The Pronoun Wars Continue

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

(chromosomes do not always equal biological sex btw)

 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, you seem to be presupposing things that are in dispute.  

Not sure further discussion is possible if dispute simple biological facts. Have you never heard of stuff like swyers? The woman has an XY, has female parts, and has always identified as a female, been raised as a woman, but you say she's male based on her chromosomes? Really?https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/

 

Again, if this is the hill the church wants to die on, so be it. But from the outside looking in, it's not a good look. And with 1 in 6 Gen Z individuals identifying as somewhere on the rainbow (LGBTQ...), the future doesn't look bright. But go ahead. Keep on calling transwomen "he" if it makes you happy.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Why? Would that be a problem?

I try and treat real sincere requests differently than people on the internet trying to make cheap points by making fun of others that struggle with real issues. YMMV.

[Calm]

The Dominion Republic is likely an example of how knowledge of additional variations of biological sexual expression influenced the culture’s perception of gender, leading to the creation of a third gender labeled “testicles at 12” or “man-woman”.  IMO, it makes much more sense to create a third gender given what a huge impact being treated as male or female makes on a child.  Children who were raised female but then are male in appearance as adolescents and adults are going to experience life differently than someone who has been treated as male all the time....just as someone who was rich as a child, but has low income as an adult will feel differently about their situation than someone who has been in the same economic class their entire life.

Quote

In an exceptional case, genetics seems to have created a third sex in Dominican Republic. A heritable pseudo-hermaphroditic trait was discovered by ethnographers in the 1970s, who followed the children over generations. With undifferentiated genitalia, they generally were raised as girls, but began developing male traits at puberty. Instead of changing their gender identities to male, most chose to live as a third gender called guevedoche (roughly meaning "testicles at 12") or machi-embra (man-woman). The society has accommodated the guevedoche and constructed a third gender with distinct roles for them.

As Western science documents greater variation in biology beyond XX-XY as well as variation in psychological expression and the public has more discussion about such, thus creating awareness in the culture of variation, it makes sense that language changes to allow for greater ease in understanding in discussions by creating new labels or adapting older ones.  Labels are loved by humans and usually easier to use than listing all appropriate attributes.  While this has led to a massive increase of language options (one site had 72 gender variations), I suspect that practicality and laziness will eventually in a couple of decades winnow out the more detailed labels and instead settle on a handful of general categories that can then be furthered defined when necessary by a few additional details.  Most societies with additional genders have settled on 3 or 4, I believe.  It will depend on need...just as different cultures have more or less color differentiations as opposed to large groupings; there are even subcultures within the general culture of the region (such as the interior designers’ community requires many more labels for color than most others in their greater community).

Edited March 25, 2021 by Calm

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I try and treat real sincere requests differently than people on the internet trying to make cheap points by making fun of others that struggle with real issues. YMMV.

The 2nd Person formulation of My Holiness is actually Your Holiness, so I believe what you really mean to say is YHMMV.  

Now that I have clearly communicated that to you, I expect for you to adhere by it, forever - either that or be willing to pay a fine of up to $1,000 and/or a year in jail.

Look, if you want to have a serious discussion we can have one. I think @smac97 has made a good faith effort to engage in such a discussion with you on this thread, and if you prefer to interact with him instead that's fine by me.

But you are the one who came into this thread asking for someone to explain what is objectionable about the regulation referenced in the OP, and you insinuated that the only reason a Latter-day Saint would be worried about such a rule would be because it impinges on our "right to torment trans-people."

I apologize if my somewhat tongue-in-cheek response failed to treat your blanket characterization of Latter-day Saints as presumptive bigots with sufficient "sincer[ity]" for your taste. 

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Amulek

[smac97]

On 3/24/2021 at 6:20 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Quote

I was born with a certain set of chromosomes or I wasn’t (chromosomes do not always equal biological sex btw).

Again, you seem to be presupposing things that are in dispute.  

Not sure further discussion is possible if dispute simple biological facts.

You only quoted one sentence of my comment, but the previous context matters quite a bit.  Here is that context:

Quote

Quote

SeekingUnderstanding: Do you know any trans people? My Aunt, as a young boy dressed in women’s clothing. She struggled her whole life to live according to gospel precepts. Serving a mission, marrying, and raising 6 kids in the church. At some point the depression of it all hit and became overwhelming. She tried to kill herself. At that point she decided it was time to accept who she was and she transitioned. That you somehow think this life long struggle is at all analogous to your lame attempt at a joke is pretty telling. 

Smac: I don't think we should joke about such things.  But I also am not sure we should reflexively and automatically go along with such things either.  And I'm really not comfortable with the government punishing us for not reflexively and automatically go along with such things.

I am also not comfortable with your invocation of suicide as a basis for going along with you uncle/aunt.  It seems coercive.  

Also, your statement that your uncle/aunt "accept{ed} who she was" presupposes that which is in dispute.  I don't think that works.  I think there is an ongoing debate that merits some attention.  Is a person situated like your uncle/aunt well and truly "misgendered?"  A woman trapped in man's body?  Or is this a form of mental illness?  Is gender arbitrarily "assigned at birth," or is it essentially an intrinsic trait like age?

I think reasonable minds can disagree about these questions.  But my concern is that one side of the discussion is being shouted down.

That bolded stuff is what I had in mind when I said this:

Quote

SeekingUnderstanding: I was born with a certain set of chromosomes or I wasn’t (chromosomes do not always equal biological sex btw).

Smac: Again, you seem to be presupposing things that are in dispute.  

You also said this (same link) :

Quote

Does a 50 year struggle, serving a mission, marrying in the temple, attending church, serving in church callings, seem “reflexive” or “automatic” to you? 
...

Quote

Smac: I am also not comfortable with your invocation of suicide as a basis for going along with you uncle/aunt.  It seems coercive.  

That you find the simple facts of the matter upsetting isn’t my problem.

I responded:

Quote

I'm not upset.  And it's not the "simple facts of the matter" that are at issue.  It is the - forgive the word - exploitation of suicide that I find troubling.  Manipulative.  Coercive.

