Why judge anyone? Why can't beliefs about transgender identity be respected equally?

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, f&b is entitled to his belief, but nothing more. He is simply wrong.

JakeStarkey
Fair&Balanced has the right to base beliefs about gender/orientation on genetics.
Nobody has the right to abuse govt to impose on F&B beliefs
any more than on people whose beliefs disagree.

I mostly agree with you JakeStarkey
but because this policy involves UNPROVEN beliefs on both sides,
I'm saying this should be decided by private citizens, by consensus,
and not abuse govt to impose a policy that is onesided, either way.

Sorry, that's not how our democratic republic works.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What is wrong with people having conflicting beliefs about transgender identity.
To some people it's internal, and not a choice.
To others it's about external appearance, a behavioral choice.
Why not treat both approaches as creeds, and weigh and respect them equally under law?
Is that really too much to ask?

If Hindus, Muslims and Vegans don't agree on not eating beef, pork or no meat at all;
does this require govt to pass a policy imposing one and excluding another? For matters of beliefs or creeds, what happened to govt generally staying out of conflicts and letting people work it out and decide for themselves how to exercise their beliefs without stepping on each other's boundaries.

Do we see Lutherans suing to force Catholics to open up their communions to everyone to avoid discrimination? The policy of letting institutions work out their own systems works in private; why can't bathroom policies be treated as personal. Sure, where public institutions are involved, nobody should be discriminated against, but that goes both ways; a policy that seeks to CORRECT an issue of discrimination can't impose a different one and be pushed as a solution.

If a couple is the only Vegan at a dinner is there anything wrong with preparing a meal differently for that couple, WITHOUT changing the whole menu for all the other guests so they are all treated the same?

Let's compare some other scenarios, tell me if you see the similarities or not:

When Muslims want to pray at work, they may request a special arrangement with their management to have a quiet place to pray 5 times a day.
Does this mean EVERYONE has to be subject to that? No. it's kept in private.
There is nothing shameful about being different, and doing something in a private
room or corner that nobody else has to ask for and do.

If Christians want to express or share their beliefs in ways that affect others, people have the right to say NO I don't feel comfortable. Don't impose that on me in public, keep it in private. This isn't considered discrimination but courtesy to understand other people may not take it the same way it is meant.

Some people don't get how is it imposing on Christians to ask them to keep their ways to themselves. But some of their belief is based on duty to share with others, and they feel excluded and a sense of loss at being denied what is natural to them as free expression and exercise. to others it is imposing and pushing religion in public.

Here isn't something similar happening? Both sides have beliefs that impact the others.
Neither side is going to get their way without infringing on the sense of security of the others. So that is why Unisex restrooms or neutral / singlestalled facilities seem the best option which don't require EITHER side to change their views or change how they act.

The rest of the debate appears to be emotional attachment and personal meaning this issue has to different people.

Since it isn't scientifically proven what is going on with transgender identity, it's all personal beliefs and faith based. So why not respect those equally and impose none, and exclude none. Allow people freedom to work out their issues they are bringing to the table. And as for the restrooms, it seems unisex restrooms don't cause any conflict, so why not remain neutral? isn't that what govt policy should be ideally, totally neutral?

The emotional and personal factors involved here are what is really causing the debates to escalate beyond repair. The facts are simple that NOTHING is proven, so it's all faith based on both sides. The sooner we can accept that, and separate our personal stakes and meaning this has to us from the actual policies that are going to work or going to fail, the better we can take steps to avoid failure and to seek what is more effective.

I hope the hoopla and upset calms down, and people rise above the personal issues at stake to work out fair policies that respect all people and restore a sense of normal standards. Thanks for letting me share, and I hope you will also! Yours truly, Emily

Perhaps someone already answered in this manner, but not going to read through 18 pages of posts to see.

Some religious people do not want to believe that transgenders, like homosexuality, is a condition at birth. Because if it is, then God creates sin. And that goes completely against the whole concept of religion. For if God creates sin, and sin being a transgression against his own laws....well....

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Emily, f&b is entitled to his belief, but nothing more. He is simply wrong.

How am I wrong Jake? Have you found that link to where I have supported a law against mentally ill cross dressers, or do you concede that you lied about that?

Your deflection is noted. You are not very good at this. You are wrong that transsexuals and cross dress are mentally ill.

That is your OPINION . On the other hand you wrote that I supported laws against these folks. Quote where I have done so , or apologize for lying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, f&b is entitled to his belief, but nothing more. He is simply wrong.

How am I wrong Jake? Have you found that link to where I have supported a law against mentally ill cross dressers, or do you concede that you lied about that?

Your deflection is noted. You are not very good at this. You are wrong that transsexuals and cross dress are mentally ill.

That is your OPINION . On the other hand you wrote that I supported laws against these folks. Quote where I have done so , or apologize for lying.

It is the opinion that is supported by the professionals and opposed by the brain cracked, like you. Yurt, post where I said that, please. But if you are in support of the LGBT community, then good for you. I commend you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, f&b is entitled to his belief, but nothing more. He is simply wrong.

JakeStarkey
Fair&Balanced has the right to base beliefs about gender/orientation on genetics.
Nobody has the right to abuse govt to impose on F&B beliefs
any more than on people whose beliefs disagree.

I mostly agree with you JakeStarkey
but because this policy involves UNPROVEN beliefs on both sides,
I'm saying this should be decided by private citizens, by consensus,
and not abuse govt to impose a policy that is onesided, either way.

Sorry, that's not how our democratic republic works.

? JakeStarkey
Yes and no

The natural laws on consent and dissent have ALWAYS been what
drives our democratic process. When people object, they petition
for change or reform; and the process doesn't stop until resolution is reached.
Or other priorities come first, which means the ongoing problems and conflicts
may still need to reach resolution later and don't necessarily reflect consent.

I agree with you that we haven't had consensus
but have used majority rule for political expedience.

But if you notice JakeStarkey
in ALL cases where BELIEFS are involved
people do NOT consent to have govt dictate for them.

This is a consistent pattern and has always been a problem.
Just because man has always been at war
doesn't mean it is pointless to seek peace.
That is still the ideal, and not the war we suffer from the lack
of peacemaking and consensus to resolve conflicts in a lasting way.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Emily, f&b is entitled to his belief, but nothing more. He is simply wrong.

How am I wrong Jake? Have you found that link to where I have supported a law against mentally ill cross dressers, or do you concede that you lied about that?

Your deflection is noted. You are not very good at this. You are wrong that transsexuals and cross dress are mentally ill.

That is your OPINION . On the other hand you wrote that I supported laws against these folks. Quote where I have done so , or apologize for lying.

It is the opinion that is supported by the professionals and opposed by the brain cracked, like you. Yurt, post where I said that, please. But if you are in support of the LGBT community, then good for you. I commend you.

Right here Jake

Why judge anyone? Why can't beliefs about transgender identity be respected equally?

Now please feel free to show any example of me suggesting a law should be used against these mentally ill cross dressers.


And yes, I support their right to do whatever the hell they want to themselves or other consenting adults. Leave those who don't , or can't , consent out of your mental illness though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I wrote, "Sorry, that's not how our democratic republic works." If you are setting a false standard for yourself, go ahead.

What you are admitting is that you don't like them. Who cares what you feelz about it?

You are the one who is mentally ill.

 

[emilynghiem]

Perhaps someone already answered in this manner, but not going to read through 18 pages of posts to see.

Some religious people do not want to believe that transgenders, like homosexuality, is a condition at birth. Because if it is, then God creates sin. And that goes completely against the whole concept of religion. For if God creates sin, and sin being a transgression against his own laws....well....

