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

[SeniorChief_Polock]

First queer I find in a men's room gets his ass beat
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's 3% of men, dumbass. You already pee with them so, relax. They aren't out to touch your tiny thing.

They don't need to touch, asshole
Just be in a fucking men's room
Ass kicked
Period

That's most likely a man and a woman. And I wouldn't fuck with gay men, they work out a lot and will very likely kick your homophobic ass.

Thanks for the heads up, you fudge packing faggot

 

[GWV5903]

GWV5903, you are not the authority of God on earth. You have your opinion but that’s as far it goes.

Quoting scripture is not acting on behalf of God, nor is it my opinion, but I understand you get confused easily...

I will stay in the discussion as long you think your opinion is important and authoritative in this discussion.

I knew you would, all you manage to do is whine, nothing new...

I never claimed it was important, you did...

Yes, my opinion gets you whining. You are projecting, little buddy.

No, stupid comments get my rebuttal...

You think that your opinion means something about someone else’s civil rights: it does not.

Never said it did, LGBT propaganda is not a Civil Rights issue, if you could ask MLK if he thought it was, I doubt you would get him to agree with you 100%, but again you're good at twisting things...

LGBT and their rights are recognized by courts and legislatures are facts.

They are, but they are not recognized by the Bible as being the moral choice, no matter how you try to twist it to fit your weak ass opinions...

That's a fact...

Reminding you of Christ’s commandments (treat others as you want to be treated, love others as you wish to be loved) is an act of Christian kindness.

This isn't a commandment and it can be found in other books with similar meaning of reference, the message is Love Your Enemies...

Luke 6:30-32
Love Your Enemies
…30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what is yours, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. 32If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.…

You have no authority to impose your twisting of scripture on others.

I didn't twist, these are direct quotes, but you would have to have studied the Bible to know the difference...

And you do not realize that all scripture is not universal and all encompassing.

The excuse of the sinner...

You are not Paul, so keep it real.

Never claimed to be anyone but myself...

Your struggle is with the Word of God not me...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your struggle is you do not know the Christ so like a Pharisee you hide behind your interpretation of scripture.

Your struggle is that you believe all scripture is universal and all encompassing: it’s not.

Your excuse is that of the sinner to hide behind scriptures the which he does not understand. So, yes, your comments are wrong and deserve rebuttal.

LGBT is a civil rights issue and your feelings about that changes nothing. If MLK agreed with you, he would be wrong.

There is nothing that Christ says in the bible about homosexuality. Fact.

Yes, Christ’s words on how to act are commandments, and you are devilish if you deny that. You can’t say ‘no’ if you say scripture is universal.

 

[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

It is not a "belief"

It is a MENTAL ILLNESS caused by chemical imbalances.
Would you offer a suicidal person a gun?
Would you offer a really fat person a bag of candy?
A depressed person downers?

Dear Grampa Murked U
How do you suggest we screen for this mental illness?
Don't we have to prove someone is mentally ill and incapable of knowing right from wrong before we declare them incompetent.
Where is due process of law here?

I have no problem PROVING what is sick, what is natural,
what can be changed, what cannot. Great! Let's do it.

Until then, however, without PROOF, Grampa Murked U
that means our arguments are based on human judgment and faith based.

We don't want advocates depriving US of liberty just because
of some percent of the population that is bullying people over their gender.
PROVE these people did wrong, go through due process, and punish THOSE people
who are threatening, harassing or bullying people for their beliefs about gender and orientation.
(Don't punish all of us collectively as a response to bullying by other people.)
Likewise, PROVE which people are mentally ill; don't assume ALL such people are.

We have to live by the same rules.
Due process is due process, BEFORE you deprive EITHER SIDE of the
rights to their beliefs and their liberties.

And BTW Grampa Murked U I'm NOT just saying this "hypothetically"
I DO believe with marijuana and health care laws about how to pay for costs,
we DO NEED BETTER SCREENING for mental addiction, abuse and illness,
if not simply to save on costs. We do need to research and PROVE a better
way for early detection, diagnosis, treatment and cure. It has to be neutral and
scientifically sound, because we don't need more stories like CPS, IRS and other agencies
punishing and harassing people for political agenda who haven't committed any wrongs.

And yes, Grampa Murked U
what people believe about their orientation and gender is FAITH BASED.
If you believe you are a woman in a man's body, if you believe you
should be married to a partner of the same sex as your right, those are BELIEFS.

That is not proven by science, it is based on what people BELIEVE.
So it is equal under the law as what you and I believe, too!

That way we are EQUAL.
We are Equally protected from having rights and liberties deprived from us
without due process of law.

If you want to prove that we did something wrong, go through the process,
prove we committed a crime or we are mentally ill and not legally competent.
But don't pass judgments or policies based on faith and belief.

It has to be equal. No more bullying back and forth.
If you have beliefs that can't be proven, well so does the other side.
So let both sides have their beliefs, keep them in private,
and don't impose them in public based on faith.
Clearly other people don't agree, so the process stops there!

Nobody can lawfully legislate beliefs in such ways that discriminate against others.
Whoever is abusing govt to do so needs to stop. That goes for BOTH SIDES!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

It is not a "belief"

It is a MENTAL ILLNESS caused by chemical imbalances.
Would you offer a suicidal person a gun?
Would you offer a really fat person a bag of candy?
A depressed person downers?

And the topper is that somehow a gender confused gal/guy will be offended by spending 30-90 seconds in a restroom. It is liberalism run amuck.

Holy fuck, did the earth just implode? Not only did you thank my post, you followed it up with a non insulting, non trolling response....
Am I dead? Dreaming? Wtf is happening to me????

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

It is not a "belief"

It is a MENTAL ILLNESS caused by chemical imbalances.
Would you offer a suicidal person a gun?
Would you offer a really fat person a bag of candy?
A depressed person downers?

Dear Grampa Murked U
How do you suggest we screen for this mental illness?
Don't we have to prove someone is mentally ill and incapable of knowing right from wrong before we declare them incompetent.
Where is due process of law here?

I have no problem PROVING what is sick, what is natural,
what can be changed, what cannot. Great! Let's do it.

Until then, however, without PROOF, Grampa Murked U
that means our arguments are based on human judgment and faith based.

We don't want advocates depriving US of liberty just because
of some percent of the population that is bullying people over their gender.
PROVE these people did wrong, go through due process, and punish THOSE people
who are threatening, harassing or bullying people for their beliefs about gender and orientation.
(Don't punish all of us collectively as a response to bullying by other people.)
Likewise, PROVE which people are mentally ill; don't assume ALL such people are.

We have to live by the same rules.
Due process is due process, BEFORE you deprive EITHER SIDE of the
rights to their beliefs and their liberties.

And BTW Grampa Murked U I'm NOT just saying this "hypothetically"
I DO believe with marijuana and health care laws about how to pay for costs,
we DO NEED BETTER SCREENING for mental addiction, abuse and illness,
if not simply to save on costs. We do need to research and PROVE a better
way for early detection, diagnosis, treatment and cure. It has to be neutral and
scientifically sound, because we don't need more stories like CPS, IRS and other agencies
punishing and harassing people for political agenda who haven't committed any wrongs.

And yes, Grampa Murked U
what people believe about their orientation and gender is FAITH BASED.
If you believe you are a woman in a man's body, if you believe you
should be married to a partner of the same sex as your right, those are BELIEFS.

That is not proven by science, it is based on what people BELIEVE.
So it is equal under the law as what you and I believe, too!

That way we are EQUAL.
We are Equally protected from having rights and liberties deprived from us
without due process of law.

If you want to prove that we did something wrong, go through the process,
prove we committed a crime or we are mentally ill and not legally competent.
But don't pass judgments or policies based on faith and belief.

It has to be equal. No more bullying back and forth.
If you have beliefs that can't be proven, well so does the other side.
So let both sides have their beliefs, keep them in private,
and don't impose them in public based on faith.
Clearly other people don't agree, so the process stops there!

