Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[Nofear]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

I agree. What the proclamation does not address is why. I start from the position that our trans-stellar species has complete and total control over their (physical and spiritual) biology -- that our bodies are not merely a product of happenstance but of deliberate choice. If our celestial societies wanted to organize bodies with asexual or tri-sexual reproduction or others scenario, it could have done so. But, we did not. Why? The why hasn't yet been revealed. I have my own personal speculation and it works for me for the moment. In the meantime, I can take it on faith that, "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose". Others, of course, are not willing to take the words of the prophets on faith.

[smac97]

20 hours ago, california boy said:

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?

 

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:

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.  

I'll be curious to see how this plays out.  There are, i think, pretty massive Equal Protection issues in play.  I think there is no legally cognizable limiting principle as to who can "identify" as a woman, and therefore demand to be sent to a women's prison.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Christina Lusk, a transgender woman who sued the Minnesota Department of Corrections over her treatment while in prison, has reached a settlement that includes a move to the state's women-only Shakopee prison and access to gender-affirming health care.

Lusk had been fighting for these rights since she was incarcerated in 2019 and filed the lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Corrections nearly a year ago.

As part of the settlement, Lusk will also receive a $495,000 payout, which includes about $250,000 in legal fees.
...
Lusk's situation is one that's shared by many transgender people behind bars in the United States. They are often forced to stay in prisons according to their assigned sex at birth or their genitalia at the time they were arrested. This puts them at greater risk of assault, discrimination and abuse, NPR's previous reporting has highlighted.
...
(It should be noted that the authenticity around a trans person's gender identity is not inherently tied to surgeries, other medical treatments or changes to legal documents. Some people don't take these steps for a variety of reasons.)

"It should be noted that the authenticity around a trans person's gender identity is not inherently tied to surgeries, other medical treatments or changes to legal documents. Some people don't take these steps for a variety of reasons."

Translation: There is no limiting principle.  Any male who wants to be housed in women's prison can do so by merely "identifying" as a woman, without any requirements to demonstrate past medical interventions or legal changes re: gender.

See also here: Trans women inmates who hurt females to go to male prisons

Quote

Trans women who have hurt or threatened women or girls will not be held in female prisons unless there are "exceptional" circumstances, new guidance states.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) policy follows a public outcry after a rapist was sent to a women's prison.

Isla Bryson raped two women while still known as Adam Graham.

The Scottish Conservatives said the new policy was "subjective" and "unacceptable".

Under previous guidance drawn up in 2014, the prison service allowed all prisoners to be placed in facilities matching their gender identity, rather than their sex at birth, providing accommodation that "best suits the person in custody's needs".

This was already subject to a review, but in February it was updated following the Bryson case to say no newly convicted or remanded transgender prisoner with a history of violence against women would be housed in female prison facilities.

The Scottish guidance does not go as far as in England and Wales, where rules introduced earlier this year banned trans women with male genitalia from female prisons, as well as those convicted of sexual offences or any violence.

 

The Daily Telegraph reported on Monday that there were only five transgender women left in female jails in England and Wales.

Seeks like the UK is headed in the opposite direction.

Another: Man posing as transgender woman raped female prisoner at Rikers, lawsuit says

Quote

A former prisoner in the Rose M. Singer women’s jail on Rikers Island is suing New York City, alleging jail staff ignored her warnings in 2022 that a transgender woman housed among females was actually a man pretending to be a woman in order to prey on the opposite sex behind bars.

"His introduction was, 'I’m not transgender. I’m straight. I like women,’" said the plaintiff, who is identified only as "Rose Doe" in the lawsuit.

According to the civil suit, Rose Doe not only believed the alleged perpetrator was lying about their gender identity but that the prisoner was purposely "instructed to claim that he was transgender by DOC staff so that he could stay in the female dorm where he would have access to female inmates."

How does the State propose to differentiate between men who are "lying about their gender identity" and those who are not?

Quote

Investigative records obtained by Doe’s attorneys and provided to the I-Team, show shortly after the alleged perpetrator arrived in the female dorm, Doe complained to correctional staff, claiming the new detainee sexually propositioned her on April 4th and then groped her in the bathroom on April 6th. After reviewing those complaints, the Acting Warden of the Rose M. Singer Center (RMSC), Floyd Phipps, sent an email saying, "I feel that individual is not a suitable fit for RMSC. . . . [Rose Doe] does not want to remain in the unit due to feeling unsafe."

Even after those warnings and complaints, Doe says correction officers failed to remove the alleged perpetrator from female housing. According to Doe’s lawsuit, early on the morning of April 7th, "while Plaintiff was sleeping in her bed, the Perpetrator, took the opportunity to sexually assault Plaintiff again. . . .pull[ing] down her pants while she was sleeping and begin[ing] to rape her."

"I’ll be scarred for the rest of my life," Doe told the I-Team.

A very troubling story.

Quote

The I-Team is not naming the alleged rapist because the prisoner has not been criminally charged. Though Doe says she reported the rape, her lawsuit claims DOC staff "covered up Plaintiff’s sexual assaults by failing to provide her with adequate medical and mental health services, failing to collect, document, and review evidence."

The legal action, claiming a heterosexual man posed as a transgender woman in order to gain access to female detainees, comes one year after advocates for trans prisoners implored New York City Council and the Department of Correction to make it easier for inmates to get housing that aligns with their gender identities.

In a hearing last January on gender equity in jail, Dr. Rachel Golden, a psychologist who specializes in gender-affirming care for Transgender, Gender Non-Conforming, Non-Binary, and Intersex people (TGNCNBI), told lawmakers it would be a mistake to think it is common for men to pose as trans females behind bars.

"Fearmongering that one bad actor will pretend to be transgender and therefore create an unsafe environment results in the continued disproportionate targeting of TGNCNBI individuals for harassment and violence," Golden testified.
...
The investigative record shared with the I-Team also includes transcripts of recorded jail phone calls in which an inmate professes to be a heterosexual who manipulated his way into the women’s dorm and is in seek of sexual rendezvous with female prisoners.

We'll see, I suppose.  Sexual predators will sexually predate.  it's their thing.

Also, "TGNCNBI" is a an acronym I have not seen before.  Oi.  It's hard to keep up.

Another: 3rd-strike 'trans' rape suspect prompts rebellion against CA law after attack in women's prison

Quote

A transgender-identified California convict with a lengthy record of criminal violence has been transferred out of a women's correctional facility and back to a men's prison after being indicted for rape.

Tremaine "Tremayne" Deon Carroll, 51, is an incarcerated biological male who identifies as a woman and faces two charges of forcible rape and one of "dissuading a witness from testifying" in Madera County, according to a criminal complaint first obtained by the website 4W, and later reported by Reduxx.

One of the alleged victims of the Jan. 30 incident is a biological female, identified as Jane Doe in court documents, who said Carroll attacked her in the shower at the Central California Women’s Facility and raped her. The complaint also mentions another unidentified victim. Carroll has since been transferred to Kern Valley State Prison, a male-only facility in Delano, online records show. 

Women's rights activists tell Fox News Digital that Carroll, who was the public face of a campaign to support California law SB 132, which allows transgender prisoners to be housed in a facility consistent with their gender identity, is a case in point why the law harms incarcerated women.

"Previous to SB 132, biological male inmates were allowed to, on a case-by-case individualized basis, be placed in women's facilities. But not if they hadn't had surgery, and it was always very individualized. What the bill did, what SB 132 did is it took away all of that safeguarding," said Lauren Bone, legal director of the Women's Liberation Front (WoLF). 
...
"[SB 132] took away the ability to make individualized case assessments. It made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of anatomy and including things like hormones," Bone said. "You don't have to identify as a woman anymore. You can identify as non-binary or many other things. And so, what the results are is that there's 50 men who are housed there. There are hundreds more on a wait list, who are still being processed. Nearly all of them have penises."

"'You don't have to identify as a woman anymore {in order to be transferred to a women's prison}. You can identify as non-binary or many other things. And so, what the results are is that there's 50 men who are housed there. There are hundreds more on a wait list, who are still being processed. Nearly all of them have penises.'"

Yep.  No limiting principle{s}.

