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

[TNHarley]

Yea schizos can't help it either.
Sometimes it's not about their lifestyle. It's about individual liberty. Why is it ok for a man to go in the women's restroom just because he is delusional and forces another woman to feel awkward? What about THAT woman?
It is also apparent they have been using the improper sex designated bathroom since it was a "thing". I get that but it doesn't mean we disregard 99% of he population for a hundred thousand delusional people?
Religion is a completely other topic. One is subjective one is biology
Oh and it is also discrimination against sane people. As ridiculous as that sounds..

 

[Contumacious]

Those of us who know you, Contumacious, are well aware of why you want weak governments.

Those of us who know you, Comrade Starkiev , are well aware of why you want strong socialitic governments.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those of us who know you, Contumacious, are well aware of why you want weak governments.

Those of us who know you, Comrade Starkiev , are well aware of why you want strong socialitic governments.

A strong capitalist government works just as well in making sure you don't get to do what yo want to do.

 

[Contumacious]

Those of us who know you, Contumacious, are well aware of why you want weak governments.

Those of us who know you, Comrade Starkiev , are well aware of why you want strong socialitic governments.

A strong capitalist government works just as well in making sure you don't get to do what yo want to do.

I know you hate Capitalist governments because they won't exchange goodies for your vote.

There is no such thing as "strong capitalist" which means that you do not know your ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[Yarddog]

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

because you get these wacky teachers who don't leave little kids alone when it comes to alternative sexuallity, they want to push ideas on kids when they shouldn't even be learning (via school curriculum) about hetero - sexual things. It puts people further on the defensive when they hear these things

 

[SuperDemocrat]

No one ever said transgenders can't dress the way they want but anyone who thinks their choice of attire is really strange is treated as if he is some kind of racist. Why can't people who don't agree with transgender's choice be treated equally?

 

[emilynghiem]

And I will reiterate my question. why is that little boy's comfort more important and more worthy of legal protection than any other person's? If you come back with "civil right" don't bother because you know that is a bullshit deflection. This is about comfort, and I'm fine with finding a way to make EVERYONE comfortable, but this drive towards this bullshit is solely geared at making the mentally ill comfortable with no regard towards anyone else.

RE: why is that little boy's comfort more important and more worthy of legal protection than any other person's?

EXACTLY!
Fair&Balanced I AGREE with you.
The beliefs should be EQUAL IE NOT PUTTING ONE BELIEF OVER ANOTHER
* Your belief in using birth gender as the legal criteria
* Their belief in going by spiritual or personality gender as the identity

By treating YOUR belief opinion and consent in the matter
EQUALLY as OTHER beliefs opinions and consent, then
CLEARLY this is a personal matter as is religious preference of
atheist, theist, Christian or Muslim etc. The govt should NOT be in the business
of taking ONE of these beliefs and endorsing that as public policy
while PENALIZING people of other beliefs for noncompliance or rejection.

EXACTLY, well said, Fair&Balanced
the difference I see between my position and yours is
that the argument you use to defend your beliefs from unfair imposition
I am saying can be equally used to defend the other side's beliefs from imposition.
I'm saying treat them equally, not either side over the other,
by abusing govt to take sides in a faith based matter.
You are saying don't impose their beliefs over yours, which is half of what I'm saying.
I agree with that but am adding even more to it, to show how universal this principle
is, that both sides can argue not to impose on them, and BOTH be right! Thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

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

because you get these wacky teachers who don't leave little kids alone when it comes to alternative sexuallity, they want to push ideas on kids when they shouldn't even be learning (via school curriculum) about hetero - sexual things. It puts people further on the defensive when they hear these things

Yes Yarddog
I think the pushiness is backlash or reverse karma
from the rejection of Christianity and prayer being pushed in public.
Now the left side has something they believe in pushing, past the limits of "separation of church
and state" or private beliefs and public policy they CLAIM to champion, yet are contradicting here.