I don't want anyone to commit suicide.  But I also don't think it is appropriate for a person to use the threat of suicide as leverage to coerce others to capitulate to his point of view.

You also said this:

Quote

I feel strongly (so strongly that I am willing to be disowned by my family and church community, so strongly I’m willing to take my own life) that I am a woman. Which of these facts can you independently verify?

So here's what you said that precipitated by "presupposes" comment: "My Aunt, as a young boy dressed in women’s clothing. ... She tried to kill herself. At that point she decided it was time to accept who she was and she transitioned."

See, this "time to accept who she was" is not a "fact."  It's a conclusory opinion.  You are presuming that which is in dispute.  That a chromosomal, biological, and even *sociological* male (inasmuch as he spent much of his life dressing as a male, married a woman, fathered children, and so on) is actually a woman trapped in a man's body.  That this is not gender dysphoria.

That is the dispute I was referencing.  You then invoked his/her attempted suicide as if that were some sort of "fact" or justification.  I find that pretty disconcerting.  This is neither fact nor reasoned argument.  "Comply with my declaration that I am a woman trapped in a man's body or else I'll kill myself and it'll be your fault."  That's how it comes across.  That's not a factual argument.  It's emotional and psychological blackmail.  Coercion.  Manipulation.

Quote

Have you never heard of stuff like swyers? The woman has an XY, has female parts, and has always identified as a female, been raised as a woman, but you say she's male based on her chromosomes? Really?https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/

I have heard of this.  It is an exceedingly rare genetic condiction, afflicting around 1 in 100,000 people.  Fewer than 100 cases have been reported as of 2018.

If your uncle/aunt has this condition, that is genuinely unfortunate.  But if, as I suspect, he does not, then it is a non sequitur.  In fact, it tends to prove my point, which is that gender dysphoria is a real condition, and we ought to be cautious and circumspect about how we approach it.

XY gonadal dysgenesis (Swyer syndrom) is a disorder, a mutation that affects the sexual differentiation process.  I don't think we can or ought to toss out the concept of sexual differentiation because of it.  I also don't think that we can or ought to transmute the sexual binary into an endlessly fluid spectrum subjective and malleable identities.

I keep citing Stofoknee Wolscht because I think he represents an interesting dilemma for folks in your position.  I would think you are fine with affirming him identifying as, even being, a "woman," notwithstanding the chromosomes, biology, sociology (he married and fathered 7 children).  Am I correct?  He seems to be situated fairly similarly to your uncle/aunt in that he A) is apparently biologically/chromosomally male, B) he previously married a woman and fathered several children, C) he later "transitioned" and "became" a female.  Stefoknee has apparently even expressed suicidal ideation (see here, here).

But here's the thing: "Stefoknee" identifies not only as female, but as a six-year-old female.  Do you accept that as his identity?  It's as valid an identity as him being female, after all.  If you can accept that, I'd like to hear your reasoning.  If you cannot, then perhaps you can start to appreciate and understand my reasoning.

Quote

Again, if this is the hill the church wants to die on, so be it.

This is not helpful.  The Church is teaching the Law of Chastity, the Proclamation, and so on.  These principles are not only eminently sound and reasoned, they are also revelatory.  

The Church doesn't want to die on this hill.  The Church doesn't want to be on this hill, or to fight on it.  But some are insistent on bringing the fight to the Church, and demanding that it capitulate to popular trends about sexual identity or else face horrible, and false, accusations (such as insinuations about causing suicide, as you have done here).

Quote

But from the outside looking in, it's not a good look.  And with 1 in 6 Gen Z individuals identifying as somewhere on the rainbow (LGBTQ...), the future doesn't look bright. But go ahead. Keep on calling transwomen "he" if it makes you happy.

You understand, I assume, that you could just as easily be faulted for calling your uncle/aunt a transwoman?  You think you're safely on one side of the Pronoun Wars, but you're not.  You can be accused of "transphobia" or some such silliness if you use that term.  See here:

Quote

If transwomen are women, what is a woman?
Sophie Allen
Oct 16, 2018·8 min read

We are often asked to believe that transwomen are women. Many people are happy to accept this claim but those who disagree are treated to ridicule or abuse until most dare not speak up. As a philosopher, this worries me. We should be able to question the truth of any claim without causing offence, but I cannot imagine that I will get away lightly from doing so here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 26, 2021 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't understand why this has to be a "war". If someone prefers to be known by a certain pronoun, it would seem the respectful and courteous thing to call them by that pronoun.

I know a young man named Robert. He prefers to be known as Bubba. I personally don't like "Bubba" as a name, but it doesn't really matter what I like or don't like. So I call him Bubba. Once I'm aware it would be rude to purposely call him something other than what he likes. And I don't consider that a war on "given names".

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But here's the thing: "Stefoknee" identifies not only as female, but as a six-year-old female. 

Just curious...does she actually identify fully as a six year old? Is she refusing to make decisions for herself and is allowing someone to be a parent for her, giving them full legal authority over her as any actual six year old would have?

Quote

I don't understand why this has to be a "war". If someone prefers to be known by a certain pronoun, it would seem the respectful and courteous thing to call them by that pronoun.

One can choose to call someone by their name and skip the pronouns if they are uncomfortable with the use of a particular one as well in most cases. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You only quoted one sentence of my comment, but the previous context matters quite a bit.  Here is that context:

That bolded stuff is what I had in mind when I said this:

You also said this (same link) :

I responded:

You also said this:

So here's what you said that precipitated by "presupposes" comment: "My Aunt, as a young boy dressed in women’s clothing. ... She tried to kill herself. At that point she decided it was time to accept who she was and she transitioned."

See, this "time to accept who she was" is not a "fact."  It's a conclusory opinion.  You are presuming that which is in dispute.  That a chromosomal, biological, and even *sociological* male (inasmuch as he spent much of his life dressing as a male, married a woman, fathered children, and so on) is actually a woman trapped in a man's body.  That this is not gender dysphoria.