Nobody can lawfully legislate beliefs in such ways that discriminate against others.
Whoever is abusing govt to do so needs to stop. That goes for BOTH SIDES!

Screen for it? They openly admit it. They seek drugs to enhance their delusion. They seek surgery to confirm their Delusions.

Pwe are a free society so do what you will but if you try to force that nonsense as normal on my children or grandchildren then I draw the line and tell you to kindly fuck off.

 

[Kondor3]

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

If you have to ask the question, you're too stupid to understand the answer.

 

[emilynghiem]

GWV5903, you are not the authority of God on earth. You have your opinion but that’s as far it goes.

I will stay in the discussion as long you think your opinion is important and authoritative in this discussion.

Yes, my opinion gets you whining. You are projecting, little buddy.

You think that your opinion means something about someone else’s civil rights: it does not.

LGBT and their rights are recognized by courts and legislatures are facts.

Reminding you of Christ’s commandments (treat others as you want to be treated, love others as you wish to be loved) is an act of Christian kindness.

Your moral weakness, GWV5903, is that you think you can speak for and rule in the name of God, and your weakness too is meaningless. You have no authority to impose your twisting of scripture on others. And you do not realize that all scripture is not universal and all encompassing. You are not Paul, so keep it real.

Dear JakeStarkey
Just because "it is a fact" that courts have sided with the right to marriage and now these cases of discrimination by businesses does NOT mean the policies themselves are sound and fact based.

They are still FAITH based. The courts took a faith based side over another.

You are mixing procedural standards of what is law
(ie the level of law that made slavery legal, or makes it legal "by the letter" to execute innocent
persons just because the court and govt found the decision to be justified by procedural standards)
with what ultimately is equal justice under law.

We haven't established that yet, so this standard has YET to be enforced.
We are still working with the procedural level of laws.
You are right that it is legal under THAT standard,
but so was SLAVERY and so is sentencing innocent people to prison or death
if you call the word of the Court the law.

Sorry JakeStarkey but for faith based issues,
the standard of law in the Constitution is equal exercise of religion,
equal protection of the laws, and no discrimination on the basis of creed.

If the courts violate that, they stand to be corrected.
so the final word on the law is still DEBATED and contested
on Constitutional grounds, and not decided in full.

By your standards, "until it is SUCCESSFULLY challenged and changed"
then it stands as the law.
But that is how injustice occurs, such as slavery
and wrongful incarceration and executing innocent people.

Our procedures are not perfect, but corrupted by politics,
so I would HARDLY recommend RELYING on the court precedents
to decide right from wrong. I would use reason first, and especially
check the judiciary against abuses, as it is prone to that for the reasons you exemplify.

Our system gets abused if people don't make this distinction.
Especially with legal and judicial abuse due to political conflicts of interest infecting our system.

Thank you JakeStarkey You are trying to be as fair as you can,
and I hope we can help each other to be even better at this!
Respectfully yours, Emily

 

[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

It is not a "belief"

It is a MENTAL ILLNESS caused by chemical imbalances.
Would you offer a suicidal person a gun?
Would you offer a really fat person a bag of candy?
A depressed person downers?

Dear Grampa Murked U
How do you suggest we screen for this mental illness?
Don't we have to prove someone is mentally ill and incapable of knowing right from wrong before we declare them incompetent.
Where is due process of law here?

I have no problem PROVING what is sick, what is natural,
what can be changed, what cannot. Great! Let's do it.

Until then, however, without PROOF, Grampa Murked U
that means our arguments are based on human judgment and faith based.

We don't want advocates depriving US of liberty just because
of some percent of the population that is bullying people over their gender.
PROVE these people did wrong, go through due process, and punish THOSE people
who are threatening, harassing or bullying people for their beliefs about gender and orientation.
(Don't punish all of us collectively as a response to bullying by other people.)
Likewise, PROVE which people are mentally ill; don't assume ALL such people are.

We have to live by the same rules.
Due process is due process, BEFORE you deprive EITHER SIDE of the
rights to their beliefs and their liberties.