So ironically the very arguments made by liberal secularists, that Christians need to keep their faith based
beliefs out of public schools and govt, the LEFT pushing LGBT are now pushing faith-based agenda
and playing the big bully they once complained about. You can look at it as hypocrisy, as Christians who claim to be Constitutionalists are called hypocrites for violating the First Amendment against establishing religion trough govt, or you can see that both side MEAN well, and have positive intentions, but are coming across
as dogmatic, judgmental, and abusing/harassing/accusing "anyone who disagrees".

Two wrongs don't make this right,
But maybe it's necessary to get caught doing the VERY THINGS
we judged and criticized as wrong and abusing govt,
before we realize we're no different.
We're all trying to defend our beliefs from infringement.

We just have to make sure we don't go too far as to infringe
on others in the process. Maybe both sides are learning this from experience,
what happens when we push too far and end up eclipsing the equal rights and beliefs of others.

Liberal secularists long complained when Christians push private beliefs
and agenda through schools.
How is it that Christians have no right to complain when
LGBT activists pushing beliefs about homosexuality and transgender identity
are EQUALLY crossing the line and PROMOTING private faith based beliefs
through public schools and govt?

How is that equal treatment of beliefs and creed?
For the GOVT to restrict one (the Christian beliefs, for example, where prayer is limited to students to choose but not for administrations to impose) but to endorse enforce and even issue penalties DEFENDING the other (ie LGBT beliefs, where not only schools but now federal govt itself is trying to impose policies favoring one set of beliefs over others)?

How is that not discrimination to treat these beliefs unequally?

 

[emilynghiem]

Those of us who know you, Contumacious, are well aware of why you want weak governments.

Dear JakeStarkey How is it "weak" to have govts enforce laws CONSISTENTLY.
by RULE OF LAW, which makes for more powerful policy when it carries the CONSENT OF ALL PPL, ie NOT just one side.

If govt policy depends on one PARTY to dominate the other to outvote their agenda,
because they DON'T CARRY THE CONSENT AND AUTHORITY of the people in FULL,
that is weaker. That isn't universal so it takes more resources and energy to keep pushing
an agenda that is opposed.

I find contracts to have GREATER authority, weight and enforceability when the parties AGREE to them.

Whatever you are calling weak, that's not what this is about.
It's about making sure govt respects the consent of the people.
That means ALL people not just the party that can get more supporters to vote for onesided policies.
That cannot last if the people affected by a policy don't consent to it.
That's what makes laws weak is when they are less effective, because they create more problems than they solve, by excluding objections instead of answering including and resolving them!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear JakeStarkey and Fair&Balanced:
Given that the three of us have different angles and approaches to this issue,
can you please comment on the following points, so I can see where you are coming from?

A. Science vs faith based beliefs or delusion
Can you both please comment on how these two situations are treated, is it equal or not:
1. F&B argues that if a purely genetic scientific definition is used for gender
there is no place for transgender which isn't defined on that level.
2. The liberals I know argue similar when it comes to "rightwing prolife beliefs"
that life begins at conception. The argument is that this is faith based,
and the scientific criteria used to define rights is SET AT BIRTH, not before.
Why is it that in the case of gender identity the left insists on using NONPROVEN
faith based beliefs according to what "some people" BELIEVE about gender,
but in the case of when life begins insist on only the legal definition of rights
of the person beginning AT BIRTH. They DON'T ALLOW GOVT to ENDORSE
any policy that would recognize or FAVOR the belief of starting BEFORE that point,
claiming they don't agree with that belief. So why can't Fair&Balanced also
DISAGREE with the BELIEF that defines "gender identity" other than the
LEGALLY RECOGNIZED criteria using genetic or birth.

If liberals don't like prolife taking their definition of life using their faith based values
and IMPOSE THAT ON EVERYONE ELSE THROUGH GOVT,
why is it okay for LGBT to take THEIR definition of gender, using their faith based values,
and IMPOSE THAT ON EVERYONE ELSE THROUGH GOVT.

B. RE: intent of the laws, WHEN is it okay to collectively punish or restrict policies for "all people"
when it's only a target group or specific abuse the deterrence is intended for

If I understand correctly, the point of the bathroom policies is to prevent
bullying and harassment of transgender people. And the major arguments against them are (1) the policy should not open the door to abuse of the lack of enforcement of gender segregation, and encourage male predators to target women and girls in the restrooms (2) federal govt has no authorization to impose policies and penalties regarding private matters or beliefs that belong to people to decide as personal
(3) And the counterargument is that personal beliefs are not justification for discriminating against people in public institutions and schools; so where equal rights are infringed or endangered, the federal govt has authority to defend individuals from unconstitutional infringement (4) And the counter counter argument to that is the govt cannot go too far where it overreaches and, in the process or attempt to defend the rights of one group, results in imposing policy or penalties that violates equal rights and beliefs of others, for failure to remain neutral and equally inclusive of both sides with different beliefs

For point (1) are these two arguments treated equally or not:
(a) in order to end the bullying/harassment by SOME people, one side argues the ENTIRE public must be subject to threats of penalties for not complying with policies recognizing "certain beliefs" about gender/orientation for protection. Otherwise the existing policy "opens the door" for discrimination against transgender, including bullying and harassment. Instead of neutral restrooms or stronger laws against bullying/harassing ANYONE for their beliefs, only ONE angle or belief is protected by laws and others are penalized for not agreeing. The assumed intent is to deter SPECIFIC people who would bully or harass LGBT.
But ALL people are being subject to this, instead of addressing just the people guilty of bullying or harassing.

(b) in order to prevent the predatory stalking of men in women's facilities for criminal intent, the other side argues that the ENTIRE public must enforce the same segregation consistently by physical gender. If not,
this "opens the door" for abuse and crime targeting women and children. The other side argues this is already illegal, or those crimes would happen anyway and are not related to this law.

In both cases, aren't both sides taking a problem they want to deter not encourage, but painting too broad a policy that indirectly infringes on the beliefs of others with no such intent to commit violation?

Aren't they BOTH saying the laws proposed by the other side have biases or flaws they demand to be changed? If so, why not correct the problems, or if it isn't possible, then agree to have unisex or neutral
facilities.

On either or both points A and B can I ask JakeStarkey and Fair&Balanced
to comment, on how you think these differ:
A1 compared with A2,
B1(a) compared with B1(b)
and if they should or shouldn't be treated equally. Thank you.

 

[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?

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.

Dear iamwhatiseem
1. I believe it is spiritually determined, both people's orientation and also the process by which it may change.
The Bible is often cited as explaining that "some eunuchs are made by God and some by man"
which implies some people are determined by God/at birth to lead a life of celibacy,
and many people interpret this to INCLUDE homosexual partners born into that relationship for a reason.

So the Bible can be interpreted to explain this and is not wrong but universal.

2. I have talked with a number of Christians who changed their minds and decided God had a purpose for creating people to live a life as homosexual, including Christians themselves who experienced this.

One college student told me she heard at a panel forum a Christian theologist who had her entire church pray, and asked God for help to change and not be lesbian, but the prayer was not answered in that way. Instead she finally found peace by accepting the answer she was born that way for a reason. She explained that she wanted the same things other Christians believe in, having one partner for life, but in her case this partner would be a woman. So my friend said this changed her mind, that it wasn't some sick perversion like an unnatural lust for someone other than one's spouse. It was some mystery of God, that she was born to live as a lesbian and try to teach unconditional love and forgiveness from that perspective, and only letting God judge.

3. I have a friend who has healed people of homosexual and transgender fixations that weren't natural for them but caused by abuse. So when the abuse healed, and they restored their natural selves, they found they weren't the opposite gender or orientation as they previously believed and acted upon.

She came to understand that some people may be homosexual for God's reasons. Just like some people are atheist and some are Buddhist.

