smac97

For my part, no, I am not calling for a blanket ban on all surgeries for minors. Gynecomastia surgery is typically performed to correct a physical medical condition (excess breast tissue in boys, often caused by puberty, hormones, or medication). It is not the same as gender-affirming surgeries, which involve removing healthy organs (breasts, testicles, etc.) in an attempt to align the body with a perceived gender identity. Perhaps we are encountering a definitional issue. "Gender affirming surgery" seems to refer to a category of medical procedures that does not include what you are referencing above. See, e.g., here: I think most people, when they think of or reference "gender affirming" procedures, do not have Gynecomastia in mind. They differentiate it in terms of designation ("Gynecomastia" v. Gender-Affirming “Top Surgery” (Double Mastectomy)), who the patient is (a biological male with excess breast tissue v. a biological female who "identifies" as male), what the purpose of the procedure is (to correct a physical abnormality / medical condition v. attempting to "affirm" the patient's "gender identity"), the medical basis for it (treating a diagnosable condition (hormonal, medication-induced, pubertal, etc. v. treating psychological distress (Gender Dysphoria), what the procedure entails (removing excess glandular tissue and fat v. removal of healthy female breast tissue), the longitudinal data supporting it, the irreversible impact of it (not affecting core sexual/reproductive function v. irreversible removal of healthy organs), and so on. Gynecomastia surgery restores a more typical male chest appearance for a boy/man. “Top surgery” removes healthy breasts from a girl to make her look more like a boy. One is corrective of a physical deviation; the other is elective cosmetic/psychological intervention on a minor. And then there are other "gender-affirming" procedures which are even more life-altering: These are irreversible procedures, many of which involve infertility, sexual dysfunction, and regret — which is why several European countries (UK via the Cass Review, Sweden, Finland, Norway) have sharply restricted them for minors due to weak evidence of long-term benefit. Adults can, generally, do what they please with their bodies (though I think there are ongoing questions about comorbidities, lack of informed consent, lack of longitudinal data, etc.), but I think many people do not support these procedures for minors where they are life-altering, sterilizing surgeries based on a contested ideological model, and when most gender dysphoric children historically desist with watchful waiting and therapy. Is it possible, in your view, for people to "listen to their stories" and still come away with substantial concerns about these medical procedures, particularly when children/minors are involved? I have previously posted this list of concerns: Comorbidities. Informed consent. Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. Irreversibility. Sterilization. Electively removing healthy body parts of minors. Longitudinal studies essentially absent. Lifelong medical regimens. Ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. Social contagion risks. Risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society). Even adults, who should enjoy presumptive autonomy regarding their own medical decisions, should still be evaluated for these factors. Would you agree with that? Thanks, -Smac

Church Comms Dept. Features Man Who Sells Merch Mocking Church This seems rather odd. LDS Living has a 2023 profile of Bro. Skousen here. No reference to his sexual orientation in it. A video commentary from a few days ago: A longer YouTube vid here. From the description: Back to the first article: Any Latter-day Saint doing this is troubling. One whom is being featured on the Church's social media outlets is more so. I'm reminded of Chad Hardy, who also made money creating commercial products which sexualized things pertaining to the Church (scantily-clad Latter-day Saint women and former missionaries). I wonder what is going on here. Thanks, -Smac

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you disputing the factual elements of these stories? The videos? I am troubled that we as a society, or at least portions of society, are normalizing and justifying exposing children to highly sexualized behaviors. Nice scare quotes and a beautiful rhetorical mischaracterization. I was going for precision. I think re-defining "woman" to include men, and otherwise muddying definitional waters, is inappropriate. I know, I have hugged two crying friends over that news. I think many women, including young female athletes, have experienced substantial difficulties in relation to this issue. It is a contested one, so one side or the other is going to be unhappy. As regarding the law, though, I think the decision was correct. But not in fact or certainty which is what you actually need for there to be a strict binary. I don't think that is the way of things. There are only two gametes. Only two categories of sex. And we are back to the AI doing your work for you. Or you copied and pasted this from somewhere. I copied and pasted it from this February 2025 post of mine. We tend to re-hash the same topics over and over. The analysis about "epistemic uncertainty" was derived from this article (quoted here), but the language is my own. From the article: Sex is a binary trait in humans. Variation (including disorders of sex development) does not turn it into a spectrum, any more than birth defects turn the number of limbs into a spectrum. And the overwhelming majority of experts disagree with you. That has not been what I have observed. Quite the contrary, in fact. No, this is absolutely false. Science is evidence based. Pseudoscience is not. I agree. But labeling matters of ideological disagreement as "pseudoscience" is the eye-of-the-beholder thing. The sexual binary was settled science until ideologues came along and attempted to turn it into a spectrum. It's not working, hence the "You're a bigot!"-style vituperations that often manifest as the final argument. And in the end, arguments about the sexual binary would, at most, pertain to people with DSDs. Hence my prior comment about "using DSDs to blur or deny the sex binary" (by conflating these objective medical conditions with subjective Gender Dysphoria matters affecting people whose biological sex is unequivocally clear and unambiguous. I wholly agree. Again, it is interesting to me that both sides cite "evidence-based rationalism" to defend, on one side, the binary and, on the other, deny it. I have found this article clarifying: Understanding the Sex Binary That we are now, in 2026, debating what has long been well-established biological fact - the sexual binary - and that the debate differentiates on ideological lines, suggests that this the debate is ideological, and that "evidence-based rationalism" is being disregarded by one side or the other. "Biological reality" is where we really need to focus. "{B}oth sides of this issue claim that biological facts justify their policy proposals." I think this is quite accurate. The next part gets to the crux of the matter: I find this persuasive. I acknowledge that the statistically tiny number of DSDs need to be addressed, and the article does so below. But those are variations within the binary, and do not represent a third sex (or fourth, etc.). I think this is an accurate summary. And notably, it ends up with an ideological conclusion ("to oppress people"). My sense is that the current controversy was contrived with this end in mind, and then the reasoning for it has been worked backward so as to justify reaching that end. "Dreger is peddling pseudoscience." "For most people, their sex is obvious." Yep. This is the source of the ideology. People with Gender Dysphoria wanting to uses DSDs to justify the concept of being biologically male but "identifying" as female, or vice versa (or as "nonbinary"). I think this is right. Again from above: "{A}n individual’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) their primary reproductive organs (i.e., gonads) are organized, through development, to produce. Males have primary reproductive organs organized around the production of sperm; females, ova. Because there is no third gamete type, there are only two sexes that a person can be. Sex is therefore binary." I am curious as to your thoughts about this. Do you think that chromosomal disorders create new species? How sex is "determined" is distinguishable from how it is "defined." This. This is the ideological objective. Ideologues "shift the focus to intersex to distract from transgender." I think that is correct. DSDs are, I think, not relevant to most of the debate about transgender issues. I really would like to see a measured, evidence-based, non-inflammatory response to the above from you. I think this is what is happening now. I am glad of it. Again, this is ideological. Apart from parent identity (which is subject to error or misconduct), no jurisdiction allows any other factual points in a birth certificate. We don't allow people to alter their date of birth, location, etc. Again, this is ideological, not "evidence-based rationalism." Sage words. This is important stuff. I agree with this. I find it persuasive and evidence-based and rational. I think that is correct. Nope. More would be welcomed but the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. I do not think that is the case. I appreciate, however, that you feel strongly otherwise. And how would you know what they face? I have read quite a bit about their plight. Much of it quoting detransitioners at length. Citation needed. This has been going on for quite a while. The most recent example: Supreme Court turns away parental rights dispute involving child's gender transition in school They are suing over the possibility that their child might run away and seek to transition? Cool, I guess. It appears, then, that we agree that parental rights are being adversely affected. That's something. I have. I have linked to and commented on many many dozens of articles on these matters in various threads. Please don’t pretend you are concerned about people in the LGBTQ community. I care very much about people in the LGBTQ community. I have family members who consider themselves part of it, or are sympathetic to it. If by "it" you refer to same-sex behavior, then yes. But so is heterosexual fornication, adultery, abuse, and so on. Plenty of ways for us to sin. This is why I repose so much value in the Law of Chastity. It provides clarity in our increasingly sexualized world. And you should probably listen to those who are impacted by such matters and give them due deference. I listen a lot. I read a lot. I put my thoughts and assessments out there, on this board, knowing that they will be critiqued by people whose ideologies and worldviews vary substantially from my own. In other words you got interested when your side at least temporarily lost on gay issues and your propaganda machine moved on to the next moral panic. Well, no. See this article: The March of Dimes Syndrome I think this is an accurate assessment. Thanks, -Smac

I don’t believe you. If you were you could just be indifferent. You choose not to be. Yes, I could choose this. Or I could speak against what i think are some very troubling developments in our society. Apart from commenting on this board (the audience of which is quite small), and studying this matter privately here and there, I don't do much else with it. Not much of any of that happening and that is not “sexualizing children”. It seems to be happening regularly, and more frequently. The most recent iteration was just a few days ago: Why Some LGBTQ People Don't Like Pride Parades (the content creator is gay) I'm gay, but this CROSSES the f**king line! (also a gay content creator) Seattle Pride parade pandemonium as nude marchers prance through streets in front of children I find this troubling. Not men, I don't know that we'll ever agree on the lexical issue here. You are on board with expanding "women" to include biological men who "identify" as women, and vice versa. Others are not on board with this. State legislatures and federal elements are also weighing in on this. Two days ago: Supreme Court says states can restrict transgender athletes in girls’ sports Most of that is wrong. I am happy to listen to what you have to say about inaccuracies. I would prefer evidence-based reasoning more than conclusory assertions and insults. Intersex people exist. Sex is not a binary nor is gender. While "intersex" (people with DSDs) certainly exist, they do so within the sex binary. Though DSDs create an environment where epistemic uncertainty is not always immediately resolvable, the biological sex of the individual is ultimately resolvable in principle. Such epistemic uncertainty is mostly, though not always, "resolvable" through medical testing. Certain rare conditions defy easy classification, such as Mosaicism/Chimerism. But even in these rare cases, the individual is still, ontologically, going to align with one of the two sexes at a fundamental level. Biological sex remains binary because gamete production defines biological sex, and because chromosomal, gonadal, and anatomical variations exist but do not create a third sex, and instead only create variations within the male-female binary. While our ability to diagnose/classify it can be imperfect/uncertain, that imperfection/uncertainty does not create a third sex category. And again, virtually all of the sociopolitical commentary on "trans" identity arises not from DSDs, but from Gender Dysphoria. This is perhaps a topic better left to a thread of its own. Using examples that show sex isn’t a binary to show that sex isn’t a binary is a problem why? It only matters if you are committed to believing it is a binary no matter what evidence goes against it. This is magical thinking trying to replace evidence-based rationalism. It is interesting to me that both sides cite "evidence-based rationalism" to defend, on one side, the binary and, on the other, deny it. For my part, I find the latter argument to be unpersuasive. Teaching pseudoscience should be something that leads to social scorn. I question the utility of "social scorn" in most contexts, particularly where the topic is as difficult as this one. And "pseudoscience" seems to be something of the eye-of-the-beholder thing. The disclosures in the Cass Report. The Tavistok Clinic. WPATH. Both of these have been studied and labeled as pseudoscience. I recommend reading up on the creation of ROGD. It came from a series of surveys of parents of trans kids asking if it happened due to the kids their child was around. Unsurprisingly they said yes because blaming a child’s friends for “corrupting” them is a tale as old as time. Actually studying how it works showed that the whole hypothesis was unsupported by any evidence. Nevertheless it is still championed by pseudoscientific people such as yourself as somehow being scientific. More magical thinking. I will give this further evaluation. There are a growing number of detransitioners (though still a small percent of the total) because there are more people transitioning. If you can show a spike in the percentage of people who are deliberately choosing to detransition (not just those who stop due to social pressure or financial concerns) I would love to see it. I am situated to locate and evaluate such data, not create it. More longitudinal data are necessary. Societal acceptance or opprobrium are only part of the problem detransitioners face. The young woman was the only Latter-day Saint among her peer group. They really raked her across the coals when she detransitioned. Old people yelling about how change in society is happening too fast has been going on since at least ancient Greece. And your compelled speech thing is silly. Even when your side controls all the branches of our government you still want to pretend that you are the victims. Bunch of whiners. The concern remains. Citation needed. This has been going on for quite a while. The most recent example: Supreme Court turns away parental rights dispute involving child's gender transition in school Distortion of reality. Do they over-rely on it? How do you measure that? Sometimes suicide is the result if someone cannot transition. Is it over-reliant on that or is it under-reliant? And suicide rates remain elevated? Of course they do. A lot of that is because people marginalize them after they transition and family often alienates you if you do. A difficult topic, to be sure. It is dismissed because it is unsupported by the evidence. That is how scientific study works. Well, we have ongoing questions and concerns about ideological capture of institutions and organizations. It appears to be an ongoing controversy. Blanchard's theory remains a controversial but scientifically supported framework in sexology and gender research, particularly among researchers who study gender dysphoria empirically rather than through purely ideological lenses. I do. Shut up. You don’t want youth who are gay or lesbian to be supported in their identity in any case. I want diagnoses and treatments and choices to rise above ideological factors. That is a difficult thing these days. I do not. I reject "sexual orientation" as a core identity for myself. I've said this many times. I acknowledge that others do "identiify" themselves in this way, and that it can be an important identity for them. Proof of said allegations or it didn’t happen. Happy to have this discussion in its own thread. The parent’s right to hurt their child must be defended at all costs. This is a difficult topic. That's an interesting topic. You endlessly post every exciting new article you find here. Far from "every" article. And I post here, but that's about it. You frequently attribute "hate" to people who disagree with your ideology/perspective/opinion on this or that. I've been a target of such accusations many times. It never actually impacted your life though. Neither does slavery. Or elective abortion. Not directly, anyway. But we can still have and express opinions about such matters. Which has had almost no effect on anyone. I think many thousands of people, mostly women, have been affected. I have come across some stories of bishops using their access to children to engage in improper behavior toward them. The Church has tens of thousands of bishops, only a tiny fraction of which engage in such misconduct. And yet it is still appropriate to acknowledge and address such matters. For someone who claims to care about parental rights you sure do seem to care a lot about parents not taking their kids to Drag Queen Story Hour or to a Pride event. Earlier you said: "The parent’s right to hurt their child must be defended at all costs." I think this has some application to those who support exposing children to highly sexualized matters. Parents, though vested with substantial constitutional and statutory protections as to their rights to care for their children, are not the sole arbiters of what their children can and cannot do (and be exposed to). The state does have some right to intervene. I don't think parents should be exposing their children to highly sexualized behaviors such as those noted above. Yeah, that is not a thing either. I think it has been happening quite a lot. No, it is hatred. These sorts of accusations are a substantial contributor to the challenge in having candid conversations about difficult topics such as these. The ideology is not contested on any real scientific grounds. It is contested primarily on flimsy religious grounds and an appeal to the bigotry of the past as being something that must be preserved for the good of society. I have seen substantial evidence to the contrary. I was overwhelmingly ambivalent about the trans movement until the calculus changed. I think that change began after Lawrence v. Texas. Activists and ideologues, having "won" on same-sex marriage, then pivoted to trans issues, and that pivot started to very visibly involve children. Questionable (and hugely consequential) medical interventions. Sexualization and grooming. Insufficient attention paid to comorbidities, informed consent, etc. I think the more radical elements of the trans movement have done some real damage. To society. To trans people. To children. I don't think anyone wants to be speciously labeled a bigot, but the label has long lost its potency. Largely due to indiscriminate overuse. I don't think scriptural prophecies along these lines pertain to the sexualization and grooming of children, the imposition of dubious medical interventions, etc. It doesn’t matter if you intend to be cruel if the end result is cruelty. Measured and civil discussion on an obscure message board. That's all that is going on here. It takes a special kind of paranoid whiner to be troubled by an event in which your side literally won. Even when you win you act like a victim. That it had to go to the Supreme Court at all was troubling. What Colorado continued to do to the proprietor after the decision was troubling. Thanks, -Smac

