Absent an absolute authority, who is to say what anything is.

[Analytics]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

If my "preferred pronoun" substitutes for "you" and "him" and "his" are "My Master," "His Excellency" and "The Great One's," I really doubt you would go along with it.

You are making an argument about why non-Mormons are extremely reluctant to follow your Church's style guide and call it "The Church of Jesus Christ."

However, this is a different issue. "My Master," "His Excellency," etc. aren't pronouns. They are honorific titles. I'm not aware of anybody who says you must use arbitrary honorific titles just because somebody says they prefer it.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

The contest is between A) Free Speech - the teacher's right to not be compelled to speak things he does not want to speak  - and B) "the right of a student" to coerce others to use words those others do not want to speak.

One is a constitutional right, one is not.  I'll let you guess which is which.

I'm having a hard time believing you are serious here. "Free speech" isn't carte blanche to take a job as a teacher, and then refuse to do your job because you don't want to talk the way that teachers are required to talk.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Say there was a judge in Utah County that you didn't respect, that you honestly didn't believe was honorable. If you found yourself in his court, would free speech grant you the right to refer to the judge as "your dishonorable piece of refuse" instead of "your honor"?

If lawyers are required to be polite to judges, why can't teachers be required to be polite to students, and why can't the staff of nursing homes be required to be polite to the residents there?

Edited June 28, 2022 by Analytics

[Kenngo1969]

18 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Hmm  Was hoping you might clarify what your point was. I'm not going to force you.

Perhaps you could point out just what it is that I wrote that you think is unclear and tell me why you think it is unclear.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Analytics]

49 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I'm not sure what your point is, but I agree that a pig is a pig just as a male is a male and a female is a female. Words have standard definitions that are listed in standard dictionaries.  We need to have some way to know what the meaning of a word truly is.

If that's the case, why do you refuse to use the standard definition of the word gender identity? 

[Vanguard]

37 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You are equivocating here. When somebody says they "are" a woman, they are saying their gender identity is female, not that their biological sex is female. Gender identity and biological sex are two different things. Making a statement about your gender identity is not making a statement about your biological sex. Stop pretending that it is.

I thought the definition of woman was to be left for the particular person to decide! You state that when "somebody says they "are" a woman, they are saying their gender identity is female...". How do you know that?!! The very definition of gender identify you link to says -  a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female. <emphasis added> My understanding is that woman does not equate to female unless the particular person says it does. For that matter, Merriam-Webster also equivocates the two terms suggesting that woman is 'an adult female person'. <italics added> I thought gender was to be determined by the individual many times irrespective of sex and sex was to be determined by their chromosomes? And finally, you claim in your penultimate sentence that "gender identity is not making a statement about your biological sex" though your second sentence seems to say exactly the opposite. Honestly, I find this all still very confusing and I don't think I'm the only one (i.e., you?).

[Analytics]

5 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I explained already that a person can identify either their own gender or someone else's gender incorrectly.

The fact that someone identifies as a male doesn't necessarily mean that person is a biological male. As you know, a biological male may identify as a female. I have repeatedly said and still say that is an incorrect gender identification, in my perspective.

You are free to disagree, of course, and you have repeatedly expressed your disagreement.

I understand that is your position; you believe that somebody's gender identity can be incongruous with their biological sex.

I'm just emphasizing that calling this incongruousness an "incorrect" gender identification is based on a definition of "gender identity" that isn't in the dictionary.

[Vanguard]

18 minutes ago, Obehave said:

29 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I thought the definition of woman was to be left for the particular person to decide! You state that when "somebody says they "are" a woman, they are saying their gender identity is female...". How do you know that?!! The very definition of gender identify you link to says -  a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female. <emphasis added> My understanding is that woman does not equate to female unless the particular person says it does. For that matter, Merriam-Webster also equivocates the two terms suggesting that woman is 'an adult female person'. <italics added> I thought gender was to be determined by the individual many times irrespective of sex and sex was to be determined by their chromosomes? And finally, you claim in your penultimate sentence that "gender identity is not making a statement about your biological sex" though your second sentence seems to say exactly the opposite. Honestly, I find this all still very confusing and I don't think I'm the only one (i.e., you?).

Expand  

I may be of some service here because I think I do at least understand his point. When he says a person's gender identity is whatever that person says it is he means that is the gender that person believes he or she is. A biological male for example whose gender identity is female truly believes that he is female and would Iike others to refer to him using feminine pronouns. I would say no because he is a man but others like Analytics would go along with whatever he said.

But that is not according to the Merriam-Webster definition of gender identity I included in my post (see the emboldened portion). You can't have a gender identify that is 'female' as female is based on one's chromosomes. According to the newest lingo, your gender identity can be woman, man, some of both, or of neither but not female or male.

[Analytics]

20 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I thought the definition of woman was to be left for the particular person to decide! You state that when "somebody says they "are" a woman, they are saying their gender identity is female...". How do you know that?!!

It depends on the context. Smac doesn't acknowledge the existence of  definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Because of that, he doesn't acknowledge that the standard definition of woman (i.e. a female adult human) could refer to somebody's gender identity being female rather than their biological sex being female.

We know from the context that when a biological male claims to be a woman, she is claiming that her gender identity is female. We know from the context that she is not claiming that her biological sex is female. Yet Smac insists she is claiming that by identifying as female she magically becomes biologically female. This is a nonsensical straw man, which he mercilessly attacks (i.e. "If I "identify" as a ten-year-old boy, I can dress and behave like one, but that does not make me one" ad infinitum).

20 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

The very definition of gender identify you link to says -  a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female. <emphasis added> My understanding is that woman does not equate to female unless the particular person says it does. For that matter, Merriam-Webster also equivocates the two terms suggesting that woman is 'an adult female person'. <italics added>

Female can refer to either biological sex or to gender identity. There isn't any equivocation unless somebody says something with one of the definitions, and then switches definitions later in the idea. The dictionary doesn't do that.

20 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I thought gender was to be determined by the individual many times irrespective of sex and sex was to be determined by their chromosomes?

That's basically correct.

20 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

And finally, you claim in your penultimate sentence that "gender identity is not making a statement about your biological sex" though your second sentence seems to say exactly the opposite. Honestly, I find this all still very confusing and I don't think I'm the only one (i.e., you?).

My point is that "female" can refer to either biological sex (i.e. "of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs") or "female" can refer to gender identity (i.e. "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male").

Female Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps you could point out just what it is that I wrote that you think is unclear and tell me why you think it is unclear.

For the record, I thought that post about your life's journey was heartfelt and sincere, and I found it to be insightful and appreciate you sharing. 

[Analytics]

57 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I may be of some service here because I think I do at least understand his point. When he says a person's gender identity is whatever that person says it is he means that is the gender that person believes he or she is. A biological male for example whose gender identity is female truly believes that he is female and would Iike others to refer to him using feminine pronouns. I would say no because he is a man but others like Analytics would go along with whatever he said.

I'd modify it this way to accurately reflect my point:

When he says a person's gender identity is whatever that person says it is he means that is the gender of their internal sense of self. A biological male for example whose gender identity is female has a female internal sense of self and would Iike others to refer to her using feminine pronouns. I would say no because I don't acknowledge the existence and validity of internal sense of self but others like Analytics would go along with whatever she said.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

If my "preferred pronoun" substitutes for "you" and "him" and "his" are "My Master," "His Excellency" and "The Great One's," I really doubt you would go along with it.

You are making an argument about why non-Mormons are extremely reluctant to follow your Church's style guide and call it "The Church of Jesus Christ."

Yes, I am.  I acknowledge and understand, and even respect, that reluctance.

But again, the Church is not using threats, coercion, the force of law, etc. to compel anyone to use this convention.  Meanwhile, your side of the debate - as I have repeatedly and extensively demonstrated - is doing all of these things.

This video makes some good points about "preferred pronouns," particularly the guy at the 1:56 mark:

Quote

Host: Andrew, there you are.  It's a matter of courtesy this, and sensitivity, isn't it?

Andrew: Courtesy's all very well, and you're describing encouraging people to use certain words.  My problem is when words are policed.  When language becomes policed.  That is my problem.  Those sorts of things, 'humankind' or 'mankind,' I mean, those are sort of interchangeable now, they're synonymous anyway.  We're talking about when people actively - and it's a minority of activists, it really is a minority - seek to have people disciplined, or sacked, because they refuse to use language that they they are imposing.  That's not the evolution of language, that's the imposition of language, and I think that's problematic.

Roger, I genuinely think that people like you are totally okay with this sort of thing.  That you are okay with, and even approve and endorse and advocate for, compelled speech.  Your side of the debate is pushing for governments, employers, etc. to use intimidation tactics (shouting/screaming), threats of actual violence (Zoey Tur), threats to employment, even fines and imprisonment, to coerce people into saying things they A) do not want to say and B) do not believe to be true or factually correct.

You use commentary about "rudeness" as a pretext to justify these things.  You use false equivancies to minimize and equivocate and distract.  You falsely suggest that Latter-day Saints are using comparable means of imposing compelled speech.  You try to characterize examples of the foregoing behaviors as aberrations and one-offs.

Meanwhile, AFAICS, nowhere have you repudiated or disagreed with any of the above-referenced tactics/behaviors.  Instead, it sure seems like you tacitly, and sometimes even expressly, support these tactics, and that you endorse the overall idea of compelled speech.  

Now, I sure hope I am wrong about this.  I hope my surmise and generalized perception of your perspective is flat wrong, and that you are opposed to compelled speech.  I hope you do not want members of society to be able to use the force of law to coerce other members of society to say things they do not want to say and do not believe to be true/factual.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

However, this is a different issue. "My Master," "His Excellency," etc. aren't pronouns. They are honorific titles.

Oh, brother.  Your side of the debate is literally making up pronouns:

"Honorific titles" are regularly used in the place of normative pronouns, just like the above fabricated ones.

You are correct in rejecting a request to use honorific wording in place of normative pronouns. And fortunately for you, nobody is trying to coerce you into doing this.

Meanwhile, others are likewise correct in rejecting a request (or, as is increasingly common coming from your side of the debate, insisting and demanding, up to and including using threats of violence, threats to employment, threats of government-imposed fines and imprisonment, etc.) to use fabricated or grammatically incorrect "preferred" wording in place of normative pronouns.

The guy in the above video was quite right.  What you and yours are doing is not the evolution of language, that's the imposition of language.  Coerced speech.  Compelled speech.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I'm not aware of anybody who says you must use arbitrary honorific titles just because somebody says they prefer it.

That's my point.  Nobody is doing what . . . your side of the debate is doing.  

Your side of the debate is saying that others "must" use particular words.  Your side of the debate is resorting to shouting/screaming, threats of physical violence, threats to employment, threats of government-imposed fines and imprisonment, etc. to coerce people into saying words they do not want to say and do not believe to be true/factual.

And you seem to be totally on board with these things.

And I find it pretty darn troubling when members of our society who are as intellectually formidable as you are okay with these things, or are even justifying and advocating for the advancement of these things.

I hope I'm wrong about you.  I hope you are not doing what you seem to be doing, which is endorsing compelled speech.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The contest is between A) Free Speech - the teacher's right to not be compelled to speak things he does not want to speak  - and B) "the right of a student" to coerce others to use words those others do not want to speak.

One is a constitutional right, one is not.  I'll let you guess which is which.

I'm having a hard time believing you are serious here.

I am drop-dead serious.  

I think you are so deeply in the thrall of socially popular trends that you cannot even conceptualize that people of reasonable information and intellect might legitimately have arguments and ideas that flatly contradict your worldview and its underlying presuppositions.  It's your way or the highway.  To disagree with you is to be stupid.  To disagree with you is to be unserious.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

"Free speech" isn't carte blanche to take a job as a teacher, and then refuse to do your job because you don't want to talk the way that teachers are required to talk.

"Talk the way that teachers are required to talk."

You are justifying compelled speech.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Or maybe I'm wrong. Say there was a judge in Utah County that you didn't respect, that you honestly didn't believe was honorable. If you found yourself in his court, would free speech grant you the right to refer to the judge as "your dishonorable piece of refuse" instead of "your honor"?

"Your dishonorable piece of refuse" is not compelled speech.  Surely you understand that?

Meanwhile, I could refer to the judge as "the Court" or "Judge."

"Compelled speech" as a broad category is impermissible, but there are some (very limited) exceptions where the government can do it.  Examples include filing a tax return, requiring regulatory labels/warnings on alcohol and tobacco products, paying compulsory dues to a professional organization to fund certain political and ideological causes, and compulsory union dues used to pay for political activities.

What you and yours are proposing (demanding, actually, sometimes with underlying threats) is a huge incursion into, and expansion of, compelled speech.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If lawyers are required to be polite to judges,

This is not a very good example of compelled speech, as "politeness" is hugely subjective and amorphous.  Moreover, lawyers are not so much obligated to be "polite" as they are constrained from being uncivil, disruptive, vulgar, etc.  

Judges have broad discretion to maintain order and decorum during legal proceedings.  Similarly, members of the military face constraints on their "speech" as part of their military duties (active duty military cannot publicly speak against civilians in their chain of command, for example).

Rules about "speech" are likely never going to be absolute.  The government cannot, broadly and generally, infringe on Free Speech, but there are some exceptions.  You cannot employ factually false statements in advertising and claim "Free Speech" as immunizing you from statutes prohibiting deceptive advertising.  You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.  You cannot incite to riot/insurrection.  These are all examples of "speech" that are not protected by the First Amendment.

Conversely, the government cannot, broadly and generally, compel speech, but there are some exceptions (see above).

Again, what you and yours are proposing is a huge incursion into and expansion of compelled speech.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

why can't teachers be required to be polite to students, and why can't the staff of nursing homes be required to be polite to the residents there?

Being "polite" seldom involves, or needs to involve, compelled speech.

The government should not be in the business of fining and imprisoning people for refusing to submit to compelled speech (which you want to characterize as "be{ing} {im}polite").  And private citizens should not be going around using shouts and screams, threats of physical violence, etc. to coerce other people into compelled speech (which, again, you call "be{ing} {im}polite").

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 28, 2022 by smac97

[manol]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

When somebody says they "are" a woman, they are saying their gender identity is female, not that their biological sex is female. Gender identity and biological sex are two different things. Making a statement about your gender identity is not making a statement about your biological sex. Stop pretending that it is.

I have two kids who are transgender, and did not grasp the distinction between gender identity and biological sex at first.  So initially using their preferred pronouns was well outside my comfort zone, as I thought they were asking me to lie about their biological sex. 

