Women’s Ivy League Swimming?

[LDSGator]

Just now, Grunt said:

No worries.  I'll mind my own business.   Thought it was a mistake.   

No, I appreciate it. Good call actually. Luckily it’s just @mirkwood 😉 

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

Which do you think is more accurate?   How it's defined by a fallen world, or how it's defined by Christ?

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.

[MrShorty]

@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.

[mirkwood]

46 minutes ago, Grunt said:

No worries.  I'll mind my own business.   Thought it was a mistake.   

 

It was a mistake.  He used photoshop.  Here are the real images.  smh @LDSGator

 

 

 

 

[mirkwood]

And I contend that using my skills against Ronda's skills, I win.

[mirkwood]

58 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

 

Heck, I might get this tattooed on my forehead! 

I dare you...

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, mirkwood said:

I dare you...

Tim O’bama will pass. 
 

 

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@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.

It wasn't really about defeating anyone.  I really was interested in seeing opposing studies. But I wish you well, and I hope you find peace in your family.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Carborendum

[Vort]

On 3/1/2022 at 8:07 AM, NeuroTypical said:

And again, our Lord and Savior has things to say about the one and the ninety-and-nine.

 Jesus' parable of the ninety and nine had to do with bringing souls unto God through ministry in his kingdom, not whether men should be allowed to punch women in the face.

[NeuroTypical]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

 Jesus' parable of the ninety and nine had to do with bringing souls unto God through ministry in his kingdom, not whether men should be allowed to punch women in the face.

Absolutely, that's my context as well.   

I thought I was pretty clear about the issue, but if not, here it is again: 

Quote

On this subject, I'm in agreement with Caitlyn Jenner. 

 

[LDSGator]

54 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Absolutely, that's my context as well.   

I thought I was pretty clear about the issue, but if not, here it is again: 

 

I admire Caitlyn Jenner for not being a walking stereotype.  She’s a transgender Olympic athlete Hollywood celebrity who is a registered republican. Pretty cool in my book. 
 

It must be tough on her too. Conservatives may dislike her for her lifestyle. Liberals certainly dislike her because she isn't one of them (liberal). She stands alone. 😞 

Edited March 3, 2022 by LDSGator

[Vort]

15 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I admire Caitlyn Jenner for not being a walking stereotype.  She’s a transgender Olympic athlete Hollywood celebrity who is a registered republican. Pretty cool in my book.

"She" is a man battling a debilitating mental disorder against a society that,  rather than try to find a way to help him, instead enables his sickness by insisting that he is totally okay.  One day, those who have used him so selfishly to promote their own ends will stand before their Maker and will account for what they did to help or hurt their brother.

 I have a great deal of respect for Bruce Caitlyn Jenner. I think he is a person dealing with a real problem, not just someone seeking attention  who is doing what he thinks is somehow the appropriate thing to do. I don't understand, but I can see a man trying to do what he thinks is the right thing even if it's bizarre. I respect that.

 One day, Jenner will stand before his so-called friends' face-to-face. In that day, he will ask them why they didn't do something to help him. Whatever lame answers they give will not suffice.

 On another note, why is Galaxy spell check so incredibly awful? It's not just useless, it's worse than useless. I wish I could turn it off.

Edited March 3, 2022 by Vort

[Grunt]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

"She" is a man battling a debilitating mental disorder against a society that,  rather than try to find a way to help him instead enables his sickness by insisting that he is totally okay.  One day, those who have used him so selfishly to promote their own ends will stand before their Maker and will account for what they did to help or hurt their brother.

 I have a great deal of respect for Bruce Caitlyn Jenner. I think he is a person dealing with a real problem, not just someone seeking attention  who is doing what he thinks is somehow the appropriate thing to do. I don't understand, but I can see a man trying to do what he thinks is the right thing even if it's bizarre. I respect that.

 One day, Jenner will stand before his so-called friends' face-to-face. In that day, he will ask them why they didn't do something to help him. Whatever lame answers they give will not suffice.

 On another note, why is Galaxy spell check so incredibly awful? It's not just useless, it's worse than useless. I wish I could turn it off.

So much this.   I can't imagine the struggle of this.  Sadly as a society we've set the baseline at "nah, you're good, everyone else is messed up"

[MrShorty]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

"She" is a man battling a debilitating mental disorder...

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

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

 

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.

 

"You have to join the world and its culture to be relevant".   Nah.   I'll continue to follow Christ's truth, regardless where the world goes.

That said, I'm not saying it's mental illness or not.  

Edited March 3, 2022 by Grunt

[scottyg]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

As the psychological community currently interprets the evidence,...

Such as?

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

"You have to join the world and its culture to be relevant".   Nah.   I'll continue to follow Christ's truth, regardless where the world goes.

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.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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

 

The single point I have with the LGBTQ+ culture is the objection of freewill and choice.  Science defines intelligence as the power and ability to learn and modify behavior.  There is a unmistakable paradox and unexplainable contradiction in claims that the human species is intelligent in contrast to the notion that individuals within the species are "created" differently - meaning that they have no choice concerning their behavior. 

Unlike many other religions the single most important principle according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not love but rather "Agency".  In essence love and agency are linked such that the only way that agency can be justified is through love - especially when the choice of agency takes the individual into "Darkness" which is the spiritual definition of self destruction.  

You noted that " the psychological community currently interprets the evidence, transgenderism is not pathological".  I would challenge that interpretation as "non scientific".  Science clearly defines "survival of the fittest" exclusively as those whose sexual behavior results in passing their genetic material to succeeding generations.   Obviously politics (not science) currently dominates the psychological community to interpret evidence contrary to biological (scientific) realities.  We know from biological history that abundance of species is no guarantee that the species will survive when changes occur.  By obviously proven scientific definition behaviors of a species of individuals within a species that prevents the passing of genetic material to succeeding generations is pathological.  That is if we are willing to accept that the definition of pathological as that which prevents survival of the fittest for a species or individuals within a species. 

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

49 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

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   The Prophet's version of Christ's truth.

 

[scottyg]

45 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

 

@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.

That's fine, I'm really not a debater myself. I sometimes enjoyed it on my mission, but found it never gets anyone anywhere.

What I am though is a registered nurse that works for a health insurance company, and I am well versed in the APA and the DSM, WHO positions, multiple peer reviewed journals, etc... It is my job to review them to give guidance on what the company should and should not cover based off of medical facts and proven treatments...not opinions. The WHO and other associations are made up of people, and they, just like everyone else have opinions. I have no desire to, as you say, penetrate their bureaucracies...that has unfortunately been done already. Unfortunately, they have already been infiltrated with those who harbor an agenda or who desire influence and/or money. It is not a conspiracy theory; you just have to look at how they make decisions nowadays...their processes and standards in multiple areas have changed due to inward and outward pressures. They follow the crowd, not the true process of medical research.

Just so you know, the literature they use to justify changing their positions and definitions are nothing more than opinion pieces. There is no real physiological data. No legitimate study that proves anything. None. Zero. And yet these agencies will run wild with the latest "theories" of the day as if they had been shown to a law. They will find one random genetic marker (that really has nothing to do with gender) and spin a fairy tale so convincing it would make the Brothers Grimm jealous. However, it is just that, a fairy tale; false personal opinions of those in the situation that follow what those funding the study want to hear. Their so called "studies" are so poor it is laughable anyone would even publish them...yet they do to further their agendas, and those who don't know any better believe all of the lies prostituted to them without giving it any critical thought themselves...because it's the easy way out. Those who are gaining prominence in the fields of mental health are the very ones with mental health issues, and they are too darn prideful, lazy, and/or mentally weak to admit it. So, they do all they can to fill their "studies" with the words, maybe, possibly, and suggests to make it seem like they actually have a basis for what they are talking about. They seek for validation rather than truth, and will do or say anything to get others to join their cause to mask their pain. Great evils are being spread throughout the world disguised as "love", equality, and acceptance.

It seems odd (and concerning) to me that you would continue to push a narrative based off of, nothing really. You continue to say that you don't necessarily believe that what the Prophets and Apostles of our day teach is in line with that the Lord thinks. To be blunt, that is absurd, and very shaky ground to be standing on as a member of the Lord's church. You cannot sustain the Prophet while openly saying you do not believe his words. I will say no more on the subject, but I implore you to please follow the living Prophet. TImes worse than this are coming, and the Prophet will not lead you astray...the Lord would not allow it. Do not get swept up by the beat of babylon's drum, as it is surrounded with flaxen cords meant to stop your progression to the Lord. The so called "love" and acceptance that is popular in the world today will not bring you closer to Him. It is possible to love people without accepting and supporting their decisions. Wrong is wrong no matter how many people say it's right. 

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, as to be hated but need to be seen; yet seen to oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace."

Alexander Pope's essay on man - often quoted by Thomas S Monson

 

[NeuroTypical]

Just a reminder of what is currently in the church's handbook of instructions:

Although I've gathered a small handful (3 or 4) personal experiences with transgender folks, I've managed to avoid situations where I had to refer to them directly, in their presence, by their preferred name or pronoun.  I've been thinking about it for a few years. Still feels weird.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone actually had the opportunity to address a fellow church member by their preferred name?  Any stories of brother Bruce becoming sister Barbara?  I can fathom some imaginary situations, but that's only because I have an active imagination.  I can't tell if my guesses at what it might be like, fall in the realm of fantasy or reality here.

[LDSGator]

11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Just out of curiosity, has anyone actually had the opportunity to address a fellow church member by their preferred name?

Not personally here either. I think the church is correct though. Just address the person the name they want to be called. Saves everyone a ton of drama. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by LDSGator

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Science clearly defines "survival of the fittest" exclusively as those whose sexual behavior results in passing their genetic material to succeeding generations.

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:

 

[MrShorty]

@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.

[MrShorty]

@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.

Edited March 3, 2022 by MrShorty