And BTW Grampa Murked U I'm NOT just saying this "hypothetically"
I DO believe with marijuana and health care laws about how to pay for costs,
we DO NEED BETTER SCREENING for mental addiction, abuse and illness,
if not simply to save on costs. We do need to research and PROVE a better
way for early detection, diagnosis, treatment and cure. It has to be neutral and
scientifically sound, because we don't need more stories like CPS, IRS and other agencies
punishing and harassing people for political agenda who haven't committed any wrongs.

And yes, Grampa Murked U
what people believe about their orientation and gender is FAITH BASED.
If you believe you are a woman in a man's body, if you believe you
should be married to a partner of the same sex as your right, those are BELIEFS.

That is not proven by science, it is based on what people BELIEVE.
So it is equal under the law as what you and I believe, too!

That way we are EQUAL.
We are Equally protected from having rights and liberties deprived from us
without due process of law.

If you want to prove that we did something wrong, go through the process,
prove we committed a crime or we are mentally ill and not legally competent.
But don't pass judgments or policies based on faith and belief.

It has to be equal. No more bullying back and forth.
If you have beliefs that can't be proven, well so does the other side.
So let both sides have their beliefs, keep them in private,
and don't impose them in public based on faith.
Clearly other people don't agree, so the process stops there!

Nobody can lawfully legislate beliefs in such ways that discriminate against others.
Whoever is abusing govt to do so needs to stop. That goes for BOTH SIDES!

Screen for it? They openly admit it. They seek drugs to enhance their delusion. They seek surgery to confirm their Delusions.

Pwe are a free society so do what you will but if you try to force that nonsense as normal on my children or grandchildren then I draw the line and tell you to kindly fuck off.

Dear Grampa Murked U
The argument I present PREVENTS anyone from forcing a policy you don't believe in.
I am basing my argument on protection of creeds on BOTH SIDES from discrimination by the other.

By my standards, your beliefs are already protected without you needing to prove WHY you believe what you do. Since nobody can prove either side, they remain PRIVATE beliefs, and nobody can lawfully abuse govt to force you or anyone to change your beliefs! End of argument!

By the same token neither can you impose your beliefs.
It is NOT NECESSARY to do that in order to defend them, Grampa Murked U

All you have to do is cite the same defense, your right
to "no discrimination by creed" where your beliefs are equal to anyone else.
And nobody can impose ANY of these beliefs. You are done!

(But if you break this rule by imposing on others, that's why they fight back
and try to do the same. They argue that people like you are what they need
to be defended from by legal protections. So the more you fight, the more
they argue for needing legal protections. That's why I'm saying don't fight "against" their
beliefs, but demand that their beliefs be kept out of govt. You don't have to defend
any beliefs that way, in order to argue to KEEP THEM OUT OF GOVT BY LAW.)

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

It is not a "belief"

It is a MENTAL ILLNESS caused by chemical imbalances.
Would you offer a suicidal person a gun?
Would you offer a really fat person a bag of candy?
A depressed person downers?

Dear Grampa Murked U
How do you suggest we screen for this mental illness?
Don't we have to prove someone is mentally ill and incapable of knowing right from wrong before we declare them incompetent.
Where is due process of law here?

I have no problem PROVING what is sick, what is natural,
what can be changed, what cannot. Great! Let's do it.

Until then, however, without PROOF, Grampa Murked U
that means our arguments are based on human judgment and faith based.

We don't want advocates depriving US of liberty just because
of some percent of the population that is bullying people over their gender.
PROVE these people did wrong, go through due process, and punish THOSE people
who are threatening, harassing or bullying people for their beliefs about gender and orientation.
(Don't punish all of us collectively as a response to bullying by other people.)
Likewise, PROVE which people are mentally ill; don't assume ALL such people are.

We have to live by the same rules.
Due process is due process, BEFORE you deprive EITHER SIDE of the
rights to their beliefs and their liberties.

And BTW Grampa Murked U I'm NOT just saying this "hypothetically"
I DO believe with marijuana and health care laws about how to pay for costs,
we DO NEED BETTER SCREENING for mental addiction, abuse and illness,
if not simply to save on costs. We do need to research and PROVE a better
way for early detection, diagnosis, treatment and cure. It has to be neutral and
scientifically sound, because we don't need more stories like CPS, IRS and other agencies
punishing and harassing people for political agenda who haven't committed any wrongs.

And yes, Grampa Murked U
what people believe about their orientation and gender is FAITH BASED.
If you believe you are a woman in a man's body, if you believe you
should be married to a partner of the same sex as your right, those are BELIEFS.

That is not proven by science, it is based on what people BELIEVE.
So it is equal under the law as what you and I believe, too!

That way we are EQUAL.
We are Equally protected from having rights and liberties deprived from us
without due process of law.

If you want to prove that we did something wrong, go through the process,
prove we committed a crime or we are mentally ill and not legally competent.
But don't pass judgments or policies based on faith and belief.

It has to be equal. No more bullying back and forth.
If you have beliefs that can't be proven, well so does the other side.
So let both sides have their beliefs, keep them in private,
and don't impose them in public based on faith.
Clearly other people don't agree, so the process stops there!

Nobody can lawfully legislate beliefs in such ways that discriminate against others.
Whoever is abusing govt to do so needs to stop. That goes for BOTH SIDES!

Screen for it? They openly admit it. They seek drugs to enhance their delusion. They seek surgery to confirm their Delusions.

Pwe are a free society so do what you will but if you try to force that nonsense as normal on my children or grandchildren then I draw the line and tell you to kindly fuck off.

Dear Grampa Murked U
The argument I present PREVENTS anyone from forcing a policy you don't believe in.
I am basing my argument on protection of creeds on BOTH SIDES from discrimination by the other.

By my standards, your beliefs are already protected without you needing to prove WHY you believe what you do. Since nobody can prove either side, they remain PRIVATE beliefs, and nobody can lawfully abuse govt to force you or anyone to change your beliefs! End of argument!

By the same token neither can you impose your beliefs.
It is NOT NECESSARY to do that in order to defend them, Grampa Murked U

All you have to do is cite the same defense, your right
to "no discrimination by creed" where your beliefs are equal to anyone else.
And nobody can impose ANY of these beliefs. You are done!

(But if you break this rule by imposing on others, that's why they fight back
and try to do the same. They argue that people like you are what they need
to be defended from by legal protections. So the more you fight, the more
they argue for needing legal protections. That's why I'm saying don't fight "against" their
beliefs, but demand that their beliefs be kept out of govt. You don't have to defend
any beliefs that way, in order to argue to KEEP THEM OUT OF GOVT BY LAW.)

They need treatment not government laws at the expense of the rest of society. You want them to be respected stop coddling their sickness & respect them as human beings. Forcing the rest of us to accommodate their ridiculous needs is the cause for the turmoil

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear GWV5903 and JakeStarkey
I'd like to follow the exchange between you to successful conclusion.
But GWV5903 the personal snipes at JS are detracting and distracting from your content
and seem to go against the goal of treating all people lovingly as fellow neighbors and children of God
in order to encourage them in that direction. May I please ask to tone that down in order to follow
what you are saying?

I think what JS is saying is for secular matters of govt policy, it is best to cite secular laws.
While scripture works for people personally but is not the source by which secular laws are argued and based.

JS is very literal, to the point of using what the courts rule as law.
Many people take this to mean the courts acting as legislature, and don't recognize when courts cross this line, which can be considered unconstitutional as I would call it when applied to matters of BELIEF.
Likewise what JS is saying is it isn't working to take Bible law or authority into the realm of secular govt; you will come across as imposing an outside authority that is optional, when the person you are addressing is citing secular authority and sticking to that context. In that case, I find it more effective to make points using that language and context, so you don't talk past each other. It causes frustration and I can see you and JS snapping at each other, where I don't want this to derail the real message which I support both of you in getting to.

