All Activity

The whole Southwest is in trouble. Lake Powell is approaching critical levels and it is likely to come down to either keeping Lake Mead or Lake Powell viable and it will almost certainly be Lake Mead that survives for a while. We need to cut water use in all of the southwestern states but everyone largely accepts the need to do that as long as it has no impact on them specifically. It is political suicide to try to make the harsh cuts needed to arrest the problem so the can keeps getting kicked down the road.

They did another podcast on how Jesus is the Way and then a third on how Jesus is the Light. I need to go and listen to those as well to see how they attempt to take a more literal look at those parts of that famous verse.

Perhaps I have assumed too much. I have been working on avoiding such accusations. I have apparently failed. I think the endless accusations of "Bigot!" from folks like you and SU are not so much offensive (they've long since lost whatever rhetorical potency they may have had) as they are - to me - indicative of you following some sort of informal advocacy playbook (present men in women's spaces as something naturally correct, refuse to identify any limiting principles, refuse to address adverse consequences for women and girls, refuse to address - or even outright deny - the foreseeable legal and social consequences of the proposal (including the eradication of sex-segregated spaces), etc.). Hence the inference that your comments in this thread have intentionally been aligned with what I see as motte-and-bailey tactics which I have been observing for years. I think "subversive" intent is perhaps the more accurate term. I am willing to grant that advocates of this approach sincerely think of themselves as being on the side of the angels. As George R.R. Martin has observed: “Nobody is a villain in their own story. We're all the heroes of our own stories.” Having observed legal and social developments along these lines for many years (and presupposing that others, such as yourself, have done likewise), I have concluded that the motte-and-bailey strategy is precisely what is going on in some circles of of trans advocacy groups and individuals. The strategy and tactics and terminology, together with the obfuscations and evasions and failure/refusal to identify any limiting principles and near-total disregard for the interests of women and girls (for whom these spaces have always been intended), have materially contributed to this conclusion. I admit that it's my personal view, but it seems warranted, both because of some public statements from trans advocates and because the near total failure/refusal to address the foreseeable consequences of this proposal (which is generally presented as a demand, not a request) more or less compels such an inference. As to public statements, see this article by GLAAD (under the header "Legislation") : Fact Sheet: Misleading Narratives About Transgender People and Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Other Single-Sex Spaces This fact sheet on “restrooms, locker rooms, and other single-sex spaces” puts toilets in the same paragraph as sports restrictions, identity documents, and prison placement. It quotes the ACLU: transgender people should be allowed to “use facilities and participate in activities that match who they are,” and that this is “legally required by statutory and constitutional bans on sex discrimination.” That is a central principle covering facilities and activities. The article does not even bother to articulate a justification for males going into these spaces, and instead treats such entry as axiomatic, as a foregone conclusion, and any opposition to such entry as outrageous and beyond the pale. No treatment at all of the rights of women and girls to sex-segregated spaces. The ACLU’s long-published know-your-rights materials had already treated school restrooms, locker rooms, and sports eligibility as the same Title IX/gender-identity package, and said gender-neutral toilets are not an adequate substitute for using the facility that matches identity. To some extent, my conclusion about the motte-and-bailey tactic may be outdated. The Obama Administration's 2016 "Dear Colleague" letter shows that this strategy has been in place for at least the last ten years (thus making it less secretive than it is, but also demonstrating how profoundly subversive it is). It is the cleanest official statement of the theory: a student’s “gender identity” is the student’s “sex” for school facilities. Once that reading is accepted, locker rooms follow bathrooms; sports follow locker rooms unless a separate carve-out is written. That letter shows that the the interlinking of these topics - bathrooms, locker rooms, sports, prisons - was policy, and was no longer a hidden strategy. From the above link: The entire article is worth a read, particularly the section titled "The Quiet Revolution." After tracing how “gender identity” got into medicine, law, administration, statistics, and schools, the author names what those changes added up to. In a short span, institutions installed a new “principle of vision and division” of social life. Gender identity began to compete with, redefine, or displace sex. Because sex is among the most basic organizing categories there are, that is a large change. It happened with almost no public fight and little public notice until about 2015. That combination — structural change plus low visibility — is why he calls it a quiet revolution The strategy was intentionally quiet and subversive from the get. The author analogizes it to John Skrentny’s “minority rights revolution”: rights expanded less through mass protest than through insiders — agencies, courts, professional bodies, HR offices — reinterpreting old statutes and stacking small rules. Change was incremental, cross-referencing, and often shielded from voters. “Institutional leapfrogging” and a “politics of alignment” let each domain treat the last domain’s policy as settled fact. Fortune 500 nondiscrimination clauses, medical guidelines, data categories, and school policies cited one another. The 2016 Title IX Dear Colleague letter, telling schools that identity is sex for facilities, became the public capstone of that private process, not its start. While the category was treated as a private, self-regarding fact, almost no one objected. Once it became actionable — something a child or adult could use to demand medical transition or entry to sex-separated spaces and sports — other people’s interests came into view: women’s privacy and safety, athletes’ fairness, parents’ concern about irreversible treatment. That is when the quiet phase ended and the loud one began. The revolution, then, was not a conspiracy so much as a category that outgrew the niches in which it had been planted. The above article (published in 2025) is, I admit, not fully congruent with my surmise. The author's articulation about the mechanism is different from mine: first, the category was institutionalized without a public mandate; second, the controversy arrived late, when the category started reallocating other people’s spaces, sports, and children’s medical care. However, my conclusion is, I think, also plausible. The pre-2015 path was quieter than a civil-rights march: guidance letters, settlement agreements, Fortune 500 alignment, medical SOC updates. This is all documented. After the "Dear Colleague" letter, state bills, Gloucester, sports cases, and European medical reversals, the public cost of the explicit claim rose. Some institutions responded by softening slogans (“inclusion,” “best practice,” “case by case”) while keeping identity-as-sex in handbooks. This progression looks like tactical quiet after exposure (IOW, motte-and-bailey). The article's author would more likely call it the old embedding machine still running in places the election does not reach. The movement, as a whole, saw the national and local backlash, decided a return to the quietly subversive motte-and-bailey approach was a better national strategy. As to the foreseeability aspect of all this, it has been - for me - one of the more potent indicators of subversive intent. The social and legal ramifications of the overall proposal, particularly the cross-pollenization (policy on bathrooms affects policy on locker rooms, sports, etc. and vice versa) and the eradication of sex-segregated spaces and the problematic impositions on the rights of women and girls, have been obvious for years, and yet the proposal's advocates pretty much always ignore them. Refuse to acknowledge them in any way. Act as if they don't exist. Act as if the proposal is axiomatically correct and justified. Accuse anyone who raises concerns about these consequences of bigotry. And so on. Sound pretty familiar. Sounds like what has been going on in this thread. Right down to the various and repeated accusations of "bigotry" ("I can’t help but wonder whether the real problem is them and involves something that rhymes with spigotry"). Present a "proposal" that is facially controversial and subversive ("Women's bathrooms should be open to men who 'identify' as women"), and act as if it is not, and that it is instead the moral and right thing to do. Ipso facto, anyone who disagrees with it is a bigot. Refuse to identify any limiting principles. Both because broadly-accepted tenets of trans ideology categorically reject any such limitations, and because any such limitations will almost immediately expose the real-world adverse ramifications of what is being presented as innocuous and harmless to everyone (except "bigots" - that is, anyone who questions or disagrees with the proposal). Refuse to address the foreseeable consequences. The eradication of sex-segregated spaces. The massive impositions on women and girls, the very people for whom such spaces were created. The avalanche of lawsuits and necessary upheavals to and profound reordering of workplaces, public spaces, schools, physical facilities, religious organizations and properties, and so on. These things just don't exist. They don't matter. They need not be addressed. And anyone who raises them as a worthwhile point of debate is a bigot. Endless "We must get on the right side of history" and "Hey, what we're proposing is totally unobjectionable, obviously correct, just a manifestation of 'ordinary grace, and who could not want that?'"-style posturing that presupposes the legitimacy and and value of the very issues being debated. And, of course, anyone who does not toe that line or disagrees with it is a bigot. FWIW, I think you and yours should consider setting aside the "Bigot!" schtick. It's not a show of strength or moral superiority and virtue. Instead, it comes across as desperate and contrived and ad hoc, particularly when its rolled out during substantive discussions such as what we have been attempting here. It comes across as "Well, we aren't winning on substance and reasoning, so let's pull the 'Bigot!' card and see if we can distract from or shut down the conversation, and/or silence the people disagreeing with us." On this point I am reminded of Out of the Half-Light, which was episode 11 of season 1 of Law & Order. From IMDB: See also here: Eaton protests that his actions were not about his own political agenda but about bringing the fact of racist police officers and the injustices of the criminal justice system regarding African Americans to national public prominence. The confrontation ends with this exchange: Here's the clip on YouTube: This is more or less how I view trans advocates who throw what they must know will be molotov cocktails into society ("Hey, let's give men the legal right to enter into women's bathrooms, locker rooms, sports, prisons, etc."), act as if the proposal is innocuous, refuse to articulate any limiting principles, ignore the foreseeable adverse effects and profound societal ramifications and impositions, and distract from or shut down any contrary voices by labeling them as "bigots." Not only is this stuff corrosive to the fabric of society and public discourse, it is counterproductive. You and yours should, by now, be at "the hearts and minds stage" now. I have some further thoughts on why we don't see much of that (pronouncements about one's own position as exhibiting "ordinary grace" come across as rather hollow when, in the end, that same position is defended by endless "Bigot!" ad hominems), but that can be a discussion for another day. As a non-activist, and as an "on the outside looking in"-type observer of the trans advocacy movement, and having observed this stuff or some years now, here is what I think: The movement is built on a sense of profoundly unearned moral certainty, on the absolute conviction that they are completely right, despite having done none of the intellectual or ethical heavy lifting required to actually understand the issue. I say this because the idea of putting men into women's spaces is radical and subversive, but they treat it as normative and innocuous. As if those objecting to or even expressing concerns about it are obviously and axiomatically out of bounds. I say this because these advocates will not or cannot answer entirely legitimate questions about proposals such as this. I say this because there are no limiting principles, and because advocates will not acknowledge that there are no limiting principles. Motte-and-bailey all over the place. I say this because the movement's go-to response before, during and after any discussion with someone who disagrees with them is "Bigot!" Not just that. A smart guy who nevertheless refuses to articulate any limiting principles, who insists that “It isn’t happening, so we don’t need a rule,” but then refuses to articulate what the "rule" is or should be (that is, who is and is not excluded from women's spaces under your proposal). A smart guy who refuses to acknowledge that his proposal results in de facto and/or de jure eradication of sex-segregated spaces. A smart guy who nevertheless declares obvious cross-application of his "proposal" to women's locker rooms, sports and prisons does not exist, and that these are entirely "separate issues." A smart guy who acts as if his radical proposal is innocuous, and who refuses to address - or even acknowledge the existence of - foreseeable and profound and adverse effects on the rights of women and girls, for whom sex-segregated spaces were created, and also on workplaces, public spaces, schools, physical facilities, religious organizations and properties, and so on. A smart guy who regularly utilized ad hominem slurs to distract from or delegitimize or silence viewpoints which differ from his (e.g., "I can’t help but wonder whether the real problem is them and involves something that rhymes with spigotry"). A smart guy who refuses to acknowledge that there is considerably more at stake, relative to the interests of women and girls, than just "safety" (either that or explain why where are nothing else at stake). It's your smarts and your actions/inactions in this thread that have created the basis for my assessment. No, your comments in this thread are evidence of what I see as a calculated motte-and-bailey strategy. I may be wrong. I had assumed your proposal was a studied and carefully formulated thing, rather than an off-the-cuff, throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks idea. The questions I have been presenting for weeks now are not obscure nitpicks. They are what any lawyer or judge or legislator or what-have-you would ask about the potential consequences of enacting your proposal. I have been asking you to address these real-world ramifications, and you aren't obliging. It's dodge after dodge, peppered with "Bigot!" I had chalked that up to calculated strategy, but perhaps you simply have not given the matter as much thought as it deserves. Again, we all know you're a smart guy, so I don't know how else to account for the various and extensive and substantial deficiencies in your defense of your own proposal. Simple: Answer my questions. Stop evading and ignoring. Stop changing the subject and answering questions I haven't asked. Stop calling me a bigot for raising these questions. I'd like to see more than "those are 'separate issues.'" That needs to be demonstrated, not just asserted. I'd also like to see you either A) articulate particularized limiting principles which apply to your proposal, or B) admit that there are no such limiting principles. As it is, you are doing neither. I'd also like to see you acknowledge the foreseeable consequences of your proposal, including either A) a clear acknowledgment that your proposal necessarily results in the eradication of sex-segregated spaces, or B) a reasoned explanation as to how such spaces can be maintained when you refuse to articulate any meaningful limiting principles as to who can and cannot enter those spaces. I would also like to see you address at least some of the legal repercussions of your proposal (see, e.g., here), or else explain how you think these repercussions will not happen, or that if they do happen they do not matter (to women and girls, to society in general, etc.). I'd also like to see you acknowledge that there is considerably more at stake, relative to women and girls (again, the exact group of persons for whom sex-segregated spaces were created), than just "safety," or else explain why there are no other considerations in view. I'd also like you set aside the accusations of bigotry. It's just a thought-terminating cliché that diminishes your argument in ways you do not seem to appreciate. Yes, I've probably been falling short of my aspirations in this thread. I'll work on that. Again, I had assumed your "proposal" was a studied and thoroughly-evaluated-in-advance sort of thing, rather than an off-the-cuff thing. If it was, then I would think you would be both willing and able to defend it, address its real-world ramifications (such as the eradication of sex-segregated spaces), articulate its parameters, identify limiting principles or explain where there should not be any, and so on. If it was not, then my assessment of your arguments has been off, and I should apologize. For such an apology to be sincere, I'll need clarification on this. Have you given your proposal any real scrutiny prior to presenting it here? Why have you refused, for weeks now, to either articulate limiting principles or explain why no such principles are needed? Why have you refused to acknowledge that your proposal will result in the eradication of sex-segregated spaces? These are all reasonable and obvious inquiries, and yet you have treated them as arising from "bigotry." Again: (Emphasis added.) The Massachusetts study is not an answer to the legal analysis. It counted police-logged incidents in restrooms and locker rooms in a few Boston-area towns around local gender-identity ordinances. It found those recorded incidents were rare and did not clearly rise with the ordinances. That is one narrow result under one set of assumptions. It does not measure women who stop using the room, girls who change in a stall or skip PE, employees told that objecting is a policy violation, or the same identity-as-sex rule applied to sport, shelters, and prisons. An empty or flat police file is not “what actually happened.” It is what that paper chose to count. The design is also markedly thinner than the citation implies. The treated sample is small, record systems differed by department, and matching is limited. A 2026 methodological critique in Theory and Society, The Not-So-Curious Case of the Bathroom Safety Study: Ideological Bias and the Erosion of Scholarly Scrutiny, argues the study cannot support the press-release claim that such laws “do not jeopardize safety,” only that police-logged incidents did not clearly jump in three Boston-area jurisdictions relative to their pairs. That cannot retire a statewide or national rule, and it cannot speak to institutions the authors never observed. You also have the access rule backwards. A sex-based rule does not “force manly-looking people into the women’s room.” It puts females in the women’s room and males in the men’s, including a female who looks masculine and a male who looks feminine. Self-ID is what makes sex and appearance legally irrelevant and treats a woman’s objection as the problem. If a bearded female is wrongly challenged, that is a courtesy and training failure. It is not a reason to make male admission the default. And yet again, a safety-from-reported-felony concept is not the only interest these spaces exist to serve. They exist so women and girls can undress and relieve themselves without a men in the room (I know, I know, "trans men are men" and all that is your borne-of-"empirical-reality" position, but it's not mine), and so they can say so without becoming the subject of an HR or civil-rights complaint. Those are not hypotheticals stacked against “the evidence.” They are why the category “women’s room” exists. A rule that turns admission on self-description abolishes that category whether or not next year’s larceny count moves. You are not addressing this. If your position is self-ID for bathrooms and sex for sport, shelters, and prisons, that is a carve-out you have to write into the law. The proposal under discussion does not. It uses one rule: identity governs access. A paper about restroom crime in a few towns does not make that rule harmless, and it does not make the other consequences disappear. Well, you could answer my questions instead of evading/ignoring them. Question No. 1: How, other than by assertion, are women's locker rooms, sports, and prisons “separate issues” that a self-ID bathroom rule will not reach? What legal distinction keeps identity-as-sex from traveling to and from these various points? Question No. 2: What is the limiting principle of your proposal—who may be refused entry to a women’s facility, on what showing, by whom—or do you concede there is none? Question No. 3: Does self-ID without a limiting principle extinguish sex-separated spaces in a de facto or de jure way, or both? If not, how is a “women’s” room still sex-separated when admission is the entrant’s subjective self-declaration and nothing else? Question No. 4: Which of the legal and institutional effects already identified (employer discipline of women who object, collapse of a usable sex line, the same rule in custody and sport) do you say will not occur, and why? If they occur, why do they not count? Question No. 5: Why is reported restroom crime the only interest that matters? Sex-separated spaces were built for privacy and dignity for women and girls, as well as safety. Which of these interests do you discard, and on what grounds? Question No. 6: The Massachusetts paper measured police-logged incidents in a few Boston-area towns. Why does that result answer questions 1–5? Question No. 7: State whether you are willing to set aside accusations of "bigotry." My inquiries are about the your proposal. You have already made it clear what you think of me as a person, so there's no need to keep beating that dead horse. Just answer the questions posed to you about your own proposal. I have been blunt and, to an extent, accusatory in this thread, in ways that do not conform with the Habits of a Peacemaker approach I have been attempting to implement. I will work on that. Thanks, -Smac

If it quacks like a Nazi……..

I know this is an odd topic, but I've re-watched this video several times because the design and mechanics of these wings are so beautifully done, so I had to share it. It's mesmerizing to see them function so effortlessly. And birds make these all the time all on their own! (I think there is intelligent design behind them of course). It makes you appreciate the design of actual bird wings.

Smac, I’m done. Your motte-and-bailey accusation goes well beyond saying my proposal would have harmful consequences. You are accusing me of knowingly pursuing a broader agenda, treating its harmful consequences as intended features, and concealing it behind a more defensible position. That is an accusation of both dishonesty and malicious intent. And a central piece of your evidence is that I’m a smart guy. Apparently, I’m too smart to honestly disagree with your predictions, so I must secretly know you’re right. As if your confidence in your conclusions is evidence of my dishonesty. I’ve explained why restrooms need not have the same rules as prisons, shelters, or sports. You treat those distinctions as camouflage. If I explain myself, I’m defending the motte. If I deny your accusation, I’m retreating to it. What could I possibly say that you wouldn’t interpret as further concealment? You said you were working to improve your conversations by following Steven Collis’s Habits of a Peacemaker. You specifically highlighted resisting the temptation to caricature another person’s position. How does assigning me a malicious agenda, then dismissing my stated beliefs as a cover story, put that into practice? That is an extraordinarily cynical way to treat someone who has spent weeks explaining himself to you. Your catastrophe analysis fails to engage with the Massachusetts evidence we’ve discussed. It doesn’t settle everything, but a long list of things that hypothetically could go wrong doesn't change the evidence about what actually happened when we allowed manly-looking people to use the women’s restroom rather than forcing them into the women’s as you want the law to do. I’ve been sincerely trying to explain my point of view. You’ve chosen to treat those explanations as concealment of something sinister. There’s no productive conversation left under those terms.

@bluebellI watched the podcast today. I enjoyed it. I may not be in exact accord with their claiming that Christ was personifying Himself as "the truth" in the Johanine passage. I might see it more as He was declaring Himself to be the Revelator of the Truth of His Father's plan for humanity as contained in what we call the plan of salvation. The Greek word aletheia signifies an unhiding of what has been hidden. So in that sense Christ is the unhider of what was hidden about God's plan for humanity. I ordered the book they mentioned that has been written by two BY affiliated folks. I look forward to reading that. Thanks for bringing the podcast to our attention. I'm in favor of truth as a verb and have used it in my book. It is more important that we truth (as a verb) than that we think we have the truth. I guess that is my bottom line. Thanks again and best wishes. I think I have something you asked me the other day left unanswered. I will try and go back through the threads and find it. The topic of truth is very complex indeed. All of my grammar checkers do not like me using truth as a verb. They seem to be programmed not to recognize such. Take care.

There is some historical tension with the church's portrayal of this. Yes, there are two competing theories, or perhaps three: Theory 1: The priesthood ban originated with God via revelation. Theory 2: The priesthood ban originated with man, and arose not by way of revelation, but due to historical circumstances and prevailing racialist sentiments of the mid-19th century. Theory 3: We do not have a clear, definitive picture either way regarding the origins of the priesthood ban. The Church hews toward Theory 3, and strongly denounces past theories and characterizations intended to advance Theory 1. Yes. So can I. We both agree it is possible that there was no revelation instituting the ban. We have no record of it, and we are a record-keeping Church. Consequently, Yes, our preservation of records was not complete, hence the viability of Theory 1. It's possible. I wonder how many LDS members even read the church's article about Elder Stevenson or the above sources you mention. We can all do better, but the original point was about the Church trying to "hide" its history. I just don't see that happening. Whether the Church should apologize is an unestablished premise and value judgment. I think the origins of the priesthood ban are best characterized as "theory" until and unless we get more information. Indeed, the Church is now coping with past leaders making comments not based on information / documentation / revelation. "Leading people astray." I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. He needed to add context so people inside and outside the LDS Church would know who the ban applied to. Not sure about that, but I'm content to leave the matter unresolved. Either the priesthood ban was from God or it was from man. Either God put a skin of blackness on the Lamanites and cursed those who married them in the same way or he did not. Either Jesus is the Eternal God or he is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God. Wrong teachings lead people astray. I don't think erring in doctrine is what Pres. Woodruff had in mind. Thanks, -Smac

Isn't, I missed a word.

And it would happen regardless of whether "sex" or "gender identity" is the ticket for entry into women's bathrooms. The difference, though, is that Roger's proposal, if enacted, would eliminate, either on a de facto or de jure basis, sex-segregated spaces. Women and girls would then have no basis, legal or otherwise, to "scrutinize" anyone. They would, instead, be compelled to put up with men in women's bathrooms. No legal recourse whatsoever. And I would also anticipate that the number of instances of men going into women's bathrooms would increase by a lot. And it gets worse. Much worse. I worked with Grok in terms of formulating plausible legal issues arising from the “whoever decides they belong here belongs here” approach. The results were grim, for society in general but particularly for those poor souls at the very bottom of the pecking order created in Roger's proposal: women and girls. (I've tweaked Grok's response a bit here and there) : Legally speaking, none of these consequences are obscure or opaque or farfetched. They are, instead, readily foreseeable. I have to think that this is readily apparent to attorneys representing trans advocacy interests. And while Roger is not an attorney, he is a very smart guy. And his ongoing failure/refusal to articulate any limiting principles to his proposal suggests, to me, that he is likewise aware of at least some of these likely ramifications. Consequently, I see this is an intentional and deliberate and large scale motte-and-bailey strategy. These outcomes are not surprises that advocacy groups and their lawyers just stumbled into. They are the ordinary consequences of the rule they ask courts and employers to adopt. People who litigate and draft statutes for a living are charged with seeing those consequences. When they refuse to address them except as “fearmongering,” that is not ignorance. It is a choice. Foreseeability is the job. A competent civil-rights lawyer, asked to replace "sex" with "self-described identity" as the admission rule for toilets, locker rooms, shelters, wards, and prisons, can forecast the ramifications in an afternoon: The women’s room ceases to be female-only. A coworker who objects becomes the disciplinary problem. HR gags speech because speech is the only remaining enforcement tool. Female prisoners and shelter residents face male bodies in spaces built around male-pattern risk. Medical charts and crime statistics break. Two plaintiff classes form and the institution silences the cheaper one. None of that requires a novel theory of harm. It is how categories work. If the criterion is no longer sex, sex-separated institutions do not survive as sex-separated institutions. Counsel who file class complaints demanding identity access to “common restrooms” and rejecting single-user alternatives as insufficient are not asking for courtesy at the sink. They are asking that the sex classification itself be treated as unlawful. They also know the appearance problem they use as a shield. They say a sex rule would send bearded females into the women’s room and invite scrutiny of butch women. That is an argument they deploy (as Roger has in this thread). This, in my view, proves they have mapped enforcement, mismatch, and social cost. They simply assign those costs to the sex rule and the (former) principal beneficiaries of them (women and girls), and assign none to self-ID—except “someone could abuse discretion,” which they then dismiss. Abuse without a screen is not an unforeseen loophole. It is the rule they wrote. Silence is evidence of awareness, not the opposite. If the cascade were genuinely unexpected, the briefs would contain limiting principles (principles which Roger has, again and again and again, failed/refused to articulate) : sincerity findings, surgical or legal-sex conditions, misconduct triggers, preservation of female-only prisons and refuges, no discipline for stating sex, single-occupancy as a complete remedy. The standard ask is the opposite. No proof. No appearance test. No “reasonable belief” defense for the woman who objects. Single-user rooms become rejected as "segregation" and discriminatory (yeesh, women and girls simply cannot catch a break under Roger's proposal). Sex-based placement in prison and shelter is treated as discrimination. Accurate sex language is treated as harassment. Compelled speech. Punished speech. Legions of new grounds for lawsuits. This package is what we get when the loss of the female-only boundary is acceptable—or intended—and the remaining problem is people who keep naming sex. Calling documented mechanisms “narratives” or “fearmongering” will be the tell (oh, and "Bigot!", as Roger has done in this thread). You do not need to disprove a consequence you have not foreseen. You need to disprove it when you have foreseen it and still want the rule. Motte and bailey. The motte is the modest claim offered to a general audience and advanced by Roger in this thread: Everyone has to pee; do not inspect strangers; intervene only for voyeurism or assault; sharing a video of a confrontation encourages vigilantism; grace is better than policing. That motte is psychologically cheap and partly true. No serious person wants bathroom sting operations. The bailey is the legal demand that will actually be filed and lobbied: Gender identity is sex for purposes of Title VII, Title IX, public accommodations, housing, and prisons; exclusion from the opposite-sex facility is sex discrimination; an employer may not cabin a trans-identifying employee in a single-user room; a women’s shelter or prison that houses by sex is engaged in a civil-rights violation; objecting speech is harassment. On the bailey, a female-only room is not a legitimate aim that must be balanced. It is the injury. The move is familiar. Defend the bailey with the motte, as I suspect Roger will do when the time comes. And when asked what happens to women who do not want males in the room, advocates such as Roger will retreat "grace," dignity, rarity of crime, the ugliness of confrontation, and so on. When writing the ordinance or the complaint, return to the bailey and treat any sex-based line as illegal. The two positions being debated here (my sex-based proposal and Roger's "anyone who wants to go in" proposal) are qualitatively difference. The latter is not the same policy as the former, but described kindly. One preserves a sex classification and asks for decency in administering it. The other abolishes the classification, a point I have noted repeatedly, and which point Roger has really not addressed. And this other proposal needs the motte so the abolition does not have to be said out loud. Feature, not bug. If “trans women are women” is a definitional claim rather than a courtesy, then a space that excludes males by definition excludes some people the movement defines as women. The sex-separated room is then not a hardship to be mitigated with a third space. It is a standing insult to the definition. That is why third spaces are so often rejected, why “passing” is disclaimed as a requirement, and why the same theory is applied without a break from the office toilet to the refuge to the prison. A bug would be patched with limits. A feature is rolled out across every institution that still uses sex. All of this is intentional and foreseeable. Indifference to the female costs follows from the same definition. If the person in the room is already classified as a woman, the woman who objects is not protecting a sex class. She is attacking a member of that class. Her foreseeably being disciplined, silenced, or told to use the side room is, on that view, correct enforcement. Advocacy organizations and their lawyers are not failing to see that. They are treating it as the system working. All of this is also intentional and foreseeable. The costs to women and girls just don't matter. We can grant every good-faith motive at the individual level (gender dysphoria is real; public humiliation is cruel; most people just want to use the toilet, etc.) and still hold the institutional actors to the rule they are actually seeking. They are sophisticated enough to know that self-ID does not leave sex-segregated spaces standing and then quietly used. That is why they fight the standing, not the etiquette. That is why the motte-and-bailey stuff is so widespread. That is why these outcomes are intended as features, not bugs, of proposals such as Roger's. That is why these outcomes are being ignored or diminished, and why those expressing concerns about those outcomes are slandered as "Bigots!" (as Roger has done in this thread). Thanks, -Smac

The behavior from your personal experience seems to match what I'm talking about. The first one, the women definitely scrutinized you. And probably would have asked you to leave or at least been very worried about you. But then a woman announced that you were with her and they felt better because there was someone escourting you. The second one, the men scrutinized the woman but accepted the situation because of the long line. If there hadn't been a long line, there might have been some more interaction. The third one, the woman knew she was crossing the rules and so asked for permission. Similar to the first one, because she had permission, no further interaction. So, scrutiny is happening. And, if the situation warrants it, they might not do anything further. But they might escalate it. We've had lawsuits that go all the way to state supreme courts on whether people can go in bathrooms and this is before 2013 and before any bathroom laws (in either direction) were implemented. There was a cultural rule that you went to the bathroom you were supposed to go to. If you didn't, you would be scrutinized, told to leave, harassed, or even arrested. It is why transgender fought for the right to go into the bathroom of their choice. Previously, they didn't have that and could be denied a bathroom.

Smac, I favor people ordinarily using the restroom corresponding to their gender identity and making that decision themselves. That includes transgender women who are biologically male, without requiring them to prove their sincerity or look sufficiently feminine. We are making some progress. I am glad of that. I asked: "Under your policy, who is the 'class' of persons that can access women's bathrooms?" You sort of answer that above: "People ordinarily using the restroom corresponding to their gender identity and making that decision themselves." You also sort of answer this one: "Under your policy, who counts as 'women' and 'girls' for the purposes of gaining access to women's bathrooms? Is it "anyone who identifies as a 'woman' or a 'girl?'" Your kinda/sort answer: "That includes transgender women who are biologically male." Okay, but does your proposal exclude any males? It seems like it does not, as all anyone has to do to gain entry is think "I 'identify' as a woman." Do you acknowledge this? Under your policy, which males are to be excluded from women's bathrooms? Do you dispute that the natural and foreseeable effect of your proposal is the elimination, either de facto or de jure or both, of sex-segregated spaces? So when I ask "Do you dispute that the natural and foreseeable effect of your proposal is the elimination, either de facto or de jure or both, of sex-segregated spaces?", and when you obliquely respond with "my approach doesn’t preserve an exclusively female admission rule," can I take your answer as, effectively, "Yes, I acknowledge that my proposal amounts to the elimination, either de facto or de jure or both, of sex-segregated spaces."? I agree that people should be able to use a restroom without being inspected, photographed, or shamed for how they look. I also agree that circulating videos of confrontations can train people to treat every ambiguous stranger as a suspect. That isn’t the culture I want. Women and girls should be left alone. So should people who are just trying to wash their hands. Where we differ is what the room is for. I think sex-separated restrooms exist because the two sexes have different bodies, different patterns of sexual offending, and a long-settled expectation of privacy and propriety and decorum regarding spaces where women are in a state of partial undress or otherwise in need of a space providing privacy, propriety and decorum. Gender identity does not change those facts. A policy of “whoever decides they belong here belongs here” is not a modest extension of grace. It is a profound and fundamental change in the admission rule from sex to self-description. You are right that my rule does not preserve an appearance-exclusive women’s room. It isn’t trying to. It preserves a sex-exclusive one. That means some females who have beards, flat chests, and masculine clothing would use the women’s room, just as some butch women already do. Encountering someone who “looks male” would not, by itself, prove the rule was broken. I accept that cost. The alternative cost is that any male who claims a female identity — or who is willing to say he does (or even sillently think to himself that he does) — has a standing invitation to go into women's bathrooms. You note that someone could abuse discretion. Under self-ID, abuse is not a loophole. It is the rule operating as written. I don’t think the possibility of abuse “doesn’t establish” anything. It is the reason we have locks, stalls, and sex designations in the first place. We already reject “most people will behave” as a sufficient reason to make locker rooms, showers, shelters, and prisons mixed-sex. Bathrooms are the same kind of space, only more common. Regarding enforcement: I do not want staff or patrons running a femininity test at the sink. A report that “someone washing her hands looks male” is not enough. I would treat it the way we already treat other low-information complaints. Staff can look for conduct: lingering without using a fixture, filming, peering under or over stalls, following a particular person, exposing genitals, or refusing to leave a stall when asked in a way that suggests they are not there to use the toilet. Sex is established the same way it is established everywhere else we still care about it—birth records, medical history, or, in the rare contested case, the same kinds of facts courts already use. Day to day, almost none of that happens. Most people self-sort. The point of a sex rule is not constant policing. It is that when there is a problem, the institution is allowed to say “this space is for females” without first litigating someone’s identity. I also think we should build more single-occupancy rooms. That is the cleanest way to give masculine-looking females, dysphoric males, and anyone who just wants a door that locks a place to go without converting the multi-stall women’s room into a mixed-sex space. You favor ordinary grace plus intervention after harassment. I favor ordinary grace inside a sex-based boundary, plus intervention after harassment. The disagreement is whether the boundary itself is worth keeping. I think it is, including for girls who cannot be expected to sort “sincere transgender woman” from “male who wants access,” and including for women whose discomfort is not a character flaw. Leaving people quietly alone is easier when the room still means what the sign says. Thanks, -Smac

Isn’t saying or is saying?

I'm not so sure, and that type of behavior isn’t exactly what I was talking about. Here is all of my personal experience. Once, my wife was having a birthday party at a busy bar/restaurant. This was about 15 years ago. One of our guests grabbed my arm and said, “Analytics! You’ve got to see this!” She then proceeded to try and drag me into the women’s restroom. I refused to go, but she absolutely insisted and refused to give up. Finally so as to not make a scene, I reluctantly followed her in. Everybody stopped what they were doing and look at me. My host said, “It’s all right everyone! He’s with me!” With that, everybody exhaled and ignored me. She showed me there was a whiteboard in the restroom, and somebody had drawn an extravagant birthday message for my wife. I spent a tenth of a second admiring it, and got the heck out. Perhaps 5 years ago, I was at a crowded downtown venue, and there was a very long line for the women’s room, and a very short line for the men’s. A woman who was an unambiguously cisgender woman got into the short line for the men’s room. She waited her turn, used the toilet, washed her hands, and got out. Everybody there felt quite uncomfortable, but everyone very deliberately ignored her. About a year after that, I was in exactly the same situation, but this time a woman asked me for permission to use the men’s room, because she had to go very badly and couldn’t wait in the women’s line. I gave her permission to use the toilet. She went in, took care of business, and got out. Again, everyone ignored her. Likewise, when Lily Contino used the women’s restroom in Disneyworld, everyone politely ignored her and nobody made a stink about it until her videos went viral, and even then, the main objection was her videoing other people in the restroom and not her presence there. Compare that to the videos Smac collects that show people whipping out there cellphones and recording themselves saying, “I just saw a tranny go into the women’s restroom, and I’m going to confront them on video when they come out!” One person in his collection actually flew across the Atlantic Ocean in order to generate this type of content, and when she got impatient waiting for the person she was stalking to use the restroom, decided to confront her in a hallway with the accusatory question, “You’re a man! What bathroom to you use???!!!!” That isn’t healthy.

My issue is how @theplains is smuggling "true deity" into the discussion as though it means "the only being who can properly be called divine." That isn't necessarily what the biblical language is doing. Saying the person of God the Father is the "only true God" isn't saying other elohim are non-divine. In fact, Dr. Heiser taught that the God of the Old Testament was part of a pantheon of gods that existed before creation, with the one true God as the head of a council of other divine beings. There is one supreme God. There are nevertheless other beings who belong to the divine/heavenly realm and can properly be designated elohim. Their derivation and subordination do not make them non-divine any more than dependence on him makes them non-existent. The propositions that: 1. Yahweh is unique among the elohim. Their King. And Elyon is their Father. 2. Yahweh alone is worthy of worship in Israel. God the Father is the "one true God", who the Son gives glory to. 3. Other elohim are genuine inhabitants of the divine realm. All are perfectly compatible. In fact, Psalm 82 becomes rather strange if elohim in verses 1 and 6 simply means "imaginary gods", "false gods", idols, humans, or demons, God is standing in the "midst" of them and judging them in heaven. The most straightforward reading is that the designation as "gods" is somehow meaningful even if their status is subordinate. If theplains says "they're not true* deities*", it must be unpacked. If by a "true deity" they mean there is one ultimate God, then yes, there is only one. But if by a "true deity" they mean a real divine being, then they've simply changed the definition. Elohim doesn't function as a proper name meaning "Yahweh and nobody else." It can designate beings belonging to the divine realm. Yahweh's uniqueness is established, and not necessarily by denying the existence of every other supernatural being called an "elohim". The other gods are derivative gods, dependent on God, but genuinely divine. Appealing to a "true deity" as though it's self-defining.

In his speech, Elder Stevenson doesn't indicate that he is speaking in a representative capacity for the LDS Church. Two thoughts: First, we do not appear to have a transcript of his entire remarks, so he may well have said that he was speaking in a representative capacity for the LDS Church. Second, there do seem to be some fairly strong indications that he was speaking in a representative capacity. Most obviously, his remarks were published in the Church News and Deseret News, both of which outlets specifically identified him as a member of the Q12. From the Church News (emphases added) : The Des News: I just don't see how you can read these remarks and still dispute that Elder Stevenson, a member of the Quorum of 12 Apostles, was speaking at a public event reported in the Church News and Deseret News on behalf of the Church. Second, your response does not not answer my question: If your position was "No, he was not speaking for the Church," then I would like to better understand your perspective. If Elder Stevenson was not speaking to the NAACP in a representative capacity, are you suggesting that he was speaking in his individual and personal capacity, entirely outside his priesthood office and responsibilities? How do you account for all the "we" and "our" wording in his remarks, his various and repeated references to the Church, and perhaps most particularly his statement "I would just like to reiterate our position as a church is clear...")? But we do find Elder Stevenson saying "Our position as a Church..." Yes. Not sure "repentance" works in a collective sense. As Edward Kimball put it: "The {1949} statement went beyond the evidence both in claiming a 'direct commandment' from the Lord and in saying that the doctrine came 'from the days of [the Church’s] organization.'" I think the same must be said about the 1969 item. What are your thoughts about this? Is Bro. Kimball correct in his assessment? This 2023 FAIR article may be worth a read: I would be interested to hear your thoughts about this assessment. Yes, there are some inconsistencies. However, there is a fairly important consistent item, namely, that there is no known revelatory provenance for the ban in the records of the Church. Leading members astray also equals leading them away from truth. I can't agree with this formulation either. It is a de facto imputation of inerrancy/infallibility. Could you elaborate? I would like to understand your perspective here. Possibly. I agree. In your view, which of the two propositions is better substantiated? If the ban was a "direct commandment," but if there is no record of that direct commandment... I'm not quite sure that the first half of this statement ("it isn't a question of who said it or when...") has ready application here. Nevertheless, the last part is ontologically accurate: "{T}he question is whether it is true." Where "it" is "Did the priesthood ban originate as a revelation from God, or was it something else?", it seems like the most accurate answer would be something like this: "There is no record of any such 'revelation' in the history or records of the Church." To which I would personally add: "For my part, the absence of any known revelatory provenance, coupled with the muddled origins we have pertaining to Pres. Young's 1852 address to the Territorial Legislature (and odd venue for declaring a revelation), and in light of the historical circumstances and prevailing racialist sentiments of the era, I provisionally conclude that the ban was 'something else.'" Thanks, -Smac

Thank you. Likewise. There is some historical tension with the church's portrayal of this. One article says it was Brigham Young who announced the policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/priesthood-and-temple-restriction?lang=eng However, Joseph Fielding Smith explicitly taught that the priesthood restriction did not originate with Brigham Young, but with Joseph Smith. In The Way to Perfection, he wrote "This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith". He then cited minutes from an August 22, 1895 meeting of Church general authorities, in which George Q. Cannon reportedly said that Joseph Smith had taught that the seed of Cain could not receive the priesthood until the seed of Abel had precedence. Joseph Fielding Smith made the claim even more explicitly in the April 1924 Improvement Era, saying: "The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him". But the current LDS Church considers it as a theory, not as a doctrine as the earlier LDS prophets taught. LDS leaders taught it was doctrine decades ago. But I can understand why today's leaders prefer to call it a theory. The Joseph Smith Papers states, "Joseph Smith's earliest visions and other communications with the divine, which began in 1820, were likely not recorded when they occurred". It explains that some of Joseph's early divine communications were initially oral and private and were only recorded later, if at all. The church says Joseph Smith received over 100 revelations that were recorded, but also explicitly says "Several of these revelations were not included in the Church's scriptures or published during Joseph Smith's lifetime. They are available today through The Joseph Smith Papers". And the church's "Religion 324-325 - Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual" says there were "some revelations still in possession of the Church which were not included" in the Book of Commandments. I wonder how many LDS members even read the church's article about Elder Stevenson or the above sources you mention. Yes. The LDS Church has spent an enormous amount of time and money in their effort, but they failed to provide a simple "we are sorry", "we apologize" statement. And they continue to refer to the reason for the priesthood ban as "theory" instead of "doctrine". Just tell the LDS membership, and the NAACP, that LDS leaders taught a false doctrine, leading people astray for decades and causing ham to others in some way. That the LDS Church resisted removing the ban even after Joseph Smith and Brigham Young died. See above. Early LDS leaders viewed it as a directive from God. He needed to add context so people inside and outside the LDS Church would know who the ban applied to. Believing the Book of Mormon teaching God put a mark of dark skin as a sign of a curse on people and then propagating it as "doctrine" to restrict people from holding the LDS priesthood leads people astray if it is not true. The "Religion 327 - Pearl of Great Price Student Manual" says "It must be noted that the mark that was set upon Cain was not the same thing as the curse that he received. The mark was to distinguish him as the one who had been cursed by the Lord. It was placed upon Cain so that no one finding him would kill him". Several LDS leaders explicitly taught that Cain's curse was associated with dark/black skin and that the curse continued through his descendants. Here are the clearest examples: [1] Joseph Fielding Smith In "The Way to Perfection", he wrote "A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin... These are the descendants of Cain". [2] Brigham Young Brigham Young was even more explicit about the physical mark. In an 1859 sermon he said "The Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin". He then connected that race to Cain's descendants and said the curse would remain until it was removed in the future. Journal of Discourses 2:179-91, 7:282-91, 11:266-72, 14:78-91 [3] Wilford Woodruff Wilford Woodruff also taught that the blackness/mark of Cain descended to his posterity: "What was that mark? It was the mark of blackness. That mark rested upon Cain, and descended upon his posterity from that time until the present". He further identified millions of Black people as descendants of Cain. [4] Bruce R. McConkie "Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the negroes..". He also connected Cain, Ham, and Black people with the curse and priesthood restriction. The later LDS leaders interpreted these passages together and identified the blackness as the mark associated with Cain's curse. If this is false, then they have led their members astray. Either the priesthood ban was from God or it was from man. Either God put a skin of blackness on the Lamanites and cursed those who married them in the same way or he did not. Either Jesus is the Eternal God or he is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God. Wrong teachings lead people astray. If I teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel or a spirit child of a heavenly mother who became a God, then I have made a Jesus according to my imagination.

