Albert wrote:Hopefully this institutionalized insanity will be coming to an end soon.
That's great news. I would go further. I would ditch gender identity as a reporting requirement, and instead require reporting chromosome identity as one of XX, XY, and Other, where Other is for genetic anomalies, such as triple-x syndrome, Kleinfelter Syndrome, etc. which are exceedingly rare. Then, we can ground the whole thing in physical science and ditch whackado self-reporting notions. Then, by operation of law, pre-genetic identification birth certificates of male would imply XY and female XX by presumption, with an appeal process to rebut the presumption. Hereafter, all birth certificates would have the proper genetic identifier of XY or XX, which is leaner than male-female, which should make government forms shorter.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Now Trump and his supporters can pretend that facts do not exist because they wrote a law.
Chromosomes are facts. If you have a Y-chromosome, you are a man in spite of how you feel about it. If you don't, you are a woman (XX) in spite of how you feel about it; unless you have a genetic abnormality like Kleinfelter Syndrome, etc.
One Degree wrote:Liberal positions have destroyed themselves by allowing disturbed people to expand them into absurdity.
Boy isn't that ever true? I never thought in my wildest dreams that the Democrats would become so alien and bizarre. It makes me miss people like Dan Moynihan, Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn and the like. It's hard to think of John C. Stennis or Scoop Jackson as Democrats, but they were. It's just that the Democrats went off the rails into crazyland.
annatar1914 wrote:You can't ''define out of existence'' what doesn't really exist to begin with, outside the minds of mentally ill persons.
It's a pity that people suffer from such conditions; however, that does not mean that the rest of the population has to understand, agree with or accommodate the demands of such damaged people. I think the Democrats exploiting the mentally ill is almost as bad as healthcare providers playing Joseph Mengele with people's hormones, genitalia, etc.
annatar1914 wrote:This is just a step back towards sanity and an opportunity for alleged ''Leftists'' to stop with the stupid diversions of false ''identity politics'' and get with their real business of standing up for the common working people of the world instead of the freaks, lunatics, and the lazy wastrels who want free shit for life without work...
That is a pretty concise assessment of what has become of the Democratic party.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you think trans people are freaks, lunatics, and wastrels?
I think they are mentally ill.
Drlee wrote:Obama did not give transgendered people a single right that any other citizen does not have. What he did do is prohibit the federal government from taking away any rights from citizens based upon their being transgendered. This is key. So the difference is that Trump wants to allow discrimination and Obama sought to prevent it. This is not even in debate.
Of course it is in debate. Obama was a shit disturber and did things with the express intention of disturbing the peace, not to "protect" people with sexual identity-related mental health problems. The idea of allowing men into women's restrooms because they "feel like a woman" is only going to thwart carefully constructed customs that promote domestic tranquility.
Drlee wrote:So ask yourself. Why would Trump want to take away, for example, a transgendered persons right to certain employment opportunities with the federal government? The justification has to be one of two things. Either he believes that there are psychiatric reasons for doing it or he is throwing a bone to Christians who think being transgendered is sinful.
People who do not identify with their own physical sexuality feel out of place wherever they are, and tend to reject society as a sort of psychic defense. Hence, people with these sorts of conditions are more likely to commit espionage, treason, etc. for the nation's enemies. Government espionage agencies have long sought to provide "misfits" with a feeling of acceptance, specialness, superiority, etc. in exchange for an adversary's secrets. Bradley Manning is an excellent example. Watch Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy for a backgrounder on it.
Drlee wrote:Clearly the Courts have ruled, in the case of same sex marriages, that ones sexual orientation is subject to the equal protection clause.
That may change in the future. Even John Roberts's commentary in Obergefell said that there was no such right in the constitution. That is why the Democrats tried to leverage a manufactured, uncorroborated and utterly unprovable sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh in hopes of trying to leverage male voter's inclination to protect women, and women's sense of vulnerability. It was an interesting, but failed psyop.
