Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace

[mapman]

Reading the first couple of pages made me feel bad enough that I just skipped to the end here to leave my response, so hopefully you will forgive me not responding to anyone in particular. Seeing how much Nehor was downvoted might mean sharing my thoughts is pointless, but whatever.

My spouse came out as transgender and for me this has personally led me to realize that there is whole parts of the human experience that I was not even aware of, and honestly I feel like if it were possible to go back I would never want to because the world feels more vibrant now. It also for a good couple of years led to a great deal of stress, fear, and lost relationships. It is not easy to go down the path of being true to yourself when there is so much hate, people wanting you dead, or just denying what you feel in the core of your being could have any validity.

There are some very basic misunderstandings I saw here. I imagine that other people have already corrected them and that it did nothing to change anyone's mind, but I'll just say it again:

1. Gender and sex aren't the same thing. This is obvious and simple, but people refuse to understand it. Sex is biological and gender is about one's inner experience and cultural expression of that identity. Biological sex isn't that important to many people, and honestly I don't see why it would have to matter to people more than their inner experience, values, etc. There are a lot of things we value that don't have anything to do with biological determinism, and it is usually viewed as a virtue to not just do everything we are biologically designed for. You might think that it's weird that people's inner identities don't match up with what you'd expect their biology to be, but that's an issue you should take up with the man upstairs. Or you can continue to scream and rave into the abyss and hope that changes reality. The rest of us are just trying to live with the cards we are dealt.

2. People have different experiences. You can't understand everyone else by appealing to your own experiences. Sometimes people will experience something you are incapable of experiencing even if you tried. You have to actually listen and believe what they are saying. This is such a basic element of being a decent person, that it blows my mind that people here are assuming that someone must be lying if you don't relate to them. You're probably a pretty crappy person, honestly.

3. It says a lot that people are always talking about trans women and not other trans people. Why are transfeminine people so threatening to both the patriarchy and TERFs? If you find the answer to that, it will probably tell you a lot about what makes our society tick. I think that you will probably find that it is a combination of misogyny, men who worry that they'll be attracted to a transfeminine person and then be "gay", and stereotypes propagated in pop culture in such movies as Psycho and Silence of the Lambs. People reducing gender to sexual deviancy is hateful and harmful, and has personally made my life pretty hellish sometimes. There isn't any evidence to suggest that trans people are more likely to assault people, and they are considerably more likely to experience violence than most groups.

4. People that are worried about sports... Get a freaking life. If this is a major concern you might just have quite a lot of privilege many of us do not. Who cares about some people running and playing with balls. This is completely irrelevant to most trans people's lives. We need to make our society into one in which people can just exist as themselves. Figuring out sports should be pretty down the priority list. If you were to ask me what sports organizations should do, I would say I couldn't care less and that I think you are distracting from much more important issues.

5. People like to focus on all the negative parts of trans people's lives inflicted on them by society. This totally misses the positive parts. It is deeply satisfying to be yourself, and I don't think that most people are able to jolt themselves out of their reverie to truly do this if you mostly fit in fine with what's expected of you. I suspect that most of us, one way or another, are harmed and don't like some of the expectations put on us, but few of us delve deep enough to really understand all of what makes us up, and to accept it. Most people don't see the depth of culture, heritage, and experience in the LGTBQ community, and they're poorer for it.

6. For the people that feel all these new ideas are confusing and convoluted, I would say that you are either being purposefully obstinate or you need to accept that you are going to be stupid and ignorant you're whole life if you can't be bothered to read a couple of Wikipedia articles to understand what's going on. And the fact is that these ideas and concepts aren't new, they just were buried by the apostate Christian church. Plenty of people in other countries have had transgender identities as part of their cultures for centuries. Look up the hijra in South Asia, for example. It also was a familiar idea in the ancient world that Jesus inhabited.

For example, the Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria, who lived at the same time as Jesus wrote (warning, offensive):

'[Eunuchs] belie their sex and are affected with effemination, [they] debase the currency of nature and violate it by assuming the passions and the outward form of licentious women... Certainly you may see these hybrids of man and woman continually strutting about through the thick of the market, heading the processions at the feasts, appointed to serve as unholy ministers of holy things, leading the mysteries and initiations and celebrating the rites of Demeter. Those of them who by way of heightening still further their youthful beauty have desired to be completely changed into women and gone on to mutilate their genital organs...' (Special Laws 1.324-25, 3.37-42)

I'm not sure where the reference is right now, but there are also Roman writers who complain about transgender people ("eunuchs") of their time insisting on using feminine names and pronouns. It is also interesting that like now, transfeminine people dominated the conversation. Now that people in the Western world have to face the reality of gender again, the same exact patriarchal hateful BS is surfacing again. Jesus was certainly aware of these people and embraced them:

'For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.' (Matthew 19:12 NRSVUE)

While this passage has been heavy-handedly reinterpreted after the fact, in the context of Jesus' time it is clear he is talking about actual real marginalized people he was concerned for: intersex or sterile people (?), people who were forcibly castrated (often by royalty or rich for use as slaves), and those who chose to express their gender and their physical form differently than they were assigned at birth, perhaps as part of a spiritual journey. See also the eunuch priests of Cybele, Atargatis, and genderqueer devotees of Aphrodite and Ishtar/Inanna.

This might all be theoretical to most of you, but for me and my family accusations of deception and deviancy cut deep, the prospect of violence constantly looms, isolation has gotten pretty bad sometimes, and mental health suffers for that. It certainly is a heavier burden than having to bumble through using pronouns differently or reading a couple of Wikipedia articles to understand what someone is talking about.

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by mapman

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mapman said:

. Why are transfeminine people so threatening to both the patriarchy and TERFs? If you find the answer to that, it will probably tell you a lot about what makes our society tick

I don’t know about why it might be threatening to men, but most cis women I know who are uncomfortable about sharing what was biologically female safe space in the past with transwomen are mostly concerned with physical assault as if someone is biologically male, they are likely significantly stronger than most ciswomen. So it is not fear about transwomen themselves, but biological males. They would be reacting in the same way if cismen came into the safe spaces. Given the long, long history of sexual assault, rapes, and murder, that is a massive amount of programmed self protection to overcome.  
 

The vast majority of cis women I have discussed this with are not concerned outside of safety issues. And telling them they are much more likely to be attacked by cis men is no more comforting than telling someone concerned about stranger rape that they are more likely to be raped by men they know. Women are quite capable of having awareness of more than one potential danger in their head at a time. 
 

It doesn’t help that there are men (I am using men to mean men and not transwomen) that are twisted enough to pose as transwomen in order to gain access. And there appear to be those who claim female identity (I read an article where Merager says she doesn’t like labels) who get off exposing themselves (the amount of complaints seems to indicate she isn’t that innocent).  There are stories if you look for them about such assaults and alleged assaults. I have no clue on the accuracy of the Times. I am assuming the info about being on the sex offender list and multiple incidents is accurate in the Guardian article. I am posting to show the stories are out there. 
 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/person-charged-with-indecent-exposure-at-la-spa-after-viral-instagram-video

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-02/indecent-exposure-charges-filed-trans-woman-spa

Edited December 22, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

Reading the first couple of pages made me feel bad enough that I just skipped to the end here to leave my response, so hopefully you will forgive me not responding to anyone in particular. Seeing how much Nehor was downvoted might mean sharing my thoughts is pointless, but whatever.

There are strong feelings all around, but civility and kindness (but also candor and honesty and reasoning) should prevail.

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

My spouse came out as transgender and for me this has personally led me to realize that there is whole parts of the human experience that I was not even aware of, and honestly I feel like if it were possible to go back I would never want to because the world feels more vibrant now.

Okay.

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

It also for a good couple of years led to a great deal of stress, fear, and lost relationships. It is not easy to go down the path of being true to yourself when there is so much hate, people wanting you dead, or just denying what you feel in the core of your being could have any validity.

Never having been a trans person on the receiving end of communications about that status, I cannot speak to your family's experience.  However, as a Latter-day Saint who regularly encounters "explanations" from other people as to what Latter-day Saints believe / think / feel (such as, for example, how we feel about LGBT folks), and which explanations typically attribute horrible motives to us, I can't help but look at the "so much hate, people wanting you dead" portion of your statement.  Has your family actually experienced such things, and if so, have they been coming from Latter-day Saints?

Also, I am curious about the remaining portion of that statement ("or just denying what you feel in the core of your being could have any validity").  A few questions:

1. Is it your position that individuals and society in general are obligated to affirm as "valid" the inner-held feelings of a person suffering from gender dysphoria? 

2. Alternatively, is it your position that individuals and society in general are not obligated to affirm as "valid" the inner-held feelings of a person suffering from gender dysphoria, but that we ought to affirm these feelings out of a desire to be nice, civil, etc.?

3. In your view, is this "what you feel in the core of your being" restricted to "gender identity" only? 

For example, do you believe a person can be "trans racial" (Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug)?

Can a person be "trans species" (Naia Ōkami and Eva Tiamat Medusa)?  

Can "Stefoknee Wolscht," a biological male in his 50s, "identify" as a perpetual six-year-old girl?

Can a sixteen year old girl who weighs 90 pounds "identity" as a fat person, and therefore request or demand that others affirm and validate what she "feel{s} in the core of {her} being" (which is that she needs to lose even more weight to become "healthy")?

If I "feel in the core of {my} being" that I am the biological son of Elon Musk, can I "identify" as his son and request or demand that others not "deny" the "validity" of that identity?

I assume the answer to the foregoing questions will be "no."  If so, would you mind A) explaining your answer, and B) including in the explanation the reasoning which allows you to differentiate one form of a claimed "identity" being valid (gender) from other claimed identities ("trans" race / species / age, son-of-Elon-Musk, etc.).

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

1. Gender and sex aren't the same thing. This is obvious and simple, but people refuse to understand it. Sex is biological and gender is about one's inner experience and cultural expression of that identity.

And yet "gender" and "sex" are heavily intertwined.  Moreover, while we have always had "masculine" women and "femininet" men, a woman with "masculine" feelings, etc. does not become a man, nor does a man with "feminine" feelings, etc. become a woman.

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

Biological sex isn't that important to many people, and honestly I don't see why it would have to matter to people more than their inner experience, values, etc.

With respect, I think you need to demonstrate, rather than assert, this.  Society has long maintained material distinctions based on biological sex, and often for good reason.  

By way of example, many medications affect women differently than men.  Biological sex matters in that regard.

Women's Sports are being decimated by trans athletes.  I think you would have a very difficult time telling the women who have lost to Lia Thomas, or female prison inmates who have been sexually assaulted by biological males (no small number of which are incarcerated for sex-related crimes) who have been transferred to women's prisons, that "biological sex isn't that important."

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

There are a lot of things we value that don't have anything to do with biological determinism, and it is usually viewed as a virtue to not just do everything we are biologically designed for.

I agree.

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

You might think that it's weird that people's inner identities don't match up with what you'd expect their biology to be, but that's an issue you should take up with the man upstairs.

With respect, I think you need to demonstrate, rather than assert, this.

If I tell myself that I am the biological son of Elon Musk, that's pretty much my own business.  But if and when I start telling other people that I am the biological son of Elon Musk, then that claim becomes their business as well.

If I start demanding that other people acknowledge and ratify and validate what I am saying, then that becomes society's business.

If I start persuading lawmakers to use the force of law to punish people who do not affirmatively acknowledge that Elon Musk is my biological father, then that becomes society's business.

If I file a lawsuit seeking some sort of legal recognition as the biological son of Elon Musk, then that becomes society's business.

If Elon Musk were to die intestate, and if I were to claim to be an heir to his estate (via my claimed status as his biological son), then that becomes society's business.

And on and on and on.

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

Or you can continue to scream and rave into the abyss and hope that changes reality.

I would hope that you could allow for principled and reasoned disagreement about this topic.

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

The rest of us are just trying to live with the cards we are dealt.

I think we are all trying to do that.

But if "liv{ing} with the cards we are dealt" is some sort of code for "ratifying (increasingly under force of law) a mentally infirm person's incorrect perception of reality," then that's really quite a problem.

When "liv{ing} with the cards we are dealt" means imposing your views on others and telling them what they must think and do and say relative to "trans" issues, then that changes things quite a bit.

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

2. People have different experiences. You can't understand everyone else by appealing to your own experiences. Sometimes people will experience something you are incapable of experiencing even if you tried. You have to actually listen and believe what they are saying.

Yes, we should "listen ... {to} what they are saying."  Sure.  No problem with that.

No, we are not obligated to "believe what they are saying."  That is way too broad a statement. 

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

This is such a basic element of being a decent person, that it blows my mind that people here are assuming that someone must be lying if you don't relate to them. You're probably a pretty crappy person, honestly.

The irony here is strong.  You seem to be condemning judgmentalism by . . . resorting to it.

People who disagree with you are not "decent."

People who disagree with you are "assuming that someone must be lying."

People who disagree with you are "pretty crappy."

I propose and request that you set aside such disparagements.  They hinder, rather than facilitate, communication about difficult topics (such as trans issues).

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

3. It says a lot that people are always talking about trans women and not other trans people.

I think trans women are, in the aggregate, making far more of a public spectacle of themselves as compared to trans men.

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

Why are transfeminine people so threatening to both the patriarchy and TERFs?

You presuppose that which has yet to be demonstrated.  That people who disagree with you feel that trans people are "threatening."  That epithets (like "patriarchy" and "TERFs") are self-evidently appropriate.

Again, I propose and request that you set aside such disparagements.

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

4. People that are worried about sports... Get a freaking life.  If this is a major concern you might just have quite a lot of privilege many of us do not.

Again, your posture and tenor here is not helpful.

I question whether you would be so curt and dismissive to a young woman who has spent her entire life preparing to compete in athletics at the collegiate level (often for scholarship reasons), only to lose out on opportunities because she is forced to compete against biological males.

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

Who cares about some people running and playing with balls.

Lots of people care.  Athletics are every bit as legitimate a facet of someone's life as any other interest or pursuit.  

Imagine someone saying to you: "People that are worried about identifying as a women when they are, in fact, biological men ... Get a freaking life."  Would you find that assertion helpful and instructive?  Or would you find it to be . . . something else?

If you are going to present an appeal for compassion and understanding, you will need to stop disparaging and insulting people whose views do not precisely align with yours.

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

This is completely irrelevant to most trans people's lives. We need to make our society into one in which people can just exist as themselves. Figuring out sports should be pretty down the priority list. If you were to ask me what sports organizations should do, I would say I couldn't care less and that I think you are distracting from much more important issues.

"Figuring out how to treat people with gender dysphoria should be pretty down the priority list."

"If you were to ask me what society should do regarding people with gender dysphoria, I would say I couldn't care less and that I think you are distracting from much more important issues."

Do you find these statements persuasive?  Helpful?  

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

6. For the people that feel all these new ideas are confusing and convoluted, I would say that you are either being purposefully obstinate or you need to accept that you are going to be stupid and ignorant you're whole life if you can't be bothered to read a couple of Wikipedia articles to understand what's going on.

"For the people that feel all demands that society ought - or even must, affirm and validate and ratify and celebrate the straying-from-biological-reality notions, borne of a mental health condition called 'gender dysphoria,' of biological men who 'identify' as women (and vice versa) are confusing and convoluted, I would say that you are either being purposefully obstinate or you need to accept that you are going to be stupid and ignorant you're whole life if you can't be bothered to read a couple of Wikipedia articles to understand what's going on."

Do you find this statement persuasive?  Helpful?  

On 12/22/2022 at 12:27 PM, mapman said:

This might all be theoretical to most of you, but for me and my family accusations of deception and deviancy cut deep,

So do accusations of - let's review what you have said - "hat{ing}," of "wanting {trans people} dead," of "scream{ing} and rav{ing} into the abyss," of not being "decent," of being "pretty crappy" (because we disagree with you), that people who disagree with you ought to "get a freaking life," that to disagree with you is to "just have quite a lot of privilege," that caring about Women's Sports is an illegitimate concern, that to disagree with you is to be "purposefully obstinate," that to disagree with you is to demonstrate that we are "stupid and ignorant," and so on.

The irony of your uncivil and intolerant call for civility and tolerance is strong.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 29 by smac97

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t know about why it might be threatening to men, but most cis women I know who are uncomfortable about sharing what was biologically female safe space in the past with transwomen are mostly concerned with physical assault as if someone is biologically male, that are likely significantly stronger than most ciswomen. So it is not fear about transwomen themselves, but biological males. Given the long, long history of sexual assault, rapes, and murder, that is a massive amount of programmed self protection to overcome.  
 

The vast majority of cis women I have discussed this with are not concerned outside of safety issues. And telling them they are much more likely to be attacked by cis men is no more comforting than telling someone concerned about stranger rape that they are more likely to be raped by men they know. Women are quite capable of having awareness of more than one potential danger in their head at a time. 
 

It doesn’t help that there are men (I am using men to mean men and not transwomen) that are twisted enough to pose as transwomen in order to gain access. There are stories if you look for them about such assaults. I have no clue on the accuracy of the Times. I am posting to show the stories are out there. 
 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg

I just came across this blog entry earlier today:

Quote

Men, as a class, pose a danger to women, as a class. That is an unequivocal fact. And male offending patterns are not altered by ‘gender identity’.

Whenever women protest the inclusion of trans-identified males in our spaces, we’re shouted down and dismissed as transphobes and hysterics. There is no risk, we’re in no danger, this never happens, we’re constantly told. When we produce evidence to the contrary, we’re accused of bigotry and of demonising trans people. We cannot win.

Quote

Victoria Smith @glosswitch

Feminists are constantly caught between "that never happens" and "you're using that one example of it happening to spread hate", with an occasional dash of "you have so many examples of it happening you're just obsessed"

7:30 AM ∙ Sep 25, 2022

The point is that men can pose a threat to women and children however they ‘identify’ and women have every reason to fear male violence. Since it’s impossible to tell which males are harmless and which are not, basic safeguarding means we exclude all males from women’s spaces. Even the ones who claim to ‘identify as women’. The list below demonstrates that we are right to do so.