More information about Douglas Wilson (Secretary Hegseths' spiritual advisor) : Thanks, -Smac

I am speaking about both situations. The State punishing what ought to be free speech, and also compelling speech. Broadly, I am, or would like to be, indifferent to the private lives of adults. That said, there are elements of the trans movement which I find quite troubling: Sexualization of Children — Drag Queen Story Hour events, sexually explicit books in school libraries targeting minors, and overtly sexualized behavior at some Pride events in the presence of children. Violence — Elevated rates of violent behavior in certain segments of the trans-identified population (e.g., some high-profile cases involving assaults on women or "TERFs," prison incidents). Also, advocacy of preemptively-justified violence in response to ideological disagreement. Men in Women’s Spaces — Biological males competing in women’s sports (with documented physical advantages), entering women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, and prisons, leading to safety and fairness issues. Medicalization of Minors — Rapid increase in puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for thousands of minors with gender dysphoria, despite weak long-term evidence, high desistance rates in some studies, and growing European caution (e.g., Cass Review in UK, restrictions in Sweden, Finland, Norway). Denial of Sexual Binary — Ideological insistence that sex is a spectrum or socially constructed, despite overwhelming biological evidence of binary gametic sex in humans (small/large gametes). Large-Scale Equivocation & Rhetorical Tactics — Phrases like “trans women are women,” conflating Disorders/Differences of Sex Development (DSDs/intersex conditions, which are rare developmental disorders) with typical gender dysphoria, and using DSDs to blur or deny the sex binary. Suppression of Dissent & Free Speech — Social, professional, and institutional penalties for questioning aspects of the ideology (e.g., “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” desistance, or biological reality), including firings, deplatforming, and labeling critics as bigots. Social Contagion & Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria — Sharp rise in trans identification, especially among adolescent females (previously rare), correlated with social media influence, peer groups, and autism/mental health comorbidities. Littman’s 2018 study and subsequent data. Erosion of Women’s Rights & Single-Sex Spaces — Redefinition of “woman”/“female” in law and policy leading to loss of sex-based protections, scholarships, and safe spaces. Detransition & Regret — Growing number of detransitioners (often with comorbidities like trauma, autism, or same-sex attraction) reporting inadequate screening and lifelong harm. Lawsuits against clinics emerging. And there seems to be some real animus against detransitioners in some quarters. I know a young woman who was praised by her peers when she "transitioned" into "identifying" as a boy. When she "detransitioned," she was raked across the coals by many of those same peers. Capture of Institutions — Rapid adoption of gender ideology in schools, medicine, sports, prisons, and corporations, often with limited debate or evidence (e.g., WPATH guidelines criticized for low-quality evidence). Capture of State institutions, and the consequent use of the coercive power of the State to punish and/or compel speech. Parental Rights Undermined — Policies allowing schools or medical providers to socially/medical transition minors without parental knowledge or consent in some jurisdictions. Mental Health & Suicide Narrative — Over-reliance on “affirmation or suicide” rhetoric, despite evidence that transition does not reliably resolve underlying mental health issues and that post-transition suicide rates remain elevated. Medical professionals acquiescing to, or even endorsing, this fundamentally coercive concept ("life saving" = "give me this treatment or I will kill myself" / "do you want a live daughter or a dead son?", etc.). Autogynephilia & Typology — Research (e.g., Blanchard) on two main types of male-to-female trans identification (early-onset homosexual, late-onset autogynephilic) often dismissed or censored. Impact on Gay/Lesbian Youth — Some clinicians and detransitioners report that same-sex attracted youth are being medicalized as “trans” instead of supported as gay/lesbian. Data & Research Suppression — Allegations of publication bias, cancellation of studies questioning affirmation model, and pressure on researchers (e.g., Littman, Cass Review findings). Infringements on Parental Rights — Various state and private actors undermining and evading the rights of parents relative to their children. I see many elements of trans ideology creating substantial harm to society and its individual members, including "trans" people. And obsessed with queer people in general. I appreciate you sharing your perspective, but I think there’s a misunderstanding here. I am not “obsessed” with trans people, nor do I hate them. For most of my life I was largely indifferent — live and let live. What consenting adults do with their own bodies in private has never been my concern. What changed for me (and, I think, for many others) was when the ideology moved beyond private behavior by adults into more public areas that affect everyone else: Biological males competing in women’s sports, entering women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, and prisons. Drag Queen Story Hour events and highly sexualized behavior at some Pride events in the presence of children. Schools and medical professionals rapidly affirming and medically transitioning minors with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries — despite comorbidities, weak long-term evidence, desistance rates in some studies, known risks of infertility and other permanent effects, and the recent caution from European countries (e.g., the Cass Review in the UK). These are not private matters. They involve fairness for women and girls, child safeguarding, parental rights, and public policy. Raising concerns about them is not hatred — it’s a reasonable response to real-world consequences. I support compassionate care for adults with gender dysphoria. I support mental health treatment for those struggling. What I oppose is the erasure of sex-based rights, the medicalization of distressed children without robust evidence, and the demand that everyone affirm a contested ideology or be labeled a bigot. Disagreement on policy and evidence is not the same as personal animus. I have no desire to be cruel to any individual. I simply believe biological reality, child protection, and women’s rights still matter. Masterpiece Cakeshop continues to be troubling. Thanks, -Smac

