I do not have a problem with people choosing LGBTQ lifestyles. I personally believe government should be out of the marriage business, and do not care if gays marry, or even if polygamy is legalized. I do consider traditional marriage as approved and blessed of God, but that is outside the confines liberty, IMHO.
That said, I think about what the scholar Harold Bloom wrote about Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities were not destroyed because of homosexuality. Instead, they were destroyed because they sought to impose their wickedness upon others by force, what Bloom called incivility.
Today, we see the same thing beginning to occur. It is now so popular to promote LGBTQ issues that laws are being imposed to enforce not just equality, but preference. In North Carolina, the state knocked down a city law that would allow transsexuals to use women’s bathrooms. Liberal stars and companies are boycotting the state because they claim they are prejudiced.
In reality, we find that the opposition to North Carolina’s new law displays a form of misogyny. Women, having equal rights, should not be forced to have to share a bathroom with men, regardless of what they wear. We hear feminists decry the rape culture we live in, but sadly, many of them are quiet when it comes to protecting their rights against men intruding into what previously were safe domains for them.
We also see them taking discussion out of context. Recently, Elder Bednar tried to explain that there are no gay Mormons. He did not mean that there are no Mormons who do not experience same sex attraction. He meant that there are no labels in the Church of Jesus Christ. As we read in 4 Nephi, there are no Nephites or Lamanites. There are no more “-ites” of any kind. Instead, all go by one label: child of God.
Most labels tend to do one or two things: 1. they define us by only one small characteristic, and/or 2. they over-emphasize minor characteristics until they are the only things we are known by.
This is true in all walks of life, regardless of whether one is described by her brains, his good looks, wealth (or lack thereof), athletic ability, addictions, criminal record, sexual prowess, sexual attractions, etc. Each and every one of these things, if over-emphasized, becomes who we are. This is a dangerous thing, because we then create for ourselves a new god to pursue.
When we rid ourselves, or at least deemphasize such characteristics, we can then focus on the one characteristic that is of utmost importance and most beneficial to having a healthy view of ourselves: child of God.
No other characteristic can compensate for our forgetting who we truly are. To be a child of God means we sit with Lehi at the base of the Tree of Life, basking in its peace and joy, and partaking of the precious fruit of Christ-like Love. To focus on any particular mortal characteristic is to wander off into mists of darkness, either to be swallowed up in the misery of the depths of filthy water/hell, or to enter into the great and spacious building of pride.
Today, we see much of America choosing to focus on such particulars, rather than eternal concepts of who we really are. Bruce Springsteen and others denounce North Carolina, because the state respects womanhood, rather than someone’s mortal characteristic. As society seeks to destroy God’s definitions for his children (daughter, son, child), and replace them with their own, we will see the great and spacious building impose its will upon all.
At that point, there will be no difference between America and Gomorrah. There will be no reason for God not to destroy the wicked, in order to preserve the righteous, and to reestablish His Definition of who we really are.
New Post: Sodom and Gomorrah: I do not have a problem with people choosing LGBTQ lifestyles. I pe… https://t.co/XXbDATiu7m #LDS #Mormon
“The cities were not destroyed because of homosexuality. Instead, they were destroyed because they sought to impose their wickedness upon others by force, what Bloom called incivility.”
I have not thought of this perspective before. Great insight. I think too many times, in the name of tolerance, people with differing views are labeled as “intolerant.” So, society’s answer seems to be to impose the beliefs of the squeakiest wheel on everyone. Thank you for posting this.
*prejudiced.
TheMillennialStar: Sodom and Gomorrah https://t.co/FBPcr83r9Q #lds #mormon
EnglishTeacher, grammar corrected. Thanks for catching it. Nice to know I’m not the only Grammar Nazi around….
Hopefully you got more out of the post than just the opportunity to grade my paper…
In discussing this with my very liberal daughter yesterday, it became clear to both of this that a policy of allowing anybody into a women’s bathroom is pure misogyny. Many women have suffered abuse, rape and harassment and feel that a bathroom is one of the few safe spaces left. A policy of allowing any man to put on a dress and walk into a women’s bathroom is an incredible offense to women.
(I want to make it clear that people who actually feel gender confusion are unlikely to be the people who abuse this policy — the people likely to abuse it are the increasing number of sexual perverts who will take advantage of such a situation.)
We will see many, many more cases like this in coming years, and the people who suffer will be people like my wife and my daughters:
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Dressed-as-Woman-Arrested-for-Spying-Into-Mall-Bathroom-Stall-Police-Say-351232041.html
There are many possible solutions. Businesses may build more unisex one-person bathrooms with strong locks. Large public buildings could create three kinds of bathrooms, one for men, one for women and one unisex. But the current movement to claim that it is OK for anybody to walk into a women’s bathroom is not sustainable and is immoral.
Geoff, the problem with creating such “open bathroom” laws is it creates unfair solutions on society.
Either everyone has to accept the idea of men entering women’s bathrooms, or businesses must pay the extra expense of building new bathrooms to accommodate others.
In either case, most people lose. And as you mentioned, it places women and girls at big risk of abuse.
It also creates a preferred class of people. If you are a traditional person, you are in an underclass, a group to sneer at. If you choose to become part of the new tradition, then you can do almost anything you want with impunity and Hollywood will cheer you for it. How else could Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner be crowned woman of the year?
There’s too much being left unsaid in the bathroom discussion.
There have been transexuals in various stages of transition for nigh on to 50 years now. Christine Jorgenson, I think, was the first trans who went public, back in the 1960’s.
I’ve met/known three male-to-female trans. And I’ve come across a few more in public, just noticing how people look (adams apple, hands, hips, jaw line, etc., can give it away.)
Some people, who are mid transition, can’t help but “give it away” that they are “presenting” themselves as opposite gender; the new hormones haven’t kicked in yet, they haven’t quite learned makeup and hair yet, etc. Some, due to bone structure, will never fully pass, even after being “post-op”.
Every state, as far as I know, allows gender to be officially changed on a person’s birth certificate, or at least on their state issued drivers license/ID. (Medical proof such as doctors’ certificates are necessary. Both psychs and surgeons are involved.) That’s what a trans person does after they make the transition to “living full time” (“presenting” full time) as the new gender. And in some states at least, that official change on state ID can be done while pre-op, if the doctors certify it.
The NC cases went overboard, both in the local ordinance that started it, and in the new state law that was in response. THERE IS ALREADY PRECEDENT ON HOW TO HANDLE THIS LEGALLY.
The precedent criteria is not what the person was born as, but what they are legally designated at present on their state issued ID. If the trans person has their new gender on their official ID, then there is no problem! They can _legally_ use the bathroom of their “new” gender. If challenged, they can just show their ID.
If they are in “mid” transition, and have not changed their ID yet, and are “pre-op”, then to qualfy to use the bathroom of the “new” gender, they usually just need to do two things: 1) be dressed as/present as the “new” gender, (ie, have some observable attempt to be presenting as the new gender) and 2) if they are challenged, show proof (a doctor’s note, basically) of being in a gender transition program.
The way one male-to-female trans-person described it to me, the transition is not all at once. At the start of her transition, she went to work as male, but after work, and on weekends would dress and go out as female. After notifying bosses/coworkers of her intent to transition, she finally made the switch to dressing full time as female. (Bosses didn’t mind, because they were under pressure to hire more women anyway.) Then after further progress through the program, and yes, it is an official doctor/psych supervised program, she had the surgery. If I recall correctly she had her state drivers license changed when she went to “full time” female, which was well before the surgery.
So that’s it. A real trans-person is going to get a new ID, or at least certificate (“bathroom card” in a sense) from their doc/psych who is board-certified in gender transitions, _and_ they will be making good faith efforts to at least present themselves as the new gender.
Therefore, someone who has transitioned, or is in the process of transitioning from male to female is not going to even attempt to use the women’s bathroom while still dressed as a man. And if someone is challenged because they merely look like “a guy wearing a dress”, they should be able to produce the appropriate ID or some kind of doctor certificate.
Hence, both the city council and the state legislature messed up.
I was in Montgomery, the capitol of Alabama the other day. I was overtaken by a very loving sweet feeling for the town. I was surprised because while Montgomery is an attractive little town, I hadn’t had this feeling about many other nicer places. Later I realized that at the very time that I had this feeling of beneficence the legislature had decided to declare that prenatal children are persons which sets the bar for abortion very high. I believe God was smiling at that. States are fumbling and stumbling as they try to hold back the tide of nonsense. Sexual confusion of various kinds, the death culture that celebrates the destruction of life in many ways (terrorism, mass shootings, abortion, assisted suicide etc.) and the materialistic hedonism that reigns over religious and spiritual restraint are all in ascendancy. Yet there are good people who are trying very hard to resist the pressure. Meanwhile I observed that in the Las Vegas airport there are male/ female bathrooms replacing family bathrooms where parents could take their children.
Bookslinger, the issue isn’t per se with someone who has completed a sex change to the opposite sex. The problem is allowing men, who dress in women’s clothing into the women’s bathroom. Are we now saying women must ask men in women’s clothing entering the bathroom to ask for ID? What if the person is a woman? Are we suddenly creating a society not based on honor, but on suspicion?
How do we protect women and children from predators, in any case?
Pat, I lived in Montgomery for about 16 years. It is good to see there are still some bastions of goodness. Montgomery becomes kind of a symbol for this tension. It was the first capital of the Confederacy and where a Governor raised the Confederate battle flag, saying “Segregation yesterday, segregation today, segregation forever.”
But it is also where Martin Luther King jr ran a little church just a stone’s throw from the Capitol building. It is also where Rosa Parks refused to give up a bus seat. It is where I met Johnnie Carr, Rosa’s childhood friend and one of the early leaders of the Civil Rights movement.
I think we are seeing such tension today with many concepts being pushed around. The “right” of a woman to abort a child for any reason is on par with slave owners using the Bible to justify owning slaves. Today’s feminist movement will attack anyone on restricting abortions, yet look the other way when Bill Clinton or other misogynists treat women as second class citizens. Such inconsistency is not based on eternal principles, but on human frailty and folly.
I was in discussion with a friend the other day regarding women’s bathrooms. In many businesses, the women’s bathrooms are locked. The only way to get in is to obtain a key from an official representative of a company sharing that floor.
I have always presumed that this was because some woman associated with that business had at some point been attacked. So the key business meant that at the least there was a witness regarding who was allowed into the women’s room. Alternately, it meant that surveillance cameras could focus on some place other than the women’s room itself to determine who was possible using the women’s room for something other than ablutions (e.g., peeping, attacking).
One possible response is for women who have previously taken refuge in women’s rooms to start doing their business in the public, where they won’t risk being trapped in an enclosed space with a predator. Long skirts and spilt drawers made this kind of behavior entirely possible back in the day. Who ever admits the hoops were for keeping your skirts out of your poop?
Before escalating to public defecation, I would probably start carrying pepper spray again. Not sure how I would respond to learning that footage of me or mine was being passed around on the Internet. However I believe in an omniscient God and final judgement, when those who have not repented of their shameful behavior will be given a chance to acknowledge that all mankind is now privy to their dirty little secrets, and the immense pain suffered by those affected by their selfish crimes.
Ram, nothing has really changed. If a woman believes a male perv wearing a dress is spying on women in the women’s bathroom, she always had and I suppose still has the same options as before, challenge the person, or call police or other authority/security personnel.
What’s changed is the stupid city law, and the stupid state law that responded to it.
I find it hard to believe that a representative group of trans-people actually pushed for the city law. I haven’t read any details on how or why the city law was passed. Who lobbied for it? It just aounds too politically correct and not thought-out.
Likewise, the NC state law was not thought-out. Reports make it sound like no one asked “How was this handled in the past?” “What have other states and cities done?”
It seems like every city council and every state legislature wants to start from scratch and reinvent the wheel. Or they ignore lessons learned from other state/local governments who did similar things.
Like how Indianapolis ignored the experience of other big cities who merged city police with county sheriff. No other city actually saved money by such a merger, but Indy did it anyway. And my police brass friend tells me no money has been or is being saved here either.
My understanding is that RFRA was based on other states, but the adminstration and legislature and the media failed to make that a public talking point.
It seems like truth suffers. At least one side (usually the progressive side) lies in their accusations, and both sides leave too many things unsaid, and both sides ignore precedent of how things were done in the past.
—
My contention is that the bathroom situation should not have changed at all in NC, neither at the city or state level. Suspected pervs should be reported to police, as always has been the case. And suspects, if they are a genuine trans, can show their ID or doctor statement to the cops or security if they are reported.
If there is a self-professed trans-person who doesn’t want to show ID/doctor statement(or doesn’t have one) when challenged by cops/security, that’s just too bad. Because “legitimate” transpeople will have one or the other.
There always have been pervs and will be, and they can be handled just as before.
—
I think the whole trans thing is a mental illness. The only people who really qualify for surgery are, or should be, those with birth defects, such as ambiguous genitalia, chimeras, XXY, true hermophroditism, etc. Those exist, but are very rare.
I have compassion for people. I feel sorry for those whose problems are so bad that they think the solution is to ignore their DNA and surgically alter their normal genitalia to resemble the opposite sex.
But we’ve been living with trans-people for 50 or so years now. And it’s been somewhat commonly known for at least 25 years. It was the late 80’s when I first met an out-of-the-closet pre-op male-to-female living-fulltime-as-female person.
Like Elder Oaks said in that one interview, everyone gets cured of everything, both physical and emotional, in the resurrection.
But who knows, maybe JosephFielding Smith was right, and everyone who doesn’t make it to the Celestial Kingdom ends up being a “TK smoothie” anyway.
Bookslinger, I still disagree. The state acted properly. The onus should not be placed on women to ensure they are safe in a bathroom. It is like blaming a woman for being raped because she got drunk at a party. While her actions may not have been wise, it does not make her guilty or responsible for the rape. She should expect to be safe regardless of where she is.
Be careful here. We have spent generations legislating morality. Relativists see the S&G issue going both ways. I think we need to call wickedness wickedness. At best transgenderism is psychosis and at worst vile perversion. I am sympathetic but I am not giving them the wherewithal to act on their perversion.
Ram, but couldn’t the state have crafted the new law so that a perv could still be ticketed or prosecuted, but a legitimate trans person be allowed to use the restroom of their new gender?
Is the NC state law short enough to post?
Bookslinger, do you seriously think that nothing has changed?
Al Miller, in terms of people transitioning from one sex to another, whether or not they get the surgery, no. That’s been going on since the 1960’s (Christine Jorgenson). Some get the surgery, and others remain “pre-op” because they don’t have insurance that covers it, and they can’t afford it. Though I grant the possibility that more may be staying in the world in-between (ie, “chick with a d*ck”) on purpose, and that there may be a higher percentage of people identifying as trans than there was in years past.
I also grant there are just more flat out perverts, such as guys who dress in drag for the thrill, who don’t think of themselves as a woman trapped in a man’s body, essentially transvestites, with added things like voyeurism going on.
What may have changed is that now there appear to be people who self diagnose as trans, and don’t feel the need to get formally evaluated and enter into a recognized gender transition program. Those are the people I more strongly disagree with.
(Personally, I think all trans people are mistaken in their belief. But if recognized medical authority is going to cater to them and certify them as their new sex/gender, and as long as civil authority is going to recognize those doctors’ opinions and treatments, and allow change of changer on civil/state ID, then the rest of us have to live with it.)
I do not believe the self-diagnosed “part time” transitioners have a leg to stand on. They should NOT be given access to the bathroom that does not correspond to their current state-issued ID.
There have also been gender-ambiguous-appearing people since forever. (Is anyone else old enough to remember Pat on Sat Night Live?) I’ve seen men who look like women, and women who look like men. You can’t deny someone who has “female” on her state id access to the ladies room no matter how masculine she looks. It’s always been that way, hasn’t it?
If Bruce Jenner (or whatever other male-to-female trans) is going to publicly present as female, and has female on his ID, then he “legally” is female and should “legally” be allowed to use the ladies room. If Bruce is “legally” a woman now, then “legally” Bruce gets to use the women’s restroom.
There should be a way to craft a law to allow “legitimate” (ie, medically recognized) trans people access to the bathroom of their “medically and legally” recognized gender, while keeping out the voyueristic pervs, and the “part time” (or unofficial) trans. My suggestion: use their current state issued ID! Which has always been available, and for decades it has been legal in all (or most all) states to have it changed with medical approval.
So what has always been the right thing to do when the “wrong” person enters a bathroom? Answer: summon the proprietor/manager, or security, or police. That hasn’t changed.
And security and police have always had the right to demand ID. That hasn’t changed. What may need to be changed is to give venue management the right to ask for ID for ambiguous looking persons if another patron complains.
But then, ok, there’s something that has changed. The PC police generally insist if you do something, you have to do it with everyone, therefore check everyone’s ID. Well, the legislatures don’t have to go along with that.
What’s going to eventually happen, I think, is that there will be more single-user or family bathrooms built. The church has already started putting “family” bathrooms in chapels built since st least 2002.
New buildings in general will have them. And slowly, older multi-stall restrooms at larger venues will have at least a portion of those spaces carved out and remodeled into single-user restrooms.
And in places with single-user restrooms, with lockable doors, like lots of gas stations, it’s already a moot point.
Al, so in effect, my point is “nothing _had_ to change”. There was a protocol for this prior to that city in NC passing that ordinance. Therefore the city ordinance was not necessary, as it did nothing to help _legitimate_ trans people. The NC city ordinance caved in to pervs who were not legitimate transpeople. And the NC state law over-reacted when trying to block the pervs by also blocking legitimate trans people.
Bookslinger, there are more issues here than just the one you are discussing. Yes, the state could have found a “more balanced” approach, IF it felt that true transgenders qualify as women. Does Caitlyn Jenner qualify? He/She still has her male genitalia and says still is attracted to women, but California identifies Caitlyn as a woman. How does that protect small girls and women from a predator, given California’s definition of a woman is different from a more conservative state? Whose definition should be used?
As it is, the city ordinance would have imposed upon everyone a morally wrong and stupid law, in the name of promoting post-modern ideas. It was a misogynist law, and clearly needed a quick reversal, rather than having the state legislature debate wording over what makes a person transgender.
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/man-undresses-in-front-of-girls-in-seattle-locker-room-cites-gender-identity-regulation/
I don’t care what Bruce Jenner’s state-issued ID card says: He is a man. He still has the chromosomes and the plumbing. If he goes to the public pool and goes into the girl’s locker room, like the man in the link did, he is a pervert. If he has the operation and removes his fully-functioning male genitalia, he is still perverted but I might re-think allowing his presence in the girl’s locker room.
Being a transvestite is a tough life.
Ram wrote: “Does Caitlyn Jenner qualify? He/She still has her male genitalia and says still is attracted to women, but California identifies Caitlyn as a woman. How does that protect small girls and women from a predator, given California’s definition of a woman is different from a more conservative state? Whose definition should be used?”
Yes, if bruce/caitlyn has “female” on his/her state id, then he/she gets to use the ladies rooms. If he/she is attracted to women, then he/she is legally a lesbian.
I feel sorry for Bruce and all people who believe themselves to be the opposite gender from their biology. But as soon as CA put “female” on the ID, that settled it. We lost the war. State-issued ID is, or should be, the crux, imo.
The fact that he is hesitant to go through with surgery hints that he might not be a true trans, and is just in it for sexual kink. If that’s the case, he should not have been issued a new ID. Maybe California didn’t vett him, and that would be a problem, imo.
My male-to-female acquaintance in the 80’s got Indiana state ID changed before surgery. But if i remember correctly, livng full time as female was an Indiana state pre-requisite for the ID change. Or, at least his/her program doctors made it a pre-req for signing off on the new ID recommendation.
At casual glance, he/she was just an unattractive sort-of masculine appearing woman. To people with good observation skills, you could tell he/she was a m-to-f trans (bone structure, hands, adams apple.)
How does it protect women from predators/pervs? Before changing state ID from male to female states need to verify that the person is a _legitimate_ trans person _in_ a legitimate program: doctor/psychologist certificates, phone calls to verify the certificate, in other words, a vetting process.
Legitimate transexuals and even serious transvestites want to “pass”. They would never expose their pre-op male genitals in an open locker area. That’s another strike against Bruce, because he doesn’t wear devices to hide/tuck-in/smooth-over his package when in public.
The fact that he married a third time and purposely fathered even more children also speaks against him being a legit trans and being more of just a transvestite. So, I’d guess that not just the state of CA messed up, but his psych(s) too. He apparently doesn’t want to be a woman, he just wants to be a “chick with a d*ck.”
And so, NC was in its right mind to write the law they did, rather than allow CA’s crazy rules and antics allow a Bruce Jenner into the women’s bathroom. This is why we have to think such things all the way through. This is not about someone having a right to go to the bathroom. It is about protecting women and girls.
As it is, the NC law allows private businesses to determine for themselves who they will allow into a woman’s bathroom. They are not mandating one way or the other, as the local ordinance did in forcing businesses to allow transgenders/etc into whichever room they wanted to enter.
So, perhaps Bookslinger, you can now begin seeing it NC’s way. They didn’t mess up. They considered giving businesses freedom to choose, while seeking to protect women from CA’s giving a female ID to anyone dressing in drag.
Ram, i think the solution is more a matter of details. Should the bathroom law go by birth certificate or by driver’s license? The DL can be verified on the spot (ie, police can radio in to validate on database via DL # lookup). Birth certificates take longer to verify, and are easier to falsify at least initially, though they can eventually be caught out.
You’ve mentioned you are, or were, in criminal justice. There it’s a matter of asking arrestees “do you currently have a penis, yes or no”. Yes = you go to men’s jail/prison. No = you go to women’s jail/prison. Either way, the arrestee is going to be strip searched, and the penis/no-penis staus will be confirmed. Pre-op trans people get assigned to the jail of their original sex. Due to lack of bathroom/shower privacy in jails, that system seems right to me.
In civilian life, where states are going to give the “new” driver’s license to a pre-op trans person, it’s more complicated.
Of course I want to see pervs kept out of (or arrested for indecent exposure/voyeurism if they go in) the women’s bathrooms and locker rooms.
But if a pre-op m to f trans person who is attempting to pass as female goes into the women’s bathroom and uses a closed stall, and he/she has a legit state ID denoting female, is there harm?
Could not the NC state law have allowed that situation while still allowing for punishment of pervs for voyeurism/indecency?
I think NC legislature could have responded better by addressing a more controlled manner for the official procedures for changing gender on state ID. They could have set up a system of requirements or vetting process to change gender on state ID.
They could have made it a crime of indecency for going into the bathroom/locker room opposite their current state ID (wheras the current new law says “_original_ birth cert” right?) if i understand correctly, the current new law doesn’t even allow for post ops to go into their new gender’s nathroom.
They also could have made it a crime of indecency for “anyone” to expose their male genitals in the ladies bathroom or locker room.
They could have made it a crime of voyeurism to take photos or recordings in a restroom or lockerroom
Pre-op M to F trans who are living full-time as women have been using the closed stalls in ladies bathrooms for over 40 years. They aren’t the problem. But they were un-necessarily booted out of the ladies room with this new NC law.
Granted that we now have more sexual predators and pervs who have nothing to do with medically recognized gender transition programs. I’m fully with you on protecing women and girls (and men and boys) from the pervs and predators, the NC legislature just could have done a better job.
Bookslinger, your statements are already answered previously.
Using a state ID, means they have to accept California ID. This means Bruce Jenner, with a penis, is a woman and can use the bathrooms (under your suggestion).
Having any exception puts the onus on the woman to defend/protect herself. It also increases the efforts by police to protect women in public bathrooms, when I’d rather they spent their time looking for violent offenders. Do we really want our cops to be asking everyone if they have a penis or not? That is a privacy issue, also; and under most circumstances is not the police’s business (nor should it be). You are asking for rules and regulations that pile upon one another, as everyone then asks if he/she can have an exception.
The news states a Canadian high school basketball player, believed to be 17, has been found to actually be 30 years old. Shall we start allowing people to define what age they wish to be, and put it on a driver’s license? Can a 55 year old man begin dating teenagers, simply because he dyes his hair blond and says he is 16? What does that do to statutory rape cases, if we accept the idea that both are underage?
Where do we draw a line? Or do you believe we should throw out all our traditional norms, in order to allow people to freely express themselves, even at the expense of others/
Your questions are circular, and there is no easy nor good solution you give. You only give a Pandora’s box, waiting to be opened and loose its demons of chaos.