Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[ksfisher]

1 hour 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. 

My ward just celebrated its 100th anniversary this summer. We have the second newest building in the stake.  It would be extremely difficult to add any additional washrooms. 

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

My ward just celebrated its 100th anniversary this summer. We have the second newest building in the stake.  It would be extremely difficult to add any additional washrooms. 

Retrofitting the men’s bathroom into a single use is possible, is it not? 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

...........................   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.............................................

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?

........................................

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

........................

.....................  It saw that a patchwork approach was not working, so it has implemented church-wide policies......................

Anyway, thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Recall how all of us had to be trained (and vetted) and work by twos in leading cubs and scouts, so as to avoid the very real problem of pedophiles in scouting.  Hardy seems to have his head in the sand in ignoring that reality.  Moreover, much of what we do in meeting houses is governed by secular law.  In Utah, for example, secular law prohibits members from carrying firearms into meetinghouses or onto BYU campus, whereas in Texas a Latter-day Saint can carry a concealed firearm to church meetings.

I suspect that future state law will take much of this transgender problem out of the hands of local authorities.  This will result in a hodgepodge of rules in different states, but that is to be expected.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Maybe just putting in family single bathrooms or now I forgot what they called them. But they were at the San Diego airport when I was there recently. I mean going forward. Those that design stores, churches, schools etc. Now should have that be protocol. 

[Tacenda]

I think they were called "All Gender Restroom".

Edited November 20, 2024 by Tacenda

[webbles]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

That would be awesome.  I've been in several chapels that have single-person bathrooms and they are awesome for dealing with small children.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, webbles said:

That would be awesome.  I've been in several chapels that have single-person bathrooms and they are awesome for dealing with small children.

I am warming to this idea.  

[california boy]

4 hours 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. 

You don't have to completely redo the plumbing to make single use bathrooms. In a lot of Europe, the individual stalls go from about 4" from the floor (I assume to make moping easier) to ceiling height with a lock on the door.  Who is using the private room is really irrelevant.  Urinals are taken out.   I am seeing this done more and more in public places.  

[california boy]

Just to be clear about what we are talking about when we say transgender.  

Here is a site that shows mostly photos of what a transgender male looks like and who you are asking to go into the female bathroom.  The ones that look like women are biological males that have transitioned from male to female.

These are mostly biological women that have trans to male.

And these are  mostly biological males that have trans to female.  Do you really want them to use the men's bathroom?

 

All of the photos on both web pages are of transgender people.  So where are they suppose to go to the bathroom?  Not so easy to make a blanket policy for all transgender people like the Church and some are trying to do on this board has decided to do is it.

 

Edited November 20, 2024 by california boy

[Rain]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

You don't have to completely redo the plumbing to make single use bathrooms. In a lot of Europe, the individual stalls go from about 4" from the floor (I assume to make moping easier) to ceiling height with a lock on the door.  Who is using the private room is really irrelevant.  Urinals are taken out.   I am seeing this done more and more in public places.  

Yes. About 1/3 of the public bathrooms I went to in Hungary in September were for both women and men. At first it felt weird walking in, but once in my stall I pretty much felt like it was like any other single use stall. By the end of my trip it wasn't out of the norm.

[Rain]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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.  

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:

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?"

I had 2 boys and 1 girl. I would have felt no more comfortable sending my sons into the men's room than my daughter. In fact, I took my sons onto the women's restoom with me, but I did send my daughter into the women's bathroom on her own.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Back to today's piece:

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.

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.

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

Yes, he does.

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?

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:

• I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle
• Tavistock trust whistleblower David Bell: ‘I believed I was doing the right thing’
• The Responsibility to Inform
• The pullback from youth gender transition has begun
• A Slow Trek Back to Truth?
• Puberty Blockers, Cross-Sex Hormones, and Youth Suicide
• DC children's hospital offered 'gender affirming' hysterectomies for kids, audio and deleted webpage reveal
• Putting numbers on the rise in children seeking gender care
• Why disturbing leaks from US gender group WPATH ring alarm bells in the NHS
• Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence
• Dr. Paul McHugh's SCOTUS Amicus Brief
• I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery
• Gender dysphoria and psychiatric comorbidities in childhood: a systematic review
• Most kids grow out of their desire to change their sex
• The Cass Report
• Four-Year Study on Gender Affirming Care in the UK Warns of the Dangers of 'Gender Transition' for Kids
• Opinion: Europe’s example on gender treatment
• Affirming Deception: Dishonesty in Gender-Medicine
• British Medical Journal: Gender Ideology Not Settled Science
• Why Europe and America are going in opposite directions on youth transgender medicine
• Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’
• Transgender Care Needs Better Science, More Transparency
• Second Thoughts on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’
• Discussing So-Called “Gender-Affirming Care” With Dr. Elliot Kaminetzky
• Money Is Driving Medicine’s Embrace of Child Transgenderism
• Woke doc refused to publish $10 million trans kids study that showed puberty blockers didn’t help mental health
• Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement
• Thousands of Minors Have Received ‘Gender-Affirming Surgeries’

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

 

[MustardSeed]

I was recently in an airport, I cannot recall which one it was. But it had a bathroom that had several stalls, and the bathroom itself was for all genders. The stalls all went from ceiling to floor and locked on the inside. This is also a good option.