The State typically cannot fire people from state-employment positions based on the exercise of Free Speech (that is, declining to acquiesce to mandatory pronouns and such). "Your exercise of your First Amendment rights makes you a jerk" is not really a viable legal argument in that context. Private parties generally have more leeway, I think, to fire people for not submitting to compelled speech. Yes, that is troubling to me. The differentiation here is the involvement of the State. The State cannot compel speech, which is why the nuns may have a case. I'm not interested in mongering fear, but in anticipating and heading off long-term trends. The troubling developments in Europe are illustrative, as they have been a long time coming. I would like to think we are immune from such trends here, but inroads have already happened. New York. California. Colorado. Other jurisdictions. Incremental encroachments need to be addressed. I'm not sure what you are referencing here. Absent illegality, decisions made in a representative republic by an elected legislature and/or executive are going to be hard to characterize as "authoritarian." Again, I'm not sure what you are referencing here, but I surmise that you are referring to the participation of "trans women" (that is, biological men) in women's sports, etc. I don't think that any men have any such "rights" or "protections," but I leave the matter to duly-elected legislatures who are answerable to their constituencies. From the article: Seems like the threat to speech is happening. You are being deliberately dense. The police are involved the alleged perpetrator WANTED THEM INVOLVED. This happens all the time. As I noted previously: "{L}awsuits require 'standing.' Sometimes that involves a person deliberately breaking a law, or otherwise contriving a factual predicate, in order to challenge the law's validity." So you are pivoting from saying this is a horrible thing that she is being investigated at all to this is a brave thing as she set this up to challenge the law and failed miserably. You previously: "Though I can’t find any follow up it is probably safe to conclude the investigation was concluded and no charges resulted so Gjevjon was successful." You now: "{S}he set this up to challenge the law and failed miserably. I think she wanted to draw attention to the issue, and she succeeded in that. Also, Lawrence v. Texas continues to be an interest analog. Not really. It is pretty obvious. You have to do all kinds of contortions and repost misrepresentations regularly and often to spin this as ambiguous. It's a wonderful thing that we live in a society where people can express such disagreements. I think Americans such as you and I are far more free to say what we think without worry of punishment by the State than our friends in many other countries. And I quite agree that we should not be "smug" about the First Amendment. Grateful, yes. Okay. You have previously objected to me raising your advocacy along these lines. I will abstain from this topic. Uneven way? Oh please, you haven’t shown some big uneven standard. I think the State is being selective in about what topics it wants to compel speech. I regularly encounter stories where Free Speech is under threat, both in the U.S. and abroad. So you are on the side of the trangender activists who don’t want her prosecuted. You’re getting into bed with everyone then. Hooray! Not everyone. Norway is still punishing people for speech. Yet you only talk it about when it involves those icky gross trans people for some reason. Advocates of trans ideology seem to be the only prominent and ongoing instance of a movement attempting to compel/coerce speech. Masterpiece Cakeshop was troubling as well. Thanks, -Smac

Supreme Court Delivers Landmark Title IX Win for Women's Sports That is an apt summary of the facts of human biology, and this decision is a victory for advocates of women's sports. We seem to be reasserting biological sex as the means of differentiation, as opposed to "gender identity." I think that is a necessary and appropriate conclusion. Thanks, -Smac

A Grok summary: Okay. But the perennial concern is what "religion" means in this context, and whether we will slide into a "all religions are equal, but some are more equal than others"-style problem. A mixed bag here. I'm sort of ambivalent about this. Would like to better understand this. This is great. Sure. Yeah, some warning bells here. I love the First Amendment and its protections of religious belief and practice. I'm not too keen on religions getting more involved in State affairs (and money). Thanks, -Smac

The Supreme Court has issued its ruling: Court rules that states can exclude transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports teams A Grok summary of the Court's opinion: I think this was the correct outcome. It's a difficult topic, to be sure. Thanks, -Smac

And there isn’t even any involved with “trans ideology” whatever the hell that is. "Compelled speech" refers to government or institutional requirements that force individuals to express (or refrain from expressing) certain ideas, often against their conscience. These days, it appears to be happening most frequently invoked in debates over transgender-related speech policies, such as: Punishing "Misgendering" and "Deadnaming": Many institutions, corporations, schools, and some governments treat the use of biologically accurate pronouns or names (e.g., calling a biological male "he" or using his birth name) as harassment, discrimination, or a hostile environment violation. This can lead to professional discipline, loss of employment, social ostracism, or legal penalties (e.g., human rights tribunal cases in Canada, or workplace policies in the U.S. and UK). Mandatory Pronoun Usage: Policies requiring people to use preferred pronouns (e.g., "they/them," neopronouns like "xe/xem," or opposite-sex pronouns) are, in my view, compelled speech. This forces individuals to affirm a contested ideological claim — that gender identity overrides or replaces biological sex — under threat of punishment. High-profile examples include professors, teachers, and employees facing investigations or termination for declining to use preferred pronouns. Broader Pattern: This is viewed as asymmetric: one side seeks to restrict certain speech (biological reality statements) while compelling other speech (affirmation of identity). Jordan Peterson's early opposition to Canadian Bill C-16 was a landmark pushback against this. Advocates of the foregoing compulsory/prohibited speech efforts present some justifications for them. Misgendering/deadnaming is not neutral speech but active harm that contributes to minority stress, mental health issues, and violence against trans people. Requiring basic courtesy (using preferred pronouns) is akin to other workplace civility rules (e.g., not using racial slurs) and does not rise to unconstitutional compelled speech. Free speech does not include the right to create a hostile environment or deny others' dignity in regulated settings like schools or employment. The impact of these efforts vary by jurisdiction: U.S.: The First Amendment generally protects against compelled speech (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 — flag salute case). Recent cases (e.g., involving teachers or doctors) test how far institutions can go in mandating pronoun usage or punishing "misgendering." Canada/UK/Europe: Human rights codes and hate speech laws have been used more aggressively, leading to complaints against academics, bakers (Masterpiece Cakeshop-style cases), and others. Key Tension: The debate pits dignity/anti-discrimination concerns against classical liberal principles of conscience and free expression. Critics argue that when the state or powerful institutions compel affirmation of a contested metaphysical claim (gender identity), it crosses into authoritarian territory. In short, the dominant modern usage of "compelled speech" critiques policies that punish biologically grounded language while requiring affirmative endorsement of gender identity. It has become a flashpoint in culture-war battles over language, truth, and institutional power. The issue remains highly polarized, with rapidly evolving case law and workplace norms. And it appears to pertain mostly to "trans" issues. Not totally, of course. For example, in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case the Supreme Court addressed whether anti-discrimination laws can compel a creative business owner to design custom products for events that violate their religious beliefs. It remains one of the most prominent free speech and religious liberty cases in modern jurisprudence. From that article: I find it troubling that the above statement can be construed in some western nations as a criminal offense. And yet, the police are involved, and whether or not a criminal charge is brought is not necessarily up to the alleged victim of the crime. Again, see my previous remarks about parallels with the Lawrence v. Texas case. "{V}oicing discriminatory opinions" seems like a very flexible "eye of the beholder" sort of thing. Not unlike what happened in Lawrence v. Texas. "{T}hree years in jail for public comments." For speaking words. I am glad that I live in America. Not too "essential," though. Section 185 substantially mitigates it. As a Latter-day Saint, I think we should be civil and respectful in our discourse with each other. However, I do not believe the State should compel such things, particularly in such an uneven way. What are your thoughts about Lawrence v. Texas? "The police investigation comes after Norway's Supreme Court ruled in September that a man had violated Section 185 when he wrote on Facebook that trans women were 'perverted man-pigs who role play that they are little girls.'" You have said some things in the past that I have found troubling, but I am grateful that we live in a country that allows such things to be said, and I would strongly object to you being criminally prosecuted for the things you have said. I think that incremental encroachments against Free Speech, such as by punishing and compelling speech, are a legitimate concern. I am reminded of this post on X: Thanks, -Smac

There does not seem to be much in the way of "compelled speech" going on in the U.S. except for that associated with trans ideology. If you have documentation about contrived circumstances (such as may have happened in Lawrence v. Texas), I would be happy to review it. Thanks, -Smac

If there is documentation of the claim, I would like to see it. That being said, lawsuits require "standing." Sometimes that involves a person deliberately breaking a law, or otherwise contriving a factual predicate, in order to challenge the law's validity. The most important gay civil rights case in history, Lawrence v. Texas, may have been predicated on contrived/fabricated evidence/circumstances. There is credible evidence that the factual predicate was at least partially unreliable or possibly fabricated, primarily from investigative journalism and scholarship after the decision. The strongest source is Dale Carpenter’s 2012 book Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas (based on extensive interviews, court records, and contemporaneous accounts). From the Amazon summary (emphasis added) : Carpenter, a law professor and gay rights supporter, concludes it is unlikely the deputies actually witnessed the men having sex when they entered. See also "The Unknown Past of Lawrence v. Texas" (also by Carpenter). Key points (summarized by Grok) : I would surmise that most folks who endorse the outcome of Lawrence would deny its legal impact because its factual underpinnings were based on a "factual predicate {that} was unreliable and possibly exaggerated or partially fabricated by police testimony." The same, I think, may eventually be said about the lawsuit filed by the nuns (though again, I have yet to see evidence that their legal dispute with the state is contrived). Thank you, -Smac

Yes. I am not. Free speech in Norway is enshrined in Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution, which explicitly prohibits prior censorship and guarantees the right to express oneself freely on any subject: Section 185 in the Norwegian Penal Code criminalizes hate speech: Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution seems substantially gutted by Section 185 in the Norwegian Penal Code. All the more reason for we here in the U.S. to work against encroachments onto Free Speech such as this. I have been attempting to substantially moderate my communications in the last several months. Your comments above pertain to statements I posted in 2022. From the article: I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. The article appears to have the State compelling private parties to say, or not say, words dictated by the State. The letter appears to be authentic. See also here: And here: The "Catholic Benefits Association" is an "anti-transgender group"? Seems like a pretty legitimate lawsuit. Or the issue may be more about the State compelling/coercing speech. Perhaps they are motivated by non-ulterior motives. Nuns are typically not in that line of work for the money. Thanks, -Smac

More recently: Catholic nuns face legal harassment for not using preferred pronouns December 2022: "A few months back I posted a few comments on recent legal developments in various jurisdictions pertaining to compulsory "pronoun" usage. I commented at length as to matters of compelled speech, orwellian re-definitions, and so on. ... I am strongly opposed to compelled speech, to the government using the force of law to punish people who say things the government does not want them to say, or to punish people who do not want to say things the government seeks to compel/coerce them to say (such as 'preferred pronouns'). Meanwhile, Analytics seemed to broadly deny that governments are starting to pass laws, or enforce existing ones, which seek to punish 'pronoun' usage..." June 2026: "The text {of the letter from from the state’s health department} stipulates that long-term care facilities must use patients’ preferred pronouns, even when they’re not present." January 2026: Washington University pressuring students to ‘deny biology,’ conform to radical gender ideology, AFL says May 2026: Federal Court Orders School District to Protect Students’ Free Speech Rights, Orders Free Speech Training for Employees June 2026: University of California sued for mandating students use chosen pronouns It appears the pronoun thing is still going on. Thanks, -Smac

Interesting: Summary of Transcript: Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac

I agree. That you put on it additional meanings, that it is “being as it is facially ugly and provocative and patently prejudiced” about how women and men should is inappropriate, imo. In legal parlance, judges are asked to make "Findings of Fact" and "Conclusions of Law." Here, the "findings of fact" are that some women openly profess and declare that, in their opinion, ,"all men are potential rapists." Several participants on this thread and others have repeatedly affirmed and ratified and endorsed this statement. Nobody disputes what the statement is. Judges also make "conclusions of law," which is to determine whether the established "facts" amount to a legal claim or defense. Here, the "conclusion" I have presented is that the statement "all men are potential rapists" is "facially ugly and provocative and patently prejudiced." Is it your position that characterizing all men everywhere as "potential rapists" and/or "possible rapists" is not "ugly"? That is it not "provocative"? That it is not "prejudiced"? Thanks, -Smac

Since you aren’t open to considering a different interpretation than the emotional one you have put in it, Well, no. I had in mind the "Plain Language" doctrine from my training as an attorney. See, e.g., here: See, I think "All men are potential rapists" is clear and unambiguous. I also see you and others tacitly acknowledging this by trying to impute into it some sort of nuance about what it really means or the message/meaning it is intended to express. Indeed, this effort seems far more steeped in emotion than in a straightforward clinical assessment of the statement. I acknowledge that the statement, being as it is facially ugly and provocative and patently prejudiced, can give rise to a response that has an emotional component. However, that does not negate or override the predominant clinical evaluation. "All men are potential rapists" is "plain and direct." Extensive commentary intended to supply nuance and "interpretation" about how men "should" perceive this sentiment signals a departure from plain and ordinary language. Some women declare "all men are potential rapists." That statement is clear and unambiguous in terms of how some women view "all men." I accept it as such. Thanks, -Smac

Are you directing this at me? Where have I "insisted" this? Thanks, -Smac

Respectfully, no. I am saying "All men are potential rapists" is not nuanced or ambiguous. It is direct and plain. Because you are ignoring the real life experience of women being told for eons to ignore or suppress their negative and natural responses towards men, uncomfortable warnings in favour of being kind, accepting, even flattering rather than cautious and neutral. Perhaps we should conclude our discussion. I am not ignoring this. I reject the notion that it is reasonable to point to "the real life experience of women" as a justification for a categorial and prejudiced denigration of all men everywhere. You think I am not listening you you, and I think you are not listening to me. I have said nothing about this. And again, the topic is not about whether women should be "courteous and smiling," but whether the framing of "all men" as "potential rapists" is a fair and reasoned and healthy and appropriate and effective thing to do relative to furthering women's safety, or whether it is ugly, unchristian, demoralizing, alienating, unnecessary, unhealthy, and injurious to both men and women and their overall interactions. Again, from Amulek: "If you want to communicate that 'women cannot reliably know which men are dangerous,' then why not just say that?" Why continue to defend a statement that foments resentment and alienation? And "start{ing} at a distance" necessarily includes declarations to the world that all men everywhere are "potential rapists"? That sure seems like a non sequitur to me. Thanks, -Smac

And how many times do I need to repeat why… Do you not believe there is strong programming, both biological and cultural for women to be passive and submissive to men? Do you not believe women have been telling their daughters for eons to be cautious around men? Do you not see how the first could negate the second if it’s not taught in a way that really gets imprinted? Thank you for your response, though I don't feel it is very responsive to my inquiry. It has more of a non sequitur feeling to it. I’m not trying to dismiss the very real concerns about safety or the history of cautionary advice passed down to daughters. Those warnings exist for good reason. What I’m questioning is the specific framing of “all men are potential rapists.” I completely agree that women (and men) should be wise, discerning, and cautious — especially in certain situations. But I don’t see how saying “all men are potential rapists” is necessary to communicate that message. It seems to go beyond prudent caution into a blanket characterization of every man as inherently dangerous until proven otherwise. I do believe biology and culture influence behavior. I also believe women have valid reasons for caution in many contexts. At the same time, I worry that broad statements like this can unintentionally reinforce fear and suspicion toward all men (including good ones) rather than encouraging wise, situational discernment. I’m not asking you to stop repeating your point — I’m asking why this particular strong wording is the best or only way to imprint the message of caution. Couldn’t we say something like “some men are dangerous and women can’t always tell which ones they are” without assigning potential guilt to every single man by default? Thanks, -Smac

I'm not. The "nuance" seems to be coming from those who feel that the statement needs explanation/clarification about what it really/actually is "intended" to mean. I am just reading it according to its plain language. I see the defensive driving analogy, and I agree that it’s wise to be situationally aware and prepared for danger. No one should be reckless. The difference I’m struggling with is this: In defensive driving, we say “some drivers can be dangerous” or “be prepared because anyone could make a mistake.” We don’t say “all drivers are potential reckless killers” as a default mindset. The latter is, in my view, different — it casts every single driver (or every single man) in a presumptively negative light before any evidence about that individual person appears. When the statement is “all men are potential rapists,” it seems to move beyond prudent caution into a broad characterization of an entire group as inherently risky. That’s the part that feels like it crosses into prejudice (pre-judging) rather than just wise preparedness. I don’t think pointing that out means I’m saying women shouldn’t be cautious or prepared — I’m saying the framing matters because it shapes how we view and treat millions of individual men who have done nothing wrong, and because the framing is divisive, alienating, risks stoking undue anxiety and hypervigilance, etc. I previously posted this on June 1: Thanks, -Smac

I have previously voiced some thoughts here, here, here, here, here, and so on. You have not interacted with much or any of this, and have instead resorted to unfortunate personalized digs. That's a bummer, as I think such comments impede discussion. From the first link: I think men can do the following: 1. Abstain from engaging in misconduct toward women and children. 2. Support the passage and enforcement of laws against mistreatment of women and children. 3. Condemn any ideology or rhetoric that justifies or excuses mistreatment of women and children. 4. Act to report - or, where possible, stop - known instances of mistreatment of women and children and protect them from harm . 5. Encourage others to not only abstain from mistreating women and children, but to affirmatively treat them with kindness and respect. 6. Subscribe to schools of thought and moral frameworks which facilitate the foregoing measures. 7. Encourage "situational awareness." 8. Model good behavior (i.e., I seek to treat my wife with kindness and respect, and abstain from any mistreatment or demeaning conduct, and hope that my daughters view that as the healthy and appropriate way for men to treat women). These are the measures that immediately come to mind. However, none of these is predicated on me being male (except, I suppose, for the last one). {EDIT: And none of these is predicated on characterizing all men everywhere as "potential rapists."} Women can also do these things. And none of these involve blanket characterizations of all men as "potential rapists." Terrorism is a serious issue that should involve much discussion and action, but we don't need broad slanders like "All Muslims are potential/possible terrorists" to be part of such efforts. Teachers engaging in sexual misconduct with minor students is a serious issue that should involve much discussion and action, but we don't need broad slanders like "All women are potential/possible sexual predators" to be part of such efforts. Online scamming is a serious issue, but we don't need need broad slanders like "All Indians and Nigerians are potential/possible scammers." Thanks, -Smac

"All men are potential rapists" is a "plain language" sort of thing. It's not ambiguous or vague or nuanced. As Amulek noted: It is interesting to me that the targets of this ugly sentiment are being derided for even mildly and respectfully voicing concerns and reservations about it, are having their masculinity questioned if they choose to voice their thoughts (see Manol's various posts), and are even being told what to think about it and how they "should" respond to it. Thanks, -Smac

I can't/won't speak for Danzo, but I don't see myself as a "potential rapist." Others on this thread, however, do. "It" being the characterization by some on this board that "all men are potential rapists"? If a person announced to her neighbors that "all men are potential child molesters," do you think that might have a reasonably foreseeable impact on her male friends and neighbors re: interacting with her children? That upon being put on notice that they are viewed by this woman in this way, they would act to make her more comfortable, or to assuage her concerns, or to protect themselves and their good names and reputations by moderating or eliminating interactions with her children? I already had some rules in place that mitigate such matters. I never let children sleep over at our house, and I never let my kids sleep over anywhere else. In Church, I scrupulously maintain the "Two Deep" rule when asked to, for example, watch kids during a Relief Society activity. I never touch another person's child apart from fist bumps and high fives. And so on. I have modified/limited my interactions with women as well, both for their sake (sorta, since some apparently view "all men" as "potential rapists" ) and for mine. I'm already there. Thanks, -Smac