Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

smac97 · November 19

I would like to hear the thoughts of people with varying perspectives on trans issues in relation to this Opinion piece published today in the Salt Lake Tribune:

Voices: The LDS Church’s transgender policies are morally indefensible. They will backfire.

Quote

These new restrictions reinforce harmful misconceptions and will not make women or girls any safer.

Well, I think they might help in this regard. Probably will, even.

I am curious as how the author of this piece, Patrick Hardy, would propose to maintain separate facilities for women and girls.

Quote

About three months ago, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints quietly rolled out new restrictions for transgender people in the church. The new policy bans transgender people from serving as teachers, working with youth or children, or holding any gender-specific calling. It bars transgender people from using a church restroom that aligns with their gender identity unless a “trusted person” ensures no one else is using it. (How this will work in practice is left unwritten. Will the “trusted person” need to scout ahead to ensure no one is in the restroom and stand guard so no one else enters? It certainly seems so.)

Yes, it seems so. Biological men in women's restrooms is a novelty. I think most parents would not be comfortable sending a young girl into a bathroom where an adult male is present behind closed doors.

I also wonder what Bro. Hardy thought of bishops interviewing youth. Based on the tone and content of this piece, and of this piece he wrote in 2023, I suspect his sociopolitical worldview/bent would lean toward notions of the Church taking precautions to ensure the safety of children and youth in that regard:

Quote

I truly believe that the upper leadership of the church and the vast majority of people working in advisory roles or serving in local leadership are honorable, decent people trying the best they can to follow Jesus Christ and live His teachings. I’m certain that they abhor child abuse and are committed to following the law. However, too frequently the institutional response to revelations of misconduct and harm does not reflect transparency and accountability. Too frequently, the church’s structure and operations seem to prioritize image control and the avoidance of negative consequences. These choices have downstream effects: when the church declines to acknowledge faults, give genuine public apologies, and make necessary policy changes in the wake of justified criticism, it damages the trust of its members and validates its opponents.

Okay. But he now turns around and is totally on board with an adult man being alone with a little girl "behind closed doors" in a bathroom? What happened to "structure and operations" regarding "downstream effects?"

Back to today's piece:

Quote

The new policy bans transgender people from attending any gender-specific meeting or activity that aligns with their gender identity. It also forbids overnight sleeping at activities for transgender people wholesale. In the case of mixed-gender activities, transgender people are required to leave at night.

Yes. These are difficult circumstances, but seemingly necessary.

What is the limiting principle do you think Bro. Hardy proposes?

When can the Church restrict biological males from access to female spaces in church facilities? Always? Never? Sometimes?

How does Bro. Hardy propose that local leaders and members differentiate between biological males in the women's bathroom?

Apart from biological reality, what objective and obvious marker(s) designate a male who "identifies" as a woman versus a male who does not?

If the differentiation is the say-so of the individual (the biological male), then there is no objective basis for exclusion (since any male can simply gain access by saying they "identify" as a woman). As a practical matter, then, it would seem like Bro. Hardy is calling for the elimination of sex-specific bathrooms.

Quote

Whereas the former policy allowed local lay leaders a degree of autonomy for accommodating transgender members, the new policy significantly limits their ability to do so by stipulating that exceptions (which “should be rare”) may be granted only by a set of leaders further up the chain of command.

I suspect this "degree of autonomy" ended up conflicting with fairly reasonable expectations from the vast majority of congregants that the women's bathrooms be accessible only by women, and not by biological males.

Quote

The degree to which these new policies severely inhibit transgender people from fully participating in the church underscores just how gendered everything in the church is.

Issues regarding biological males in women's spaces are happening everywhere.

Quote

Organizations, meetings and callings in the church are so segregated by gender that it’s nearly impossible to escape the constant reminder that your gender determines your place in the faith. For men, this includes the potential to ascend to the commanding heights of church leadership. For women, leadership opportunities are mostly limited to congregation-level positions over the children, teenage girls and adult women. At higher levels of leadership, men never have women as superiors; whereas women only ever have men. But I digress.

Yes, he does.

Quote

The church indicates that the restrictions on transgender people are to be enforced against those who pursue “surgical, medical or social transition,” making clear the preference that trans people suffer with gender dysphoria rather than find peace and happiness by living authentically.

I think the Church wants everyone to be happy, but c'mon. Biological males in women's spaces is, I think, an intractable issue. It's easy for him to play armchair quarterback in his letters to the Tribune, but he has no alternative and superior solutions to offer the Church.

Again, what is/are the "limiting principle(s)" that Bro. Hardy would propose?

Can any biological male approach a bishop and say "Hey, I identify as a woman, so I am going to be using the women's bathroom from now on"? If not, why not?

If Bro. Hardy proposes that only biological males who "identify" as women can access women's bathrooms, how does he propose to exclude some men but not others from women's facilities?

Can a biological male who "identifies" as a nursing mother go into the mother's lounge? If not, why not?

Can an adult male "identify" as a teenage girl and attend YW activities? If not, why not?

Quote

Never mind that every major medical association in the United States, from the American Medical Association to the American Academy of Pediatrics and more than 20 others, endorses gender-affirming care as safe and evidence-based — if transgender members wish to avoid church discipline, they would need to forgo potentially lifesaving medical care.

As I have extensively addressed in this other thread, I think there is extensive and substantial evidence indicating that these professional associations have been deeply compromised by sociopolitical preferences and pressures regarding "trans" issues. A sampling:

So contrary to Bro. Hardy's implication, there is plenty of room for reasoned and principled disagreement about trans issues.

I strongly suspect that the Church is aware of the ongoing concerns reflected in the above articles.

I think Gender Dysphoria, as with so many other mental illnesses, can be a tremendous burden to those afflicted with it. That said, I think the Church is weighing the needs of parents and women in relation to the utter novelty of biological males expecting (some even demanding) to be allowed into women's spaces. It saw that a patchwork approach was not working, so it has implemented church-wide policies.

I also sense and hope that we are reaching a point where the "If you disagree with me, you're a bigot"-style forms of advocacy and argument are waning. This calumny is, I think, often a central or ultimate basis for coercing society into accepting demands and arguments that cannot withstand scrutiny on their merits.

Anyway, thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Doctor Steuss · November 19

These policies always seem to forget that trans men exist.

This type of policy mandates that someone who is indistinguishable from a man has to use the women's restroom. Is someone going to be performing a genital examination? When you go into the women's restroom, and there's someone with a beard, wearing a suit, who is mandated by the policy to use that restroom because they were born a phenotypical woman, who checks their genitals to ensure they are in the right place? How do you otherwise tell if it's a cis-gendered man, or a trans-gendered man in the women's restroom? It'd probably be easier to tell if there weren't a policy barring the trans-gendered man from using the men's restroom. This opens up the potential of abuse just as much as it closes it off; only it adds another potential victim.

Cis-gendered men have been abusing children in the church, and elsewhere, yet there's no policy to prevent a cis-gendered man from being in the bathroom alone with a child. There are probably about as many transgendered women in the US as there are clergy. If we were to take turns sharing cases of transgendered women abusing kids, and clergy abusing kids, who do you think would run out of examples first? So, why isn't there a rule about clergy being in callings around children, or using the restroom at the same time as a child?

ETA: These questions aren't directed at Smac, or anyone in particular. They're to hopefully help see this from an alternative view point, beyond trans people are icky predators.

Edited November 19 by Doctor Steuss

MustardSeed · November 19

The only reasonable solution is single use bathrooms for any and all. This is where we are today- we cannot and will not put genie back in their bottle. Let’s stop fighting about it, stop turning “them” in to monsters, stop scapegoating trans as being “the” problem, and just install four single use toilet/sink rooms.

Duncan · November 19

Our ward had a trans woman, so the policy was when they wanted to go to the washroom, they just needed to be alone and not have anyone else in there-mind you the assumption being that trans people are pedophiles and molesters. Given though that you can't trust Bishoprics, Stake Presidencies, Mission Presidencies basically anyone interviewing anyone is assumed to be a pervert and would do something in the office. Everyone is suspected now

ETA-I do know that the Church is cracking down on the video training for people working with children, basically if you don't do it you can get released from your calling.

smac97 · November 19

54 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The only reasonable solution is single use bathrooms for any and all.

Maybe so.

54 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

This is where we are today- we cannot and will not put genie back in their bottle. Let’s stop fighting about it, stop turning “them” in to monsters, stop scapegoating trans as being “the” problem, and just install four single use toilet/sink rooms.

Would this be just for the Church? Or everywhere in the country/world?

Also, the "turning 'them' in to monsters" stuff is pretty similar to the "If you disagree with me, you're a bigot"-style forms of advocacy and argument that I think are not only losing their potency, but are becoming counterproductive.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 19 by smac97

smac97 · November 19

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Our ward had a trans woman, so the policy was when they wanted to go to the washroom, they just needed to be alone and not have anyone else in there-mind you the assumption being that trans people are pedophiles and molesters.

I think the concern may be more about propriety and decorum. I think most women do not want biological males in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, etc.

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Given though that you can't trust Bishoprics, Stake Presidencies, Mission Presidencies basically anyone interviewing anyone is assumed to be a pervert and would do something in the office. Everyone is suspected now.

Alas.

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

ETA-I do know that the Church is cracking down on the video training for people working with children, basically if you don't do it you can get released from your calling.

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

Dario_M · November 19

27 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Our ward had a trans woman, so the policy was when they wanted to go to the washroom, they just needed to be alone and not have anyone else in there.

I find that ridicelous. A trans woman is just a woman. Both inside and outside. So that this trans woman was only allowed to go to the woman washroom when everyone was out is wrong in my opinion. Narrow-minded nonsens if you ask me.

CV75 · November 19

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

The only reasonable solution is single use bathrooms for any and all. This is where we are today- we cannot and will not put genie back in their bottle. Let’s stop fighting about it, stop turning “them” in to monsters, stop scapegoating trans as being “the” problem, and just install four single use toilet/sink rooms.

But you can still have multiple flushes per use, right?

bluebell · November 19

1 hour ago, Doctor Steuss said:

These policies always seem to forget that trans men exist.

This type of policy mandates that someone who is indistinguishable from a man has to use the women's restroom. Is someone going to be performing a genital examination? When you go into the women's restroom, and there's someone with a beard, wearing a suit, who is mandated by the policy to use that restroom because they were born a phenotypical woman, who checks their genitals to ensure they are in the right place? How do you otherwise tell if it's a cis-gendered man, or a trans-gendered man in the women's restroom? It'd probably be easier to tell if there weren't a policy barring the trans-gendered man from using the men's restroom. This opens up the potential of abuse just as much as it closes it off; only it adds another potential victim.

Cis-gendered men have been abusing children in the church, and elsewhere, yet there's no policy to prevent a cis-gendered man from being in the bathroom alone with a child. There are probably about as many transgendered women in the US as there are clergy. If we were to take turns sharing cases of transgendered women abusing kids, and clergy abusing kids, who do you think would run out of examples first? So, why isn't there a rule about clergy being in callings around children, or using the restroom at the same time as a child?

ETA: These questions aren't directed at Smac, or anyone in particular. They're to hopefully help see this from an alternative view point, beyond trans people are icky predators.

I think the reason that these policies forget that trans men exist is because they aren't really about actual trans people at all. They are specifically for men who might pretend to be a transwoman and use that pretense to get access to women's spaces for nefarious reasons.

Those are the people that these kinds of rules are meant to protect against, and those are the people that women (and parents of daughters) are afraid of--heterosexual men dressed like women.

I'm sure there are plenty of men and teenagers who aren't excited about a teenage trans boy coming into the men's bathroom while they are standing at the urinal (especially if they knew that person as a female previously), and so there's probably some 'that's inappropriate' feelings behind these kinds of rules as well. I can imagine that trans boy would also not want to experience that.

But the real issue is a lack of trust in heterosexual men, not genuine transgender (of either sex) people. Transpeople are caught in the crosshairs of a world full of examples of sneaky sexual predation by men of women and sadly transwomen in bathrooms and locker rooms are uniquely situated to bear the consequences of those experiences and the fears they have created.

I think the best option would be single use bathrooms, like MS said.

MustardSeed · November 19

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Also, the "turning 'them' in to monsters" stuff is pretty similar to the "If you disagree with me, you're a bigot"-style forms of advocacy and argument that I think are not only losing their potency, but are becoming counterproductive.

Ok. For the record I don’t think you’re a bigot and I didn’t suggest such. I do think there is an element of chicken little in the general discussion of trans and bathrooms. Obviously, there are enough cases of actual threat that people are going to feel uncomfortable. This is easily solved with single use bathrooms. We certainly can’t have people uncomfortable in the most vulnerable position of pants down, indefensible position of eliminating waste.

MustardSeed · November 19

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Would this be just for the Church? Or everywhere in the country/world?

Especially at church. And eventually for the world, offering single use options. I personally am much more comfortable across-the-board when using a single use bathroom over a stall with strangers all about.

Dario_M · November 19

A transwoman is a real woman. So she should be treated like a real woman. That is the respectfull thing to do. That she used to be a biological man in the past is not relevant.

smac97 · November 19

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

Would this be just for the Church? Or everywhere in the country/world?

Especially at church.

Retrofitting the bathrooms in thousands and thousands of church buildings, costing likely tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. And extrapolated to all other buildings, the cost to society would be pretty enormous. All to accommodate the preferences of a a statistically and numerically tiny number of people suffering from a mental illness. I'm not sure that's the best use of the Church's or society's funds.

Thanks,

-Smac

JVW · November 19

3 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

A transwoman is a real woman. So she should be treated like a real woman. That is the respectfull thing to do. That she used to be a biological man in the past is not relevant.

Why is the person's past not relevant?

smac97 · November 19

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

Also, the "turning 'them' in to monsters" stuff is pretty similar to the "If you disagree with me, you're a bigot"-style forms of advocacy and argument that I think are not only losing their potency, but are becoming counterproductive.

Ok. For the record I don’t think you’re a bigot and I didn’t suggest such.

Acknowledged and appreciated. But I don't think your statement holds for most people, either.

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I do think there is an element of chicken little in the general discussion of trans and bathrooms.

Perhaps.

I also think there is an element of The Emperor Has No Clothes. A biological male does not become a woman simply because he subjectively "identifies" as one. Gender Dysphoria is, AFAICS, the only mental illness that foments a delusion in the individual which the rest of society is, somehow, expected to acknowledge and accommodate as valid.

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?

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Obviously, there are enough cases of actual threat that people are going to feel uncomfortable. This is easily solved with single use bathrooms.

Perhaps you are correct prospectively.

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

We certainly can’t have people uncomfortable in the most vulnerable position of pants down, indefensible position of eliminating waste.

Do you think the Church's current buildings should be retrofitted to add single-person bathrooms?

Thanks,

-Smac

MustardSeed · November 19

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you think the Church's current buildings should be retrofitted to add single-person bathrooms?

I think people should have the option of using a single used bathroom if they prefer that and in my opinion, because of where we are at, most buildings could handle an addition of a single use bathroom if there isn’t already one.

Edited November 19 by MustardSeed

MustardSeed · November 19

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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?

I’m less interested in deciding what people should be able to do than I am in solving this bathroom issue once and for all. It’s an easy fix.

Dario_M · November 19

9 minutes ago, JVW said:

Why is the person's past not relevant?

In this case it is not relevant. I'm only talking about transexuality offcourse. Not about other matters. In that case it meight be a differend storie and therefor is relevant. But that a trans woman used to be a man in the past should not be relevant. Because the person has changed into a female. She feels like she is a woman from the inside and has transformed into a female from the outside. She is basicaly a woman. And a woman wants to be treated like a woman. 🤷‍♀️

Calm · November 19

12 minutes ago, JVW said:

Why is the person's past not relevant?

Even if this shouldn’t bar someone from expressing the gender of the choice, I don’t understand why a person’s past is not relevant. After all, it is the trauma in their past that most justifies in my view allowing trans individuals to share spaces of their gender of choice.

I also believe the past trauma of women assaulted by biological men is relevant. Balancing the two needs is not easy.

I agree single use bathrooms are the way to go. I believe one at least should be retrofitted in each chapel (we apparently have the money) and going forward single use should be the standard choice. Turn the leftover space into a storage closet if needed or a changing station if the usual one is not accessible for fathers.

Makes sense to me to alter the men’s room where there is no other option. One, men tend to be faster in their use so one bathroom will more likely be enough for males than one bathroom for females. Second, males are more likely to be sexual predators than females for both males and females, so it makes sense to remove the opportunities for the occasional predator male by removing shared bathrooms for males first.

Dario_M · November 19

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even if this shouldn’t bar someone from expressing the gender of the choice, I don’t understand why a person’s past is not relevant. After all, it is the trauma in their past that most justifies in my view allowing trans individuals to share spaces of their gender of choice.

That those trans woman had a trauma in the past is relevant offcourse. But that was not what i was talking about.

I'm going to bed because it's nearly 22:00 a clock. Good day.

Duncan · November 19

We have a fairly new building and even the temple has a single use washroom in addition to separate washrooms, so they have three washrooms in the buildings

smac97 · November 19

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

A transwoman is a real woman.

I would like to better understand this concept. I have heard it many times, but I do not understand it.

To me, this seems Orwellian to the extent it is predicated on a fundamental re-definition of "woman" so as to sever that meaning from biological sex.

If "woman" means "an adult biological human female and also anyone who 'identifies' as a woman," then what sort of limiting principle is there?

Can "dog" be re-defined to include "anyone who identifies as a dog"?

Can "space alien" be re-defined to include "anyone who identifies as a space alien"?

Earlier this year I attended visited Encircle House in Provo, Utah. My daughter had asked that I go there and attend meetings wherein trans individuals share their thoughts, experiences, etc. So I went, just to listen to what they have to say. There were four other people in attendance, all (apparently) biological women who "identified" as trans men. We went around the room and introduced ourselves, then each of the other participants spoke for a few minutes, then it concluded. It was not particularly illuminating, as most of their comments seemed to be complaining about mundane stuff (school, work, friends, etc.). Several of them added that these things are harder for trans people, but that was about it as far as "trans"-specific commentary.