Now on the issue of CREEDS,
Yes to the question of how this has to do with CIVIL RIGHTS.
The Civil Rights on BOTH SIDES are at stake
because BOTH SIDES have beliefs, where their arguments are equally
FAITH BASED and not proven by science yet.

Ironically I see it as the Christians who are fighting for equal rights.
Either let all beliefs be included in public institutions if you are going to include
beliefs about homosexuality and now transgender identity.
Or if you REMOVE Christian beliefs from expression in schools and public policy,
then REMOVE homosexual and transgender beliefs from public policy,
and keep those private as well.

Treat these beliefs the same, in order to avoid discrimination by creed or belief.

So GWV5903
when arguing with an audience that uses secular standards
I recommend using that context to make your points so your audience can follow
what you are saying. It's like speaking French to French and Chinese to Chinese.

I recommend citing secular standards on Equal Protection of the laws
from "discrimination by Creed" as the reason not to impose homosexual
or transgender beliefs in ways that violate Constitutional and Christian beliefs.

Either we should reach a consensus on policy if we are going to move
from private to public, or we should agree to separate and keep our beliefs in private
to prevent imposition back and forth.

Even the secular advocates believe in SEGREGATION in terms of
"separating church and state" so we should argue to be consistent
and apply this segregation to the private beliefs about homosexuality and transgender identity
that AREN'T proven by science, are FAITH BASED, and AREN'T shared by all the public,
but which violate the beliefs of many people. Thus if we don't consent to certain faith-based
policies, we don't agree to have these integrated into govt.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

This is a Civil Rights issue because both sides are arguing against discrimination,
based on their beliefs and creed. The govt should not be abused to enforce one side over the other, but should insist that the people resolve their conflicts in beliefs personally, which is not the job of govt, or to keep them in private and out of govt if they cannot resolve them and arrive at a consensus on policy.

 

[Silhouette]

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

Because we don't make binding public laws forcing others to play along based on the Church of LGBT's beliefs. On this question of law, we're going to need to see SCIENCE. And LOTS of it. You know, raw, objective, peer-reviewed data. Those terms may seem unfamiliar to your lot. You can look them up in the dictionary if you're a bit rusty on their meaning and use.

So, good luck with that!

 

[GWV5903]

Your struggle is you do not know the Christ so like a Pharisee you hide behind your interpretation of scripture.

Keep telling yourself this, keep in mind it will not make it true...

Your struggle is that you believe all scripture is universal and all encompassing: it’s not.

Keep telling yourself this too...

Your excuse is that of the sinner to hide behind scriptures the which he does not understand. So, yes, your comments are wrong and deserve rebuttal.

Is this the limit of your rebuttal, to rephrase the same words I use?

LGBT is a civil rights issue and your feelings about that changes nothing. If MLK agreed with you, he would be wrong.

No it's not a Civil Rights issue, but you will continue to believe it is...

There is nothing that Christ says in the bible about homosexuality. Fact.

This is in the Bible, if you're a gay male it's understandable why you would be in denial, but it is in the Bible...

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NIV
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

Yes, Christ’s words on how to act are commandments, and you are devilish if you deny that. You can’t say ‘no’ if you say scripture is universal.

This is not one of the Ten Commandments, it has tenets of them, but it is not one of them...

Also, I am far from devilish, unless you consider me pulling your strings is devilish...

 

[JakeStarkey]

GWV5903, you can complain all you want, but you are not on authority on scripture, scripture is not universal and all encompassing as you wish it was, and Jesus' counsel contradicts yours.

So, easy peasy, trot along.

 

[GWV5903]

Either let all beliefs be included in public institutions if you are going to include
beliefs about homosexuality and now transgender identity.
Or if you REMOVE Christian beliefs from expression in schools and public policy,
then REMOVE homosexual and transgender beliefs from public policy,
and keep those private as well.

Good point but that is not how it is handled, discussed or implemented, hence the debate with a fellow like Flaky Jakey...