Drlee wrote:It is fairly clear that the courts are going this way WRT trans people.
No it is not clear. I have been one to rail vociferously against retired Justice Kennedy and his ludicrous reasoning in Obergefell. Yet, even I didn't think he'd be the first to step down. I figured Ginsberg would quit or drop dead. Yet, both SCOTUS and the UK high court have upheld religious rights objecting to being compelled to provide services to homosexuals. That was BEFORE Kavanaugh. Kennedy tried to keep the door open, but he's gone now. I wouldn't expect too much love from Kavanaugh after the way he was treated.
Drlee wrote:Indeed at least four federal courts have ruled on it already, blocking Trumps ban on transgendered people in the military.
As we get more court picks, I expect that stuff will get overturned. There are national security risks for people with gender dysphoria. It's the same reason they don't want alcoholics and drug addicts having access to classified information. It's not just a function of blackmail and social shame. Misfits by definition don't fit in and feel alienated by their society, which makes it easy for adversaries to exploit them.
Drlee wrote:Trump tried it several times and the courts have thwarted him. Why?
Because they haven't got the internal memo yet that the transgender and homosexuality stuff was a bridge too far, and the establishment will not be able to rule if they try to continue it. So they will gradually render it meaningless by siding with religious freedom and national security.
Drlee wrote:So if Trump really believes that transgendered people should be widely discriminated against, then he has a very good remedy. He could propose a constitutional amendment excluding transgendered people from protection under the equal protection clause of the constitution.
He has an even better remedy: nominating strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, since there is clearly no such protection in the constitution for people of the same sex to marry each other. Such a proposition is ludicrous on its face.
Drlee wrote:At one time interracial marriage opponents imagined a parade of horribles should we allow blacks and whites to marry.
Mulattos do struggle with racial identity and identity negotiation.
One Degree wrote:The problem with Drlee’s argument is it conflates the current view of transgender with a view conservatives would accept so it can be conflated with same sex marriage and interracial marriage.
Drlee didn't present a very strong constitutional argument. He mostly presented a "go with the flow" argument. His view seems to be that all the transgender stuff is a fait accompli. I don't think that it is. I think the Democrats have--intentionally or unintentionally--fucked the left over by abandoning the working class and pushing "crazy" as a party platform. It's backfiring in a big way. The conservatives have a majority for at least another 10 years on the court, but it's likely that it will get more conservative. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is already damn close to a cadaver. She's probably clinically dead a few times a night during the regular course of sleep. It's only a matter of time now.
One Degree wrote:The objection is to this being used to say anyone can just decide to change their gender even without bothering to change it physically.
Well, you can't actually change your sex. You can surgically mutilate your genitals or have prosthetic pseudo-genitals constructed from other body parts and the like. However, you are still plumbed as a particular gender. Men have to have their testes removed to reduce the effect of testosterone and artificially introduce estrogen. Our modern day Joseph Mengeles are doing that sort of thing now. The odd thing is that only these extreme surgeries get covered. There are lots of women who would like larger boobs, and yet there is no push to cover surgeries that don't present such permanent, irreversible changes. A man with tits and a pseudo vagina still has a y-chromosome. That doesn't change.
One Degree wrote:It is about not allowing people to assume rights they have no need to have. Unfortunately, no one is addressing one without the other.
Well, it's not just that. It also involves the mentally ill demanding that we use a set of contrived "pronouns" and that we all join in on their delusion. There's only so much suspension of disbelief that people can take though.
At my workplace, our company phone book allows you to set up alternative pronouns, with an upfront admonishment to not do that in a trivial manner because that would be "unprofessional." Obviously, they know that it is something that most of us aren't going to take seriously. Basically, these people are fucking nuts. Why can't I just say, "Today, I feel like God."? Why should I not be able to demand everyone else participate in my delusion by requiring people to treat me reverentially, genuflect in front of me, etc.? Why can I not claim that America is one nation under me? God? There are real problems with treating the mentally ill as though they were just like everyone else. It's as I have said before: egalitarianism beyond uniform applicability of the laws is basically just institutional insanity.