[Rain]

8 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

These policies always seem to forget that trans men exist.

This quandry certainly had my husband and I wondering how to handle a close family member trans man at my daughter's wedding and reception (before the policy). We finally chose to say nothing and let him decide.

Likely, now that there is that policy, we will run up to it again when my son gets married. I'm not going to worry about it this time and just let the relative decide. Now that he has a beard I'm 100% sure he won't be going to the women's room.

8 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

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.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

In a lot of Europe, the individual stalls go from about 4" from the floor (I assume to make moping easier) to ceiling height with a lock on the door.  Who is using the private room is really irrelevant.  Urinals are taken out.   I am seeing this done more and more in public places.  

How is this different from now outside of going to the ceiling, which makes peeking over or using a phone or camera to take pictures harder from the top?  Seems the problem of peepers taking pictures down low is still an issue as would the problem of if only a man and a woman were in the shared space and the man forced the woman into a stall to rape her?  I suppose a woman could use a weapon against a man to force him, but more awkward and difficult it seems to me.

Not that a man can’t follow a woman into a public restroom now if they are careful to scout it out and be sure it’s not in use, but this seems to make that a step to skip.

Are there security cameras in the shared areas?  Seems like a reasonable possibility as no one should be exposing themselves in that area.

Edited November 20, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I was recently in an airport, I cannot recall which one it was. But it had a bathroom that had several stalls, and the bathroom itself was for all genders. The stalls all went from ceiling to floor and locked on the inside. This is also a good option.

I would feel most comfortable with this as it avoids peepers. Still a problem of an isolated room where a predator can lie in wait. I would prefer a row of single or family user bathrooms that open up into a hall with lots of security cameras.

Yes, paranoid here.

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

How is this different from now outside of going to the ceiling, which makes peeking over or using a phone or camera to take pictures harder from the top?  Seems the problem of peepers taking pictures down low is still an issue as would the problem of if only a man and a woman were in the shared space and the man forced the woman into a stall to rape her?  I suppose a woman could use a weapon against a man to force him, but more awkward and difficult it seems to me.

Not that a man can’t follow a woman into a public restroom now if they are careful to scout it out and be sure it’s not in use, but this seems to make that a step to skip.

Are there security cameras in the shared areas?  Seems like a reasonable possibility as no one should be exposing themselves in that area.

Well the big difference is most bathroom stall dividers are more like 18" from the floor.   Also it is much more difficult to take a photo from the floor looking up than the ceiling because most people are not looking at the ceiling when they are using the stall.  It is much more common to be looking down.  

And I am wondering what a photo would actually look like from 4" off the ground.  Legs??  Why not just take photos of women's legs outside in shorts or whatever.

You certainly could have the walls go from floor to ceiling.  I should check the ones I have seen in the U.S. if they do that.  Most of them in Europe are about 4" off the ground.  These more private stalls are way more common than the kind we have in the U.S.   Some are for male or female only.  Some are unisex.

I haven't seen security cameras.  

 

 

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You don't have to completely redo the plumbing to make single use bathrooms... Urinals are taken out.

Our urinals are pretty close together, so we would see a reduction in usage capacity if they were replaced with cubicles.

[MustardSeed]

The only way I would feel comfortable with my pants around my ankles, vulnerably mid elimination in a mixed bathroom is if the stalls went from ceiling to floor. 

[sunstoned]

I suspected the church had a Trans policy, but I did not know the details until I read this article. To be honest, it was jarring for me to read this. This is a horrid policy that goes way past the bathroom issue.  Trans members cannot participate in their ward in any meaningful way.  In my opinion, the author is right.  This policy is morally indefensible, and it will backfire, just like the 2015 policy of exclusion did. That revelation was walked back with three years. Now that Trump is in office, this policy might take a little longer, but it will change.

Edited November 20, 2024 by sunstoned

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I suspected the church had a Trans policy, but I did not know the details until I read this article. To be honest, it was jarring for me to read this. This is a horrid policy that goes way past the bathroom issue.  Trans members cannot participate in their ward in any meaningful way.  In my opinion, the author is right.  This policy is morally indefensible, and it will backfire, just like the 2015 policy of exclusion did. That revelation was walked back with three years. Now that Trump is in office, this policy might take a little longer, but it will change.

Agreed. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

And I am wondering what a photo would actually look like from 4" off the ground.  Legs??  Why not just take photos of women's legs outside in shorts or whatever.

 

A miniature camera flat on the floor looking up could see way too much.

Edited November 20, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Well...it's really simple. The woman is trapped in a mans body. So she takes hormons to develop some breasts, let her hair grow, change her voice, get rid of her facial hair, wear woman clothes, undergoes many operations, one that will allow her to get rid of her genitals, one that will imitate the genitals of a woman. And there you have a transformed real woman. 🤷‍♀️

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Yeah but why does it matter so much that a trans woman has been a biological man in the past? Why do other people feel the need to make such a big deal about it. For the woman it has been (and is still) allready really hard enough. Does she really have to take those negative prejudices into account now as well? 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

But who says that a woman "means" only an adult biological human female? Who decides that? 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

That comparison is neither here nor there. That has nothing to do with a biological man who wants to transform into a woman. Or vica versa. 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I'm afrait you need to ask a alien this question. I'm only talking about trans woman. That's it. 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Uhm..? But your point is? That trans woman have a harder time doing school, work, friends? Is that what you mean maybe? 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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!" 

Okay well... that's getting a bit crazy offcourse. To me this has nothing, and i say nothing, to do with transwoman or transman. That is totaly differend. And i think that if you would compare a transwoman with a "dog" and spit that suggestion into her face she will be really offended. Bound to be. 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

(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.

Probably the best thing to do. 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Mostly that's also part of it. You know...the whole transformation. I've seen transman who looked so real that i really couldn't believe that they have been a female once, and to me those are real man. I think i could date a transman who looks so real like. And do i care that he has been a woman in the past? No! I don't care one bit and it doesn't affect me. 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

  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.  

Okay i don't know what kind of people you have met there offcourse haha.. But most biological womans who feel like they are a man who wanna be a man. Undergoes a transformation at some point. Why? Because they wanna look like a man. 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Then I thought about the teenager I had met downstairs.  He specifically said he "identifies" as a dog. 

Okay. Enough about the dog comparison. I'm not gonna react anymore to this. That's a waste of my energy. 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

But in spirit he isn't and that should matter. 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?  

What has this to do with a transwoman or a transman? I can also compare apples with oranges but they are not the same fruit. So that comparison will not do it, in my modest opinion you see. 🤷‍♀️

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

Yeah but wich person wants something like that. And to be honest i (again) still don't really get the comparison with a transwoman/transman. 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

 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

I'm not gonna call you a "bigot" God forbid. Though...i felt a bit strange reading your whole post i gotta admit. 

Edited November 20, 2024 by Dario_M

[Dario_M]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

The only way I would feel comfortable with my pants around my ankles, vulnerably mid elimination in a mixed bathroom is if the stalls went from ceiling to floor. 

Since when do we have mixed bathrooms. The bathroom is: or woman bathrooms. Or man bathrooms. If you mean that the bathrooms are mixed because transwoman also enters the woman bathroom...i would say... the society considered transwoman as "real woman" and therefor those woman do also have the right to enter a womans bathroom. You probably won't even notice it so don't worrie. 

Edited November 20, 2024 by Dario_M

[Calm]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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." 

Good for your daughter for the suggestion and good for you for accepting in a positive manner.  

My guess is they were in the first stages of transitioning as it is not a bad idea for a counselor to suggest group therapy before moving on to other therapies and actual medical interventions with the aim of changing appearance etc., especially if the individual was suffering from depression and anxiety or is wondering how much transitioning is appropriate in their lives.  It is wise with such a major undertaking to get a support system in place.  This is what should be happening with all ages.

They may have been reluctant to talk about planned details of transitioning in front of a man who might appeared to them as a tourist.  Just standard caution opening up around strangers.  Not everyone is able to do it.  Just because you are in group therapy doesn’t mean you feel safe…speaking from experience.

The other possibility for the reason they did not appear to be doing more than social transitioning (I believe that is the correct term) is they knew what type of negative reactions they would get at this time in Provo, Utah and had put off transitioning in order to keep jobs and housing.

Quote

And I think they had an expectation for this identity to be acknowledged, accepted, ratified, etc.  

Considering they were in a support group for transgender individuals, I would expect them to have that expectation of the group. It would be odd if they didn’t…and sad.

Edited November 20, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Since when do we have mixed bathrooms. The bathroom is: or woman bathrooms. Or man bathrooms. If you mean that the bathrooms are mixed because transwoman also enters the woman bathroom...i would say... the society considered transwoman as "real woman" and therefor those woman do also have the right to enter a womans bathroom. You probably won't even notice it so don't worrie. 

She just told us that she encountered a mixed bathroom. Californiaboy and I just talked about finding them in Europe.  Bathrooms that are for men and women. 

While I found myself feeling ok in mixed bathrooms by the end of my time there I recognize that other people won't feel comfortable with it.

I also feel women need to have safe places. (Men do too.) When you tell Mustard that she probably won't even notice and not to worry you are completely disregarding her lived experience as a woman especially when you just got done ignoring what she said was her experience.