The Family Proclamation and the NHS

MrShorty · May 6, 2024

@OGHoosier If I'm understanding correctly, your discernment process on this begins with a theoretical understanding of primeval, pretechnological humans and their natural history (including reproductive behaviors). You seem to believe that technology is a corruption of this "ideal," which justifies looking to this theoretical primitive natural history as the human ideal. Then you say that we use our understanding of these ideal principles to extrapolate back into the premortal existence to understand how sexuality and gender were organized in the premortal realm. I guess that's okay, but a standard of truth based on a theoretical, primitive natural history of humans that we can no longer directly observe because of the corruptions due to technology seems like a weak basis for truth.

On 5/4/2024 at 6:13 PM, OGHoosier said:

Is that not true of the reverse as well? Can't God sort it out no matter what happens?

The universalist in me wholeheartedly agrees. God can and will redeem us all in spite of any of our own mistakes or the church's mistakes or whatever other non-ideal situations exist. I usually come back with something about maybe truth doesn't really matter then, if God is going to just redeem people no matter what the church does (right or wrong). He doesn't quite know how to respond to that other than to reiterate that God redeems everyone. Maybe I will ask you. Does truth matter, if God can and will redeem everyone negatively impacted by the church's errors?

On 5/4/2024 at 6:13 PM, OGHoosier said:

I see your position as calling for us to go where we need revelatory permission to tread before the fact - acting as if the null hypothesis were false before the data.

I think that's fair. Scott Woodward who does Scripture Central's Church History Matters podcast made the observation while commenting on the '78 revelation on priesthood that the very first time that all of the apostles came before the Lord united in their belief that such a revelation was possible, that they were unitedly seeking such a revelation, and unitedly willing to accept such a revelation if it came, the Lord granted the revelation. I don't know if Scott intended to imply that God was withholding the revelation until the church and the brethren were ready and willing to receive it or to imply that the revelation could have come sooner if those preparations had been made years (or decades) earlier, but that was the implication I read into his observation. The big question then becomes, do we believe that God withholds revelation until we as a church (members and/or leaders) are ready to receive it? IMO, a lot of what it means to be a church built on the rock of revelation hinges on how we might answer that question.

MrShorty · May 6, 2024

On 5/5/2024 at 12:04 PM, smac97 said:

But in the end, we must reach some conclusions about things, and those conclusions ought not be set aside because some few people object to them on emotional and subjective, rather than rational and empirical and objective, grounds.

I suppose your reasons all make perfectly good sense. I kind of wish we had a better rebuttal to those who object than, "they are a small minority who are too emotionally driven that they cannot see the objective truth that is so clear to the rest of us." For example, you speak of "design" in your determination. Some objections that I have seen have been along the lines of, "if God made someone deaf, then why should we say that they are not 'designed' to be deaf" with the underlying assumption that we are all born as God designed us. Since I am assuming you do not have God's technical readouts or spec sheets or blueprints or similar, how did you determine to know everything about how God designed ears?

On 5/5/2024 at 12:04 PM, smac97 said:

A male homo sapiens who believes his is, in fact, a female is suffering from a disorder.

How did you determine that she is suffering from a disorder? More and more, such women are not considering themselves to be sick or need curing. Many such women claim that their health and happiness improved dramatically when they stopped considering themselves to be sick.

On 5/5/2024 at 12:04 PM, smac97 said:

Because on matters as substantive as this, we must be guided by and follow revelation, not social trends.

On 5/5/2024 at 12:04 PM, smac97 said:

That errors in the here and now will be sorted out and resolved in the future does not mean we have license to indulge in error.

I wholeheartedly agree. These are important issues, and it is important to be guided by revelations and not social trends. This is why I think it is so important that we look at the process of revelation and discernment, understand how it works and how it goes wrong. Then make sure we are doing our level best to avoid the pitfalls and seek real revelation. It seems to me that you fear that we might reject traditional claims to revelation in favor of current social trends. I'm afraid that we are so stuck in mid 20th century social trends that we are not seeking new revelation (or God is withholding revelation due to our lack of preparation) to lift us out of those false traditions. If this issue is so substantive, then it seems important to determine where and when social trends have influenced our beliefs and try to eliminate those influences in favor of real revelation.

smac97 · May 6, 2024

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

But in the end, we must reach some conclusions about things, and those conclusions ought not be set aside because some few people object to them on emotional and subjective, rather than rational and empirical and objective, grounds.

I suppose your reasons all make perfectly good sense. I kind of wish we had a better rebuttal to those who object than, "they are a small minority who are too emotionally driven that they cannot see the objective truth that is so clear to the rest of us."

Whom are you quoting/paraphrasing/characterizing here? And who is the "they" here?

Again, my point was not an assertion. The ear not only has form, it has function. It is intended to allow the individual to detect sound waves. When the ear cannot perform its intended function, that is a disorder. This is not a pejorative assessment, but a reasoned and objective and clinical one.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

For example, you speak of "design" in your determination.