That is the dispute I was referencing.  You then invoked his/her attempted suicide as if that were some sort of "fact" or justification.  I find that pretty disconcerting.  This is neither fact nor reasoned argument.  "Comply with my declaration that I am a woman trapped in a man's body or else I'll kill myself and it'll be your fault."  That's how it comes across.  That's not a factual argument.  It's emotional and psychological blackmail.  Coercion.  Manipulation.

I have heard of this.  It is an exceedingly rare genetic condiction, afflicting around 1 in 100,000 people.  Fewer than 100 cases have been reported as of 2018.

If your uncle/aunt has this condition, that is genuinely unfortunate.  But if, as I suspect, he does not, then it is a non sequitur.  In fact, it tends to prove my point, which is that gender dysphoria is a real condition, and we ought to be cautious and circumspect about how we approach it.

XY gonadal dysgenesis (Swyer syndrom) is a disorder, a mutation that affects the sexual differentiation process.  I don't think we can or ought to toss out the concept of sexual differentiation because of it.  I also don't think that we can or ought to transmute the sexual binary into an endlessly fluid spectrum subjective and malleable identities.

I keep citing Stofoknee Wolscht because I think he represents an interesting dilemma for folks in your position.  I would think you are fine with affirming him identifying as, even being, a "woman," notwithstanding the chromosomes, biology, sociology (he married and fathered 7 children).  Am I correct?  He seems to be situated fairly similarly to your uncle/aunt in that he A) is apparently biologically/chromosomally male, B) he previously married a woman and fathered several children, C) he later "transitioned" and "became" a female.  Stefoknee has apparently even expressed suicidal ideation (see here, here).

But here's the thing: "Stefoknee" identifies not only as female, but as a six-year-old female.  Do you accept that as his identity?  It's as valid an identity as him being female, after all.  If you can accept that, I'd like to hear your reasoning.  If you cannot, then perhaps you can start to appreciate and understand my reasoning.

This is not helpful.  The Church is teaching the Law of Chastity, the Proclamation, and so on.  These principles are not only eminently sound and reasoned, they are also revelatory.  

The Church doesn't want to die on this hill.  The Church doesn't want to be on this hill, or to fight on it.  But some are insistent on bringing the fight to the Church, and demanding that it capitulate to popular trends about sexual identity or else face horrible, and false, accusations (such as insinuations about causing suicide, as you have done here).

You understand, I assume, that you could just as easily be faulted for calling your uncle/aunt a transwoman?  You think you're safely on one side of the Pronoun Wars, but you're not.  You can be accused of "transphobia" or some such silliness if you use that term.  See here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Is this your long winded way of saying that you misspoke and that you agree that chromosomes are not always determinative when it comes to biological sex? That is some people have xy chromosomes, but due to a defective sry gene on the Y chromosome they are born as a biological female. 
 

If you didn’t misspeak, what was the “again” in reference to? You already told me I was presuming things that were in dispute. And then you told me I did it “again” when I said chromosomes do not equal biological sex. 
 

p.s. Next time you can skip the grand standing and just admit the mistake. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't understand why this has to be a "war".

Same here.  But then, I don't think there should be a war over wedding cakes and free speech, either.  And yet here we are.

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If someone prefers to be known by a certain pronoun, it would seem the respectful and courteous thing to call them by that pronoun.

Broadly speaking, I think there should be room for that perspective, as well as contrary ones.

As it is, however, we're not speaking of merely being "respectful and courteous."  As I noted previously: "I differentiate between, on the one hand, a request and, on the other, a legally-enforceable and punishable-by-law-if-you-don't-comply demand.  I'm willing to consider going along with the former, but will resist the latter quite mightily."

One side of this discussion has declared war on the other, and has resorted to persuading government to punish the other side for not submitting to compelled speech.

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I know a young man named Robert. He prefers to be known as Bubba. I personally don't like "Bubba" as a name, but it doesn't really matter what I like or don't like. So I call him Bubba. Once I'm aware it would be rude to purposely call him something other than what he likes. And I don't consider that a war on "given names".

What if he asked you call him "Father?"  Would you go along with that?

What about "Master?"  "His High Holiness?"

Do you utterly submit your speech to the requests / preferences / demands of others?  Or is there some sort of limit as to how far you will go?

And what if Bubba persuaded the government to fine and/or imprison you if you fail to call him by that name?  Are you okay with that?  Any concern about coercion?  Compelled speech?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fewer than 100 cases have been reported as of 2018.

I’m also really confused by this line of thought. So on the one hand people on your side don’t need to concern themselves with the messiness of the biology because it’s so rare (intersex is between .02 percent to 1.7 percent depending on how broad you define it) we don’t need to worry or consider the implications. On the other hand, you want to trot out a handful of cases (regarding age or race) to illustrate the slippery slope. And because you can find 1-2 of these cases, the whole idea that we should be accommodating to 1/6 (rate of gen z who self identifies on the rainbow of LGBTQ) of the population falls apart? 

Which is it? Do we need to consider the outliers or not?

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just curious...does she actually identify fully as a six year old? Is she refusing to make decisions for herself and is allowing someone to be a parent for her, giving them full legal authority over her as any actual six year old would have?

Answering myself...this sounds different than actual identification as there is recognition that she is not actually 6 years old, but that she is choosing to act that way.  Play therapy is not the same as identification. 
 

Quote

I can’t deny I was married. I can’t deny I have children,' she says in the video. 'But I’ve moved forward now and I’ve gone back to being a child. I don’t want to be an adult right now.' 

Stefonknee further adds: 'I have a mommy and a daddy - an adopted mommy and daddy - who are totally comfortable with me being a little girl. And their children and their grandchildren are totally supportive.'

She says she previously lived as an eight-year-old girl, until the couple's granddaughter asked her to be the younger sister instead. 

'A year ago I was eight and she was seven. And she said to me: "I want you to be the little sister, so I’ll be nine." I said: "Well, I don’t mind going to six." So I’ve been six ever since.'

In the winter, Stefonknee earns money by plowing snow, and when she's at home with her adoptive family, they color and 'do kid's stuff'. 

'It’s called play therapy. No medication, no suicide thoughts. And I just get to play,' she shares. 

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

But here's the thing: "Stefoknee" identifies not only as female, but as a six-year-old female. 

Just curious...does she actually identify fully as a six year old?

I'm not sure what you mean by "fully."  He posted this last October ("Playtime with Melanie C") :

And this ("Little girl at the farm") :

 

"{When} I was a little kid I came here as a little boy.  Today I'm coming back as a little girl."

And here ("Stefz Playroom") :

 

"So today is my first day of having my living room as my playroom.  And my Mikodo {the cat} is here with me, but I didn't have any friends over for the playdate because it's COVID time.   But I'm having fun with Mikodo, my cat, and with Franny {the doll}, she's my baby.  And this is Lilly, then this is Little Bear, and this is Ella right there, and that's Strawberry.  You guys know Strawberry 'cause you saw him before.  Mikodo, do you want to come over and say hi?  Mikodo?  No?  Mikodo doesn't want to say hi.  Anyways, I just wanted you to see, I made a tutu with my sewing machine.  And it's for pretending to be a little fair, a little ballerina fairy.  So I love having this and I have my Tinkerbell shirt from Cathy, Miss Cathy gave me this sweatshirt.  And I have my suss {pacifier}, so I'm not scared.  Thank you for coming and visiting.  I hope you have fun.  And thank you for being my friend.  Bye-bye." 

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is she refusing to make decisions for herself and is allowing someone to be a parent for her, giving them full legal authority over her as any actual six year old would have?

Apparently so.  From this article: 

Quote

'I've gone back to being a child': Husband and father-of-seven, 52, leaves his wife and kids to live as a transgender SIX-YEAR-OLD girl named Stefonknee

• Stefonknee Wolscht, 52, lived as Paul until she realized she was trans at age 46 and was not accepted by her family
• After two suicide attempts and a bout of homelessness, she found hope in the transgender community in Toronto  
• She now resides with an adoptive 'mommy and daddy' and spends her time playing with dolls and the couple's young grandchildren 

A Canadian man who was married, with seven kids, has left his family in order to fulfill his true identity - as a six-year-old girl.

In an emotional video with gay news site The Daily Xtra in collaboration with The Transgender Project, Stefonknee (pronounced ‘Stef-on-knee’) Wolscht, 52, of Toronto, says she realized she was transgender - rather that simply a cross-dresser - at age 46, and split from her wife, Maria, after she told her husband to 'stop being trans or leave'.

Now, Stefonknee lives with friends who she cans her 'adoptive mommy and daddy' as a six-year-old girl, dressing in children's clothing and spending her time playing and coloring with her adoptive parents' grandchildren.

Stefonknee says her 'adoptive' family, which consists of an older couple and their children and young grandchildren, are completely accepting of her identifying as a little girl.

...

 

Stefonknee further adds: 'I have a mommy and a daddy - an adopted mommy and daddy - who are totally comfortable with me being a little girl. And their children and their grandchildren are totally supportive.'

She says she previously lived as an eight-year-old girl, until the couple's granddaughter asked her to be the younger sister instead. 

'A year ago I was eight and she was seven. And she said to me: "I want you to be the little sister, so I’ll be nine." I said: "Well, I don’t mind going to six." So I’ve been six ever since.'

In the winter, Stefonknee earns money by plowing snow, and when she's at home with her adoptive family, they color and 'do kid's stuff'. An

And here:

Quote

A Canadian transgender father left behind a wife and seven children to begin a new life as a six-year-old girl.

Stefonknee (pronounced ‘Stephanie’) Wolschtt, 46, had been married for 23 years when she realised she was transgender.

 

She's now living with an adoptive family, and says she does not “want to be an adult right now”.

“I can’t deny I was married. I can’t deny I have children. But I’ve moved forward now and I’ve gone back to being a child,” she said in a video series by The Transgender Project, published by Daily Xtra.

He's been pretty open about what he says he is.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

One can choose to call someone by their name and skip the pronouns if they are uncomfortable with the use of a particular one as well in most cases. 

Or they could choose to neither self-censor nor capitulate regarding pronouns.  But in California, if you do this, if you speak a pronoun that someone else finds disagreeable in a certain context, you risk fines and imprisonment (see, e.g., here and here).  That context is very limited, and is only in California.  But I think some jurisdictions are heading in the direction of criminalizing speech and compelling speech as regarding pronouns, or else want to go in that direction but are constrained by the Constitution.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Fewer than 100 cases have been reported as of 2018.

I’m also really confused by this line of thought.

Okay.

Quote

So on the one hand people on your side don’t need to concern themselves with the messiness of the biology because it’s so rare (intersex is between .02 percent to 1.7 percent depending on how broad you define it) 

No.  I have not said this.  I reject it.  In fact, I think your side is far more prone to ignoring biology.  

Quote

we don’t need to worry or consider the implications.

I have not said this, either.  Nor implied it.  Nor said anything close to it.

You are not accurately characterizing my position.

Quote

On the other hand, you want to trot out a handful of cases (regarding age or race) to illustrate the slippery slope.

I don't understand what you are saying here.  What "handful of cases" are you referencing?  Stefonknee?

And what is it that you think I am trying "to illustrate?"

Quote

And because you can find 1-2 of these cases,

"These cases?"  Cases of what?

Quote

the whole idea that we should be accommodating to 1/6 (rate of gen z who self identifies on the rainbow of LGBTQ) of the population falls apart? 

I haven't said this.

And I don't know what you mean by "be accommodating."

Quote

Which is it?

Which is what?  I don't understand what you are saying.  You are substantially mischaracterizing my position, and attributing ideas to me that I do not hold.  Please stop it.

Quote

Do we need to consider the outliers or not?

Yes, we do.

Do we need to consider the reality of gender dysphoria or not?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 26, 2021 by smac97

[Calm]

Quote

Anyways, I just wanted you to see, I made a tutu with my sewing machine.  

A six year old wouldn’t be sewing on a machine or working plowing snow. This isn’t a clinical regression (not sure that is the right term), but an chosen persona that is only consistent with being 6 years old in some ways.  Not sure it makes a difference to the discussion, I was just curious. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What if he asked you call him "Father?"  Would you go along with that?

What about "Master?"  "His High Holiness?"

I know you are smarter than this SMAC. This analogy is about as compelling as comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or beastiality. Is it really the best you can do?

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is this your long winded way of saying that you misspoke

No.  You continue to mischaracterize and distort what I am saying.  Please stop it.

Quote

and that you agree that chromosomes are not always determinative when it comes to biological sex?

It would be nice if you stopped misrepresenting me.  Summing up the other guy's position if fine, if you are accurate and fair about it.  You aren't.  

Please don't speak for me.  If you want to know what I think, don't presume and don't mischaracterize.  Just ask.  I'll tell you what I think.

I think that sex is mostly a matter of genetics and biology, but there are also some sociological components to it.  

I think that sexual differentiation into male and female is the rule, but there are some few exceptions and deviations from that.  They are exceptions that prove the rule.

Quote

If you didn’t misspeak,

I didn't.

Quote

what was the “again” in reference to?  You already told me I was presuming things that were in dispute.

I identified those "thinkgs that were in dispute."  Here it is again:

Quote

So here's what you said that precipitated by "presupposes" comment: "My Aunt, as a young boy dressed in women’s clothing. ... She tried to kill herself. At that point she decided it was time to accept who she was and she transitioned."

See, this "time to accept who she was" is not a "fact."  It's a conclusory opinion.  You are presuming that which is in dispute.  That a chromosomal, biological, and even *sociological* male (inasmuch as he spent much of his life dressing as a male, married a woman, fathered children, and so on) is actually a woman trapped in a man's body.  That this is not gender dysphoria.

That is the dispute I was referencing.  You then invoked his/her attempted suicide as if that were some sort of "fact" or justification.  I find that pretty disconcerting.  This is neither fact nor reasoned argument.  "Comply with my declaration that I am a woman trapped in a man's body or else I'll kill myself and it'll be your fault."  That's how it comes across.  That's not a factual argument.  It's emotional and psychological blackmail.  Coercion.  Manipulation.

But rather than address what I took time to write, you instead fabricate statements that are neither accurate nor fair and falsely attribute them to.  it's not appreciated.  Please stop.

Quote

And then you told me I did it “again” when I said chromosomes do not equal biological sex. 

p.s. Next time you can skip the grand standing and just admit the mistake. 

I said something that apparently caused you confusion.  I thereafter clarified my point, which explanation you now ignore (in that you don't actually address what I am saying), disparage (calling it "long winded" and "grand standing") and substantially mischaraterize (see above).

I think this is an important topic, but we need to be able to have civil and reasoned discourse about it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 26, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

What if he asked you call him "Father?"  Would you go along with that?

What about "Master?"  "His High Holiness?"

I know you are smarter than this SMAC.

In all candor, I don't think you know much about me at all.

My questions were not rhetorical.  I'd like to see answers to them.  No obligation, of course.  But evasions and insults curtail the discussion, rather than advance it.

Quote

This analogy is about as compelling as comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or beastiality.  Is it really the best you can do?

Here are my questions:

Quote

What if he asked you call him "Father?"  Would you go along with that?

What about "Master?"  "His High Holiness?"

Do you utterly submit your speech to the requests / preferences / demands of others?  Or is there some sort of limit as to how far you will go?

And what if Bubba persuaded the government to fine and/or imprison you if you fail to call him by that name?  Are you okay with that?  Any concern about coercion?  Compelled speech?

The first two lines lay the foundation for the last two.

And the questions are legitimate.  If a person insists on being called something that is either patently or apparently incorrect, how far down that trail do you go?

This is a difficult discussion, but you keep trying to shut it down via insults, false characterizations, and now poisoning the well. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 26, 2021 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Same here.  But then, I don't think there should be a war over wedding cakes and free speech, either.  And yet here we are.

Broadly speaking, I think there should be room for that perspective, as well as contrary ones.

As it is, however, we're not speaking of merely being "respectful and courteous."  As I noted previously: "I differentiate between, on the one hand, a request and, on the other, a legally-enforceable and punishable-by-law-if-you-don't-comply demand.  I'm willing to consider going along with the former, but will resist the latter quite mightily."

One side of this discussion has declared war on the other, and has resorted to persuading government to punish the other side for not submitting to compelled speech.

What if he asked you call him "Father?"  Would you go along with that?

What about "Master?"  "His High Holiness?"

Do you utterly submit your speech to the requests / preferences / demands of others?  Or is there some sort of limit as to how far you will go?

And what if Bubba persuaded the government to fine and/or imprison you if you fail to call him by that name?  Are you okay with that?  Any concern about coercion?  Compelled speech?

Thanks,

-Smac

Who is starting these "wars"? I think reasonable people can disagree. For example, I might look at the wedding cake issue and think it is "declaring war" when the owner refused to serve the patron whereas someone else might find that reasonable and consider the "war" to be started when the patron sued the business owner. IMO this whole war would have been avoided if the owner had been willing to accept that there are all kinds of people and the differences between us don't need to be threatening. He could have just baked a cake and the customer would have paid. It wouldn't have been a moral failing to bake the cake. It wouldn't have signaled his approval for a lifestyle he disagrees with. But the owner decided to turn it into a political battle to make his points. He fired the first shot and then the customer reacted.

Can either side go overboard and be obnoxious by making demands? Yes. Most definitely. But IMO this "war" of pronouns and general phobia around transgender individuals usually employ overwrought fear tactics aimed at dividing people. One or two crazy laws from Canada or wherever doesn't make a trend and threaten every living person on the earth with imprisonment for calling someone by the wrong pronoun. Those are outliers. I am not harmed in any way by referring to someone by their preferred pronoun. It doesn't denigrate me like your examples would.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In all candor, I don't think you know much about me at all.

My questions were not rhetorical.  I'd like to see answers to them.  No obligation, of course.  But evasions and insults curtail the discussion, rather than advance it.

Here are my questions:

Easy peasy. First the analogy is a ridiculous hypothetical. Calling someone Father implies that you are their son or daughter. Calling someone him or her has no similar implication. 
 

Callling someone master of “your holiness” implies, that they own you or that you owe them allegiance. Calling someone Bubba, him/her doesn’t. 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The first two lines lay the foundation for the last two.

And the questions are legitimate.  If a person insists on being called something that is either patently or apparently incorrect, how far down that trail do you go?

Ymmv, but I always suggest compassion as well as accommodation for reasonable requests. 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is a difficult discussion, but you keep trying to shut it down via insults, false characterizations, and now poisoning the well. 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But in California, if you do this, if you speak a pronoun that someone else finds disagreeable in a certain context, you risk fines and imprisonment (see, e.g., here and here)

In California, if you run a nursing home you have to refer to your paying clients with their preferred gender pronouns. 
 

imagine a similarly situated chef in the Deep South. She considers each dish a creation and a work of art (or speech). By law if she runs a business she is forced to serve all regardless of protected class. So if a person of color walks in she is required by law to serve them. Somehow despite this overly restrictive law we have gotten along just fine and some might even say, we’ve improved. 
 

You can further imagine a teacher in the Deep South. One with strongly held anti segregation views. He is compelled by law to teach his class regardless of its makeup. If he started calling students the n word he would be fired by his employer (the government). Somehow despite this, we’ve gotten along just fine. 

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Who is starting these "wars"?

In my view, the people who are demanding - rather than requesting - compliance with "preferred pronouns."

Quote

I think reasonable people can disagree.

Jordan Peterson isn't trying to punish people who disagree with him about the use of pronouns.

He didn't start the fight.  It was brought to his door step via legislation in Canada.

Quote

For example, I might look at the wedding cake issue and think it is "declaring war" when the owner refused to serve the patron whereas someone else might find that reasonable and consider the "war" to be started when the patron sued the business owner.

I see a difference between A) a person declining to engage in speech with which he disagrees, and B) other persons who work to destroy the livelihood of the first guy because he does not want to say the things that they want him to say.

And a pretty big difference it is.

Quote

IMO this whole war would have been avoided if the owner had been willing to accept that there are all kinds of people and the differences between us don't need to be threatening.

Mr. Phillips didn't threaten anyone.  He's the one under attack.  He's the one being threatened.

Quote

He could have just baked a cake and the customer would have paid.

And the couple could have just gone to another bakery and gotten the symbolic cake they wanted.  Which, in fact, they did.  But they then proceeded to try to destroy Mr. Phillips' livelihood and reputation anyway.

Who is the aggressor in this narrative?  Are you seriously suggesting it was Mr. Phillips?

Quote

It wouldn't have been a moral failing to bake the cake.

Oh.  That's how morality works, is it?  You presume to tell Mr. Phillips what his religion means to him?

And what about Free Speech?

Quote

It wouldn't have signaled his approval for a lifestyle he disagrees with.

How do you know?

I've previously commented on this argument here:

Quote

What do Adele, The Rolling Stones, Twisted Sister, Steven Tyler, R.E.M., Elton John, Luciano Pavarotti, Queen and George Harrison have in common?

They are all musicians who, either directly or through representatives, have told Donald Trump to stop using their music at his campaign rallies and events.

Quoth Dee Snider: 

Quote

“When Donald started running for office, he asked me, he called me. He says, 'Can I use the song?' And he's a buddy. And I said, 'Yeah. Go ahead.' But as the months went on, I heard a litany of his beliefs that I'd never discussed with him,” Dee Snider told CNN. "I finally called him and I said, 'Man, you've gotta stop using the song. People think I'm endorsing you here. I can't get behind a lot of what you're saying.' And that night. He has not used it since.”

Quoth an attorney for Aerosmith:

Quote

"Lawyers for Aerosmith wrote a cease and cease-and-desist letter to the Trump campaign claiming the Republican 'did not have our client's permission to use Dream On' or any of Tyler's other songs and that it 'gives the false impression that he is connected with or endorses Mr. Trump's presidential bid.'"

Quoth representatives of the Pavarotti estate:

Quote

“As members of his immediate family, we would like to recall that the values of brotherhood and solidarity which Luciano Pavarotti expressed throughout the course of his artistic career are entirely incompatible with the world view offered by the candidate Donald Trump."

Quoth Queen:

Quote

"Queen does not want its music associated with any mainstream or political debate in any country. Nor does Queen want ‘We are the Champions’ to be used as an endorsement of Mr. Trump and the political views of the Republican Party."

Quoth Elton John:

Quote

"I’m British. I’ve met Donald Trump, he was very nice to me, it’s nothing personal, his political views are his own, mine are very different, I’m not a Republican in a million years."

The songs being used by Donald Trump are "exactly the same" as they are when used in other venues, and yet these various artists do not want Donald Trump to use their music in his campaign rallies.  Now why is that?  Well...

• "People think I'm endorsing you here.  I can't get behind a lot of what you're saying."
• "[Using Aerosmith songs at Trump rallies] gives the false impression that he is connected with or endorses Mr. Trump's presidential bid."
• "[Pavarotti's values] are entirely incompatible with the world view offered by the candidate Donald Trump."
• "Queen does not want [its music] ... to be used as an endorsement of Mr. Trump."
• "[H]is political views are his own, mine are very different, I’m not a Republican in a million years."

The use of these artists' "speech" in a particular venue (a Trump rally) is - as you put it "speech [that is] saying something different" than if it were being used in other venues.  

More to the point, it's their music.  It's their artistic expression.  It's their speech.  Since when are Americans in Group X in the habit of coercing other Americans in Group Y to speak in ways that contravene the beliefs and values of Group Y?

If Elton John doesn't like the way his artistic expression is to be used in a particular venue, in ways that he feels give the impression of his endorsement, then he should be entitled to refuse permission for such use.  That's not bigotry.  That's Elton John recognizing the reality that the use of his artistic speech at a Trump rally gives the impression that he is endorsing that event.

Likewise, if Mr. Phillips doesn't like the way his artistic expression is to be used in a particular venue, in ways that he feels give the impression of his endorsement, then he should be entitled to refuse permission for such use.  That's not bigotry.  That's Mr. Phillips recognizing the reality that the use of his artistic speech at a gay wedding gives the impression that he is endorsing that event.

We're all supposed to like the concept of equal rights, correct?  And yet there are some folks who would deprive Mr Phillips of his right to the use of his artistic speech that is claimed by Elton John and all the other artists quoted above.  These folks cheer the government coercing and punishing Mr. Phillips for refusing the use of his artistic speech at in ways that do not reflect his values, and which use may give the false impression of his endorsement.

Well?  Are you willing to grant to Mr. Phillips the same right to control his speech that is claimed by Elton John?  Queen?  Twisted Sister?  If not, why not?

Quote

But the owner decided to turn it into a political battle to make his points.

Wildly, flagrantly untrue.  He was the defendant.  He was the one sued.  It was the couple that started the "battle," not him.

Quote

He fired the first shot and then the customer reacted.

Malarky.

Quote

Can either side go overboard and be obnoxious by making demands? Yes.

It's not just about going "overboard."  There are plenty of types of speech that are not "overboard," but which shouldn't be compelled, either.

Quote

Most definitely. But IMO this "war" of pronouns and general phobia around transgender individuals usually employ overwrought fear tactics aimed at dividing people.

IMO this "war" is being started by people who are demanding that others capitulate in terms of speech, religion, social mores, and other important aspects of life.  And if that capitulation doesn't come, then comes the lawfare.  Then comes insults and accusations ("phobia" being a favorite - as you demonstrate here).

Mr. Phillips was sued, but he's the aggressor.  

Mr. Phillips was sued, but he started the war.

Quote

One or two crazy laws from Canada or wherever doesn't make a trend and threaten every living person on the earth with imprisonment for calling someone by the wrong pronoun. Those are outliers.

And what about when that craziness makes inroads into two of the largest jurisdictions in the United States (California and New York)?

When does an "outlier" become something that merits attention, concern and rebuttal?

Quote

I am not harmed in any way by referring to someone by their preferred pronoun.

Compelled speech is not harmful?

Are you sure?

Quote

It doesn't denigrate me like your examples would.

Is there any situation in which you would find compelled speech problematic?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 26, 2021 by smac97

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't understand why this has to be a "war".

Well, maybe not a literal war, though one side has shown an interest in enforcing their point of view by using the guys with all the guns and prisons. 

 

Quote

If someone prefers to be known by a certain pronoun, it would seem the respectful and courteous thing to call them by that pronoun.

I don't have a problem with respect and courtesy.

I do, however, have a problem with using the power of government to punish people for their speech. 

Take, for example, the Church's recent counsel regarding use of the word "Mormon." 

If I tell you that I prefer to be called a Latter-day Saint it would certainly be nice for you to accommodate that request.

But I would never in a million years think that it would be okay to fine or jail you for failing to do so. 

 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

But in California, if you do this, if you speak a pronoun that someone else finds disagreeable in a certain context, you risk fines and imprisonment (see, e.g., here and here)

In California, if you run a nursing home you have to refer to your paying clients with their preferred gender pronouns. 

Yep.  Is there a real risk of penalizing "pronouns" outside of that context?  In the United States, not at much.  However, I could very well see a way forward.  It's pretty straightforward:

• Step 1: Create a few narrowly-tailored laws that penalize the use of pronouns.
• Step 2: Create a few more in other jurisdictions.
• Step 3: Give society a while to become complacent and indifferent to these incursions.
• Step 4: Here's the pivot: Designate pronoun "misuse" as a form of hate speech or "gender discrimination" or "harassment."
• Step 5: Punish pronoun "misuse" under hate speech laws.

This has already been addressed to an extent relative to the Canadian legislation:

Quote

Bill C-16 added the words “gender identity or expression” to three places.

First: It was added to the Canadian Human Rights Act, joining a list of identifiable groups that are protected from discrimination. These groups include age, race, sex, religion and disability, among others.

Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech — defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred — where it joins other identifiable groups.

Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If there’s evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
...

Two legal experts offer their perspective: Brenda Cossman, law professor at the University of Toronto and director of the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies, and Jared Brown, commercial litigator at Brown Litigation, who often works with corporate clients on employment law and human rights disputes.

Pronoun usage

Does the bill legislate the use of certain language? And could someone go to jail for using the wrong pronoun?

In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act.

“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.”

See?  There is a "threshold" here.  Enacted by legislative fiat.  Right now, "the misuse of gender pronouns, without more ... cannot rise to the level of {hate speech}."  

But what happens if "the misuse of gender pronouns" is added into the definition of hate speech and/or discrimination and/or harassment?  It could be added explicitly, or inferred by the the courts.  Section 319(2) of the statute sure seems open to amendment or interpretation along those lines:

Quote

Section 319(2): Promoting hatred

Section 319(2) makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, by making statements (other than in private conversation). The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years.

Is it possible that pronoun "misuse" will end up being construed as "promoting hatred?"  As a form of hate speech or discrimination or harassment?  Sure seems like it:

Quote

In trying to work out whether calling trans women “men” or “male” should count as either an actual hate crime, or even a reasonably “perceived” hate crime that the police should be involved with, I think we need to keep the following clearly in our minds:
...

· The question IS whether saying that trans women are “men” or “male” is reasonably thought of as showing seriously hostile psychological intentions or motives: to harass, distress, alarm, threaten, and so on.