After the meeting I walked downstairs to the main floor, where I encountered a larger group of mostly teenagers. They were all talking animatedly. Two or three of them were dressed up as "furries." One of them, who was kneeling on the ground with dog ears on his head and a collar around his neck, turned and saw me. He smiled and said "Hi! My name is Jack, and I identify as a dog. Woof!" (I can't remember the name he gave, but it was a generic male name.) I said hello back to him, and asked him about his day. He said it had been fine. As I had already been there for over an hour, I then exited the building and drove home.

On the drive home, I wondered about the expectations I had just encountered. The people I had met upstairs all stated that they were "trans men," that is, biological women who "identify" as man. None of them was dressed in any particularly "masculine" way. They all had their hair in unremarkable cuts/styles. None of them had beards, low voices, or anything. All of them appeared to look female in every normative respect ("feminine" facial features, breasts, hips, etc.). And yet each of them stated their identity as a "trans man." And I think they had an expectation for this identity to be acknowledged, accepted, ratified, etc.

Then I thought about the teenager I had met downstairs. He specifically said he "identifies" as a dog. Was I supposed to accept that statement as congruent with reality and biological fact? Left to my own devices, I would think not, because notwithstanding how he "identifies," this kid was not a dog. He was a human being. In my brief interaction with him, I treated him with kindness and respect, but I did not acknowledge (or endorse, or ratify, etc.) his self-identification as a dog. It was a passing interaction, so there was no particular need to do so. But if he and his family were to move in next door, and if his parents were to ask me to "respect" his "identity" as a dog, to treat him like a dog, to act as if I think he is actually a dog, etc., should I go along with that?

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

So she should be treated like a real woman.

Even though we all know the individual is, in fact, biologically male?

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

That is the respectful thing to do.

I really do wonder about that.

If I have a friend who suffers from a mental disorder under which she perceives herself to be fat even though she is not (or even underweight), is "the respectful thing to do" to go along with that factually false misperception? To encourage her to starve herself and get even thinner? To help hold her hair away from her mouth while she leans over and vomits into a toilet after a donut binge?

Consider a person who suffers from a mental disorder involving a desires to have their eyes put out, their spinal cord severed, a healthy leg amputated, etc. Is the "respectful thing to do" to go along with and encourage such a person in these things?

My sense is that virtually everyone would say "no" to the foregoing questions.

In my view, I do not see a qualitative difference between the foregoing mental disorders and Gender Dysphoria.

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

That she used to be a biological man in the past is not relevant.

When did this person stop being "a biological man"? How did that happen?

If this person were on board an airline that crashed, leaving only burned corpses, would not forensic and medical personal, in evaluating this person's body, conclude - as a matter of fact and and reality - that the body was that of a "biological man"?

These are difficult topics, and I hope the foregoing inquiries do not give offense. As I noted previously, part of the difficulty in having conversations about topics such as these is that they frequently devolve into "If you disagree with me, you're a bigot"-style forms of argument and accusation. I am hoping we can avoid that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 19 by smac97

smac97 · November 19

33 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I think people should have the option of using a single used bathroom if they prefer that and in my opinion, because of where we are at, most buildings could handle an addition of a single use bathroom if there isn’t already one.

I think this is a reasonable position. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

rpn · November 19

I've known a couple of people personally who didn't feel they fit into the gender that they appeared to be. While I understand the church wanting to fully protect its members (and for sure youth who are even more easily sucked in) from the contagion that is going around and has affected someone close to me, I also think it is a great trial for those who have fully transition such that no one has any reason to know that they are not the gender they may have been born with.

If I were in charge, I'd talk opening about the contagion stuff because that is a concerning part of our world today. But I don't understand how that concern has to result in us facially seeming to mistreat in any way those who are personally struggling with their thoughts and the way they feel about their bodies when just being open about the existing contagion and why there will be no ecclesiastical embrace of the practices should be enough to teach expected behavior.

blackstrap · November 19

I've been recently thinking about the Roman Empire. They had a different approach to the bathroom situation. 😉

Sign In

Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

Recommended Posts

smac97

These new restrictions reinforce harmful misconceptions and will not make women or girls any safer.

Doctor Steuss

MustardSeed

Duncan

smac97

smac97

Dario_M

CV75

bluebell

MustardSeed

MustardSeed

Dario_M

smac97

JVW

smac97

MustardSeed

MustardSeed

Dario_M

Calm

Dario_M

Duncan

smac97

smac97

rpn

blackstrap

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse