All Activity

A terrible story. I hope those found guilty 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 that the sex was “not 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" 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 retired. 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." 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

Right. And I am interested in what you have to say, and your reasoning and evidence for what you have to say. Okay. I believe that to be consistent with your source, proposition 1 should read, "Gender identity is an internal sense of gender that advocates say should generally be respected." I'm agnostic about whether it is innate. Could you elaborate about your agnosticism? This seems like a fairly important consideration. There are some real repercussions if "gender identity" is not innate. And if you think it is innate, then I would like to see evidence for it. No, I don't think it is "authoritative." Okay. If self-declared "gender identity" is not authoritative, then what is "authoritative" in terms of men going into women's spaces? I believe a person is exactly who they are and what they are in all circumstances. They can be classified one way or the other using different systems, but they don't somehow change from being one thing to the other based on the circumstance. Okay. Could you walk me through this? Man who "identifies" as a woman = He is a "woman" for purposes of entering into women's bathrooms and participating in women's sports. Man who "identifies" as a woman = He is not a "woman" for purposes of going to a medical clinic and being screened for uterine cancer (because he does not have a uterus). Man who "identifies" as a woman = He is not a "woman" for purposes of pregnancy tests, prenatal care, abortion, ectopic-pregnancy workups (because he does not have a uterus). Man who "identifies" as a woman = He is not a "woman" for purposes of bone-density norms, cardiac risk scores, drug dosing, and reference ranges that differ by sex (creatinine, hemoglobin, iron, liver enzymes). Man who "identifies" as a woman = He is not a "woman" for purposes of prostate exams (because women do not have prostates). Man who "identifies" as a woman = He is not a "woman" for purposes of fertility, contraception, and menopause management. He does not ovulate, menstruate, or undergo female menopause. Man who "identifies" as a woman = He is not a "woman" for purposes of sex-development disorders and fertility workups (which still start from male or female developmental pathways, not "identity"). Man who "identifies" as a woman = He is not a "woman" for purposes of intimate medical exams, hospital wards, and rape-crisis services organized around female patients Man who "identifies" as a woman = He is not a "woman" for purposes of forensic examination of skeletal remains, DNA, and blood (which are sexed as male or female). Man who "identifies" as a woman = He is not a "woman" for purposes of epidemiological and crime statistics (collapsing sex into identity hides male-pattern crime and female-pattern disease). Man who "identifies" as a woman = He is not a "woman" for purposes of statements like “She is having a period / is pregnant / needs a hysterectomy” (which are necessarily false when referencing a male). Man who "identifies" as a woman = He is not a "woman" for purposes of producing ova. Man who "identifies" as a woman = He is not a "woman" for purposes of being a biological mother to a child. Do you agree or disagree with the bullet list above? Does this mesh with your "a person is exactly who they are and what they are in all circumstances" position? To be consistent with your source, Proposition 2 should read, "Major transgender-rights organizations affirm that transgender women are women and transgender men are men as gender classifications. That does not mean they claim chromosomes or anatomy have changed, or are irrelevant for every purpose." I don't really care about this. Arguing that somebody isn't really a woman is like arguing with somebody isn't really a child of God. But if somebody feels like a woman, I have no problem classifying them that way for general purposes. Using the definition that gender means how you see yourself on the inside, then a cis woman and a trans woman are both equally valid applications of that system. People are exactly who and what they are in all circumstances. That sentence is true, and empty, and not responsive to my question. Of course a person is who he is in every circumstance. The question is whether that person is a woman in every circumstance. A man who identifies as a woman is still that man when you screen for a uterus, when you ask who can get pregnant, when you set a women’s race, when you sex a skeleton, and when you record who committed a rape. In those settings he is not a woman. He is a male with gender dysphoria. Do you agree or disagree? If your view is that ‘woman’ just means ‘whoever says so,’ say that. Then we are arguing about a word (and industrial-scale equivocation about it at that), not about the body. If ‘woman’ still means adult human female, then identification does not travel into medicine, sports, or single-sex spaces. ‘People are exactly who they are’ does not decide which of those two uses you are using. To be consistent with your source, proposition 3 should say, "Self-identification is sufficient for recognition as transgender; medical treatment is not required for that identity to be valid." I generally agree that if somebody self-identifies as transgender, they really are. This doesn't cause them to be something that they aren't. Again, this is not responsive. I was asking about "a man who 'self-identifies' as a woman." Those two sentences point different ways. ‘If somebody self-identifies as transgender, they really are’ can mean only: they really do have that identity or dysphoria. Fine. That is a fact about feelings in their mind. Do you agree or disagree? ‘This doesn’t cause them to be something that they aren’t’ is the important one. A man is not a woman. Consequently, barring equivocation and/or re-defining what "woman" means, identifying as transgender does not make him female, does not give him a uterus, and does not put him in the women’s category. So I am asking you to pick one: Self-identification makes him a woman, with or without diagnosis, hormones, surgery, or consistent presentation; or He can be transgender and still not be a woman. If you mean (2), we agree on the only point I asked. If you mean (1), then ‘doesn’t cause them to be something that they aren’t’ is false. To be consistent with your source, proposition 4 should say, "Deliberately invalidating someone’s gender identity or targeting them with misgendering can be stigmatizing and harmful. This does not make every disagreement about classification a denial that the person exists." No, if somebody invalidates somebody's gender identity maybe they are being an obstinate ***, but that doesn't mean they are denying anybody's existence. Good. Then we agree on this: saying ‘he is a man, not a woman’ is not a denial that he exists. It is a denial that he is female. If that is all ‘invalidating an identity’ means, it is not existential. It is a disagreement about a category. Obstinate or not is a separate question from whether the category claim is true. Phrases like ‘denying trans people’s existence’ or ‘erasing’ them do not fit this case. Person B exists. What is denied is the claim that he is a woman. Those are not the same thing. To be consistent with your source, Proposition 5 should read, "Sex-associated biology includes atypical and intersex variations, while gender identity is a distinct concept." Biological sex is both a spectrum and binary (embrace the healing power of and!). Both ways of looking at it are valid, depending upon the context. You rewrote Proposition 5 so it no longer says what I asked. I did not ask whether atypical development exists, or whether gender identity is a different concept. I asked whether biological sex is a spectrum or a binary. In sexually reproducing animals, including humans, sex is binary at the level that matters for classification: two gamete types, two reproductive roles. Small and large gametes. Male and female. That is the binary. Disorders of sex development are disorders of development toward one of those two roles. They are not a third sex and they are not evidence that sex is a continuum like height. Atypical cases do not turn a binary system into a spectrum any more than people born with six fingers turn ‘number of fingers’ into a spectrum of species. ‘Both, depending on context’ is only coherent if you name the context. For policy that tracks reproduction, medicine, sports, crime, and single-sex spaces, the operative fact is male or female, not a sliding scale of traits. If you have a policy context in which ‘spectrum’ does real work and still means sex rather than identity or personality, state it. Otherwise you have agreed that the binary is the one that classifies bodies, and ‘spectrum’ is doing rhetorical work. So, is the only "context" you have in mind DSDs? If there are other contexts in which sex is not binary, please explain them. Two. Then how is sex a "spectrum?" Are you saying DSDs = third sex? We agree on the count: two sexes. As I see it, a binary with two sexes is not also a spectrum of sexes. Variation in height, hormones, or developmental disorders is variation within male and female. It does not add sexes and it does not smear the two into a continuum. So the earlier line — ‘biological sex is both a spectrum and binary’ — needs a translation. If ‘two’ is your answer, ‘spectrum’ cannot mean ‘more than two sexes’ or ‘sex is not male/female.’ If it only means ‘traits vary,’ say that. Traits varying is not a third sex and it is not a reason to treat a man who identifies as a woman as female To be consistent with your sources, Proposition 6 should read, "“Sex assigned at birth” describes the classification recorded at birth, ordinarily based on observable anatomy. The phrase does not inherently mean biological sex was arbitrary." I disagree that "assigned sex at birth" implies a bureaucratic label. Doctors classify newborn's sex according to their observations. The equivocation, it seems, extends beyond "gender" and "woman." Now we are equivocating about "assign." Doctors do not assign sex the way a clerk assigns a case number. They observe the reproductive category the child already is — almost always from external anatomy, which tracks the binary of male and female. That is a recording of a fact, not a conferral of a status. So if ‘sex assigned at birth’ is only a clumsy way to say ‘sex observed and recorded at birth,’ we agree, and the word ‘assigned’ is doing no honest work. We should say ‘sex’ or ‘sex recorded at birth.’ The reason the slogan exists is, I think, the stronger claim: that the classification is a label that can come apart from the body, so a later identity can override it. That is the implication I was asking about. If you reject that implication, you disagree with how the phrase is actually used in the debates over sports, medicine, and single-sex spaces — not merely with my wording of Proposition 6. To be consistent with your sources, proposition 7 should read, "People’s names and pronouns should generally be respected; intentional misgendering can cause distress." Misgendering is defined as using gendered words that don't refer to the person's gender. It depends upon why somebody does it. This folds back to equivocating about "gender." Your definition assumes the thing in dispute. If ‘gender’ means identity, then using sex-based pronouns is ‘misgendering’ by stipulation. If ‘gender’ here is just another word for sex, then calling a man ‘he’ is accurate, not a mistype. This is the utility of the equivocation. I am asking the second question: is using sex-based pronouns a wrong — ‘misgendering’ as a harm — or is it ordinary description of sex? ‘It depends why somebody does it’ already gives up Proposition 7 as I wrote it. A slur is a slur even if you were sloppy rather than cruel. If motive matters, then sex-based pronouns are not in that class. They are a disagreement about which fact the pronoun tracks. I can be polite about a requested name without conceding that ‘she’ is true of a male, and without treating ‘he’ as comparable to a slur. Your source for 8 neither says nor implies this. No, those terms are not hate speech or dogwhistles. Then we agree: ‘biological male,’ ‘biological female,’ and ‘natal sex’ are ordinary descriptive terms, not hate speech and not dogwhistles. Proposition 8 was about a common enforcement move — treating those phrases as if they were slurs so the sex distinction cannot be stated politely. You reject that move. That is good, or else you deny that it exists. Either way, there is a polite way to state the distinction: the person is male or female. To be consistent with your sources, Proposition 10 should read, "Some adolescents may appropriately receive gender-related treatment following clinical assessment; advocacy organizations oppose categorical bans." I believe that medical decisions should be made carefully with conscientious patients, parents (if the child is a minor), and healthcare providers. I asked whether withholding medical transition is violence. You described how you think decisions should be made. Those are different. A careful no from a clinician, a parent, or a legislature is not an assault. Calling that ‘violence’ is what Proposition 10 is about: turning a medical disagreement into a moral crime so gatekeeping looks like cruelty. Whether or not any given procedure is lifesaving depends upon the specific situation of the patient. I have no expertise in this; I am not a doctor. Please explain what sorts of "specific situation{s}" render medical transition "lifesaving." ‘Depends on the patient’ and ‘I am not a doctor’ do not tell me whether you accept the public claim: that blockers, hormones, and surgeries are lifesaving care as a class, so that delaying or refusing them is like withholding insulin or a liver or a blood transfusion. Some interventions are "lifesaving" because they stop an imminent bodily process that would kill the patient. In my view, transition is not that. It is elective modification of healthy sexed tissue, offered for distress. As I see it, "lifesaving" is often code for "A gender dysphoric person is threatening suicide unless he gets this procedure" or "Failure to give this person this medical transition procedure will cause him to kill himself." So it suicidal ideation the "specific situation" you are referencing? Or are there other situations? Suicide risk in this population is real. That does not make every requested surgery a life-saving procedure. I can't think of any other medical procedure that is characterized as "lifesaving" because withholding it will or may drive the patient to suicide. One of your sources in support of your claim that "Parental or clinical caution is cast as abuse or bigotry" is an article from Equality magazine that has in its bolded summary at the top: "Parents, young people and medical professionals – including mental health providers – make decisions together, and no medical interventions with permanent consequences happen until a transgender person is old enough to give truly informed consent. Gender-affirming care is not provided without heavy consideration and consultation with all involved parties." It is dishonest to construe this as implying "Parental or clinical caution is cast as abuse or bigorry." That said, my answer to your question is I don't know. I don’t know’ is, in my view, enough to reject Proposition 11 as policy. The proposition says minors can have a stable, knowable identity that justifies social and often medical transition. If you do not know that, you do not know enough to treat caution as abuse or to treat blockers and hormones as the default. Childhood and adolescent identity is plastic. Same-sex attraction, trauma, autism, and social contagion show up at high rates in this group. High levels of desistance is documented when medicalization is not rushed. That is why parental and clinical caution exists. You do not need to call anyone a bigot to say: we do not permanently medicalize a minor on an identity we cannot know is stable. One of the reasons this proposition exists is because it undermines the notion that "gender identity" is On the source: whether one magazine article used the word ‘bigotry’ is a separate fight from the question I asked you. You answered the question. You don’t know. I disagree that there needs to be hard-and-fast laws about such things either way. Over 200 organizations signed a statement about sports which I agree with. It says, "Sport is a space of empowerment, joy, community, and friendship,...Ensuring the health, safety, privacy, bodily autonomy and integrity of all women and girls in sports is crucial...We call for inclusive approaches that foreground the positive role that sports play in society and ensure that all people, regardless of their gender identity and sex characteristics, can participate in sports safely and equitably. We caution against implementing one-size-fits-all approaches like open categories that risk segregating trans, gender diverse and intersex athletes over case-by-case approaches that seek to balance fairness and inclusion." Likewise, I'm in favor of case-by-case decisions for prisons and shelters. Then you disagree with Proposition 13 as written. Single-sex spaces need not follow identity as a blanket rule. Good. Barring people with DSDs, I think the muddled middle of "yes for some males, no for others" is unworkable. ‘No hard-and-fast laws either way’ plus ‘case-by-case’ still needs a criterion. In sports the relevant facts are not individualized mysteries: male puberty produces a durable performance advantage. A case-by-case panel that cannot say ‘this athlete is male, therefore not in the female category’ is identity policy with extra meetings. In prisons and shelters the relevant facts are also not mysterious: male-pattern offending and female vulnerability. A case-by-case system that places a male in a women’s unit because he identifies as a woman has already chosen identity. A system that keeps him out of the women’s unit because he is male has chosen sex. The statement you quote wants safety, privacy, and bodily autonomy for women and girls and also participation ‘regardless of gender identity.’ Those collide when the participant is male. ‘Equitable’ does not tell us who yields. So the question is not whether you like flexibility. It is: when fairness or safety and identity conflict, which fact controls — sex or identity? If you will not say sex, case-by-case will resolve as identity whenever the male objects. It's discrimination by definition. Whether it is justified depends upon the specifics of the case. If ‘discrimination’ only means ‘drawing a distinction,’ then every single-sex rule is discrimination: women’s sports, women’s prisons, women’s changing rooms. That is not an argument. It is a synonym for ‘classification.’ In ordinary moral and legal use, ‘discrimination’ means an unjustified distinction — usually also an unlawful one. That is the sting in Proposition 13. Exclusion of males from female spaces is then supposed to be the same kind of wrong as excluding people from a restaurant because of race. I am asking about that sting. Is keeping males out of women’s sports, prisons, shelters, and bathrooms unjust or unlawful as such — or is it a justified sex classification? You already said justification depends on the case. Then it is not ‘discrimination’ in the condemnatory sense as a rule. It is sex discrimination in the thin sense, which we already knew: the category is sex. The question is whether that category is allowed to do its job. I'd have to hear the particulars to know. This is too abstract to mean anything to me without context. Then you disagree with Proposition 14 as a principle. Distinguishing a male who has had genital surgery from one who has not, or a social-only identification from a medical pathway, is not automatically bigotry. It depends on why the line is drawn. I acknowledge that there are people who harbor bigoted views of trans people. The challenge I see is that folks like you seem to characterize all people who disagree with the basic propositions of the trans movement (that sex is mutable, that sex is a "spectrum," that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, that "trans women are women," and so on). That is the whole point of the proposition: some advocates treat any internal line as betrayal and bigotry. You are saying you do not, and I am glad to hear it. Context can include prisons, sports, locker rooms, and medicine — places where the body, not the label, is the issue. If a distinction tracks a real fact, it is classification, not hatred. It depends on the situation. Asking "what is a woman" is often asked in bad faith to make intelligent and nuanced people look stupid to the target audience of people with simplistic world views. Does it "endanger" people? Maybe, but that seems like an exaggeration. But such questions generally aren't asked to increase understanding, tolerance, love, and mutual respect. We are making some progress. "What is a woman?" has become a controversial question. Imagine that. Imagine a movement that says audacious things like "trans women are women," and then attribute effrontery to anyone who asks "Okay, then what do you mean by 'woman?'" How is it that a movement about men becoming women can exist without being able to define its most basic terms? A request for a definition is not bad faith because the answer is simple. ‘What is a woman?’ is how you find out whether the speaker means adult human female or ‘whoever identifies as one.’ If that makes a ‘nuanced’ view look unstable, the instability is in the view. Bad faith would be refusing to use the answer, or asking only to humiliate. Asking because prisons, sports, medicine, and language depend on the answer is the opposite. You do not need the question to increase warmth. You need it to know what rule is being proposed. You already said people are not denied existence when someone denies they are women, that there are two sexes, and that ‘biological male’ is not a slur. Those answers are why the question is asked. If the definition is ‘adult human female,’ a male is not one. If the definition is identity, say that and own the consequences. Neither reply is too stupid to speak. I have no idea. I don't know what "sex-based rights" are. Sex-based rights are legal and social rules that use sex — male or female — as the criterion. Examples: Selective Service; women’s sports and scholarships; women’s prisons, shelters, and changing rooms; the right of a lesbian to date only females; medical and research categories by sex; the right to assemble or organize as women, meaning adult human females. Proposition 19 says that when those rules exclude males who identify as women, the exclusion is called bigotry. I am asking whether you agree with that accusation. Is a women’s category that is limited to females bigotry? If you need it narrower: is it bigotry for a women’s prison or a women’s race to categorically exclude males? Thanks, -Smac

For your consideration: Model Public Restroom Access Act Proposed state legislation Purpose of this draft. This model keeps sex-designated restrooms available and sets a default rule for people whose gender identity corresponds to their sex. It gives a person whose sincerely held gender identity differs from their sex an individual choice between the designated restrooms, guided by that person’s judgment about what is most appropriate in the circumstances. It also sets conduct-based rules for privacy and safety and limits intrusive inquiries. An Act Governing Access to Sex Designated Public Restrooms Be it enacted by the Legislature of this State: Section 1 Short title This Act may be cited as the “Public Restroom Access and Dignity Act.” Section 2 Purpose and scope (a) The purposes of this Act are to preserve the availability of sex-designated public restrooms; establish a clear ordinary rule for their use; permit a person whose sincerely held gender identity differs from the person’s sex to make an individualized choice; protect the privacy, dignity, and safety of every user; and address misconduct through rules that apply equally to all persons. (b) This Act applies to a public entity, public accommodation, school, employer, or other operator that provides a multiuser restroom designated for men or women to members of the public, customers, patients, students, employees, members, or invited guests. (c) This Act governs toilet rooms. It does not establish access rules for showers, locker rooms, changing rooms, sleeping quarters, shelters, correctional facilities, sports participation, or medical treatment. Those settings remain subject to other applicable law and may require separate rules suited to their use and privacy conditions. (d) Nothing in this Act requires an operator to remove a sex designation, construct a single-user or all-gender restroom, or provide a private restroom. An operator may provide a single-user restroom voluntarily, subject to Section 6. Section 3 Definitions As used in this Act: (1) “Sex” means the male or female classification assigned to a person at birth. This definition is used only to apply the ordinary access rule in Section 4 and does not authorize an operator to collect or demand a birth certificate or other record. (2) “Gender identity” means a person’s sincerely held internal sense of gender. It may correspond to or differ from the person’s sex and may be expressed as a man, a woman, both, neither, or another gender. Gender identity does not depend on a person’s appearance, clothing, name, pronouns, medical history, treatment, surgery, or identity documents. (3) “Gender-incongruent person” means a person whose sincerely held gender identity differs from the person’s sex, including a transgender or nonbinary person. (4) “Sex-designated restroom” means a multiuser toilet room identified for use by men or women. (5) “Operator” means a person or entity that owns, leases, manages, or controls a place covered by Section 2(b). (6) “Improper purpose” means knowingly and falsely claiming a gender identity different from one’s sex for the purpose of gaining access to a restroom to commit unlawful conduct, invade another person’s privacy, or harass, intimidate, threaten, or harm another person. Section 4 Access to sex designated restrooms (a) An operator may maintain separate restrooms designated for men and women and may post signs identifying them. (b) Except as provided in subsection (d), a person whose gender identity corresponds to the person’s sex shall use the restroom designated for that sex. A person’s preference or convenience, standing alone, does not make the person eligible to use the restroom designated for the other sex. (c) A gender-incongruent person may use either sex-designated restroom. The person shall choose, in good faith and according to the person’s sincere judgment, the restroom that is most appropriate in the individual circumstances. Relevant circumstances may include the person’s gender identity, privacy, dignity, comfort, safety, the facility’s design and occupancy, and the practical ability to use the restroom without confrontation. The operator shall not substitute its judgment for the individual’s solely because of the person’s sex, appearance, gender expression, medical history, or another user’s discomfort. (d) A person may use a restroom different from the one associated with the person’s sex when reasonably necessary to assist a child, dependent, or person with a disability; obtain necessary medical assistance; respond to an emergency; or use a restroom that is otherwise unavailable or inaccessible. This subsection creates a limited practical accommodation and does not expand the choice in subsection (c) to a person whose gender identity corresponds to the person’s sex. (e) A person may not claim eligibility under subsection (c) for an improper purpose. A person’s choice under subsection (c), when based on a bona fide gender identity that differs from the person’s sex, is authorized by law even if the person has not changed identity documents, undergone medical treatment, or adopted any particular appearance or manner of dress. (f) An operator shall not require a gender-incongruent person to use a single-user restroom, a separate facility, or a restroom designated for the person’s sex as a condition of access to the restroom selected under subsection (c). Section 5 Conduct and safety (a) Every person using a restroom shall respect the privacy and safety of others. This Act does not limit generally applicable laws against assault, voyeurism, stalking, harassment, threats, indecent exposure, recording or photographing another person in a private area, or other unlawful conduct. (b) A person may not enter or remain in a restroom to observe, follow, intimidate, threaten, expose themself to, photograph, record, or harass another person, or to commit another unlawful act. This prohibition applies regardless of the person’s sex or gender identity. (c) An operator may privately inquire, direct a person to use a restroom authorized by Section 4, or contact security or law enforcement when specific, articulable facts provide an objectively reasonable basis to believe that the person’s use is not authorized under Section 4, that the person is engaging in conduct prohibited by this section, or that the person is asserting a gender identity for an improper purpose. A report describing specific conduct may be considered. A person’s sex, transgender status, gender expression, appearance, voice, clothing, body, lack of medical transition, or another user’s discomfort, without more, is not a sufficient basis for intervention. (d) When an inquiry is warranted under subsection (c), an employee should, when practicable, speak privately and discreetly with the person. The inquiry must be limited to the specific facts giving rise to the concern. The employee may accept the person’s good-faith statement that the person is eligible under Section 4, absent specific facts indicating deliberate falsehood or misconduct; no document is required. An operator shall not detain a person or refer the person to law enforcement solely because of a restroom choice authorized by this Act. Section 6 Privacy and administration (a) An operator shall not require a person to show identification, medical records, a diagnosis, or proof of treatment or surgery to use a sex-designated restroom. An operator shall not inspect a person’s body or make access depend on a person’s name, pronouns, clothing, or appearance. (b) An operator that offers a private, single-user restroom or other privacy accommodation shall make it available on the same voluntary terms to users regardless of sex or gender identity. The operator shall not direct or pressure a person to use a separate facility because that person is transgender or gender nonconforming. (c) An operator may adopt neutral rules to protect privacy and safety, including rules against photography, loitering, harassment, or interference with another person’s use of the facility. The rules must apply equally to all users. (d) A person may make a good-faith report of specific conduct that raises a privacy or safety concern. The operator shall not treat the report alone, or another user’s discomfort with a person’s presence, as proof of misconduct or as a basis to deny access under Section 4(c). No person may harass, threaten, or intimidate another user because of that user’s sex, gender identity, restroom choice, or good-faith report. Section 7 Enforcement (a) The state agency responsible for enforcing public accommodation civil rights laws shall enforce this Act under the procedures and remedies available for those laws. The agency may issue rules or guidance consistent with this Act, including guidance for discreet, conduct-based responses to specific privacy or safety concerns. (b) A person aggrieved by a violation of this Act may file a complaint with the agency within 300 days after the alleged violation. The agency may investigate, seek conciliation, and order appropriate injunctive relief, restoration of access, compensatory damages, and other remedies authorized by state civil rights law. (c) A person aggrieved by a violation may bring a civil action within two years after the alleged violation. A court may award declaratory or injunctive relief, actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and any other relief authorized by law. Punitive damages may be awarded only upon proof of willful or malicious conduct and as permitted by law. (d) A person is not subject to arrest, detention, or a criminal fine solely for a good-faith restroom choice permitted by Section 4(c), a person’s appearance or perceived gender identity, or a refusal to produce identity or medical documents that this Act does not require. This subsection does not limit enforcement of a generally applicable law against independently unlawful conduct. Section 8 Construction (a) This Act does not require a person to disclose a gender identity to the public or to another restroom user. (b) This Act does not determine access to a facility or activity excluded by Section 2(c), and it does not displace a more protective right provided by federal, state, or local law. (c) If any provision or application of this Act is held invalid, the remaining provisions and applications shall remain in effect to the extent they can be given effect. Section 9 Effective date This Act takes effect 90 days after enactment. The state civil rights agency may issue implementing guidance before that date. Drafting note How the rule works. The default rule applies when a person’s sex and gender identity correspond: that person uses the corresponding sex-designated restroom. The individual choice applies only to a person with a bona fide, sincerely held gender identity that differs from the person’s sex. For example, a transgender man assigned female at birth may use the men’s room when he sincerely judges it most appropriate in the circumstances; he may also choose the women’s room if he sincerely judges that more appropriate. A cisgender person does not receive that choice merely by preferring the other room. Administration. The draft uses a sincerity standard without requiring medical or documentary proof. Operators may respond to specific conduct or objective facts, but may not police access based on appearance, sex stereotypes, or discomfort alone. This makes the eligibility rule narrower than unrestricted access while keeping ordinary enforcement private and conduct based. Relation to comparison laws. Massachusetts provides that users may access sex-segregated facilities consistent with sincerely held gender identity and its Attorney General’s guidance recommends presuming appropriate use, avoiding appearance-only challenges, and responding to misconduct under neutral rules. This model preserves those implementation safeguards but uses a different access rule: it sets a sex-and-gender-congruent default and gives a case-specific choice only to a person whose gender identity differs from sex. Canada’s federal human rights law and Argentina’s Gender Identity Law offer broader civil-rights language on gender identity in services and dignified treatment; neither is treated here as an identical restroom-access statute. Sources informing the draft • Massachusetts Acts of 2016 Chapter 134, Transgender Anti-Discrimination Act • Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4 Section 7, clause 59, definition of gender identity • Massachusetts Attorney General, Gender Identity Guidance for Public Accommodations, September 1, 2016 • Canadian Human Rights Act, sections 3 and 5 • Argentina Law 26.743, Gender Identity, articles 1, 2, and 12

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.

Since you seem to care so much about this, I'll go into deposition mode and answer your questions. However, the broader context is that as soon as you ask each question, the attorney that hired me will state an objection and would then tell me I could answer the question. In this whole thing, I'm just one piece on the chess board. The real argument happens between the two lawyers and the judge. If you asked these questions in a deposition, the lawyers that hired me would vigorously argue about how defective and biased the questions are, and about how they are based on a concocted view of transideology that is based on conflating their words with your definitions so that it means something other than what they intended, and that all of this is then extrapolated in the least charitable way imaginable, sometimes leading to accusations that "trans ideology" is the exact opposite of what your references actually say. But heck. For the record, I'll answer your questions, but I will also point out some of the defects in these alleged propositions. I believe that to be consistent with your source, proposition 1 should read, "Gender identity is an internal sense of gender that advocates say should generally be respected." I'm agnostic about whether it is innate. No, I don't think it is "authoritative." I believe a person is exactly who they are and what they are in all circumstances. They can be classified one way or the other using different systems, but they don't somehow change from being one thing to the other based on the circumstance. To be consistent with your source, Proposition 2 should read, "Major transgender-rights organizations affirm that transgender women are women and transgender men are men as gender classifications. That does not mean they claim chromosomes or anatomy have changed, or are irrelevant for every purpose." I don't really care about this. Arguing that somebody isn't really a woman is like arguing with somebody isn't really a child of God. But if somebody feels like a woman, I have no problem classifying them that way for general purposes. Using the definition that gender means how you see yourself on the inside, then a cis woman and a trans woman are both equally valid applications of that system. People are exactly who and what they are in all circumstances. To be consistent with your source, proposition 3 should say, "Self-identification is sufficient for recognition as transgender; medical treatment is not required for that identity to be valid." I generally agree that if somebody self-identifies as transgender, they really are. This doesn't cause them to be something that they aren't. To be consistent with your source, proposition 4 should say, "Deliberately invalidating someone’s gender identity or targeting them with misgendering can be stigmatizing and harmful. This does not make every disagreement about classification a denial that the person exists." No, if somebody invalidates somebody's gender identity maybe they are being an obstinate ***, but that doesn't mean they are denying anybody's existence. To be consistent with your source, Proposition 5 should read, "Sex-associated biology includes atypical and intersex variations, while gender identity is a distinct concept." Biological sex is both a spectrum and binary (embrace the healing power of and!). Both ways of looking at it are valid, depending upon the context. Two. To be consistent with your sources, Proposition 6 should read, "“Sex assigned at birth” describes the classification recorded at birth, ordinarily based on observable anatomy. The phrase does not inherently mean biological sex was arbitrary." I disagree that "assigned sex at birth" implies a bureaucratic label. Doctors classify newborn's sex according to their observations. To be consistent with your sources, proposition 7 should read, "People’s names and pronouns should generally be respected; intentional misgendering can cause distress." Misgendering is defined as using gendered words that don't refer to the person's gender. It depends upon why somebody does it. Your source for 8 neither says nor implies this. No, those terms are not hate speech or dogwhistles. To be consistent with your sources, Proposition 10 should read, "Some adolescents may appropriately receive gender-related treatment following clinical assessment; advocacy organizations oppose categorical bans." I believe that medical decisions should be made carefully with conscientious patients, parents (if the child is a minor), and healthcare providers. Whether or not any given procedure is lifesaving depends upon the specific situation of the patient. I have no expertise in this; I am not a doctor. One of your sources in support of your claim that "Parental or clinical caution is cast as abuse or bigotry" is an article from Equality magazine that has in its bolded summary at the top: "Parents, young people and medical professionals – including mental health providers – make decisions together, and no medical interventions with permanent consequences happen until a transgender person is old enough to give truly informed consent. Gender-affirming care is not provided without heavy consideration and consultation with all involved parties." It is dishonest to construe this as implying "Parental or clinical caution is cast as abuse or bigorry." That said, my answer to your question is I don't know. I disagree that there needs to be hard-and-fast laws about such things either way. Over 200 organizations signed a statement about sports which I agree with. It says, "Sport is a space of empowerment, joy, community, and friendship,...Ensuring the health, safety, privacy, bodily autonomy and integrity of all women and girls in sports is crucial...We call for inclusive approaches that foreground the positive role that sports play in society and ensure that all people, regardless of their gender identity and sex characteristics, can participate in sports safely and equitably. We caution against implementing one-size-fits-all approaches like open categories that risk segregating trans, gender diverse and intersex athletes over case-by-case approaches that seek to balance fairness and inclusion." Likewise, I'm in favor of case-by-case decisions for prisons and shelters. It's discrimination by definition. Whether it is justified depends upon the specifics of the case. I'd have to hear the particulars to know. This is too abstract to mean anything to me without context. It depends on the situation. Asking "what is a woman" is often asked in bad faith to make intelligent and nuanced people look stupid to the target audience of people with simplistic world views. Does it "endanger" people? Maybe, but that seems like an exaggeration. But such questions generally aren't asked to increase understanding, tolerance, love, and mutual respect. I have no idea. I don't know what "sex-based rights" are.

Oh boy, not us. Last week the Bishop stood up and whispered in the speakers ear and she was like. “ well I guess I’m done.” 🤣

Yes! She’s being fairly military about it. She’s sending out reminders the night before everybody and she hunted me down yesterday. I was talking to a ward member for five minutes after ss and then I went looking for the Teacher training class, she ran me down in the hall, hollering my name. And she talked about so-and-so while rolling her eyes who didn’t show up to the class.

I just asked my brother-in-law who’s a Bishop in Florida about it. He said “Yep. Just changed this month.” arrrrggghh

My Question: "{H}ow you would propose to differentiate which men can legally access women's bathrooms and which cannot{?}" Your Answer: "I don't think we need bathroom laws." Formulating public policy requires asking and answering difficult questions. You have a formulation, but you refuse to explain it or clarify it or defend it with any effort at particularity, candor or rigor. I can't compel you to answer questions. But this all comes across as very evasive and motte-and-bailey-esque. I find this very telling. If men want to enter into spaces segregated for women and girls, and others do not want them to, then sooner or later the State needs to decide how to address that. This is not rocket science or actuarial statistics. It is common sense. Airy wave-offs like "We don't need such laws" just come across as evasive. As motte-and-bailey. Okay. I'll see if I can break down my inquiries. Some are repeats, since I can't find wording formulate them in a more clinical way. I have noticed that you enjoy framing some of your responses as evidentiary objections used in court. Perhaps you could continue that line of thinking and pretend we are in a deposition. In the venue, evidentiary objections are generally reserved for further review by the judge (who is not present), so all questions are answered except questions which elicit an answer which may intrude into "privilege" (like attorney-client privilege) or else is objectionable as to form (compound questions, for example). I hope you'll humor me and just answer the questions as best you can. "Proposition 1: Gender identity is real, innate, and authoritative. A person’s stated identity is the primary fact about whether they are a man, woman, both, or neither." Question #1: Do you think that "gender identity" is "innate" (as in "existing in one from birth; inborn; native")? Question #2: Do you think that "gender identity" is "authoritative" (as in "having due authority; having the sanction or weight of authority")? For example, if a man "identifies" as a woman, are other people in society, and society itself, and society's laws, obligated to acquiesce to this "identity?" To treat this man as if he were a woman in every respect? Question #3: You have elsewhere differentiated between "gender identity" and biological sex. Is it your position that a man can be a woman in some circumstances but not others? For example, a man can be a woman for the purpose of participating in women's sports, but not for the purpose of getting screened for uterine cancer? "Proposition 2: Identity is sex (or replaces sex for social/legal purposes). “Trans women are women” / “trans men are men” is treated as a literal truth, not a courtesy or a political slogan." Question #4: Do you agree that "trans women are women?" Question #5: Would you characterize "trans women" and "cis women" as co-equal subcategories of "woman?" Question #6: Are there any circumstances in which a man who "identifies" as a "trans woman" is not a woman? If so, what are those circumstances? "Proposition 3: Self-identification is sufficient. No medical diagnosis, surgery, hormones, or even consistent presentation is required for the identity to be valid." Question #7: Do you agree or disagree that a man who "self-identifies" as a woman means he is a woman, regardless of "medical diagnosis, surgery, hormones, or even consistent presentation?" "Proposition 4: Denial of the identity is a denial of the person. Disagreeing with the identity claim is framed as saying the person 'doesn’t exist,' not as disputing a proposition." Question #8: Do you agree that if Person A denies that Person B, a man who "identifies" as a woman, actually is a woman, Person A is denying the "existence" of Person B? "Proposition 5: Sex is a spectrum, a social construct, or at least not a strict binary relevant to policy. Chromosomes, gametes, and reproductive anatomy are treated as crude, incomplete, or bigoted ways to classify people." Question #9: Is biological sex a "spectrum" or a "binary?" Question #10: How many sexes are there? "Proposition 6: 'Assigned sex at birth' is the preferred description of sex, implying a bureaucratic label rather than an observed reproductive category." Question #11: Do you agree or disagree that "assigned sex at birth" implies "a bureaucratic label rather than an observed reproductive category." Question #12: Do you think a doctor "assigns" a sex to a newborn or "observes" it? "Proposition 7: Preferred pronouns and names are morally mandatory. Using sex-based pronouns is 'misgendering'; using a prior name is 'deadnaming.' Both are treated as harms comparable to slurs." Question #13: Do you agree or disagree that using sex-based pronouns is "misgendering?" Question #14: Do you agree or disagree that using sex-based pronouns is "comparable to slurs?" "Proposition 8: There is no polite way to state the sex distinction. 'Biological male/female,' 'natal sex,' and similar terms are often classified as hate speech or dogwhistles." Question #15: Do you agree or disagree that using terms like "biological male" or "natal sex" are "hate speech or dogwhistles?" "Proposition 10: Medical transition (blockers, hormones, surgery) is healthcare, and withholding it is violence. Access is framed as lifesaving; gatekeeping is framed as cruelty." Question #16: Do you agree or disagree that withholding medical transition is "violence?" Question #17: Do you agree or disagree that medical transition is "lifesaving?" Please explain what is "lifesaving" about such procedures. "Proposition 11: Minors can have a stable, knowable transgender identity that justifies social and often medical transition. Parental or clinical caution is cast as abuse or bigotry." Question #18: Do you agree or disagree that "{m}inors {} have a stable, knowable transgender identity that justifies social and often medical transition?" "Proposition 13: Single-sex spaces, sports, prisons, and shelters must follow identity, not sex. Exclusion of males who identify as women is discrimination." Question #19: Do you agree or disagree that "Single-sex spaces, sports, prisons, and shelters must follow identity, not sex?" Question #20: Do you agree or disagree that excluding males "who identify as women" from these spaces is "discrimination?" "Proposition 14: Any line among 'trans women' is itself bigotry. Distinguishing social-only from medically transitioned, or pre-op from post-op, is 'transmedicalism' or 'dividing the community.'" Question #21: Do you agree or disagree that differentiating trans women in any way (medically-transitioned versus non-medically-transitioned, etc.) is "bigotry?" "Proposition 16: Questions are a form of harm. Asking for definitions ('what is a woman?'), evidence, or tradeoffs is treated as bad-faith or as endangering trans people." Question #22: Do you agree or disagree that "{a}sking for definitions ('what is a woman?')" is "bad-faith?" As "endangering trans people?" "Proposition 19: Conflicts with women’s rights and gay rights are denied or inverted. Sex-based rights are reframed as bigotry; same-sex attraction is pressured toward 'attraction to gender identity.'" Question #23: Do you agree or disagree that "sex-based rights" are "bigotry?" I'll go along with that. My list was also a synthesis, and not a "jointly adopted creed." Sounds grand, except that what "rights" are in view are left as undefined. And candidly, this looks like this vagueness is intentional. And that intentionality looks like part of a motte-and-bailey strategy. 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, vague. What does "gender diversity" mean? Is "transgender identity" congruent with reality? Is "transgender identity" immune from inquiry or critique or disagreement? Can I declare that I "identify" as the son of Elon Musk, and can I then summarily declare that this identity is not a mental illness? Again, vague. Again, motte-and-bailey. How is "gender identity" congruent with reality? Is "gender identity" predicated on equivocation (about "gender," which can be a synonym for biological sex or a broad reference to stereotypes and assumptions (girls like dolls and pink, boys like trucks and blue, women wear dresses, etc.)? If "gender identity" is not congruent with reality, why is society obligated to not only accommodate it, but to treat it as if it were congruent with reality? Wow. Special pleading on steroids. "If I, a biological male born in the early 70s, 'identify' as the son of Elon Musk, outsiders should not have general authority to decide whether that identity is legitimate." "If I, an adult human male, 'identify' as a dragon, outsiders should not have general authority to decide whether that identity is legitimate." "If I, an adult human male, 'identify' as a permanently six-year-old girl, outsiders should not have general authority to decide whether that identity is legitimate." "If I, an adult human male, 'identify' as a woman, outsiders should not have general authority to decide whether that identity is legitimate." I assume you disagree with items 1-3, but you accept 4. How do you differentiate 4 from 1-3? 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. 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." 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." Imagine if someone said "Much of the harm associated with being {anorexic} is produced by mistreatment and exclusion—and is therefore preventable." Would you go along with that? If not, why not? What if much of the "harm associated with being transgender" is inherent? See, e.g., here: Study: Adolescents Who Received Gender Reassignment Have Worse Mental Health But what about previous studies that gender ideologues often cite to justify puberty blockers and mastectomies for underage patients? They were inadequate to the task at hand: Gender reassignment interventions seem to have worsened many of the patients’ mental health: Here are the “clinical implications”: This study’s results are no surprise as they are consistent with other recent similar work. What should be a surprise — but, alas, isn’t — is much (not all) of the American medical establishment’s refusal to “follow the science” and choosing still to embrace gender ideology. Ditto, progressive lawmakers and officials who continue to propose and enforce laws essentially mandating so-called gender-affirming care. Is the study a legitimate basis for concern about how we approach gender dysphoria? Does this study give you pause at all in your advocacy for "trans" stuff? If not, why not? When people like me see studies like this, and when we then observe people like you, with your reflexive "Bigot!"-style responses and boy-that-sure-comes-across-as-a-motte-and-bailey-tactic axioms, it ought not surprise you to see us make assessments like this: "Huh, these guys seem really quite bereft of substantive evidence and reasoning as to their advocacy of this ideology. Their stated claims are, frankly, audacious in their claims, which reflect a fairly patent incongruence with reality and common sense ('trans women are women,' a man can 'become' a woman by 'identifying' as one,' etc.), and yet they act as if disputing or critiquing their basic presuppositions is a profound moral affront ('Bigot!'). It seems like they cannot defend their assertions on their merits, so they must resort to logical fallacies and insults." Anecdotally and provisionally and temporarily, perhaps. Sure would like to see the data. But supporting incongruent-with-reality notions may also create some real negative effects. Again, see the Finnish study. It seems like you guys never given these sorts of things due consideration, and you also attempt to shame others for doing so (boy, that "Bigot!" schtick sure has wide-ranging applications). 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." 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." Thanks, -Smac