Flaky may be well intention and all, and the Bible is very clear that man's laws are to be obeyed, but so are Gods. We continue to degrade our moral fiber to not offend the LGBT community, yet we punish the liar, the thief, the drug dealer, the pimp, the murderer and so on, I, like many have had enough of the hypocrisy, so be advised I will not change my belief....

So in all due respect Emily, I think you're approaching this the wrong way and there is a larger number of American's today that have had enough of the political machines BS...

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Because we don't make binding public laws forcing others to play along based on the Church of LGBT's beliefs. On this question of law, we're going to need to see SCIENCE. And LOTS of it. You know, raw, objective, peer-reviewed data. Those terms may seem unfamiliar to your lot. You can look them up in the dictionary if you're a bit rusty on their meaning and use.

So, good luck with that!

Dear Silhouette I actually AGREE with you on the science, so the gender arguments are not faith based.

What research will show is that orientation can change with spiritual healing therapy.
More people come out straight than gay after healing, by numbers alone since more people are heterosexual by numbers and by percentage of the population.

Whatever you meant by "your lot" I think you jumped the gun
and assumed I was "representing" something else.

Research on identical twins has already shown that orientation is not genetic, and at most there may be tendencies that are inherited.

So as long as people based their orientation or gender identity on FAITH on personal BELIEF,
it is protected as a creed on the same level as people who DON'T believe in this
and/or where homosexuality or transgender behavior VIOLATES their beliefs.

The lack of scientific proof means to treat the LGBT arguments as FAITH BASED.
So I agree with what you are saying, and encourage more people to look
into medical research and development of spiritual healing, that has proven effective in healing
the issues of abuse and mental illness that so many people are concerned about treating properly.

I WISH more people like you would join my lot,
in demanding medical research and in protecting the beliefs of people on both sides equally.

Either RESOLVE the conflicts or REMOVE them from public policy.
Either REDUCE the bullying or RECUSE officials from imposing if they have political conflicts of interest.

 

[GWV5903]

GWV5903, you can complain all you want, but you are not on authority on scripture, scripture is not universal and all encompassing as you wish it was, and Jesus' counsel contradicts yours.

No complaint, you are so easily confused, we don't agree, I'm not mad that you don't realize your weak and twisted interpretation is wrong...

So, easy peasy, trot along.

Is that it, trot along?

ROFLMAO...

Limitations are sad, maybe someday you will grow out of that hollow little world you live in...

 

[emilynghiem]

Either let all beliefs be included in public institutions if you are going to include
beliefs about homosexuality and now transgender identity.
Or if you REMOVE Christian beliefs from expression in schools and public policy,
then REMOVE homosexual and transgender beliefs from public policy,
and keep those private as well.

Good point but that is not how it is handled, discussed or implemented, hence the debate with a fellow like Flaky Jakey...

Flaky may be well intention and all, and the Bible is very clear that man's laws are to be obeyed, but so are Gods. We continue to degrade our moral fiber to not offend the LGBT community, yet we punish the liar, the thief, the drug dealer, the pimp, the murderer and so on, I, like many have had enough of the hypocrisy, so be advised I will not change my belief....

So in all due respect Emily, I think you're approach is the wrong way and there is a larger number of American's today that have had enough of the political machines BS...

Dear GWV5903
God created the natural laws, too, on which our Constitution is based.
God gives us means to rebuke our secular neighbors using secular laws.

Jesus said to love our neighbors as He has done, unconditionally.
So when Jesus spoke with Fisherman, this was done using parables and language/terms of fishing.
With Farmers, the parables used were based on farming terms and experiences.

To love our neighbor as ourselves, we use the language that is effective for those neighbors.
Then they can receive the rebuke.

We don't have to break man's laws to fulfill God's laws.
When we follow God's laws we can obey BOTH and teach consistent enforcement.

So if you look at the laws on equal protection most often cited,
Both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights movement
added language on "not discriminating" against any person
and not discriminating on the basis of CREED.

We simply rebuke on the grounds that pushing one belief over another
is discrimination by CREED. This is against secular Constitutional principles.

The only thing left, is when arguing with LITERALists like JakeStarkey they
expect the courts and legislatures to have passed or ruled on these,
before it is considered law.

I argue the Fourteenth Amendment already establishes equal protection of
the laws for the States to enforce, and the Civil Rights Act extended protections
to public institutions.

I argue that any bathroom policies based on imposing the faith-based beliefs of
one group over another that is threatened with being penalized violates
equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed. Both sides are
arguing for their beliefs, so the govt to be lawful should treat both equally,
and not take either side nor exclude or punish either side, but require both
sides to come up with a policy that satisfies both and violates neither.

GWV5903 I honestly believe that is what Jesus would do and what
Jefferson would say about this issue. That to separate church and state
goes for BOTH sides, and NEITHER can impose their beliefs on public policy or it's discrimination.

Jesus would say to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.
If people cannot agree which is what, then work that out in private,
and then keep as public policy what the public agrees to as common policy;
and keep in private the beliefs that people agree are not something that govt can force anyone to change.

God has even given us secular laws and language to use
to ask for this separation. We don't have to break any laws, but merely to enforce the ones
ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

When will we get a law protecting normal people?

 

[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

It is not a "belief"

It is a MENTAL ILLNESS caused by chemical imbalances.
Would you offer a suicidal person a gun?
Would you offer a really fat person a bag of candy?
A depressed person downers?

Dear Grampa Murked U
How do you suggest we screen for this mental illness?
Don't we have to prove someone is mentally ill and incapable of knowing right from wrong before we declare them incompetent.
Where is due process of law here?

I have no problem PROVING what is sick, what is natural,
what can be changed, what cannot. Great! Let's do it.

Until then, however, without PROOF, Grampa Murked U
that means our arguments are based on human judgment and faith based.

We don't want advocates depriving US of liberty just because
of some percent of the population that is bullying people over their gender.
PROVE these people did wrong, go through due process, and punish THOSE people
who are threatening, harassing or bullying people for their beliefs about gender and orientation.
(Don't punish all of us collectively as a response to bullying by other people.)
Likewise, PROVE which people are mentally ill; don't assume ALL such people are.

We have to live by the same rules.
Due process is due process, BEFORE you deprive EITHER SIDE of the
rights to their beliefs and their liberties.

And BTW Grampa Murked U I'm NOT just saying this "hypothetically"
I DO believe with marijuana and health care laws about how to pay for costs,
we DO NEED BETTER SCREENING for mental addiction, abuse and illness,
if not simply to save on costs. We do need to research and PROVE a better
way for early detection, diagnosis, treatment and cure. It has to be neutral and
scientifically sound, because we don't need more stories like CPS, IRS and other agencies
punishing and harassing people for political agenda who haven't committed any wrongs.

And yes, Grampa Murked U
what people believe about their orientation and gender is FAITH BASED.
If you believe you are a woman in a man's body, if you believe you
should be married to a partner of the same sex as your right, those are BELIEFS.

That is not proven by science, it is based on what people BELIEVE.
So it is equal under the law as what you and I believe, too!

That way we are EQUAL.
We are Equally protected from having rights and liberties deprived from us
without due process of law.

If you want to prove that we did something wrong, go through the process,
prove we committed a crime or we are mentally ill and not legally competent.
But don't pass judgments or policies based on faith and belief.

It has to be equal. No more bullying back and forth.
If you have beliefs that can't be proven, well so does the other side.
So let both sides have their beliefs, keep them in private,
and don't impose them in public based on faith.
Clearly other people don't agree, so the process stops there!

Nobody can lawfully legislate beliefs in such ways that discriminate against others.
Whoever is abusing govt to do so needs to stop. That goes for BOTH SIDES!

Screen for it? They openly admit it. They seek drugs to enhance their delusion. They seek surgery to confirm their Delusions.

Pwe are a free society so do what you will but if you try to force that nonsense as normal on my children or grandchildren then I draw the line and tell you to kindly fuck off.

And this is an example of the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right, and the propensity of most on the right to lie.

In this case the idiotic lie that those transgender try to ‘force’ anything on anyone.