All Activity

This was actually one of the suggestions in the materials that got sent out and the FAQ panels they held: that Primary presidencies consider hosting their own training meeting if it's inconvenient to find a way for the teachers to attend the regular SS/RS/EQ/Youth Sunday School training meetings.

Another interesting take, again, by Brigham, was a statement of his that Joseph taught that the City of Zion was more akin to a country, and comprise the area of the Gulf of Mexico America. Combined with Joseph's other statements regarding the entirety of North and South America comprising Zion, it seems, if Brigham's statement is accurate, that they imagined it as more a merger of countries.

If you take Genesis, the Book of Moses (both the OT1 and OT2 revisions) and the Doctrine and Covenants 107 timelines as literal histories, there's actually a 635 year gap betwen Zion being taken up into heaven and the flood. Noah spends around 120 years alone building the ark before the flood happens. I put together a spreadsheet a while back that includes this figure: Note, if you're wondering why Adam shows a 1,000 year lifespan, it's because that's what Oliver Cowdery recorded in Old Testament Revision 1. The Book of Moses as canonised right now relies on Old Testament Revision 2, which was a copy of the *incomplete* OT1. Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith later went back and edited Adam's age there, along with a few others. Interestingly, Brigham Young later stated (I'd have to find it, it's somewhere in the Church's history catatalogue) that Adam, not Methuselah, was the oldest man to have ever lived. He further said that 1,000 was the appropriate lifespan for Adam, as a 1,000 years was a day unto God, thereby fulfilling God's promise that Adam would die in the 'day' he partook of the fruit. Obviously not canon, just relaying the discourse as far as I can remember it (I can look it up sometime, but I have a lot on my plate right now).

In the context of this entire thread- I don’t care so much about the legalities of what can be determined to be illegal or not. This is disgusting and as a woman I’m not feeling safer in the world by any part of this story. The only thing that invites more safety to my psyche is that the first exposure I had to the story was a man spouting off in a very angry way in a video talking about this and how disgusted he is with rape culture, and the fact that men do not do enough to shut this down with other men. That’s a good start.

I think so too. This is exactly what Pope John Paul II speaks about with regard to the Theology of the Body. We should not personify things, nor should we "thingify" persons. (I got that nomenclature from a podcast by Christopher West), I have only been studying it for the last year. I am not an expert. But it seems like much more than about only marriage and dating. It is about the dignity of persons, but emphasizes how easy it is for men and women to get emotionally attached to each other, and enjoying an emotional and physical consolation from the marriage act, without a chaste regard for the other person's well-being, and imagining it to be love. The concept extends to all humanity, married and unmarried. We should guard against having a utilitarian attitude towards anyone for any reason. Physical desire between the sexes is natural and good. It is part of our nature. But when it is uncoupled from a sincere desire to satisfy the entire mental and spiritual good of the other, it is not charity. It is not what we can call "true love". It does not mirror the kind of unity which God designed us for, and for which Jesus prayed for us in John 17, and which St. Paul speaks of where marriage is seen mystically in Ep. 5:31, 32 as typifying the unity between Christ and His Church, which like the marriage act also is an embrace which results in "one body". "The virtue of chastity, whose function it is to free love from utilitarian attitudes, must control not only sensuality and carnal concupiscence, as such, - but - perhaps more important - those centres deep within the human being in which the utilitarian attitude is attached and grows. There can be no chastity unless the forms of volitional subjectivism, of which I have spoken, and the varieties of egoism which they conceal are overcome: the more successfully the utilitarian attitude is camouflaged in the will the more dangerous it is; 'sinful love' more often than not, is not called sinful, but simply 'love', since those who experience it try to convince themselves and others that love is just this and cannot be otherwise. To be chaste means to have a transparent attitude to a person of the other sex - chastity means just that - the interior 'transparency' without which love is not itself, for it cannot be itself until the desire to 'enjoy' is subordinated to a readiness to show loving kindness in every situation." ---Karol Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility, English translation copyright 1981 by William Collins Sons & Co., London, reprinted (1993), Ignatius Press, p. 170, San Francisco (written and published in Polish before he was Pope John Paul II. His last name is pronounced Voy-tee-wah. Italics are not mine. For any Solzhenitsyn fans out there, the translator, H.T. Willets was Alexander Solzhenitsyn's much preferred translator into English of all of his works.

This is where technology, and especially the internet can be used for the good.

This to me is the root of most evil…not seeing others as persons as ourselves, but a thing for us to benefit from, to use, discard, play with, destroy.

This happens way too much when family is visiting…not the whole time, but we seem unable to stay off of them for most of the day. The internet has allowed me not to experience loneliness like my mother did with her similar health issues, but it has also impeded best self care…I am certain my sleep would be better without it, though I would probably also be on a higher dose of some pretty heavy duty drugs since it’s the best distraction from pain and RLS I have found so far…which is why I haven’t given it up like some other things with high costs. I got smart and just got an alarm clock, more clutter on my bedside table, which is annoying, but hopefully that will lead to less touching of phone at night and therefore easier to say no to it. For me, light conversation is difficult, I want to go deep on every subject or just skip it. That can be hard to do with casual friends who don’t have much background so we know which things interest us to ask about. Getting on a phone is so much less anxiety provoking. So easy for me to understand this trend.

A terrible story. I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law. Some details here: More details here: Per this article, this Snapchat thread was, in the eyes of Jane Doe's attorney, “inviting the members of the fraternity to rape my client" and a 'critical piece of evidence' handed to authorities two years ago." My initial reaction was concern for the young woman. This is a terrible story. Next, I am looking at the text messages, and then once again be revolted at the vulgarity and licentiousness that seems to be a chronic and systemic element of the Greek System, and of Hookup Culture in general. Nevertheless, what do the text messages actually say? The key parts: “free p—y” (about 1:42 a.m.) “I f—king love Chi Phi.” “Like you can walk in and whip it out.” Later: “Shop still open?” — “Yea.” Must these messages be read as an announcement of sexual assault? Candidly and clinically, I'm not sure. They can also be read as an invitation to join sex that is already underway, framed as the woman being available. To be sure, the texts are repulsive. Group sex advertised like a commodity. However, was this consensual (or believed-consensual) group sex that was being advertised? Or must it be read to mean “she is unconscious, come use her?" The text messages must also be read in light of a subsequent communication between Jane Doe and one of the accused: This later text — “shut it down… before it got way out of hand” — is stronger than the group chat. “Out of hand” is how people talk when a scene went past what they can defend, not when they think they hosted a tidy orgy. That said, her reply (“Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal”), cuts the other way for a prosecutor, which is why the DA said the 2026 civil complaint is “dramatically different” from her initial sworn account and why no one was charged in 2024. "Could not verify." The later texts are potentially damaging to his case, and he does not want to go on the record about them. More details per the civil complaint: It would be interesting to see what legal claims Jane Doe has against Kretzschmar. From this article: This is the difficult part of armchair quarterbacking the prosecutor's case. Allegation A against Kretzschmar ("said the lawsuit accused Kretzschmar of snorting ketamine off her body") plus Lack of Allegation B ("the lawsuit’s opening lists {Kretzschmar} as accused of rape, but the text of the claim does not") plus Forensic Evidence ("{Kretzschmar} took a hair follicle test and had no ketamine in his system" (and K was not found) plus Subsequent Seemingly Exculpatory Statement by Jane Doe ("'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too'") Would seem to create all sorts of room for "reasonable doubt" as to Kretzschmar. And if Kretzschmar is exculpated by the evidence (the forensic evidence re: ketamine and Jane Doe's subsequent "not illegal" text message may do a lot to undermine her theory of the case, as it affects her credibility, and her credibility is vital), then her civil complaint against him - alleging that he committed rape - would be a false rape allegation. And if she made a false allegation against Kretzschmar, is it possible that she is falsely accusing any or all of the other six? That's the way things might play out as to that aspect of the case. There are other aspects of it that have some problems: Huh. I wonder what the differences are. Again: "{H}er sworn initial statement at the time 'did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped.'" I suspect "both campus and Ithaca police" looked at her initial sworn statement and took its claims - and the absence of claims of being "drugged against her will or gang raped" - at face value. That doesn't mean she was not drugged or raped. It does mean that the evidence in support of her claims is mixed, perhaps even mediocre-to-poor. All seven of these young men have been named by names. Their reputations may well never recover. That does not mean they are innocent. The presumption of innocence gives us a starting point. It is a rebuttable presumption, but so far the evidence needed to rebut that presumption seems to be not very good. I am similarly deeply concerned about this incident, regardless of the verity of the allegations. Hookup Culture is a terrible thing, particularly when mixed with drugs and alcohol. Systems and groups, like fraternities and sororities that regularly host drug-and-booze-filled events and lifestyle environments are creating the environment for, and facilitate and foment, licentious behavior, and are doing a terrible thing to individuals and to society. Good counsel, all of this. "Responsibility" to do what? Again: "{Kretzschmar said he} was in the room only briefly and left because, based on what he saw, she was okay. {S}he was not naked, was not passed out and had no trouble speaking." Again: Jane Doe's subsequent text to another young man states: "'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too.'" Looks like Kretzschmar, at least, may have thought that. This is where I get confused about denigrating references to the "'not all men' argument." What to "all men" have to do with any of this? All but a very few of us were not situated to do anything at all. As for doing "something," men do such things all the time. While I was in the Army I stopped what looked like an attempted sexual assault. As a missionary I confronted and stopped a drunk guy who was kicking his wife while she lay curled up on the sidewalk. I did something. Then perhaps "the 'not all men' argument" ought to be recognized, particularly when broad generalizations are in play. There are countless stories of men intervening to save others from harm. Lots of men have done, and will do "something" when another person - man or woman - "cross{es} the line." A fair question. "{T}he DA said the 2026 civil complaint is 'dramatically different' from her initial sworn account and why no one was charged in 2024." "He said Monday that her sworn initial statement at the time 'did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped.'" Jane Doe's subsequent text to another young man states: "'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too.'" The forensic report on ketamine was probably close to the 2024 events. If so, the prosecutor may have looked at that as well. If true, this is appalling. 100% agree. Again: "{Kretzschmar said he} was in the room only briefly and left because, based on what he saw, she was okay. {S}he was not naked, was not passed out and had no trouble speaking." A terrible circumstance no matter what the facts turn out to be. Thank you, -Smac

I find it very appropriate, that information like this is put into the public arena, so that there is a better understanding of the matter, especially from the perspective of the female. I think there was a movie in the 80s, with Jodie Foster. Possibly based on a actual event, or influenced by similar. That focused on a female, who went into a bar and was attacked by a number of men. If I remember correctly, the female was accused of incorrect place/dress/behaviour.

Agreed. The Susan B Anthony Project has a Survivor's Art Gallery that shows what actual rape survivors were wearing when they were raped. If you follow this link and scroll down a tiny bit, you can see it. It's heartbreaking and shows that rape has nothing to do with clothing. https://sbaproject.org/what-were-you-wearing/

I think it is so easy for a woman who has been raped, to be told she was wearing specific type of clothing, was behaving inappropriate, or in the wrong area/ environment. Adults, within their own reasoning, know what is right and wrong. So when a man, or group of men force themselves on a women. They will know what they are doing is wrong.

Another addition--written by Adam Cam in response to breaking news about a gang rape that was reported in 2024 at Cornell--to the 'not all men' discussion: It's been reported that the text that was sent out went to 57 other men. None of them did anything about it. It's also been reported that the guy who sent that text was pre-med at the time of the rape.

Hi again Mustard Seed. Pope Leo published an encyclical on this subject this past May that you might find interesting. It is called Magnifica Humanitas. The full English translation can be found here: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html I think you might find some helpful insights from what appears to be a very balanced approach to this new technology. As Tony suggested, we need not and probably cannot suppress this information if we tried. AI can be used for good. Only good things can be abused. AI is a good thing and as such, can be abused. I used AI to talk about the encyclical and the dangers that you have highlighted Mustard Seed. I must make a disclaimer. I only recently discovered what the encyclical was about and haven't read it yet. The sub-heading in English is titled "ON SAFEGUARDING THE HUMAN PERSON IN THE TIME OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE." I used AI to locate specific passages that you might find interesting. It directed me to paragraphs 118-122 for a philosophical critique of this technology and to paragraphs 142-150 for parents, educators, and youth ministers. Presumably it might offer some thoughts for someone in your profession to consider. There is also an excellent Table of Contents with chapter headings that explain what subject matter each section of the encyclical is discussing. You might want to consult that to see if there is anything in particular that interests you. AI is a useful tool. But it mimics personality if we allow it. Like a shovel, we should only use it, and never mistake an invention for a person. In my opinion, the evil one, who hates magnificent humanity (Magnifica Humanitas), has always sought to destroy humanity by making us egocentric so that we are persons who use persons, as we would use a shovel, for our own benefit. Of course, Christians know that we are supposed to love everyone because of their own dignity as our neighbors. With AI, it seems plausible that the greatness of any particular human soul can get lost now not only through egocentrism, but even further, while ignoring our true neighbors, we can opt for trying to satisfy our human social needs by interaction with a mere tool, AI. (reshaping my own tin foil hat, heh.) So anyway, to whet your appetite, or someone else's, here is para. 122: 122. "Finitude, when truly accepted, does not diminish us but opens us to recognizing the face of God and others. Indeed, precisely because we experience limits — vulnerability, suffering and failure — we can recognize the inviolable dignity of every person, both our own and that of others. In this same experience, we remain capable of intuiting a fraternity greater than ourselves and of perceiving injustice as a scandal. Authentic culture and art preserve this spark, resisting the normalization of evil. For this reason, certain works have taken on an almost prophetic significance: Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony can be seen as a desire for unity; Guernica as a denunciation of dehumanization; Schindler’s List as a call not to consign the past to oblivion." and... 139. "In an era when truth is often distorted in order to serve particular interests and communication strategies, the field of education assumes decisive importance. Yet rapid technological transformations reveal just how unprepared we are on the educational level. The pervasiveness of digital media fosters a culture of immediacy and hyper-stimulation, which gives rise to fatigue, boredom and apathy concerning the effort required for seeking the truth. 140. Education, by contrast, is a long journey requiring patience, and therefore needs time for development and for engagement with reality beyond appearances. This is a fundamental issue because every technology shapes those who use it. Educating people about the use of AI, then, involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used. The speed and ease with which answers or summaries can be obtained risk extinguishing the desire to ask questions, which is a process that bears fruit only over time. As Plato wrote, the deepest and most important things are learned only after much time and effort, by engaging in discussion with others, “striking upon” ideas and experiences together like flint until the spark of understanding is kindled within us. We must learn, then, how to exercise restraint in the use of AI and to protect our young people from the promise of the perfect machine, from that subtle temptation which renders human thought seemingly superfluous precisely when it is most needed."

The advance of technology can be used for the good, if used correctly. AI/Internet if being used to aid and assist, rather than replace. In my own regard, I have been able on this board, to come into contact with people from another Christian Church, and in many cases communicate with people from another country/continent. With regards to young people, I think it is more part of every day life, and education to learn about technology, and as part of the ongoing education process. The youth could learn to use technology in a proper context along with conversation with actual people, face to face. As a personal point. I remember only a few years ago, before I took early retirement. I was working a night shift. Myself and a few colleagues took our mid shift meal break. From the moment I started my to finish 15/20 minutes. My colleagues have been on there mobile phones, without once taking a break from there activity, and remained so in complete silence.

I kind of would like to circle back to this. I came across this topic again yesterday. I dont expect or need feedback i just need to get this off my chest, but of course I welcone questions or comments. my concern on this topic is the following. In current terms, we have never been so connected yet felt so disconnected with each other. Thank you Internet! With technology comes certain challenges, and some of these challenges present themselves like the frog in the pot. The following is my opinion based somewhat on fears, admittedly, and somewhat on what I’m noticing in my career. People will occasionally ask me what societal trends I am noticing. Here is one: although it is still not common, personal relationships with AI, including attachment and even romance. As important as family and marriage is to the church, I think it would be important for us to have conversations with our children and grandchildren (and ourselves) about putting AI/robotic relationships in their proper place. Again, this is just an opinion, but I do think that the future will have many people gravitating towards isolation and more and more people attaching themselves to AI replacing pursuit of human connection. I’m seeing this movement happen at work, and I’m seeing it on social media. Because it is still so new, there is some shame around it, and people are not talking about this type of thing in polite company nor are we seeing people advertising this about themselves, but people are indulging in having very meaningful to them relationships with AI. The recent case I learned of yesterday (not my case) had a woman who had recently split with her husband and the husband according to the children has now a girlfriend-and he has “photos“ of her around the house. They were having a hard time processing this. Their mother was asking for help because there is nowhere to turn with no research done on how to help children navigate such things. I know this sounds bizarre, but please trust me when I say that as a therapist. I hear a lot of things that would probably upset many. I do claim to recognize trends fairly early. I noticed about 10 years ago that young people were “cutting off” family members, and I even started a podcast about it. Now here we are where this thing is rampant. Obviously, I don’t claim to be able to predict the future, but I do have my concerns about this trend that i am seeing. FWIW. im discussing it here because my concern is that this is going to be a significant cultural shift and no one is talking about it. I’m surprised the church who tells us what to wear, eat and say etc isn’t really talking about it (other than elder gong to some degree) - trust me I don’t want to be managed in that way but it seems inconsistent with my experience of church involvement in significant threats to familoes. excuse me while I re-mold my tinfoil hat 😉

Not exactly. They follow the unique anatomy of each individual. There are lots of women who don't have uteruses, which is why my frame is better. It's flattering that you think I have enough influence to redefine words. I'll use the definitions found in modern dictionaries. If you refuse to use those definitions then yes, we no longer have a common vocabulary and communcation will be impossible. Straw man. You are really claiming that my position is that "declaring sex rearranges molecules"? You are either stupid, blinded by bigotry, or aren't trying to have a good-faith discussion. To the extent that is the claim under discussion, it is because you refuse to let transgender advocates speak for themselves and instead want to debate the straw men in the "propositions" you invented. I'm done talking about your straw men. Just because you see the world in a black-and-white way doesn't mean that trans-advocates do. For the record, here is my best effort at summarizing what transgender activists really are asking for in these different settings. There does not appear to be one authoritative manifesto that speaks for every transgender-rights organization on bathrooms, locker rooms, shelters, prisons, and sports. But if the question is what prominent advocacy organizations actually ask for across these different settings, the answer is more nuanced than either “gender identity always controls” or “they merely oppose blanket bans.” The closest thing I found to a broad overview is Lambda Legal’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the Equality Act, because it discusses restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, prisons, and sports in the same document. The more detailed operational guidance from A4TE, Lambda Legal, GLSEN, domestic-violence organizations, and international LGBTQ organizations makes clear that the requested rules differ substantially by setting. Bathrooms: The advocacy position is fairly strong. Transgender people should ordinarily be permitted to use the restroom corresponding to their gender identity. Private or single-user facilities should also be available to people who want additional privacy, but transgender people generally should not be forced to use them merely because they are transgender. Ordinary rules against harassment, voyeurism, assault, etc. remain applicable. Locker rooms/changing rooms: Again, the general rule sought is access corresponding to gender identity, but privacy gets considerably more attention. Model policies recommend curtains, partitions, private changing areas, separate changing schedules, and similar accommodations for people who want additional privacy. The idea is to accommodate privacy concerns without automatically excluding or segregating the transgender person. Homeless and domestic-violence shelters: The general position favors placement and access consistent with gender identity, but expressly takes account of safety, privacy, vulnerability, and conflicts among residents. Guidance discusses private sleeping or shower areas, placement near staff, and other individualized accommodations. Some advocacy guidance also emphasizes allowing the transgender resident to identify which available arrangement they consider safest. The position is not simply “identity overrides everyone else's safety concerns.” Prisons and jails: This is the clearest counterexample to the claim that transgender advocacy demands an automatic identity-only rule everywhere. Advocacy organizations endorse individualized, case-by-case placement. The person's gender identity and own assessment of safety should receive serious consideration, but so should vulnerability, history of abuse, institutional security, disciplinary history, medical considerations, and the characteristics of the available facilities. Anatomy or birth sex should not automatically decide the placement, but neither should gender identity automatically decide it. Sports: The major international coalition statement I found explicitly rejects blanket exclusion and one-size-fits-all rules. It calls for case-by-case approaches that balance fairness and inclusion while protecting the health, safety, privacy, bodily integrity, and dignity of all athletes, including women and girls. Some American advocacy organizations take a stronger inclusion-oriented position, particularly concerning school sports, but the broader coalition statement does not say that gender identity automatically overrides every fairness or safety consideration. So I think the fairest short summary is: Bathrooms: presumptive gender-identity access. Locker rooms: presumptive gender-identity access, with meaningful privacy accommodations. Shelters: identity-consistent access plus individualized safety, privacy, and vulnerability considerations. Prisons: individualized placement balancing identity, safety, vulnerability, and institutional security. Sports: strong preference for inclusion, but with explicit case-by-case consideration of fairness, safety, privacy, dignity, and the circumstances of the particular sport. That distinction seems important. It would be inaccurate to characterize mainstream transgender advocacy as saying: “Self-identification automatically determines access to every sex-separated setting, regardless of safety, privacy, dignity, fairness, or any other consideration.” The prison and sports guidance explicitly contradict that characterization. But the opposite characterization would also be inaccurate. These organizations are generally asking for more than simply “don't enact blanket bans.” In ordinary bathrooms and locker rooms especially, they are asserting a meaningful presumption or right of gender-identity-consistent access. The recurring principle seems to be something closer to: Do not categorically exclude transgender people merely because their biological sex differs from their gender identity; begin from inclusion, then address legitimate privacy, safety, dignity, fairness, and security concerns in ways appropriate to the particular setting. That produces different answers in a bathroom, a locker room, a domestic-violence shelter, a maximum-security prison, and an elite sporting competition—which is precisely why treating all of those settings as though transgender advocates demand one identical “identity always wins” rule badly oversimplifies their actual position.

Then we seemingly agree on the list. Uterus, pregnancy, prostate, ova, bone norms, and a female skeleton do not follow identity. They follow sex. If ‘is she a woman?’ is the wrong question in every one of those settings, then ‘woman’ is not doing biological work. It is a label you apply for other reasons. A person does not become female in a bathroom and male in an oncology clinic. He is male in all of them. That is what ‘exactly who and what they are in all circumstances’ actually means. So the remaining question is not medicine. It is why the word ‘woman’ should control bathrooms and sports when you have just said it is the "wrong question" wherever the body matters (particularly access to women's bathrooms, women's sports, etc.). If the right question is always the sexed fact — uterus, prostate, male puberty, male pattern — then the bathroom and the race are the same kind of question. The occupant is male. The competitor is male. Either ‘woman’ means adult human female, in which case he is not one in any of those bullets, including sports and toilets; or ‘woman’ means identity, in which case you have two systems and you have not shown why the identity system wins in the locker room when you admit it loses in the clinic. Aye, there's the rub. "Woman" includes, amongst your other "multiple definitions," "man." This is too fundamental a thing to try to sort out here, particularly since you honestly believe it. Well, the interesting thing about "definition" is its definition: "the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries." Also interesting is the etymology of the word: I can understand that someone is using ‘woman’ to mean identity. Understanding the usage is not the same as accepting it as the rule. When folks like you re-define "woman" to include its antonym ("man"), we no longer have a common vocabulary. For you, there are no "boundaries," no "limits and distinctive nature of a thing." How many definitions? In ordinary English, and in medicine, sports, and law until yesterday, it had one that mattered: adult human female. Some people use it resignedly in relation to "trans" folks, as a courtesy title for a male who identifies as female because they don't want to deal with melodrama and emotionalisms, or because they want to avoid the "Bigot!" schtick that you and yours so regularly trot out. I find this usage to be generally unfortunate, as it amounts to pandering and demeaning behavior. They don't actually mean it, but acquiescence is better than conflict. Still other people, including people of genuine intelligence and learning, use it to refer to men who "identify" as women. Not ironically. Not resignedly. Rather, because they have well and truly bought into the notion that a man can "become" a woman. I ascribe this to "the thrall of ideological capture and obligation." I honestly cannot fathom how folks like you reconcile yourself to this usage. So I acknowledge this sort of secondary use, but not a secondary definition. It does not make the first use bigotry, and it does not make the second use coherent. ‘Don’t thrust your definition onto them’ is doing the thrusting. Sports categories, prisons, clinics, and pronouns have to pick a criterion: biological sex or "gender identity" or both. If the criterion is self-description, you have already imposed that definition on every female in the room. Asking which fact the word tracks is not a failure of empathy. It is how you decide who is in the category. So: when you say a man who identifies as a woman is a woman in the bathroom, which definition are you using — adult human female, or whoever says so? I understand both sentences. Only one of them is about sex. Of course we are talking about semantics. Do you really think a medical journal says that declaring sex causes the molecules of your body to rearrange themselves? No. Declaring a sex does not rearrange molecules. That is my point, not yours. If the body does not change, then calling a man a woman does not make him female. Semantics is what is left: whether we will use ‘woman’ for the unchanged male body in bathrooms, sports, and prisons. A journal that records sex as male while using preferred pronouns has not discovered a new organism. It has split the word from the fact. So we are not arguing about alchemy. We are arguing about whether the word, ideologically re-defined, gets to override the fact wherever someone wants it to. You already said the clinic should follow the organ, not the label. The molecules stayed put. The label is what you are asking institutions to rearrange. I am choosing the healing power of choosing both. It depends on what the speaker means by the word "woman." ‘It depends what the speaker means’ is how you avoid picking. If Speaker A means adult human female, he is not a woman. If Speaker B means identity, he is. Those are not both true of the same fact. They are two different claims using one word. You cannot run a bathroom, a steeplechase, or a prison ward on ‘whichever meaning is in the speaker’s head.’ Someone has to choose the criterion. ‘Healing power of both’ means: identity when you want him in the bathroom, sex when a uterus is required. This is entirely ad hoc. It is equivocation. The body did not change between sentences. I am not asking what a given speaker might mean. I am asking what you mean when the rule has to be applied. Is he a woman in the sense that excludes him from male and includes him in female — yes or no? If the answer is ‘only if we are using definition B,’ then you have already chosen (1) for policy and (2) for medicine. Say that plainly. ‘Both’ is the dodge. I’m not saying DSDs represent a third sex. I’m saying sex involves several traits including chromosomes, gonads, reproductive anatomy, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics such as breast development, body hair, voice pitch, muscle mass, fat distribution, and hip and shoulder shape. Gender also involves cultural norms around clothing, grooming, family roles, emotions, and mannerisms. Those traits and expectations vary and overlap: a woman can have traits commonly seen as masculine, and a man can have traits commonly seen as feminine. Men and women both produce testosterone and estrogen, though typical levels and patterns differ, and those hormones influence some of our traits. In many contexts, these other things are more important than whether somebody's gonads do or would produce large or small gametes. Then we agree again: DSDs are not a third sex. There are two sexes. Chromosomes, gonads, anatomy, hormones, and secondary characteristics are how those two sexes typically develop. They vary. Overlap on hair, voice, or fat distribution does not create extra sexes any more than a short man and a tall woman create a third height-sex. The classification is still which of the two reproductive roles the body is organized toward — large gametes or small. ‘Gender’ as clothing and manners is not sex. Mixing those lists is how ‘spectrum’ gets smuggled back in after you denied a third sex. Again, equivocation. ‘In many contexts these other things are more important than gametes’ is not a fact about biology. It is a preference about which criterion a rule should use. A women’s race is not scored on voice pitch. A cervix screen is not scored on manners. If you want a policy that ignores sex and uses presentation instead, say that. Do not call the ignored thing a "spectrum." If you really care about fairness and safety, a case-by-case approach is the best way to attain that--not a rigid rule about "sex". "Case-by-case" is a procedure, not a criterion. A panel still has to decide the case. If identity can beat sex whenever the male objects, you have a rigid rule about identity. If sex wins when fairness or safety is the issue, you have a sex rule with a hearing attached. Fairness in the female category is not mysterious case by case. Male puberty is the relevant fact, and it is not rare or subtle. Safety in a prison or shelter is not mysterious either: the occupant is male. A ‘case-by-case’ process that cannot say that out loud will resolve as inclusion. If you have a case in which a male should be in the female category because of sex-based fairness or safety, describe it. Flexibility that never produces a "no" is not flexibility. It is the identity rule with more paperwork. And motte-and-bailey. If we really care about privacy, safety, and the wellbeing of people then in general, we should give flexibility to the decision makers on the scene to use their discretion to achieve those goals. Creating rigid rules that take away that flexibility isn't justified. What's really clear is that you really, really like rules, and it seems that you are okay chalking up hurting people as collateral damage for the sake of the rules. It seems like you are especially okay if the collateral damage happens to somebody in the LGBTQ community. Again: I think the "Bigot!" schtick is so frequently utilized because it's all you've got. I can articulate a reasoned basis for my position. I don't think you can, either that or you are so immersed in your own worldview that you cannot accommodate the possibility that viewpoints divergent from yours might be reasonable. So you retreat to name-calling. Discretion on the scene still uses a rule. ‘Do what seems kind’ is, I suppose, a rule. ‘Believe the identity claim’ is a rule. ‘Keep the space female’ is a rule. I am asking which fact the person on the scene is allowed to use when those collide. Keeping males out of women’s sports, prisons, shelters, and bathrooms is a sex classification. It is justified by the same facts you already accepted in the clinic: the body is male. That is not ‘hurting people for the sake of rules’ or because they are 'somebody in the LGBTQ community.' It is refusing to treat female privacy and a fair female category as collateral. If a male with dysphoria is harmed by not entering a female space, that is a real cost to him. If females lose a locked room or a protected category, that is a real cost to them. Pointing only at one pile of costs is not compassion. It is picking a side and calling the other side collateral. I am not asking for a rule because I like rules. I am asking because someone will be decided against. Name the criterion. If it is not sex, it is identity. Discretion that cannot say no to a male is identity. And it's not "discretion." As for "collateral damage happens to somebody," I openly acknowledge that I think questions about spaces created to benefit women and girls should predominantly and ultimately be answered by addressing the needs and preferences of women and girls, more so than the men who want to go into those spaces. To me, it's obvious that creating strict rules around these categories is harmful, and it's hard not to speculate about why certain people want to inflict harm on people in the LGBTQ community. It's obvious to me you really, really, want rules and are really, really focused on the wrong things. Non-responsive. I asked whether a women’s prison or a women’s race limited to females is bigotry. You answered that I like rules and want to harm people. That is not an answer. A category limited to females excludes males. That is the point of the category. Calling that ‘inflicted harm on the LGBTQ community’ assumes that a male is entitled to the female category. That is the claim under discussion, not a fact you get to by speculating about my motives. I will not litigate why you think I enjoy hurting people. I will repeat the question, which is about the rule, not my soul: Is it bigotry — yes or no — for a women’s prison or a women’s race to exclude males? If yes, say so and own that female-only spaces are unjust (you're already there, right?). If no, then ‘strict rules are harmful’ is just a complaint that sex is being used as the criterion. Those are different statements. Thanks, -Smac

Elaborate on my agnosticism about whether gender identity is innate? I don't know how I would know whether it is innate or not. I'm not an expert in this. Why would you expect me to have a well-formed opinion on the specific causes of gender identity? I reject the premise of the question. Being a "woman" isn't a license to go into a "women's spaces" and not being a "woman" doesn't mean you can't ever go there. For purposes of going to a medical clinic and being screened for uterine cancer, whether somebody "is a woman" is the wrong question. The right question is whether they have a uterus. For purposes of taking a pregnancy test, whether somebody "is a woman" is the wrong question. What matters is whether the person can get pregnant. For purposes of getting a prostate exam, whether somebody "is a woman" is the wrong question. What matters is whether they have a prostate. etc. I think the list illustrates why whether or not somebody "is a woman" is a lot less informative than understanding the details of who a person is. The inanity of those questions illustrates my point of how it is better to deal with the specific details of a person rather than whether they "are a woman" according to any definition. I believe "woman" has multiple definitions. How many definitions do you think it has? I think we should try to understand what somebody means by what they say, even if they choose to use words differently than we do. Do you think we should try to understand others, or should we thrust our definitions onto them? Of course we are talking about semantics. Do you really think a medical journal says that declaring sex causes the molecules of your body to rearrange themselves? I am choosing the healing power of choosing both. It depends on what the speaker means by the word "woman." Both is the only correct answer if you don't name the context. I’m not saying DSDs represent a third sex. I’m saying sex involves several traits including chromosomes, gonads, reproductive anatomy, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics such as breast development, body hair, voice pitch, muscle mass, fat distribution, and hip and shoulder shape. Gender also involves cultural norms around clothing, grooming, family roles, emotions, and mannerisms. Those traits and expectations vary and overlap: a woman can have traits commonly seen as masculine, and a man can have traits commonly seen as feminine. Men and women both produce testosterone and estrogen, though typical levels and patterns differ, and those hormones influence some of our traits. In many contexts, these other things are more important than whether somebody's gonads do or would produce large or small gametes. If you really care about fairness and safety, a case-by-case approach is the best way to attain that--not a rigid rule about "sex". If we really care about privacy, safety, and the wellbeing of people then in general, we should give flexibility to the decision makers on the scene to use their discretion to achieve those goals. Creating rigid rules that take away that flexibility isn't justified. What's really clear is that you really, really like rules, and it seems that you are okay chalking up hurting people as collateral damage for the sake of the rules. It seems like you are especially okay if the collateral damage happens to somebody in the LGBTQ community. To me, it's obvious that creating strict rules around these categories is harmful, and it's hard not to speculate about why certain people want to inflict harm on people in the LGBTQ community. It's obvious to me you really, really, want rules and are really, really focused on the wrong things.

You could always set a good example and choose not to speculate. I think the motte-and-bailey assessment is well-reasoned. It's not just airy conjecture. "I don't think we need bathroom laws" sounds a lot like motte-and-bailey. It evades and refuses to address the dispute. Again: Who could, after all, object to "trans people" having "equal rights?" Nobody but the bigots, right? That's the motte. The (unspoken) baileys, then, are things like "Great! Now that we've established that trans folks have equal rights, and also that self-declared 'gender identity' and not biological sex is determinative, and also that 'trans women are women,' they cannot be excluded from women sports and bathrooms." Again: This is the culmination of all the vagueness and motte-and-bailey equivocations and maneuverings. "Man" now means "adult human male or female." "Woman" now means "adult human female or male." "Male" and "female" now refer to both biological sex and "gender identity." This is the endgame dressed up as a proposition. It is question begging of the highest order. Again: Motte-and-bailey. Vagueness and platitudes intended to obscure the actual objectives and meanings in play. Motte: "People should have substantial control over their bodies" Bailey: "Men have the right to go into women's bathrooms." Motte: "People should have substantial control over their bodies" Bailey: "Children can decide whether to undergo irreversible medical procedures involving the removal of healthy body parts, permanent sterilization, loss of sexual function, and so on." Again: Motte-and-bailey. Vagueness and platitudes intended to obscure the actual objectives and meanings in play. Motte: "{H}arm associated with being transgender is produced by mistreatment and exclusion ... {is} preventable." Bailey: "Men should be able to participate in women's sports." Motte: "{H}arm associated with being transgender is produced by mistreatment and exclusion ... {is} preventable." Bailey: "Doctors should perform radical medical procedures on gender dysphoric children, procedures which are irreversible, which involve the removal of healthy body parts, permanent sterilization, loss of sexual function, and so on." Again: Motte-and-bailey. Motte: "{D}eny transgender people effective access to an ordinary service." Bailey: "Men should be able to participate in women's sports and go into women's bathrooms." Again: Motte-and-bailey. Motte: "The goal is belonging and flourishing." Bailey: "Men should be able to participate in women's sports and go into women's bathrooms." Motte: "The goal is belonging and flourishing." Bailey: "Doctors should perform radical medical procedures on gender dysphoric children, procedures which are irreversible, which involve the removal of healthy body parts, permanent sterilization, loss of sexual function, and so on." The mottes are all broad and vague generalizations, most of which do not even appear to be in dispute. Motte: "People should have substantial control over their bodies." Bailey: "Men have the right to go into women's bathrooms." Bailey: "Children can decide whether to undergo irreversible medical procedures involving the removal of healthy body parts, permanent sterilization, loss of sexual function, and so on." Who has said that people should not have substantial control over their bodies? But then the baileys come along. And is are the two baileys here not going to be advanced? Sure seems like they are. Motte: "{H}arm associated with being transgender is produced by mistreatment and exclusion ... {is} preventable." Bailey: "Men should be able to participate in women's sports." Bailey: "Doctors should perform radical medical procedures on gender dysphoric children, procedures which are irreversible, which involve the removal of healthy body parts, permanent sterilization, loss of sexual function, and so on." Who has endorsed "mistreatment and exclusion" of trans persons? Nobody. But then the baileys come along. Motte: "{D}eny transgender people effective access to an ordinary service." Bailey: "Men should be able to participate in women's sports and go into women's bathrooms." Who has said that trans persons should be denied "effective access" to anywhere? Nobody. But then the baileys come along. Motte: "The goal is belonging and flourishing." Bailey: "Men should be able to participate in women's sports and go into women's bathrooms." Bailey: "Doctors should perform radical medical procedures on gender dysphoric children, procedures which are irreversible, which involve the removal of healthy body parts, permanent sterilization, loss of sexual function, and so on." Who has disputed the idea that trans persons should "belong" and "flourish?" Nobody. But then the baileys come along. Thanks, -Smac

Hmm. Where to begin. 1. Sections 4(b) and 4(c) 4(b) and 4(c) do not contradict on paper. They contradict in a bathroom. 4(b): If identity matches sex, you use that sex’s room. Preference is not enough. 4(c): If identity does not match sex, you may use either room, and the operator may not override you because of sex, appearance, or another user’s discomfort. The statute therefore has two classes of people and two rules. The problem is that the statute also forbids the only cheap ways to tell which class someone is in. 2. How “sincerely held” would actually be administered Section 3(2)–(3) and 4(c), (e) make eligibility turn on an internal fact: a bona fide "gender identity" different from sex. It does not require diagnosis, hormones, surgery, consistent presentation, or papers. Section 5(c)–(d) and 6(a) then strip the usual checks: Appearance, voice, clothing, body, lack of transition, and other users’ discomfort are not enough to intervene. No ID, no medical records, no inspection. If you ask at all, you must accept a good-faith statement unless you have specific facts of “deliberate falsehood or misconduct.” Detaining or calling police solely because of a 4(c) choice is forbidden. So “sincerely held” is administered as: The person says so, or You already have independent evidence of an improper purpose (voyeurism, assault, etc.) — which is a different crime, not a restroom-status hearing. There is no mid-level process: no board, no card, no “has lived as for 12 months,” no clinician letter. A male who prefers the women’s room and is willing to say “I am gender-incongruent” is, for operational purposes, a 4(c) person. A male who says “the line is shorter” is a 4(b) violator. The difference is the sentence he is willing to utter. The "improper purpose" stuff (3(6), 4(e)) does not close that gap. It requires knowing falsity plus intent to commit a crime or invade privacy. A male who sincerely (or opportunistically) claims identity and then behaves “normally” in the stall is inside the statute. You cannot treat “I don’t believe you” as enforcement. Massachusetts-style guidance that this draft cites works the same way: presume appropriate use; don’t police appearance. This draft adds a sex-congruent default that staff cannot apply without doing what the draft bans. 3. The 4(b) / 4(c) tension in practice Sections is not a drafting glitch. It is a verification glitch. Staff must apply 4(b) to ordinary males and 4(c) to “gender-incongruent” males. They are told not to use the information they actually have (who looks male, who has a male voice, who other women just reported). The legal test is "sincerity." The factual test available in 20 seconds is appearance plus a statement. Results: 4(b) is unenforceable except against someone who admits “I’m a man, I just wanted this room.” Every opportunist and miscreant will obviously avoid this admission. 4(c) is the real rule for any male willing to claim incongruence. And anyone can claim incongruence. Women who object are told discomfort is legally insufficient (5(c), 6(d)). They have no voice, no say in the administration of the spaces which were designed for them. Men get to override women on this point for any reason or no reason at all. Operators who guess wrong face 4(f) and Section 7 (civil rights complaint, damages, fees). Huge downsides for impositioning men trying to get into women's bathrooms. Zero upsides for attempting to keep sex-segregated spaces as sex-segregated spaces. That is why “I don’t think we need bathroom laws” and this draft are closer than they look. The draft keeps men’s/women’s signs and then makes the women’s room available to any male who makes the sincerity claim, with liability if staff say no. 4. Civil, not criminal — what that does Section 7 puts this in the public-accommodation / civil-rights machine: agency, 300-day charge, two-year lawsuit, injunction, compensatory damages, fees; punitive only for willful/malicious. No arrest for a good-faith 4(c) choice (7(d)). That is a policy choice with predictable effects, all in favor of men and against women who don't want men in women's spaces and anyone who would act to maintain sex-segregated spaces: Males denied the women’s room have a clean statutory claim: 4(c) + 4(f) + 5(d). The operator’s defense is “we had specific articulable facts of improper purpose.” Appearance and women’s fear are carved out. Many denials will look like “you look male,” which the Act says is not enough. Expect charges and fee-shifting suits. Women denied a female-only space have a much worse claim under this Act. The Act’s purpose includes their privacy, but the operative sections say discomfort is not grounds to exclude a 4(c) user. A woman who wants the operator to keep males out is asking the operator to violate 4(c)/4(f). Her “civil rights” theory has to come from some other law (or a constitutional claim this statute tries to preempt in spirit). Operators are the defendant either way. Let him in: women complain, possible separate tort/hostile-environment theories, political cost. Keep him out: this Act’s Section 7. Rational operators will default to access, because the statute’s private right of action is built for the excluded 4(c) claimant, not for the woman who lost sex-separation. No criminal backstop for the line itself. Voyeurism and assault remain crimes. Crossing the threshold as a male does not. Enforcement of the category is a civil-rights fight after the fact, not a door policy. You will not get criminal prosecutions of confused teenagers. You will get agency dockets and fee petitions aimed at schools, gyms, stores, and cities that try to honor 4(b) by eye. 5. Practical failures 1. Unworkable duty at the door. A clerk cannot hold a "sincerity" hearing. The Act pretends they can apply 4(b) without stereotyping. They cannot. 2. Self-ID with extra vocabulary. “Gender-incongruent person” + sincerity + no documents = self-ID for bathrooms. The “default” is for people who do not claim the exception. 3. Asymmetric litigation. The statute creates a right to choose rooms if you claim incongruence, and a right not to be questioned about it. It does not create a right to a room that contains only the other sex. Women who “do not want men in women’s spaces” are not the protected class this bill arms. Men are, and at the expense of women. 4. Schools and employment. Same text applies to schools and employers (2(b)). A 14-year-old male who states incongruence gets 4(c). Staff who send him to the boys’ room because of sex violate 4(f). That is where most of the conflict will likely be, not airports. 5. “Improper purpose” is too late. It is useful after a camera or an assault. It does not sort the "sincere" dysphoric male from the opportunistic male before entry. The Act forbids using the information that would sort them earlier. 6. Single-user rooms. Section 2(d) and 6(b): you need not build them, and you may not steer the incongruent person into them. The compromise people actually use in buildings (a lockable third room) is legally the optional extra, not the required off-ramp. 7. Scope dodge. 2(c) excludes lockers, showers, prisons, shelters, sports. Those are the harder cases. Leaving them out does not make the restroom rule coherent; it admits the same person is male for a locker and “either room” for a toilet twenty feet away. 8. Conflict with sex-discrimination law. If state or federal law still treats “women” as female, this Act tells operators to do the opposite for restrooms. If identity is already a protected class, this Act is mostly a specification of that. Either way, “case-by-case” in his earlier sports/prison answer is not this bill. This bill is a rule: incongruent → choice; staff → hands off unless a crime is afoot. 9. Eradication dodge: The language pays lip service to designating spaces for women, but then eviscerates - literally de jure - any practical means of maintaining them as such. Sex-segregated spaces are effectively eradicated. 10. "Reasons for sex-segregated spaces" dodge: All this utterly disregards additional reasons why sex-segregated spaces were created in the first place. The primary practical function of a restroom is, of course, to allow people to relieve themselves. But the reason public restrooms in this country (and most of the world) have long been separated by sex is not that society was indifferent to who else was present. Sex separation exists precisely because these are spaces that involve partial undress, vulnerability, and physical proximity. The design choice reflects a judgment that safety and privacy and comfort interests differ systematically by sex, especially for women and girls. Bottom line The draft answers your question — “which men may use the women’s room?” — with: those who sincerely identify as not matching their sex, as proven by their say-so. Most telling, it answers “which men may not?” with: those who openly admit they are entering for convenience or opportunism. Practically speaking, this means everyone can go in. That is particular enough to critique. It is not a system that preserves women’s rooms as female rooms. It preserves the signs, relocates enforcement into civil-rights litigation, and makes the legally safe move for every operator not to differentiate. That is why it still fails the question you asked him, just with more sections. Thanks, -Smac

You could always set a good example and choose not to speculate even if this is true…especially since even extensive interactions don’t always mean we understand the thought behind the words. I am discovering after 40+ years with my husband, I have been dramatically wrong about some of his thoughts. He doesn’t talk about his internal experience at all, so it’s been me basing my ideas on his external behavior and behaviors of his siblings. Turned out even if I could predict his behavior pretty well, I was fundamentally wrong about the drive of those behaviors as he has ADHD. It’s not a lack of caring for what isn’t important to him personally, but the way his brain pays attention.

There are somethings that are not innate that are still impossible for us to choose to acquire or learn or unlearn, much like how we learn much of our native language before we are conscious of learning it and couldn’t explain why we know you say things a certain way. And just because we might hate our native tongue for some reason, we can’t somehow erase it from our awareness. We have no choice but to use it to think generally speaking.

Pro tip: if you want to avoid looking like a bigot, you should assume that when somebody says their goal is human belonging and flourishing that really is their goal. Assuming the targets of your obsessions have these ulteriour "bailey" motives isn't a good look for you. Again with the "Bigot!" schtick. You are only proving my point. If I say things like "'intentionally a little bit blurry' comes across - quite strongly, in my view - as evasive and vague, as effectively impossible to apply, as motte-and-bailey,'" that is not "bigotry" because I am not expressing an irrational fear or hatred of you. I just think your reasoning is poor. Very poor. And your heavy reliance on logical fallacies and emotionalisms and insults is, in my view, emblematic of something. Pairing it, as I have, with your obvious intellectual gifts, I have provisionally concluded something, which I have repeated a number of times: You and your compatriots endlessly impute evil motives. Evidence-free, or even in the presence of reasoned and civil commentary. My motte-and-bailey assessment is based on fairly extensive interactions with you. Thanks, -Smac

Sounds like the church thinks that the teachers are going to really struggle with this