This is really important, in a way that goes way beyond Miller’s case, because we are told all the time that “rejecting someone’s gender identity” or “misgendering” is evidence of hate — that is, talking of their sex in a way which conflicts with their gender identity.

So for instance, Stonewall’s definition of transphobia is:

“The fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including denying their gender identity or refusing to accept it.”

So: refusing to think of a trans woman as a woman, for instance, is automatically “included” as being based on “fear and dislike” and so “transphobic”.

Or see the very first sentence of Foreword to the CPS new publication “LGBT Bullying and Hate Crime Schools Guidance”, which says”

“Homophobic and transphobic bullying and hate crime attack people’s right to feel safe and confident about their sexual orientation and their gender identity”

That is — snuck in there alongside the entirely appropriate sentiment that people should feel “safe” and “confident” about their sexual orientation (which is, after all, not just an identity, but a fact about oneself) — the CPS seem to be quite casually construing disagreement with the idea of someone’s gender identity as “bullying and hate crime”.

And here:

Quote

New York’s guide to interpreting its human rights law does address gender pronouns, advising that repeated and intentional failure “to use the name or pronouns with which a person self-identifies” may constitute evidence of gender discrimination. Accidental or occasional misgendering does not constitute an offense.

And here:

Quote

Facebook Says ‘Misgendering’ is Considered Hate Speech

BY DECISION MAGAZINE STAFF   |    JANUARY 21, 2020   |   NEWS

   

Facebook, following a move by its social media rival Twitter, has broadened its definition of “hate speech.” The company’s community standards now state that denying the existence of a transgender individual or failing to use a person’s preferred gender identity is “objectionable” and could result in removal from the platform.

And here:

Quote

Norway outlaws hate speech against trans people

By Rachel Savage

3 MIN READ

LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Norway’s parliament outlawed hate speech against transgender people on Tuesday, expanding its penal code which has protected gay and lesbian people since 1981.

People found guilty of hate speech face a fine or up to a year in jail for private remarks, and a maximum of three years in jail for public comments, according to the penal code.
...

Trans people are “an exposed group when it comes to discrimination, harassment and violence”, Minister of Justice and Public Security Monica Maeland said.

“It is imperative that the protection against discrimination offered by the criminal legislation is adapted to the practical situations that arise,” she told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in emailed comments ahead of Tuesday’s reading.

The amendments outlawed discrimination based on “gender identity or gender expression” and changed “homosexual orientation” to “sexual orientation”, meaning bisexual as well as lesbian and gay people will be explicitly protected from discrimination.

And here (from a Canadian government website) (emphases added) :

Quote

What does the Ontario Human Rights Code say about gender issues?

Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services (including education, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology.

Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun?

The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

As one human rights tribunal said: “Gender …may be the most significant factor in a person’s identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender.”^[1] The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainant’s self-identification as a trans woman.

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.

Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know which pronoun is preferred.^[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.

Doesn’t this interfere with freedom expression?

Our lawmakers and courts recognize the right to freedom of expression, and at the same time, that no right is absolute. Expression may be limited where, for example, it is hate speech under criminal law.

The Supreme Court has also found that some limits on free speech are justifiable to protect people from harassment and discrimination in social areas like employment and services.

Criminalizing pronouns is already happening.

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

imagine a similarly situated chef in the Deep South. She considers each dish a creation and a work of art (or speech).

We would need to look at whether the law would agree with her position.  I don't think it would.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Easy peasy. First the analogy is a ridiculous hypothetical.

It's not, but I appreciate you indulging me anyway.

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Calling someone Father implies that you are their son or daughter.

So what?  How is that a problem?

Please bear with me and answer the question.

See, for me, I would not be comfortable with this because calling someone other than my dad "Father" is inappropriate.  Because it's not true.  Because it does not comport with reality.  

This issue moves from the abstract to the particular when the government gets involved.  What happens if a law is passed that compels me, under threat of fine and/or imprisonment, to say things that I don't want to say?  

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Calling someone him or her has no similar implication. 

It sure does.  The "implication" is . . . falsehood.  You insisting that I refer to you as "Father" is improper and wrong because you are not my father, and because I do not want to call you that.

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Callling someone master of “your holiness” implies, that they own you or that you owe them allegiance. Calling someone Bubba, him/her doesn’t. 

Okay.  What if I disclaim that implication, but still insist that you call me "Your Holiness?"  Are you okay then?  

I'm just trying to figure out your position here.  

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Ymmv, but I always suggest compassion as well as accommodation for reasonable requests. 

"Reasonable" and "requests" both being key terms here.

Some folks can reasonably feel that perpetuating a faleshood, or a mental illness, may not be either "compassion{ate}" or "reasonable."

And the government punishing me for resisting compelled speech is certainly not a "request."

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Well, maybe not a literal war, though one side has shown an interest in enforcing their point of view by using the guys with all the guns and prisons. 

You mean the Republicans?   Just kidding. Don't ban me.  By enforcing their POV I assume you're not talking about a baker refusing to bake a cake for a specific clientele but rather the customer who legally filed suit, right? 

I don't have a problem with respect and courtesy.

Good. I'd be concerned if you did.

I do, however, have a problem with using the power of government to punish people for their speech. 

Cool.

Take, for example, the Church's recent counsel regarding use of the word "Mormon." 

If I tell you that I prefer to be called a Latter-day Saint it would certainly be nice for you to accommodate that request.

Agreed. I do my best for that exact reason.

But I would never in a million years think that it would be okay to fine or jail you for failing to do so. 

I agree. Those kinds of rare instances seem to be exaggerated to induce fear. Are you aware of any bills pending right now that will throw you in jail for using the wrong pronoun? Or is it just something to rile people up about?

 

I am curious though. Can someone give me a valid explanation why someone would knowingly and willfully continue to use an unwanted pronoun for someone? Doing so kind of sounds like bully behavior, or at the very least, very jerkish.

Edited March 26, 2021 by HappyJackWagon