Water Dog wrote:They don't recognize them to be the chosen people is my point. The fact that someone is claiming something is objective. You or I may not agree with their claim, but there is no doubt they are in fact making the claim. So, yes, they recognize them to be Jewish just as I would recognize this man in the OP to be claiming he's a woman. Do I believe his claims though? No, I don't.
I don't know that most Muslims spend a lot of time worrying about Jewish claims to being the chosen people. They know their Jewish friends are Jewish and that is that. Similarly, I doubt many Christians really understand or really care about the details of their Mormon friends' identity beliefs.
As far as what you believe regarding a transgender person, I guess at the end of the day I really don't care, so long as you treat other people with respect. If I were to tell you you must believe the former SP is a woman in your heart of hearts, that would be little different from me demanding that you adopt her particular beliefs. That's not really something I care to pursue. My primary point in all of this is that we should probably go out of our way to give other people the benefit of the doubt in subjective matters, treating all with respect and politeness.
Water Dog wrote:As you say, the church has a right to police itself. So what did the church do wrong? You may wish that the church could accommodate this man, but that's really a whole different subject. As the church exists right now today, it had no choice but to excommunicate him. Every member of the high council that made that decision could be died in the wool democrat voters, as progressive as is imaginable when it comes to trans issues, and the decision would have been exactly the same. It was wrong for this man to even put them in that position. Taking responsibility for his own situation, he should have quit from his position as the stake president voluntarily.
I have often seen leaders of the Church eagerly pursuing these kinds of things to make a statement or in a zealous desire to enforce the letter of the law. Frankly, I think they should live and let live. That is my opinion. I don't believe it is my position to tell the LDS Church what to do. But, I do feel free to voice my opinion about what it has done. I fundamentally disagree with the direction the LDS Church has gone on the issue of gender.
Water Dog wrote:You said, "To the extent that it does no harm to allow people their subjective identities."
Well that's a subjective opinion isn't it? What IS the harm? This is where things have to be considered case by case. Whatever is going on with this man, he cannot reasonably be allowed to remain as the stake president. Period. Even if, which is a big IF, it is scientifically proven some day that a female brain can exist in a male body, with zero negative consequences, right now today we are not at that point. A large hairy man with 5 kids in a leadership position declares that he's actually a woman and puts on a dress and high heels, responsible people take a step back from this and deal with it cautiously. Leaving him in his leadership role could in fact lead to a lot of harm.
It is my understanding that Hall is a former stake president. She was not serving as stake president at the time she transitioned. Maybe I am wrong. I am happy to be corrected. If it is the case that she transitioned during her stake presidency, then I think the correct course of action would be to release her from her calling.
Water Dog wrote:Getting away from the OP, one of the points I've made is that generally speaking this phenomenon could lead to harm in society. Trendy progressive parents subjecting their kids to hormone therapy and whatnot. And this is where I think it's very important that there exists a clear distinction between polite everyday talk and serious discussions. I don't care if this person wants to be called "she," when it comes to the safety of my kids, or the scholarship fund I'm managing, or the welfare of my business, or whatever, I have to be an adult and look at the objective truths of a situation. Maybe those truths result in a decision that accommodates the desires of this person, but maybe they don't.
There are a lot of different issues packed into this paragraph, and I don't know that I will address all of them. I don't know what to do with the "trendy progressive parents" issue you are talking about. I am reminded of anti-vaxxers not vaccinating their kids. Inasmuch as their refusal to vaccinate their kids can spread disease I think it is a problem. Should the kids be subject to diseases because their parents are idiots? But where do we draw the line here? What constitutes raising a child in your beliefs and what crosses the line into child abuse? The parents who starved their kid by feeding him nothing but cabbage because of their religious views crossed that line. Deciding to sign off on your kid's hormonal treatments because little Johnny prefers to play with dolls and wear dresses is another tricky issue. It is not inconceivable that this could be a terrible mistake.
As far as your business goes, yeah, you will make your own decisions as any business person will. You will doubtless cross some group in making your choice. I suppose you can run the numbers and try to see which course will cost you more dearly, or you can follow your personal convictions and pay the price. That's all on your conscience. My response to a business that discriminates against transgender people in order to cater to people who are intolerant of them would be not to patronize a discriminating business.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist