Jump to content

NYT Article: What people will and won't say on LGBTQ+ Issues


Recommended Posts

On 4/13/2022 at 3:21 PM, smac97 said:

Should biological males compete in women's sports?

What if this was done across the board?

If so, what might we learn from the effects of making the change?

Has anyone actually thought it through?  I can imagine some large individuals suddenly becoming rich...  

It might be very instructive for many people

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not saying ...

Which is precisely why we will most likely continue sacrificing young people to this modern-day Molech for some years to come. This issue is so inherently interconnected (genealogically, historically, politically, ideologically, and culturally) with things that the 'enlightened' and 'progressive' amongst us have labelled as true and right and desirable that people will keep backpedalling and looking away until it finally becomes impossible to ignore.

What a refuge and place of protection Zion is!

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One of the latest battles in the culture war is over the Parental Rights In Education Act newly signed into law in Florida. 
 

The Church’s General Handbook contains this instruction regarding sex education:

Sex Education

Parents have primary responsibility for the sex education of their children. Parents should have honest, clear, and ongoing conversations with their children about healthy, righteous sexuality. These conversations should:
    Be appropriate to the age and maturity of the child.

    Help children prepare for happiness in marriage and follow the law of chastity (see 2.1.2).

    Address the dangers of pornography, the need to avoid it, and how to respond when they encounter it.

For more information, see “Sex Education and Behavior” (Gospel Topics, topics.ChurchofJesusChrist.org).
As part of their responsibility to teach their children, parents should be aware of and appropriately seek to influence the sex education taught at school. Parents teach correct principles and support school instruction that is consistent with the gospel.

I have emphasized the last paragraph with boldface type to draw attention to it, because it occurs to me that it is consistent with the instruction given here for Latter-day Saint parents to support such measures as the new law in Florida. 
 

The law bans teachers from giving classroom instruction on "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" in kindergarten through third grade.

The Florida measure is badly written garbage that is deliberately vague. In theory you can sue a teacher for answering a student’s question that involves a gay marriage even peripherally. They put a more concise (but still vague) bit in the actual law and then in the preamble they made it as broad as possible so it can cover virtually anything.

I find it a little presumptuous that you assume the Church supports the Florida bill since it goes way beyond just sex education.

If they don’t have anyone who knows how to actually draft good legislation they should really focus on electing people who do in Florida. In a civilized and intelligent society with an interest in clear law whoever wrote that bill would never be elected to or be allowed near public office again. The courts will probably end up killing it due to its weakness.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, cinepro said:

Thanks for your perspective.  It's certainly a good data point on the experiment society is currently running, and when we look back on this period of time, it will offer an important view of how many people approached the issue.

One thing that seems odd to me are the stories of parents being asked/told "Would you rather have a live (transitioned) trans daughter or a dead son...?" Suicide isn't a fixed outcome, and I suspect telling kids that they have a condition that will almost certainly lead to suicide if XYZ doen't happen seems a little counterproductive. If I ever had a child experiencing this and a health practitioner said this, that would be a huge red flag.

I am curious about what you're seeing with transgender kids as far as the gender breakdown. Are you seeing 50/50 boys/girls, or are the numbers predominantly one gender or another?

 

I have never heard of a parent being told would you rather have a live trans child or a dead cisgender child.  What I have heard is hundreds of parents testify that as they pondered and prayed about their transgender child, this very thought came into their mind.  Many attribute it to guidance from the Holy Ghost.  I am sure as the stories are shared some parents might feel like they are being told this.

I have seen nothing to indicate there are more  transboy or transgirls,  If there is a difference it can't be to great.

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Makes sense. 

But just a nagging thought I've had, and I'm very supportive of the LGBTQ out there to the nth degree.

