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

[Crixus]

It's a mental disorder.

I don't care if they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. I DO care when adults are using children for their sick games.

I DO care when people are getting sued for calling a mentally imbalanced woman ma'am, etc etc.

Dear Fair&Balanced
If you can PROVE medically it's a mental disorder in ALL CASES
then it's a fact. Like race is genetic and can be proven scientifically not to be a choice of the person,
but perhaps by the parents when they have sex and conceive a child.

Otherwise, without proof that ALL CASES are mental disorder,
this is FAITH based, it's your BELIEF.

And last I checked, your beliefs or mine are supposed to be separated from public laws.

NOTE 1: the same applies to BELIEFS about orientation and gender
that people are trying to defend. These are BELIEFS and included under CREED,
so they are EQUAL under law as BELIEFS LIKE YOURS.

NOTE 2: people who believe homosexual orientation and transgender identity
are natural or not a choice of behavior ALSO have the right not to be discriminated AGAINST,
but are equally NOT supposed to impose THEIR BELIEFS BY LAW
or it's ALSO "discrimination by creed" to punish or harass people like you who believe differently.

If you argued on the basis of CREED, recognizing YOUR beliefs are equally
"faith based" as the arguments defending gay and transgender orientation,
then that would protect people equally and be consistent with Constitutional standards.
That level and interpretation of law would be enforceable without conflict.

But as long as you impose YOUR beliefs as right and others as wrong,
and they do the same, as far as the law goes on not discriminating by creed,
both sides are equally guilty of violating the laws. It is outrageously ironic
when the very people seeking protection from discrimination are causing it by overcorrecting.

Unless people on both sides agree on fair neutral policies,
all the following versions are unconstitutional for excluding or favoring one bias in belief over another
1. the laws seeking to punish people for not complying with the given or proposed bathroom policies that exclude their beliefs (ie either beliefs for or against transgender orientation as natural or as a behavior)
2. the laws seeking to ban people in ways that don't allow for people with medically proven gender change
(ie examination from licensed doctors confirming their gender which is different from their birth certificate)
3. laws or orders seeking to punish states financially unless they agree to "laws biased toward the opposite beliefs" instead of seeking neutral laws that don't exclude beliefs on either side.

Dear Emily,

I don't care. I BELIEVE that gay is a choice as well. That has ZERO bearing on the fact that they have a right to be gay if they want. That doesn't mean they should be able to oh say force me to bake them a cake for their wedding though. Same thing here, I don't care if they cross dress. I don't care if they get a thousand surgeries. Don't care. I only care when they insist that their rights trump my own.

Dear Fair&Balanced I AGREE with you that when it comes to YOUR beliefs you don't have to prove them for YOUR sake. You have the right not to be imposed upon for that.

But you WOULD have to prove them if you are going to argue that "all such cases are a mental disorder."

What I find is that the SAME arguments used to prove that the OPPOSING beliefs
about homosexual orientation and transgender identity are FAITH BASED and not proven by science,
would also show your beliefs that it is disorder are equally faith based, not proven by science,
and not enforceable by law either.

I think we agree more than disagree.
On everything you said above, I agree with you, and the only
difference is that I say the same for when opponents make that
same argument for their beliefs on the other side. They believe
that regardless if people have private beliefs against accepting
gays or transgender, they don't believe that right extends to
laws on accommodation they consider to be public policy and govt business.

Since I respect the consent on both sides, that is why I would require
the govt only enforce policies that both sides agree to as neutral and all inclusive.
If any law offends or excludes one side or the other, I argue that is biased
and faith-based and cannot be enforced without discriminating by creed.

Do you see how my approach answers objections on both sides, not just yours.
I'm saying if one side wants to correct or prevent discrimination, this cannot
be done in a way that creates the equal and opposite discrimination against the other side.

The proof that there is no such thing as a transgender is in the fact that not one person has ever had a change in their chromosomes. EVER

There may however come a time when we can do so prebirth if a person wished but as of right now, that isn't even possible, let alone for some full grown person to say "oh I'm a transgender", no you aren't.

Dear Fair&Balanced
It doesn't have to be "manifested in the genes" to be protected.
A Christian is protected for their beliefs, and that is not genetic.

