What is wrong with people having conflicting beliefs about transgender identity.
To some people it's internal, and not a choice.
To others it's about external appearance, a behavioral choice.
Why not treat both approaches as creeds, and weigh and respect them equally under law?
Is that really too much to ask?
If Hindus, Muslims and Vegans don't agree on not eating beef, pork or no meat at all;
does this require govt to pass a policy imposing one and excluding another? For matters of beliefs or creeds, what happened to govt generally staying out of conflicts and letting people work it out and decide for themselves how to exercise their beliefs without stepping on each other's boundaries.
Do we see Lutherans suing to force Catholics to open up their communions to everyone to avoid discrimination? The policy of letting institutions work out their own systems works in private; why can't bathroom policies be treated as personal. Sure, where public institutions are involved, nobody should be discriminated against, but that goes both ways; a policy that seeks to CORRECT an issue of discrimination can't impose a different one and be pushed as a solution.
If a couple is the only Vegan at a dinner is there anything wrong with preparing a meal differently for that couple, WITHOUT changing the whole menu for all the other guests so they are all treated the same?
Let's compare some other scenarios, tell me if you see the similarities or not:
When Muslims want to pray at work, they may request a special arrangement with their management to have a quiet place to pray 5 times a day.
Does this mean EVERYONE has to be subject to that? No. it's kept in private.
There is nothing shameful about being different, and doing something in a private
room or corner that nobody else has to ask for and do.
If Christians want to express or share their beliefs in ways that affect others, people have the right to say NO I don't feel comfortable. Don't impose that on me in public, keep it in private. This isn't considered discrimination but courtesy to understand other people may not take it the same way it is meant.
Some people don't get how is it imposing on Christians to ask them to keep their ways to themselves. But some of their belief is based on duty to share with others, and they feel excluded and a sense of loss at being denied what is natural to them as free expression and exercise. to others it is imposing and pushing religion in public.
Here isn't something similar happening? Both sides have beliefs that impact the others.
Neither side is going to get their way without infringing on the sense of security of the others. So that is why Unisex restrooms or neutral / singlestalled facilities seem the best option which don't require EITHER side to change their views or change how they act.
The rest of the debate appears to be emotional attachment and personal meaning this issue has to different people.
Since it isn't scientifically proven what is going on with transgender identity, it's all personal beliefs and faith based. So why not respect those equally and impose none, and exclude none. Allow people freedom to work out their issues they are bringing to the table. And as for the restrooms, it seems unisex restrooms don't cause any conflict, so why not remain neutral? isn't that what govt policy should be ideally, totally neutral?
The emotional and personal factors involved here are what is really causing the debates to escalate beyond repair. The facts are simple that NOTHING is proven, so it's all faith based on both sides. The sooner we can accept that, and separate our personal stakes and meaning this has to us from the actual policies that are going to work or going to fail, the better we can take steps to avoid failure and to seek what is more effective.
I hope the hoopla and upset calms down, and people rise above the personal issues at stake to work out fair policies that respect all people and restore a sense of normal standards. Thanks for letting me share, and I hope you will also! Yours truly, Emily
It is not a "belief"
It is a MENTAL ILLNESS caused by chemical imbalances.
Would you offer a suicidal person a gun?
Would you offer a really fat person a bag of candy?
A depressed person downers?
Dear
Grampa Murked U
How do you suggest we screen for this mental illness?
Don't we have to prove someone is mentally ill and incapable of knowing right from wrong before we declare them incompetent.
Where is due process of law here?
I have no problem PROVING what is sick, what is natural,
what can be changed, what cannot. Great! Let's do it.
Until then, however, without PROOF,
Grampa Murked U
that means our arguments are based on human judgment and faith based.
We don't want advocates depriving US of liberty just because
of some percent of the population that is bullying people over their gender.
PROVE these people did wrong, go through due process, and punish THOSE people
who are threatening, harassing or bullying people for their beliefs about gender and orientation.
(Don't punish all of us collectively as a response to bullying by other people.)
Likewise, PROVE which people are mentally ill; don't assume ALL such people are.
We have to live by the same rules.
Due process is due process, BEFORE you deprive EITHER SIDE of the
rights to their beliefs and their liberties.
And BTW
Grampa Murked U I'm NOT just saying this "hypothetically"
I DO believe with marijuana and health care laws about how to pay for costs,
we DO NEED BETTER SCREENING for mental addiction, abuse and illness,
if not simply to save on costs. We do need to research and PROVE a better
way for early detection, diagnosis, treatment and cure. It has to be neutral and
scientifically sound, because we don't need more stories like CPS, IRS and other agencies
punishing and harassing people for political agenda who haven't committed any wrongs.
And yes,
Grampa Murked U
what people believe about their orientation and gender is FAITH BASED.
If you believe you are a woman in a man's body, if you believe you
should be married to a partner of the same sex as your right, those are BELIEFS.
That is not proven by science, it is based on what people BELIEVE.
So it is equal under the law as what you and I believe, too!
That way we are EQUAL.
We are Equally protected from having rights and liberties deprived from us
without due process of law.
If you want to prove that we did something wrong, go through the process,
prove we committed a crime or we are mentally ill and not legally competent.
But don't pass judgments or policies based on faith and belief.
It has to be equal. No more bullying back and forth.
If you have beliefs that can't be proven, well so does the other side.
So let both sides have their beliefs, keep them in private,
and don't impose them in public based on faith.
Clearly other people don't agree, so the process stops there!
Nobody can lawfully legislate beliefs in such ways that discriminate against others.
Whoever is abusing govt to do so needs to stop. That goes for BOTH SIDES!
