Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's just not true. It's the one thing people would hone in on when the subject of homosexuality ever arose.
In fact, it's weird how much people focus on sex instead of on love in relationships.
I mean, how often do you hear someone say "eww... it's weird that that dude loves that other dude" and not "ewww... two men having (insert some type of sexual relations)" followed by "that's disgusting and how will I explain it to my kids???"
I know of no romantic couplings where the partners refuse to have sex with each other.
It's the reason that they are attracted to each other. You cannot have a romantic relationship without being sexually attracted to the other person.
Why are men gay? They like to have sex with men.
Why are women lesbian? They like to have sex with women.
By definition.
Pretty basic stuff. Are you denying that reason? Sounds like it.
If they didn't want to have sex with a same sex partner ... they'd be hetero. /shrug/
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a government wide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.
Last time GOP/conservatives tried to block LGBT rights it was on marriage, and I presume all know how the results of that movement.
Still give His Orangeness and his GOP/Evangelical/Conservative instruments in government credit; nothing like throwing out red meat to a hungry base.
Sorry, "Rights" don't include "mess up societies gender definitions so that a few mentally ill people can feel spitefully normal before they off themselves".
Society's interests take precedence over the minority's interests. "Not ending well" is not a court judgement. Go ahead and get one, if you can.
"Not ending well" is broad social harm accomplished from a lack of gender definitions. Furthermore, it would be the broad backlash after years of social harm that this minority risks eventually if they do bully their way to a judgement. That's "not ending well".
To ask society to change the very definitions of gender that it has always adhered to is nothing less than a suicide mission. Don't think that "vanilla" homosexuals won't be caught in the eventual backlash, as they certainly acted as the gateway for changing gender definitions. Just "Rights", indeed.
Sorry, "Rights" don't include "mess up societies gender definitions so that a few mentally ill people can feel spitefully normal before they off themselves".
If I recall, people mocked Rachel Dolezal endlessly for trying to identify outside of the racial make up that she was born with. How is trying to identify outside of the genitalia and other gender specific genetic traits that you were born with any different?
The former is a White person who is trying to gain racial protections, and the latter hurts the broader normative society of mostly White people. That's precisely why the media treats them differently.
No one is actually under the illusion that this is about the claimed issues. If it were, then ethnonationalist Israel and theocratic, imperialist Islam would not have so much Left Wing Support. This is about an ethnic war, and anything that is perceived to harm their primary enemy is advocated for. It doesn't matter how many political inconsistencies / double-standards are engaged in.
If that were true, wouldn't we still have Jim Crow laws?
The standard here is to offer a synopsis of your article. Few people are going to going to click on your link, read your article, and do your work for you of trying to infer your point from the article.
Sorry, treating mental illness as normal, to the harm of broader society, is not equivalent to segregation. Transgender people are not segregated from society, and so your attempted moral equivalency is false.
To put it back to you on an actually equivalent analogy: If your premise were true, then wouldn't we treat the schizophrenic mind as normal?
You aren't going to be able to gain every one of your crazy platforms by forever referencing everything to Jim Crowe.
At best, you will trivialize Jim Crowe. Society does have hard lines, and this is one of them. It is more fundamental than race, and race was seen as fundamental. Look at the issues you had and still have with that. That issue isn't even solved, and you are trying to elevate the issues at play by a large factor.
You will eventually get the backlash that I prior described for something as central to society as gender definition. The backlash will be more universal than it was for the end of Jim Crowe. You aren't ready for that, and yet you are pushing for it. Again, this isn't going to end well for some people but it isn't broader society.
You may want to check with the Black community before you push "all in" for gender definitions using the end of Jim Crowe to support your wager. They might not agree with your flippant gambling of their hard won freedoms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