4. on the other hand iamwhatiseem
what I find the LGBT have the HARDEST time including and accepting are testimonies and
experiences of people who HAVE healed of abuse and changed their orientation and come out heterosexual.

Is it fair to ask Christians to change how they teach the Bible
without also asking LGBT to change their perception to include ALL stories of gender/orientation change?

I find there are people on BOTH sides who have trouble with this.
I don't think it's fair to say Christians are the only ones struggling with denial.

Do you need to see links on this? I really prefer to include all sides,
so people can understand where people are getting their beliefs from these other experiences.
Thanks iamwhatiseem

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, ask Contumacious why he really wants a weak government.

It has nothing to do with economics, imo.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Emily, the root of the issue is that liberals hate science.

UNLESS the science meets their preconceived notions.

I've asked why liberals defend uneducated opinions time and time again, and they refuse to answer.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, the root of the issue is that liberals hate science.

UNLESS the science meets their preconceived notions.

I've asked why liberals defend uneducated opinions time and time again, and they refuse to answer.

Dear Fair&Balanced let's take this to the top. Please help me write/edit a statement amendment or disclaimer to add on to the equality act, and defend the equal right to political beliefs and creeds as a condition equivalent to protecting the belief in transgender and homosexual orientation as a protected creed. If you want right to life proven by science before defending it under penalty of law then prove gender identity scientifically. If the prochoice believers have the right to declare "at birth" as the scientific definition of life, then ppl who believe orientation is a free choice of behavior have the right to use gender "at birth" as the legal definition recognized by law. If you are going to move to some other faith based unproven criteria, then the right to life claim the same right to defend a faith based criteria.

Or else it is political discrimination by Creed for govt to endorse one case and oppose the other. Treat them the same or keep them both private!

(SERIOUSLY F&B I m willing to bet the LGBT want their rights and recognition so badly, they'd be willing to give right to life the right to fund and defend those beliefs equally in order to get what they want)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Emily, the root of the issue is that liberals hate science.

UNLESS the science meets their preconceived notions.

I've asked why liberals defend uneducated opinions time and time again, and they refuse to answer.

No, the root of the issue is that most on the right are liars – this post being one of many examples.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

because you get these wacky teachers who don't leave little kids alone when it comes to alternative sexuallity, they want to push ideas on kids when they shouldn't even be learning (via school curriculum) about hetero - sexual things. It puts people further on the defensive when they hear these things

The only thing wacky is this post.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, the root of the issue is that liberals hate science.

UNLESS the science meets their preconceived notions.

I've asked why liberals defend uneducated opinions time and time again, and they refuse to answer.

No, the root of the issue is that most on the right are liars – this post being one of many examples.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Fair&Balanced
You are both right that both Left and Right are faster to use science to back their beliefs,
but slow when it would be used to argue against them.

To be fair, instead of "insinuating" their motives or reasons as "liars" or "hating science"
can we agree both sides are BIASED.

I think we can "prove bias rationally using facts and examples" and that applies to ALL people.
But if you're trying to prove "liars and haters of science" good luck because that's subjective
and relative to the context. I think the issue is being Political BIASED, and so that "comes across as Lying or Hating science" when that bias is expressed or an opposing bias is denied.

If we can at least agree we're all BIASED to defend our political beliefs from intrusion by others, doesn't that make us all equal, without blaming any one person more than another if we're all guilty of bias.

 

[Yarddog]

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

because you get these wacky teachers who don't leave little kids alone when it comes to alternative sexuallity, they want to push ideas on kids when they shouldn't even be learning (via school curriculum) about hetero - sexual things. It puts people further on the defensive when they hear these things

The only thing wacky is this post.

Im sure there are many reasons, thats just one reason. So you you feel parents have no concerns over what their kids are being taught in school ? you may no think so, but there are teachers who think they know better than kids parents in what they should be exposed to. again, just one small thing among others that influences peoples feelings. Deny it all you want