Just_A_Guy

Senior Moderator
  • Posts

    15548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    260

Everything posted by Just_A_Guy

  1. I have to admit, this was not on my 2023 Bingo card.
  2. This is interesting. When California legalizes prostitution, will it also require prostitutes to offer their services to clients irrespective of gender?
  3. On what basis do you reconcile these two statements? When every other previously-universal “moral” value is up for negotiation, why not that one? I don’t want to fall into the trap/cliché of arguing that anyone who advocates for LGBTQ rights is a closet pedophile (although recent-ish events in Virginia do lend themselves to the concern that a significant and powerful minority of LGBTQ advocates may indeed believe that self-proclaimed transgender youth should be granted droit du signeur over cisgender minor girls). But, I do think it’s fair to ask: having thoroughly eviscerated the framework on which the former set of sexual norms were based, what new framework are LGBTQ advocates proposing we follow? And if they aren’t proposing a new framework, then why shouldn’t the pedophiles get their way?
  4. My time is limited to give much of a response, but I think there’s a broader malaise in much of the first world beyond the simple aggregation of wealth: speaking generally, people seem to have given up on any hope of a significantly better future (both collectively and individually) and have decided to cash out whatever spiritual, moral, and (yes) material inheritances left for them by their ancestors are available for liquidation in the here-and-now.
  5. But statistically, women use PTO (and sick days) far more than men do. Which means that statistically, @mikbone only benefits from such an arrangement if the staff he hires are overwhelmingly male (because for any woman he hires, he’ll wind up covering for her much more often then she covers for him). But of course, by law he’s not allowed to discriminate in that way. ”Equal pay for equal work” is an important concept. But the asterisk to it is that in most fields, we’ve got to overcome a lot of culture—and a *huge* amount of evolutionary psychology and physiology—before we even get to truly “equal work”. (I suspect that recent talk of the “emotional work” done by women, especially in the domestic sphere, is at least in part a reaction to the dawning realization that generally speaking there is in fact not an equality of material productivity between the sexes—at least, not as “productivity” has been traditionally understood.)
  6. Hmm . . . The program will operate similarly to unemployment insurance. It will be funded by a new 0.7% payroll tax on employers that will take effect in 2026. Employers can deduct half of their premiums from workers' wages. So, half comes from the paying customers, and half comes from the employees themselves? Business groups fought to block the proposal, warning that it would impose heavy costs and regulatory burdens on employers and aggravate their staffing problems. But it was hailed by supporters who said it would bring equality and fairness to the workplace. . . . But John Reynolds, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business in Minnesota, called it a “deeply flawed proposal that will cost much more than expected and make it harder for small businesses to keep their doors open.” Doug Loon, president and CEO of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, said the program could become the largest mandate on employers in state history. “This massive policy will bring fundamental changes to every employer and employee in the state — from $1.5 billion or more in annual payroll taxes, unwarranted shifts in benefits, to state approved leave for employees," Loon said in a statement. Sounds like there wasn’t exactly a consensus of ringing endorsement from the business community. To clarify, I think PTO is great if the employer feels it’s do-able. But it looks like fundamentally, to the extent that this program works out mathematically to be a “benefit” at all to the employees—the cost is indeed being borne by the consumers.
  7. This is certainly important for an employer to keep in mind; although as a basis of policy one should probably also bear in mind that employers aren’t necessarily required to show a heck of a lot of altruism or loyalty to their bosses, either. American politicians’ plan for a better life for the citizenry: 1. Require employers to pay people *not* to work. 2. Wonder why goods and services are suddenly getting so expensive.
  8. I think these are good trends (when done voluntarily by employers). But I’m not sure it necessarily addresses the root causes. Many European countries have been bending over backwards to accommodate working mothers for decades, but I understand their birthdates are still plummeting.
  9. If the LDS leadership feel that the commitment pattern is appropriate for missionary work (or was appropriate at some point in the past, even if it has now outlived its usefulness), then naturally I bow to their inspiration and authority. But in my professional life (which in part involves persuading people to make difficult and drastic lifestyle changes when they are predisposed to strongly dislike me), I never [consciously] use it. I suppose I use what pattern proponents would say are elements of it—kindness, empathy, unflinching honesty and realism, trying to be nonjudgmental, listening and restating/reflecting back to ensure clarity, etc. But I don’t generally go into negotiations thinking “how can I get this person to do x?”; my mindset is more like “what is this person willing to do, and is there a chance I’ve come into the case with any incorrect preconceptions, and can we leave this conversation feeling a little less adversarial than when the conversation began?”
  10. Maybe there are regional differences. But my understanding is that in many areas of the country (including Utah, as I understand it), a supervisor broadcasting his religious beliefs would be understood as “creating a hostile work environment” and would be shut down in fairly short order—and could be subject to regulatory and civil liability if he didn’t. People who disagree with me bringing their “whole selves” to work, wouldn’t be nearly as much of a sore spot if the people who agree with me hadn’t already been warned on pain of firing, public shaming, and/or lawsuit to keep their mouths shut.
  11. I agree with @zil2. The requirement for a legal adoption prior to performing the sealing ordinance is a modern Church administrative policy, but that doesn't nullify the ordinance itself. But there's something more important at play here. God only honors the sealing ordinance (or any other priesthood ordinance) if, in addition to the proper formalities being observed by the proper authority, the Holy Spirit of Promise gives its ratifying seal of approval (D&C 132:7); which is conditional upon the parties' worthiness and their ongoing living in harmony with the covenants that pertain to the ordinance. Do you think the Holy Spirit ratified your sealing to your mother's husband? I don't know anyone in your family, but based on what you say here . . . I'd be inclined to answer "no".
  12. ChatGPT is that annoying kid in your fifth grade class who always raises his hand and smugly thinks he knows the answer and whom the adults all treat as some kind of wunderkind—but whom the rest of the class realizes doesn’t know nearly as much as he thinks he knows and is effectively useless in most real-life situations.
  13. I was feeling kind of guilty because some of my coworkers in the Attorney General’s Office and I sometimes joke about how we have all the contacts and procedural knowledge necessary to set up a drug ring that would make us all millionaires. But, after reading some of y’all’s posts, I feel a little more virtuous.
  14. In rereading this I suppose I ought to clarify that Schrier is not pooh-poohing transgenderism/gender dysphoria as a whole. She is merely pointing out that in juvenile-onset, female-to-male transgenderism, there is a social contagion aspect to the spread of the phenomenon that suggests individual cases may not be permanent and thus render permanent hormonal* or surgical interventions particularly problematic. *She also makes a case that hormonal interventions are being touted as “completely reversible” even though they really aren’t.
  15. In Irreversible Damage (which I’ve written about on these forums before), Abigail Schrier discussed at some length the effect of social media influencers and peer groups; including the fascinating trend that within social circles—once one natal female “comes out” as transgender, two or three more tend to come out over the next few months. She looks at it as a modern manifestation of the same sort of cultural phenomenon that drove the Salem Witch Trials (where an overwhelming number of convicts were accused by teenaged girls). Naturally, the million-dollar question here is, “define ‘protect’”? If kids who come out are being killed, beaten, raped, etc. by their parents, then ok. But overwhelmingly, that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is that parents who react with anything less than a “full steam ahead”—even otherwise very progressive parents, and in some cases even parents who are themselves gay or lesbian—are by default presumed guilty of (or at least predisposed towards) bigotry and emotional abuse. The fact that a teenager demands secrecy is often accepted as per se proof of the objective need for secrecy. (And to be fair, there are a LOT of parents who don’t handle this kind of thing well; including a few who go so far as to kick their kids out and more who visibly let their disgust for their child’s declared preference overshadow their underlying love for their child. But then again—anecdotes of this nature tend to be clouded by the millennia-old predilection of teenagers for jumping to the conclusion that a parent expressing concern about the teenager’s potentially problematic behavior automatically translates as a complete lack of love.) Remember 5-10 years ago, when Mormon bishops who encouraged teenagers to stay chaste in one-on-one interviews were accused of “grooming” even though the parents were fully aware of the timing and general character of those interviews? And now here we are, with secular teachers telling kids in one-on-one interviews how to permanently modify their bodies to prepare for the sort of sexual experiences that the teacher thinks the child ought to find most pleasurable—and the consensus seems to be that it’s fine that parents aren’t even allowed to know about it! My, how the worm has turned! From an LDS theological standpoint, I think the nuance getting missed here is that there is not a perfect identity between “mind” and “spirit”. We know that physiological traits, chemical imbalances, and experiential trauma all impact how the “mind” functions; and that behavioral and personality disorders are real and often only (mostly) manageable, not curable. We believe the spirit is “in there” playing a role, of course. But there’s no reason to believe that the mortal mind is any more true to its ideal eternal, perfected spiritual form than the mortal body is. It may well be that some “male” spirits are born into “female” bodies (and vice versa) (for what it’s worth, I suspect that this is more likely to have applicability to truly physiologically/genetically intersex folks, rather than those who merely experience gender dysphoria.) Similarly, by analogy, it may well be that the spirit doesn’t enter the fetus until sometime in the second or third trimester and so a first-trimester elective abortion is not a “killing” at all. But in both cases—the consequences for blithely moving forward and being wrong are potentially so catastrophically damaging and morally abhorrent; that the Church recommends (and, frankly, demands) a certain course of action until we receive further light and knowledge. In the secular/policy realm—for consenting adults, if they can find a doctor willing to do the surgery, then it’s none of my business (at least until we have universal health care; I don’t care to see my premiums going up to cover this sort of thing). I do suspect we are going to need to change some liability statutes down the road to address the issue of detransitioners who feel they were pressured into transition or simply feel they weren’t vetted thoroughly enough to begin with. But kids are another issue, and I’m not quite sure where I fall there. I’ve been inclined to feel like those who equate hormone blockers/surgery for children with child abuse, are being too heavy-handed; I’d rather defer to parents. I think drag shows/drag story hours should probably be evaluated on a case by case basis according to how sexualized they are (Mrs. Doubtfire OK; twerking, lingerie, and bouncing prosthetics not OK). But I’ve seen some pretty scary crap lately with parents celebrating their children’s first doses of blockers even as the children themselves scream, cry, and try to physically resist their injections. But again—even as I shudder at that, I think of all those parents who have their baby sons circumcised for little better reason than “tradition” or because they want the son to “look like Dad”. (Yeah, I know there are still differences; but I can’t shake the feeling that I’m just a bit of a hypocrite.) At minimum, I think it’s fair to make parents perpetually civilly liable for any financial costs of de-transition that their children incur. And of course if a parent is demanding transition over the child’s express objection, then by all means send it to CPS. But I don’t know that I’d go further than that.
  16. First off: props for the courage that it takes to talk about it. Going through that kind of thing stinks, and I’m sure it’s been a rocky road since then. Second off: You need to report this; to your legal authorities and to the Church. Yes, the perp is dead. But as you probably know—in all likelihood, your bishop did this to others too. Law enforcement and/or the Church may have resources to do follow-up and identify other victims and make sure they have the help that they need. Going to the media and launching a whole PR campaign may be overkill—but that absolutely does not mean you are obligated to keep this completely secret. Lastly: I think you need to find legal counsel. You don’t want a mad dog who’s out to embarrass the Church and/or milk it dry. On the other hand: under the circumstances, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect the Church to cover any unreimbursed mental health/ counseling expenses, or that kind of thing; and my experience is that they are usually willing to help out. (Obviously, you’ll want to bear in mind that they get a lot of spurious claims; so you (or your attorney) will probably be asked some pretty probing questions over the course of settlement discussions. And that can be an ordeal in and of itself.) Again you want to be really careful that you pick an attorney who is willing to follow your agenda, rather than using your story to further their own agenda or political grudges. And of course, you are going to have to do some soul searching to figure out where lies the line between “making me (as) whole (as possible)”, versus “vengeance is mine!”. I find that wandering into the latter course is often tempting but, in the long run, rarely particularly helpful. Best of luck.
  17. “You Mormon government hacks are just trying to meet your church’s child-stealing quota.” ”No ma’am, they made us do separation of church and state. Now we can steal as many kids as we want.”
  18. Tangent: To be fair, DeSantis is merely revoking a corporatist-government alliance that a free-market conservative would argue never should have existed in the first place and that became intolerable when the apolitical private-sector partner became nakedly political. Though I suspect you’re right that many conservatives are approaching the situation from primarily an emotional, not an intellectual worldview.
  19. I am planning a longer response; but prefer to do so on a full keyboard rather than a smart phone (since this is a delicate topic and I want to give it the care it deserves) and I cannot access this site with my work computer. To be very brief: I am a lawyer practicing child welfare law. I take domestic abuse extremely seriously. I also recognize the horror of emotional abuse, while also being painfully aware that “emotional abuse” can be a slippery term that is often weaponized in order to delegitimize “perpetrators” or excuse the destructive behaviors of “victims” in ways that lead to unjust results as accusers cash in on the sympathy society has traditionally offered to survivors of physical, sexual, and unquestionable emotional abuse; ultimately cheapening those survivors’ experiences and sufferings. I am also aware that in a significant minority of cases, domestic abuse by one partner (whether physical or emotional) is often a response/escalation to abusive behavior by the other partner. I am further aware that, in certain circles of Mormonism, it has become fashionable to use terms like “abuse” or “violence” to describe a situation where the Church is doing something the speaker happens to disagree with. And if the criticism in the OP is that the LDS Church isn’t doing enough to deal with “emotional abuse” perpetrated within LDS families—I’m not altogether sure it’s fair to attack the Church for an inadequate response to a phenomenon that I, who am supposed to deal with that phenomenon for a living (and who hold government certification to do so), am not entirely sure how to define or (in the absence of explicit victim disclosure) identify. In light of all that, I wanted to take a little more time with your post to really make sure I understood what your position is (and what it is not) and reply in an accurate, articulate, and appropriately nuanced way; and in the interim I asked a probing question so I could better understand the breadth and scope of your position. And to the extent that your response tries to create a power dynamic by evoking in us a sense that we should feel shame for having manifested a disturbing sense of sexism that is (presumably) outside the bounds of normal humanity: on what basis do we, your audience, acknowledge that you are simply participating in the traditional rough-and-tumble of people with varying opinions trying to debate and negotiate over their positions, as opposed to—say—accusing you of perpetrating emotional abuse against us? These are tough questions; they deserve thoughtful responses. You’ve clearly done your homework. Give us some time to do the same!
  20. Interesting; thanks! Your post (understandably) focuses on emotional abuse perpetrated by husbands against their wives. For the sake of rounding out the discussion: what kinds of emotional abuse would you say husbands are at risk of suffering from their wives? What indicators of female-on-male emotional abuse should church leaders be watching for, in addition to the flags you list above?
  21. Maybe you’re thinking of oleander? (Edit: just Googled it and, holy cow! I had no idea!)