Dear iamwhatiseem
Likewise, some LGBT do not want to see cases of people
healed and changed after living and identifying as homosexual or transgender.

That would also imply these conditions can CHANGE.
If they are part of a spiritual process, it doesn't matter so much
where it came from as where it is going.

Both sides have their beliefs.

Any side that says "all the cases are natural and cannot change"
or "all the cases are unnatural and can change"
are technically WRONG because cases exist of both types.

Where these are both faith based, why not respect them both as that?
We don't have to have laws NAMING Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian
as specific BELIEFS in order to protect these equally under law.

Why not pick the last level that all people can agree are faith based beliefs.
So if we don't agree on beliefs about natural or unnatural, transgender or
genetic, then we classify all those under CREED and protect them EQUALLY.

WE DON'T single out just one of these beliefs and
say this one is to be protected from that one which is to be penalized!

So why don't we agree what is in the pool of beliefs,
and treat them all equally?

 

[GWV5903]

9 out of 10 idiots on this thread don't know the difference between transgender and transexual..

they have a mental disorder ... they're F'n STUPID !

No not really, you have been convinced they are different, when in reality they are very much alike, that would mean you're the fucking idiot who is suffering from a mental disorder...

I rest my case.

You don't have a case dumb dumb...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You are the one obsessed, Sodomy Soggy.

I never think about it until you mentally ill dooshes start freeking over it.

So. now you've added sodomy to the list of things you obsess over.

You need help.

 

[JakeStarkey]

9 out of 10 idiots on this thread don't know the difference between transgender and transexual..

they have a mental disorder ... they're F'n STUPID !

No not really, you have been convinced they are different, when in reality they are very much alike, that would mean you're the fucking idiot who is suffering from a mental disorder...

I rest my case.

You don't have a case dumb dumb...

Yup, Siete does, and you have lost and been stood down.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I wrote, "Sorry, that's not how our democratic republic works." If you are setting a false standard for yourself, go ahead.

What you are admitting is that you don't like them. Who cares what you feelz about it?

You are the one who is mentally ill.

IOW you can't back up your claim that I wanted any part of any law against these people.. Got it.

And yes, how mentally ill a person must be for believing they have a right not to have THEIR rights violated by other people.

Meanwhile the guy who grows his hair out , tucks his penis in, puts on a dress and heels and calls himself a girl is sane.

LOL OMG you can't make this shit up, you really can't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I wrote, "Sorry, that's not how our democratic republic works." If you are setting a false standard for yourself, go ahead.

What you are admitting is that you don't like them. Who cares what you feelz about it?

You are the one who is mentally ill.

IOW you can't back up your claim that I wanted any part of any law against these people.. Got it. And yes, how mentally ill a person must be for believing they have a right not to have THEIR rights violated by other people. Meanwhile the guy who grows his hair out , tucks his penis in, puts on a dress and heels and calls himself a girl is sane. LOL OMG you can't make this shit up, you really can't.

You admit that you were wrong about what I was saying. You don't like trans. OK. Who cares what you feelz?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are the one obsessed, Sodomy Soggy.

I never think about it until you mentally ill dooshes start freeking over it.

So. now you've added sodomy to the list of things you obsess over.

You need help.

Sodomy Soggy is proud of his nickname.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I wrote, "Sorry, that's not how our democratic republic works." If you are setting a false standard for yourself, go ahead.

What you are admitting is that you don't like them. Who cares what you feelz about it?

You are the one who is mentally ill.

IOW you can't back up your claim that I wanted any part of any law against these people.. Got it.

And yes, how mentally ill a person must be for believing they have a right not to have THEIR rights violated by other people.

Meanwhile the guy who grows his hair out , tucks his penis in, puts on a dress and heels and calls himself a girl is sane.

LOL OMG you can't make this shit up, you really can't.

Yup. Any man that thinks he is a girl is off his rocker... as much so as a man who thinks he is a tree.

