Why not isn't the appropriate question. Why? You are making a claim that all LGBTs should agree about the appropriateness of transgender surgeries. Why should they? Just because you want them to isn't a valid reason. That's especially true considering how you are arguing about wants and needs in regards to children in your other thread.
You may think that creating standards of agreement within a particular group upon your whim is somehow a reasonable stance. I don't think you'll find much agreement with it.
Because they pitch themselves as the same cultural movement that just hoodwinked the US Supreme Court by self-assigned assumed identity/"innateness" claimed for so-called transgenders and got the Court to circumvent the separation of powers (by adding for just their favorites, a new protected class to the Constitution based for the first time on odd behaviors) in order to escape majority regulation of a repugnant minority behavior...LGBTs the "LG" part just pitched cohesiveness "gay gay gay" as a binding agent to gain a legal advantage as a separate class of people. My contention is that if you have a class of people based on behaviors, you'd better well have a clear definition of what those behaviors are and that all the people in that class agree to/adhere to them or else...you don't have a class...you have a bunch of individuals falsely using a label that does not apply in order to gain legal perks.
As I already pointed out, there is no universal agreement on other protected classes. Why should LGBTs be different? Hell, I've heard plenty of people say Catholics aren't Christians. Should Christianity no longer constitute a religion for purposes of constitutional protection?
Actually it's the opposite. All Christians who aren't catholice are the protestants....protesting the original faith. Perhaps you can start "the church of erasing Jude & Romans 1 from the Bible. Catholics will insist on following Jude & Romans 1 and I have a feeling that's why the Pope for the first time ever will address Congress this September.
Your group isn't race. So let's start with that distinction and make it plain and clear. Your group derives self-assigned "identity" from the random and varied sexual acts it likes to include under its fairly-wide umbrella. Forbidden for now is the "P" component (polygamy, polyamorous), for completely arbitrary...or rather....politically-expedient reasons. Now there's infighting about the "T" behaviors. Before you use behaviors to gain legal leverage, be sure everyone in your cult agrees. That's all I'm saying.
First, LGBTs are not 'my' group. I don't own them, I didn't create them.
Second, you aren't the arbiter of who is or is not a Christian for anyone but yourself.
You made the argument that because people may disagree about gender reassignment surgery, LGBTs or gays cannot be a distinct group (despite the fact that I don't think you even know if those people disagreeing about the surgery are LGBT or not). I have pointed out that by following that line of reasoning, that any group must enjoy universal agreement on all standards and details, not only among members of the group but those who support them, that Christians are not Christians. There is no universal agreement among the various sects of Christianity, nor those of us who would support the rights of Christians, about the standards and details of the religion.
You like to make up rules and standards that you think people must follow under US law. None of your made up rules matter to anyone but yourself.
