‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration

Figured since it was thrown at me so often I would try to pepper it in lol

I’m not trendy :/

 

If you are a man and present as a man and I call you ma'am, there is no law against that. But if you're a knuckle dragging man in a dress and I call you mister, you can have me fined.

https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/california-gender-pronoun-law/2017/10/11/id/818973/

 

You can't explain why? you do not want to have a discussion or defend your point of view?

Why not just go back to Twitter and virtue signal there why participate in the discussion board?

 

It's not being debated by any, except those who want to remain bigoted. Scared of some bathroom thing.

 

Now you sound just like those against the gay thing. They want us to think like them. They're going to convert our kids to be gay.
No one is asking you to think like anyone else. Just, as you said, let them be and don't make a big stink about it.

No one can think like them, for no one but them, knows what it's like to have a gender not match ones biological organs. I don't think any of us could begin to comprehend. But we can listen to them and learn.

 

A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.[1] First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century the term racebegan to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits. Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, that is, a symbolic identity created to establish some cultural meaning. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race is not an inherent physical or biological quality.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

If we'd just say there is only 1 race, the human race, then we could concentrate on hating other animals. Instead of other humans.

 

Modern scholarship doesn't mean squat. It's not up to some unelected, unappointed egg heads to decide anything, especially when it can be decided by a DNA test.

 

yes, but it is still a science.

 

But four birth defects have nothing to do with trans-sexuals. As I stated before.

 

You seem to be incorrect in your statement, from your link: Tucked into the law is a provision that makes it unlawful for "willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."

The new law ensures that the facilities (hospitals, retirement homes, and assisted living facilities) accommodate transgender people and their needs.

So this law would not effect a private citizen - it would only effect places where the individual was paying for assistance or medical services. It also only kicks in after ‘willfully and repeatedly’ ignoring the requests from the patient. So harassment basically.

 

A quick lookup on google shows that xy xxy and xxxy are males and x is female.

 

I never said they did.

 

That’s correct

There are three sexes and six karyotypes.

 

It doesn't matter how narrow the scope because the same penalty doesn't exist for repeatedly addressing a non-transgendered person by the wrong pronoun. That makes trans a special class with laws that pertain only to them. And in California, it's only a matter of time before the Ninth Circuit Court broadens the scope and tries
to impose itself on us all.

 

First you claim you never heard of such a law and now you think you're an authority on the law.

 

There are two sexes and a variety of birth defects. Non of this has to do with trans-sexualism which is the subject of this thread.

 

Except the law does not specifically name transgender as the only beneficiary. It specifically states “resident”.

So you are incorrect. Calling a non-transgender male a female after he has made an attempt to correct it would result in the same penalty — but be serious, this would never happen. So no, they are not a special class and laws like this wouldn’t be necessary if people would stop being such hateful bastards.

You have made two statements to attack this law and neither have been factual.

 

I read it in its entirety along with the surrounding arguments both for and against it. Did you?

It only take a willingness to educate yourself. Unfortunately many prefer to exist in an echo chamber to satisfies their own agenda and motive instead of attempting rational thought.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/...ow-think-there-is-a-wider-spectrum-than-that/

An interesting, short read. Defining only two sexes into law ignores science.

 

Completely incorrect.

 

Are you her physician?

 

It's actually more complicated than this.

 

The blog you pointed to is worthless except that it points to a more interesting article.

Defining two sexes into law is a sensible idea though. A small percentage of sports does not justify defining more especially as the vast majority of that small percentage fit neatly into one of those two categories in any case.

"Hard cases make bad law."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law

And transgenderism, which we are discussing, has nothing to do with these hard cases.

The law which supports the idea that anyone can choose or change their gender at anytime for any reason is a ridiculous law and is causing great consternation in a variety of areas.

 

You posit incompletely.

 

^ Massive win.