smac97

There is no question (in my mind, at least) that some usages of spiritual authority can be intrinsically oppressive. And I would expand that to some usages of any kind of authority can be intrinsically oppressive. Could you elaborate on the "intrinsically" part? I agree that "spiritual authority" can be used to "oppress" someone, but the same can be said of any type of authority. As soon as we acknowledge that, as soon as we differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate uses of authority, then the "intrinsically" goes awy. Could you elaborate? If Person A denies that Person B has or can exercise "spiritual authority" over him (Person A), whom has Person A oppressed/abused? How did this oppression/abuse come to exist? I agree. But as soon as we parse out "some usages" of spiritual authority, we cannot say that spiritual authority is "intrinsically" oppressive/abusive. Some kinds are, some are not. Thanks, -Smac

Out of curiosity, I submitted your proposal (the above wording, verbatim), with the following prompt: "Here is a proposal about a solution to men (that is, 'trans women') having the legal right to enter into women's bathrooms, submitted on an online message board (about Mormonism) by a participant who identifies as gay and as a strong ally of the transgender community. What do you think the response would be from the 'transgender community' in general, and its advocacy groups in particular (HRC, GLAAD, GLSEN, etc.)?" Here is the response: Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac

Enforced by whom? For starters: trans advocacy groups. Individuals (such as we've seen in this thread). Again, here's the basic list of presuppositions: If I were to present these to @SeekingUnderstanding as a set of principles, would he agree that they exist and are broadly accepted in the "transgender community?" I think he would. If I were to use reasoning and evidence and analysis, largely free of emotionalisms, logical fallacies, personalized invectives, etc., to critique and disagree with some of these principles (which is what I have been trying to do in this thread and in others), would @SeekingUnderstanding sooner or later repeat his frequently-repeated accusation that I am a "bigot?" I think he would. Moreover, I think he would do it not because he reports to "the community" or received specific marching orders from anyone, but rather because "allies" are expected to do "ally" sorts of things, which includes silencing opposing viewpoints. There is no specific "Manifesto" about what trans "allies" must believe, so it's possible that such "allies" might actually depart from one or more of the foregoing presuppositions, as @california boy has done in this thread by advancing a proposal re: bathrooms that explicitly and necessarily differentiates between "trans women" who ought to be able to go into women's bathrooms, while agreeing that the remaining "trans women" can be legally excluded from women's bathrooms. And SU has endorsed this proposal, and so is fully on board with this differentiation. I find this quite interesting. In reviewing CB's proposal, a quote from Animal House came to mind, namely, when the Seven Commandments are abridged to just one phrase: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Now here we have CB and SU, advancing a proposal that privileges some "trans women" over others. I would be really interested in hearing them present this proposal on a "pro trans" message board. I think we'd see something like this: "Your proposal differentiates between trans women, and so is essentially 'All trans women are equal, but some trans women are more equal than others.' Oh, and you're a bigot." And frankly, I think that critique - from other "trans allies" applying the foregoing ideological presuppositions - would be fair. Would CB and SU then be derided by their fellow "allies" as "bigots" for advancing this proposal? I suspect so. Meanwhile, my philosophical and presuppositional position doesn't need to navigate through the minefield of "trans" ideology (that is, its flawed presuppositions as noted above and itemized in further detail below). Instead, I agree with some presuppositions about trans folks (such as that they are deserving of presumptive measures of respect and civility), but I am otherwise free to critique the foregoing presuppositions, hopefully by using evidence and reasoned discourse, and by avoiding logical fallacies and emotionalisms. I'll get called a "bigot" anyway, but the baseless accusation has long lost whatever potency it had to begin with. And the "Bigot!" response will only further inform and validate my sense of things, because if ad hominem distractions are the best that well-informed and intelligent "allies" like SU can do, then reasoned discourse is effectively over. Here's an interesting thought experiment: Would CB and SU be willing to have their proposal published, perhaps as a "Letter to the Editor" or other form, in a recognized "trans advocacy" organization media outlet, such as GLAAD, HRC or GLSEN? And would they be willing to publish this proposal under their IRL names? And would GLAAD and these other groups be willing to publish such a proposal? Anyway, here are some quotes of advocacy groups referencing the above presuppositions: These advocacy groups lay out the ideological presuppositions, and self-identified "allies" go around enforcing them by, inter alia, vilifying people who do not agree with those presuppositions (hasty and unsubstantiated leaps into "Bigot!" accusations are a good example of this). Well, that's an interesting point. On the one hand, we are told that there is such a thing as "the transgender community." But if and when we try to define this "community" or identify its attributes or otherwise quantify it and its ideology, then apparently there is no "community," in that there are no commonly-understood-and-accepted ideological principles. Advocacy has institutions. HRC, GLAAD, A4TE/NCTE, Transgender Law Center, Stonewall, WPATH, and the rest publish policy, sue, and fundraise. So can they speak for the "transgender community?" If not them, then who? The "transgender community" is not the only amorphous and seemingly leaderless "movement" out there. Antifa. Anonymous. QAnon. #MeToo. Sovereign Citizens. ELF/ALF. Manosphere. Furry Fandom. "The Right." "The Left." These names work as coalition brands. Journalists and pundits and commentators and opponents need a noun. Participants need a flag. Neither fact creates a roster, a budget, or a binding platform. Here's an interesting test about a "community": Can you resign from it? You can leave HRC. You cannot resign from “the transgender community,” “Antifa,” or “the manosphere.” It does not mean the underlying people or the funded NGOs are imaginary. Thanks, -Smac

