smac97

I think serious topics should be discussed with decorum. You disagree. Okay. I have been made to care about this issue as well. I would have preferred to let it alone, but zealots and idealogues have brought it to society's front door. Men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons. Thousands of children receiving medical treatments which permanently impair sexual function and procreative capacity and have lifelong effects. Large-scale and very public sexualization and grooming of children. Laws compelling speech and other substantial damage to Free Speech. Substantial damage to familial and other relationships. Substantial injury to gender dysphoric persons. Live and let live my foot. As I have said several times now: I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. Well, no. I have known several people who have been damaged by this toxic ideology. Nope, it is the same. It is not. This is what they provide to transgender people? Generic quotes that have no special bearing or focus on transgender people? Wow, how uninspiring. For people who have faith in the Restored Gospel, or who are willing to cultivate it, the doctrines of the Church are a solid bulwark against the facially absurd tenets of trans ideology. If I wanted such a debate I definitely wouldn’t have it with you. And more excuses. You have nothing substantive or evidence-based to say about this, a topic that is supposedly very important to you. You have behaved this way for years. I think this is because you are in the thrall of an ideology that, in the end and deep down, is incoherent and indefensible. So lacking evidence or reasoning, you sidestep reasoned discourse and endlessly turn to taunts, sneers and insults. Thanks, -Smac

When I respond with analysis and reasoning you dismiss it for fallacious reasons. Candidly, I don't recall you doing this. Ever. I can't say the same about, say, Analytics or Teancum or Ben. They have disagreed with me and my analysis, and provided their own, all the time. You never have. All you have is taunts and sarcasm and sneers. I have provided extensive and substantive sources and commentary. You have not. I have treated these matters with decorum and gravity. You have not. Not sure about that. Over the years I have received quite a few PMs indicating that I have persuaded or influenced others by what I have written and presented and analyzed. I have no expectation of persuading you. Other readers, perhaps. In Latter-day Saint belief, revelation is the source of doctrine, not dogma. Doctrine evolves and is clarified and expanded as God reveals more, distinguishing it from static dogma. Core eternal principles remain, but policies and understanding change through living prophets (particularly the President of the Church) who receive ongoing guidance, with personal revelation also crucial for individual lives (though only the prophet can guide the entire Church). While some teachings are eternal, the Church emphasizes a "line upon line" process of revelation, meaning some past teachings and policies can be either clarified or, in some very few instances, set aside. This is quite unlike rigid dogma in other faiths and paradigms. In any event, the doctrines of the Church seem largely unproblematic in relation to the current topic. The Church's stated position is quite enlightened and good, so I gladly accept it: And here: The Church does not pronounce a position on each and every sociopolitical issue and topic. When it does, I give the Church's teachings and position substantial and presumptive credence. I can't say I am totally aligned with the Church's viewpoints in every respect, but largely so. I find the Church to be a far more reliable and trustworthy moral guide and arbiter than social trends and personal preferences. I do not adhere to dogma. So you excuse yourself from any need to engage in reasoned, evidence-based discussion. I have lost track of how many times I have observed the dearth of substance, evidence and reasoning in your posts. And you continue to prove my point. Thanks, -Smac

I don’t believe you. Okay. All you have as taunts and ridicule. You pretty much never offer substantive analysis, evidence or argument. You act like we are holding some monumental debate. We aren’t. I know. It's a very one-sided effort. I present reasoned argument, evidence and analysis. You present taunts and sneering. Oh, I think we have covered a lot of substantive issues. The analysis of the pending SCOTUS decision has been, for me, pretty clarifying and worthwhile. I have provided fairly extensive citation to legal authorities and analysis. Yes and no. From Google's AI: Not sure what this means. In my view, "gender" is either (A) a co-extensive synonym to "biological sex," or else it is (B) a undefinable and infinitely malleable pastiche of subjective generalizations and stereotypes about biological sex. We as a society have some few, but very important, compartmentalizations based on biological sex, such as women's medicine, women's sports, women's spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons, etc.). We legally segregate based on these. Conversely, we pretty much do not care much about regulating generalizations and stereotypes. So biological differences as "essential" as to gender (sex), yes. Generally, I am indifferent to stereotypes or rigid gender roles. I like to cook, my wife likes to paraglide. I like to work with my hands, my wife likes to hold tea parties. Our tastes and behaviors sometimes conform to stereotypes, sometimes they do not. Drag Queen Story Hour, showing children kink and nudity and simulated sex at Pride parades, etc. are examples of sexualizing children. So at first you claimed that transgender people were dying at a lower rate per capita I cited a reference which presented data indicating that (where "dying" = homicide). I am presenting various forms of evidence and analysis from sources with diverging points of view. I think "epidemic" is intended to suggest that trans people are being killed because they are trans. This seems to be a substantial exaggeration/mischaracterization. I think we need to be honest and accurate in assessing these things, and not give undue credence to emotionalisms and activism. When everyone is demonizing transgender people I don't think ideological disagreement constitutes "demonizing." I think trans folks who are involved in the sexualization and grooming of children are being vilified, and rightly so. I think there are many in the LGBT community to condemn this behavior. I would like to see evidence of that. Where is the "on the rise" evidence? And killed by whom? For what reason(s)? If there really is an "epidemic" of such violence, we need to know and address that. If the claim is an exaggeration and substantial mischaracterization, we need to know and address that as well. I think we should look at data more than rely on emotion-driven assumptions. See my prior comment: "Linguistic tyranny (preferred pronouns, etc.)." I may or may not refer to a "trans woman" (that is, a biological male who "identifies" as a woman) using female pronouns. But the more efforts I see to compel an ideologically-driven usage, the more resistant I become to such usage. I respectfully reject the concept of "misgendering." Calling a biological male "he" or "him" is an acknowledgment of reality. Calling a biological male "she" or "her" is a rhetorical fiction. This is why I am convinced that you know nothing I think I have demonstrated that I know quite a bit, that I have done a lot off reading, that I have listened a lot. I am open to correction and clarification. If you have competent evidence of an "epidemic" of trans people being killed because they are trans, please present it. So they are somehow being killed more than cis people because……what? Again, what evidence that there is an "epidemic" of friends and family members killing trans people because they are trans? Agreed. This does not make sense. Choosing a "target" because of "transphobia" is not "random." Congrats, you discovered what I said above. Yeesh. You sneer when I disagree with you, and sneer when I agree with you. Plenty of reasons for a "duty to disclose" outside of "to avoid being assaulted." To avoid deception is a biggie. I think the "duty to disclose" issue is a substantial mortal/ethical quandary. The law prof's article was interesting to me. Again: I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. That is, I think, the third time I have said this. Hard to square this with the accusation of "giv{ing} rhetorical cover to the person assaulting." But then, that's your way. All you to is sneer and attack and accuse. No substance. No evidence. No reasoning. In the context of discussing an ostensible "epidemic" of violence against trans people because they are trans, I think it is important to be accurate and honest with the data, and to avoid emotionalisms and ideologically-driven characterizations and claims. No. Tu quoque arguments don't work well, and I subscribe to the Law of Chastity, so I find extramarital sex to be wrong in the first instance. Using deceit to get there is an added wrong. Well, the "partner" could deliberately conceal his biological sex. And the couple might abstain from sexual behavior prior to marriage. Again: I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. Again: I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. Welp, throw it out then. I am leaning that way. That you aren't even trying to defend the claim of an "epidemic" indicates that not even you buy into it. I sure fear or hatred of trans persons plays a role in some instances of violence against trans persons. It also seems like there are a variety of other factors and motives (intimate partner violence, for example). In any event, the claim of an "epidemic" happening appears to be a substantial falsehood/mischaracterization. For pete's sake, even you aren't trying to substantiate or defend it. This is just a variation of the manipulative stuff you and yours trot out all the time. Thanks, -Smac

And the unseriousness and lack of reasoning and analysis and evidence continues ever on. I have repeatedly asked for evidence and analysis and reasoning, and you trot out taunts irrelevant links. I think you can't marshal a coherent explanation/defense for your position, and so you resort to ridicule and insults. Not sure anyone has spoken of "an epidemic." Many thousands, yes. "More" presupposes you have already presented something substantive. Thanks, -Smac

Just say it flatters what you want to believe so you believe it. I have read a lot about this topic. A lot. I have also frequently welcomed the presentation of varying viewpoints and evidences. The overwhelming evidence is against so-called "gender affirming" care for minors. I'm not sure what you mean by what I "want to believe." I want to know the truth. I want to perceive reality as clearly and accurately as I can. I readily admit that I have found many (most?) of the essential tenets of trans ideology to be facially absurd and incongruent with reality. I have nevertheless spent years listening to people like you, inviting information and analysis that contravenes my initial assessment. The overwhelming response from people like you is melodrama, histrionics, coercive assertions and, of course your favorite: the "You're a bigot!" schtick. Very little in the way of dispassionate, clinical evidence and reasoning and analysis. You and yours look to manipulate and coerce and shame others into capitulating to your point of view (see your various comments in this thread and in many others), and precious little effort is made to marshal evidence and persuade either the "hearts" or "minds" of society. Rhetoric along the lines of "Hooray for useless moralizing religious bigots!" and the like are pretty much all you have. I have never claimed to be "neutral." I did not come to this issue with a blank slate. Again, I initially found the tenets and presuppositions of trans ideology to be facially absurd: “Trans women are women.” Endless equivocation (e.g., both conflating and differentiating "sex" and "gender"). "Sex is a spectrum" / denial of the sexual binary. Biological sex is merely a social construct, “A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.” “Men can get pregnant (or have periods, etc.)," "Men can menstruate," "Women can have penises," etc. Linguistic tyranny (preferred pronouns, etc.). Using DSDs to legitimatize/justify/compel going along with gender dysphoria. “Assigned at birth.” Men in women's sports, bathrooms and prisons makes sense. And your a bigot if you think otherwise. Coercive/manipulative messaging (e.g., society must accept trans ideology or people will kill themselves). Children are competently situated to decide about radical medical interventions as to their body parts and chemistry. School teachers and administrators and state governments can override parental rights re: matters of minor children's "gender identity." The sexualization of children (e.g., Drag Queen Story Hour, showing children kink and nudity and simulated sex at Pride parades, etc.) is a great idea. “You are a bigot/hater [because you disagree with X].” In the many years I have been assessing trans ideology, I have tested and read and listened and considered. I have found considerable evidence which corroborates my initial assessment, and found exceedingly little that meaningfully contravenes it. I have had dozens and dozens of interactions with you, whom I would think would be incentivized to put your best foot forward and present meaningful evidence. And yet virtually all you have to offer is insults and accusations and conclusory assertions. So did I, but perhaps for different reasons. HRC seems to do a lot with vagueness. Trans folks are "victims of fatal violence in the United States." I acknowledge that. But is there an "epidemic" going on? Are these folks being targeted for violence because they are trans? Some certainly are, but HRC seems to lard its numbers by treating all "violence" against trans persons as violence because they are trans. I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. I do, however, question the narrative that there is an "epidemic" of such violence. Who is doing the victimizing, and why, are important questions. The HRC page is notably opaque and vague. And where it does get specific, the particulars don't seem to substantiate the "epidemic" narrative: Kinda hard to advance the "He was killed because he was trans" "epidemic" narrative when the killer is unknown in more than 1/3 of cases. Again, this does not advance the "He was killed because he was trans" or the "epidemic" narratives. It seems unlikely that a sexual/dating/romantic partner who is knowingly involved with a trans person would kill the trans person because he is trans. Tragic. But what evidence that there is an "epidemic" of friends and family members killing trans people because they are trans? That HRC does not tell us this is itself telling. If HRC had evidence of causality/motive, I am sure it would present it. And yet that does not seem to happen, even when HRC is pulling out all the stops to advance the "epidemic" narrative. Any evidence that these "random acts of violence" against trans people happened because they were trans? In terms of violence against trans people, a substantial amount of it seems to involve trans folks involved in sex work / prostitution. See, e.g., here: Likely several factors in play here. Sex work inherently carries elevated risks of violence. The nature of the work—often involving isolated encounters with strangers—exposes workers to danger from clients, and street-based work (common due to limited options) amplifies this. These risks may be increased if a "trans" prostitute (that is, a biological male dressing and acting like a woman) deliberately conceals or fails to disclose this fact. Some ethicists and commentators argue there is a moral duty to disclose transgender status before sexual intimacy, including in paid encounters. The reasoning is that many heterosexual men seek female partners based on biological sex (chromosomes, reproductive anatomy, etc.), and nondisclosure misleads them about a core aspect of the transaction or encounter. This view frames it as akin to other material omissions that could induce participation under false pretenses—e.g., not disclosing a serious STI if it fundamentally alters risk or preference. In this lens, a trans woman presenting as female without clarifying her trans status (especially pre- or non-op) is seen as deceptive if the client reasonably assumes biological femaleness. This topic is addressed in further detail here (the author was a law professor) : Is There a Moral Duty to Disclose That You’re Transgender to a Potential Partner? Some excerpts: It's a long article. Discussion of "informed consent" comes into play. The STI comparison is interesting. So too would be comparisons to marriage and/or childbearing capacity. Would it be "wrong" for a "trans" woman (a biological male who presents himself as if he were a woman) to not disclose his biological sex to someone he is going to marry? Anyway, back to the HRC page: Any evidence that these killings were attributable to "anti"-trans sentiments? I suspect that some violence against trans persons is attributable to anti-trans sentiments, but I question whether this amounts to an "epidemic." That supporting/corroborating data just do not seem to be there. Thanks, -Smac

I reposted a bunch of stuff you have never addressed in any substantive way, let alone "refuted." It's a statement of my opinion. It is, however, an informed and substantiated and evidence-based opinion. I wonder about that. I watched this video and found it quite interesting: Documentation for the above video. The key bit: "{The HRC} study estimates there are 1.6 million transgenders over the age of 13 living in U.S. That gives us a per capita “fatal violence” rate of just about 2 deaths per hundred thousand people. So how does that compare to the country? Actually, pretty good. In the last decade, the per capita murder in the United States averaged 5.25 per 100,000 people. That means a typical American is 266% MORE LIKELY to be murdered than a transgendered person in any given year." From the YouTube automated transcript: If you have data about targeted violence against trans folks, I would like to see it. The above video came out in December 2023. HRC's 2024 list identifies 32 trans persons killed in that year. AFAICS, none of the 32 cases listed are described as officially classified or prosecuted as hate crimes targeted specifically because of the victim's transgender status. While there might be some direct anti-trans motive is present in some few of these cases (see Kassim Omar and Camp Thompson), no such motive appears to have been substantiated by law enforcement. Meanwhile, others in the list involve indirect vulnerability (e.g., poverty or survival work) or unrelated factors like intimate partner violence (42% of known-perpetrator cases) or acquaintances. I am, or try to be, a data-driven guy. I'm willing to both listen and research. You help with neither, as all you have on offer is invective and insults. I am not. I condemn all forms of extra-legal violence against trans people. I do, however, question the narrative that there is an "epidemic" of such violence. Again, if you have data, I would like to see it. Insults in lieu of substantive comment. One more: No, There’s No ‘Epidemic’ of Anti-Transgender Violence It's behind a paywall, but there is this summary: Another: There is no ‘epidemic’ of anti-trans violence I think we should look at the data. That seems reasonable. "{R}eferring to an 'epidemic of violence' does not seem justified." Another: Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime Who is doing the victimizing, and why, are important questions. In any event, all such violence is reprehensible. Thanks, -Smac

First, I am willing to listen. Your endless non-substantive responses don't move the needle, but I am happy to listed to substantive arguments and sources. The authors seem to have some training in the field: Second, there have been all sorts of politicization going on (particularly, and far more so, on your side of the discussion), hence my efforts to consider multiple sources. Third, it's not like these findings are outliers: Finland. Sweden. UK. Norway. Denmark. Australia. Cass Report. WPATH shenanigans. The Bad Orange Man had little or nothing to do with their conclusions and pullbacks, as much of this started before he took office. And lots and lots and lots of additional sources: Why disturbing leaks from US gender group WPATH ring alarm bells in the NHS Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence Dr. Paul McHugh's SCOTUS Amicus Brief Opinion: Europe’s example on gender treatment Affirming Deception: Dishonesty in Gender-Medicine British Medical Journal: Gender Ideology Not Settled Science Why Europe and America are going in opposite directions on youth transgender medicine Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Transgender Care Needs Better Science, More Transparency You never address any of this stuff, and instead summarily waive it off as "bad evidence." Fourth, the "it may sound jarring" comment in the above article seems to be aptly applied here. You sound jarred. The radical and absurd elements of the trans movement are failing all over the place, both in theory and practicality. The most obvious fails are A) the movement's incursion into healthcare for children, and B) the current and pending legal matters which I predict will undo much of the movement's incremental efforts over the past few years. And then there is the question of how much violence will be expressed by the extremist ideologues as things no longer trend toward their preferences, and how much of that violence will be tolerated by society. I suspect that we will see some developments when the SCOTUS decision in the consolidated referenced in the OP is published. I hope there is no violence, or that it is limited. We wrote the HHS review on treatment for minors with gender dysphoria. We hope our critics actually read our report I find this ... persuasive. Your because-I-say-so invectives are less so. I hope you read the report. I suspect you have not done so. This seems like pretty solid evidence-based analysis. Lots of links in there. I've reviewed most of them. I suspect you have not. "'{T}he child’s sense of reality and feeling of who they are is the navigational beacon...'" "{T}he {Boston Children’s Hospital} clinic was giving out puberty blockers 'like candy.'" "{A}t the clinic had collapsed from 20 hours or more in 2013 to two hours by 2018." "{E}xamples of how safeguards have been systematically dismantled." "{I}s it wise to trust experts who are committed to a certain treatment model to impartially evaluate the evidence base for their practice?" If you can provide competent critiques of the HHS assessment, please do so. I would like to hear what they have to say. Meanwhile, WPATH seems awash in ideology-based activists and activism, hence my concern about its influence. From the article: "{WPATH} suppressed evidence reviews whose conclusions it disliked and eliminated age minimums in response to political pressure when drafting its latest medical guidelines." "{T}hese significant harms outweigh speculative benefits." The article goes on to address your airy critique: "We encourage everyone to read the supplement to the HHS review, which contains all the peer reviews and our responses to them, and judge for themselves." Yep. There has been a massive shift in medical consensus in the developed world re: pediatric "gender affirming" care. There is also strong evidence that many professional associations have been deeply compromised by sociopolitical preferences and pressures regarding "trans" issues. A sampling: I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle Tavistock trust whistleblower David Bell: ‘I believed I was doing the right thing’ The Responsibility to Inform The pullback from youth gender transition has begun A Slow Trek Back to Truth? Puberty Blockers, Cross-Sex Hormones, and Youth Suicide DC children's hospital offered 'gender affirming' hysterectomies for kids, audio and deleted webpage reveal Putting numbers on the rise in children seeking gender care Why disturbing leaks from US gender group WPATH ring alarm bells in the NHS Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence Dr. Paul McHugh's SCOTUS Amicus Brief I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery Gender dysphoria and psychiatric comorbidities in childhood: a systematic review Most kids grow out of their desire to change their sex The Cass Report Four-Year Study on Gender Affirming Care in the UK Warns of the Dangers of 'Gender Transition' for Kids Opinion: Europe’s example on gender treatment Affirming Deception: Dishonesty in Gender-Medicine British Medical Journal: Gender Ideology Not Settled Science Why Europe and America are going in opposite directions on youth transgender medicine Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Transgender Care Needs Better Science, More Transparency Second Thoughts on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Discussing So-Called “Gender-Affirming Care” With Dr. Elliot Kaminetzky Money Is Driving Medicine’s Embrace of Child Transgenderism Woke doc refused to publish $10 million trans kids study that showed puberty blockers didn’t help mental health Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement Thousands of Minors Have Received ‘Gender-Affirming Surgeries’ All you are showing is a "whistling past the graveyard" or "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"-style mindset. Tavistock. Finland. Sweden. UK. Norway. Denmark. Australia. Cass Report. The HHS report is not an outlier in any sense. I have sometimes pondered the source of the vicious and visceral posture some folks take re: defending the more problematic elements of trans ideology, particularly in the context of imputing, as you so frequently do, horrible motives and character defects onto strangers with viewpoints that find both the ideology and its real-world effects to be troubling and problematic. My surmise is that this reaction is borne of a manifest lack of substantive evidence, analysis and reasoning to support these problematic elements (pediatric regimens where longitudinal data, informed consent, etc. are lacking, incoherent re-definitions of basic terms like "woman," industrial-scale equivocation, definitional whack-a-mole evasions, etc.). If you could marshal such things, I think you would. Instead, all we get is invective ("well known anti-transgender activists," "idiots," "this is pathetic," etc.). Normally, I would be more or less content to reach my own conclusions, explain them and how I reached them, vote in ways congruent with my views, and then move on with life. But where violence is not only justified/rationalized and threatened, but is also an actualized response to disagreement about such things, I think we need to pay more attention and be more vigilant in addressing the ideologies and pathologies that are giving rise to such violent proclivities. Same goes for other real-world ramifications (e.g., men in women's sports, bathrooms, prisons). I am grateful that society is now addressing these issues. Thousands of children have been permanently and profoundly affected by the importation of trans ideology into the practice of medicine. Thousands of children have had healthy body parts removed, have had their reproductive capacity eliminated or drastically reduced, have had their ability to enjoy sexual sensation eliminated or drastically reduced, and so on. And this has happened despite the lack of longitudinal data, lack of informed consent, the substantial presence of comorbidities, and so on. All under the rubric of "healthcare." Thanks, -Smac

Lmao No, just no. Newsweek: Liberals Should Read the HHS Review of Pediatric ‘Gender Affirming’ Care | Opinion This aspect of the trans ideological movement (pediatric "gender affirming" care) is, I think, dying. I think this is a very positive development. "{M}any of the organizations and individuals we trust have gotten this issue wrong." "{T}he medical practice now known euphemistically as pediatric 'gender affirming care' is based on methodologically weak research that sterilized a group of gay or bisexual youth and left one of them dead." "{B}uried unfavorable research..." "{M}inimized concerning findings (including completed suicides in minors...)" "{M}ale patients who were puberty-blocked early never developed the ability to experience sexual pleasure. A year later, her organization, {WPATH}, released guidelines that recommend early use of puberty blockers. ... The risk of lifelong sexual dysfunction was left unmentioned." "This should be concerning to anyone who cares about protecting vulnerable populations." "{T}here is no longer any legitimate scientific controversy about the weak evidence underlying the purported benefits of the 'gender affirming' model for youth." "{T}he harms of pediatric medical transition far outweigh the unproven mental health benefits." "Research suggests that for many minors with gender-related distress, this discomfort will resolve during the course of normal adolescent development." Thanks, -Smac

Most of the AI stuff was summarizing articles I had linked to. I figured AI would be more efficient at such summaries than me. That said, I also included extensive "human" explanation and analysis (mine), and also extensive citation to and commentary about legal authorities. Thanks, -Smac

I am quite okay with that, for a few reasons. First, I often write things out for my own sake as much as, if not more so, to explain or persuade others. Second, I often find it useful to scrutinize and assess dangling threads of inquiry. Here, the upcoming SCOTUS review of trans folks as a "quasi-suspect" class deserves some in-depth analysis. That would include, of course, precedent likely to influence the constitutional analysis (such as Skrmetti). Third, I want to give people who disagree with me an opportunity to evaluate in-depth aspects of controversial topics, both critiquing mine and presenting theirs. I have pretty much given up on this board as a venue for the foregoing, but this thread was a limited exception. Thanks, -Smac

"Those who care" = "ideologues and their allies/sympathizers." Nope. it is a series of "Letters to the Editor" statements (from practitioners in the medical field) in the British Medical Journal, one of the most influential medical periodicals in the world. If you ignore the separation of sex and gender this makes more sense and doesn’t contradict what I said. First, "gender" is substantively ambiguous, or has been made so by ideologues so as to facilitate equivocation. Sometimes it is used to described/define subjective inner-held feelings (i.e. "gender identity") and sometimes it is used as a synonym for biological sex (men in women's bathrooms, sports, etc.). Second, even if we assume, arguendo, that there is a "separation of sex and gender" (again, equivocation), the notion doesn't hold, even among the ideologues. Supposedly, "sex" refers to biology and "gender" to "identity." And yet the equivocation efforts continue with "biological sex is a social construct." Biological Sex is a social construct Biological Sex as a Social Construct In one of my college classes the professor said that biological sex is a social construct. About: "biological sex" is socially constructed The social construction of biological sex. A debate between Judith Butler and Sally Haslanger Biological Sex as a Social Construct It’s Time For People to Stop Using the Social Construct of “Biological Sex” to Defend Their Transmisogyny Is Biological Sex a Social Construct? It’s Complicated Biological Sex is a Social Construct and Biological Sex isn’t Binary ("Transwomen are biological women") So much for the "separation of sex and gender." Both are "social constructs." Apparently the first step was to conflate "sex" with the grammatical term "gender" (John Money got the ball rolling). The next was to differentiate "sex" and "gender" by acknowledging biological reality ("sex") but separating from it the concept of subjective inner-held feelings creating an "identity" ("gender"). It seems the step after that is to obliterate the sexual binary (the "sex is a spectrum" stuff). Of course, bathrooms and sports and prisons had never segregated based on subjective inner-held feelings, hence the industrial-scale equivocation/obfuscation. The above article by Miranda Yardley lays things out fairly well. A Grok summary: I endorse Yardley's perspective. Societal differentiation (women's bathrooms, sports, prisons, etc.) has always been, and should be, about biological reality, not subjective self-identification. No. It makes the head spin. First, I don't think this is accurate. AMAB is often deployed to describe all birth situations, not just the tiny number of ambiguous ones (i.e., babies with DSDs). Thus a person who is unequivocally and undeniably "male" in every sense but an inner-held "identity" could nevertheless still describe himself as having been "assigned male at birth." Second, AMAB implies doctors arbitrarily assign sex, turning observation into imposition. See, e.g., these remarks by Dr. Paul McHugh: To "assign" is "to give or allocate; allot." To "observe" is "to see, watch, perceive, or notice." Doctors do not "assign" sex, they "observe" it. There may be a statistically tiny number of instances where a doctor, due to ambiguity in genitalia/chromosomes (e.g., Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia), might err in his observation, which may bring "assign" into play. But I think this would/should be reserved for instances where doctors have erred in observing biological sex. I (respectfully) reject the notion that AMAB/AFAB should be used to describe a doctor's observation of sex at birth in the 99%+ cases where biological sex is unambiguous. The exception (babies with DSDs) should not swallow the rule (99%+ of unambiguously male or female babies). "Assigned" evokes active choice (e.g., doctor "decides" sex), downplaying that it's usually straightforward recognition of dimorphic traits (genitals correlate >99% with chromosomes/gonads). This reframes objective biology as subjective/social by implying that sex is "wrongly assigned" if an individual's subjective and inner-held "identity" conflict's with biology, thus prioritizing the one (gender identity) over the other (biological sex). AMAB/AFAB is activist rhetoric intended to de-medicalize/de-biologize sex, making transgender identity primary. "Assigned" carries substantial ideological baggage, as it implies authority-imposed category open to correction (like reassigning via transition). It also facilitates treating biological males ("trans women") as "female" for things like women's bathrooms, sports, prisons, etc. Sexual abuse by bishops is also quite rare. But those victims are still victims. Just because certain types of profoundly harmful acts against children are rare does not mean they should be ignored. This is all the more so where the harmful acts are by people in positions of trust/authority (bishops who abuse children, doctors who perform medical treatments on children without informed consent. This is all the more so where the doctors' actions are often irreversible, sterilize the kids, require lifeline medical regimens, and so on. Many thousands of children received these medical treatments. "Chest procedures" = electively cutting off the completely healthy body parts (breasts) of girls. We are happy you believe that if it makes you declare victory I said "I think trans ideology has lost a lot of ground." Thousands of children who have undergone irreversible sterilizing medical treatments would probably not concur with your flippant dismissal of their situation as a "moral panic." The fundamental tenets? The courts don’t decide those at all. Agreed. But the courts do have a pretty important role in deciding whether those tenets are to be given the force of law. For example, is a "woman" an adult biological female and also anyone who "identifies" as a woman? This is one of those "fundamental tenets." In April 2025 the UK Supreme Court addressed it in Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers: UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex The ramifications of this decision are substantial. See, e.g., here: Trans ideologues can fabricate whatever re-definitions of "woman" they like in their own private sphere and opinion and thought, but those re-definitions do not have the force of law in the UK. Then came Skrmetti in June 2025 in the U.S.: Notable also is the concurring opinion in Skrmetti by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which lays extensive legal groundwork for addressing the pivotal issue of whether "trans" persons qualify as a "quasi-suspect class" for constitutional purposes. I explained the legal significant of this issue, and Judge Barrett's assessment thereof, here. Her assessment is that they do not qualify. Next up are the consolidated cases of Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., summarized here: Whether or not "quasi-suspect" classification will be addressed and decided in these cases remains to be seen: This article thinks SCOTUS will address this issue, and also that it will conclude that "trans" persons do not qualify as a quasi-suspect class: I think the foregoing assessment is correct. Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers and Skremetti are, in my view, substantial bellwethers for what will happen in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. If I were a betting man, I would put down serious money on the propositions that A) SCOTUS will address the "quasi-suspect class" issue regarding trans persons, and B) that the SCOTUS decision will be that trans persons do not qualify for that classification. This will have a huge impact throughout the United States as to how trans folks are treated under the law. I cannot think of a tenet of trans ideology more fundamental that the re-definition of "woman" to include the "gender identity" concept (that is, that biological men who "identify" as women are women). This is, in my view, the sine qua non underpinning of men in women's sports, bathrooms, prisons, and so on. I think SCOTUS rejecting this fundamental tenet is more or less a foregone conclusion. I asked Grok: "Given recent decisions in western law (Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers and United States v. Skrmetti), what do you think the outcome will be in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. regarding "trans" persons as a quasi-suspect class?" The response: We'll see what happens next year. Going back to your comments about "victory," I'm not sure what to make of those. I suppose that SCOTUS stating what should have been obvious from the beginning, that "woman" = biological adult female, is a "victory," but for what? Common sense? Reality? Who are the "victors"? And who or what has been defeated? A "right" for men to compete in women's sports, which didn't exist until about five minutes ago? The psychologists and medical professionals do and the overwhelming majority of them continue to insist the data shows what the best course of action to help transgender people are. Well, no. The data are not in, and what not-ideologically-captured-and-compromised data do exist indicate little or no improvement and lots and lots of downsides. Ideologues can continue to whistle past things like the Cass Report and the "Emerging and accumulating safety signals" article (cited above), but that doesn't work in a legal context. As I have previously noted, I think there is extensive and substantial evidence indicating that professional associations have been deeply compromised by sociopolitical preferences and pressures regarding "trans" issues. A sampling: I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle Tavistock trust whistleblower David Bell: ‘I believed I was doing the right thing’ The Responsibility to Inform The pullback from youth gender transition has begun A Slow Trek Back to Truth? Puberty Blockers, Cross-Sex Hormones, and Youth Suicide DC children's hospital offered 'gender affirming' hysterectomies for kids, audio and deleted webpage reveal Putting numbers on the rise in children seeking gender care Why disturbing leaks from US gender group WPATH ring alarm bells in the NHS Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence Dr. Paul McHugh's SCOTUS Amicus Brief I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery Gender dysphoria and psychiatric comorbidities in childhood: a systematic review Most kids grow out of their desire to change their sex The Cass Report Four-Year Study on Gender Affirming Care in the UK Warns of the Dangers of 'Gender Transition' for Kids Opinion: Europe’s example on gender treatment Affirming Deception: Dishonesty in Gender-Medicine British Medical Journal: Gender Ideology Not Settled Science Why Europe and America are going in opposite directions on youth transgender medicine Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Transgender Care Needs Better Science, More Transparency Second Thoughts on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Discussing So-Called “Gender-Affirming Care” With Dr. Elliot Kaminetzky Money Is Driving Medicine’s Embrace of Child Transgenderism Woke doc refused to publish $10 million trans kids study that showed puberty blockers didn’t help mental health Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement Thousands of Minors Have Received ‘Gender-Affirming Surgeries’ There is plenty of room for reasoned and principled disagreement about trans issues. There is no settled science. And the empirical data - as well as legally-pertinent developments (such as those discussed in the above links) are cumulatively weighing very heavily against the tenets of trans ideology. And because of this substantial scientific uncertainty, "Rational Basis" will be the legal lens through which laws re: trans issues are assessed, and that means they will pretty much always be upheld. As noted in the Skrmetti syllabus: " States have 'wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.' Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 163." See also Justice Thomas's concurrence: "At bottom, '[t]here remains considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of puberty blockers in individuals experiencing' gender dysphoria. A. Miroshnychenko et al., Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria in Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Online First, Archives of Disease in Childhood (Jan. 24, 2025) (draft, at 1), https://adc.bmj.com/content/110/6/429." And here: "In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct." See also Justice Barrett's concurrence: Contrary to your assertion, there is lots of "uncertainty" about trans issues. When that happens, the courts defer to legislatures. Equivocation and re-definition of terms are the lynchpin of trans ideology. These things can be perpetuated in online echo chambers and in academia (and even, to an extent, in the law, see the 9th Circuit decision stating that "trans" are a suspect class, and the CA/NY laws facilitating/mandating men's access to women's spaces), but the long-term prospects for viability under the law are quite dim. I respectfully reject this characterization. It is based on emotion, not reasoning or legal analysis. I also don't think it is factually accurate (see the polling data cited below). Is is the radical element of the trans movement that is "losing the public relations war." Support for the stuff for which you advocate has substantially eroded in the last few years. I think this is attributable to substantial overreach. Males competing with - and dominating - women in sports has been a huge "Hey, let's pump the brakes here" sort of development. See also public events involving the sexualization of children and/or exposure of children to highly sexualized materials (kink and overt sexual behavior at Pride parades, drag shows, "Drag Queen Story Hour," etc.). "Whistling past the graveyard" means pretending to be brave or cheerful in a frightening or dangerous situation, often by ignoring the real threat or putting on a brave face to hide fear, anxiety, or an unpleasant reality. It's like whistling a happy tune while walking through a cemetery at night to keep your courage up, or an organization downplaying a looming crisis. That's what you seem to be doing. I asked Grok: "Assuming your prediction is accurate, what will the practical ramifications be after SCOTUS makes this decision?" The response: The last bit ("Shifts battleground from judiciary to politics/culture") is interesting. I followed up with Grok: The response: The comment from Grok about "inclusivity shifts to 'all-gender' vs. women's-only" piqued my curiosity. I followed up: The response: Grok also cited this article: Two-Thirds in U.S. Prefer Birth Sex on IDs, in Athletics It was published on June 10, 2025, so the data are pretty fresh. Some excerpts; 69% and 66%. This is are supermajority territory. How often do Americans agree in such lopsided numbers (particularly about controversial issues)? Support for Trans Athletes in 2021: 44%. Support for Trans Athletes in 2023: 36%. Support for Trans Athletes in 2025: 34%. Do you really see the trans movement as "winning" these days? You are, of course, free to characterize SCOTUS rulings as "increasingly worthless," but I think that is not pragmatic or reasonable. Folks with gender dysphoria, and men who "identify" as women, and women who "identify" as men, will still be able to do that, but mostly in private spheres. Not sure what you are referencing here. Thanks, -Smac

It is not something that is used in casual conversation much by anyone. Even transgender people and their allies. As I said, it is not catching on. The underlying attempt to re-define "biological male" as a subset of "male" (rather than as a presumptive synonym) is not working. I question that. AMAB and AFAB are ideological, not clinical, acronyms/concepts. See, e.g., these 2023 comments: 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): "It is false that the sex assigned to a human being at birth is an invention or social construction, devoid of reality." "{C}onsidering the sex assigned at birth as a social construction contradicts the autonomy of the person." "I am baffled by the idea of referring to 'sex assigned at birth'. Sex is an inbuilt biological characteristic, like eye colour, blood group or the number of fingers one has - it is discovered at birth (or, in some cases, prenatally), not 'assigned'." "I am truly baffled that such an esteemed medical journal could publish an article about sex being assigned at birth." "There is no such thing as 'sex-assigned-at-birth'. Sex is not assigned at birth. Publishing this nonsense diminishes the reputation of your journal." I think AMAB/AFAB has made some inroads into clinical literature (and perhaps even some legal writings), but not much. Seems like it is. See, e.g., here: "AMAB stands for 'Assigned Male at Birth,' it describe individuals who were designated as male when they were born. ... When a baby is born, medical professionals assign a sex. ... This assignment becomes part of the child’s legal identity. ... Understanding AMAB helps highlight the difference between: Biological sex assignment: The designation made at birth. ... For AMAB individuals whose gender identity differs from their birth assignment, gender-affirming care can play a vital role in supporting health and wellbeing." So "assigned male at birth" does not mean "assigning gender at birth"? Yes, the sociological trend amongst adults may well be proceeding. Such medical procedures on children have been drastically reduced/eliminated. That said, on a legal front, I think trans ideology has lost a lot of ground. Skrmetti was a pretty substantial loss, and I think the upcoming decisions described in the OP will be more of the same. It seems to me that the legal winds are blowing very heavily against some of the fundamental tenets of trans ideology. Thanks, -Smac

"Cishet men" = "cisgender heterosexual men." "Cis" (short for "cisgender") is a term coined in the mid-1990s by biologist Dana Leland Defosse (and not in widespread use until the 2010s) to describe individuals whose "gender identity" aligns with their biological sex. Put another way, "cis" is a neologism intended to either subordinate biological sex or elevate "gender identity" as a co-equal definition of "men." It seeks to designate biological males/men as a subset of a larger category of "men." Like this: I see "cis" as an attempt to re-define "men" and "women" to sever their fundamental definitions from their biological basis, aiding arguments for trans inclusion (e.g., in sports, prisons, or bathrooms). The reasoning, then, is that "female" prisons can and should house both "cis" women (biologically females) and "trans" women (biological males who subjectively "identify" as women). "Cis" does not seem to be catching on, as only ideologues and their allies/sympathizers use it. I just saw this YouTube video and found it to be a fair summary of what has been happening with the (apparent) downfall of the trans movement: What killed the transgender movement? Thanks, -Smac

I'd like to please summon @smac97 again here because I don't know legal history, maybe he could provide some legal explanation about this? And by the way Smac, I hate AI and I will never use it so you're time and energy to explain the law really means a lot to me and I appreciate it so much. The way you, Nehor, are describing race makes me wonder why it is a protected class in America. Something that is so difficult to prove and ripe for speculation should not get that kind of iron-clad protection. I wonder if the courts agree with your assessment regarding the difficulty of ascertaining and proving race. Race-based classifications have a long and momentous record of de jure (legal) subjugation—slavery (enshrined until 1865), Jim Crow segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), overruled by Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)), redlining, and disenfranchisement. In contrast, "gender identity" is very recent, originating in the 1950s-1960s with John Money and evolving and morphing ever since. The notion that biological males who subjectively "identify" as women are, or should be, a constitutionally-protected class is about five minutes old. As for de jure discrimination, that becomes a tough sell. Is excluding biological males from women's sports, bathrooms, etc. "invidious discrimination"? While transgender individuals face de facto bias (e.g., violence, employment barriers), this does not seem comparable to race's de jure legacy (slavery, segregation). Discrimination is more recent/de facto; no systemic legal exclusion like coverture for women or internment for Japanese Americans. Race is an inherent, unchangeable trait from birth—individuals can't "migrate out" to escape bias, making the group "discrete and insular." This is not so with trans folks, who pretty much always "migrate" into the class, and do so in endless ways and degrees. Some dress in ways typically seen as women's clothing, some don't. Some publicly "identify" as trans, some don't. Some receive hormone treatments, some don't. Some cut off some body parts, some don't. And on and on and on. The group is not "discrete and insular." Racial minorities like African Americans were systematically disenfranchised (e.g., poll taxes, literacy tests until Voting Rights Act of 1965), unable to self-protect via democracy. In contrast, trans folks are, and always have been, fully "franchised." Indeed, "trans" advocates have achieved real gains gains (e.g., Bostock Title VII protections; state laws in 25+ jurisdictions), which demonstrates that this "class" has access to legal remedies, unlike disenfranchised racial minorities historically. Society ties function (sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc.) to biology, not to subjective, impossible-to-quantify, no-limiting-principles, endlessly-malleable "gender identity" concepts. IIRC, SCOTUS has not added a suspect class since 1973 (Frontiero v. Richardson) or a quasi-suspect since 1983 (Cleburne). Skrmetti signals a strong tendency toward restraint, rejecting expansion amid "scientific uncertainty" on gender identity. And the likelihood of SCOTUS creating such a designation is, I think, diminishing because the ideology pushing it is on a downhill slope, both in terms of sociological popularity and scientific inquiry/evidence. See. e.g., Emerging and accumulating safety signals for the use of estrogen among transgender women (Schwartz, L., Lal, M., Cohn, J. et al., Discov Ment Health 5, 88 (2025)). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44192-025-00216-3. From the abstract: "Natal males" = "biological males" = (for most people) "males/men." ESCAP = "European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry" "[U]rgent need for safeguarding clinical, scientific, and ethical standards." Yep. Tavistock Clinic. Cass Report. Substantial concerns about compromised ethics at WPATH. All sorts of reasons for this. I have previously commented on this "lack of systematic outcome data" a lot. A lot. See, e.g., here. Again, for emphasis: "Several recent systematic reviews have found the evidence of benefit [from the use of exogenous estrogen (often with anti-androgens) to alter secondary sex characteristics of natal males] to be of low or very low certainty, while some risks, such as infertility, have been long recognized." I've talked about the "risks" quite a bit too: Back to the abstract: "{I}ncreased rates of previously associated adverse outcomes" and "newly identified adverse outcomes." We need to be paying attention to this stuff. Good input. Indeed. The supposed complexities have been fabricated for ideological purposes. Two big reasons for why people with DSDs "keep getting brought up" IMO: First, people point to DSDs to justify the notion that "sex is a spectrum." Second, DSDs can, in some exceedingly few circumstances, make an individual's sex epistemically uncertain. Trans ideologues want to be able to say that this biology-based epistemic uncertainty justifies claims by unequivocally male persons having a "gender" incongruent with their sex. In my view, "gender" is either (A) a co-extensive synonym to "biological sex," or else it is (B) a undefinable and infinitely malleable pastiche of subjective generalizations and stereotypes about biological sex. We as a society have some few, but very important, compartmentalizations based on biological sex, such as women's medicine, women's sports, women's spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons, etc.). We legally segregate based on these. Conversely, we pretty much do not care much about regulating generalizations and stereotypes. Moreover, when we say that we are "talking about people who struggle with their gender," we are talking about people with erroneous, incongruent-with-reality, borne-of-mental-illness-and-confusion perceptions of their "identity" as a male or female. Moreover, we are also "talking about people who struggle with" other erroneous, incongruent-with-reality, borne-of-mental-illness-and-confusion perceptions of their "identity," such as a teenage male homo sapiens who "identifies" as a dog, Eva Tiamat Medusa, a biological male who "identifies" as a female and a dragon/reptile, and Stefonknee Wolscht, an adult biological male who "identifies" as a perennially-six-year-old girl. These three are examples of people who also "struggle," but we as a society seem to treat them differently. That is, while we , can and should treat them with kindness, decency, and respect, we do not actually go along with their empirically-disprovable "identities." This is how we, as a society, "reach out to them with love and compassion, wanting to ease their burdens." But we take a very different approach to people who "identify" as trans. I am curious as to why, and whether we should, do this. These "protections" are in the text of the Constitution, and case law interpreting that text. There is no corollary text regarding constitutional rights/protections for "trans" folks. Thanks, -Smac

I don't know. Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) did not provide an explicit, standalone definition of "transgender" as a term. Instead, the opinion integrates it into the analysis of "sex" discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. SCOTUS held that firing someone "for being homosexual or transgender" necessarily involves sex-based discrimination, as the adverse action turns on incongruence between the employee's sex assigned at birth and their gender identity or presentation. The opinion assumes a common understanding (e.g., identity/presentation differing from birth sex) but avoids granular details like medical transition or non-binary inclusion, focusing on statutory text over policy. Dunno. It probably would be a quasi-suspect class, and perhaps a suspect class. As it is, though, the First Amendment requires that it be a suspect class. It's hard to address a hypothetical like this. Thanks, -Smac

I agree. The effort to have "trans" identity designated as a quasi-suspect class suffers from a number of, in my view, insuperable defects: First, as you say, there is no way to quantify who is and is not in this class. Empirical confirmation ("scientifically provable") is likely not legally required, but there is no "limiting principle." Anyone can "identify" as "trans" at any time for any reason or no reason at all, and migrate in and out of that "identity" at any time. This amounts to a lack of immutability. Transgender identity is not inherently fixed—individuals can transition, detransition, or identify variably, allowing movement in/out of the class. This contrasts with immutable traits like race or sex (born into, unchangeable). Second, the Supreme Court has not recognized a new quasi-suspect class in decades. Third, the majority opinion in Skrmetti did not directly address this question (whether trans persons can qualify as a "suspect" or "quasi suspect" class), but the concurring opinion by Justice Barrett did. She cites the four-part analysis that SCOTUS uses when asked to address this issue: The group has historically been discriminated against or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, or stigma. They possess an immutable or highly visible trait. They lack political power. The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society. I do not think "trans"-identified persons can qualify as a quasi-suspect class under this analysis. Justice Barrett explains why: She is quite right. This issue is, or should be, addressed and decided by the Legislative Branch, not by the Nine Enrobed Ones (I think this same principle should have precluded the decision in Obergefell). Justice Barrett goes on: I don't see a viable counter-argument to this: Justice Barrett goes on to counter the "quasi suspect class" argument by quoting, ironically, WPATH and the APA (both of which are likely very much in favor of the classification) : I don't see a viable counterargument for this one, either. I think similar legislative concerns arise when it comes to "trans" people generally. Having biological males in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports competitions, prisons, the long-term effects of medical interventions, etc. are "[questions] one about which there is room for debate and for an honest difference of opinion," such that legislatures should address them, and courts should refrain from "second-guessing legislative choices." I think there are some portions of society who steadfastly deny that there is "room for debate" here, such that anyone who even suggests otherwise is per se a bigot, "transphobe," and so on. These sorts of my-way-or-the-highway histrionics, bordering on hysteria, have substantially decreased in efficacy over the past several years. The collective fear has dissipated. More and more people are willing to publicly acknowledge what I think almost all of us have known all along: That the Emperor is naked. A man does not become a woman by "identifying" as one. Justice Barret observes, correctly, that there is ample constitutional leeway for differing policy perspectives on this, which leeway pushes most "trans" issues into the legislative sphere: This is why those lobbying for "trans" rights are frequently so over-the-top and shrill and coercive. They cannot countenance that society and the legislative bodies elected to enact laws pertaining to it have "many valid reasons to make policy in these areas." Justice Barrett goes on to address the "historical discrimination" prong of the "suspect class" analysis: This is, in my view, a very important point. The analysis requires, or should require, de jure, not simply de facto, discrimination. She continues: I think this is quite correct. Moreover, I think it is getting more difficult, not less, to argue that "trans" persons face invidious discrimination in our increasingly pluralistic society. So even as de facto invidious discrimination wanes or waxes (I think the waning was happening quite a bit until the trans ideologues started to include in their efforts the sexualization of children, which has led to some societal resistance to these excesses), the likelihood of demonstrating de jure discrimination decreases. This is very good constitutional analysis, and I commend Justice Barrett for it. "Legislating from the Bench" really needs to be reigned in. Justice Barrett goes on to address the "lack [of] political power" prong of the analysis: Aye, there's the rub. I think advocates of trans ideology do know that they have access to the "vote," but they know that they mostly can't win legislatively. One of the better evidences of this mindset is the scorched earth "either you agree with me or your a bigot!"-style acrimonies, which they must know do far more to alienate and offend rather than persuade the "hearts and minds" of large swaths of the electorate. Hence the turn to lawfare such as Skrmetti and the current case discussed here. Justice Barrett continues: I think Justice Barrett has here put - or proposed - a substantial gloss and refinement on the first prong of quasi-suspect class analysis (historical discrimination). A comment from one justice in a concurring opinion is, of course, not binding. However, I think the point she makes here - that demonstrated "discrimination" must be de jure and not just de facto - will likely be adopted in the current case. Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion (joined by Justices Jackson and Kagan) makes an effort to argue that trans folks are a quasi suspect class. It makes some pretty solid points, but it leans to heavily on analogies in which differentiated treatment based on biological sex exists. Biological sex is essentially always empirically testable, "trans" identity is not. To her credit, Justice Sotomayor references "sex identified at birth" (not "assigned") (emphasis added). She uses that phrase about 25 times, in fact. By sticking to "identified," Justice Sotomayor emphasizes observational neutrality ("identified" evokes medical/biological documentation (e.g., birth certificates noting observable traits) without the connotation of "assignment" as a social construct or potential error). "Identified" also avoids ideological baggage. "Assigned" has roots in transgender advocacy (e.g., emphasizing fluidity/correctability), which could undermine her equal-protection argument by inviting majority counterattacks on "pretextual" framing. Critics of quasi-suspect status (e.g., Barrett's concurrence) already stress immutability and historical discrimination; "identified" sidesteps debates over whether sex is "assigned" like a gender role, keeping focus on disparate impact. Sotomayor's restraint might reflect strategic lawyering—grounding in statute over activism—or a nod to the Court's conservative tilt. Either way, it's a subtle win for clarity amid polarized discourse. In any event, I commend Justice Sotomayor on this point. In sum, I think Skrmetti is a strong bellwether for Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. Justice Barrett's dissent in that case laid out the blueprint for constitutional analysis, and I think the majority will substantively adopt her approach in the current case. I'll venture to say that this is actually happening. See, e.g., here and here. The "immutable trait" prong of quasi-suspect class analysis is, interestingly, not applicable to the "suspect" class of "religion," which classification people can migrate into or out of. I think the analysis allows for "religion" to be a mutable trait and still a "suspect" class for a few reasons that are mostly not applicable to, say, trans folks. First, protections for religious affiliation are explicitly rooted in the First Amendment, and those protections get "suspect" classification via constitutional incorporation, and not Carolene's minority rationale. Second, religion is a "suspect" because, like race, religions faced de jure oppression (e.g., anti-Catholic laws, blasphemy statutes). Third, religion is also a "suspect" class because the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses elevate it above quasi-suspect traits. Fourth, religion is also a "suspect" class because even mutable minorities (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses, Amish) are "insular" due to majority hostility (the can't "assimilate" without abandoning faith), Fifth, requiring "discrete/insular" for quasi-suspect classification prevents slippery slopes (e.g., obesity, poverty), whereas religion as a "suspect" class is both narrow and tied to the Bill of Rights. Thanks, -Smac

A few thoughts: 1. Here is a link to the Church's brief. 2. The legal question is whether "trans" people can qualify as a "quasi-suspect class." This requires a bit of unpacking: A. When examining the constitutionality of a statute or an act taken by any government actor, SCOTUS looks at whether the persons affected are a "suspect class," that is, "a class or group of persons meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination." If a person/group is found to be part of a "suspect class," then the statute/act affecting them can argue that they have been discriminated against under the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Put another way, this classifications opens all sorts of doors to lawsuits and money damages, but only if the courts recognize the classification. (All of this, BTW, has been made up by SCOTUS, so it's not a statute or anything, and is therefore somewhat of a vague concept.) B. There are, so far, three recognized "suspect classes": race, national origin, and religion. Consequently, any government act that treats people differently based on one of these classifications is going to be very heavily scrutinized by SCOTUS under the highest level of analysis, fairly heavily scrutinized under the intermediate level, and nominally scrutinized under the lowest level. These three levels of scrutiny are further described as follows: Strict Scrutiny: The toughest form of legal scrutiny. The challenged law "presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a 'compelling state interest,'" and that the statute is "narrowly tailored" to meet that compelling interest, and that the law is the "least restrictive means" of achieving that interest. Per Wikipedia, only about 30% of laws found to be subject to "Strict Scrutiny" survive that scrutiny. An example of a law surviving Strict Scrutiny is Grutter v. Bollinger (Upheld the University of Michigan Law School's race-based affirmative action program, deeming "student body diversity" (that is, the consideration of race as a factor in admissions) to be a compelling interest and the race-conscious admissions process to be narrowly tailored). Examples of laws not surviving Strict Scrutiny include well-known cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. Intermediate Scrutiny: As you can guess by it's name, this is a lesser, though still potent, form of legal scrutiny. From Wikipedia: "In order to overcome the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest." A recent example of a law surviving Intermediate Scrutiny is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (allowing states to require Internet pornography websites to verify the age of viewers in order to prevent access by minors). Rational Basis: This is the lowest, the "normal," standard of review. From Wikipedia: "Courts applying rational basis review seek to determine whether a law is 'rationally related' to a 'legitimate' government interest, whether real or hypothetical." This one is very difficult to overcome for a person challenging the constitutionality of a statute or government act (and, obviously, pretty easy for the state actor to satisfy). "Strict Scrutiny," then, is a fairly closed set of classifications (race, national origin, and religion), and "Rational Basis" is the default approach to assessing constitutionality. Consequently, a person or group looking to challenge a law will do everything they can to escape the clutches of "Rational Basis" and get themselves designated as a group for which "Intermediate Scrutiny" applies. C. "Intermediate Scrutiny" has a fairly narrow application. It is clear that sex and legitimacy of birth are both classifications that trigger "Intermediate Scrutiny" (that is, laws that discriminate based on these classifications must show the "important government interest" and such as noted in the above summary). These are called "quasi-suspect classes." D. Sexual orientation might be a quasi-suspect class (see here). Two circuit courts (2nd and 9th) have said it is, but that's it. E. With this backdrop in mind, we come back to the issue addressed in the Church's brief, that is, whether "trans" people qualify, in a legal setting, as a "quasi-suspect class." If they do, then laws which differentiate/discriminate based on "transgender status" will face a considerably more difficult constitutional burden (Intermediate Scrutiny) than otherwise (Rational Basis). An excellent, and related, example of this sort of question arose in United States v. Skrmetti: Skrmetti is likely relevant to the question in the two consolidated cases in which the Church's brief was filed (though the brief does not address Skrmetti). Here is Grok's assessment: I think this is likely a correct prediction. F. Here is Grok's summary of the Church's brief (which brief, IMO, was not adequately addressed or described in the news article) : G. Here are some verbatim excerpts from the Church's brief: This is pretty good stuff, but conclusory (to be expected in the introduction, I guess). The brief gets into some particulars later on. A very solid point, this. "A religious organization’s pursuit of a unique religious mission would be molded to avoid government penalties and private litigation rather than to express the organization’s authentic self-definition." Yep. Thee RFRA as "super statute." That's new to me. Anyhoo, the brief is pretty good, and I think "trans" or "gender identity" as a quasi-suspect class will not be recognized. Thanks, -Smac

Pretty big gaps between the "nows" and the "thens," but yes. I haven't been following this stuff much. The dismissal of Celeste Borys's lawsuit was pretty significant. Boy, her attorneys really stepped in it. Zero common sense, nor even any sense which should have come from going to law school and practicing law. The Utah State Bar will not look kindly on their behavior. Thanks, -Smac

Here you go.

Inside the bitter fight between the Mormons and small town America: Church accused of 'bullying' picturesque hamlets into letting them build towering temples I'm sort of having difficulty lending credence to this story. "Ride roughshod over local planning rules" = "Applying the law in the same way any other religious group can." "{D}efending their land" = "Opposing the Church's efforts to apply the law in the same way any other religious group can." I'm not saying these folks are not entitled to advance their interests, but the characterizations here seem a bit . . . overwrought. "{T}he church flexes its legal muscle" = "Applying the law in the same way any other religious group can." Troubling stuff, if true. Very troubling. And wholly incompatible with how Latter-day Saints ought to behave. "If true" being the operative component. I confess some skepticism about this stuff. Hmm. I wonder if accommodations as to lighting at night might help resolve this. Yeah, overwrought. "Megatemples" are probably intended to evoke the notion of "Megachurches," which involve thousands of people all arriving and departing around the same time. A temple would not have such a thing happening. "Demanded." It looks like both sides of the dispute are trying to rally public opinion. Having a hard time taking this at face value. In other words, both sides made concessions. This is, apparently, a bad thing. Uh-huh. I'm curious about this. Thanks, -Smac

6 years after a ‘fake apology’ for the Black priesthood/temple ban, many Latter-day Saints yearn for a real one "They say." And what better way for the Tribune to start talking about "bring{ing} healing to all members" than to include "fake apology" in the title of the article. A "conversation" where the "former church member," Jonathan Streeter, initially defended his ruse, and then - to his credit (?) - apologized for it: Back to the first article: Perhaps so. Or perhaps this call is, like Streeter's noxious stunt above, a pretext for doing something else. I think there are serious flaws in the notion that we can or ought to import into the Church tactics and rhetoric designed to affect political change and influence in secular government (such as America's constitutional republic form). These may have some utility in that sphere, but not in the Church of Jesus Christ. It looks like the Black Menaces folks are attempting to do this at BYU. It would be interesting to see an evaluation of the positive effects of the SBC's apology. Were there any? Or are calls for such public apologies more along the lines of virtue signaling and posturing? Might these calls even be pretextual? Did this happen in the SBC? Did this happen in the SBC? This same "Tamu Smith" was quoted in the Trib back in 2017: Black Mormons applaud as LDS Church condemns white supremacy as ‘morally wrong and sinful’ Sis. Smith said this in 2017. Seven years ago. Back to the first article: As individuals, we can choose whether or not to follow the doctrines of the Church, including policies and practices and interpretations of doctrine presented to us by those who preside. I don't think activism and other pressure tactics are the way to go. See, e.g., Brother Corbitt's talk, How activism against the Church can blind, mislead ‘valiant’ souls, and Elder Oaks' article, Criticism. Repentance is a deeply personal thing. I reject the notion of collective guilt/sin. "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." (AoF 1:2.) Oddly, the call for "the church" to "repent" also seems to contradict the 2nd Article of Faith. I agree with this, which is part of why I have concluded that the ban was not revelatory. Hmm. I don't understand the attempted syllogism here. Hmm. So Bro. Wilcox's repeated apologies regarding his own statements were, in some quarters, deemed insufficient. Kinda makes you wonder if the Church's apology would be treated the same way. "{T}his issue" being . . . what? This despite all the Church's efforts to explicitly condemn racism. I am curious what she is referencing here. And since Bro. Wilcox's apologies were ineffectual to bring him back into her good graces, I am curious whether an institutional apology would do anything to elevate the Church's stature in her eyes. Hmm. I will give this some thought. Until and unless this or that activist publicly deems such an apology insufficient or ineffectual. Kinda like the above treatment of Bro. Wilcox's apologies. I will give this some though as well. I am curious if such "statements of regret" have had any measurable impact. Like this one. Has this "statement of regret" fostered healing? "The church issued a public apology on behalf of a member..." Because we do not subscribe to the notion of collective guilt. The foregoing article seems to be steeped in "activist" thought. Tamu Smith is apparently a self-described "activist," and she seems to have passed that on to her daughter, and both are publicly utilizing their activism in (against?) the Church. Having referenced (and linked to) then-Bro. Corbitt's talk against activism, and also to then-Elder Oaks' talk about addressing disagreements in the Church, and in the spirit of "start{ing} a conversation" about activism in the Church, I submit the following article: The March of Dimes Syndrome Some excerpts: This seems to be a common - perhaps inevitable - trend in "activism" (which trend may be part of why Bro. Corbitt's 2022 talk is so relevant and resonant). Obviously "March of Dimes Syndrome" is a neologism. Although I have frequently perceived its manifestations in much of today's "activist" stuff, I was not aware of the label. The earliest instance of it I could find was in 2016: A similar label I have previously encountered is "Mission Creep," described here: I think "activism" these days is often quite susceptible to the March of Dimes Syndrome / Mission Creep phenomenon. This includes activism in the Church. Back to the Tierney article: I wonder if activist calls for an apology from the Church are borne of this "March of Dimes Syndrome" mindset. Any progress/success the Church has made/had relative to condemning racism, fostering goodwill, etc. is a threat. In the minds of some activists, they can never declare "mission accomplished." Mission Creep happens. "So activists have moved the goalposts once again." Yep. If the Church were to issue a formal institutional apology, would self-appointed "activists" accept it and move on? Or would they deem it insufficient, move the goalposts, and demand more? Yeah, the SPLC has really had a lot of mission creep. I can't help but wonder if some of the activists calling for the Church to issue an apology see Mission Creep not as a bug, but as a feature. That is, these folks want the Church to issue an apology so that they can, in true "Mission Creep" style and form, deem the apology insufficient, move the goalposts, and demand more. And the "more" would, in my view, almost certainly - and perhaps almost immediately - take us to demands that the Church "apologize" for the Law of Chastity, for its prohibitions against same-sex behavior, for its past opposition to same-sex marriage, for its current non-recognition (in an ecclesiastical sense) of same-sex marriages, and so on. And I think the calls would not stop at just an apology, but for alteration of the Church's doctrines, so as to ratify same-sex marriages, to allow temple sealings between persons of the same sex, to allow same-sex behavior, etc. Additionally or alternatively, I wonder if this is a pretext for calling for women to be ordained to the priesthood. And perhaps disavowals of claims to prophetic/priesthood authority, the Book of Mormon, and so on. The Tierney article goes on to explain a third label for this phenomenon (in addition to "March of Dimes Syndrome," mentioned in the article, and "Mission Creep," commented on by me) : "'The more things improve, the louder become the exclamations about their badness.'" Might this be said about the Church since 1978? "First is the negativity effect, or the brain’s innate bias to pay more attention to the negative than the positive." Might this be in play relative to how some folks treat the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? "As the world gets better—as people become richer, better educated, and longer-lived—we find new things to worry about and have more disposable income and free time to spend curing humanity’s woes, real or imagined." Again, are black people in the Church better off now than they were in 1978? If so, why is it that folks of an "activist" bent seem fixated on characterizing the Church in the worst possible ways? Any other thoughts? Thanks, -Smac