Another: Lawsuit: Female Prisoner Says She Was Raped by Transgender Inmate

Quote

An inmate at Illinois’ largest women’s prison says she was raped by a transgender inmate who was transferred into her housing unit last year, and claims Illinois Department of Corrections officials conducted a “sham investigation” to help cover up the incident.

In a federal lawsuit filed last week, a Jane Doe inmate at the Logan Correctional Center in central Illinois said that after being sexually assaulted in June 2019, she was coerced by a supervisory officer into denying the attack took place and then punished for filing a “false” complaint under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA).

Another:

Quote

States which have let biologically male prison inmates self-identify as into women's prison are now dealing with allegations by female prisoners that they are being sexually assaulted by them.

It was revealed only last week that Washington state has had numerous reports by women that they are being sexually assaulted by some of the five transwomen put in their prison in the last few months - one of them an actual serial killer of women.

This came out in a court hearing, after a DOC whistleblower stated that female inmates are "terrified" and the ACLU went to court to keep the records sealed, because they are the ones who sued to get the transwomen into women's prison in the first place. https://mynorthwest.com/2666243/doc-washington-correctional-center-women-men-tr ansfer/?

From the above link: DOC employee reports men are claiming to be women to transfer prisons

Quote

A half dozen men have been transferred to the Washington Correctional Center for Woman, according to an employee at the facility.

The employee tells KIRO Radio’s Dori Monson Show that the women’s facility in Pierce County has adopted the practice of allowing a transfer for any person who identifies as female. Those transfers are being housing in the general population with female cellmates, the employee says.
...
The concern among staff and inmates is a risk of sexual assault. The employee cites a recent incident in which an inmate from a male facility raped a female in the women’s prison upon arrival. The transferred inmate, according to the employee, is incarcerated for a sex offense and has “fully functional male genitalia, a history of violence and sexual depravity in the community, and has been found guilty of sexual assault against other inmates while housed in the men’s facilities.”

“He is a proven sexual predator, having committed multiple crimes against women, yet the State of Washington had no problem moving him into a women’s facility and housing him with the most vulnerable in our population (our mental health unit),” the employee wrote.

“Word of the incident has inevitably traveled throughout the facility, causing much concern amongst both inmates and staff,” the employee said. “It demonstrated the state’s willingness to put the most vulnerable of our population in harm’s way, by locking them in a cell with a proven predator, with zero accountability or repercussions for the perpetrator.”

Among the inmates transferred to the women’s facility is Donna Perry, formerly known as Douglas Perry, who was convicted for killing three sex workers. Before being charged, Perry reportedly went to Thailand for gender reassignment surgery. Prosecutors during the trial claimed that Perry had undergone the surgery to avoid suspicion for the killings.

Also recently transferred in was Hobby Bingham, now known as Princess Zoee Marie Andromeda Love, who was convicted for having sex with a 12-year-old girl. Bingham is alleged by the anonymous employee to have had sex with a female inmate at the women’s facility.

"{T}he women’s facility in Pierce County has adopted the practice of allowing a transfer for any person who identifies as female."

No.  Limiting.  Principle.  Such are the fruits of "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" and similarly incongruent-with-biological-fact-and-reality propositions.

Another: Women in prison

Quote

{I}n 2017 we published our own new research showing that half of all known transgender prisoners require max security or specialist sex offender prisons.  Despite numerous attempts by others to discredit our work the MOJ has now confirmed the accuracy of our findings. Official figures released by the MOJ in 2018 show that half of all known transgender prisoners counted in April 2017 had at least one previous conviction for sex offences.
...

It’s not just us saying that transgender prison policy is dangerous. Prison experts can see the problem too.

Andrea Albutt, president of the Prison Governors Association said in June 2018: “I have seen women feeling very threatened by transgender prisoners’ presence. Women prisoners are very vulnerable.”

Frances Crook of the Howard League, a prison reform campaign, has said that she is worried that ‘some men with a history of extreme violence and sexual violence against women have found a new way of exercising aggression towards women’.

The British Psychological Society has said this: “psychologists working with forensic patients are aware of a number of cases where men convicted of sex crimes have falsely claimed to be transgender females for a number of reasons”

Dr James Barrett of the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists has said this: “It has been rather naïvely suggested that nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in prison if this were not actually the case. There are, to those of us who actually interview the prisoners, in fact very many reasons why people might pretend this”

Richard Garside of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies has written this article saying “My concern about the current approach is that it is appears to privilege the subjective feelings of particular, largely male, prisoners, at the expense of the needs of those prisoners, largely women, who have to live with the decisions imposed upon them.”

 

Very troubling.

Another: Senate Committee Rejects Judicial Nominee Who Transferred Trans Child Rapist to Women’s Prison

Quote

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday rejected the nomination of a progressive judge who approved the transfer of a 6’2″ transgender-identifying male child rapist to a women’s prison.

Nominated by the Biden administration to join the federal bench for the Southern District of New York, Sarah Netburn allowed male sex offender July Justine Shelby to be sent to FMC Carswell, a female federal correctional facility in Fort Worth, Texas. Her order overturned the Bureau of Prisons’ rejection of his request for female housing.
...
Born William McClain, Shelby pleaded guilty in 1994 to molesting a nine-year-old boy and to raping a seventeen-year-old girl. After his release 18 years later, Shelby violated parole by using the internet in his apartment, landing himself in prison for another six years, until 2015. After being released again, Shelby underwent hormone therapy to begin transitioning to a female.

At the May hearing, Netburn testified that she found concerns that Shelby would sexually abuse female inmates “overblown.”

Shelby was entered into administrative segregation recently for exposing himself to female prisoners, the Washington Free Beacon reported Wednesday.

Another: Transgender Rikers inmate sentenced to 7 years for raping female prisoner

Quote

A transgender Rikers inmate raped a female prisoner while in the women’s section of the jail and has been sentenced to seven years, officials said Monday.

Ramel Blount, 33, who goes by Diamond Blount, pleaded guilty to attempted rape April 7 in an apparent plea deal.

Investigators said Blount — who was housed in the female section of the facility — approached a 33-year-old female inmate in the bathroom at the Rose M. Singer center Feb. 8, 2021, after the victim had just finished showering.

Blount held the victim down by the back of her neck and raped her, investigators said.  The victim reported the incident to jail officials, and a rape kit was administered, which matched Blount’s DNA in the New York State Registry.

Blount received a seven-year prison sentence with an additional eight years of post-release supervision. An order of protection was issued, and Blount must also register as a sex offender.

And here: Rikers Rape Case Shows Female Prisoners Are the Voiceless Victims of Gender Ideology

Quote

But the media should pay more attention to the plight of women behind bars.

 

The latest such victim is revealed in a lawsuit just filed against the New York Department of Correction.

The anonymous plaintiff Rose Doe—a former female prisoner in Rikers’ Rose M. Singer women’s jail—says she was groped and raped by a male prisoner in 2022. 

The suit alleges the perpetrator told a prison mate he claimed to be “trans” just so he could gain access to women.

And, as is common in these cases, the perpetrator had allegedly racked up enough offenses to provide fair warning of what was to come.

A correction officer even allegedly coached the defendant on how to get transferred. 

Two female guards are also named as defendants, for ignoring complaints about the male prisoner in question.

No doubt, given these details, some will propose a Solomonic solution: Authorities should ensure only “true trans” men enjoy the company of women prisoners and weed out the cynical, sex-starved fakers.

Such a policy may seem clever, but it’s bound to fail. 

According to gender ideology, a person might be born in the wrong body and so be “assigned male at birth” but “identify as” a female.

Hence, the only criterion for determining a person’s “gender identity,” per orthodoxy, is to ask.

There’s no blood test, brain scan or infallible battery of questions that could allow a prison doctor to separate the trans wheat from the cheater chaff.

If a man says he identifies as a woman, that’s enough. No extra verification is needed.

I don’t want to belabor this argument, however, lest we miss a crucial point.

For far too long, we have allowed ourselves to be gaslighted into conceding what we all know.

Out of misplaced compassion and confusion, we avoid affirming the real, observable, biological differences between males and females.

Instead, we talk about “gender diversity” and “natal males” and “gender identities” and “sex assigned at birth.” 

We should have compassion for anyone so distressed that he or she wants a whole new body.

But justice requires us to drop the gassy euphemisms and state the obvious: Just because a man—whether sincerely or cynically—“identifies” as a woman doesn’t magically make him one.

As New Jersey learned the hard way, a man who identifies as a woman can even impregnate two fellow female inmates.

Subjective states of mind don’t trump biology.

Every civilized society separates female and male prisoners.

"There’s no blood test, brain scan or infallible battery of questions that could allow a prison doctor to separate the trans wheat from the cheater chaff.  If a man says he identifies as a woman, that’s enough. No extra verification is needed."

No.  Limiting.  Principle.

Another: The transgender prison experiment UNCOVERED: Male-to-female inmates in women's cellblocks drive rising numbers of rapes and abuse on the new frontline in America's culture wars

This is an excellent article, as it addresses the issues in some detail:

Quote

Women's rights groups are warning of ever more male-to-female trans detainees serving time in women's prisons, despite rising incidents of rape and other horrors in what were once women-only cellblocks.

They point to more cases of trans women — including powerful individuals with penises who are attracted to females — sexually abusing and harassing women inmates in New York, Illinois, California, New Jersey, Washington and beyond.

A full picture of trans prisoners is not available, but data obtained by DailyMail.com from federal and California officials indicates more trans male-to-female inmates, more transfer requests, and more pressure on wardens to approve them.

Some transfer requests are made in good faith, but by lowering entry requirements, officials are letting some fakers serve their time in cushier women's wings, where they can imperil female inmates. 

"{O}fficials are letting some fakers serve their time in cushier women's wings, where they can imperil female inmates."

I am curious how to create constitutionally-sufficient metrics for differentiating "fakers" from, as it were, "real" trans women.

Quote

...

Tomiekia Johnson, 43, a former highway patrol officer who was jailed for 50 years for murdering her abusive husband, is among five prisoners suing over a California law that gives trans inmates the right to choose either men's or women's facilities.

Thanks to that law, Johnson in court papers describes sharing the block with a 'gigantic, tall, physically scary-looking, non-feminine, bizarre, creepy' trans inmate at Central California Women's Facility, in Chowchilla.  

She calls the individual 'one of the pretenders' among an influx of phony trans women detainees causing 'social and cultural changes' there since Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Senate bill into law in 2020.

In May, a trans inmate took a woman detainee into a portable toilet in the yard and raped her, while another kept lookout, she claims. The perpetrator then threatened to rape others. Nowadays, she suffers panic attacks.

'It is not bigoted to ask for sex-separated facilities when I am changing, showering, sleeping, and using the toilet,' she says in testimony. 'We have a right to insist on accommodations that give some privacy and dignity.'

This last statement is interesting to me: "It is not bigoted to ask for sex-separated facilities..."  The proactive defense here ("it is not bigoted") is, to me, a pretty strong indicator that accusations of bigotry have become the go-to, first-order tactic for those advocating for trans ideology.  It's "you either agree with us or you're a bigot" all the way down.  We see such stuff all over the place and all the time, including on this very board.  Fortunately, it is losing its potency, as most forms of bullying and manipulation eventually do when they get overused.

Quote

Across the US, other high-profile cases include Ramel Blount, a trans male-to-female detainee at Rikers Island who goes by the name Diamond Blount, who in February raped an unsuspecting woman prisoner after she finished showering in the women's section of the violence-plagued New York facility.

A trans convict in Illinois, Janiah Monroe, formerly Andre Patterson, was accused of raping several women inmates in a female prison. Demi Minor, a trans woman jailed for murdering her foster father, got two women inmates pregnant in a New Jersey women's prison this year. 

Lauren Bone, the lawyer leading the California lawsuit, warned of ever-more women inmates suffering in cells across the US as officials lowered the bar for which natal males could opt for women's facilities.

'There were problems [in the past], but there weren't women getting pregnant like there are in New Jersey. There weren't women getting raped in the yard, like in California,' Bone told DailyMail.com. 'It goes on and on.'

Not all trans women detainees are sexual predators, adds Bone. While some begin their transition in custody, others have identified as women for years. Others still just want out of the harshness of men's lockups and to spend their double-digit sentences in the 'company of women,' she adds.

According to available data, there were some 5,000 transgender detainees in the various US prison systems in 2020 — mostly men who identified as women. Then, only about 15 of them were granted requests to serve their time in women's lockups.

Much has changed. Prison wardens are answering concerns that trans women endure widespread abuse in men's facilities, and in some cases are repeatedly raped. Increasingly, they place them in lockups that match their lived sex.

One such case to make headlines last month involved Nikita Dragun, a trans male-to-female beauty influencer, who was reportedly held in a men's unit of a Miami jail after allegedly causing a disturbance at a beach hotel.

In a video court appearance, visibly anxious, she asked a judge: 'Do I have to stay here in the men's unit?'

Likewise, trans woman Kristina Frost was arrested in San Diego last year and was put in a holding cell with three men against her wishes and then beaten up so badly that she suffered a broken jaw, according to a lawsuit.

For some, however, the bar has dipped too low. In California, natal male detainees need only 'self-identify' as women to request transfers, and do not need to be taking hormones or get surgery. Most keep their male genitalia, some even sport beards.

As of October, the state's 96,000-strong prison population had 1,630 trans inmates, including 334 male-to-female transitioners who'd asked to switch to women's prisons; 43 requests were approved, 17 were denied, others are under review.
...

Transfer requests are reviewed on an individual basis by a Transgender Executive Council, a Federal Bureau of Prisons spokesman said. The process can involve mental health sessions and inmates 'meeting hormone goal levels', guidelines say.

Ah.  The "guidelines" link is a document worth reading, as it appears to be an effort to establish limiting principles (for federal prisons, anyway).  But the constitutionality of this may be in question (it's pretty vague), and is likely on the way out anyway given November 5.

Quote

Of the federal system's 159,471 detainees, some 1,143 are male-to-female transitioners, nearly half of whom have a history of sexual offenses, added the spokesman. Only eight live in a woman's prison.

An annual report of rape and sexual assault in federal prisons this year found that transgender inmates were responsible for three instances of abuse, 9 percent of the system's substantiated cases.

The increase in trans inmates' involvement in sexual complaints 'may be related to the continued increase in self-identification by this population,' said the 16-page report, which is filed annually in compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act.
...

They also point to a 2011 Swedish study, which found that man-to-woman transitioners retain a 'male level of criminality', meaning they are more prone to crime, including violent offenses, than women, even after taking hormones or undergoing surgery.

The public is apparently against letting trans women into women's prisons. A WOLF-commissioned survey of 3,500 voters in March 2021 found that 48 percent opposed trans women sharing cells with natal females, while 34 percent approved.

Schweppe says trans activists have overreached, that the public is wary and newfangled trans prison policies will reach the same level of scandal as trans athletes and so-called 'gender-affirming care' for minors.

'Eventually, there'll be too many horror stories and there'll be a backlash,' he said.

The above article was in 2022.  

Very difficult issues all around.  One side points to the safety of biological males who identify as "trans women" in men's prisons, and the other points to the safety of women in women's prisons.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Quote

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.

I agree. What the proclamation does not address is why.

Perhaps for the same reason 2 + 2 = 4 does not typically entail a "why."  Some things are so fundamental that to disagree with them is to depart from reality.

For some years now I have embedded the following quote from G.K. Chesterton in my signature line: "We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green."

G.K. passed in 1936.  I bet he's sitting up there in heaven, looking down at us and all the hue and cry about "gender identity" and "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" and so on, and saying "Boy, did I call it or what?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'll be curious to see how this plays out.  There are, i think, pretty massive Equal Protection issues in play.  I think there is no legally cognizable limiting principle as to who can "identify" as a woman, and therefore demand to be sent to a women's prison.  See, e.g., here:

"It should be noted that the authenticity around a trans person's gender identity is not inherently tied to surgeries, other medical treatments or changes to legal documents. Some people don't take these steps for a variety of reasons."

Translation: There is no limiting principle.  Any male who wants to be housed in women's prison can do so by merely "identifying" as a woman, without any requirements to demonstrate past medical interventions or legal changes re: gender.