It is far from an exhaustive list - these are just some examples of which I’m aware - but there are a lot of names on it. Look how easily violent, dangerous males can claim a trans identity and be believed, accommodated and enabled. I’d like to ask all those shouting at us to be ‘inclusive’, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising male feelings over women’s safety?

With each case described in more detail below, here are 122 examples of trans-identified males who have raped, assaulted, abused and/or murdered women and/or children. The thing that never happens…

Karen White, Katie Dolatowski, Jessica Winfield, Tara Desousa, Janiah Monroe, Kristen Lukess, Lisa Hauxwell, Laken McKay, Aliea Rose Brown, Paula Witherspoon, Davina Ayrton, Johanna Wolf, Hanna Tubbs, Christopher Hambrook, Dakota Nieves, Tarah Jo Morgan, Marie Dean, Jessica Brennan, Rachel Smith, Marcia Walker, Synthia China Blast, Michelle Winter, Paris Bregazzi, Melissa Wilson, Barbie Kardashian, Jessica Smith, Wolfgang Schmidtd, Chloe Thompson, Denen Anderson, Kadence Pinder, Beth Hannay, Leah Harvey, Julie Marshall, Blaine Maney, Amber Thorden, Babs Longmire, Rachel Fenton, Jorven Seren, Claire Goodier, Kim Marie Johannson, Steven Hayes, Jacinta Brooks, Alexander Eshawn Lions, Ashley Winter, Steph Ricciardi, Vicky Green, Ella Davies, Melissa Addis, Madilyn Harks, Jessica Marie Hann, Michelle Martinez, Nicole Summers, Shauna Patricia Smith, Evelyn Young, Claire Goodier, Allison Woolbert, Nur Ahmed, Vyvyenne Ward, Laura McCann, Lisa Jones, Rayne Aloysius Constantine Rose Bennett, Louise Foord, Robert Glanowski, Joshua Bate, Alyssa Celusta, Sora Kuykendall, Lydia Helena Vision, Ava Jones, Alex Ray Scott, Diego Melendez, Paris Green, Tiffany Scott, Zoe Lynes, Vicky Green, Pauline Long, Chloe Walker, Toni Prince, Lana Laws, Christyl Knight, Carrie Cooper, Jasmine Hill, Nicola Florida, Dawn Love, Stacey Pool, Alexis Herschell, Scarlet Shadows, Karen Louise Lawson, Nicola Cope, Gina Owen, Kayleigh Louise Woods, Claire Darbyshire, Kira Leverton, Kathleen Carpenter, Donna Perry, Karen Jones, Carol Lea, Michelle Lewin, Alanna Nicole Partin, Yostin Murillo, Peter Selby, Wendy Jones, Rose Whitby, Daryl Graves, Diana Guevara, Jason Croker, Jody Matthew Burke, Patricia Trimble, Klaus T, Sally Dixon, Milan Wash, Adree Edmo, Jayden Dean, Paul Denyer, Bruno Meirelles, Pandora Electra, Robert Gordon Cummins, Danielle Rose Gemini, Amber McLaughlin, Brooke Lyn Sonia, Nonnie Lotusflower and Tianne Miller

Karen White (UK)

(Formerly known as Stephen Wood and David Thompson)

White is a double rapist with previous convictions for indecent assault and gross indecency with a child. When on remand he was housed in a women’s prison where he sexually assaulted the female inmates.

Quite a list, this one.

"Men, as a class, pose a danger to women, as a class. That is an unequivocal fact. And male offending patterns are not altered by ‘gender identity’."  As a man, this sounds unfair to me, but the "as a class" caveats make it pretty plausible.  Men individually are not necessarily a threat, but as a class they are physically stronger and statistically more likely to commit sex-related crimes as compared to women. 

A personal anecdote: Several years ago I was working as a "Guest Lecturer" at Utah Valley University.  The pay was very poor, so I was essentially working two full-time jobs, both as a lecturer and as an attorney.  I typically had to start my days very early.  I would arrive on campus at 5:45 a.m. or so and work remotely at my "attorney" job in between the courses I was teachings.  Pretty much all of the buildings at UVU are connected by enclosed hallways/walkways.  My cubicle was at the far east end of campus, meaning I often had to park a ways away and then walk through a few different hallways/buildings to get to it.  One early morning I did this and found that there was a young woman, whom I took as a student, headed in the same direction I was.  Literally nobody else was in sight (this was about 5:50 a.m.).  Due to the interconnectedness of the buildings, I ended up walking behind her, 50 feet or so.  It was early and I was sort of tired, so I did not initially pay her any attention.  But after she looked over her shoulder at me a second time, I realized that she was possibly concerned about me following her.  After a moment or so I called out to her, gave her my name, told her where I was going, told her that I was aware that she may have felt nervous about me walking behind her, and that I was therefore going to stop and wait a few minutes to allow her to get to her destination.  She heaved a sigh of relief, smiled, thanked me, and turned and walked away.

I posed no actual threat to this young woman, but she had no way to discern that for herself, no way to differentiate me from someone who might do her harm.  Her concern about me was ultimately unfounded, but certainly not irrational or unreasonable.  I think she did the right thing in keeping aware of her surroundings and circumstances.

As the above author notes, "it’s impossible to tell which males are harmless and which are not, basic safeguarding means we exclude all males from women’s spaces."  As a husband and as a father to daughters, I agree with this sentiment.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 22, 2022 by smac97

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are strong feelings all around, but civility and kindness (but also candor and honesty and reasoning) should prevail.

Okay.

Never having been a trans person on the receiving end of communications about that status, I cannot speak to your family's experience.  However, as a Latter-day Saint who regularly encounters "explanations" from other people as to what Latter-day Saints believe / think / feel (such as, for example, how we feel about LGBT folks), and which explanations typically attribute horrible motives to us, I can't help but look at the "so much hate, people wanting you dead" portion of your statement.  Has your family actually experienced such things, and if so, have they been coming from Latter-day Saints?

Also, I am curious about the remaining portion of that statement ("or just denying what you feel in the core of your being could have any validity").  A few questions:

1. Is it your position that individuals and society in general are obligated to affirm as "valid" the inner-held feelings of a person suffering from gender dysphoria? 

2. Alternatively, is it your position that individuals and society in general are not obligated to affirm as "valid" the inner-held feelings of a person suffering from gender dysphoria, but that we ought to affirm these feelings out of a desire to be nice, civil, etc.?

3. In your view, is this "what you feel in the core of your being" restricted to "gender identity" only? 

For example, do you believe a person can be "trans racial" (Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug)?

Can a person be "trans species" (Naia Ōkami and Eva Tiamat Medusa)?  

Can "Stefoknee Wolscht," a biological male in his 50s, "identify" as a perpetual six-year-old girl?

Can a sixteen year old girl who weighs 90 pounds "identity" as a fat person, and therefore request or demand that others affirm and validate what she "feel{s} in the core of {her} being" (which is that she needs to lose even more weight to become "healthy")?

If I "feel in the core of {my} being" that I am the biological son of Elon Musk, can I "identify" as his son and request or demand that others not "deny" the "validity" of that identity?

I assume the answer to the foregoing questions will be "no."  If so, would you mind A) explaining your answer, and B) including in the explanation the reasoning which allows you to differentiate one form of a claimed "identity" being valid (gender) from other claimed identities ("trans" race / species / age, son-of-Elon-Musk, etc.).

And yet "gender" and "sex" are heavily intertwined.  Moreover, while we have always had "masculine" women and "femininet" men, a woman with "masculine" feelings, etc. does not become a man, nor does a man with "feminine" feelings, etc. become a woman.

With respect, I think you need to demonstrate, rather than assert, this.  Society has long maintained material distinctions based on biological sex, and often for good reason.  

By way of example, many medications affect women differently than men.  Biological sex matters in that regard.

Women's Sports are being decimated by trans athletes.  I think you would have a very difficult time telling the women who have lost to Lia Thomas, or female prison inmates who have been sexually assaulted by biological males (no small number of which are incarcerated for sex-related crimes) who have been transferred to women's prisons, that "biological sex isn't that important."

I agree.

With respect, I think you need to demonstrate, rather than assert, this.

If I tell myself that I am the biological son of Elon Musk, that's pretty much my own business.  But if and when I start telling other people that I am the biological son of Elon Musk, then that claim becomes their business as well.

If I start demanding that other people acknowledge and ratify and validate what I am saying, then that becomes society's business.

If I start persuading lawmakers to use the force of law to punish people who do not affirmatively acknowledge that Elon Musk is my biological father, then that becomes society's business.

If I file a lawsuit seeking some sort of legal recognition as the biological son of Elon Musk, then that becomes society's business.

If Elon Musk were to die intestate, and if I were to claim to be an heir to his estate (via my claimed status as his biological son), then that becomes society's business.

And on and on and on.

I would hope that you could allow for principled and reasoned disagreement about this topic.

I think we are all trying to do that.

But if "liv{ing} with the cards we are dealt" is some sort of code for "ratifying (increasingly under force of law) a mentally infirm person's incorrect perception of reality," then that's really quite a problem.

When "liv{ing} with the cards we are dealt" means imposing your views on others and telling them what they must think and do and say relative to "trans" issues, then that changes things quite a bit.

Yes, we should "listen ... {to} what they are saying."  Sure.  No problem with that.

No, we are not obligated to "believe what they are saying."  That is way too broad a statement. 

The irony here is strong.  You seem to be condemning judgmentalism by . . . resorting to it.

People who disagree with you are not "decent."

People who disagree with you are "assuming that someone must be lying."

People who disagree with you are "pretty crappy."

I propose and request that you set aside such disparagements.  They hinder, rather than facilitate, communication about difficult topics (such as trans issues).

I think trans women are, in the aggregate, making far more of a public spectacle of themselves as compared to trans men.

You presuppose that which has yet to be demonstrated.  That people who disagree with you feel that trans people are "threatening."  That epithets (like "patriarchy" and "TERFs") are self-evidently appropriate.

Again, I propose and request that you set aside such disparagements.

Again, your posture and tenor here is not helpful.

I question whether you would be so curt and dismissive to a young woman who has spent her entire life preparing to compete in athletics at the collegiate level (often for scholarship reasons), only to lose out on opportunities because she is forced to compete against biological males.

Lots of people care.  Athletics are every bit as legitimate a facet of someone's life as any other interest or pursuit.  

Imagine someone saying to you: "People that are worried about identifying as a women when they are, in fact, biological men ... Get a freaking life."  Would you find that assertion helpful and instructive?  Or would you find it to be . . . something else?

If you are going to present an appeal for compassion and understanding, you will need to stop disparaging and insulting people whose views do not precisely align with yours.

"Figuring out how to treat people with gender dysphoria should be pretty down the priority list."

"If you were to ask me what society should do regarding people with gender dysphoria, I would say I couldn't care less and that I think you are distracting from much more important issues."

Do you find these statements persuasive?  Helpful?  

"For the people that feel all demands that society ought - or even must, affirm and validate and ratify and celebrate the straying-from-biological-reality notions, borne of a mental health condition called 'gender dysphoria,' of biological men who 'identify' as women (and vice versa) are confusing and convoluted, I would say that you are either being purposefully obstinate or you need to accept that you are going to be stupid and ignorant you're whole life if you can't be bothered to read a couple of Wikipedia articles to understand what's going on."

Do you find this statement persuasive?  Helpful?  

So do accusations of - let's review what you have said - "hat{ing}," of "wanting {trans people} dead," of "scream{ing} and rav{ing} into the abyss," of not being "decent," of being "pretty crappy" (because we disagree with you), that people who disagree with you ought to "get a freaking life," that to disagree with you is to "just have quite a lot of privilege," that caring about Women's Sports is an illegitimate concern, that to disagree with you is to be "purposefully obstinate," that to disagree with you is to demonstrate that we are "stupid and ignorant," and so on.

The irony of your uncivil an intolerant call for civility and tolerance is strong.

Thanks,

-Smac

Calls for civility and respect from the person who started this guaranteed dramabomb of a thread? Yeah, no, not gonna take that seriously.

Methinks you might be disingenuous about actually liking civility and respect when your actions are obviously not aimed at creating or maintaining it.

You build a boxing ring, set up a match, and then tut about how we should stop punching and just all get along. Take some responsibility for your actions and admit you like the brawls you start. This level of self-deception is very unhealthy.

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, mapman said:

Reading the first couple of pages made me feel bad enough that I just skipped to the end here to leave my response, so hopefully you will forgive me not responding to anyone in particular. Seeing how much Nehor was downvoted might mean sharing my thoughts is pointless, but whatever.

My spouse came out as transgender and for me this has personally led me to realize that there is whole parts of the human experience that I was not even aware of, and honestly I feel like if it were possible to go back I would never want to because the world feels more vibrant now. It also for a good couple of years led to a great deal of stress, fear, and lost relationships. It is not easy to go down the path of being true to yourself when there is so much hate, people wanting you dead, or just denying what you feel in the core of your being could have any validity.

I don't think its pointless. I think part of the reason Nehor got downvoted wasn't that he was sharing an unpopular opinion, but that he was lumping any and all forms of critique into the most extreme camps. That didn't go over well with a group of people who still hold some concerns while not agreeing with them. And then there's a group who are more extreme and much of your post would be warranted. I didn't read too far into those, because when commentary gets too polarizing, I tend to tune out. It doesn't tend to go anywhere good and engaging rarely leads to anything really. Which means I tuned out a lot of the first couple pages.  

8 hours ago, mapman said:

There are some very basic misunderstandings I saw here. I imagine that other people have already corrected them and that it did nothing to change anyone's mind, but I'll just say it again:

1. Gender and sex aren't the same thing. This is obvious and simple, but people refuse to understand it. Sex is biological and gender is about one's inner experience and cultural expression of that identity. Biological sex isn't that important to many people, and honestly I don't see why it would have to matter to people more than their inner experience, values, etc. There are a lot of things we value that don't have anything to do with biological determinism, and it is usually viewed as a virtue to not just do everything we are biologically designed for. You might think that it's weird that people's inner identities don't match up with what you'd expect their biology to be, but that's an issue you should take up with the man upstairs. Or you can continue to scream and rave into the abyss and hope that changes reality. The rest of us are just trying to live with the cards we are dealt.

2. People have different experiences. You can't understand everyone else by appealing to your own experiences. Sometimes people will experience something you are incapable of experiencing even if you tried. You have to actually listen and believe what they are saying. This is such a basic element of being a decent person, that it blows my mind that people here are assuming that someone must be lying if you don't relate to them. You're probably a pretty crappy person, honestly.

People have their limitations. I try not to label them as crappy, but hitting their limits in understanding. I learned a long time ago that perspective taking, particularly perspectives that conflict with our world isn't easy to take in....including from generally good people. 

8 hours ago, mapman said:

3. It says a lot that people are always talking about trans women and not other trans people. Why are transfeminine people so threatening to both the patriarchy and TERFs? If you find the answer to that, it will probably tell you a lot about what makes our society tick. I think that you will probably find that it is a combination of misogyny, men who worry that they'll be attracted to a transfeminine person and then be "gay", and stereotypes propagated in pop culture in such movies as Psycho and Silence of the Lambs. People reducing gender to sexual deviancy is hateful and harmful, and has personally made my life pretty hellish sometimes. There isn't any evidence to suggest that trans people are more likely to assault people, and they are considerably more likely to experience violence than most groups.

I think there may be a couple of reasons for that. For one, up until very recently, people who ID'd as transgender were not equivalent based on biological sex. There were significantly more trans women than transmen. Which means more of the issues around transwomen would be visible than concerns that come up with transmen. This is still the case for demographics over the age of 25. The other reason is the issue of minority space. (note minority in terms of sociological power in a community, not in terms of numbers) Earlier I compared/contrasted racial "passing." Though there's some big differences, I think there's one similarity of power dynamics tied to this. Where a transman is entering a word of the dominate gender in our society, a transwoman is entering a minority space where issues of safety, representation, resources, etc are already more limited and bumping up to more people who've had serious difficulty within these areas, including serious trauma. I don't think it's just the patriarchy and terf folk who are concerned about how that's integrated. I identify as neither and still have concerns about how to healthily integrate trans experiences within a gendered world where there's not just differing roles or expressions but degrees of power afforded. 

8 hours ago, mapman said:

4. People that are worried about sports... Get a freaking life. If this is a major concern you might just have quite a lot of privilege many of us do not. Who cares about some people running and playing with balls. This is completely irrelevant to most trans people's lives. We need to make our society into one in which people can just exist as themselves. Figuring out sports should be pretty down the priority list. If you were to ask me what sports organizations should do, I would say I couldn't care less and that I think you are distracting from much more important issues.

Worried would be a strong word. In fact if its for sports for children/young teens and/or are non-contact sports I really don't care. When it gets into older ages and where there's concern of losing limited resources for women because of an implicit biological advantage that can be shown, I find that a little problematic. Sports aren't ma thing, so to say I care a ton would be way too strong. But I can understand the concern and I think it. FTR I've read and listened to arguments on "both sides" for this. I think there's some fair points on the trans end. I just don't think they fully negate the concerns on the non-trans end.

8 hours ago, mapman said:

5. People like to focus on all the negative parts of trans people's lives inflicted on them by society. This totally misses the positive parts. It is deeply satisfying to be yourself, and I don't think that most people are able to jolt themselves out of their reverie to truly do this if you mostly fit in fine with what's expected of you. I suspect that most of us, one way or another, are harmed and don't like some of the expectations put on us, but few of us delve deep enough to really understand all of what makes us up, and to accept it. Most people don't see the depth of culture, heritage, and experience in the LGTBQ community, and they're poorer for it.

THat's a problem with a lot of minority experiences. People tend to focus on the problems in communities when discsussing them with or within the dominate group. A great example is just to google "mixed race" and look for how articles from biracial/multiracial experiences. They are 8-9 times out of 10 focused on the struggles and conflict mixed folk experience because they don't fully "fit" moreso than some of the positives and interesting perspectives that can be found because of that.

