All Activity

So when you said you were not offering an opinion as to how the law ought to work?

Smac, would you see deadnaming as equivalent to refusing to use Latter -day Saint or other acceptable to the guidelines name and instead insisting on using “Mormon” even if a Saint asked them not to? It is technically correct according to standard usage and church use up to not that long ago.

Sure because religious bigotry = bad and trans-bigotry = protected speech. Got it. I think you are misunderstanding me. I am attempting to explain how the law works, not how you or I think it ought to work. Members of a religion are a constitutionally suspect class, such that harassment on that basis is probably more likely to be regulated by the State in a school setting. So far, "trans" persons have not been treated as a suspect or quasi-suspect class. And given the decision in Skrmetti, I don't think it will be so designated (perhaps not ever, but at least not in the near future). Personally, I think the Tinker test may be resulting in too much State regulation of student speech. There is at least one lawsuit that will probably test how far "misgendering" rules in schools can go: Conservative advocacy group sues UC over misgendering policies and free speech Yeah, this is problematic. It's compelled speech, and I don't think that will ever work under the Tinker test. It's one thing to say "You can't use racist epithets while on campus." That may be defensible under Tinker. But "You must use these words in your speech" is quite another proposition. This is the risk Tinker creates. If "harassment" = using a person's legal name or biologically/linguistically correct pronouns, I think that's a tough sell. And yet, it appears that it may very well "regulate protected speech." This is not good for UC. When "harassment" becomes code for "someone saying something I don't like," constitutional challenges will start to gather. I think that is correct. Even in the 9th Circuit. The policies may also be used to compel and/or punish protected speech. There's the rub. I do have a daughter. Two, actually. That person would be factually wrong. In contrast, let's say an individual at school has decided that, despite being a girl, she wants to "identify" as a boy. Factually, her biological sex has not changed. A girl does not "become" a boy by "identifying" as one. So "she/her" pronouns are both biologically and linguistically accurate. "He/him" are not. Here "misgender" means "using male pronouns when referring to a girl." I actually agree with you here, since such usage really is "misgendering" because the girl's biological sex is female, not male, so using male pronouns really would be "misgendering." Whether that amounts to "harassment," or otherwise actionable under Tinker, is a separate issue. Generally, though, I think "misgender" means "using pronouns that reflect biological sex, rather than 'gender identity.'" In any event, my analysis will not change whether it's my daughter or some other girl. My assessment is based on the law, not emotion. Person A using words "significantly undermines" Person B's "mental health"? How? Does any claim along the lines of "Hey, what you said has caused me mental anguish" work to curtail that other person's speech? If I were to announce that your various denigrations of my faith and me personally have injured my mental health, ought that deprive you of your right to denigrate my faith and me personally? What sort of limiting principle do you have in place? If my daughter struggled with someone else's lawful speech, I would work with her on that. I may also contact the other student's parents and see if we could work something out. I would not seek to use the power of the State to curtail or punish or compel the other student's speech. I would want to see the Tinker test strictly construed. Here it is again: If Student A uses male pronouns when referencing Student B, a girl who "identifies" as a boy, does that "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," or might it "reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities?" I think in most cases, no. Perhaps a severe and ongoing case might be justified under Tinker. This presupposes that using male pronouns to refer to a girl is "harassment." How many times? In what setting? Over what period of time? How many other people heard this? Was the girl present or not? And what of "misgendering" in the sense in which that word is normally used? Ironically, "misgendering" typically means "using the biologically and linguistically correct pronouns and nouns" to describe someone. That is, when Student A calls Student B, a boy who "identifies" as a girl, using he/him pronouns. Is it really your position that Person A using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns, is committing "harassment" by doing so? If so, could you walk me through your reasoning? I'd like to hear what you have to say. Thanks, -Smac

I’m did a google ai question about stake president workload in 1980s. Interesting response and it is nearly identical to my experience: Serving as an LDS (Mormon) stake president in the 1980s required a heavy time commitment that frequently strained family life, though the church implemented structural changes during that decade to reduce burdens on local leaders. [1, 2] A stake president is an unpaid, local volunteer leader who oversees multiple congregations, known as wards. The Time Demands Endless Meetings: Leaders spent weeknights and entire Sundays in counseling sessions, leadership training, and disciplinary meetings. Full-Time Jobs: Because the position is a lay ministry, presidents had to balance these heavy church duties with a regular 40-hour work week and raising their own children. Personal Sacrifices: Many spouses and children of 1980s leaders recall missing vacations, dinners, and weekend events because the president was attending to church members in crisis. Church Reforms in the Era Recognizing the heavy toll on families, the leadership in Salt Lake City adjusted several programs during this period: Consolidated Sunday Schedule: In 1980, the church introduced the three-hour "block" meeting. This replaced a fragmented schedule that previously required members and leaders to drive to the church building multiple times on Sunday. [1] Fewer Conferences: In 1979, regional stake conferences were reduced from four times a year down to two to save time and travel expenses for families.[1] Differing Perspectives Experiences varied widely from one family to another: [1] Strained Relationships: Some family members felt neglected, noting that the intense church workload took priority over home life. Spiritual Focus: Other families viewed the calling as a shared sacrifice, believing that the service brought spiritual protection and blessings to their home despite the absence. If you are researching a specific region or looking for personal accounts from that era, let me know what additional details or perspectives you would like to explore Phoenix Arizona area In the Phoenix, Arizona metro area (including the historically high-LDS communities of Mesa, Tempe, and Chandler), the strain on 1980s stake presidents was uniquely intensified by an unprecedented population and construction boom. [1, 2] During this decade, Arizona’s LDS population grew by an explosive 40 percent (jumping from roughly 172,000 to 241,000 members). For local stake presidents, this transformed an already demanding volunteer calling into a chaotic, time-consuming second job that directly encroached on family life. [1] Why Phoenix Area Leaders Faced Extravagant Time Demands Constant Boundary Realignment Meetings: As thousands of people moved into the Valley, stakes and wards grew too large and had to be divided continuously (e.g., the creation of the Glendale Arizona North Stake in 1981). Stake presidents spent late weeknights pouring over maps, analyzing demographic numbers, and interviewing dozens of members to staff entirely new congregations. [1, 2, 3] The "Building Boom" Workload: Because new chapels were springing up across the Phoenix grid, stake presidents had to oversee massive local fundraising and construction efforts. Before modern centralization, local leaders bore heavy logistical burdens for real estate acquisition and building dedication. [1] Managing the Influx of Converts: The Southwest was a primary target for missionary growth. Stake presidents had to handle a heavy load of temple recommend interviews, baptism confirmations, and leadership training for brand-new members who were unfamiliar with how the church operated. [1, 2] Geographic Spread: Long before modern freeways connected the entire Valley, driving from a stake center in Phoenix to a ward in a growing suburb meant hours in the car on arterial roads, eating further into family dinners and weekend time. [1] Local Family Dynamics The "Mesa vs. Outlier" Disconnect: In heavily LDS enclaves like Mesa, a stake president's family at least had a dense community support network of neighbors, school teachers, and politicians who shared their faith. In the newer, sprawling boundaries of West Phoenix or Glendale, the families of stake presidents often felt more isolated, navigating the father's near-total absence without a massive LDS neighborhood support structure. [1, 2, 4] The "Widow of the Church" Phenomenon: Wives of Valley stake presidents in this era frequently ran large households entirely on their own, managing scorching Arizona summers, youth sports, and family logistics solo while their husbands were sequestered in air-conditioned stake offices for leadership meetings.

This was in 80s so going forward I do not know how anything has/ has not changed. I do know that three nights during the week he had meetings at the stake center ( HC and church courts etc) fri and or sat was stake and ward temple nights so he and my mother would be gone both nights. Sunday gone all day. Our stake was over 40 miles across back then ( now it’s about five) so he had to travel to the three wards out in the boonies twice a month. We had twelve wards till we split ( that was about five years worth and then we ended up with nine wards) so he really never visited our ward. I was too young while he was in bishopric so I don’t remember that. Once in stake presidency he disappeared. Never had time to go to my ball games, swim meets, scout courts of honor ( except for Eagle) etc. we rarely went hunting or fishing since they HAD to go to temple nights and on sat when he usually was home part of the day we spent all time either at church farm, working in our garden or participating in some wards service project EVERY SINGLE WEEK. Anyway everyone’s experience is different and mine largely drives my contempt for nearly all things church. Funny thing is even that wasn’t enough until it was shown and proven the church has been dishonest with its history, hides stuff, has no real discernment (salamander letter fiasco) and submits fraudulent government paperwork. Those last few things finally pushed me over the edge.

If you need to up your fiber, an easy fun way of doing it if you like the texture and don’t mind them sticking to your teeth too much (I use the GUM soft toothpicks these days), chia seeds in flavoured water or tea works well. Just start small and work up as with any fiber as your gut needs time to adjust. I take my chia seeds in overnight oats every morning with a cup of blueberries or raspberries (they are frozen, so I thaw in the microwave which makes a nice hot, cold mix to eat. I don’t like oatmeal, but love this stuff. Sweetened with a touch of maple syrup (me and honey don’t get along and regular sugar is blah in flavour imo). Add a 1/2 scoop of vanilla (I can’t eat chocolate) protein powder to it, between that and the Greek yogurt, got enough protein to satisfy me. Make 5 at a time in smaller mason jars, sometimes six. Probably shouldn’t do more than four, but as long as I don’t sense any fermentation and my gut doesn’t get upset, I assume they stay good that long and so far no issues. I also have a massive bowl of spring mix with a serving of shrimp or tofu or chicken and some fruit (grapes or mandarin oranges) on top to replace a dressing and then spray olive oil over it. I think that helped my gut too, but I mainly do that to satisfy my chewing need. Trying to satisfy that need with popcorn made my stomach unhappy and blew my calories over the limit. If I want ‘croutons’ I crack a corn tortilla on top…I can eat sourdough bread, but not regular and am too lazy to make my own sourdough croutons. I use sweet potatoes/yams a lot as my starch for my main meal as they aren’t as dry as potatoes, add sweetness to my diet while still being more low calorie comparatively speaking to other sweet things and very nutritionally dense. Just roast up a tray or two of chunks every few days and then heat them up for a meal. I meal prep other veggies to make it easy to put together decent meals, mainly carrots and green peppers because of my restricted diet (and I don’t like tomatoes so get that in tomato paste which flavour I do like). Cucumbers go bad faster, so I cut those fresh as needed. I keep meal prepped stuff in glass containers as they last much longer. For smaller bite size or sauces or soups stuff I use mason jars as they take up less room and are tons cheaper than the specialized stuff. The easiest way to get your nutritional balance in terms of fruit and veggies is to eat the rainbow daily. Something from each colour group.

Sure because religious bigotry = bad and trans-bigotry = protected speech. Got it. You want to talk pronouns, that's great. Let's say you have a daughter (I believe this is correct!). Let's say an individual at school has decided that your daughter is not actually a girl but is a boy. This individual continually misgenders your daughter in front of other classmates. This is significantly undermining your daughter's mental health. What if anything can school officials do in the face of this harassment?

Given the greater cultural attitudes of the past towards how men should be involved with their families (providers primarily, people were surprised even shocked when they found out my dad did meals, dishes, even changed diapers and we lived in northern California, lol) and the heavy emphasis on families and the lack of a drinking culture in the Church, I would be surprised if we were worse than the surrounding population. Church would be a substitute for excessive work, hanging out with the boys, social clubs, etc rather in addition to from what I saw and heard. I wonder if there were studies comparing the two. I would hope we were better, but Dad being above or too incompetent for the caregiving of kids (even now a guy is often looked at as being wonderful and noteworthy if they are the caregiver, gets compliments , etc while the mom doing the same exact thing is expected and ignored) was a pretty widespread cultural attitude, so who knows.

My father also served in the bishopric throughout my entire childhood. He never sat with us in the pews on Sundays, but he was at the building on Wednesday nights (along with my mother, who was the YW President); he was present at stake dances, took me to Priesthood sessions of conference (and ice cream afterwards), home teaching assignments, service projects, and more. Outside of church, he taught me how to fight, handle money, work hard, drive a car, etc., all while still managing to take me fishing and shooting with some degree of regularity (read: much more than most anyone else I have ever met). He would come to all of my band performances - even though he kind of hated football games and would sometimes leave after halftime - and, by and large, be a constant part of my life. When I was first called to serve in a bishopric myself, my Stake President made it clear to me - like, in no uncertain terms clear - that my family was my number one priority. Based on my experience growing up, I had never assumed otherwise. But I have heard from others who, like yourself, weren't as fortunate. I'm not sure how much of that was a Church / cultural thing and not the individual person, but to the extent that it may have been the former, my sense is that it's something the Church has moved away from over the years.

