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

[BlackSand]

.​

It doesn't matter.

If someone comes into my establishment ... And has difficulties handling compliance issues with their biological gender ...
And cannot for the life of them figure out which gender specific bathroom they are required to use ...

All they have to do is ask ... And I'll escort them to the single stall, non gender specific, employee bathroom with a lock on the door.
They won't have to worry about anything other the crap they are going to catch if they make a mess in there because they couldn't figure out whether to stand or sit.

If they for one second think it is my obligation to sell my consumers their agenda...
Or make their problems my customer's problems ... It's not ...

.

.​

 

[Sunni Man]

Biology 101 .... there are 2 human genders.....male and female

Any so called genders outside of these 2 categories is unscientific nonsense and based on political idiocy. ...

 

[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.

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.

I don't see any reason why FAITH BASED beliefs should be treated any differently, by government, than other beliefs.

 

[william the wie]

Gender beliefs are first amendment territory because the beliefs of the Damned like Franklin and Jefferson have always been defended.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

More than 2 choices there and lot of complications. Sex at birth is not even ALWAYS obvious. There are actually medically identified ambiguities that have been known for decades. These are the REAL candidates for early intervention and med/psych evaluation. TOTALLY under science and not "faith".

I don't think "Internal Gender" is instigated by attention getting or mental disorder. I think it's PROMOTED by overzealous family, school advisors and dangerous psych professionals on the MARGINS of science by GIVING attention to normal childhood curiousity and behavior as a DIAGNOSED gender confusion. Mom sees her 4 yr old playing dress up and goes out to buy him dolls and dresses kind of thing. THEN --- it's "attention getting".

BIGGEST problems come in with govt interference. Because as long as y'all are talking about the LAW and compliance -- you should realize that NO LAW should EVER be written to protect a "class" where membership in that class is "self-declared" based on daily whims and self-diagnoses. It cannot be enforced. It will be constantly subject to people PRANKING the rules to GET special treatment. It has to be science based if it even approaches becoming a law.

Faith based families are NOT IMMUNE from this squabble. They have to face up to life decisions that THEIR children make once they reach age of consent. But at THAT point, their children are acting out of reason and experience and not for "attention getting" or mental disorder. And it is A CHOICE. Not a scientific analysis of the actual situation if you prance out of the closet at a family sponsored Bible reading. Many of those decisions are later self-rescinded (return to Hetero) or modified to be Bisexual rather than Homosexual or other "improvements" on the final truth.

 

[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!

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.

.
​

​

Thanks BlackSand
and what if people of different political beliefs
don't SHARE the "faith" that liberals have in govt run health care.

What if liberals don't understand enough to respect the
"Constitutional beliefs" of people who BELIEVE in limited govt?

Isn't how much we "trust" govt related to our FAITH, our beliefs in the role or function of govt?

Isn't this a faith based issue if one group
BELIEVES in due process when it comes to abortion laws
but the other BELIEVES when it comes to gun laws,
that the right of "govt protections" cannot supercede
the liberty and due process of other citizens who are not proven to have criminal intent.

What about political beliefs?
Isn't that MAJOR factor or issue in public policy involving enforcement of limits on govt?

 

[emilynghiem]

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....

Dear Rambunctious
and like all the other people who have recovered from delusions, disorders or ill thinking toward themselves or anyone,
the key factor is FREE WILL, the person had to CHOOSE to receive and go through the therapy and changes.

It could not be forced on them by social much less political pressures.
The only people who have effectively changed from homosexual back to heterosexual orientation successfully
did so by therapy which works by FREE CHOICE.

 

[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!

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.

What equal enforcement will lead to is each party funding its own platforms or beliefs.
That way, we don't have to be in the business ofCHANGING anyone's beliefs.
Just need to agree to help everyone FUND THEIR OWN BELIEFS
and that's most of the battle.

Most of the work should be invested in following through, supporting and enforcing
one own's beliefs for one's own group. If we all did that, all resources would go toward
ALL solutions, respectively. Instead of wasting billions of dollars fighting for one party to dominate the national scene over another.