8 hours ago, mapman said:

6. For the people that feel all these new ideas are confusing and convoluted, I would say that you are either being purposefully obstinate or you need to accept that you are going to be stupid and ignorant you're whole life if you can't be bothered to read a couple of Wikipedia articles to understand what's going on. And the fact is that these ideas and concepts aren't new, they just were buried by the apostate Christian church. Plenty of people in other countries have had transgender identities as part of their cultures for centuries. Look up the hijra in South Asia, for example. It also was a familiar idea in the ancient world that Jesus inhabited.

The Hijra actually are a solid example of some of my concern. I don't have a problem believing trans people or experiences have found cultural expression/place repetitively through many different communities. My concern is a line of reasoning that erases/minimizes the differences between a person who has lived generally congruent with their biological sex and one who has not. The hijras, Bujis, two-spirit people and many other cultures' concept of gender didn't see these two groups as the same but as 3rd (or in the Bujis case, 4th and 5th) genders. That may seem like a nit-picky point, but i actually think it would reduce some of the tensions we have on this. I don't have a problem noting trans people exist, giving trans people the respect that should be innate to being children of God no matter our differences, or recoginzing that I need cultural humility when looking into a community that I don't have a personal part with. I have problems relating to it as the same gender experience as my own as well as concerns around treatment models and implementation.  

8 hours ago, mapman said:

For example, the Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria, who lived at the same time as Jesus wrote (warning, offensive):

'[Eunuchs] belie their sex and are affected with effemination, [they] debase the currency of nature and violate it by assuming the passions and the outward form of licentious women... Certainly you may see these hybrids of man and woman continually strutting about through the thick of the market, heading the processions at the feasts, appointed to serve as unholy ministers of holy things, leading the mysteries and initiations and celebrating the rites of Demeter. Those of them who by way of heightening still further their youthful beauty have desired to be completely changed into women and gone on to mutilate their genital organs...' (Special Laws 1.324-25, 3.37-42)

I'm not sure where the reference is right now, but there are also Roman writers who complain about transgender people ("eunuchs") of their time insisting on using feminine names and pronouns. It is also interesting that like now, transfeminine people dominated the conversation. Now that people in the Western world have to face the reality of gender again, the same exact patriarchal hateful BS is surfacing again. Jesus was certainly aware of these people and embraced them:

'For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.' (Matthew 19:12 NRSVUE)

While this passage has been heavy-handedly reinterpreted after the fact, in the context of Jesus' time it is clear he is talking about actual real marginalized people he was concerned for: intersex or sterile people (?), people who were forcibly castrated (often by royalty or rich for use as slaves), and those who chose to express their gender and their physical form differently than they were assigned at birth, perhaps as part of a spiritual journey. See also the eunuch priests of Cybele, Atargatis, and genderqueer devotees of Aphrodite and Ishtar/Inanna.

Generally agree. I am not a fan of hate. I get leery on messages that tend to be overly suspicious of these gender non-conforming folk. But that's also no all voices of critique or conern.

8 hours ago, mapman said:

This might all be theoretical to most of you, but for me and my family accusations of deception and deviancy cut deep, the prospect of violence constantly looms, isolation has gotten pretty bad sometimes, and mental health suffers for that. It certainly is a heavier burden than having to bumble through using pronouns differently or reading a couple of Wikipedia articles to understand what someone is talking about.

 

I will not pretend that any of my concerns are equivalent to the isolation experienced. I somewhat understand concerns of violence, the fear and trauma that can grip a community when an attack happens against their own, etc as a racial minority. I can also get the difficulty to some degree of having an identity that doesn't fit well into established social identities (also from a racial stance). This doesn't mean that the concerns of how we move and integrate best as a society around gender identity and engagement go away. Or that there aren't real concerns coming from hesitant voices.

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

On 12/20/2022 at 9:23 PM, The Nehor said:

While it would be great this drastically increases the likelihood of being ridiculed and/or attacked. The history of minorities shows that once an oppressed group starts to be proud of themselves there is an almost reflexive reaction from many to crush them back. In the US we had the Red Summer of 1919, the Tulsa Massacre, and many others. You see it in the contempt of pride parades which rarely have any impact on the angered except that they exist.

I like your optimism but I could see it going very badly. Your bolded “and that should be ok” is probably not the reality.

That is only part of the picture and not the most recent renditions of civil rights concerns and and minority community celebration. Some more recent ones have been able to help at least carve greater (thought still imperfect) space for minorities in terms of positive representation as they are. 

 

i would also note, that to some degree that space needs to be made. There will always been trans folk who simply can't pass or pass well for the gender they ID with more.  If they're to be safe, it would mean a greater tolerance for differences needs to be carved out in the culture. That that's hard and that there will likely be set backs in that, doesn't change the need for it, if the goal is to make a space for all trans folk.

 

With luv, 

BD

Edited December 23, 2022 by BlueDreams

[juliann]

On 12/20/2022 at 12:18 AM, The Nehor said:

This one group is the only group fighting for women? Are you sure this isn’t a cult? I doubtlessly am ignorant. If there was a woman here who stepped up to the plate to counter Smac’s deliberate drama bomb I would gladly have been quieter. For some reason there aren’t a lot of pro-LGBT lesbian, bisexual, and transgender women on an LDS message board.

-----

I don’t believe you that those who adhere to TERF ideology are receiving more violence from transgender activists than transgender people receive from transphobes. I have done some reading and statistics digging and haven’t found anything authentic to support that and I looked for it as part of a data collection project I worked on about a year and a half ago.

Mansplain much? 

You admit you know nothing about feminist groups, not even enough to know that there is a push for lesbians to dissasociate themselves from the T because they are being told them must accept biological males as lesbians?  If you are unaware of the violence against anyone labeled TERF (and merely disagreeing with anything said by trans activists gets you that label), you have no standing in this discussion. Google it. The slurs and threats against women are too vile for me to post a link to them. And I stand behind my statement that these feminists receive the violence, they don't give it. Nice try trying to change that to "transphobes" to sidestep the fact that most violence is going to come from male transphobes. Just for fun, how many public campaigns have there been to get transgendered people fired? Cause there have been a lot of women who say things like sex is biological who have been fired or forced to resign. 

And as always, I have to add the obligatory disclaimer, my concern is with the trans activists that seem to control the public discourse, not the majority who transition and only want to co-exist, as they should be able to. Also, stop changing my words.  

 

[smac97]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Calls for civility and respect from the person who started this guaranteed dramabomb of a thread?

Oh, malarky.  I have done nothing to elicit incivility or disrespect.  We can and should have discussions about difficult topics.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, no, not gonna take that seriously.

The feeling is reciprocated.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Methinks you might be disingenuous about actually liking civility and respect when your actions are obviously not aimed at creating or maintaining it.

Again, malarky.  There is nothing wrong with having discussions on difficult topics.  And I have said nothing to advocate for incivility or disrespect.

Meanwhile, you are repeatedly on record as publicly advocating for actual physical violence against anyone whom you dislike, and justifying it by arbitrarily labeling them as "nazis" and/or "fascists."

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You build a boxing ring, set up a match, and then tut about how we should stop punching and just all get along.

Again, malarky.  We ought to be having difficult conversations, and doing so with civility and respect - and also without advocacy of physical violence.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Take some responsibility for your actions and admit you like the brawls you start. This level of self-deception is very unhealthy.

Says the guy who publicly approved physical violence against an 81-year-old woman with a walker whom he labeled a "Nazi."

-Smac

Edited December 23, 2022 by smac97

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oh, malarky.

Again, malarky.

Again, malarky.  

President Biden?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oh, malarky.  I have done nothing to elicit incivility or disrespect.  We can and should have discussions about difficult topics.

The feeling is reciprocated.

Again, malarky.  There is nothing wrong with having discussions on difficult topics.  And I have said nothing to advocate for incivility or disrespect.

Meanwhile, you are repeatedly on record as publicly advocating for actual physical violence against anyone whom you dislike, and justifying it by arbitrarily labeling them as "nazis" and/or "fascists."

Again, malarky.  We ought to be having difficult conversations, and doing so with civility and respect - and also without advocacy of physical violence.

Says the guy who publicly approved physical violence against an 81-year-old woman with a walker whom he labeled a "Nazi."

-Smac

You aren't stupid. You know exactly how these threads are going to go. You start them all the time.

That 81 year old lady was going to a party rally for a party that had a literal neo-Nazi as one of its founders. Old people can be Nazis. In fact it even seems to make it more likely these days.

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You aren't stupid. You know exactly how these threads are going to go. You start them all the time.

That 81 year old lady was going to a party rally for a party that had a literal neo-Nazi as one of its founders. Old people can be Nazis. In fact it even seems to make it more likely these days.

I hadn’t seen that before I clicked on Smac’s link and read the report. Some of the goons from the protesting group stuck their feet in front of the wheels of her walker to block her from going into the event. Another one intentionally bumped into her elderly husband as he was trying to free the wheel of her walker. They scampered off when he went to get the police. By then, it was too late for the couple to get a good seat. They had to sit in the back, where she wasn’t able to hear much. 
 

Even the organizers of the protest disavowed the behavior of these thugs.  
 

According to the report, she wasn’t even a supporter of the person featured at the event; she was just trying to learn. 

And this is the sort of person you choose to label a Nazi. 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

Mansplain much? 

You admit you know nothing about feminist groups, not even enough to know that there is a push for lesbians to dissasociate themselves from the T because they are being told them must accept biological males as lesbians?  If you are unaware of the violence against anyone labeled TERF (and merely disagreeing with anything said by trans activists gets you that label), you have no standing in this discussion. Google it. The slurs and threats against women are too vile for me to post a link to them. And I stand behind my statement that these feminists receive the violence, they don't give it. Nice try trying to change that to "transphobes" to sidestep the fact that most violence is going to come from male transphobes. Just for fun, how many public campaigns have there been to get transgendered people fired? Cause there have been a lot of women who say things like sex is biological who have been fired or forced to resign. 

I thought you of all people would understand what mansplaining is and is not. Transgender issues are also not feminist issues. You insist I step aside for mansplaining while you straightsplain or heterosplain (assuming the same broad definition for -splain you are using) for lesbians.

There is a push amongst a few lesbians to do this. It is not the majority. There is also a similar push amongst a minority of gay men to keep people whose biological sex is female out of their spaces. A local gay club near me almost ripped itself apart over the controversy.

They don't perpetuate the violence? Maybe not, but they do give rhetorical cover for the violent and of course most of the actual violence is coming from male transphobes. Giving cover for violence is not an innocent act. They are harassed. The pro-transgender academics that push back against them are also harassed, doxxed, and threatened and they also are not committing any actual violence. The "feminist" defense against being bigots is that 'biology is not bigotry' which is laughable considering their pseudoscientific takes on biology and that similar biological theories have been a weapon of oppression used by racists and sexists since time immemorial.

That this branch of the "feminist" movement is aligning itself with groups that are anti-LGBT and anti-feminist in general should give people pause. They are 'useful idiots' like the Log Cabin Republicans. The Log Cabin Republicans get a little bit of space in swing states where their vote might matter. In places where they don't matter they are left in the cold. In that sense I see them as a threat not just to people I know and care about but to me too. It wouldn't be hard to find a few activists from the L and the G to say we in the B are a bunch of confused nutcases polluting the purity of gender who just need to "pick a lane". They already don't trust us that much. We are their worst nightmare in some ways. We break up with them and many of us go "back to being straight" which happens to them in relationships with their own group but we don't even have to claim we got our sexuality wrong or that we were just experimenting. There is also a slow but steady trickle of G and L people of all ages joining "the bi side" and it is freaking some people out. So tell your feminist group that if they can break the T into irrelevance the B is probably their best next target. We are poorly organized, don't really have our own spaces, and most of us are closeted. There is actually a much better weapon that could be wielded against the LGBT community as a whole that could possibly split all four letters against themselves and is perfect for triggering a massive moral panic but I am hoping no one ever realizes it.

There don't need to be campaigns to get transgendered people fired. It is the norm for them to be discriminated against by employers. It is the norm for LGBT people in general to get discriminated against and harassed in the workplace. No one has to campaign for it. There are also campaigns to get pro-transgender academics fired and they are hit by those same vile and horrific threats. 

7 hours ago, juliann said:

And as always, I have to add the obligatory disclaimer, my concern is with the trans activists that seem to control the public discourse, not the majority who transition and only want to co-exist, as they should be able to. Also, stop changing my words.  

Wow, and there it is. Imagine a man saying:

"My concern is with the feminist activists that seem to control the public discourse, not the majority of women who just want to co-exist, as they should be able to."

That wouldn't necessarily be mansplaining but it was the rhetoric of men trying to split a group to weaken them and make them incapable of influencing anything. It also suggests (wrongly) that most transgender people aren't behind said activists and they are. You don't just want to turn the L against the T. You also want to pretend the majority of T isn't supporting their own activists which is ridiculously untrue.

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I hadn’t seen that before I clicked on Smac’s link and read the report. Some of the goons from the protesting group stuck their feet in front of the wheels of her walker to block her from going into the event. Another one intentionally bumped into her elderly husband as he was trying to free the wheel of her walker. They scampered off when he went to get the police. By then, it was too late for the couple to get a good seat. They had to sit in the back, where she wasn’t able to hear much. 
 

Even the organizers of the protest disavowed the behavior of these thugs.  
 

According to the report, she wasn’t even a supporter of the person featured at the event; she was just trying to learn. 

And this is the sort of person you choose to label a Nazi. 

Of course they disavowed it.

I am not going to pretend that someone just wanting to learn what the Nazis have to say is somehow an earnest seeker of truth. The lady wasn't going to yell "Heil Hitler" at the reporter even if she was a Nazi. She would say the same thing whether she was a genuine supporter or some kind of open-minded weirdo curious what the crazy people have to say.

And she couldn't hear it that well????? TRAGEDY!!!!!!!

And why do I keep falling for smac's irrelevant bait callbacks? Waste of valuable time that could be spent in more profitable activities like stamp collecting or Nazi punching.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Of course they disavowed it.

But not you. You’ll rush right in and rationalize/defend it. 
 

Lots of people in their 80s are hard of hearing. It’s not a good look for you to mock it. 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But not you. You’ll rush right in and rationalize/defend it. 

Yep. Nazis suck. I don't have to worry about PR.

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Lots of people in their 80s are hard of hearing. It’s not a good look for you to mock it. 

Yep, that was definitely what I was mocking there. Good catch.

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You aren't stupid.

I agree.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You know exactly how these threads are going to go.   You start them all the time.

And many go quite well.  When the provocateurs and hecklers don't show up and muck things up.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That 81 year old lady was going to a party rally

You continue to prove my point.  From the news item about her:

Quote

Dorothy Marston says it was curiosity about Maxime Bernier's platform that brought her to Mohawk College in Hamilton on Sunday, but when she tried to get inside the venue where he was speaking, she and her husband found their way blocked by a line of protesters.

The row of people standing between the 81-year-old using a walker and the political fundraiser had their faces covered. Some shouted "Nazi scum off our streets" as she tried to pass and, Marston says, one person intentionally put a foot in front of her wheel, forcing her to stop.

"They were in a lineup … and treating me like I'm a criminal," she said during an interview at the Hamilton-area retirement residence where she lives.

"If I moved, they moved and they would not allow me through. They were hollering 'Nazi' and 'racist' and all this nonsense. It was more than nonsense, it was frightening in my country."
...

Marston said she isn't sure who she'll vote for and that she's still trying to learn more about the PPC, though she thinks Bernier cares about the country and offers new ideas compared to the other party leaders.

The senior says she's aware Bernier's comments on immigration have upset people, but said she also has questions about who should be able to come to Canada.

She says, in her opinion, immigration has been largely positive, but "maybe we shouldn't open the floodgates."

"I look at the Middle East and it frightens me, because there's no democracy … and the fighting in Syria and the values are different than ours," she said. 

Marston, who was a social worker for 40 years, says she's not a racist or a Nazi.

"I don't care what colour, what race, nothing. What people think, that to me is what's important."
...

She describes what happened as an attack on free speech, calling the entire experience shocking and insulting.

"I want to know who I'm voting for and I want to know what their values are." she said.

"It's very sad that we're not open and we don't trust the citizens enough, such as me, to hear what people who want to lead us are saying."

This woman is, in your view, a "Nazi."

In your view, physical violence against this woman is justified.

Again, your response to how this woman was treated:

"Nazi" (or "Fascist") is, for you, anyone you dislike, an arbitrary label you use to justify physical violence.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

for a party that had a literal neo-Nazi as one of its founders.

Well, let's see:

1. In October 2019, Dorothy Marston was trying to attend "a Maxime Bernier event at Mohawk College."

2. Maxime Bernier is "a Canadian politician who is the founder and leader of the People's Party of Canada (PPC)."

3. The PPC is "a right-wing populist federal political party in Canada ... formed by Maxime Bernier in September 2018, shortly after his resignation from the Conservative Party of Canada."

4. In order to form as a political party in Canada, "the PPC had to submit the names of at least 250 members to the chief electoral officer."

5. One of the 250 people who signed the form was "Shaun Walker ... who now lives in St. Catharines, Ont., {and} once led the National Alliance {a white supremacist and neo-Nazi organization} and was convicted in Utah over his role in a conspiracy to intimidate minorities.

6. In August 2019, the PPC " cut its ties with Walker last month after his past involvement in the white nationalist movement came to light."  "'As of today {August 29, 2019}, Shaun Walker is no longer part of our organization,' Johanne Mennie, the executive director of the party led by former Conservative MP Maxime Bernier, said Thursday."  "A spokesperson for the PPC said 'a background check only yielded Canadian results.'  'Mr. Walker did not disclose any information in our ‘non-embarrassment’ pledge about his past in the United States,' Mennie said."

Let's review a bit more about Dorothy Marston - the 81-year-old retired social worker (and mother of five and grandmother of six) whom, according to you, ought to be subjected to physical violence (which violence you even affirmed as "good"):

Quote

Sitting at her Hamilton kitchen table Wednesday, the mother of five and grandmother of six said the incident still shocks her.

"To try and deny a man such as Maxime Bernier to speak, or for me to hear what he has to say, that is criminal," she said. "I felt my rights were interfered with."

Dorothy said she is not a Nazi, nor a racist.

She attended the event to hear what Bernier had to say. She said she understands some Canadians take issue with the PPC's advocacy of severe immigration cuts and support for interviews with prospective newcomers to ensure their views align with Canadian values, but she personally supports much of his stance on immigration.

"I do believe most people who come are good, solid people who've suffered in their own country and they don't want the same thing here," she said. "But then, there are some with values that are different."

She said she liked what Bernier said at the event but wants to do more research before deciding how she'll cast her vote.

Regardless of whether or not she ends up supporting him, she should be free to hear him out, she said.

I am supposed to take seriously moral opprobrium from you, who openly advocates for and approves of physical violence against this woman?

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

According to the report, she wasn’t even a supporter of the person featured at the event; she was just trying to learn. 

And this is the sort of person you choose to label a Nazi. 

That's the horribly convenient thing about how people like Nehor use these epithets.  They are untethered from any actual or substantive meaning, and are instead mere labels used to justify targeted and intentional violence against people Nehor dislikes.  Nothing more.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's the horribly convenient thing about how people like Nehor use these epithets.  They are untethered from any actual or substantive meaning, and are instead mere labels used to justify targeted and intentional violence against people Nehor dislikes.  Nothing more.

Thanks,

-Smac

There’s that and the brazen guilt-by-association. The man’s political party allegedly was co-founded by a “neo-Nazi” (I have no idea whether that is true), so someone who only wants to hear him speak and to evaluate his message deserves to be labeled a Nazi and to have her own human rights violated by an aggressive mob. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[LoudmouthMormon]

@mapman I hope you can do us the honor of not following @The Nehor down his violent insulting discussion-suppressing rabbit hole.  I hope you address Smac's post.

I've seen a lot of posts like Mapman's, and a lot of responses like Smac's.  I've never seen further interaction between the two - every time it seems, folks like Nehor show up and totally derail things with their insulting nonsense.

I wanna take folks passionate about trans rights seriously.  I am unable to do so, if they cannot keep in a rational and challenging conversation.  Please, help me take you seriously.

Edited December 24, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[smac97]

Just now, LoudmouthMormon said:

@mapman I hope you can do us the honor of not following @The Nehor down his violent insulting discussion-suppressing rabbit hole.  I hope you address Smac's post.

I've seen a lot of posts like Mapman's, and a lot of responses like Smac's.  I've never seen further interaction between the two - every time it seems, folks like Nehor show up and totally derail things with their insulting nonsense.

It's almost as if Nehor wants to use a heckler's veto to suppress discussions he dislikes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's almost as if Nehor wants to use a heckler's veto to suppress discussions he dislikes.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t have a problem with it. The idea that I don’t like a good verbal fight is ridiculous on the face of it. Have you not seen me post before? I throw dramabombs around here all the time. I charge into the fights and often get thread banned. If I wanted to suppress it I would use much different tactics.

It is your hypocrisy that I find disgusting. You like to start fights and are in denial about it. And that is just sad.

Edit: Of particular note you keep dragging in the Nazi thing everywhere to provoke me (do I really need provoking?) or in some misguided attempt to shame me (Good luck with that, lol).

Edited December 24, 2022 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I wanna take folks passionate about trans rights seriously.  I am unable to do so, if they cannot keep in a rational and challenging conversation.  Please, help me take you seriously.

You want to understand the arguments of transgender rights advocates and you are going to judge the merits of their argument based on some randos on this board? You realize there is a wealth of literature, speeches, podcasts, etc. on transgender rights out there but you want their representation to impress you here on a board that (as far as we know) doesn’t have any transgender individuals on it, very few lgbt in general, and is slanted to be uninteresting and unimportant to the people who most advocate for transgender rights?

That is just weird. Plus if I had known I was somehow representing the transgender community specifically and the lgbt community generally I would have dressed nicer. I don’t think I can pull off the femboy look as well as i used to but I would have at least tried.

[smac97]

On 12/18/2022 at 9:17 AM, smac97 said:

A few months back I posted a few comments on recent legal developments in various jurisdictions pertaining to compulsory "pronoun" usage.  I commented at length as to matters of compelled speech, orwellian re-definitions, and so on.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here.

Our Analytics responded.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

One of the big differences in our respective positions is that I am strongly opposed to compelled speech, to the government using the force of law to punish people who say things the government does not want them to say, or to punish people who do not want to say things the government seeks to compel/coerce them to say (such as "preferred pronouns").  Meanwhile, Analytics seemed to broadly deny that governments are starting to pass laws, or enforce existing ones, which seek to punish "pronoun" usage (though elsewhere he seemed to approve of such laws - I'll let him address that if he likes).

I provided a number of examples of these laws here and here.  I cited instances of this happening in California, New York, Virginia, Canada, the UK, and Norway.

Here's another one from Norway that just recently came out:

The link beneath the tweet above is to this story: “Men Are Men”: Norwegian Artist Facing Criminal Charges, Potential Prison Sentence Over Gender Comments

A few thoughts/observations here:

First, I think most of the aggression in the Pronoun Wars is coming from the "T" in LGBT.

Second, there seems to be some substantial fracturing going on in LGBT coalition, with the "Ts" and the "Ls" becoming increasingly at loggerheads.

Third, I find it noteworthy that the "T" agitators are willing to punish "Ls" who do not acquiesce in the Pronoun Wars, and to use the organs of the State to do so.  This really seems to be accelerating.

"A man who claims to be a lesbian mother."

No, that's not a pitch for an SNL skit or a sitcom episode.

To paraphrase the saying (which itself is an adaptation of a line in Shakespeare's The Tempest), "resisting compelled speech makes strange bedfellows."

I, as an adult male American and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, am wholly supportive of lesbian Norwegian filmmaker Tonje Gjevjon on this point.  

"Up to three years in prison."

For saying words.  For giving voice to ideas the government dislikes.

I think this sort of thing is going to increase in frequency and severity unless actively opposed.  Credit to Gjevjon for her efforts.

A translation of the above police notice to Gjevjon:

Yeesh.  

Alas, "being disavowed" is sometimes the price to be paid for standing by one's convictions.

I think the issue becomes substantively more problematic, though, when the government wades in and starts throwing its weight around.

"Queer organizations" can, I suppose, do as they like.  But when "politicians" start to take sides in such matters, and when they start to pass laws to compel speech or punish what ought to be Free Speech, that becomes problematic.

Anyway, back to the first article:

I have expressed concern about this phenomenon quite a few times.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the most important pieces of thought in the history of the world.  It preserves, or is intended to preserve, individual liberties from encroachments and threats by the State.  I find it interesting that the Latter-day Saints owe so much to this small bit of writing, but we are far from the only ones.  I value the common ground I, as a male Latter-day Saint in Utah, share with Gjevjon, Norwegian lesbian filmmaker relative to valuing Free Speech.  This includes resisting compelled speech, and it is a concern as central to my interests as a Latter-day Saint in America as to Gjevjon's interests as a lesbian and artiste in Norway.

Thanks,

-Smac

More recently:

Catholic nuns face legal harassment for not using preferred pronouns

Quote

To care for the dying poor: That was the mission Rose Hawthorne Lathrop had in mind when she established a congregation of Catholic Dominican sisters in 1900. The Servants of Relief for Incurable Cancer are still working, now out of Rosary Hill Home, a 42-bed nursing facility in Hawthorne, New York.

 

The sisters see their work as part of the “healing ministry of Christ,” and they dedicate their lives to their founder’s goal: to make whoever crosses their door feel as “comfortable and happy as if their own people had kept them and put them into the very best bedroom.” The sisters offer palliative services free of charge. They accept neither government funding nor insurance.

 

What a simple and beautiful mission. But it’s not good enough for bureaucrats in Albany. The sisters have received three letters from the state’s health department, in effect, explaining that they’re not complying with provisions of a “Bill of Rights for LGBTQIA+ New Yorkers” that Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed in 2023.

 

The text stipulates that long-term care facilities must use patients’ preferred pronouns, even when they’re not present; defer to their choice of bathroom; and refuse to assign rooms based on biological sex. Staff must also undergo “cultural competency” training.

 

All of this would violate the sisters’ consciences, yet failure to do so could cost them thousands of dollars in fines, loss of licensure and even imprisonment. When their request for an exemption went unanswered this spring, they sued the state in federal court.

 

The Justice Department joined the litigation on their behalf this month, and its filing makes a strong case that New York ignores the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. “States should take notice that they cannot require Americans to abandon their religious beliefs in the name of woke gender ideology,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon. The state law offers exceptions based on “any professionally reasonable clinical judgment” but none for religious reasons.

December 2022: "A few months back I posted a few comments on recent legal developments in various jurisdictions pertaining to compulsory "pronoun" usage.  I commented at length as to matters of compelled speech, orwellian re-definitions, and so on. ... I am strongly opposed to compelled speech, to the government using the force of law to punish people who say things the government does not want them to say, or to punish people who do not want to say things the government seeks to compel/coerce them to say (such as 'preferred pronouns').  Meanwhile, Analytics seemed to broadly deny that governments are starting to pass laws, or enforce existing ones, which seek to punish 'pronoun' usage..."

June 2026: "The text {of the letter from from the state’s health department} stipulates that long-term care facilities must use patients’ preferred pronouns, even when they’re not present."

