Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

We have a ghillie suit in the house actually, and you can easily tell it's not a real plant when it's just the suit and the person in it.  It has to be surrounded by other plants, be at a distance or in low light, to work.  At the end of the day, it's window dressing and training that makes it work. 

That's not the best analogy for your point since we are talking about someone who can only be distinguished from the actual thing through DNA.

I agree though that they aren't actually men or actually women, I just disagree that in all cases that is at all relevant.   

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We have a ghillie suit in the house actually, and you can easily tell it's not a real plant when it's just the suit and the person in it. 

It has to be surrounded by other plants, be at a distance or in low light, to work.  At the end of the day, it's window dressing and training that makes it work. 

In the right setting, a ghillie suit succeeds in obscuring its wearer, and in misleading viewers and making them think that what they are looking at is a shrub or a mound of grass.  But regardless of whether the ghillie suit is good or bad, regardless of whether it is effective in its intended purpose, wearing it does not make the person an actual shrub or a mound of grass, just something that approximately and superficially looks like it.

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's not the best analogy for your point since we are talking about someone who can only be distinguished from the actual thing through DNA.

There are plenty of "trans women" who still look pretty obviously like men.

I think the analogy holds.  There are really good ghillie suits, and less effective ones.

Good camoflauge:

Not-so-good camoflauge:

In both pictures, adult males are wearing clothes intended to obscure them from view.  The guy in the top picture is doing a much better job than the guys in the lower picture, but none of them is actually a shrub or a tree or a mound of leaves.

Similarly, there is a range of effectiveness in terms of biological males passing themselves off as women.  Here's a pretty good example:

This is a splash screen showing two people, both of whom are biologically male.  The one on the left is Lilly Contino, and the one on the right is Blaire White.  

I admit that Blaire passes quite well as a woman.  Lilly does not.  There is a broad spectrum (no pun intended) in terms of how proximate a biological male can pass himself off as a women, but the principle remains the same: A biological male cannot become a woman, regardless of how much surgery is done, how much makeup is applied, how many dresses he wears, how earnestly he "identifies," etc.

A few more pictures of Lilly:

Lilly apparently was ill-treated in high school, and that is quite unfortunate.  But I don't think many people will look at these photos and come away with the notion that they depict a woman.

Blaire White is doing a considerably better job at passing as female.  I readily acknowledge that.

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree though that they aren't actually men or actually women, I just disagree that in all cases that is at all relevant.   

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 13, 2024 by smac97

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

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.

According to your scriptures, the Lord Himself is quoted as saying:

the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

If we presume, for the sake of argument, that “spirits” exist and that they are either male or female, how do you tell whether one’s spirit is male or female? Do you look at the levels of spiritual estrogen and spiritual testosterone flowing through their spiritual veins? Do you look at whether their spiritual cells contain spiritual Y-chromosomes? What does it mean to be a man or a woman on a spirit level? Or do you look at what’s in the heart?

When Joseph Smith decided he wanted to seek wisdom regarding which church to join, did he find a scripture that said wisdom could be found based on a four-legged stool analogy?

E.g.

• Leg 1: Choose a church based on Catholic reasoning
• Leg 2: Choose a church based on the Catholic interpretation of the scriptures
• Leg 3: Choose a church based on what God communicates to us through the Vicar of Christ (i.e. through the Supreme Pontiff)
• Leg 4: Choose a church based on  personal prayer, as interpreted through a Catholic lens

Of course not.

If somebody feels with every fiber of their being that they are a man or a woman on the inside, I wouldn’t argue with them about that. Mental health workers have been working with people who have felt this way for decades. Their experience has led them to believe that for such people, mental health can be optimized by accepting their innermost feelings as the real truth of the matter. I can see how this way of thinking would be foreign to somebody who doesn’t believe in spirits, but for somebody who does, arguing with them about their true nature sure seems like throwing rocks from inside a glass house (i.e. from a scientific, literal perspective, believing you are a son of God is just as silly as believing that somebody with Y-chromosomes is a woman).

Latter-day Saints believe that we have spirits, and that spirits have sexes. And Latter-day Saints also believe that there can be differences between how our physical bodies manifest themselves in this fallen sphere and what they will eventually be like after the resurrection (e.g. in Saturday’s Warrior, Pam was especially excited to come to Earth to dance, but ironically she was bound to a wheelchair and never had that opportunity). 

Mormons don’t rely on a four-legged stool to determine whether or not they are decedents of Jacob through Ephraim--they are quite happy to think a single blessing can be relied on to learn this real-world truth. Is there a fundamental laws of the universe make it impossible for a female spirit to enter a male body (or vice-versa)? Maybe, but using a four-legged stool analogy to bolster this belief seems like a convenient way to ignore personal revelation that challenges your preconceived notions.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

According to your scriptures, the Lord Himself is quoted as saying:

the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

Yes.  I don't think this is intended to mean that if you really have strong feelings about X, then X thereby epistemically valid and congruent with reality.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

If we presume, for the sake of argument, that “spirits” exist and that they are either male or female, how do you tell whether one’s spirit is male or female?

