Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[The Nehor]

The reality is that public bathrooms aren’t segregated by gender or sex as a matter of law. It is custom. Tradition. Unwritten order of things.

So legislating about them isn’t fixing existing laws. It is just government regulation reaching into areas it was not in before. There are exceptions in some areas and states but generally speaking there aren’t laws about this.

Most of these bathroom bills are about government and government owned spaces only.

Much sound and fury, signifying nothing…..

The general result so far has been laws that impact almost no one with limited impact and are designed primarily as virtue signaling and have resulted in trans and cis women being harassed for not being feminine enough. If insufficiently masculine looking men were being harassed I suspect men wouldn’t suddenly be so concerned about the ‘integrity of women’s spaces’ or whatever. 

Any man who wants to harass women in the women’s restroom does not have to transition to do it and they don’t. When smac shows videos of men invading women’s bathrooms they all appear to be cis men.

But a child might think a drag queen looks pretty or funny so gotta terrorize women in unrelated ways!

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

We don’t disagree. You’re wrong. Transgender people have been around for many decades. They only recently got thrust into the public eye by people opposed to them. They don’t really want the spotlight. They got it anyways.

I think those people are woke!

[smac97]

On 12/6/2024 at 5:20 PM, Analytics said:

Not exactly. It says it is about protecting the right of people to use "sex-segregated facilities that are most consistent with their sincerely held gender identity." People who don't sincerely hold a female gender identity may not use the women's room. 

Quoting from pages 4-5:

This is generally consistent with what I've suggested--if somebody is loitering in the women's restroom, then by all means call the cops and prosecute. But if they go in, use the toilet, wash their hands, and then leave, it is appropriate to presume they are being sincere about what they claim about their gender identity.

@Analytics,

Your references and arguments, and the further articles I reviewed, have moved me away from my proposal and into an area of ambivalence between it and the approach taken in MA.  I'm not quite persuaded, and I'd like to see more data, but for the time being I am retracting my proposal.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 8, 2024 by smac97

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

@Analytics,

Your references, and the further articles I reviewed, have moved me away from my proposal and into an area of ambivalence between it and the approach taken in MA.  I'm not quite persuaded, and I'd like to see more data, but for the time being I am retracting my proposal.

Thanks,

-Smac

I appreciate your open-mindedness on this. Thanks for being willing to engage thoughtfully—it's not something I encounter every day.

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

@Analytics,

Your references and arguments, and the further articles I reviewed, have moved me away from my proposal and into an area of ambivalence between it and the approach taken in MA.  I'm not quite persuaded, and I'd like to see more data, but for the time being I am retracting my proposal.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is why I like this forum.  There are open-minded people. 

[Vellichor]

This information is relevant: https://ovarit.com/o/ThisNeverHappens/hot

As is this: https://wsau.com/2023/08/25/more-than-half-of-transgender-inmates-in-wisconsin-have-been-convicted-of-a-sex-crime/

 

[california boy]

I had a very interesting revelation a couple of days ago.  I was talking with one of my tenants that rents an apartment from me.  He has been renting from me for about 6 months.  We recently had the apartment mailbox broken into by a criminal using a postal master key.  This tenant was talking to me about how he was dealing with making sure his mail was safe.  He was expecting an important document from the government certifying his name change.  When he told me his old name that he was changing. I suddenly realized I was talking to someone who transitioned from female to male. Something I didn't pick up on for the past 6 months.

 It is not as easy as some think to identify someone who has transitioned.  This convinced me that this idea some have suggested to only allow biological genders to use assigned bathrooms is a total fantasy.  If I can't figure out if someone has transitioned after 6 months of contact, I doubt very much that most people would know what biological gender was in their bathrooms.  This reinforces the strong case for letting people use the bathroom they feel most matches their gender.  

A totally separate issue IMO to someone who has criminal intent and should be treated as a criminal no matter what gender they identify with.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

I had a very interesting revelation a couple of days ago.  I was talking with one of my tenants that rents an apartment from me.  He has been renting from me for about 6 months.  We recently had the apartment mailbox broken into by a criminal using a postal master key.  This tenant was talking to me about how he was dealing with making sure his mail was safe.  He was expecting an important document from the government certifying his name change.  When he told me his old name that he was changing. I suddenly realized I was talking to someone who transitioned from female to male. Something I didn't pick up on for the past 6 months.