From The Daily Beast: Polygamous Mormon Sect Is Actually a Sex Trafficking Cult: Lawsuit Here is a link to the Complaint. It's pretty long. Some of the particulars: 1. Where/When: The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Utah on February 28. 2. Plaintiffs: The plaintiffs, ten women, are filing under their own names. 3. Defendants: The named individual (non-corporate) defendants are: Paul Elden Kingston John Daniel Kingston, Sr. Hyrum Dalton Kingston David Ortell Kingston Jesse Orvil Kingston Jason Ortell Kingston Rachel Orlean Kingston Young John Paul Johnson Jacob Daniel Kingston, Jr. Jacob Ortell Kingston, Sr. Sally Kingston John Daniel Kingston, Jr. Daniel Charles Kingston Patricia Kingston Paul Elden Kingston, Jr. Michelle Afton Michaels Deborah Williams Jolene Andrews April McKay Valarie Martin Kent William Johnson The named corporate defendants (the "Order Businesses") are: Davis County Cooperative Society, Inc. {EDIT TO ADD: this is a non-profit Utah corporation} dba Redwood Grocery & Health Foods and John’s Market Place {EDIT TO ADD: these are both for-profit Utah corporations} Latter Day Church of Christ, dba, ZMPC and LDCC {EDIT TO ADD: this is a non-profit Utah corporation} A-1 Disposal {EDIT TO ADD: "a waste management and recycling solutions center organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 610 West 3410 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119"} Management Business Systems, Inc. Advanced Copy {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit copying and duplicating service organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 4850 South Redwood Road, Taylorsville, Utah 84123"} Ensign Learning Center, Inc. {EDIT TO ADD: "an educational center organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 2755 Decker Lake Lane, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119"} Vanguard Academy {EDIT TO ADD: "a charter school organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 2650 South Decker Lake Lane, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119"} Advanced Vending {EDIT TO ADD: "a vending management company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 3994 South 300 West, Unit 32, Murray, Utah 84107"} A&W Restaurants {EDIT TO ADD: "a franchise organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 6765 UT-36, Stansbury Park, Utah 84074. The franchise is part of a chain of for-profit A&W Restaurants that serve fast food"} The Food Group, LLC {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit entity organized under the laws of Utah, with a registered address listed as 670 East 3900 South Ste 300 Salt Lake City, UT 84107 and doing business as A&W Taylorsville, A&W Plymouth, and A&W Stansbury"} United Fuel Supply {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit commodity trading company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 7950 West 2400 North, Plymouth, Utah 84330"} Washakie Farm {EDIT TO ADD: "is located in or around the town of Washakie, Utah in Box Elder County. It is a for profit farm owned by the Order"} Order Bank aka the “Office” aka the “Century Office” {EDIT TO ADD: per the Complaint this is "not a real banking organization, but rather a set of offices with the main office located at 53 West Angelo Ave, Salt Lake City, Utah and a larger office at 10 Century Park Way, Salt Lake City, Utah"} Family Stores True Value {EDIT TO ADD: "for-profit hardware store organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 4860 South Redwood Rd, Taylorsville, Utah 84123"} Standard Restaurant Supply {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit restaurant supply company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 3500 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115"} AAA Communications {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit answering service organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 2971 South Richards Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115"} Washakie Renewable Energy, LLC {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit biofuel company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 3950 South 700 East Ste #100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84107"} {EDIT TO ADD: This entity was part of a massive ($512 million) fraud case in 2019 - see here} Fidelity Lending {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit finance and credit company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 10 West Century Parkway, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115"} Property Compliance, aka Arrow Real Estate {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit real estate company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 635 West 5300 South Ste 202, Murray, Utah 84123"} Attco Trucking aka CTC Trucking {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit freight and transportation company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 2750 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104"} {EDIT TO ADD: "Coal Trucking Company which may also be known as CTC Trucking, LLC and/or Coal Valley, LLC is a for-profit entity owned and operated by the Order"} American Digital Systems {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit software company organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 2971 South Richard Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115"} Garco Property Management {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit business with a principal place of business at 3994 South 300 West, Millcreek, Utah 84107"} American Wellness & Rehab Clinic {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit family medicine clinic organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 677 West 5300 South, Murray, Utah 84123"} A-Action Express {EDIT TO ADD: "for-profit transportation company that provides school and employee bus services for Order children, organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 624 North 300 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84103"} Mitchell & Associates {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit accounting company that provides Order members tax and accounting services for the benefit of the Order, organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 670 East 3900 South, Suite 301, Salt Lake City, Utah 84117"} A-Fab Engineering {EDIT TO ADD: "F-Fab Engineering is a for-profit engineering company, organized under the laws of Utah, with a principal place of business at 83 Navajo Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104"} Sierra Wholesale {EDIT TO ADD: "a for-profit flooring company and a dba of the Order operating within Standard Restaurant Supply, with a principal place of business at 3500 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115"} 4. The Allegations: The Complaint is very long. The factual allegations alone take up 109 pages. The contents are laid out in some detail, but are summed up in paragraphs 98-101: Very long. Very disturbing. 5. Legal Claims: Here are the causes of action in the Complaint: FIRST Cause of Action: LABOR TRAFFICKING IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW SECOND Cause of Action: SEX TRAFFICKING IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW THIRD Cause of Action: VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT FOURTH Cause of Action: VIOLATION OF RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1962(C) FIFTH Cause of Action: VIOLATION OF RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1962(D) SIXTH Cause of Action: LABOR TRAFFICKING IN VIOLATION OF UTAH LAW SEVENTH Cause of Action: SEX TRAFFICKING IN VIOLATION OF UTAH LAW EIGHTH Cause of Action: SEXUAL BATTERY AND ABUSE OF CHILDREN NINTH Cause of Action: SEXUAL BATTERY AND RAPE OF ADULT TENTH Cause of Action: NEGLIGENT SEXUAL BATTERY AND ABUSE OF A CHILD ELEVENTH Cause of Action: CONVERSION 6. The Attorneys: The attorneys who filed this Complaint are Roger Hoole (who has previously litigated against the FLDS/UEP folks, and who graduated from BYU Law School in 1987) and Jaclyn Robertson. Interestingly, Hoole and Robertson previously filed what appears to be a very similar lawsuit in September 2022 (of the nine plaintiffs in this 2022 case, four are named as plaintiffs in the 2024 case), but in state court in Utah (not federal), Case No. 220905426, which was dismissed voluntarily in June 2023 by Hoole's/Robertson's clients. None of the defendants in the 2024 suit have filed a response yet, but I suspect the same, or some of the same, attorneys who represented them in the 2022 case will be appearing. Those attorneys are: Paul Cannon, Laura Fuller, Carl Kingston (same address as David, below), David Kingston (same address as Carl, above), Ryan Kingston (same address as is given for "Standard Restaurant Supply," one of the defendants), Andrew Mitchell Very troubling stuff. I hope justice is done for those who have been wronged. Thanks, -Smac

In October 2021 the Church announced the construction of a temple in Cody, Wyoming. This has created some controversy in that city: Here is a rendering of the proposed temple: And the location: A bit more context (the temple site is the black square) : Some neighbors are concerned: See also here: So the stated concerns are: The "architectural integrity" of the neighborhood; Light pollution; Traffic concerns; Intrusion into wildlife area; and Height of temple (which substantially contravenes the city's Master Plan). These are fairly common concerns, and reasonable minds can disagree about them. I also am glad to see that the folks in Cody who oppose the temple are not doing so on any "religious" grounds. That's not to say that everything is coming up roses: Vandalized Yard Signs Mock Those Opposed To Controversial Cody Mormon Temple I am disappointed that some (hopefully a very few) Latter-day Saints are imputing motives of bigotry, particularly given the civility expressed by those opposing the temple. I am also disappointed that the bishop quoted above is doing this, and is doing so in his capacity as a bishop. Pres. Nelson's call for civility in his "Peacemakers Needed" address is relevant here. In any event, news just came out that the Church is filing suit: So the lawsuit is about a very specific - and nonreligious - issue, namely, whether the PZA Board's approval of a site plan requires A) a majority vote of board members present at the board meeting (which happened, since three of the five board members voted in favor of the site plan), or B) a majority vote of the overall members of the board (which did not happen, as there are seven members, and only five attended the meeting in question, and only three of the five voted in favor of the site plan). A few thoughts: 1. This is a question of law ("given what has happened, what does the law say"), not a question of "fact" ("what actually happened"). Questions of law are generally easier to answer than questions of fact. 2. The Cody Municipal Code, Section 10-4-4, requires a party disagreeing the the PZA Board to act very quickly (within days). Specifically, a "Notice of Appeal" must be filed "within ten (10) days after the decision has been entered on the commission's records," and then a lawsuit must be filed "{w}ithin ten (10) days" of filing the Notice of Appeal. The hearing was on June 15, but per the news item above the lawsuit was not filed until July 17, or 32 days later. The only way the Church's lawsuit is timely is if the PZA Board's decision was not "entered on the commission's records" until July 7 or later. 3. Regarding the "majority vote of the board present at the meeting" v. "majority vote of the board altogether, regardless of how many are actually in attendance" issue, the Municipal Code is silent: Based on this, my hasty surmise is that the Church's legal argument is correct, as I suspect five of the seven board members present is sufficient to constitute a quorum, and that a majority vote of those five present are sufficient to accept the site plan. We'll see what happens, I suppose. Thanks, -Smac

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

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. See, e.g., here, here, here, here. Our Analytics responded. See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. One of the big differences in our respective positions is that 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 (though elsewhere he seemed to approve of such laws - I'll let him address that if he likes). I provided a number of examples of these laws here and here. I cited instances of this happening in California, New York, Virginia, Canada, the UK, and Norway. Here's another one from Norway that just recently came out: The link beneath the tweet above is to this story: “Men Are Men”: Norwegian Artist Facing Criminal Charges, Potential Prison Sentence Over Gender Comments A few thoughts/observations here: First, I think most of the aggression in the Pronoun Wars is coming from the "T" in LGBT. Second, there seems to be some substantial fracturing going on in LGBT coalition, with the "Ts" and the "Ls" becoming increasingly at loggerheads. Third, I find it noteworthy that the "T" agitators are willing to punish "Ls" who do not acquiesce in the Pronoun Wars, and to use the organs of the State to do so. This really seems to be accelerating. "A man who claims to be a lesbian mother." No, that's not a pitch for an SNL skit or a sitcom episode. To paraphrase the saying (which itself is an adaptation of a line in Shakespeare's The Tempest), "resisting compelled speech makes strange bedfellows." I, as an adult male American and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, am wholly supportive of lesbian Norwegian filmmaker Tonje Gjevjon on this point. "Up to three years in prison." For saying words. For giving voice to ideas the government dislikes. I think this sort of thing is going to increase in frequency and severity unless actively opposed. Credit to Gjevjon for her efforts. A translation of the above police notice to Gjevjon: Yeesh. Alas, "being disavowed" is sometimes the price to be paid for standing by one's convictions. I think the issue becomes substantively more problematic, though, when the government wades in and starts throwing its weight around. "Queer organizations" can, I suppose, do as they like. But when "politicians" start to take sides in such matters, and when they start to pass laws to compel speech or punish what ought to be Free Speech, that becomes problematic. Anyway, back to the first article: I have expressed concern about this phenomenon quite a few times. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the most important pieces of thought in the history of the world. It preserves, or is intended to preserve, individual liberties from encroachments and threats by the State. I find it interesting that the Latter-day Saints owe so much to this small bit of writing, but we are far from the only ones. I value the common ground I, as a male Latter-day Saint in Utah, share with Gjevjon, Norwegian lesbian filmmaker relative to valuing Free Speech. This includes resisting compelled speech, and it is a concern as central to my interests as a Latter-day Saint in America as to Gjevjon's interests as a lesbian and artiste in Norway. Thanks, -Smac