CDZ Should "Gender IDENTITY" be treated like physical Race/Gender or like Faith Based Affiliation?

[emilynghiem]

See below for a funny Image taken from a tweet/post going around:

T Shirt" "There are more than Two Genders"
(available in two sizes: Men's and Women's)

============

On a Serious Note:
Legally and Constitutionally, how should the issue of Gender Identity (internal) be treated?
A. like PHYSICAL race/gender that is genetically determined by birth
B. like freely chosen Faith Based Affiliation that doesn't have to be proven scientifically
but remains the free choice and belief of the individual, similar to protection of one's religious exercise
C. like a disability, where someone may need ACCOMMODATIONS and shouldn't be discriminated against

Which do you feel is the most consistent approach, that causes the least legal imposition or abuses?

NOTE: so your post does not get removed from CDZ, please feel free to add LINKS to another thread/post if you want to project, vent or bully someone PERSONALLY, so any sidetracking comments don't derail or detract from the content of your post, backing up your position by citing legal comparisons or scientific stats.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Treat it as a mental defect and stop coddling them

 

[emilynghiem]

Treat it as a mental defect and stop coddling them

Okay one vote for Disability.
Thanks SassyIrishLass
are you willing to lobby govt officials to invest money into medical research
for Spiritual Healing to prove such unnatural conditions can be healed for free?
Would that help prove there is a cause, effect and cure of "mentally ill" conditions such as these?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Treat it as a mental defect and stop coddling them

Okay one vote for Disability.
Thanks SassyIrishLass
are you willing to lobby govt officials to invest money into medical research
for Spiritual Healing to prove such unnatural conditions can be healed for free?
Would that help prove there is a cause, effect and cure of "mentally ill" conditions such as these?

No. I think about 99% of them use it for attention. They're on their own

It's like these goofball parents claiming their 3 y/o boy is really a little girl. Horseshit, a 3 y/o can't begin to come to that conclusion. It's parents being attention whores and the child is going to suffer a lifetime

 

[Rambunctious]

It should be treated as a mental disorder...because that is what it is...

 

[emilynghiem]

Treat it as a mental defect and stop coddling them

Okay one vote for Disability.
Thanks SassyIrishLass
are you willing to lobby govt officials to invest money into medical research
for Spiritual Healing to prove such unnatural conditions can be healed for free?
Would that help prove there is a cause, effect and cure of "mentally ill" conditions such as these?

No. I think about 99% of them use it for attention. They're on their own

Well SassyIrishLass for such a small % "on their own" they managed
to ignite a national movement to threaten to oppress the rights and free choice of the other 90%+

Do you think it would help to use science to PROVE your point, so yours has more standing than theirs,
and that without proof, you are just as "faith based" as their beliefs and arguments?

If you don't see your position as "faith based" without proof,
then that's similar to why they think the same.

My point still stands, where I vote for "faith based" since not everyone believes the same,
nor believes that proof is possible and/or necessary.

But yes I do agree that your point is a SUBSET of the cases out there, and we will
need to "accommodate" people of different beliefs. But if you don't believe or agree with
"accommodations" for an attention-grabbing problem, then wouldn't we still have to apply
SCIENCE to PROVE which cases are just personality issues and which IF ANY are truly valid gender dysphoria
whether these can be healed or not. In order to stop the encroachment on the rights and beliefs of others,
by this insistence on treating gender dysphoric conditions as a "genetic birth condition like race"
wouldn't it HELP to have scientific proof?

 

[Kosh]

Well I see you posted a huge irony of the "gender bender" movement.

Well gender roles is what defines people, being a woman you expect to be treated differently than if you were a man. We have laws that are gender specific, so now if man identifies as a woman, should they be treated as a women by the law?

So will the laws reflect this? Will women now not be able to claim battery when they fight with their spouse?

In CA the woman gets half the assets, so how does that apply to two men or two whatever gender they say they are?

Many laws that protect only women, how will that work if the woman identifies as a man?

 

[emilynghiem]

It should be treated as a mental disorder...because that is what it is...

Thanks Rambunctious Ditto to you and to SassyIrishLass
if we don't have scientific proof of the cause and cure of disorder,
isn't the belief that these are disorders "faith based" just as
the belief that people are identifying as opposite genders than their physical birth?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Treat it as a mental defect and stop coddling them

Okay one vote for Disability.
Thanks SassyIrishLass
are you willing to lobby govt officials to invest money into medical research
for Spiritual Healing to prove such unnatural conditions can be healed for free?
Would that help prove there is a cause, effect and cure of "mentally ill" conditions such as these?

No. I think about 99% of them use it for attention. They're on their own

Well SassyIrishLass for such a small % "on their own" they managed
to ignite a national movement to threaten to oppress the rights and free choice of the other 90%+

Do you think it would help to use science to PROVE your point, so yours has more standing than theirs,
and that without proof, you are just as "faith based" as their beliefs and arguments?

If you don't see your position as "faith based" without proof,
then that's similar to why they think the same.

My point still stands, where I vote for "faith based" since not everyone believes the same,
nor believes that proof is possible and/or necessary.

But yes I do agree that your point is a SUBSET of the cases out there, and we will
need to "accommodate" people of different beliefs. But if you don't believe or agree with
"accommodations" for an attention-grabbing problem, then wouldn't we still have to apply
SCIENCE to PROVE which cases are just personality issues and which IF ANY are truly valid gender dysphoria
whether these can be healed or not. In order to stop the encroachment on the rights and beliefs of others,
by this insistence on treating gender dysphoric conditions as a "genetic birth condition like race"
wouldn't it HELP to have scientific proof?

Meh, pedophiles are supposedly "born that way" going to coddle their perverted asses also?

It's all horseshit...all the sudden "gender confused people" numbers exploded. Gee....like a fad, eh?

 

[Rambunctious]

Thanks Rambunctious Ditto to you and to SassyIrishLass
if we don't have scientific proof of the cause and cure of disorder,
isn't the belief that these are disorders "faith based" just as
the belief that people are identifying as opposite genders than their physical birth?

My opinion on gender identity and reassignment is not faith based...you are not what you think you are....you are what you are...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Thanks Rambunctious Ditto to you and to SassyIrishLass
if we don't have scientific proof of the cause and cure of disorder,
isn't the belief that these are disorders "faith based" just as
the belief that people are identifying as opposite genders than their physical birth?

My opinion on gender identity and reassignment is not faith based...you are not what you think you are....you are what you are...

Yeah faith based has nothing to do with anatomy

 

[dblack]

In as much as we shouldn't treat race/gender or religious affiliation special in any way, yeah. It should be treated the same. The problem is that we've already opened the door for 'special rights for special people'. We need to close it rather than opening it wider.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well I see you posted a huge irony of the "gender bender" movement.

Well gender roles is what defines people, being a woman you expect to be treated differently than if you were a man. We have laws that are gender specific, so now if man identifies as a woman, should they be treated as a women by the law?

So will the laws reflect this? Will women now not be able to claim battery when they fight with their spouse?

In CA the woman gets half the assets, so how does that apply to two men or two whatever gender they say they are?

Many laws that protect only women, how will that work if the woman identifies as a man?

Kosh I think you bring up a point that flacaltenn was trying to make on at least one other thread.

Shouldn't we enforce more universally inclusive laws that NOBODY gets abused,
punished or lose life/liberty/RIGHT OF SECURITY and protections of the laws without due process legally?

Wouldn't that police and apply to ALL forms of abuse against ANY person?

The stickler is what if someone doesn't respect due process, do they still deserve protections of the laws?
Like terrorists who don't obey the law, yet when tried under US laws they invoke legal due process, right to counsel and other protections.

Shouldn't they pay for their own costs if they don't obey the laws?
Should we require US citizens to respect the laws and due process in order to invoke protections including legal costs?

I didn't expect this to come up on here Kosh but great point.

I guess to tie it back to the original CDZ OP,
if we are going to enforce "faith based" arguments it should be equally across the board.
The people arguing that Christian beliefs should not be imposed upon by public policy pushing LGBT beliefs,
and the people arguing that neither should Christian beliefs be imposed by govt against LGBT,
the REASON to protect both sides BELIEFS from each other is out of
RESPECT for DUE PROCESS: that neither side should be threatened
with loss or infringement of their faith based beliefs or practices because
of the beliefs of others.

Do you agree there are issues here of due process and equal protections of liberty for all people?

How would you address or solve this, by framing it as faith based approaches
where all people views/beliefs are protected equally? And then we make laws
that don't impose a bias one way or another?

Do we all have to agree to respect due process and protections for all people of all beliefs/views?
Is that the central focal point?
Thanks Kosh great point and maybe I should have added "due process"
as one of the issues that needs to be addressed to resolve the gender questions with
laws (not only on this, but on domestic abuse and even abortion equally affected by gender biases). Thanks!

 

[Sunni Man]

Physically there are only 2 human genders, male and female.

Anyone who claims to be another gender outside of these two categories is either self deluded or mentally ill. ....

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks Rambunctious Ditto to you and to SassyIrishLass
if we don't have scientific proof of the cause and cure of disorder,
isn't the belief that these are disorders "faith based" just as
the belief that people are identifying as opposite genders than their physical birth?

My opinion on gender identity and reassignment is not faith based...you are not what you think you are....you are what you are...

Yeah faith based has nothing to do with anatomy

Dear SassyIrishLass
So let's make a distinction between
* PHYSICAL and genetically determined GENDER
* INTERNAL gender identity that you say is attention getting and/or mental disorder

Why can't we recognize both.
Why this insistence on negating one for the other?

I agree with you that internal faith based gender identity should NOT be
treated the same as genetically determined gender at birth.

My insistence on treating these as FAITH BASED distinctions
is to respect your views and other views equally. So these are not
imposed on each other, but each person has equal right to
exercise their beliefs FREE of govt imposition one way or another.

If we depend on NEGATING each other's views, that goes in circles back and forth.
But once we all agree to legally recognize all such views as faith based,
NONE of these can be imposed through govt.

So I believe that is most helpful and protective.
You are not required to prove this or that about the other person's views
to be protected from imposition.

What does it take to get everyone to AGREE to recognize
these gender beliefs as faith based so we can automatically
declare that govt cannot establish them???

 

[BlackSand]

Well I see you posted a huge irony of the "gender bender" movement.

Well gender roles is what defines people, being a woman you expect to be treated differently than if you were a man. We have laws that are gender specific, so now if man identifies as a woman, should they be treated as a women by the law?

So will the laws reflect this? Will women now not be able to claim battery when they fight with their spouse?

In CA the woman gets half the assets, so how does that apply to two men or two whatever gender they say they are?

Many laws that protect only women, how will that work if the woman identifies as a man?

Kosh I think you bring up a point that flacaltenn was trying to make on at least one other thread.

Shouldn't we enforce more universally inclusive laws that NOBODY gets abused,
punished or lose life/liberty/RIGHT OF SECURITY and protections of the laws without due process legally?

Wouldn't that police and apply to ALL forms of abuse against ANY person?

The stickler is what if someone doesn't respect due process, do they still deserve protections of the laws?
Like terrorists who don't obey the law, yet when tried under US laws they invoke legal due process, right to counsel and other protections.

Shouldn't they pay for their own costs if they don't obey the laws?
Should we require US citizens to respect the laws and due process in order to invoke protections including legal costs?

I didn't expect this to come up on here Kosh but great point.

I guess to tie it back to the original CDZ OP,
if we are going to enforce "faith based" arguments it should be equally across the board.
The people arguing that Christian beliefs should not be imposed upon by public policy pushing LGBT beliefs,
and the people arguing that neither should Christian beliefs be imposed by govt against LGBT,
the REASON to protect both sides BELIEFS from each other is out of
RESPECT for DUE PROCESS: that neither side should be threatened
with loss or infringement of their faith based beliefs or practices because
of the beliefs of others.

Do you agree there are issues here of due process and equal protections of liberty for all people?

How would you address or solve this, by framing it as faith based approaches
where all people views/beliefs are protected equally? And then we make laws
that don't impose a bias one way or another?

Do we all have to agree to respect due process and protections for all people of all beliefs/views?
Is that the central focal point?
Thanks Kosh great point and maybe I should have added "due process"
as one of the issues that needs to be addressed to resolve the gender questions with
laws (not only on this, but on domestic abuse and even abortion equally affected by gender biases). Thanks!

The problem isn't with the genders, sexual orientation or faith based initiatives ...
It's in the power you grant the government to be arbiter, and how closely you shackle everything to the majority as far as control is concerned.

.​

.​

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Thanks Rambunctious Ditto to you and to SassyIrishLass
if we don't have scientific proof of the cause and cure of disorder,
isn't the belief that these are disorders "faith based" just as
the belief that people are identifying as opposite genders than their physical birth?

My opinion on gender identity and reassignment is not faith based...you are not what you think you are....you are what you are...

Yeah faith based has nothing to do with anatomy

Dear SassyIrishLass
So let's make a distinction between
* PHYSICAL and genetically determined GENDER
* INTERNAL gender identity that you say is attention getting and/or mental disorder

Why can't we recognize both.
Why this insistence on negating one for the other?

I agree with you that internal faith based gender identity should NOT be
treated the same as genetically determined gender at birth.

My insistence on treating these as FAITH BASED distinctions
is to respect your views and other views equally. So these are not
imposed on each other, but each person has equal right to
exercise their beliefs FREE of govt imposition one way or another.

If we depend on NEGATING each other's views, that goes in circles back and forth.
But once we all agree to legally recognize all such views as faith based,
NONE of these can be imposed through govt.

