Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
User avatar
Not Buying It
Posts: 1308
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:29 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Not Buying It » Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:51 am

Blashyrkh wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:30 pm
Not Buying It wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:48 am
Blashyrkh wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:22 am
You have kind of made my point. Why are we getting all wound up and demanding society change for 2% of the population? I always wanted to be an aeronautical engineer but due to my lack of comprehension of the higher levels of math I went into the law field. So should I be given a pass and be allowed to design aircraft because I suffer from a mental disorder. Yes I have been diagnosed with dyscalculia. It's a real mental disorder. My brain doesn't do well with more than four digits. No, I move one. I don't demand that everyone accommodate my intellectual issues. It is not normal to be transgendered according to the LDS culture. Then leave the LDS culture. Problem solved. Look, I left the church for X,Y and Z. I realize their beliefs and they run contrary to my own. I don't get the people who sit and bitch about a group they obviously disagree with. I don't like the KKK so I don't join and I move on. But is it really going to do anything to sit and moan about their beliefs? Not to them. Not to me. Why do people think they have to change the thoughts of everyone who disagrees with them? Let the LDS disagree with transgenders, gays, whomever. Move on if you don't agree with their beliefs. Start your own church that loves everyone except Mormons.
You know it’s not that easy. You know that. Or you should anyway. A kid gets born into an oppressive, controlling, repressive Church, gets brainwashed from day 1 the Church is not only always right but obeying it is the only way he or she gets to be with his or her family forever, most of his or her family and friends are all wrapped up in it and think they will lose him or her forever if he or she leaves it - those chains are not easy for most people to escape. I like that you feel comfortable going against what everyone else here thinks sometimes, Blashyrkh, I really do, but nothing sets me off more than when someone makes it sound like leaving the Church is an easy, effortless decision where a person just walks away and it’s that simple. If you’ve left the Church, you should know that. Leaving the Church is the hardest, most gut-wrenching heart-rending thing most of us will ever do in our entire lives, and I find it callous, unempathetic, disingenuous, and supremely wrong-headed to make it sound like walking away from the Church is as easy as picking a different fabric softener.

I don’t want to squelch a dissenting voice that keeps NOM from being an echo chamber, but you are dead wrong on this one.
If something, anything is keeping you from being happy and you for whatever reason cannot leave then I feel sorry for you. If your family/friends cannot accept your decision then you have some poor family members. Life is short. Really short. If you spend it pleasing other people rather than find your own joy then that is your own fault. The day I finally ran from the church I felt like a whole new person. I could find true joy now rather than be oppressed by the COB. Everyone has to make that decision. Is maintaining your family/friends and living a life you despise more important than being true to yourself and believing what you truly want to? Then quit complaining that the church makes you feel bad when their principles don't jive with yours.
Damn, Blashyrkh, that's pretty cold. What of the disaffected husband who loves his TBM wife more than anything in the world - more than he hates the Church? He should just walk away, even if that means losing the love of his life? What about the poor schlub who works in the Church Office Building and has a wife and six little mouths to feed, he should just walk away and hope it all works out? Or the father who sees his children's temple weddings coming up in the next few years and know he doesn't get to be a part of them if he doesn't play along? The Church intentionally makes leaving as complicated as it possibly can.

I'm glad for you that your exit was uncomplicated. A lot of people aren't so lucky, and for some the price they pay for leaving is higher than than the price they pay for staying. Personally, I think they deserve our sympathy, and their voices should be heard. I say let them complain all they want, they are in a sucky situation they didn't create, and for some of them just walking away comes at too heavy a price.
"The truth is elegantly simple. The lie needs complex apologia. 4 simple words: Joe made it up. It answers everything with the perfect simplicity of Occam's Razor. Every convoluted excuse withers." - Some guy on Reddit called disposazelph

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2235
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Palerider » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:04 am

I left the church spiritually when I found out it was phony and informed my wife quite soon. It was painful for everyone. I actually had name removal a couple of years ago.
Thankfully my wife and most of my kids came around to the truth. Some were already on their way at the same time I was. So eventually it worked out but it wasn't easy.

I love to come here and take pot shots at the ridiculousness of church teachings and doctrine. I want others who scan here to know they aren't alone. The more you point out the absurdity of church history, doctrine and policy, the more leadership is forced to face the facts that they look stupid and are losing members.

Revealing an organization's exploitation of naivè and believing people is kind of a mission with me. The truth makes people free. So if I could, I would take a wrecking ball to the corporation. I don't hate members. I see some good that serves as a cover for the despicable behavior of the organization.

Is that perceived as complaining? Maybe. I see it as defending truth.

I sympathize with those whose family members are still hooked and can't escape. Maybe what they need is just a place to vent their frustration for a time?

But eventually in order to be spiritually and psychologically healthy a person needs to stop being self-conflicted and live their own truth regardless of the consequences. It's unhealthy and in reality, no good to anyone to live a lie.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
oliblish
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:09 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by oliblish » Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:59 pm

Hagoth wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:43 am
Palerider wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:05 am
Not buying it and Alas we may just have to agree to disagree here. I always respect your opinions.

But in this case I can't see myself repeating your arguments to explain to my eleven year old grand daughter why she is forced to share the public restroom with a 6' 2", 225 lb, male looking, hairy person in a dress and high heels who thinks his/her right to express themselves as a woman takes precedence over the security and privacy of an eleven year old girl. She deserves better. Where do her rights begin???
So you're ok with your 11-year old grandson sharing a restroom with the same individual, right?

I was in a large unisex public restroom in Ireland that about 20 stalls and 20 urinals. It didn't seem to be a problem. Maybe we have the same problem in this country about where people go to the bathroom that we have about who wears dresses.

The funny thing is that women dressing like men was once just as shocking and socially unacceptable but we somehow got over that hurdle about 100 years ago.
We seem to have a big hang-up here in the US about bodily functions. When I was on my mission in Japan, the building we met in for Sacrament meeting had a men's bathroom and a women's bathroom, but you had to walk through the women's bathroom to get to the men's. It kind of freaked me out at the time, but the members there didn't think anything of it. It is just a cultural difference.

You would walk through one door and be in the women's bathroom where the sinks and mirrors were. There were a couple of stalls but you couldn't see under the doors (they went to the ground.) You would walk through that room and there was another door and you would proceed in to the men's room.

I think the whole transgender/public bathroom controversy is a non issue. People just want to pee. I say let them do it. The people that are most likely to be attacked in public restrooms are the transgender folks themselves. I think the real problem is that many assume that transgender people are all sex-crazed weirdos that are ready to attack at any opportunity. This is simply not the case.
Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham

User avatar
Hermey
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:32 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Hermey » Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:03 pm

fetchface wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:51 am
I have this really weird notion that stalls could be their own private unisex bathroom and then people of all genders could come out into a larger common area and wash their own hands in the presence of people who may or may not be of their same gender. I know, I'm a weirdo.
Not weird at all. I’m with you. For the love of all that is holy, people please — (gonna speak real slowly here) just. wash. your. hands. Please and thank you.

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2235
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Palerider » Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:00 pm

oliblish wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:59 pm
I think the real problem is that many assume that transgender people are all sex-crazed weirdos that are ready to attack at any opportunity. This is simply not the case.
Just for clarification, I wasn't implying that anything untoward was going to happen with my granddaughter. I'm not implying that she is at risk of attack from a transgender individual. What I'm saying is that she wouldn't understand or feel comfortable with someone that she perceived as a man in a dress being in the same bathroom as she.

Many others may feel the same, whether it be a 10 year old boy having a woman walk in while he is at the urinal or whatever.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

Keewon
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Keewon » Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:47 pm

Pale rider wrote:Just for clarification, I wasn't implying that anything untoward was going to happen with my granddaughter. I'm not implying that she is at risk of attack from a transgender individual. What I'm saying is that she wouldn't understand or feel comfortable with someone that she perceived as a man in a dress being in the same bathroom as she.
I suspect part of the problem is that kids don't know what to expect, and look to their elders for clues. If their elders are freaked out, the kids will be too. The big guy in a dress could be occasion for some fruitful conversations. A little "it's no big deal" attitude can go a long way towards allaying kids' fears.

Truth is, there is nothing erotic about bathrooming. Everyone has to pee. The only people who are really likely to misbehave are predators who go looking for someone to abuse, and statistically speaking that honor still goes overwhelmingly to heterosexual married men. And it is nearly always the person who doesn't look out of place who presents the greatest danger.

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2235
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Palerider » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:15 pm

Keewon wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:47 pm

I suspect part of the problem is that kids don't know what to expect, and look to their elders for clues. If their elders are freaked out, the kids will be too. The big guy in a dress could be occasion for some fruitful conversations. A little "it's no big deal" attitude can go a long way towards allaying kids' fears.
I teach my kids to be guarded with everyone. Male, female, dress, pants, white shirt and tie. Be wary of strangers. It CAN be a big deal.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
Not Buying It
Posts: 1308
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:29 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Not Buying It » Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:43 am

Blashyrkh wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:24 am
Not Buying It wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:51 am
Blashyrkh wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:30 pm


If something, anything is keeping you from being happy and you for whatever reason cannot leave then I feel sorry for you. If your family/friends cannot accept your decision then you have some poor family members. Life is short. Really short. If you spend it pleasing other people rather than find your own joy then that is your own fault. The day I finally ran from the church I felt like a whole new person. I could find true joy now rather than be oppressed by the COB. Everyone has to make that decision. Is maintaining your family/friends and living a life you despise more important than being true to yourself and believing what you truly want to? Then quit complaining that the church makes you feel bad when their principles don't jive with yours.
Damn, Blashyrkh, that's pretty cold. What of the disaffected husband who loves his TBM wife more than anything in the world - more than he hates the Church? He should just walk away, even if that means losing the love of his life? What about the poor schlub who works in the Church Office Building and has a wife and six little mouths to feed, he should just walk away and hope it all works out? Or the father who sees his children's temple weddings coming up in the next few years and know he doesn't get to be a part of them if he doesn't play along? The Church intentionally makes leaving as complicated as it possibly can.

I'm glad for you that your exit was uncomplicated. A lot of people aren't so lucky, and for some the price they pay for leaving is higher than than the price they pay for staying. Personally, I think they deserve our sympathy, and their voices should be heard. I say let them complain all they want, they are in a sucky situation they didn't create, and for some of them just walking away comes at too heavy a price.
Everything you do in life is a choice between consequences. Do I keep working for a church I believe is garbage or do I leave and find another job? Do I tell my wife I hate the church and live a lie or do I keep quiet and continue faking it? Do I keep living as a transvestite/LGBTQ or do I choose to follow the church? I'm sorry that people have to make tough choices but that's life. There have been thousands of members who lost everything when they joined/left the church. However, I don't think that people should demand that the church, or any organization, change their beliefs to conform with something they oppose just because a few people feel bad. Sucks to be them. We all lose out on something because of the choices we make. We all gain and grow from the same choices.

The Church has a history of making all kinds of changes due to pressure, both external and internal. They gave up polygamy in 1890 (kind of) when the U.S. Government confiscated all of their property. They gave up polygamy for reals in 1904 when it got out that they hadn’t really given up polygamy. They gave blacks the priesthood in 1976 when being discriminatory became untenable in a post-civil rights movement world. They gave up naked ceremonies in the temple when it became public enough that members were creeped out about it. They “graciously” allowed parents to be in the room for bishops interviews with youth after Sam Young publicly hounded them enough. They had a revelation reversing the revelation ending baptism for the children of gay parents after there was enough public disapprobation.

Why shouldn’t dissatisfied members complain? The organization changes in response to unflattering feedback ALL THE TIME. You speak of not expecting the organization to change to suit those who are dissatisfied - the reality is that the Church does change in response to pressure constantly. Members ought to expect the Church to change when there is something about it they don’t like - there are plenty of instances of times when it has.

The Church is going to change in response to pressure. It always has. Members might as well be the ones applying the pressure, because they are most impacted by the changes.
"The truth is elegantly simple. The lie needs complex apologia. 4 simple words: Joe made it up. It answers everything with the perfect simplicity of Occam's Razor. Every convoluted excuse withers." - Some guy on Reddit called disposazelph

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2235
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Palerider » Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:50 am

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 7075
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Hagoth » Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:59 am

What the church wants us to do is leave and leave it alone. Their worst nightmare is the members who don't leave and don't leave it alone. They kick those people out in ugly ways that draw even more unwanted attention. They really show their hand when they take the salvation and eternal family (according to their own beliefs) from a former bishop because he wants to protect children. Or a former bishop who was caught telling the truth when the church expects him to maintain the lies. Or use a garbage truck to keep women from sitting in a meeting. Those people could have left and left it alone. I'm glad they didn't because it has forced the pendulum back, albeit slightly, in a less draconian direction.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
fetchface
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by fetchface » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:25 am

Palerider wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:50 am
Just sayin'.....

https://www.christian.org.uk/news/girls ... l-toilets/
Saying what? In August we took a camping trip to South Carlsbad State Beach. All of the bathrooms were single toilet unisex with total privacy and locking door with door knob. A couple of my girls were menstruating during the trip. They crapped in toilets that are used by men and women alike. They changed their pads in rooms that men were also going in and out of throughout the day.

It didn't affect them in the least, because they aren't fragile little snowflakes. Nobody gave a shit about whether a transgender person had been there. Of course, we live in godless California so things are different here than most places, but God seems to make a lot of people freak out about a lot of things that are no big deal.
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/

User avatar
oliblish
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:09 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by oliblish » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:36 am

Palerider wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:00 pm
oliblish wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:59 pm
I think the real problem is that many assume that transgender people are all sex-crazed weirdos that are ready to attack at any opportunity. This is simply not the case.
Just for clarification, I wasn't implying that anything untoward was going to happen with my granddaughter. I'm not implying that she is at risk of attack from a transgender individual. What I'm saying is that she wouldn't understand or feel comfortable with someone that she perceived as a man in a dress being in the same bathroom as she.

Many others may feel the same, whether it be a 10 year old boy having a woman walk in while he is at the urinal or whatever.
I would have to admit that I would probably feel a little uncomfortable in some of these situations. But I try to think through things logically and overcome these feelings because I now realize that there is no good reason for them.

A lot of people had the same feelings back in the 1960's when racially segregated bathrooms and water fountains started to go away. There was discomfort during the transition period but now when we look back it is hard to believe that anyone thought it was a problem for multiple races to share facilities.
Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2235
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Palerider » Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:47 am

fetchface wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:25 am
Palerider wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:50 am
Just sayin'.....

https://www.christian.org.uk/news/girls ... l-toilets/
Saying what? In August we took a camping trip to South Carlsbad State Beach. All of the bathrooms were single toilet unisex with total privacy and locking door with door knob. A couple of my girls were menstruating during the trip. They crapped in toilets that are used by men and women alike. They changed their pads in rooms that men were also going in and out of throughout the day.

It didn't affect them in the least, because they aren't fragile little snowflakes. Nobody gave a shit about whether a transgender person had been there. Of course, we live in godless California so things are different here than most places, but God seems to make a lot of people freak out about a lot of things that are no big deal.
Ahhhh.... So your girls were changing their pads WHILE men were in the same room with them but the girls were in a stall. Is that what you're saying?
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
fetchface
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by fetchface » Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:15 pm

Palerider wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:47 am
Ahhhh.... So your girls were changing their pads WHILE men were in the same room with them but the girls were in a stall. Is that what you're saying?
I think I've been pretty clear so far. Have you been reading what I have been saying?

If you go back and read what I have been saying, I'm saying:

1. Stalls should be much more private and shouldn't exist in their current form. They should be small private bathrooms.
2. If "1" is implemented, it is no big deal to make them unisex.

The way we have designed stalls, where basically anyone can peek into them at will, is the real reason there is a problem.

Let me repeat that in another way: As stalls are currently designed, child sexual predators can peek into any public restroom stalls that they have access to the outside of any time they want to.

The idea that the current system is great but that transgender people are coming along and ruining everything is a false one.
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Emower » Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:54 pm

fetchface wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:15 pm
Palerider wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:47 am
Ahhhh.... So your girls were changing their pads WHILE men were in the same room with them but the girls were in a stall. Is that what you're saying?
I think I've been pretty clear so far. Have you been reading what I have been saying?

If you go back and read what I have been saying, I'm saying:

1. Stalls should be much more private and shouldn't exist in their current form. They should be small private bathrooms.
2. If "1" is implemented, it is no big deal to make them unisex.

The way we have designed stalls, where basically anyone can peek into them at will, is the real reason there is a problem.

Let me repeat that in another way: As stalls are currently designed, child sexual predators can peek into any public restroom stalls that they have access to the outside of any time they want to.

The idea that the current system is great but that transgender people are coming along and ruining everything is a false one.
Essentially, individual crapping stations that are truly private. A bunch of individual little bathrooms. Solves. The. Problem. I am going to agree here. It becomes a non-issue.

User avatar
Fifi de la Vergne
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:56 am

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Fifi de la Vergne » Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:09 pm

Palerider wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:50 am
Just sayin'.....

https://www.christian.org.uk/news/girls ... l-toilets/
The Christian Institute wrote:One mother said: “The cubicles were open at the bottom and top so older pupils can easily climb up the toilets and peer over.”
Again, open cubicles are inadequate in many situations, and doors and walls that go from ceiling to floor solve the issues.
Joy is the emotional expression of the courageous Yes to one's own true being.

User avatar
fetchface
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by fetchface » Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:21 pm

Fifi de la Vergne wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:09 pm
Again, open cubicles are inadequate in many situations, and doors and walls that go from ceiling to floor solve the issues.
Yes, it was a common area for hazing/bullying of kids when I was young. I'm sure that hasn't changed. People (of all ages and gender identities) deserve a place that is nominally mechanically safe from harassment to do their business.

My high school administration, in an effort to combat bathroom smoking, removed the doors from all of the stalls. I think very few of the boys (and girls, I assume?) ever went "number 2" at school. It simply wasn't done that I ever saw. It would have had to be done in plain view of everyone in there.
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2235
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Palerider » Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:50 pm

fetchface wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:21 pm
Fifi de la Vergne wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:09 pm
Again, open cubicles are inadequate in many situations, and doors and walls that go from ceiling to floor solve the issues.
Yes, it was a common area for hazing/bullying of kids when I was young. I'm sure that hasn't changed. People (of all ages and gender identities) deserve a place that is nominally mechanically safe from harassment to do their business.

My high school administration, in an effort to combat bathroom smoking, removed the doors from all of the stalls. I think very few of the boys (and girls, I assume?) ever went "number 2" at school. It simply wasn't done that I ever saw. It would have had to be done in plain view of everyone in there.
I agree with what those above have written but that wasn't the way you described your daughter's experience in California. It was definitely ambiguous. It wasn't addressing the problem as it was described in the article.
I read very well what you wrote.

That's why I asked you for clarification. Were your girls, in the story you described, using a toilet in a bathroom that had men going in and out while your daughters were in the bathroom????

Please clarify.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

Keewon
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Keewon » Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:20 pm

Palerider wrote:Just sayin'.....

https://www.christian.org.uk/news/girls ... l-toilets/
I just wanted to say, the whole issue of transgendered individuals & restrooms is something I haven't given much thought to, and so should hold off speculating. I honestly had never thought of the problems mentioned in your link, Palerider. Which is odd, since I have a college age daughter. It's just a topic that hasn't come up in our household. I appreciate views on all sides while I think this one over.

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

Post by Emower » Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:38 pm

I am going to reveal something personal here.

I hate using public bathrooms.

I hate that moment when you walk in and you lock eyes with someone you know, who is sighing in relief as he empties his bladder. I hate sitting down next to a heavy breather who is laboring intensely over something 3 stalls away. I hate hearing the telltale plop as that labor signals it's success. I hate the interactions of "bob" as he claps me on the shoulder, sidles up next to me, and says "hows it goin!" as I am breathing my own sigh of relief. I hate all the sounds, smells, and interactions that happen. I walk up two flights of stairs to use the mens room that is the least busy in order to avoid some of that. Separate stalls would solve many, if not all of those problems. I dont understand why we cant get there. Sure, it might be marginally more expensive, but I think it is an expense that would be happily borne by most people. I mean, who says "I really love the communal aspect of public bathrooms?"

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests