Why judge anyone? Why can't beliefs about transgender identity be respected equally?

[Czernobog]

Jake , the government has NO business telling me that I must allow boys and men who are clearly boys and men even if they "think they are women"...

Clearly?!?!

Let's try a little test, shall we?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Unless you got all of those right, there is nothing clear about it, except in your bigoted little mind.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Jake , the government has NO business telling me that I must allow boys and men who are clearly boys and men even if they "think they are women"...

Clearly?!?!

Let's try a little test, shall we?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Unless you got all of those right, there is nothing clear about it, except in your bigoted little mind.

I'm not bigoted you dumb ****


You're clearly a pervert though , had all those pictures of cross dressers saved on your computer did you?

You're also illiterate because guess what dumb ****? I don't want the government forcing places to allow mentally ill people to use the bathroom of their choice, but I also don't want the government forcing places to make the mentally ill use the bathroom of their birth. If you own a bathroom YOU decide who pees where, if your customers don't like, they can go elsewhere. DUH.

 

[Siete]

Jake , the government has NO business telling me that I must allow boys and men who are clearly boys and men even if they "think they are women"...

Clearly?!?!

Let's try a little test, shall we?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Unless you got all of those right, there is nothing clear about it, except in your bigoted little mind.

I'm not bigoted you dumb ****


You're clearly a pervert though , had all those pictures of cross dressers saved on your computer did you?

You're also illiterate because guess what dumb ****? I don't want the government forcing places to allow mentally ill people to use the bathroom of their choice, but I also don't want the government forcing places to make the mentally ill use the bathroom of their birth. If you own a bathroom YOU decide who pees where, if your customers don't like, they can go elsewhere. DUH.

crossdressers?

you mean transgender ... go pee an stfu

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Jake , the government has NO business telling me that I must allow boys and men who are clearly boys and men even if they "think they are women"...

Clearly?!?!

Let's try a little test, shall we?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Unless you got all of those right, there is nothing clear about it, except in your bigoted little mind.

I'm not bigoted you dumb ****


You're clearly a pervert though , had all those pictures of cross dressers saved on your computer did you?

You're also illiterate because guess what dumb ****? I don't want the government forcing places to allow mentally ill people to use the bathroom of their choice, but I also don't want the government forcing places to make the mentally ill use the bathroom of their birth. If you own a bathroom YOU decide who pees where, if your customers don't like, they can go elsewhere. DUH.

crossdressers?

you mean transgender ... go pee an stfu

There is no such thing as a trans gender. It is impossible to change from one gender to another and so therefor you can't be in the middle of such transformation.

Cross dresser is the appropriate term.

And I don't even give a ****. Wear whatever you want, get whatever surgeries you want. Just don't insist that I accept your mislabeling. I don't have to.

I'll ask again.

CLEARLY this guy thought he was a cat rather than a human, and clearly he had quite a bit of surgery done to look like one. So was he a trans species? Are businesses required to provide a litter box so that the trans species among us have a place to take a shit?

 

[Siete]

this is a Republican crossdresser

this is a transgender

see the difference?

 

[Crixus]

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

All the comparisonsare moot. over and over when this issue is put to the people the govrenment tries to inflict it on it fails and fails badly. check out the numbers on it. the demographics of it all is amazing because you will have bible thumping Baptist types agreeing with gay people on the topic. that and the transgender/ crossdressing group is such a minority they only matter to a legacy building presidant.

 

[Czernobog]

Jake , the government has NO business telling me that I must allow boys and men who are clearly boys and men even if they "think they are women"...

Clearly?!?!

Let's try a little test, shall we?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Man or woman?

Unless you got all of those right, there is nothing clear about it, except in your bigoted little mind.

I'm not bigoted you dumb ****


You're clearly a pervert though , had all those pictures of cross dressers saved on your computer did you?

You're also illiterate because guess what dumb ****? I don't want the government forcing places to allow mentally ill people to use the bathroom of their choice, but I also don't want the government forcing places to make the mentally ill use the bathroom of their birth. If you own a bathroom YOU decide who pees where, if your customers don't like, they can go elsewhere. DUH.

Seems I hit a nerve. Like wearing dresses when nobody's watching do you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[emilynghiem]

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's a mental disorder.

I don't care if they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. I DO care when adults are using children for their sick games.

I DO care when people are getting sued for calling a mentally imbalanced woman ma'am, etc etc.

Dear Fair&Balanced
If you can PROVE medically it's a mental disorder in ALL CASES
then it's a fact. Like race is genetic and can be proven scientifically not to be a choice of the person,
but perhaps by the parents when they have sex and conceive a child.

Otherwise, without proof that ALL CASES are mental disorder,
this is FAITH based, it's your BELIEF.

And last I checked, your beliefs or mine are supposed to be separated from public laws.

NOTE 1: the same applies to BELIEFS about orientation and gender
that people are trying to defend. These are BELIEFS and included under CREED,
so they are EQUAL under law as BELIEFS LIKE YOURS.