I also speak of "function."

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Some objections that I have seen have been along the lines of, "if God made someone deaf, then why should we say that they are not 'designed' to be deaf"

You are at liberty to say that.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

with the underlying assumption that we are all born as God designed us.

An assumption that, I think, merits some attention. That God allows some to be born with disorders is not equivalent to God "designing" us with those disorders intended to persist into the eternities.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Since I am assuming you do not have God's technical readouts or spec sheets or blueprints or similar, how did you determine to know everything about how God designed ears?

I don't claim this.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

A male homo sapiens who believes his is, in fact, a female is suffering from a disorder.

How did you determine that she is suffering from a disorder?

Using reason, evidence, and common sense.

A male homo sapiens who believes his is, in fact, a female is suffering from a disorder. Something similar could be said of a homo sapiens who believes he is a wolf (Canis lupus lupus), or a a snake (Serpentes). A person who acknowledges that he is of the species H. sapiens is correct and ordered. A person who believes something other than this is incorrect and disordered.

By way of illustration, let's take a look at this video:

I tried to find a link to this video that is not deprecatory, as I think that if this young woman sincerely believes she is a red-tailed hawk living in a human body (as opposed to someone just saying something absurd to garner attention and clicks), then she may need help. In any event, you may ask "How did you determine that she is suffering from a disorder?" Well, Red-tailed Hawks do not speak English, wear clothes and glasses, post Tiktok videos, etc.

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts? Do you think the above video shows a H. sapiens or a B. jamaicensis? If the former, then how do you account for this person's self-designated identity as the latter?

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

More and more, such women are not considering themselves to be sick or need curing.

Not all disorders require external intervention.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Many such women claim that their health and happiness improved dramatically when they stopped considering themselves to be sick.

I wish these folks well.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

I'm not sure what your point is here. That errors in the here and now will be sorted out and resolved in the future does not mean we have license to indulge in error.

I wholeheartedly agree. These are important issues, and it is important to be guided by revelations and not social trends.

I am glad we agree on this in principle. We may diverge, though, in application.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

This is why I think it is so important that we look at the process of revelation and discernment, understand how it works and how it goes wrong.

Who is this "we"? And "revelation" to and "discernment" by whom?

Most of the considerations here seem to fall within the province of the Presiding High Priest and the Quorum of the Twelve.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Then make sure we are doing our level best to avoid the pitfalls and seek real revelation.

Yes. I think "our level best" should involve what Michael Ash describes here:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

My sense is that you are focusing on personal revelation. For me, the other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation. Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

It seems to me that you fear that we might reject traditional claims to revelation in favor of current social trends.

I'm not sure what you mean by "traditional claims to revelation." Could you clarify?

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I'm afraid that we are so stuck in mid 20th century social trends that we are not seeking new revelation (or God is withholding revelation due to our lack of preparation) to lift us out of those false traditions.

What "mid 20th century social trends" / "false traditions" are you referencing here?

And who is this "we" that is "not seeking new revelation"?

What if the Church's position on matters of sexuality and gender are substantively correct and revelatory? How do you propose we test that?

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

If this issue is so substantive, then it seems important to determine where and when social trends have influenced our beliefs and try to eliminate those influences in favor of real revelation.

Quite so. I think today's social trends are far more likely to be exerting undue influence on us. Hence the value of the four legs in Michael Ash's stool.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 6, 2024 by smac97

CV75 · May 6, 2024

36 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I suppose your reasons all make perfectly good sense. I kind of wish we had a better rebuttal to those who object than, "they are a small minority who are too emotionally driven that they cannot see the objective truth that is so clear to the rest of us." For example, you speak of "design" in your determination. Some objections that I have seen have been along the lines of, "if God made someone deaf, then why should we say that they are not 'designed' to be deaf" with the underlying assumption that we are all born as God designed us. Since I am assuming you do not have God's technical readouts or spec sheets or blueprints or similar, how did you determine to know everything about how God designed ears?

How did you determine that she is suffering from a disorder? More and more, such women are not considering themselves to be sick or need curing. Many such women claim that their health and happiness improved dramatically when they stopped considering themselves to be sick.

I wholeheartedly agree. These are important issues, and it is important to be guided by revelations and not social trends. This is why I think it is so important that we look at the process of revelation and discernment, understand how it works and how it goes wrong. Then make sure we are doing our level best to avoid the pitfalls and seek real revelation. It seems to me that you fear that we might reject traditional claims to revelation in favor of current social trends. I'm afraid that we are so stuck in mid 20th century social trends that we are not seeking new revelation (or God is withholding revelation due to our lack of preparation) to lift us out of those false traditions. If this issue is so substantive, then it seems important to determine where and when social trends have influenced our beliefs and try to eliminate those influences in favor of real revelation.