Wondering if the acceptance of each, made it so more would change over and if the acceptance wasn't there there'd be someone who would have lived a different life not knowing they were actually somebody else entirely. Pretty sure this situation is very much borderline, and there are those that know without a shadow of doubt at a very young age. And those that just went with the acceptable lifestyle weren't aware until later when the thought occurred to them what they actually feel has been trained right out of their thought processes. 

 

Acceptance has definitely made a difference.  Easy examples are Ed Smart and Lori Lee Hall.  So many of the older queer generation lived lives kept secret and many cases never had the knowledge to understand why they felt so different.  One common thing that happens to many LDS queer youth is that as soon as they start to realize they a queer, they will go through incredible mental gymnastics to convince themselves they are not queer.  These individuals often don't fully admit to themselves they are queer until a triggering event such as coming home from a mission and finding nothing changed or marrying someone of the opposite sex.  For these individuals the coming out process can take years.  With all the open knowledge available now days many young queer kids can figure out who they are all by themselves.  My son did extensive research on the internet including everything available from the Church on homosexuality when he was 11 years old and decided at 12 that he would rather be kicked out of our house than not come out.  He courageously told our Bishop before he came out that he did not enjoy young men's and asked if he could work in the primary.

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not saying that a trans person doesn't feel like they were born the wrong sex from the get go, or that a gay person didn't know they were attracted to the same sex from very early on either, hopefully my post explained that well enough.

My niece is either gay or trans, no girlfriend and she dresses more masculine, she's somewhere on the LGBTQIA spectrum but not really sure and she knew it when a youngster along with my nephew on my husband's side knew he was attracted to the same sex.

Maybe the most fluid are the bi's and that it may have occurred later in life that they could be attracted to both sexes.

When babies are assigned a gender when born because it was born w/o a specific gender that gives one the idea that it's likely that trans were born physically with a gender but not spiritually IMO. And they will make a completed change.  

It is very common for young kids to take a long time to decide exactly how they are queer because sexual attraction and gender identity have much broader spectrum for these youth.  Many on this board can only see man or woman, gay or straight when today's youth see hundreds of different shades.

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What if this was done across the board?

If so, what might we learn from the effects of making the change?

Has anyone actually thought it through?  I can imagine some large individuals suddenly becoming rich...  

It might be very instructive for many people

There is absolutely no evidence of any transgender woman transitioning with a major reason being to win sporting events.  It just doesn't happen.  Just like there is absolutely no evidence of transgender women who transitioned just to they could see women's bodies in bathrooms or changing rooms.  It just doesn't happen.

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

https://quillette.com/2020/10/06/forget-what-gender-activists-tell-you-heres-what-medical-transition-looks-like/
 

The whole thing is worth a read. Too many screenshots to post them all. 

67D27F0F-2A21-4183-8751-379514A51061.jpeg

BD73E5E7-8668-45A9-B1B3-F16846F50D3D.jpeg

FAB90268-6597-41DB-8039-A1AA47EC4095.jpeg

Your article is so far outside of the mainstream that I feel safe in calling it a trash piece.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I would need a separate category...maybe 2a? I don't mind people transitioning chemically when they're adults and socially as children... I'm concerned about the rapid shift in demographics that have happened very very recently around this. It could indicate that there are more trans people than first assumed....similar to how the acceptance of gay has increased the number of those who ID as bi or acknowledge some same-sex experiences/relationships in their past. But it could also indicate that other issues around bodies, rigid gendering, and trauma are getting funneled into this area. people tend towards simple solutions...so it's often roped as either a or b. I'm more into yes/and. As it it's probably a mix of a and b. So I'm most sitting here skeptical of just about everything and many major voices in this, wondering how this will look in 10 years. 

I also find myself wondering if this is where I'd want us to go. Transitioning, when it meets strong qualifications and is persistent/severe, should be an option for people effected. But I don't know if it should be the primary option we shoot for for each child with gender dysphoria. Changing one's relationship with your body and cultural messages around gender is far less invasive than changing one's body to fit cultural and social assumptions about the meaning of your body. Often the constructs of gender in these situations are really rigid or stereotypical. I wonder if there was more openness in their social sphere to believe that someone is equally a boy or a girl no matter their personal interests would this be as prominent of a concern? If there was more talk of bodies and body changes at a young age, less assertions on what it's okay to like or who you should be attracted to, that gender was not so aggressively/socially monitored, if women weren't so judged and objectified...would there be as much of this now? Disorders and experience of one's body is often culturally derived. There are studies that explored cultures that had practically non-existant rates of anorexia in their communities...until western beauty/media standard encroached into the communities and anorexia started to manifest. Sometimes an individual disorder is more of a manifestation of a cultural problem we haven't fully addressed. And we haven't fully addressed so many unhealthy things about gender.  So I can't help but wonder, if we did, would these numbers stay the same? Are there ways we can shift ourselves culturally to allow for more diversity in experiencing our sex and bodies and would this help prevent disorders and gendered traumas? Would it reduce to some degree the sense of incongruence people feel with their bodies and their roles in society? My gut says probably. My mind says we probably won't know for a long while to come since that is easier said than done.      

The one problem is the timeframe. Kim noted the online shift happened right around when this research data pool ended. Trans ID has only rapidly grown in the last 5-7 years as increased awareness and activism for trans rights have grown more visible. Just on the timeframe alone there's not going to be longitudinal data on this cohort about how their earlier transgender ID is experienced in say 10 more years when they're adults. When people are talking about the experiment on children, it's usually in the frame of the most recent rapid increase in numbers that is unprecedented. 

 

With luv,

BD

As more and more research is done and as more and more people transition, there is less and less evidence that the current process is harming large groups of individuals.  Like any complicated process involving the human mind and body, there are mistakes made both by professionals and individuals.  These mistakes are becoming so insignificant compared to the real lived experience of so many that transgender people will become an undeniable segment of the human population and everyone will have to deal with it.  There is no going back because the actual results of transitioning are overwhelmingly positive.  Laws and religious beliefs can't stop something that is so positive in the lives of so many.

Edited by kimpearson
Link to comment
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

find it a little presumptuous that you assume the Church supports the Florida bill since it goes way beyond just sex education.

I submit that it’s presumptuous of you to claim that I’ve made that assumption. As far as I know, the Church has taken no position for or against the Florida bill. I’ve never stated or implied otherwise. 
 

What I have done is to take cognizance of what the Church’s General Handbook directs about one’s duty as a Church member with regard to sex education in schools, to make my own determination how that direction interfaces with current public policy and ultimately to decide whether I as an individual will support said public policy. It is altogether permissible and appropriate for me to do so. 
 

And frankly, I’m not inclined to accept your conclusory assertions denigrating the bill in Florida. You are entitled to your opinion, but I find it less than persuasive, and it’s not binding on me. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, kimpearson said:

There is absolutely no evidence of any transgender woman transitioning with a major reason being to win sporting events.  It just doesn't happen.  Just like there is absolutely no evidence of transgender women who transitioned just to they could see women's bodies in bathrooms or changing rooms.  It just doesn't happen.

I never said that. I agree that would be absurd. I never said that it happens.  I never said that athletics would be a motivation for transitioning.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Florida measure is badly written garbage that is deliberately vague. In theory you can sue a teacher for answering a student’s question that involves a gay marriage even peripherally. They put a more concise (but still vague) bit in the actual law and then in the preamble they made it as broad as possible so it can cover virtually anything.

I find it a little presumptuous that you assume the Church supports the Florida bill since it goes way beyond just sex education.

If they don’t have anyone who knows how to actually draft good legislation they should really focus on electing people who do in Florida. In a civilized and intelligent society with an interest in clear law whoever wrote that bill would never be elected to or be allowed near public office again. The courts will probably end up killing it due to its weakness.

The way the bill is written, this is how it can be implemented.

 

Quote

Dear Florida parent/caretaker:
The Florida House of Representatives has recently ruled
that "classroom instruction by school personnel or third
parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not
occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner
that is not age appropriate or developmentally
appropriate for students.
To be in accordance with this policy, I will no longer be
referring to your student with gendered pronouns. All
students will be referred to as "they" or "them." I will no
longer use a gendered title such as "Mr." or "Mrs." or
make any references to my husband/wife in the
classroom. From now on I will be using the non-
gendered title "Mx."
Furthermore, I will be removing all books or instruction
which refer to a person being a "mother" "father"
"husband" or "wife" as these are gender identities that
also may allude to sexual orientation. Needless to say, all
books which refer to a character as "he" or "she" will
also be removed from the classroom. If you have any
concerns about this policy, please feel free to contact
your local congressperson.
Thank you, Mx. XXXXXXXXXX

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

The way the bill is written, this is how it can be implemented.

 

 

Who knew that using the word 'she' or title Mr. was considered classroom instruction.  Makes you wonder what else the teachers in Florida consider to be "instruction."  It sounds like the legislature and the teachers deserve each other down there.

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I would need a separate category...maybe 2a? I don't mind people transitioning chemically when they're adults and socially as children... I'm concerned about the rapid shift in demographics that have happened very very recently around this. It could indicate that there are more trans people than first assumed....similar to how the acceptance of gay has increased the number of those who ID as bi or acknowledge some same-sex experiences/relationships in their past. But it could also indicate that other issues around bodies, rigid gendering, and trauma are getting funneled into this area. people tend towards simple solutions...so it's often roped as either a or b. I'm more into yes/and. As it it's probably a mix of a and b. So I'm most sitting here skeptical of just about everything and many major voices in this, wondering how this will look in 10 years. 

I also find myself wondering if this is where I'd want us to go. Transitioning, when it meets strong qualifications and is persistent/severe, should be an option for people effected. But I don't know if it should be the primary option we shoot for for each child with gender dysphoria. Changing one's relationship with your body and cultural messages around gender is far less invasive than changing one's body to fit cultural and social assumptions about the meaning of your body. Often the constructs of gender in these situations are really rigid or stereotypical. I wonder if there was more openness in their social sphere to believe that someone is equally a boy or a girl no matter their personal interests would this be as prominent of a concern? If there was more talk of bodies and body changes at a young age, less assertions on what it's okay to like or who you should be attracted to, that gender was not so aggressively/socially monitored, if women weren't so judged and objectified...would there be as much of this now? Disorders and experience of one's body is often culturally derived. There are studies that explored cultures that had practically non-existant rates of anorexia in their communities...until western beauty/media standard encroached into the communities and anorexia started to manifest. Sometimes an individual disorder is more of a manifestation of a cultural problem we haven't fully addressed. And we haven't fully addressed so many unhealthy things about gender.  So I can't help but wonder, if we did, would these numbers stay the same? Are there ways we can shift ourselves culturally to allow for more diversity in experiencing our sex and bodies and would this help prevent disorders and gendered traumas? Would it reduce to some degree the sense of incongruence people feel with their bodies and their roles in society? My gut says probably. My mind says we probably won't know for a long while to come since that is easier said than done.      

The one problem is the timeframe. Kim noted the online shift happened right around when this research data pool ended. Trans ID has only rapidly grown in the last 5-7 years as increased awareness and activism for trans rights have grown more visible. Just on the timeframe alone there's not going to be longitudinal data on this cohort about how their earlier transgender ID is experienced in say 10 more years when they're adults. When people are talking about the experiment on children, it's usually in the frame of the most recent rapid increase in numbers that is unprecedented. 

 

With luv,

BD

I was responding to her comment here:

Quote

Now this is only my experience based on 10 years and thousands of personal stories but it resembles nothing like the article or comments offered above. 

The research does overlap with her experience and is pretty compelling.  I also find Kim's testimony very compelling, coming from someone who has far more direct experience than the rest of us who are making assessments/judgments from a distance, often based entirely on our religious, political, or cultural ideals without really considering the individual. 

I agree with you that extreme caution is warranted and that we need to try and get a better idea as to what is driving this recent increase of cases.  I have always been a medical intervention minimalist when it comes to invasive procedures.  If it ain't broken, don't fix it.  These medical transition interventions are pretty radical and give me great pause.  I have always felt that prevention is the best approach to medicine.  That is why I have always really struggled with the idea of medical transitioning because from a physical/medical perspective, there is nothing wrong with their body...so why fix it?  These are pretty extreme physical/chemical changes that are medically unnecessary and potentially harmful.  In that regard, I see an equivalency with cosmetic surgery.   They are completely medically unnecessary and potentially harmful procedures.  So, if we were judging this from a purely biological standpoint of health, I think the risk far outweighs any benefit.  However, when we approach this from a more holistic (physical, social, emotional...) approach to medicine, the potential risk does seem to be worth the benefit for many.  Overall wellbeing should be the goal, and historically it does seem to improve wellbeing for most who chose to undergo the procedures. Similar results are seen with cosmetic surgery for those who suffer from body image issues.  So, while I am not totally opposed to medical transitioning and other forms of cosmetic surgery, I also believe it should be a last resort after all other resources have been exhausted.  Just like with cosmetic surgery, medical transitioning will not resolve any underlying core issues.  It may improve well-being in some measures, but people who undergo cosmetic surgery often still suffer from other deeper core self-acceptance issues that a scalpel can't just cut away.    I don't know how effective mental health treatment is in resolving body image issues with transgender people.  It would be interesting to compare the research in which approach, or combination of approaches, is best at predicting a positive outcome in well-being.   


 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

We know gender aka sex to be eternal already from church teachings so any issues with these feelings are just part of a mortal experience and not their spirit. We should not tarnish our own bodily temples

Abandoning gods plan will not lead to anything good. The family proclamation warns us of this. Teachings on the family unit is clear.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_prophets/Mormonism_and_The_Family:_A_Proclamation_to_the_World#Question:_Since_there_are_people_that_are_born_intersex.2C_experience_gender_dysphoria.2C_or_identify_as_transgender.2C_does_this_invalidate_the_Latter-day_Saint_.28.22Mormon.22.29_doctrine_of_eternal_male_and.2For_female_gender.3F

Edited by SwedishLDS
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I submit that it’s presumptuous of you to claim that I’ve made that assumption. As far as I know, the Church has taken no position for or against the Florida bill. I’ve never stated or implied otherwise. 
 

What I have done is to take cognizance of what the Church’s General Handbook directs about one’s duty as a Church member with regard to sex education in schools, to make my own determination how that direction interfaces with current public policy and ultimately to decide whether I as an individual will support said public policy. It is altogether permissible and appropriate for me to do so. 
 

And frankly, I’m not inclined to accept your conclusory assertions denigrating the bill in Florida. You are entitled to your opinion, but I find it less than persuasive, and it’s not binding on me. 

I have read the bill. Have you?

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

You don't know these people and what their interests are.  You have no idea, at all, when they took an interest in women's sports or their level of participation, you just make stupid general observations based on nothing other than your misinformed political ideology and what you can find on Google, weeding out , of course, what you consider to be right wing nonsense. 

I hear more complaints and concerns from parents of girls who are heavily invested in sports than anything. They are ignored.  My daughter played sports throughout school and went on to coach Junior High basketball.  I went to all of her games as she grew up and this concerned parent will tell you, allowing biological men to play women's sports is a terrible idea.  It will ruin women's sports and will have the effect of tossing aside any concern for biological women and their personal development.  They are feeling abandoned and betrayed.

I know exactly how concerned people are generally about women’s sports based on relative attendance, funding levels, and support. I am not buying that all these people in hysterics about this now were all staunch supporters of equal funding for women’s sports programs before this. If they were they would use this publicity to bring attention to other problems as well. They don’t. Why not?

Suddenly we have a spike in people demanding fairness. It is almost as if they don’t actually care about the sports program and are instead trying to blow up this issue to score victories in other ways.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, SwedishLDS said:

We know gender aka sex to be eternal already from church teachings so any issues with these feelings are just part of a mortal experience and not their spirit. We should not tarnish our own bodily temples

Abandoning gods plan will not lead to anything good. The family proclamation warns us of this. Teachings on the family unit is clear.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_prophets/Mormonism_and_The_Family:_A_Proclamation_to_the_World#Question:_Since_there_are_people_that_are_born_intersex.2C_experience_gender_dysphoria.2C_or_identify_as_transgender.2C_does_this_invalidate_the_Latter-day_Saint_.28.22Mormon.22.29_doctrine_of_eternal_male_and.2For_female_gender.3F

 Our eternal spiritual, and eventually resurrected being, does not always align with our mortal physical bodies.  Some people are born without legs, or arms, or are blind, some are born with significant bodily deformities that are not aligned with their eternal spiritual nature and being - but are temporary disfigurements of mortality.   In other words, sometimes our physical bodies do not always align with our eternal nature.   It goes without saying that our physical bodies do not always align with our spiritual figure and eventual resurrected nature, so how can anyone be certain that an eternally female spirit cannot be born with male chromosomes and genitalia, or vise-versa?  We know that chromosomes get mixed up sometimes.  Sometimes we see three sex chromosomes in people, instead of two.  Sometimes we only see one. So if our eternal gender is a hard dichotomy of either male or female, then we know that our mortal physical bodies do not always align with our spiritual/eternal form/identity.  

Would you be opposed to medical correction of congenital deformities?  Would you consider that an act of "tarnishing our bodily temples"?  Or is it an act of grace which enhancing our physical experience in mortality?  How can we know for certainty, without a revelation, that some of these transitional procedures are not aligning a persons physical appearance with their eternal identity?  We just don't know, so I don't think it is wise to state such things as doctrinal and/or eternal truth. 

Chromosomal abnormalities are so common that 1 in 150 babies are born with one. 

https://www.marchofdimes.org/baby/chromosomal-conditions.aspx#:~:text=Each person has 23 pairs,example of a chromosomal condition.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:

I was responding to her comment here:

The research does overlap with her experience and is pretty compelling.  I also find Kim's testimony very compelling, coming from someone who has far more direct experience than the rest of us who are making assessments/judgments from a distance, often based entirely on our religious, political, or cultural ideals without really considering the individual. 

For me, this is also professional. As in it's my job to provide adequate culturally competent care for a wide range of people. Some of the articles I've read from Trans leaders in gender related therapy make me really concerned that a) I can't do so right now for trans clients and b) that therapeutic services of this nature are severely lagging. I both work and train therapists. Though I haven't currently had trans client, a number of my supervisees have. I personally feel that lack in training. I would like to get training in the manner that I saw laid out because I agree with the potential deficit of both the previous models common in therapy around this. I'm not sure where I'd get it. Therapy as a profession is constantly evolving, particularly in social areas that are in themselves evolving. The training I have had in the past was limited and more about breaking personal barriers and biases about it than treatment models.

I agree that Kim's testimony is compelling. It's still more than most of us here are regularly exposed to. But it's also still limited. By the description, it sounds like this is most 3rd person and self-selected. As in these are parents or relatives to kids who are trans (and maybe some trans people, I'm assuming). Self-selection means it's more likely to be those who fit the overarching groups' purpose and main narrative. People who don't would likely not join or stay for long. I'm not sure of the make up of the group, but if its disproportionately white (which often happens in online arenas), this is also non-representative as trans adults at least are disproportionately POC. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...