Remember all those pioneer talks we’ve heard about how persecution and suffering were proof that pioneers had found the truth? The idea was that people are willing to suffer to live their truth, and their willingness to suffer is evidence of that truth. Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his blood. The pioneers left their homes multiple times, and eventually crossed the wilderness, suffering hunger and death, because of their devotion to the truth they had found. The lyrics of the hymn “True to the Faith” include “true to the truth for which martyrs have perished.” Why would people suffer like that, give their lives even, if not for the truth? It would have been easier to say they’d made a mistake and quit. If you’re willing to suffer because of something you know to be true, your suffering is proof of the truth.
Joseph Smith said this: “When I do the best I can—when I am accomplishing the greatest good, then the most evils and wicked surmisings are got up against me. … The enemies of this people will never get weary of their persecution against the Church, until they are overcome. I expect they will array everything against me that is in their power to control, and that we shall have a long and tremendous warfare. He that will war the true Christian warfare against the corruptions of these last days will have wicked men and angels of devils, and all the infernal powers of darkness continually arrayed against him. When wicked and corrupt men oppose, it is a criterion to judge if a man is warring the Christian warfare. When all men speak evil of you falsely, blessed are ye, etc. [see Matthew 5:11]. Shall a man be considered bad, when men speak evil of him? No. If a man stands and opposes the world of sin, he may expect to have all wicked and corrupt spirits arrayed against him.” [Source]
The teaching is that the devil stirs up persecution to attack that which is true.
I had a mission companion from Eastern Europe. Her family had been Catholic for, literally, more than a thousand years. Not even the Soviet Union’s anti-religion policies was enough to wipe out her family’s Catholic heritage. As soon as the Berlin Wall came down and it was possible to send missionaries into the former Soviet bloc, she met the missionaries and broke her family’s heart to join the Church and then, to add insult to injury, she went on a mission for this upstart new religion, abandoning a millennia of family history.
We were serving together on Mother’s Day. She called home and her mother refused to speak to her, still so angry that her daughter had betrayed their heritage. I comforted her the best I could, and probably even told a few pioneer stories to remind her that people are always persecuted for living true to their principles. I’ve got stories like that in my family heritage – someone joined the Church, was rejected by their family, but knew they had found the truth and that made the persecution endurable.
In 1985, President Hinckley spoke about all the new temples that were under construction, and repeated a story from Brigham Young.
Evidently when someone with previous experience was asked to work on the Salt Lake Temple, he responded, “I do not like to do it, for we never began to build a Temple without the bells of hell beginning to ring.”
To which Brigham Young replied, “I want to hear them ring again. All the tribes of hell will be on the move, if we uncover the walls of this Temple.” [General Conference, October 1985]
Satan persecutes those who know the truth. Standing strong in the face of persecution is a sign of the truth.
Truth as a Personal Opinion
Here at W&T, we’ve had several posts discussing what it means to say you “know” the Church to be true. After all, one can’t objectively prove a religious belief – that’s why we need faith. Knowing a religious truth essentially means you have really strong feelings about it and you’re willing to change your life to live your truth. Religious truths are subjective. That means you can believe them firmly, even though you can’t prove them to anyone else.
Brigham Young described religious knowledge like this:
I know that the sun shines, I know that I exist and have a being, and I testify that there is a God, and that Jesus Christ lives, and that he is the Savior of the world. Have you been to heaven and learned to the contrary? I know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, and that he had many revelations. Who can disprove this testimony? Any one may dispute it, but there is no one in the world who can disprove it. I have had many revelations; I have seen and heard for myself, and know these things are true, and nobody on earth can disprove them. The eye, the ear, the hand, all the senses may be deceived, but the Spirit of God cannot be deceived; and when inspired with that Spirit, the whole man is filled with knowledge, he can see with a spiritual eye, and know that which is beyond the power of man to controvert. [Source]
Another subjective truth that can be disputed, but never disproven, is your gender identity.
The American Psychological Association defines gender identity as, “A person’s deeply-felt, inherent sense of being a boy, a man, or a male; a girl, a woman, or a female; or an alternative gender (e.g., genderqueer, gender nonconforming, gender neutral) that may or may not correspond to a person’s sex assigned at birth or to a person’s primary or secondary sex characteristics” [source].
Whether or not you have an X or Y chromosome affects your physical body’s sex characteristics, but it doesn’t always determine a person’s gender identity. Most people do identify with the gender they were assigned at birth based on their external genitalia. But a small percentage of people do not — these are transgender people. There is another group of people whose chromosomal sex is not clearly male or female — these are intersex people. I’m going to focus on transgender people for this essay.
Transgender people make up about 1% to 3% of the world’s population [source]. That’s significantly more people than people who are members of the LDS Church, so please don’t argue that we can ignore transgender people because there aren’t very many of them.
The transgender community is suffering through a wave of vile persecution, with Republican lawmakers targeting trans rights with an unprecedented number of anti-trans laws. Lawmakers in 37 U.S. states have introduced at least 142 bills to restrict gender-affirming healthcare for trans and gender-expansive people this year, nearly three times as many as last year. Besides the legal problems, murders and other hate crimes against transgender people are rising. In addition, transgender people have to deal with hateful comments and disrespect. Some trans people in Florida are fleeing their homes to get away from persecution.
Yet despite the persecution, transgender people continue to fight for their right to live their truth.
Is remaining faithful in the face of persecution proof of truth? If a transgender person loses a job or is rejected by family for being transgender, and remains transgender, does that prove that they really are transgender? Why don’t religious believers respect that? After all, religious belief isn’t any more provable than gender identity. In fact, the more you tell a religious person that their beliefs don’t make sense and aren’t supported by facts, the more strongly they believe those beliefs.
If believing an unprovable belief in the face of persecution is proof of truth, then transgenderism is as true as any religious belief.
Here’s what I’m getting at with this post: The USA is a land of religious freedom. This means the nation allows people to believe different unprovable beliefs. Catholics (generally) believe that communion wafers literally become the body of Christ. Muslims (generally) believe that it’s a sin to depict Mohammed in a painting. Jews believe the Sabbath Day is on Saturday. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it’s a sin to receive a blood transfusion. I’m not going to paint a picture of Mohammed and then argue with Muslims that it’s not a sin. I’m not going to tell Jews that they should worship on Sunday. I’m not going to argue with a Catholic about transubstantiation. I’m not going to vote for a law that forces JWs to have blood transfusions. Those aren’t my beliefs, but religious freedom means other people can believe what they want.
Transgender people should be given the same respect for their unprovable beliefs.
The Trans Agenda
Questions:
- Have you ever questioned your gender identity?
- Where’s the line with unprovable beliefs? It’s mostly political Christians who are leading the charge against trans rights, based on their belief that God creates people male or female and that shouldn’t be changed. Transgenderism isn’t a religious belief; it’s a personal belief. Transgenderism creates a community, the same way religious beliefs can create a community. Should religious beliefs and personal beliefs be treated differently? Why or why not?
Wheat & Tares 
I’m going to answer my own questions.
The first time I thought, “I should have been born a man” was when I was in high school in the 1980s. All of the strengths that made it so hard for me to be female would have been really popular if I’d been male. I was smart, had an intense personality, was socially awkward, and desperately wanted to be loved. I would have been the best boyfriend ever if I’d had a girlfriend who could have smoothed out my rough edges. I didn’t know anything about transgenderism at the time. Later, I concluded that I’m fine with being a woman. I dislike gender roles, and I’d rather have a girlfriend than a boyfriend (I don’t have either), but it doesn’t bother me to be female. I’m not transgender, but I sure had to think hard about it for a while.
To answer my second question, as you probably already guessed, I believe personal non-religious beliefs should be given as much respect as religious beliefs. The way you feel about yourself, your ethics, your body and your personhood roots as deeply in a person as a religious belief. They should be equally respected, and only limited if you seek to impose your beliefs on others and infringe their rights. The political Christians are imposing their beliefs about God’s creation of male and female onto transgender people who do not share that belief, and that imposition needs to be walked back. Christians can hold their beliefs about being created male or female for themselves, without insisting others abide by those beliefs. Stop making up harms to try and say this is a secular issue. It’s entirely about religious beliefs.
The trans issue is a confusing one for many of us who want to be tolerant and accepting on one hand but who also feel cautious about the rapid acceptance of gender fluidity in our society, especially among young people. We just don’t know where draw the line.
My general philosophy is pretty libertarian based. You do you as long as you don’t infringe on me or others. So, for example, I’ll accept you as male or female or both or neither, whatever you want. I’ll call you whatever pronoun you want and I don’t care how you dress.
Nor do I care about bathroom usage. But don’t expect to play on a women’s sports team if you are biologically male, because that infringes on girls’ sports.
This is tricky. I think the challenge is not when people have religious beliefs that only affect themselves, but when they have religious beliefs that they believe should affect others — and, most crucially, I think it’s reasonable and natural to expect that religious folks will have at least some beliefs that will affect others. Saying religious beliefs are ONLY ok if they are private feels like just saying that religion is not OK.
For example, it’s not about whether JWs necessarily should be forced to have blood transfusions for themselves (as adults). It might be…if a JW has a child, and the child has a medical condition for which blood transfusions are valuable, helpful, or necessary, then what?
If a JW is a doctor, do they have the right to not perform transfusions for any patients?
With that last one, we are increasingly seeing people wanting religious freedom to apply in situations like that. E.g., if someone’s religion does not support same-sex marriage, then they would and are increasingly arguing that they shouldn’t have to provide creative services in support of same sex marriage. And this also is increasingly applying to the detriment of transgender folks: if someone’s religion does not support transgender identity, then they want the ability to reject one’s identity. This is now being enacted into laws to limit or ban transgender care at the state level.
So, the analogy of transgender self-identity to religious belief is also a bit uncomfortable to me. In the same way I don’t think religious folks want their beliefs to be relegated to “private” and “personal,” my understanding is trans folks don’t just want a private belief for themselves that others are free to reject…they want other people to also see and recognize and accept them as who they identify as.
I just want to call out the terms “biological male” and “biological female” as nonsensical and without meaning.
Back up and educate yourself on intersex people. These are real biological people whose sex is not easily determined. They may look entirely female but have XY DNA and testicles where the ovaries would be. They may have both ovaries and testes. They may have neither. The brain’s sexual expression may not match the body’s sexual appearance. The brain will develop in a more masculine or feminine way depending on the hormones in the womb. All these things are biological and none of them can be clearly defined on a binary of only male or female.
Gender is not strictly biological, both biological and social factors come into play. However, it is a gross error to imagine in any specific person that you know they are a “biological” binary member of a specific sex and that there are no intersex factors involved.
Most transgender people never have their DNA examined. However, when they do, it isn’t uncommon to find intersex factors everyone was unaware of.
For instance Richard Ostler interviewed Landon Philips episode 673. Landon came out as a transgender man 5 years ago. Landon was believed to be a “biological” female all his life and for these 5 years after he came out. At Christmas his parents gave all their children including Landon a DNA test to take as a fun thing to do. The results came back that Landon has XY chromosomes. Androgen insensitivity is also spelled out in his DNA.
So when we hear of a LGBTQ person who seems to be choosing something different than we expect, we should consider that usually it isn’t as much choosing, but being. They likely have true biological differences that have made them the way they are. They discovered this and are now bravely sharing what is biologically true about them, instead of pretending to fit the binary.
Again, I find statements that refer to ” biological ” males or females to make no sense whatsoever. People need to find better and clearer and kinder ways to discuss this issue.
Andrew S – let me try and do a better job of explaining where I think religious beliefs can affect others, and when it shouldn’t. The question of JWs and blood transfusions is a good illustration. An adult JW can refuse a blood transfusion. Anyone can refuse any type of medical treatment, and that includes blood transfusions. However, if a JW refuses to allow a blood transfusion for their child in a situation in which the child will suffer serious harm or even death without the blood transfusion, the hospital can override the adult JW’s instruction and transfuse the child. I wrote a paper on this issue in law school. Another context is Christian Scientists, who largely refuse all medical care. If a Christian Scientist parent refuses to take their child to a doctor, they can be charged with medical neglect of a child and lose custody. It’s all very emotional. An adult’s religious belief can control the adult’s medical care, but there are laws saying that a child should get all necessary medical care, regardless of the parents’ belief.
I don’t believe this situation has ever come up, but a JW doctor should not and could not refuse to transfuse a patient if needed. That would be medical malpractice. A JW doctor would probably gravitate to a field that wouldn’t require blood transfusions, like being a general practitioner rather than a trauma surgeon.
I’m worried about the trend towards saying people can refuse services to LGBTQ based on religious beliefs. The Supreme Court cases so far have dealt with wedding cakes and wedding websites. What if a realtor refuses to help a gay couple buy a home? And doctors who refuse to treat trans patients are very problematic and causing harm.
When I worked at a restaurant, I made and served coffee, despite the Word of Wisdom. If I’d refused, saying coffee was against my religious beliefs, should my boss have agreed? If a Christian refuses to work on Sunday, and can’t find someone to trade shifts with, does the manager have to work around the Christian’s schedule? (I’ve had bosses who said that everyone wants Sunday off, so no one gets Sunday off.)
My personal take is that I can live my religious beliefs without penalizing others who don’t. I can make and serve coffee at a restaurant without violating my own religious beliefs. A wedding cake baker can bake a cake for a gay wedding without marrying someone of the same sex himself. A wedding website designer doesn’t have to marry someone of the same sex just because she designed a website for a lesbian couple. No one is being forced into a same sex marriage.
Does your religious belief include the right to be really public and vocal about your disagreement with someone else’s personal choices? Does your religious belief include the right to pass a law insisting that others obey your religious beliefs? Does your religious belief give you the right to discriminate against someone who doesn’t share your religious belief? I say no.
I’m rereading your comment, and I don’t believe my post limited religious feels to ONLY private behavior. LDS are free to turn down coffee even if everyone else is drinking it. LDS can wear t-shirts with sleeves while everyone else is in a tank top. LDS can build churches and gather every Sunday. That’s all public behavior. Everyone can see them living their beliefs. But can they remove all the coffee from the restaurant? Can they drape a shawl over everyone in a tank top? Can they require everyone to go to Church on Sunday? You can be publicly religious without making everyone else obey your religion.
I wasn’t going to bring up the sports issue, but it’s already here, so here’s my take on it.
Trying to “protect” girls sports teams by banning transgender athletes is harming girls much more than it’s helping. The Ninth Circuit recently blocked Idaho’s law that banned trans women and girls from participating in or trying out for women’s sports in public schools as well as NCAA colleges in the state. The law required any female athlete whose gender was challenged to an intrusive sex dispute verification process. Anyone could challenge their gender, be it a teammate, coach, parent or an athlete on the opposing side.
Can you see the potential for harassment and cruelty there? A team rival challenges someone’s gender, and that athlete now has to go put her feet in the stirrups and let a gynecologist poke around her vagina, searching for evidence of vaginoplasty surgery. Or a sore loser challenges the entire team’s gender, and now you’ve got an entire team being subjected to a pelvic exam. What a creepy and invasive thing to do in the name of protecting women.
A world in which a girl’s genitals have to be inspected before she can play sports is a much more damaging world than one in which someone who may have been assigned male at birth is on the team.
The fear-mongering about trans athletes in women’s sports isn’t based on reality. Where is this mythical trans woman who has unfairly climbed to the top of her sport? Where is the man who was a mediocre athlete, and then thought to himself, “I know what I’ll do! I’ll change my entire life in a way that invites incredible amounts of persecution so that I can dominate in the well-respected, extremely lucrative and fame-making field of … (wait for it) … women’s sports!”
I’m 40-something, and completely understand josh h’s comment. Sometimes it feels a bit overwhelming living in a world where increasing numbers of teens are trans, non-binary, gender fluid, etc. Sometimes the magnitude feels like more than I can wrap my little brain around.
At the same time, (I’ll repeat for emphasis: literally, at the same time!) I have a trans kid. For his entire life, he’s been very wary (to the point of fearful) of nearly all authority figures. (Bishops, teachers, parents, etc.) His natural inclination has always been to try to make those people happy, at the expense of his own happiness if necessary. There’s no specific trauma that I know of to explain this, I think he just arrived on earth this way. So when this kid tells me that he’s trans, I’m confident that he’s not doing it for attention. And we’re a couple of years into this journey, so it’s not a fad. As overwhelming as the large scale picture can feel to me, at the individual level it hasn’t been as hard as I would have expected. I can’t know how he feels, I only know what he’s telling me. And once he’s told me, I can choose to believe him, or not. I believe him. For me, knowing his personality and the social cost of coming out as trans does make it easier to believe and respect him. Why would anyone choose this for themselves if it wasn’t true?
Janey, excellent approach in this article! I was also going to respond to Andrew S, but you covered everything I was going to say.
In answer to your first question, I have questioned my gender identity. I questioned it before I even knew what gender identity was. As a teenager I prayed many, many times that God would change me into a girl. And then, in the morning, when I was still a male, I would feel guilty that I would even ask Him for such an evil, unworthy desire. I knew, knew without a doubt, that God hated me for what I felt and thought inside my head. And if anyone knew what was actually happening in my head, they would hate me, too. I was, and am, an active member in the Church. I got the Priesthood, served my mission, got married, had a bunch of kids, served in all sorts of callings. It took me 4 decades to finally try to figure out what to do with myself and get help. I have a great (LDS) therapist, as well as a good bishop, and I finally understand who and what I am. My ability to feel the Spirit, to love the Lord, myself, and others, has reached a whole new level, one that is not dependent on doing things in a particular way. I am a child of God, a disciple of Christ, and transgender. I have not transitioned, because that is not where I am on my journey, although my journey is not complete yet. Many people know I am transgender, and even more do not. The Lord knows I am, and he blesses me every day, even though I could never have imagined my life taking this course.
As to the second question, Joseph Smith stated we would allow anyone to believe what they wanted, and that we would defend anyone’s right to believe as they wish, no matter what they believed. I did not choose to be transgender, nor did I “develop” my transgender ideas through pornography, or by being the victim of childhood sexual abuse, or any of the other reasons people try to give to justify why who I am is anything other than a variation of humanity/mortality. Discovering, and learning to accept that Heavenly Father loves me for who I am and what I can offer was huge! Coming to terms with myself has also broadened my understanding and tolerance for others, as well as my willingness to allow people to seek fulfillment in life in the ways that best serve them. I am learning that humility means listening to others to find out where they are, and then loving/helping/serving them there. If I’m making someone’s life more difficult by excluding them or marginalizing them, I am not living up to what I claim to believe. Although I have written more than I planned, I firmly believe religious beliefs and personal beliefs should be respected equally, based on both my faith tradition and my personal experience.
Janey,
I think i’m getting more to the implications of religious beliefs. My thinking is that religious beliefs and nonreligious beliefs are both often claims about external reality. When this is the case, then these claims about external reality often do impinge upon others.
So, looking at a few other parts of your comment:
In my view, this is just not taking religion seriously. If religions speak to *external reality* (and again, I know this is contentious), then the implications for the public sphere do raise these types of questions. Just answering “no” is akin to answering, “But religious beliefs don’t actually align with external reality.” Which, again, that’s precisely the point of contention.
You’re intentionally choosing religious beliefs that seem like they would have less of a likelihood of impinging on others or placing demands on others and then putting them in a different class than religious beliefs that do.
But to religious folks — they are all the same class of belief.
Let me start with coffee to challenge this. Let’s say that Mormons came to view that coffee was immoral for society. Not just immoral for believing members, but immoral to society. let’s say there was a belief that it was harmful, not simply immoral. Let’s say for example that the belief in not partaking in coffee was viewed similarly as the belief in not partaking of hard drugs. (I know most Mormons don’t go this far, but let’s say they did.) If one has this belief that coffee is as bad as hard drugs, is it moral to try to make laws to criminalize coffee? To ban coffee?
Well, this is precisely what most of us actually *do* espouse this for hard drugs, even though there are others who push for decriminalization, live and let live, rehabilitation, a number of other approaches. We do not just say, “Well, I’ll stay away from hard drugs, but it’s OK for you.” No, most of the time the reasons for thinking they are personally bad are extended to everyone else.
Using coffee just because it’s an example where nearly everyone agrees it’s not “as bad as” other things doesn’t actually provide a framework for how to work with religious OR non-religious beliefs where people DO think it’s a grave problem. We can’t just reduce every religious belief to “well, I personally won’t drink coffee,” because not every religious belief is like that. Using only those examples doesn’t help engage where religions are making claims that apply more broadly.
I really want to reiterate something else as well…this is a problem for not just religious beliefs but also non-religious beliefs – because unless you just want to make religious beliefs into their own category, then acknowledging that religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs both need to be reckoned with does have implications.
For this, I’ll go *back* to the start of your response to mine, about medical care:
Essentially, what’s happening here is there are mostly religious beliefs about the unsuitability of certain forms of medical care and they “go against” nonreligious beliefs about the suitability of certain forms of medical care. And in this case, as a society, as a legal practice, we basically say, “The religious beliefs LOSE to the non-religious beliefs.”
But that *too* is a belief. And not every person in society, not every lawyer, not every lawmaker, not every judge *agrees* with that. So now we are increasingly relitigating these things: can religious beliefs “win” over non-religious beliefs? Or, can there be non-religious formulations that get at the same restrictions that religious folks generally want.
So, I REALLY have a fundamental issue with the comparison of transgender belief to religious belief, because a lot of opponents to transgender care or to LGBT rights in general WILL try to frame their opposition in secular/non-religious language about “serious harm to children”, try to say that transgender care is NOT necessary medical care, or is in fact harmful.
For whatever its worth, I think that LGBT folks *are* making claims about external reality. When someone asserts gender identity, it’s not just for themselves, but for everyone else to acknowledge and accept. So, to take some questions you had and applying it to LGBT:
and obviously, that’s not acceptable.
EDIT, and addressing the part I quoted otherwise, with modifications:
Liiiiike….yo.
I will state just touching on a line from your other comment
The issue is that what reality is and is not is contentious. Unless we say, “Religions aren’t based on reality” (and even then…who’s deciding that?), we have to recognize that religions *are* claiming to be based on reality. This is also why I do not like the comparison of religious belief to transgender identity. Because if all we can get to is that “transgender identity is an unprovable belief like a religious belief and should therefore have similar restrictions as religious beliefs”….that doesn’t work.
I don’t want to answer the questions because the wrestling required would be fraught with ugly, messy, blogging inappropriateness. Today is not my day for that. But it makes me happy to witness others who’ve done this work and gained strength and clarity, and I really appreciate those who aren’t trans themselves, but engage in the journey to believe, understand, and support those who are; to wrap their brains around the ideas as best they can.
But trans athletes competing in women’s sports. (It’s always women’s sports, never the other way around) This is where my experience is, that I can speak to. Most particularly, I’ve been on the journey with trans athletes for years, and have explained myself into a stupor in the face of relentless hand-wringing angst/knee-jerk bigotry within the veneer of concern for fairness in women’s sports. Thank you for answering that point so I don’t have to.
I will however, restate for the eleventy-billionth time that an athlete’s individual performance in their chosen arena of play is the only thing that matters, (for all individual athletes) and lucky for the pundits questioning from the sidelines, the final score settles that part of the question, for good or ill, of whether said athlete belongs in that particular arena.
The part of this query about the overall fairness to women’s sports in general is not by a long shot, the only or primary question one should ask. A good person seeking fairness by asking about trans athletes, first needs to address much larger issues of injustice in women’s sports, wherein they’ll find the answer they seek to the smaller question. Someone who persists with the issue of trans athletes and women’s sport, without taking a thorough position on far more massive inequalities in women’s sports, is not making an honest query.
It’s our job to educate ourselves.
Sorry if this creates a threadjack, Janey. It only speaks to the OP inasmuch as sports is a religion, but it’s the hydra I am most prepared to decapitate. I’ll be absent for the rest of the day, so I’m not available for threadjackery.
1. I’ve never really had any thoughts of being transgender.
2. I believe that religious beliefs and personal beliefs should in the end align. Of course, getting them to align is the complicated part.
Knowing where both types of beliefs originated in your mind would help but many times we don’t even know that. Did religious beliefs come from God or were they something we heard come from God from another person who believed they came from God or are they just an opinion from a person who says they believe/speak for God? Are our personal beliefs just religious beliefs we haven’t examined in the light of science or history or some other non-religious thought? Just figuring that out takes a lot of personal honesty. Of course, there are issues to deal with in the meantime and we have to speak out about them and give our opinions and we do so claiming either religious or personal beliefs not really being able to distinguish between what is what but perfectly willing to go to the wall for them.
Finally, I think, that religious beliefs are more fixed than personal beliefs which can be influenced by new knowledge from Science, history, or any number of other sources which are constantly evolving and increasing as a source of knowledge. Both types of beliefs require faith and with that change. To me, the main question is, what moves us forward, or which one sticks us in the past? New knowledge, no matter where it comes from, requires change and new ways of looking at things, which includes other ways of looking at religion that might not align with the way you look at religion now.
What is not mentioned here is that transgenders also suffer discrimination from the older school folks of the LGB community. Many LGB folks see transgender as a piggy-backing of their hard-earned social platform, or as an extension of crossdressing. Within the LGB community, there is some degree of hostility towards transgender, though they tend to be legalistically more tolerant than semi-fascist evangelical republicans. Those of us who have old school LBG friends (young adult LGBTQXYZ excluded) are probably familiar with the trash-talk that goes on towards transgenders within the counterculture.
From a faithful LDS perspective, all counterculture is problematic. The institution validates same-sex attraction on one hand, and condemns it in any form of physicality on the other. Two priesthood brothers can give “man hugs,” but if two feminized men hug, we curl with disdain: it’s an inconsistent, emotional reaction on the part of institutionalized faithful LDS. Even more, we tend to make the issue about chastity, which is also inconsistent, because chastity issues are much more tolerated (via repentance) throughout the Church in heterosexual context.
What is missing is a doctrine of embodiment. In the mythology of the Eden story, partaking of the fruit opens the gate into mortality and death unto resurrection. It can be argued from a mythological standpoint, that our spiritual natures were male and female prior to mortal embodiment in the acting choice of partaking the fruit: Eve partook of the fruit from the Tree itself, while Adam partook of the fruit from Eve’s hand. Two very different ways of consumption and agency. From this mythology, one could argue that the spiritual nature of men and women, and their embodiment thereafter, is predicated upon how the fruit of the Tree was partaken—the consequence of eating of the fruit directly from the Tree is female embodiment, and the consequence of eating of the fruit directly from the hand of a woman is male embodiment. So embodiment is a reflection of the spiritual nature or inclination of desire in the first place. If the path to resurrection requires mortal embodiment, and if mortal embodiment requires a heterosexual act for conception, it follows that heterosexual copulation establishes and fulfills the ends of resurrection. This is the so-called doctrinal foundation: it is NOT chastity.
My LGB friends (none are LDS) are far more Christ-like than most of the LDS I run into on social media, so it makes for a proper paradox. We come into embodiment through all sorts of stimulation, and the stimulation matters because it affects what we feel, how we figuratively taste mortality. Ultimately, the concept of covenant expresses family relationship (Hebrew, Berit=family relationship=kinship). Covenant fulfills “at-one-ment” by uniting us in heavenly family bonds. So treating others poorly over perceived belief systems, silly politics, or so-called doctrines (dogmas), runs against covenant, no way around it. Aloha
Travis, I have never heard that it is significant that eve picked the fruit, and Adam took it from eve. Not sure how it is important, and how you get from there to gender?
I would have thought with this detailed study you would have noticed that neither Adam or Eve were created by hetrosexual means, and particularly Adam was created by 2 men.
I have tried to point out that America is further to the right politically than other first world countries, and also more religious. Coincidence? Trans people are respected like others. Except for the much fewer right wing people we have.
There is only a trans agenda, or gay agenda in the right wing mind.
My wife and I watch a show called hard quiz. This week there was a trans woman as one of 4 contestants. There is a section where they go into some of the background of the contestants. There was a picture of the trans woman as a child, and she said that was a gender ago, which struck me.
She was respected as much as the other contestants.
Andrew S – I think I understand what you’re saying, and then it gets away from me. From our other conversations (especially the one on trinitarianism), I’ve noticed that I sometimes have a hard time following what you’re saying. Your comments seem to go past mine on an abstract and theoretical level. I’ve got more of a practical mindset. That’s not meant to be derogatory at all. I think we just approach discussions differently. I’m going to try and respond to what you’re saying the best I can.
I don’t know how you did that neat pull-out quote formatting though.
—-
Your last paragraph said, “This is also why I do not like the comparison of religious belief to transgender identity. Because if all we can get to is that “transgender identity is an unprovable belief like a religious belief and should therefore have similar restrictions as religious beliefs”….that doesn’t work.”
A person’s transgender identity, just like a person’s religious identity, is based on subjective beliefs. In that way, they can be compared. My post was about respecting someone’s transgender identity in the same way we respect religious beliefs. I thought long and hard about what you meant by “similar restrictions” and what I came up with is that perhaps you think that transgender people are somehow imposing on Christians by asking to be accepted as transgender? Because I don’t think that asking someone to use your preferred pronouns and chosen name is an imposition. Transphobes argue that’s infringing on their beliefs. I think that’s very snowflake of them. Saying, “your very existence violates my religious beliefs and therefore I will seek to ban your existence” goes way over the line of acceptable conduct in a tolerant society. Saying, “you’re imposing on me because I’m entitled to know what your genitals look like before you can use a public restroom” is creepy. Political Christians have twisted the discussion to try and make themselves the victims, like they have a religious right to persecute trans people. Or maybe I misread you – what did you mean by “similar restrictions?”
Trans people are not imposing their beliefs on Christians; they’re fighting to continue existing while Christians try to make them invisible and voiceless.
Political Christians: *pass laws to remove books with transgender characters from school libraries*
Trans rights: *file court cases to try and put those books back* (Trans rights proponents do NOT try to remove books with religious characters)
Political Christians: *pass laws to ban drag performances*
Trans rights: *file court cases to regain the right to drag performances* (trans rights proponents do NOT try to ban religious performances)
Trans rights: *please use my preferred pronouns*
Political Christians: “you’re a pedophile and a groomer and if I use your preferred pronouns, then that’s a sin and you’re asking me to risk going to hell”‘
Christians: *successfully passing laws to prevent trans people from living as trans people*
Trans people: *Christians are persecuting us and it sucks*
Tolerance means you leave people alone as long as they leave you alone. If you start advocating to take away rights or destroy people, then yeah, people get to fight for their survival. No one is passing laws against taking children to church; but they are passing laws to prevent parents from getting puberty blockers for a trans child. No one is going to pass a law forcing people to use your pronouns, any more than the Church is going to try and pass a law to force people not to say “Mormon” anymore. Trans people aren’t imposing their beliefs on Christian people; they’re just trying to co-exist in a society that includes Christians. It isn’t an imposition to exist.
—-
You compared and contrasted banning coffee with banning hard drugs. Quote: “Let’s say that Mormons came to view that coffee was immoral for society. Not just immoral for believing members, but immoral to society. let’s say there was a belief that it was harmful, not simply immoral. Let’s say for example that the belief in not partaking in coffee was viewed similarly as the belief in not partaking of hard drugs. (I know most Mormons don’t go this far, but let’s say they did.) If one has this belief that coffee is as bad as hard drugs, is it moral to try to make laws to criminalize coffee? To ban coffee? ”
The comparison fails because there is objective proof of harm or no harm. Coffee has some minor harms. Hard drugs have some serious harms. Not everyone is harmed, but one is much riskier than the other. That can be shown objectively and provably. If the prophet equates coffee to hard drugs, and encourages Church members to start lobbying for laws to ban coffee, then that’s ridiculous and overreaching and people should push back and tell the prophet to mind his own business. If someone tried to say that believing hard drugs can cause serious harm is solely a religious belief, then that’s ridiculous too.
—-
You lost me with this comment: “My thinking is that religious beliefs and nonreligious beliefs are both often claims about external reality. When this is the case, then these claims about external reality often do impinge upon others.”
Religions don’t claim to be based on reality. They’re based on faith. Faith is to believe something without evidence. Church leaders have given talks about the different ways of knowing something is true — knowing a scientific fact, compared to knowing a historical fact, compared to knowing a religious claim is true. Even when I was a faithful TBM, I knew there was a difference from saying, “I know that Jesus is my Savior” and saying, “I know using hard drugs can cause addiction and even death.”
This was a good question you asked: “can religious beliefs “win” over non-religious beliefs? Or, can there be non-religious formulations that get at the same restrictions that religious folks generally want.” This has already happened. The people pushing transgender restrictions into law aren’t talking about their religious beliefs. That part is all off-stage. The rationalizations they offer are to talk up the risks of medically transitioning. The risks and dangers and benefits of medically transitioning aren’t a religious belief – they are a provable fact, based on studies and evidence. Yet when religious politicians are confronted with medical evidence that disproves the risks, or at least shows that things like puberty blockers are no more risky than other medical treatments children get, they don’t accept it.
There has to be a difference between religious beliefs and science and medicine. I don’t think we disagree here. As you concluded, “because a lot of opponents to transgender care or to LGBT rights in general WILL try to frame their opposition in secular/non-religious language about “serious harm to children”, try to say that transgender care is NOT necessary medical care, or is in fact harmful.”
Janey writes: “But a small percentage of people do not — these are transgender people. There is another group of people whose chromosomal sex is not clearly male or female — these are intersex people. I’m going to focus on transgender people for this essay.”
If this were so then transgender identity would be a biological fact. But the foundation of trans ideology is that gender identity is independent of biology. As such, using biological abnormalities to defend trans ideology is disingenuous.
The beauty of liberty is individuals are free to believe many things independent of “the Truth”. At the same time a society’s ability to sustain liberty and prosperity is largely dependent on members of society sharing common values that are True. A society where Truth is created and defined in the mind of each citizen is incoherent. Such a society simultaneously believes in nothing and believes in everything.
Christianity teaches God is both just and merciful. Mortals do not comprehend the perfect mercy and perfect justice that God possesses. But we do have hints. One is that God is not keen on our excuses. There are many reasons why we sin.- why we fail ourselves and fail others, and why we fail God.
Our dispositions, influenced by both our genetics and by our upbringing have great impact for good and ill how we handle the adversity of life. These may help explain our behaviors and choices. But they do not justify resigning ourselves to our base desires.
Trans ideology claims a person is who they say they are. God has a better offer. It is that God will help us become as he sees us. But this requires we “become a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord” and that we “submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon us” ( Mosiah 3:19)
King Benjamin teaches many powerful insights on the human condition and our relationship to God. One is a thing humans are especially reluctant to accept. It is that we are sinful creatures. We really do not like to admit this. It spoils our self regard. We like to think we are approved of God and because we have God’s approval we are good!
King Benjamin warns otherwise. Sin is all about us. In fact the ways and means of sin are so prevalent they cannot be numbered.
“And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.”
And so we must watch ourselves, our words, thoughts and actions. Self-justification may ease our conscience but it will not repair our souls. For that a mighty change of heart is required.
A Disciple-
“Trans ideology claims a person is who they say they are. God has a better offer. It is that God will help us become as he sees us. But this requires we “become a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord” and that we “submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon us” ( Mosiah 3:19)”
I, and other trans folk I know, are working at becoming saints through the atonement of Jesus Christ, same as others. We have also submitted to this big thing the Lord has seen fit to inflict upon us. Once we accept who we are and turn to Christ, He makes our burden light. The burden we still feel comes from those who think they know what God thinks about us, just like Janey mentioned in her OP.
“Trans ideology claims a person is who they say they are. God has a better offer. It is that God will help us become as he sees us.” -You are working from a perspective that “trans ideology” (this is a divisive label, not an actual paradigm) is sinful in nature and contrary to God’s will. God wants us to offer ourselves, our true selves, to Him. He wants to help us become who He knows we can be. This is what he requires of all His disciples. What I have to offer Him is different than what you have to offer Him, because we are different spiritual beings living different mortal experiences. You write from your perspective and your understanding of scripture, but you are opining on the experiences, sacrifices, and “unprovable beliefs” of people living a different life experience than you. Janey laid out a road map for greater understanding and a bigger picture Gospel when it comes to trans folk. Talk to a few of us and you will learn that we are not driven or motivated by sinful desires any more than you are, but rather by a desire for love, acceptance and a place at the wedding feast, just like most children of God.
Lastly, A Disciple, you wrote, “It is that we are sinful creatures.” This is a whole ‘nother topic, and I’m not going to threadjack, but that idea is only one interpretation of King Benjamin’s discourse on the natural man, and a flawed one in my opinion.
Concrete Cowboy – thank you for sharing your experience in your previous comment. Your reply to Disciple was also well-stated. Being transgender isn’t a sin and Disciple didn’t explain how he thinks it’s a sin.
I disagree with King Benjamin (and Disciple) saying we’re all sinners, actually. I’ve got a whole post drafted about that. Maybe I’ll get it finished and publish it and we can spend an entire post talking about whether we’re all enemies to God. I’ve had some really strong experiences with feeling God’s love, and not once did he tell me I was a sinner and needed to change my basic personality. I remain queer and gender non-conforming, and God loves me like that.
I would add that many Americans do not see establishing laws against children and teens transitioning as imposing their views on or harming others. So they would dismiss Janey’s opinion. They see it as protecting children and teens from fanatical adults intent on chemically castrating and physically destroying God’s creation or image. The two sides are light years apart and like abortion this issue is irreconcilable.
And before y’all break out the thumbs downs…. I have no idea what the truth or moral position is. But in my professional life I have seen a suicide and also several cases where teens wanted to transition, parents refused and the teens changed their minds on reaching adulthood. One trans male even reclaimed her heterosexuality and married a biological dude. But if you want to thumbs down a confused person with no position….
let er rip!
1. Until a few years ago I would have said I never felt gender dysmorphia or felt trans. When my oldest child came out as gay I can remember handling that badly in many ways as a Mormon dad, but one of the things I regret saying was that at least she wasn’t trans. This was especially hurtful because she did have a lot of feelIngs about that she was struggling with.
When another of my children came out as non binary I had more some time to think about it away from the church and I realized that all those years of feeling like I didn’t fit with my male peers and thinking about how much easier it would be for me to have just been born as a woman was exactly what they were describing to us. I didn’t have words to describe those feelings in the 1980s and wouldn’t dare to say anything so scandalous out loud.
Being afraid about the perceived increase in trans and non-binary youth is the wrong conclusion to make in my opinion. They have a language and a more accepting peer group than our generation ever had. It isn’t as scary to talk about gender and sexuality. The conclusion i have come to is that our rigid expectations and cultural norms for men and women are the problem. That trans and non-binary kids are just so brave and self aware. It is a good thing that they can talk about and live authentic lives.
Janey,
The pull quote is by putting text in between “blockquote” tags. of course, like with other html, remember to include “less than sign” and “greater than sign”” around “blockquote>” (EDIT: tried to do code, then it converted it to blockquote box lol). And to close out a tag, it’s “less than sign, back slash”…
But my point is that transgender identity, just like religious identity, generally implies expectations for *other people*’s behavior regarding that identity.
Yes, this is how non-affirming people would see things.
What is acceptable conduct or not is a belief that you are imposing on others. You are imposing your line of acceptable conduct on those others. Which is fine — my argument is that beliefs usually impose, so it’s not a problem for them to do that.
My issue is that these things cannot be taken for granted. What the line of acceptable conduct is is a constantly contested line. And people who do not affirm LGBT folks are not sitting idly by.
So, instead of just saying “this goes way over the line,” we have to have reasons. It can’t just be accepted uncritically, or else it’s no different than any other dogma.
And of course, anyone who disagrees with transgender folks would say similarly that “LGBT activitists have twisted the discussion to try to make themselves look like victims, inventing civil rights that have not historically existed in our Christian society.”
See how easy it is to do? Whereas you assume our society is tolerant and that’s the line of conduct, i would actually say that American history shows that America is usually *intolerant*. It would be far easier to point out that America is “about” and “for” discrimination than against it — see our history on race, history on internment camps, our anti-immigration state, the fact that LGBT behavior and identity was criminalized for *most* of the history of this country, etc.,
LGBT people do not simply want to exist. LGBT people want to exist *and* be accepted by others. If my existence only exists as a “personal”, “private”, or “subjective” concept, but I still have to be in the closet in public, that is not acceptable to me. But for me to exist *publicly* naturally has implications for *other people*. That *is* an imposition on non-affirming Christians. I think it’s worth it. Obviously, the non-affirming Christians do not agree.
I’ll address one of your scenarios to point it out:
“Please use my preferred pronouns” is PRECISELY a request for someone ELSE to do something. I do not know how to make it clear that this *is* an imposition.
Even if we strip out the pedophile and groomer accusations, the main thing I would say here is that to the Christian, it’s not simply a sin, it’s a *lie*. That is, it’s not something that comports with reality to them. This is why I keep getting back to how problematic your framing of “subjective” or “unprovable” beliefs. People don’t want things to just be “true for themselves” but “true for everyone.” When a trans person says, “please use my preferred pronouns,” it’s because their gender identity is not just private true for themselves, but something they want others to recognize as true as well.
It’s incredibly important to note that LGBT people do not want tolerance. We want *acceptance*. We want *affirmation.*. “Please use my preferred pronouns” is not a request made from a position of tolerance (“leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone.”) “Please use my preferred pronounse” is a request made for the other person to accept their gender identity. (“I’m engaging with you and I expect you to engage with me under my terms.”)
I do not know how to emphasize that this is categorically different than a lot of the other examples you have used, which is why I’m emphasizing it.
I am not sure how to point out that while laws vs social expectations vs shame vs other tools are different, they are each imposition. “Please use my preferred pronouns” may not be as strong as a law, but it’s a similar type of imposition on the behaviors of others. And yes, people do want others to use their preferred pronouns.
But more importantly, what are you talking about? Of course, people want laws forcing people to use their pronouns? The main thing I would say is “Please use my pronouns” is a request for a broad amount of behavior modifications. It’s not JUST “Use this pronoun in speech” but ALSO, “recognize and treat me with the same social and legal privileges that would accrue to someone of that gender, based on my identification with it.” In this way, *every* anti-discrimination bill *is* a law forcing people to use pronouns. Think of it as the bathroom ban bills are a *response*. If trans people CAN use the bathroom of their gender identity and the law precludes and prevents them from being turned away, harassed, discriminated against, then this is the same thing as the law forcing people to accept their gender identity.
And I would say this is an imposition that yes, we want. People do not just want to be trans in a private, personal, subjective sense. Because people need to use bathrooms in public, need to engage with services in public, need to engage with society in public.
You want to have things both ways. If something can only impose if it has “objective proof”, then when you say gender identity is “subjective,” then trans people cannot request others to use their preferred pronouns.
But if trans people CAN request others to use their pronouns (and I think they certainly can), then either
1. gender identity is objective, and shouldn’t be classified in as “subjective,” “unprovable” beliefs,
OR
2. subjective beliefs CAN also impose. Subjective claims of harms can also be used in the analysis, etc.,
The point of this example is to show a tension. You want to get to a point where trans people can ask others to recognize their personal pronouns, even if it’s “subjective”. But if this is the case, you cannot reject religious people asking other people to recognize and change behaviors based on the implications of their beliefs.
Of course religions claim to be based on reality! The difference is religions claim that reality is *more* than materialism. When religions claim things must be accepted on faith, that is NOT saying they are not real. They are saying, “There are things that are real that cannot be grasped according to materialism, science, etc,.”
Faith is not to believe something without evidence. Faith is asserting a different criteria for evidence than what we use in our secular world. To quote Paul, “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things unseen.” Paul is not saying, “fail is not real, is not evidence.” Faith is saying, “There are some things you can’t see with your eyes, but are still true. Faith is the evidence for these things.”
I do not want this to be taken the wrong way, but I really really really feel that was not what church leaders were trying to get at when they were differentiating different ways of knowing things were true.
It seems that you interpreted it as “knowing things through religious claims and faith makes things less real or less true than knowing a historical fact. or a scientific fact.”
But I don’t think that’s how they were saying. They were trying to say all truth is truth, as real as anything else. But you can have different ways of investigating to confirm those truths. Some things are known through historical investigation. Some things are known through scientific inqury. Some are known through revelation and faith.
In other words, “Jesus is my Savior and following him is the only way to avoid spiritual death” is meant to be JUST AS REAL, JUST AS TRUE as “hard drugs can cause addiction and physical death.” Even though the former cannot be tested in a lab.
When a trans person says, “this is my gender identity,” they are asserting that to be JUST AS REAL, JUST AS TRUE as “hard drugs can cause addiction and physical death.”
The choice of what studies to believe and what studies to reject are not provable facts. It’s like apologetics. Apologists claim they have studies and evidence to back up things that otherwise should be taken on faith. But obviously, not everyone agrees with apologetics.
I quite like Brian’s assessment that younger people have developed better language to talk about these challenges and less stigma that prevents any/all discussion, and this is a great improvement for people who grapple with this. I think automatically labeling people as sinful for these feelings, or labeling the culture as sinful for “encouraging” this is misguided and very harmful to individuals and their families.
Old Man speaks a truth that applies to all of us — that we don’t know enough for consensus, much less to make fair and workable laws, and we should be cautiously conservative with minor children without undue constraints on medical practitioners and caregivers.
I have a family member who is transgender, now adult, but navigating the systems to help her stay alive and reasonably healthy as a teen was a nightmare and would’ve been utterly impossible with ignorant legislation factored in. During this period, our family was advised by another family member, a respected medical professional and devout practicing member, who let us and extended family know that the medical community recognizes that presenting as transgender is very real for significant numbers of people, and that while there’s much we don’t know, they are working hard to determine reliable facts and effective treatments, and most of all, believing these patients without shaming, and taking their cues from them as they learn what are the best practices. And right now the best-practice treatment of pre-pubescent and teenage children is not irreversible or destructive, but there are treatments available that can ease the anxieties while a trans person and families work through the decisions and in due time, resolve some of their confusion and uncertainty. And the best way we can help as outsiders within the community (including legislators with agendas) is to keep our own counsel out of their business unless we’re doing the difficult work of educating ourselves alongside them, as trans folks are doing.
By doing this, I support trans people and give the medical community serving them the grace necessary for progress.
Janey & Concrete Cowboy,
Being a sinner does not make one an enemy to God. Choosing not to repent makes one an enemy to God. Sin distances us from God but it is rebellion that creates hostility. Christianity does not exist without an understanding of sin. And yet modern Christians, including LDS, are doing their darnedest to avoid the topic.
It doesn’t help the LDS community that our leadership teaches a corrupt, Pharisaical Law, version of repentance – that repentance requires leadership to exact a measure of pain and shame from members for private sins, as if members owe the leaders a debt for having done wrong. No members like this so LDS pretend to be sinless so as to avoid the chilling judgment of our leaders.
What is sin? That question invites many theological illuminations. What are examples of sin? The safe answer is a recitation of the Ten Commandments with zero intellectual curiosity or elaboration on what it means to lie, steal, covet or bear false witness. The safe answer is to pick societal villains such as Bernie Madoff and stick the sinful label to them. Heaven forbid we get personal about sin or condemn ourselves.
We know we are generally awash in sin because we persistently fail as a people to establish Zion. If we were doing so great, and being so righteous, why is Zion so far removed from us? The Lord gave the answer to Joseph Smith and it is as real today as it was in 1831:
“They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.” DC 1:16
I second what Old Man wrote except I think we do have an idea of what is moral and just. We simply lack the courage and faith to do it. We prefer to worship the Gods of our own imagination rather than stand accountable before the standard of a True and Living God.
I recommend the words of Samuel in Helaman 13:26-29. He condemns the Nephites because they reject prophets who testify of their sin and iniquity. But if a man comes among them and flatters them saying “do whatsoever your heart desires” they elevate him and reward that man with fame and wealth. Are we Americans any different than the Nephites?
The truth is that there are only two sexes. You are either a man or a woman.
You can have mental health issues, but no is born in the wrong body. We are all children of God, and are created in his image.
Andrew S makes some very important observations. One of which is this: “It’s incredibly important to note that LGBT people do not want tolerance. We want *acceptance*. We want *affirmation.*. “Please use my preferred pronouns” is not a request made from a position of tolerance.”
Middle ground or the tolerant position for LGBT would be the recognition that adults are free to make personal, legal sexual choices and people are free to approve or disapprove or most likely be indifferent of those choices. This approach works for everything else in society. Why should LGBT be granted special status? Why do we even entertain the idea that others must demonstrate acceptance of a person’s sexual identity/ preferences?
We don’t do this with any other personal choice. We don’t do this with drugs and alcohol – substances to which a person can have very very strong biological and emotional desire. Society largely approves of alcohol but those who oppose alcohol are not treated as an “out” group and labeled as haters. I know many people who enjoy alcohol. None has ever told me I must affirm and approve of their alcohol preference.
Recently there has been a great social push to decriminalize marijuana. Those who disagree with legalization and liberalization of marijuana are not cancelled by society. People have a range of views on the question and are respected in those views .
This tolerance is even real for traditional marriage. Such marriages are largely approved by society. But those who criticize marriage are not labeled as haters. In fact one of the great bits of stand-up comedy is the routine where the comedian complains of their awful marriage. Society is tolerant of pro-marriage and anti-marriage opinions.
Freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience are precious liberties. These freedoms should not be compromised to make certain people feel approved or affirmed in their personal preferences. Where LBGT interests collide with prevailing cultural interests the disagreement should be settled by the political process, with the various viewpoints freely expressed and all interests fairly measured.
Andrew S – We’re pretty far afield from my post and I don’t know why we’re arguing with each other. We agree, right? I just stated it in a way you don’t like? I was comparing deeply held personal/religious beliefs that people are willing to suffer for. I don’t know why we’re talking about whether or not asking someone to use your preferred pronouns is an imposition or not. I don’t think that’s any more of an imposition than making an exception to a “no hats” dress code so a Muslim woman can wear a hijab. You don’t have to understand or accept someone’s beliefs to accommodate them.
Janey,
I think we agree more than we disagree, but the disagreements still matter to me.
Well, the problem is people don’t want to accommodate, first of all. But secondly, LGBT people don’t want “tolerance” and “accommodation.” We *do* want understanding and acceptance. And TBH, I think that’s also the case for religious folks. Hence *why* we now have a turbulent political climate.
To address some other comments to illustrate. A Disciple said:
People make political and social choices based on their approval and disapproval. People actually *don’t* agree that adults are free to make personal, legal sexual choices — the very issue is they don’t think those choices should be legal *because* they disapprove of them. When we WANT our sexual choices to be considered legal, that is called “special status”. That is called “special rights.” People say, “everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, why do LGBT people want “special rights” to marry those of the same-sex? Why do LGBT people want to “flaunt their relationships” and “gender identity” in public space?
That’s what people actually say. So, the recognition that “adults are free to make personal, legal sexual choices” ALREADY requires some level of acceptance or understanding for what is or should be a legal sexual choice.
Given that increasingly people are comparing LGBT to, say, pedophilia and grooming (which most of us agree is NOT just a “personal legal sexual choice”), it’s clear that we are not on the same page and this has consequences if people actually get their way and enact laws based on that viewpoint.
This is not academic for some of us. This isn’t some rhetorical game. Lack of acceptance doesn’t mean people say “live and let live.” Lack of acceptance typically means hostility, and political actions to shape society in light of that hostility.
So, I don’t need “tolerant people” in the same way that in the civil rights era they didn’t need “moderate whites.” I need allies and accomplices who ACCEPT LGBT people and are willing to fight back.
I am not trans, but I RECOGNIZE that at this point, trans rights are in the crossfire. And this comes about from a lack of *acceptance*. If you do not accept someone’s gender identity, then you are not going to act in support of it.
My own experience is covered in part in this old post:
I agree with the commenter who suggested gender expectations could be contributing to the issue. The insistence of separate silos for afab and amab people requiring different interests, behaviours etc. Instead of simply allowing each person to develop according to their own best interests. That’s one thing. Anyone who is uncomfortable in their assigned silo will start questioning.
I’m also concerned about the insistence on only two genders. The necessity to be recognised as either male or female, regardless of assigned gender at birth. If we’re going to categorise, could more categories be a solution?
Finally, in addition to medical cases Janey mentioned, some people are chimeras, having more than one set of dna. Put simply, this is the reverse situation to identical twins. Two eggs are fertilised and begin to develop, but one is absorbed by the other. The resulting individual has dna from both fertilised eggs. Such an individual could have both male and female dna.
1. Since we are afield.(and as an aside, I love “a” words)–” Even when I was a faithful TBM, I knew there was a difference from saying, “I know that Jesus is my Savior” and saying, “I know using hard drugs can cause addiction and even death.””
Well, when I was an active Mormon, I didn’t know there was a difference, nor was I taught a difference. (except for those who said faith was superior to science.) I grew up on God as scientist and miracles were advanced technology. I recall sitting in seminary and being taught that although we hadn’t been to Africa and seen it, we had faith it was there.
2. “The truth is that there are only two sexes” Biological untenable. I don’t know what systems exists out there in the universe, but on earth there are several reproductive strategies. There are species with multiple sexes. And some species transition.
As for being in the image of God, we are gifted (graced?) compassion and wisdom, where we can grow in further light and knowledge. Hopefully we will use it.
Mark 1,
One of my kids was born with a series of defects. He has had 14 non-cosmetic surgeries to keep him alive. I don’t think he was born in the wrong body, his body formed incorrectly. While we believe he will be resurrected with a complete perfected body, in this life he has to live with a body that requires all kinds of medical help.
This is also true of intersex people, who are born in a body that is not clearly male or female. Who determines which of these 2 sexes you refer to? The doctor? I guarantee you the doctor makes mistakes and tries their best. They definitely “practice” medicine. I know this from experience. They are not a godly arbritor of which definitive sex to put on the birth certificate. That birth certificate has to be done right away. DNA analysis takes more time and money than the doctor has to spend. Babies often develop to look and feel differently than their DNA anyway.
Often with intersex babies, at the parent’s insistence the baby’s genitals are “corrected” surgically so the child appears either fully male or fully female. Unfortunately this often fails in the long run because the brain also forms biologically and the doctor may have guessed wrong and done the surgery to match the opposite sex of how the brain formed. These are medical facts, and may be true of people around you, who choose not to tell you because you are clearly an unsafe person to tell. Just because you are an unsafe unaccepting person doesn’t mean people with defects that affect sexual development of the brain and body do not exist.
Your non-acceptance also doesn’t mean trans people, whose brains formed differently than their body, don’t exist either. It just means they won’t talk to you about it and you will go on believing you are right because you have never seen evidence otherwise.
Andrew S – When I’ve been using the word “tolerant” I’ve been using it to mean the same thing you mean when you say “acceptance.” “Tolerate” in my mind means “no more hostility” and “stop making laws that make life harder for trans people” and “call people what they’ve asked to be called.” You can’t really tolerate a trans person unless you accept their chosen gender identity. I think we’ve just talked past each other by not realizing our definitions of certain words are slightly different. We’re on the same page, I believe.
Suzanne Nielsen – I remember that example! We just have to have faith that Africa exists, even though we’ve never been there (side note – my sons inform me that “France doesn’t exist” is a current conspiracy theory; I’m not sure the status of the “birds aren’t real” conspiracy theory but that was a thing for a while). At some point in my own development, I separated out “purely religious beliefs” like Jesus is my Savior from “objective facts most people agree on,” like the existence of Africa (and France).
lws329 – thank you for your education and defense of intersex people. I appreciate your contributions to the conversation.
1. No, I have never questioned that. I know who I am and its good enough for me.
I would also say that I think starting an argument/discussion by discussing those as “intersex” with a verifiable medical condition/anomaly/characteristics/whatever and then applying to the group as a whole is improper. They are separate and distinct things.
2. If you want to accept transgenderism as part of the community as a whole, then religion goes right up there as well. We live in a society where truth be told, religion is constantly kicked around and told it is invalid while at the same time, we need to be tolerant and accepting of others. I understand transgenderism positions get the same treatment as well, but are we really going to argue that religion is not on the receiving end most of the time these days?
I approach it from a perspective of you live your life and I’ll live mine. You want to speak negatively about my faith and position, have at it. Your choice. You want to pass regulations perverting the concept of “separation of church and State”, then have at it but for heaven’s sake, understand what that means. It’s astounding the ignorance that exists in this country on that topic, but I digress… But don’t then get offended and clutch your pearls when someone else responds to a question about their opinion or position. Don’t claim it’s the end of the world when a community passes laws or regulations that are opposed to your viewpoint. And stop claiming that someone who disagrees with your internal/lifestyle/position/choice/whatever is somehow hateful or an “ism”.
A few years back I took an employment discrimination case pro-bono, involving a transgendered person. In my opinion, it was a clear violation of the law and as such, I felt that helping that client assert their rights and seek compensation was proper and as they did not have the resources to fight back I took the case for free. And we prevailed on that action. Around the same time, my business was asked to sign a letter of support to be published, supporting the transgenderism community and to make a donation to a particular group. I declined and indicated that I did not believe in that lifestyle and as such I would respectfully say no. For the next two years, this organization and the transgendered community in part tried to destroy my business by claiming I hated transgender persons, that I was some sort of a religious zealot (without knowing a thing about my faith or if I even had one), and that I hated people. In the end I was able to speak my side of the matter and it went away when it was seen for what it was: pure ridiculousness. I just did not want to support that group and spend money in the process. And that’s ok! And the kicker? My pro-bono client was also ridiculed. How dare she seek out representation that was a good choice for her!
In the end, I think there are moral implications for that lifestyle. I don’t agree with it. I won’t wade into the nature versus nurture argument as that is not my wheelhouse other than to say I have seen some examples where I truly think the person is born that way and others where I have seen it as a “fad” that somehow faded away. So who knows? But I also think we as a society find valid areas of oppression and others where people want to look for a reason to be outraged. But what should not be tolerated is forced compliance. You either call me by some pronoun of my choosing, or I will try to ruin you. You accept my lifestyle or I will call you nasty names and try to ruin you. You “support me” or Ill blast you all over social media as something you are not. We have a right in this country to enact laws and a legal system that exists to challenge the same. Those who seek to enact laws are perfectly within their rights to do so. And it is within the rights of others to challenge them and argue they are not proper and to get those laws kicked out if its correct to do so.
Somehow the word respect has not come up. I think respect for any individual means we call them by pronouns they relate to and by names they do not object to. Transgender or not. Some of us had childhood nicknames we hated. It is disrespectful to continue to call a person by a name they do not identify with. Whether it is a childhood nick name or a gendered name they no longer go by.
Let me give you a totally non trans example. My kid brother was named Robert at birth. I don’t know the details, but as an adult he went by Bob and for whatever reason hated to be called Robert. He noticed when at the doctor’s office, they called out for “Robert,” and he looked around for someone else who answered to “Robert” then realized that was him. So, he got his name legally changed to Bob. In planning a funeral for some family member, my older brother gave me his funeral talk to approve. I had to tell him that “Robert” had had his name legally changed because he hated “Robert” and he was legally “Bob” now and there is no “Robert”. So, my older brother changed his talk. It would be disrespectful for someone to insist on using his birth name, just because that was what we all grew up with.
Now, I have a trans person related to me by marriage. When I first met this person, I was introduced to them as “Fred”. Well, Fred decided he was really a she and changed her name to “Fredrika”. Now, if continued to insist on calling this person Fred, it would be disrespectful. Period.
No matter how I feel about them transitioning or how hard it is to remember or even if it goes against my religion to change genders. Out of nothing but respect for them as a human being, I should RESPECT them enough to use their chosen name and pronouns. It isn’t “tolerance” or “acceptance of their lifestyle,” but simple human respect for them as a human being. Just as I would not insist on calling my kid brother Robert, even though for twenty years of my life he was Robert. He is now Bob, and he had a reason for hating “Robert” even if I don’t get it. To show even a decent level of human respect, I call him Bob. I would have to be some kind of jerk to insist on “Robert” or “Fred” when they have expressed to me that is not who they are.
So, these “Christians” who refuse to bend on some kind of “principle” are just disrespectful jerks. That is what it comes down to for me. Just a lack of respect for another human being.
Some of these comments remind me of long winded arguments from like Jordan Peterson.
This isn’t that hard or complicated of a moral dilemma. If I were to call any of the mostly men that are commenting on this post with their long winded arguments why they shouldn’t treat trans people with basic respect by a feminized version of their name or the wrong pronouns that would be insulting to them.
It is basically the golden rule. Call people by the name and pronouns they want. It is that simple and easy to do regardless of wether you like that name or think someone is doesn’t match your expectations for that gender. That is the whole trans agenda.
I think a better religious comparison would be that a Mormon man believes that he has the priesthood of God, but only other believing Mormons agree with this belief. People in other faith traditions probably think this is ridiculous / self-aggrandizing / pretending. They would not ask for a priesthood blessing or recognize that priesthood authority. They might humor the person by allowing it, or they might not. They probably would not specifically care, as pointed out, if it’s in the private realm. But if that same man walked into a Cathedral and demanded the pulpit based on higher authority, that’s not going to fly. Actually this analogy also fails because priesthood isn’t really an identity. It’s a power you believe you have. So, not the same thing after all.
I agree with Andrew S that when you try to create a pluralistic society, you end up favoring the secular. You really have to if you are going to separate church & state because every version of religious belief differs from every other version. So in the US, religions are given extra perks (e.g. taxes, allowed to skirt anti-discrimination laws, etc.), but when it comes to putting religious messages into schools or government buildings, it goes too far. It infuriates me the ways in which the religious right are trying to expand religious freedom to allow discrimination outside the religious sphere. If you want to refuse priesthood to women or LGBTQ people, you can. But if you want to refuse employment or service to them as a person who holds “religious belief” (aka bigotry), you are 100% in the wrong, IMO, even if it’s creative work you are withholding. Tax-paying citizens should have access to public goods. If you don’t want to serve the public without discriminating, require a membership and get out of the public square. I’m sure I am just being secular, but I also know that as a Mormon, anyone in a minority religion is not going to like the outcomes if we start blurring these lines. It doesn’t end well for those who hold minority beliefs. Give religious people an inch, and they will take a mile in becoming bullies.
As to trans protections, I also agree with the point that trans people are being hit from all sides, America’s punching bag. My own trans child lost a job over identity and also barely leaves the house as a result. They have also felt rejected by many of their old friends. I mean, we all have felt that way at times, but this is different. I do think there’s some wisdom to delaying medical interventions until later teen or adulthood and including psychological evaluation to ensure that the individual is truly certain (my understanding is that there is a crossover with autism and regrets of transitioning; I’m not sure how big the risk is), but trans suicide is a real risk that needs to be taken seriously.
Legal Nonsense —
In 2021, thirty-three states have introduced more than 100 bills that aim to curb the rights of transgender people across the country.
In January 2023, politicians across the country already introduced 124 total bills restricting LGBTQ people, targeting their freedom of expression, the safety of transgender students, and access to health care for gender dysphoria.
Can you point me to any laws that are targeting Christian rights? Claiming victim status for Christianity is pretty ridiculous. Sure, people are sick of religiously based bigotry and not afraid to say so, but laws curtailing rights are aimed at LGBTQ and trans people. That’s persecution.
I haven’t read all the comments but felt obliged to offer this. There is no way all the laws being passed relative to trans kids are “for the children.” That’s just a lame excuse that gets thrown around anytime someone wants to turn their bigotry into law. If we really cared about the children we’d have seatbelts on busses, better and free school lunch (I remember being denied lunch as a child, that certainly was not for my benefit), well paid teachers, smaller class sizes and air conditioning in schools.
Similarly, the concern for women’s sports is laughable. Maybe if people were so concerned about women’s sports that they demanded equal pay, equal television distribution, equal radio coverage, better medical care and complete autonomy in the area of family planning they’d have a leg to stand on.
It’s sad that there isn’t more concern for understanding what trans people are actually going through and that this minority is being singled out simply to score political points. I saw a car the other day with a ripped up American flag painted across it, an anti-woke sticker and the words “stop mutilating children.” For the life of me I thought it was talking about circumcision then I realized it was anti trans. The last thing trans people need is our hate. Thank you Janey, for being an outspoken voice of love, respect and admiration for trans and other LGB individuals.
No Corou, the concerns with women’s sports are real. Men are superior athletes. Historically, separate leagues have been established for women to allow them to enjoy fair competition. The option of athletic men to “identify” as female to compete against and demolish female competitors is wrong. It also shows trans ideology is a farce. It makes a joke of women’s rights.
If biological males can compete against women and claim medals that would otherwise be won by a woman, what is the point of having a female category for athletic competition?
Janey,
The law prohibits evangelizing of Christianity in public schools during school time. This is good. The universal application is the government and government schools do not promote any belief system or ideology, save that which is intrinsic to the American Constitution and American form of government.
Should public schools be allowed to promote certain ideologies to children and without parental approval? Should a public school teacher be allowed to recruit students to be Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Satanic or Atheist, etc, and do so without parental approval / notification?
I want my grandchildren able to attend a public school free of any teacher or curriculum advocating a religious, sexual or political ideology. Deal?
A Disciple
“Men are superior athletes” Superior, really. Really. I get that you think male sports are higher status and rank. Equal pay and playing conditions do not come easily when men have attitudes like that.
Spain won the recent world cup with High Quality players like Bonmati and Hermoso. Yet still somehow, men.
When I look at the problems plaguing women’s sports, it’s not trans players.
It’s really somethin’ , when people who proclaim male athletes superiority, feint such, such, concern for “inferior” woman athletes. Geez
Suzanne,
As a general rule, males are athletically superior to females. Male athletes are as a general rule stronger, faster and quicker than females. This is objective truth most easily substantiated by a comparison of Track & Field, swimming and weightlifting records The judgment is also confirmed by general observation of rules applied to sports played by both men and women. For example, in basketball women use a smaller ball. In volleyball women play with a lower net. In tennis, women play shorter matches. I do tip my hat to women for convincing tennis to pay equal prizes to men and women. At the US Open the women’s champion will have played 33% less tennis than the men’s champion and will earn the same paycheck. That is some crafty negotiation!
We live in interesting times when speaking objective truth ruffles feathers. Noticing that men as a group are superior athletes than women as a group is just obvious. It just is. Making this observation says nothing about the merit and skill of individual men or women. It does not negate the accomplishments of female athletes. It does not mean that in certain athletic skills women are superior to men. It does not mean in smaller groups a female will not be equal or better than a male competitor – my wife is a superior basketball player than me. It does not mean that men are superior humans than women or that they are of more value to society than women.
It does mean that society gives more entertainment value to watching men compete in athletic competition. Football, of course, being the #1 American sport and by a very large margin. Baseball, basketball, hockey and soccer follow with lesser degrees of popularity, but still with the top male players enjoying multi-million dollar salaries supported by the economy the sport competition produces.
An aspect of Title IX was to give women equal opportunity at educational institutions to compete in athletics. Title IX has proven to be a very beneficial program. Without Title IX, girls and women either had to figure out some way to fund a team or they had compete directly with men to be on a sports team. In high school and college, there are girls and women who gain spots on certain men’s teams. But it clearly was not a fair system for women. And so a “separate but equal” system of competition was created for women.
This “separate but equal” system of athletic competition for women allows women to complete more fairly against each other. Appreciate that the system exists because women as a group are inferior athletes to men. If not, if women were equal athletes to men there would be no need for separate teams! Men and women could fairly compete with and against each other as there would be no biological bias giving either sex an intrinsic advantage. And if biology is not significant. If a person can decide independent of biology their sexual identity, then why have a women’s category for athletic competition? What purpose does the women’s division for athletic competition serve?
A Disciple
Is a Super heavy weight a more skilled boxer than a flyweight? So “women as a group are inferior athletes to men” is a load of misogynistic sexist Bullcaca. It’s amazing how often people cite “objective truth”, when it ain’t.
Oh and thanks for the lesson on title IX and explaining that all to me. I’m a pre title IX person. The sum total of my junior high athletic experience(unlike what the boys were offered) was one track meet against the girls of the other junior high. Now my High School didn’t have a girls track team, so Title IX meant I got to join the Boys team(I couldn’t before). And even my silly flighty womanly brain noticed the boys I had beaten a few years earlier had become stronger and faster. Fancy that.
Consider Zhang Shan. At the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, she won the Gold medal in skeet shooting. So they made it a male only event and she was out. But hey, at Sydney in 2000, they added woman’s skeet.
And I watched at the Montreal 1976 Olympics as the gold medal winner pulled the silver medalist Margaret Murdock up to the podium with him. (or the tape delay highlights)
And then there’s the equestrian events. But maybe the horse should get the medal
There’s Martial artist Cynthia Rothrock, five times world championship in forms. So while she didn’t fight men, she beat them. Because some people don’t confuse brute strength with skill when judging athletics. Should I sat that again, Mr objective truth.
Funny you should mention swimming(cuz I’m laughing)But in ultramarathon swimming, women’s average times are faster then men’s. While men may swim the English channel faster than woman and in 2 way and 3 way. But 4 way belongs to Sarah Thomas. And a shout out to Lynn Cox former world record holder in swimming the English Channel. The first person to swim the Strait of Magellan and the first person to swim the Bering Strait. Done without a wetsuit. Brrr. Shiver me timbers.
Entertainment value? Considering how little value some people put on woman, I am not surprised they don’t watch woman athletes. But somehow, woman gymnastics and figure skating both have higher viewership then men.
And in soccer in the United States, the USWNT still has the highest TV ratings for any soccer game. Apparently there’s entertainment value in watching highly skilled woman athletes.
So like I said, When I look at the problems plaguing women’s sports, it’s not trans players.
Ms Neilson, some of your points are valid. You might lose credibility for all of your arguments, however, by arguing against Disciple that, generally speaking, men are stronger and faster than women. Yes, some individual women can run or swim faster than some individual men, but generally men are stronger or faster, and that is what athleticism generally measures. This does not mean that men are smarter or better, and Disciple does not say that they are. Your examples don’t help you: no one thinks that men have a biological advantage in skeet shooting or in equestrian events. Should there be separate teams in those events? Maybe not for reasons of biology, but having women’s teams gives more women opportunities for medals. Everyone wins. You point to some exceptional women distance swimmers, and they are remarkable people who did amazing things, but Lia Thomas, when a man, was not a championship swimmer, but he becomes a woman and suddenly is winning medals left and right. My wife loves tennis, but she almost never watches a women’s match on TV. She does watch men’s matches with enthusiasm. Why? According to her, men hit harder and, in her opinion, play a stronger and better game. She and I are both glad that women play separately from men, and women can win good prize money today. I like basketball, enough to go to college games from time to time, and sometimes to women’s games. My wife will occasionally come with me to see a men’s game, but she declines when it’s a women’s game. College men’s basketball is simply more exciting, most of the time, than college women’s basketball. That’s an opinion, not a fact, but the relative emptiness of the arena, and the lower price for tickets, for most women’s games seems to indicate that this opinion is fairly widely held. I’m glad that Title IX compels universities to field women’s teams and to offer women’s scholarships that they did not have to before that law went into effect.
I am in favor of trans people being able to express themselves, to work and seek housing without discrimination, etc. I’m fine with adults doing whatever they want and can afford to their bodies. I see great value in keeping women’s sports for biological women. I’m not in favor of invasive medical procedures on minors without great and compelling medical reason. I am not in favor of the state getting between parents and their minor children, absent some compelling interest (like child abuse). And I don’t think that minor children should legally make life-altering decisions like surgery, when they can’t get a library card without a parent’s permission. I think it was Bill Maher (maybe someone else) who said that at one point when he was young he wanted to be a pirate, and he’s glad that his parents (or school without his parents’ consent) didn’t pluck out an eye and chop off a leg to transition him to a pirate. Children don’t know what is best for them, and I’d rather have parents making decisions than bureaucrats.
Janey
I also mentally made a comparison between trans and religion. It started after trying to have a discussion with someone who oversimplified gender. My thoughts are not as fleshed out as yours, but what I came up with is that the US Constitution specifically carved out space for people to freely practice their religion of choice.
The Constitution both supports and protects every person in their right to have and practice religion.
A person may freely change their religious views.
Religious beliefs are intangible.
Religious beliefs are often part and parcel with a person’s identity.
Can we collectively have the grace to extend those supports and protections to people whose gender identities differ from their birth or assigned gender?
An aside, in the very recent past, many in forums such as this would have argued the validity of people with “SSA”. To me, open dialogue seems to be the key.
Georgis
Look I was on the guys track team, so tell me again about men being stronger and faster, cuz somehow I apparently didn’t notice. I’m talking about skill, agility, fitness aka athleticism. But apparently power sports are the only “real” sport. (or would that be only true sports)
I wonder how five time world champion Cynthia Rothrock made it into the International Sports Hall of Fame. Could athleticism have something to do with it ( and I ” want a copy of “Yes, Madam” starring Rothrock and Michelle Yeah. Here’s to doing your own stunts. Wouldn’t get me going through plate glass) Yes, men punch harder, but the movement has, um, entertainment value.
So power men, but when it comes to endurance, oh that’s right, doesn’t count. In short track races, men have the clear advantage. But the farther the distance, the smaller the gap. This has been measured.
And better recovery. Might be why women live longer. Cuz over the long haul, men, on average, are weaker.
I brought up ulramarathon swimming, where the womens average(get that– average) times are faster than the mens average. Guess that’s not a true sport either.
I wonder how five time world champion Cynthia Rothrock made it into the International Sports Hall of Fame. Could athleticism have something to do with it ( and I ” want a copy of “Yes, Madam” starring Rothrock and Michelle Yeah. Here’s to doing your own stunts. Wouldn’t get me going through plate glass) Which brings us to entertainment value.
When a society doesn’t value women athletes, nobody is going to watch. And the investment isn’t there
Look at the TV deals . NWSL 1.5 milliion ,then CBS deal 4.5 million vrs MLS 90 million.And then signed a deal with Apple for 250 million a season. Now looking at viewership last year, NWSL games on CBS ranged 349,000 to 461,000. MLS averaged 343,000. I wonder what the viewership would be with promotion. (and how does those TV deals affect salary?)
Women are being severely undervalued.
The issue of Trans in Sports is not simplistically reduced to man in dress. That demeaning, which is why it’s done. It’s a power move, which is something I’m told men excel at.
I find it mind boggling, that people who don’t value women sports and are dismissive, suddenly care so much about “inferior” women’s sports and have a need to protect them. But from what…a livable wage, training facilities, predatory coaches and sexist management. No, go after trans people. Pathetic.
@Legal Nonsense can you explain what is meant by the trans lifestyle?
My experience is that we all just go to work, come home, eat dinner, binge watch Netflix, and then do it all over again. What exactly are trans folks doing daily that you take issue with?
Suzanne,
Your answers are in agreement with mine and Georgis in that women can equal and surpass men in contests that do not rely on physical strength and size. The greater strength and athleticism realized in general by adult males is objective truth. So while it is fact that girls can readily compete with boys in elementary school and even into high school, the equality vanishes when (a) boys fully mature (b)the competition narrows to the most select athletes of the overall population and (c) the competition favors the fastest and strongest.
What do you think would happen if there was only a single division of competition for all Olympic level athletes in Track and Field? Who would win every sprint, every jump, every throw and every race? Who would win every swimming race (there are no 4 channel crossing swim contests in the Olympics)? How about team sports? Who would win every basketball game, every volleyball game and every water polo game, etc? The winners would all be individual and teams of biological males. What would happen in professional sports if there were no separate division for female competitors? The women would never win Wimbledon. They would never win a major golf tournament. They would never win a soccer championship – are you aware that in 2017 the US Women’s National Soccer Team played a team of teenage boys and lost?
Do you think it celebrates women by having competitions that prove women are physically inferior athletes to men? This is what I do not understand by trans advocates defending female imposters. Lia Thomas is a man. He lived as a man. He competed as a man and was a marginal competitor. So he decided to beat up on the girls. Then there is cyclist Austin Killips. A marginal competitor against men he/she decided to race against women and he/she proceeded to crush them in races. Biological males are proving they are superior athletes to women!
Common sense shows the way. Let there be an open division for all competitors and let there be a women’s division in which biological females compete. If trans women want to show that “women” can be equal to men, then let them compete in the open division. How is that not fair and equitable?
Hey Disciple,
I get that you feel strongly about the women’s sports thing but I have to wonder if there is any acceptable place for trans people to play in your world. I am a cis-gender white male. However, I sometimes get misidentified as female. If I had been told I had to play women’s sports when I was in school I would have been mortified because I don’t identify as female. I’m guessing the same is true for you – that you wouldn’t appreciate being put on a team opposite the gender you identify with. Can you consider that point of view from someone who happens to have the wrong sex organs? Where is the right place for them to play sports? Are you really going to make a little boy who happens to have a vagina play women’s sports and similarly a little girl who happens to have a penis play boy sports knowing this would be mortifying for them? in every division except the most elite there is essentially no difference between men’s and women’s sports. If we’re going with the more athletic argument we might as well be segregating by race rather than gender.
Sorry Disciple didn’t see your last post so I looked up Lia Thomas and Austin Killips. Both are impressive in their accomplishments but it’s not really fair to say they went from being mediocre to dominating. When Lia Thomas was competing as a man he was quite competitive and frequently near the top of his events. when she transitioned to women’s sports she won by 1.75 seconds. That’s a pretty close race considering the final time was around 4.5 minutes. Still shes not coming close to the records already established in the sport by other women. Similarly Austin Killips had an impressive run but it hasn’t been sustained. I think you’re going from exaggerated reports of their dominance.
A Disciple
Awhile back, I read about dudes trying to start a short guy basketball league. Cuz people under 6’4 are short, Someone could be a really good player, but if they’re short and not Muggsy Bogues, they’re not going to be in the NBA. I’ve watched enough basketball to see some tall guys in the NBA who aren’t very good (looking at you Shawn Bradley) These tall guys are not superior athletes to the short guys. And inferior athlete is not in the definition of short guys.
Many sports have weight classes. Being Big does not make you a superior athlete. And lightweight doesn’t make you inferior.
“are you aware that in 2017 the US Women’s National Soccer Team played a team of teenage boys and lost” Yep, the USWNT haters bring it up all the time and blast it everywhere.( I still can hear them cheering when the team bounced out of the last world cup. The decibel level was that loud) It was a friendly informal scrimmage, while the team was working out some kinks. A good time was had by all. It was not a serious game. And the fact that you bring it up, indicates you just want to trash women athletics while also trashing trans people.
Have a good day sir.
We seem to have entered that phase where the angry comments are longer than the OP. At this point I think we’ve established that (1) this is still a volatile issue, and (2) that all the same people have essentially the same opinions last time. #SmellsLikeProgress
It’s probably time to yield the comments feed to something. Come next door and tell some funny BYU honor code stories.
Don’t worry, you’ll all be able to blindly swing your ideological fists at each other again soon over this same topic.
I just wanted to add a bit about the science of transitioning. Transgender women (formerly men) lose some of their strength in transition when they take testosterone blockers and estrogen. This process has medical risks such as liver damage and weakened bones. After about a year passes they aren’t too much different than an exceptionally tall woman in terms of the strength you can automatically see that is more for a man and a woman of about the same height and muscle mass. Transgender women are more prone to gaining fat on their bodies just as all women are.
There are exceptionally tall women that excell in women’s sports. It’s clear as mud that they are much different from a transgender woman or that the transgender woman’s sports performance would necessarily be better. I can see how it becomes a complicated issue to sort out. However, it only involves a small number of players that are just trying to find a way to live their lives in spite of gender dysphoria.
Corou,
I understand your argument to be that in order not to hurt a child’s feelings society must allow physically mature men to compete against women and society must accept these men taking trophies and championship away from women.
What a child feels has no bearing on the question of how to handle biologically mature males competing against women in contests of speed, strength and size. My question which I would love to see sincerely addressed is what is the purpose of a women’s division in athletic competition? Either women are as a group different than men or they are not. If they are not different than why a separate division of competition? If they are different than why allow biological males to compete in the division?
As for children in athletic competition, I acknowledged in an earlier post that prior to maturation boys and girls can easily compete with and against each other. That is how I grew up. I understand youth basketball and soccer leagues have boys and girls divisions. I am not aware that anyone cares if a girl plays with the boys or a boy plays with the girls. Only if the boy proved athletically superior would there be a question of why isn’t the boy playing with boys?
Irony being that a girl playing with and doing well against boys would be applauded. And why? Because people have a general sense of what fair competition is and a girl proving herself again the best available competition would earn healthy praise.
@lws329 – I’m not taking a stand on one side or the other here, but I’m getting sick of quasi truths and flamethrowing on this topic. Your comment is an oversimplification and doesn’t make logical sense.
You just said “trans women are the same as biological females after one year…except they’re exceptionally tall and exceptionally good at women’s sports.” Your argument for allowing trans women in women’s sports uses the exact same reasoning as those who are concerned about it – being abnormally tall and good at sports is exactly why people question whether it’s fair.
You are right that it’s an exceptionally small part of the population…Elite athletes are also an exceptionally small part of the population. The concern that remains unanswered by science is if you take an average-ish 6-foot tall adult male who transitions, do they suddenly become equal to an exceptionally tall elite athlete in women’s sports and unfairly tip the balance?
I’m not saying they do or don’t but there is currently no broadly accepted science that has a definitive answer either – just that there is some level of performance reduction when a person is benchmarked before and after their transition. That’s not the same thing, and there’s not currently any ethical way to establish this scientifically, so we’re left with people yelling hypotheticals at each other.
Both sides here are guilty of invoking science without relevant scientific evidence.
It’s old. No progress has been made here…again. Let’s move on.
Pirate Priest,
Please reread my post. You might notice I never refer to “biological” men or women. This is an inaccurate and meaningless term. I also didn’t endorse either position about whether transgender women should be part of women’s sports. I even used the term “clear as mud” to indicate how unclear the science is on the topic. My agenda was to share some scientific information to think about the topic rather than going with one unscientific political position against another unscientific political position. In my opinion neither position is a fair assessment of reality.
What’s your agenda? No one is forcing you to be part of this conversation. You aren’t a moderator or the OP. I suggest you stay in your own lane. Those of us that want to think about and discuss this issue can do so and it’s none of your business to try to tell us what we think or to shut us up. If the moderator is tired she can end the conversation without your help.
My only agenda here is to get a moderator onto the mat…if they can wade through the ridiculously long comments without giving up. This is yet another thoughtful OP on this topic that has been pointlessly derailed.
I apologize that you were the target of my frustration, but every time to word “trans” gets mentioned on this site it explodes into chaos and it drowns out literally everything else. You’re right that the moderators should be the ones to step in, but they aren’t…that’s their prerogative I guess.
It’s always like this:
Alrighty boxing fans, today we have another thoughtful OP scheduled to be derailed in the comments section. In the red corner we have “biology no longer exists” in the blue corner we have “trans people will destroy the world.” This will be another exciting match of hyperbole, logical fallacies, inconclusive science, and weaponized hypotheticals. The spectators can expect to see a lot of ideological deadlock and comments that get longer and angrier with each passing minute.
Hi Disciple
Your’e misunderstanding my argument. The only reason I bring up kids is because they are the focus of recent legislation. No one seems to be legislating sports for adults. it’s all about sports, locker rooms, and bathrooms in schools for k-12. I’m not aware of any legislation for college sports even, let alone professional sports. That’s the thing really makes me angry, that this bigotry is being focused at my kids and their friends all under the guise of being for their benefit but without any consideration of them whatsoever.
We just had the womens soccer world cup held in Australia. There were record crouds. There were no trans players on any of the finalist teams.
There is not a problem, the various leagues have ways of dealing with people.
The trans people in sport problem is all in the minds of conservatives. In reality no problem. The problem for trans people is also in the mind of conservatives, if you allow them to do their thing instead of producing laws to make them do what you want the problem goes away. This is a republican thing.
We do not have this in Australia except for a small group who read American stuff and try it on. It gets rejected.
Corou,
You write “That’s the thing really makes me angry, that this bigotry is being focused at my kids and their friends all under the guise of being for their benefit but without any consideration of them whatsoever.”
I beg you to appreciate that there parents who feel exactly the way you do, but they oppose Trans activism. They feel politicians and activists are pushing Trans ideology on their children without any consideration of their concerns. And so there is pushback. And the harder each side digs in, the greater the division. Society and culture are splintered and that is unfortunate and worrisome.
Appreciate also that the bigotry label goes both ways – tolerance that only goes one way is coercion. Tolerance that demands permission for any and every desire and accommodation is phony. People have legitimate concerns about Trans ideology and they are not bigots for being concerned. They are not bigots for wanting to protect their children from ideologies they perceive harmful. A pluralistic society requires everyone endure some friction and disagreement. The balance of who bears more friction and who bears less dictated by the law and culture – ultimately the voice of the people decide.
@Chadwick. I don’t take issue with anything a trans person does. Unless it impedes on the established rights of others or tries to force something. Everyone has a lifestyle. The clothes we wear. The people we associate with. The hobbies we have. Trans people are no different. They have established communities and activities and groups. Just like anyone else.
Diciple of the right wing,
The is a definition for Bigot;
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
So there are trans people, more than one in 7 of young people, who are being persecuted by having laws made that discriminate against them. This fits the definition of bigotry.
You support this because you fear “trans ideology” which is something only republicans believe in. Most people see it as a part of sex education. In a class of 30 students 4 to 5 of them will be gay and they and the other kids need to be aware of their situation.
Now the second great commandment is to love your neighbour. If you think the worst of them, that they have agenda, when they think they are providing information. That they are pushing things on your children when they are trying to teach them. Do the schools also push maths, etc. You probably think they are pushing history.
A bigot does not get to claim the person calling them a bigot is a bigot for calling them a bigot. And no there is no equivalence.
There is only trans ideology in republican minds. No it is not legitimate is is bigotry bought on by extreme politics. A pluralist society requires respect for your fellow man (love your neighbour) it does not allow for one group to persecute another group.
You are part of the problem. Trying to justify your bigotry, and trying to make out that your republican concerns are somehow justification for republican persecution and bigotry. The reality is that trans ideology, and its being pushed at your children, is a republican concept, with no basis in fact.
You have bought a republican lie. When you accept that, the problem goes away, and we can live in peace and respect.