smac97

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So are you consistent on this? I think so. Discipline from the State? No. None. At all. Private parties generally lack authority to mete out "discipline." No. None. At all. I think so, yes. "{A}llowed to be jerks" seems to presuppose that the State is doing the allowing or disallowing. Are there segments of society, outside of the "trans" community, that is seeking - with some success - to use the coercive and punitive power of the State to compel others to speak certain words (e.g., pronouns, former names, etc.) or be punished for failing/refusing to? I can't think of any offhand, but I am open to any input on this point. The State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming." Doing so is inimical to the First Amendment. Thanks, -Smac

Again: "I think those in the trans community who are sexualizing/grooming children ought not be doing those things." I am not condemning the entire community, just those within a portion of it who "are sexualizing/grooming children." I likewise condemn any bishop - or any other Latter-day Saint - who engages in sexual misconduct against any person. "This...er...performer? In spandex, standing next to men in thongs, shouting 'We have bandanas and lube!' from a float parading in front of young kids." "Christina Aguilera sporting a green strap-on penis at a concert advertised as an 'all-ages' pride event in Los Angeles." "This man in drag exposing his pantyhose-clad crotch at a 'kid-friendly' brunch." "A toddler watches as men in thongs and bondage gear whip one another at a pride parade." "A group of half-naked people - including men and women - gyrate on stage and simulate sex acts at a 'family-friendly' drag and pride event in Austin, Texas." "This drag queen wearing pop-up prosthetic genitalia that actually sprayed liquid on to a crowd that included kids." "Drag queens and men in women's lingerie danced provocatively in front of a crowd that included one very confused little girl." "This bare-breasted person twerking and gyrating near a cop, only feet from children marching in the same parade in Washington, D.C. " Children watching a public event involving "a bunch of men that are butt naked and they’re riding around on bicycles ... exposing their genitalia to children who came to attend the event, which was advertised as a family friendly event." "{S}ome of these cyclists were covered in body paint while the majority were fully exposed, leaving nothing unseen to the eye." "{D}ozens of fully naked men and women playing in the fountain with children." "'{A} man with breasts' marching ahead of young children wearing little more than a bikini bottom walking straight up to a police officer, bending over, and shaking his rear at the cop." "{O}ther men walked by {children}, clad in rainbow-colored speedos with tight bulges on display." "{A} drag queen standing on an eggplant emoji float, proclaiming — with young children present — 'We have genitals and lube.'" "{A}n adult forcing her reluctant child to watch the Pride parade." "Young children can be seen handing money to twerking drag queens. A bright pink neon sign saying 'It’s Not Going to Lick Itself!' added an extra layer of creepiness." "{Yale University associate professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Joseph J. Fischel} attempts to justify his argument that children should be exposed to public displays of kink and gay sexuality by taking the laughable position that such exposure will help combat 'racism and homophobia.'" "{Fischel inquires} 'What is the presumptive harm if a child …. sees an adult’s butt cheeks, or even an adult’s genitals or breasts?'" "Fischel continues, asking if a child would feel violated after witnessing any of these things, or if they’d be 'as likely to respond with curiosity?'" "{Fischel states that 'children might like'} public indecency at Pride." "{Fischel states that} we ought to celebrate kink, butts, and boobs… especially for {children}." "'Kids in general aren't at all fazed by seeing nudity.' ... 'It's such a fun and colorful day, it helps to let the little ones express themselves as well. Go with an open mind and be ready to have fun.'" "{T}wo men pantomiming perverse sexual practices, as their truck rolled slowly down the street before gazing hordes of adults and children." “{W}e’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.” "{R}eporter Taylor Hansen interviewed multiple nude men on the street who attempted to justify their public nudity in front of children as natural and sometimes even good for them." "{N}aked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." "A 9-year-old girl Hansen spoke to recounted how she saw a man wearing a Darth Vader helmet and cape 'with nothing else,' which she said made her feel 'grossed out.' "Hansen also posted a thread on X detailing more footage he captured of naked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." Would you find these behaviors objectionable in that situation? I sure would. In fact, I would separate myself from any group or subgroup or ideology that not only tolerates, but celebrates these behaviors, platforms them, endorses them. As Andrew Sullivan put it: Any bishop who behaves inappropriately is doing so in gross violation of the policies and procedures of the Church, of the trust reposed in him, and likely also in violation of secular law. And there is nobody going around attempting to justify or legitimize any such behavior. In contrast, the foregoing events are happening intentionally and in public, and with the tolerance - or even endorsement - of secular officials and law enforcement. And lots of people are going around attempting to justify or legitimize any such behavior. Thanks, -Smac