See also here: Trans women inmates who hurt females to go to male prisons

Seeks like the UK is headed in the opposite direction.

Another: Man posing as transgender woman raped female prisoner at Rikers, lawsuit says

How does the State propose to differentiate between men who are "lying about their gender identity" and those who are not?

A very troubling story.

We'll see, I suppose.  Sexual predators will sexually predate.  it's their thing.

Also, "TGNCNBI" is a an acronym I have not seen before.  Oi.  It's hard to keep up.

Another: 3rd-strike 'trans' rape suspect prompts rebellion against CA law after attack in women's prison

"'You don't have to identify as a woman anymore {in order to be transferred to a women's prison}. You can identify as non-binary or many other things. And so, what the results are is that there's 50 men who are housed there. There are hundreds more on a wait list, who are still being processed. Nearly all of them have penises.'"

Yep.  No limiting principle{s}.

Another: Lawsuit: Female Prisoner Says She Was Raped by Transgender Inmate

Another:

From the above link: DOC employee reports men are claiming to be women to transfer prisons

"{T}he women’s facility in Pierce County has adopted the practice of allowing a transfer for any person who identifies as female."

No.  Limiting.  Principle.  Such are the fruits of "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" and similarly incongruent-with-biological-fact-and-reality propositions.

Another: Women in prison

Very troubling.

Another: Senate Committee Rejects Judicial Nominee Who Transferred Trans Child Rapist to Women’s Prison

Another: Transgender Rikers inmate sentenced to 7 years for raping female prisoner

And here: Rikers Rape Case Shows Female Prisoners Are the Voiceless Victims of Gender Ideology

"There’s no blood test, brain scan or infallible battery of questions that could allow a prison doctor to separate the trans wheat from the cheater chaff.  If a man says he identifies as a woman, that’s enough. No extra verification is needed."

No.  Limiting.  Principle.

Another: The transgender prison experiment UNCOVERED: Male-to-female inmates in women's cellblocks drive rising numbers of rapes and abuse on the new frontline in America's culture wars

This is an excellent article, as it addresses the issues in some detail:

"{O}fficials are letting some fakers serve their time in cushier women's wings, where they can imperil female inmates."

I am curious how to create constitutionally-sufficient metrics for differentiating "fakers" from, as it were, "real" trans women.

This last statement is interesting to me: "It is not bigoted to ask for sex-separated facilities..."  The proactive defense here ("it is not bigoted") is, to me, a pretty strong indicator that accusations of bigotry have become the go-to, first-order tactic for those advocating for trans ideology.  It's "you either agree with us or you're a bigot" all the way down.  We see such stuff all over the place and all the time, including on this very board.  Fortunately, it is losing its potency, as most forms of bullying and manipulation eventually do when they get overused.

Ah.  The "guidelines" link is a document worth reading, as it appears to be an effort to establish limiting principles (for federal prisons, anyway).  But the constitutionality of this may be in question (it's pretty vague), and is likely on the way out anyway given November 5.

The above article was in 2022.  

Very difficult issues all around.  One side points to the safety of biological males who identify as "trans women" in men's prisons, and the other points to the safety of women in women's prisons.

Thanks,

-Smac

So do you Google as many stories of black men raping women as you can find and then label them all criminals as well?  How about a collection of Mormon bishops preying on minors?  Let's see, who else can we smear and lump them all together?  If a dozen are guilty of crimes, they must all be guilty right?  

Do you ever think of the thousands and thousands of other trans women who have absolutely no interested in raping other women?  Should they all be treated the same as the criminals?

Edited December 16, 2024 by california boy

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

So do you Google as many stories of black men raping women as you can find and then label them all criminals as well?

As I noted in my previous post:

Quote

This last statement is interesting to me: "It is not bigoted to ask for sex-separated facilities..."  The proactive defense here ("it is not bigoted") is, to me, a pretty strong indicator that accusations of bigotry have become the go-to, first-order tactic for those advocating for trans ideology.  It's "you either agree with us or you're a bigot" all the way down.  We see such stuff all over the place and all the time, including on this very board.  Fortunately, it is losing its potency, as most forms of bullying and manipulation eventually do when they get overused.

"We see such stuff {accusations of bigotry as 'the go-to, first-order tactic} all over the place and all the time, including on this very board."  I make this observation, and you immediately validate it.

People in prison have been adjudicated as criminals.  I should not need to explain this.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

How about a collection of Mormon bishops preying on minors?  

I have extensively addressed instances of Latter-day Saints who have committed serious crimes.  I often bring up such stories in the first instance.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Let's see, who else can we smear and lump them all together?  If a dozen are guilty of crimes, they must all be guilty right?  

It would be nice if you could address a substantive issue, such as limiting principles (or the lack thereof) in relation to housing biological men in women's prisons.  As I noted previously, I am curious how to create constitutionally-sufficient metrics for differentiating "fakers" from, as it were, "real" trans women (I reject the notion that any of them are "women," but I'll go along, arguendo, with the hypothetical distinction noted here).  Any thoughts on that? 

If casual, knee-jerk accusations of bigotry and emotionalisms are all you've got, I'll leave you to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 16, 2024 by smac97

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

As I noted in my previous post:

"We see such stuff {accusations of bigotry as 'the go-to, first-order tactic} all over the place and all the time, including on this very board."  I make this observation, and you immediately validate it.

People in prison have been adjudicated as criminals.  I should not need to explain this.

I have extensively addressed instances of Latter-day Saints who have committed serious crimes.  I often bring up such stories in the first instance.

It would be nice if you could address a substantive issue, such as limiting principles (or the lack thereof) in relation to housing biological men in women's prisons.  As I noted previously, I am curious how to create constitutionally-sufficient metrics for differentiating "fakers" from, as it were, "real" trans women (I reject the notion that any of them are "women," but I'll go along, arguendo, with the hypothetical distinction noted here).  Any thoughts on that? 

If casual, knee-jerk accusations of bigotry and emotionalisms are all you've got, I'll leave you to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have never found you willing to actually read what I say as I wrote it.  You seem to love to slice and dice what I write to the point of taking things totally out of context rather than responding to anything I was actually saying.  I have told you over and over again not to take my comments out of context.  Yet here we are, unable to keep what I write in context and actually comment on what I wrote as a whole, rather than pulling one sentence out and then Googling countless articles that have little to do with my point.  

Your response to what I actually wrote about bishops is a perfect example of how you slice and dice things then give an answer completely unrelated to what I wrote.  I NEVER said that you haven't written or commented on bishops that have been criminal, so your answer had nothing to do with what I actually wrote.  This was actually my comment.  

 

Quote

So do you Google as many stories of black men raping women as you can find and then label them all criminals as well?  How about a collection of Mormon bishops preying on minors?  Let's see, who else can we smear and lump them all together?  If a dozen are guilty of crimes, they must all be guilty right?  

The problem I have with your stance is judging all transgenders as a group in deciding which bathroom they should use or where they should be placed in a prison by pulling out the few that have actually committed a crime., and then because of those criminals, making judgements against all transgenders.  Just like all bishops who should not be assumed of being guilty of preying on minors because of a few criminals, neither should all transgenders be assumed guilty because of a few criminals. One should not assume any guilt just because a person is trans.  I have never suggested that any man who just says they identify as women should be allowed in womens bathrooms.  I also have never suggested allowing any criminals to use women's bathrooms. 

And yes, I have address ways to determine if someone is actually transitioning or just using gender identification to commit crimes several times in this thread.  You just ignored what I wrote and responded to things I didn't actually say.  What I proposed is allowing transgender women use the bathroom that their gender matches IF and WHEN they are prescribed and taking the drugs that block testosterone production and increases estrogen.  There are real physical changes that occur when those drugs are prescribed and being used.  I have listed those changes in previous posts.  Taking things out of context and ignoring the substance of what I actually wrote makes me think you really don't want to hear my thoughts on your questions.  

Tell me, what is the point of responding to your posts when you really don't try to actually understand and respond to what I do write? (see bishop comment above for example)

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have never found you willing to actually read what I say as I wrote it.  

