Transgender women must attend Priesthood, not Relief Society - new policy

[malkie]

Are you in favor of adult penis-holders using the restrooms of minor vagina-holders?

I have concerns about any adults using the restrooms of any minors.

Are you assuming that bill4long's talking about "restrooms of minor(s)" refers to something real?

In all of the dozens of church buildings I've ever been in, I don't recall ever seeing restrooms that were specifically for minors. Same thing in non-church venues.

Of course, that may be just because I'm not a vagina holder.

[I Have Questions]

The updates — released Monday along with additional guidance on temple garments, a new responsibility for teenage girls and other topics — reaffirm the church’s stance that gender, which it defines as biological sex at birth, is “an essential characteristic in Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness” and that leaders should discourage individuals from transitioning in any form.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/LDS-c ... r-AA1p4iZ5

Are volunteer lay Bishops qualified to give that counsel? Will Bishops accept responsibility for the mental wellbeing of those people to whom they give that advice and who subsequently struggle, or worse, over their identity?

Individuals who have transitioned in any way — whether surgically, medically or socially — cannot work with children, serve as teachers in their congregation or fill any gender-specific assignments, such as president of the women’s Relief Society.

Adult Sunday School Teacher is not a gender specific calling, nor is it working with children. The Church has used a lot of words to say that Transgender cannot serve in any meaningful way, end of. In issuing this latest edict they’ve shown their true colours. They ask the members to love everyone equally, and then issue an instruction that equates Transgender people with pedophiles. Yet again it’s the members showing the leaders how to behave, but the leaders ain’t listening.

[drumdude]

I imagine eventually there will be a trans bishop, or stake president. They will let people of the “wrong” gender into the “wrong” place. This could be similar to the church’s problem distinguishing black members from white, and with the same end result.

You can easily check someone’s race (to a certain extent). Gender is more personal and hidden. If a fellow Mormon thinks someone in their ward is trying to “pass,” will there be a holy gender check? God’s one true chromosomal test?

[I Have Questions]

You can easily check someone’s race (to a certain extent).

How?

[drumdude]

You can easily check someone’s race (to a certain extent).

How?

Skin color. But again only to a certain extent. Brazil made it too hard for the church and thus they abandoned the policy.

[I Have Questions]

How?

Skin color. But again only to a certain extent. Brazil made it too hard for the church and thus they abandoned the policy.

So you could differentiate between someone of Caribbean ethnicity, from someone of African ethnicity, simply by looking at their skin colour?
You can differentiate between an Indian, a Pakistani, and a Bangladeshi, by looking at their skin colour?

Remember, you said “You can easily check someone’s race” from their skin color.

[drumdude]

Skin color. But again only to a certain extent. Brazil made it too hard for the church and thus they abandoned the policy.

So you could differentiate between someone of Caribbean ethnicity, from someone of African ethnicity, simply by looking at their skin colour?
You can differentiate between an Indian, a Pakistani, and a Bangladeshi, by looking at their skin colour?

Remember, you said “You can easily check someone’s race” from their skin color.

I was speaking within the context of the LDS church’s ban on black people. If there was a ban on Pakistanis and not Indians, yes that would be as problematic as the ban became in Brazil.

[Doctor Steuss]

Skin color. But again only to a certain extent. Brazil made it too hard for the church and thus they abandoned the policy.

So you could differentiate between someone of Caribbean ethnicity, from someone of African ethnicity, simply by looking at their skin colour?
You can differentiate between an Indian, a Pakistani, and a Bangladeshi, by looking at their skin colour?

Remember, you said “You can easily check someone’s race” from their skin color.

I think you may be inadvertently conflating ethnicity and race. Race is the social construct of dividing people into groups because of physical characteristics. In American society (and by extension, Ameri-Mormon society), that is generally based on easily identifiable prototypicalities, such as skin color, hair texture, nose shape, etc. Ethnicity is shared culture/language/etc. In other words, two people can be the same race (based on whatever arbitrary social divisions are in place), but not the same ethnicity.

This is one of the things that threw a cog into the "children of Ham" racism of Mormonism and establishing genealogical curse status based on prototypicalities, when there were non-African nations and peoples who fell within those arbitrary social divisions and shard some of those physical characteristics.

Or I'm completely confused about the conversation (which is highly probable).

[I Have Questions]

So you could differentiate between someone of Caribbean ethnicity, from someone of African ethnicity, simply by looking at their skin colour?
You can differentiate between an Indian, a Pakistani, and a Bangladeshi, by looking at their skin colour?

Remember, you said “You can easily check someone’s race” from their skin color.

I think you may be inadvertently conflating ethnicity and race. Race is the social construct of dividing people into groups because of physical characteristics. In American society (and by extension, Ameri-Mormon society), that is generally based on easily identifiable prototypicalities, such as skin color, hair texture, nose shape, etc. Ethnicity is shared culture/language/etc. In other words, two people can be the same race (based on whatever arbitrary social divisions are in place), but not the same ethnicity.

This is one of the things that threw a cog into the "children of Ham" racism of Mormonism and establishing genealogical curse status based on prototypicalities, when there were non-African nations and peoples who fell within those arbitrary social divisions and shard some of those physical characteristics.

Or I'm completely confused about the conversation (which is highly probable).

I don’t think you’re confused.

[I Have Questions]

So you could differentiate between someone of Caribbean ethnicity, from someone of African ethnicity, simply by looking at their skin colour?
You can differentiate between an Indian, a Pakistani, and a Bangladeshi, by looking at their skin colour?

Remember, you said “You can easily check someone’s race” from their skin color.

I was speaking within the context of the LDS church’s ban on black people. If there was a ban on Pakistanis and not Indians, yes that would be as problematic as the ban became in Brazil.

In that context, the ban was on people of Black African descent, not simply black people. I actually don’t think Bishops got good guidance on how to manage the ban and identify people correctly, so they took your easy route of black skin = banned.