate.

Okay.  Work with me on this, as I would like to understand your position, which seems to utterly sever "gender" from "biology."  Consider the following:

• If I say "I identify as a wolf," then in my view that does alter anything as to my status as a human. 
• If I say "I identify as a ten-year old," then in my view that does not alter anything as to my actual age. 
• If I say "I identify as the biological son of Martin Luther King, Jr.," then in my view that does not alter my parentage....

I think where this analogy falls apart is that genetically, your biological sex is a much smaller part of you than what your analogy implies, and isn't necessarily cut and dry.

You have 46 chromosomes. 45 of those are identical between males and females. The 46th could either be an X or a Y. In theory if that last chromosome is X you are biologically female, and if is Y you are biologically male. In reality, it is a lot more subtle, nuanced, and sometimes gray than that.

It turns out that there are lots of people with a Y chromosome that look like female. Their birth certificate says female. Their bodies look female. They probably feel female. Yet they have a Y chromosome. It turns out that in general, the Y chromosome is  "gene desert"--it's full of dna that doesn't do very anything. On the end of it there is one gene that does something--it's called the SRY gene. For the first 8 weeks or so, embryos are sex-indistinct. They all have "gonads", but at this stage there is no such thing as male vs. female gonads. They are indistinguishable. At that point, if the SRY gene expresses itself, the gonad will grow into testes. If the SRY gene doesn't express itself, the gonad will grow into ovaries. What sex you look like isn't driven by genes that are inherently male or female, by rather by an intricate choreography of genetic and chemical factors that unfolds over time.

There are a small handful of other genes that also control what sexual features somebody has, and depending upon what happens in a specific individual, people can be clearly male, clearly female, both, neither, or something in-between. That's why a woman can take a pill that will cause her to grow hair on her face, and a man can take a pill that will cause him to grow breasts. We are actually almost completely identical on the inside.

In 1992, the U.S. Olympic Committee decided they didn't want "biological men" to compete in women's sports, so they decided to do genetic tests. 3,387 Olympic female athletes were tested, and 8 of them were shown to genetically be males. And all 8 of them were shocked to learn this--their birth certificates say they are females, they have female names, and they were raised female from birth. After grappling with the issue for over a decade, the professionals decided that hormone level was the only accurate and fair way to determine whether somebody's biology was giving them an "unfair" advantage in women's sports.

Whether somebody is male or female isn't like whether somebody is a 50-year old man or a 10-year old boy. It isn't like whether somebody is a man or a wolf. It's more like whether your eyes are blue or hazel. They might clearly be one or the other. Or they might be partly blue and partly hazel. Or they might be something in-between. 

Once you understand that biologically we all aren't strictly male or female, it becomes harder to rationalize why we must be shoehorned into either a male restroom or a female restroom. Why not use the restroom that is most appropriate for the individual in question? Why not give the benefit of the doubt to the individual to make that decision for themselves?

[Analytics]

An interesting case study is Olympic gold medalist Mokgadi Caster Semenya. According to the Church, your "real" sex is the sex you were assigned at birth. Using that standard, Semenya is in fact a woman. Yet she has naturally elevated testosterone levels and a pesky Y chromosome. 

Should she be allowed to compete in athletic competition as a woman? 

[kimpearson]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

The ones that have gotten the most news coverage (that I have heard about) :

• Lia Thomas
• Laurel Hubbard
• Rachel McKinnon
• Cece Telfer
• Andraya Yearwood
• Terry Miller
• June Eastwood

This website has a fairly extensive list of biological males who have competed or are competing in female sports.

This July 2021 article in the Deseret News is quite informative and even-handed.

Thanks,

-Smac

None are dominating.  They are producing results no better or worse than other women they are competing with.

[kimpearson]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

(Emphasis added.)

I've reported you to the mods.  We need to be able to have civil discussions about controversial topics.  What you said here is way beyond the pale.  Publicly accusing me "arguing" that incarcerating trans women with men would be "better" because "it is more likely they will be abused or killed" is disgusting an abhorrent.  I have said nothing close to this.  I reject it outright.  Nobody deserves extralegal mistreatment in prison.

I hope the mods take severe action against you.  Again, we need to be able to have conversations without resorting to ugly, poisonous accusations such as yours.