Thanks Kosh
Nobody is going to agree to change their beliefs because of pressures from opposing groups, much less from govt.

But if given the support and authority to organize resources to defend their OWN beliefs from infringement,
when THAT becomes clearly the solution that will fulfill those goals to the best benefit and interest of that group of people,
yes, they will be compelled in that direction because that is in keeping with their purpose goals and beliefs.

It's fear or scarcity mentality that keeps people trapped in thinking they can't achieve their goals without coercing others.
Once given the roadmap and support to fund and manage their own programs to fulfill their own goals,
of course, they would be too busy building, investing and creating jobs in what they believe
to worry what other groups are funding by their own beliefs. This fear of competition for resources
is overshadowing the bigger solution around the corner of everyone especially political parties funding
their own programs instead of wasting donations and resources fighting legally and politically to bully each other
when they could both be achieving their own goals respectively with the given resources. If we just focused that way instead.

If people by class cannot support their own programs without relying on people of other beliefs, groups or classes,
we might look into "microlending" between wealthier people or groups, with more capital and experience managing resources for viable business solutions,
and give these individuals/groups "tax breaks" writeoffs or other incentives to REWARD taxpayers and business investors
for mentoring and lending resources to HELP others to set up their own health care or social support programs.

There are ways we could set this up through free enterprise
and not require taxpayers to pay for programs they don't believe in supporting by free choice.

So each group/party could still be held responsible for financing their own policies/terms for their own members,
and still have some system where resources could be invested by other people by FREE CHOICE instead of govt mandating
that taxpayers pay for social programs without first agreeing on the terms of these programs and payments.

 

[BlackSand]

Thanks BlackSand
and what if people of different political beliefs
don't SHARE the "faith" that liberals have in govt run health care.

What if liberals don't understand enough to respect the
"Constitutional beliefs" of people who BELIEVE in limited govt?

Isn't how much we "trust" govt related to our FAITH, our beliefs in the role or function of govt?

Isn't this a faith based issue if one group
BELIEVES in due process when it comes to abortion laws
but the other BELIEVES when it comes to gun laws,
that the right of "govt protections" cannot supercede
the liberty and due process of other citizens who are not proven to have criminal intent.

What about political beliefs?
Isn't that MAJOR factor or issue in public policy involving enforcement of limits on govt?

What someone believes has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is true ...
How many people happen to believe it, doesn't make it true either.

Example ... Flat Earth

The problem with what someone believes, only occurs when they need someone else to believe it.
If they are stupid enough to ask the government to settle the problem ... They deserve the utter crap they end up with as a result.

.​

.​

.​

.​

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks BlackSand
and what if people of different political beliefs
don't SHARE the "faith" that liberals have in govt run health care.

What if liberals don't understand enough to respect the
"Constitutional beliefs" of people who BELIEVE in limited govt?

Isn't how much we "trust" govt related to our FAITH, our beliefs in the role or function of govt?

Isn't this a faith based issue if one group
BELIEVES in due process when it comes to abortion laws
but the other BELIEVES when it comes to gun laws,
that the right of "govt protections" cannot supercede
the liberty and due process of other citizens who are not proven to have criminal intent.

What about political beliefs?
Isn't that MAJOR factor or issue in public policy involving enforcement of limits on govt?

What someone believes has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is true ...
How many people happen to believe it, doesn't make it true either.

Example ... Flat Earth

The problem with what someone believes, only occurs when they need someone else to believe it.
If they are stupid enough to ask the government to settle the problem ... They deserve the utter crap they end up with as a result.

.​

.​

.​

.​

Dear BlackSand
If someone grows to BELIEVE and UNDERSTAND that free choice/due process
also applies to Political Beliefs, that makes lawmaking and law enforcement a different process.
Where we have a chance to base it on mutual CONSENT instead of bullying.

So if we can agree to change our approach and what we "believe" will better serve
"equal justice under law" and "equal protections of the law" / "equal inclusion" of all people
regardless of creed,
wouldn't that help to establish truth and justice FASTER
than if we disagree and keep fighting to push one party's agenda more than the other
which excludes or disparages the equal rights of people of the dissenting party of opposing beliefs?

Doesn't our "faith" or "belief" we can establish laws and/or truth
based on CONSENT or CONSENSUS (as opposed by relying on
bullying by exclusion or coercion) change our ability and process in achieving this end?

 

[BlackSand]

Dear BlackSand
If someone grows to BELIEVE and UNDERSTAND that free choice/due process
also applies to Political Beliefs, that makes lawmaking and law enforcement a different process.
Where we have a chance to base it on mutual CONSENT instead of bullying.

So if we can agree to change our approach and what we "believe" will better serve
"equal justice under law" and "equal protections of the law" / "equal inclusion" of all people
regardless of creed,
wouldn't that help to establish truth and justice FASTER
than if we disagree and keep fighting to push one party's agenda more than the other
which excludes or disparages the equal rights of people of the dissenting party of opposing beliefs?

Doesn't our "faith" or "belief" we can establish laws and/or truth
based on CONSENT or CONSENSUS (as opposed by relying on
bullying by exclusion or coercion) change our ability and process in achieving this end?

The people that Believe any different ... Are the people that want to use their beliefs to stop what other people are doing.

So basically ... You are asking me to what degree do I think we should use government (laws) ...
To screw with what other people may believe.

There is no difference in bullying people to make them do what you want ...
Whether you beat them over the head with a stick ...
Or make the excuse that getting the government to beat them over the head with a stick makes it any different.

The best thing to do is settle it among yourselves.
Make accommodations for those you support in a manner you and others can agree on ...
And garner the extra support and rewards that come with managing your own affairs responsibly.

Example ...
I don't give a damn if Target has a policy saying trans-gender people can use whatever bathroom they want.
I don't give a damn if Joe's Bait Shack has a policy that says you have to use a gender specific bathroom associated with your biological gender.

I do give a damn if someone wants to pass a law saying Target or Joe's Bait Shop has to do something they don't want to do.

But ... The problem is that crazy people keep insisting the government do something it is incapable of doing.
It cannot treat anything equally ... There isn't a damn thing equal to something else outside of mathematics.
The more people want to mess with stuff (interpretations) and the more they want to make the government the final say (law) ... The bigger the mess gets.

.​

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I don't know about Sassy, but I would point out here that there's a difference between a physical disability and a mental disability. The ADA requires significantly more in the way of reasonable accommodations for those with physical disabilities than it does for mental.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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???

Maybe because, unlike belief in God, science CAN prove whether or not you're actually a man or a woman. Might not be able to determine what you fantasize about being in your own imagination, but I fail to see why that needs to be known or acknowledged by anyone but you.

 

[BlackSand]

I don't know about Sassy, but I would point out here that there's a difference between a physical disability and a mental disability. The ADA requires significantly more in the way of reasonable accommodations for those with physical disabilities than it does for mental.

That's mainly because the overall impact of a physical disability can be accurately measured ...
Outside of whatever mental impairments may also be common to that disability.

.​

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't know about Sassy, but I would point out here that there's a difference between a physical disability and a mental disability. The ADA requires significantly more in the way of reasonable accommodations for those with physical disabilities than it does for mental.

That's mainly because the overall impact of a physical disability can be accurately measured ...
Outside of whatever mental impairments may also be common to that disability.

.​

Exactly. And a person with a mental impairment - presuming he/she is functional enough to not be institutionalized - can make adjustments to accommodate the way normal, unimpaired people conduct themselves. A person with a physical disability doesn't really have that option.

 

[baileyn45]

See below for a funny Image taken from a tweet/post going around:View attachment 210054
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.

The T-shirt screen shot is a beauty.

 

[emilynghiem]

.​

It doesn't matter.

If someone comes into my establishment ... And has difficulties handling compliance issues with their biological gender ...
And cannot for the life of them figure out which gender specific bathroom they are required to use ...

All they have to do is ask ... And I'll escort them to the single stall, non gender specific, employee bathroom with a lock on the door.
They won't have to worry about anything other the crap they are going to catch if they make a mess in there because they couldn't figure out whether to stand or sit.

If they for one second think it is my obligation to sell my consumers their agenda...
Or make their problems my customer's problems ... It's not ...

.

.​

Also there's no issue with single stall restrooms or unisex.

In private homes, people have restrooms that are for anyone to use. Why not with schools or businesses for those who don't want any issues including security issues.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know about Sassy, but I would point out here that there's a difference between a physical disability and a mental disability. The ADA requires significantly more in the way of reasonable accommodations for those with physical disabilities than it does for mental.

That's mainly because the overall impact of a physical disability can be accurately measured ...
Outside of whatever mental impairments may also be common to that disability.

.​

Exactly. And a person with a mental impairment - presuming he/she is functional enough to not be institutionalized - can make adjustments to accommodate the way normal, unimpaired people conduct themselves. A person with a physical disability doesn't really have that option.

Dear Cecilie1200
Appreciate your thoughtful points and discussion here.
This is where I would compare the accommodations of how someone dresses or presents oneself to faith based costume or appearance. Sometimes ones religious wardrobe can be accommodated, sometimes not.

With the Burqas covering the head face or body, this can be accepted in some situations as faith based religious exercise without discrimination. But in workplaces where it becomes a safety issue, or in cases of driver license/ID it cannot be accommodated.

Each situation should be the responsibility of the people involved to work out by their own beliefs, best judgment and discretion. We need to learn to be reasonable and respectful instead of exploiting any issue to make generalized political statements that incite judgment of one side or another.

If people do or do not believe in accommodating transgender expression that should not be the govt business to establish or prohibit or judge or punish one belief over another. I see some of this pattern of running to govt to settle conflicts similar to running to mommy or daddy when the kids can't solve problems themselves. When it's an issue of danger or safety, of abuse or violation of laws and rights, yes, the govt authority should be called upon. But not for every disagreement over beliefs that are private and the choice of individuals. That is NOT the govts job to step and settle matters of beliefs, or else it results in establishing one sides beliefs and prohibiting the other. The govt should remain neutral and defend equal freedom of all ppl beliefs to be practiced individually by free choice, separately if necessary, not establish any belief over any other.

 

[emilynghiem]

Biology 101 .... there are 2 human genders.....male and female

Any so called genders outside of these 2 categories is unscientific nonsense and based on political idiocy. ...

Dear Sunni Man Thanks for your honest speech direct to the point.

There are as many denominations to the Christian identity, many brands of feminists, atheists agnostics, Buddhists Muslims even Constitutionalists . If we as humans recognize our rights to express our beliefs and affiliations, no matter how whacked out or delusional or imaginary /conflicting these may be (so long as we don't commit crimes abuses or violations against the equal rights freedom and security/protections of other people) shouldn't individuals with transgender beliefs /identity have equal protection of their free exercise and expression (as long as this doesn't infringement on the equal rights beliefs and protections of others).

Thanks Sunni Man you make me think about this:
If these LGBT proponents CANNOT recognize and defend their own beliefs on First Amendment religious grounds, maybe this shows they aren't real beliefs. Maybe they are false delusions and that's why they can't bring themselves to use the First Amendment free exercise clause to defend their views and rights to expression.

Anyone else would defend their beliefs by the laws, which don't require proving those beliefs scientifically in order for the law to defend them against discrimination by govt or by other public institutions funded thereby.

So maybe this question answers itself. Maybe the reason they don't make this religious freedom argument is they really don't believe enough to defend it as such. Maybe it's just exploited to push "other people " to change and not solely to protect one's own practice of choice.

 

[BlackSand]

Also there's no issue with single stall restrooms or unisex.

In private homes, people have restrooms that are for anyone to use. Why not with schools or businesses for those who don't want any issues including security issues.

Some businesses already have those here ... Only they are called family bathrooms and not transgender bathrooms.

They are usually a bathroom with accommodations for both genders, a changing table for babies, and usually a lock on the door.
If you are a dad and your little girl needs to use the potty, or vice versa, you don't have to send them in a large public bathroom by themselves

There isn't a sign on the door that says transgender people cannot use the bathroom.
But ... That is a service the business decides to offer ... Not a law requiring them to.

.​

.

.​