Well, we have the Proclamation.  

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Do you look at the levels of spiritual estrogen and spiritual testosterone flowing through their spiritual veins? Do you look at whether their spiritual cells contain spiritual Y-chromosomes? What does it mean to be a man or a woman on a spirit level? Or do you look at what’s in the heart?

Neither.  I don't export sociopolitical trends onto matters which cannot be empirically evaluated, such as the eternal nature of gender.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

When Joseph Smith decided he wanted to seek wisdom regarding which church to join, did he find a scripture that said wisdom could be found based on a four-legged stool analogy?

Joseph Smith sought wisdom in The Bible (and therefore appealed to past prophets).  That's one leg.

Joseph Smith also sought wisdom by examining the issue using his own intellect and reasoning.  That's a second leg.

And Joseph sought wisdom from God through prayer and personal revelation.  That's a third leg.

Joseph being the founder of this dispensation lacked the "fourth" leg (counsel from living prophets and apostles), but he used the other three quite well.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

If somebody feels with every fiber of their being that they are a man or a woman on the inside, I wouldn’t argue with them about that.

Broadly speaking, neither would I.  But nor would I acquiesce to it.  I would just shrug and go about my day.

If I had some sort of stewardship over the individual, I would consider giving them counsel if they asked for it.  Otherwise, I would likely just "Go Switzerland" and let the individual proceed with their notions as they see fit.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Mental health workers have been working with people who have felt this way for decades. Their experience has led them to believe that for such people, mental health can be optimized by accepting their innermost feelings as the real truth of the matter.

The impression I get that this "accepting their innermost feelings" only applies to a very few - which is to say, one - claimed "identity."  

If a person "feels with every fiber of their being," that he is a dog, and therefore "identifies" as a dog, I'm not sure mental health workers do the "accepting their innermost feelings as the real truth of the matter" thing.  The same goes for if a person "feels with every fiber of their being" that he is six years old (when he is, instead, in his 50s), or that he is a reptile/dragon, or that he is Teddy Roosevelt, and so on.  All of these "identities" are incongruent with biological fact and reality, but only one of them - biological sex - is singled out and privileged, as best handled by "accepting their innermost feelings as the real truth of the matter."

Perhaps there is some therapeutic value in accommodating, in various ways, an incongruent-with-reality "identity."  But even that does not operate to facilitate the change from being biologically male to biologically female.  It is, instead, a variation on The Emperor Has No Clothes.  

Put another way, I think some people are attempting a society-wide Asch Conformity Experiment:

Quote

In psychology, the Asch conformity experiments or the Asch paradigm were a series of studies directed by Solomon Asch studying if and how individuals yielded to or defied a majority group and the effect of such influences on beliefs and opinions.
...

Rationale

Many early studies in social psychology were adaptations of earlier work on "suggestibility" whereby researchers such as Edward L. Thorndyke were able to shift the preferences of adult subjects towards majority or expert opinion.^[3] Still the question remained as to whether subject opinions were actually able to be changed, or if such experiments were simply documenting a Hawthorne effect in which participants simply gave researchers the answers they wanted to hear. Solomon Asch's experiments on group conformity mark a departure from these earlier studies by removing investigator influence from experimental conditions.

In 1951, Asch conducted his first conformity laboratory experiments at Swarthmore College, laying the foundation for his remaining conformity studies. The experiment was published on two occasions.^[1][11]
...
Method

Groups of eight male college students participated in a simple "perceptual" task. In reality, all but one of the participants were actors, and the true focus of the study was about how the remaining participant would react to the actors' behavior.

The actors knew the true aim of the experiment, but were introduced to the subject as other participants. Each student viewed a card with a line on it, followed by another with three lines labeled A, B, and C (see accompanying figure). One of these lines was identical in length to that on the first card, and the other two lines were clearly longer or shorter (i.e., a near-100% rate of correct responding was expected). Each participant was then asked to say aloud which line matched the length of that on the first card. Before the experiment, all actors were given detailed instructions on how they should respond to each trial (card presentation). They would always unanimously nominate one comparator, but on certain trials they would give the correct response and on others, an incorrect response. The group was seated such that the real participant always responded last.

Subjects completed 18 trials. On the first two trials, both the subject and the actors gave the obvious, correct answer. On the third trial, the actors would all give the same wrong answer. This wrong-responding recurred on 11 of the remaining 15 trials. It was subjects' behavior on these 12 "critical trials" (the 3rd trial + the 11 trials where the actors gave the same wrong answer) that formed the aim of the study: to test how many subjects would change their answer to conform to those of the 7 actors, despite it being wrong. Subjects were interviewed after the study including being debriefed about the true purpose of the study. These post-test interviews shed valuable light on the study—both because they revealed subjects often were "just going along", and because they revealed considerable individual differences to Asch. Additional trials with slightly altered conditions were also run,^[1] including having a single actor also give the correct answer.