No but you want to ban ALL transgenders from using the bathroom that fits their sexuality. No, I want to ban all males from using women's bathrooms, and vice versa. I have not advocated for any law that specifically targets "trans" folks. As it happens, the vast majority of men respect and stay out of women's spaces. The exceptions are A) some men who "identify" as women, and B) bad actors. If you can formulate a coherent and legally-enforceable mechanism to differentiate between which males can enter into women's spaces and which cannot, I would like to hear it. No. But I would be interested in banning all males from entering into women's spaces. I’m not proposing to ban people from public life because of the group they belong to. I’m talking about sex-based private spaces. Bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers are separated by sex because of physical privacy and safety, not because every member of one sex is a predator. A rule that says “males use the male facility” applies to every male—trans-identified or not—the same way it always has. That is not the same as “ban all transgender people from existing in public.” Your bishop analogy does not seem to work. If a bishop (or any adult) grooms or abuses a minor, that person should be removed, reported, and prosecuted. The office does not get a pass. That is not the same as saying: therefore no bishop may attend church, or every LDS man is presumptively barred from the building. Collective punishment of an entire religious category is wrong for the same reason collective punishment of an entire identity category is wrong. Abuse by some clergy is real and indefensible. So is sexualization of children in any community. Neither fact turns every other member of that community into fair game for a blanket ban, and neither fact decides how sex-segregated facilities should work. If someone is a documented threat to children, keep them away from children—whatever label they use. That is the line I care about. “Ban an entire class of people from the bathroom / from church because some members did evil” is a different argument, and I’m not making it. We can talk about specific policies and specific evidence. What we shouldn’t do is trade atrocity lists as if the longer list wins the right to erase ordinary boundaries. Thanks, -Smac

And the State punishing speech is somewhat different from compelling it. Yes. Student A referring to Student B by his legal name ought not be punished by the State, even if Student B considers that "deadnaming." Should Student B legally changes his name away from his former legal name (his "deadname"), should the State punish Student A for using that former legal name? Frankly, I think that would need to be sort of a case-by-case thing, as the Tinker test is broad. Theoretically, yes. Broadly, yes. I do acknowledge, however, that that schools have the right to regulate speech of students during school hours and on school property. This is a fairly narrow exception to the general rule. I never said you did. I am glad we cleared that up. None the less this is exactly the scenario linked to in your post. Your concern is specifically about Universities regulating harassment on campus. I followed your links and read some of the harassment policies. There are quite a few limits in there on speech when it comes to religion, race, sex, national origin, etc. Yes. Who exactly is compelling speech? California is. See also here. New York is. Colorado kinda sorta is. Previously, the federal government of the United States (since rescinded, I think). Some jurisdictions outside the U.S., with less robust Free Speech protections, are. Brasil, for example. Possibly Scotland, the U.K.(see also here), Europe, the Philippines. No, but broadly it is punished speech. Outside of the Tinker test, I think this is not allowed in the U.S., or should not be. I'm not sure we have different definitions. Isn't that exactly the context you linked to? Students attending university using a deadname to harrass a classmate? Because that's what you linked to. Hence the parenthetical at the end. I acknowledge that schools, under the Tinker test, can regulate speech (that is, punish speech, but I don't think they can compel speech). I'm still not seeing how banning a deadname on campus is akin to a faith affirmation. It's not. "Banning a deadname on campus" is an example of punished speech. The words are being prohibited (with punishment for their use), not compelled. Again, if there were some effort by the State to compel you to refer to Joseph Smith as "the Lord's prophet," or if it were to punish you for speaking critically of him, I think you would object to that. Under the Tinker test, I think not. Again: The Tinker test would, I think, put targeted religious harassment within the category of speech which a school can regulate, but I am less persuaded that the test would put preferred pronouns or "dead names" there. Also, consider "preferred pronouns." Is that "compelled" speech if the State requires their use? Is it "punished" speech if they are not used? Is it both? Again, the Tinker test: I think targeted religious harassment would probably be held to "justify suppression of speech." If a student declines to use a trans student's new name (calling him "John" instead of his preferred new name, "Jennifer"), would that pass the Tinker test? Not sure, but I think probably not. If a student declines to use biologically/linguistically incorrect pronouns (using "she/her" in reference to a trans-identifying male student), and/or if the student uses biologically/linguistically correct pronouns, does that pass the Tinker test? Again, not sure, but I think probably not. If a student does these tings to "harass" a trans student, that might, on a case-by-case basis, pass the Tinker test. But I am less sure that a categorical mandate (students must use preferred pronouns) or a categorical prohibition (students are prohibited from using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns) would work. Thanks, -Smac

Thanks Tony. I will be praying for you as well. Teddy hi. Do you recommend the same calisthenics every day? Is your six day the same every day? I don't know if my knees could handle deep squats. I know you are not a therapist, and I'll do more research, but would you recommend going down as far as my knees permit, or would some other substitute accomplish the same thing? Thanks

You are in my prayers Rory. I was 14 stone for over twenty years, my weight the dropped to 12 stone (sorry not familiar with other metrics). Earlier this year, my weight went to 13 stone. I think this was body responding to retirement, managed to get to 12 stone 6, which my doctor thinks is about right for my size and natural body shape. Hopefully, I can get the right diet, food and drink wise, for my ongoing health. Also back to a regular sleep pattern, as I worked shift/rota system for a number of years.

Soviet-style Whataboutism. Keep it up Comrade. Can you give me an example of "Soviet-style Whataboutism" ? Would that be their tactic of foisting constant war of words and Tturning victim classes against each other? Check your copy of Saul Alinsky's book: "Rules for Radicals". Comrade? I am not some ant-hill communist drone. You know me to be a rock-ribbed constitutional conservative. I prefer the appellation of brother or patriot. Why did you put that in quotes? Are you suggesting it is not actually insanity? Based. The constant barrage of subversion is massive and pervasive. We could use multiple descriptors for identifying the various programs being orchestrated by the many woke social engineers: bodily mutilations of minors (depraved, viscious) claims of men being "able" to conceive, give birth and lactate milk (what planet are you on ? ? ?) claims of women being "able" to do anything that men do including going into combat (unwise) etc etc etc

I have a friend about my age, 70, who happily mentioned that he broke a personal record on "the elliptical", (whatever that is) of burning over 600 calories in either a half hour or an hour. When it isn't religion or sports, we talk fitness. I retired over a year ago and have put on weight. I have started walking, and like Teddy, my friend says that we need more. I don't think it is realistic to do an elliptical. I just want to see my grandkids grow up, and not die early because I have abused the Lord's temple. I have returned one notch on my belt. I have a way to go and we can do it. I am only walking regularly and fasting one or two days a week. I count mowing my overgrown big lawn as a walking day too. I am looking for some reasonable way to start with the goal of feeling like Teddy and my friend do...after 70. I know God gave us bodies that endure a lot of mistreatment, and have amazing recuperative responses as well. I think I need to add some form of resistance training like Teddy said. Let us begin by being encouraged. Not waiting, figuring out the right way to start to add what's needed to what we are already doing. I don't recommend the 36 hour Friday or Wednesday fasts that I try to practice, unless you know how to break that long fast. But the benefit is great. I chose those days as a Catholic because they have become a custom over the centuries, as it corresponds with the betrayal of our Lord on Wednesday and His Passion on Friday. We can offer up our fasts to the Lord as a spiritual penance as well as pleasing Him with taking regard for "our body" which he gives to us as "His temple" to glorify Him. But Catholics should not fast unless we feast! After 1st Vespers for Sunday around five, Saturday evening, we can enjoy a special beverage, and on Sunday as well, with our best healthy feast of the week. With a freely chosen resolution, we can rejoice in every waking hour of the next week as we do our physical and spiritual exercises, which support each other. We are encouraged by our knowledge that if we keep our resolutions until the Vigil on Saturday, we will rejoice more than ever as we restfully enjoy the Sunday feast, the Day of the Lord. The above is my ideal. I don't always make it. Pray for me, Tony. We can help each other! God bless. Rory

I thought "Madonna" was a stage ("fabricated") name, but it turns out her legal name is "Madonna Louise Ciccone." On the other hand, the person who plays "Maui" in Moana has a legal name (Dwayne Johnson) and a fabricated one ("The Rock"). I know a young woman who "identifies" as male. Her legal name is Rebecca, but she now goes by a fabricated (that is, not legally recognized) name of "Kee." Several in the cast of Jersey Shore had fabricated names ("Snooki," "The Situation," "Sweetheart," "JWoww"). And so on. Trans folks are not the only ones who adopt fabricated (not legally recognized) names. Thanks, -Smac

Yes. We are talking about the state punishing the use of a deadname. The specific context using the links you provided were for punishing harassment of one student by another. Following your links, among other things, using a deadname as a form of harassing could lead to punishment. You strongly object to this on first amendment grounds stating "I think the State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to ... 'deadnaming.'" I never said you did. None the less this is exactly the scenario linked to in your post. Your concern is specifically about Universities regulating harassment on campus. I followed your links and read some of the harassment policies. There are quite a few limits in there on speech when it comes to religion, race, sex, national origin, etc. Who exactly is compelling speech? Banning the use of someone's temple name is not compelled speech. Banning the use of someone's deadname is not compelled speech. In what way can that be construed as compelled speech? Do we have different definitions of compelled speech? Isn't that exactly the context you linked to? Students attending university using a deadname to harrass a classmate? Because that's what you linked to. I'm still not seeing how banning a deadname on campus is akin to a faith affirmation. We are in agreement that if someone got up in a classroom and said "F*** the Mormons", that's not protected speech right? But for some reason you think a student using a deadname as harassment is protected speech on campus?

Apart from my walking exercise. I've been taught to do press ups from a wall, on two sets of forty reps. The reason for the 'wall' press ups, is to ease the pressure of the repaired hernia in my abdomen. Also have a pedal machine to help with circulation. A slow start but aim to pick up. Also have stretching exercises to help with ligament issues. Hopefully I will be able to pick from there.

One of the things I’ve learned is that the body has a remarkable ability to renew and repair itself if you eat right and consistently push it to work beyond your comfort zone. In your case, you may have to start out very slowly and cautiously, but once you get your blood really cascading through your body good things will begin to happen, Another benefit I’ve noticed is that adequate exercise not only strengthens the body it but also toughens the mind. Constantly pushing yourself beyond your comfort zone (within reason) will cause you to be far more emotionally resilient. It sure worked for me! Things that used to throw me for an emotional loop now leave me unfazed.

Ok so "fabricated" was used as a term of legal art, not a transphobic Freudian slip.

Many thanks, very welcome information. I turned 57 this year, I think my body has aged out aged my body. Apart from a health issue that I have with my blood since childhood. I have managed to pick up a hernia, operated on. And the onset of arthritis in various parts of anatomy. It would seem that I am a walking disaster at times.

No but you want to ban ALL transgenders from using the bathroom that fits their sexuality. Would you be interested in banning all bishops from attending church? The list of Mormon bishops who have groomed and actually had sex with minors is way longer than your list of performances. Should we compare lists and then decide who gets to use bathrooms and who is allowed in churches?

So if a person doesn’t have a legal name, that individual doesn’t have an actual name? Legally? No. But since everyone does have a legal name these days... Again, I was speaking in a legal sense. "Actual" = "legally recognized." "Fabricated" = "not legally recognized." Thanks, -Smac

So are you consistent on this? I think so. Discipline from the State? No. None. At all. Private parties generally lack authority to mete out "discipline." No. None. At all. I think so, yes. "{A}llowed to be jerks" seems to presuppose that the State is doing the allowing or disallowing. Are there segments of society, outside of the "trans" community, that is seeking - with some success - to use the coercive and punitive power of the State to compel others to speak certain words (e.g., pronouns, former names, etc.) or be punished for failing/refusing to? I can't think of any offhand, but I am open to any input on this point. The State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming." Doing so is inimical to the First Amendment. Thanks, -Smac

Many thanks for that information. Very much appreciated.