Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

smac97

Contributor
  • Posts

    17,075
  • Joined

Everything posted by smac97

  1. Oh for…. Again, nothing of substance. Again, from the article: To convert DSD from "a definable, objective underlying medical problem" to an "identity" or a "third sex" is to reduce the issue to "a blanket one-size-fits-all prescription." Yes, it does. Particularly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. See the above excerpt of the Family Proclamation, and FAIR's treatments here and here, and also Genesis 1:27, and Genesis 5:2, and 2 Nephi 26:33, and Abraham 4:27, and Moses 2:27, and Moses 6:9, and Alma 11:44, and D&C 20:18, also section 38.7.7 of the Handbook. Appeal to Pity. Appeal to Guilt. Galileo Gambit. You continue to prove my point. You are presenting nothing of substance. Strawman Fallacy. Begging the Question. Again, from the article I quoted earlier: You haven't addressed this. You seldom have anything of substance to say. Just sneering assertions, sarcasm, and taunts. Ad Hominem Fallacy. I do. Again, from the article I quoted earlier: It's almost as if you didn't even read the article before dismissing it. It was raised in the article I cited. You also raised it. Strawman Fallacy. Ad Hominem Fallacy. Appeal to Guilt. You offer nothing of substance. No thoughtful examination. No evidence. No reasoning. Just invective and insults. Thanks, -Smac
  2. You essentially never have anything substantive to say. Just conclusory remarks, taunts, and risible stuff. I am suggesting that the statements in this article are substantively correct. Ascertaining truth is not a popularity contest. Again, you pretty much never have anything substantive to day. That is not a remotely accurate summary of the article. I think clarifying that there is no "third sex" is very helpful and meaningful. There are all sorts of logical fallacies in play on this topic. Equivocation. Argument by Assertion. Ad Hominem. Appeal to Ridicule. Special Pleading. Appeal to Emotion. I think people like you cannot advance this or that iteration of this or that trans ideology without almost immediately resorting to these and other fallacious arguments. This is, I think, why you never get into substance. It relieves you of any obligation to present and defend a cogent argument with evidence, reasoning, etc. That is one of the points made in the article (a few times over, actually) : “'Intersex – People who have anatomy that is not considered typically male or female or have anatomy not matching their genetic sex of XX or XY. Most come to medical attention because healthcare professionals or parents notice something unusual about their bodies or puberty or fertility isn’t normal, but some are not known until death/autopsy.'" "Biological sex is established at conception, declared in utero, and recognized or not at birth." "Every nucleated cell in our bodies has a sex. There are only two gametes, sperm and egg, that participate in the generation of new life. There is no third gamete active in that process." "The nomenclature 'intersex' acknowledges something between two sexes and not a third sex. The term is intersex and not 'extrasex,' therefore acknowledging the binary nature of human sex." "Biological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third one." "Intersex is a condition—something someone has—and neither an identity nor a third sex." "DSD/intersex represent rare conditions requiring highly individualized therapeutic approaches and timelines, not a blanket one-size-fits-all prescription." You don't address any of this, because - again - you essentially never have anything substantive to say. Persons with Disorders of Sex Development (DSD) "fit" into the gender binary. Again from the article: "Biological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third {sex}." Also: "The nomenclature 'intersex' acknowledges something between two sexes and not a third sex. The term is intersex and not 'extrasex,' therefore acknowledging the binary nature of human sex." Yes, I think it is clarifying. For them and us. And I think this clarity, the effort to hew more closely to truth and reality, is increasingly important as radical ideologues are aggressively pushing a profoundly misleading and damaging set of claims, usually via coercive means and fallacious reasoning. The scriptures are not the only source of clarity on this subject. I think there is substantial confusion on this subject, much of which is driven by extremist ideologues who, again, cannot present or maintain a cogent argument to support their position without resorting to a litany of logical fallacies. I think DSD is a very rare medical condition, and it needs to be treated as such, not as an ideologically-driven "identity." Again from the article: "A disorder of sex development/intersex uniformly signifies the presence of a definable, objective underlying medical problem. Intersex is a condition—something someone has—and neither an identity nor a third sex. DSD/intersex represent rare conditions requiring highly individualized therapeutic approaches and timelines, not a blanket one-size-fits-all prescription." I think this is some pretty sound reasoning. Here's some more: The entire article is worth a read. See also here: Again, the whole article is worth a read. See also here: Again, the whole article... The "Appeal to Consequences" fallacy. Nothing of substance. Thanks, -Smac
  3. Yes and no. The issue expressed is that it is a "driver of much continuing sexism and discrimination against women". An issue I find eminently debatable, and far from established. I'm not sure what you are saying here. That seems to be a fairly distinct issue from "continuing sexism and discrimination against women." And I also don't think it is correct. See, e.g., the "Heavenly Mother" article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: From the Proclamation: From Elder Renlund's 2022 remarks: You seem to be implicitly claiming that the Church's instruction to "not pray to Heavenly Mother" is evidence of "continuing sexism and discrimination against women." I see no particular evidentiary or logical connection between these two concepts. This also seems to be a fairly distinct issue from "continuing sexism and discrimination against women." Again, a distinct issue. This seems to fundamentally undermine your implied argument. If we as a church are governed by revelation, and if no revelation (or insufficient amounts of revelation) has been given to us by God, and if we have been given instruction on this issue by living prophets and apostles, and if following prophetic counsel is an intrinsic part or our system of beliefs, then this set of circumstances is the far better explanation for our limited interaction/communion with Her. "Suppressed" by whom, do you think? Latter-day Saints can "argue" whatever they like, but the evidence for this is essentially nonexistent, and the reasoning is weak, tendentious, and accusatory (and hence not particularly compatible with Latter-day Saint belief in relation to prophets and apostles). I don't think so. See, for example, Intersex: What It Is And Is Not: "Intersex is a colloquialism..." "The term intersex leans to the ideological..." "{Intersex is} a medical condition is something one has, not who one is." "{Intersex is} not a third sex." "Biological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third one." These clinical statements were, until very recently, quite unremarkable. "Intersex is a condition—something someone has—and neither an identity nor a third sex." The scriptures are pretty darn clear on there being man and woman, that's it. No third sex. So modern notions about a third sex, about intersex, etc., can be safely set aside as not pertinent to our eternal disposition. Thanks, -Smac
