Bull Ring NYcarbineer: Gender is based on culture (and anthropology/social science) not genetic science

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by emilynghiem, Nov 12, 2017.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,951
    Thanks Received:
    2,350
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,856
    NYcarbineer argues in another thread that GENDER is cultural
    and the anthropology and social sciences to back that up can be
    equally cited as science (as the genetic science using sexual
    organs to determine gender, as cited by those arguing that the
    relative approach to gender identity is NOT proven by science)

    My argument is that both approaches are equally faith based beliefs in how people define gender.
    If you want to call that "cultural" then FINE, but BOTH approaches should be equally left to the free
    choice of individuals, similar to choice of belief and spiritual identity, and NOT penalized by Govt.

    I argue that if LGBT beliefs are treated as faith based, then these are already protected
    under First and Fourteenth Amendment principles against discrimination by creed.
    So I argue that if Christian beliefs and practices are forced to be removed from public policy,
    institutions and property, then the LGBT beliefs, expressions and practices should be treated the same;
    but if LGBT beliefs are endorsed and protected by govt, so should the Christian practices and expressions
    be allowed to be incorporated into public policy equally. Or it's a discrimination by creed to treat these differently. They are both beliefs that are faith based, and not proven by science to opponents of other beliefs.

    This thread is to call out NYcarbineer on why should LGBT beliefs
    that "gender is cultural" be endorsed by govt while penalizing people who disagree,
    if Christian beliefs (such as in spiritual healing which has been demonstrated
    through scientific medical studies) are not allowed to be endorsed by govt.

    And if both sides cannot agree, why can't beliefs on both sides be treated
    equally as free choice of expressions and practice under "free exercise of religion"
    and keep govt out of it altogether. Only where people AGREE to include beliefs
    or practices in govt policy can these be made public law, and if they don't agree,
    then remove that from govt so that policies remain neutral.

    I don't agree that adding a third gender such as X is neutral but is establishing biased beliefs.
    So if LGBT beliefs and policies are going to be endorsed by govt,
    why not have an agreement to let Christian beliefs, practices and expressions be incorporated in govt?

    Otherwise I argue that NYcarbineer is discriminating by creed, as much as the opponents
    criticized for the same! Two wrongs don't make that right.

    Isn't it equally biased and discriminatory to impose LGBT beliefs through govt
    as it would be to incorporate Christian beliefs and expressions that are equally faith based
    and a matter of "cultural preference" and "relative choice of identity."

    Is NYcarbineer's argument for "equal inclusion" or going TOO FAR and imposing
    faith-based beliefs and "cultural preferences" through GOVT in violation of beliefs opposed to them?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Tank
    Offline

    Tank Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    17,003
    Thanks Received:
    2,222
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,383
     
  3. baileyn45
    Offline

    baileyn45 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2015
    Messages:
    4,243
    Thanks Received:
    2,395
    Trophy Points:
    1,030
    Ratings:
    +4,017
    My problem with subjects like this is the argument is based on someone somewhere along the line changing the definition of a word. For the vast majority of the history of the english language, gender meant man or woman. Someone decides to change the definition and voila they've proven something. Reminds me of people on the left saying that minorities can't be racist towards whites. How do you come to that conclusion? It's easy, just change the definition of the word and claim you've proven something.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  4. anotherlife
    Offline

    anotherlife Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Messages:
    4,341
    Thanks Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Cross-Atlantic
    Ratings:
    +991
    If you want your gender to be non genetic, then you need to become an eunuch and cut off your balls. But even in that case, you gain better for choosing a gender such as female because there is more money with that.
     

Share This Page