- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 32,508
- Reaction score
- 22,763
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
1: Right to association is an actual Right. You might wish to ignore that but hey, you don't have to acknowledge it for it to actually exist.
2: The fact that a business operates in communities does not strip the owners of their Rights.
Really? Then why did the OP have to ask the question that is posed in the poll? Apparently it affects far more than you realize.
You WERE a baby boy, but you are not one now. Therefore we should not treat you as you are one now. What you are doing is tying a person's sex to the condition of their body, but the condition of a person's body can change. Just like we don't treat you like a baby boy, just because that was the condition of your body at birth, we should not treat someone based on the condition of their body at the time of their birth.
I voted "don't know," but let me explain. I don't think that they should legally be treated as women, because I don't really think the law should have anything to do with it. I think that people should be decent enough to treat people well, and honor the gender that they identify with, but I just don't know if I want the law involved in anything.
So why do you think biology is a better way for legal purposes?
I have thought about what you have put forward. I think that there is certainly a strong case to be made for this in the case of marriage. That said, because we don't require women to disclose such things as whether or not they have had sex with animals before engaging in intercourse, I don't think transwomen should be required to disclose such, unless there is some sort of health risk to the other party.
Good point though. I had not thought about that.
Of course right of association is a right. That is why public accommodation laws do not restrict any private associations, churches, or clubs. A business that is open to the public is an entirely different legal matter and that is why you don't have any courts agreeing with your position on this.
Yes it affects the lives of the transgendered and their families. How does it impact your life?
The distinction between male and female is a human concept. It's a concept that is largely accepted because it's largely functional, but that doesn't make it accurate.
XY chromosomes do not change into XX. “Boy parts” do not change into “girl parts”. No current or plausibly-anticipated technology makes it possible for someone who was born one sex to fulfill the reproductive functions of the other sex. Sex isn't just a malleable “condition” of a human body; it is an immutable, essential trait of a human being.
It's a social construct that's applied to animals as well as humans. Application size doesn't increase validity.It's a biological reality, not some abstract social concept, and it is not limited to humans.
I think I need more context. When you say "legally", do you mean in where they might be housed if arrested/incarcerated? Restroom access in general? Something else? Anything and everything, or just a few things?Well, what do you think?
You have raised a point here that I've considered for quite some time only mine may be a bit more expanded. I've thought that the government should not make a distinction with not only gender identity but with pretty much ANY type of classification regarding humans. IE: Get rid of the racial characterizations as we are ALL human. Get rid of genderism on their forms. etc etc. I fully believe that by using such classifications all it does is keep racism, sexism etc etc alive and well because people all to often use those classifications for their own bigoted agenda's.
IMO the government needs to start making laws based on humanity. Not groups.
Henrin, you never cease to amaze me with your bigotry.
Rights are only for him. He's a "libertarian" who doesn't believe in anyone's rights other than his own.
Well, what do you think?
Moderator's Warning: |
|
This isn't a rights issue. This is an issue that involves calling someone by a name that is factually incorrect or at the very least inconsistent.
It is a rights issue. It's a person's right to live their own life as they wish. A person should have the right to their own decisions and their own life. Don't you believe that as a libertarian? Government out of people's lives and people's decisions for themselves?
I never said anything about a persons right to live their own life as they wish nor does this issue involve such concerns. This issue involves a legal classification, which is a legal matter.
Henrin, you never cease to amaze me with your bigotry.
There is a disorder where people want thier limbs cut off. Should we indulge that?
ah yes the tried and true practice of bringing up something irrelevant to the topic
seems as thought your post was incomplete when i respondedIt is relevant when you put it in the context of my post, cherry picking it and claiming it "irrellevant" does not make it so. FAIL .
seems as thought your post was incomplete when i responded
nevertheless your post is a fail because the desire to cut off a body part is not the same as the desire to relieve gender dysphoria
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?