But wasn't that scrutiny always happening? If someone before 2013 walked into a bathroom and didn't look correct for that bathroom, didn't people scrutinize them? I've accidentally walked into women's bathrooms and I was definitely scrutinized and even mocked by the girls in there. If you look too feminine in a male bathroom or too masculine in a female bathroom, people will react to it. I've heard of people going to the employees and telling them that someone of the wrong gender is in a bathroom. So, I think people have always had to establish their sex. That was the norm of society.

In his speech, Elder Stevenson doesn't indicate that he is speaking in a representative capacity for the LDS Church. I didn't use the word "Church" as you did because he does not speak for protestant or catholic churches. A person doesn’t need to have a priesthood office or a priesthood responsibility to speak when invited to an event. One particularly significant part of the speech concerned the Church's history regarding race. Stevenson said: "Our position as a Church is clear. We do condemn all racism, past or present, in any form, and we disavow any theory that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse". Then "I am deeply saddened and hurt by this error". I don't find Elder Stevenson saying, "I apologize," "we apologize," or "the Church apologizes". I cannot find an official statement in which a Church President or apostle explicitly says, "We apologize for the priesthood ban/restriction". There are, however, increasingly strong statements of repentance, sorrow, condemnation, and disavowal. It's been almost 50 years. Just say a simple "we are sorry" and "we apologize". Just look at the example the Canadian Government set when it apologized to former students of Indian Residential Schools. https://rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100015644/1571589171655 Here is a brief snip: "To the approximately 80,000 living former students, and all family members and communities, the Government of Canada now recognizes that it was wrong to forcibly remove children from their homes and we apologize for having done this. We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this. We now recognize that, in separating children from their families, we undermined the ability of many to adequately parent their own children and sowed the seeds for generations to follow, and we apologize for having done this. We now recognize that, far too often, these institutions gave rise to abuse or neglect and were inadequately controlled, and we apologize for failing to protect you. Not only did you suffer these abuses as children, but as you became parents, you were powerless to protect your own children from suffering the same experience, and for this we are sorry". The 1949 First Presidency called the restriction a "direct commandment from the Lord" and connected mortal circumstances with premortal conduct. "The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time". The 1969 First Presidency statement took essentially the same position, saying the restriction: "is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God". This is important because it shows that the claim continued well after 1949. There was a lot of flip flopping on the priesthood ban. The Book of Mormon records that God was the cause of people receiving the dark skin. It even records the skins of the Lamanites becoming white after the curse was removed (3 Nephi 2:15, "Their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like the Nephites"). Leading members astray also equals leading them away from truth. For example, the LDS Church's teaching that Jesus is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God in his premortal life. This is a different Christ. Also, there are several teachings of a different Heavenly Father. "The progression of our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance with eternal principles" (Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual). "Man is a soul, that is, a dual being, a spirit person clothed in a tangible body of flesh and bones. God is a perfected, saved soul enjoying eternal life. He is both immortal and exalted to the highest glory. He is enjoying that blessed condition which men may attain to by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel" (How Men Are Saved, President Marion G. Romney, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, October 1974 General Conference). Possibly. Nevertheless, it was referred to as direct commandment of the Lord. Some LDS Church teachings and policies are not specifically written down and classified as "revelation" or "official doctrine". As Boyd K. Packer said, "It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true".

Smac, I favor people ordinarily using the restroom corresponding to their gender identity and making that decision themselves. That includes transgender women who are biologically male, without requiring them to prove their sincerity or look sufficiently feminine. I prefer that approach because everyone needs to use the restroom, and people should ordinarily be able to do so without having their appearance or sex investigated. Someone could abuse that discretion. But the possibility of abuse doesn’t establish that policing eligibility would produce better outcomes, including for biological women and girls. Your rule would also direct transgender men, including people with beards and thoroughly masculine appearances, into the women’s restroom. So encountering someone who looks male wouldn’t even establish that your rule was being broken. That matters beyond the occasional mistaken complaint. I worry about encouraging a culture in which people scrutinize strangers, challenge their presence, and shame them for looking like they don’t belong. You say you don’t condone that behavior, but you also watch and circulate videos of self-righteous culture warriors policing bathrooms, including in this thread. Sharing a video isn’t necessarily endorsing everything in it. But how we frame and circulate these encounters matters. Are we discouraging intrusive scrutiny, or encouraging viewers to see it as protecting women? Women and girls deserve to be left alone. And I think we’re better off extending ordinary grace than looking for reasons to police each other. I understand that my approach doesn’t preserve an exclusively female admission rule. We disagree about whether preserving that boundary is a good thing in terms of how it would require masculine-looking people to use the lady’s room, to mention nothing of the costs of enforcing it. I favor leaving people quietly using the facilities alone, with intervention for specific evidence of harassment, intimidation, voyeurism, or other improper conduct. You say your rule can be enforced through rare, fact-specific complaints. Suppose a patron reports that someone washing her hands looks male. What additional evidence, if any, would justify intervention, and how would staff establish that person’s sex?

Yep!

It sounds like something the Godfather would say, or Gadianton, or Cain.

Ok, pick another creed Chalcedonian Creed. Same thing. Though, we also do believe that outside influences can trigger revelations. See D&C 89 and Emma's concern about tobacco, Official Declaration 1 and all the polygamy federal push, etc. So, I don't see the problem with government influence in something that was also inspired. Just because the government was involved doesn't mean that inspiration and revelation wasn't there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4ZB8dkq1V0 "Who is Truth"/ Gospel Chats podcast

That's definitely one way to look at it. If I get the chance I'll link to the podcast. It's short and it's from the latter-day saint perspective but I'm not sharing it in an attempt to argue that it's the correct way to approach the topic. The podcast is quick to point out that that isn't their purpose either. It's just an interesting perspective that we tend to ignore in this day and age where 'truth = accurate' is most common. I just thought you'd be interested in the topic in general but you don't have to listen to the link, no worries.