  4. Thank you for sharing this. While I have some residual questions about the purported communications between Mr. Hofstetter and the associate dean about students being "offended," this article resolves the bulk of my concerns about this issue. If the article is substantively true, then Mr. Hofstetter has some 'splainin to do. Thanks, -Smac
  5. Here: BYU Cancels Debate Event on Abortion: Beams before Motes This was written by Garret Hofstetter, a current 3L at BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School. I wonder if this is an apt description. The UVU link above is to a story about efforts to disinvite Sis. Wendy Nelson as a commencement speaker in 2021. Ouch. This was painful to read. This is a very good encapsulation of the sentiments which ought to undergird a traditional liberal or classical education at BYU. If true, this is very disappointing. Man, this "cancel culture" stuff is getting pretty bad. An academic discussion/debate at a law school about a recent and important Supreme Court case is "too controversial?" Because "some students got 'offended?'" Candidly, I think this stuff is pretextual. It's not about protecting offended students. It is about the suppression of ideas and speech that some college students (and faculty) cannot or will not tolerate. I recognize that BYU, as a private and religious institution, is not fully obligated to accommodate and allow the full spectrum of "free speech" as is required of public education institutions and the State generally. For example, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (f/k/a "Foundation for Individual Rights in Education") gives BYU a "Warning" ranking, described as follows: FIRE's critique is, overall, pretty muted, as it only cites BYU's Honor Code and Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Policy. Nevertheless, an academic discussion/debate at a law school about a recent and important Supreme Court case between to well-regarded professors of law is nowhere close to being the sort of "speech" that BYU should be excluding from campus. Back to the article: So the law school at BYU can accommodate the showing of a film that openly endorses abortion, but cannot accommodate an academic debate on a Supreme Court case about abortion? Having this fellow speak on campus at BYU is "too controversial," but screening The Janes is not? And BYU's law school appears to have unceremoniously disinvited him. These are fair questions. And the answers, IMO, are "No" to the first and "None at all" to the second. It's a major bummer to think that this crapola is in play at BYU's law school. The next part is also pretty bad: "How long is this ban, one might wonder? It is unclear. I was told that it would last at least until there were no longer students who felt unsafe with this professor in the building." "Unsafe." What a lot of crapola. This is a pretext for the suppression of a viewpoint that ought to be openly welcomed at BYU. Good words, these. I hope the Law School reverses course, apologizes to Prof. Duncan, and allows the debate/discussion to proceed. I think "Latter-day Saint" thought and speech (that is, from generally informed and faithful and observant Latter-day Saints) has some overlap, but also some distinctions, from what is typically characterized as "conservative" speech. Nevertheless, turnabout is fair play. Latter-day Saints have often been criticized for being too beholden to "conformity." But these days the criticism has been turned on its head: we are not "conforming" enough. Good concluding thoughts. Here is a follow-up article: Complaints of ‘disrespectful’ Speaker Used to Cancel Abortion Debate Appear Unfounded And excerpt: Lita Little Giddins, Vice President of BYU’s Office of Belonging, was the administrator present at the event; a photo of Rick Duncan and Lita Giddens happily shaking hands contradicts the complaints of disrespect. In response to the claims, Rick Duncan responded: Months after the debate, Lita Giddens told a law student that she received many positive phone calls and emails regarding the event. At no time during the event could one receive the impression that anyone was upset by the discussion, according to the Chronicle’s sources. A student present at the original event told the Chronicle, “During the Q and A portion, Professor Duncan said how we must allow all to be heard (even if we don’t agree with their position), to which Dean Giddins grabbed his hand to show they were on the same page…. I left that presentation thinking: wow, BYU Law is a special place.” Another law student provided us with their account of the event, stating, “Though it was styled as a debate, the speakers were mainly in unison. Their point was that everyone deserves to be heard and that we can be civil even though we disagree. I suppose the controversial part was when Professor Duncan said he admired Jack [Phillips] (MasterPiece Cakeshop) for sticking to his beliefs in the face of so much hatred.” “[P]erhaps it was when he said we don’t have to use someone’s preferred pronouns if we don’t want to. Either way, he was respectful and dignified in his beliefs and how he presented them. Those who were ‘offended’ simply didn’t like that he disagreed with them,” the student concluded. A third student relayed to the Chronicle, “Professor Duncan addressed the harassment conservative thinkers face on college campuses regularly. He was respectful and directed his biggest critique on colleges that don’t protect free speech. [They] hugged, held hands afterward and got a standing ovation. The overall message was positive and good.” Notably, the students recollected a civil discussion, with no instances of disrespect or discourtesy. Such statements from several students present at the event contradict the complaints leveled towards Professor Duncan. Oi. I have many times come to the defense of BYU on this board. Not on this one. I am quite troubled and disappointed by what is being reported here. I have sent an email on this story to the dean of the law school, and I copied several BYU administrators as well. I will advise if I get a response. Anyway, thoughts? Should BYU's law school allow a discussion/debate about the Dodds decision? Even if some unnamed students were "offended?" Thanks, -Smac
  6. I think you are correct. The Deseret News is also getting it (kinda) wrong by relying on the AP (while improving on the reporting of the facts of the case) : Thanks, -Smac