I now see using their preferred pronouns as affirming my acceptance of their sense of identity, rather than as me lying about their biology. 

And I still have the same number of sons and daughters as before, just re-arranged. 

Edited June 28, 2022 by manol

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Obehave said:

I would rather you just tell me what your point was.  Just the general idea would be fine.

I think what I wrote was clear on its face.  If you disagree, Vive le difference!  Cheers!

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Okay. I'll accept that as a more correct version of your perspective. I accept that you know WHAT you think better than I know what you think but knowing WHAT you think doesn't equate to agreeing with you.

The reason I don't accept a biological male as a gender type female is not because I don’t believe some males have an internal sense of themselves as females. I believe some males do have an internal sense of themselves as females. I just say they are wrong in that sense because in reality those males are not females, even though they may identify themselves as such.

I think I may even know where the sense of self may come from. Males are not females but all males were created by females AND males. So each person is a combination of both a male and a female. We are one or the other individually, though, not both.

And speaking of the topic......Absent an absolute authority, who is to say what anything is

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

If I "identify" as a ten-year-old boy, I can dress and behave like one, but that does not make me one.  I cannot alter my chronological age, I cannot alter my birth certificate to reflect my "identity," and so on.

You are equivocating here.

I am employing "identify" in the same way above as you do below.

If I am equivocating, I am doing so to demonstrate why "identifying as a 'woman'" is an exercise in equivocation.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

When somebody says they "are" a woman, they are saying their gender identity is female, not that their biological sex is female.

This is the equivocation I am talking about.  "Woman" is being equivocated as being both (A) a reference to the individual's biological sex (an adult human female) and (B) a reference to anyone who "identifies" as a "woman."

• Caitlyn Jenner changed the sex on her birth certificate.  That is equivocation.
• "Trans women are women" is equivocation.
• "Women can have penises" is equivocation.
• "Men can have vaginas, can menstruate, can get pregnant," etc. is equivocation.
• "Birthing people" and "people with uteruses" are equivocations (albeit somewhat attenuated).
• Lia Thomas is a biological male competing against biological females, and he does so by "identifying" as a "woman."  That is equivocation.
• You and yours are deliberately trying to make "woman" an ambiguous term.  You and yours are using "woman" interchangeably to reference definition (A) or (B).

I think much of society is not willing to go along with your radical re-definition of "woman" to mean . . . anything anyone anwhere wants it to mean.

There is no appreciable difference between me saying "I identify as a woman" and "I identify as the son of Elon Musk."  Both statements are factually and empirically false.  Now, I can try - as you and yours do - to equivocate by re-defining the word "woman," or by changing the meaning of "son" and fabricating some pretext to justify me claiming to have a familial relationship with Elon Musk.  I can certainly do these things, but I don't think they will work in the long run, or with most people.  I think most of society will say "No, you are not the son of Elon Musk.  However strongly you may believe and feel that to be so, it is not.  You have no familial relationship with the billionaire associated with Tesla.  What you are claiming simply is not so."

I think society is increasingly coming to similar grips with the current sociopolitical trend of letting people "identify" as things they are not. 

For example, society does not seem ready or willing to let Rachel Dolezal "identify" as African-American (or, at least, society is not willing to go along with this falsehood, to acquiesce to it, etc.).  If she were to mark "African-American" on a governmental job application, or on a scholarship application, I think she would be opening herself up to a fraud claim.  If she, while testifying under oath as a witness in a courtroom, were to answer "Yes" to "Are you African-American," she could be opening herself up to a perjury charge, and the opposing counsel would almost certainly use that false statement to impeach her credibility as a witness.

Society does not seem to be going along with "Stefoknee Wolscht," a biological male in his 50s, call himself a perpetual six-year-old girl.  I mean, he can do what he wants, but society is not really obligated to go along with it.  Nobody is insisting that he be enrolled in kindergarten or first grade.  Nobody has insisted that his "adopted family" go through the legal mechanisms involved in legally adopting him.  There are some pretty clear indications that Wolscht is in a sexual relationship with his "adoptive parents" (see here (content warning) and here), but nobody is calling the police or treating this relationship as sexual abuse of a child.  Society is is willing to tolerate/accommodate these things, but actually accepting as empirically true the claimed "identity" of this man as a perennial six-year-old girl?  Nope.  I think that is largely because

• (A) there is no society-wide push demanding that everyone affirm and celebrate and endorse Wolscht's "identity,"
• (B) Wolscht's "identity" is so facially and obviously a manfestation of a substantial mental disorder that
• (C) people of good will are more inclined to view him with sympathy, and
• (D) do not face any concomitant social pressure to go along with his "identity," so they don't.

I think a similar progressive dynamic is unfolding relative to the trans movement.  The most obvious difference is that, unlike part (A) of the Wolscht situation above, there is a "society-wide push demanding that everyone affirm and celebrate and endorse" the "trans" identity of biological males as "women," even to the extent of massive equivocation ("trans women are women," Lia Thomas on the women's team at UPenn, Caitlyn Jenner changing her birth certificate to show her biological sex as "female," etc.).  

I think society is broadly aware of the psychological condition clinically referred to as "Gender Dysphoria," but we have also been conditioned over a course of years to go along with it in unique ways.  We go along with it partly because, as I have repeatedly noited, your side of the debate resorts to coercive and bullying tactics.  Nobody likes being called a "bigot."  Most people want to be nice and amiable, which in this context apparently means being an "ally," which in turn means affirming/ratifying/endorsing/celebrating the manifestations associated with Gender Dysphoria.  When disagreeing with people like you elicits public accusations of "Bigot!" and "Transphobe!", and when capitulating to people like you elicits effusive praise and adulation ("Ally!"), most people will go choose the path of least resistance.  Most will "go along to get along."  That makes sense, as few people relish the prospect of people like Roger Loomis publicly labeling them a bigot (see, e.g., here and here).  Much easier to just shrug and say "Okay.  Whatever."

This has been years in the making, largely by hitching the "trans" movement to the "LGB" bandwagon.  However, after years of a generalized drift toward these things, we are seeing signs of societal circumspection starting to re-assert itself. 

One way this is happening pertains to the "Bridge Too Far" tactics being used by your side of the debate.  A biological male "identifying" as a women is, in the abstract, a "no harm, no foul" kind of thing.  But people are starting to pay more attention because of things like:

• "Drag Queen Story Hour" events in libraries for children;
• "Drag Queen" quasi-strip shows involving children;
• Patently sexualized behavior at "pride" events involving children (public nudity and sexual behavior at pride parades, for example);
• School teachers indoctrinating small children about matters of sexuality (often without notice to or consent from parents); and
• Widespread efforts to normalize these things (e.g., "Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it").

The common theme here is . . . children.  This stuff is veering away from "Hey, let's all just adopt a live-and-let-live, you-be-you attitude toward each other" (which, I think, might have had a chance at being stable and long-term trajectory) and is now heading into sexualization/grooming of children territory.  And the gaslighting denials (a la "Hey!  There's nothing remotely wrong or questionable about a drag queen teaching children how to twerk, dance/gyrate in sexually suggestive ways, imitate strippers, etc., and if you do anything other than celebrate these things then you're a bigot and transphobe") have, I think, compounded the "wake-up call" effect.  These things were a bridge too far.  