Asch's experiment also had a condition in which participants were tested alone with only the experimenter in the room. In total, there were 50 subjects in the experimental condition and 37 in the control condition.

One of the pairs of cards used in the experiment. The card on the left has the reference line and the one on the right shows the three comparison lines.

Results

In the control group, with no pressure to conform to actors, the error rate on the critical stimuli was less than 0.7%.^[1]

In the actor condition also, the majority of participants' responses remained correct (64.3%), but a sizable minority of responses conformed to the actors' (incorrect) answer (35.7%). The responses revealed strong individual differences: 12% of participants followed the group in nearly all of the tests. 26% of the sample consistently defied majority opinion, with the rest conforming on some trials. An examination of all critical trials in the experimental group revealed that one-third of all responses were incorrect. These incorrect responses often matched the incorrect response of the majority group (i.e., actors). Overall, 74% of participants gave at least one incorrect answer out of the 12 critical trials.^[1] Regarding the study results, Asch stated: "That intelligent, well-meaning young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern."

I think there has been pretty substantial efforts to exert social pressures to go along to get along, to conform, to go along with the falsehood about the length of the line, or with the falsehood that the Emperor is wearing clothes.

So it is, I think, with some of the more aggressive forms of trans ideology.  Conform.  Disregard reality and mouth the falsehoods we tell you to say.  Capitulate or we'll call you a bigot. 

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Latter-day Saints believe that we have spirits, and that spirits have sexes. And Latter-day Saints also believe that there can be differences between how our physical bodies manifest themselves in this fallen sphere and what they will eventually be like after the resurrection (e.g. in Saturday’s Warrior, Pam was especially excited to come to Earth to dance, but ironically she was bound to a wheelchair and never had that opportunity). 

In other words, a body may be afflicted with some illness, malformation, etc., which temporal afflictions will not persist in the eternities.

There is no provision anywhere in authoritative Latter-day Saint teachings that indicates that a biological male might have  a "female" spirit.  There is, instead, fairly substantial counsel rebutting that notion (such as we see in The Proclamation).

Of course, the Ninth Article of Faith springs eternal: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  If and when that happens, I'll give your speculation some reconsideration.  But I see no reason to do so now, and plenty of reasons to not do so.  Some find themselves caught up in a potent series of social trends that demand this or that, including accepting incongruent-with-reality notions inherent in trans ideology.  It sure would be easier to go along with such things, after all, it's easier to conform than disagree and be labeled a bigot.  But sometimes resisting and disagreement with social pressures is a good and necessary thing.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Mormons don’t rely on a four-legged stool to determine whether or not they are decedents of Jacob through Ephraim--they are quite happy to think a single blessing can be relied on to learn this real-world truth.

I dunno.  Three of the four legs seem to be in play.  The fourth - "reason" - is likely to be absent because nobody can really trace the entirety of their family tree back thousands of years (and in any event, "lineage" may be through adoption anyway).

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Is there a fundamental laws of the universe make it impossible for a female spirit to enter a male body (or vice-versa)?

I think the notion is hard to square with the Latter-day Saint paradigm on the one hand, and readily explainable as a strong social current on the other.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Maybe, but using a four-legged stool analogy to bolster this belief seems like a convenient way to ignore personal revelation that challenges your preconceived notions.

I like the analogy.  You don't buy into any of it, so it's not surprising that you feel otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

the end of the day, my cynical self thinks you are right, that these policies are rooted in fear of social contagion.

Another possibility that I think is more likely than a belief in social contagion is the concern that allowing teaching, etc is it normalizes the behaviour.  It could be thought by leadership it will be harder for the youth to see altering one’s appearance and body in such a way as “wrong” or “sinful” if it just seems ordinary or harmless, if they see transgender members doing everything nontransgender members do.  Even adults, with more developed positions, are likely to be affected over time.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

In the right setting, a ghillie suit succeeds in obscuring its wearer, and in misleading viewers and making them think that what they are looking at is a shrub or a mound of grass.  But regardless of whether the ghillie suit is good or bad, regardless of whether it is effective in its intended purpose, wearing it does not make the person an actual shrub or a mound of grass, just something that approximately and superficially looks like it.

There are plenty of "trans women" who still look pretty obviously like men.

 

Remember the part in this line of discussion were the topic was dealing specifically with the people that you can't tell are transgender?  I didn't read below the part i've quoted above since that was the point it was apparent that you either are confused with the topic of my posts or are ignoring it because there was nothing you could say.

 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Broadly speaking, neither would I.  But nor would I acquiesce to it.  I would just shrug and go about my day.

I wouldn’t think somebody who just shrugs and goes about their day would spend so much time talking about it.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

IIf a person "feels with every fiber of their being," that he is a dog, and therefore "identifies" as a dog, I'm not sure mental health workers do the "accepting their innermost feelings as the real truth of the matter" thing.  The same goes for if a person "feels with every fiber of their being" that he is six years old (when he is, instead, in his 50s), or that he is a reptile/dragon, or that he is Teddy Roosevelt, and so on.  All of these "identities" are incongruent with biological fact and reality, but only one of them - biological sex - is singled out and privileged, as best handled by "accepting their innermost feelings as the real truth of the matter.” [emphasis added]

No, this isn’t the only delusional belief that is privileged. 

Which is the other one? 

Quoting Richard Dawkins:

Quote

 

You say you have experienced God directly? Well, some people have experienced a pink elephant, but that probably doesn’t impress you. Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, distinctly heard the voice of Jesus telling him to kill women, and he was locked up for life. George W. Bush says that God told him to invade Iraq (a pity God didn’t vouchsafe him a revelation that there were no weapons of mass destruction). Individuals in asylums think they are Napoleon or Charlie Chaplin, or that the entire world is conspiring against them, or that they can broadcast their thoughts into other people’s heads. We humour them but don’t take their internally revealed beliefs seriously, mostly because not many people share them. Religious experiences are different only in that the people who claim them are numerous. Sam Harris was not being overly cynical when he wrote, in The End of Faith:

Quote

We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them ‘religious’; otherwise, they are likely to be called ‘mad’, ‘psychotic’ or ‘delusional’ . . . Clearly there is sanity in numbers. And yet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion (pp. 112-113). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. 

 

I will speak plainly. Just as a transgender individual pretending to “really” be a woman doesn’t make it true in the real world, you pretending that your religious beliefs are scientifically plausible, much less true, doesn’t make that true, either. Yet like a wide swath of contradictory and equally implausible religious beliefs, our society grants you a ton of privilege with your false beliefs.

Over the years, you and I have talked a little bit about how science has conclusively proven your religious beliefs are false, and of course you deny it. Part of your denial is pointing out that there are a few people with scientific credentials who believe in this or that religion (at least in their private lives). And of those people, a few believe the same impossible things about God and Jesus and Joseph Smith that you do. But that doesn’t prove that these implausible ideas are true or even plausible. All it does is illustrate the level of privilege your impossible beliefs enjoy.

I can’t help but wonder if the reason you are so bothered by people believing false things about their own sex is because they remind you of yourself.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Vellichor said:

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.

You are making the leap that just because trans women were born as males, then ALL of them should be viewed as dangerous and threatening. In 2022, the imprisonment rate for Black women (64 per 100,000) was 1.6 times the rate of imprisonment for white women (40 per 100,000).  Should we also pass laws not allowing any black women in restrooms because they are convicted of more crimes than white women?  Do you judge all of them the same simply because they are born with a black skin?

Lets get some facts into your assertion.  This study found No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds. So are you making your assumption based on facts or just fear and emotion?

When you make blanked statements that ALL transgender women should not be allowed in women's bathrooms simply because they have transitions from being biological males, then you are judging every single one of them as a group, not individually.  You completely ignore that to transition, they must take testosterone blockers and they start taking estrogen.  Estrogen changes their bodies quite radically. 

• Fewer erections and a decrease in ejaculation. ... 
• Less interest in sex. ... 
• Slower scalp hair loss. ... 
• Breast development. ... 
• Softer, less oily skin. ... 
• Smaller testicles. ... 
• Less muscle mass. ... 
• More body fat.

Does that sound like every other male that you are comparing them to?  Maybe there is a reason why the study determined there is no increased risk of trans women using women's bathrooms.  

Also, since you somehow assumed that I didn't read your post when I responded, did you read this part of my post?

Quote

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?

I will make this a CFR.  Show me where trans women are as dangerous to women as biological males  to other women in the bathroom.  Because the studies that I have read don't support your assertion.  They are not comparable to biological males.  You do know what a CFR is right?  Provide proof of your statement or withdraw your assertion.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I will speak plainly. Just as a transgender individual pretending to “really” be a woman doesn’t make it true in the real world, you pretending that your religious beliefs are scientifically plausible, much less true, doesn’t make that true, either.

A person's biological sex is empirically testable.  A person's religious beliefs are not.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Over the years, you and I have talked a little bit about how science has conclusively proven your religious beliefs are false, and of course you deny it.

Well, no.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Remember the part in this line of discussion were the topic was dealing specifically with the people that you can't tell are transgender?  I didn't read below the part i've quoted above since that was the point it was apparent that you either are confused with the topic of my posts or are ignoring it because there was nothing you could say.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Vellichor]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You are making the leap that just because trans women were born as males, then ALL of them should be viewed as dangerous and threatening. In 2022, the imprisonment rate for Black women (64 per 100,000) was 1.6 times the rate of imprisonment for white women (40 per 100,000).  Should we also pass laws not allowing any black women in restrooms because they are convicted of more crimes than white women?  Do you judge all of them the same simply because they are born with a black skin?

Lets get some facts into your assertion.  This study found No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds. So are you making your assumption based on facts or just fear and emotion?

When you make blanked statements that ALL transgender women should not be allowed in women's bathrooms simply because they have transitions from being biological males, then you are judging every single one of them as a group, not individually.  You completely ignore that to transition, they must take testosterone blockers and they start taking estrogen.  Estrogen changes their bodies quite radically. 

 

• Fewer erections and a decrease in ejaculation. ... 
• Less interest in sex. ... 
• Slower scalp hair loss. ... 
• Breast development. ... 
• Softer, less oily skin. ... 
• Smaller testicles. ... 
• Less muscle mass. ... 
• More body fat.

Does that sound like every other male that you are comparing them to?  Maybe there is a reason why the study determined there is no increased risk of trans women using women's bathrooms.  

Also, since you somehow assumed that I didn't read your post when I responded, did you read this part of my post?

I will make this a CFR.  Show me where trans women are as dangerous to women as biological males  to other women in the bathroom.  Because the studies that I have read don't support your assertion.  They are not comparable to biological males.  You do know what a CFR is right?  Provide proof of your statement or withdraw your assertion.

You are assuming that “transwomen” are a subtype of women. They are not. They are men. Anyone who is male at birth is male at death, because sex cannot be changed, regardless of the procedures one undergoes. Women’s spaces are protected from men because men, as a group, are a risk to them. Men as a group are physically stronger and more likely to commit violent crimes against women than other women are. And transwomen are men.

I have already given you plenty of evidence of violent crimes committed by scores of trans-identified men. And did you see the article I shared about how the majority of trans-identified men in Wisconsin prisons have committed sex crimes? How do you explain that?

Since you asked (or demanded), here is more evidence: https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/sex-relationships/article/unisex-changing-rooms-put-women-in-danger-8lwbp8kgk?region=global

And here: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

How much evidence is enough for  you, sir? 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

A person's biological sex is empirically testable.  

Do you think the only component of the human soul that is real is biological in nature? It sure seems so.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

A person's religious beliefs are not.

In principle, everything that interacts with observable reality is within the purview of science. But I understand why you don’t want your religious beliefs to be scrutinized.

Edited December 14, 2024 by Analytics

[california boy]

20 hours ago, Vellichor said:

You are assuming that “transwomen” are a subtype of women. They are not. They are men. Anyone who is male at birth is male at death, because sex cannot be changed, regardless of the procedures one undergoes. Women’s spaces are protected from men because men, as a group, are a risk to them. Men as a group are physically stronger and more likely to commit violent crimes against women than other women are. And transwomen are men.

I have already given you plenty of evidence of violent crimes committed by scores of trans-identified men. And did you see the article I shared about how the majority of trans-identified men in Wisconsin prisons have committed sex crimes? How do you explain that?

Since you asked (or demanded), here is more evidence: https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/sex-relationships/article/unisex-changing-rooms-put-women-in-danger-8lwbp8kgk?region=global

A couple of problems with your references.  This first study is talking about unisex bathrooms NOT about transsexuals using women's bathrooms. You do realize that unisex bathrooms means that ALL men and ALL women use the same bathrooms.  That data has NOTHING to do with whether someone is transexual.

20 hours ago, Vellichor said:

And here: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

How much evidence is enough for  you, sir? 

Did you actually read this article????  Because this is what you linked to:

Author quote: ‘The individual in the image who is making claims about trans
criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings.’
The findings do not include specific results for any form of sexual assault, therefore it is true that claims specifically about rape rather than violent crime in general cannot be made.

Author quote: ‘The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts, and crime disappear.’

This is true for the transitioned population as a whole - it does not relate to the question of whether MtF transsexuals retain male patterns of violence and offending. This finding combines both FtM and MtF populations split by time. The comment accurately reports that in the later period 1989 to 2003, the transitioning group as a whole had no statistically significant difference from the population.

Author quote: ‘This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.’ The statement is only true in the trivial sense that patterns of criminality were simply not examined separately by sex for each period and so no such finding could be made.

Author quote: ‘What we were saying was that for the 1973 to 1988 cohort group and the cisgender male group, both experienced similar rates of convictions. As I said, this pattern is not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group.’
This comment is not entirely clear, but seems to be intended to convey that the MtF group ceased to have a male pattern of convictions in the later period. This is not what the published data show and it requires extraordinary (implausible) assumptions about the nature of any unpublished figures to infer this from what has been published.

Author quote: ‘The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences

 

I would seriously suggest you read the footnote reference in THE EXACT STUDY article you quoted.

