T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Just to add on, a person with a penis that identifies as a male or a person with a vagina that identifies as a woman would be considered cisgender.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
exnihilo
Guest
This is a big problem. The law has to be reliable and predictable. Since gender identity exists only in the mind of the individual allowing this to be part of the law will only make our already awful system worse.And yet everyone is biologically male or female. Under the DOJ rules, it would seem that persons with penises are allowed to use the women’s bathrooms. Just trying to get some clarity. If that is the case, then there must be three or four bathrooms, or unisex bathrooms. Which will DOJ decree?
I find it interesting that people who uphold scientism, and I’m not claiming that is you, tend to abandon that when it comes to this issue. Religious folks are ridiculed for being against science and yet it is the religious folks who are most scientific about homosexuality, ‘gender identity’ and abortion, which happen to be the biggest issues of our time.We often have to take people’s words for a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean that these things aren’t real. For example, there are no medical tests for Autism or Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or Bipolar Disorder, etc. But that doesn’t mean that these disorders don’t exist. Psychiatrists and psychologists kind of have to take a patient’s word for it when they describe their symptoms.
I don’t dismiss the idea some people may have some mental condition which we may call gender identity disorder. But mental conditions aren’t license to ignore reality. So if a person was deluded and thought he was president of the US that delusion doesn’t give him the right to act as president. Likewise being deluded about your sex doesn’t give you the right to act on your delusion. This really comes down to a question of whether sex segregation is allowed. If it is then you can’t allow deluded people to ignore it. If it isn’t then the problem goes away, but you also have to give up all laws and privileges based on sex.
E
exnihilo
Guest
This is a big problem. The law has to be reliable and predictable. Since gender identity exists only in the mind of the individual allowing this to be part of the law will only make our already awful system worse.And yet everyone is biologically male or female. Under the DOJ rules, it would seem that persons with penises are allowed to use the women’s bathrooms. Just trying to get some clarity. If that is the case, then there must be three or four bathrooms, or unisex bathrooms. Which will DOJ decree?
I find it interesting that people who uphold scientism, and I’m not claiming that is you, tend to abandon that when it comes to this issue. Religious folks are ridiculed for being against science and yet it is the religious folks who are most scientific about homosexuality, ‘gender identity’ and abortion, which happen to be the biggest issues of our time.We often have to take people’s words for a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean that these things aren’t real. For example, there are no medical tests for Autism or Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or Bipolar Disorder, etc. But that doesn’t mean that these disorders don’t exist. Psychiatrists and psychologists kind of have to take a patient’s word for it when they describe their symptoms.
I don’t dismiss the idea some people may have some mental condition which we may call gender identity disorder. But mental conditions aren’t license to ignore reality. So if a person was deluded and thought he was president of the US that delusion doesn’t give him the right to act as president. Likewise being deluded about your sex doesn’t give you the right to act on your delusion. This really comes down to a question of whether sex segregation is allowed. If it is then you can’t allow deluded people to ignore it. If it isn’t then the problem goes away, but you also have to give up all laws and privileges based on sex.
J
JimG
Guest
When the civil rights act of 1964 was signed, neither the Congress which enacted it, nor the president (LBJ) who signed it, thought that it prohibited single sex bathrooms, nor did they think that it would be unlawful discrimination to say that men couldn’t use the women’s room or vice versa.
None of that was in the law. It was the DOJ which decided that adhering to single sex bathrooms was “sex discrimination” under the law.
We complain about judges who make law. But executive branch agencies also make law (violating the separation of powers). They make law at their own whim, and use the wthholding of federal money as extortion to back it up.
None of that was in the law. It was the DOJ which decided that adhering to single sex bathrooms was “sex discrimination” under the law.
We complain about judges who make law. But executive branch agencies also make law (violating the separation of powers). They make law at their own whim, and use the wthholding of federal money as extortion to back it up.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Not that this is a statement in favour of or against certain bathroom policies, but my understanding is that laws can be amended even if there is a belief that it goes against the ideas of those that enacted them.When the civil rights act of 1964 was signed, neither the Congress which enacted it, nor the president (LBJ) who signed it, thought that it prohibited single sex bathrooms, nor did they think that it would be unlawful discrimination to say that men couldn’t use the women’s room or vice versa.
As I understand what occurred here within the city of Charlotte (and only Charlotte) an ordinance was passed on bathroom usage allowing transgender individuals to use the bathroom facility of their choice and that the state passed the prohibition to nullify the law in Charlotte. Now there are efforts to nullify the nullification. It seems that there are layers of bodies trying to override each other.
J
JimG
Guest
True enough. The State of NC did not want cities like Charlotte making their own local laws on the matter. My point was simply that if a national law is to be amended, it ought to be amended by the legislature, i.e., Congress, not the executive branch.Not that this is a statement in favour of or against certain bathroom policies, but my understanding is that laws can be amended even if there is a belief that it goes against the ideas of those that enacted them.
As I understand what occurred here within the city of Charlotte (and only Charlotte) an ordinance was passed on bathroom usage allowing transgender individuals to use the bathroom facility of their choice and that the state passed the prohibition to nullify the law in Charlotte. Now there are efforts to nullify the nullification. It seems that there are layers of bodies trying to override each other.
E
estesbob
Guest
Perhaps you can point out in Title IX or Title VII where it requires letting men using the womens restroom.It only took them 12 hours to create the law. Maybe they should have taken a minute to read Title IX and Title VII before passing it. It is not like it was information being withheld from them.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
This may be material for another thread, but there seems to be a bit of a popular trend right now of local laws being overridden by laws that seem to have been made immediately after the local law passes. Ex: Birmingham passed a new law about minimum wage and the state of Alabama soon after passed a law prohibiting minimum wage above a certain level.True enough. The State of NC did not want cities like Charlotte making their own local laws on the matter.
I think it might have been better if instead of overridding Charlotte’s bill that it might have been better to at least temporarily leave it alone. If problems cropped up then at least laws could be made in response to those problems instead of being something that some will take as a tactic that is specifically targeting transgender people.
Point taken.My point was simply that if a national law is to be amended, it ought to be amended by the legislature, i.e., Congress, not the executive branch.
Z
zz912
Guest
Church teaching does not recognize the mythology of gender being different from sex.Transgender is not a sex or a gender. It is a descriptor for people whose assigned sex does not align with their gender.
Z
zz912
Guest
Every treatment for ADHD and Autism is focused on helping the person’s brain recognize reality and conform to it. It works to help the person conform to reality, it doesn’t encourage them in their disease.We often have to take people’s words for a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean that these things aren’t real. For example, there are no medical tests for Autism or Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or Bipolar Disorder, etc. But that doesn’t mean that these disorders don’t exist. Psychiatrists and psychologists kind of have to take a patient’s word for it when they describe their symptoms.
Z
zz912
Guest
They are considered normal and healthy. Cisgender is another made up term.Just to add on, a person with a penis that identifies as a male or a person with a vagina that identifies as a woman would be considered cisgender.
E
estesbob
Guest
Kinda like “straight”They are considered normal and healthy. Cisgender is another made up term.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
That could be said about all terms, phrases, and words. People coin new terms or phrases or re-purpose existing words for their needs. “Meme” was coined in 1976. The word “torpedo” referred to a type of electric eel. “Cisgender” was constructed with the latin prefix “cis-” meaning “on this side” and “trans-” means “across from” or “other side.”Cisgender is another made up term.
Incidentally I’m listening to a 12 hour recording of a set of set of lectures titled “Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths of Language Usage” by John McWhorter, Ph.D. (Dr. John McWhorter is Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. He previously was Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley. ). It’s about the evolution in language with an emphasis on English. Another more accessible book on the evolution of English is “Bad English: A History of Linguistic Aggravation” by Ammon Shea, dictionary consultant of the Oxford English Dictionary. If you ever get a chance I would suggest if nothing else just reading the first chapter. Dictionaries of etymology are often helpful in finding information on how a specific word was derived or constructed.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
And when the patient is unable to communicate their symptoms (as can happen with Autism), or is trying to conceal them (as can happen with milder forms of Autism, as well as with ADHD and Bipolar) there are still specific, objective diagnostic criteria for those disorders which can override the patient’s self-reporting.We often have to take people’s words for a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean that these things aren’t real. For example, there are no medical tests for Autism or Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or Bipolar Disorder, etc. But that doesn’t mean that these disorders don’t exist. Psychiatrists and psychologists kind of have to take a patient’s word for it when they describe their symptoms.
Exactly what are the objectively measurable, non-self-reported criteria for determining that the clearly-physically-male person who just followed a 12-year-old girl into the locker room is a “transgender woman” and not a pervert? Remember: This diagnosis has to be made by a non-professional in a manner of seconds, at a distance, and without directly engaging the individual in question.
U
ucfengr
Guest
Five years ago, who would have imagined that the defining civil right of our generation would be the right of biological men to use the women’s public rest room? Strange times we live in.
L
lmachine
Guest
Where discrimination on basis of sex is outlawed. The courts that have examined the issue confirmed this applies to trans people.Perhaps you can point out in Title IX or Title VII where it requires letting men using the womens restroom.
L
lmachine
Guest
Church teaching does not rule the United States.Church teaching does not recognize the mythology of gender being different from sex.
Z
zz912
Guest
A Catholic should care more about Church teaching, which is truth, than with what are the current laws of our country. He should look to form the laws of the country around Church teaching. Not the other way around.Church teaching does not rule the United States.
Catholics cannot support this gender mythology and remain faithful to Christ.
E
estesbob
Guest
Can you point out where this is in Title VII and Title IX. Especially where it says suffering under a delusion you are a member of the opposite sex entitlwes you to use the bathroom of your choice.Where discrimination on basis of sex is outlawed. The courts that have examined the issue confirmed this applies to trans people.
E
estesbob
Guest
So as Catholics we should reject any Church teaching that is not supported by the law of the land?Church teaching does not rule the United States.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.