All Activity

The episodes have no disclaimers in them. Nothing in the end either. So, he would have to put in quite a bit of work to insert the disclaimer as it is currently not there. And I don't know if that impacts result sorting. Does an edit to a video cause it to be considered a new video and loose all of its likes?

I actually can't see it either. It feels like Analytics position is that reasonable people will do reasonable things. Which means that "girl's bathrooms" are wide open to unreasonable people since they don't follow reason. And these unreasonable people couldn't be prosecuted by just going into the bathroom and doing things that are similar to what you do in a bathroom but for unreasonable reasons. The law, up until 2013 (this is the first time a law was passed that explicitly talked about bathrooms and trans and was in California), said that if a male (either transwoman or not) entered a bathroom and were told to leave by store owner/employee and the person did not, they could be prosecuted for trespassing. Now, in areas where it is acceptable for self-id, stores would not want to do that because they could be punished for discrimination. How is that not a "laissez faire" approach? If anyone can go into a bathroom per their own reasonableness, then anyone can go into a bathroom. Why have sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc at that point? Since there is no bright black and white boundaries, why would we keep saying there is with the sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc.

I've pretty much given up on you understanding this issue for what it really is. Drag queens do more than give performances in adult venues. It is not automatically sexualizing and grooming. It is about being ok with being different and not trying to fit into a little box that so many people like yourself try to force on anyone who is different than you. But I doubt me saying that will change your attacks even sightly.

Yes. Whether or not one believes that "drag" is inherently sexual, there have been some "Story Hours" that plainly were highly sexual: Library Apologizes For Hosting ‘Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey’ Kids Event Even when Drag Queen Story Hours are not overtly sexualized, they remain difficult to defend as healthy for small children. Young children are still forming basic categories about sex, adults, and social roles. Presenting them with adult performers in exaggerated, often hyper-feminine or boundary-blurring costumes and personas introduces confusion at an age when clarity is more useful than ambiguity. There is also the deeper question of purpose: why is this particular form of adult performance art being directed at toddlers and preschoolers in the first place? Reading books to children is good. Using the occasion to stage an adult entertainment style that plays with gender and sexuality—even theatrically—is a different matter. Children do not need that layer of complexity, and it is reasonable to question whether it serves their development or adult ideological preferences. See above. I didn’t say it was “grooming” in the typically criminal sense of preparing a child for sexual abuse (the "Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey" sure seemed to be going there). That’s a serious charge, and it’s not the claim I’m making. The concern is different. Drag, as a performance style, is rooted in adult nightlife and often involves exaggerated, sexualized, or boundary-blurring presentations of gender. When that same aesthetic is brought into a story hour for toddlers and preschoolers, it introduces adult themes and adult performance conventions into a setting meant for very young children. Parental presence doesn’t automatically make the content age-appropriate any more than it would if the performer were doing a burlesque-lite routine or a striptease while reading Goodnight Moon. Young children are still learning basic categories—male/female, adult/child, public/private. Staging an adult entertainment form that plays with those categories can confuse them. You can oppose that as developmentally inappropriate without accusing anyone of being a predator. The disagreement is about what belongs in front of small children, not about whether every participant has criminal intent. You are attributing a position to me that I have not taken. I have not said I am fine with adults taking children to nudist resorts. I’m not. The issue with Drag Queen Story Hours is not that every participant is a predator. It is that an adult performance style rooted in nightlife, exaggerated gender presentation, and often sexualized aesthetics is being staged for very young children. That is age-inappropriate. Again, young children are still forming basic categories about sex, adults, and social roles. Introducing them to that particular form of adult entertainment—even when a book is being read—adds confusion and adult themes that do not belong in a story hour for toddlers and preschoolers. Parental presence does not automatically make something appropriate. The same would be true of other adult performance styles. The question is whether this belongs in front of small children in the first place, not whether it meets the legal definition of grooming. You can oppose it as developmentally unsuitable without needing to prove criminal intent. Again, you are repeating a claim I haven’t made. I have not said nudist resorts are fine for children. I’m not okay with that either. The “why do you care” line is a distraction. People are allowed to object to what is put in front of young children without needing to prove a secret motive. The objection is straightforward: drag is an adult performance style that plays with gender and often draws on sexualized aesthetics. Staging it for toddlers and preschoolers in a library story hour introduces adult themes and boundary-blurring presentations to children who are still learning basic categories about sex and social roles. That is age-inappropriate. You can disagree with that judgment. But asking what is “really driving” the concern is an attempt to change the subject rather than address whether the activity belongs in front of small children in the first place. Thanks, -Smac

I had no reason to be confrontational or angry or whatever with anyone in my ward. It is 100% a problem with the church itself. No reason for me to be an *** on the way out the door and no reason to set boundaries unless someone was gonna start one of theirs bs we love and miss you campaigns. Missionaries did stop by a couple times but they always did that. It has been about a year since we have had them knocking. I just had to laugh yesterday when my wife got the personalized tithing settlement invite. Radio silence for over two years then this lol.

Given the number of people in my experience who don’t know the difference to begin with (contacting FAIR to complain about it, mentioning it here over the years), the disclaimer needs to be front and center, not just at the bottom of a page many don’t scroll down to see or at the end of a video that many won’t finish or visible only if one clicks “read more”. It needs to be both written and spoken in the beginning of each episode as many will just listen. I watch videos and podcasts all the time (when I do watch them) without reading any info on them and given I am someone who often reads the fine print at least once before signing, I bet there are lots of people who don’t read the extras, possibly a majority. Especially if one is required to click to expand the caption to see it, which iirc one does (I checked it last time this came up). If Dehlin is serious that he isn’t trying to mimic the Church, why wouldn’t he be willing to put a disclaimer that is most easily spotted? Does it cost him any different than putting it at the end unless people are actually confused? (Serious question, maybe there is something that is nonchurch related that is affected). He can do it once and get it edited in for each episode. Not a lot of work and it can’t be more expensive to add the clip to the beginning as the end, surely?

I think this is where the original discussions broke down. The Church asked for a disclaimer to be read at the beginning of every clip. Probably because if you just come across the video through youtube, instagram, etc, there is no disclaimer visible. Dehlin disagreed with that. This is what the Church wrote in the original complaint: Someone used the wayback machine and noticed that the disclaimer on the bottom of the pages was a recent change, so the initial mediation between the two groups did cause a disclaimer to be added, but it the Church doesn't think that is a good enough disclaimer.

"I don't see": This is very much a "you" problem. Sometimes life isn't kind enough to give us bright black and white boundaries without nuance. We just have to deal with it the best we can.

With your peachy disposition, this is very surprising ;). Our experience was the opposite. We left abruptly (from the outside at least). We communicated boundaries pretty firmly to close friends and ward leaders, but had several people reach out regardless (including a signed Book of Mormon!). Friendly but firm no's were required and now we don't get approached about church from anyone, though the missionaries top by a couple times a year (I doubt this frequency is above any non-members where we live in Kaysville, UT).

You have totally misrepresented Analytics position After 18 pages of discussion, it is pretty clear that you don't really want to understand what the problems are with this kind of unnecessary law other than gin up the right wing public. Even showing you photos of what transgenders actually look like and why forcing someone who has transitioned to a man would cause way more upset and uncertainty. I think 18 pages of you constantly going back to square one is enough for me as well.

I suppose if I never looked at my junk folder that would be a possibility, but since i do routinely review ( at least weekly)and purge both junk/spam id know very soon after a church email was sent to me as I would see it. Also, before we stopped going the two or three massages a week from the ward didn’t have any trouble finding my regular in box so yes…. They stopped sending us any correspondence. Except for one exception- tithing settlement. That’s no accident. when did they stop collecting tithing from people at tithing settlement? For the cash and check writers. Tithing settlement is designed to guilt people into paying. Lots of people don’t pay a full tithe, but if they still show up to settlement there’s a chance they will settle up. Ok.. tell me why he wants to see me now and has completely ignored me for 2.5 yrs.

Anybody else see the irony in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints arguing that a case involving Jack Daniels Properties, Inc. should control the Church's defense of its copyrights? You heard it here first, folks! You can't make this stuff up! "Thank you, Jackie D.'s!!!"

You keep going back to library Drag Queens. Can you explain how a child listening to a drag queen reading a story in a library with their parents there is in your mind grooming children? I honestly don't get why this is such an issue for you. How do you consider this grooming, but have no problem with adults taking their children to a nudist resort is perfectly ok with you. What the heck are drag queens in libraries doing to sexualize and groom children? If it is not hyperbole articles written by the right wing press, then what actually is driving your soapbox campaign?

ha ha ha ha ha ha

I'm an executive secretary myself, and a software developer by trade. I wouldn't put much weight on personalization as evidence of that anymore. Producing individualized emails from a membership list is trivially easy, particularly with the AI tools (freely) available today. Maybe your bishop really did single the two of you out for a personal invitation - I have no idea. But I don't think the fact that the email looked individually composed establishes that.

Or maybe you just didn't receive / see the email last year. These emails are typically sent out through LCR which doesn't always play nice with all email providers. And, even when it does go through, it will sometimes get flagged as spam. Everything that gets sent out via LCR goes directly to my junk folder. I gave up on caring about fixing it some time ago. Then you ought to know better, which is why I think it's in bad form to characterize the invitation as them contacting you because they "want money." If you've been a member for nearly sixty years, then you know perfectly well that Tithing Declaration isn't the bishop calling people in to collect a payment. Fair enough. I'm not sure it changes the underlying point though. Your bishop has a reason, independent of your donation history, to invite the members of his ward to Tithing Declaration. The fact that he or his secretary personally contacted you about it doesn't establish that the purpose was to solicit money from you.

Yea he sent 299 spam mails and one personalized to us. I know what a spammed bcc email looks like and this wasn’t unless the church got some technology that individually addresses the recipients by their first names and can do so with a bcc function. The guy that sent it… we know very well personally so it isnt like he was oblivious. im not annoyed i was contacted, im amused that the only reach out is for money.

Same guys

This is because the Church treats "paying tithing" as part of a member's covenant / religious obligations, rather than simply meaning "someone giving 10% of their income to the Church." So, while nonmembers are free to make contributions to the Church - even contributions that they feel religiously motivated to make, say, to the exact sum of 10% of their income - the Church, administratively, does not call that donation tithing. Advising you to categorize your contributions as Fast Offerings seems like good counsel, since it allows those funds to address the kinds of needs you likely intended them to serve - such as helping members of the local congregation who are in need.

It’s probably not that deep. Probably just a secretary doing his duty. He probably didn’t think twice about trying to get any money out of you (or once for that matter). He probably contacted 300 other people as well and then went home and had a sandwich. I mean, it’s an easy problem to solve. “ hey we were contacted for tithing settlement and we would prefer to be on a no contact list. We will not be coming in for tithing settlement.” Unless you do want to be able to be contacted, so you can test whether you are cared about and who wants your money.

Thanks for this. Clear and prominent are the keys. Undoubtedly, Dehlin’s attorneys know that. One would hope they have advised him of that, have drafted a disclaimer designed to be clear and prominent, and sought Dehlin’s approval to share it with the lawyers representing the Church in an effort to settle the matter (which might have been avoided had a well-crafted disclaimer been used from the start). On the flip side one would hope the Church has shared with Dehlin’s attorneys a draft of a disclaimer the Church deems acceptable, including both the wording of the disclaimer and the usage requirements to ensure it is adequately prominent.

Also, your AI buddy left you with an, um, interesting name on your lectern:

Makes me wonder if there’s either a new bishop or a new executive secretary.

The last time you said this about me, I corrected you and explained that is the opposite of my position. You did not "explain." You asserted, without explanation: That is the opposite of what I said. I said people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate. I see no legal daylight between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate." And you have not articulated any distinction between the two. Not only that, you have endorsed a laissez faire approach and denounced any legislated solution as "heavy-handed laws." I would be happy to listen to you differentiate, in a legal context, between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate." Or not. "Habit Ten" of Collis's book is that we can "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure." Not every conversation needs a winner or final resolution. We can be comfortable with ongoing dialogue and incremental progress. While we appear to not have changed each others minds, I have nevertheless valued listening to you explain, to some extent, your position. I hope you have a good day. Thanks, -Smac

You have endorsed a laissez faire approach, with no limiting principles. I don't see how that is anything but "arguing that girl's bathrooms should be wide open to anybody." I think it is interesting that you are claiming to adopt a "case-by-case" approach, but you really aren't. You don't want any limiting principle. Everyone can go into women's spaces, no exceptions. I, on the other hand, and willing to evaluate a legitimate "case-by-case" exception to the statutory framework (based on individuals with DSDs). I think I understand why you have spent many pages avoiding consideration of any limiting principle. I think as soon as you do, the jig is up. You want men - whether under the "trans women" or any other rubric ("people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate") - to be able to legally enter into women's spaces. Trans ideology does not allow folks like you to differentiate between different "kinds" of trans women. There is no differentiation because "a woman is someone who identifies as one." So it's all or nothing, and the "all" obliterates sex-segregated spaces, which you have also studiously avoided acknowledging. Some of the exceedingly small number of persons with DSDs, perhaps. Otherwise, women's bathrooms were created for women, not men. A very small exception to the rule should not swallow or negate the rule. In contrast, your approach would allow anyone to enter into women's spaces. Where I propose a rule with a narrow and clear contingent exception, what you propose is that there be no rule at all. The “minimum number of rules” principle is fine as a starting point. The disagreement is over what counts as necessary. Sex-based boundaries in bathrooms, locker rooms, and similar spaces existed for a long time precisely because of physical differences, privacy, and safety. Those were not novel or “heavy-handed” restrictions. They were the ordinary background rules. What changed is the push to replace sex with self-declared identity as the access criterion. That is not a minor adjustment. It removes the ability to maintain single-sex spaces whenever someone asserts an identity. Calling the defense of the prior rule “creating new heavy-handed laws” reverses what actually happened. It is not a strawman to describe self-ID policies accurately. When the rule becomes “anyone who identifies as a woman may enter,” the practical effect is that men can enter on their say-so. That is the policy that has been adopted or proposed in multiple jurisdictions. Pointing out the consequences of that standard is not inventing an extreme position. On the claim that the issue is mostly manufactured for television: policy changes, school guidelines, prison placements, shelter rules, and sports eligibility decisions have occurred across many places. Some high-profile provocations exist, and media incentives amplify conflict. That does not erase the underlying shift in rules or the cases in which female safety, privacy, or fairness have been affected. The existence of opportunistic coverage does not make the category problem disappear. The core question remains practical: should single-sex spaces be organized by sex or by identity? “Minimal rules” does not automatically answer that in favor of self-ID. It requires showing why the older boundary is no longer justified. That showing has not been made simply by asserting that any defense of sex-based rules is authoritarian or hysterical. Thanks, -Smac