MrShorty

I see two different things to deal with -- your husband's smoking/lying (your relationship with your husband) and then the relationship with your friend(s). In the marriage help circles I frequent, this lying part of the vise (porn, alcohol, smoking are the common vises) is often cited as the real problem. The usual advice that I see is to avoid developing a parent/child relationship over the vise and approach it as equal partners. That's difficult when one won't even admit to the vise, but it allows you to focus on what you will do to approach the issue. How much "honesty" do you need (a confession every time he smokes so you can keep score? financial honesty so you know how much is spent?)? Are you making it "easy" for him to confess or hard? The basic idea here is that you can't force him not to smoke and you can't force him to be honest. But you can tell him how you feel when he smokes and how you feel that he doesn't want to confide in you. You can confirm to him that you don't think his smoking makes him a bad person (sometimes we have a problem with this in the Church where we -- often subconsciously -- turn the vise into a statement of character) and even reinforce the good that you see in him. Then hope that your honesty breeds some honesty from him. A good counselor can help with this process. If you want a starting place, I think my favorite "coach" who puts herself out there publicly for this sort of thing is Jennifer Finlaysen-Fife. As a sex therapist, she often frames her view of "intimate" marriages (and honesty, in her view is critical to building an intimate marriage) in terms of sexual differences or porn, but the principles usually translate well to WOW issues like this. If I've remembered correctly, you might find Marriage On a Tightrope podcast episode 83 where she did a Q&A episode for Allan and Kattie. Context -- MOAT is a podcast focused on mixed faith marriages (where one spouse has left the Church), and, naturally, WOW can become an issue in these situations. If memory serves, one of the questions in this Q&A was specifically about navigating alcohol use in this situation, and I think you will find her thoughts and suggestions helpful for your own wrestle with your husbands tobacco use. The other side is the friend issue. I am a strong believer in loyalty between spouses, so, IMO, if your husband has asked that you don't reveal anything, that should be your first goal -- be loyal to him. That becomes particularly problematic when you feel you need to talk to someone (for your own benefit, not to satisfy their curiosity) about your side of the issue, because it won't always separate cleanly from his side of the issue. My only thought is to err on the side of loyalty, which might mean making excuses or even, "you'll have to talk to him" responses. In the spirit of honesty and intimacy, there could be value in telling your husband what you want to say to friends and ask what he would want you to say. You're in a tough place. I wish you the best and pray that God will guide you through the nuances of your personal journey.

A quick thank you to all who are including me in their prayers. I can appreciate the awkwardness around praying for someone by internet handle, but, as already noted, God knows. For a quick update. Today starts cycle 6 of 8 (for this part of the overall treatment). There's a light at the end of this tunnel.

I have long felt that the content on the main page is different from what is going on here in the forum. It feels to me like this forum still has a strong core of long time members that will keep the forum going for a while (though, if Sears and Roebuck is any indication, a long history is no promise of future viability). My impression is that the forum has slowed down some, perhaps mostly because I don't see as many "new trolls" who come in and start something controversial that gets the group's dander up. I mean, how long has it been since our last good creation/evolution debate? It seems like it's been a while. To be fair, though, it's not like yet another creation/evolution debate is going to bring up anything new. We've been having the same evolution/creation debates since the early 20th century, always with the same (non) conclusion -- we just don't know and the Church doesn't want to take sides. Most of the good controversies that drive traffic on a site like this are old news. We've had the discussions before (sometimes ad nauseum) almost always with the same (non) results. I feel like the Ecclesiast when he said there's nothing new under the sun. I guess it seems to me that, while third hour is not necessarily shying away from the controversies, it also isn't getting as much traffic interested in rehashing yet again the common controversies. I could be reading the room wrong, but I'm not sure that the main group is too bothered by being left out of the center of those controversies.

I don't expect it would float into space, but it would float up until the overall density of the object was the same as the atmosphere at that level. Most solid containers that are strong enough to hold their shape against one atmosphere pressure are going to be more dense than air, I doubt you would be able to effectively get a vacuum to float, but it would be theoretically possible if you could build a container from a very lightweight material that was also strong enough to hold its shape against the pressure.

@Just_A_Guy Never really thought of myself as tenacious. Time to execute "apply tenacity to illness" routine.

I'm finding the same thing. Sometimes, all you can say is, "I feel terrible right now." While, at the same time, holding onto the hope deeper down that the this really sucks part will eventually be replaced with better.

I know we like to say this as an absolute, but, especially looking back at the history of the word of the Lord against scientific cosmology (Genesis is the big player here), we find that the word of the Lord was a very poor guide to scientific truth. Even when it comes to moral truth, issues like slavery and racial issues suggest that the word of the Lord is not always accurately conveyed by scripture or prophets. This is where I continue to believe that we have not adequately addressed scriptural errancy and prophetic fallibility. When it comes to LGBT issues, how can we know (other than fallible testimony, since it is all too easy to conflate emotional or intellectual preference for the Spirit's witness) the word of the Lord on a subject? How can we know that the view of the current cadre of prophets and apostles accurately represents God's view? When disagreeing, why should a faithful member simply defer to the prophet (that feels too much like what helped perpetuate the priesthood ant temple ban decades past its expiration date)? These are hard questions -- just like the questions these secular groups are wrestling with in transgender issues. My progressive inclination is to believe that the current cadre of prophets and apostles do not fully understand God's will for LGBT+ people, and that changes will be coming. Some of these changes are going to be in reaction to what science discovers along the way.

@NeuroTypical I have the privilege/challenge of working through name/pronoun change with my daughter. Yes it feels wierd, after all, I've known her by the name her mom and I gave her years ago for her entire life. I would also add that there is a little bit of disappointment (maybe, not sure what word to put here) as she/they kind of reject the name we chose for her (but that wouldn't apply to generic Church members). So, yes it is "weird", though I think I'd prefer a different word with fewer negative connotations (but I'm not enough of a wordsmith to come up with one). I'm not opposed to addressing her by name or using her/their preferred pronouns, but it is mostly just hard, this early in the process, to always remember the change. Their given name and pronouns come to me so automatically, that it is a slow process to retrain myself. I expect it would be even harder with a Church member that I may only interact with once per week or even less frequently. I can only hope that, as I have opportunity to interact with such people that they will be patient with me while I am trying my best to respect their choice.

@scottyg I am concerned when someone like you with the expertise to access and digest the data feels they can show that the governing bodies are more political than scientific. I'm not comfortable with the possibility that these bodies are making these decisions based on too much politics. If there is a strong scientific case to be made that these groups are wrong, how do we go about getting the correct information in front of them and help them make better informed decisions? You don't necessarily have to answer to me, because, even if I know how, I'm just not going to be the one to make anything happen. Another concern that this issue also brings up -- how far can we trust science (especially social sciences)? If science is not reliable as a source of truth, and religion has it's own fallibilities, is there a reliable source of truth? One caveat -- maybe science just needs enough time (it also sometimes seems religion needs time to find truth like with slavery) to work it all out. If time is the great equalizer, perhaps the question of the moment is should we opt for a conservative position (assume pathology or exclusion until science clearly shows that change is needed) or should we opt for a progressive view where change maybe is considered or adopted until the change is shown to be wrong? I don't know.

@Grunt I note and accept the correction. I still end up down the prophetic fallibility rabbit hole where I must decide if the prophet's view is always the same as Christ's view.

I think this gets muddied when you end up dealing with many social species -- honeybees are often the go to example where you have a large percentage of the female population is not part of the breeding stock. Only one female per hive gets to reproduce, while all the other females spend their lives as workers. From there, you would need to have a handy explanation that explains why honeybees and other species have non-breeding individuals in their populations. One examples is "kinship selection" where the theory says that the non-breeding individual (related to the breeding individual/pair) provides some advantage to the breeding pair, and, because the non-breeding individual shares genes with the breeding individual, the non-breeding individual still gains an evolutionary advantage by helping a breeder rather than being the breeder. Clearly a place for more discussion, if desired (5 years ago (have I really been around this forum more than 5 years???), was this long meandering thread where I and wenglund went back and forth on how there are theories and examples of non-breeders being parts of populations without, themselves, ever needing to breed:

Agreed, you don't have to be a part of these discussions. You are free to believe what you want. My point wasn't to claim that you have to "join" the world to be relevant. My point was that, to be relevant, you need to understand how the world is framing the discussion so you can enter the discussion where the world is at. Entering the discussion with "Christ would say..." and/or "transgenderism is a mental illness" are likely to be immediately dismissed without further consideration. But it isn't necessary for each individual to be a part of the discussion, so you are fine if you want to follow your version of Christ's truth. @scottyg already lost the "show me your references" battle once, not going to go down that rabbit hole again. As it pertains to the OP, USA Swimming has come to a consensus opinion that transwomen can compete against ciswomen if (enter requirements here -- seems to mostly be about testosterone levels over time). At the broader level, the APA in publishing the DSM-V was working with a trend to destigmitize/depathologize transgender and gender dysphoria diagnoses. The WHO very recently (announced in 2019 taking effect in 2022) announced a shift moving Gender incongruence from the mental disorders section to their Sexual health section because they no longer believe it is an illness. I'm sure if you want to penetrate any or all of these bureaucracies, they would be happy (because we all know just how happy bureaucrats can be to do their job) to help you understand the literature they used and the discussion processes that went into coming to their decisions on what policies to set.

I get this is what many of us, especially in conservative spaces, believe -- that transgenderism is some kind of illness or disorder or pathology. I don't think society is doing this on a whim. Over the last few decades, we have been wrestling with exactly the question of whether transgenderism is pathological or not, and the current belief is that it is not inherently pathological. Of course, any one of us can believe what we want. For those who want to enter a mental health field, it may be necessary to consider professional ethics of your accreditation/licensing organization (as with the recent policy change at BYU-P's speech and language clinic and how that runs against their accrediting organization's ethical policies) in how you approach the issue. Or, if you want to engage the culture in this particular culture war, calling transgenderism "an illness to be cured*" is more likely to get branded as "outdated or outmoded" and may not have any real impact in those spaces. As the psychological community currently interprets the evidence, transgenderism is not pathological, and the best treatments are gender affirming. That means, to me, that a serious engagement with this issue means either new, compelling data to show that it is best viewed as pathological, or a compelling new analysis of the old data to show that the current interpretation is wrong. We can believe what we want, but the broader culture is getting past the "transgender as illness" model. If we want to be a part of that discussion, we've got to change our rhetoric to fit into the discussion, or we will just get dismissed from the conversation. *where cured means the patient becomes comfortable identifying as their biological sex at birth

@NeuroTypical I feel like, though, if I'm going to do this like a rockstar, I probably need to work on my guitar riffs and solos.

I feel like I need/want to burn this onto the inside of my eyelids so I can see it every time I close my eyes. Thanks for the prayers and thoughts.

I know we butt heads sometimes on different conservative vs. progressive issues, but I'm going to lay my soul bare -- maybe to avoid the $200/hr therapist's bill that I'm tempted by. For Christmas, I gave myself a colorectal cancer diagnosis. Unfortunately, I did not purchase the diagnosis at Costco or Walmart or similar that would be more than happy to take it back, so I'm stuck with it. I had no symptoms, so life seemed pretty good, then chemotherapy started. Can I just say that chemo is a strong contender for "the cure is worse than the disease"? Okay, I know that chemo is part of saving my life, where the cancer would eventually kill me, but, in the short term, it sure is rough. 4 of 8 chemo cycles are down already, just starting number 5. I am not looking forward to this weekend. After the chemo, then they want a round of radiation+chemo, before the surgeon goes in and cuts out the bottom end of my GI tract. Nothing to look forward to. Well, that's not true, I can look forward to 90% or better chance of a full cure by the end of it all, but that payoff at the end sure seems a long way out and it gets hard to keep it in mind when the short term effects of the treatments are so miserable. Anyway, not sure I expect anything from the group. Maybe just encouragement. Certainly prayers on my behalf. Maybe a place where I can anonymously complain about my lot in life and how hard it is (as if my life is really all that hard, I'm sure there are people worse off -- Ukrainians come to mind as well as other patients with a much less optimistic prognosis), but still I feel a bit beaten down by a normal part of a fallen, mortal world.

@Carborendum I'm going to bow out and just concede defeat on this debate. I will remind, though, that winning the debate against me is not going to change anything. These athletics organizations are allowing transwomen to compete, and I'm not convinced it is just to "appease the woke crowd" I don't know all of what they did to come to the conclusion they did, but they did and winning or losing a debate at thirdhour isn't really changing anything.

My faith in Christ requires that I answer that Christ's definition is most accurate (I've already said that I remain unconvinced that The Church's definition is the same as Christ's definition, but that's not a popular opinion around here). But even if "biological sex at birth" is Christ's definition of gender, it is still not the definition of gender being used in these secular spaces. If we want to engage in the discussion going on in secular spaces, I think we need to understand and work within their definitions, or they aren't going to hear what we have to say.

I think this is a very interesting point in the discussion, but I think we need to be careful not to completely conflate "intersex" and "transgender". I expect there is overlap and other ways that the two ideas intersect, but most people in society consider them separate categories. This is the Church's definition, sure. It's not the definition being used by sports' governing bodies as they discuss this issue. Certainly biological sex at birth (or maybe, more important, at/during puberty) is important in their discussions, but it is not how they define gender, nor is it the only consideration in their deliberations. As I've already said, I don't have access to the literature on this. I am assuming that governing bodies like USA Swimming have fuller access to the literature and that, what they have seen, allowed them to say that transwomen who meet a certain criteria are allowed to compete with ciswomen. I expect they were/are fully aware of the study you mentioned along with many others, and, when reducing it all down, they feel like transwomen can compete fairly against ciswomen under the right circumstances. From a statement a month or so ago: “USA Swimming firmly believes in inclusivity and the opportunity for all athletes to experience the sport of swimming in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity and expression. We also strongly believe in competitive equity, and, like many, are doing our best to learn and educate ourselves on the appropriate balance in this space." (USA Swimming statement issued Jan 2022: https://www.usaswimming.org/news/2022/01/20/usa-swimming-statement-on-transgender-athlete-policies).

@Carborendum An interesting article, but only one of many available (even just looking at the "related articles" section at the bottom of the pubmed link some of which seem to be neutral and others that suggest it is possible to integrate transwomen into at least some sports). As I said, I am not one qualified or otherwise important in reviewing the literature (in other words, it does no good to convince me). I note that Laurel Hubbard (43 yo transwoman competing weightlifting at the Tokyo Olympics) failed all of her lifts. Did she have an unfair advantage and fail to take advantage of it, or was the competition fair? I don't know. In the end, I don't think a blanket "no, transwomen should not compete alongside ciswomen" is the right answer. I also don't think a blanket, "yes, transwomen should be allowed to compete alongside ciswomen" is the right answer. Somewhere in that very broad and gray middle trying to balance inclusion and competitive fairness is where the right answer lies.

@mordorbund @scottyg the data comparing cis-male high schoolers against cis-female Olympic athletes is interesting. I guess the question is how comparable are cis-male high school athletes to trans-female athletes. The claims I see coming from trans affirming sources and governing bodies is that, after sufficient transitioning treatments, trans-women compete in many sports at the same level as cis-women. Again, I'm not in a position to fully evaluate the data, but it seems that data comparing cis-boys to cis-women is not by itself going to answer the question of how well trans-women compete against cis-women.

I agree that this is the driving reason between having men's and women's divisions in most sports. What I see currently happening (and a big part of why I say this is all in flux right now) is athletes and sports governing bodies and society in general are trying to understand just how much of the competitive advantage is inherent in growing up biological male and how much is current biological maleness. @mikbone is probably a lot closer to the literature and better equipped to interpret it all, but I see some literature that seems to show that trans-women who receive the right combinations of treatments (the OP's article only listed testosterone levels, I'm not certain what more or less there is to it all) can compete fairly against cis-women. I'm certainly not in a position to judge the literature, but I tend to assume that these governing bodies (in the OP's case, USA Swimming) will have as their primary focus the integrity of their sport. As near as I can tell, no one wants to turn women's athletics into competitions that cis-women cannot compete in, but these governing bodies are also trying to be as inclusive as they can towards trans-women. I don't know all of the details, but it seems that at least some of these governing bodies are being convinced by the data they are presented that it is possible for trans and cis women to compete fairly against each other. Whether or not the specific incident mentioned in the OP fully fits into that possibility or not, I don't know.

I apologize for not catching that the OP was more of a joke. I have a daughter who just entered treatment for gender/body dysmorphia (so far only talk therapy, but who knows how far that will go), and maybe I'm just a little hypersensitive at the moment so that I missed the joke. I, too, am a card-carrying member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (still not sure if day is supposed to be capitalized or not, I thought the official instruction was a lower case "d", but I could easily be in error on that), and I agree that the statement from the proclamation is the words of Christ. I don't, however, believe that the clarifying statement mentioned by Grunt (Gender = biological sex at birth) represents the words of Christ. So, two card-carrying members (if we had the resources, we could further extend the survey to untold thousands of card-carrying members and see what percentage agree and disagree) don't completely agree on what constitutes the words of Christ on this topic. What happens next? Declare that all those who disagree with the full statement plus clarification are no longer card-carrying members? As for the OP, I agree that the real issue is one of competitive fairness (or cheating, if you prefer). I'm not convinced that a blanket "trans-women cannot compete alongside cis-women in any sport" fully addresses the question. Sports like swimming (USA Swimming and the NCAA were mentioned in the OP's article as governing bodies for the competition in question) seem to be trying to understand what is fair and unfair in allowing trans-women to participate alongside cis-women. I do not have any expertise in this area, so maybe I will ask if we have specific points or policies where we think USA Swimming (arbitrarily putting them as the highest authority on fairness within the sport of women's swimming) is misunderstanding or misusing data in deciding that trans-women who meet certain criteria (the OP's article only mentioned testosterone levels) can fairly compete against cis-women?

A very good question. As Tevye said, "I'll tell you, I don't know" All I know is that I see many who want to stay in the Church in spite of their disagreements. How do we feel about that? Would we prefer to encourage them to see the door and take it -- kind of "purify the Church of its progressive elements"? Or do we want to engage them where they're at and help them stay? As for the word "stubborn", that was the word I put in place of "difficult[y]...bend[ing] to God's will." If you feel that stubbornness doesn't capture the idea you were conveying there, what would you feel would be a better interpretation?

@Traveler I want to start by saying that I am sorry you were bullied like that in the Army in the mid-20th century. Such behavior seems completely antithetical to any kind of understanding of Christian behavior. Recognizing that this belief comes out of your anecdotal experience, I feel like it must be said that, in the 21st century, the consensus is that human sexual proclivities (and transgenderism, too) are at least partially in born (usually described as a complex and poorly understood interplay between genetic, in-utero epigenetic, and environmental factors). I don't know how to best reconcile your anecdotal experience and conclusion with the conclusions and experiences of a myriad of other people that don't match yours. Ultimately, the only thing I think I can say is that we have a different and better (even if still incomplete) understanding of LGBT issues than we did half a century ago. If we want to speak into the current marketplace of ideas on LGBT issues, we need to have a firm grasp of the current understandings. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean that you or I or 3rd hour need to lead out in these discussions. Those who do successfully engage the current dialog are going to have a good understanding of the current ideas and beliefs.