January 2026:

Washington University pressuring students to ‘deny biology,’ conform to radical gender ideology, AFL says

Quote

New documents obtained from Washington University in St. Louis suggest students are being brainwashed with ideological training that goes far beyond education.

America First Legal (AFL) released the materials, arguing they reveal an institutional effort to redefine biological sex, enforce radical gender ideology and pressure students to comply rather than question what they are being taught.

According to AFL, the documents come from internal class materials and training sessions used by the university. They show WashU promoting what it calls “infinite pronouns,” including terms such as “ze” and “hir,” while instructing students to “sit in discomfort” if they disagree.

Debate isn’t encouraged at WashU in these matters and resistance is treated as a problem to be corrected, according to AFL.

...

Students are taught that using preferred pronouns is mandatory, not optional. Compliance is framed as a virtue, while dissent is portrayed as harmful or discriminatory.

May 2026: 

Federal Court Orders School District to Protect Students’ Free Speech Rights, Orders Free Speech Training for Employees

Quote

Litigation that began in May 2023 to defend the free speech rights of students in Ohio has reached a victorious close in Defending Education’s case against Olentangy Public Schools over its unconstitutional anti-harassment and pronoun policies. On May 15, 2026, the court entered its consent decree in the case, ordering the School District not to enforce the “discriminatory language” and “harassment” provisions in its Code of Conduct against any student who refuses to use mandatory “preferred pronouns.” The court also ordered the School District to provide mandatory training to all employees at the beginning of the next school year on how to ensure students’ free speech rights are protected.

June 2026: 

University of California sued for mandating students use chosen pronouns

Quote

A parental rights advocacy group is suing the University of California for forcing students to use the chosen pronouns of trans-identified individuals.

Defending Education filed the complaint on Thursday against UC officials and California Gov. Gavin Newsom in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division.

The group accuses UC of violating students’ constitutional rights through its “Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment” policy, which, in the frequently-asked-questions section, bans the “intentional or repeated use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with [an] individual’s gender identity (i.e., misgendering).”

...

The online training and testing modules garnered criticism for requiring that, among other things, students use pronouns of trans-identified individuals that do not match their sex and allow them to use bathrooms and other sex-segregated facilities that are inconsistent with their sex.

It appears the pronoun thing is still going on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 29 by smac97

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

It appears the pronoun thing is still going on.

And you again take this golden opportunity to uncritically repost and regurgitate propaganda without investigating the claims made in even the most perfunctory fashion. So here we go again.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

One of the big differences in our respective positions is that I am strongly opposed to compelled speech, to the government using the force of law to punish people who say things the government does not want them to say, or to punish people who do not want to say things the government seeks to compel/coerce them to say (such as "preferred pronouns").  Meanwhile, Analytics seemed to broadly deny that governments are starting to pass laws, or enforce existing ones, which seek to punish "pronoun" usage (though elsewhere he seemed to approve of such laws - I'll let him address that if he likes).

So you are opposed to compelled speech?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The link beneath the tweet above is to this story: “Men Are Men”: Norwegian Artist Facing Criminal Charges, Potential Prison Sentence Over Gender Comments

Well, that is a misleading headline. She is facing criminal charges because there is currently an investigation that may not think charges are appropriate at all.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts/observations here:

Prediction: These will all be ridiculous.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, I think most of the aggression in the Pronoun Wars is coming from the "T" in LGBT.

Uh, nope. Most of the aggression is coming from transphobic activists.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Second, there seems to be some substantial fracturing going on in LGBT coalition, with the "Ts" and the "Ls" becoming increasingly at loggerheads.

This is even more stupid. I know the queer community. The Gs have the highest number of transphobes amongst them and it is still very very low. Much lower than can be found in the general population. The lesbian community is largely supportive of transgender people. So is the gay community. The bisexual community is probably the most supportive.

There is no fracture in the community. There are some useful idiots who happen to be queer. There is no divide. That is right-wing propaganda designed mostly to assuage the consciences of bigots who want to imagine they are supporting lesbians in their hate.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Third, I find it noteworthy that the "T" agitators are willing to punish "Ls" who do not acquiesce in the Pronoun Wars, and to use the organs of the State to do so.  This really seems to be accelerating.

This is, of course, entirely incorrect if you do more than a surface level reading of the upcoming situation you are going to use in this preposterous example.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"A man who claims to be a lesbian mother."

No, that's not a pitch for an SNL skit or a sitcom episode.

*pause for laughs for this hilarious joke and hope for at least General Conference level audible chuckles offered mostly out of politeness*

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

To paraphrase the saying (which itself is an adaptation of a line in Shakespeare's The Tempest), "resisting compelled speech makes strange bedfellows."

Stop trying to share a bed with a lesbian. It is a weird thing to aspire to.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I, as an adult male American and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, am wholly supportive of lesbian Norwegian filmmaker Tonje Gjevjon on this point.  

Knowest thou the condescension of smac? He descended below all things to admit he agrees with a lesbian to kill their common enemy, the marginalized transgender people. Truly a Christlike act.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Up to three years in prison."

For saying words.  For giving voice to ideas the government dislikes.

I think this sort of thing is going to increase in frequency and severity unless actively opposed.  Credit to Gjevjon for her efforts.

A translation of the above police notice to Gjevjon:

Yeesh.  

Alas, "being disavowed" is sometimes the price to be paid for standing by one's convictions.

I think the issue becomes substantively more problematic, though, when the government wades in and starts throwing its weight around.

"Queer organizations" can, I suppose, do as they like.  But when "politicians" start to take sides in such matters, and when they start to pass laws to compel speech or punish what ought to be Free Speech, that becomes problematic.

Okay, so what happened? 

Gjevjon is a know TERF. She has been harassing transgender people in Norway on social media and in person for years. She has a particular bone to pick with Christine Jentoft, a trans lesbian with a child. Hence the “lesbian mother” schtick.

So how did this whole investigation start? Gjevjon posted a bit on social media about how “men are men” and deadnamed Jentoft. Then someone (cough) Gjevjon (cough) reported the post which triggered a police investigation into Gjevjon. Now newspapers can say she is being investigated and “facing charges” with scare tactics about the potential prison term being something she realistically faces.

So what does Jentoft say about this? She hast stated she doesn’t want Gjevjon charged or prosecuted despite Gjevjon’s regular social media harassment. Prominent Norwegian transgender advocacy groups don’t want Gjevjon charged or prosecuted and have publicly said this.

So who wants Gjevjon charged? Probably nobody. Who wants Gjevjon investigated so they can sell this story as a scare tactic revolving around an investigation likely to go nowhere? Gjevjon who is hard at work playing the martyr who no one actually wants to burn at the stake.

This is your heroine smac. A social media bully who deliberately triggered an investigation (Gjevjon admits it was deliberate) and has repeatedly badgered Jentoft to take her to court over her harassment and Jentoft isn’t interested. Gjevjon has also claimed that she would have been pressured to transition if she was growing up right now because she was tomboyish. This is without evidence as there is no evidence of lesbians or anyone else being collectively pressured to transition. It is just parroting propaganda. She also writes songs about how she is a hateful terf and claims she is being blacklisted from some venues for being transphobic. She is right there at least.

So no, no T picked this fight. An L did. One L. So your generalized statements about the T being behind it and a large fracture aren’t supported at all by the very evidence you uncritically trotted out to support it. I hope you are better at this in a courtroom.

You got everything wrong. Stop trusting the media outlets that lie to you. Dig deeper.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyway, back to the first article:

I have expressed concern about this phenomenon quite a few times.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the most important pieces of thought in the history of the world.  It preserves, or is intended to preserve, individual liberties from encroachments and threats by the State.  I find it interesting that the Latter-day Saints owe so much to this small bit of writing, but we are far from the only ones.  I value the common ground I, as a male Latter-day Saint in Utah, share with Gjevjon, Norwegian lesbian filmmaker relative to valuing Free Speech.  This includes resisting compelled speech, and it is a concern as central to my interests as a Latter-day Saint in America as to Gjevjon's interests as a lesbian and artiste in Norway.

Didn’t know you were a big supporter of her art. What did you think of her song “Vagina Anthem”?

Also the First Amendment, of course, doesn’t apply in Norway.

Also it is kind of pathetic to act like you agreeing with a lesbian is such a great divide to cross. You can always find someone of just about any group who will back you up if you look hard enough. And let us not pretend this alliance means anything anyways. If you could you would deny her the right to marry, would want all discussions of lesbianism hidden where no minor could ever conceivably hear of it, and would insist that she just needs to pray and repent and either live a life of celibacy or somehow become straight or do a lavender marriage or whatever. Oh, and you would find her art obscene of course.

 

Oh, and the nuns in that piece are not facing legal harassment. An anti-transgender group picked them as the most sympathetic group available to file the lawsuit. The nuns may not care about transgender people at all one way or the other. I imagine they agreed because it is likely to give them visibility and increase donations. Taking care of people who are dying of terminal cancer is kind of “meh” in terms of winning financial support. Getting bigots to donate to them to applaud their (real or imaginary) fight against the transgender menace probably has the money rolling in. I actually applaud them for grabbing that opportunity. Smart move.