I have seldom found you willing to have a substantive, drama-free discussion about difficult topics.  You almost always go emotional, go ad hominem, etc.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

You seem to love to slice and dice what I write to the point of taking things totally out of context rather than responding to anything I was actually saying.  I have told you over and over again not to take my comments out of context.  

I respond to you posts by quoting them verbatim, which includes hyperlinks to your posts.  It is this very exercise in retaining context that you characterize as decontextualization.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet here we are, unable to keep what I write in context and actually comment on what I wrote as a whole, rather than pulling one sentence out and then Googling countless articles that have little to do with my point.

I think there is no legally cognizable limiting principle as to who can "identify" as a woman, and therefore demand to be sent to a women's prison (though the feds have apparently taken a crack at it).  Any thoughts on that? 

Alternatively or additionally, I am curious how to create constitutionally-sufficient metrics for differentiating "fakers" from, as it were, "real" trans women (I reject the notion that any of them are "women," but I'll go along, arguendo, with the hypothetical distinction noted here).  Any thoughts on that? 

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Your response to what I actually wrote about bishops is a perfect example of how you slice and dice things then give an answer completely unrelated to what I wrote.  

And misconduct by "bishops" is relevant to trans issues in this thread . . . how, exactly?

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

The problem I have with your stance is judging all transgenders as a group in deciding which bathroom they should use or where they should be placed in a prison by pulling out the few that have actually committed a crime.

I think you are misunderstanding me.

Proposition A: Historically, men and women have been housed in separate correctional facilities.  Lots of reasons for this, but safety is at or near the top (for women).

Proposition B: In recent years, some folks have engaged in a large-scale effort to obscure and equivocate as to the sexual binary, which is where we get incongruent-with-biological-science-and-reality assertions like "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman."

Proposition C: Cross-dressing, gender dysphoria (and before that, "gender identity disorder," and before that, "transexualism," etc., have been around in varying forms and degrees for time out of mind, but the conflating/confusing of gender and sex, the notion that biological sex is a social construct, re-defining "woman," etc., are all both innovative and disruptive in society because they disregard or re-define the sexual binary.  Hence controversies with men in women's bathrooms, sports, prisons, and so on.

Proposition D: I get that you and yours adopt a knee-jerk "You're A Bigot" approach to anyone who resists the foregoing innovations in any appreciable way (as evidenced by your public implication that I am prejudiced against black people).  However, even when I go along arguendo, you still can't or won't contribute to a meaningful, substantive discussion.

Proposition E: I would like to be proven wrong as to the preceding proposition.  So again:

-Proposition E(1): I think there is no legally cognizable limiting principle as to who can "identify" as a woman, and therefore demand to be sent to a women's prison (though the feds have apparently taken a crack at it).  Any thoughts on that? 

-Proposition E(2): Alternatively or additionally, I am curious how to create constitutionally-sufficient metrics for differentiating "fakers" from, as it were, "real" trans women (I reject the notion that any of them are "women," but I'll go along, arguendo, with the hypothetical distinction noted here).  Any thoughts on that? 

I am willing to listen to what you have to say, but you have to get past the "You're A Bigot" thing and focus on the substantive issues.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just like all bishops who should not be assumed of being guilty of preying on minors because of a few criminals, neither should all transgenders be assumed guilty because of a few criminals.

I agree.  But I have not endorsed any such assumption.

Instead, I am hoping to address the issue of housing male inmates in women's prisons.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

And yes, I have address ways to determine if someone is actually transitioning or just using gender identification to commit crimes several times in this thread.  You just ignored what I wrote and responded to things I didn't actually say.  

Okay.  Please provide links to your previous posts.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

What I proposed is allowing transgender women use the bathroom that their gender matches IF and WHEN they are prescribed and taking the drugs that block testosterone production and increases estrogen.  

The topic here is prisons, not bathrooms.  Are you saying the same approach is appropriate for both?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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 day

Which is not what I am saying, I hope you realize.

Quote

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

Feel free to share the reasoning behind your assertion because I don’t see how just saying we don’t know what our eternal selves, including in comparison to our mortal selves, look like very much deconstructs much at all, if anything.

Edited December 16, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 12/12/2024 at 11:13 PM, 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.

No, it really doesn’t. This was the same charge laid against other queer people a few decades back where gay people were trying to seduce your son into the “homosexual lifestyle”. It is a social contagion only in the sense that if you don’t vilify it people are much more likely to be open about it.

I am trying to imagine someone deciding to pursue hormones and surgery due to peer pressure. That is just not how it works. I certainly didn’t start finding other guys attractive because I was seeking social approval or had some desire to fit in with the cool openly gay kids of whom there were none in my school. Also if having a queer identity is that trendy there are a bunch of ways to pursue that that are less expensive and less life-altering than hormones and surgery. And transgender people tend to accept other queer identity people.

The social contagion theory doesn’t make any sense unless you assume transgender people just really like being hated and are looking for ways to create said hate and that they are intentionally taking the hardest route to that hate. There is a joke in the queer community that you alter based on why you are queer. For a male bisexual like me it goes something like this:

“Yeah, I am basically just faking my whole attraction to men. It actually repulses me. The only thing that makes me keep at it is knowing that there is a used jet ski salesman in HogPiss, Alabama that really really loathes my existence. I hold back my vomit reflex when kissing another guy and just picture that man’s apoplectic rage and it helps me push through it. Only that spite and my glee at living rent-free in that guy’s head keeps me living this disgusting lie.”

The most destructive part about this characterization is that it doesn’t just push queer people into being a lesser category of human. It makes them incomprehensible and alien because humans just don’t work like that. It strips away their humanity. Then you can imagine all kinds of horrible things they are doing. Grooming kids……definitely sounds like those perverse freaks. Torturing puppies…..sounds like something they would giggle about.

It is also bearing false witness against another person but you probably don’t know any transgender people well so it is harmless right. I mean, it is not like they are your neighbor or anything so why worry about it?

*Jesus has entered the chat*

Oh no, he is going to do that whole Samaritan thing again isn’t he?

[Analytics]

On 12/14/2024 at 10:44 PM, smac97 said:

Quite a non sequitur you have there.

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....

This isn't a non sequitur at all. The real logical fallacy here is on your part with the most transparent equivocation imaginable. 

In their policy statement, the AAP offers the following definitions:

“Sex,” or “natal gender,” is a label, generally “male” or “female,” that is typically assigned at birth on the basis of genetic and anatomic characteristics, such as genital anatomy, chromosomes, and sex hormone levels. Meanwhile, “gender identity” is one’s internal sense of who one is, which results from a multifaceted interaction of biological traits, developmental influences, and environmental conditions. It may be male, female, somewhere in between, a combination of both, or neither (ie, not conforming to a binary conceptualization of gender). Self-recognition of gender identity develops over time, much the same way as a child’s physical body does. For some people, gender identity can be fluid, shifting in different contexts. “Gender expression” refers to the wide array of ways people display their gender through clothing, hair styles, mannerisms, or social roles. Exploring different ways of expressing gender is common for children and may challenge social expectations. The way others interpret this expression is referred to as “gender perception” 

When somebody says a transgender woman "is a woman," they are obviously talking about gender identity (i.e. their "internal sense of who one is"). But rather than addressing their actual point, you insist they are talking about sex (i.e. their "genital anatomy, chromosomes, and sex hormone levels"), for which you then mock them. I honestly don't understand why you do this. Apparently, you think biological sex is real, and you think peoples' "internal sense of self" is completely subjective, meaningless, and irrelevant. 

Serious questions: 

1. Will you acknowledge that "sex" and "gender identity", as defined by the AAP, are two different things?
2. Will you acknowledge that when somebody talks about a transgender woman being "a woman", they are talking about "gender identity" and not "sex"?
3. Will you acknowledge that "one's internal sense of who one is" is a very important thing?

On 12/14/2024 at 10:44 PM, smac97 said:

...and on the other, claims to be annoyed by people who "cherry pick what science they are going to embrace."  

I note the irony that it is the atheist who thinks ones "internal sense of who one is" is important and it is the Mormon who thinks biological sex is the only thing that matters. But that doesn't mean I'm cherry picking what science I'm going to embrace. 

On 12/14/2024 at 10:44 PM, smac97 said:

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.

Fine, I will. Many branches of science (e.g. physics, neuroscience, biology) are using independent evidence to robustly and confidently converge on the same idea--a "spirit," i.e. a "ghost in the machine," i.e. an entity that thinks, remembers, sees, hears, has a sense of self, interfaces with a human-body-meat suit, and survives death does not and cannot exist. The strength of the evidence of this is overwhelming, and your attempts at mocking me for relaying this fact shows how profound your scientific ignorance is. At this point, arguing that spirits might exist is like arguing that the moon might be made out of green cheese. Just because you apparently think somebody on this board has disproven effective quantum field theory doesn't mean they really did.

On 12/14/2024 at 10:44 PM, smac97 said:

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.  

Your words ring hollow on this. For example, when I explained how we actually do know that literal spirits aren't real, you responded with a long personal attack that mainly featured how you didn't like how I summarized Radio Free Mormon summarizing Terryl Givens's beliefs on an unrelated topic. As if that has anything to do with the robustness of effective quantum field theory and what it implies about the plausibility of a "spirit" (however you define it) somehow being able to interface with a human body?

On 12/14/2024 at 10:44 PM, smac97 said:

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.

Not exactly. It isn't that we are "uncertain" about the biological sex of some people. Rather, it's that for some individuals, categorizing them as having a specific biological sex is not appropriate because their physical, genetic, or hormonal characteristics do not align with the traditional binary framework of male or female. The biological model itself fails to account for the full range of natural variation, making such classifications oversimplified and inaccurate in these cases.

Regardless, the issue isn't about biological sex. The issue is about one's "internal sense of who one is." When a transgender individual says, "I am a woman," they aren't talking about biological sex--they are talking about their internal sense of who she is. Your unwillingness to apply their definitions to their own words is really strange to me--it's like a psychological defense mechanism designed to prevent you from hearing a point of view you don't want to hear.

Edited December 17, 2024 by Analytics

[california boy]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, it really doesn’t. This was the same charge laid against other queer people a few decades back where gay people were trying to seduce your son into the “homosexual lifestyle”. It is a social contagion only in the sense that if you don’t vilify it people are much more likely to be open about it.

I am trying to imagine someone deciding to pursue hormones and surgery due to peer pressure. That is just not how it works. I certainly didn’t start finding other guys attractive because I was seeking social approval or had some desire to fit in with the cool openly gay kids of whom there were none in my school. Also if having a queer identity is that trendy there are a bunch of ways to pursue that that are less expensive and less life-altering than hormones and surgery. And transgender people tend to accept other queer identity people.

The social contagion theory doesn’t make any sense unless you assume transgender people just really like being hated and are looking for ways to create said hate and that they are intentionally taking the hardest route to that hate. There is a joke in the queer community that you alter based on why you are queer. For a male bisexual like me it goes something like this:

“Yeah, I am basically just faking my whole attraction to men. It actually repulses me. The only thing that makes me keep at it is knowing that there is a used jet ski salesman in HogPiss, Alabama that really really loathes my existence. I hold back my vomit reflex when kissing another guy and just picture that man’s apoplectic rage and it helps me push through it. Only that spite and my glee at living rent-free in that guy’s head keeps me living this disgusting lie.”

The most destructive part about this characterization is that it doesn’t just push queer people into being a lesser category of human. It makes them incomprehensible and alien because humans just don’t work like that. It strips away their humanity. Then you can imagine all kinds of horrible things they are doing. Grooming kids……definitely sounds like those perverse freaks. Torturing puppies…..sounds like something they would giggle about.

It is also bearing false witness against another person but you probably don’t know any transgender people well so it is harmless right. I mean, it is not like they are your neighbor or anything so why worry about it?

*Jesus has entered the chat*

Oh no, he is going to do that whole Samaritan thing again isn’t he?

 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

This isn't a non sequitur at all. The real logical fallacy here is on your part with the most transparent equivocation imaginable. 

In their policy statement, the AAP offers the following definitions:

“Sex,” or “natal gender,” is a label, generally “male” or “female,” that is typically assigned at birth on the basis of genetic and anatomic characteristics, such as genital anatomy, chromosomes, and sex hormone levels. Meanwhile, “gender identity” is one’s internal sense of who one is, which results from a multifaceted interaction of biological traits, developmental influences, and environmental conditions. It may be male, female, somewhere in between, a combination of both, or neither (ie, not conforming to a binary conceptualization of gender). Self-recognition of gender identity develops over time, much the same way as a child’s physical body does. For some people, gender identity can be fluid, shifting in different contexts. “Gender expression” refers to the wide array of ways people display their gender through clothing, hair styles, mannerisms, or social roles. Exploring different ways of expressing gender is common for children and may challenge social expectations. The way others interpret this expression is referred to as “gender perception” 

When somebody says a transgender woman "is a woman," they are obviously talking about gender identity (i.e. their "internal sense of who one is"). But rather than addressing their actual point, you insist they are talking about sex (i.e. their "genital anatomy, chromosomes, and sex hormone levels"), for which you then mock them. I honestly don't understand why you do this. Apparently, you think biological sex is real, and you think peoples' "internal sense of self" is completely subjective, meaningless, and irrelevant. 

Serious questions: 

1. Will you acknowledge that "sex" and "gender identity", as defined by the AAP, are two different things?
2. Will you acknowledge that when somebody talks about a transgender woman being "a woman", they are talking about "gender identity" and not "sex"?
3. Will you acknowledge that "one's internal sense of who one is" is a very important thing?

I note the irony that it is the atheist who thinks ones "internal sense of who one is" is important and it is the Mormon who thinks biological sex is the only thing that matters. But that doesn't mean I'm cherry picking what science I'm going to embrace. 

Fine, I will. Many branches of science (e.g. physics, neuroscience, biology) are using independent evidence to robustly and confidently converge on the same idea--a "spirit," i.e. a "ghost in the machine," i.e. an entity that thinks, remembers, sees, hears, has a sense of self, interfaces with a human-body-meat suit, and survives death does not and cannot exist. The strength of the evidence of this is overwhelming, and your attempts at mocking me for relaying this fact shows how profound your scientific ignorance is. At this point, arguing that spirits might exist is like arguing that the moon might be made out of green cheese. Just because you apparently think somebody on this board has disproven effective quantum field theory doesn't mean they really did.

Your words ring hollow on this. For example, when I explained how we actually do know that literal spirits aren't real, you responded with a long personal attack that mainly featured how you didn't like how I summarized Radio Free Mormon summarizing Terryl Givens's beliefs on an unrelated topic. As if that has anything to do with the robustness of effective quantum field theory and what it implies about the plausibility of a "spirit" (however you define it) somehow being able to interface with a human body?

Not exactly. It isn't that we are "uncertain" about the biological sex of some people. Rather, it's that for some individuals, categorizing them as having a specific biological sex is not appropriate because their physical, genetic, or hormonal characteristics do not align with the traditional binary framework of male or female. The biological model itself fails to account for the full range of natural variation, making such classifications oversimplified and inaccurate in these cases.

Regardless, the issue isn't about biological sex. The issue is about one's "internal sense of who one is." When a transgender individual says, "I am a woman," they aren't talking about biological sex--they are talking about their internal sense of who she is. Your unwillingness to apply their definitions to their own words is really strange to me--it's like a psychological defense mechanism designed to prevent you from hearing a point of view you don't want to hear.

There is plenty in both of these post for people to understand exactly what the issues are that causes someone to transition.  But you have to want to understand what is going on.  I personally can not even begin to understand the pain and suffering one inflicts on themselves to go through a transition.  The family and social rejection would be overwhelming to me.  It took me decades to have the courage to finally quit this charade I was living so that no one would find out I was gay.  But honestly, being gay is a cake walk compared to the courage it would take for someone to come out as transexual.  I may not understand what they are going through to put themselves through that kind of social and family toucher, but I do think I can understand the incredible amount of courage it would take. The very least I can do is to acknowledge that courage and have a Christ like attitude towards them to help ease their burden and show them love and kindness.