NOTE 2: people who believe homosexual orientation and transgender identity
are natural or not a choice of behavior ALSO have the right not to be discriminated AGAINST,
but are equally NOT supposed to impose THEIR BELIEFS BY LAW
or it's ALSO "discrimination by creed" to punish or harass people like you who believe differently.

If you argued on the basis of CREED, recognizing YOUR beliefs are equally
"faith based" as the arguments defending gay and transgender orientation,
then that would protect people equally and be consistent with Constitutional standards.
That level and interpretation of law would be enforceable without conflict.

But as long as you impose YOUR beliefs as right and others as wrong,
and they do the same, as far as the law goes on not discriminating by creed,
both sides are equally guilty of violating the laws. It is outrageously ironic
when the very people seeking protection from discrimination are causing it by overcorrecting.

Unless people on both sides agree on fair neutral policies,
all the following versions are unconstitutional for excluding or favoring one bias in belief over another
1. the laws seeking to punish people for not complying with the given or proposed bathroom policies that exclude their beliefs (ie either beliefs for or against transgender orientation as natural or as a behavior)
2. the laws seeking to ban people in ways that don't allow for people with medically proven gender change
(ie examination from licensed doctors confirming their gender which is different from their birth certificate)
3. laws or orders seeking to punish states financially unless they agree to "laws biased toward the opposite beliefs" instead of seeking neutral laws that don't exclude beliefs on either side.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

this is a Republican crossdresser

this is a transgender

see the difference?

When will that guy in the bottom picture become a woman? Oh never? Then he's not a transgender after all. That's what I thought.


Why do liberals hate science?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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's a mental disorder.

I don't care if they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. I DO care when adults are using children for their sick games.

I DO care when people are getting sued for calling a mentally imbalanced woman ma'am, etc etc.

Dear Fair&Balanced
If you can PROVE medically it's a mental disorder in ALL CASES
then it's a fact. Like race is genetic and can be proven scientifically not to be a choice of the person,
but perhaps by the parents when they have sex and conceive a child.

Otherwise, without proof that ALL CASES are mental disorder,
this is FAITH based, it's your BELIEF.

And last I checked, your beliefs or mine are supposed to be separated from public laws.

NOTE 1: the same applies to BELIEFS about orientation and gender
that people are trying to defend. These are BELIEFS and included under CREED,
so they are EQUAL under law as BELIEFS LIKE YOURS.

NOTE 2: people who believe homosexual orientation and transgender identity
are natural or not a choice of behavior ALSO have the right not to be discriminated AGAINST,
but are equally NOT supposed to impose THEIR BELIEFS BY LAW
or it's ALSO "discrimination by creed" to punish or harass people like you who believe differently.

If you argued on the basis of CREED, recognizing YOUR beliefs are equally
"faith based" as the arguments defending gay and transgender orientation,
then that would protect people equally and be consistent with Constitutional standards.
That level and interpretation of law would be enforceable without conflict.

But as long as you impose YOUR beliefs as right and others as wrong,
and they do the same, as far as the law goes on not discriminating by creed,
both sides are equally guilty of violating the laws. It is outrageously ironic
when the very people seeking protection from discrimination are causing it by overcorrecting.

Unless people on both sides agree on fair neutral policies,
all the following versions are unconstitutional for excluding or favoring one bias in belief over another
1. the laws seeking to punish people for not complying with the given or proposed bathroom policies that exclude their beliefs (ie either beliefs for or against transgender orientation as natural or as a behavior)
2. the laws seeking to ban people in ways that don't allow for people with medically proven gender change
(ie examination from licensed doctors confirming their gender which is different from their birth certificate)
3. laws or orders seeking to punish states financially unless they agree to "laws biased toward the opposite beliefs" instead of seeking neutral laws that don't exclude beliefs on either side.

Dear Emily,

I don't care. I BELIEVE that gay is a choice as well. That has ZERO bearing on the fact that they have a right to be gay if they want. That doesn't mean they should be able to oh say force me to bake them a cake for their wedding though. Same thing here, I don't care if they cross dress. I don't care if they get a thousand surgeries. Don't care. I only care when they insist that their rights trump my own.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

All the comparisonsare moot. over and over when this issue is put to the people the govrenment tries to inflict it on it fails and fails badly. check out the numbers on it. the demographics of it all is amazing because you will have bible thumping Baptist types agreeing with gay people on the topic. that and the transgender/ crossdressing group is such a minority they only matter to a legacy building presidant.

Dear Crixus in matters of faith, shouldn't the govt not be involved at all in taking
one side's faith based beliefs over another's? No matter what the % are.

If only 1% of the population is Bahai, that faith should be equally protected
as the other majority who identify as something else.

What is wrong with making the argument that it is the BELIEF about
orientation and gender that should not be discriminated against, so this covers
both sides that believe it is natural/not a choice or believe it is a choice of behavior
whether someone chooses to act out and express homosexual or transgender "lifestyle."

What is wrong with making the argument that people should be
protected from CONFLICT between the beliefs that causes them to discriminate against each other. If a business and a patron have such conflicting beliefs, they don't agree how to resolve them consenually, why can't they BOTH be BANNED from conducting business together in order to SAVE legal expenses
and court expenses to the public. Why make one side/belief wrong and say the other is right?
Either both sides agree to mediation and consensus in order to exercise the right to do business together.
Or if they cannot agree, they both lose that right and neither side is more or less to blame for their mutual conflict.

Wouldn't either of those approaches be more NEUTRAL and All inclusive, not discriminating on the content of one's beliefs, but protecting any conflicting belief from imposing on another.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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

All the comparisonsare moot. over and over when this issue is put to the people the govrenment tries to inflict it on it fails and fails badly. check out the numbers on it. the demographics of it all is amazing because you will have bible thumping Baptist types agreeing with gay people on the topic. that and the transgender/ crossdressing group is such a minority they only matter to a legacy building presidant.

Dear Crixus in matters of faith, shouldn't the govt not be involved at all in taking
one side's faith based beliefs over another's? No matter what the % are.

If only 1% of the population is Bahai, that faith should be equally protected
as the other majority who identify as something else.

What is wrong with making the argument that it is the BELIEF about
orientation and gender that should not be discriminated against, so this covers
both sides that believe it is natural/not a choice or believe it is a choice of behavior
whether someone chooses to act out and express homosexual or transgender "lifestyle."

What is wrong with making the argument that people should be
protected from CONFLICT between the beliefs that causes them to discriminate against each other. If a business and a patron have such conflicting beliefs, they don't agree how to resolve them consenually, why can't they BOTH be BANNED from conducting business together in order to SAVE legal expenses
and court expenses to the public. Why make one side/belief wrong and say the other is right?
Either both sides agree to mediation and consensus in order to exercise the right to do business together.
Or if they cannot agree, they both lose that right and neither side is more or less to blame for their mutual conflict.

Wouldn't either of those approaches be more NEUTRAL and All inclusive, not discriminating on the content of one's beliefs, but protecting any conflicting belief from imposing on another.

If people were interested in fair and solving this it would be done in 5 minutes.


"private businesses do whatever you think is best for your customers"

"Government buildings, you must have at least one out of 4 bathrooms per building designated as gender neutral"

Done and done.

 

[emilynghiem]

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's a mental disorder.

I don't care if they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. I DO care when adults are using children for their sick games.

I DO care when people are getting sued for calling a mentally imbalanced woman ma'am, etc etc.

Dear Fair&Balanced
If you can PROVE medically it's a mental disorder in ALL CASES
then it's a fact. Like race is genetic and can be proven scientifically not to be a choice of the person,
but perhaps by the parents when they have sex and conceive a child.

Otherwise, without proof that ALL CASES are mental disorder,
this is FAITH based, it's your BELIEF.

And last I checked, your beliefs or mine are supposed to be separated from public laws.

NOTE 1: the same applies to BELIEFS about orientation and gender
that people are trying to defend. These are BELIEFS and included under CREED,
so they are EQUAL under law as BELIEFS LIKE YOURS.

NOTE 2: people who believe homosexual orientation and transgender identity
are natural or not a choice of behavior ALSO have the right not to be discriminated AGAINST,
but are equally NOT supposed to impose THEIR BELIEFS BY LAW
or it's ALSO "discrimination by creed" to punish or harass people like you who believe differently.

If you argued on the basis of CREED, recognizing YOUR beliefs are equally
"faith based" as the arguments defending gay and transgender orientation,
then that would protect people equally and be consistent with Constitutional standards.
That level and interpretation of law would be enforceable without conflict.

But as long as you impose YOUR beliefs as right and others as wrong,
and they do the same, as far as the law goes on not discriminating by creed,
both sides are equally guilty of violating the laws. It is outrageously ironic
when the very people seeking protection from discrimination are causing it by overcorrecting.

Unless people on both sides agree on fair neutral policies,
all the following versions are unconstitutional for excluding or favoring one bias in belief over another
1. the laws seeking to punish people for not complying with the given or proposed bathroom policies that exclude their beliefs (ie either beliefs for or against transgender orientation as natural or as a behavior)
2. the laws seeking to ban people in ways that don't allow for people with medically proven gender change
(ie examination from licensed doctors confirming their gender which is different from their birth certificate)
3. laws or orders seeking to punish states financially unless they agree to "laws biased toward the opposite beliefs" instead of seeking neutral laws that don't exclude beliefs on either side.

Dear Emily,

I don't care. I BELIEVE that gay is a choice as well. That has ZERO bearing on the fact that they have a right to be gay if they want. That doesn't mean they should be able to oh say force me to bake them a cake for their wedding though. Same thing here, I don't care if they cross dress. I don't care if they get a thousand surgeries. Don't care. I only care when they insist that their rights trump my own.

Dear Fair&Balanced I AGREE with you that when it comes to YOUR beliefs you don't have to prove them for YOUR sake. You have the right not to be imposed upon for that.

But you WOULD have to prove them if you are going to argue that "all such cases are a mental disorder."

What I find is that the SAME arguments used to prove that the OPPOSING beliefs
about homosexual orientation and transgender identity are FAITH BASED and not proven by science,
would also show your beliefs that it is disorder are equally faith based, not proven by science,
and not enforceable by law either.

I think we agree more than disagree.
On everything you said above, I agree with you, and the only
difference is that I say the same for when opponents make that
same argument for their beliefs on the other side. They believe
that regardless if people have private beliefs against accepting
gays or transgender, they don't believe that right extends to
laws on accommodation they consider to be public policy and govt business.

Since I respect the consent on both sides, that is why I would require
the govt only enforce policies that both sides agree to as neutral and all inclusive.
If any law offends or excludes one side or the other, I argue that is biased
and faith-based and cannot be enforced without discriminating by creed.

Do you see how my approach answers objections on both sides, not just yours.
I'm saying if one side wants to correct or prevent discrimination, this cannot
be done in a way that creates the equal and opposite discrimination against the other side.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

All the comparisonsare moot. over and over when this issue is put to the people the govrenment tries to inflict it on it fails and fails badly. check out the numbers on it. the demographics of it all is amazing because you will have bible thumping Baptist types agreeing with gay people on the topic. that and the transgender/ crossdressing group is such a minority they only matter to a legacy building presidant.

Dear Crixus in matters of faith, shouldn't the govt not be involved at all in taking
one side's faith based beliefs over another's? No matter what the % are.

If only 1% of the population is Bahai, that faith should be equally protected
as the other majority who identify as something else.

What is wrong with making the argument that it is the BELIEF about
orientation and gender that should not be discriminated against, so this covers
both sides that believe it is natural/not a choice or believe it is a choice of behavior
whether someone chooses to act out and express homosexual or transgender "lifestyle."

What is wrong with making the argument that people should be
protected from CONFLICT between the beliefs that causes them to discriminate against each other. If a business and a patron have such conflicting beliefs, they don't agree how to resolve them consenually, why can't they BOTH be BANNED from conducting business together in order to SAVE legal expenses
and court expenses to the public. Why make one side/belief wrong and say the other is right?
Either both sides agree to mediation and consensus in order to exercise the right to do business together.
Or if they cannot agree, they both lose that right and neither side is more or less to blame for their mutual conflict.

Wouldn't either of those approaches be more NEUTRAL and All inclusive, not discriminating on the content of one's beliefs, but protecting any conflicting belief from imposing on another.

If people were interested in fair and solving this it would be done in 5 minutes.


"private businesses do whatever you think is best for your customers"

"Government buildings, you must have at least one out of 4 bathrooms per building designated as gender neutral"

Done and done.

AGREED Fair&Balanced
I might add, for businesses at risk of lawsuits, I recommend a mediation or arbitration user agreement.
Similar to online user agreements. In order to use the services or facilities provided, the customers
agree to resolve any disputes regarding personal beliefs (about religion, gender, orientation, etc.)
by arbitration, mediation or consensus to avoid legal action or expenses. And if any such dispute
cannot be resolved amicably by consensus between the customer and staff, they agree not to conduct
business together.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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's a mental disorder.

I don't care if they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. I DO care when adults are using children for their sick games.

I DO care when people are getting sued for calling a mentally imbalanced woman ma'am, etc etc.

Dear Fair&Balanced
If you can PROVE medically it's a mental disorder in ALL CASES
then it's a fact. Like race is genetic and can be proven scientifically not to be a choice of the person,
but perhaps by the parents when they have sex and conceive a child.

Otherwise, without proof that ALL CASES are mental disorder,
this is FAITH based, it's your BELIEF.

And last I checked, your beliefs or mine are supposed to be separated from public laws.

NOTE 1: the same applies to BELIEFS about orientation and gender
that people are trying to defend. These are BELIEFS and included under CREED,
so they are EQUAL under law as BELIEFS LIKE YOURS.

NOTE 2: people who believe homosexual orientation and transgender identity
are natural or not a choice of behavior ALSO have the right not to be discriminated AGAINST,
but are equally NOT supposed to impose THEIR BELIEFS BY LAW
or it's ALSO "discrimination by creed" to punish or harass people like you who believe differently.

If you argued on the basis of CREED, recognizing YOUR beliefs are equally
"faith based" as the arguments defending gay and transgender orientation,
then that would protect people equally and be consistent with Constitutional standards.
That level and interpretation of law would be enforceable without conflict.

But as long as you impose YOUR beliefs as right and others as wrong,
and they do the same, as far as the law goes on not discriminating by creed,
both sides are equally guilty of violating the laws. It is outrageously ironic
when the very people seeking protection from discrimination are causing it by overcorrecting.

Unless people on both sides agree on fair neutral policies,
all the following versions are unconstitutional for excluding or favoring one bias in belief over another
1. the laws seeking to punish people for not complying with the given or proposed bathroom policies that exclude their beliefs (ie either beliefs for or against transgender orientation as natural or as a behavior)
2. the laws seeking to ban people in ways that don't allow for people with medically proven gender change
(ie examination from licensed doctors confirming their gender which is different from their birth certificate)
3. laws or orders seeking to punish states financially unless they agree to "laws biased toward the opposite beliefs" instead of seeking neutral laws that don't exclude beliefs on either side.

Dear Emily,

I don't care. I BELIEVE that gay is a choice as well. That has ZERO bearing on the fact that they have a right to be gay if they want. That doesn't mean they should be able to oh say force me to bake them a cake for their wedding though. Same thing here, I don't care if they cross dress. I don't care if they get a thousand surgeries. Don't care. I only care when they insist that their rights trump my own.

Dear Fair&Balanced I AGREE with you that when it comes to YOUR beliefs you don't have to prove them for YOUR sake. You have the right not to be imposed upon for that.

But you WOULD have to prove them if you are going to argue that "all such cases are a mental disorder."

What I find is that the SAME arguments used to prove that the OPPOSING beliefs
about homosexual orientation and transgender identity are FAITH BASED and not proven by science,
would also show your beliefs that it is disorder are equally faith based, not proven by science,
and not enforceable by law either.

I think we agree more than disagree.
On everything you said above, I agree with you, and the only
difference is that I say the same for when opponents make that
same argument for their beliefs on the other side. They believe
that regardless if people have private beliefs against accepting
gays or transgender, they don't believe that right extends to
laws on accommodation they consider to be public policy and govt business.

Since I respect the consent on both sides, that is why I would require
the govt only enforce policies that both sides agree to as neutral and all inclusive.
If any law offends or excludes one side or the other, I argue that is biased
and faith-based and cannot be enforced without discriminating by creed.

Do you see how my approach answers objections on both sides, not just yours.
I'm saying if one side wants to correct or prevent discrimination, this cannot
be done in a way that creates the equal and opposite discrimination against the other side.

The proof that there is no such thing as a transgender is in the fact that not one person has ever had a change in their chromosomes. EVER

There may however come a time when we can do so prebirth if a person wished but as of right now, that isn't even possible, let alone for some full grown person to say "oh I'm a transgender", no you aren't.

 

[Crixus]

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

All the comparisonsare moot. over and over when this issue is put to the people the govrenment tries to inflict it on it fails and fails badly. check out the numbers on it. the demographics of it all is amazing because you will have bible thumping Baptist types agreeing with gay people on the topic. that and the transgender/ crossdressing group is such a minority they only matter to a legacy building presidant.

Dear Crixus in matters of faith, shouldn't the govt not be involved at all in taking
one side's faith based beliefs over another's? No matter what the % are.

If only 1% of the population is Bahai, that faith should be equally protected
as the other majority who identify as something else.

What is wrong with making the argument that it is the BELIEF about
orientation and gender that should not be discriminated against, so this covers
both sides that believe it is natural/not a choice or believe it is a choice of behavior
whether someone chooses to act out and express homosexual or transgender "lifestyle."

What is wrong with making the argument that people should be
protected from CONFLICT between the beliefs that causes them to discriminate against each other. If a business and a patron have such conflicting beliefs, they don't agree how to resolve them consenually, why can't they BOTH be BANNED from conducting business together in order to SAVE legal expenses
and court expenses to the public. Why make one side/belief wrong and say the other is right?
Either both sides agree to mediation and consensus in order to exercise the right to do business together.
Or if they cannot agree, they both lose that right and neither side is more or less to blame for their mutual conflict.

Wouldn't either of those approaches be more NEUTRAL and All inclusive, not discriminating on the content of one's beliefs, but protecting any conflicting belief from imposing on another.

It's not a matter of faith at all. If that's what I implied, apologies. What I'm saying is looking at the numbers that vote these things down, they are so huge that they represent the religious, non religious, liberal a d non, black white, gay streight. l see it this way, keep the social engineering out of the schools for starters.Then, if cross dressers want to go in public and must have their own place to potty, they can go to places with three restrooms. But they deserve no consideration from me or anyone else who thinks they are just weird.

 

[Contumacious]

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

All the comparisonsare moot. over and over when this issue is put to the people the govrenment tries to inflict it on it fails and fails badly. check out the numbers on it. the demographics of it all is amazing because you will have bible thumping Baptist types agreeing with gay people on the topic. that and the transgender/ crossdressing group is such a minority they only matter to a legacy building presidant.

Dear Crixus in matters of faith, shouldn't the govt not be involved at all in taking
one side's faith based beliefs over another's? No matter what the % are.

If only 1% of the population is Bahai, that faith should be equally protected
as the other majority who identify as something else.

What is wrong with making the argument that it is the BELIEF about
orientation and gender that should not be discriminated against, so this covers
both sides that believe it is natural/not a choice or believe it is a choice of behavior
whether someone chooses to act out and express homosexual or transgender "lifestyle."

What is wrong with making the argument that people should be
protected from CONFLICT between the beliefs that causes them to discriminate against each other. If a business and a patron have such conflicting beliefs, they don't agree how to resolve them consenually, why can't they BOTH be BANNED from conducting business together in order to SAVE legal expenses
and court expenses to the public. Why make one side/belief wrong and say the other is right?
Either both sides agree to mediation and consensus in order to exercise the right to do business together.
Or if they cannot agree, they both lose that right and neither side is more or less to blame for their mutual conflict.

Wouldn't either of those approaches be more NEUTRAL and All inclusive, not discriminating on the content of one's beliefs, but protecting any conflicting belief from imposing on another.

It's not a matter of faith at all. If that's what I implied, apologies. What I'm saying is looking at the numbers that vote these things down, they are so huge that they represent the religious, non religious, liberal a d non, black white, gay streight. l see it this way, keep the social engineering out of the schools for starters.Then, if cross dressers want to go in public and must have their own place to potty, they can go to places with three restrooms. But they deserve no consideration from me or anyone else who thinks they are just weird.

Social engineering must kept out of schooling by ABOLISHING government "education"


.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

All the comparisonsare moot. over and over when this issue is put to the people the govrenment tries to inflict it on it fails and fails badly. check out the numbers on it. the demographics of it all is amazing because you will have bible thumping Baptist types agreeing with gay people on the topic. that and the transgender/ crossdressing group is such a minority they only matter to a legacy building presidant.

Dear Crixus in matters of faith, shouldn't the govt not be involved at all in taking
one side's faith based beliefs over another's? No matter what the % are.

If only 1% of the population is Bahai, that faith should be equally protected
as the other majority who identify as something else.

What is wrong with making the argument that it is the BELIEF about
orientation and gender that should not be discriminated against, so this covers
both sides that believe it is natural/not a choice or believe it is a choice of behavior
whether someone chooses to act out and express homosexual or transgender "lifestyle."

What is wrong with making the argument that people should be
protected from CONFLICT between the beliefs that causes them to discriminate against each other. If a business and a patron have such conflicting beliefs, they don't agree how to resolve them consenually, why can't they BOTH be BANNED from conducting business together in order to SAVE legal expenses
and court expenses to the public. Why make one side/belief wrong and say the other is right?
Either both sides agree to mediation and consensus in order to exercise the right to do business together.
Or if they cannot agree, they both lose that right and neither side is more or less to blame for their mutual conflict.

Wouldn't either of those approaches be more NEUTRAL and All inclusive, not discriminating on the content of one's beliefs, but protecting any conflicting belief from imposing on another.

It's not a matter of faith at all. If that's what I implied, apologies. What I'm saying is looking at the numbers that vote these things down, they are so huge that they represent the religious, non religious, liberal a d non, black white, gay streight. l see it this way, keep the social engineering out of the schools for starters.Then, if cross dressers want to go in public and must have their own place to potty, they can go to places with three restrooms. But they deserve no consideration from me or anyone else who thinks they are just weird.

Social engineering must kept out of schooling by ABOLISHING government "education"

.

Dear Contumacious
Would you agree with mandatory public education that
required citizens to understand Constitutional law and pass tests?
To train in conflict resolution to prevent criminal violence
and lawsuits over beliefs and discrimination by creed (ie both sides:
neither harassing Christians or gays for their beliefs about gender and orientation)?

What about laws that could require citizens, upon turning legal age,
to sign agreements assuming equal responsible for upholding not violating laws, even signing
agreements to pay for any damages, costs or debts, either to crime victims
or to taxpayers, caused by criminal convictions if they break the laws (including
costs of prosecution and incarceration). What if each citizen was required to know
the procedure and costs, and accept financial responsibility, in order to exercise
rights and privileges as a taxpaying citizen with legal protections?

Wouldn't such required legal/civic education be a step in the right direction to stop abuses
by both citizens and govt that otherwise violate the rights of others and cost taxpayers money?

 

[emilynghiem]

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's a mental disorder.

I don't care if they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. I DO care when adults are using children for their sick games.

I DO care when people are getting sued for calling a mentally imbalanced woman ma'am, etc etc.

Dear Fair&Balanced
If you can PROVE medically it's a mental disorder in ALL CASES
then it's a fact. Like race is genetic and can be proven scientifically not to be a choice of the person,
but perhaps by the parents when they have sex and conceive a child.

Otherwise, without proof that ALL CASES are mental disorder,
this is FAITH based, it's your BELIEF.

And last I checked, your beliefs or mine are supposed to be separated from public laws.

NOTE 1: the same applies to BELIEFS about orientation and gender
that people are trying to defend. These are BELIEFS and included under CREED,
so they are EQUAL under law as BELIEFS LIKE YOURS.

NOTE 2: people who believe homosexual orientation and transgender identity
are natural or not a choice of behavior ALSO have the right not to be discriminated AGAINST,
but are equally NOT supposed to impose THEIR BELIEFS BY LAW
or it's ALSO "discrimination by creed" to punish or harass people like you who believe differently.

If you argued on the basis of CREED, recognizing YOUR beliefs are equally
"faith based" as the arguments defending gay and transgender orientation,
then that would protect people equally and be consistent with Constitutional standards.
That level and interpretation of law would be enforceable without conflict.

But as long as you impose YOUR beliefs as right and others as wrong,
and they do the same, as far as the law goes on not discriminating by creed,
both sides are equally guilty of violating the laws. It is outrageously ironic
when the very people seeking protection from discrimination are causing it by overcorrecting.

Unless people on both sides agree on fair neutral policies,
all the following versions are unconstitutional for excluding or favoring one bias in belief over another
1. the laws seeking to punish people for not complying with the given or proposed bathroom policies that exclude their beliefs (ie either beliefs for or against transgender orientation as natural or as a behavior)
2. the laws seeking to ban people in ways that don't allow for people with medically proven gender change
(ie examination from licensed doctors confirming their gender which is different from their birth certificate)
3. laws or orders seeking to punish states financially unless they agree to "laws biased toward the opposite beliefs" instead of seeking neutral laws that don't exclude beliefs on either side.

Dear Emily,

I don't care. I BELIEVE that gay is a choice as well. That has ZERO bearing on the fact that they have a right to be gay if they want. That doesn't mean they should be able to oh say force me to bake them a cake for their wedding though. Same thing here, I don't care if they cross dress. I don't care if they get a thousand surgeries. Don't care. I only care when they insist that their rights trump my own.

Dear Fair&Balanced I AGREE with you that when it comes to YOUR beliefs you don't have to prove them for YOUR sake. You have the right not to be imposed upon for that.

But you WOULD have to prove them if you are going to argue that "all such cases are a mental disorder."

What I find is that the SAME arguments used to prove that the OPPOSING beliefs
about homosexual orientation and transgender identity are FAITH BASED and not proven by science,
would also show your beliefs that it is disorder are equally faith based, not proven by science,
and not enforceable by law either.

I think we agree more than disagree.
On everything you said above, I agree with you, and the only
difference is that I say the same for when opponents make that
same argument for their beliefs on the other side. They believe
that regardless if people have private beliefs against accepting
gays or transgender, they don't believe that right extends to
laws on accommodation they consider to be public policy and govt business.

Since I respect the consent on both sides, that is why I would require
the govt only enforce policies that both sides agree to as neutral and all inclusive.
If any law offends or excludes one side or the other, I argue that is biased
and faith-based and cannot be enforced without discriminating by creed.

Do you see how my approach answers objections on both sides, not just yours.
I'm saying if one side wants to correct or prevent discrimination, this cannot
be done in a way that creates the equal and opposite discrimination against the other side.

The proof that there is no such thing as a transgender is in the fact that not one person has ever had a change in their chromosomes. EVER

There may however come a time when we can do so prebirth if a person wished but as of right now, that isn't even possible, let alone for some full grown person to say "oh I'm a transgender", no you aren't.

Dear Fair&Balanced
It doesn't have to be "manifested in the genes" to be protected.
A Christian is protected for their beliefs, and that is not genetic.

If a Christian says I believe in collective prayer and giving thanks to God before class, but the schools say that can only be practiced here by student choice and not imposed by administration on everyone, then
by religious freedom, of all people equally, that exercise of Christian prayer
is limited to where students agree to it but it cannot be imposed by force of law or penalty.

So likewise, if a person says I believe I am "spiritually female born in a male body,"
the school can say not everyone here agrees for you to EXPRESS that belief by using the girls'
restroom; you can do what you want in private (or maybe there is one bathroom where
the students agreed you can use but not the others, similar to letting Muslim employees use a specific room to stop and pray 5 times a day but not in the middle of the cafeteria) but you cannot take your
private beliefs and impose them through school policy on all students without their consent.

Do you see my point. It can be protected as a private belief, and not require genetic proof
any more than one's religious affiliation has to match one's family or national background,
and it STILL does not mean it can be imposed by law on everyone. In fact, by treating it as a faith-based belief, that would protect both sides equally from infringement by govt.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It's a mental disorder.

I don't care if they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. I DO care when adults are using children for their sick games.

I DO care when people are getting sued for calling a mentally imbalanced woman ma'am, etc etc.

Dear Fair&Balanced
If you can PROVE medically it's a mental disorder in ALL CASES
then it's a fact. Like race is genetic and can be proven scientifically not to be a choice of the person,
but perhaps by the parents when they have sex and conceive a child.

Otherwise, without proof that ALL CASES are mental disorder,
this is FAITH based, it's your BELIEF.

And last I checked, your beliefs or mine are supposed to be separated from public laws.

NOTE 1: the same applies to BELIEFS about orientation and gender
that people are trying to defend. These are BELIEFS and included under CREED,
so they are EQUAL under law as BELIEFS LIKE YOURS.

NOTE 2: people who believe homosexual orientation and transgender identity
are natural or not a choice of behavior ALSO have the right not to be discriminated AGAINST,
but are equally NOT supposed to impose THEIR BELIEFS BY LAW
or it's ALSO "discrimination by creed" to punish or harass people like you who believe differently.

If you argued on the basis of CREED, recognizing YOUR beliefs are equally
"faith based" as the arguments defending gay and transgender orientation,
then that would protect people equally and be consistent with Constitutional standards.
That level and interpretation of law would be enforceable without conflict.

But as long as you impose YOUR beliefs as right and others as wrong,
and they do the same, as far as the law goes on not discriminating by creed,
both sides are equally guilty of violating the laws. It is outrageously ironic
when the very people seeking protection from discrimination are causing it by overcorrecting.

Unless people on both sides agree on fair neutral policies,
all the following versions are unconstitutional for excluding or favoring one bias in belief over another
1. the laws seeking to punish people for not complying with the given or proposed bathroom policies that exclude their beliefs (ie either beliefs for or against transgender orientation as natural or as a behavior)
2. the laws seeking to ban people in ways that don't allow for people with medically proven gender change
(ie examination from licensed doctors confirming their gender which is different from their birth certificate)
3. laws or orders seeking to punish states financially unless they agree to "laws biased toward the opposite beliefs" instead of seeking neutral laws that don't exclude beliefs on either side.

Dear Emily,

I don't care. I BELIEVE that gay is a choice as well. That has ZERO bearing on the fact that they have a right to be gay if they want. That doesn't mean they should be able to oh say force me to bake them a cake for their wedding though. Same thing here, I don't care if they cross dress. I don't care if they get a thousand surgeries. Don't care. I only care when they insist that their rights trump my own.

Dear Fair&Balanced I AGREE with you that when it comes to YOUR beliefs you don't have to prove them for YOUR sake. You have the right not to be imposed upon for that.

But you WOULD have to prove them if you are going to argue that "all such cases are a mental disorder."

What I find is that the SAME arguments used to prove that the OPPOSING beliefs
about homosexual orientation and transgender identity are FAITH BASED and not proven by science,
would also show your beliefs that it is disorder are equally faith based, not proven by science,
and not enforceable by law either.

I think we agree more than disagree.
On everything you said above, I agree with you, and the only
difference is that I say the same for when opponents make that
same argument for their beliefs on the other side. They believe
that regardless if people have private beliefs against accepting
gays or transgender, they don't believe that right extends to
laws on accommodation they consider to be public policy and govt business.

Since I respect the consent on both sides, that is why I would require
the govt only enforce policies that both sides agree to as neutral and all inclusive.
If any law offends or excludes one side or the other, I argue that is biased
and faith-based and cannot be enforced without discriminating by creed.

Do you see how my approach answers objections on both sides, not just yours.
I'm saying if one side wants to correct or prevent discrimination, this cannot
be done in a way that creates the equal and opposite discrimination against the other side.

The proof that there is no such thing as a transgender is in the fact that not one person has ever had a change in their chromosomes. EVER

There may however come a time when we can do so prebirth if a person wished but as of right now, that isn't even possible, let alone for some full grown person to say "oh I'm a transgender", no you aren't.

Dear Fair&Balanced
It doesn't have to be "manifested in the genes" to be protected.
A Christian is protected for their beliefs, and that is not genetic.

If a Christian says I believe in collective prayer and giving thanks to God before class, but the schools say that can only be practiced here by student choice and not imposed by administration on everyone, then
by religious freedom, of all people equally, that exercise of Christian prayer
is limited to where students agree to it but it cannot be imposed by force of law or penalty.

So likewise, if a person says I believe I am "spiritually female born in a male body,"
the school can say not everyone here agrees for you to EXPRESS that belief by using the girls'
restroom; you can do what you want in private (or maybe there is one bathroom where
the students agreed you can use but not the others, similar to letting Muslim employees use a specific room to stop and pray 5 times a day but not in the middle of the cafeteria) but you cannot take your
private beliefs and impose them through school policy on all students without their consent.

Do you see my point. It can be protected as a private belief, and not require genetic proof
any more than one's religious affiliation has to match one's family or national background,
and it STILL does not mean it can be imposed by law on everyone. In fact, by treating it as a faith-based belief, that would protect both sides equally from infringement by govt.

I don't care. We don't have "religious genes" that you can look at under a microscope and say "yep this here is a Christian" we DO have chromosomes that can be looked at under a microscope though that tell our gender and those can't be changed, and thus there is no such thing as a trans gender.