If a Christian says I believe in collective prayer and giving thanks to God before class, but the schools say that can only be practiced here by student choice and not imposed by administration on everyone, then
by religious freedom, of all people equally, that exercise of Christian prayer
is limited to where students agree to it but it cannot be imposed by force of law or penalty.

So likewise, if a person says I believe I am "spiritually female born in a male body,"
the school can say not everyone here agrees for you to EXPRESS that belief by using the girls'
restroom; you can do what you want in private (or maybe there is one bathroom where
the students agreed you can use but not the others, similar to letting Muslim employees use a specific room to stop and pray 5 times a day but not in the middle of the cafeteria) but you cannot take your
private beliefs and impose them through school policy on all students without their consent.

Do you see my point. It can be protected as a private belief, and not require genetic proof
any more than one's religious affiliation has to match one's family or national background,
and it STILL does not mean it can be imposed by law on everyone. In fact, by treating it as a faith-based belief, that would protect both sides equally from infringement by govt.

It was accepted as much as it ever would be until now.

 

[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

All the comparisonsare moot. over and over when this issue is put to the people the govrenment tries to inflict it on it fails and fails badly. check out the numbers on it. the demographics of it all is amazing because you will have bible thumping Baptist types agreeing with gay people on the topic. that and the transgender/ crossdressing group is such a minority they only matter to a legacy building presidant.

Dear Crixus in matters of faith, shouldn't the govt not be involved at all in taking
one side's faith based beliefs over another's? No matter what the % are.

If only 1% of the population is Bahai, that faith should be equally protected
as the other majority who identify as something else.

What is wrong with making the argument that it is the BELIEF about
orientation and gender that should not be discriminated against, so this covers
both sides that believe it is natural/not a choice or believe it is a choice of behavior
whether someone chooses to act out and express homosexual or transgender "lifestyle."

What is wrong with making the argument that people should be
protected from CONFLICT between the beliefs that causes them to discriminate against each other. If a business and a patron have such conflicting beliefs, they don't agree how to resolve them consenually, why can't they BOTH be BANNED from conducting business together in order to SAVE legal expenses
and court expenses to the public. Why make one side/belief wrong and say the other is right?
Either both sides agree to mediation and consensus in order to exercise the right to do business together.
Or if they cannot agree, they both lose that right and neither side is more or less to blame for their mutual conflict.

Wouldn't either of those approaches be more NEUTRAL and All inclusive, not discriminating on the content of one's beliefs, but protecting any conflicting belief from imposing on another.

It's not a matter of faith at all. If that's what I implied, apologies. What I'm saying is looking at the numbers that vote these things down, they are so huge that they represent the religious, non religious, liberal a d non, black white, gay streight. l see it this way, keep the social engineering out of the schools for starters.Then, if cross dressers want to go in public and must have their own place to potty, they can go to places with three restrooms. But they deserve no consideration from me or anyone else who thinks they are just weird.

Dear Crixus I still argue that basing the right to overrule on percentage is DANGEROUS
in any faith based case. I believe that sets a poor precedent.

It's okay for secular matters, where people AGREE to majority rule.
But on faith based issues, I don't see people AGREEING to forgo their religious freedom
just because they are outnumbers in the votes, whether it's 51 to 49 or 99 to 1, they object
on religious grounds that are inalienable rights and not something that govt can vote on.

Nobody should be forced to fund something that violates their beliefs, if there is any way to avoid that.
In this case, clearly the neutral or single stall facilities would avoid imposing on either side.

What the LGBT ideally want is not to be bullied or harassed for their beliefs.
So as long as their beliefs are respected as creeds, that puts them in the same
boat as Christians who don't want to be bullied or harassed either.

That way the same rules apply: you have your free exercise of religion or beliefs
in private, and govt cannot be abused to force you to change that or do thing that violate
your beliefs; but by the same laws you cannot abuse govt to impose on the beliefs of others.

I find the harassment and bullying of Christians to be equally wrong and outrageous
when this is the very type of discrimination the LGBT are seeking to prevent.
totally unacceptable from both sides.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

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

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

I rest my case.

What again was your "case"?

that idiots like you don't know the difference between transgender and transexual.

Of course I know the difference.... that's your point? Missed the mark bub, way off.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake , the government has NO business telling me that I must allow boys and men who are clearly boys and men even if they "think they are women"...

Clearly?!?!

Let's try a little test, shall we?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Unless you got all of those right, there is nothing clear about it, except in your bigoted little mind.

I'm not bigoted you dumb fuck


You're clearly a pervert though , had all those pictures of cross dressers saved on your computer did you?

You're also illiterate because guess what dumb fuck? I don't want the government forcing places to allow mentally ill people to use the bathroom of their choice, but I also don't want the government forcing places to make the mentally ill use the bathroom of their birth. If you own a bathroom YOU decide who pees where, if your customers don't like, they can go elsewhere. DUH.

Yup, you are a bigot and apparently afraid of sex.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fair&Balanced, what you believe has no force in law.

Sodomy . . . er, Soggy has the same problem.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Fair&Balanced, what you believe has no force in law.

Sodomy . . . er, Soggy has the same problem.

Poor Jake, he's as literate and honest as he is conservative. Meaning not at all.


Please show where I have advocated for ANY law against these mentally ill cross dressers.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Fair&Balanced
If you can PROVE medically it's a mental disorder in ALL CASES
then it's a fact. Like race is genetic and can be proven scientifically not to be a choice of the person,
but perhaps by the parents when they have sex and conceive a child.

Otherwise, without proof that ALL CASES are mental disorder,
this is FAITH based, it's your BELIEF.

And last I checked, your beliefs or mine are supposed to be separated from public laws.

NOTE 1: the same applies to BELIEFS about orientation and gender
that people are trying to defend. These are BELIEFS and included under CREED,
so they are EQUAL under law as BELIEFS LIKE YOURS.

NOTE 2: people who believe homosexual orientation and transgender identity
are natural or not a choice of behavior ALSO have the right not to be discriminated AGAINST,
but are equally NOT supposed to impose THEIR BELIEFS BY LAW
or it's ALSO "discrimination by creed" to punish or harass people like you who believe differently.

If you argued on the basis of CREED, recognizing YOUR beliefs are equally
"faith based" as the arguments defending gay and transgender orientation,
then that would protect people equally and be consistent with Constitutional standards.
That level and interpretation of law would be enforceable without conflict.

But as long as you impose YOUR beliefs as right and others as wrong,
and they do the same, as far as the law goes on not discriminating by creed,
both sides are equally guilty of violating the laws. It is outrageously ironic
when the very people seeking protection from discrimination are causing it by overcorrecting.

Unless people on both sides agree on fair neutral policies,
all the following versions are unconstitutional for excluding or favoring one bias in belief over another
1. the laws seeking to punish people for not complying with the given or proposed bathroom policies that exclude their beliefs (ie either beliefs for or against transgender orientation as natural or as a behavior)
2. the laws seeking to ban people in ways that don't allow for people with medically proven gender change
(ie examination from licensed doctors confirming their gender which is different from their birth certificate)
3. laws or orders seeking to punish states financially unless they agree to "laws biased toward the opposite beliefs" instead of seeking neutral laws that don't exclude beliefs on either side.

Dear Emily,

I don't care. I BELIEVE that gay is a choice as well. That has ZERO bearing on the fact that they have a right to be gay if they want. That doesn't mean they should be able to oh say force me to bake them a cake for their wedding though. Same thing here, I don't care if they cross dress. I don't care if they get a thousand surgeries. Don't care. I only care when they insist that their rights trump my own.

Dear Fair&Balanced I AGREE with you that when it comes to YOUR beliefs you don't have to prove them for YOUR sake. You have the right not to be imposed upon for that.

But you WOULD have to prove them if you are going to argue that "all such cases are a mental disorder."

What I find is that the SAME arguments used to prove that the OPPOSING beliefs
about homosexual orientation and transgender identity are FAITH BASED and not proven by science,
would also show your beliefs that it is disorder are equally faith based, not proven by science,
and not enforceable by law either.

I think we agree more than disagree.
On everything you said above, I agree with you, and the only
difference is that I say the same for when opponents make that
same argument for their beliefs on the other side. They believe
that regardless if people have private beliefs against accepting
gays or transgender, they don't believe that right extends to
laws on accommodation they consider to be public policy and govt business.

Since I respect the consent on both sides, that is why I would require
the govt only enforce policies that both sides agree to as neutral and all inclusive.
If any law offends or excludes one side or the other, I argue that is biased
and faith-based and cannot be enforced without discriminating by creed.

Do you see how my approach answers objections on both sides, not just yours.
I'm saying if one side wants to correct or prevent discrimination, this cannot
be done in a way that creates the equal and opposite discrimination against the other side.

The proof that there is no such thing as a transgender is in the fact that not one person has ever had a change in their chromosomes. EVER

There may however come a time when we can do so prebirth if a person wished but as of right now, that isn't even possible, let alone for some full grown person to say "oh I'm a transgender", no you aren't.

Dear Fair&Balanced
It doesn't have to be "manifested in the genes" to be protected.
A Christian is protected for their beliefs, and that is not genetic.

If a Christian says I believe in collective prayer and giving thanks to God before class, but the schools say that can only be practiced here by student choice and not imposed by administration on everyone, then
by religious freedom, of all people equally, that exercise of Christian prayer
is limited to where students agree to it but it cannot be imposed by force of law or penalty.

So likewise, if a person says I believe I am "spiritually female born in a male body,"
the school can say not everyone here agrees for you to EXPRESS that belief by using the girls'
restroom; you can do what you want in private (or maybe there is one bathroom where
the students agreed you can use but not the others, similar to letting Muslim employees use a specific room to stop and pray 5 times a day but not in the middle of the cafeteria) but you cannot take your
private beliefs and impose them through school policy on all students without their consent.

Do you see my point. It can be protected as a private belief, and not require genetic proof
any more than one's religious affiliation has to match one's family or national background,
and it STILL does not mean it can be imposed by law on everyone. In fact, by treating it as a faith-based belief, that would protect both sides equally from infringement by govt.

I don't care. We don't have "religious genes" that you can look at under a microscope and say "yep this here is a Christian" we DO have chromosomes that can be looked at under a microscope though that tell our gender and those can't be changed, and thus there is no such thing as a trans gender.

Dear Fair&Balanced
That rebuttal is fair if someone is arguing that it is genetic when it isn't.
But not everyone is arguing it is coming from that.

I make the argument it is spiritual.
Similar to prolife arguments that are spiritual and cannot be proven or disproven by science, not yet anyway.

So if someone believes spiritually they are female in personality/persona,
and they are born in a genetically male body,
can you really prove this is delusion and not their true spiritual being and belief?

Do you really expect science to prove that?
That is like proving God exists!

A Christian's faith in God may indeed manifest physically
as activity in the brain. From what I understand the brains
of homosexual males do show a difference
that female brains normally have (one source said it's the size of the hypothalamus
but others say it's the ability to cross over between the two sides of the brain
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com)

The problem is this
A. if you based your arguments on behavior only, then this argument goes in circles
because people don't BELIEVE that is the criteria. I AGREE with you that you can
use this to prove it is FAITH BASED, and NOT genetic like RACE. so it is important
to make the arguments you present.
B. if we base the arguments that it is spiritual and faith based,
we automatically defend people's rights NOT TO HAVE THIS IMPOSED BY GOVT.
A doesn't have to be proven one way or another to make this argument!

If we argue over using A, which people don't agree with using as the criteria,
we still are left arguing about beliefs under B.

So why not acknowledge level B and quit arguing over A?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Dear Emily,

I don't care. I BELIEVE that gay is a choice as well. That has ZERO bearing on the fact that they have a right to be gay if they want. That doesn't mean they should be able to oh say force me to bake them a cake for their wedding though. Same thing here, I don't care if they cross dress. I don't care if they get a thousand surgeries. Don't care. I only care when they insist that their rights trump my own.

Dear Fair&Balanced I AGREE with you that when it comes to YOUR beliefs you don't have to prove them for YOUR sake. You have the right not to be imposed upon for that.

But you WOULD have to prove them if you are going to argue that "all such cases are a mental disorder."

What I find is that the SAME arguments used to prove that the OPPOSING beliefs
about homosexual orientation and transgender identity are FAITH BASED and not proven by science,
would also show your beliefs that it is disorder are equally faith based, not proven by science,
and not enforceable by law either.

I think we agree more than disagree.
On everything you said above, I agree with you, and the only
difference is that I say the same for when opponents make that
same argument for their beliefs on the other side. They believe
that regardless if people have private beliefs against accepting
gays or transgender, they don't believe that right extends to
laws on accommodation they consider to be public policy and govt business.

Since I respect the consent on both sides, that is why I would require
the govt only enforce policies that both sides agree to as neutral and all inclusive.
If any law offends or excludes one side or the other, I argue that is biased
and faith-based and cannot be enforced without discriminating by creed.

Do you see how my approach answers objections on both sides, not just yours.
I'm saying if one side wants to correct or prevent discrimination, this cannot
be done in a way that creates the equal and opposite discrimination against the other side.

The proof that there is no such thing as a transgender is in the fact that not one person has ever had a change in their chromosomes. EVER

There may however come a time when we can do so prebirth if a person wished but as of right now, that isn't even possible, let alone for some full grown person to say "oh I'm a transgender", no you aren't.

Dear Fair&Balanced
It doesn't have to be "manifested in the genes" to be protected.
A Christian is protected for their beliefs, and that is not genetic.

If a Christian says I believe in collective prayer and giving thanks to God before class, but the schools say that can only be practiced here by student choice and not imposed by administration on everyone, then
by religious freedom, of all people equally, that exercise of Christian prayer
is limited to where students agree to it but it cannot be imposed by force of law or penalty.

So likewise, if a person says I believe I am "spiritually female born in a male body,"
the school can say not everyone here agrees for you to EXPRESS that belief by using the girls'
restroom; you can do what you want in private (or maybe there is one bathroom where
the students agreed you can use but not the others, similar to letting Muslim employees use a specific room to stop and pray 5 times a day but not in the middle of the cafeteria) but you cannot take your
private beliefs and impose them through school policy on all students without their consent.

Do you see my point. It can be protected as a private belief, and not require genetic proof
any more than one's religious affiliation has to match one's family or national background,
and it STILL does not mean it can be imposed by law on everyone. In fact, by treating it as a faith-based belief, that would protect both sides equally from infringement by govt.

I don't care. We don't have "religious genes" that you can look at under a microscope and say "yep this here is a Christian" we DO have chromosomes that can be looked at under a microscope though that tell our gender and those can't be changed, and thus there is no such thing as a trans gender.

Dear Fair&Balanced
That rebuttal is fair if someone is arguing that it is genetic when it isn't.
But not everyone is arguing it is coming from that.

I make the argument it is spiritual.
Similar to prolife arguments that are spiritual and cannot be proven or disproven by science, not yet anyway.

So if someone believes spiritually they are female in personality/persona,
and they are born in a genetically male body,
can you really prove this is delusion and not their true spiritual being and belief?

Do you really expect science to prove that?
That is like proving God exists!

A Christian's faith in God may indeed manifest physically
as activity in the brain. From what I understand the brains
of homosexual males do show a difference
that female brains normally have (one source said it's the size of the hypothalamus
but others say it's the ability to cross over between the two sides of the brain
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com)

The problem is this
A. if you based your arguments on behavior only, then this argument goes in circles
because people don't BELIEVE that is the criteria. I AGREE with you that you can
use this to prove it is FAITH BASED, and NOT genetic like RACE. so it is important
to make the arguments you present.
B. if we base the arguments that it is spiritual and faith based,
we automatically defend people's rights NOT TO HAVE THIS IMPOSED BY GOVT.
A doesn't have to be proven one way or another to make this argument!

If we argue over using A, which people don't agree with using as the criteria,
we still are left arguing about beliefs under B.

So why not acknowledge level B and quit arguing over A?

I don't care about your spirit. we don't base laws on "spirit" I'm 45. Some days my spirit feels 80? I am trans aged? Can I apply for social security or will the government tell me " we don't care how old your spirit is, we care about how old you ACTUALLY are"

 

[emilynghiem]

Fair&Balanced, what you believe has no force in law.

Sodomy . . . er, Soggy has the same problem.

JakeStarkey
Yes and no.
private beliefs cannot be imposed or established by govt.
But by the same First Amendment, and equal protections against discrimination by creed,
NEITHER can govt EXCLUDE Fair&Balanced's beliefs.
So these do merit equal protection of the laws.
If Fair&Balanced does not agree to a faith based policy, that
cannot be imposed without violating Constitutional rights and laws.
And the very principle of "no discrimination by govt" against any person for their creed.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Fair&Balanced, what you believe has no force in law.

Sodomy . . . er, Soggy has the same problem.

Whatever.... why do you obsess over deviants and pee pee habits?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Fair&Balanced I AGREE with you that when it comes to YOUR beliefs you don't have to prove them for YOUR sake. You have the right not to be imposed upon for that.

But you WOULD have to prove them if you are going to argue that "all such cases are a mental disorder."

What I find is that the SAME arguments used to prove that the OPPOSING beliefs
about homosexual orientation and transgender identity are FAITH BASED and not proven by science,
would also show your beliefs that it is disorder are equally faith based, not proven by science,
and not enforceable by law either.

I think we agree more than disagree.
On everything you said above, I agree with you, and the only
difference is that I say the same for when opponents make that
same argument for their beliefs on the other side. They believe
that regardless if people have private beliefs against accepting
gays or transgender, they don't believe that right extends to
laws on accommodation they consider to be public policy and govt business.

Since I respect the consent on both sides, that is why I would require
the govt only enforce policies that both sides agree to as neutral and all inclusive.
If any law offends or excludes one side or the other, I argue that is biased
and faith-based and cannot be enforced without discriminating by creed.

Do you see how my approach answers objections on both sides, not just yours.
I'm saying if one side wants to correct or prevent discrimination, this cannot
be done in a way that creates the equal and opposite discrimination against the other side.

The proof that there is no such thing as a transgender is in the fact that not one person has ever had a change in their chromosomes. EVER

There may however come a time when we can do so prebirth if a person wished but as of right now, that isn't even possible, let alone for some full grown person to say "oh I'm a transgender", no you aren't.

Dear Fair&Balanced
It doesn't have to be "manifested in the genes" to be protected.
A Christian is protected for their beliefs, and that is not genetic.

If a Christian says I believe in collective prayer and giving thanks to God before class, but the schools say that can only be practiced here by student choice and not imposed by administration on everyone, then
by religious freedom, of all people equally, that exercise of Christian prayer
is limited to where students agree to it but it cannot be imposed by force of law or penalty.

So likewise, if a person says I believe I am "spiritually female born in a male body,"
the school can say not everyone here agrees for you to EXPRESS that belief by using the girls'
restroom; you can do what you want in private (or maybe there is one bathroom where
the students agreed you can use but not the others, similar to letting Muslim employees use a specific room to stop and pray 5 times a day but not in the middle of the cafeteria) but you cannot take your
private beliefs and impose them through school policy on all students without their consent.

Do you see my point. It can be protected as a private belief, and not require genetic proof
any more than one's religious affiliation has to match one's family or national background,
and it STILL does not mean it can be imposed by law on everyone. In fact, by treating it as a faith-based belief, that would protect both sides equally from infringement by govt.

I don't care. We don't have "religious genes" that you can look at under a microscope and say "yep this here is a Christian" we DO have chromosomes that can be looked at under a microscope though that tell our gender and those can't be changed, and thus there is no such thing as a trans gender.

Dear Fair&Balanced
That rebuttal is fair if someone is arguing that it is genetic when it isn't.
But not everyone is arguing it is coming from that.

I make the argument it is spiritual.
Similar to prolife arguments that are spiritual and cannot be proven or disproven by science, not yet anyway.

So if someone believes spiritually they are female in personality/persona,
and they are born in a genetically male body,
can you really prove this is delusion and not their true spiritual being and belief?

Do you really expect science to prove that?
That is like proving God exists!

A Christian's faith in God may indeed manifest physically
as activity in the brain. From what I understand the brains
of homosexual males do show a difference
that female brains normally have (one source said it's the size of the hypothalamus
but others say it's the ability to cross over between the two sides of the brain
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com)

The problem is this
A. if you based your arguments on behavior only, then this argument goes in circles
because people don't BELIEVE that is the criteria. I AGREE with you that you can
use this to prove it is FAITH BASED, and NOT genetic like RACE. so it is important
to make the arguments you present.
B. if we base the arguments that it is spiritual and faith based,
we automatically defend people's rights NOT TO HAVE THIS IMPOSED BY GOVT.
A doesn't have to be proven one way or another to make this argument!

If we argue over using A, which people don't agree with using as the criteria,
we still are left arguing about beliefs under B.

So why not acknowledge level B and quit arguing over A?

I don't care about your spirit. we don't base laws on "spirit" I'm 45. Some days my spirit feels 80? I am trans aged? Can I apply for social security or will the government tell me " we don't care how old your spirit is, we care about how old you ACTUALLY are"

The laws on social security also stand just because the public consents.
If they didn't, it is easily argued this violates privacy and people should have equal
choice to invest in their social programs of their choosing.

It's because people consent that we don't split off more than we do.

Frankly Fair&Balanced given the differences in belief (between
prochoice and prolife funding, between same sex and traditional
marriage and families, between govt and free market health care
management) I do believe we could be heading to separation
of benefits and taxes by PARTY, so people can organize along
likeminded religious or political beliefs and quit imposing on each other.

If we could manage systems of representation and delegating
taxes to social programs and groups, I think this is a possible solution.

By separating school funding and jurisidiction, you wouldn't have
to be under secularized policies you don't agree with or believe in.
The prolife groups wouldn't fear they are indirectly supporting
abortion through govt.

And the best part is that by separating jurisdictions, each party
could set up means for training members to run their own
hospitals, schools and businesses under the policies of their choice.
So this would teach independence and democratic self-government.

CONSENT is what makes the difference.
That's why people don't remove "in God we trust" from
money, and we still use Federal Reserve money instead
of issuing our own currency which is legal to do under
certain laws. As long as we CONSENT to policies,
then we can justify things through govt that are otherwise
crossing the line between private and public, church
and state, and nobody complains if we all agree for convenience.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fair&Balanced, what you believe has no force in law.

Sodomy . . . er, Soggy has the same problem.

Poor Jake, he's as literate and honest as he is conservative. Meaning not at all. Please show where I have advocated for ANY law against these mentally ill cross dressers.

When you understand the difference between transgender and cross dressing, then you can interact with the adults as an equal. You think those who are different than you are mentally ill, when in fact it is you who are scared crapless. Tough.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are the one obsessed, Sodomy Soggy.

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

 

[emilynghiem]

Fair&Balanced, what you believe has no force in law.

Sodomy . . . er, Soggy has the same problem.

Whatever.... why do you obsess over deviants and pee pee habits?

Dear Soggy in NOLA
I think it's the principles at stake.
Some say it's politics, both sides trying to bully the other using any ammo available,
and this happened to be in the next round of bullets.

In general, spiritual healing has changed people's orientation/gender
and perception of these. So until that knowledge comes out, and is
proven more publicly, we may not see a resolution to these debates.

We are heading for resolution, and this is just one of the challenges
to compel us to address our conflicts and not hide them in the closet!

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Fair&Balanced, what you believe has no force in law.

Sodomy . . . er, Soggy has the same problem.

Poor Jake, he's as literate and honest as he is conservative. Meaning not at all. Please show where I have advocated for ANY law against these mentally ill cross dressers.

When you understand the difference between transgender and cross dressing, then you can interact with the adults as an equal. You think those who are different than you are mentally ill, when in fact it is you who are scared crapless. Tough.

There is no fucking difference.

And again I don't care if they cross dress and pretend like they are the opposite sex. None of my business.

BTW have you found a link to any law against these people I've supported?

 

[emilynghiem]

Fair&Balanced, what you believe has no force in law.

Sodomy . . . er, Soggy has the same problem.

Poor Jake, he's as literate and honest as he is conservative. Meaning not at all. Please show where I have advocated for ANY law against these mentally ill cross dressers.

When you understand the difference between transgender and cross dressing, then you can interact with the adults as an equal. You think those who are different than you are mentally ill, when in fact it is you who are scared crapless. Tough.

Dear JakeStarkey
NEITHER transgender and crossdressing
show up in the genes as some condition
that person is born with other than the XX and XY gender distinction.

So Fair&Balanced argument still stands: that person
and others do have a right to base their beliefs about gender on male/female gender at birth; and the issue
remains about OTHER PEOPLE'S beliefs that are equal under law as F&B.

Now to be fair, Jack4jill brought up 6 different genetic combinations
and tried to argue that these cases may indeed show in the genes.

And my argument stands also: if we take these beliefs to be spiritual
then individuals have equal right to all of them respectively and the govt
cannot impose any one of our beliefs on others who disagree.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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

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

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

I mostly agree with you JakeStarkey in that
someone's personal beliefs can't justify govt imposing such a policy;
but by the same token, neither can the LGBT beliefs about gender/orientation.

Because the policy in question involves UNPROVEN beliefs on both sides,
I'm saying this should be up to private citizens to work out by free choice, by consensus,
and not abuse govt to impose a policy that is onesided, either way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

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