Another factor is the near-endless coercive/bullying tactics from your side of the debate.  Nonstop accusations of "Bigot!" and "Transphobe!" and have been losing their potency for some time now.  This becomes more obvious when notable incidents make their way into the public consciousness and debate.  Lia Thomas is a good example of that.  There are reasonable questions to be asked about allowing biological males to compete in "women's sports" against biological females.  And when folks like you reflexively respond with the obligatory "Bigot!" accusation, well, that starts coming across as a dodge and a distraction, as a means of evading the substantive issues.  Perhaps even a form of gaslighting.

Two examples of this "wake-up call" come to mind.  First, this story:

Quote

World swimming’s governing body adopts new rules for transgender athletes

World Jun 19, 2022 3:51 PM EDT

 

BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — World swimming’s governing body has effectively banned transgender women from competing in women’s events, starting Monday.

FINA members widely adopted a new “gender inclusion policy” on Sunday that only permits swimmers who transitioned before age 12 to compete in women’s events. The organization also proposed an “open competition category.”

“This is not saying that people are encouraged to transition by the age of 12. It’s what the scientists are saying, that if you transition after the start of puberty, you have an advantage, which is unfair,” James Pearce, who is the spokesperson for FINA president Husain Al-Musallam, told The Associated Press.

“They’re not saying everyone should transition by age 11, that’s ridiculous. You can’t transition by that age in most countries and hopefully you wouldn’t be encouraged to. Basically, what they’re saying is that it is not feasible for people who have transitioned to compete without having an advantage.”

So much for the "No, trans males do not have any physiological advantages over the biological females against whom they are competing" line that your side has been peddling for a while.

The second example is Bill Maher (!) who has managed to shake off the ideological shackles your side wants to bind us all with and is now saying some . . . pretty interesting things:

A transcript of Maher's remarks:

Quote

BILL MAHER: If something about the human race is changing at a previously unprecedented rate, we have to at least discuss it. Broken down over time, the LGBT population of America seems to be roughly doubling every generation.

According to a recent Gallup poll, less than 1% of Americans born before 1946, that’s Joe Biden’s generation, identify that way. 2.6% of Boomers do, 4.2% of Gen X, 10.5% of Millennials, and 20.8% of Gen Z.

Which means, if we follow this trajectory, we will all be gay in 2054. And then who is going to buy this chair?

I’m just saying that when things change this much, this fast, people are allowed to ask what’s up with that? All the babies are in the wrong bodies? Was there a mixup at the plant?

It wasn't that long ago when adults asked a kid what he wanted to be when he grows up they meant what profession. In the wake of America about to lose abortion rights, the ACLU recently tweeted a list of those who would be disproportionately harmed by this. You would think women would top the list, but they aren't even on the list! Second is LGBT. Really? Abortion rights affects gay and transgender people ore than, you know, breeders?

I'm happy for LGBT folks that we now live in an age where they can live their authentic lives openly, but someone needs to say it, not everything is about you.

It is okay to ask questions about something that’s very new and involves children. The answer can’t always be that anyone from a marginalized community is automatically right, trump-card, mic-drop, end of discussion. Because we’re literally experimenting on children. Maybe that’s why Sweden and Finland have stopped giving puberty blockers to kids because we just don’t know much about the long-term effects, although common sense should tell you that when you reverse the course of raging hormones, there’s going to be problems.

We do know it hinders the development of bone density, which is kind of important if you like having a skeleton, fertility and the ability to have an orgasm seem also to be affected. This isn’t just a lifestyle decision. It’s medical. Weighing trade-offs is not bigotry. Yet when a book questioning the sudden uptick in transgender children was released, a trans lawyer with the ACLU tweeted: 'Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.' How very civil liberties of him. [That lawyer] has been named one of the Grand Marshall of NYC's pride march -- with three other trans people and a lesbian. Huh. What's missing here? Oh, right, a gay man.

That's where we are now. Gay men aren't hip enough for the gay pride parade. Compared to trans, gay is practically cis and cis is practically Mormon.

Yes, part of the rise in LGBT numbers is from people feeling free enough to tell it to a pollster, and that’s all to the good. But some of it is, it's trendy.

Penis = man? Okay, Boomer.

Remember, the prime directive of every teen is, anything to shock and challenge the squares who brought you up. It’s why nobody gets a nose ring at 56.

And if you haven’t noticed that, with kids, doing something for the likes is more important than their own genitals, you haven’t been paying attention.

Dr. Erica Anderson is a prominent 71-year-old clinical psychologist who is herself transgender and who now says, "I think it’s gone too far."

The L.A. Times summarizes, that she’s "come to believe that some children identifying as trans are falling under the influence of their peers and social media." If you attend a small dinner party of typically very liberal, upper-income Angelinos, it is not uncommon to hear parents who each have a trans kid having a conversation about that. What are the odds of that happening in Youngstown, Ohio?

If this spike in trans children is all-natural, why is it regional? Either Ohio is shaming them or California is creating them.

It’s like that day we suddenly all needed bottled water all the time. If we can’t admit that, in certain enclaves, there is some level of trendiness to the idea of being anything other than straight, then this is not a serious, science-based discussion, it’s a blow being struck in the culture wars using children as cannon fodder.

I don’t understand parents who won’t let their nine-year-old walk to the corner without a helmet, an EpiPen, and a GPS tracker, and God forbid their lips touch dairy, but hormone blockers and genital surgery? Fine. Talk about a nut allergy. I guess penises are gross now, but one might come in handy later on.

...

And never forget children are impressionable and very, very stupid. Kids don’t know why mom drinks every day or why dad has two cell phones.

Maybe the boy who thinks he’s a girl is just gay, or whatever Frasier was.

Maybe the girl who hates 'girly stuff' just needs to learn that being female doesn’t mean you have to act like a Kardashian.

Maybe childhood makes you sad sometimes and there are other solutions besides hand me the **** saw.

And look, I’m sure the vast majority of parents do not take this lightly and that it’s very hard to know when something is real or just a phase and I understand being trans is different, it’s innate. But kids do also have phases. They’re kids. It’s all phases.

The dinosaur phase, the Hello Kitty phase, one day they want to be an astronaut, the next day, you can’t get them to leave their room.

Genderfluid? Kids are fluid about everything. If kids knew what they wanted to be at age eight, the world would be filled with cowboys and princesses. I wanted to be a pirate, thank God nobody took me seriously and scheduled me for eye removal and peg leg surgery.

My favorite line: "That's where we are now. Gay men aren't hip enough for the gay pride parade. Compared to trans, gay is practically cis and cis is practically Mormon."

We must be living in strange times when Spencer Macdonald, the ardent fan of the Latter-day Saint doctrines and belief, is quoting Bill Maher as a voice of sanity to rebut the strange and increasingly strained and untenable arguments being advanced in support of the trans movement (the equivocations about "women" being the most obvious).

So yeah, I think the needle is starting to move.  And in a good way.  

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Gender identity and biological sex are two different things.

But you are yours are treating them as interchangeable things.  You are conflating.  Equivocating.  On a grand scale.

Exhibit #1: The word "woman."  What is that?  Is it

• (A) an adult human female,
• (B) anyone who "identifies" as a "woman," or
• (C) both A and B?

I think that any answer other than (A) is per se equivocation.

Exhibit #2: You persist in refusing to answer the above question.  I think that is because you can't answer it and maintain the line about "gender identity" and "biological sex" being "two different things."  And this is because, well, you are conflating those "two different things."  You are equivocating, which will become more obvious once you answer that question.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Making a statement about your gender identity is not making a statement about your biological sex. Stop pretending that it is.

Stop pretending that you and yours aren't equivocating, that you are not conflating the two concepts, that you are not trading on a fabricated and forced "ambiguity" about the definition of "woman."

There was a time when I was giving your comments/perspective much more consideraton than I do now.  I have long admired your intellect, the breadth of your knowledge, and so on.  But on this issue, I am increasingly less impressed.  You are long on invective and insults and huffiness, and short on evidence and reasoned analysis and persuasive capacity.  On this issue you have, for me, become a paper tiger.

You will likely respond, as is your wont, with further accusations of me being stupid and/or ignorant, "mocking," "bigoted," "disrespectful," "hypocritical," and so on.   As I am not allocating much credit to your comments/perspective these days, your attempts to bully and insult are not working.  

I nevertheless fully expect you to continue with them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 28, 2022 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

If I am in a room full of people, each of whom has [a] different [set of??!!! ] pronoun[s], there is no way I'm going to be able to remember each of them to keep them straight.  Hell, I'll be lucky enough if I can remember someone's name!   I would be reduced to referring to people by proper names (again, if I can remember them), and the only pronoun I would be able to use with any degree of safety would be "you."  (Or is even that "out" now? )  So it's not always a question of simple [dis]respect.

If someone said, "Hey, I need you to reaffirm my core identity, and I would consider it disrespectful if you do not," I would say, "Okay, no problem: First and foremost, above and before everything else, you are a Child of God."  When we start modifying and qualifying "Child of God," we run the risk that the modifier first will come to take precedence over "Child of God," and eventually, we run the risk that the modifier will come to supplant "Child of God."

• "I am a gay Child of God"
• "I am a Black Child of God"
• "I am a queer Child of God"
• "I am a nonbinary Child of God"
• Ad infinitum 

No.  As I said, first and foremost, far above and far before anything else, you are a Child of God ... Full Stop.

P.S.: And yes, I know this isn't trendy, or hip, or "with it," or de rigueur.  I know it's passe, and pasado de moda, et cetera.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I am.  I acknowledge and understand, and even respect, that reluctance.

But again, the Church is not using threats, coercion, the force of law, etc. to compel anyone to use this convention.  Meanwhile, your side of the debate - as I have repeatedly and extensively demonstrated - is doing all of these things.

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are on "my side" of the debate. You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Roger, I genuinely think that people like you are totally okay with this sort of thing.  That you are okay with, and even approve and endorse and advocate for, compelled speech. ..

You are wrong about many things you genuinely think.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your side of the debate...

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are on "my side" of the debate. You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

...is pushing for governments, employers, etc. to use intimidation tactics (shouting/screaming), threats of actual violence (Zoey Tur), threats to employment, even fines and imprisonment, to coerce people into saying things they A) do not want to say and B) do not believe to be true or factually correct.

You use commentary about "rudeness" as a pretext to justify these things.

CFR that I have ever justified intimidation tactics, threats of actual violence, etc. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You falsely suggest that Latter-day Saints are using comparable means of imposing compelled speech...

CFR that I ever suggested such a thing.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, AFAICS, nowhere have you repudiated or disagreed with any of the above-referenced tactics/behaviors.

Yes, I refrain from following you into off-topic discussions.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Instead, it sure seems like you tacitly, and sometimes even expressly, support these tactics, and that you endorse the overall idea of compelled speech.

We'll talk about this below.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

  Now, I sure hope I am wrong about this.  I hope my surmise and generalized perception of your perspective is flat wrong

I have some great news for you. You are flat-out wrong about what I think and why. If you'd spend less time listening to my alleged side of the debate and more time listening to me, you'd see this.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

...and that you are opposed to compelled speech.

I object to how you are equivocating on the term "compelled speech." In general, people have the right to be as rude as they want. For example, you may be as rude to me as you want. Go for it. I can handle it.

But I do think compelling people to use polite speech in certain circumstances is appropriate. People should be compelled to speak the truth when they testify under oath. People should be compelled to be respectful to judges in courtroom settings. People should be compelled to leave their politics, impoliteness, and religious beliefs at home when they accept jobs as teachers or staffers at nursing homes. Your implied position that free-speech has no bounds is fundamentally unserious.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oh, brother.  Your side of the debate is literally making up pronouns:

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are on "my side" of the debate. You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The guy in the above video was quite right.  What you and yours are doing...

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are on "my side" of the debate--that they are "mine." You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's my point.  Nobody is doing what . . . your side of the debate is doing.  

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are on "my side" of the debate. You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your side of the debate...

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are on "my side" of the debate. You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I hope I'm wrong about you. 

If you wanted, you could listen to me rather than scour the Internet for people to be spokesmen for my side.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am drop-dead serious [about school teachers having a constitutional right not to engage in compelled speech]

Really? So, for example, teachers can't be compelled to teach anything on the actual curriculum because that would be compelled speech. Teachers can't be compelled to relay to students messages from the school's administration, because that would be compelled speech. School districts can't have any standards of decency because that would be compelled speech. Teachers don't have to do their jobs if it involves speaking, because that would be compelled speech.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 "Your dishonorable piece of refuse" is not compelled speech.  Surely you understand that?

My understanding is that if you were to deliberately and flagrantly refer to a judge in his or her courtroom by anything less respectful than "your honor," you would be held in contempt of court. Courts compel lawyers to refer to judges as "your honor" in the same way that the Loudoun County school district compels teachers to use pronouns that correspond to a student's gender identity. 

My position is that if you don't want to call judges "your honor," don't take a job where you appear before judges in the courtroom. And if you don't want to call students by the pronouns that they prefer, don't get a job in the Loudoun County school system. Recognizing the authority of a school district or a court system to set their own standards of decorum for people who choose to take jobs within those systems is different than being an enemy of free speech.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, I could refer to the judge as "the Court" or "Judge."

When you are exasperated with me, you semi-dox me and refer to me by my first name. Do that to a judge next time.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What you and yours are proposing (demanding, actually, sometimes with underlying threats) is a huge incursion into, and expansion of, compelled speech.

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are "me and mine." You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

In extremely rare circumstances when this is an actual issue, an employer asking employees to say "she" when they'd prefer to say "he" simply isn't a "huge incursion into, and expansion of, compelled speech." It's the employers prerogative to make such decisions.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is not a very good example of compelled speech, as "politeness" is hugely subjective and amorphous.  Moreover, lawyers are not so much obligated to be "polite" as they are constrained from being uncivil, disruptive, vulgar, etc.  

It's exactly the same. If you decide to be an attorney who argues in court, you agree to certain constraints on your speech when you're in court. Likewise, if you decide to be a teacher in Loudoun county, you agree to certain constraints on your speech when you are in the classroom. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Judges have broad discretion to maintain order and decorum during legal proceedings.  Similarly, members of the military face constraints on their "speech" as part of their military duties (active duty military cannot publicly speak against civilians in their chain of command, for example).

Yet when a school district makes a few rules for how teachers should talk to students in the classroom, you think it is a Constitutional crisis. Why can the military constrain free speech of people in the military, but school districts can't constrain free speech in the classroom?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, what you and yours are proposing...

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are on "my side" of the debate. You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Analytics

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

  So it's not always a question of simple [dis]respect

Is it very likely to be around that many individuals who go for different pronouns?  Serious question, not rhetorical.  

