Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

it is with the sexual binary.  Yes, we have more in common than not, but the differences still matter quite a bit

I agree.  If this is true ands  brain biologically functions as more male in a body that is primarily female, wouldn’t it be logical that the person’s identity might skew male because the brain controls what one perceives as well as interpretation of those perceptions?  If differences matter for a female slanted brain in a female slanted body, why wouldn’t the differences matter for a male slanted brain in a female slanted body and the reverse. (I use slanted here because male and female start the same in structure and then hormones, etc cause changes.

We know there are exceptions to the body being definitely biologically male or female.  It is logical the same thing happens in the brain.  Until we have better mapped brain differences between individuals including gender, different sexual identities, until we know how sex hormones affect the brain in development and later in life, I don’t believe we can exclude the possibility that a brain doesn’t match the body it is in just as different known biological processes can create male organs in a female body or both male and female or neither, etc.

Edited November 20, 2024 by Calm

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I vote for floor to ceiling.  My first encounter with those were on Kremlin Square and I loved it.  So much less anxiety issues for so many reasons.

Buc-ees comes close. Each stall has walls so you feel like you are in your own little world. Only the door isn’t floor to ceiling, probably for ventilation. 

Edited November 20, 2024 by Peacefully

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you think society at large should do so?  Should we acknowledge, accept, ratify, etc. his "identity" as a dog?

Depends on the context and safety issues and what it does for him.  If it is a way for him to relieve anxiety for now, I don’t see the issue in helping him feel safe.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

Buc-ees comes close. Each stall has walls so you feel like you are in your own little world. Only the door isn’t floor to ceiling, probably for ventilation. 

I like heavy duty sound insulation.  😛 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Do you think society at large should do so?  Should we acknowledge, accept, ratify, etc. his "identity" as a dog?

Depends on the context and safety issues and what it does for him.  

Okay.  In what context(s) should we as a society ratify this kid's "identity" as a dog?

I am not speaking of what family members, close friends, therapists, etc. may do and say when interacting with him in private/controlled settings.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it is a way for him to relieve anxiety for now, I don’t see the issue in helping him feel safe.

So we excuse him from going to school?  Dogs don't go to school.

And his family can feed him dog food, tie him up outside, have him go without clothing, take him out for walks on a leash, let him urinate/defecate in public, etc. without any legal repercussions?

If he gets sick, would his family take him to a doctor, or to a vet?

Does he still have human rights as a dog? 

If a neighbor accidentally hits the kid while backing out of the garage, will any potential criminal charges contemplate the kid being a dog?  Or a human?

Can his parents put him up for sale on Craigslist?

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church's concerns about interracial marriages were rooted in racialist sentiments which, in 1954, were widely accepted.  

I think the Church's 2024 policies about trans people are not rooted in animus or hatred against trans people.  

I think most people find sex-based distinctions between men and women to be relevant, whereas most people do not find race-based distinctions to be relevant.

I agree that the church's concerns about interracial marriages were rooted in "common sense" beliefs of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Reading Elder Petersen's talk (and other writings), church leaders and members would say that their beliefs were rooted in scripture and revelation. Elder Petersen indicates that "we are generous" with other races, so they don't seem to believe that their views on race were rooted in animus or hatred. For whatever reason, people 100 years ago found all kinds of relevance to race based distinctions, and we as a church believed that many of those distinctions were "true" because of revelation. This is, of course, the real problem. Prophets and apostles -- good, sincere, well-intentioned men -- believed what they did because it was "common knowledge" in their time and place and failed to recognize that this common knowledge was not rooted in actual revelation or truth or goodness.

As for sex-based distinctions, I'm not sure who most people are, but I have encountered many areas where what was thought to be relevant sex-based distinctions have been questioned as relevant. In sexology, there are all kinds of sex-based stereotypes that, when you dig down into it, are not all that relevant. Feminists would argue against many of the ways we used to find sex-based distinctions relevant to the workplace. I think there is an argument to be made that much of the change in the way that we view men and women comes down to changes in the relevance we believe exists to sex-based distinctions. Our forebears were fairly certain that God had revealed to them the relevance of race based distinctions and they were wrong about those alleged revelations. How do we know that we have a correct understanding of the relevance of sex-based distinctions?

It's all about discernment and epistemology. How do we determine what is right and good and true? How do we determine what is false and sin and illness?

[MrShorty]

RE: therians (someone who identifies as a dog, for example). My internet search found this blog entry from a counseling group in Chicago which says,

Quote

Is this healthy?
Generally speaking, yes! Nonhuman identity, like other facets of identity, tends to go through a developmental period (usually in adolescence) and stay stable throughout the lifespan. Some research suggests a possible overlap with other forms of neurodiversity, but the identity itself is not inherently pathological. Most clinical and sociological research on therian and otherkin communities agrees: this is best approached as diversity, not deficit. Someone can have a rich, well-adjusted life while still identifying as a bear or kobold.

An otherkin friendly website delved a little deeper into the pathology (or lack thereof) and used the DSM-V's criteria for declaring something a mental disorder and concluded that otherkin do not experience mental disorders any more than any other subgroup.

As I've said before, so much of this comes down to how we determine what is and is not mental illness or pathology or disease or whatever you want to call it. In the mid-20th century, we "de-pathologized" race (in fits and starts). In the '70s, we started to de-pathologize homosexuality. In the '80s/90s, we started to de-pathologize transgender. In the 21st century, we might even be approaching a place where we can de-pathologize therianthropy.

It's all rooted in how we determine what is and is not pathological -- another discernment question that will benefit from considering how we incorrectly labeled some things pathological in the past.

https://intraspectrum-chicago.com/therians-in-therapy-otherkin-identity-mental-health/

http://otherkin.com/otherkin-faq/

Edited November 21, 2024 by MrShorty

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

am not speaking of what family members, close friends, therapists, etc. may do and say when interacting with him in private/controlled settings.

Then what are you talking about?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So we excuse him from going to school?  Dogs don't go to school.

And his family can feed him dog food, tie him up outside, have him go without clothing, take him out for walks on a leash, let him urinate/defecate in public, etc. without any legal repercussions?

Do you know if that is how he wants to behave?  I don’t see a need to discuss a hypothetical in this case.

Edited November 21, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

This only opens more questions for me.  Can a person be a dog trapped in a human body?  A space alien trapped in a human body?

I understand that a man, a biological male, may feel like he is a woman, a biological female.  But he is not.  In my view, the only way to justify the contrary statement is to re-define "woman" so as to exclude its rooted biological meaning of "adult biological female."  

I have great compassion and sympathy for people struggling with mental disorders and make them view reality in ways that are incorrect.  

And yet virtually every single cell in his body continues to carry the Y chromosome.  What you are describing here seems to be only cosmetic alterations.  

Here is an article about a woman named Eva Tiamat Medusa: ‘Trans-species’ woman who identifies as a reptile has spent more than £42,000 turning herself into a dragon

 

• "Eva Tiamat Medusa, a transgender woman from Bruni, Texas ... identifies as a dragon, and has spent more than £42,000 transforming herself into a reptile."
• "Eva’s journey to becoming a dragon started when, while living as a man, Eva was diagnosed with HIV. She became determined ‘not to die a human’."
• "‘I have eight horns on my forehead; I have had my ears removed; my nose reshaped; most of my teeth removed; I’ve had the white-part of my eyes stained; my tongue bifurcated; my whole face is tattooed and I’ve had some scarification and branding on my chest and wrist.’"
• "She identifies as ‘trans-species’, no longer identifying as a human but as a reptilian."

So is this person, having undergone extensive alterations to his physical appearance, actually a "dragon" now?  

When this person states that he does not want to "die a human," will he die as something other than human?

Has this person, by having had horns added to his forehead, his ears removed, his nose reshaped, his teeth removed, the whites of his eyes stained, his tongue bifurcated, his face tattooed, his body scarred and branded, actually stopped being "a human," and has instead actually turned into "a reptilian"?

These are sincere questions, because for me, the answer to the foregoing questions is more or less this: "No, this person is not actually a dragon.  Yes, he will die a human.  No, he has not turned into a reptile or dragon or anything else other than a human being.  Cosmetic alterations, even extensive ones, do not change him from a human being into some other species.  Moreover, just as these cosmetic changes did not make him a dragon/reptilian, the other alterations he has gone through did not make him a woman, either.  However much he may subjectively feel like he is a woman and a dragon/reptile, he is neither of these things."

If my perspective on these things is factually incorrect, I would like to know that.  As it is, however, most of the time my inquiries are met with accusations of bigotry, "transphobia," and other conclusory accusations which I think are intended to suppress honest and candid discussion rather than advance it.  If advocates of "trans" ideology were able to defend it on its merits, I think they would do so.  Instead, this protracted experience (of having sincere and facially valid and reasonable inquiries/observations shouted down with insults and accusations) has persuaded me against most of of the essential tenets of the ideology. 

Until fairly recently, I haven't really cared about these sorts of things.  Not much, anyway.

But more recently, society has started to change in ways that are now affecting me. 

Some countries are making it a criminal offense to say the things I have said above.  This affects my right to speak, and that matters.

Many places have started encouraging minors to undergo radical, life-altering, irreversible medical procedures that will render them sterile.  Many thousands have received such treatments.  I think this matters.

Biological males are now participating in women's sports, entering women's spaces, being housed in women's prisons, etc.  I think this matters.

I think the advocates of trans ideology have gone out of their way to "make such a big deal about it," to which society is now responding.  We didn't make this a big deal, they did.

Respectfully, I do not believe it is "prejudice" to disagree with some (many?) aspects of trans ideology.  This is particularly so where the ideology is asking (demanding?) society to deny reality and biological science, to endorse highly questionable medical procedures on minors and people with substantial mental health comorbidities, to punish speech, to compel speech, etc.

I suppose we, as a society, do.

Respectfully, I disagree.  If a biological male can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, then what is the limiting principle?  Why can't a human "identify" as a dog?  Why can't Eva Tiamat Medusa "identify" as a dragon?

Okay.  I am trying to understand the reasoning underlying the proposition that a man, a biological male, can "identify" as a woman, a biological female.  I think this is a denial of reality and basic biological science.  It seems that the only way trans advocates can justify their position is to re-define "woman," or to refuse to define it at all.

No particular point.  I was providing context.

Could you elaborate here?  Are you saying it is "a bit crazy" for a teenage human being to "identify" as a dog?  Are you conceding that this kid is not a dog, despite his declaration that he "identifies" as one?

Could you explain the differences?  For myself, I do not see a material difference between A) a teenage human "identifying" as a dog by putting on dog ears and a collar, and B) an adult human male "identifying" as a woman putting on clothes typically worn by women, putting on makeup, etc.

Similarly, Eva Tiamat Medusa has not ceased to be a human, and has not become a reptile/dragon, by having undergone extensive cosmetic alterations to his physical appearance.

I do not understand.  Why is it necessary to acknowledge the "identity" of biological women as biological men when I was in the upstairs room of Encircle House, but then offensive to inquire whether I should likewise acknowledge the dog "identity" claimed by the teenager on the main floor? 

What is it about the claimed "identity" of the people upstairs that is materially distinguishable from the "identity" of the person downstairs?

Again, I went to Encircle House to listen.  That's all.  I am reporting my firsthand experience.  I am not seeking to offend or provoke, but to understand.

Okay.  And even if and when these women "transition" in more obvious ways (clothing, hormones, surgery, etc.), I am largely indifferent to their choices.  I may disagree with them in the abstract, but they are adults and can do as they like.  Based on the materials I have reviewed, I suspect many of them have substantial comorbidities, which I hope they address prior to taking any substantial and irreversible steps toward "transitioning."

I start to become concerned, though, when I come under threat of punishment by secular law if I do not use compelled speech in relation to these folks.  We are seeing that in increasing measures in Europe.  Fortunately, I live in the United States, and so face little threat of this.  I would hope that Europe would be equally averse to compelled speech, but oh well.

I also start to become concerned when minors are being encouraged to undergo "trans" procedures.  I have serious concerns about that.

I also have a few other concerns (generally, I don't think biological males should be playing in women's sports, going into women-only spaces, being housed in prisons for women, etc.).  

Right.  My point is that it seems like "trans" people are increasingly wanting other people to acknowledge / accept / ratify their "identity."  So a biological male who "identifies" as a woman wants society to accept and treat him as a woman.

I am not trying to offend.  Truly.  I think you are perhaps starting to perceive my position.

My sense is that, in your view, a human being, Homo sapiens, "identifying" as a dog, Canis lupus familiaris, is biologically incoherent and incorrect, and not congruent with reality.  This is because a human being cannot become a dog simply because he "identifies" as one.  If this is your position, I agree with it.

Similarly, a man, a biological male, "identifying" as a woman, a biological female, is also biologically incoherent and incorrect, and not congruent with reality.  This is because a male cannot become a female simply because he "identifies" as one.

I acknowledge that you are not going to respond to this.  I hope, however, that you can appreciate that I am not attempting to provoke or offend or insult.  Rather, I see most "trans" ideology in the same way you appear to see the ideology that facilitates a teenage boy "identifying" as a dog, or Eva Tiamat Medusa "identifying" as a dragon.

Is Eva Tiamat Medusa "in spirit" a reptile?  I suppose he can claim that, and that's fine.  But is the rest of society obligated to go along with that?  To ratify and endorse and accept it as empirically true and congruent with reality?

A person suffering from Body Dysmorphic Disorder, a mental illness, may have feelings that she is fat, which in reality she is not fat (or is even underweight).  This perception is not congruent with reality and biological fact.

A person (in this example, a biological male) suffering from Gender Dysphoria, also a mental illness, may have feelings that he is a woman.  This perception is not congruent with reality and biological fact.

In both instances, a person is experiencing an incorrect perception of reality due to a mental disorder.  We need to treat these people with every measure of compassion, respect and dignity as possible.  That said, my questions/observations pertain to how there is, it seems, an expectation in society that we should treat and attempt to overcome misperceptions of reality arising from some mental disorders and associated behaviors (such as Body Dysmorphic Disorder and bulimia), while at the same time we should also endorse and celebrate and facilitate other misperceptions of reality arising from other mental disorders (such as Gender Dysphoria).

I have elsewhere documented instances of people wanting these things (I can provide links if you like).

A man asks a doctor to sever his spinal cord because he (the patient) "identifies" as "transabled."

A man asks a doctor to sever his penis and testicles because he (the patient) "identifies" as a "trans woman."

These two situations are, I think, treated very differently in society.

I appreciate your civility.

Thank you,

-Smac

I see that you are just doing the same thing like you did in your other post. Comparing transgenders with all kinds of other things. And calling them mental. I'm not gonna react on all of this. To much effort. 🤷‍♀️

[Dario_M]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you know if that is how he wants to behave?  I don’t see a need to discuss a hypothetical in this case.

⬆️

[smac97]

14 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I agree that the church's concerns about interracial marriages were rooted in "common sense" beliefs of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

For the record, I did not characterize racialist sentiments as "common sense."

14 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Reading Elder Petersen's talk (and other writings), church leaders and members would say that their beliefs were rooted in scripture and revelation. Elder Petersen indicates that "we are generous" with other races, so they don't seem to believe that their views on race were rooted in animus or hatred. For whatever reason, people 100 years ago found all kinds of relevance to race based distinctions, and we as a church believed that many of those distinctions were "true" because of revelation. This is, of course, the real problem. Prophets and apostles -- good, sincere, well-intentioned men -- believed what they did because it was "common knowledge" in their time and place and failed to recognize that this common knowledge was not rooted in actual revelation or truth or goodness.

I pretty much agree with your comments here.

14 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As for sex-based distinctions, I'm not sure who most people are, but I have encountered many areas where what was thought to be relevant sex-based distinctions have been questioned as relevant. In sexology, there are all kinds of sex-based stereotypes that, when you dig down into it, are not all that relevant.

I think the instances of sex differences being relevant in society generally involve sex-specific/sex-segregated activities and spaces.  Women's sports.  Women's bathrooms.  Women's prisons.

14 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Feminists would argue against many of the ways we used to find sex-based distinctions relevant to the workplace. I think there is an argument to be made that much of the change in the way that we view men and women comes down to changes in the relevance we believe exists to sex-based distinctions. Our forebears were fairly certain that God had revealed to them the relevance of race based distinctions and they were wrong about those alleged revelations. How do we know that we have a correct understanding of the relevance of sex-based distinctions?

I think we talk about these things, evaluate them, weigh the evidence, reach conclusions, and vote accordingly.

For example, I think most people do not like the idea of biological men playing in women's sports.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the instances of sex differences being relevant in society generally involve sex-specific/sex-segregated activities and spaces.  Women's sports.  Women's bathrooms.  Women's prisons.

Then why do our new policies restrict transgender members' participation on gender integrated spaces like Sunday School and Primary?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think most people do not like the idea of biological men playing in women's sports.

I think you are right. I expect that we could characterize much of the racial segregation of the 19th and early 20th centuried as "[White] people did not like the idea of sharing buses or schools or other public spaces with Black people." I think we could characterize our anti-discrimination laws and sentiments as saying that "not liking the idea of sharing" a space with another person is insufficient justification for discriminating based on race, gender, religion, etc. We usually want something more substantial than "not liking" in order to justify segregation. You mention sports. I think we segregate sports along gender lines because we are mostly all in agreement that cis-men have an unfair advantage over cis-women in many different athletic fields. The controversy in sports today is trying to determine if trans-women and AFAB intersex women have an unfair advantage over cis-women in some sports. I don't begrudge the governing bodies of the various sports who need to grapple with these questions, but I am confident it will come down to something more substantive than "we don't like competing against trans and intersex women" (assuming they determine that such segregation is necessary for fairness).

But the church's interest in gender segregation has little to do with athletics (or incarceration). The issue with public restrooms seems to get a good deal of the emphasis (maybe because it is relatively easy to generate controversy on either side of that issue), often overshadowing the other issues with the policies -- like forbidding trans people from attending their gendered class of choice on Sunday, or forbidding trans-people from teaching in any capacity. Which is why I found Valerie's anecdote so compelling. For a few years, she's been attending Relief Society and her sisters welcomed her warmly, but now she can no longer attend RS because of a top down edict with no further explanation.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

I think the instances of sex differences being relevant in society generally involve sex-specific/sex-segregated activities and spaces.  Women's sports.  Women's bathrooms.  Women's prisons.

Then why do our new policies restrict transgender members' participation on gender integrated spaces like Sunday School and Primary?

I was speaking of "sex differences being relevant in society generally."  I think the Church (that is, the Brethren) may have additional and more particularized grounds for enacting these new policies.

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

I think most people do not like the idea of biological men playing in women's sports.

I think you are right.

I suspect, though, that you think this position is legitimate or appropriate.  I do.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

You mention sports. I think we segregate sports along gender lines because we are mostly all in agreement that cis-men have an unfair advantage over cis-women in many different athletic fields.

Broadly, yes.  

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

The controversy in sports today is trying to determine if trans-women and AFAB intersex women have an unfair advantage over cis-women in some sports. I don't begrudge the governing bodies of the various sports who need to grapple with these questions, but I am confident it will come down to something more substantive than "we don't like competing against trans and intersex women" (assuming they determine that such segregation is necessary for fairness).

Sure.  Fairness is a concern, but so is safety, and so is maintaining women's spaces for their sake.

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

But the church's interest in gender segregation has little to do with athletics (or incarceration).

Probably so.

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

The issue with public restrooms seems to get a good deal of the emphasis (maybe because it is relatively easy to generate controversy on either side of that issue), often overshadowing the other issues with the policies -- like forbidding trans people from attending their gendered class of choice on Sunday, or forbidding trans-people from teaching in any capacity.

These seem to be more about doctrine.

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

Which is why I found Valerie's anecdote so compelling. For a few years, she's been attending Relief Society and her sisters welcomed her warmly, but now she can no longer attend RS because of a top down edict with no further explanation.

I can appreciate this.  

There is an old legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law."  Essentially, "{t}he phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases."  A legal scholar,  Glanville Williams questioned this adage's usage in 1957, writing, "It used to be said that 'hard cases make bad law'—a proposition that our less pedantic age regards as doubtful. What is certain is that cases in which the moral indignation of the judge is aroused frequently make bad law."

I think the Brethren are looking at this policy issue in a "general law" kind of way, while participants such as yourself are looking at this issue in a "I personally know someone who has been adversely affected by this policy, therefore the policy is bad" kind of way.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 11/20/2024 at 10:08 AM, smac97 said:

Quote

Quote

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

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

I suppose we, as a society, do.

Quote

Quote

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

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

Respectfully, I disagree.  If a biological male can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, then what is the limiting principle?  Why can't a human "identify" as a dog? 

Further to the point I made previously about "limiting principles," I just came across a series of articles about an upcoming legal decision in the UK which apparently will involve an adjudication of what "woman" means.

UK Supreme Court to decide "what is a woman?"

Some excerpts:

Quote

This post is a part of a series that I am doing on the legal aspects and implications of the appeal in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers that will be heard by the UK Supreme Court at the end of November 2024.

The central question to be decided in this case is whether guidance issued by the Scottish Government about the meaning of the word “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) is lawful. That guidance states that a person with a full Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) which confers upon them the acquired gender of female is a woman for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. For Women Scotland have challenged the accuracy and therefore lawfulness of this guidance, claiming that the definition of woman in the Equality Act is tied to natal biological sex.

I suspect we'll get to similar appellate decisions here in the U.S.

The remainder of the article goes into a lot of detail about the legalities.  The author is a UK-based law professor, so he seems well-suited to providing a meaningful analysis.

Another article on this topic (which, unlike the above article, is not seeking to lay out an objective/clinical assessment) : How UK's highest court is about to decide what a 'woman' is

Some excerpts:

Quote

There are liars. There are damn liars. Then, there is the Scottish Government. Or at least that is the only conclusion to be reached after reading its submission to the Supreme Court, published two days ago.

Next Tuesday, the row over gender identity theory that has rumbled on for the best part of a decade will come to a head. Five judges, led by Lord Reed, will consider the question brought by campaign group For Women Scotland: “Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate [GRC] which recognises that their gender is female, a ‘woman’ for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010?”

 

In its written argument, only published after policy collective MBM threatened to lodge an application with the Supreme Court seeking full disclosure, the Scottish Government insists that the term woman includes a “person issued with a full GRC in the acquired gender of female”.
...
The government’s plans for self-ID set out in the Bill meant that anyone over the age of 16 could change their legal sex simply by filling in a form. Campaigners – and most Scottish Conservative MSPs – argued that this would have a significant impact on women’s rights, as protected by the Equality Act.

Hmm.  So the official position of the Scottish Government is, in effect, that a woman is anyone who claims to be one and fills out a government form.

Quote

Undermining sex-based women’s rights

Most people believe that human beings cannot change their sex. Equally, most people don’t care how anyone dresses, who they love – as long as no abuse is involved – or even how they describe themselves. But as author and women’s rights campaigner JK Rowling wrote on social media this week, “if a man is a woman, there is no such thing as a woman”.

If men, waving a recognition certificate, are allowed to join the legal category of women as set out in the Equality Act, then the very basis of women’s rights – their sex – is nullified. This is the straightforward proposition that women’s rights campaigners have argued for years now. It is not an anti-transgender position, it’s a pro-woman stance, the very essence of feminism.

It is impossible to predict which way the Supreme Court will fall on whether the legal definition of a woman includes men with a GRC. If For Women Scotland prevails, then the Equality Act will be clear – women are defined by their sex, not a certificate. If the judges uphold the Scottish Government’s view, then the battle will rumble on.
...
But whatever Lord Reed and his learned colleagues decide, one weary but still determined campaigner sums up the mood of women across the country. “All we hope for is that sanity returns to our legislators and the ordinary, biological meaning of sex, is just that, ordinary.”

I think an increasingly central tenet - perhaps the central tenet - of trans ideology is re-define "woman" so as to remove any meaningful limiting principle regarding the concept.  This is an interesting exercise, given that the word "definition" "comes from the Latin word dēfīnītiōn- or dēfīnītiō, which means 'fixing of a boundary, precise description.'"  As regarding "women," some folks do not want it to have anything like a "{fixed} boundary," or "precise description."  Instead, they want it to mean pretty much anything, and therefore mean nothing.  Rowling is quite correct: "{I}f a man is a woman, there is no such thing as a woman." 

Moreover, this absence of a limiting principle sure seems to upend all sorts of fundamental concepts.  If a biological male can, by filling out a government form (or even not doing anything other than "identifying"), become a "woman," then a teenage boy and "identify" as a dog, Eva Tiamat Medusa can "identify" as a dragon, and so on.

There is no limiting principle in this ideology.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, this absence of a limiting principle sure seems to upend all sorts of fundamental concepts.  If a biological male can, by filling out a government form (or even not doing anything other than "identifying"), become a "woman," then a teenage boy and "identify" as a dog, Eva Tiamat Medusa can "identify" as a dragon, and so on.

There is no limiting principle in this ideology.

I think you do real damage to your argument to take it to the extreme here.  Your argument becomes laughable, to be frank.  And I am someone who leans heavily to keep the legal “woman” term for biological women for a variety of reasons.

When life starts, the human cells will typically morph into male or female.  In no way will those cells ever morph into a dog or a dragon.  Legally it makes sense to limit such debates to the same species because there is current debate on what the morphing entails and what is the implication of overlapping characteristics that can be pushed one way or the other by environment or biological influences.

There is no such debate nor will there ever be*** over the possibility that there is a dog or dragon brain or anything resembling such in a human body. 

***at least not till we have technology to genetically blend animal and human DNA, but current laws won’t be made based on far off science fiction ideas

Edited November 25, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

Moreover, this absence of a limiting principle sure seems to upend all sorts of fundamental concepts.  If a biological male can, by filling out a government form (or even not doing anything other than "identifying"), become a "woman," then a teenage boy and "identify" as a dog, Eva Tiamat Medusa can "identify" as a dragon, and so on.

There is no limiting principle in this ideology.

I think you do real damage to your argument to take it to the extreme here.  

What I am saying here is either A) not an "extreme," or B) is as "extreme" as the "a biological male can become a 'woman' by identifying as one" concept.

There is no limiting principle.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Your argument becomes laughable, to be frank.  And I am someone who leans heavily to keep the legal “woman” term for biological women for a variety of reasons.

Please elaborate.  I'm not seeing it.

This is typically where discussions such as this end up.  Either "laughable" or "you're a bigot" or both.  I appreciate the absence of the latter.  Truly.  But you resorting to the former, without explanation or analysis, does little to persuade.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

When life starts, the human cells will typically morph into male or female.  In no way will those cells ever morph into a dog or a dragon.  

I agree.

And after life starts, those cells will also "{never} morph" so that a male (having a Y chromosome) can "become" a female (lacking the Y chromosome).

So cellular biology is either a limiting principle to both concepts ("transgender" and "transpecies"), or it is not a limiting principle to either.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Legally it makes sense to limit such debates to the same species because there is current debate on what the morphing entails and what is the implication of overlapping characteristics that can be pushed one way or the other by environment or biological influences.

What is the limiting principle, though?  Even if we stick with "the same species," we still end up with, to borrow your word, "laughable" results.

Consider, for example, Stefoknee Wolscht, a biological male who "identifies" not only as female, but as a perennially-six-years-old female. 

Do you think society is obligated to accept both of these identities?  Or just one or the other? 

What "limiting principle" legitimizes the "identifies as female" aspect, but then renders "laughable" the "identifies as a perennially-six-years-old female" aspect?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There is no such debate nor will there ever be*** over the possibility that there is a dog or dragon brain or anything resembling such in a human body. 

Why is that?  And once you proffer such an explanation, how is that explanation not applicable to the trans ideology under discussion?

You can't just wave off a human being "identifying" as a dragon as "laughable" and yet refuse to explain why a human male "identifying" as a human female is not also "laughable."  I mean, you can do this, but your reasoning is opaque.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

***at least not till we have technology to genetically blend animal and human DNA, but current laws won’t be made based on far off science fiction ideas

"***at least not till we have technology to genetically {alter a biological male and turn him into a biological female}, but current laws won’t be made based on far off science fiction ideas"

Seems like "transpecies" ideology is not readily distinguishable from "transgender" ideology.  If Eva Tiamat Medusa's transspecies "identity" is invalid and to be socially rejected out-of-hand as being incongruent with reality and biological science, I don't see how current notions of transgender ideology can avoid the same fate.  Except, it seems to be evading it.  I would like to understand why.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 25, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Please elaborate.  I'm not seeing it.

Obviously.

I wish you would trust me on this.  This argument of slippery slope to dog or dragon sounds stupid to me….and I don’t use the word “stupid” except on very rare occasions because my mom hated the word and treated it like it was a swear word and I just can’t use it unless there is no other way of truly expressing how I feel about something.

And like I said I lean heavily towards not allowing the legal definition of “woman” to be expanded.
 

Quote

Seems like "transpecies" ideology is not readily distinguishable from "transgender" ideology.

Then you don’t have a clue about the science if you think this.

Think about it….what hormone if too little or too much will at this time change a human into having the appearance a dog or dragon?

Edited November 25, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Smac, when you find a scientist or actual psychologist/doctor who takes seriously the idea that a human brain may be more configured like a dog or dragon’s brain than a human’s and that there may be biological structures in a human similar to a dog or dragon’s tail or a dog’s fur or dragon’s scales, then talk to me about them being similar.

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

Smac, when you find a scientist or actual psychologist/doctor who takes seriously the idea that a human brain may be more configured like a dog or dragon’s brain than a human’s and that there may be biological structures in a human similar to a dog or dragon’s tail or a dog’s fur or dragon’s scales, then talk to me about them being similar.

Similarly, when you find a scientist who, on non-ideological and scientific grounds, takes seriously the idea that a biological male can literally become a woman, a biological female, merely by "identifying" as one, then we can talk about that being materially dissimilar from a man "identifying" as a permanently-six-year-old girl, or a teenager "identifying" as a dog, or a man "identifying" as a dragon.  We are, after all, not speaking of brain structures, but of sociological "identities" which are not congruent with reality and biological science.

Again, I am interested in the reasoning that gets you to your position.  If my assessment is wrong, I want to know that, including why it is wrong.  Merely calling that assessment "laughable" is not persuasive, nor is asking me to just take your say-so as sufficient.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 25, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Similarly, when you find a scientist who, on non-ideological and scientific grounds, takes seriously the idea that a biological male can literally "become" a woman, a biological female,

Strawman as I don’t know of any scientist or psychologist/doctor arguing that a biological male can become a biological woman as in changing DNA, but rather the debate is on how much genetics and biology influence psychological sexual identity, which then becomes the legal argument of whether such similarities are enough to justify changing the legal definition of “woman” (Me: No, they are not, better to find another solution to meet the needs of the transgendered community)

Since the debate is obviously out there in the scientific community and has been for quite sometime, I view consideration of such variations in human psychology and brain structure as reasonable as well as consideration of whether such influences might be sufficient to justify a change of scientific or legal nomenclature (see wiki for a collection of studies on transgendered individuals compared to cis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_gender_incongruence#:~:text=A 2016 review reported that,but is present in a ).  

I have yet to see any studies similarly comparing humans and dogs or dragons, which strongly suggests it’s not of scientific interest and not considered an actual possibility at this time or near future and therefore not a reasonable contribution to any serious dialogue.

I find it to be the equivalent of antimormons insisting that such terms as “celestial sex” and ideas like ‘God was a drag queen in his mortal probabtion’ are a worthwhile part of dialoguing or debating the Restored Gospel….meaning in my view they are clueless and lazy and have lost the argument before it’s begun, but they are probably making uninformed and equally lazy Christians (which hopefully are a small group at most) think they are being clever and making the Mormons look silly.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I am interested in the reasoning that gets you to your position.  If my assessment is wrong, I want to know that, including why it is wrong.  Merely calling that assessment "laughable" is not persuasive, nor is asking me to just take your say-so as sufficient.

I haven’t merely called it laughable or solely asked you to take my word for it.  I have clearly outlined my reasons. That you are not understanding the difference between the science of human sexual development vs the nonscience of human into dog or dragon development is not my problem.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Similarly, when you find a scientist who, on non-ideological and scientific grounds, takes seriously the idea that a biological male can literally "become" a woman, a biological female,

Strawman as I don’t know of any scientist or psychologist/doctor arguing that a biological male can become a biological woman as in changing DNA, but rather the debate is on how much genetics and biology influence psychological sexual identity, which then becomes the legal argument of whether such similarities are enough to justify changing the legal definition of “woman” (Me: No, they are not, better to find another solution to meet the needs of the transgendered community)

Then it sounds like we agree.  We neither of us accept the ideological proposition that "trans women are women."  They are not, and are, instead, biological males and will remain as such in perpetuity.  Is that a fair statement?

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since the debate is obviously out there in the scientific community and has been for quite sometime, I view consideration of such variations in human psychology and brain structure as reasonable as well as consideration of whether such influences might be sufficient to justify a change of scientific or legal nomenclature (see wiki for a collection of studies on transgendered individuals compared to cis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_gender_incongruence#:~:text=A 2016 review reported that,but is present in a ).  

So the determinative factor is whether the "scientific community" is having a debate?  

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have yet to see any studies similarly comparing humans and dogs or dragons, which strongly suggests it’s not of scientific interest and not considered an actual possibility at this time or near future and therefore not a reasonable contribution to any serious dialogue.

Again, not speaking of brain structures, but of sociological "identities" which are not congruent with reality and biological science.

At least I am not.  I think most people, when discussing "men" and "women," likewise are speaking of basic biological reality, not abstract and speculative notions about brain structures.

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find it to be the equivalent of antimormons insisting that such terms as “celestial sex” and ideas like ‘God was a drag queen in his mortal probabtion’ are a worthwhile part of dialoguing or debating the Restored Gospel….meaning in my view they are clueless and lazy and have lost the argument before it’s begun, but they are probably making uninformed and equally lazy Christians (which hopefully are a small group at most) think they are being clever and making the Mormons look silly.

I am speaking of biological science and reality.  I am not using sensationalized terms.  I am not looking to provoke or offend.  I am not trying to make anyone look silly.  I am trying to suss out what reasoning may exist for why otherwise rational and intelligent people are, in the context of trans ideology, willing to go along with the notion that a biological male can become a woman by "identifying" as such, that "trans women are women," and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I haven’t merely called it laughable or solely asked you to take my word for it.  

You keep responding to my comments about biological sex with arguments not particularly germane to biological sex.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have clearly outlined my reasons.

I guess we're talking past each other, then.  I don't think you are addressing what I am addressing.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

That you are not understanding the difference between the science of human sexual development vs the nonscience of human into dog or dragon development is not my problem.

Again, we are not speaking of brain structures, but of sociological "identities" which are not congruent with reality and biological fact.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 25, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, we are not speaking of brain structures, but of sociological "identities" which are not congruent with reality and biological fact.

But that is part of the debate…whether or not there is biological fact that drives the sociological identities.

You stating that they aren’t congruent as a fact ignores the studies that are providing evidence otherwise (see the wiki link above).

I am not saying the science is enough to justify changing the legal definition.  I am saying it is a reasonable debate.

There is no science showing any evidence that allegedly human brains may be closer to dog or dragon brains than human in any way.  There is some evidence that some allegedly male brains may be closer in some ways to typical female brains.  Again, not saying this evidence justifies a change in legal definition, just that it justifies a discussion about the implications, including legal ones, including whether the needs to experience life as a woman when DNA reads male or as a man when DNA reads female is driven by biological reality and if it is, should that be enough to justify offering the same protections offered to biological females.

Quote

I am speaking of biological science and reality.

I am seeing you ignore a good deal of science.

Quote

don't think you are addressing what I am addressing.

I am not trying to address your argument.  I see no need to.  I see you more interested in winning the argument rather than uncovering the truth when you appeal to the legal identification as dog or dragon as relevant to the debate.

Edited November 26, 2024 by Calm