 

Quote

 

Williams: Before I contacted you for this interview, were you aware of the way your work was being misrepresented?

Dhejne: Yes! It’s very frustrating! I’ve even seen professors use my work to support ridiculous claims. I’ve often had to respond myself by commenting on articles, speaking with journalists, and talking about this problem at conferences. The Huffington Post wrote an article about the way my research is misrepresented. At the same time, I know of instances where ethical researchers and clinicians have used this study to expand and improve access to trans healthcare and impact systems of anti-trans oppression.

 

 

Just because you find a very distorted interpretation of a study in a right wing publication does not mean that it says what the study actually says.  You really need to read past the hyperbole of right wing agenda if you really want to understand the issue.

One last question:  I am trying to understand where you are coming from. Do you believe all trans women are criminals???  

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

A couple of problems with your references.  This first study is talking about unisex bathrooms NOT about transsexuals using women's bathrooms. You do realize that unisex bathrooms means that ALL men and ALL women use the same bathrooms.  That data has NOTHING to do with whether someone is transexual.

Did you actually read this article????  Because this is what you linked to:

 

Author quote: ‘The individual in the image who is making claims about trans
criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings.’
The findings do not include specific results for any form of sexual assault, therefore it is true that claims specifically about rape rather than violent crime in general cannot be made.

Author quote: ‘The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts, and crime disappear.’

This is true for the transitioned population as a whole - it does not relate to the question of whether MtF transsexuals retain male patterns of violence and offending. This finding combines both FtM and MtF populations split by time. The comment accurately reports that in the later period 1989 to 2003, the transitioning group as a whole had no statistically significant difference from the population.

Author quote: ‘This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.’ The statement is only true in the trivial sense that patterns of criminality were simply not examined separately by sex for each period and so no such finding could be made.

Author quote: ‘What we were saying was that for the 1973 to 1988 cohort group and the cisgender male group, both experienced similar rates of convictions. As I said, this pattern is not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group.’
This comment is not entirely clear, but seems to be intended to convey that the MtF group ceased to have a male pattern of convictions in the later period. This is not what the published data show and it requires extraordinary (implausible) assumptions about the nature of any unpublished figures to infer this from what has been published.

Author quote: ‘The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences

 

I would seriously suggest you read the footnote reference in THE EXACT STUDY article you quoted.

 

 

 

Just because you find a very distorted interpretation of a study in a right wing publication does not mean that it says what the study actually says.  You really need to read past the hyperbole of right wing agenda if you really want to understand the issue.

One last question:  I am trying to understand where you are coming from. Do you believe all trans women are criminals???  

How in any logical universe does the statement that there is “evidence of violent crimes committed by scores of trans-identified men” somehow translate into a blanket assertion that all trans women are criminals? I’ll answer my own question by saying that blatant, unfair suggestions like yours happen when rage trumps cool headed analysis.

Edited December 15, 2024 by teddyaware

[smac97]

On 12/13/2024 at 10:14 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

A person's biological sex is empirically testable.  

Do you think the only component of the human soul that is real is biological in nature? It sure seems so.

Quite a non sequitur you have there.

On 12/13/2024 at 10:14 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

A person's religious beliefs are not {empirically testable}.

In principle, everything that interacts with observable reality is within the purview of science.

I recall reading stuff written by a guy who, on the one hand, appears to subscribe to the notion that a biological man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, and on the other, claims to be annoyed by people who "cherry pick what science they are going to embrace."  

I also recall a guy who trumpeted the notion that Sean Carroll has presented a theory which is "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," and that is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and that "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist," and that it is "silly" to state that "science, in its present form, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, or the existence of spirits."

I think we will have to agree to disagree about what "science" can empirically test/verify/falsify.  Meanwhile, feel free to continue to assert that

A) the existence of God and spirits is empirically testable/falsifiable, and

B) that "science" has, in fact, empirically tested/falsified the existence of these things.

 

Meanwhile, I submit that, in the main, religious beliefs are not empirically testable/verifiable/falsifiable.  While I think some of the Church's truth claims have elements which are supported by competent and plausible evidence (see, e.g., here), I think it is difficult to characterize these matters as definitively and empirically "testable" or "falsifiable."

Conversely, biological sex is, in the vast majority of cases, readily and indisputably testable via empirical means. There are some (very few) people with DSDs whose biological sex - male or female - is epistemically uncertain, but these folks do not represent a third sex.

On 12/13/2024 at 10:14 PM, Analytics said:

But I understand why you don’t want your religious beliefs to be scrutinized.

Yet another non sequitur.

I have been on this board for 20+ years.  I have interacted with you and others who "scrutinize" my faith many thousands of times.  I don't think I have ever challenged your right to do so, nor have I ever stated or implied that I "don't want" you to do so.

By all means, continue to scrutinize our beliefs.  It would be nice if you did so with a bit more tact, decorum, fairness and civility.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 16, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quite a non sequitur you have there.

I don’t see it as a non sequitur myself. I think he is asking why are you privileging biological sex as a determinant of law when there may be other just as important factors to consider such as the eternal spirit or intelligence component?

It can’t be biological sex that is eternal as that is an attribute of the physical body, not the eternal self (at least not till we are resurrected).  So unless one assumes biological sex is always identical to eternal sex (and that seems contraindicated if there are truly only two eternal sexes of male and female given the presence of anomalies), why should something mortal and fallen be given more weight than that which is eternal?

Edited December 15, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

On 12/13/2024 at 5:27 PM, Analytics said:

I will speak plainly. Just as a transgender individual pretending to “really” be a woman doesn’t make it true in the real world, you pretending that your religious beliefs are scientifically plausible, much less true, doesn’t make that true, either. Yet like a wide swath of contradictory and equally implausible religious beliefs, our society grants you a ton of privilege with your false beliefs.

Over the years, you and I have talked a little bit about how science has conclusively proven your religious beliefs are false, and of course you deny it. Part of your denial is pointing out that there are a few people with scientific credentials who believe in this or that religion (at least in their private lives). And of those people, a few believe the same impossible things about God and Jesus and Joseph Smith that you do. But that doesn’t prove that these implausible ideas are true or even plausible. All it does is illustrate the level of privilege your impossible beliefs enjoy.

Do you believe our beliefs are false and impossible beyond all doubt or are you making a point about absolute pronouncements of something being impossible when one cannot actually be sure since it’s not testable?

Iow…One cannot currently test to see if the mind of a physical body has the same sex that the body does, therefore making an absolute statement that a biological man cannot be a woman if what we are referring to is the mind/mentality of a woman, whatever that might be, is as inappropriate as pronouncing there is no God or a particular untestable religious belief is false.

Edited December 15, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

The Proclamation states:

Quote

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

I am not sure this precludes the biological sex of the mortal human body from not matching eternal gender because we don’t know for sure imo what eternal gender actually is. Maybe it’s biological sex and more.  Maybe it’s not biological physical sex, but a mental state of being.

Edited December 15, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

also recall a guy who trumpeted the notio

This appears to link to your own post and I assume you are not the trumpeter. Since to determine if your claim of trumpeting is accurate one needs to see the original, linking to your post seems inadequate and odd to be honest.

It is possible the link is to a different post as the quote arrow doesn’t always take me to the post it is quoting and is instead nearby.  If I am wrong and you linked to someone else’s post, please ignore the critique but also point towards the actual post referred to as trumpeting with more detail, please.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

This appears to link to your own post

In which I quote Analytics.

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

and I assume you are not the trumpeter. Since to determine if your claim of trumpeting is accurate one needs to see the original, linking to your post seems inadequate and odd to be honest.

It links to Analytics' posts, several if them.

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is possible the link is to a different post as the quote arrow doesn’t always take me to the post it is quoting and is instead nearby.  If I am wrong and you linked to someone else’s post, please ignore the critique but also point towards the actual post referred to as trumpeting with more detail, please.

 

[Vellichor]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

A couple of problems with your references.  This first study is talking about unisex bathrooms NOT about transsexuals using women's bathrooms. You do realize that unisex bathrooms means that ALL men and ALL women use the same bathrooms.  That data has NOTHING to do with whether someone is transexual.

 

I will say it again: “Transwomen” are MEN. As such, they are included in this data. Some of them might look like women, but sex cannot be changed. This is why the article contains quotes about the potential harms of allowing trans-identified men into women’s spaces. For example: “David Davies, MP for Monmouth, said the data showed it would be ‘wrong and dangerous’ for the government to pursue controversial plans for transgender people to ‘self-identify’ as women.”

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Did you actually read this article????  Because this is what you linked to:

 

Author quote: ‘The individual in the image who is making claims about trans
criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings.’
The findings do not include specific results for any form of sexual assault, therefore it is true that claims specifically about rape rather than violent crime in general cannot be made.

Author quote: ‘The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts, and crime disappear.’

This is true for the transitioned population as a whole - it does not relate to the question of whether MtF transsexuals retain male patterns of violence and offending. This finding combines both FtM and MtF populations split by time. The comment accurately reports that in the later period 1989 to 2003, the transitioning group as a whole had no statistically significant difference from the population.

Author quote: ‘This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.’ The statement is only true in the trivial sense that patterns of criminality were simply not examined separately by sex for each period and so no such finding could be made.

Author quote: ‘What we were saying was that for the 1973 to 1988 cohort group and the cisgender male group, both experienced similar rates of convictions. As I said, this pattern is not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group.’
This comment is not entirely clear, but seems to be intended to convey that the MtF group ceased to have a male pattern of convictions in the later period. This is not what the published data show and it requires extraordinary (implausible) assumptions about the nature of any unpublished figures to infer this from what has been published.

Author quote: ‘The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences

I would seriously suggest you read the footnote reference in THE EXACT STUDY article you quoted.

 

I’m afraid it is you who did not read the paper carefully. You omitted this statement: “The ‘debunking’ of this study appears to be based solely on brief statements made by the lead author in an interview some years later about how the data had been interpreted.”  The footnote you referred to was that very interview, which the paper's authors quote from directly (and which you included in your quotes). They don’t hide it. Did you think this was some sort of “gotcha”? Do you not know that study authors can make misleading statements about how their data are interpreted, which is what the authors of the paper were demonstrating? You appear not to understand the clarifications they were making in the sections you quoted.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Just because you find a very distorted interpretation of a study in a right wing publication does not mean that it says what the study actually says.  You really need to read past the hyperbole of right wing agenda if you really want to understand the issue.

 

What “ring wing publication” are you referring to? This paper was part of a British legal case. Rosa Freedman is a feminist legal scholar. Kathleen Stock is an atheist lesbian philosopher. Alice Sullivan is a professor of sociology. They aren’t “right wing." And I've already explained how you misunderstood what they wrote.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

 

One last question:  I am trying to understand where you are coming from. Do you believe all trans women are criminals???  

Of course not. One last time: “Transwomen” are a risk to women because they are MEN. Not because they all are criminals, just as not all men are criminals. They are a risk to women because they are men. I don’t know how to make this more clear.

You didn't respond to these questions: "And did you see the article I shared about how the majority of trans-identified men in Wisconsin prisons have committed sex crimes? How do you explain that?"

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In which I quote Analytics.

That is just strange to me you quote you quoting him rather than quoting the original. Would you trust that if you were looking for info for a case? 

Edited December 15, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

On 12/15/2024 at 1:07 AM, Calm said:

That is just strange to me you quote you quoting him rather than quoting the original.

I quote him multiple times, providing links every time.

On 12/15/2024 at 1:07 AM, Calm said:

Would you trust that if you were looking for info for a case? 

Cases I cite internally cite other cases/references all the time.

And again, I provide hyperlinks to Analytics' statements, so it's not a matter of trust.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 16, 2024 by smac97

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Vellichor said:

Of course not. One last time: “Transwomen” are a risk to women because they are MEN. Not because they all are criminals, just as not all men are criminals. They are a risk to women because they are men. I don’t know how to make this more clear.

I have already pointed out the medical data that shows the vast difference between someone who is trans and someone who is male.  I get it, you want to just ignore the difference and dig deeper into your. position that they are the same as men.  I can only provide the medical facts and point out the differences.  You can ignore the data, since you don't seem to be interested in understanding the differences both mentally and physically.

Do you think a gay man is mentally wired and attracted to the same thing as a straight man is?  That all men are both physically and mentally exactly the same?

 

13 hours ago, Vellichor said:

You didn't respond to these questions: "And did you see the article I shared about how the majority of trans-identified men in Wisconsin prisons have committed sex crimes? How do you explain that?"

I looked again for the study that you mentioned in the post you are referring to.  I couldn't see where you linked to a study about Wisconsin prisons.  If you can provide the link again, I would be happy to look at it.

 

I did find this article where. the prison authorities are strongly fighting a bill that would put transitioned men to women back into the male section of the prison as a REALLY bad idea.  From the article:

Quote

The legislation, introduced by Hilbert Republican Rep. Ty Bodden, would require that transgender people in prison be housed in a population matching their sex assigned at birth and not their gender identity — a move that legal experts say violates federal law and formerly incarcerated transgender people say is a dangerous codification of mistreatment and trauma. 

Quote

 

The state Department of Corrections provided written testimony against the bill to the Assembly committee. The DOC’s testimony said the proposal would conflict with state policy as well as federal guidelines laid out in the Prison Rape Elimination Act. 

 

Looks like those that are actually running the prison system in Wisconsin totally reject the idea that you seem to be supporting of putting transitioned males in with the general male population.  

[smac97]

On 12/14/2024 at 10:51 PM, Calm said:

The Proclamation states:

Quote

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

Well, that's not all it says:

Quote

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Liahona, Oct. 2004, 49; Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102).

I have a hard time reading this and coming away with the notion that biological sex is a social construct, or that gender is or can be whatever the individual chooses or "identifies" as, or that "nonbinary" is a thing, or an of the other various diktats meted out these days.

On 12/14/2024 at 10:51 PM, Calm said:

I am not sure this precludes the biological sex of the mortal human body from not matching eternal gender because we don’t know for sure imo what eternal gender actually is. Maybe it’s biological sex and more.  Maybe it’s not biological physical sex, but a mental state of being.

This line of reasoning facilitates the deconstruction of pretty much every component of the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac