ttribe

They don't negate the binary because binary is the natural default. My point is that there are a number of studies on genetic variation that directly lead to trans occurrences; ranging from physical intersex to individuals with mismatched chromosomes relative to their presenting genitalia. As to why I used only unicorn, it's because it was the easy fantasy creature on your list. Do I really need to go through and address every one, or will you stop imagining subtext in my statements? BTW, based on your post, I'm pretty confident you had AI prepare at least half of what you said. I don't consider that good faith, counselor.

This - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ This - https://www.asrm.org/advocacy-and-policy/fact-sheets-and-one-pagers/just-the-facts-biological-sex/ This - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/ This - https://genetic.org/variations/ Please note - I am NOT saying that ALL instances of trans orientation are due to a genetic contributor. However, the science does indicate a strong possibility that at lease SOME instances are genetically influenced. And, yes, your comparison to unicorns is insulting to people dealing with this issue. Despite your efforts to appear dispassionate in your analyses, your lack of empathy betrays you time and again.

False equivalence fallacy. There are a number of identifiable genetic variations which can lead to trans occurrences. There is no such thing for any of items you presented as comparable. Despite your claim to being able to love trans people, this kind of rhetoric contradicts your claim.

I think your sentence is missing a word. I also think you have Dan's approach backwards. He uses his scholarly bona fides (which are significant) to bolster his social media presence.

I especially appreciated his inadvertent misspelling (we're vs. were).

Here's one of Jacob's latest fine, well thought out moments for you to consider:

1 - Yes, counsel always steps in. Didn't stop the initial action from happening though, obviously. 2 - An attorney withheld evidence then played gotcha games with me about it (the Judge slapped his wrist but didn't sanction him). Since I'd never seen it before, I'd say that was rather unethical. That same attorney then filed a motion in limine with fabrications regarding both my analysis and my testimony. What's worse, I had worked with that attorney a number of times prior to finding ourselves on opposite sides on this case and previously considered him a friend. This is but one example. 3 - No, I've never been deposed and then asked not to testify at trial. Nor has my testimony ever been excluded. I have prevailed in all motions in limine brought against me.

I have testified 81 times as an expert. Most of the attorneys behave professionally. There are numerous instances in which I have had to endure personal attacks. I have to take it while remaining calm and composed; and for the most part I have. I have been yelled at. I have been impugned both verbally and in motions in limine. I have been lied about and misrepresented on many, many occasions. Spare me the notion that ALL attorneys behave ethically; it simply is not the case.

You're overselling this. I've been on the receiving end of a significant amount of nastiness, unprofessional behavior, and lack of decorum in numerous depositions.

If you are going to simultaneously praise Jacob Hansen (as you've done elsewhere in this thread) for being thorough and well reasoned and criticize Dan for appealing to clicks, I suggest you need to look at more of Hansen's content, especially on Twitter/X. Hansen is orders of magnitude more guilty of the aforementioned "sins" than Dan, IMO.

One - I think NotaTBM is barking up the wrong tree. Based on my recollection (especially from the JSP and In Sacred Loneliness) I really don't think there's any question Joseph was sealed to Emma, but I do also recall it was after he had already been sealed to a number of other women. Two - Your question, as stated, looks a lot like the simple fallacious demand to prove a negative.

For all your complaining about logical fallacies, you should know better than to ask this question.

Benjamin Park puts out some interesting stuff; I'm not sure this is one of them.

I know what the focus of your posts has been. My opinion on the motive behind your posts remains unchanged.

Sure.

In case anyone was wondering, this whole thing is because it's personal for Spencer.

Are you a mind reader? Cool! What am I thinking, right now?

Given your past includes zealous support for Tim Ballard, setting yourself up as the right-divider of what constitutes "fraud" is a non-starter.

Still standing by this statement there, Theodore?

Where's Teddy? I thought he was Ballard's biggest fan.

These broad brush stroke comments about the "Ex- and Anti-Mormon crowd" are always so lovely to read. The OP brings up Strong's book, but rather than addressing what is actually in Strong's book, there is the same old discussion of how those of us have left having been "deceived" and "wayward" and not "staying faithful." For some reason there is no consideration for the Ex-LDS person who after spending decades living as a faithful member, really wanting it to be true, building a life around the principles taught as the Gospel, and who experiences the heartache of unfulfilled prayers, prophecies, and scriptural promises, combined with studying the un-sanitized accounts from Church history and simply concludes that it just isn't true. I desperately wanted it to be true. So much so that my brain went into dangerous places for my own safety under the fear that I was destroying eternity for an entire family. Being compared to a person of bad "soil" or to being a "tare" or being called a "covenant breaker" (not in this thread) after spending 40 years trying to do everything right as a member is not just insulting, it is just plain hurtful. If you want to learn something from Strong's book and from us as former members, how about you try learning that we are still pretty much the same people, that we didn't take this decision lightly, that it was a painful and terrifying experience, and that we are neither traitors nor enemies. Just as the stages of grief suggest, many of us may go through periods of anger and lashing out. Some may even become antagonistic. But the vast majority of just fade away and try our best to navigate family relationships, friendships, careers, and other daily concerns that are still impacted by the Church.

It's been more than 15 years. That's a chapter in my life I just don't feel like re-opening right now. You have the order of operations correct in my case about losing faith in anything divine and then leaning into secularization.

Secularization was the effect, not the cause, in my case. In the era in which I grew up, the Church was quite adept at pointing out the problems in other Christian faiths. Serving my mission in TN and KY only expanded my knowledge in that area. When I finally had to admit to myself that I could no longer accept the truth claims of the Church, it wasn't long before I realized I couldn't even truly accept the notion that there was any such thing as a "true" church and that it was actually likely there is no such thing as the Divine.

Lamb is running to represent the district where I live. Unfortunately, he has a pretty good chance of winning. I've watched my district's voting patterns over the past 21 years and I can only conclude that the majority of CD5 voters vote based on tribalism rather than principle. Lamb would hardly be the first person elected from this district despite credible accusations of wrong doing.

dO yOuR hOmEwOrK The standard retort of the YouTube "educated" culture warrior.