I never expected to say this when I was growing up.  But I will now.  Thank God I am only gay.  I don't think I could handle being transgender.  Being gay was a big enough challenge and had plenty of family and social rejection that came with it.  Not all that pain has disappeared.  Yesterday was the second anniversary of my father passing.  My siblings were sending texts about how much they miss him and what a loss he is in their lives.  I couldn't write any of that.  He left me while I was still living.  That scar is very deep.  

But seriously, when I see a transgender person, I realize I got off very easy.  

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

 

There is plenty in both of these post for people to understand exactly what the issues are that causes someone to transition.  But you have to want to understand what is going on.  I personally can not even begin to understand the pain and suffering one inflicts on themselves to go through a transition.  The family and social rejection would be overwhelming to me.  It took me decades to have the courage to finally quit this charade I was living so that no one would find out I was gay.  But honestly, being gay is a cake walk compared to the courage it would take for someone to come out as transexual.  I may not understand what they are going through to put themselves through that kind of social and family toucher, but I do think I can understand the incredible amount of courage it would take. The very least I can do is to acknowledge that courage and have a Christ like attitude towards them to help ease their burden and show them love and kindness.

I never expected to say this when I was growing up.  But I will now.  Thank God I am only gay.  I don't think I could handle being transgender.  Being gay was a big enough challenge and had plenty of family and social rejection that came with it.  Not all that pain has disappeared.  Yesterday was the second anniversary of my father passing.  My siblings were sending texts about how much they miss him and what a loss he is in their lives.  I couldn't write any of that.  He left me while I was still living.  That scar is very deep.  

But seriously, when I see a transgender person, I realize I got off very easy.  

I have a friend in Maine, I know her through mine and my husband's close friends it's one of their sisters. She's gay and her father couldn't accept her the way she is. To this day they don't talk. He's now in his nineties. And let his own daughter down and couldn't love her the way she is. He's LDS and served a couple of missions as a senior couples. I know this doesn't happen with most LDS but it's sad he couldn't come to grips with loving her no matter what, and that is what the church would teach I'm thinking. Unless their differences were stemmed from something else. But sad if it's because of her being gay. 

[smac97]

I've told this story a few times before (here and here).

Years ago I stopped by to visit my grandmother, who I found to be somewhat distressed.  She explained that another of her grandsons had stopped by earlier in the day, and that he had been intoxicated/stoned and reeked of marijuana and cigarettes.  She had asked him to leave her apartment and come back when he was sober and showered.  This grandson then became very upset and yelled at her, telling her that she should love him for who he was and not ask or expect him to change.  She had responded that she loved him, but that she was not obligated to agree with his personal decisions, or to allow him in her home when he was under the influence of narcotics.  The grandson, still angry, had stormed out.

For myself, I wonder how often this story, or stories similar to it, are playing out with the grandmother role being characterized as a hateful bigot, and the grandson role being characterized as the unfortunate victim of that bigotry.  It seems that, for some people, anything short of full-throated endorsement/ratification/celebration of trans ideology, and of a person's decisions vis-à-vis that ideology, is reflexively and necessarily deemed bigoted, closed-minded, hurtful, etc.  I fund this an unfortunate, and increasingly ineffective, coercive/bullying tactic.  

I have family members who are gay, and/or support same-sex marriage and/or trans ideology.  So far, despite having varied opinions on the topic, none of them has leveled horrible accusations at me for not ratifying or agreeing with their opinions, nor have I said horrible things to them or about them.  I am grateful for that.  Our family relationships are more important than demanding conformity and capitulation as to hot button sociopolitical issues.

Thanks,

-Smac  

[smac97]

Disney Cuts Trans Storyline From Pixar’s ‘Win or Lose’ Series: ‘Many Parents Would Prefer to Discuss Certain Subjects on Their Own Terms’

Quote

“Win or Lose,” the first-ever long-form series from Pixar, was originally set to feature a transgender storyline that ended up being cut by Disney, Variety has learned.

Debuting in 2025, “Win or Lose” will follow the members of a co-ed middle school softball team as they gear up for their championship game. Each episode follows a different character, and the show is intended to focus on varied perspectives — including “the insecure kids, their helicopter parents, even a lovesick umpire” per the official logline — but a trans perspective will no longer be highlighted. A source tells Variety that references to one of the characters’ gender identity was removed, affecting a few lines of dialogue in the show’s later episodes, though it appears that there was not a full episode devoted to the subject matter. The formerly trans role is voiced by 18-year-old trans actress Chanel Stewart.

“When it comes to animated content for a younger audience, we recognize that many parents would prefer to discuss certain subjects with their children on their own terms and timeline,” said a spokesperson for Disney.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

On 12/18/2024 at 12:43 PM, smac97 said:

I've told this story a few times before (here and here).

Years ago I stopped by to visit my grandmother, who I found to be somewhat distressed.  She explained that another of her grandsons had stopped by earlier in the day, and that he had been intoxicated/stoned and reeked of marijuana and cigarettes.  She had asked him to leave her apartment and come back when he was sober and showered.  This grandson then became very upset and yelled at her, telling her that she should love him for who he was and not ask or expect him to change.  She had responded that she loved him, but that she was not obligated to agree with his personal decisions, or to allow him in her home when he was under the influence of narcotics.  The grandson, still angry, had stormed out.

What is the transgender equivalent of this story? Your grandchild shows up wearing clothing typically worn by the gender they identify with and grandma demands the grandchild leave and return only when they are dressed more appropriately?

What is the gay equivalent? Having a rainbow on their t-shirt?

Did she insist that she didn’t have to agree with their personal decisions but they aren’t allowed into her home while they are under the influence of queerness? This doesn’t translate at all.

On 12/18/2024 at 12:43 PM, smac97 said:

For myself, I wonder how often this story, or stories similar to it, are playing out with the grandmother role being characterized as a hateful bigot, and the grandson role being characterized as the unfortunate victim of that bigotry.  It seems that, for some people, anything short of full-throated endorsement/ratification/celebration of trans ideology, and of a person's decisions vis-à-vis that ideology, is reflexively and necessarily deemed bigoted, closed-minded, hurtful, etc.  I fund this an unfortunate, and increasingly ineffective, coercive/bullying tactic.  

Yeah, teenagers and young adults coercively bullying their parents is definitely the real problem here. Where do you think the power usually lies in that dynamic?

We have organizations out there to help queer teens who are kicked out of their homes or who are emotionally or socially or financially cut off? But will no one think of the poor parents doing the cutting off? You know who is suffering when those “coming out” conversations go badly. The teens. They learn their parents don’t actually love them. There was a proviso over that love the whole time. It HURTS! Those parents are called hurtful because they are hurting the child for something the child did not choose, could not have prevented, and cannot change. So if the parent is hurt a little by being thought of as a bigot: GOOD! Maybe that can lead to empathy.

You are almost always an apologist for the powerful suggesting they are the real victims. Will no one think of the poor Pharisees who Jesus keeps hurting with his harsh language and bullying?

Edited December 20, 2024 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

On 12/18/2024 at 1:34 PM, smac97 said:

Disney Cuts Trans Storyline From Pixar’s ‘Win or Lose’ Series: ‘Many Parents Would Prefer to Discuss Certain Subjects on Their Own Terms’

Probably a good idea. Trying to put that storyline into one episode would probably backfire. I look forward to the day something like that can be neatly packed into one episode. That will bring a lot more joy into the world. I guess the kids will just have to find out by watching Heartstoppers instead.

One of my transgender friends complained once that she really hoped we could get through the acceptance phase quickly so we can start making jokes about transgender people without being worried it is cover for bigotry because she assures me it is a gold mine of hilarious stuff. Having seen the jokes trans people share in safe groups she is definitely right. I think bisexual humor has a lot to give too but we are still too foreign to be understood by most. Some friends and I were trying to come up a word for a group of bisexuals. Like a crowd of people or a flock of birds. We settled on ‘a disaster of bisexuals’ as the most fitting word. Gay and lesbian humor has come out a little but some of the best stuff is still pretty hidden. Lesbians in particular are amazing at roasting their own group.

[Peacefully]

On 12/18/2024 at 12:43 PM, smac97 said:

I've told this story a few times before (here and here).

Years ago I stopped by to visit my grandmother, who I found to be somewhat distressed.  She explained that another of her grandsons had stopped by earlier in the day, and that he had been intoxicated/stoned and reeked of marijuana and cigarettes.  She had asked him to leave her apartment and come back when he was sober and showered.  This grandson then became very upset and yelled at her, telling her that she should love him for who he was and not ask or expect him to change.  She had responded that she loved him, but that she was not obligated to agree with his personal decisions, or to allow him in her home when he was under the influence of narcotics.  The grandson, still angry, had stormed out.

For myself, I wonder how often this story, or stories similar to it, are playing out with the grandmother role being characterized as a hateful bigot, and the grandson role being characterized as the unfortunate victim of that bigotry.  It seems that, for some people, anything short of full-throated endorsement/ratification/celebration of trans ideology, and of a person's decisions vis-à-vis that ideology, is reflexively and necessarily deemed bigoted, closed-minded, hurtful, etc.  I fund this an unfortunate, and increasingly ineffective, coercive/bullying tactic.  

I have family members who are gay, and/or support same-sex marriage and/or trans ideology.  So far, despite having varied opinions on the topic, none of them has leveled horrible accusations at me for not ratifying or agreeing with their opinions, nor have I said horrible things to them or about them.  I am grateful for that.  Our family relationships are more important than demanding conformity and capitulation as to hot button sociopolitical issues.

Thanks,

-Smac  

I feel so bad for your grandma. She did the right thing by sending someone away who was intoxicated and belligerent. Thank goodness all he did was yell at her, and if he hadn’t left or if it had gotten physical, she would have been well within her rights to call the police.
 

I don’t think this is a fair comparison with a child who is asking to be accepted for who they are, e.g., gay, trans, etc. 

[Peacefully]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Probably a good idea. Trying to put that storyline into one episode would probably backfire. I look forward to the day something like that can be neatly packed into one episode. That will bring a lot more joy into the world. I guess the kids will just have to find out by watching Heartstoppers instead.

One of my transgender friends complained once that she really hoped we could get through the acceptance phase quickly so we can start making jokes about transgender people without being worried it is cover for bigotry because she assures me it is a gold mine of hilarious stuff. Having seen the jokes trans people share in safe groups she is definitely right. I think bisexual humor has a lot to give too but we are still too foreign to be understood by most. Some friends and I were trying to come up a word for a group of bisexuals. Like a crowd of people or a flock of birds. We settled on ‘a disaster of bisexuals’ as the most fitting word. Gay and lesbian humor has come out a little but some of the best stuff is still pretty hidden. Lesbians in particular are amazing at roasting their own group.

Seth Myers has a bit on his show called “Jokes Seth can’t tell”. He sits with two of his writers, one is a black woman and one is a lesbian, and they tell jokes about black women and lesbians. At the end, they always egg him on to tell one of the jokes and then when he does, they berate him for it. It’s pretty funny. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

I don’t think this is a fair comparison with a child who is asking to be accepted for who they are, e.g., gay, trans, etc. 

They key bit IMO: "She had responded that she loved him, but that she was not obligated to agree with his personal decisions."

Is it possible to love and "accept" someone without being obligated to "accept" / ratify / endorse / celebrate their personal decisions, particularly as to important moral issues?  I think it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is it possible to love and "accept" someone without being obligated to "accept" / ratify / endorse / celebrate their personal decisions, particularly as to important moral issues?  I think it is.

Agreed. Were it not so, God would love none of His children, save one.

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Nofear said:

Quote

Is it possible to love and "accept" someone without being obligated to "accept" / ratify / endorse / celebrate their personal decisions, particularly as to important moral issues?  I think it is.

Agreed. Were it not so, God would love none of His children, save one.

And yet there seems to be a potent strain of contrary reasoning when it comes to LGBT issues.  In order to love a person who is gay, you must ratify / endorse / celebrate that person's sexual behavior.  That seems odd to me, in a few ways.

As I have previously observed, "'All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct.'"  For myself, I reject the notion of "sexual 'identity.'"  "Sexual identity" is, it seems, something you are, whereas sexual attraction is something you experience, and either allow or disallow, regulate and constrain or let loose.  

Adopting "LGBT" as a principal "identity" sometimes (often?) appears to supplant or negate one's "identity" as derived from religious affiliation / belief (think of how many times people have paired "coming out" with leaving the Church).  This prioritizing of "sexual identity" over discipleship tends to lead to sinful behavior, or justifications for sinful behavior.  Conversely, setting aside sexual attraction/orientation as an "identity," or else subordinating it, allows a person room to choose to obey God, and to make that choice free from (or with reduced measures of) the angst and confusion and conflict arising out of the conflict between worldly notions of sexuality and those espoused in the Restored Gospel.  

"Sexual identity" is, for some (many?), a malleable and seemingly endless construct.  It is fluid. It can and does change.  The seemingly dangerous notion here is that if this identity is "constructed," then it can be deconstructed (or set aside, or subordinated).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 20, 2024 by smac97

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

They key bit IMO: "She had responded that she loved him, but that she was not obligated to agree with his personal decisions."

Is it possible to love and "accept" someone without being obligated to "accept" / ratify / endorse / celebrate their personal decisions, particularly as to important moral issues?  I think it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

What do you mean by “accept/ratify/endorse/celebrate” one’s “personal decisions”? For example, if someone kindly asks to be referred to using he/him pronouns and those are different than the pronouns you think are more proper, would using their preferred pronouns be accepting/ ratifying/ endorsing/ celebrating a person decision  that you find morally reprehensible? If not, can you provide some examples of what you are talking about?

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

They key bit IMO: "She had responded that she loved him, but that she was not obligated to agree with his personal decisions."

Is it possible to love and "accept" someone without being obligated to "accept" / ratify / endorse / celebrate their personal decisions, particularly as to important moral issues?  I think it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t agree with the comparison you made. That was the key part for me. Unfortunately, you took my quote out of context. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is it possible to love and "accept" someone without being obligated to "accept" / ratify / endorse / celebrate their personal decisions, particularly as to important moral issues?  I think it is.

Not in any way that is likely to make the other person feel truly loved.

Also it is telling that you still see this as a “personal decision”. We also aren’t talking about “personal decisions”. We are talking about who someone is. That is why they don’t feel love. You can love a child who sins in spite of the sin because the sin is not fundamental to who they are and they can realistically choose to change. This kind of condescending acceptance doesn’t work in this case. If they were raised in the church there is a good chance they have been trying to make a different “personal decision” for some time already before talking to you. They failed as virtually everyone does at making a different “personal decision”.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

What do you mean by “accept/ratify/endorse/celebrate” one’s “personal decisions”?

I am referring to behaviors.  Actions.

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

For example, if someone kindly asks to be referred to using he/him pronouns and those are different than the pronouns you think are more proper,

That would be compelled speech.  Are you on board with referring to Russell M. Nelson by honorifics and titles which you dispute (e.g. "our beloved Prophet," "the Lord's Presiding High Priest," etc.)?  How about if I "kindly" ask you to refer to the Church as "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which [] the Lord [is] well pleased"?  Are you willing to “accept/ratify/endorse/celebrate” the faith of the Latter-day Saints by going along with these requests?

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

would using their preferred pronouns be accepting/ ratifying/ endorsing/ celebrating a person decision  that you find morally reprehensible?

I think preferred pronouns are less a matter of moral reprehensibility and more a matter of compelled speech, of asking someone, "kindly" or otherwise, to speak things they do not wish to speak, or which things they feel are incongruent with reality.  

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

If not, can you provide some examples of what you are talking about?

Again, I was referencing actions and behaviors. 

I have many friends and family members who are behaving in ways which contravene the Law of Chastity.  I love them regardless, but I reject the notion that I am obligated, as a condition of friendship or maintaining familial harmony, to accept / ratify / endorse / celebrate behaviors I find morally wrong.  

I find it rather strange that we live in a time where a person goes about, publicly or privately or both, asking/demanding that others accept / ratify / endorse / celebrate that person's sexual preferences, "identity," behavior, etc.  And stranger still for the person to take umbrage when people whom he knows subscribe to a partoculat code of sexual ethics decline to accept / ratify / endorse / celebrate behaviors incongruent with those ethics.

Thanks 

-Smac