I've also noticed that the word "design" suddenly creates hiccups for people as they read "God-designed" when I meant its objective "constitution," "structure" or "composition" and the like. I believe people, as with the rest of the natural world, are designed through natural processes having their own constitution and that occasionally God may intervene with the design of either for His own purposes.

I think the error people make in finding positive or negative meaning in their and others' design is that discipleship and covenants with Christ take a back seat. Many disciples feel very alone due to some aspect(s) of their design, and this pressure pulls them away from the covenants they have or have yet to make. We still have personal revelation, a society and a faith community in which to live by it, which granted can be tricky.

smac97 · May 6, 2024

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I suppose your reasons all make perfectly good sense. I kind of wish we had a better rebuttal to those who object than, "they are a small minority who are too emotionally driven that they cannot see the objective truth that is so clear to the rest of us." For example, you speak of "design" in your determination. Some objections that I have seen have been along the lines of, "if God made someone deaf, then why should we say that they are not 'designed' to be deaf" with the underlying assumption that we are all born as God designed us.

Many of the miracles attributed to Jesus involve him healing physical infirmities and disorders. From this I construe that the Lord allows such infirmities to exist in this mortal sphere, but they are matters to be endured and, eventually, corrected.

I just saw this: CRIPSR gene editing leads to improvements in vision for people with inherited blindness, clinical trial shows

Quote

Results from a clinical trial of CRISPR gene editing in 14 individuals with a form of inherited blindness show that the treatment is safe and led to measurable improvements in 11 of the participants treated. The Phase I/II trial called BRILLIANCE, was led by principal investigator Eric Pierce, MD, Ph.D., of Mass Eye and Ear, a member of the Mass General Brigham health care system. Findings are reported May 6 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

"This research demonstrates that CRISPR gene therapy for inherited vision loss is worth continued pursuit in research and clinical trials," said Pierce, director of Ocular Genomics Institute and Berman-Gund Laboratory for the Study of Retinal Degenerations at Mass Eye and Ear and Harvard Medical School.

"While more research is needed to determine who may benefit most, we consider the early results promising. To hear from several participants how thrilled they were that they could finally see the food on their plates –that is a big deal. These were individuals who could not read any lines on an eye chart and who had no treatment options, which is the unfortunate reality for most people with inherited retinal disorders."

All 14 trial participants, including 12 adults (ages 17 to 63) and two children (ages 10 and 14), were born with a form of Leber Congenital Amaurosis (LCA) caused by mutations in the centrosomal protein 290 (CEP290) gene. They underwent a single injection of a CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing medicine, EDIT-101 in one eye via a specialized surgical procedure. This trial, which included the first patient to ever receive a CRISPR-based investigational medicine directly inside the body, focused primarily on safety with a secondary analysis for efficacy.

I wonder if the same Lord who gave us challenges and difficulties also gave us some means to overcome or otherwise address some of those challenges and difficulties.

Thanks,

-Smac

The Nehor · May 7, 2024

On 5/4/2024 at 7:13 PM, OGHoosier said:

At the risk of a politics violation, I don't think the current American social consensus on sex will hold over the long-term. In 2011 Dr. Eric Kaufmann published Shall The Religious Inherit the Earth: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century, arguing that conservative religious groups have a demographic advantage and can literally out-procreate secular societies worldwide. The results of the Global Religious Futures Project, published by the Pew Research Trust and the John Templeton Foundation in 2022, largely bore Dr. Kaufmann's predictions out; the share of global population belonging to conservative religions is projected to expand, not contract, throughout the 21st century. The most important fact of the 21st century, the character of which is slowly coming into view, is this: modern, secular industrial societies just don't have kids. It's not just that industrialized countries have fewer kids than non-industrialized countries, they don't have enough to replace their own populations. There's only one "First World" state in the world with above-replacement levels of fertility (it's Israel, a unique ideological garrison state, and the growth is driven by the religiously conservative Haredi population). Some cocktail of causes in our social and economic water is a fertility shredder, one that gets worse and worse each year. Which means that the social conditions dominant across the industrialized world today are simply doomed. Only groups with strongly countercultural (countercultural to the industrialized West anyway) and pro-natalist norms surrounding sex are going to sustain themselves through the Second Demographic Transition. And those norms will have to be organic, they cannot be bespoke - see the collapse of mainline Protestantism, which tried to be "the American establishment at prayer" and is now moribund.

He wasn’t talking about conservative religions. He was talking about fundamentalist ones. This is just repackaging the “muslims will out reproduce the white people and conquer Europe” scare and generalizing it. I am very dubious. Yeah, the Ultra-Orthodox might be able to out reproduce the rest of Israel but that will last until everything collapses trying to run a society where the median age is somewhere in the teens and whose education system is focused almost exclusively on the Torah. It is a self-correcting problem. It is also not inevitable. When the Ayatollah took over in Iran birth rates dropped. This also doesn’t include the Latter-Day Saints. Our average family size has been in free fall.

This is an old scare. Even as far back as the mid-19th century some people in France were warning that the influx of strict Polish Catholics would lead to the death of their more ‘enlightened society’ due to being outbred. And as we all know they were right and France is very much not a secular state and is tightly controlled by religious fundamentalists. That last sentence was in my sarcasm voice.

Edited May 8, 2024 by The Nehor

The Nehor · May 7, 2024

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

A male homo sapiens who believes his is, in fact, a female is suffering from a disorder. Something similar could be said of a homo sapiens who believes he is a wolf (Canis lupus lupus), or a a snake (Serpentes). A person who acknowledges that he is of the species H. sapiens is correct and ordered. A person who believes something other than this is incorrect and disordered.

Again you conflate biological sex and gender. Transgender people don’t deny their biological sex.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

By way of illustration, let's take a look at this video:

I tried to find a link to this video that is not deprecatory, as I think that if this young woman sincerely believes she is a red-tailed hawk living in a human body (as opposed to someone just saying something absurd to garner attention and clicks), then she may need help. In any event, you may ask "How did you determine that she is suffering from a disorder?" Well, Red-tailed Hawks do not speak English, wear clothes and glasses, post Tiktok videos, etc.

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts? Do you think the above video shows a H. sapiens or a B. jamaicensis? If the former, then how do you account for this person's self-designated identity as the latter?

Don’t do the thing where you personally think this is exploitative of this person and that that is bad. This video got noticed because people wanted to mock this kid (this was libsoftiktok I think) and did so brutally and it was posted all over. A trend you continued where you are using this video as an analogy to deprecate others. You aren’t rising above the muck of sneering mockery of the person in the video. You are part of the muck continuing to spread it and you frequent spaces on the internet where this kind of dishonest criticism flourishes. You seek this kind of stuff out. That is not good.

You also have no idea what the person is saying. I have no idea if this person is therian or otherkin or some other flavor. The people in these communities acknowledge that they are biologically human but feel they have some inner animal soul or identification which they explore on some level. In other words they are VERY loosely analogous in that both acknowledge biological reality with desiring or feeling somehow wrong or different. It is akin to some totem spirit beliefs and other forms of religious or mystical conception of the world.

You of course dehumanize (pun intended) both transgender people and otherkin/therian/whatever people by suggesting they are denying biological reality when they are explicitly NOT doing that. You are trying to make them appear ridiculous by imputing to them beliefs they do not hold but you and the other mockers fantasize they hold because you want them to be more alien than they are.

You are on the same level as an anti-Mormon imputing beliefs almost no Mormon holds and mocking them for it.

This is pathetic and disgusting. Be better.

MiserereNobis · May 7, 2024

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

some people were warning that the influx of strict Polish Catholics would lead to the death of their more ‘enlightened society’

They might have been right. After all, we ended up with @mfbukowski 😜

smac97 · May 7, 2024

On 5/6/2024 at 11:21 PM, The Nehor said:

Quote

A male homo sapiens who believes his is, in fact, a female is suffering from a disorder. Something similar could be said of a homo sapiens who believes he is a wolf (Canis lupus lupus), or a a snake (Serpentes). A person who acknowledges that he is of the species H. sapiens is correct and ordered. A person who believes something other than this is incorrect and disordered.

Again you conflate biological sex and gender.

Well, yes and no. I have repeatedly acknowledged that sex and gender were previously essentially synonymous (such as in the Proclamation), and have in recent years been differentiated in some contexts (which I acknowledge as existing). I think some of this ambiguity and equivocation has been deliberate.

The "sex/gender" distinction is very new. As in within the lifetime of some people on this board. See here:

Quote

As a social role

Sexologist John Money coined the term gender role, and was the first to use it in print in a scientific trade journal. In a seminal 1955 paper he defined it as "all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman."^[33]

The modern academic sense of the word, in the context of social roles of men and women, dates at least back to 1945,^[34] and was popularized and developed by the feminist movement from the 1970s onwards (see § Feminism theory and gender studies below), which theorizes that human nature is essentially epicene and social distinctions based on sex are arbitrarily constructed. In this context, matters pertaining to this theoretical process of social construction were labelled matters of gender.

The popular use of gender simply as an alternative to sex (as a biological category) is also widespread, although attempts are still made to preserve the distinction. The American Heritage Dictionary (2000) uses the following two sentences to illustrate the difference, noting that the distinction "is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels."^[35]

The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient.

In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined.

B. General Guidelines for English Bird Names

1. Orthography. English names of birds are capitalized in keeping with standard ornithological practice. As noted by Parkes (1978), capitalization also prevents ambiguity between a species name and a description in such cases as “gray flycatcher” or “solitary sandpiper”. Diacritical marks are not used in English names. With respect to the use of hyphens, the committee follows Parkes (1978).

https://americanornithology.org/about/committees/nacc/guidelines-for-english-bird-names/

Stormin' Mormon · May 7, 2024

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You of course dehumanize (pun intended) both transgender people and otherkin/therian/whatever people by suggesting they are denying biological reality when they are explicitly NOT doing that.

Isn't denial of an otherkin's identity the opposite of dehumanizing them? Isn't it affirming their humanity, re-humanizing them, as it were? If we believe that humankind is the pinnacle of creation, the literal sons and daughters of the Creator of the Universe, wouldn't re-affirming that human identity be more ennobling and instill greater dignity upon them?

Edited May 7, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

LoudmouthMormon · May 7, 2024

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Again you conflate biological sex and gender. Transgender people don’t deny their biological sex.

I'll believe that when hundreds and hundreds of girl and women athletes are no longer displaced at competitive sports events by biological males who enter female events and using their biological superiority to dominate the females.

california boy · May 7, 2024

I am having flashbacks of conversations on this very site during the whole gay marriage scare tactics where things were stated as if they were facts that if the United States allows gay marriage, then people will want to marry their computers or barnyard animals. These scare tactics seem to help justify prejudice against an entire group by picking out the odd eccentric extreme to completely distort what the real issue was really all about.

Has anyone's marriage actually been harmed by allowing gay couples the same right to marry? Does it impact any of our lives directly when a person transitions? I guess I take comfort that over time, the hysterics die down when people realize that we don't really have much say on how others live their lives. Nor does it actually impact our own lives one bit. It starts to all sound like how some evangelics believe Mormonism must be destroyed because their beliefs are different than their own, when in fact both groups can live their entire lives without having to destroy another's belief system just because it is different than their own.

MrShorty · May 7, 2024

On 5/6/2024 at 1:55 PM, smac97 said:

A male homo sapiens who believes his is, in fact, a female is suffering from a disorder. Something similar could be said of a homo sapiens who believes he is a wolf (Canis lupus lupus), or a a snake (Serpentes).

Focusing on the process of discernment, how do you determine that these are similar? How do you determine that an "otherkin" is suffering a disorder?

On 5/6/2024 at 1:55 PM, smac97 said:

Using reason, evidence, and common sense.

From reading Paul Reeves, 18th and 19th century Americans believed they were using reason, evidence, and common sense when they determined that some races were inferior to white Europeans. Reason, evidence, and common sense can form a solid epistemology, but it isn't an infallible one. Why do you think your use of reason, evidence, and common sense to determine that deafness, transgenderism, and "otherkin" are all diseases is superior to others' use of those same tools?

On 5/6/2024 at 1:55 PM, smac97 said:

Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

I agree. I didn't want to focus only on revelation (personal or institutional), but try to understand how those four legs work together as a church to decide what we do and do not believe. As good as Ash's four legs are, they, too, are not infallible. Saints of the 19th and early 20th century believed that their racist beliefs were backed by scriptures and prophets and reason and revelation. From this, I think it's fair to say that Ash's four legs are sometimes subject to being influenced by social trends rather than truth. How are we using Ash's four legs to determine the moral truth around LGBT+ issues? What additional work are we doing to avoid the kinds of mistakes that our forebears made?

On 5/6/2024 at 1:55 PM, smac97 said:

Most of the considerations here seem to fall within the province of the Presiding High Priest and the Quorum of the Twelve.

I understand the idea behind stewardship. It has been a point of concern in my own faith deconstruction every since Pres. Oaks talked about it in 2018. It seems that, when members disbelieve something, they should hide in their closets quietly praying for change. Since Pres. Oaks's talk, I have often wondered how this deference to the stewardship of the top leadership reinforces our conservatism and actually hinders our growth.

On 5/6/2024 at 1:55 PM, smac97 said:

I think today's social trends are far more likely to be exerting undue influence on us. Hence the value of the four legs in Michael Ash's stool.

Why do you think today's social trends are far more likely to be exerting undue influence on us? Why not consider the undue influence of past social trends? Is the value of Ash's stool mostly in that it leads to be conservative or will it actually help us discover truth?

LoudmouthMormon · May 7, 2024

1 hour ago, california boy said:

These scare tactics seem to help justify prejudice against an entire group by picking out the odd eccentric extreme to completely distort what the real issue was really all about.

It's important to love thy neighbor. Trans folks have higher rates of mental illness, suicide attempts, suicide completions. They're more likely to experience violence at the hands of another. It's important to be aware, mindful, and helpful about these things. I believe I'll kneel at the feet of my Master and give an accounting of how I treated the lost and the least.

But when the "odd eccentric extreme" leads to hundreds and hundreds of boys and men invading women's sports and wiping the walls with the women, well, it's important to love thy neighbor. And I've spent 40 years hearing about the importance of women's spaces, and historical injustices and oppression at the hands of men. It's important to be aware, mindful, and helpful about these things.

Right?

california boy · May 7, 2024

19 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It's important to love thy neighbor. Trans folks have higher rates of mental illness, suicide attempts, suicide completions. They're more likely to experience violence at the hands of another. It's important to be aware, mindful, and helpful about these things. I believe I'll kneel at the feet of my Master and give an accounting of how I treated the lost and the least.

But when the "odd eccentric extreme" leads to hundreds and hundreds of boys and men invading women's sports and wiping the walls with the women, well, it's important to love thy neighbor. And I've spent 40 years hearing about the importance of women's spaces, and historical injustices and oppression at the hands of men. It's important to be aware, mindful, and helpful about these things.

Right?

I honestly don't know an absolute fair way to deal with transgenders in women's sports. Perhaps they needs to be a separate category for those that transition but still want to participate in sports. Or maybe there should be a base line of testosterone levels that all must meet. I think that does need to be worked out in some fair way. I would also state that sports is never an equal playing field when it comes to inborn physical size and strength. I am never going to be a linebacker or play basketball. It is for that very reason that I choose wrestling in high school that didn't depend on my gene pool for me to compete.

What I do know is that this ONE issue isn't a reason to universally dismiss transgender people, call them diseased and marginalize them. I wish everyone could use your approach of treating everyone with kindness love, understanding and respect the choices people make that may be different than our own.

The Nehor · May 8, 2024

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

Well, no. I have repeatedly acknowledged that sex and gender were previously essentially synonymous, and have in recent years been differentiated in some contexts. I think some of this ambiguity and equivocation has been deliberate.

Previous in our specific culture but there are other conceptions of people that fit the concept of a separate gender in many cultures throughout history. Of course we differentiated the words later when we needed words to describe new/rediscovered concepts.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

The "sex/gender" distinction is very new. As in within the lifetime of some people on this board. See here:

See also here:

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

Lia Thomas is a biological male participating against biological women in competitive swimming by claiming to be a woman. That sure seems like a denial of biological sex.

You still can’t keep your terms straight. There is a biological male and biological women. Lia Thomas is a woman by gender but male at birth and is biologically male. This isn’t hard but I am beginning to suspect you are getting things wrong on purpose to muddy the issue.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

Some clearly do. Hence the "sex is a spectrum," "biological sex is a social construct," "men and menstruate," "women can have penises," "trans women are women" and corollary diktats.

It is usually “gender is a spectrum”. Biological sex is NOT a social construct! Gender is a social construct. You are definitely doing this on purpose.

”Men and menstruate”? What does that even mean? There have been mentions of “people who menstruate” and “pregnant people” but most of those come from medical texts that are designed to be comprehensive and cover edge cases. Propagandists take these medical texts and then state that clearly the woke mob is going to destroy the term “mother” when no one is doing that. They do this because they are liars and fearmongers looking to dupe the credulous who will trust them no matter how often they lie.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

See also here:

And here:

And here:

d

Not watching Prager U video.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

I don't think people with mental disorders should be ridiculed.

It is not a mental disorder. You and I believe that we are immortal spirits birthed by embodied primordial parents who rule the Universe and then placed into infants before they are born and this spirit will survive and become reembodied and potentially rule the cosmos.

That is much more insane than someone thinking their spirit is part hawk. You really want to medicalize outlandish beliefs? I guess it is only religious freedom if you personally find it palatable?

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

It is the content that I find noteworthy.

I find adults online bullying repulsive. That is MUCH more noteworthy and everyone involved should be shoved into a locker.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

I could not find the original on Tiktok video.

That is the name of the account of someone who was possibly the one who publicized this. It is a ragebait account that spews queerphobia in general and transphobia in particular. Somehow it is newsworthy to alt-right ‘news’ outlets.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

Therian/Furries videos are proliferating. Some of it this is, I think, just a social trend. But some of it seems to be pushing people - particularly children - into thinking that they really are animals and such.

That is not a thing that is happening. These myths are flying all over the place. The whole litter boxes in cat rooms for students who think they are cats. of course it was just cat litter and there was no box and it was for cleaning up vomit. Lies, lies, and more lies!

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

If this young woman sincerely believes she is a red-tailed hawk living in a human body (as opposed to someone just saying something absurd to garner attention and clicks), then she may need help.

Do you even remember the weird things you and the others around you believed when you were kids? This is pretty tame. As already mentioned it is tame compared to your religious beliefs. Is this child trying to fly? Is there an acting out of some analogous version of old-school lycanthropy? No, the video itself has an acknowledgment that it is a biologically human body.

This is just bullying a child for having strange views. It is disgusting. There is nothing to indicate the child needs help. There is a lot to indicate that the people bullying said child need to be punched in the face. There is a good chance this child will suffer because of what they are doing.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

She is saying she is a Red-tailed Hawk. She is not.

Nope, no denying of physical reality is involved. Try harder.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

Similarly, William Thomas a/k/a Lia Thomas is claiming to be a woman. He is not. I say this not to deprecate him, but to disagree with him.

And intentionally and repeatedly misgender her. You are not just disagreeing.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

From Wikipedia:

I am generally indifferent to people choosing to identify as things they are not. I think things become more problematic when society is expected - often via coercive fiats - to affirm and ratify these identities.

NO. Wrong.

If you were merely indifferent to this you wouldn’t be constantly starting threads about it. You are not indifferent. It irks you.

Yes, I keep hearing how the jails are going to be filled by those misgendering people. It is not happening. Lies, lies, and more lies from liars lying.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

And yet many of them demand to be treated according to their "identity" rather than their biology. Hence we see a biological male, Lia Thomas, participating against biological females.

And sports programs are coming up with criteria for this at professional levels. And at amateur level sports we just let people do whatever because it doesn’t much matter.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

"If a biological male thinks he is a woman, let him compete in women's sports, use women's bathrooms, be housed in women's prisons, and so on." That's the reasoning we are seeing. I think such accommodations become difficult pretty quickly. Further, there is no limiting principle. If a biological male can "identify" as a woman, then can Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug "identify" as "Black?" Can "Stefoknee Wolscht," a biological male in his 50s, call himself a perpetual six-year-old girl? Can a 5'9" white guy "identify" as a six-foot-tall Chinese woman? Can Eva Tiamat Medusa "identify" as a dragon? Can Naia Ōkami "identify" as a wolf?

Again you fall back on caricatures and the difference of biology and internal understanding and self-identification. You identify as a child of God. You consider this to be the core of your identity in a way most otherkin would think is extreme. Do you really want to open the floodgates to people correcting you every time you say you are a child of God by pointing out that you are biologically a homo sapien and that this is clearly just you being delusional. I mean where does it end? Are you going to identify as having entered into a covenant relationship with celestial beings through physical rituals? Claim that your homo sapien social relationships will outlive your death somehow? I mean where is the limiting principle?

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

If not, why not?

They can. People may or may not take them seriously.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

Can I "identify" myself as someone or something I am not? Can I use the force of law to coerce other people into capitulating to that identity?

Yes. And no, you cannot and the idea that others are being forced to capitulate is a myth.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

I am not. I think there are some who are doing this stuff for fun, or to be provocative, etc. There are others, however, who truly believe that they are something that they are not.

Heal thyself.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

Why, then, do sports organizations allow biological males to participate in women's sports?

Because they chose to. Why do you care so much? Are you a women’s sports enthusiast whose enjoyment has been sullied somehow? Or are you just repeating propaganda?

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

Why are we being told that "trans women are women?"

Because they are. They are women. Gender is performative.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

Why are people refusing to answer "What is a woman?"

Because it is bait.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

Why are otherwise intelligent people saying facially absurd things like "A woman is anybody who identifies as a woman," "Trans women are women," "Men can menstruate," "Women can have penises," and so on?

Because they are smarter than you are.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

Words are intended to convey commonly-understood meanings. That is their raison d'être. And yet we regularly see people saying that "woman" can mean, well, pretty much anything at all.

CFR that people are saying that women can mean anything at all. Are people calling rocks women?

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

This is equivocation. It is Orwellianism writ large. It is about power and control. Lewis Carroll touched on this in his Through the Looking Glass:

Citing the foregoing, Bruce Corley made the following observation:

This is what I think people like you are doing.

It is not Orwellian and Orwell would punch you in the face for saying that. Orwell was worried that language would be deliberately altered to remove the ability to resist authoritarianism. We are in no danger of being ruled by transgender overlords. They are a persecuted minority. If you want to find Orwellian tactics look to the powerful. Fighting authoritarianism involves punching up.

Punching down and bullying and humiliating kids is fascist garbage.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

You are playing "language games" when you "stretch {words} beyond recognition," such that a word as as basic and universal as "woman" has - by your measure - an infinitely malleable and elastic definition.

No one is doing that. Your propagandists are telling you that but it is not happening. How many people are telling you that rocks are women or that air molecules are women. You are taking absurd hyperboles of where you imagine this would go if all the rules are tossed entirely and assuming it is happening when it is not.

Who is telling you this? Why do they want you to believe it? What do they hope to achieve by lying to you like this? Those are the kinds of questions Orwell would want answered.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

Alice was quite right: "The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things."

Again, not a thing. People who are telling you it is a thing are lying to you and you believe it because these lies are sweet to you.

On 5/7/2024 at 10:42 AM, smac97 said:

But Humpty Dumpty was likewise correct when he declared that his purpose in warping and twisting words is designed to exert power and control. "The question is which is to be master -- that's all."

Yep, big transgender is planning to take over the world.

I really suspect this kind of thing is just rank cowardice. The world seems broken. It must be the most marginalized people in society causing this. It is the Jews or the Blacks or the gays or the trans people or the children or whatever. Punching down requires little bravery so it is a sweet lie. Actually challenging powerful institutions that could potentially crush you takes real courage and they have the power and are causing most of the problems.

Maybe Jesus had it wrong and it was the prostitutes and publicans and lepers and all the other marginalized people that were the real problems in society and the Pharisees were right to punch down on them? Who can say for sure?

Edited May 9, 2024 by The Nehor

The Nehor · May 8, 2024

9 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Isn't denial of an otherkin's identity the opposite of dehumanizing them? Isn't it affirming their humanity, re-humanizing them, as it were? If we believe that humankind is the pinnacle of creation, the literal sons and daughters of the Creator of the Universe, wouldn't re-affirming that human identity be more ennobling and instill greater dignity upon them?

And you realize that saying that your inner spirit is a descendant of a deity is not that far off from what otherkin believe. It is a spiritual belief and our beliefs also appear quite absurd.

The Nehor · May 8, 2024

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It's important to love thy neighbor. Trans folks have higher rates of mental illness, suicide attempts, suicide completions. They're more likely to experience violence at the hands of another. It's important to be aware, mindful, and helpful about these things. I believe I'll kneel at the feet of my Master and give an accounting of how I treated the lost and the least.

Nice.

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

But when the "odd eccentric extreme" leads to hundreds and hundreds of boys and men invading women's sports and wiping the walls with the women, well, it's important to love thy neighbor. And I've spent 40 years hearing about the importance of women's spaces, and historical injustices and oppression at the hands of men. It's important to be aware, mindful, and helpful about these things.

Hundreds and hundreds of biological men are taking over womens sports? Where? I would want to see proofs of this claim.

Professional sports institutions are coming up with guidelines and rules around these situations. Let them. Meanwhile let the amateur level stuff and is schools just play sports without humiliating and ostracizing some which is what is happening. The provocateurs stirring up baseless hatred and fear to the point where cis girls are baselessly being accused of being transgender by insane parents and provocateurs is just evil. And Smac and his ilk are feeding this paranoia. This will be remembered the same was as the satanic panic and the queer groomer panic and the immigrant panics and all the other panics designed to convince people that marginalized communities are coming to destroy you and everything you care about. Then real harm and violence follows and those who stirred up the hatred face no justice.

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Right?

Nope.

The Nehor · May 8, 2024

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I am having flashbacks of conversations on this very site during the whole gay marriage scare tactics where things were stated as if they were facts that if the United States allows gay marriage, then people will want to marry their computers or barnyard animals. These scare tactics seem to help justify prejudice against an entire group by picking out the odd eccentric extreme to completely distort what the real issue was really all about.

Has anyone's marriage actually been harmed by allowing gay couples the same right to marry? Does it impact any of our lives directly when a person transitions? I guess I take comfort that over time, the hysterics die down when people realize that we don't really have much say on how others live their lives. Nor does it actually impact our own lives one bit. It starts to all sound like how some evangelics believe Mormonism must be destroyed because their beliefs are different than their own, when in fact both groups can live their entire lives without having to destroy another's belief system just because it is different than their own.

This.

Oddly it is many of the same people who screamed about how gay marriage would lead to people marrying their dog who are screaming about how transgender people are going to destroy society.

Turns out that the secret is to cry “wolf” once and then change it up and cry “tiger” the next time and then cry “shark” and so on. You would think we would eventually stop listening to the people doing this but…….

Stormin' Mormon · May 8, 2024

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

And you realize that saying that your inner spirit is a descendant of a deity is not that far off from what otherkin believe. It is a spiritual belief and our beliefs also appear quite absurd.

Agreed. But my point still stands: "dehumanize" is not really the right word to use in this context.

The Nehor · May 8, 2024

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Agreed. But my point still stands: "dehumanize" is not really the right word to use in this context.

But then there would be no punnery!

Calm · May 8, 2024

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

. Lia Thomas is a woman by gender but female at birth and is biologically female.

I am thinking this isn’t what you intended to say….

LoudmouthMormon · May 8, 2024

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Hundreds and hundreds of biological men are taking over womens sports? Where? I would want to see proofs of this claim.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about "taking over". I said hundreds and hundreds of boys and men invading women's sports and wiping the walls with the women. Here's a list of almost 1000 different sporting competitions where biological males displaced women and girls. Most of them have links to news articles. From an athletically competitive standpoint, some of them are invalid like poker or dance or billiards or darts, but the vast majority should fit your demand.

https://www.shewon.org/

For folks who aren't so sure that males have such a massive inherent superiority over females in certain athletic endeavors, here's a website that compares 2016 High School Boys NBNO Finalists and 2016 Olympic Women's Finalists.

https://boysvswomen.com/#/

Edited May 8, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

T-Shirt · May 8, 2024

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I find adults online bullying repulsive.

Oh , the irony.

Sign In

The Family Proclamation and the NHS

Recommended Posts

MrShorty

MrShorty

smac97

CV75

smac97

The Nehor

The Nehor

MiserereNobis

smac97

As a social role

ksfisher

B. General Guidelines for English Bird Names

Stormin' Mormon

LoudmouthMormon

california boy

MrShorty

LoudmouthMormon

california boy

The Nehor

The Nehor

The Nehor

The Nehor

Stormin' Mormon

The Nehor

Calm

LoudmouthMormon

T-Shirt

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse