"We Can’t Protect Sexual Orientation Because It Doesn’t Mean Anything"

[Delta4Embassy]

I don't mind my stuff being repeated, just a little acknowledgement though would be nice.

Sexual Orientation Doesn’t Mean Anything

"A major reason is that the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are terribly subjective. They mean very different things to reasonable people, and find no common definition even within the LGBT community. Consequential public policy demands more precision. If we don’t know what these terms mean, nobody can know if he is violating the law or not until hauled into court, and even then various judges are likely to disagree.

So, what does “sexual orientation” actually include and exclude? How is one’s “gender identity” determined and legally ascertained? Neither of these are objective, measurable personal characteristics like race, sex, color, ethnicity, pregnancy, disability, etc., but they are assumed as such in laws like this. Great trouble arises when we assume we are all talking about the same thing here but in fact are not. Let’s see how this is precisely case we have today."


Is sexual orientation redundant? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The man who coined the term homosexual, heterosexual, etc. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[BULLDOG]

Odd that the same reasons that you claim "gender" has no meaning can be applied to "religion" There is no definitive way to ascertain a persons religion other than their claim of what they believe, and that can change at any time. Are you prepared to remove all legal protections for religion because it can't be scientifically measured, or are you willing to just accept the individuals word for it?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Odd that the same reasons that you claim "gender" has no meaning can be applied to "religion" There is no definitive way to ascertain a persons religion other than their claim of what they believe, and that can change at any time. Are you prepared to remove all legal protections for religion because it can't be scientifically measured, or are you willing to just accept the individuals word for it?

Happy to discuss that but this isn't about that.

 

[BULLDOG]

Odd that the same reasons that you claim "gender" has no meaning can be applied to "religion" There is no definitive way to ascertain a persons religion other than their claim of what they believe, and that can change at any time. Are you prepared to remove all legal protections for religion because it can't be scientifically measured, or are you willing to just accept the individuals word for it?

Happy to discuss that but this isn't about that.

Of course it is. Your entire premise is that gender can't be defined to your satisfaction so it shouldn't be a factor in legal protections. You can't arbitrarily deny protections for one without using the same criteria for all similar situations. That isn't logical, and certainly not fair. Your premise just doesn't hold up.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Odd that the same reasons that you claim "gender" has no meaning can be applied to "religion" There is no definitive way to ascertain a persons religion other than their claim of what they believe, and that can change at any time. Are you prepared to remove all legal protections for religion because it can't be scientifically measured, or are you willing to just accept the individuals word for it?

Happy to discuss that but this isn't about that.

Of course it is. Your entire premise is that gender can't be defined to your satisfaction so it shouldn't be a factor in legal protections. You can't arbitrarily deny protections for one without using the same criteria for all similar situations. That isn't logical, and certainly not fair. Your premise just doesn't hold up.

I didn't address gender in point of fact, just the sexual orientation part.

 

[BULLDOG]

Odd that the same reasons that you claim "gender" has no meaning can be applied to "religion" There is no definitive way to ascertain a persons religion other than their claim of what they believe, and that can change at any time. Are you prepared to remove all legal protections for religion because it can't be scientifically measured, or are you willing to just accept the individuals word for it?

Happy to discuss that but this isn't about that.

Of course it is. Your entire premise is that gender can't be defined to your satisfaction so it shouldn't be a factor in legal protections. You can't arbitrarily deny protections for one without using the same criteria for all similar situations. That isn't logical, and certainly not fair. Your premise just doesn't hold up.

I didn't address gender in point of fact, just the sexual orientation part.

Doesn't matter. In for a penny, in for a pound. You can't arbitrarily deny protections just because you are uncomfortable. If you are comfortable with taking a persons word that he "believes" a certain religion, with nothing but his word to verify it, you have to accept that he "believes" he has a certain sexual orientation.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Odd that the same reasons that you claim "gender" has no meaning can be applied to "religion" There is no definitive way to ascertain a persons religion other than their claim of what they believe, and that can change at any time. Are you prepared to remove all legal protections for religion because it can't be scientifically measured, or are you willing to just accept the individuals word for it?

Happy to discuss that but this isn't about that.

Of course it is. Your entire premise is that gender can't be defined to your satisfaction so it shouldn't be a factor in legal protections. You can't arbitrarily deny protections for one without using the same criteria for all similar situations. That isn't logical, and certainly not fair. Your premise just doesn't hold up.

I didn't address gender in point of fact, just the sexual orientation part.

Doesn't matter. In for a penny, in for a pound. You can't arbitrarily deny protections just because you are uncomfortable. If you are comfortable with taking a persons word that he "believes" a certain religion, with nothing but his word to verify it, you have to accept that he "believes" he has a certain sexual orientation.

Again, you're attempting to pivot into a discussion I never raised. My thing was limited to the non-existence of sexual orientations. Wanna discuss genders or the law fine, but this wasn't about that. Go make that thread and knock yourself out. I'll surely take a look.

 

[BULLDOG]

Odd that the same reasons that you claim "gender" has no meaning can be applied to "religion" There is no definitive way to ascertain a persons religion other than their claim of what they believe, and that can change at any time. Are you prepared to remove all legal protections for religion because it can't be scientifically measured, or are you willing to just accept the individuals word for it?

Happy to discuss that but this isn't about that.

Of course it is. Your entire premise is that gender can't be defined to your satisfaction so it shouldn't be a factor in legal protections. You can't arbitrarily deny protections for one without using the same criteria for all similar situations. That isn't logical, and certainly not fair. Your premise just doesn't hold up.

I didn't address gender in point of fact, just the sexual orientation part.

Doesn't matter. In for a penny, in for a pound. You can't arbitrarily deny protections just because you are uncomfortable. If you are comfortable with taking a persons word that he "believes" a certain religion, with nothing but his word to verify it, you have to accept that he "believes" he has a certain sexual orientation.

Again, you're attempting to pivot into a discussion I never raised. My thing was limited to the non-existence of sexual orientations. Wanna discuss genders or the law fine, but this wasn't about that. Go make that thread and knock yourself out. I'll surely take a look.

Are you saying you claims apply only in the case of gender or sexual orientation? That your thesis is crap in any other situation?