All Activity

The history of the "white" people involved in this is it is random, some are not LDS (to include the shooter in Michigan) and there is no pattern other than suspects being white. Kinda hard to do predictive policing and crime prevention when it is that random. No where to focus. Not to mention inthe Michigan one. the police killed the guy so story is over. In Utah we have a much different situation: 1- First shooting early '26 was at a funeral and involved the following factors: **LDS members ** Members of Tongan Crip Gang (TCG) ** Two dead and six injured. Evidence of multiple firearms at scene 2- Second shooting Aug '26 ** At a funeral for a TCG member who was killed during a probable robbery attempt ** TCG members attending funeral ** More people shot and killed at this funeral **Two more TCG members just got arrested a couple days ago for obstruction with this Aug 26 incident. Commonalities: Utah (Salt Lake area), Mormons, TCG members. They just so happen to be Tongan. +++++++++++THE TCG needs to get aggressively investigated and eradicated before it gets more out of control than it is now. If people think that is racist so be it. There are so many intersecting factors (one of which is tongans) that local law enforcement is absolutely whistling past the graveyard. If they are afraid of being tagged as racist... welll the chickens will be coming home to roost. In face they already are and I bet we have not seen the end of this.

Hi Calm Just tried to DM you, but wouldn't send. Couldn't find your email on FAIR.

And would you support exactly the same remedy for to support a trans-gendered student in the same situation? Disciple for disruption and targeting. No contact orders? Certainly. And for students bullied for any other bullied/harassed for any other reason. Normative rules about bullying may well be sufficient. No need to compel or or punish constitutionally protected speech. Thanks, -Smac

For most cases, it should be "ok" for a school to act on, even for trans. But it is NOT ok for schools or government to compel students to use transgender terminology. They have an inalienable right to disagree that men can bear children, nor to allow men in women's private spaces, etc. They have the right to observe biological birth sex. For schools or government to compel such is bigotry all its own. For you to demand such compliance is overly harsh. You really need to watch a lot more of Charlie Kirk's videos. He was very down to earth on so many topics.

Even when the trans person looks more masculine than most of the men in the men's bathroom. Well, I've been asking for quite a while that you or @Analytics or anyone else articulate a legally coherent and enforceable limiting principle whereby some men can legally go into women's bathrooms while other men cannot. So is it your position that women who (A) identify as "trans" and (B) look "more masculine than most of the men in the men's bathroom" ought to be able to use the men's bathroom? If so, can I also assume that your position holds for men? Namely, that men who (A) identify as "trans" and (B) look "more {feminine} than most of the {wo}men in the {wo}men's bathroom" ought to be able to use the men's bathroom? Would you agree to a law that allows the above but prohibits, say, men (including those who "identify" as women) who do not look "more {feminine} than most of the {wo}men in the {wo}men's bathroom"? Yet the only people that are affected by not being able to use the restroom they present themselves as are trans. That may not be your intent, but that is exactly the result of your ban. Respectfully, I disagree. I think women and girls are also affected by enforcement of sex-segregated spaces. Same with banning trans people. If a trans person grooms or abuses a minor, that person should be removed, reported and prosecuted. I am glad we agree on that. Where we do not agree, I think, is whether sex-segregated spaces should be maintained for reasons in addition to safety and privacy. I think a lot of women and girls do not want men in their bathrooms at all. And I think many jurisdictions, perhaps most, find this preference to be reasonable and justified. It is exactly the same. Banning people for possible crimes that might be committed apply to both cases. I don't think so. Sex-segregated spaces exist for more reasons than just preventing/mitigating crime. Yes, I think that sex-segregated spaces are, by definition, intended and designed to allow one sex in and exclude the other. Well, perhaps we are making headway. Whereas @Analytics has categorically refused to differentiate access to women's bathrooms based on "trans women" who sufficiently "pass" as women versus those who do not (and vice versa for "trans men"), you seem to be proposing precisely that. So in your view, men who do meet that criterion should be allowed to use women's bathrooms, but men who do not (including, I think, many - perhaps most - who "identify" as "trans women") should be excluded from women's bathrooms. Is that your proposal? I previously asked you to explain "what real trans people actually look like," and you did not respond. In any event, I am intrigued by what appears to be a proposal that differentiates male access to women's bathrooms based on whether the male sufficiently "passes" as a woman. If he does, he can go in; otherwise, he is legally excluded. Am I on track here? Okay. I'm not sure what this means relative to sex-segregated spaces, but I assume you are proposing that "all people must use the bathroom congruent with the sex listed on their driver's license or identity card." Am I correct here? Per this website, 22 states and D.C. allow residents to mark "X" on their driver's license. How would that work in your proposal? Also, per this website: Do these jurisdictions' requirements/prohibitions affect your proposal? I'm not quite sure I follow. You have made several references to "what real trans people actually look like," so I surmise that you intended to use this as a criterion - and apparently the only one - to differentiate between men who can and cannot enter women's bathrooms. Now you are adding - replacing the single one with - several additional criteria, namely, that the men seeking entry into women's bathrooms must (A) "transition" or be in the process (not sure what you mean by "transition" here); (B) do more than just socially transition, but also must medically transition and do so "under physician's care"; (C) receive, as part of their medical transitioning, "hormonal therapy for 12 months or longer." (D) have their doctor fill out a declaration that they are treating their patient who is in transition to their chosen sex ("sex," not gender?); (E) take the doctor's declaration to the DMV and obtain license/ identity card adjusted to now meet the sex (again, "sex," not "gender"?) they present themselves as (as noted above, many jurisdictions either disallow this or make it quite difficult). You don't quite finish the proposal, but I anticipate that you mean that men who complete steps (A) through (E) would then be legally allowed to go into women's bathrooms. But that all other men - including those who "identify" as women, but who have not completed Steps (A) through (E)), will be excluded from women's bathrooms. Is this a correct summary of your proposal? It also differentiates between "trans women," allowing those few who have the desire and means to complete (A) through (E) to go into women's bathrooms, but otherwise excluding any "trans women" who have not completed those steps. Well, that's worth discussing. I hope @Analytics, @SeekingUnderstanding, etc. will weigh in and state whether they agree or disagree with your proposal. Perhaps. While nobody should be "harassed," I think some women and girls will continue to object to men entering into women's spaces, including those who have completed Steps (A)-(E). Your proposal would also seem to drastically reduce the overall number of "trans women" who are legally authorized to use women's bathrooms. I am curious as to how "trans women" excluded in your policy feel about it. Cumulatively, you may well be right. Perhaps so. But again, your proposal seems to, in effect, exclude many - perhaps most - "trans women" from women's bathrooms, and requires those who want access to go through Steps (A)-(E). I feel I have been reasoned in my comments. I will try to do better. Does your solution work "better for everyone"? I'm not even sure the small handful of people in this thread agree with you. I think I have the proposal right: bathroom access would turn on a checklist — some form of “transition,” medical transition under a physician’s care, at least 12 months of hormones, a doctor’s declaration, and a DMV-issued ID listing the opposite sex. Males who complete that list could use women’s facilities; males who only “identify” as women could not. If that’s the idea, it has several problems that are practical, not theological. 1. It is hard to administer in the place that matters. A locker-room attendant, school official, or store employee cannot verify a 12-month hormone protocol or a physician declaration at the door. The only check that actually works in real time is the ID. That means the rule is only as strong as the DMV process — and DMV sex-marker rules already vary widely by state, are often based on self-report or a thin letter, and are not designed as a bathroom-access credential. You would be outsourcing a safety rule to motor-vehicle clerks. 2. “Under physician’s care” and “hormonal therapy for 12 months” are not bright lines. Which physician? Any willing prescriber, including an informed-consent clinic? What dose, what blood levels, what monitoring? What about people who stop hormones, cycle them, or obtain them outside a licensed physician? A rule that depends on medical details will be litigated immediately as vague, discriminatory, or impossible to enforce without medical-record access that businesses do not have. 3. The ID step assumes a fact the law often will not give you. Many jurisdictions will not change the sex marker, or will do so only on terms that do not match your checklist. So the same person would be “allowed” in one state and “excluded” in the next, based on DMV policy rather than any consistent standard about who is in the room. 4. It still lets intact males into female spaces. Twelve months of cross-sex hormones does not remove male genitalia, male bone structure, or male patterns of strength and sexual offense. If the concern is voyeurism, assault, or female privacy, a hormone-and-paperwork screen does not address the underlying sex difference. It only relocates the line from “male” to “male with a letter and an ID.” 5. Large parts of the activist framework will reject the line you are drawing. A rule that distinguishes “trans women who have medically transitioned” from “trans women who have only socially transitioned” (or not "transitioned" in any externally visible/obvious way at all) is, in that framework, itself the offense. The governing claim is that identity alone is determinative. Any gatekeeping requirement — hormones, surgery, a doctor’s form, a waiting period — is treated as “denying womanhood” to people who identify as women but do not, through choice or circumstance, meet such requirements. You should expect the proposal to be attacked from that side as insufficiently affirming, not as a compromise they will help implement. So I don’t think this is a stable middle ground. It is logistically weak where enforcement has to happen, medically fuzzy, geographically inconsistent, and politically unacceptable to the people who insist there can be no distinction among men who identify as women. On the other hand, if the goal is to maintain single-sex spaces, the workable criterion is biological sex. If the goal is something else — a third-space model, or facilities based on anatomy — that should be stated directly rather than routed through a 12-month hormone-and-DMV proxy. Thanks, -Smac

The murder rate with black on black is wildly disproportionate. Is this a race problem? No. Does it have something to do with the glaring absence of fathers from the home? The statistics is overwhelming. What brought this about? Government welfare policies for forcing fathers OUT of the home. Also, government abysmal policies with inner-cities public schools. There are plenty of problems among "white" ethnicities. White trash, appalling lack of gratitude, hedonism, etc. Generally, human nature.

I'm glad you think white people are a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed much more, given the number of examples and how long it's been a problem. Hopefully the church starts providing security where white people attend, given that they've been the source of violence at meetinghouses for far longer than these recent instances with Tongans. Maybe we can add metal detectors to chapels, and search bags and cars of white people trying to gain access to meetinghouses. Make them show ID, and current tithing settlement statement to confirm they aren't typical white people just there to cause trouble. What's the deal with white people, anyway? Hopefully the police can focus on the white people and this white on white violence.

My dad’s time in the bishopric was a little later than your dad’s experience (i.e., late ’80s and throughout the ’90s), so that may account for some of the difference. I don't really agree with the characterization that the Church has been “dishonest” about its history, but that may partly be a consequence of our different experiences as well. I grew up LDS in the Bible Belt, so I was exposed to anti-Mormon literature and arguments against the Church from a fairly young age. That caused me to seek out information about Church history and controversial issues more than the average member did at the time. As a result, a lot of the things that people today describe as shocking discoveries simply weren't discoveries for me. That's not to say I think the Church has always done a particularly good job of making all of that information accessible to the average member. It clearly hasn't. I think the Church has improved considerably in that regard over the years, particularly with things like the Joseph Smith Papers, the Gospel Topics Essays, Saints, and the amount of historical material now available through the Church's own websites. So I'm perfectly comfortable with the criticism that the Church used to present some parts of its history in a simplified, correlated, or less-than-comprehensive way, and that it could have done a better job making some of the messier parts more accessible. I just don't think that is synonymous with being “dishonest” about its history. Perhaps because I encountered many of these issues earlier than most, I don't experience the Church's increased transparency today as an admission that the previous story was a lie. I just see it more as the Church becoming much better at making the fuller and more complicated history readily available to ordinary members.

And would you support exactly the same remedy for to support a trans-gendered student in the same situation? Disciple for disruption and targeting. No contact orders?

I usually just sit on my phone for the Captia exercise. Butt dialing the answers seems to be quite effective.

In related news, a Texas judge just struck down a law banning anyone under 18 from attending drag shows.

If that is something that matters to you, assume as you will. It's your hypothetical, and it's about a legal issue, so I'd rather have clarity than assumptions. These individuals claim to deeply believe Patricia is a boy. Such a claim seems quite implausible. Unlikely. Pretextual. Bad faith, even. But again, it's your hypothetical. On what basis do these individuals "claim to deeply believe Patricia is a boy?" Moreover, what are your thoughts about your hypothetical's application to a situation where Student A calls Student B a boy not because Student A "deeply believe{s}" Student B is a boy, but rather because Student B actually is a boy? Student A's position is based on biological fact and reality (quite unlike the position of those individuals in your hypothetical). If Student A does not subscribe to ideologically-driven equivocations and re-definitions of basic words like "man" and "woman" and "boy" and "girl" (so as to include, for example, men who "identify" as women within the ambit of the definition of "woman"), is it your position that the school - an extension of the State - ought to have the legal authority to compel Student A to adopt semantic presuppositions that they do not want to adopt, and/or that it can punish them for refusing to do so? Again: Grades dropping, cutting class, and self-harm are reasons for the school to act on that conduct toward her: no-contact orders, schedule changes, discipline for repeated disruption and targeting, and getting her real help. None of that requires a campus speech code about “gender identity” which seeks to compel and/or punish students' speech. I doubt it. I am not persuaded that the Tinker test allows schools - agents of the State - to compel speech. I hope we all get nervous when we start hoping that the State does have this power. Thanks, -Smac

Even when the trans person looks more masculine than most of the men in the men's bathroom. Yeah that is going to make women believe there are men in their restroom. And you think that is preferred over using the restroom that matches how you present yourself. It won't. Yet the only people that are affected by not being able to use the restroom they present themselves as are trans. That may not be your intent, but that is exactly the result of your ban. Same with banning trans people. If a trans person grooms or abuses a minor, that person should be removed, reported and prosecuted. It is exactly the same. Banning people for possible crimes that might be committed apply to both cases. Of course. I totally agree. All crimes committed by anyone should be reported. Who doesn't agree with that? You keep narrowing down this issue to a black and white males in mens room, females in women's restrooms. But as has been shown numerous times, how a person looks makes a huge difference in how people perceive them. I know you like to not move one inch on this subject, but perhaps you would consider the following, keeping in mind what real trans people actually look like. So here is my proposal. All people must. used the sex listed on their drivers license or identity card. A person who is transitioning must be under physicians care and received hormonal therapy for 12 months or longer. If they have done that, their doctor must fill out a declaration that they are treating their patient who is in transition to their chosen sex. That document can be taken to the DMV and their license/ identity card adjusted to now meet the sex they present themselves as. This does a few very important things. It eliminates the crazy guy who just declares himself to be a woman in order to cruz in the women's restroom. It also allows those transitioning to not get harassed in the women's room for being in the wrong restroom. And women feel safer because they are assured that the person using the woman's bathroom is more interested in being a woman than just there to harass them. In many cases, women may not even realize someone is trans that is using the restroom, unlike current solution that forces masculine people into protected women's spaces. Can you just think about this before reverting to your diatribe that you seem to feel you need to repeat over and over again? Let's find a real solution that actually works better for everyone.

Not sure to what "nope" here is referring. I have never suggested any such thing, and unequivocally denounce and deny and reject it. Under the Tinker test, likely so. I have never said anything like this. I have never said that my political and religious beliefs justify mistreatment of anyone. I dispute that "discrimination" = using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns (generally). I dispute that "discrimination" = using a person's legal name. I have regularly spoken against any mistreatment of anyone in the LGBT community. All of us are entitled to basic and presumptive notions of civility and kindness. My perspective on this issue is borne of reasoned analysis. Not bigotry or hate or fear. I think efforts by some in the trans community to use the power of the State to compel and/or punish speech is one of the faster ways for it to lose legitimacy and respect in society. I also think that ongoing and pervasive efforts by some in the trans community to use indiscriminate and unreasoned accusations of "bigotry" to silence other viewpoints is likewise a good way for it to lose legitimacy and respect in society. It comes across as desperate and emotional. In the absence of reasoning and evidence, go with hyperbolic ad hominem. And then do it again. And again. Until the accusation is so watered down and trivializing that it loses potency. Nonetheless, I have appreciated your input here. Irrational and unjust accusations aside, you have been willing to have some substantive discussion about a very difficult topic. While we have not changed each other's minds, perhaps we have helped each other further explore our respective positions in ways we would otherwise not have explored. Thanks, -Smac

Nope. So far, we've demonstrated that you think targeted sex based harassment against a student Is ok for a school to act on. Targeted religious harassment against a student is something that its ok for a school to act on. Targeted racial harassment against a student is ok for a school to act on. But targeted trans-gender harassment against a student is not ok for a school to act on because it goes against your strongly held political and religious beliefs. That is textbook bigotry in my book. edited for clarity

Agreed-glad they got them

If that is something that matters to you, assume as you will. These individuals claim to deeply believe Patricia is a boy. So curtail the bullies speech, correct? Disrupt the bullies course schedule? Would it be ok to compel them to use the appropriate name and pronouns if they choose to address your daughter?

You've moved the goalpost from Are other gods are mere idols? to Are these clearly non-idol gods truly gods? Define what true deities are. Presupposing if multiple real gods did exist, what would be the attributes of hypothetically speaking other true deities? Unless your only definition is philosophically that there can only be one, then you are shifting the meaning of a god away from what the Bible means by a god. You admit Baal is not a mere idol. Is Baal not a genuine supernatural entity that truly exists, with true spiritual power, with true territorial authority, that the Bible is truthful when it calls him a deity, that heaven truly is populated by a hierarchy of non-human entities such as him, and so is among the doomed in Psalms 82?

This is getting weird. Legal analysis sometimes requires scrutiny of things that persons new to it find discomfiting. Nevertheless, what "misgender" means has, I think, some substantial legal import in this context. I think it's been pretty clear that I do not subscribe to recent trends in trans ideology. So when I reference my daughter, I think you can safely assume she is a girl, a biological female. And Patricia is unequivocally female. She does not have a DSD. She acknowledges that she is a girl (she does not "identify" as a boy). Am I on track here? Got it. These hypothetical students are doing this not because there is a plausible basis for viewing Patricia as a boy, and not because Patricia is claiming to be a boy, but rather simply to tease/bully here. Am I on track here? And these students have no legitimate basis for stating that "a male has just exited the women's bathroom" because Patricia is biologically female. Am I on track here as well? So we're back to "misgender." By "misgender your daughter" you mean they are using biologically/linguistically incorrect pronouns (he/him) to reference Patricia, correct? By "misgender your daughter" you do not mean they are using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns (she/her) to reference Patricia, correct? That would be very troubling. The Patricia hypothetical is ugly, and a school should be allowed to stop it. I think it is not the same case as a student demanding biologically false pronouns. Patricia is a girl. “Patrick,” plus hallway announcements that “a male just left the women’s bathroom,” is not a disagreement about metaphysics. It is a targeted campaign to humiliate one identified student with a false name and a false sex. That is ordinary sex-based harassment. Grades dropping, cutting class, and self-harm are reasons for the school to act on that conduct toward her: no-contact orders, schedule changes, discipline for repeated disruption and targeting, and getting her real help. None of that requires a campus speech code about “gender identity.” And it really does not require the school - an extension of the State - to compel students to speak words they do not want to speak. In contrast, a boy who "identifies" as a girl is asking classmates to treat a male as if were a female. That is an ideological request. Refusing that request is a statement about sex. It is not inventing a mock name for a girl and hunting her at the bathroom door. One is ridicule of a known person with facts inverted to wound her. The other is declining to affirm a contested and biologically incoherent claim. Lumping them together is how “don’t torment Patricia” becomes “you must say she/her about a male.” So, what a public school should be allowed to do in Patricia’s case: Stop repeated, directed ridicule of a particular student. Tinker already covers speech that materially disrupts school or invades another student’s rights. A pack following one girl and announcing her as a man in the hall is that. Keep sex-separated spaces. The cruelty in the hypo depends on the students lying about her sex. The fix need not be “gender identity” rules, but can rather be enforcing that girls’ facilities are for girls and that classmates may not run a public ritual of humiliation. Address the self-harm as a safety and clinical problem with her parents. This does not require the school to adopt one side of the sex/gender debate as official truth. The foregoing approach does not encroach on the First Amendment, and would likely be just as effective, if not more so, than an approach which does encroach on the First Amendment. What the school should not be allowed to do, in either case: Treat every use of sex-based language as “bullying” because someone is distressed. Compel other students to use words they believe are false. Collapse “don’t single out Patricia for a false name” into “you must use preferred pronouns.” If the only tool you have is “'misgendering' is harassment,” you cannot tell these situations apart. If you can tell them apart, you do not need that tool. Protect Patricia from a targeted lie about her. Do not conscript the rest of the school into a pronoun rule that would have the school - the State - punish a student for saying a boy is a boy. Thanks, -Smac

This presupposes that Student A has, or should have, a legal obligation to "avoid using any undesired name" ("undesired" by Student B). Can Student A also be punished for calling Student B "Andy" instead of "Andrew" if Student B dislikes the former? Looks like we're both on board with a "case-by-case" approach. We may differ as to how many of those cases will pass the Tinker test. I am not suggesting otherwise. Rather, I am evaluating what schools can do about it while remaining within constitutional parameters. Wife beating did not involve potential and/or actual infringements on First Amendment protections. What we are discussing here does involve that. Thanks, -Smac

Feel free to ask me privately if you want to discuss specific details and it feels awkward here (especially if there are foods that cause issues for you). I am not an expert, but I know where to find some of them. And given my low energy level, picked up lots of tricks for making it easier.

Not sure this is what you are looking for: https://gregkofford.com/products/exploring-mormon-thought-1?

This is getting weird. I have no access to your hypothetical daughter's gametes (which I believe is how you define both sex and gender) nor do I want it. Let me try again. Let's pretend you have a daughter named Patricia. Patricia has always struggled with body issues because she doesn't feel as attractive as her sister or mother. At school there are a few individuals that claim to believe that Patricia is actually a boy. These students refuse to use your daughter's name. Instead they call her Patrick. When Patricia exits the women's bathroom and these individuals are nearby, they loudly point out that a male has just exited the women's bathroom and "What is the world coming to when we allow men into women's spaces". These bullies (my term, but feel free to disagree) loudly misgender your daughter in class and in the hallways. These students never overtly threaten your daughter. Your daughters grades are dropping. You found out she is cutting classes she shares with these students. She's starting to cut herself and express suicidal thoughts. What if anything *should* the public school be allowed to do to address this situation.

I think a lot of adults are oblivious to how much “teasing” is actually bullying and is cruel, even if unintentional. And if it’s persistent, I have major doubts about it not being intentionally cruel because there are ways to avoid using any undesired name if one wants to. Along with being oblivious to what can be bullying, many adults are oblivious to how much that can affect the quality of life for our kids. My daughter had a very smart, very cruel young lady in her elementary classes who was very good at tormenting while not breaking any obvious rules. I don’t believe high schools and younger should be restricted to set in stone rules and instead should operate more on a case by case basis so these kinds of tyrants don’t have free rein to play their power games. My daughter was never a threat, but I was definitely worried she would be a target because she was best friends with the popular girl that the queen bee wanted to own. Thankfully my daughter’s friend protected her. I had tutored her after school when they first immigrated, they would play a lot, so my daughter was her first and enduring Canadian friend (even if she was technically American having spent her first month in the US). I also had a good relationship with her. She was wonderful herself, but also dominated by the tyrant to a great extent because their families were close having immigrated at the same time and were involved in the same communities outside of school. It made it impossible for her to threaten to distance herself from the tyrant in order to dampen the power games, which was pretty much the only thing that worked. Just because ‘teasing’ kids by kids has been happening for ages doesn’t mean it’s healthy or not a big deal. Wife beating happened for ages, we finally grew up enough to realize it wasn’t a man’s right or duty to ‘discipline’ his wife. Once we put in enough effort to really determine how much kids are affected by such treatment when young, we will be horrified at the damage that was allowed. And thinking it’s better that they get exposed to cruelty in their youth so they will toughen up and be ready for the real world doesn’t understand that the more confident kids are the ones that feel secure and relaxed, not the ones that act tough because that’s how they protect themselves.