I can’t remember the names of people at church, at least I don’t have the ability to keep the connection between face and name unless it is frequently repeated.  I am actually better at remembering the names than the faces.  It is so embarrassing to tell someone I have known for years I am spacing on their name.  I apologize, but also share it is going to happen again.  I make it clear it is not because I am choosing not to put the effort in (though in one sense it is because if I took a picture of everyone in the ward and wrote their name under it and frequently reviewed it, I think I could do it).

Everyone has so far recognized there is a difference between my being unable to name them and me not caring enough to even try or worse, refuse to try as asking too much of me.  No one has been offended.  But I also don’t keep calling them by the wrong name and dismiss their corrections as if the right names don’t matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Did any one ever make a big deal about it and interrogate you for your first name so they could call you that? e.g. "I'm not going to call you 'Elder'. That's ridiculous and I'm not going to pretend that I recognize the authority that 'Elder' supposedly represents. What's your real name, Mr. Lloyd? Come on, tell me." 

I suppose if I had made “a big deal about it” in the first place, someone might have made “a big deal” in response — and it might have been what I deserved. But I never did, so it was never an issue. 
 

And I was never reluctant to give my first name to whomever wanted to know it. So there was never a need to “interrogate” me for it. I even had an investigator address me by my first name; I was very mellow about it. 
 

Your analogy doesn’t work; probably best to drop it. 
 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 I would be reduced to referring to people by proper names (again, if I can remember them), and the only pronoun I would be able to use with any degree of safety would be "you."  (Or is even that "out" now?

A few posts ago, I expressed a personal preference for your excellency or your eminence in place of you. 
 

But don’t worry, I’ll likely never enforce it — unless it’s toward someone who comes at me with an attitude. 

[Kenngo1969]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A few posts ago, I expressed a personal preference for your excellency or your eminence in place of you. 
 

But don’t worry, I’ll likely never enforce it — unless it’s toward someone who comes at me with an attitude. 

I beg your humble pardon, Your Excellency.  Most profuse apologies!  

[Kenngo1969]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is it very likely to be around that many individuals who go for different pronouns? Serious question, not rhetorical.  ...

Earlier in the thread, I believe Smac97 posted a video of a guy with a room full of people, all of whom (or at least many or most of whom) self-identify in "non-traditional" ways.  And consider Bill Maher's commentary, also posted earlier in the thread, about how such "non-traditional self-identification" has increased with each succeeding generation.  Anyone in a secular classroom of any size might have to deal with the issue.  

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Earlier in the thread, I believe Smac97 posted a video of a guy with a room full of people, all of whom (or at least many or most of whom) self-identify in "non-traditional" ways.  And consider Bill Maher's commentary, also posted earlier in the thread, about how such "non-traditional self-identification" has increased with each succeeding generation.  Anyone in a secular classroom of any size might have to deal with the issue.  

And why were they there and how likely is the typical person also going to be in that situation without choosing to be in that situation?

Quote

Anyone in a secular classroom of any size might have to deal with the issue.  

Teachers have been dealing with nicknames for at least as long as I have been alive.  Not one teacher refused to call me Cris instead of Cristine, my official name.  And in most classes there were several other kids asking to be called something different than on the official rolls, sometimes dramatically different.  When I asked all my teachers to drop the “h” when I found out “Christine” was actually a typo on my birth certificate that Mom had gone along with because she was too timid to correct it and that she had wanted “Cristine”, they all immediately did even though my legal name was still Christine.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Calm

[Analytics]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am employing "identify" in the same way above as you do below.

If I am equivocating, I am doing so to demonstrate why "identifying as a 'woman'" is an exercise in equivocation.

This is the equivocation I am talking about.  "Woman" is being equivocated as being both (A) a reference to the individual's biological sex (an adult human female) and (B) a reference to anyone who "identifies" as a "woman."

• Caitlyn Jenner changed the sex on her birth certificate.  That is equivocation.

I don't know anything about changing birth certificates.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• "Trans women are women" is equivocation.

Only if you refuse acknowledge the existence of  definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• "Women can have penises" is equivocation.

Only if you refuse acknowledge the existence of  definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• "Men can have vaginas, can menstruate, can get pregnant," etc. is equivocation.

Only if you refuse acknowledge the existence of  definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• "Birthing people" and "people with uteruses" are equivocations (albeit somewhat attenuated).

People who give birth are people. People with uteruses are people. Your insinuation that they somehow are not people is insane.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• Lia Thomas is a biological male competing against biological females, and he does so by "identifying" as a "woman."  That is equivocation.

Lia Thomas has been completely honest about the details and nature of her sexuality. That isn't equivocation. 

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• You and yours are deliberately trying to make "woman" an ambiguous term.  You and yours are using "woman" interchangeably to reference definition (A) or (B).

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are "me and mine." You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think much of society is not willing to go along with your radical re-definition of "woman" to mean . . . anything anyone anwhere wants it to mean.

I never said nor implied that "woman" can mean anything anyone anywhere wants it to mean. I simply acknowledge the existence of  definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. If a known biological man says she is a woman, I simply try to understand what she means by that. Full stop.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is no appreciable difference between me saying "I identify as a woman" and "I identify as the son of Elon Musk."  Both statements are factually and empirically false.

That is because you refuse acknowledge the existence of  definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Now, I can try - as you and yours do...

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are "me and mine." You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For example, society does not seem ready or willing to let Rachel Dolezal "identify" as African-American (or, at least, society is not willing to go along with this falsehood, to acquiesce to it, etc.).  If she were to mark "African-American" on a governmental job application, or on a scholarship application, I think she would be opening herself up to a fraud claim.  If she, while testifying under oath as a witness in a courtroom, were to answer "Yes" to "Are you African-American," she could be opening herself up to a perjury charge, and the opposing counsel would almost certainly use that false statement to impeach her credibility as a witness.

That's a bad example of your point, because it seems Dolezal was disingenuous and lied about who she really was. Lying about who your father is different than saying "although I was born to white parents and genetically I'm 'white', I feel 'black' on the inside."

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Society does not seem to be going along with "Stefoknee Wolscht," a biological male in his 50s, call himself a perpetual six-year-old girl.  I mean, he can do what he wants, but society is not really obligated to go along with it.  Nobody is insisting that he be enrolled in kindergarten or first grade.  Nobody has insisted that his "adopted family" go through the legal mechanisms involved in legally adopting him. 

Nobody? Don't you mean "nobody but you and your side"?

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think a similar progressive dynamic is unfolding relative to the trans movement.  The most obvious difference is that, unlike part (A) of the Wolscht situation above, there is a "society-wide push demanding that everyone affirm and celebrate and endorse" the "trans" identity of biological males as "women"...

And your evidence that there is a "society-wide push demanding that everyone affirm and celebrate and endorse" these things consists of:

1. An overturned law in California that said that while at work, the staff of nursing homes should use the preferred pronouns of the residents of those homes
2. A school district in Virginia that said school teachers should use the names and pronouns that their students prefer
3. Laws in New York and Canada that added transgender to already existing anti-discrimination laws
4. Transgender being added to already existing hate-crime laws in Canada and a European country or two

The evidence you've presented doesn't support your claims. There isn't a society-wide push demanding that everyone affirm and celebrate and endorse anything.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think society is broadly aware of the psychological condition clinically referred to as "Gender Dysphoria," but we have also been conditioned over a course of years to go along with it in unique ways.  We go along with it partly because, as I have repeatedly noited, your side of the debate resorts to coercive and bullying tactics. 

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are on "my side" of the debate--that they are "mine." You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

One way this is happening pertains to the "Bridge Too Far" tactics being used by your side of the debate.

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are on "my side" of the debate--that they are "mine." You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Another factor is the near-endless coercive/bullying tactics from your side of the debate.

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are on "my side" of the debate--that they are "mine." You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Two examples of this "wake-up call" come to mind.  First, this story:

So much for the "No, trans males do not have any physiological advantages over the biological females against whom they are competing" line that your side has been peddling for a while.

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are on "my side" of the debate--that they are "mine." You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The second example is Bill Maher (!) who has managed to shake off the ideological shackles your side wants to bind us all with

I'm tired of you telling me that people I've never met and never heard are on "my side" of the debate--that they are "mine." You have no standing, no right, to tell me who is on "my side." I'm merely telling you what my personal opinions and viewpoints are. I'm not going to take the bait and listen to, much less defend, people you assert on are "my side." If you want to argue with other people, go argue with them. Leave me out of it.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But you are yours are treating them as interchangeable things.

I've been saying over and over and over again that they are not interchangeable things. How many freaking times do I have to say they are different before you believe me that that is my point??????

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Exhibit #1: The word "woman."  What is that?  Is it

• (A) an adult human female,
• (B) anyone who "identifies" as a "woman," or
• (C) both A and B?

I think that any answer other than (A) is per se equivocation.

If you acknowledge the existence of  definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, A and B are both acceptable definitions, and as long as it is clear from the context which definition you are using and are consistently sticking to that definition, you aren't equivocating. 

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Exhibit #2: You persist in refusing to answer the above question.

I've answered that question about a half-dozen times in this thread alone. Please stop lying about this.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that is because you can't answer it and maintain the line about "gender identity" and "biological sex" being "two different things." 

Since I acknowledge the existence of both definition 1 and definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it's obvious that they are in fact two different things. If you don't think they are two different things, you are the one that's equivocating. 

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And this is because, well, you are conflating those "two different things."  You are equivocating, which will become more obvious once you answer that question.

Sigh. From the very beginning of this conversation, I offered a glossary of how I use these terms. From the dictionary, a "female" is either "of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs," or "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male." 

If we agree that a woman is a "female adult human," than a woman is either a biological female or somebody with a female gender identity. Presuming the individual in question isn't being dishonest about their biological sex, then from the context of the sentence it going to be clear which definition they are using.

Finally, equivocation means, "The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument."

If one is using definitions in a consistent way, they aren't equivocating. 

I've been very consistent in how I use these words. If Lia Thomas claims she's a woman, I know from her personal history that she is claiming to have a female gender identity. She is not claiming to be biologically female. I'm not going to insist that she "is a woman." I'm simply going to try to understand what she means when she claims she is.

[smac97]

On 6/28/2022 at 2:04 PM, Analytics said:

I object to how you are equivocating on the term "compelled speech."

I am not equivocating.  I am relying on its normative definition as used in the American legal system.

On 6/28/2022 at 2:04 PM, Analytics said:

In general, people have the right to be as rude as they want. For example, you may be as rude to me as you want. Go for it. I can handle it.

Glad to hear this, but then you follow it up with...

On 6/28/2022 at 2:04 PM, Analytics said:

But I do think compelling people to use polite speech in certain circumstances is appropriate.

Yep.  I was right.  Compelled speech.  That is where you are going.  You are on board with the government using coercive threats of fines and imprisonment in order to compel private citizens to say things they do not want to say, and/or which they do not believe to be factually true or accurate.

Now that you have admitted, albeit through gritted teeth, that you are advocating for compelled speech (confirming my surmises/suspicions), we can take a look at the law.  I am happy to say that the laws does not agree with you, and that people like me remain largely protected from the coercive predelictions of people like you (that is, people who are advocating for compelled speech relative to "preferred pronouns").  You're reasoning seems to be essentially that the government can and should use threats of fine and imprisonment to coerce people into using "preferred pronouns" because . . . that would be - in your view "polite."

So the governmental interest in compelling speech here would be "politeness."  

And the government would pursue that interest by restricting speech (that is, compelling certain preferred forms of speech and simultaneously prohibiting and punishing other forms of speech).  A law along the lines you propose would, I think, fall under the "Strict Scrutiny" test promulgated by the Supreme Court:

Quote

Strict scrutiny is the highest form of judicial review that courts use to evaluate the constitutionality of laws, regulations or other governmental policies under legal challenge. As Justice David Souter famously wrote in his dissenting opinion in Alameda Books v. City of Los Angeles (2002), “Strict scrutiny leaves few survivors.” This means when a court evaluates a law using strict scrutiny, the court will usually strike down the law. 

Strict scrutiny applied when laws restrict speech rights based on viewpoint or content

In First Amendment free-speech law, content-based and viewpoint-based laws are evaluated under strict scrutiny as opposed to the lower standards of review — intermediate scrutiny or rational basis.

A "content-based" restriction on speech is "a restriction on speech or expression that is based on the substance of the message being communicated, rather than the method or manner in which the message is being expressed. For example, a local regulation that says you can make a speech in a park if it’s merely informative or educational but not if it’s politically contentious, is a content-based restriction."

A "viewpoint-based" restriction on speech is "restricting speech on a given subject matter," where the government "is singling out a particular opinion or perspective on that subject matter for treatment unlike that given to other viewpoints."

In other words: "Content-based restrictions limit speech based on its subject matter, while viewpoint-based restrictions limit speech based on ideology and perspective. A law banning all political speeches in a public park would be content based; a law banning only political speeches by members of the Socialist Party would be viewpoint based."

Your proposal pretty clearly falls into "viewpoint-based" territory, as you want only your viewpoint about "preferred pronouns" to be expressed.  Worse, you want to use the force of law to coerce others into expressing your approved viewpoint, and to refrain from expressing any other viewpoint.

However, your proposal also seems to fall into the "content-based" category as well.  You want a law passed that literally regulates the "content" of speech, that compels individuals to only use words people like you want to be used ("preferred pronouns"), and fining/imprisoning people who do not use those words.  

All in the name of what you style as "politeness."

It looks like you've managed to find a proposed law that is a twofer.  My recollection is that in law school we typically discussed "Free Speech" cases involving one type or the other, as it seems pretty hard to formulate a law so radically anathema to the Constitution that it's application is both a "content-based" and "viewpoint-based" restriction on speech.

Anyhoo, "{c}ontent-based laws are presumptively unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny, the highest form of judicial review."

And as regarding viewpoint-based laws, the Supreme Court in Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995) stated: “When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.”  Put another way: "Because the government is essentially taking sides in a debate when it engages in viewpoint discrimination, the Supreme Court has held viewpoint-based restrictions to be especially offensive to the First Amendment. Such restrictions are treated as presumptively unconstitutional."

As noted above, both types of government-imposed speech restrictions - which is what you are proposing and advocating for - fall under the "Strict Scrutiny" test:

Quote

Under strict scrutiny, the government must show that there is a compelling, or very strong, interest in the law, and that the law is either very narrowly tailored or is the least speech restrictive means available to the government.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 invalidated a federal law known as the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) because it did not survive strict scrutiny. The law sought to address the deleterious effects of online pornography by making it illegal to post on the internet any communication for commercial purposes that is harmful to minors. The Supreme Court found that the government had a compelling governmental interest in protecting minors from harm. However, the court found in Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004) that the law failed strict scrutiny because the restrictions it put on free speech were not the least restrictive available. The court reasoned that filtering or blocking software was a less speech restrictive alternative. 

See also here:

Quote

To satisfy the strict scrutiny standard, the law or policy must:

• be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
• be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
• be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.

Let's break this down a bit:

1. The presumptive "compelling governmental interest" in the compelled speech you propose is . . . to foster what you style as "politeness" in the use of "preferred pronouns."

Is "politeness" something that is "necessary or crucial?"  Or is it instead "something merely preferred?"

2. As far as "narrowly tailoring" governmental regulation of speech in order to reach the foregoing "compelling governmental interest" does governmentally-mandated use of "preferred pronouns," under threat of fine and imprisonment, sound like something that is "narrowly tailored?"  Are "preferred pronouns" essentially the only way to foster "politeness?"

3. As far as "least restrictive means," is governmentally-mandated use of "preferred pronouns," under threat of fine and imprisonment, the "least restrictive means" of fostering "politeness?"  Is there any "less restrictive" way to get there?  

Let's play around a bit further.  Let's apply the fundamental tenet you are espousing - "politeness" - in other contexts and see how it plays out.  

What happens when what you are characterizing as "polite speech" is factually untrue, or else does not reflect the viewpoint of the individual?  Would you still want to use the force of law 

Suppose someone like you had the influence and the lung power to to railroad through the state legislature a law saying that,

• in the interests of being "polite" to Latter-day Saints, all citizens are obligated to refer to Joseph Smith as "The Lord's anointed prophet, Joseph Smith,"
• in the interests of being "polite" to Muslms, all citizens must append each and every reference to Muhammad with "Peace Be Upon Him,"
• in the interests of being "polite" to gays, all citizens must annually sign a statement saying "Boy, I sure am grateful for Harvey Milk," or
• in the interests of being "polite" to Trump fans, all citizens must wear a MAGA hat every day starting with the letter "T."

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that "politeness" is a sufficient "compelling governmental interest" as to people with Gender Dysphoria, or who otherwise want to compel "perferred pronouns."

Would "politeness" also be a sufficient "compelling governmental interest" as to speech affecting Latter-day Saints?  Muslims?  Gay people generally?  Trump fans?  If not, why not?  How do you draw a non-arbitrary distinction between A) compulsory "politeness" for people wanting "preferred pronouns" and B) compulsory "politeness" for Latter-day Saints, or Muslims, etc.?  

Has there ever, in the history of the United States, been a punitive law passed to compel speech in the interests of "politeness?"  It seems not.  And if we can't establish the first prong, it doesn't make much sense to further examine these hypotheticals under the second and third prongs.

In sum, good luck with the "It's only polite" approach to trying to get your proposed governmental edicts to pass constitutional muster!  See, e.g., here:

Quote

West Virginia State Board of Education is the classic compelled speech case

The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) is the classic example of the compelled speech doctrine at work.

In this case, the Court ruled that a state cannot force children to stand, salute the flag, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The justices held that school children who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, for religious reasons, had a First Amendment right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the U.S. flag.

In oft-cited language, Justice Robert H. Jackson asserted, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Roberts: Government can't tell people what they must say

More recently, in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006), Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. reiterated the essence of the compelled speech principle: “Some of this Court’s leading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.”

The Court also employed the compelled speech doctrine in Wooley v. Maynard (1977) to rule that state officials could not punish a man for covering the state’s motto — “Live Free or Die” — on his license plate. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger declared, “The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of ‘individual freedom of mind.’ ”

In more recent years, the Court recognized the reach of the compelled speech principle in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995), in which it ruled that government officials could not force parade organizers to accept a gay and lesbian group and its messages as part of its event. To do so would infringe on the private group’s autonomy and right to disseminate its own messages.

See also here and here.

On 6/28/2022 at 2:04 PM, Analytics said:

People should be compelled to speak the truth when they testify under oath.

Yes, because there is a clear and "compelling governmental interest" in ascertaining the truth in a litigated disputes.

In contrast, there is no such corollary "compelling governmental interest" sufficient to warrant the government compelling, under threat of fines and imprisonment, the use of "preferred pronouns" in the interests of fostering "politeness."

On 6/28/2022 at 2:04 PM, Analytics said:

People should be compelled to be respectful to judges in courtroom settings.

Again, this is not a very good example of compelled speech, as "politeness" is hugely subjective and amorphous.  Moreover, lawyers are not so much obligated to be "polite" as they are constrained from being uncivil, disruptive, vulgar, etc.

In any event, the "compelling governmental interest" in maintaining order and decorum in legal proceedings is, I think, self-evidence.  In contrast, there is no such corollary "compelling governmental interest" sufficient to justify compulsory use of "preferred pronouns" in the interests of fostering "politeness."

On 6/28/2022 at 2:04 PM, Analytics said:

People should be compelled to leave their politics, impoliteness, and religious beliefs at home when they accept jobs as teachers or staffers at nursing homes.

In a private setting, you might have a point.  In a governmenta/state setting, you do not.

Private actors cannot typically violate First Amendment rights, as the First Amendment is a constraint on government.

On 6/28/2022 at 2:04 PM, Analytics said:

Your implied position that free-speech has no bounds is fundamentally unserious.

I implied nothing of the sort.  To the contrary, I have said (emphases added) :

Quote

"Compelled speech" as a broad category is impermissible, but there are some (very limited) exceptions where the government can do it.  Examples include filing a tax return, requiring regulatory labels/warnings on alcohol and tobacco products, paying compulsory dues to a professional organization to fund certain political and ideological causes, and compulsory union dues used to pay for political activities.
...

Rules about "speech" are likely never going to be absolute.  The government cannot, broadly and generally, infringe on Free Speech, but there are some exceptions.  You cannot employ factually false statements in advertising and claim "Free Speech" as immunizing you from statutes prohibiting deceptive advertising.  You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.  You cannot incite to riot/insurrection.  These are all examples of "speech" that are not protected by the First Amendment.

Conversely, the government cannot, broadly and generally, compel speech, but there are some exceptions (see above).

I am disappointed to have been vindicated in my concern about you advocating for compelled speech.  Truly.  You are obviously a very bright fellow, but you are advocating for compelled speech.  You are advocating for the government to use its coercive authority to impose threats of fine and imprisonment as punishment for those who do not want to speak the words you and people like you want them to say and/or feel are factually untrue.

Compelled speech is an ugly and dangerous thing.  It will turn on you and consume you when aren't looking.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 8, 2022 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

And why were they there and how likely is the typical person also going to be in that situation without choosing to be in that situation?

Teachers have been dealing with nicknames for at least as long as I have been alive.  Not one teacher refused to call me Cris instead of Cristine, my official name.  And in most classes there were several other kids asking to be called something different than on the official rolls, sometimes dramatically different.  When I asked all my teachers to drop the “h” when I found out “Christine” was actually a typo on my birth certificate that Mom had gone along with because she was too timid to correct it and that she had wanted “Cristine”, they all immediately did even though my legal name was still Christine.

Well and good, but I think, though others' mileage may vary, that that's rather a horse of a different color from being asked to learn and to keep straight a whole series of pronouns when referring to students who identify in non-traditional ways.