 It is not as easy as some think to identify someone who has transitioned.  This convinced me that this idea some have suggested to only allow biological genders to use assigned bathrooms is a total fantasy.  If I can't figure out if someone has transitioned after 6 months of contact, I doubt very much that most people would know what biological gender was in their bathrooms.  This reinforces the strong case for letting people use the bathroom they feel most matches their gender.  

A totally separate issue IMO to someone who has criminal intent and should be treated as a criminal no matter what gender they identify with.

This is not what most people think of when they think of a trans woman, but can you imagine forcing this person to use the men's restroom?  Even forgetting about the men, most of their wives would not appreciate it.

[Vellichor]

Nobody really cares about women using the men's restroom. It might be awkward for males, but there would be no safety concerns for them. There might be safety concerns for the women identifying as men in the men's restroom, however, if they are recognized as women. And there certainly are safety concerns for girls and women when men are using their spaces where they are vulnerable--in states of undress and taking care of bodily functions. 

Most men are not predators; however, predators are far more likely to be male. Men identifying as women are no exception. There are no reputable studies showing that trans-identified men have violent crime rates similar to actual women. 

Women and girls are the ones most affected by all of this.

More information here: https://reduxx.info/

 

[MrShorty]

I know I got scolded last time I entered this conversation for not respecting that the conversation had drifted into a mostly legislative, secular, legal place, but I'm going to venture in again. As much as the conversation has focused on public bathrooms, the more disturbing parts of the church's policies, in my opinion, are the class and teaching parts, which no self-respecting secular government is going to get involved in. I see @bluebell's Bond girl, and I understand that the church's policy would require her to attend EQ. It sounds like @california boy's tenant, who would probably pass as an unordained man, would be required to attend RS. And neither of them would be allowed to hold a teaching calling or any calling adjacent to the youth or children simply because they are transgender. I'm still unable to understand why the church insists that "biological sex assigned at birth" determines these choices and restrictions.

Maybe when we are done with the back and forth about legislating public bathroom use, someone can help me understand the rationale behind the rest of the church's transgender policies.

I just searched for more info about Tula, and it appears that she is technically intersex, with an chromosomal anomaly that caused her to be assigned male at birth, but to be more feminine as she grew up, eventually deciding to transition to female, and later discovering here intersex condition. Suggesting further nuance to the question of how we ought to determine sex and gender.

Edited December 13, 2024 by MrShorty
additional information about Bond girl

[smac97]

13 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I know I got scolded last time I entered this conversation for not respecting that the conversation had drifted into a mostly legislative, secular, legal place, but I'm going to venture in again. As much as the conversation has focused on public bathrooms, the more disturbing parts of the church's policies, in my opinion, are the class and teaching parts, which no self-respecting secular government is going to get involved in. I see @bluebell's Bond girl, and I understand that the church's policy would require her to attend EQ. It sounds like @california boy's tenant, who would probably pass as an unordained man, would be required to attend RS. And neither of them would be allowed to hold a teaching calling or any calling adjacent to the youth or children simply because they are transgender. I'm still unable to understand why the church insists that "biological sex assigned at birth" determines these choices and restrictions.

I think because a male, regardless of how much medical/surgical intervention he goes through to look like a woman, and wearing clothes and makeup and have a hairstyle intended to make him look like a woman, and subjectively/emotionally "identifying" as a woman, is not, and never will be a woman.  This is a matter of both biological fact and also revelatory guidance (as found in, for example, The Proclamation), and common sense and observation.

Secular governments can, of course, disregard both biological reality and The Proclamation, and treat men who "identify" as women as if they actually are women.  In the main, though, the Church as a private organization gets to decide who attends which of its meetings.

13 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Maybe when we are done with the back and forth about legislating public bathroom use, someone can help me understand the rationale behind the rest of the church's transgender policies.

It helps to start with The Proclamation.  If you recognize that the Church is not going along with the fundamental premises of trans ideology (e.g., that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one), then the policies seem to make sense.

13 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I just searched for more info about Tula, and it appears that she is technically intersex, with an chromosomal anomaly that caused her to be assigned male at birth, but to be more feminine as she grew up, eventually deciding to transition to female, and later discovering here intersex condition. Suggesting further nuance to the question of how we ought to determine sex and gender.

Caroline Cossey has a DSD, and a pretty rare one (involved in 1 in 50,000 or 0.002%, of births).  Such persons should, i think, be given some particularized consideration, both in secular law and in the Church, as their biological sex - though ultimately male or female since there are only two sexes - may be epistemically unclear).  However, the vast majority of "trans" people do not have any sort of DSD (indeed, not everyone with DSD identifies as "trans"), and are instead indisputably biologically male or female.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 13, 2024 by smac97

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I know I got scolded last time I entered this conversation for not respecting that the conversation had drifted into a mostly legislative, secular, legal place, but I'm going to venture in again. As much as the conversation has focused on public bathrooms, the more disturbing parts of the church's policies, in my opinion, are the class and teaching parts, which no self-respecting secular government is going to get involved in. I see @bluebell's Bond girl, and I understand that the church's policy would require her to attend EQ. It sounds like @california boy's tenant, who would probably pass as an unordained man, would be required to attend RS. And neither of them would be allowed to hold a teaching calling or any calling adjacent to the youth or children simply because they are transgender. I'm still unable to understand why the church insists that "biological sex assigned at birth" determines these choices and restrictions.

Maybe when we are done with the back and forth about legislating public bathroom use, someone can help me understand the rationale behind the rest of the church's transgender policies.

I just searched for more info about Tula, and it appears that she is technically intersex, with an chromosomal anomaly that caused her to be assigned male at birth, but to be more feminine as she grew up, eventually deciding to transition to female, and later discovering here intersex condition. Suggesting further nuance to the question of how we ought to determine sex and gender.

I think that those kinds of policies are largely due to a lot of older people not realizing how far transitioning has come.  I think most older people assume that a transwoman is going to look like a man in drag and a transman is going to look like a woman with some facial hair and so going to the class of the biological sex makes the most sense.

I did note in the new policy that people can get an exception from the First presidency, and I wouldn't be surprised if those situations where no one would ever know they were transgender might be when that exception would be granted.

The article says the exceptions would be rare, but so would the instances of a trans man or woman who passed that well trying to attend church classes.

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think...

I can understand that you believe this, and the logic that leads to it even makes sense. But what does God think? How did we determine that this is what God thinks? When I pressed the issue in the prophetic fallibility thread, this is why I think we need to look more carefully at our history so we can find a more solid basis for making moral claims. To me, all of our "we thinks" look like "we thinks" from other troubling aspects of our history. We think that God looks at chromosomes and anatomy and hormones to determine sex and gender, but I don't think we have adequately addressed all the ways we could be wrong about what God thinks.

[Vellichor]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

And neither of them would be allowed to hold a teaching calling or any calling adjacent to the youth or children simply because they are transgender. I'm still unable to understand why the church insists that "biological sex assigned at birth" determines these choices and restrictions.

 

Social contagion plays a significant role in the explosion of transgender identities over the past decade. It seems obvious that this would be a factor in why this policy was created. Church leaders know that children and youth are highly impressionable.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think that those kinds of policies are largely due to a lot of older people not realizing how far transitioning has come.  I think most older people assume that a transwoman is going to look like a man in drag and a transman is going to look like a woman with some facial hair and so going to the class of the biological sex makes the most sense.

I did note in the new policy that people can get an exception from the First presidency, and I wouldn't be surprised if those situations where no one would ever know they were transgender might be when that exception would be granted.

The article says the exceptions would be rare, but so would the instances of a trans man or woman who passed that well trying to attend church classes.

This makes a lot of sense to me.  I think it’s likely too. Out of rep points, but finding the analysis insightful enough I need to point it out.  I think it’s useful in part because we really haven’t considered exceptions being made by the First Presidency iirc before in this thread…or maybe even in past conversations, except acknowledging they do occur.  I am thinking we haven’t considered why they might occur.

Edited December 13, 2024 by Calm

[MrShorty]

9 hours ago, Vellichor said:

Social contagion plays a significant role in the explosion of transgender identities over the past decade. It seems obvious that this would be a factor in why this policy was created. Church leaders know that children and youth are highly impressionable.

This seems like something that ought to be measurable. When I go looking for data to support this claim, I find a mess of contradictory claims. How did the writers and approvers of these policies decide that social contagion was a very real fear and dangerous enough to the broader church membership to justify restricting transgender participation in the church? My sense of right wrong suggests that, if we are restricting people's participation in the church based on social contagion, there had better be a body of evidence that rises head and shoulders above the ideological din.

Comparing to the history of the priesthood and temple ban, I observe that it seems that much of the basis for the racial restrictions was a fear of race mixing and interracial marriage and other aspects of "scientific racism" which have now been discredited and disavowed. If we are going to learn from past mistakes, I think we can see how ideology can get in the way of the church's ability to discern truth and right.

At the end of the day, my cynical self thinks you are right, that these policies are rooted in fear of social contagion. What I'm looking for is the reasoning behind deciding that such fear was justifies and that God agreed with their decision to restrict people's participation in the church. In light of the inevitable questions around prophetic fallibility, how did the brethren put aside their personal biases and opinions in coming to the conclusions that they came to?

I will also add that, if we are going to make a mistake, it seems to me that we ought to err on the side of encouraging full participation in the church. Restricting a group's participation in the church requires a higher level of certainty than allowing full participation.

 

[MrShorty]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

I did note in the new policy that people can get an exception from the First presidency,

When I look at the policy document, I see that exceptions (which should be rare, it says) are approved by the Area Presidency, not the First Presidency. I suppose it could be unwritten (or written elsewhere) that, when the Area Presidency can't decide it can make its way up the priesthood chain to the First Presidency.

My cynical self has found this part of the document interesting. When Pres. Nelson explained the reversal of the 2015 policies around same sex couples, he specifically noted that the exceptions that made their way to the First Presidency were almost always approved, effectively rendering the policy unnecessary. My cynical self wonders if the current wording is intended to prevent the same scenario before it gets started by raising the bar on approving exceptions to the policy.

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Vellichor said:

Nobody really cares about women using the men's restroom. It might be awkward for males, but there would be no safety concerns for them. There might be safety concerns for the women identifying as men in the men's restroom, however, if they are recognized as women. And there certainly are safety concerns for girls and women when men are using their spaces where they are vulnerable--in states of undress and taking care of bodily functions. 

Most men are not predators; however, predators are far more likely to be male. Men identifying as women are no exception. There are no reputable studies showing that trans-identified men have violent crime rates similar to actual women. 

Women and girls are the ones most affected by all of this.

More information here: https://reduxx.info/

 

Can you tell me why you are willing to judge an entire group of people based simply on what they look like as potential criminals and not for anything they have actually done.  Do you really believe that every trans person is using the bathroom to prey on women and children?  If not, how can you justify prejudging every single one of them, not based on anything they have ever actually done in a bathroom, but solely on the fact that they are trans? 

I totally agree that criminals should be immediately be treated as criminals. ANYONE who does anything inappropriate in a bathroom or anywhere else should be treated with the most sever retribution the law can provide. But I am VERY uncomfortable assuming everyone who is trans must be suspected and treated as a criminal simply because of who they are.    How are you even justifying this position other than just fear of something that might happen?  Do you really believe that a man who has criminal intent is going to be stopped from evil intent if laws are passed to prevent trans people from using the bathrooms of the gender that they have transitioned to?  Why would a sexual predator not just follow a woman into the bathroom?  Why is it even helpful to them to claim to be trans?

The fact that the Church is also taking a similar approach is also very disturbing to me.  Is the Church now setting policy based on fear rather than revelation?  Is nothing learned from past policy mistakes???  

[Vellichor]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Can you tell me why you are willing to judge an entire group of people based simply on what they look like as potential criminals and not for anything they have actually done.  Do you really believe that every trans person is using the bathroom to prey on women and children?  If not, how can you justify prejudging every single one of them, not based on anything they have ever actually done in a bathroom, but solely on the fact that they are trans? 

I totally agree that criminals should be immediately be treated as criminals. ANYONE who does anything inappropriate in a bathroom or anywhere else should be treated with the most sever retribution the law can provide. But I am VERY uncomfortable assuming everyone who is trans must be suspected and treated as a criminal simply because of who they are.    How are you even justifying this position other than just fear of something that might happen?  Do you really believe that a man who has criminal intent is going to be stopped from evil intent if laws are passed to prevent trans people from using the bathrooms of the gender that they have transitioned to?  Why would a sexual predator not just follow a woman into the bathroom?  Why is it even helpful to them to claim to be trans?

The fact that the Church is also taking a similar approach is also very disturbing to me.  Is the Church now setting policy based on fear rather than revelation?  Is nothing learned from past policy mistakes???  

Read what I wrote (and what you quoted) again: "Most men are not predators; however, predators are far more likely to be male. Men identifying as women are no exception."

I am not judging "every single one of them" "solely on the fact that they are trans." I am saying they don't belong in women's spaces because they are MEN.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

I think because a male, regardless of how much medical/surgical intervention he goes through to look like a woman, and wearing clothes and makeup and have a hairstyle intended to make him look like a woman, and subjectively/emotionally "identifying" as a woman, is not, and never will be a woman.  This is a matter of both biological fact and also revelatory guidance (as found in, for example, The Proclamation).

Secular governments can, of course, disregard both biological reality and The Proclamation, and treat men who "identify" as women as if they actually are women.  In the main, though, the Church as a private organization gets to decide who attends which of its meetings.

I can understand that you believe this,

Actually, I prefaced my statement with "I think this." 

I believe God exists, because that is ultimately a question of faith.  I can't empirically prove it, but I think there's enough evidence to reach a conclusion.

On the other hand, I know that 2 + 2 = 4, that California borders the Pacific Ocean, and that James Stewart starred in It's a Wonderful Life.  I can empirically prove these things, or else find them to be beyond reasonable dispute.

Then there are matters of preference, opinion, perspective, ideology.  I think that black licorice is delicious, but I recognize that others disagree.  I dislike or just don't care for most of The Rolling Stones's music, but I recognize that my son is a huge fan.

As to whether a man can become a woman by "identifying" as one, I acknowledge that secular law, social convention, popular influences and pressures, etc. can affirm this, whether as a legal fiction or as a matter of preference, opinion, etc.  For me, the only way for this to happen is to re-define terms, which would be akin to me saying that when I visit the beaches in La Jolla and look west, the huge body of salt water I see is the Adriatic Sea because that's how I "identify" it.  As it happens, few people will agree with me, but I think virtually nobody would care enough one way or another.  I lack the audacity and the lung power to persuade any appreciable number of people as to the merits of my "identification" of that body of water as the Adriatic.

If we set aside re-definitions and equivocations, trans ideology - its current iteration, anyway - necessarily fails.  Biological sex is empirically testable.

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

and the logic that leads to it even makes sense.

Thank you.  I think so as well.

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

But what does God think?

Based on the cumulative counsel from prophets and apostles, and based on my own reasoning and understanding of reality, I think that statement in The Proclamation is correct.

If we receive a revelation to the contrary, I will confirm it for myself, and then happily eat crow.  But I don't see this happening.

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

How did we determine that this is what God thinks?

Through study of both the wisdom of man (biological science, common sense), through study of the scriptures, through listening to (as in accepting the counsel of) Latter-day prophets and apostles, through accepting The Proclamation, etc.

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

When I pressed the issue in the prophetic fallibility thread, this is why I think we need to look more carefully at our history so we can find a more solid basis for making moral claims. To me, all of our "we thinks" look like "we thinks" from other troubling aspects of our history.

I wonder if there is a sampling error in your survey of "our history."  You may be focusing mostly/exclusively on controversies and instances where leaders of the Church have made mistakes, without giving sufficient/due consideration to and appreciation for the overwhelming number of instances where their prophetic counsel has been sound and congruent with the will of God.

Moreover, it's not just modern prophetic counsel that is available to us.  I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful:

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.

I will represent to you that I have worked hard to use all four legs of this metaphorical stool to assess trans ideology.

I will further represent to you that, in my view, the bulk of contravening argument used to bolster or support trans ideology is borne of bullying, threats, emotional blackmail, equivocation and re-definition of terms, and so on.  There is an old adage among lawyers that says, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."  In this context, "pounding the table" (that is, accusations of bigotry, emotional blackmail, etc.) in lieu of facts or law/reason is mostly what I see from advocates of trans ideology, and I think this is because that ideology is logically incoherent, self-contradictory, and incongruent with biological fact and reality.  

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

We think that God looks at chromosomes and anatomy and hormones to determine sex and gender, but I don't think we have adequately addressed all the ways we could be wrong about what God thinks.

Well, lay out your reasoning.  I am happy to listed to what you have to say.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think because a male, regardless of how much medical/surgical intervention he goes through to look like a woman, and wearing clothes and makeup and have a hairstyle intended to make him look like a woman, and subjectively/emotionally "identifying" as a woman, is not, and never will be a woman.  This is a matter of both biological fact and also revelatory guidance (as found in, for example, The Proclamation).

Secular governments can, of course, disregard both biological reality and The Proclamation, and treat men who "identify" as women as if they actually are women.  In the main, though, the Church as a private organization gets to decide who attends which of its meetings.

It helps to start with The Proclamation.  If you recognize that the Church is not going along with the fundamental premises of trans ideology (e.g., that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one), then the policies seem to make sense.

Caroline Cossey has a DSD, and a pretty rare one (involved in 1 in 50,000 or 0.002%, of births).  Such persons should, i think, be given some particularized consideration, both in secular law and in the Church, as their biological sex - though ultimately male or female since there are only two sexes - may be epistemically unclear).  However, the vast majority of "trans" people do not have any sort of DSD (indeed, not everyone with DSD identifies as "trans"), and are instead indisputably biologically male or female.

Thanks,

-Smac

IMO, I think you're wrong on your statement: "I think because a male, regardless of how much medical/surgical intervention he goes through to look like a woman, and wearing clothes and makeup and have a hairstyle intended to make him look like a woman, and subjectively/emotionally "identifying" as a woman, is not, and never will be a woman.  This is a matter of both biological fact and also revelatory guidance (as found in, for example, The Proclamation)."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm

[smac97]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think that those kinds of policies are largely due to a lot of older people not realizing how far transitioning has come.  I think most older people assume that a transwoman is going to look like a man in drag and a transman is going to look like a woman with some facial hair and so going to the class of the biological sex makes the most sense.

Ghillie suits have come a long way in recent years, but that does not mean that a man actually becomes a bush or a shrub or a mound of grass, just that he has gotten better at looking like one.

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I did note in the new policy that people can get an exception from the First presidency, and I wouldn't be surprised if those situations where no one would ever know they were transgender might be when that exception would be granted.

The article says the exceptions would be rare, but so would the instances of a trans man or woman who passed that well trying to attend church classes.

I think these exceptions are more likely to happen in the context of people with DSDs.  We'll see.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

IMO, I think you're wrong on your statement: "I think because a male, regardless of how much medical/surgical intervention he goes through to look like a woman, and wearing clothes and makeup and have a hairstyle intended to make him look like a woman, and subjectively/emotionally "identifying" as a woman, is not, and never will be a woman.  This is a matter of both biological fact and also revelatory guidance (as found in, for example, The Proclamation)."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm

Given that throughout history woman and man have been used based on gender presentation and not based on chromosomal analysis, it’s hard to call this a modern day redefinition. 
 

Further, I’ve yet to see a reasoned analysis of why a God, who allows children to be born with the most horrific of birth defects, somehow draws the line at sending a female spirit into a chromosomal male body. Like why is he ok doing one, but would never allow the other??

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

IMO, I think you're wrong on your statement: "I think because a male, regardless of how much medical/surgical intervention he goes through to look like a woman, and wearing clothes and makeup and have a hairstyle intended to make him look like a woman, and subjectively/emotionally "identifying" as a woman, is not, and never will be a woman.  This is a matter of both biological fact and also revelatory guidance (as found in, for example, The Proclamation)."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm

Okay.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  If a man has some physiological component of their brain that results in him thinking he is a dog, or Teddy Roosevelt, etc., that may well be an unfortunate circumstance.  But that physiology, that variance in brain chemistry and receptors and whatnot, does not mean he actually is a dog or Teddy Rooselvelt, only that he has that erroneous and incongruent-with-reality impression.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  If a man has some physiological component of their brain that results in him thinking he is a dog, or Teddy Roosevelt, etc., that may well be an unfortunate circumstance.  But that physiology, that variance in brain chemistry and receptors and whatnot, does not mean he actually is a dog or Teddy Rooselvelt, only that he has that erroneous and incongruent-with-reality impression.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't really believe some out there think they are actually a dog. But hey, I could be wrong. And....what if there is reincarnation? That would be a whole other topic!