Except this is exactly what this solution does. In both cases, the state punishing speech by changing classes, ordering non-contact, and imposing disciple. All based on constitutionally protected(?) speech. You are not addressing the Substantial Disruption jurisprudence which I have cited several times. If speech passes the Tinker test, then it is not constitutionally protected speech, such that the school - part of the State - has the legal authority to regulate it in ways that in other circumstances it could not. In contrast, the article I posted about the UC lawsuit shows how school policies, mandates, "speech codes" and such can run afoul of the First Amendment and fail the Tinker test. Thanks, -Smac

I just wonder if you, having publicly endorsed a proposal that conflicts with so many tenets of trans ideology, might end up being targeted for the same sorts of invective that you so frequently dole out to others. From a previous post: I am curious about how you reconcile your willingness to stray from "trans"-related presuppositions that are rather vigorously enforced. I'm not ranking anyone. You are endorsing a proposal that differentiates and privileges (which I think is pretty much what "ranking" means in this context) one set of "trans" persons (those who meet CB's A-E criteria) over others (those that do not). One group gets access to women's bathrooms, the other - presumably much larger - group does not. And your response to complaints about bestowing this differentiated privilege is (A) state that "Politics is about compromise" and (B) make sarcastic comments about "the trans-mafia" knocking on your door. Nobody is suggesting that would happen, but what I think would happen is that you would be subjected to the same vitriolic anonymous online condemnation that you so regularly dole out here. The shoe would be on the other foot. I think all people deserve to be addressed and treated with respect. So do I, and yet you regularly accuse me of "bigotry" despite the absence of any hateful/intolerant commentary from me, and despite the presence of numerous affirmations of what you state above. As long as the knee-jerk and first-out-of-the-box response to effectively any form of disagreement with trans orthodoxy is unreasoned and unsubstantiated vitriolic denunciations (e.g. "Bigot!"), advocates for trans folks are signaling that their position is weak, that it cannot withstand scrutiny or even civil discussion, such that any departure from orthodoxy - from without or within - must be immediately shouted down. And the longer this goes on, the less potent the denunciations become. They are presented to silence and squelch and intimidate and coerce, not to contribute to reasoned discourse. I agree. The challenge with your endorsement, though, is that a large portion - perhaps a substantial majority - of the "trans women" folks are going to be legally excluded from women's bathrooms. And because "trans women are women," their "rights and freedoms" are being trampled on. And because of that, those endorsing the differentiation between these folks and those relative few who have the desire and opportunity and financial resources to complete Steps (A) through (E), may well end up being the target of the same sort of accusatory ugliness that they utilize against others. I would be interested in the justification for that. And that doesn't really resolve the issue, as 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.” Self-identification is sufficient. No medical diagnosis, surgery, hormones, or even consistent presentation is required for the identity to be valid. Single-sex spaces, sports, prisons, and shelters must follow identity, not sex. Ipso facto, exclusion of males who identify as women - and your endorsed proposal is discrimination. These are not my views. Those are explicitly your views. Not at all. I reject the foregoing perspective, which I understand to be an important tenet of trans ideology. Per trans ideology, 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.” The proposal you are endorsing differentiates between "trans women." Some of them are sufficiently "women" so as to be allowed entry into women's bathrooms, and that sufficiency is explicitly connected to "medical procedures," rather than "identity." Meanwhile, huge swaths of "trans women" will be excluded under the endorsed proposal because they are not sufficiently within the ambit of "woman" to be allowed into women's bathrooms. This, per trans ideology, mimics patriarchal and essentialist definitions of gender, and negates lived experiences, negates "identity" (which is supposed to be sufficient), and erases trans women, and discriminates, and so on. These ideological tenets are not mine, and I feel no obligation to align myself with them. Candidly, I am surprised and impressed to see that you are willing to step apart, violate some of these tenets, and risk the sorts of denunciations that others have been receiving for so long. How do you reconcile this with the proposal you are endorsing, which by design and intent excludes likely the substantial majority of "trans women" from women's bathrooms? How does this proposal respect and acknowledge the "lived experiences" of those excluded by it? Invalidating someone's identity is entirely your schtick, not mine. We are explicitly talking about some type of bathroom or lockerroom standard. In that limited context I am happy to support CB's proposal as outlined. When viewed through the lens of trans ideology, the proposal you are endorsing negates the womanhood of what I think is the substantial majority of "trans women." You are invalidating their "identity" as women by saying, in effect, "Hey, you're just not enough to qualify as a 'woman,' so I think you should be excluded from women's bathrooms. Politics is about compromise. Here, I am endorsing a proposal that compromises your identity so that other trans women who have the desire and financial means to undergo stringent steps ((A) through (E)) can go into women's bathrooms, whereas you cannot." It's a gutsy thing you are doing here. Identity is sufficient lol. My aunt felt was a girl her entire life. That was her lived experience. She didn't transition until she was in her forties. She's lived openly as a woman since then. She passes. I asked a coworker that was her age (the coworker didn't know her trans status), and he said she was more attractive than my mom. Restricting her access to women's private spaces until after she transitions does not deny her womanhood or her identity. Well, that is certainly illuminating. You affirm "her womanhood," but are on board with denying her - and most of those like her - entry into women's bathrooms until and unless they meet the stringent medical and other criteria laid out by CB, which you are "happy to support." Your denial of their lived experience is your bigotry. If by "lived experience" you mean "identifying as something they are not," then yes, I deny the validity of that identity. A man does not "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, nor does he "become" a reptile, or a space alien, or a dog, by "identifying" as one. Even if these identifications are truly and sincerely felt and held - a point I am quite willing to acknowledge - they are not congruent with reality. Characterizing these incongruent-with-reality notions of "identity" as "lived experience" seems like a semantic trick to isolate these notions from scrutiny and critique, and to fabricate a "Bigot!" accusation against anyone who declines to acquiesce the them. Yes. I explained that previously. I was speaking in a legal sense. I generally refer to Caitlyn Jenner by that name because of a legal name change. On the other hand, I generally refer to Michael Sorrentino by his name, rather than his "fabricated" one ("The Situation"). Yes, but not because I "want to humiliate them," but because biological sex is, in my view, the most reasonable basis upon which to create and maintain sex-segregated spaces. That you cannot or will not acknowledge this reasoning, and that you instead fabricate an assign a malign motive, is further evidence of how unworkable and irrational trans ideology is. You can't defend it, so you vilify anyone who reasonably disagrees with it. To silence discussion. To squelch expression of reasoned viewpoints. To distract. To humiliate. Meanwhile, you want to force the substantial majority of trans women into men's bathrooms. And you want to send most "trans women" into men's spaces. Is that "horrifying?" I want men to stay out of women's spaces. Not through harassment, but through voluntary compliance with the law and, short of that, enforcement of the law against those not willing to follow it. Meanwhile, your proposal is going to be far more invasive. From a prior post: Yeesh. My proposal rests on voluntary compliance and, where appropriate and necessary, showing an ID. Most of what you say is slanted and mean-spirited caricature and imputed motives, without a scintilla of supporting evidence or reasoning. The rest is simple ideological disagreement. I think sex-segregated spaces ought to be maintained. I think the best way to do that is by segregating sex. Biological sex. This is based on reasoning and evidence and cumulative experience. I have said nothing which explicitly or implicitly does any such thing. I am speaking of policy proposals which I find acceptable under the dictates of my own conscience, and based on reasoning and evidence and so on. You are, I assume, doing the same. I don't think you are doing it very well, though, since your reasoning begins and ends with the same worn-out contrivance, namely... I disagree with you on matters of public policy. I have itemized the basis for my disagreement, and have done so using reasoning, evidence and explanation. Disagreement is often just that. That you are incapable or unwilling to substantively address reasoned argument on these matters is, to me, an indication that you are in the thrall of an ideology that is so internally incoherent that it cannot be defended through reason, and so can only be defended by ad hominem and other distracting tactics. I don't find that persuasive. Our prior interactions were more civil, but it seems things have taken a turn. I am striving to be civil in my comments, but perhaps I have failed to do so in some respects. If so, please point them out, and I will work to improve myself. Thanks, -Smac

I sort of struggled with it, since "trans ideology" is amorphous, and trying to define it with any particular precision is difficult. Nonetheless, some principles seem to be fundamental to the movement (such that departure from them is generally condemned as "bigotry," "denying trans existence," etc.). Here is what Grok generated: Items 3, 4, 13, and 14 are why I think CB's hormones-plus-ID rule will get condemned from inside the movement. The ideology’s public rule is not "serious medical transition." It is identity alone. Consequently, endorsing medical gatekeeping for bathrooms is departing from 3 ("Self-identification is sufficient") and 14 ("Any line among 'trans women' is itself bigotry"). In that framework, CB's departure from "orthodoxy" sure seems to be the same kind of offense he and SU have called "bigotry" when I do it. I propose to differentiate and "gatekeep" entry into women's spaces based on biological sex, and such differentiation is "bigotry." CB proposes to differentiate and "gatekeep" entry into women's spaces based on a fairly detailed hormones-plus-ID rule. Is that differentiation "bigotry" too (per trans "orthodoxy")? If not, why not? Thanks, -Smac

Politics is about compromise, especially when balancing competing interests. I have no issues with CB's proposal. Okay. Indeed. But I'm curious why are you able to depart from trans orthodoxy, since the "complaining" in this context almost reflexively and necessarily includes accusations of . . . bigotry. For example, differentiating or ranking transgender women based on their medical transition status, such as whether they have had surgeries, taken hormone replacement therapy (HRT), or transitioned at a certain age, is seen as a form of marginalization often referred to as transmedicalism or gatekeeping. Within the LGBTQ+ community and sociological discourse, creating a hierarchy based on medical intervention is widely recognized as harmful. A summary from Google's AI: I appreciate you sharing your perspective on locker rooms and other places where people are actually undressed. You would restrict those to people who have fully medically transitioned, and you would provide a private alternative. That is a real line. It is also a form of "gatekeeping." That is the piece I want to flag, because it sits uneasily with how this conversation has gone. CB's proposal openly does not treat identity as sufficient. It treats identity plus medical and other steps (physician care, a year of hormones, a doctor’s declaration, a changed ID) as the price of entry. Many advocates will reject that on principle. In that framework, a “trans woman” is a woman because she says so. Requiring hormones, surgery, or paperwork is itself treated as denying her womanhood. You said you don’t particularly care that some people will object. Fair enough. But that objection is not a fringe footnote. It is the mainstream activist claim. You have previously described disagreement with parts of the trans movement as "bigotry." The difficulty is that the rule you are now willing to accept would, by that same standard, put you in the same category. Distinguishing “fully transitioned” males from males who only identify as women is the differentiation I said would draw fire. If drawing that line is bigotry when I do it, it does not become something else when the line is hormones-plus-ID rather than sex. I am not asking you to please everyone. I am asking for a consistent standard. Either: identity alone controls access (per standard trans ideology orthodoxy, such as it is or can be), in which case the proposal fails on its own terms; or some objective criterion (sex, anatomy, medical status) can control access, in which case identity-as-sufficient is situated alongside my proposal (biological sex). It is a difference in degree, not kind. You can defend CB's version of (2). I think (2) is the only workable rule for single-sex spaces. What I resist is using “bigot” for people who hold (2), then endorsing a proposal that is also (2), just drawn at a different place. The accusation does not travel well if it applies only to the line you dislike. If your actual position is “identity is not enough where nudity is involved, and private alternatives should exist,” please say that plainly. That is a policy argument we can discuss. It is not resolved by calling one version of gatekeeping compassionate and the other hateful. Thanks, -Smac

Could you clarify if you endorse what I'll call CB's "Steps (A)-(E)" proposal? If so, what are your thoughts about the logistical and other challenges to it it which I itemized above? I am particularly interested in the last one: Thanks, -Smac