-Smac

I didn't accuse you but asked if that is what you are implying.  I sense a very sensitive nerve when it comes to transgender individuals on your part.  I do to as a I count many as some of the finest people I know and I have talked and lived with them enough to know what attitudes are most damaging to them.  The sports, bathroom and prison examples used by many against transgender individuals and have caused the most pain to transgender individuals.  I believe God requires us to love and accept people's choices that cause no harm to others.  If you feel they are against God's commandments, then let Him judge them.  All of our jobs are to love and accept people.  Unless someone's choices hurt others, we should never make the argument to take away or condemn that choice.  If a church or private organization wants to deny membership to someone because of choices they have made, that is the right of a religion or private organization.  That religion or private organization never has the right in God's eyes to deny God's children the right to make a choice that harms no one and in fact helps those who make the choice find happiness and joy.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I didn't accuse you but asked if that is what you are implying. 

Bull.  

Again: "But maybe you are arguing that it would be better to leave a transgender woman in a men's prison because it is more likely they will be abused or killed."

This is not a question.  It is an accusation.  A public accusation.  An evil one.

And rather than retract it and apologize, you are defending it.  That's the measure I am taking of you.

8 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I believe God requires us to love and accept people's choices that cause no harm to others.  If you feel they are against God's commandments, then let Him judge them.  All of our jobs are to love and accept people. 

Rather hard to square such rhetoric with you publicly suggesting that I want transgendered persons to be murdered in prison.

What you said about me is disgusting, beneath contempt and damnably false.

You said it.  You are now defending it.  

-Smac

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

None are dominating.  They are producing results no better or worse than other women they are competing with.

I decline to have further discussions with you.  

[kimpearson]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I decline to have further discussions with you.  

I am open to discussions with you.  I don't think you are a horrible person.  You just seem to take very narrow viewpoints with no consideration for alternative viewpoints.  I was trying to poke you a little bit to get you to fully disclose your feelings about what transgender people should be allowed to do and what limits should be put into law regarding transgender individuals.   I was also trying to understand how you see love and concern for transgender individuals as it relates to such limits.  I apologize if my approach personally hurt you.  I worked with lawyers my whole career.  I was involved with disputes all the time with lawyers on each side.  The way they attacked each others arguments in writing and in the court room always seemed to indicate they must be enemies.  I was always amazed how after settlements of issues or completion of trials, those very same lawyers would go out to lunch together and work together on a new issue where they were both on the same side.  I thought you being a lawyer and the style you use with so many of your responses, you had a similar attitude on this board.  Use strong worded arguments that boarder on attacks in making your points but expecting others to not take it personally.

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

For the first 8 weeks or so, embryos are sex-indistinct. They all have "gonads", but at this stage there is no such thing as male vs. female gonads. They are indistinguishable. At that point, if the SRY gene expresses itself, the gonad will grow into testes. If the SRY gene doesn't express itself, the gonad will grow into ovaries. What sex you look like isn't driven by genes that are inherently male or female, by rather by an intricate choreography of genetic and chemical factors that unfolds over time.

 

This brings up an interesting point.  If life begins at the moment of conception, this actually means that none of us are conceived with either gender.  That idea seems to conflict with two Church doctrines or policies or whatever it is these day.  Life begins at conception and gender is eternal.  Love to have an explanation on how some of you resolve that conflict.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This brings up an interesting point.  If life begins at the moment of conception, this actually means that none of us are conceived with either gender.  That idea seems to conflict with two Church doctrines or policies or whatever it is these day.  Life begins at conception and gender is eternal.  Love to have an explanation on how some of you resolve that conflict.

Except God knows what spirit is going in what body. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I was trying to poke you a little bit to get you to fully disclose your feelings a

That was not a little poke anymore than accusing someone of wanting to murder would be and it was totally uncalled for. Murder by proxy is still murder. 

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

This brings up an interesting point.  If life begins at the moment of conception, this actually means that none of us are conceived with either gender.  That idea seems to conflict with two Church doctrines or policies or whatever it is these day.  Life begins at conception and gender is eternal.  Love to have an explanation on how some of you resolve that conflict.

Both the cell and sperm gametes are living cells prior to conception. The zygote is living as soon as it is formed. I don't see why there should be any discussions about whether an entity is life or not once it has being conceived. If by life you mean a complete person body+spirit, that isn't church doctrine.  

The church has said that the proclamation's use of gender means biological sex, so if we use person to mean body+spirit, then the church's statement that gender is fine as long as biological sex is determined before the spirit enters the body. But then it just falls back to definitions of biological sex which is not something that the church specifies in its doctrine.

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[california boy]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Except God knows what spirit is going in what body. 

I have thought about all the things that we believe God is responsible for.  Creating worlds without end, and billions of spirit children, finding car keys, listening to billions of prayers, and now making sure every spirit gets in the right body.  And He does this for eternity.  Honestly I never could figure out the appeal of striving for this as an end goal, at least for me.  Even on earth, I prefer a more simple life.  I don't even want to be responsible for a pet.  Probably a good thing I am not headed to the Celestial Kingdom.

[california boy]

59 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Both the cell and sperm gametes are living cells prior to conception. The zygote is living as soon as it is formed. I don't see why there should be any discussions about whether an entity is life or not once it has being conceived. If by life you mean a complete person body+spirit, that isn't church doctrine.  

The church has said that the proclamation's use of gender means biological sex, so if we use person to mean body+spirit, then the church's statement that gender is fine as long as biological sex is determined before the spirit enters the body. But then it just falls back to definitions of biological sex which is not something that the church specifies in its doctrine.

 

Does the church have any belief on when the spirit and the body come together?

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Does the church have any belief on when the spirit and the body come together?

Last I checked there if no official doctrine as the specific time as to which the spirit enters the body (or if it's the same for everyone).

Edited January 9, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I have thought about all the things that we believe God is responsible for.  Creating worlds without end, and billions of spirit children, finding car keys, listening to billions of prayers, and now making sure every spirit gets in the right body.  And He does this for eternity.  Honestly I never could figure out the appeal of striving for this as an end goal, at least for me.  Even on earth, I prefer a more simple life.  I don't even want to be responsible for a pet.  Probably a good thing I am not headed to the Celestial Kingdom.

😀 You're just the type that will end up there. Anybody that doesn't want that much power should probably be one of the people that does have it.

[carbon dioxide]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

This brings up an interesting point.  If life begins at the moment of conception, this actually means that none of us are conceived with either gender.  That idea seems to conflict with two Church doctrines or policies or whatever it is these day.  Life begins at conception and gender is eternal.  Love to have an explanation on how some of you resolve that conflict.

Biological life may begin at conception but the important part, the spirit may not enter in at that point.  Our gender was determined before the earth was made.  The sons of God enter the bodies that are biologically male and the daughters to the bodies of biological females.

Edited January 9, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[JustAnAustralian]

On 1/8/2022 at 3:47 AM, smac97 said:

Lia Thomas

Speaking of Lia...

Quote

Transgender University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas was crushed twice in a women's swim meet by another transgender competitor who is transitioning from female to male - first in the 100-yard freestyle, where she placed fifth, and then again in the 400-yard freestyle relay.   

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10382019/Trans-UPenn-swimmer-Lia-Thomas-wins-200m-freestyle-race-two-seconds.html

 

[nuclearfuels]

On 1/5/2022 at 1:06 PM, Nofear said:

the vile, transphobic, mysogynistic, hate-spewing Jordan Peterson

I support his suggestions. 

Facts not fear. 

[Analytics]

On 1/8/2022 at 11:21 PM, carbon dioxide said:

Biological life may begin at conception but the important part, the spirit may not enter in at that point.  Our gender was determined before the earth was made.  The sons of God enter the bodies that are biologically male and the daughters to the bodies of biological females.

Which spirits enter the bodies that are intersex?

Ambiguous genitalia - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic

[BlueDreams]

On 1/8/2022 at 1:32 PM, california boy said:

This brings up an interesting point.  If life begins at the moment of conception, this actually means that none of us are conceived with either gender.  That idea seems to conflict with two Church doctrines or policies or whatever it is these day.  Life begins at conception and gender is eternal.  Love to have an explanation on how some of you resolve that conflict.

I don’t believe a human soul is fully formed at conception. There’s no church policy or doctrine on exactly when the spirit enters the body and it’s based on personal interpretation if someone holds a specific timeframe. Personally I picture life being created into a living soul not as a singular event but like a tapestry being threading in place. It’s not one single moment but a gradual transition into being a living soul. Which means exactly when biological sex is present isn’t really much of a concern for me at all. 
 

with luv, 

bd