Rugoz wrote:But even if transgenders were still fit to serve as men (they won't serve as men since they're now officially women), I would rank the individual interest of transgenders higher in this case.
They aren't fit to the same standards. The Marines have to lower the standards for women, because they don't have the physical strength or the aerobic endurance that men do. This is why I decided in my early 40s that I no longer accepted the idea of equality, which is to say that by modern American standards, I am un-American. (Please don't PM me and ask if I'm going to become a communist; that is also basically against the law of nature too, and will never work, ever).
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Sorry to break it to you, but you will never be able to bear children, and even if the law explicitly stated that you can, it won't become a reality.
This is quite true. However, do not put it past the Heinrich Himmlers of today to create a pseudo-uterus in a man, and impregnate it with a zygote from another couple and then demand that we all accept that as "pregnancy" as equivalent to the natural sort.
Drlee wrote:This is medically sort of untrue but I will let it pass. Suffice it to say that Gender Dysphoria is a condition that has merit. The genuine - long-standing cases are deeply unhappy people, many of whom find happiness with gender reassignment. Some have surgery, some have hormone treatment and some neither. To dismiss this condition as "invalid" is not supportable by the facts.
This is also why I say you can never overcome non-institutional racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. The idea that a person is deeply uncomfortable with themselves sexually suggests that a lot of attitudes are deeply ingrained and cannot be "educated" away. Otherwise, we could just educate those with gender dysphoria, and it seems that we cannot.
Drlee wrote:Why do you think that transsexuals are "mentally unstable".
They usually experience profound feelings of alienation from society at large too, because very few people really relate to them on an emotional level.
Drlee wrote:I would be very interested in hearing from you One Degree, what the parade of horribles consist of if we accept transsexuals.
In state craft, treason, espionage, etc. are common problems. It is why homosexuals are both banned as agents and recruited as assets by a great many states. I think it motivated people like Bradley Manning.
Drlee wrote:Please tell me why you think these things are so profound that they warrant denying an individual equal protection under the law.
These things are so profound, because they demand overturning the long-standing meaning of language and institutions to accommodate these people. For example, Obergefell was a case where a lesbian didn't think it was fair to have to pay estate taxes, and so SCOTUS overturned not the applicability of the estate tax which was ripe for consideration, but the entire concept of marriage law since the reign of Octavian Caesar to accommodate mentally ill people who have achieved significant positions power hiding their true identities. Overturning stare decisis for 2000 years--obviously this has a lot to do with bribery, placation, propaganda and the idea that those government officers who go along with it will be seen as "heroes" in the future--is clearly far too great a leap for the purposes of soothing the feelings of a lesbian tax protester.
One Degree wrote:If our society is not ready to allow individuals to make the latter choice on their own, we should not allow them to decide to change their gender on their own.
Well, it also beggars a lot of questions about priorities. Why shouldn't a woman with small tits be allowed to have health insurance that covers breast augmentation? Why shouldn't a man with a small dick be similarly covered? Why will certain liberal city government cover gender reassignment surgery, but not chiropractic care (not that I agree with either, but people seem to need chiropractors more than sex reassignment surgeons)? Why should tax payers be on the hook for any of this?
Drlee wrote:Not doctors.
Bwahahaha. It was doctors who originally classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Joseph Mengele was a doctor. Carl Clauberg was a doctor. Jack Kevorkian was a doctor. Walter Freeman was a medical doctor. Che Guevara was a doctor. Being a doctor does not make a person virtuous. It is at best a license to steal. Harry Holmes was doctor, and was the first American serial killer to be hung in America. There are many doctors who have been serial killers, and that is not including the many mass murders prescribing opioids.
26 Serial Killers Who Were Doctors
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden