Utah, LDS Church join 'friend of court' briefs in transgender bathroom case

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Paula666 Redmond, WA
    March 1, 2017 12:20 a.m.

    Like most people, we use mixed-gender bathrooms all the time - in our homes. It is not a big deal. There is a door, and privacy within that room with a locked door. If we have equally private stalls, should it make a difference? I worry about my son, who is 14, using a seedy men's room. I worry about pedophiles hanging out there to prey upon him and other young boys, and this "bathroom bill" stuff won't protect him whatsoever. Don't we have better things to worry about?

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    Feb. 22, 2017 6:32 p.m.

    President Trump just undid this Obama thing and the agencies involved with the new direction said everything that Bountiful Guy advocated. States' rights and cool heads with common sense prevailed. Title IX remains intact and local governments, and all else can apply Title IX issues as they see best fits their environment. Congratulations to President Trump for keeping another promise. Our children are restored to better safety. Bullying is covered by Title IX and should never be tolerated. We all support that.

  • Bountiful Guy Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 22, 2017 3:05 p.m.

    @KevinSim

    You are missing the point. You are the one who is asserting that everyone has a right to choose which bathroom to use. We'll have to disagree on that point. In the entire history of the world, that has not been considered a right until this discussion taking place in America. Suddenly, many think that because they want to do something, they should have the nationally recognized right to do so. Historically, that assertion is not automatically made. There is discussion where the issue exists, and decisions are made. State's rights and religious rights were involved in the discussion. Under Obama, no such discussions were held on this issue so states had to sue and religions had to weigh in. The SCOTUS, when presented with issues that belong to the states turned them back to the states. I hope this same course is preserved.

    To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing about the 'right-to-bathroom-of-choice' in Federal statue. I hope the SCOTUS will recognize this and not legislate from their bench, as Obama attempted to do. Was slavery abolished by a President or through legislation? See the 13th Amendment.

  • KevinSim Springville, UT
    Feb. 22, 2017 2:22 p.m.

    Bountiful Guy posted:

    =So unless the Federal Government decides everything unilaterally, narrowly, and
    =universally, we are in danger of slavery?

    Didn't say that.

    =It has not been shown that there is no alternative than mandated bathroom
    =selection by the Federal Government.

    Agreed.

    =The discussions should be left to those closest to the situation, not to the
    =White House.

    Why?

    Should all discussions about people's rights "be left to those closest to the situation"? If not, then how do you know it's appropriate for a discussion of this one right be left there?

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Feb. 22, 2017 12:12 p.m.

    nicholdraper said "l didn't think much about this until I had to ask the man wearing a dress to leave, we didn't complain when he sat in church or when he went to relief society, but when he didn't get a big enough reaction he went to the women's bathroom."

    "Didn't get a big enough reaction" --THIS is the whole point of many LGBT.
    But thankfully, of the 3 gays, 1 Lesbian and 1 transgender I know, 4 for of them have the intellectual honesty and propriety to realize being in people's faces is offensive about it is unnecessary and unbecoming.
    They realize being needy-for- attention and hijacking attention does not help their cause or themselves.
    I am especially grateful that these 4 of the 5 (3 Gay, one Transgender) have not ruined or lessened their reputation with the straight community they know-- because they are unwilling to be ridiculous or demand attention.
    Our esteem for them has grown.
    Unfortunately the same can not be said for the 1 Lesbian. She has OVER-shared and OVER-hijacked the Attention of not only her Relief Society, but then the whole Ward, and now her whole Stake, seeking to extract an excessive amount of attention and special consideration.

  • 65TossPowerTrap Salmon, ID
    Feb. 22, 2017 11:45 a.m.

    I really wish the Church would stay out of these social issues. They never end well. Prop 8 will haunt us a long time.

  • Bountiful Guy Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 22, 2017 11:32 a.m.

    @KevinSim

    So unless the Federal Government decides everything unilaterally, narrowly, and universally, we are in danger of slavery?

    I don't buy it. I think that there's room for freedom to be preserved, civil rights to be observed, and sensitivities to be closely guarded while keeping the Federal Government out of private entities. It has not been shown that there is no alternative than mandated bathroom selection by the Federal Government. Policy is one thing and law is yet another. The discussions should be left to those closest to the situation, not to the White House.

  • KevinSim Springville, UT
    Feb. 22, 2017 10:13 a.m.

    Bountiful Guy posted:

    =The issue is not what many have written about in this forum. States ought to
    =decide for themselves. Private institutions ought to decide for themselves. The
    =Federal Government can address Federal Buildings and stay out of the rest.

    The problem with this is that this kind of attitude is precisely what perpetuated slavery in the United States for eighty years. If it can be shown that transgender children actually have a need to use the bathroom they identify with (something that I don't think has been shown yet), then all transgender children should get to use that bathroom, regardless of which state they live in.

  • Bountiful Guy Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 22, 2017 9:38 a.m.

    It's interesting how few have even read or tried to understand the issue that government is attempting impose it's all-knowing will on everyone, including states, religions, businesses, schools, and every other private or public entity. the opposition simply wants the right to remain with the individual entity.

    The issue is not what many have written about in this forum. States ought to decide for themselves. Private institutions ought to decide for themselves. The Federal Government can address Federal Buildings and stay out of the rest.

  • nicholdraper West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 22, 2017 6:17 a.m.

    People claim that this is not a crime and that no one is harmed when a six foot man wears a dress and goes into a women restroom and looks over the stalls at women and girls. Well the women and girls do feel violated and do have a voice. l didn't think much about this until I had to ask the man wearing a dress to leave, we didn't complain when he sat in church or when he went to relief society, but when he didn't get a big enough reaction he went to the women's bathroom. According to the left this is perfectly normal and the man identifies as a woman and should be allowed access to to woman's bathroom. They say this is about his rights. Well, what about my rights? And what about the rights of my daughters?

  • KevinSim Springville, UT
    Feb. 21, 2017 4:46 p.m.

    I have read people saying that there have been no cases of predator men entering women's restrooms, and I have read people saying there have been such cases. I don't know who to believe. I think someone should do a thorough study, with no preconceived ideas, and see if there's a problem with this or not. One thing that has been running through my head is, why are we considering letting a trans person go to the bathroom of her/his choice alone? If the trans person really needs to have access to a restroom that's the opposite of her/his birth gender, shouldn't s/he have a medical professional who is providing some guidance? Maybe the law should require a medical professional's approval before granting access to the trans person.

  • KevinSim Springville, UT
    Feb. 21, 2017 4:23 p.m.

    Lone Eagle posted:

    =In the case of transgender who goes through sex reassignment surgery, by church
    =policy, that person cannot be a member of the church. They may participate; but
    =they cannot be members.

    How long has this been the case? I'm pretty sure that it hasn't always been the case. I had an Institute teacher who was a bishop that encountered a trans-gender person back in the 1980s. He contacted LDS Church headquarters to find out what he should do. He was told that the trans-gender person couldn't hold the priesthood, but didn't say anything about keeping her/him from joining the Church. (I don't remember if it was a man transitioning to a woman or vice versa.)

  • MoreMan San Diego, CA
    Feb. 21, 2017 10:37 a.m.

    My religious freedom begins where yours ends. My God wants me to practice nudism. As He intended when ALL of us were born. Do you see where your beliefs trample upon mine?

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Feb. 21, 2017 8:55 a.m.

    I'm reminded of the old saying "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

    In contrast, the modern concept of "religious liberty" includes
    (1) The right to determine marriage law for everyone (the cries of "religious liberty" following every marriage decision were pretty loud)
    (2) The right to determine how other people have sex (see the response to Lawrence v. Texas)
    (3) The right to not be refused service because you're a Christian (see inclusion in CRA (1964)
    (4) The right to refuse service to others because you're a Christian (see opposition to new non-discrimination laws)
    (5) The right to not do your job (See Kim Davis)
    (6) The right to not obey contract conditions (See the fight over whether government-contractors can violate non-discrimination law)
    (7) The right to set job requirements for other people (See the fight over DADT)
    And now
    (8) The right to tell other people what bathroom they can use because your religion objects to them.

    Seeing as you've already bloodied my nose with your "religious liberty" fist, why should I give you another inch?

  • bcole353 Monroe, WA
    Feb. 21, 2017 12:36 a.m.

    There is a very informative piece .... Katie Couric Transgender TV Special if you want to by more informed. I learned a lot.

  • Lilly Munster , 00
    Feb. 20, 2017 4:27 p.m.

    The science and knowledge about gender identity is not subject to bias, religious assumptions, or fear. Transgendered Americans are absolutely no threat to children or society. In fact, transgendered people, in their natural gender identity, have been using public bathrooms with no problems, for decades. Are we proposing to have a checkpoint for genitals at rest room doors?
    Ask yourself, would you want your daughter to use a bathroom with Chaz Bono?
    How about your son at the urinal next to Kaitlin Jenner, in a Dior gown?
    Neither Chaz Bono or Kaitlin Jenner are confused about their gender. Why should we be?

  • indi ,
    Feb. 19, 2017 7:29 p.m.

    I am glad that the Church has added their voice to this issue.

    Though many present this as a bathroom issue, it is not that simple. What about lockerooms? Usually those are open spaces where people robe and disrobe. Should an anotomically female or male be forced to share that space with the opposite gender just because the other person claims to feel like a man/woman--even though their anatomy clearly states otherwise? What about sharing the very private space of a dorm room?

    Why is it that the only feelings that count are the transgenders? It's not society's obligation to validate feelings which are not consistent with reality. The best that should be expected is to allow for the respect of privacy and separate accommodations as needed to ensure that privacy.

    If trans men or trans women really understood what it means to be the sex they claim to identify with they'd respect that there are many men/women that only want to share the spaces where they are most vulnerable with those of the same sex.

  • omahahusker Modesto, CA
    Feb. 19, 2017 7:23 p.m.

    50 or 100 years ago this wasn't a problem. People in search of a cause or lawsuit made this an issue. Sad under the previous administration there was an open door to accept any and all beliefs as long as it promoted social justice. Our country is well down the path of a slippery slope.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Feb. 19, 2017 5:43 p.m.

    Someday we will recognize that the dark ages haven't quite ended yet. Any caring person would realize the dilemma and find ways to solve the problem for everyone and not just for themselves. Do you think people you don't agree about gender with are using your bathroom now? Are you peeking to see? That's disturbing. The churches on the other hand only care about their unelected power over state policy.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 19, 2017 3:13 p.m.

    @RG
    "I would personally be uncomfortable using one if someone who wasn't a biological male walked into the room. I'm sure many other men would also be uncomfortable. Don't we have rights too? Please don't say I have to use a toilet in a stall. That's taking away my rights."

    I'm a straight cis-gendered male, and I only say that to make it clear I'm in the same position as you except... I'm uncomfortable with anyone being around, regardless of gender, if I'm using a urinal, so I don't, I just use the stalls. That's not an imposition on my rights.

  • UtahTroutStalker Draper, UT
    Feb. 19, 2017 2:37 p.m.

    I have been to sporting events at older venues and seen women enter the men's restroom because of a long line to use the women's room. No one was hurt by this.

    Also, I had a family member with Alzhiemers. His wife would occasionally accompany him into the ladies restroom. Again no harm done.

    When my daughter was a toddler I would sometimes take her to the men's restroom. No harm was done to anyone. People anyone making an issue out of nothing.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 19, 2017 9:42 a.m.

    Tolstoy:

    You said that the issue is to block transgender people from using the bathroom. I responded that they are not being prevented from using the bathroom. You claim that my argument is false. Well, if they are being prevented from using the bathroom then present some documentation that this is correct. You can prove me wrong.

    “Drawing the line at outward gender traits seems random.” It is not random. It is objective. Blocking or allowing access based on feelings is unenforceable and subjective.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 19, 2017 8:31 a.m.

    Is there not a difference between being transgendered and identifying as a male when you are female or vice versa. If an individual has had surgery then they should use the restroom corresponding to the sex they are now are. I am ok with that. However if someone is female and just want to use mens restroom because because they identify as a male that raises issues. If a women walked into the mens restroom I have no clue as to why they are there. Did they just make a mistake. There have been times when the male restroom has been occupied, the door being locked. If the female restroom is unlocked I go there and lock the door. Who cares. The solution appears to be to provide private restrooms where the door can be locked anybody can use them regardless.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    Feb. 19, 2017 7:42 a.m.

    God is Perfect and He does not make mistakes.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 19, 2017 7:06 a.m.

    Feelings are important but they are NOT synonymous with truth
    Simply because I feel like the emperor of the planet does not make it true
    It is therefore ironic that the "tolerant people" who claim to be devoted to science are also devoted to bullying people to accept something that is scientifically NOT true as being the truth merely because they "feel" like it

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Feb. 18, 2017 7:53 p.m.

    @1aggie,
    It occurred to me that not everyone knows (for example, many women may not know) that in men's bathrooms, urinals are often not very private. They are not in stalls, and sometimes have dividers between them and sometimes not. In any case, everyone using one can be seen from across the room. I would personally be uncomfortable using one if someone who wasn't a biological male walked into the room. I'm sure many other men would also be uncomfortable. Don't we have rights too? Please don't say I have to use a toilet in a stall. That's taking away my rights.

  • hankel Butte, MT
    Feb. 18, 2017 7:11 p.m.

    Not only is this about common sense and common decency, it is also about safety. Sexual predators have used and will continue to use transgender friendly restrooms to assault others. Anyone willing to do some "googling" will find many reported incidents to support this fact.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 5:16 p.m.

    To GingerMarshall:

    re: "And, by experience I also know that, at times, "body" and "spirit" do not match."

    Transgender identity is not a mis-match between "spirit and body" as you suggest. It is far more complex than this meshing of religion and quasi-science. Gender identity is a complex mix of genetics (X and Y chromosomes, and many other combinations of various genes that influence perception and response to physical and other stimuli), environmental and social factors. We need to be really careful, whatever side of various current debates we may fall on, that we don't assume we know more than we really do. Recent genomics and other studies have shown these issues to be extremely complex. While the past 30 years has seen incredible steps in understanding the science of sex, gender and gender identity, we still have a very long way to go in understanding how genetics and other factors influence these key human attributes and behaviors.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 5:06 p.m.

    To mightymite-'00:

    re: "There are many more pressing issues the church can and should address with as much vigor as it does against the gays."

    Transgender identity has nothing directly to do with being gay. The friend of the court brief referenced here has nothing to do with the church's view on homosexuality. This is about the definition of gender/sex, and that of gender identity, and the role of gender identity in our social structure. This issue has arose in the context of a court case involving transgender identity (not homosexuality).

  • Florwood American Fork, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 4:10 p.m.

    A couple of years ago Elder Oaks said the church leaders have a lot to learn about what it means to be transgender. This is evidence they haven't spent the intervening time to learn anything.

  • Hope & Faith give us strength Utah County, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 3:02 p.m.

    Stalwart from San Jose, CA

    You said, "As a Mormon, the Church would do well to focus it's attention on religion and perfecting the saints."

    ---

    I'm a Mormon. I also recognize that I'm imperfect, know next to nothing compared to the infinite eternities of knowledge and wisdom there is to know. I trust God. I trust God's prophet. Let's remember our place in the line of knowledge and wisdom and follow the wonderful guidance our divinely called leadership.

    Men will never erode God's foundation. But history has proven time and time again that they will erode the freedoms of other men to build their lives, their families, and their teachings on that foundation.

    Unique religious expression (yes, unique) is a critical building block of freedom. Without it, we aren't free. If my religion wants to build a chapel that doesn't allow Alaskans wearing blue shirts in it, then that is a basic human right. The moment you take away our individuality (yes, even the unique things you don't like about others) then you rob us of what wasn't yours to take.

    Let's act like Mormons. Respect the church and defend freedom. Not the opposite.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 2:35 p.m.

    The notion of equal protection under the law has been stretched to absurdity.

    It is Exhibit A in a discussion against Critical Legal Theory.

    Just when you think they cannot possibly come up with another protected class, they surprise you. Can special accommodations for Caesareans be far behind?

  • worf McAllen, TX
    Feb. 18, 2017 2:27 p.m.

    Ranch - Here, UT,

    Sorry, but you're the one who doesn't understand. Somethings are right, and wrong, with no in between. You can't spin it.

    If a person thinks he's a dog, it doesn't make it right to urinate in public.

  • mightymite , 00
    Feb. 18, 2017 2:11 p.m.

    Poor choice in associating your name on this one. There are many more pressing issues the church can and should address with as much vigor as it does against the gays. Very sad.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 1:26 p.m.

    When I use an out-house / honey-bucket...

    There is either a red or green on the handle.
    Occupied vs. Un-occupied.

    Honey-buckets are already "transgendered"....
    I do not see the crisis.

  • Jimbo Low PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 1:25 p.m.

    @GingerMarshall:
    "Women recognize the threat is from predatory men, not from transwomen."
    I think the church recognizes a threat....probably from greedy amoral people and attorneys primarily. Clearly allowing "same-sex marriages" has affected those in and out of the church who believe this is an immoral lifestyle and principle.
    So the libs need to amend their "THIS DOESN'T AFFECT YOU" to "this doesn't affect you...as long as you agree with me."

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 18, 2017 1:10 p.m.

    >>I say, if my Church wants to impose it's will on the whole of the Nation...

    Filling a "friend of the Court" is hardly trying to impose one's will on the nation. All it does is say, essentially, "as you make a ruling in this case, here are some points that we think you should consider." The court is under no obligation to pay any attention to the brief or the issues raised therein.

    It's literally the legal equivalent of "please think about the following..." It can't even properly be called lobbying.

  • kaysvillecougar KAYSVILLE, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 12:52 p.m.

    Clearly, stalwart? sentinel is not a member of the LDS church as he claims. Who would advocate for the loss of religious freedom of his church if he really belonged to it/believed in it. I certainly don't claim to understand this transgender issue despite my greatest efforts. I do applaud the LDS church and the many other faiths who have signed the amicus brief in this case. It's really sad how the radical LGBT groups want to force others to not only accept their basic human rights, which is good, but they also want to force others to embrace and almost worship them for their decisions to live their lifestyle. That militant approach will only backfire.

  • tlatpeace Richardson, TX
    Feb. 18, 2017 12:40 p.m.

    I believe the Church absolutely has the right to stand up with other Churches and determine what happens within their buildings.

    Now with that said.... I was majorly sexually abused as a child beginning at a very early age. This marked me for every pedophile that crossed my path. I believe that opening the restrooms up, also opens up the restrooms for pedophiles who can then say.......
    "HEY!!! I identify as...."
    so they can go in and abuse children!
    NOTHING anyone can ever say will change how I feel.

    So I am very thankful that the Church is taking the stand they are!

    (I have known, and still know transgender people who I care a great deal for. And I know they are NOT child abusers.)

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 12:35 p.m.

    What is wrong with people? If they can't see any problems with all of this, they are ignorant and foolish. People like me want things simple, "men's room" makes it easy for me to enter a bathroom. I am not a bigot in search of a problem. I want clear picture where I can go use the bathroom. I do not want to confuse the issue. If someone else is confused, it only exacerbates a simple issue. If I have someone next to me that doesn't have the same parts as me, it will bother me. No one is creating a 'safe space' for my discomfort. In fact, I automatically become a bigot just because I am now uncomfortable. Serious, folks, why would you want to make things so 'in your face' that it repels my desire to accept you? Where is the sense of privacy? dignity? I only wish Ghandi were here to weigh in on this issue. Everybody has to make adaptations to get along in life. To ask someone confused about their gender to go to their 'assigned' birth gender bathroom is not putting an undue burden on them.

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    Feb. 18, 2017 12:20 p.m.

    Having double (XX), chromosomes don't lie.
    Having an (XY) doesn't lie either. This is not rocket science, just simple fact.
    End of discussion.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 11:34 a.m.

    Didn't "the church" learn anything from Prop 8? Lately, they seem to find themselves on the wrong side of court decisions.

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    Feb. 18, 2017 11:35 a.m.

    I cannot help but wonder if many of these LGBTs are what we used to call tomboys and sissies, simply because of behavior and interests that do not fall into the stereotyped gender roles.

    It is sad to think that so many are making dubious lifestyle and permanent medical transformation decisions based on agenda-driven PC stuff.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 11:05 a.m.

    Mr. Obama loves law suit nation and chaos; anyone forget that he threatened to take money from any school in nation with no transgender bathrooms? Crazy. It is true, that in his first term, there were many lies told of Mr. Obama, by those with conspiracy theories in red states, and then in second term, all of those lies became reality, self fulfilling prophecy. Mr. Trump is normal compared to law suit frenzy out there.

  • Yuge Opportunity Here Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 10:58 a.m.

    The courts have created this monster in the first place by deliberately staying out of matters of administrative law.

    And Congress delights in staying away from this toxic issue by leaving things up to the DOEd.

    It is all very convenient for the liberals, don't you think?

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Feb. 18, 2017 10:57 a.m.

    I don't really like to get into arguments based on religion. People are free to believe in what they wish, even if it entails a flying spaghetti monster. Placing that prejudice into law applying to believer and non-believer alike is tyranny.

    I am pretty sure we know that some people are born with the wrong body parts. Call this "Gods' mistake", inappropriate rebellion or whatever. However, we know it happens. Demanding that a person will to go through the hell of gender reassignment because "God does not make mistakes" is about the silliest rationale that I have heard lately. You don't even have to be an atheist to figure out that bad things happen that ought not to occur. Call it a mistake or whatever you wish, but that is the human condition. To deny our ability to rectify a bad thing is one of the cruelest things I have heard.

    It would be more saintly to support a considered choice to put oneself through gender change, and make that tortured life a little easier. Isn't is not said that we should not judge, lest we be judged?

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Feb. 18, 2017 10:50 a.m.

    @Lone Eagle: "Does God make mistakes..."

    Cleft Palate. Hydrocephalus. Congenital Heart Defects. Downs. 3 of every 100 kids is born with a birth defect. Are those "mistakes"? On purpose? If the defect can be corrected medically or surgically should it be done?

    Why would transgender - a condition that is increasingly recognized and diagnosed using objective measures - not be included in correctable problems?

    @Hemlock: "In this case religious organizations are advocating science instead of emotional whims."

    Except... every professional medical association recognizes transgender as an objective reality and treatable condition, research in neuroscience and genetics is providing evidence, medical schools are teaching care of transgender patients, major medical institutions from Johns Hopkins to Cleveland Clinic to UCLA Medical Center provide transgender medical and surgical care.

    Science, not religion, is doing the research and providing the appropriate care.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 10:27 a.m.

    @lonestar
    The only person here that seems to assume God would be making a mistake by creating transgender people to s you. Why would you assume to know Gods plans for transgendered people.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 10:05 a.m.

    I agree with other's experiences.

    My spouse works for a large private corporation. One day HR convened a meeting to inform the emplyees one of his co-workers--"Josephine"--would now be know as "Joe" and would be using the men's restroom.
    "Joe" would simply use a stall in the men's restroom. No big deal.

    What is way worse is to require transwomen and transmen to use the restroom not corresponding with their identity. I especially worry about the safety of transwomen be required to use men's restrooms.

    Why not treat people with the respect and dignity they deserve and let our Creator sort this out?

    Sadly, once again, I believe the church is on the wrong side of this issue.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 10:03 a.m.

    @TMR;

    Your church is wrong; it's that simple. They don't understand the situation, nor, it seems, do they really care about the people. It's just another way of trying to maintain their relevance; and they're failing miserably. Just ask the younger generation how out of touch the leadership appears.

    @Baccus0902;

    You are correct. The very fact that there are fish and amphibians that switch gender should indicate to them that gender is *not* eternal. And it would be hilarious for one of the leaders to reincarnate as the opposite gender; karma is so delicious!

    @Ophelia;

    I think your heart is in the right place, but you really ought to refer to her as "she", not "he/she". It's disrespectful.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 9:58 a.m.

    Those who ignore biological reality are bound to arrive at fallacious conclusions. The Obama directive places the psychology of gender preferences ahead of human anatomy. In this case religious organizations are advocating science instead of emotional whims. Placing a biological female who prefers to be considered a male in a male locker room is a rather bad joke.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Feb. 18, 2017 9:54 a.m.

    Let's talk about the female born 17 year old in this article.

    Regardless of ANY other thing--
    are some of you saying she should shower with the teen boys at the high school???

  • Lone Eagle Aurora, CO
    Feb. 18, 2017 9:51 a.m.

    Stalwart Sentinel: "Do we have a deal?" No. You compromise your ideals and we will get along just fine. Why do you expect me to compromise mine?

    Ginger: Does God make mistakes is a question that has some significant import. Putting a male spirit in a female body or vice versa seems to be a mistake of immense proportions. (And IF God makes mistakes, it is impossible to have any firm reliance on his word; thus faith in God is impossible.) At the same time, I have no explanation for hermaphrodites. Does nature get involved and a male spirit ends up in a body with female DNA? That's a question for which I have no answer.

    As I understand it, a person is free to take any action. But actions have consequences. And if one understands the consequence, one chooses it by action. In the case of transgender who goes through sex reassignment surgery, by church policy, that person cannot be a member of the church. They may participate; but they cannot be members.

    As for the bathroom: most churches (and malls) have single-occupant restrooms available.

  • MormonForever St George, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 9:46 a.m.

    I am so glad that I belong to a church that is more concerned with following God than following what is currently popular. Kudos to President Monson and the rest of the General Authorities.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Feb. 18, 2017 9:44 a.m.

    If there is a TRUE transgender person, they will be grateful and happy to use a unisex bathroom or private shower.

    If there is seeking for attention, seeking to be acknowledged, and seeking to be noticed, there is something much more than possible transgender going on.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 9:30 a.m.

    State and church, separate but not much.
    This isn't about bathrooms. I've never in my life seen someone enforcing who goes into which loo.
    This is about control. It's about people having to conform to others' demands of who they are. It's why a church is involved at all.

  • Ophelia Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 9:22 a.m.

    There's a transgender girl in our neighborhood. He/she is so talented artistically, has the kindest personality, and is just trying to live a fulfilling life like any of us, but in this crazy culture of ours, he/she continues to be targeted and mocked by others. Now the Church? Really?

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 9:08 a.m.

    Someone needs to enlighten me.

    As I understand things, if people are born male but dress and identify as female, when they use a womens restroom, they always use a private stall, because there are no urinals.

    If people are born female but dress and identify as male, when they use a mens restroom, their body parts would dictate that they, too, would always use a private stall and never a urinal.

    In other words, I don't see a problem.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 18, 2017 8:51 a.m.

    " "a restatement of our belief — with many other faith traditions — that gender is an eternal characteristic."

    Well, right there we have a problem. The court or the church cannot prove anything that is eternal. Second, many other religions Buddhism, Hinduism and others, believe in reincarnation. In one life you can be male in another female, I wouldn't be surprise that you could reincarnate as a fish with two sexes or a fish where you are born male and switch to female.

    Eternity is such a long time that many things can happen and complicate our picture perfect ideal.

  • TMR Los Angeles, CA
    Feb. 18, 2017 8:50 a.m.

    Unfortunately, the LDS church's attempt here to thread a needle invites confusion. The church seeks to preserve state's rights as a vehicle to preserve religious freedom without advocating active discrimination against transgendered folk. However, at the same time, the religious predicate for its position is the gender is eternal. The problem is that these pieces don't fit into a coherent narrative and it is fuzzy as to what the church is trying to accomplish, let alone say. I agree with a previous post that as a principle, gender is eternal, but as a practical matter, there are biological exceptions. How we treat these folks is a measure of how we live our religion. Perhaps it would behoove the church to recognize this piece as well: it would make the narrative not only more clear, but it would add charity and compassion to a position that otherwise comes across as pretty cold.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 8:49 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi

    I am happy you recognize this is not a religious rights issue. however I cannot believe you are seriously going to retread the same failed argument that was discredited from the same sex marriage debate, "no one is telling gay people they can't get married they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us," sound familiar? I am not sure what happens in your bathrooms but I do my business behind a closed stall door and then wash my hands in front of complete strangers. Drawing the line at outward gender traits seems random.

  • Joemamma W Jordan, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 8:22 a.m.

    Wait till individulas start to file law suits against the church for not allowing gay leaders or transgender girls in the scouts.
    The church need to break ties with BSA ASAP.

  • ATGatherum Riverton, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 8:19 a.m.

    I'm not sure what this has to do religion in any way- this is a civil rights issue, much the same as gay marriage- I'd like to know what everyone is so afraid of? I couldn't care less who is using the stall next to me in a public restroom- I go in and do my thing and leave- same as 99.99999% of people who use public restrooms. This is just another way for intolerant, bigoted people to flex their muscles and let fear rule them. So sad and so ridiculous.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Feb. 18, 2017 8:18 a.m.

    When I ask for a restroom I am, without question, directed to the Women's, not the Men's. Nobody lifts my skirt or asks for a birth certificate or demands to know about my private parts.

    The same is true for about 80% of the transwomen I know and about 90% of the trans men using the Men's room.

    When I do reveal my transgender status men are far more likely to be uncomfortable or hostile; women are almost always accepting and supportive and have routinely and comfortably welcomed me into "women only" spaces and conversations.

    Most of the "protect women & children" rhetoric is from men, not women. Women recognize the threat is from predatory men, not from transwomen.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Feb. 18, 2017 8:08 a.m.

    @ Stalwart Sentinel
    Everyone in the US has freedom of speech, and freedom to make their opinions known. This includes organizations such as churches as well as individuals. It is absolutely appropriate that the Church make its opinion known. This in no way violates "separation of church and state." In fact, lawmakers must use their best judgement at all times, even if their judgement is informed by religious convictions. This also in no way violates "separation of church and state."

  • libs think what??? Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 7:36 a.m.

    dn

    i don't get it.

    you block my response to ginger, referring only to comments he/she made in this thread and in the past, trying to understand/ clarify what he/she said, and yet you allow an attack on your owner by stalwart sentinel.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 18, 2017 6:58 a.m.

    "Fairness for all" has replaced "State's Rights" as a buzzword for being legally able to treat badly people who are different from you.

    Our church has two trans women members. They use the women's bathroom. Another member has a 27 year old nephew who is trans. He uses the men's bathroom.

    It's not a problem. Where did you get the idea that it would be?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 18, 2017 6:54 a.m.

    This is an issue that has been so blown out of proportion by both sides.

    How many people have been personally affected by this? Don't our politicians have real issues to deal with?

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 6:47 a.m.

    There is a greater chance of being molested by a GOP politician than by any transgender individual. There have been more than several cases where Republican leaders have been arrested in airport bathrooms, and even here in Salt Lake propositioning people in gyms and areas known for male prostitution . There is yet to be a single arrest of a transgender person molesting anyone in a bathroom. Nationwide.

    Leave them alone. They have enough problems without the judgements of a Church that fails to understand this issue, and the people who seem to judge and make a bigger deal of this.

    If you are so worried about someone else's bathroom usage, then I think the problem is you.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Feb. 18, 2017 6:31 a.m.

    In my opinion, this is just plain silly.

    In the real world, let us imagine these scenarios.

    A transgendered born biologically male, is forced to use the male bathroom. This person looks like a woman, and perhaps has had reconstructive surgery. How is that this person who looks and dresses as a women is going to be able to go to the men's washroom and do their business without prejudice, taunts or physical violence? Take the reverse. How is a trangendered person born female, but presenting as male for all the world to see (like a beard or mustache), going to be treated going into the designated women's facility?

    And not only the pratical side of this real world event, where is the foul now? How many straight heterosexual men have dressed up as women to go to the women's room in order to perpetrate an illegal and violent act against women? And how many women have dressed up as men to go gawk at men's anatomy? How would that even work at the standing facility anyway?

    I understand people are uncomfortable with the notion of transgendered folks. However, this is a solution in search of a problem. And a faith community discriminating? Tsk Tsk.

  • cityslickergrandma Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2017 6:28 a.m.

    We visited Europe last year and noticed many gender neutral bathrooms. They had a row of stalls with doors that came to the ground. Some had a sink inside the stall, but others had communal sinks for washing after. Could bathrooms not be changed so that it doesn't matter what gender you are? I think this would be helpful for families with children who are just learning to use the restroom and for primary teachers!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 18, 2017 6:09 a.m.

    This is all ridicules to start with. What I enjoy about the offices my company has in Eruope is there are no male nor female bathrooms. They are all individual restrooms that are gender neutral. Nobody wants to do "their business" in front of other people... period. Their should be reasonable privacy regardless. Add to that when mothers bring their sons into the women restrooms, or fathers their daughters.... it's not ideal.

    Private restrooms takes away all these issue.. no need to worry about which one is for males, or females, or transgender what ever. A few of the new restaurants I have gone to recently have moved this direction. It completely removes this as an issue. Yes, it may cost some money for business to retrofit their restrooms to be gender neutral, but it would put an end to this silly debate how people feel about themselves and which restroom they use.

  • Janet Ontario, OR
    Feb. 18, 2017 4:02 a.m.

    In college, there was a transvestite man in some of my classes. He had to make a choice of going where he fit in (the ladies' room) or where he was an anomaly (the men's room). For trans people, there's more involved than a change of clothes. If I go to a ball game or a school function, and there is a trans person in the ladies' room, what do I care? That person can go into the stall and answer the call of nature just as I can. If a person born female but identifying as a man and dressed as a man goes into the women's room, I think that's more awkward than if [she, transitioning to he] would just use the men's room, probably in a stall. In some venues, a man transitioning to female will be in danger in a men's room. The solution is compassion, understanding, and not letting our kids go to public restrooms unaccompanied. That was a good idea almost 50 years ago when I was accosted by a man in a woman's room at the beach. He said he was lost, but I was uncomfortable. The LGBTQ presence in our current society is not going away. We need to deal with it compassionately.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Feb. 18, 2017 1:42 a.m.

    As a Mormon, the Church would do well to focus it's attention on religion and perfecting the saints. I say, if my Church wants to impose it's will on the whole of the Nation by sticking its nose in federal rulings, then the rest of the nation ought to be able to dictate how we worship, who is admitted to the Temple, etc....

    There's a reason the SCOTUS concluded that, "[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

    Sadly, my Church is trying to erode that wall but, if our leaders want religion in government then we must let government in religion; it is a two-way street. Do we have a deal, conservatives?

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Feb. 18, 2017 12:53 a.m.

    The trans bathroom issue is solved with a very simple solution: single-stall bathrooms to use if you choose.

    Shower rooms and locker rooms are different altogether. Shut them down and kids change at home before the sports game and shower at home.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 17, 2017 11:31 p.m.

    @Tolstoy:
    "Blocking transgender people access to bathrooms is now a religious rights issue?"

    No. It is not. No one is blocking access of transgender people from bathrooms. They are only confirming that they should have the same thing the rest of us have: access to bathrooms corresponding to their biological gender.

    I don't consider this to be a religious rights issue, but more of a privacy and public safety issue. But I applaud these churches for taking this bold stand.

  • Fred T PHOENIX, AZ
    Feb. 17, 2017 10:48 p.m.

    Title 9 sure has been turned on its head from the original intent.... too long to list here

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    Feb. 17, 2017 10:45 p.m.

    Keep it simple. The need to go to the bathroom has nothing to do with religion, politics, etc.... It is a biological function. If you have the plumbing for a male, go to the men's bathroom. If you have the plumbing for a female, go to the women's bathroom. Why make this into something that it is not? Keep it is simple.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 17, 2017 9:54 p.m.

    Seriously? Blocking transgender people access to bathrooms is now a religious rights issue?

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Feb. 17, 2017 9:49 p.m.

    Transgendered persons can and should be accommodated respectfully while also respecting the privacy, morals, and mores of the rest of society.

    I applaud these churches for encouraging legislative solutions rather than judicial fiat in areas where the constitution was never intended to allow judicial intervention.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Feb. 17, 2017 9:45 p.m.

    I fully endorse the idea that gender is eternal. And, by experience I also know that, at times, "body" and "spirit" do not match.

    This is not a new phenomenon, people who identified and lived as the gender opposite their body have been known in every society through history. The difference today is that modern medicine can actually help the person instead of leaving them to suffer.

    The treatment - and mistreatment - of transgender people, including transgender kids, has a powerful impact. Negative treatment leads to negative outcomes - trans kids as young as 5 express self-harm and suicide when forced to live opposite the gender they know themselves to be, and the various "treatments" that have been tried over the years make it worse, not better.

    Real care, by real doctors, of real kids has demonstrated that supportive and affirming care lead to positive outcomes - well adjusted, happy, successful. Access to restrooms is part of that.