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elder Stevenson said, "Now I'm deeply saddened and hurt by this error and for any pain that it may have caused our members and for others". It's "I'm", not "we're". Again, is it your position that Elder Stevenson was not speaking in in a representative capacity for the Church when addressing the NAACP? I previously addressed the distinction people sometimes draw between “regret” and “apology.” From the Essay: What are your thoughts about this? "It" being suppositional explanations for the policy? I guess we differ a bit about what "astray" means in this context. You have said: False teaching leads people in the wrong path, to worship a false God. For example, Joseph Smith teaching that God is not God from all eternity. This is not the God faithful Jews or the majority of Christians worship. Take another example the Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses. He is Michael the Archangel, not God. This is a false Christ. They are being led down the wrong path. Another example: LDS Christians believe the Godhead is three Gods. Evangelical Christians believe in one God, eternally existent as three personages. You believe the later teaching leads believers astray. I have said: I still am not sure what you mean by "astray." I'm not sure conclusions of this sort will ever "necessarily" follow. Gardner's assessment, like anyone else's is not empirically falsifiable, after all. And I don't think Gardner positions his assessment as "necessarily" correct. So I'm not sure that's a "flaw," as it may just be epistemic humility. Gardner: Scripture Central: I am curious as to your thoughts about the above ideas. And what is your perspective on this "cautious position?" Might this also indicate errors in interpretation of The Book of Mormon? Could you explain more about this "original revelation" (the one "institut{ing} the ban")? If it was not recorded, how do you know there was one? Is it possible Brigham Young instituted the ban without "{a} revelation from God"? It was, after all, presented not at the Church's General Conference, but in a legislative session. That is sort of odd. How do you reconcile attributing the ban to Joseph Smith, and Joseph's purported attribution of the ban to God, with his ordination of Elijah Abel? Might it be that the ban was not revelatory, but that the removal of it was? In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve believed a false teaching by Satan and they were led astray. Satan does deceive us sometimes. And the Lord allows it to happen. But here you seem to be equating "astray" with committing a sin. I'm not sure that's accurate. Thank you for sharing this. It looks like we may disagree a bit about what "lead people astray" means in the context of the comment appended to OD-1. Your assessment is much broader than mine. Wrong is wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are pulling people towards Michael the Archangel, their version of Jesus. That is a false Christ. Or it is an incorrect belief about Christ. Sounds clear to me. And yet here we are, both of us intelligent and fairly well-informed as to the Restored Gospel, but with fairly divergent conceptualizations of what Pres. Woodruff had in mind. See above ("Leading people astray means using influence..."). Another quote from Joseph Smith: Thoughts? I appreciate you sharing your perspective here. Thanks, -Smac

Really? Yep. The alternative is to eviscerate the Free Speech rights of students. What I meant is do you think it’s that difficult to predict when a student is going to be upset by being persistently teased in a way they have requested not to be? By "high bar" was referring to the Tinker test. The State - the public school - ought not to be allowed to punish speech unless it can "reasonably ... forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities." As I noted: Students have been unkind to other students for time out of mind. So let's look at the article about the UC issue: What are your thoughts about this? The school policy presupposes that "misgendering" means using biologically correct personal pronouns, and that this is "harassment." The school policy presupposes that using a person's legal name is "harassment." The school policy presupposes that students are not allowed to object to a male entering a woman's bathroom, or vice versa, and that voicing that objection is "harassment." The school policy presupposes that Student A has a special and privileged legal right and authority to tell Student B which words he can and cannot use, and that Student B's failure/refusal to submit to Student A's instruction "is harassment." For me, the issue appears to be that the UC system may be using "harassment" as a pretext to impose and enforce on students one particular ideological perspective and punish them if they have and express a different perspective. If so, then that amounts to "viewpoint discrimination": Repeated or intentional use of biological-sex pronouns or a prior name is defined by the school as gender-based harassment that can create a "hostile environment." Students who believe sex is immutable therefore face discipline (or self-censor) for stating that view or declining to use preferred pronouns, while speech that affirms gender identity is not similarly restricted. The mandatory SHAPE training presents only the “misgendering = harassment” scenario and gives students no option to treat the speech as protected. That combination—punishing one viewpoint, compelling the contrary one, and training students that only one answer is acceptable—looks like a classic First Amendment claim of viewpoint discrimination by a public university. Bullying that targets a specific kid to isolate or torment them is a real problem, and schools can generally implement policies to curb it. That said, it seems like persistent, targeted cruelty is not the same thing as a student declining to use words that contradict what they believe is true. “Substantial disruption” is a legal standard, not an individual student's feeling. Under Tinker, student speech can be limited when it materially disrupts class or invades another student’s rights, not when someone is distressed by hearing a contested view. If distress from disagreement were enough, the school could ban any speech a classmate finds insulting: religious claims, political claims, or statements about sex. That is how a harassment rule becomes a viewpoint rule. Deadnaming after a request can be unkind, but I am skeptical that it is automatically “obviously intentional bullying” just because the speaker will not affirm a new identity. A student who believes sex is binary may be stating a fact or a conviction, not inventing an insult. The same logic would treat a student who insists on preferred pronouns after being asked not to as a bully—yet the policy only runs one direction. “Just don’t talk to them” is not a real classroom option. Students share groups, roll call, and assignments. A rule that says “use the new name or stay silent, but never use the old one” still picks a side. Last names or nicknames can be courtesy both ways; they are not a duty to adopt one student’s theory of identity. The hard part is holding two things at once: protect kids from targeted harassment, and do not let the school decide which view of sex and names is the only one allowed to be spoken. Thanks, -Smac

Yep. The alternative is to eviscerate the Free Speech rights of students. Thanks, -Smac

Based on your posting here, you come across as having the opinion that deadnaming and misgendering in college classrooms *should be considered protected speech. Broadly, yes. I think Tinker ought to be narrowly construed. Adults ought to be free to say disagreeable things. Look at the terrible things you so regularly say on this board about my faith and about me personally. You do so via the First Amendment, and are thus protected from adverse State action, right? Ought not other adults, even college students, have that same right? Proposition 1: The First Amendment should hold real and powerful sway against actions by the State. Presumptions should strongly favor Free Speech over State regulation. Proposition 2: The courts have allowed limited State incursions into regulating speech by students in a school setting. Proposition 3: A case-by-case evaluation might yield a situation where "deadnaming and misgendering in {non-}college classrooms" passes the Tinker test, such that public schools can, under Tinker, punish a student for it. Proposition 4: I think Tinker is or should be considerably harder to justify in a college setting. Proposition 5: Courts must take great care to narrowly circumscribing the application of Tinker so that the exception (State regulation of speech) never comes close to swallowing the rule (Free Speech). Proposition 6: I am hard-pressed to find any justification for the State to compel speech relative to "personal pronouns" and "deadnaming." I hope the foregoing clarifies things. We both know you have a very low opinion of me as a human being: "your bigotry is showing" "And if you weren’t blinded by bigotry..." "your blatant bigotry is on full display" "displays your bigotry" "that makes you a bigot" "you are extremely blinded (bigoted)" "I have the right to call you a hateful bigot" "Evil, ignorant or bigoted. You choose." I think this arises because we differ on some important philosophical areas. Bigotry, though, is inherently irrational. If though we will no doubt continue to disagree about some things, I hope this thread is showing that my perspective on this issue is borne of reasoned analysis. Not bigotry or hate or fear. Thanks, -Smac

There can be such an impact, hence the fairly unique and narrow provisions under Tinker. An across-the-board "Hey, what you said hurt my feelings or impacted my mental health" rule would turn students into tyrannical monsters, siccing the State on someone who said something - anything - that someone else might find problematic. Again, the Tinker test: My junior high and high school experiences had a share of physical and verbal altercations. But note that the benchmark the courts use is not "Did Student A's speech in any way injure Student B's mental health." Again, such a rule would be impractical and tyrannical. Rather, the benchmark is "Did Student A's use of biologically/linguistically correct personal pronouns 'materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,' or might it 'reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities?'" That is, or ought to be, a pretty high bar to meet. I dealt with it. Physical harassment/bullying is markedly distinct from verbal harassment, as the latter is presumptively protected under the Constitution, but the former is not. A school prohibiting racial and religious epithets will, in many instances, pass muster under the Tinker test. A school prohibiting biologically and linguistically correct personal pronouns may or may not pass muster (I'm leaning toward "not," thought I'd need to do some research). A school compelling the use of biologically and linguistically incorrect personal pronouns would, I think, have a very hard time passing muster under Tinker. Well, I'm asking you. But for me it's a careful balancing act. As it is, or ought to be, for most of us in our private lives. Here, however, we are discussing public policy. I agree. So I think colleges will have a harder time justifying speech restrictions/compulsions under Tinker. The students are almost all adults, after all. Time for them to transition into adulthood rather than expect coddling as they did in their childhood. That sounds nice. But vague absolutes (such as "every student" and "free from" and "discriminatory harassment") will sooner or later need to be tested legally, and the resulting tension with the First Amendment must be addressed. Do I deserve to go through life without you variously denigrating my faith and me personally? Broadly, no (as we've discussed, some exceptions apply, such as State actors). The courts will look at these policies in a more clinical and law-focused way. Compelled speech by the State is going to be a tough proposition, even for the 9th Circuit. That's not as easy as it sounds. Is the use of biologically/linguistically correct pronouns "harassment"? Perhaps in some case-by-case situations, but broadly, I think not. The First Amendment should hold some real sway here. Can the State compel students to use certain words? I think not. I think that the use of biologically/linguistically correct pronouns as "harassment" would need to be demonstrated, not merely assumed. The subjective assessment "the girl" may or may not be reasonable, fair, congruent with the First Amendment, etc. It is school administrators, not "the girl," who would make the determination. And then there's the whole "compelled speech" part of this. By "misgenders the girl" do you mean the individual is using male (he/him) pronouns when talking about her? Or by "misgenders the girl" do you mean the individual is using female (she/her) pronouns when talking about her? Thanks, -Smac

So when you said you were not offering an opinion as to how the law ought to work? I was offering an opinion. I was presenting a generalized rule. I have elsewhere acknowledged that there exists something of an exception to that general rule, namely, the courts have allowed the State to regulate speech in some relatively limited circumstances (student speech on school property that passes the Tinker test) and in ways that the State is otherwise not allowed (i.e., the State can prohibit the use of racial or religious epithets in a school setting and under the Tinker test, whereas the State cannot prohibit the use of such epithets in most other circumstances). So my opinion ("I think the State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either 'preferred pronouns' or 'deadnaming'") is congruent with First Amendment jurisprudence generally. But as with most principles of law, there are potential exceptions (such as public schools regulating speech under Tinker). I have not fully explored the matter, but while a student using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns might be subject to regulation under Tinker (the more I think on it, the more dubious I am about it), I think the courts would be quite reluctant to allow Tinker to extend in ways that would allow the State to compel speech (such as is referenced in the lawsuit against UC). Thanks, -Smac

Sure because religious bigotry = bad and trans-bigotry = protected speech. Got it. I think you are misunderstanding me. I am attempting to explain how the law works, not how you or I think it ought to work. Members of a religion are a constitutionally suspect class, such that harassment on that basis is probably more likely to be regulated by the State in a school setting. So far, "trans" persons have not been treated as a suspect or quasi-suspect class. And given the decision in Skrmetti, I don't think it will be so designated (perhaps not ever, but at least not in the near future). Personally, I think the Tinker test may be resulting in too much State regulation of student speech. There is at least one lawsuit that will probably test how far "misgendering" rules in schools can go: Conservative advocacy group sues UC over misgendering policies and free speech Yeah, this is problematic. It's compelled speech, and I don't think that will ever work under the Tinker test. It's one thing to say "You can't use racist epithets while on campus." That may be defensible under Tinker. But "You must use these words in your speech" is quite another proposition. This is the risk Tinker creates. If "harassment" = using a person's legal name or biologically/linguistically correct pronouns, I think that's a tough sell. And yet, it appears that it may very well "regulate protected speech." This is not good for UC. When "harassment" becomes code for "someone saying something I don't like," constitutional challenges will start to gather. I think that is correct. Even in the 9th Circuit. The policies may also be used to compel and/or punish protected speech. There's the rub. I do have a daughter. Two, actually. That person would be factually wrong. In contrast, let's say an individual at school has decided that, despite being a girl, she wants to "identify" as a boy. Factually, her biological sex has not changed. A girl does not "become" a boy by "identifying" as one. So "she/her" pronouns are both biologically and linguistically accurate. "He/him" are not. Here "misgender" means "using male pronouns when referring to a girl." I actually agree with you here, since such usage really is "misgendering" because the girl's biological sex is female, not male, so using male pronouns really would be "misgendering." Whether that amounts to "harassment," or otherwise actionable under Tinker, is a separate issue. Generally, though, I think "misgender" means "using pronouns that reflect biological sex, rather than 'gender identity.'" In any event, my analysis will not change whether it's my daughter or some other girl. My assessment is based on the law, not emotion. Person A using words "significantly undermines" Person B's "mental health"? How? Does any claim along the lines of "Hey, what you said has caused me mental anguish" work to curtail that other person's speech? If I were to announce that your various denigrations of my faith and me personally have injured my mental health, ought that deprive you of your right to denigrate my faith and me personally? What sort of limiting principle do you have in place? If my daughter struggled with someone else's lawful speech, I would work with her on that. I may also contact the other student's parents and see if we could work something out. I would not seek to use the power of the State to curtail or punish or compel the other student's speech. I would want to see the Tinker test strictly construed. Here it is again: If Student A uses male pronouns when referencing Student B, a girl who "identifies" as a boy, does that "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," or might it "reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities?" I think in most cases, no. Perhaps a severe and ongoing case might be justified under Tinker. This presupposes that using male pronouns to refer to a girl is "harassment." How many times? In what setting? Over what period of time? How many other people heard this? Was the girl present or not? And what of "misgendering" in the sense in which that word is normally used? Ironically, "misgendering" typically means "using the biologically and linguistically correct pronouns and nouns" to describe someone. That is, when Student A calls Student B, a boy who "identifies" as a girl, using he/him pronouns. Is it really your position that Person A using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns, is committing "harassment" by doing so? If so, could you walk me through your reasoning? I'd like to hear what you have to say. Thanks, -Smac

No but you want to ban ALL transgenders from using the bathroom that fits their sexuality. No, I want to ban all males from using women's bathrooms, and vice versa. I have not advocated for any law that specifically targets "trans" folks. As it happens, the vast majority of men respect and stay out of women's spaces. The exceptions are A) some men who "identify" as women, and B) bad actors. If you can formulate a coherent and legally-enforceable mechanism to differentiate between which males can enter into women's spaces and which cannot, I would like to hear it. No. But I would be interested in banning all males from entering into women's spaces. I’m not proposing to ban people from public life because of the group they belong to. I’m talking about sex-based private spaces. Bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers are separated by sex because of physical privacy and safety, not because every member of one sex is a predator. A rule that says “males use the male facility” applies to every male—trans-identified or not—the same way it always has. That is not the same as “ban all transgender people from existing in public.” Your bishop analogy does not seem to work. If a bishop (or any adult) grooms or abuses a minor, that person should be removed, reported, and prosecuted. The office does not get a pass. That is not the same as saying: therefore no bishop may attend church, or every LDS man is presumptively barred from the building. Collective punishment of an entire religious category is wrong for the same reason collective punishment of an entire identity category is wrong. Abuse by some clergy is real and indefensible. So is sexualization of children in any community. Neither fact turns every other member of that community into fair game for a blanket ban, and neither fact decides how sex-segregated facilities should work. If someone is a documented threat to children, keep them away from children—whatever label they use. That is the line I care about. “Ban an entire class of people from the bathroom / from church because some members did evil” is a different argument, and I’m not making it. We can talk about specific policies and specific evidence. What we shouldn’t do is trade atrocity lists as if the longer list wins the right to erase ordinary boundaries. Thanks, -Smac

And the State punishing speech is somewhat different from compelling it. Yes. Student A referring to Student B by his legal name ought not be punished by the State, even if Student B considers that "deadnaming." Should Student B legally changes his name away from his former legal name (his "deadname"), should the State punish Student A for using that former legal name? Frankly, I think that would need to be sort of a case-by-case thing, as the Tinker test is broad. Theoretically, yes. Broadly, yes. I do acknowledge, however, that that schools have the right to regulate speech of students during school hours and on school property. This is a fairly narrow exception to the general rule. I never said you did. I am glad we cleared that up. None the less this is exactly the scenario linked to in your post. Your concern is specifically about Universities regulating harassment on campus. I followed your links and read some of the harassment policies. There are quite a few limits in there on speech when it comes to religion, race, sex, national origin, etc. Yes. Who exactly is compelling speech? California is. See also here. New York is. Colorado kinda sorta is. Previously, the federal government of the United States (since rescinded, I think). Some jurisdictions outside the U.S., with less robust Free Speech protections, are. Brasil, for example. Possibly Scotland, the U.K.(see also here), Europe, the Philippines. No, but broadly it is punished speech. Outside of the Tinker test, I think this is not allowed in the U.S., or should not be. I'm not sure we have different definitions. Isn't that exactly the context you linked to? Students attending university using a deadname to harrass a classmate? Because that's what you linked to. Hence the parenthetical at the end. I acknowledge that schools, under the Tinker test, can regulate speech (that is, punish speech, but I don't think they can compel speech). I'm still not seeing how banning a deadname on campus is akin to a faith affirmation. It's not. "Banning a deadname on campus" is an example of punished speech. The words are being prohibited (with punishment for their use), not compelled. Again, if there were some effort by the State to compel you to refer to Joseph Smith as "the Lord's prophet," or if it were to punish you for speaking critically of him, I think you would object to that. Under the Tinker test, I think not. Again: The Tinker test would, I think, put targeted religious harassment within the category of speech which a school can regulate, but I am less persuaded that the test would put preferred pronouns or "dead names" there. Also, consider "preferred pronouns." Is that "compelled" speech if the State requires their use? Is it "punished" speech if they are not used? Is it both? Again, the Tinker test: I think targeted religious harassment would probably be held to "justify suppression of speech." If a student declines to use a trans student's new name (calling him "John" instead of his preferred new name, "Jennifer"), would that pass the Tinker test? Not sure, but I think probably not. If a student declines to use biologically/linguistically incorrect pronouns (using "she/her" in reference to a trans-identifying male student), and/or if the student uses biologically/linguistically correct pronouns, does that pass the Tinker test? Again, not sure, but I think probably not. If a student does these tings to "harass" a trans student, that might, on a case-by-case basis, pass the Tinker test. But I am less sure that a categorical mandate (students must use preferred pronouns) or a categorical prohibition (students are prohibited from using biologically/linguistically correct pronouns) would work. Thanks, -Smac

I thought "Madonna" was a stage ("fabricated") name, but it turns out her legal name is "Madonna Louise Ciccone." On the other hand, the person who plays "Maui" in Moana has a legal name (Dwayne Johnson) and a fabricated one ("The Rock"). I know a young woman who "identifies" as male. Her legal name is Rebecca, but she now goes by a fabricated (that is, not legally recognized) name of "Kee." Several in the cast of Jersey Shore had fabricated names ("Snooki," "The Situation," "Sweetheart," "JWoww"). And so on. Trans folks are not the only ones who adopt fabricated (not legally recognized) names. Thanks, -Smac

So if a person doesn’t have a legal name, that individual doesn’t have an actual name? Legally? No. But since everyone does have a legal name these days... Again, I was speaking in a legal sense. "Actual" = "legally recognized." "Fabricated" = "not legally recognized." Thanks, -Smac