All Activity

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." Thanks, -Smac

In our ward we have only been doing teacher training once a year, and I've heard nothing new yet. But my ward is full of really old people who have been together since the dawn of time. They struggle with adapting to new stuff and tend to slide back into 1990s era church if they can get away with it. We've been late out of sacrament meeting (like 10 minutes over) every sunday but one so far.

Do you think she would hunt you down if you went rogue and didn't go sometimes?

Do you really think that Paul's audience understood their Greek poets to be saying that all humans are literally Gods when they wrote, "we are his offspring"? Can you show that the Greek philosophers understood themselves to be "Gods"? I think your definition of "God" is hindered by your modern ontological definition. Jesus is the brother to all of us, the Bible says so (Hebrews 2:16-18) As stated above, I think your definition of "God" is hindered by your modern ontological definition. Have you considered the possibility that there are attributes of being called "God" that can be acquired? You said as much in the other folder. Attributes like perfect goodness, wisdom, power, or holiness? Are humans born with those attributes? And obviously it's more than being a human, since it is our spirits that come from God. Our bodies are from the dust of this earth and are created by our earthly parents. As for what Paul was teaching in Acts 17:28-29, how can your interpretation make any sense given what Paul was teaching his audience? Paul's core argument is this: "if humanity is God’s offspring, then the divine cannot be captured in images of gold, silver, or stone" (see Paul and Zeus, A Universalizing Thread in Acts). Paul was teaching them that we are all the same kind of being that God is. You said that Paul just meant we are created beings. How does your interpretation make any sense in that context?

I’m trying to just be chill about this whole thing.

primary is going Rogue and doing their own thing. Not sure when they’re doing it, but I understand they’re only doing it monthly.

"Whether you are a physicalist who believes that there is nothing to us other than the particles of the Core Theory, or someone who thinks that there is some crucial nonphysical component to a human being, everyone admits that the particles are part of who we are. If you want to say there is something else, you have to explain how that something else interacts with the particles." Carroll, Sean M. . The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 215). (Function). Kindle Edition. You agree with some of this, don't you? Do you agree that particles are at least part of who we are? If you think revelations/spirits interact with your body so that thoughts/impressions/feelings from the spirit somehow make it into your brain so that you can think about them, talk about them, and write about them, then there has to be some mechanism that causes the messages to make it from the immaterial (or "fine and pure" material, or however else you want to think of it), to the physical. If you believe "God" and "spirits" are out there in a different dimension and don't interact with us, then physics has nothing to say about it. But if you claim that they interact with physical reality, then you are claiming that "modern physics is profoundly wrong in a way that has so far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed." In principle anything could push around matter. The problem for your beliefs is that there is no evidence that anything is ever being pushed around in a way inconsistent with the Core Theory. You might quibble and say that there is some evidence--there is some evidence that Jesus walked on water or whatever. But if stuff like that happens, then "modern physics is profoundly wrong in a way that has so far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed." It's conceivable, but only in the same way that its conceivable that the toys come to life whenever we aren't looking. The tool kit is about thinking clearly, overcoming biases, and figuring out what the totality of the evidence implies about the nature of reality. Whether you have some pet beliefs that you want to shield from this level of scrutiny is up to you.

How are they doing it with the primary teachers?

We haven’t heard anything about this in our ward.

And I've been telling you that I don't think we need bathroom laws for the same general reason that we don't need laws about litter boxes in public schools. I've said over and over that if you prove to me there is a need for a law, we can discuss what that law should look like. But I remain unconvinced there is a need. I'm not going to design a law until you demonstrate a law is needed. Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. The general pattern of your "propositions" is to start with a deliberately provocative quote, interpret it in the most hostile way possible, and then replace the nuances with dogmatism. e.g. "Parental caution is abuse or bigotry." I asked ChatGPT to redline your proposed ideologies for accuracy and this is what it came up with. But even with the redlines I question the accuracy, because these are still the issues that you curated and don't necessarily represent what is important to them. I asked GPT 6 Pro to synthesis what transgender organizations actually want and what they actually believe. Here is what it came up with: For my part, I disagree with #14, presuming that the individual is the one choosing for themselves to pursue "conversion practices aimed at curing or suppressing their identities." If somebody wants to take the path for themselves, I think they should have that right. Otherwise, i pretty-much agree with all of this. I realize this is merely what they are advocating for and doesn't represent the underlying "load bearing principles" that drive these things. So, here is my list of the underlying load bearing principles: I generally agree with those, too.

No, but from a non-Christian view, it’s logical that literal offspring of a literal God are literally Gods. That would include Satan, also an offspring of God and brother to Jesus. If God really is an exalted human from another world, then his offspring are also human.

This appears to be permanent

How long will it take to teach teachers to adjust to the 25 minute schedule ?

And youth teachers /RS and Priesthood miss SS.

I believe the 3 year period just affects the type of relief available. Dehlin couldn't be forced to change the name from Mormon Stories as that name existed longer than 3 years. But they could get an injunction to never use the color blue or light rays. And they still could get an injunction to require a verbal disclaimer. So, comments from earlier than 3 years that shows confusion is probably still ok to be used. And any element that existed across the boundary (like the name) is still available to be included in the confusion calculation. And the rebranding could be used as evidence of intentional confusion. I believe Dehlin where he said he didn't intend confusion, but he didn't do the rebrand himself. He had hired some designers to do it and they might have intentionally mimic'ed the church's trade dress. And if that is found during the discovery phase, that would be treated as intentional confusion.

I am confused. Are you saying some teachers will miss teacher training? added: I think I get it. SS teacher training preempts RS for SS teachers once a month.

So you said the rebranding 3 years ago becomes the relevant material. So only comments by Dehlin or others after the rebranding matter? Why wouldn’t elements still present in the rebranding matter since the effect is likely cumulative?

If that is all he said about it, it’s accurate imo that he doesn’t state he thought it was put out by the Church. Doesn’t state he didn’t think that either. Its vague, therefore imo it’s not supportive of confusing with the Church website. Dehlin’s response seems to show he intended confusion even if not his primary motivation for the design, but exactly what type of confusion (church affiliation or faithfulness of the site could both be inferred from what little was said) does not appear to be specified by him either. Will be interesting to see what the judge says. From what you have posted, this specific evidence doesn’t seem very strong to me.

I thought more about this and I think that if the judge ignores this evidence (because of the lie, mischaracterization, etc) it weakens the church's arguments a bit. In their response to the motion to dismiss, they bring up intentional confusion in 2 places. The first is on whether this should be motion should be subject to Rogers. An intentional confusion is automatically not subject to Rogers and that would automatically fail the motion to dismiss. Since this is the church's only evidence at this stage (they say they have more but don't provide any), the judge would have to look at other factors on whether this should be subject to Rogers or not. I do think the church still has a pretty good argument even without intentional confusion. But it removes that automatic win. The second is on laches. This is where the church has a weak point. They waited 20 years to bring this up. Technically, Lanham Act infringement has no time window, but long waits usually are dismissed. But an intentional confusion bypasses that. So it wouldn't matter if it was 20 years or 100 years. Without this intentional confusion, the church's best argument is probably that Mormon Stories changed their branding 3 years ago and that is when they started to trigger confusion. But that means that everything before 3 years ago is no longer part of this lawsuit, including the name Mormon Stories. So the lawsuit would continue, but it would be a smaller lawsuit.

Changed in September, we meet during second hour. Since I teach GD I miss RS. It used to be quarterly, now according to “changes in the Sunday schedule” section of LDS.org, under “common questions, “ it indicates monthly teacher training. I mean you gotta dig to find it but apparently our new SS president did her digging and now here we are. And she stated today she is not gonna let this die. I just wondered if we are the only ones. I suspect it might even be a typo since it’s not updated accordingly in the handbook itself.

Thanks.. I have not read the ms response yet. You are right.. we will see

And this is the subtitles from what the person actually said on the podcast (so you don't have to actually listen to it):

The quote from the church's lawyer is the response to the motion to dismiss. And it says (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.71.0.pdf, page 2): Dehlin's lawyer noticed this and responded in their response to the response (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.73.0.pdf, page 1): And RFM made the video based on this information. So, it is already in the suit and we'll see what the judge thinks. I'm not sure that it will have much of an impact at this point since this is an attempt to show that the confusion was intentional (by quoting Dehlin's "admission") but intention is not a requirement for the likelihood of confusion.

See response to smac. You can listen to the three min clip yourself.