I had a longer reply, but I'd like to understand this a little better. What makes a person's name fabricated vs actual? I was speaking in the legal sense. If someone legally changes their name from "John" to "Mary," then that becomes his legal ("actual") name. Otherwise, the name has just been made up by the individual. In a legal sense? Neither. In a sociological sense? Neither, since it is never used in society. In a religious sense? I'm not sure. See here: Thanks, -Smac

My wife admired her. I'm not sure what "live our life on our own terms" means. It sounds . . . untethered. For my part, I have found that my living by my "own terms" only really works insofar as I make those terms congruent with the Lord's will. I think those in the trans community who are sexualizing/grooming children ought not be doing those things. Same goes for anyone else who sexualizes/grooms children. I have provided ample instances of events which I think amount to the sexualization and grooming of children, and of endorsement and justification of those events/behaviors. Children as Sex Objects: Why NYC Gay Pride Parade Is Being Called a 'Celebration of Pedophilia' Dallas Club Investigated After Drag Show for Kids DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids Graphic “Pride” Parades Attacking the Innocence of Children Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade Pride Month Jumps the Shark Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance San Francisco Pride Parade features public nudity around kids, 'Fetish Zone' with urine SF Cop Says Nudity Around Kids is OK at Pride Parade Why drag queen performances are not appropriate for children Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’ Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Some excerpts from the above links: I think much/most of the foregoing events constitute the sexualization/grooming of children. "Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ." For me, my pursuit of happiness works best when I follow the foregoing counsel. The pursuit of happiness based on untethered, do-whatever-you-want sorts of things does not work for me. In the end, we each must do what we think is right. There was much to admire in her life. I believe God wants us to live our lives on His terms. I feel I am better off having accepted the moral framework of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than having fabricated one for myself. Nonetheless, he has given us agency. Thanks, -Smac

Not quite. First, your scenario is not about the State punishing speech, not compelling it. Second, that the legalities play out as they do does not mean I endorse "deadnaming." Third, abstaining from "deadnaming" should, I think, be a matter of personal choice, and not a matter for compulsion or punishment by the State. Fourth, the courts have allowed some constraints student student during school hours on school property. That's a fairly narrow circumstance relative to "Speech" overall and in other circumstances. Fifth, I do see some distinctions, both ethically and legally, between preferred pronouns/deadnaming and your scenario. A person can have a legitimate and good faith and non-harassing basis for declining to use preferred pronouns, or for declining to use a person's fabricated name rather than their actual one. Preferred pronouns and using someone's fabricated name (instead of the "dead" name) are, if required, compelled speech, whereas using someone's temple name is not. The Tinker test would, I think, put targeted religious harassment within the category of speech which a school can regulate, but I am less persuaded that the test would put preferred pronouns or "dead names" there. Sixth, your hypothetical scenario is fairly contrived. I doubt it has ever happened in the real world. Seventh, I have strong sentiments about the State compelling the use of "preferred pronouns." It is Orwellian. It is anathema to Free Speech to coerce U.S. citizens into speaking words they do not want to speak, particularly when they disagree with those words. "Deadnaming" is slightly different, as if a person legally changes his name, then I think there is less justification to use his/her former name. But even then, I object to the State compelling use of the new name or punishing use of the old one (subject to narrow exceptions, such as for student speech during school hours on school property). Eighth, if I were to refrain from using preferred pronouns, it would not be to "mock" anyone, but rather to decline to go along with a falsehood or delusion, and to protest against compelled speech. Ninth, if there were some effort by the State to compel you to refer to Joseph Smith as "the Lord's prophet," or if it were to punish you for speaking critically of him, I think you would object to that. Tenth, I think efforts by some in the trans community to use the power of the State to compel and/or punish speech is one of the faster ways for it to lose legitimacy and respect in society. Thanks, -Smac

I don't think that is correct. Many, perhaps even most First Amendment lawsuits do not involve someone being criminally prosecuted. Public universities are part of "the State." This is not a matter of personal opinion or hysteria, but of legal reality. I encourage you to give this matter some further consideration and study. First Amendment cases routinely center on "government prosecution" that falls short of criminal charges. Again, the First Amendment limits government. A public university is an arm of the state. When it disciplines a student or fires a professor for refusing to say required words, that is government action. Barnette was a school board, not a criminal court. Meriwether was campus discipline. Olentangy was a public school district. Treating “only an arrest counts” as the rule would wipe out most of student-speech and public-employee law. Private colleges are different. Conflating BYU with, say, Ohio State would be legally improper. Conflating a state university with “not the government” is the actual error. As for the rest, there are real cases pending in various courts, with actual disputes, not fabricated or "imaginary" ones: students and teachers disciplined over pronouns, Title IX sports suits now at the Supreme Court, and bathroom/locker policies that courts are actively splitting over. You can think those policies are wise and still admit they are government rules backed by real penalties. If the claim is “no one is being jailed for deadnaming,” that is mostly true and worth saying. If the claim is “therefore nothing the state does here raises a speech issue,” that does not follow. The live dispute is compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination in public schools, not whether the sheriff should make an arrest. Thanks, -Smac

Public schools, being funded by the State, are extensions of it. As for "respectfully addressing people," I assume you refer here to using preferred pronouns, instead of biologically/linguistically accurate pronouns. See the above Bloomberg summary. I'm not sure what you mean by "power of violence." The State can compel or punish speech via means other than violence. Your distinction here - the State arresting people for their speech versus the State punishing people in some other way for their speech ("disciplined at a university"), that is a difference of degree, not kind. Both involve the State punishing speech, just in different ways. The First Amendment limits the power of government, not only the criminal code. A public university is the government, a part of it. When it suspends you, fails you, fires a professor, or withholds a diploma unless you say particular words, that is state compulsion. West Virginia v. Barnette was about a school pledge, not handcuffs. Janus v. AFSCME was about a union fee. Meriwether v. Hartop was campus discipline: None of those cases asked whether anyone had been booked into jail. “Violence” is a narrower idea than “state power.” The state has many tools short of a nightstick: grades, housing, employment, professional licensure, remaining enrolled. Those tools are why public schools and public employers have always been First Amendment defendants. Two distinctions still matter: Public vs. private. A private college can generally enforce a speech code without a First Amendment problem. A state university cannot treat “say these pronouns or face discipline” as a mere house rule. Harassment vs. compelled affirmation. A school may punish targeted ridicule. That is not the same as requiring every student or employee to use designated pronouns as a condition of staying. So if the worry is only “no one is being arrested,” the constitutional concern is already in play at a public university. The question is whether the institution is stopping abuse or conscripting speech. Those are different things, and only the first is an easy First Amendment win for the school. Thanks, -Smac

Broadly, yes. I think that would depend on the application of the Tinker test: So is using a person's "temple name" better analogized to a racial epithet (which are generally regulated by schools) or to preferred pronouns (which are generally not regulated)? Under Tinker, schools may discipline speech that invades other students’ rights or that they can reasonably forecast will materially disrupt school. Mocking someone with a sacred, private name is the kind of personal attack anti-harassment rules are typically built for. Preferred-pronoun cases (including the Sixth Circuit in Olentangy) draw that same line: schools may punish bullying—severe, persistent, or objectively offensive conduct—without being able to compel a political or theological statement. Using “he” or “she” for a student’s sex is ordinary English. It is how speakers have referred to males and females for as long as the language has existed. Students cannot talk without pronouns. A mock temple name is not ordinary address. It is extra, acquired for the purpose of humiliation. Thanks, -Smac

Usually no, not if it is a public school acting on on-campus (or school-controlled) speech directed at another student. The First Amendment applies to public schools as government actors. Private schools generally are not bound by it. Public-school student speech is protected, but not as fully as adult speech off campus. Under Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), schools may discipline speech that would substantially disrupt school or invade the rights of other students. Calling a classmate the n-word is routinely treated as the second category: targeted racial harassment, not political debate. Courts have repeatedly upheld discipline for slurs and similar personal attacks at school. Regarding "preferred pronouns," the Supreme Court has not issued a clean nationwide rule, and the federal circuit courts appear to be split as to teachers, but for students, recent appellate law is moving against compelled pronoun use. Public schools can still punish harassment; they are on much weaker ground when they treat ordinary refusal to use preferred pronouns as punishable speech. See, e.g., here: The Latest Legal Battle of the Pronouns A little long, so here's a Grok summary: But see here: Policy Requiring Teachers to Use Preferred Pronouns Upheld And here: Trans Students’ Rights Suits Will Test Split Circuits in 2026 A Grok summary: Thanks, -Smac

So are you consistent on this? I think so. Discipline from the State? No. None. At all. Private parties generally lack authority to mete out "discipline." No. None. At all. I think so, yes. "{A}llowed to be jerks" seems to presuppose that the State is doing the allowing or disallowing. Are there segments of society, outside of the "trans" community, that is seeking - with some success - to use the coercive and punitive power of the State to compel others to speak certain words (e.g., pronouns, former names, etc.) or be punished for failing/refusing to? I can't think of any offhand, but I am open to any input on this point. The State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming." Doing so is inimical to the First Amendment. I am not a big fan of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "Book of Mormon" musical, as it profanes things sacred to me. However, I would strongly object to and resist any effort by the State to suppress that speech, or punish it, or compel it. If the State were to curb their right to speak in this way, it could do the same to me and my right to speak. Nevertheless, I would be open to hearing what you have to say. Do you think the State - let's say in the U.S. - should regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming"? If so, what sorts of regulation do you have in mind, and on what philosophical/legal basis would that regulation be built? Thanks, -Smac

I agree. Hence the propriety of the pieces statement here: "It's time to consider the possibility that we've become over-therapized, and examine how this practice, intended to heal, may be making us weaker instead of stronger." It would be interesting to see how causation could be quantified in this context. What are your thoughts about the two books referenced in the article? "Bad Therapy" and "Therapy Nation: How America Got Hooked on Therapy and Why It's Left Us More Anxious and Divided"? Salient points. Worth considering. Alpert published an article in May: Psychotherapist reveals why therapy might be doing you more harm than good "Systems of oppression" is a political concept. Odd to see it deployed in an individual therapeutic setting. "{T}herapists steer conversations toward race, gender and oppression regardless of why they came in." So the question perhaps is not "Is this happening?", but rather "How prevalent is this sort of thing?" This seems like a good point. "The therapy office should not be a political battleground." That sounds right. Thanks, -Smac

Just saw this: Perspective: 7 signs your counselor may be undermining your faith Some excerpts: I have been wondering about what seems to be "a proliferation of therapy." From the Amazon blurb for Alpert's book: I've been wondering about this for a while. Jodi Hildebrandt and Barbara Snow, call your office. I've seen many people who have clearly benefitted from therapy. I've also seen people for whom therapy seems to be creating more problems than it solves. Mental health and its varying causes and influences can be hard to pin down and sort out. And it may be tempting for a therapist, when trying to sort out all that complexity, to tell himself that he is being objective and clinical in his assessments and recommendations, and that his therapeutic efforts are detached from his personal opinions about marriage, family, sex, religious, politics, and so on. Lawyers face a daily task of fulfilling our fiduciary duties to clients. These folks come to the lawyer with legal issues to sort out, and he does so for payment, fairly often a lot of payment. That payment stops when the legal problem is fixed, so there can arise a perverse financial incentive for the lawyer to extend or perpetuate those problems. Do therapists encounter similar perverse incentives? And not just financial, but emotional? I wonder if this is particularly important in places like Utah, where no small number of people have distanced themselves from religion, and may be lacking in impartiality when it comes to religious considerations in therapy. I would not want to seek counseling from a therapist who is hostile to my faith, or to faith in general. And perhaps the "pretend{ing} to be neutral" thing should sound a warning bell. I've wondered about this. Concepts like "my authentic self" and "my truth" seem to be unfalsifiable rhetorical cover and justification for the individual doing what he wants, detached from any external moral barometer. This one also carries particularized resonance for me. Having spent many years on this board, I have seen numerous instances of some disaffected/former Latter-day Saints, or else opponents of our faith, work hard to characterizing the Church's emphasis both on faith and and behavior, and self-denial and self-regimentation, to be "oppressive." Fortunately, these are just random and anonymous voices on a message board. I am free to heed or ignore what they have to say. A therapist, on the other hand, is going to be in a position of intentional and particularized influence and access to the individual. As an attorney, I have had effectively no need, or even opportunity, to address the role of religion/faith in a client's life. It's just not in my job to assess those things. Must be hard sometimes for therapists, particularly those hostile to religious faith, to perform such assessments. There is something to this, I think. "Trauma" is in there with "authentic self" and "my truth." Labels susceptible to being used to obscure more than to define or clarify. And then there's "mission creep." "Trauma" gets extended to non-traumatic or not-quite-that-bad sorts of challenges in everyday life. "{D}ifferentiate religious struggle from religious harm." If religious imposes on an individual an expectation to change one's behavior, or to refrain from a behavior, or to maintain a behavior, these can be challenging things to do. They can be a "struggle." But the struggle may nevertheless be appropriate and good. This is most acute when there are implicit or explicit expectations of maladaptive perfectionism in play. See here: What 18 years of research tells us about the mental health of Latter-day Saints A therapist who sees the Church as bad, and its behavioral standards as "oppressive," may have a hard time with this differentiation. I hadn't heard of this one. "Boundaries," like "trauma" and "authentic self" and "my truth," seems to be a concept susceptible to therapeutic misuse. Safeguards are appropriate. Good closing comments. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac