All Activity

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

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.