So I believe that is most helpful and protective.
You are not required to prove this or that about the other person's views
to be protected from imposition.

What does it take to get everyone to AGREE to recognize
these gender beliefs as faith based so we can automatically
declare that govt cannot establish them???

So let's make a distinction between
* PHYSICAL and genetically determined GENDER
* INTERNAL gender identity that you say is attention getting and/or mental disorder

Hogwash^^^^^

 

[emilynghiem]

In as much as we shouldn't treat race/gender or religious affiliation special in any way, yeah. It should be treated the same. The problem is that we've already opened the door for 'special rights for special people'. We need to close it rather than opening it wider.

Or use the same "open door" this has created
to Open the Door for ALL faith based practices, EXPRESSIONS in public, and protection from exclusion
equally for CHRISTIANS who have prayer, Bible and God based "expressions" that have been "removed from schools and public institutions" as FAITH BASED.

If we all agree to recognize both LGBT and Christian beliefs/expressions/practices as equally FAITH BASED
then we can agree either to include them all or remove them all from public policy.
Or leave each case to local decisions how each community wants to represent its own constituency case by case.

Thanks dblack
I vote for recognizing ALL views as equally faith based.
So govt cannot be abused either to ESTABLISH or PROHIBIT one for another.
but protect the people's rights to democratic due process to work out their own policy.
And that doesn't mean that policy must be imposed on all other states or people across the country.
People should be free to adopt and adapt their own solutions and policies by free choice,
similar to religious freedom.

This is a mix of the faith based approach,
and also Kosh's point about not discriminating when governing "due process" protections
that should apply to ALL people, not just people cited by group for laws that only address that sector.

Thank you Kosh and dblack

 

[Kosh]

Well I see you posted a huge irony of the "gender bender" movement.

Well gender roles is what defines people, being a woman you expect to be treated differently than if you were a man. We have laws that are gender specific, so now if man identifies as a woman, should they be treated as a women by the law?

So will the laws reflect this? Will women now not be able to claim battery when they fight with their spouse?

In CA the woman gets half the assets, so how does that apply to two men or two whatever gender they say they are?

Many laws that protect only women, how will that work if the woman identifies as a man?

Kosh I think you bring up a point that flacaltenn was trying to make on at least one other thread.

Shouldn't we enforce more universally inclusive laws that NOBODY gets abused,
punished or lose life/liberty/RIGHT OF SECURITY and protections of the laws without due process legally?

Wouldn't that police and apply to ALL forms of abuse against ANY person?

The stickler is what if someone doesn't respect due process, do they still deserve protections of the laws?
Like terrorists who don't obey the law, yet when tried under US laws they invoke legal due process, right to counsel and other protections.

Shouldn't they pay for their own costs if they don't obey the laws?
Should we require US citizens to respect the laws and due process in order to invoke protections including legal costs?

I didn't expect this to come up on here Kosh but great point.

I guess to tie it back to the original CDZ OP,
if we are going to enforce "faith based" arguments it should be equally across the board.
The people arguing that Christian beliefs should not be imposed upon by public policy pushing LGBT beliefs,
and the people arguing that neither should Christian beliefs be imposed by govt against LGBT,
the REASON to protect both sides BELIEFS from each other is out of
RESPECT for DUE PROCESS: that neither side should be threatened
with loss or infringement of their faith based beliefs or practices because
of the beliefs of others.

Do you agree there are issues here of due process and equal protections of liberty for all people?

How would you address or solve this, by framing it as faith based approaches
where all people views/beliefs are protected equally? And then we make laws
that don't impose a bias one way or another?

Do we all have to agree to respect due process and protections for all people of all beliefs/views?
Is that the central focal point?
Thanks Kosh great point and maybe I should have added "due process"
as one of the issues that needs to be addressed to resolve the gender questions with
laws (not only on this, but on domestic abuse and even abortion equally affected by gender biases). Thanks!

You see the far left can not control their political slaves if the laws applied equally to everyone.

Just like if a woman hits a man, should a man be able to hit that woman back in self defense? The laws say no.

So you would have to get a whole political/religious movement known as the far left to get behind such things, but they never will.

Just like should all laws be applied equally regardless of circumstance?

Changing laws to reflect anything gender neutral will be hard to get through any of the blue areas. It is hard to control others if you treat them equally.

 

[Rambunctious]

If you really in your heart and soul believed you were a cat we would send you to a doctor for help....why should it be any different if a man thinks he is a woman?...or visa versa...this has nothing to do with homosexuality...its about mental health....