Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[Peacefully]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

When the law isn’t taken seriously it really won’t matter much.

LOL

While the rights of women in general are being revoked, blatant misogynistic hate speech is on the rise, gay marriage is in targeting sights again, and women literally dying because of badly written abortion laws that there are more important ways to protect women right now than punching down at the small transgender population. Of course fixing those requires courage and facing powerful opposition. Punching down on the marginalized is easier.

I know women choosing sterilization for their own safety. Many of them wanted children in the future but don’t want the increased risks. I know transgender people adhering to the motto “death before detransition”. I know bisexual and straight women swearing off relationships with men as a safety measure. I know people arming themselves to be ready.

Do you really think the ‘transgender menace’ is going to the be remembered as important in this era when people look back? Even transgender people consider it a relatively minor issue at this point. It is using a level to make sure a painting in the hall is hung correctly while the Titanic might sink.

Recent anti-transgender campaign organizations spent around $130 per transgender person in the entire country on transphobic scare ads. It is working. People are obsessed with it. Why is so much money being spent to rivet people’s attention to this issue that has limited impact on most people’s lives and no impact on many more. What are they trying to distract people from?

Well said. Misogyny is on the rise but let’s not deal with that. Let’s clutch our pearls about transgender people. You know kids are going to school in the morning as one gender and coming home in the afternoon as a different gender.  Yeah, let’s focus on that. I can’t even…

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Well said. Misogyny is on the rise but let’s not deal with that.

Could you elaborate?  What do you mean by "misogyny is on the rise"?  My sense is that it is an oblique reference to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and subsequent state-level legislative enactments of laws regarding abortion.  Is that a fair statement?  Or did you mean something else/more? 

14 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Let’s clutch our pearls about transgender people.

You endorsed Nehor's post, which involves recitations about women sterilizing themselves, people declaring "death before detransition," people "arming themselves," etc. as a result of societal pushback against extreme aspects of trans ideology and activism, but it is the other side of the argument that is clutching pearls (that is, exhibiting "a very shocked reaction, especially one in which you show more shock than you really feel in order to show that you think something is morally wrong")?

 

14 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

You know kids are going to school in the morning as one gender and coming home in the afternoon as a different gender.  Yeah, let’s focus on that. I can’t even…

I think we as a society can walk and chew gum at the same.  We can address the excesses of trans ideology/activism and also address other social issues at the same time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SteveO]

Oof.  The usual suspects are having a normal one.  This thread…it’s like the worst brain-rot of X (formally known as Twitter)

Touch grass guys

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Oof.  The usual suspects are having a normal one.  This thread…it’s like the worst brain-rot of X (formally known as Twitter)

Touch grass guys

Didn't you upvote Nehor's post?  

I value this board because I get to listen to and interact with people whose worldviews and opinions vary, to varying degrees, from my own.  I want to listen to what people like you and Nehor have to say.  I also like to evaluate arguments, reasoning, logic, evidence, etc.  I think there is some value in these things.

There is also value, though, is getting out into the real world.  You are correct on that point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think keeping biological men out of spaces and events they weren't in previously, and should never have been in at all, will become the norm again.  I think this makes a lot of sense.

This is a serious topic, I think it should be treated as such.

Overwrought and false.  

I don't know what you are referencing here, and you provide no evidence for it.

Is "TERF" part of this "misogynistic hate speech" of which you speak?

I think same-sex marriage will remain the law of the land.  I think Obergefell was wrongly decided, but it's the law of the land, and I think the likelihood of it being overturned is effectively de minimis.

I don't know what you are referencing here, and you provide no evidence for it.

The vast majority of abortions in the U.S. are elective, with only a tiny percentage relating to the life of the mother.

I agree that women need to be protected under the law.  I am glad to see this happening in the context of removing biological men from women's spaces.

This isn't an either/or scenario.  We can address multiple "ways to protect women" at the same time.

Overwrought and false.  

I view this as a tacit admission that some women use abortion as a means of birth control, a terrible thing given the ready availability of affordable contraceptives and the capacity for women to make rational choices about their own behavior, such as giving due consideration to the utterly foreseeable risk of pregnancy which is inherent in sexual activity.

There has been plenty of performative stuff on social media about women claiming an intention to sterilize themselves, or to have done it already.  Similarly, some people are shaving their heads, screaming, moving (out of state or out of the country), pushing the 4B movement, shunning, and otherwise acting out in unseemly and unhealthy ways.  And then posting about such things on social media (I disapprove of the video at the link insofar as it ridicules this stuff, but the compilation - some of which has strong language - merits attention).  It is, in overwhelming measure, overwrought performative political protest.  But shaved hair will grow back, screaming into a camera is a transient thing, people can move wherever they like, and so on.  Sterilization, though, is permanent, and I think most of those few who actually go through with it will come to regret it.

The adoption, in some quarters, of the 4B movement (with the four "Bs" relating to Korean words regarding "do not date men, get married to men, have sex with men, or have children with men") is interesting.  Again, I think it's mostly just performative and temporary.  And massively immature and unhealthy.  Ironically, though, in effect it shows women electively regulating their own sexual behavior, which in turn will substantially reduce the risk of pregnancy, and hence reduce instances of elective abortion.  So that's two pretty significant wins for Common Sense.  

Interestingly, the 4B movement originated in Korea, where - per the above Wikipedia link - "a portion of its members, particularly those associated with the openly misandric^[7] WOMAD, were described as transphobic and homophobic towards gay men.^[8]"

Extremism is virtually never a healthy thing.  I hope these women give themselves some time to pause and reflect before sterilizing themselves.  In the end, though, it is their decision, and one I think many of them will eventually greatly regret.

I reject the notion that there is any necessity to this stuff ("for their own safety").  

"{R}isk" of . . . pregnancy?  Yes, that's a natural and foreseeable consequence of sexual activity.  Modern women have plenty of less-extreme-than-sterilization options to substantially mitigate - or even entirely avoid - this risk.

Quite a paper tiger, that.  I am unaware of any risk of compulsory detransitioning anywhere in the United States, and you provide no evidence for it.

We are seeing the oddity of what would otherwise be reasonable and rational courses of action (people regulating their sexual behavior so as to mitigate the risk of unwanted pregnancy) arising from a decidedly unreasonable and irrational (and highly performative) decision-making process.  

Right after high school I went into the Army, which included a year at a language school in California to learn Russian.  The ratio of students was, I think, about 55/45 (male to female).  One of the best choices I have made in this life was during this time, when I chose to keep the Law of Chastity.  I faced zero risk of A) getting an STI, B) getting a woman pregnant, C) imperiling a woman's life due to pregnancy (a statistically tiny, but still nonzero, risk), D) abortion, E) sexual misconduct, and so on.  I also faced drastically reduced risk of false claims of sexual misconduct.  

Once I finished my time in the Army, I entered the MTC and spent two years in Taiwan as a missionary.  Again, I kept the Law of Chastity during this time and garnered the benefits of avoiding the foregoing risks.

After my mission, I returned home and spent about a year on the dating scene, followed by about 9 months of dating and being engaged to the girl who is now my wife.  Again, I kept the Law of Chastity during this time and garnered the benefits of avoiding the foregoing risks.

The Law of Chastity is a wonderful and important precept, including its proscriptive, regulate-your-own-sexual-behavior elements.  I think the adulterated and distorted versions of those proscriptive elements, such as what you are describing above, are likely to be ephemeral for almost all of those claiming to adopt them in the wake of November 5.  Nevertheless, this fleeting exercise in self-regulation of sexual activity, even though borne of extremism and performative social media signaling, may end up helping some people recognize the merits of such self-regulation on more rational and reasonable grounds.

I assume you are referencing people like this:

I hope these calls for violence will go unheeded.  

I have never used this phrase, nor do I subscribe to it.

I think many (most?) people will look back and be embarrassed that we spent years acting out The Emperor Has No Clothes in a real-world setting.  Here is a summary of the folktale as told by Hans Christian Anderson:

The rule of law in society is important.  We are roughly 250 years into one of the greatest experiments in history, that of functioning as a constitutional republic.  A big part of that system is the checks and balances we have on relationships (government-people, state government-federal government, state-state, branch of government-branch of government, etc.).

Until fairly recently, biological males of every persuasion were not allowed, in both de facto and de jure ways, into women's spaces (sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc.).  We have spent the last few years experimenting with deviating from this de facto and de jure set of circumstances by allowing males into women's spaces.  It has not gone well, so some advocates of this new arrangement have sought to bolster it by claiming

• that "trans women are women,"
• that biological sex is merely a social construct,
• that anyone who disagrees with any aspect of trans ideology is necessarily and per se a bigot and a terrible person,
• that children are competently situated to decide about radical medical interventions re: sexual identity,
• that school teachers and administrators and state governments can override parental rights re: matters of minor children's sexual identity,
• that "Drag Queen Story Hour" events are a great idea,
• that exposing children to highly sexualized and grooming content in drag shows, pride parades, etc., is a great idea,
• that biological males competing against females in sports is a great idea,
• that allowing biological males into women's bathrooms and changing rooms is a great idea,
• that housing biological males in women's prisons is a great idea,

and so on.  I think these claims are akin to the claims in the above folktale about "magnificent clothes that are invisible to those who are incompetent or stupid."  

This has become, for most people in most jurisdictions, a bridge too far.  In the above folktale, the hoi polloi initially "uncomfortably go along with the pretense" about the emperor's clothes, "not wanting to appear inept or stupid."  But eventually they overcame this fear, set aside the pretense, and the absurdity was publicly acknowledged.  Similarly, I think society is increasingly disregarding the increasingly frantic "You're a Bigot if You Disagree With My Ideology!"-style proclamations (on full display in your comments here, Nehor).  The accusation and its underlying threat of social opprobrium is starting to wear off.  Just as the crowds came to acknowledge that the Emperor really was naked, we are increasingly realizing that the fundamental rationalizations for allowing males into women's spaces are incongruent with reality and biological fact.  A "trans woman" is not an actual woman, and actual women need to have their own spaces in terms of sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc., and laws need to be enacted to ensure a return to the status quo ante.  Hence the spate of state-level legislation along these lines, and even UN recommendations such as those quoted above:

In the end, all this hullabaloo is about a fairly narrow issue: should biological males be allowed to go into women's spaces (sports, bathrooms, prisons).  Increasingly, society's answer is "no."  I get that you ascribe this to bigotry, which I find to be akin to the con-men's "invisible clothes" schtick, which was a falsehood that worked for a while as a means of coercing societal compliance, but which eventually wore off.  The same goes for your accusatory rhetoric.  It just isn't working.  It is losing its potency, and fast.

That said, I also don't like some of the "blowback" making fun of the excesses which have been on display for some years now.  The experiment of treating trans-identifying biological males as "women" for the purposes of sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc. is gradually coming to a close.  It was a bad idea from its inception, but we live and learn.  We don't need to rub it in.  At the same time, those who have advocated for this failed concept should not be calling for violence or resorting to other extreme rhetoric and behavior.

We'll see, I suppose.  If you are correct, if this really is "a relatively minor issue," then there should be no problem with or opposition to legislatures enacting laws which prohibit biological males from women's sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc. 

I don't know what you mean here.

I think most people were, until the last few years, largely indifferent to the "trans" community.  "You do you" and all that.  But we've been seeing a lot of social media and news coverage of issues such as those in the above bullet list.  Most of these issues have been actively promoted and advanced by trans activists.  These activists have not only brought these issues to our doors, but then have also demanded that we ratify and endorse and celebrate them, or else face accusations of being a bigot (a tactic which you yourself have amply demonstrated in this thread).

For myself, I suspect that the "Drag Shows targeting children" and "Yes, let's expose children to kink and other highly-sexualized behaviors at pride parades and events" stories, and associated rationalizations/justifications for these things, were the beginning of the "But the Emperor is naked!" moment and realization by society in general.  Prior to this, most people just didn't care about what consenting adults do in private.  But this stuff became increasingly public, even intentionally so by its promoters, and increasingly aimed at children.  I think that was when substantial swaths of society began to sit up, take notice, and begin to push back on these events. 

More recently, we have seen quite a bit of news coverage about medical procedures/treatments for minors re: sexual identity (hormone/puberty blockers, elective mastectomies/penectomies, huge increases in juvenile gender dysphoria, stories from detransitioners, the closing of the Tavistock Clinic, the Cass Report, etc.). 

Then there are the effects of social media, which has also brought these issues to the attention of people who previously did not pay them much attention at all.

In my view, much of this attention has been instigated by advocates of extreme elements of trans ideology, who have brought the foregoing trans-related issues to the doorstep of John Q. Public.  And now that John knows more about these things, and John recognizing them as likely being "Camel's Nose in the Tent"-style attempts at social engineering, and John - after consideration and reflections - fundamentally disagreeing with the incongruent-with-reality components of trans ideology, and John becoming increasingly impervious to "You're a Bigot if You Disagree With My Ideology!"-style pressure tactics, John is increasingly willing to speak and oppose the excesses of these efforts (drag shows targeting kids, biological males in women's sports/bathrooms/prisons, etc.), including asking for legislative protections against them.  I suspect that plenty of trans people were similarly revolted at the sexualization and grooming of children inherent in those events, and may also dislike these excesses.

Thanks,

-Smac

You thought my post about misogyny in general being much more dangerous was somehow still primarily about transgender people?

John Q. Public’s story there got it backwards. The people screaming about transgender issues are the opponents of transgender people. They are the loud ones. This isn’t people realizing that transgender rights are a threat. Most people never interact with transgender people and most transgender people like to avoid public scrutiny. No, John Q. Public is listening to the authors of the latest manufactured moral panic. It will be remembered the same way as the witch trials and the gay “recruitment” scare and the Jewish blood libel panic and the satanic cult panic.

Once again it is a bunch of horrible people stirring up hatred towards marginalized groups and sending a moralistic mob to hunt them down over virtually nothing. It is doing satan’s work, stirring up hatred and paranoia.

And it works every single time. Dance puppets! Dance!

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  What do you mean by "misogyny is on the rise"?  My sense is that it is an oblique reference to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and subsequent state-level legislative enactments of laws regarding abortion.  Is that a fair statement?  Or did you mean something else/more? 

You endorsed Nehor's post, which involves recitations about women sterilizing themselves, people declaring "death before detransition," people "arming themselves," etc. as a result of societal pushback against extreme aspects of trans ideology and activism, but it is the other side of the argument that is clutching pearls (that is, exhibiting "a very shocked reaction, especially one in which you show more shock than you really feel in order to show that you think something is morally wrong")?

 

I think we as a society can walk and chew gum at the same.  We can address the excesses of trans ideology/activism and also address other social issues at the same time.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’ll pass. My answers would become political very quickly. 

[Doctor Steuss]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

[...]Most people never interact with transgender people [...]

**and realize it.

While media, and the anti-trans movement like to focus and amplify transgendered people who have dominant phenotypical traits that match their birth sex rather than gender identity; there are a significant number of transgendered people who are passing as their preferred gender within society.  I'd wager that most people who think they've never interacted with a transgendered person actually have without even realizing it.  Probably even used a public restroom with a transgendered person on multiple occasions throughout life, without realizing it.

Anecdotally, when I used to work out at Gold's Gym, there was a guy who would give me a spot sometimes, and vice versa, and we'd exchange diet and training tips fairly regularly.  During one of our casual conversations, he had asked me what I was doing for the weekend.  I told him I was going to go see a friend's bad play at a bar (named the bar, which is a well-known gay bar).  For whatever reason, that was enough of an opening for him to feel safe enough to tell me he was a trans man.  I had been working out alongside him for years, and never would have known if he hadn't of told me.  There have been a few trans-women I have met too while volunteering at the Gay & Lesbian Community Center after it was firebombed, that I never would have guessed they were biological men if it hadn't been disclosed to me.

That's one of the things that I think make these types of anti-trans policies so pernicious.  The very people who are opposed to transgendered people using their preferred restroom have been sharing restrooms with transgendered people their whole lives without even knowing it; because, transgendered people aren't the problem.  Targeting them is just seen as a solution to another problem.

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

**and realize it.

While media, and the anti-trans movement like to focus and amplify transgendered people who have dominant phenotypical traits that match their birth sex rather than gender identity; there are a significant number of transgendered people who are passing as their preferred gender within society.  I'd wager that most people who think they've never interacted with a transgendered person actually have without even realizing it.  Probably even used a public restroom with a transgendered person on multiple occasions throughout life, without realizing it.

Anecdotally, when I used to work out at Gold's Gym, there was a guy who would give me a spot sometimes, and vice versa, and we'd exchange diet and training tips fairly regularly.  During one of our casual conversations, he had asked me what I was doing for the weekend.  I told him I was going to go see a friend's bad play at a bar (named the bar, which is a well-known gay bar).  For whatever reason, that was enough of an opening for him to feel safe enough to tell me he was a trans man.  I had been working out alongside him for years, and never would have known if he hadn't of told me.  There have been a few trans-women I have met too while volunteering at the Gay & Lesbian Community Center after it was firebombed, that I never would have guessed they were biological men if it hadn't been disclosed to me.

That's one of the things that I think make these types of anti-trans policies so pernicious.  The very people who are opposed to transgendered people using their preferred restroom have been sharing restrooms with transgendered people their whole lives without even knowing it; because, transgendered people aren't the problem.  Targeting them is just seen as a solution to another problem.

This reminds me about when I came out to my father.  He insisted I was not gay.  lol.  Do you know why he thought that?  Because there is nothing outwardly about me that would indicate I am gay.  I am just a normal guy who happens to be gay.  The only gay people he knew were the ones that were so outlandish in dress and behavior that it wasn't hard to figure out they were gay.  The ones that couldn't hide or refused to hide.  The idea that just a normal person could possibly be gay was a concept he had never thought would be possible.  Remember how shocked people were when they found out Rock Hudson and other movie stars were gay???  A leading man, acting straight his entire career?

Then Harvey Milk lead a campaign encouraging gay people to be more visible, and to come out to their family and friends.  All the sudden people found out they had gay brothers, fathers, friends, cousins, teachers, cops, etc.  People started to complain that there were gay people all over the place and felt like this was some kind of new fad that was pushing everyone to be gay.  (sound familiar). But the truth is, these gay people had always been around, not wanting to draw attention to themselves because in doing so put them in real danger with real consequences.  Now no one is  shocked when someone they know is gay.  It isn't threatening nearly as it once was in most areas of life.  Yeah there are some areas like professional sports and policical figures depending on where they live, that people still hide, but it is constantly getting better.

The same thing is true with transgenders.  They have been around forever.  Do you realize that the first transgender surgery occurred in 1931.  Now people are screaming that being transgender is some kind of fad and people are getting sucked into that lifestyle.  As you said, little do people realize that they probably already know someone who is transgender.  

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I view this as a tacit admission that some women use abortion as a means of birth control, a terrible thing given the ready availability of affordable contraceptives and the capacity for women to make rational choices about their own behavior, such as giving due consideration to the utterly foreseeable risk of pregnancy which is inherent in sexual activity.

I view this as a tacit admission that you run to the most misogynistic interpretation possible and assume it must be true. This is a fun game!

THINK! THINK IT THROUGH! Are you seriously imagining that women who are thinking far enough ahead to what may happen to their reproductive rights are also relying on the ‘pullout method’ for birth control and use abortion as their real line of defense? No, they are worried about having their health permanently impacted or dying because abortion laws that only allow exceptions when the mother’s life is in danger mean that doctors are forced to wait too long to intervene. This can happen with a child they want to have. They are worried about being raped and forced to go to term with all the emotional and severe financial ruin that can bring.

Also it is worth noting that there is a movement afoot to limit contraceptive options in many states and that it is gaining in strength. Some women are stockpiling birth control pills and getting long-lasting IUDs as well. See, many women are actually thinking things through. You aren’t and are just guessing their motives in a way that makes it look like they are idiots who need guidance from the government or men or whatever.

Stop assuming women are mental children that can’t follow the line from action to consequence. It is not a good look.

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I’ll pass. My answers would become political very quickly. 

Here:

https://www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/your-body-my-choice-hate-and-harassment-towards-women-spreads-online/

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

The same thing is true with transgenders.  They have been around forever.  Do you realize that the first transgender surgery occurred in 1931.  Now people are screaming that being transgender is some kind of fad and people are getting sucked into that lifestyle.  As you said, little do people realize that they probably already know someone who is transgender.  

Agree in general but 1931 was probably just the first we have a pretty solid dat for. Hirschfeld’s clinic in Weimar Germany almost certainly was performing procedures before that. Records were kept but within four months of a certain weirdo with a Charlie Chaplin mustache becoming Chancellor of Germany they started moving against those with “lives unworthy of living” and they burned the clinic and all of its records and a huge library covering non-binary, transgender, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other queer people’s experiences and what had been learned about them. It also had descriptions of MtF transition protocols. They also prescribed hormone therapy.

The book burning that day was one of the first and one of the biggest. The Nazis targeted transgender and queer people first. Then they moved on to others. Hirschfeld and others tried to open a new clinic in Paris but then came the invasion.

How much more advanced would our understanding of transgender people have been had a cheering mob obsessed with purity not consigned the “intellectual garbage of the past” to the flames?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-history-of-the-worlds-first-trans-clinic/

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

This reminds me about when I came out to my father.  He insisted I was not gay.  lol.  Do you know why he thought that?  Because there is nothing outwardly about me that would indicate I am gay.  I am just a normal guy who happens to be gay.  The only gay people he knew were the ones that were so outlandish in dress and behavior that it wasn't hard to figure out they were gay.  The ones that couldn't hide or refused to hide.  The idea that just a normal person could possibly be gay was a concept he had never thought would be possible.  Remember how shocked people were when they found out Rock Hudson and other movie stars were gay???  A leading man, acting straight his entire career?

This still regularly happens. I see a lot of stories of bisexual people telling people they are bisexual and being told “I don’t think so, you don’t seem bisexual”. The irony of course is that there is really no standard bisexual stereotype so what standard do they think they are comparing them to? There is an assumption that these things must be obvious somehow.

I admit my absolute favorites are when a parent deals with a coming out saying something like, “Look, it is normal. Lots of women find other women sexually attractive. I do and I’m straight.” Yeah……about that.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You thought my post about misogyny in general being much more dangerous was somehow still primarily about transgender people?

I often have a hard time understanding your posts, hence my requests for clarification.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

John Q. Public’s story there got it backwards. The people screaming about transgender issues are the opponents of transgender people. They are the loud ones.

We'll have to agree to disagree about that, I suppose.  John Q. Public is reacting and responding to what ideologues and extremists have brought to their door, their children's schools, their computer screens, and so on.

I think that John Q. Public did not really care that much if this or that guy wanted to dress up and "identify" as a woman in his own home, social circle, whatever.  But in the last few years, seemingly mostly subsequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage, in what I think is a manifestation of "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law" (discussed previously here), activists and idealogues have had to turn to a new battle to fight, and they found one in advancing some rather extreme "trans" issues.  The chronological progression of events laid out by John Tierney in his article, The March of Dimes Syndrome, merits some consideration:

Quote

For career activists, success is a threat. They can never declare mission accomplished.

Consider the current cultural conflicts over gender and sex. As the gay rights movement achieved its initial goals from the 1970s, overturning antisodomy laws and destigmatizing homosexuality, the movement expanded to include so many new causes that it required an acronym, LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, and more). Its leaders declared a new cause, same-sex marriage, which vanished after the Supreme Court legalized it nationally in 2015. Five years later, the Court extended civil rights protections to people’s sexual preferences.

What were activists to do? Gays could marry in every state, and the whole LGBTQIA+ alphabet was a protected class—what more could groups like the Human Rights Campaign or the National LGBTQ Task Force possibly demand from the government? What would get the attention of crusading journalists? An antigay hate crime would generate a brief publicity and fund-raising burst, but even progressive journalists struggled to sustain the groups’ narrative that America was a homophobic society.

The laws against homosexuality had been toppled. The culture that produced those laws has been overthrown, too. Most Americans now support same-sex marriage. The Pride flag flies at corporate headquarters, churches, schools, city halls, and the White House. Uttering once-common antigay slurs is now career suicide. Gay characters, long taboo in television scripts, are now practically obligatory. Gays once felt overwhelming social pressure to stay in the closet, but now many young adults are reluctant to admit to being heterosexuals, as reflected in the surge of young women classifying themselves as bisexual despite never having had sex with a woman.

So activists have moved the goalposts once again. It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. It is no longer enough to protect gay students from harassment—now these students must have access in elementary school libraries to how-to manuals for **** sex. Public schools must encourage prepubescent students to explore the many possible gender identities without their parents’ knowledge. Biological males self-identifying as females must be allowed to compete against females in sports. These new causes have been wildly unpopular, arousing opposition from homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement. But however much the backlash has hurt the original cause, the controversies keep activists in business.

This timeline and reasoning track for me.  They make sense. 

Biological males competing in women's sports, going into women's bathrooms, etc. was unheard of until a few years ago.  Now, some treat it has the next great cause in civil rights. 

Medically transitioning children was pretty much entirely unheard of until a few years ago, then it became an absolute "do it or kids will commit suicide" necessity.

Exposing children to explicit, highly-sexualized, grooming activities, images, etc. was previously a crime, then it became "Yeah, let's put sexually explicit books in school libraries, take children to drag shows, and expose them to kink and other highly sexualized behavior at pride parades and events."

And so on.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This isn’t people realizing that transgender rights are a threat.

I'm not sure John Q. Public views these issues in through that lens (though some of the issues in the bullet list I provided earlier sure seem to imperil the health, safety and welfare of children).  Rather, I think John thinks these excesses are out of bounds, unhealthy, etc., and that we now need to legislate solutions because otherwise we will continue to see disputes about biological males in women's spaces, sexually explicit books in school libraries, children at drag shows and other highly-sexualized events/activities, and so on.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Most people never interact with transgender people and most transgender people like to avoid public scrutiny.

The "public scrutiny" did not start with John.  It started with activists and idealogues, with Lia Thomas, with Dylan Mulvaney, with trans activists endlessly calling John a "transphobe" and "bigot" because he is concerned about or objects to these things, and with news items about children being exposed to sexually explicit books (in school libraries), events (drag shows and some pride events), about school teachers and administrators running roughshod over parental rights, about minors being subjected to highly questionable - and irreversible - medical procedures, about biological males competing against girls, about biological males going into women's bathrooms, and so on.  I do not think these things can be characterized as "transgender rights," but they are reasonably characterized as "threats" to the health, safety and welfare of children.  Hence the need to legislate solutions to curb and resolve these extreme and unhealthy things.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, John Q. Public is listening to the authors of the latest manufactured moral panic.

Respectfully, I disagree that concerns about these things are a "manufactured moral panic."  And I think John is quite justified in being concerned about them.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It will be remembered the same way as the witch trials and the gay “recruitment” scare and the Jewish blood libel panic and the satanic cult panic.

John's concerns are amply attested to as actually happening. 

There really are Drag Queen Story Hour events for children.

There really are drag shows where children are invited to attend - and sometimes even participate.

There really are some pride parades and other events where children are exposed to sexually explicit images, behaviors, etc.

There really are instances - many thousands - of biological males competing in women's sports.

There really are instances of biological males going into women's bathrooms and being transferred to women's prisons.

There really are school libraries having sexually explicit books aimed at children.

There really are many thousands of minors who have undergone highly questionable, and irreversible, medical treatments/procedures.

These are not imaginary happenings.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Once again it is a bunch of horrible people stirring up hatred towards marginalized groups and sending a moralistic mob to hunt them down over virtually nothing.

As I noted, "anyone who disagrees with any aspect of trans ideology is necessarily and per se a bigot and a terrible person" is an accusation and rhetorical gimmick that is rapidly depleting any potency it may have had.  John Q. Public may have been cowed a bit while standing on the street and watching the naked Emperor walk by, but this is decreasing by the day. 

The emperor has no clothes. 

Biological men cannot become women by "identifying" as such. 

Biological males should not be in women's spaces. 

Children should not be subjected to sexually explicit materials and activities. 

Minors should not receive highly questionable and empirically unvetted - and even highly dubious -  medical treatments/procedures.

Legislatures can and should step in to pass laws to prohibit the foregoing things from happening.

If, as you say, all this is "virtually nothing," then this sort of legislation shouldn't be a problem.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is doing satan’s work, stirring up hatred and paranoia.

Biological males should not be in women's spaces.  Children should not be subjected to sexually explicit materials and activities.  Minors should not receive highly questionable and empirically unvetted - and even highly dubious -  medical treatments/procedures.

It is entirely appropriate and healthy and correct to state these things, and to seek protection against these harmful behaviors.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 4, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

**and realize it.

While media, and the anti-trans movement like to focus and amplify transgendered people who have dominant phenotypical traits that match their birth sex rather than gender identity; there are a significant number of transgendered people who are passing as their preferred gender within society.  I'd wager that most people who think they've never interacted with a transgendered person actually have without even realizing it.  Probably even used a public restroom with a transgendered person on multiple occasions throughout life, without realizing it.

I'm not sure I understand what your point is here.

If a soldier spends all sorts of time and money and effort to make himself a top-notch ghillie suit, and then he uses it in training exercises and/or in war so that he blends in and looks like a pile of grass or a shrub, he is to be commended in his capacity to deceive and go undetected.  But if he were to use his ghillie suit in improper or untoward circumstances, then that would not be commended.

If an adult can, through some effort and deliberate intent, "pass" as a teenager, is it healthy and appropriate for him to do so?  And should society treat him as if he is a teenager?  Should we put him back in high school?  Treat him like a juvenile if he commits a crime?

If women and girls do not want to share a locker room or changing room with a biological male, is it okay for a biological male to use deceit to go in there anyway?

2 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

That's one of the things that I think make these types of anti-trans policies so pernicious.  The very people who are opposed to transgendered people using their preferred restroom have been sharing restrooms with transgendered people their whole lives without even knowing it; because, transgendered people aren't the problem. 

Respectfully, I think biological males in women's spaces is the problem.

That some of them have succeeded in tricking women and girls and gone undetected while being in women's spaces is not a justification for their being in women's spaces.

Theft by deception is still theft, even if the victim does not realize in the moment that she has been robbed.

{EDIT to delete objectionable point.}

2 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Targeting them is just seen as a solution to another problem.

A law prohibiting biological males from participating in women's sports, or going into women's spaces, cannot be said to be "targeting" anyone because all biological males are so excluded.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 4, 2024 by smac97

[Peacefully]

50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Here:

https://www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/your-body-my-choice-hate-and-harassment-towards-women-spreads-online/

Yep, this. Is the burka far behind? It could happen unless good people start standing up for women “at all times and in all things and in all places.”

Edited December 4, 2024 by Peacefully

[Doctor Steuss]

Now that being transgender, and phenotypically passing as your preferred gender, has been compared to rape, I'm going to permanently bow out from this.

Gross.

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I view this as a tacit admission that some women use abortion as a means of birth control, a terrible thing given the ready availability of affordable contraceptives and the capacity for women to make rational choices about their own behavior, such as giving due consideration to the utterly foreseeable risk of pregnancy which is inherent in sexual activity.

I view this as a tacit admission that you run to the most misogynistic interpretation possible and assume it must be true. This is a fun game!

You have long since exhausted any credibility as an arbiter of morality or ethics.  Your endless denigrations carry no weight or probative value.  None.

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

THINK! THINK IT THROUGH! Are you seriously imagining that women who are thinking far enough ahead to what may happen to their reproductive rights are also relying on the ‘pullout method’ for birth control and use abortion as their real line of defense?

I made no reference to "the 'pullout method' for birth control."

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, they are worried about having their health permanently impacted or dying because abortion laws that only allow exceptions when the mother’s life is in danger mean that doctors are forced to wait too long to intervene.  This can happen with a child they want to have. They are worried about being raped and forced to go to term with all the emotional and severe financial ruin that can bring.

I am open to the enactment of laws that substantially proscribe elective abortions, but which allow exceptions for the very few number of instances involving rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are elective.

Women (and men) can substantially mitigate the risk of pregnancy by regulating their sexual behavior.

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also it is worth noting that there is a movement afoot to limit contraceptive options in many states and that it is gaining in strength.

I oppose abortifacients.

I am generally in favor of the availability contraceptives that are not abortifacients.  However, per this article, there does seem to be a dispute about some medications which are called or categories as "contraceptives," but which are abortifacients:

Quote

Whether the plaintiff is Hobby Lobby, the Little Sisters of the Poor or one of the hundreds of other plaintiffs suing the Obama Administration, what’s primarily at stake in the challenges to the HHS “contraceptive mandate” is, of course, whether the federal government can lawfully force employers to violate their conscience by requiring them to provide insurance coverage for all forms of “contraception” approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The lawsuits are about religious liberty and conscience rights. They are not about “sex” (as Linda Greenhouse asserts). Nor are they about the use of contraceptives per se because, in fact, many plaintiffs taking part in the  90-plus lawsuits do not in principle object to contraceptive use. It is likely that all plaintiffs do object, however, to abortion- inducing drugs and they rightly believe that some forms of “contraception” have post- fertilization mechanisms of action (MOAs) that can cause the death of a human embryo. This is especially true with emergency “contraceptives.”

Yet despite all the considerable evidence regarding the abortifacient effect of emergency contraceptives (EC),  mandate proponents—Lillian Tamayo, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of South Florida, for example—continue to  deride those who contend that ECs can induce abortion. Her view is valid only if one accepts the Orwellian-newspeak-definition of conception— “the implantation of a fertilized ovum”— adopted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in 1965 to obscure the reality that all hormonal contraceptives are potentially abortifacient. For the rest of the world, fertilization and conception are synonymous and mark the beginning of a new living organism.i

According to the ACOG view, pregnancy begins only when an embryo implants in the uterine lining (endometrium), so that causing the death of a week-old child by means that include blocking implantation is not an abortion. A 2012 ACOG Committee  Opinion expresses this clearly: “Emergency contraception is not effective after implantation; therefore it is not an abortifacient. ”This statement is doubly misleading because mifepristone (or RU-486, the “abortion pill”) is also used as an EC in several countries. It effectively kills embryos for six weeks after implantation, and it is, perhaps, only a matter of time before the FDA approves RU-486 for EC use.

This sort of doublespeak concerning conception, pregnancy and abortion inevitably requires further terminology-twisting. One can no longer refer to embryo implantation as that implies the presence of a human being; the embryo is instead called a “fertilized egg,” although he is a unique human being with his own complete set of DNA. In his first hours of existence, the embryo even signals the mother to get her immune system to stand down, prompting her body to release Early Pregnancy Factor, an immunosuppressive protein that is detectable in maternal blood as early as 24 hours after fertilization.

Nonetheless, many people, including Pam Belluck, a former New York Times reporter, ignore such facts and instead accept the statements of contraceptive proponents at face value. She suggests that believing EC to be abortion-inducing “is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work.”

To the contrary. The latest studies, using precise and rigorous methods to assess the MOAs of emergency contraceptives, provide conclusive evidence that pre-ovulatory (i.e., contraceptive) MOAs (for example, delay or inhibition of ovulation and interference with sperm mobility) cannot alone account for the relative efficacy of ECs in preventing established (implanted) pregnancies.

I think we need to discuss these things.

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Some women are stockpiling birth control pills and getting long-lasting IUDs as well. See, many women are actually thinking things through.

Those whose decision to sterilize themselves arose consequent to an event on November 5, 2024, and who within a few days formulated and announced a plan to sterilize themselves, may not be "actually thinking things through."  It's still their decision, though.

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You aren’t and are just guessing their motives in a way that makes it look like they are idiots who need guidance from the government or men or whatever.

I haven't called anyone an "idiot."  That is a fabrication of your own making.

And I haven't said anything about "guidance from the government or men" either.  If an adult woman wants to sterilize herself, she has that right.  I think some (many?) who decide to do this in the immediate aftermath of November 5, and who then actually do it, will eventually come to regret that decision as rash and ill-advised.  It is, nevertheless, their decision.

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Stop assuming women are mental children that can’t follow the line from action to consequence. It is not a good look.

I've made no such assumption.  That is a fabrication of your own making.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Now that being transgender, and phenotypically passing as your preferred gender, has been compared to rape,

A biological man using deceit to go into women's spaces.  That's the point of comparison to theft by deception, rape by deception, unlawful use of a ghillie suit, etc.

But your complaint is well taken.  I retract the comparison and apologize.

16 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I'm going to permanently bow out from this.

Gross.

The "theft by deception" comparison is okay, though?

The ghillie suit analogy is okay as well?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 4, 2024 by smac97

[california boy]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A biological man using deceit to go into women's spaces.  That's the point of comparison to theft by deception, rape by deception, unlawful use of a ghillie suit, etc.

But your complaint is well taken.  I retract the comparison and apologize.

The "theft by deception" comparison is okay, though?

The ghillie suit analogy is okay as well?

Thanks,

-Smac

The problem with your position is you think a biological male is the same as someone who has transitioned to being a woman.  They are not the same. 

I don't think anyone here is supporting the idea that a biological male who is not trans should be allowed to use the woman's restroom.  If a biological male is deceiving people into believing he is trans, then yes, that is decent.  

Not the same thing at all who is transgender.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

The problem with your position is you think a biological male is the same as someone who has transitioned to being a woman.  They are not the same. 

Respectfully, yes, they are "the same."  A biological male "who has {not socially} transitioned to being a woman" and one "who has {socially} transitioned to being a woman" are both still biological males.

There is no such thing as "transitioning" into "being a woman."  The only justification for such a claim is an extended exercise of equivocating about the definition of "woman."  It's a very recent phenomenon, and one that is ad hoc, contrived, and incongruent with biological science and reality.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't think anyone here is supporting the idea that a biological male who is not trans should be allowed to use the woman's restroom.  

Right.  But they are supporting the idea that a biological male who does "identify" as "trans," as a woman, "should be allowed to use the woman's restroom."  A "trans woman" is still a biological male.

A "trans woman" is anyone who claims to be one, right?  There are no limiting principles at all, correct?  Any biological male can, at any time for any reason or no reason at all, "identify" as a women, declare himself as such, and then go into the women's bathroom.

I am open to being educated on this point.  What do you propose to be the mechanism for differentiating biological males from biological males who identify as trans women?  If it's not the unquestionable say-so of the individual, then what is it?  

3 hours ago, california boy said:

If a biological male is deceiving people into believing he is trans, then yes, that is decent.  

What if the biological male is deceiving people into believing he is a woman...?

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Not the same thing at all who is transgender.

A biological male who "identifies" as a woman is still a biological male.  Do we agree on this point?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 5, 2024 by smac97

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, yes, they are "the same."  A biological male "who has {not socially} transitioned to being a woman" and one "who has {socially} transitioned to being a woman" are both still biological males.

There is no such thing as "transitioning" into "being a woman."  The only justification for such a claim is an extended exercise of equivocating about the definition of "woman."  It's a very recent phenomenon, and one that is ad hoc, contrived, and incongruent with biological science and reality.

Right.  But they are supporting the idea that a biological male who does "identify" as "trans," as a woman, "should be allowed to use the woman's restroom."  A "trans woman" is still a biological male.

A "trans woman" is anyone who claims to be one, right?  There are no limiting principles at all, correct?  Any biological male can, at any time for any reason or no reason at all, "identify" as a women, declare himself as such, and then go into the women's bathroom.

I am open to being educated on this point.  What do you propose to be the mechanism for differentiating biological males from biological males who identify as trans women?  If it's not the unquestionable say-so of the individual, then what is it?  

What if the biological male is deceiving people into believing he is a woman...?

A biological male who "identifies" as a woman is still a biological male.  Do we agree on this point?

Thanks,

-Smac

While a gay man and a straight man are both male, do you think their brains are wired the same when it comes to who they think they are and who they are attracted to?

And since gay men are attracted to other males, do you think they should be able to share the same bathrooms?  How about locker rooms?  Should lesbians be allowed into women's bathrooms??  Locker rooms??

Edited December 5, 2024 by california boy

[Rain]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You thought my post about misogyny in general being much more dangerous was somehow still primarily about transgender people?

John Q. Public’s story there got it backwards. The people screaming about transgender issues are the opponents of transgender people. They are the loud ones. This isn’t people realizing that transgender rights are a threat. Most people never interact with transgender people

I'm not sure this is true anymore.  I have a transgender child/child-in-law.  My sibling has one as well. Another woman in my group of 4 friends does.   My husband was just released from the high council.  One HC, that we know of had one too. In my charity group of five 2 others have transgender children/children-in-laws.  My former ministering sister has a transgender grandchild.  I'm sure there are more in my circles of friends, church, and organizations, but we haven't talked about it for various reasons.   

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

and most transgender people like to avoid public scrutiny. No, John Q. Public is listening to the authors of the latest manufactured moral panic. It will be remembered the same way as the witch trials and the gay “recruitment” scare and the Jewish blood libel panic and the satanic cult panic.

Once again it is a bunch of horrible people stirring up hatred towards marginalized groups and sending a moralistic mob to hunt them down over virtually nothing. It is doing satan’s work, stirring up hatred and paranoia.

And it works every single time. Dance puppets! Dance!

 

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

While a gay man and a straight man are both male, do you think their brains are wired the same when it comes to who they think they are and who they are attracted to?

And since gay men are attracted to other males, do you think they should be able to share the same bathrooms?  How about locker rooms?  Should lesbians be allowed into women's bathrooms??  Locker rooms??

What do you propose to be the mechanism for differentiating biological males from biological males who identify as trans women?  If it's not the unquestionable say-so of the individual, then what is it?  

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What do you propose to be the mechanism for differentiating biological males from biological males who identify as trans women?  If it's not the unquestionable say-so of the individual, then what is it?  

You can't transition without taking drugs that stop testosterone and boosts estrogen.  If a person is doing that, then they are definitely transitioning.  It shows to me that they are not biological men pretending to be transitioning.  I would be ok with having to show proof of medication, kinda like showing Covid shot records.  

Now answer my questions.

While a gay man and a straight man are both male, do you think their brains are wired the same when it comes to who they think they are and who they are attracted to?

And since gay men are attracted to other males, do you think they should be able to share the same bathrooms?  How about locker rooms?  Should lesbians be allowed into women's bathrooms??  Locker rooms??

[sunstoned]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

When the law isn’t taken seriously it really won’t matter much.

LOL

While the rights of women in general are being revoked, blatant misogynistic hate speech is on the rise, gay marriage is in targeting sights again, and women literally dying because of badly written abortion laws there are more important ways to protect women right now than punching down at the small transgender population. Of course fixing those requires courage and facing powerful opposition. Punching down on the marginalized is easier.

I know women choosing sterilization for their own safety. Many of them wanted children in the future but don’t want the increased risks. I know transgender people adhering to the motto “death before detransition”. I know bisexual and straight women swearing off relationships with men as a safety measure. I know people arming themselves to be ready.

Do you really think the ‘transgender menace’ is going to be remembered as important in this era when people look back? Even transgender people consider it a relatively minor issue at this point. It is using a level to make sure a painting in the hall is hung correctly while the Titanic might sink.

Recent anti-transgender campaign organizations spent around $130 per transgender person in the entire country on transphobic scare ads. It is working. People are obsessed with it. Why is so much money being spent to rivet people’s attention to this issue that has limited impact on most people’s lives and no impact on many more. What are they trying to distract people from?

This is the state of the country we are living in now, and apparently, the majority of citizens and members are okay with it.