  7. I wonder if Lori may be sociopathic. See here: I do not think she has been diagnosed with this, though, so it may not play a role in the legal proceedings. I am not sure whether Antisocial Personality Disorder is, in and of itself, sufficient to negate mens rea. I suspect not. I think guilty conduct is the only viable explanation for all the bodies that stacked up around her. Thanks, -Smac
  8. We have had numerous discussions about the horrible story of Paul Adams, a man in Arizona - and nominal member of the Church - who abused his children, who was excommunicated for his abuse, and who later committed suicide: April 2020: What a Nightmare! (also discussed here) December 2020: Update on AZ Abuse Case. April 2022: (2nd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case. August 2022: (3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case August 2022: AP Story about Abuse October 2022: Lawsuit: Utah firm and lawmaker helped Mormons hide abuse December 2022: (4th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case December 2022: AZ appeals court issues ruling on the Bisbee abuse case From yesterday (April 11, 2023) : Arizona court upholds clergy privilege in child abuse case This article is written by Michael Rezendez, the same fellow who wrote the "AP Story" referenced in the above links. And this lawsuit is, I believe, the same one as was discussed on the October 2022 item above ("Lawsuit: Utah firm and lawmaker helped Mormons hide abuse"). The April 7 decision by the Arizona Supreme Court is apparently not yet publicly available, but when it is it will be posted here. Cadigan is essentially required to claim this, because if she were to acknowledge that the Church's actions were within the "legislative intent" of the statute defining the parameters of the privilege, then her lawsuit would have been facially improper. I don't see this statement at newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org. I think this was an incorrect statement of the law. And though I think I understand why Judge Cardinal made it, I think she should be embarrassed for getting the law as massively wrong as she did. As our Webbles noted here (regarding the December 2022 decision from the Arizona Court of Appeals) : That the Court of Appeals reached a "unanimous decision for both questions" is, IMO, significant. Back to the update: It sure would be nice if the journalist, Mr. Rezendez, would update his narrative to fit the testimony that came out in the trial proceedings. I commented on this back in December 2022: This appears to be a pretty substantial mischaracterization of what happened. See, e.g., here: Back to the update: I think Cadigan is just showboating and pandering with this move. Overall this is a terrible story. I hope the victims get the counseling and other help they need. Thanks, -Smac
  9. Point take though I don't think he terminology is all that important. Precise terminology, "terms of art," particularly in a legal context, matter quite a bit. Again, using the phrase "separate but equal" imports some very negative connotations into the discussion. I think sex-based distinctions in sports are justifiable, whereas race-based distinctions are not. Thanks, -Smac
  10. Short Answer: It appears that A) Jews who have accepted the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ will build the temple, B) that the construction will be under the direction of the presiding authorities of the Church, and C) the rites to be officiated in that temple will be those found in the Restored Gospel. However, this stuff is not firmly stated in scripture, and is instead derived mostly from non-canonized statements. Some resources: 1. Per this article, regarding the references in Isaiah to “the mountain of the Lord’s house” (Isaiah 2:2), "{t}he only possible contextual meaning of Isaiah’s oracle is that the 'house of the Lord' of which he spoke is a temple of the people of Judah to be built in Jerusalem, upon Mount Moriah, in the last days" (see also here). 2. Also from the above article: 3. Wikipedia briefly speaks to this issue: 4. This site includes a compilation of scriptural and other Church references to the future temple in Jerusalem, including the following: 5. Ether 13:5, states that the temple "should be built unto the house of Israel." 6. D&C 124:36-37 states: "36 For it is ordained that in Zion, and in her stakes, and in Jerusalem, those places which I have appointed for refuge, shall be the places for your baptisms for your dead. 37 And again, verily I say unto you, how shall your washings be acceptable unto me, except ye perform them in a house which you have built to my name?" Baptism for the dead is, I think, a uniquely "Christian" belief and practice (and even there it is a very limited doctrine/practice). 7. Joseph, in the History of the Church, 5:337, notably used the passive voice: "Judah must return, Jerusalem must be rebuilt, and the temple, and water come out from under the temple, and the waters of the Dead Sea be healed. It will take some time to rebuild the walls of the city and the temple, &c.; and all this must be done before the Son of Man will make His appearance" (emphasis added). 8. In contrast, however, Charles Penrose was fairly clear (from JD 24:25) : "The work is moving on for the gathering of the Jews to their own land that they may build it up as it was in former times; that the temple may be rebuilt and the mosque of the Muslim which now stands in its place may be moved out of the way." (Note: The Journal of Discourses is an uneven source.) 9. See also John Taylor comments (from JD 18:23) (emphases added) : "I remember, some time ago, having a conversation with Baron Rothschild, a Jew. …[I told him that] You will build a Temple, for the Lord has shown us, among other things, that you Jews have quite a role to perform in the latter days, and that all the things spoken by your old prophets will be fulfilled, that you will be gathered to old Jerusalem, and that you will build a Temple there; and when you build that Temple, and the time has arrived, ‘the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his Temple.’" 10. And Orson Pratt (from JD 14:46) (emphases added) : "The whole of the twelve tribes of Israel are to return back to Palestine in Asia and rebuild their city of Jerusalem and a temple within that city before, and preparatory to the coming of the Lord." 11. And here (from JD 15:41) (emphasis added) : "If you want to know about the time when the sun and moon are to be darkened, and when the stars will no longer give any light, and when there will be total darkness over all the face of the earth, here is an event predicted so that you cannot mistake. When you see the nations of the earth, especially the heathen nations, and also those north of Jerusalem–the great nation of Russia and other nations on the continent of Asia, together with many in Europe, gather up against Jerusalem after the Jews have returned and rebuilt their city and Temple..." 12. And here (from JD 18:21) (emphases added) : "Then, when the Gentile nations shall reject this Gospel, and count themselves unworthy of eternal life, as the Jews did before them, the Lord will say–'It is enough, come away from them, my servants, I will give you a new commission, you shall go to the scattered remnants of the house of Israel. I will gather them in from the four quarters of the earth, and bring them again into their own lands. They shall build Jerusalem on its own heap; they shall rear a Temple on the appointed place in Palestine, and they shall be grafted in again.'" 13. And here (from JD 18:7) (emphases added) : "The Jews dispersed among the Gentiles will not come and sing in the height of Zion, or but very few of them, they will go to Jerusalem ... {a}fter awhile, when tens of thousands of them have gathered and rebuilt their Temple, and reestablished Jerusalem upon its own heap..." 14. And here (from JD 19:2) (emphases added) : "By and by there will be a Temple built at Jerusalem. Who do you think is going to build it? You may think that it will be the unbelieving Jews who rejected the Savior. I believe that that which is contained on the 77th page of the Book of Mormon, as well as in many other places, in that same book, will be literally fulfilled. The Temple at Jerusalem will undoubtedly be built, by those who believe in the true Messiah." 15. And Wilford Woodruff (from JD 14:1) (emphasis added) : "Christ [will] not come until the Jews [have] returned to their own land and [have] rebuilt the City of Jerusalem and the temple there." 16. And from JD 15:35 (emphases added) : "As I have been reading to you today, the Jews have got to gather to their own land in unbelief. They will go and rebuild Jerusalem and their temple. They will take their gold and silver from the nations and will gather to the Holy Land..." 17. From TempleStudy.com: 18. From AskGramps (emphases added) : How is this to be fulfilled? Pres. Wilford Woodruff (then pres. of the quorum of the 12) said: Thanks, -Smac
  11. "Separate but equal" has negative connotations, and was invoked to defend invidious race-based discrimination. I think the better approach would be two categories, one "Open" (for everyone, including trans athletes) and one for women (that is, actual women, not biological males who "identify" as female). Thanks, -Smac
  12. Another development (on trans athletes) : Thanks, -Smac
  13. For most of the SovCit arguments I have seen (a fair amount, as I have litigated against several), these folks don't "know the law." They erroneously conflate strongly-held beliefs/opinions regarding how the law ought to be with how the law actually operates. And they conflate these things to their own detriment and peril. The SovCit folks aren't really arguing "facts." Their talking points are almost entirely about their idiosyncratic interpretation and application of "the law." The ones who get attention (typically via bombastic rhetoric - and occasional physical altercations - during traffic stops or court hearings, and memorialized on videos posted to YouTube) are seemingly "firm on {their} convictions." However, I think a lot of folks give this stuff a whirl (again, during a traffic stop or court hearing) and quickly realize that it's hokum. This is a nearly pristine example of "wishful thinking" on this guy's part. Not to my knowledge. And if one slips through the cracks, it will be on a legal technicality, not on the substantive law. Thanks, -Smac
  14. Advocates for transgender and intersex athletes like to say that sex doesn’t divide neatly. This may be true in gender studies departments, but for competitive sports purposes they are simply wrong. Sex in this context is easy to define and the lines are cleanly drawn: you either have testes and functional androgen receptors, or you don't. Full stop. I think they are wrong in pretty much every context associated with mammalian biology. See, e.g., here: It has been an interesting thing to watch folks like Analytics, who styles himself as an ardent devotee of "science," nevertheless capitulate and bend the knee to ideologically-driven, and biologically/scientifically incoherent, assertions about "gender identity," "gender assigned at birth," and so on. Last year I came across an interesting article published in the British Medical Journal (one of the most influential medical periodicals in the world): Rethinking sex-assigned-at-birth questions. In this article the authors were critical of people in medical fields making inquiries about a person's biological sex (“What sex were you assigned at birth, on your original birth certificate?”) and differentiating that from their "gender identity" (“What is your gender identity?”). The authors seemed to hint that these questions were transphobic: The "Letter to the Editor" responses to the above article mostly from medical professionals were . . . pretty frank. Here's an example (emphases added): Another (emphasis added): Another (emphases added): Another (emphases added): Another: Another: Another (emphases added): I think it is important to address these things. We can be respectful and kind to trans people without denying reality and scientific/biological fact. And we ought to be able to have discussions about these matters without accusations or acrimony. Yep. Competitive sports seems to be one of those "where the rubber meets the road" kind of environments that help us see past the sex-related ideological assertions coming out of Western colleges/universities and other sources. As noted above, healthcare workers also need to be realistic about such things. One of the above letters put it well: "We believe it’s highly important for people with GD such as ourselves, whether we medicalize or not, to retain awareness of our biological sex. Because it’s not truly possible to change sex, accepting our full reality as trans people is important for both our psychological and physical well-being." Quite right. It is troubling to see so many people, who no doubt have kind intentions, are nevertheless indulging factual and biological falsehoods about sex. Or we could just say "free of competition from male athletes" and "allowing men into women's sports" Far less clunky. I think there is too much of a "thin edge of the wedge" aspect to these carve-outs. I think a bright line rule is more appropriate. Thanks, -Smac
  15. I totally agree with that. I would expect as much. That is, after all, the line from the opponents of the bill: I don't see the irony. I don't see "micromanage" as being apt, either. I do, however, see ample issues about the sufficiency of informed consent, and about disregarding comorbidities, the apparent lack of a coherent "standard of care," the "politicization" of medical care and biological science, the very questionable efficacy of medical/surgical interventions, the lack of data regarding the long-term effects of such medical treatments, and a fair number of other reasonable grounds for concern and caution. Regarding kids, there are some things that the State leaves to the parent, such as piercings and tattoos. There are other matters that the State does not leave to the parent, such as a minor using tobacco or alcohol. So Utah, as with pretty much every state, does not take an absolutist approach when dealing with the welfare of children. I think it has a pretty robust respect for parental rights, but those rights are not unlimited. Meh. In the absence of a coherent argument or evidence, folks like you invariably turn to A) accusations of hate/bigotry (these have become nearly reflexive / rote from your crowd by now), B) accusations about imperiling "safety" and such, and/or C) claims that disagreement with you and your ideological position is based on purely political, rather than on reasonable philosophical/moral/empirical, grounds. Not buying it. Gotta love the stacked deck here. This is a very good example of the "Fallacy of Relative Privation," a/k/a "Appeal to Worse Problems" or "Not As Bad As" fallacy, which is "dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems." See also here: That the legislature might want to pay attention to "A" (gender reassignment surgery on children) is not coherently critiqued by you suggesting the legislature should focus on B (legislative attention to sugar intake). The answer is that you have committed a rather flagrant logical fallacy. This is an "Argument by Assertion" fallacy, see here: I think there is pretty good evidence that the legislature is focusing on the health and welfare of children in the state. See, e.g., here: And here: I think Sen. Kennedy is quite right in expressing concern about the “lack sufficient long-term research” on this issue. As it happens, I went to law school with Sen. Kennedy, who was an MD prior to seeking his law degree and is a practicing Family Practice Physician & Urgent Care Doctor in Utah. So he has some pretty good medical and legal and legislative credentials. My thinking about this topic has also been informed by this 2001 study from Sweden: Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden. Some excerpts (endnotes omitted) (emphases added): As this article about the above study notes: "Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers." That is a very troubling statistic. You may know that Sweden is among the world's leaders in being culturally supportive of transgenderism, so it may be difficult to attribute the discouraging results to social/cultural taboos or condemnation. See also this 2004 article from The Guardian (a UK newspaper) (emphases added): And here (also from 2004): Things apparently have not improved much since 2004. See here: See also this 2016 study: Suicide and Suicidal Behavior among Transgender Persons (emphases added): I think we need to take a lot more time and effort to sort out the real and long-term effects of sex reassignment surgery before we advocate for it. I don't think this is happening, and in fact I think it is being discouraged. I encourage you to read this article: I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle. It is written by a self-described "queer woman" who is "politically to the left of Bernie Sanders" (so your "I see this issue is right-wing pundits trying to drum up fear and hate against liberals" schtick doesn't really work). This coming from the guy who favors and defends laws criminalizing speech he doesn't like and other laws that compel speech he does like. You'll understand why I view your pronounced concerns about "laws limiting freedom" with a wee bit of skepticism. Meanwhile, here is a list of articles and resources I have found informative and useful regarding this topic: 2015: Transgender Regret Is Real Even If The Media Tell You Otherwise 2016: I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery 2017: Once again: why is it okay to be transgender but not transracial? 2018: Explosive Ivy League Study Repressed For Finding Transgender Kids May Be A Social Contagion 2019: No Child is Born in the Wrong Body … and other thoughts on the concept of gender identity (authored by an endocrinologist) 2019: Intersex: What It Is And Is Not 2020: The Dangerous Denial of Sex 2021: Little Known About Detransitioners 2021: Sex is Not a Spectrum 2021: Why it's wrong – and profoundly damaging – to make us all agree that someone is whatever gender they say they are: HELEN JOYCE argues the gender self-identification lobby is harming children, women – and trans people themselves 2021: The Explosion In Queer Sexuality Among Kids Is Not A Natural Trend 2022: Trans doctor who helps teens transition says it’s now ‘gone too far’ 2022: Puberty Blockers, Cross-Sex Hormones, and Youth Suicide 2022: ‘I literally lost organs:’ Why detransitioned teens regret changing genders 2022: Why detransitioners are crucial to the science of gender care 2022: Regretting Transition for Gender Dysphoria 2023: ‘Detransitioners’ Are Being Abandoned By Medical Professionals Who Devastated Their Bodies And Minds 2023: On Scientific Transparency, Researcher Degrees Of Freedom, And That NEJM Study On Youth Gender Medicine 2023: The New, Highly Touted Study On Hormones For Transgender Teens Doesn’t Really Tell Us Much Of Anything Thanks, -Smac
  16. I have, for some time now, been opposed to the death penalty. My opposition is not as much about a philosophical objection to the idea of the State being able to end someone's life. I think the State has and can exercise that power, as stated in the United States Constitution (emphasis added) : The clause in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: See also the Idaho State Constitution (the jurisdiction that will be putting Daybell/Vallow on trial for their lives) (emphasis added) : So as long as "Due Process" is observed, the State can execute persons within its jurisdiction. I also do not have a religious/moral objection to the death penalty. From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism: My concern about the death penalty, then, is not about the legality of it, or its basic religious/moral premise. Rather, my current broad and generalized objection to the death penalty is threefold: 1. Incompetent Administration of Death Penalty by the State My primary concern has more to do with skepticism about the fundamental competency of the State to properly mete out capital punishment. A person wrongfully convicted can be freed. Property wrongfully taken can be returned. Compensation can be given for such things. But there's really no way to fix the execution of an wrongfully convicted person. Per the Equal Justice Initiative, "190 people have been exonerated and released from death row since 1973." See also this information from the Death Penalty Information Center: "{N}early seven in 10 {verdicts resulting in the death penalty} were thrown out for serious error." "82% of retried death row inmates turned out not to deserve the death penalty; 7% were not guilty." "One in 20 death row inmates is later found not guilty." Yeesh. See also this information regarding racial disparities (also from DPIC) : See also here (concerns about capital execution of those with diminished mental capacity). 2. Lack of Deterrent Effect My second concern is the mixed bag of evidence regarding the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent (see, e.g., here and here). 3. Expenditures in Meting Out Capital Punishment My third concern, which is far less important than the first two, is the exorbitant costs associated with execution as compared to lifetime incarceration (see, e.g., here, here, here). --- My assessment of the foregoing matters is not set in stone, but if there was ever a topic about which we should "err on the side of caution," Capital Punishment is it. Having said all this, I am here expressing an exception to my general opposition to the death penalty, and state that I think it would be an appropriate and just punishment for Daybell and Vallow. The evidence of guilt will, I think, be shown to be overwhelming. Daybell and Vallow are white, so the "racialization" aspect of the death penalty is absent. And as for their executions having a deterrent effect, I don't care about that in this instance. Instead, I choose to focus on societal retribution, which is often cited as one of the moral justifications for capital punishment. While I maintain the presumption of innocence for Daybell/Vallow in a de jure sense, I fully anticipate they they will be duly convicted of killing those kids, and also Daybell's wife. Such depravities must be punished to the utmost. Thanks, -Smac
  17. From what I read the other day, the church would only allow it if you were born intersex'd. The Church cannot - by its own doctrine - allow or disallow any such thing. It only has as much authority over the individual as the individual chooses to give to it. That said, here is the Church's current policy: Two saving ordinances are only to be had in the temple. This circumstance really is extraordinarily rare, and does not encompass those with Gender Dysphoria. Thanks, -Smac
  18. First, it was not "a" minor infraction. By the time the police moved to arrest Mr. Allan, he had A) failed to register his vehicle (a class C misdemeanor, see here), B) failed to have a DL while operating a motor vehicle (an infraction or misdemeanor, depending on the circumstances), and C) failed to comply with multiple lawful orders (a class B misdemeanor, see here). Second, Mr. Allan had also produced a passport, and when the officer looked at it and referred to him as "Mr. Chase Allan" (as per the passport), Mr. Allan responded with “That is not me. That is a piece of plastic paper.” The police officer then said "So you have a fraudulent passport? Wonderful. That's what I'm hearing. Step out of the car for me..." We all know what happened next. Possession of a forged or fraudulent passport is a second-degree felony under Utah law (see here). In Utah, "{p}robable cause exists when an officer has knowledge of facts and circumstances that are of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a prudent and reasonable person of ordinary intelligence, judgment, and experience that it is reasonably likely that a crime has been committed and the person arrested committed that crime." The police officer asked Mr. Allan for "identification" of himself, and in response Mr. Allan produced a "passport," and when the officer used it to discern Mr. Allan's name, Mr. Allen responded with "That is not me." That seems quite within the parameters of "probable cause." And even if probable cause was lacking, the time to sort that out is not during the traffic stop. Third, by the time the police went hands-on, they had clear evidence of multiple misdemeanors, and likely also had probable cause of a second-degree felony. Second-degree felonies are actually a pretty big deal. They are punishable by 1-15 years in prison and fines up to $10,000. So I don't think we can say that the problem was "a minor infraction." I think that assumes way too much. Consider, for example, this description of how Farmington Police handled a similar traffic stop involving Mr. Allan's mother: "{Lieutenant Eric Johnsen} advised the officer to be courteous and not to escalate the matter." Thanks, -Smac
  19. Until when? How long should multiple police officers in a small jurisdiction be tied up dealing with Mr. Allan's foolish behavior? Until Mr. Allan does what? Did he give any indication of a willingness to comply with the repeated (and entirely lawful) instructions? Nope. So what would the passage of time do? And what if the detained person was armed (as Mr. Allan turned out to be)? Should the police "step back" and give him a clearer shot at them (hidden as he was behind tinted windows, the driver's side window being rolled down just 2-3 inches)? Meanwhile, I am curious as to why you aren't asking about what Mr. Allan should have done differently. He was, after all, the one acting outside the law. The police were A) dealing with an uncooperative and defiant person, B) who was ensconced in a private vehicle with tinted windows, and C) who had only rolled one window down a few inches, and D) who had declined the officer's request to roll down the window further, and E) who had repeatedly refused lawful - and entirely reasonable and normative - instructions from law enforcement, and F) who had already evidenced a willingness to break the law (by not having a DL and not having tags on his car). The police did not assume he was armed (as evidenced by the fact that one shouted "gun, gun, gun!"). The police did not ask him if he was armed, likely because he is not legally obligated to tell them that, and because he had already demonstrated that would not cooperate with reasonable requests. Given the circumstances, I think the police were quite justified in being "on alert" as to the potential for violence. Giving Mr. Allan more time to sort out potential plans for such violence does not make sense to me. Mr. Allan was largely an unknown quantity until the instant before the shooting started. They did not know if he would try to put the car into gear and take off (the car was still running), or whether he was armed. What they did know is that he had repeatedly broken the law (no DL, no tags, refusal to comply with lawful orders) and was quite uncooperative and adversarial (refused to lower window, refused to answer questions, etc.). What they suspected is that he might have been armed (and as it turns out, he was). FWIW, I don't see it as "disproportionate" at all. None of the police officers swore at him (not until after the shooting had stopped, by which point a few f-bombs would be understandable). They didn't mace him. They didn't break the window (the door was apparently unlocked). Had he not been armed, or if he had notified them that he was armed, or if he had complied with lawful orders, he would be alive today. I feel very badly for the Allan family. However, I do not presently allocate blame for the death of their son with the police. They were doing their job and were acting lawfully, while Mr. Allan had repeatedly violated the law and was acting foolishly and dangerously. As I noted above, police are trained about such things. There are "Rules of Engagement" and "Use of Force" guidelines, and they appear to have followed those guidelines. Meanwhile, Mr. Allan was acting quite outside the law, and his obnoxious behavior only made things worse. Thanks, -Smac
  20. IIRC, he framed this as a request, not an order. And he also explained the purpose of the request (he wanted to see if anyone else was in the vehicle). I think what the officer did here was reasonable, and was not calculated to antagonize. Mr. Allan was antagonistic, uncooperative and defiant throughout the interaction. I don't know about that. It's a common explanation to give to someone so that they understand that they are "not free to go" if the police officer stops talking, walks back to the police vehicle, whatever. The officer was clarifying things for Mr. Allan for his (Mr. Allan's) benefit. I think it's difficult to characterize this as antagonistic. Yes. Those are the two options. The third option of not complying with lawful instructions from a police officer during a traffic stop - the one Mr. Allan would surely have preferred - was not available. I think the SovCit folks sometimes think that if they spout nonsense long enough, or if they behave aggressively/adversarially during the traffic stop, they can intimidate or dissuade the police officer. Again, the officer was clarifying things for Mr. Allan. At this point the police officer and Mr. Allan were in a power struggle, but the former was acting in accordance with the law, and the latter was not. Yes. So did Mr. Allan. He could have complied with the law and carried a DL and registered his vehicle, but he didn't. He could have cooperated with the police officer, but he didn't. He could have complied with the officer's lawful commands, but he didn't. He could have notified the police that he was armed, but he didn't. And so on. The statement is, I think, quite correct. The officer exercised his discretion - which you acknowledge he had - to leave Mr. Allan with only two options. Sarcasm is neither here nor there. The police officer was acting in accordance with the law, and Mr. Allan was not. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that. Mr. Allan knew, or should have known, for quite a while that he was likely to be pulled over if he didn't have tags on his car. It's also pretty clear that he had prepared for being pulled over, given that he must have "rehearsed" the talking points he was spouting. Mr. Allan having prepared talking points to spout also indicates that his refusal to cooperate or comply with premeditated, rather than a "heat of the moment" thing. Mr. Allan also knew before the interaction that he was armed, but chose not to tell the officers at any time, including when they were instructing him to exit the vehicle and telling him they would break the window and extract him if he did not voluntarily exit. Mr. Allan knew all these things prior to and during the interaction with the police. Meanwhile, the police officer - prior to the interaction - did not know Mr. Allan before hand, did not know about the scope and breadth of whatever "ideology" had spurred Mr. Allan to not register his car, did not know that Mr. Allan did not have a DL, did not know that Mr. Allan would not cooperate or comply with lawful (and entirely normative) orders from a police officer during a traffic stop, did not know that Mr. Allan was armed, and so on. I think it's difficult for us to play armchair quarterback. We're sitting at computers. Weeks after the events in question. With the benefit of hindsight and bodycam footage. We weren't there. The police officers seem to have complied with the law. Mr. Allan, meanwhile, had violated the law by A) not having a DL, B) not registering his vehicle, and C) not complying with lawful orders from law enforcement. He then violated common sense by not notifying the armed police officers that he was armed. He may well have been going for his gun when he was shot (again, the weapon was recovered from the driver's side floor, not from his holster). But you are also not saying that Mr. Allan's actions were illegal (even though they were) and extremely foolish (even though they were). Okay. I think the officers were quite professional, exhibited a willingness to do their jobs as they have been trained to do, and were properly and reasonably attempting to enforce the law against a person who had premeditatively decided to violate it in several different ways, and to compound the seriousness of that illicit behavior by being confrontational and by not notifying the police that he was armed. Thanks, -Smac
  21. While often this is good advice it doesn't always work. Absent extraordinary - and foreseeably evidence - circumstances, I think "comply now, contest later" is the way to go. There are no doubt instances of police misconduct. But again, the best approach is to not escalate or antagonize, and to instead "comply now, contest later." Bodycams are making police misconduct harder to hide. The NPR article is entitled "A Lawyer's Advice For Black Men At Traffic Stops: 'Comply Now, Contest Later.'" The "lawyer" here is Eric Broyles, an attorney who co-wrote "Encounters with Police: A Black Man's Guide to Survival" with Adrian Jackson, a 25 year veteran of an Ohio police department. Here are pictures of Mr. Broyles and Officer Jackson: http://survivethepolice.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/images/EricBroyles.jpg http://survivethepolice.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/images/AdrianJackson2.jpg They are both, notably, black men. From the article: I don't think anyone who is genuinely interested in the well-being of minorities (or anyone else) subjected to a traffic stop is recommending any other course of action. Plenty of reasons for that. Vilification of law enforcement and politicized de-funding efforts being biggies. I'd like to see evidence of that. Again, I'd like to see evidence. Police officers are not making up their own Rules of Engagement or Use of Force guidelines. If so, we ought to be looking at state legislatures to get more involved in sorting things out. Meanwhile, however, "comply now, contest later" in a traffic stop context is the best way to go. Thanks, -Smac
  22. With respect, I disagree with this characterization. Mr. Allan was spoiling for an argument/confrontation. The officer did not goad him into it. That the officer may have known the "type" of person Mr. Allan was, the officer did not make him so. Moreover, the officer was, I think, quite correct in not pandering to the inanities spouted by Mr. Allan, and in not ceding control of the traffic stop to Mr. Allan. During a traffic stop, the police officer is in charge. Arguing with him, refusing to cooperate, refusing to comply with lawful orders, etc. will only make things more dangerous for everyone involved. Per this DOJ study, traffic stops are "the most common self-initiated incident that led to officer fatalities, accounting for 38, or 52 percent, of all 73 Self-Initiated Activity cases examined." See also here: I am very much in favor of investigating causative factors for racial disparities such as those noted above. I am very much in favor of bodycams, improved and increased training, and other means of improving police officer's interactions with the general public, and also in holding them responsible for their actions. What I am not in favor of is roadside confrontations with law enforcement. The video of the officer's interaction with Mr. Allan is 8:49 long. The interaction begins at :36. Mr. Chase begins to refuse to cooperate at :44, or 8 seconds later. After nearly three minutes of back-and-forth, with Mr. Allan repeatedly refusing to cooperate or obey lawful orders, at 4:03 the officer instructs him to step out of the vehicle. Mr. Allan again refuses. The officer repeats the instruction at 4:08, and Mr. Allan again refuses to comply. The officer repeats the instruction a third and fourth time at 4:12 and 4:14, and Mr. Allan again refuses to comply. At 4:15, another officer warns Mr. Allan that if he does not step out of the vehicle they will break the window and extract him, and Mr. Allan continues to not comply. At 4:18, they open the door, and that's when Mr. Allan can be seen wish his hips shifted forward in the seat, and the calls of "gun gun" can be heard, and in the next instance there is a volley of gunfire. Mr. Allan was then pulled from the vehicle, with an empty holster plainly visible on his right hip, and other video and news reports later state that a gun was found on the driver's side floor. This was a tragic set of circumstances, but at each "beat" of the interaction A) the police officer was in charge, B) Mr. Allan refused to comply, C) at no point did Mr. Allan tell them he was armed (not a legal requirement, but surely a commonsensical one in those circumstances), and D) Mr. Allan may well have been going for his weapon when the police opened fire. The police officer was doing his duty and, it appears, was operating within the law. Mr. Chase was being combative, confrontational, and acting in violation of the law. And he had a deadly weapon, and he may well have been attempting to use it when he was shot (the investigation will likely yield more light on this). In terms of allocating fault or misconduct, the vast majority of it belongs to Mr. Allan. Traffic stops are, by their very nature, often "antagonistic" (as in "caus{ing} (someone) to become hostile or angry"). But then, court proceedings are also often this way, yet nobody faults the judge for doing his/her job in maintaining control over the decorum and behavior exhibited during proceedings. Can a judge misbehave? Sure. But the judge has all sorts of advantages that a police officer at a traffic stop does not. Traffic stops are, statistically speaking, overwhelmingly uneventful, but each one is unique, and whether or not a given stop will be "eventful" is very much an unknown quantity. Again, with respect, I think this incident should be used as "what not to do" for people who are pulled over in a traffic stop. Criminal defense lawyers and other groups who are interested in protecting civil rights regularly advise both prospective and actual clients to not do what Mr. Allan did: https://attorneysforfreedom.com/articles/surviving-a-traffic-stop/ https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police#ive-been-pulled-over-by-the-police "Upon request, show police your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance." https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encountering-law-enforcement-questioning https://www.aamva.org/law-enforcement/what-to-do-when-stopped-by-law-enforcement https://www.navalawaz.com/articles-resources/how-to-survive-a-traffic-stop https://www.seattletrafficattorneys.com/blog/recent-news/post/how-to-act-during-a-traffic-stop https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/how-talk-police-when-youre-pulled-over.htm https://www.npr.org/2015/08/01/428420359/a-lawyers-advice-for-black-men-at-traffic-stops-comply-now-contest-later The examples are endless. It is in everyone's best interests to "comply now, contest later." If Mr. Allan had done that, he would be alive today. Thanks, -Smac
  23. Just saw this item about World Athletics ("the international governing body for the sport of athletics, covering track and field, cross country running, road running, race walking, mountain running, and ultra running") : Trans-Women Banned from Woman's Division in Olympics (YouTube video). More here: This development follows last year's announcement by World Aquatics / FINA, the international governing body for aquatic sports, to effectively restrict women's sports to biological women. From June 2022: The announcement by World Athletics was also followed by this announcement by Swim England, the national governing body for swimming, diving, water polo, open water swimming, and synchronised swimming in England: Similarly, UK Athletics, the governing body for the sport of athletics in the United Kingdom, has also recently "announced a ban on transgender athletes competing in the female category." Reactions to these developments have been, unsurprisingly, mixed. See, e.g., here: "World is finally waking up" - Martina Navratilova endorses World Athletics' decision to bar transgender women from female competitions Martina Navratilova has always been vocal about her stance on this issue. She believes allowing transgender women to compete in the female category would give them an unfair advantage over biological female athletes. The 18-time Slam champion reiterated that very point in her column and argued that champions are respected because they excel beyond their peers when all aspects of the competition are equal. According to Navratilova, while some athletes may have inherent advantages, efforts should be made to level the playing field, and allowing transgender women in female categories would do the opposite. Here (by "International Family News") : World Athletics heads back to normalcy: No males in female sport Here (by "VCY America," apparently a Christian group) : World Athletics Council Bans Transgender Athletes Here (by "PopSugar.com") : Transgender Women Are Women — So Why Has World Athletics Banned Them From Competing? Here (by "TransgenderFeed.com") : World Athletics Council bans trans women athletes competing in female events I think these developments are a good resolution. It looks like we are headed toward having competitive sports involving A) an "open" category (open to everyone, including women and biological males who "identify" as women) and B) a "women's only" category (limited to actual, biological women). I would like to hear thoughts and assessments on these developments, as they have an effect on the trans movement, and speak to some of its ideology. For example, the video quotes Lia Thomas (f/k/a William Thomas) responding to the World Athletics announcement as follows: It seems like equivocations (such as "trans women are women") and accusations of bigotry/transphobia (see SeekingUnderstanding's comment above) have been essential components of arguments in favor of trans women (that is, biological males) in women's sports. I think these arguments, innately flawed as they already were, will only be further weakened by the course being taken by World Athletics, World Aquatics, UK Athletics and Swim England. I suspect more and more governing bodies will adopt this approach. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac
  24. I agree that this is a significant concern. Also, selective opposition to being "above the law." Also, the conflation of anger/outrage with virtue. Also, the suppression of speech. Also, the replacement of reasoned argument with incivility, bullying, etc. Pres. Nelson's comments at General Conference were quite astute. I don't understand how this is relevant. In any event this assessment by Alan Dershowitz deserves some attention. I'm not sure how much traction the SovCit movement is getting. And I don't see what Trump has to do with it. Thanks, -Smac
  25. This is unfortunate: 'We’re just punching bags': Farmington officials face angry callers after cops fatally shot Chase Allan And here: Lots of emotional rhetoric and vitriol. Very little reasoned argument, analysis or assessment of the evidence. Thanks, -Smac
×
×
  • Create New...