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?