Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[california boy]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

To the contrary, I would like to hear a lot less about other people's sexual behaviors, preferences, "identities," and so on.  

I would like to see fewer efforts and compelled/coerced speech, such as that raised by Analytics.

I would like to see less punishment of speech.  What is going on in Europe, particularly the UK, is quite troubling.

Pride Month (month) is a 30-day corporatized slog involving endless public reminders and declarations about sexual identities/preferences/behaviors.

If members of the LGBT community want to identify themselves predominantly/primarily by their "sexual identity" (and if some of them want to publicly flaunt its associated behaviors, as exemplified by, for example, highly sexualized grotesqueries at some Pride parades and events) and then go about telling everyone else about that identity, they certainly have that right (though the public sexual exhibitionism, particularly when done in the presence of children, needs to be addressed).  I am not inserting myself into these decisions.  I am a bystander who would prefer to have less of this stuff on public display.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I spent the first half of my life trying to please people like you. I hated being gay. I so wanted to just be "normal" like everyone else.  I did all that I could to keep anyone from finding out that I was gay.  I even got married with the promise that if I did, I would somehow magically become straight.  It was hell going through life trying to pretend to be someone I wasn't.  I was living a lie every day of my life.  

I realized that this was no way to live.  Being deceitful to everyone and especially those closest to me was no way to live.  At some point I no longer cared what people like you thought of me.  When I came out my whole world exploded.  And I didn't care.  It felt like this burden that I had so struggled with, that I had prayed and pleaded to God to lift from me, that I had fasted to overcome, that I had deceived people for all those years had to end.  This horrific way of life that I had carried so long all by myself all the sudden just vanished. My prayers had been answered, it was just not the answer I expected.   And the consequences of that were worth all the sadness and disappointment from people like you no longer mattered.  Coming out was a pivotal point of my life.  I started to breath again.  I started to find friends that loved me, the real me.  Not this fake person I had been hiding behind all those years.  

Those friends embraced me and welcomed me into their lives the way I was.  They took me to my first pride parade, something I had always been afraid to attend before for fear that people like you would find out my darkest secret I had held for so long.  And it was a life changing event.  I no longer was alone.  Thousands of people had lived similar lies all their lives.  There was no longer any shame in being gay.  Everything was going to be alright.  And it has been.  It was like I was reborn.  I could live my life guided by me and God rather than people like you who were still telling me I should be ashamed and liked life better when every gay person was kept in the shadows.  It was a pivotal moment in my life where I no longer cared one bit, not one ounce, of what people like you thought of who I am.  

So sorry to tell you, your attitudes towards the LGBT community really don't matter to me any longer.  I don't care any longer.  You can plead all you want for those that are LGBT to somehow disappear, but we are not going anywhere.  We are going to live our lives finding people who love us honestly.  We are going to find people to marry despite all the efforts your Church made trying to stop us from having those equal rights and  marry the people we love.  And we are going to have sex with them just like you do with your spouse. It is not evil.  I don't feel God's judgement against me.  And the judgement like you and others like you really doesn't matter.  God's judgement is really the only judgement that does matter.

Treat us however you want.  Rant about how you feel about gay people celebrating their lives all you want.  Refuse to honor the titles they wish to be addressed as.   I don't care.  Neither do they.   Just like you probably don't really care if someone calls you a Mormon.  We all have choices of how we respect and address others.  Our lives are made up of the choices we make.  It says more about you than it ever does about them.

[california boy]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am referring to behaviors.  Actions.

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?

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.  

 

Thanks 

-Smac

If President Nelson asked that everyone address him as "our beloved Prophet," "the Lord's Presiding High Priest," etc, then I would respect his wishes.  It is how I show respect for others.  Ironically, he has never asked to be addressed that way.  That is all coming from you, not him.  Kinda like those who are not trans want to control how they want trans people referred to.

If the Church changed its name to the Church as "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which [] the Lord [is] well pleased", then I would call the Church by the name that they wished.  I actually find this a bit hilarious.  You came up with an even longer name than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Didn't think that was possible.  It would probably be shortened to "The Only Church" by both members and the public.

You can choose how you want to refer to anyone the way you want.  It is a choice we all make for ourselves.  It is kinda like calling a black person the N word.  When someone does that, I don't think of any shame that brings to the black community.  I only think of the shame that person has brought upon himself.

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

I spent the first half of my life trying to please people like you. I hated being gay. I so wanted to just be "normal" like everyone else.  I did all that I could to keep anyone from finding out that I was gay.  I even got married with the promise that if I did, I would somehow magically become straight.  It was hell going through life trying to pretend to be someone I wasn't.  I was living a lie every day of my life.  

I realized that this was no way to live.  Being deceitful to everyone and especially those closest to me was no way to live.  At some point I no longer cared what people like you thought of me.  

You are sort of proving my point.  That phrase "you will be made to care" comes to mind.  I think most people would prefer not to have to formulate an opinion as to your sexual "identity," preferences, etc.  For some, however, they seem to think that everyone needs to do that.  And not only formulate an opinion, but formulate one that approves of your sexual behaviors/preferences.  

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

When I came out my whole world exploded.  And I didn't care.  It felt like this burden that I had so struggled with, that I had prayed and pleaded to God to lift from me, that I had fasted to overcome, that I had deceived people for all those years had to end.  This horrific way of life that I had carried so long all by myself all the sudden just vanished. My prayers had been answered, it was just not the answer I expected.   And the consequences of that were worth all the sadness and disappointment from people like you no longer mattered.  

Family members may have religious sentiments regarding the parameters of sexual ethics as to loved ones.  Most people, however, keep these things in the abstract, with no particular interest in weighing in on this or that person's "identity" or behavior.  But if you insist on bringing such things up, and insist on people taking a position on them, then you're going to get a mix of reactions.  Some people will endorse your behaviors and decisions, some will not, and some won't care.  

As a Latter-day Saint, I get that there are people who disagree about my beliefs and the institution which houses them.  Some people actively dislike my beliefs, but must don't care.

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

So sorry to tell you, your attitudes towards the LGBT community really don't matter to me any longer.  

Cool.  Live and let live and all that is a good starting point.  We'll probably diverge in some sociopolitical implications, but that's what voting is all about.

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't care any longer.  You can plead all you want for those that are LGBT to somehow disappear, but we are not going anywhere.  

And you can continue to torture puppies for fun and profit.  (This is the part of the discussion where we fabricate a claim and impute it to the other guy, right?)

I have never "pleaded ... for those that are LGBT to somehow disappear," nor do I have any expectation that LGBT folks are "going anywhere."  You're just making this up.

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

We are going to live our lives finding people who love us honestly.  

Sounds good.  Meanwhile, though, Pride month (month), compelled/coerced speech, etc. continue to be a thing.

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

We are going to find people to marry despite all the efforts your Church made trying to stop us from having those equal rights and  marry the people we love.  

We're years into same-sex marriage being the law of the land.  And Prop 8 was sixteen years ago.

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

And we are going to have sex with them just like you do with your spouse.

Sigh.  

How utterly strange it is that some people see it as both important and appropriate to publicly broadcast their sexual behaviors.

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is not evil.  

As you have chosen to make your sexual behaviors a matter of public concern and discussion, I will respond that I believe that the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity accurately reflect the mind and will of God.

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't feel God's judgement against me.  And the judgement like you and others like you really doesn't matter.  God's judgement is really the only judgement that does matter.

I am reminded of Isaiah 30:9-10, which I have included in my sigline for a while now: "{T}his is a rebellious people ... which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits..."

One of the facets of my convictions regarding the Law of Chastity is that it is unaffected by changes in prevailing social/cultural trends, particularly since the Sexual Revolution.  

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

Treat us however you want.  

Okay.  I'll treat you pretty much as I treat everyone else. 

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

Rant about how you feel about gay people celebrating their lives all you want.  

Again, I find it strange that some folks go about publicly celebrating their sexual behaviors.  

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

Refuse to honor the titles they wish to be addressed as.   I don't care.  Neither do they.  

I am opposed to compelled/coerced speech.

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just like you probably don't really care if someone calls you a Mormon.  

True, I don't care.  And this has never been a matter of compelled/coerced speech.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Jerk."

"Bigot."

Again, discussions such as this often devolve to this, as it's all you've got.  Agree with you or be branded a bigot.  You can't use reasoning and evidence and logic to defend the ideology that puts biological men into women's spaces (bathrooms, sports, prisons), that justifies radical medical interventions on gender-dysphoric minors, that is predicated on the incongruent-with-biological-science-and-reality notion that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, and so on.  

Here’s the thing. The people you brand as “ideologues” devoted to this “ideology” typically have sophisticated, nuanced, reason-based views on these issues, and they typically frame the issues differently than you do. But you are extraordinarily rigid in how you frame the issues; you lump all these issues together, you only look at extreme and often purely hypocritical cases as being representative, and you even refuse to acknowledge the mere existence of their reasoning, evidence, and logic.

Your behavior in this regard is bigoted behavior.

For you it is easier to pretend their nuanced positions don’t exist than to actually engage with them. You are a black-and-white thinker.

As some examples, here are the mainstream “limiting principles” on different issues that are in the middle of your blind spot.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Instead, we are speaking of biological men intruding into women's bathrooms (without, it seems, any limiting principles),

Look, the limiting principles here aren’t some impossible mystery. The issue isn’t about intruding into “women’s spaces”, it is about finding the most appropriate place for human beings to pee. It’s about balancing respect for a transgender individual’s affirmed gender identity with safety, privacy, and practicality for everyone involved. Policies often prioritize letting people use the restroom that matches their lived gender because that’s what ensures dignity and reduces harm, while things like privacy concerns can be addressed with design solutions like private stalls or gender-neutral options. This isn’t rocket science—it’s just about being reasonable and respecting both individual rights and shared spaces.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

sports (same)

The principles for transgender participation in sports aren’t as murky as you make them out to be. Governing bodies use clear, measurable criteria like testosterone levels, the timing of medical transition, and the specific physical demands of each sport to ensure fairness. This isn’t about pretending differences don’t exist—it’s about balancing inclusion with competitive integrity. You can dismiss the process as impossible to resolve, but the reality is that thoughtful policies already exist, and they’re based on data, not ideology.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

and prisons (same),

The principles for incarcerating transgender criminals aren’t some unsolvable puzzle—they’re grounded in safety, dignity, and legal standards. The key factors include the individual’s gender identity, their legal and medical status, the risks they face in a given facility, and whether they pose a threat to others. Prisons already assess risk levels and behavior when determining placements, so adding gender identity to the equation isn’t a radical leap. It’s about protecting vulnerable individuals, ensuring others’ safety, and complying with anti-discrimination laws—not throwing up our hands and pretending it can’t be done.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

of radical, life-altering medical treatments/interventions on gender dysphoric minors,

The limiting principles for providing gender-affirming care to minors aren’t the free-for-all you might think—they’re carefully structured. Mainstream organizations like the AAP emphasize thorough evaluations by experts, informed consent from both minors and parents, and a gradual approach that starts with reversible options like puberty blockers. Permanent steps, like hormone therapy, aren’t even on the table until later adolescence, after significant assessment and maturity. This isn’t some reckless ideology; it’s a cautious, evidence-based process designed to prioritize the well-being and safety of the minor at every stage.

Edited December 21, 2024 by Analytics

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you see that attitude as Christ-like behavior?  Is this how we should treat others that are different than ourselves?

Whether an evangelical who refused to pray with LDS was Christlike in my view depended on their reasoning as well as their behaviour, all of it, not just that one bit.  Christ called out behaviour he saw was wrong with some pretty intense commentary.

If such is done humbly (not necessarily meekly, but not self aggrandizing) and sincerely and there are other ways they show love, I believe it can be even the loving version of Christlike behaviour.

However, there has only been one person who made me feel cared about and loved as he explained why he wouldn’t pray with me.  It made sense and showed he was sincerely concerned with how his behaviour would help me come to Christ.  We had an ongoing relationship that wasn’t changed by either of us once he shared he view.

The others who spoke of not praying with LDS either came across as arrogant or ignorant, the latter meaning they had that position because someone else told them it was the thing to do rather than taking the time to get to know Saints and basing their decision off our actual teachings and behaviour.

Edited December 21, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

It would probably be shortened to "The Only Church" by both members and the public.

It pretty much has been shortened to “the only true church” by many unfortunately in my view, both in support and criticizing.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1985/10/the-only-true-church?lang=eng

[Calm]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

And this has never been a matter of compelled/coerced speech.

Well….you are compelled to use “churchofjesuschrist” if you want to access our website.  
 

Do you see any difference between someone saying “I preferred to be called Brenda now instead of Brandon and she instead of he” and the below in terms of compelled speech and if so, what?

Quote

The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838.

In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or the “Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged. The “restored Church of Jesus Christ” is also accurate and encouraged.

While the term “Mormon Church” has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use. Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation “LDS” or the nickname “Mormon” as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in “Mormon Church,” “LDS Church,” or “Church of the Latter-day Saints.”

When referring to Church members, the terms “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” “Latter-day Saints,” “members of the Church of Jesus Christ” and “members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ” are preferred. We ask that the term “Mormons” and “LDS” not be used.

“Mormon” is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon or when used as an adjective in such historical expressions as “Mormon Trail.”

The term “Mormonism” is inaccurate and should not be used. When describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term “the restored gospel of Jesus Christ” is accurate and preferred.

When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, it should be stated that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not affiliated with polygamous groups.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide

Are people who abide by these instructions approving the claim of revelation these names are introduced with by doing so in your opinion and if not, could you explain why not? (Serious question trying to understand your reasoning)

added:  are you using “compelled speech” in a purely legal sense?

Edited December 22, 2024 by Calm

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You are sort of proving my point.  That phrase "you will be made to care" comes to mind.  I think most people would prefer not to have to formulate an opinion as to your sexual "identity," preferences, etc.  For some, however, they seem to think that everyone needs to do that.  And not only formulate an opinion, but formulate one that approves of your sexual behaviors/preferences.  

Family members may have religious sentiments regarding the parameters of sexual ethics as to loved ones.  Most people, however, keep these things in the abstract, with no particular interest in weighing in on this or that person's "identity" or behavior.  But if you insist on bringing such things up, and insist on people taking a position on them, then you're going to get a mix of reactions.  Some people will endorse your behaviors and decisions, some will not, and some won't care.  

As a Latter-day Saint, I get that there are people who disagree about my beliefs and the institution which houses them.  Some people actively dislike my beliefs, but must don't care.

Cool.  Live and let live and all that is a good starting point.  We'll probably diverge in some sociopolitical implications, but that's what voting is all about.

And you can continue to torture puppies for fun and profit.  (This is the part of the discussion where we fabricate a claim and impute it to the other guy, right?)

I have never "pleaded ... for those that are LGBT to somehow disappear," nor do I have any expectation that LGBT folks are "going anywhere."  You're just making this up.

Sounds good.  Meanwhile, though, Pride month (month), compelled/coerced speech, etc. continue to be a thing.

We're years into same-sex marriage being the law of the land.  And Prop 8 was sixteen years ago.

Sigh.  

How utterly strange it is that some people see it as both important and appropriate to publicly broadcast their sexual behaviors.

As you have chosen to make your sexual behaviors a matter of public concern and discussion, I will respond that I believe that the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity accurately reflect the mind and will of God.

I am reminded of Isaiah 30:9-10, which I have included in my sigline for a while now: "{T}his is a rebellious people ... which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits..."

One of the facets of my convictions regarding the Law of Chastity is that it is unaffected by changes in prevailing social/cultural trends, particularly since the Sexual Revolution.  

Okay.  I'll treat you pretty much as I treat everyone else. 

Again, I find it strange that some folks go about publicly celebrating their sexual behaviors.  

I am opposed to compelled/coerced speech.

True, I don't care.  And this has never been a matter of compelled/coerced speech.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Compelled speech?  When was the last time you were thrown in jail for not attending gay pride, or saluting the gay flag, or insisting in not calling a person by the name they wish to be called, or or or anything.  Your stance is ridiculous.

When was the last time you introduced your wife to someone.or told someone about your children, or put a photo of your family on your desk, or talked about how happily married you were????   Quit shoving your sexual identity down our throats.

You too have chosen to make your sexual behaviors a matter of public concern and discussion.  Should I start opening up endless threads about the decisions you have made to have sexual relationships with your wife?  Will you quit making your identity solely about who you have sex with?

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Jerk."

"Bigot."

Again, discussions such as this often devolve to this, as it's all you've got.  Agree with you or be branded a bigot.  You can't use reasoning and evidence and logic to defend the ideology that puts biological men into women's spaces (bathrooms, sports, prisons), that justifies radical medical interventions on gender-dysphoric minors, that is predicated on the incongruent-with-biological-science-and-reality notion that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, and so on.  So you instead seek to shout down and suppress viewpoints which diverge from that ideology, or even question it in any way.

I am tired of the endless complaints that this is always just name-calling and is never description. It is based on the feeble idea that there are no jerks or bigots or racists or homophobes and someone using a correct descriptor is immediately discredited. I do not believe this is coherent or reasonable or evidence-based or logical.

And your crude caricature isn’t “reasoning and evidence and logic”. It is bearing false witness against your neighbors.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

You presuppose that males have a "right" to enter into women's spaces (bathrooms, sports, prisons).  That is the point in dispute, so I reject it as a presupposition.

That is not the point in dispute. That is your rationale for denying people rights.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

As for the daily dose of "You're a Bigot!", I just saw these:

Yep.

So a random clueless person was wrong about a prostate proves…….what?

The question “what is a woman” has been answered repeatedly. It is just not easy to reduce it to a neat sound byte.

“What are Mormons?”
“Followers of Joseph Smith who…..”
”The polygamist! That is horrible!”
”No, you’re oversimplifying.”
”Why can’t you just tell me what a Mormon is?”

The persecuted resistance thing is adorable. Also cute how it is always done in 50s and 60s style artwork. There seems to be a tragic admission in there that the person views their life as prosaic and dull but they can pretend they are brave warriors fighting the globohomonazis! This is how the Satanic panic worked. One of my older friends almost had his life destroyed by that panic. Now the panic is again that a marginalized and small community is a huge threat to everything. Attacking them is easy. It requires little effort and gives a nice shot of self-righteous victory. Actually challenging the “fight not against flesh and blood” powers that Paul talks about is dangerous. That involves hitting people that can hit back. Better not mess with the powerful. MUST PUNCH DOWN!

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyhoo, a person cannot "become" something he is not merely because he subjectively "identifies" as such.  I don't think we are doing any favors to these folks by joining them in this false perception of reality.

Says someone belonging to a faith that teaches that faith and some rituals will turn him into a god. You really want to go down that road?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  There is nothing "existential" about biological men having access to women's bathrooms and sports, so your claim as to those is overwrought and incorrect. 

And guess how deeply transgender people care about this bathroom issue? Very very little. It is a polemic. They want access to medical care. They want to not get beaten up for existing. Instead it is about the bathrooms and the genitals.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are some potential safety issues to some individuals re: "trans women" (biological men) in men's prison.  I acknowledge that.  But there are also substantial safety concerns as to the actual female inmates in women's prisons when biological males are moved there.  And I think ideologues pushing for this are never going to consent to any sort of limiting principle, which effectively results in any male prisoner being able to transfer to a women's prison by claiming to be trans.

Are you under the impression that transgender people consider prison assignment to be a huge issue? This is another polemic.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because of this, I have attempted to explore the potential limiting principles (or the lack thereof) in relation to housing biological men in women's prisons.  As I have 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).  As usual, you have nothing substantive to say about such matters, and instead resort to snark, emotionalisms and ad hominem.

I leave it to the federal and state prison systems to figure that. I would argue that making prisons more humane would be a better use of their resources as that would likely reduce the danger of violence no matter what they decide.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And more ad hominem.

That is not ad hominem. You don’t know how that fallacy works.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

As both a Latter-day Saint and as a citizen of the United States, I am observing troubling developments re: trans ideology and its advocates, and am sorting out a position on them.  Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't give much thought at all to what "trans"-identifying people do in their private lives, and I still don't.  But we are no longer speaking of purely private behaviors.  Instead, we are speaking of biological men intruding into women's bathrooms (without, it seems, any limiting principles), sports (same), and prisons (same), of radical, life-altering medical treatments/interventions on gender dysphoric minors, and so on.  The idealogues are the ones foisting this stuff onto the general public, and then people like you complain when people start to pay attention to it.  And rather than address these issues on their merits and using substantive reasoning, analysis, evidence, logic, etc., you pretty much always go for the "You're a Bigot!"-style attempts to shout down and suppress viewpoints which differ from yours.

You aren’t observing anything. You are consuming propaganda. You admit you have no idea what they actually want. You just know what people who hate them say about them. That isn’t observation.

What reason, analysis, evidence, and logic? You are just repeating propaganda. Talk to transgender people. They aren’t the monsters you are imagining. If you can’t be bothered to know anything about them then leave them alone! All these issues you claim to be deeply concerned about have had approximately zero impact on your life outside of what you read about them. You aren’t some deeply concerned individual weighing in. You are being fed hate and regurgitating it.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the majority of people, not just members of the Church and "nutty evangelicals," have questions and concerns about biological men in women's bathrooms, sports, and prisons, of radical, life-altering medical treatments/interventions on gender dysphoric minors, and so on.  And rather than address those questions and concerns, you brand anyone who has them, anyone who voices a viewpoint different from yours on these matters, a bigot.

Many people are concerned with those issues. They are minor ones compared to much of what transgender people actually want but they are being discussed and hammered out. You aren’t getting a good picture of the situation because your sources don’t want you to have one. You act as if there is this vast ideology orchestrating this. Some mad demon that must be slain. It doesn’t exist. It is a bunch of people trying to find a place in society and a lot of other people screaming at them to get the hell out and trying to humiliate and marginalize them. When you are on the side of those who want to marginalize the outcast then bigot is an accurate description. I am trying to be nice. Jesus was far less restrained about those who oppress the marginalized and was a lot more cutting with his invective.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think you should say such things, even in angry jest.

I was giggling so not sure angry is the right adjective. Okay, then I will go with “a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell”.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

Compelled speech?  When was the last time you were thrown in jail for not attending gay pride, or saluting the gay flag, or insisting in not calling a person by the name they wish to be called, or or or anything.  Your stance is ridiculous.

When was the last time you introduced your wife to someone.or told someone about your children, or put a photo of your family on your desk, or talked about how happily married you were????   Quit shoving your sexual identity down our throats.

You too have chosen to make your sexual behaviors a matter of public concern and discussion.  Should I start opening up endless threads about the decisions you have made to have sexual relationships with your wife?  Will you quit making your identity solely about who you have sex with?

 

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Pride Month (month) is a 30-day corporatized slog involving endless public reminders and declarations about sexual identities/preferences/behaviors.

If members of the LGBT community want to identify themselves predominantly/primarily by their "sexual identity" (and if some of them want to publicly flaunt its associated behaviors, as exemplified by, for example, highly sexualized grotesqueries at some Pride parades and events) and then go about telling everyone else about that identity, they certainly have that right (though the public sexual exhibitionism, particularly when done in the presence of children, needs to be addressed).  I am not inserting myself into these decisions.  I am a bystander who would prefer to have less of this stuff on public display.  

You aren’t inserting yourself into those decisions when you clearly want some things “addressed” and want to see much less of it.

I am going to say this as clearly as I can:
Pride events are not about you.

We don’t want you there. We don’t ask anything from you for it. No one is compelling or asking you to do anything about it. No one cares about your thoughts on it.

You don’t understand at all what these events are for or what their goals and their motivations are. You also have no curiosity about learning so your opinion is completely uninformed. So why do you feel the need to have one? Why do you share it when no one is asking for it? Why is this so tied up in your IDENTITY that you feel the need to commentate? Why do pride events live rent-free in your head? Why do they irk you so much? Does seeing a rainbow flag in front of a house burn you like a cross burns a vampire? Why do you keep sharing? Is it a feeling of some kind of virtue that you get? Do you like feeling as if you are being persecuted? What is your emotional motive?

[Peacefully]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You aren’t inserting yourself into those decisions when you clearly want some things “addressed” and want to see much less of it.

I am going to say this as clearly as I can:
Pride events are not about you.

We don’t want you there. We don’t ask anything from you for it. No one is compelling or asking you to do anything about it. No one cares about your thoughts on it.

You don’t understand at all what these events are for or what their goals and their motivations are. You also have no curiosity about learning so your opinion is completely uninformed. So why do you feel the need to have one? Why do you share it when no one is asking for it? Why is this so tied up in your IDENTITY that you feel the need to commentate? Why do pride events live rent-free in your head? Why do they irk you so much? Does seeing a rainbow flag in front of a house burn you like a cross burns a vampire? Why do you keep sharing? Is it a feeling of some kind of virtue that you get? Do you like feeling as if you are being persecuted? What is your emotional motive?

Don’t let him get to you. He seems to enjoy arguing for argument’s sake. 

[Raingirl]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

You are sort of proving my point.  That phrase "you will be made to care" comes to mind.  I think most people would prefer not to have to formulate an opinion as to your sexual "identity," preferences, etc.  For some, however, they seem to think that everyone needs to do that.  And not only formulate an opinion, but formulate one that approves of your sexual behaviors/preferences.  

Family members may have religious sentiments regarding the parameters of sexual ethics as to loved ones.  Most people, however, keep these things in the abstract, with no particular interest in weighing in on this or that person's "identity" or behavior.  But if you insist on bringing such things up, and insist on people taking a position on them, then you're going to get a mix of reactions.  Some people will endorse your behaviors and decisions, some will not, and some won't care.  

As a Latter-day Saint, I get that there are people who disagree about my beliefs and the institution which houses them.  Some people actively dislike my beliefs, but must don't care.

Cool.  Live and let live and all that is a good starting point.  We'll probably diverge in some sociopolitical implications, but that's what voting is all about.

And you can continue to torture puppies for fun and profit.  (This is the part of the discussion where we fabricate a claim and impute it to the other guy, right?)

I have never "pleaded ... for those that are LGBT to somehow disappear," nor do I have any expectation that LGBT folks are "going anywhere."  You're just making this up.

Sounds good.  Meanwhile, though, Pride month (month), compelled/coerced speech, etc. continue to be a thing.

We're years into same-sex marriage being the law of the land.  And Prop 8 was sixteen years ago.

Sigh.  

How utterly strange it is that some people see it as both important and appropriate to publicly broadcast their sexual behaviors.

As you have chosen to make your sexual behaviors a matter of public concern and discussion, I will respond that I believe that the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity accurately reflect the mind and will of God.

I am reminded of Isaiah 30:9-10, which I have included in my sigline for a while now: "{T}his is a rebellious people ... which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits..."

One of the facets of my convictions regarding the Law of Chastity is that it is unaffected by changes in prevailing social/cultural trends, particularly since the Sexual Revolution.  

Okay.  I'll treat you pretty much as I treat everyone else. 

Again, I find it strange that some folks go about publicly celebrating their sexual behaviors.  

I am opposed to compelled/coerced speech.

True, I don't care.  And this has never been a matter of compelled/coerced speech.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I will never understand why anyone gets their knickers in a twist over preferred pronouns, or not using someone’s dead name. It’s not about “compelled speech”.  It’s about kindness. 
 

My first name is a name that can be shortened. Most people do it automatically. I do not like the shortened version. When appropriate, I inform people of such, and request they use the full version of my name.  Refusing to honor my request would be extremely rude.

Someone asking for their preferred pronouns to be used, or that their dead name not be used isn’t any different. 
 

[Raingirl]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Edited December 21, 2024 by Raingirl
Duplicate

[Raingirl]

Duplicate 

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, Raingirl said:

I will never understand why anyone gets their knickers in a twist over preferred pronouns, or not using someone’s dead name. It’s not about “compelled speech”.  It’s about kindness. 
 

My first name is a name that can be shortened. Most people do it automatically. I do not like the shortened version. When appropriate, I inform people of such, and request they use the full version of my name.  Refusing to honor my request would be extremely rude.

Someone asking for their preferred pronouns to be used, or that their dead name not be used isn’t any different. 
 

The university that I teach at supports preferred pronouns, as do popular sites like LinkedIn.  IMO it is just common courtesy to address an individual by the name and pronouns of their choosing. 

[Analytics]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You aren’t inserting yourself into those decisions when you clearly want some things “addressed” and want to see much less of it.

I am going to say this as clearly as I can:
Pride events are not about you.

We don’t want you there. We don’t ask anything from you for it. No one is compelling or asking you to do anything about it. No one cares about your thoughts on it.

You don’t understand at all what these events are for or what their goals and their motivations are. You also have no curiosity about learning so your opinion is completely uninformed. So why do you feel the need to have one? Why do you share it when no one is asking for it? Why is this so tied up in your IDENTITY that you feel the need to commentate? Why do pride events live rent-free in your head? Why do they irk you so much? Does seeing a rainbow flag in front of a house burn you like a cross burns a vampire? Why do you keep sharing? Is it a feeling of some kind of virtue that you get? Do you like feeling as if you are being persecuted? What is your emotional motive?

I’ll answer for @smac97.

Smac97’s intense focus on issues like gay pride parades and transwomen in sports likely stems from his media consumption habits. Propaganda-driven outlets like AM radio and Fox News excel at manufacturing outrage over social topics that don’t directly impact most people. These issues are framed as existential threats to traditional values, creating a feedback loop: the more Smac97 consumes this content, the more he internalizes these narratives as urgent problems.

Over time, this kind of media consumption shifts priorities. Smac97 might feel like he’s defending morality or fairness, but his concern is largely a reflection of the issues chosen by these outlets to generate emotional engagement. This process turns individuals into unwitting amplifiers of a specific agenda—spreading the narratives they’ve absorbed without questioning why these topics were elevated in the first place. It’s less about genuine personal stake and more about being swept up in a carefully crafted cultural war.

He is a tool.

[Peacefully]

22 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I’ll answer for @smac97.

Smac97’s intense focus on issues like gay pride parades and transwomen in sports likely stems from his media consumption habits. Propaganda-driven outlets like AM radio and Fox News excel at manufacturing outrage over social topics that don’t directly impact most people. These issues are framed as existential threats to traditional values, creating a feedback loop: the more Smac97 consumes this content, the more he internalizes these narratives as urgent problems.

Over time, this kind of media consumption shifts priorities. Smac97 might feel like he’s defending morality or fairness, but his concern is largely a reflection of the issues chosen by these outlets to generate emotional engagement. This process turns individuals into unwitting amplifiers of a specific agenda—spreading the narratives they’ve absorbed without questioning why these topics were elevated in the first place. It’s less about genuine personal stake and more about being swept up in a carefully crafted cultural war.

He is a tool.

To be fair, I believe Smac has always maintained that he doesn’t watch Fox News. 

[Raingirl]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The university that I teach at supports preferred pronouns, as do popular sites like LinkedIn.  IMO it is just common courtesy to address an individual by the name and pronouns of their choosing. 

It’s the same at the university where I work.  A lot of employees add their pronouns to their signature line on their email.  I just can’t imagine anyone having a hissy fit, and refusing to use the requested pronoun.  I cannot see any legitimate reason for doing so. 

[smac97]

On 12/21/2024 at 9:00 AM, smac97 said:

There are some potential safety issues to some individuals re: "trans women" (biological men) in men's prison.  I acknowledge that.  But there are also substantial safety concerns as to the actual female inmates in women's prisons when biological males are moved there.  And I think ideologues pushing for this are never going to consent to any sort of limiting principle, which effectively results in any male prisoner being able to transfer to a women's prison by claiming to be trans. 

Because of this, I have attempted to explore the potential limiting principles (or the lack thereof) in relation to housing biological men in women's prisons.  As I have 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).  As usual, you have nothing substantive to say about such matters, and instead resort to snark, emotionalisms and ad hominem.

Further to my efforts to explore "limiting principles" (or the lack thereof): Trans swimmer, 50, competes against and shares locker room with teenage girls: Report

Quote

The families of young female swimmers are outraged after a 50-year-old transgender swimmer competed against their teenage daughters and shared a locker room with children.

From Dec. 1 to Dec. 3, Canadian swimmer Melody Wiseheart, a biological male who identifies as female, competed in the 2023 Trojan Cup in Barrie, Ontario, according to a report.

Among other events, Wiseheart swam in the women’s 1500 freestyle for athletes ages 16 years and older, placing second, at the East Bayfield Community Centre.

So "biological male 'identifying' as a woman" concept has now been supplemented by this biological male "identifying" as a female of a particular age.

There seem to be no limiting principles to this "identity" thing.

Quote

Wiseheart also shared a changing facility with fellow competitors of the meet, whose ages ranged from 8 years old and under to 16 years old and above, according to the report.

Not only is this 50-year old male identifying as a teenage girl, and not only is he competing against them in sports, he is sharing a changing room with them.

No limiting principles.  Anything goes.

Quote

“It’s all so confusing for the kids,” one parent said. “No one is comfortable. Everybody is accepting of all people, but them swimming against our kids and being in the locker room with them is not appropriate.”

Canada’s governing swimming body, Swimming Canada, said access to changing rooms “is determined by facility/municipality policies in accordance with applicable law.”

“We must comply with both provincial law and municipal policy aligning with the human rights policies on preventing discrimination,” a statement from the body said. “Swim meets are normally conducted in facilities open to the public, and minors routinely share change room space with adults.”

Wiseheart’s December foray into competing against minors is not the first time swimming officials in Canada were pressed about older athletes competing against younger ones, according to the report.

Swimming Ontario “investigated a concern related to an adult competing against swimmers aged 12-14,” the provincial body said in a statement.

The venue of the competition “acted appropriately in hosting the competition according to Swimming Canada and Swim Ontario policies and procedures, including the Swimming Canada National Registration Procedures and Rules Manual and The Swimming Rules of Swimming Canada.”

Wiseheart reportedly competed in that meet.

This all legal, it seems.  And it happened about a year ago.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nemesis]

How about you all discuss the topics and not other posters. 
 

nemesis

[Analytics]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Further to my efforts to explore "limiting principles" (or the lack thereof): Trans swimmer, 50, competes against and shares locker room with teenage girls: Report

So "biological male 'identifying' as a woman" concept has now been supplemented by this biological male "identifying" as a female of a particular age.

There seem to be no limiting principles to this "identity" thing.

Not only is this 50-year old male identifying as a teenage girl, and not only is he competing against them in sports, he is sharing a changing room with them.

No limiting principles.  Anything goes.

According to your source, she swam in a competition for ages 16 and up. 50 is in that category. What age are you alleging she “identifies” as?

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Further to my efforts to explore "limiting principles" (or the lack thereof): Trans swimmer, 50, competes against and shares locker room with teenage girls: Report

So "biological male 'identifying' as a woman" concept has now been supplemented by this biological male "identifying" as a female of a particular age.

There seem to be no limiting principles to this "identity" thing.

Not only is this 50-year old male identifying as a teenage girl, and not only is he competing against them in sports, he is sharing a changing room with them.

No limiting principles.  Anything goes.

This all legal, it seems.  And it happened about a year ago.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

false

"Not only is this 50-year old male identifying as a teenage girl"

no, not anymore than you identify as a teen boy when you change in a change room as an adult male

I have never heard of this case and the swim meet and it was an "“open competition”

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-transgender-female-swimmer-50-changes-with-young-girls-at-barrie-event

also

"happened a year ago"

"According to reports, parents in the changeroom fashioned some sort of towel structure to give privacy for everybody changing. Privacy for Wiseheart and the uncomfortable parents and youths."

https://citizen.on.ca/a-question-asked-a-question-overlooked/

besides of which a complaint was filed in the integrity office and the police 

besides of which I have a problem with Americans sticking their nose where it doesn't count for anything, like an obscure Canadian swim meet from a year ago

Edited December 22, 2024 by Duncan

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Further to my efforts to explore "limiting principles" (or the lack thereof): Trans swimmer, 50, competes against and shares locker room with teenage girls: Report

So "biological male 'identifying' as a woman" concept has now been supplemented by this biological male "identifying" as a female of a particular age.

There seem to be no limiting principles to this "identity" thing.

Not only is this 50-year old male identifying as a teenage girl...

So your efforts to explore limiting principles consists of ignoring posts made in good faith that talk about limiting principles, searching the world for an anecdote that supports your fear mongering, finding a story that took place in another country over a year ago, misrepresenting that story, and then using this misrepresentation to support your need to believe there are no "limiting principles."

If you wanted to make a good-faith effort to understand these limiting principles, you'd note the following:

RHAC acted appropriately in hosting the competition according to Swimming Canada and Swim Ontario policies and procedures, including the Swimming Canada National Registration Procedures and Rules Manual and The Swimming Rules of Swimming Canada” that ensure “all athletes were registered correctly and eligible to participate accordingly” in an “open competition” with athletes seeded by entry time, regardless of age” with “instances of adults swimming in the same heat as minor swimmers, again within the swimming rules permitted in this competition.”

So if you really have a problem with Swim Canada and Swim Ontario's policies and procedures, you'd do a little bit of research to find out what they are.

This would lead you to Swim Ontario's statement on inclusion and gender diversity in swimming, which is based on the IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variation.

From there, you'd find out that:

Quote

 

The aim of this Framework is to offer sporting bodies--particularly those in charge of organizing elite-level completion--a principled approach to develp their criteria that are applicable to their sport. Sports bodies will also need to consider particular ethical, social, cultural and legal aspects that may be relevant in their context.

This Framework was developed following an extensive consultation with athletes and stakeholders concerned. This included members of the athlete community, International Federations and other sports organizations, as well as human rights, legal and medical experts...

This Framework recognizes both the need to ensure that everyone, irrespective of their gender identity or sex variations, can practice sport in a safe, harassment-free enviornment that recognizes and respects their needs and identities, and the interest of everyone--particularly athletes at elite level--to participate in fair competitions where no participant has an unfair and disproportionate advantage over the rest.  

 

https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Beyond-the-Games/Human-Rights/IOC-Framework-Fairness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf

This document is full of limiting principles. Since you claim to be interested in such things, will you acknowledge that the principles in this framework exist?

And if you have a problem with the culture and rules of Swim Canada, you are free to nominate yourself to join their board so that you can advocate for the changes you think would be most appropriate. 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Further to my efforts to explore "limiting principles" (or the lack thereof): Trans swimmer, 50, competes against and shares locker room with teenage girls: Report

So "biological male 'identifying' as a woman" concept has now been supplemented by this biological male "identifying" as a female of a particular age.

There seem to be no limiting principles to this "identity" thing.

Not only is this 50-year old male identifying as a teenage girl, and not only is he competing against them in sports, he is sharing a changing room with them.

No limiting principles.  Anything goes.

This all legal, it seems.  And it happened about a year ago.

Thanks,

-Smac

This article seemed a bit off. Unlike Smac, I felt like there must be more to the story because it didn't really make any sense.  Would parents really send their underaged daughters into a dressing room with a 51 year old trans woman?  Would those parents even let their underaged daughters swim in an event with any grown 51 year old adult?  So I did a little digging.  Turns out, Melody Wiseheart is transgender.  She holds a PhD from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a Psychology and a BS degree from Vanderbilt University in Psychology.  She is a professor at York University in Canada  In fact she heads the Cognitive Flexibility Lab at York University. 

She is also an avid swimmer. You can see her performance records here.  Click on the All Seasons button and you can see that she has swam in literally hundreds of events starting since 2018.  So why has this one meet been sweeping right ring media stirring up outrage and viral repeating of this one event like Smac has posted here?  Why would someone who is obviously very successful in her field willing to risk her career by insisting on 1) competing with underaged girls claiming that she identifies as an underaged girl.  2) Why would she insist in changing in locker rooms with underaged girls.  The answer is simple.  It never really happened.  At least how the story was told in the right wing media.  

As it turns out, this meet was a private swimming club and the event referred to was a swimming event where any sex or age could compete in the same event. (hence the video coverage of the event).  That event had nothing to do with whether the person was trans and any sex could compete.  There is no evidence that she was changing in the locker room with underaged girls.  You might want to read this article on how this report went from one paper to the next, each  time with more outrageous and salacious language used to invitee pitch fork type outrage for simple minded people who thrive on this stuff.  

From the article

Quote

In the same video, they also claim that the meets were “segregated by sex and age”, but are later contradicted by one of their interviewees. The same interviewee explains that the meet is open-age and anyone can compete.

Here is another article that explains what was really going on.

I am not some activist campaigning for Trans rights.  Honestly, I don't have any skin in that game.  But what I do have skin in, is people distorting facts to the point where they become outright lies to slander and hurt others for their own ideological advancement. I can't even imagine how this professor's life has been catastrophically ruined by this kind of nonsense. I know full well what it is like when the agenda driven media wants to gin up outrage among its avid followers against a minority population, those that don't question the accuracy of their lies and are quick to repost and pass on the outrage against the causes that bring them the click bait they want.

This is really a tragic story of a ruined life for the sake of stirring up outrage agains trans people.

Edited December 22, 2024 by california boy