Ben Shapiro: Destroying Transgender Arguments

[emilynghiem]

Okay, so if you are going to defend against LGBT beliefs pushed through govt that
penalize and make other beliefs wrong, listen to THIS guy, and hear how it's done.

If I was going to post this thread under Clean Debate Zone:
The way I'd frame the question: Should LGBT beliefs be treated as exercise of
religious freedom and choice of beliefs, expression and practice, similar to other spiritual beliefs? Would that help treat both sides of the debate equally, where both are included and neither are denied equal representation and protection or free exercise under law?

Where I think I could get a point of agreement with this guy:
whether or not it's proven or disproven that
Transgender beliefs or true or false, people still have the free exercise of religion to express
and practice their beliefs without discrimination by govt policies. People's equal free exercise of religion and freedom from establishment by govt of a religious bias would prevent anyone from imposing their own beliefs on others.

So it goes BOTH WAYS.
Where people don't agree on either pro or anti LGBT beliefs,
since neither is proven to the other, the govt and laws cannot be abused
to favor one side's beliefs over the other, but must remain neutral and allow both
to be expressed or exercised equally by free choice.

BTW I don't know where we lost the openness to different tastes and cultures
we had in the 80s when I was in school. When I watched MTV, you could catch a wide range of
death metal, Madonna dance music, rap, punk rock, classic rock, any number or style of bands.

Why all of a sudden does one person expressing themselves
suddenly become a generalization and global statement that other people have to either
protest or defend. Why can't people just be allowed to speak and choose for themselves
WITHOUT making a political statement or "global one world policy" for everyone else?

If students at a school complain about Christmas festivities, or books about same sex parents,
or black rap music, or Asian karaoke or Indian sitar music they can't stand,
Can't anyone can complain about anything, and just let that person have that right
without jumping on them as pro this or anti that.

It doesn't give other people the right to IMPOSE "their culture" on them or complain about discrimination.
Why does everything have to become a "collective statement"
What happened to people just speaking their opinion and it belongs to that person?

What I find works is just letting people speak for themselves.
We are going to have conflicts over how we see or say things
and what we want to include or exclude from policies.

when we have conflicts over policies, for whatever reason, then why can't we just work it out
CASE BY CASE with respect to what will satisfy the interests of all parties fairly and equally
IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE.

I think where we went wrong: if one school or one city comes up with a certain policy,
it does NOT have to be imposed on all other schools or cities (or states across the nation)
to solve problems the same way. Sure, we can ADOPT or choose to MODEL and replicate
programs or ideas that work. But this should be done by free choice.

The mistakes I see made in politics; when Obama decided he agreed that gay marriage should
be legalized, the political left decided to IMPOSE that on everyone else through law instead
of giving people a free choice of beliefs or changing their minds at will. Obama CHOSE to change
his mind, it wasn't forced by law, But then he went and pushed to deprive others of that choice?

And the same happened with the transgender bathroom idea. Instead of giving people and communities
and schools the choice of how to address this, suddenly politicians decided to IMPOSE
one way or another, either force transgender identity accommodations or ban them and
require birth gender distinctions only.

So my argument to Ben Shapiro and others: Yes I agree that no one's beliefs against
LGBT policies and practices should be punished by law, but also people WITH transgender
identity and beliefs should also NOT be discriminated against for their creed, right or wrong.

You can believe science disproves their beliefs, but if this isn't proven to them it remains faith based.
So they have the right to their beliefs equally as Ben Shapiro has a right to his.

Both sides should be treated equally as beliefs until these are proven by science.
If it's proven to you, you hve the right to your beliefs, but not abuse law or govt to
establish or impose that on others, much less to regulate or penalize people
for their beliefs, either way.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is the thing...Even if it isn't natural which the latest science says it is...Who are you to control peoples lives?

So you're the one arguing for fascism and violation of human rights.

 

[Reasonable]

Is there any minority you don't hate, Emily?
Jesu... you trump whores are pathetic.

 

[ScienceRocks]

These people are control freaks that hate government only when it is helping people, but are right their demanding every choice in ones life to be controlled.

Emily your a fascist. The only thing that matters to me is what makes me feel better and I'll kill the person that steps on my property that thinks they can violate that.

 

[emilynghiem]

This is the thing...Even if it isn't natural which the latest science says it is...Who are you to control peoples lives?

So you're the one arguing for fascism and violation of human rights.

ScienceRocks I don't disagree with you.
I agree more than disagree.

I find it equally unconstitutional for the right to impose their beliefs through govt on dissenters.
Sorry if you took my post as only arguing for one side.

My bigger point and purpose:
the SAME arguments for "separate of church and state"
or "free exercise" of religion/beliefs applies to people with EITHER beliefs, for or against,
NOT IMPOSING ON EACH OTHER THROUGH GOVT.

I think the problem ScienceRocks
is that the First Amendment is "traditionally interpreted" to mean "traditional world religions" only.
It isn't applied equally "by judicial precedent" to mean:
secular or political "beliefs" in the broader sense of "beliefs"
that aren't counted as "religions".

So we are not applying this law and principle equally
to protect all people's beliefs against infringement by other beliefs.

Most of the legal and political fighting I've seen
is because people don't recognize their political
beliefs equally as religious beliefs.

I'm saying people on both sides have been imposing on each other
while reject the other, and both have abused govt to take sides.

So ScienceRocks I'm arguing that's "in spirit" UNCONSTITUTIONAL
to abuse govt to do that, because it's
* discirmination by creed
* violating equal protections of law by abusing govt to favor some people's beliefs while biased against others
* violating due process by issuing penalties against people based on their beliefs,
instead of respecting equal defense of all people of their beliefs while negotiating a better
solution that includes and protects both sides equally in cases of conflict between beliefs.

ScienceRocks do you agree that neither side in conflict over
faith-based beliefs should abuse govt to endorse one side while penalizing the other,
if both are faith based and people should have free chioce to
exerise their own and leave the other alone. Not abuse govt to impose
one side's beliefs over the other. Aren't we both arguing that is unethical,
unconstitutional and/or harmful and damaging to abuse govt to bully religiously?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Transgender people don't need representation based on that lifestyle. W hat they need is psychiatric care.

Coddling these sick people only enforces their mental illness/brain malfunction as normal. It is no more normal than cancer or aids.

 

[emilynghiem]

Is there any minority you don't hate, Emily?
Jesu... you trump whores are pathetic.

Hi Reasonable
I'm sorry I came across to you as
someone who hates minorities
and as a pathetic trump whore.

As a prochoice Democrat I equally vote for and support Sheila Jackson Lee
equally as I support Constitutionalist reform through Cruz, Libertarians such as
Jon Roland and Rand Paul to correct the GOP abuses of party and
demand reimbursement to taxpayers for "corporate cronyism"
and the Greens such as Paul Glover and Ralph Nader in
cleaning up corporate corruption and enviornmental destruction.

I support all these "minorities" who are fighting against collective
bullying and corruption within parties and between them and the media.

I support national reforms based on Green's cooperative economics,
independent currency, and worker-owned campuses and co-ops, including
universal health care by reforming prisons as medical programs to
provide education, training and services with the same resources
already paid by taxes and wasted by states on failed criminal justice and drug policies.

I believe in taking the best ideas of all parties, and forming
collaborative solutions we can all agree on work more effectively
and don't violate anyone's rights or beliefs.

So that is supporting the "minority" in cases
where the few with the solutions should be heard
above the majority that is yelling and fighting over the problems.

Sorry if I come across otherwise.

I trust the critics in BOTH parties to check trump from right and left.
Where all sides agree, we can enforce solutions.
and yes that is the minority position, to seek solutions
where all parties would agree on, and I do support that,
even if it is the minority. Einstein was a minority.
Jefferson was one in a million. Muhammad Yunus
who won a Nobel prize for microlending is one of the
few who knows how to implement a sustianable
solution to poverty to end oppression and crime as
a consequence, and he's a minority.

I look for the right answers that other people can get behind.
And those are usually a minority voice while the rest of the crowd
is waiting to follow the leader. So why not get the best leaders
of all parties to lead their flocks. >And together we can
defend protect and fulfill the best interests and purpose
of all parties, and all people who organize themselves that way.

Do you agree iwth any of these ideas?

Let me know which party beliefs or principles you believe
are the solution. I am happy to support you on that,
even if you feel you are in the minority.
some of the best solutions come from that very position!

Yours truly, Emily

www.rightsfortheworkers.org
I believe in building sustainable community owned and managed campus towns
along the border instead of just a wall.
www.earnedamnesty.org
I agree with Schwarzenegger that building prisons in Mexico is part of the
solution, but I would add to that to replace executions deportation and
sweatshops with volunteer labor for restitution to crime victims. I agree
with Trump that restitution for drug/human trafficking can be reclaimed
and invested in developing border security, but I would expland on that
and call for party leaders to build city-states, military prisons and teaching
hospitals, university run production and campus jobs, to implement
solutions in teams, instead of fighting over problems.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Transgender people don't need representation based on that lifestyle. W hat they need is psychiatric care.

Coddling these sick people only enforces their mental illness/brain malfunction as normal. It is no more normal than cancer or aids.

lol, if you proclaim transgender to be a disability then transgenders are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Transgender people don't need representation based on that lifestyle. W hat they need is psychiatric care.

Coddling these sick people only enforces their mental illness/brain malfunction as normal. It is no more normal than cancer or aids.

lol, if you proclaim transgender to be a disability then transgenders are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

We treat every mental illness we can. Many want to take away the second amendment rights of those with mental problems. This is where the rubber meets the road smartass. So since you seemingly agree that they are mentally ill I suppose you support taking away their gun rights, right?

Or is this where the spin & hypocrisy kick in?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Transgender people don't need representation based on that lifestyle. W hat they need is psychiatric care.

Coddling these sick people only enforces their mental illness/brain malfunction as normal. It is no more normal than cancer or aids.

lol, if you proclaim transgender to be a disability then transgenders are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

We treat every mental illness we can. Many want to take away the second amendment rights of those with mental problems. This is where the rubber meets the road smartass. So since you seemingly agree that they are mentally ill I suppose you support taking away their gun rights, right?

Or is this where the spin & hypocrisy kick in?

Since I said if YOU proclaim it, you're an idiot for saying that I proclaimed it.

Non-conformity is not always a mental illness.

 

[emilynghiem]

Transgender people don't need representation based on that lifestyle. W hat they need is psychiatric care.

Coddling these sick people only enforces their mental illness/brain malfunction as normal. It is no more normal than cancer or aids.

lol, if you proclaim transgender to be a disability then transgenders are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Dear NYcarbineer
And if people don't agree (because of clashing beliefs)
what is a disability, if it is one that can be changed with treatment,
or how to accommodate that without introducing other problems etc.
then we are back at square one with
arguing ALL beliefs about this are equal under
First Amendment "religious freedom".

So the "beliefs" argument covers the point you state above from GMU,
regardless if our beliefs agree or not. We don't HAVE to agree in order to
invoke "religious freedom" and "equal protection" from "discrimination by creed"
and all of us and our beliefs about this are still protected from infringement through
govt by any other belief.

The beauty of the "beliefs" argument is you don't have to prove your point/belief
in order to invoke the right to exercise, express and defend that belief without discrimination.

By the time we list all possible beliefs about this, and how to classify or treat it,
the angles on it are as diverse as there are different denominations
or variations of "religions" all protected under the First Amendment.

If people can agree on neutral or single stall restrooms, that is
one way to accommodate all beliefs, including the one you
cite above from Grampa Murked U

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Transgender people don't need representation based on that lifestyle. W hat they need is psychiatric care.

Coddling these sick people only enforces their mental illness/brain malfunction as normal. It is no more normal than cancer or aids.

lol, if you proclaim transgender to be a disability then transgenders are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

We treat every mental illness we can. Many want to take away the second amendment rights of those with mental problems. This is where the rubber meets the road smartass. So since you seemingly agree that they are mentally ill I suppose you support taking away their gun rights, right?

Or is this where the spin & hypocrisy kick in?

Since I said if YOU proclaim it, you're an idiot for saying that I proclaimed it.

Non-conformity is not always a mental illness.

Transgender is always a mental issue.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Transgender is not a belief it is an illness. And it most certainly is not a religion. That is just absurd.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

This is the thing...Even if it isn't natural which the latest science says it is...Who are you to control peoples lives?

So you're the one arguing for fascism and violation of human rights.

Where did you read fascism in that post?

 

[emilynghiem]

Transgender people don't need representation based on that lifestyle. W hat they need is psychiatric care.

Coddling these sick people only enforces their mental illness/brain malfunction as normal. It is no more normal than cancer or aids.

Yes and no, Grampa Murked U
I agree that the emotional issues surrounding orientation, identity and conflicts over beliefs
are better off healed with deep spiritual therapy.

However such therapy only works where it is voluntary, where people agree that
healing is the focus and not on pushing one outcome or expectation, nor rejecting any.

People have to make a conscious choice to forgive and agree
to ask help to forgive past problems and conflicts. Not to hold on to
expectations or conditions, but to let go of attachment to the outcome
in order for the healing process to be supported or even magnified
by removing obstruction and any hindrance encumbering the healing.

This only works by free choice.
It involves deep spiritual change that people have to agree
to work through or it doesn't work and people stay stuck.

so govt should not be involved in deciding spiritual matters
and process, much less regulating, dictating, discriminating or penalizing people.

 

[emilynghiem]

Transgender is not a belief it is an illness. And it most certainly is not a religion. That is just absurd.

Dear Grampa Murked U
I'm saying the BELIEFS about it, and whether someone IDENTIFIES as spiritually
male or female is private to them as someone's religious beliefs or identity.

So if you believe all transgender people are ill and need treatment
that is equally your belief you have a right to without discrimination or attacks/harassment of you
just because of your beliefs, regardless if people disagree or this can be proven right or wrong etc.

And likewise if people have beliefs that transgender identity
is either inborn and natural, or unnatural but can't be changed,
that is their belief as well.

All these are faith based, and none are proven by science
to apply to ALL cases.

So being faith based is enough to argue against govt establishing one belief
at the expense of another. Govt should remain neutral in order to
accommodate all people regardless what we believe about transgender identity.

However if we take ONE side's belief about this,
such as the belief that transgender identity should be
treated equally as race instead of treating it as a belief,
then if that creed is established through govt
that IS like "establishing a religion". You call that
ridiculous but I call it unconstitutional and unethical.

Likewise with my belief in treating transgender identity as a belief,
or your belief in treating it as a treatable mental disorder,
if people don't agree to those beliefs, those can't be
established by govt either or it's still favoring our beliefs over others
who believe otherwise.

So we are back to treating this as we would religious freedom,
and respect each person's beliefs, while not authorizing
govt to either prohibit nor establish any of these beliefs
that remain equally faith based and not proven by science.

 

[emilynghiem]

Transgender people don't need representation based on that lifestyle. W hat they need is psychiatric care.

Coddling these sick people only enforces their mental illness/brain malfunction as normal. It is no more normal than cancer or aids.

lol, if you proclaim transgender to be a disability then transgenders are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

We treat every mental illness we can. Many want to take away the second amendment rights of those with mental problems. This is where the rubber meets the road smartass. So since you seemingly agree that they are mentally ill I suppose you support taking away their gun rights, right?

Or is this where the spin & hypocrisy kick in?

Since I said if YOU proclaim it, you're an idiot for saying that I proclaimed it.

Non-conformity is not always a mental illness.

Transgender is always a mental issue.

I'd say it's a spiritual issue Grampa Murked U
And although I don't believe in "imposing" my stance/beliefs
on this on you any more than I would want govt to do that
with anyone's beliefs about this,

I believe that my approach of treating all arguments
as expressions of beliefs protects the people equally
from discrimination, abuse, bullying or fear of penalty or harassment for their beliefs.

So that's why I recommend and take that approach myself.
I believe it is more "neutral" and "inclusive" and allows
all beliefs to be respected and protected from imposition by other beliefs.

If I am going to uphold Constitutional laws and ethics, I take
the position that any beliefs regarding transgender identity
be treated equally as religious beliefs, so these are neither
"established nor prohibited" by law/govt, but every person
invokes equal protection of their rights to express and exercise their beliefs.

Just not to impose on each other through govt where laws
become biased by faith based beliefs and thus unconstitutional to enforce.

 

[SeaGal]

Both sides should be treated equally as beliefs until these are proven by science.
If it's proven to you, you hve the right to your beliefs, but not abuse law or govt to
establish or impose that on others, much less to regulate or penalize people
for their beliefs, either way.

Science has spoken on the issue. No amount of belief can turn a 'Y' Chromosome into an 'X'. Males are stronger and larger than females (yes there are exceptions).

Ben is not denying a male's right to believe he is a female - he is asserting his right to disbelieve it. Example - laws making it a crime to call a transgender male a he. Ben is not advocating making it a crime for a man to dress as a woman - men have been doing that for years. In an era where colleges frown on 'cultural appropriation' in costume choices, how then can we deny that a man dressing as a women is anything but 'gender appropriation'?

A unique characteristic of transgenderism - it is a state of mind...no amount of hormone therapy or surgery can alter the genetic makeup that determines gender/sex. At this point, it doesn't affect the lives of anyone else unless public money is used. They can believe and dress as they will.

We have separated the sexes in several areas...some personal, like bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. Other areas like sports at the high school and college level, or business loans, or even hiring practices. Most of those separations are for the protection or advancement of females. Having males with no more proof than their 'feelings' compete in those areas puts the female at a disadvantage.

As Ben also pointed out - age. It is a biological condition as is gender. Can I decide I feel like I'm 62 or disabled and collect social security? Of course not.

At the point that any male, at any time, can decide, or merely 'declare' that he's a female with full access to bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms, compete with our scholarship seeking daughters on the volleyball court, or track and field then it intersects with their lives...for nothing more scientific, or definable than - his feelings. There are no parameters to rule out the 'pretenders' from those who genuinely believe they were born the wrong gender...and even those guys have physical advantages.

This is where the conflict lies - not in leaving in peace those who dress like women, they have the right - but in how far the non gender challenged population should be legally forced to go in acceptance of another's state of mind...or legally compelled to adjust their terminology. Jenner claims he still likes women. Does he belong in a bathroom, YMCA locker room or shower room with 15 year old girls? No.

 

[emilynghiem]

Both sides should be treated equally as beliefs until these are proven by science.
If it's proven to you, you hve the right to your beliefs, but not abuse law or govt to
establish or impose that on others, much less to regulate or penalize people
for their beliefs, either way.

Science has spoken on the issue. No amount of belief can turn a 'Y' Chromosome into an 'X'. Males are stronger and larger than females (yes there are exceptions).

Ben is not denying a male's right to believe he is a female - he is asserting his right to disbelieve it. Example - laws making it a crime to call a transgender male a he. Ben is not advocating making it a crime for a man to dress as a woman - men have been doing that for years. In an era where colleges frown on 'cultural appropriation' in costume choices, how then can we deny that a man dressing as a women is anything but 'gender appropriation'?

A unique characteristic of transgenderism - it is a state of mind...no amount of hormone therapy or surgery can alter the genetic makeup that determines gender/sex. At this point, it doesn't affect the lives of anyone else unless public money is used. They can believe and dress as they will.

We have separated the sexes in several areas...some personal, like bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. Other areas like sports at the high school and college level, or business loans, or even hiring practices. Most of those separations are for the protection or advancement of females. Having males with no more proof than their 'feelings' compete in those areas puts the female at a disadvantage.

As Ben also pointed out - age. It is a biological condition as is gender. Can I decide I feel like I'm 62 or disabled and collect social security? Of course not.

At the point that any male, at any time, can decide, or merely 'declare' that he's a female with full access to bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms, compete with our scholarship seeking daughters on the volleyball court, or track and field then it intersects with their lives...for nothing more scientific, or definable than - his feelings. There are no parameters to rule out the 'pretenders' from those who genuinely believe they were born the wrong gender...and even those guys have physical advantages.

This is where the conflict lies - not in leaving in peace those who dress like women, they have the right - but in how far the non gender challenged population should be legally forced to go in acceptance of another's state of mind...or legally compelled to adjust their terminology. Jenner claims he still likes women. Does he belong in a bathroom, YMCA locker room or shower room with 15 year old girls? No.

Exactly SeaGal thank you.
For those who define gender based on scientific genetics, this is valid.

What is being argued here is to what extent people have rights to express their gender identity
that is based on their spiritual beliefs, personality or identity internally.

I argue yes, people have rights to express and exercise their beliefs
BUT NOT TO IMPOSE THESE THROUGH GOVT AND NOT TO REGULATE OR PENALIZE OTHERS.

So I agree with you and Ben Shapiro in the video.
I would just take it one step further,
and show the liberal left that these same arguments
that conservative makes also protect LGBT beliefs,
on a level that doesn't require proving or disproving either side by science.

All people can have their beliefs and they automatically have a right to them.
so if they use the same Constitutional arguments of the religious right,
this protects LGBT expression and exercise equally as another other
belief, if we agree to apply and interpret the laws this way.

For sake of equal protections inclusion and respect
I strongly suggest and urge that we do! Thank you SG!

 

[Doc1]

Then they can pay for it themselves. Simple as that.