 

[Siete]

9 out of 10 idiots on this thread don't know the difference between transgender and transexual..

they have a mental disorder ... they're F'n STUPID !

No not really, you have been convinced they are different, when in reality they are very much alike, that would mean you're the fucking idiot who is suffering from a mental disorder...

I rest my case.

You don't have a case dumb dumb...

one of the collective has spoken ^^^^^^^^

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You are the one obsessed, Sodomy Soggy.

I never think about it until you mentally ill dooshes start freeking over it.

So. now you've added sodomy to the list of things you obsess over.

You need help.

Sodomy Soggy is proud of his nickname.

Stop fantasizing ya homo.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I wrote, "Sorry, that's not how our democratic republic works." If you are setting a false standard for yourself, go ahead.

What you are admitting is that you don't like them. Who cares what you feelz about it?

You are the one who is mentally ill.

IOW you can't back up your claim that I wanted any part of any law against these people.. Got it. And yes, how mentally ill a person must be for believing they have a right not to have THEIR rights violated by other people. Meanwhile the guy who grows his hair out , tucks his penis in, puts on a dress and heels and calls himself a girl is sane. LOL OMG you can't make this shit up, you really can't.

You admit that you were wrong about what I was saying. You don't like trans. OK. Who cares what you feelz?

And again you lie, at NO point did I say I don't like trans. I merely said it was a mental disease. Bipolar people have a mental disease to jake, I don't dislike them , I simply acknowledge that they have a mental disease.

I know the concept of honesty is completely foreign to you, but try Jake. Try.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I wrote, "Sorry, that's not how our democratic republic works." If you are setting a false standard for yourself, go ahead.

What you are admitting is that you don't like them. Who cares what you feelz about it?

You are the one who is mentally ill.

IOW you can't back up your claim that I wanted any part of any law against these people.. Got it.

And yes, how mentally ill a person must be for believing they have a right not to have THEIR rights violated by other people.

Meanwhile the guy who grows his hair out , tucks his penis in, puts on a dress and heels and calls himself a girl is sane.

LOL OMG you can't make this shit up, you really can't.

Yup. Any man that thinks he is a girl is off his rocker... as much so as a man who thinks he is a tree.

Now you're making fun of trans kingdom people. You racist.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Perhaps someone already answered in this manner, but not going to read through 18 pages of posts to see.

Some religious people do not want to believe that transgenders, like homosexuality, is a condition at birth. Because if it is, then God creates sin. And that goes completely against the whole concept of religion. For if God creates sin, and sin being a transgression against his own laws....well....

Dear iamwhatiseem
Likewise, some LGBT do not want to see cases of people
healed and changed after living and identifying as homosexual or transgender.

That would also imply these conditions can CHANGE.
If they are part of a spiritual process, it doesn't matter so much
where it came from as where it is going.

Both sides have their beliefs.

Any side that says "all the cases are natural and cannot change"
or "all the cases are unnatural and can change"
are technically WRONG because cases exist of both types.

Where these are both faith based, why not respect them both as that?
We don't have to have laws NAMING Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian
as specific BELIEFS in order to protect these equally under law.

Why not pick the last level that all people can agree are faith based beliefs.
So if we don't agree on beliefs about natural or unnatural, transgender or
genetic, then we classify all those under CREED and protect them EQUALLY.

WE DON'T single out just one of these beliefs and
say this one is to be protected from that one which is to be penalized!

So why don't we agree what is in the pool of beliefs,
and treat them all equally?

Ahh...but that is against human nature.
We like to compartmentalize things in neat boxes to fit what we want them to be...and that is your answer.
If a person believes in the Bible, believes that it is the written word of God...and what God is and isn't....if they accept the fact that homosexuality is a natural condition at birth - EVER - is to accept that the Bible is wrong. Good luck with that.
Myself - I believe it is primarily a condition at birth, but like all behavior it can also be learned.