Excessive promotion of progressive values ... annoying AF

[dontsnitch]

For the record, I don't agree that giving children hormones should be a legal directive, and I can understand that laws are usually ambiguous enough to be interpreted in different ways.

What you are saying reminds me of that movie Emily Rose - where parents were put on trial for denying their kid medical care because they thought her problem was spiritually based. She died of malnutrition/dehydration. Maybe in *some* cases your rights as a parent end where a child's right to a happy life begins.

I agree, but we must first consider that hormone therapy won't make them any happier, and in cases where there is plenty of room for doubt, I will err on the side of caution and give priority to the parents' wishes, not the State.

Plus, you don't need a new law for this. Child abuse is child abuse. You don't need to add gender identity as a separate category.

 

[m52nickerson]

The actual comparison would be if I filed a suit against my landlord because he denied that God exists, because God is central to my identity.

No, it would it. Thinking this, and the way you responded to @helltoupee really shows you don't really understand what some of these laws are about.

 

[dontsnitch]

No, it would it. Thinking this, and the way you responded to @helltoupee really shows you don't really understand what some of these laws are about.

Simply saying "nuh-uh" doesn't advance the conversation.

Making laws based on subjective interpretation of reality means doing just that. Of course you don't want to recognize my example as valid, because you operate using double-standards, when in fact, belief in God is simply a subjective interpretation of reality, and there is a lot of evidence that theism has evolutionary roots and could very well have a biological component.

I believe that I'm a 100 year old black woman who speaks to God. Out of all of these, age, color, sex, religion, you only recognize sex as something to legislate, arbitrarily so. Offending people is not a crime, nor should it be, and you have no actual objection as to why telling me God doesn't exist is less offensive than telling me XY = male.

 

[helltoupee]

Right, and part of that so-called right is using made-up words and pronouns at someone's whim. If you believe you're a woman, why am I forced to play along by law? I wouldn't ask anyone else to play along with my version of reality, especially if my reality can change on a dime. That's to say, I wouldn't request this by law.

Notice that at no point did I say I wouldn't refer to someone as they want, but passing laws to ensure this is illiberal.

But it's not saying that.

If someone says they want to be called a woman, you can call them a man all you want. Just as if I say I want people to say I'm only 20 years old, you are under no legal obligation to refer to me as such.

Discrimination laws direct that you can't deny me things like a job simply because of my age, or simply because I'm a man, or if I want to call myself a woman - they don't legally *insist* you call a man a woman because said person wants you to - they say you can't use that against somebody as a basis to discriminate. Key word : discriminate.

No disrespect, but I think you are glossing over the nuance of what discrimination laws are.

 

[dontsnitch]

But it's not saying that.

If someone says they want to be called a woman, you can call them a man all you want. Just as if I say I want people to say I'm only 20 years old, you are under no legal obligation to refer to me as such.

Discrimination laws direct that you can't deny me things like a job simply because of my age, or simply because I'm a man, or if I want to call myself a woman - they don't legally *insist* you call a man a woman because said person wants you to - they say you can't use that against somebody as a basis to discriminate. Key word : discriminate.

No disrespect, but I think you are glossing over the nuance of what discrimination laws are.

If we are speaking about C-16, you can indeed be fined for refusing to use the so-called proper pronouns, i.e. "call them a man all I want". It's no different than the NY laws.

 

[helltoupee]

I agree, but we must first consider that hormone therapy won't make them any happier, and in cases where there is plenty of room for doubt, I will err on the side of caution and give priority to the parents' wishes, not the State.

Agree.

Plus, you don't need a new law for this. Child abuse is child abuse. You don't need to add gender identity as a separate category.

So you don't think children could be abused, or suffer, based on gender identity? I guess I kind of agree that child abuse is child abuse, but as we both agree that laws can be interpreted in different ways, without said language being added to pre-existing laws, the other side of the coin is that someone may be able to abuse their child because gender identity wasn't acknowledged previously.

In other words, I see your point. And I see their's as well.

 

[dontsnitch]

Agree.



So you don't think children could be abused, or suffer, based on gender identity? I guess I kind of agree that child abuse is child abuse, but as we both agree that laws can be interpreted in different ways, without said language being added to pre-existing laws, the other side of the coin is that someone may be able to abuse their child because gender identity wasn't acknowledged previously.

In other words, I see your point. And I see their's as well.

Yes, of course children can be abused based on gender identity, but since there is already laws on the books protecting children from abuse, the law seems redundant. What they're really saying is that pronoun usage is so critical that it's misuse must warrant a new category in law. That's silly. You can abuse your children psychologically with a myriad of different methods, there's no need to pass laws for each of them. It's legal to call your children stupid and worthless, but if they recognize as a girl and you call them a boy, you could be in trouble. It's inconsistent.

 

[helltoupee]

If we are speaking about C-16, you can indeed be fined for refusing to use the so-called proper pronouns, i.e. "call them a man all I want". It's no different than the NY laws.

Not sure about NY laws, nor where it states in C-16 that you can be fined for referring to someone as an improper pronoun.

What I do see is that you can't use an improper pronoun to direct hate or discrimination towards someone, just as I can't actively deny you housing simply because you are a Christian. In other words, you can't use the reason that someone is a certain age, race, color, sex, religion, or gender-identity, to *actively* discriminate them.

That's different than you walking down the street, and supposedly being fined for calling Kaitlyn Jenner a "he". Or me saying, "jeez that 30 year old woman looks like she's 50".

 

[dontsnitch]

Not sure about NY laws, nor where it states in C-16 that you can be fined for referring to someone as an improper pronoun.

What I do see is that you can't use an improper pronoun to direct hate or discrimination towards someone, just as I can't actively deny you housing simply because you are a Christian. In other words, you can't use the reason that someone is a certain age, race, color, sex, religion, or gender-identity, to *actively* discriminate them.

That's different than you walking down the street, and supposedly being fined for calling Kaitlyn Jenner a "he". Or me saying, "jeez that 30 year old woman looks like she's 50".

You would't be fined for calling Jenner a he because the law only applies to businesses and landlords.

As for hate or discrimination, I don't think taking steps to legally ensure no one is offensive is a step in the right direction, because it's so open to interpretation. It's like micro-aggressions. Just because you're offended doesn't necessarily mean that someone is guilty.

 

[helltoupee]

Yes, of course children can be abused based on gender identity, but since there is already laws on the books protecting children from abuse, the law seems redundant. What they're really saying is that pronoun usage is so critical that it's misuse must warrant a new category in law. That's silly. You can abuse your children psychologically with a myriad of different methods, there's no need to pass laws for each of them.

Semi-agree. I can understand the problem with over-regulation and redundancy. However, as I pointed out, when things aren't clearly defined, people will take advantage of vaguely written laws.

It's legal to call your children stupid and worthless, but if they recognize as a girl and you call them a boy, you could be in trouble. It's inconsistent.

I don't think that's how it works. If you call your children stupid and worthless every single day, to the point of where they are being psychologically tortured, hurting themselves, etc., yes, you could be in trouble. The same as if you called your kid every day to the point of where they are being emotionally abused, maybe self-harming, etc., then yes, you will have legal problems with child protective services.

 

[helltoupee]

You would't be fined for calling Jenner a he because the law only applies to businesses and landlords.

As for hate or discrimination, I don't think taking steps to legally ensure no one is offensive is a step in the right direction, because it's so open to interpretation. It's like micro-aggressions. Just because you're offended doesn't necessarily mean that someone is guilty.

I think this is where our disconnect is.

I don't interpret discrimination laws as simply being laws against protecting someone from being offended. They prevent actively denying someone rights based on certain characteristics.

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong, but that's how I understand them.

Agree to disagree.

 

[dontsnitch]

Semi-agree. I can understand the problem with over-regulation and redundancy. However, as I pointed out, when things aren't clearly defined, people will take advantage of vaguely written laws.



I don't think that's how it works. If you call your children stupid and worthless every single day, to the point of where they are being psychologically tortured, hurting themselves, etc., yes, you could be in trouble. The same as if you called your kid every day to the point of where they are being emotionally abused, maybe self-harming, etc., then yes, you will have legal problems with child protective services.

But that's exactly my point- you can abuse your child through avenues that the law has not clearly defined, which is why you don't need a new law for trans issues, just like you don't need a law for calling your kid stupid. The abuse is not defined by the specific route you take.

 

[dontsnitch]

I think this is where our disconnect is.

I don't interpret discrimination laws as simply being laws against protecting someone from being offended. They prevent actively denying someone rights based on certain characteristics.

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong, but that's how I understand them.

Agree to disagree.

For the record, I don't agree with infringing on trans people's rights, I simply don't think electing your pronoun is a right that is infringed upon when someone doesn't call you what you want. It's a bad precedent, IMO.

I appreciate your ability to debate politely, that means more to me than if we'd agree. Big ups.

 

[helltoupee]

But that's exactly my point- you can abuse your child through avenues that the law has not clearly defined, which is why you don't need a new law for trans issues, just like you don't need a law for calling your kid stupid. The abuse is not defined by the specific route you take.

Ok. I can agree with this.

My apologies for not completely understanding your position.

 

[DoomPatrol]

I'm quickly losing any respect I had for you. Why is it that people who adhere to your beliefs, when pushed, lash out with ad homs about how evil people are who disagree? You're just a bigot who hates traditional values. If it were up to you Christians would be killed on the street. Is that supposed to make my points more meaningful or something?

We don't build laws on subjective interpretations. I don't get to use the carpool lane because I identify as two people. Nonetheless, the bathroom issue is overblown. If you make an effort to live as a woman, nobody would have an issue with you in the woman's bathroom, mostly because no one would know. What we object to is full grown men who look like men sharing bathrooms with young girls. That's not a right.

Alluding to general discrimination doesn't add to your argument as it doesn't cite anything specific, so I'll ignore it.

This is all fringe stuff, anyway. The crux of the argument, plain and simple, can be reduced to one question- do you agree with laws that legislate pronoun use?

No offense, but you made it pretty clear that trans education and rights in public aren't something you want in society. There's a difference in not wanting someone to force you to make a medical decision for your child and dismissing their issues in education and public use of facilities. I'm just reading what you're posting.

 

[m52nickerson]

Simply saying "nuh-uh" doesn't advance the conversation.

Making laws based on subjective interpretation of reality means doing just that. Of course you don't want to recognize my example as valid, because you operate using double-standards, when in fact, belief in God is simply a subjective interpretation of reality, and there is a lot of evidence that theism has evolutionary roots and could very well have a biological component.

I believe that I'm a 100 year old black woman who speaks to God. Out of all of these, age, color, sex, religion, you only recognize sex as something to legislate, arbitrarily so. Offending people is not a crime, nor should it be, and you have no actual objection as to why telling me God doesn't exist is less offensive than telling me XY = male.

Not sex, but gender. More specifically gender pro-nouns and only in certain situations. See laws such as the NY landlord law is not subjective at all. Use the pronouns someone asks you to use.

Oh, and XY does = male most of the time. You are getting so upset and confused you are making simple mistakes.

 

[dontsnitch]

No offense, but you made it pretty clear that trans education and rights in public aren't something you want in society. There's a difference in not wanting someone to force you to make a medical decision for your child and dismissing their issues in education and public use of facilities. I'm just reading what you're posting.

Feel free to answer my one question.

 

[dontsnitch]

Not sex, but gender. More specifically gender pro-nouns and only in certain situations. See laws such as the NY landlord law is not subjective at all. Use the pronouns someone asks you to use.

Oh, and XY does = male most of the time. You are getting so upset and confused you are making simple mistakes.

You didn't acknowledge my main point. You arbitrarily defend gender by putting into a separate category without reason.

 

[lfd0311]

It's funny you bring that as the example, since The New Atlantis is known as a conservative Christian publication that regularly denies most modern science. It's literally not even a peer-reviewed publication. It's an opinion piece in a shit "journal" run by Christians. John Hopkins and their community disagrees with this paper

Oh, ok..... So dissention actually IS both propoganda and a conspiracy from the Right and those dang Christians. Got it. And both of the Doctors who wrote that article are either retired or current resident's at John's Hopkins in the Psychiatry Department.

"The pair contended that neither sexual orientation nor gender identity is biologically determined. Although the New Atlantis is a small publication, the report dismayed many in the Hopkins medical community and beyond. Those included Dean Hamer, a scientist at the National Institutes of Health for several decades and one of the first researchers to identify a genetic link to homosexuality. Hamer termed some of the authors’ statements “pure balderdash.”

Your source failed to point out that Dean Hamer is a gay man whose main field of study is trying to prove that homosexuality is actually linked to your DNA. He's trying to PROVE that, he didn't come across that perspective on accident. Stop and think about that for just one second, then let me know how there is absolutely no agenda whatsoever coming from the left in this regard. On top of that, he isn't a Mental Health Professional.

The paper gained traction with conservative media, however.

“People began citing the New Atlantis article as a reason to support legislation against transgender people,” said Tonia Poteat, a Hopkins epidemiologist who is an expert on transgender issues.

The result: In October, Poteat and a half-dozen colleagues at the university’s Bloomberg School of Public Health denounced the report, writing that it “mischaracterizes the current state of the science on sexuality and gender.” More than 600 students, faculty members, interns, alumni and others at the medical school also signed a petition calling on the university and hospital to disavow the paper.

“These are dated, now-discredited theories,” said Chris Beyrer, a professor at the public health school and part of the faculty group that denounced McHugh’s stance."

Chris Beyrer just so happens to be President of The International AIDS Society, so once again, you're quoting a totally non-Partisan source. He also happens to be a Professor of Epidemiology. He isn't a Mental Health Professional either.

Oh, did I mention? He's gay too...

2 people releasing a non-peer reviewed paper in a conservative Christian publication is hardy the same thing as John Hopkins University making the claim.

Uh.... Yeah. Actuall Mental Health Professionals holds much more weight than politically motivated, Non-Mental Health Professionals who also just so happen to fall under the umbrella of the exact category that is being discussed. Don't claim to be from the party of science or pro-Science if you're going to ignore it in favor of political drivel that makes you more comfortable.

 

[helltoupee]

For the record, I don't agree with infringing on trans people's rights, I simply don't think electing your pronoun is a right that is infringed upon when someone doesn't call you what you want. It's a bad precedent, IMO.

I appreciate your ability to debate politely, that means more to me than if we'd agree. Big ups.

You always reciprocate respect.

And I'm not saying either one of us is completely wrong, or right - we are just having a discussion about (a lot of) vague subjects.

I value your opinions, and can see merit in most people's views that at first I may oppose. Keeping an open mind is difficult, but I think it's worth it in the end.