I will never understand why people are so intolerant of other people’s gender or sexual identity.

all4actt

Agreed except when it comes to girls or womens sports.

Barnardot

Well if you just don’t get it then that means that your as bad as them because they are ignorant and don’t get it also. If you educate yourself on human behavior then you might get it one day. @excon

excon

Barnardot said:

Well if you just don’t get it then that means that your as bad as them because they are ignorant and don’t get it also.  @excon

Hello B:

I'm sorry..  Am I as bad as the others who don't get it, or am I as bad as the lgbtq community??  Seriously..  I know what you said is important.  I can't tell what that is.

excon

MayCaesar

Some people simply are insecure about their beliefs and life choices, and they seek confirmation of those beliefs and life choices in other people's beliefs and life choices. And if they do not find it, then they become defensive and reject those beliefs and life choices.
Other people follow ideologies or ancient scriptures that tell them that there is something wrong with certain gender and sexual identities, without logically arriving at this conclusion.
Others still just join the mob and are intolerant because others around them are intolerant.

At the same time, there is an important distinction here to be drawn between intolerance of gender/sexual identities, and intolerance of that intolerance. The latter I have a problem with. When J K Rowling says certain "controversial" things and gets mobbed in the media, something is broken in the society. It is okay to have objections to certain choices people make with respect to gender and sexual identity. Tolerance does not imply full acceptance and agreement.

I am tolerant of fundamentalist Muslims, as long as they do not commit crimes. I still see their ideology as awful and would have a problem if I had a friend who was a fundamentalist Muslim. But I am okay with coexisting with them as long as they are peaceful, I would just try to keep my distance away from them.
Not that I equate fundamentalist Muslims to, say, transsexual people. The point here is that you can tolerate someone while not approving of their choices. And it is important to not conflate it with intolerance.

SkepticalOne

@MayCaesar

When J K Rowling says certain "controversial" things and gets mobbed in the media, something is broken in the society.

There is no acceptable disagreement with someone's humanity. That is not a broken society, but one working to protect it's members. 

It is okay to have objections to certain choices people make with respect to gender and sexual identity.

This is a misconception. I'm not aware of anyone arbitrarily 'choosing' their sexual orientation or gender. These are realizations that may disagree with previously assigned labels, but no one is choosing to be gay or female anymore than they are choosing their eye color or skin tone.

MayCaesar

@SkepticalOne

What do you mean by "disagreement with someone's humanity"? You can think that someone is human, yet still disapprove of some of their choices, including those pertaining to their gender and sexual identity. I am 100% comfortable with people disapproving of some of my very intimate choices; in fact, I encourage them to speak out their disapproval, so I know where everyone stands and can modify my social circle appropriately. People who are not 100% comfortable with it are insecure about their own choices, perhaps somewhat validating that disapproval.

We are talking about gender and sexual identity. Identity is something that you select, according to the same school of thought which you draw your claims from.

You can even respectfully dislike things that people do not choose. It is okay for me to dislike people with low intelligence: they did not choose to have low intelligence, but I still would not want to be around them, in general. I am not intolerant of them: they are free to exist in this world, and they should have the same rights as me. They just are not someone I would prefer interacting with given other choices.

excon

MayCaesar said:

What do you mean by "disagreement with someone's humanity"? You can think that someone is human, yet still disapprove of some of their choices,

Hello M:

I have trouble with the word "disapprove"..  It connotes judgment..  That I don't engage in homosexual behavior myself, isn't approval or disapproval..  It's me not engaging in certain behavior, and letting others live their life as they choose.  Of course, assuming their life doesn't negatively effect my life. And, being homosexual doesn't interfere with my life whatsoever.

However, you're free to judge them, although I don't know what standard you'd hold them up against.

excon

Barnardot

I'm sorry..  Am I as bad as the others who don't get it, or am I as bad as the lgbtq community??  Seriously..  I know what you said is important.  I can't tell what that is. @excon

See what I mean you don’t know what I’m talking about because even Blind Freddy knows that I was answering your question about people who are intolerant like der.

So you just proved my point that if you don’t know it’s because you are ignorant and intolerant about how people think which is why you should read some books and open your ears but that’s not all because you have to digest what you see and here other wise you will keep admitting such dum things like you don’t understand why people think what they do. Even then you said people instead of some people.

See what I mean it’s very telling what your saying and you need to educate yourself just like those some people.

MayCaesar

excon said:

Hello M:

I have trouble with the word "disapprove"..  It connotes judgment..  That I don't engage in homosexual behavior myself, isn't approval or disapproval..  It's me not engaging in certain behavior, and letting others live their life as they choose.  Of course, assuming their life doesn't negatively effect my life. And, being homosexual doesn't interfere with my life whatsoever.

However, you're free to judge them, although I don't know what standard you'd hold them up against.

excon

The fact that someone's behavior does not interfere with your life does not imply that judging this behavior is unreasonable. Someone's heroin consumption in their private time does not affect me in any way; I think that their heroin consumption is a mistake and a terrible behavior. They are free to consume as much heroin as they like, and I will not try to stop them; I will condemn their life choices, however.

My standard is pretty simple: actions that make you happy in the long run are good, and actions that make you miserable in the long run are bad. In my view, there is nothing inherently good or bad about any particular gender or sexual identity - but someone else might disagree. Someone might say that identifying as a woman when your birth certificate identifies you as a man is inherently adverse to your happiness, and under that assumption they are right to see your actions as not satisfying the standard. Whether this assumption is warranted is a separate matter.

all4actt

@OakTownA

Why do you disagree wiyh me regarding transgenders participating in girls and womens sports?

SkepticalOne

@MayCaesar

What do you mean by "disagreement with someone's humanity"? You can think that someone is human, yet still disapprove of some of their choices

What choices did you have in mind? Someone 'choosing' to be gay or straight? That's not a choice. Or 'choosing" gender identity? Again, not a choice. 

When I talk about disagreeing with someone's humanity, I mean objecting to all or part of another person's nature. It is certainly possible to 'disagree' with someone's natural eye color, but it doesn't make much sense because eye color isn't a choice. 

Dee

@SkepticalOne

What choices did you have in mind? Someone 'choosing' to be gay or straight? That's not a choice. 

It can be a choice, do you deny this?

Or 'choosing" gender identity? Again, not a choice. 

Again it can be , gender fluid people can change by the hour and often do  Whole classrooms have changed gender in a week ( it’s a thing) 

When I talk about disagreeing with someone's humanity, I mean objecting to all or part of another person's nature.

In every day relationships we do not have to know someone’s specific gender identity I’ve lived my whole life with not once got into trouble  communicating with fellow humans and not once has someone taken offense at being mislabeled , nowadays everyone has jumped on the bandwagon waiting to sue / fly into a rage or sulk at being ……misgendered 

People wait to be offended so someone can be outed or demonized for being a vile human being , want to know how someone is feeling inside regards there gender ? Don’t worry like a vegan they will let you know quick enough

I watched a tv show last year where a Canadian gender fluid nut in a 3 way relationship with a non binrary person and another gender fluid person wanted their baby identified as a “theyby” as it’s gender was as yet undecided , this is the sort of nonsense one is meant to take seriously and pass laws about 

 It is certainly possible to 'disagree' with someone's natural eye color, but it doesn't make much sense because eye color isn't a choice. 

It’s easy really all we need to know is your first name “Hi Paul “ , Hi Jasmine” etc , etc works like magic why do we need to know personally at the moment you feel more / less male /female , how’s it in any way important?

People identify as cows , leopards , unicorns etc , etc ……I identify as a toaster,  I am toaster gendered and toast sexual , if you don’t accept that you’re obviously a nasty person who doesn’t respect my humanity 

Most of it is attention seeking nonsense , if these people want to be labeled by their latest preferred gender why not wear a badge letting everyone know as they seem to think complete  strangers should be forced into recognising how they feel inside on a daily basis 

excon

Barnardot said:

See what I mean you don’t know what I’m talking about because even Blind Freddy knows that I was answering your question about people who are intolerant like der.

Hello B:

Fact is, you're a nasty SOB, and I ain't interested in continuing on with you.

excon

SkepticalOne

@Dee

It can be a choice, do you deny this?

Yes. Someone doesn't wake up one morning and *choose* to be gay, bi, or straight. 

Again it can be , gender fluid people can change by the hour and often do

People don't *choose* to be gender fluid. My nephew didn't choose gender dysphoria. 

I’ve lived my whole life with not once got into trouble  communicating with fellow humans and not once has someone taken offense at being mislabeled

Yep. Accidental/unintentional mislabeling is not disagreeing or objecting to another person's humanity. 

People wait to be offended...

Indeed. Do you feel better? :-)

Dee

@SkepticalOne

Yes. Someone doesn't wake up one morning and *choose* to be gay, bi, or straight. 

People can choose to be gay or straight if they wish , it happens 

People don't *choose* to be gender fluid. My nephew didn't choose gender dysphoria. 

How do you know? I don’t know your nephew you do he has mental health issues , and?

 Yep. Accidental/unintentional mislabeling is not disagreeing or objecting to another person's humanity. 

Yes maybe it’s time a lot of these snowflakes realised this 

Indeed. Do you feel better? :-)

Than what your nephew?

MichaelElpers

I think dehumanizing or objecting to someone's humanity is being thrown around a little too lightly.

Misgendering someone may offend or be disrespectful to some but I don't view that the same as objecting to their humanity.
I may associate being handsome with my identity but if someone doesn't call me that, this doesn't mean I'm being dehumanizing.

Obviously there will be certain people due to religious reasons or just prejudice that may want to create unequal rights for those in lgbtq categories.  Fighting that injustice I'll join in on.  Equally I'll fight lgbtq activists on limits of free speech, trans entering opposite sex sports.

Barnardot

Fact is, you're a nasty SOB, and I ain't interested in continuing on with you.@excon

See what I mean again. I’m not being mean by pointing out the points that I did. I said you are intolerant and look what you are saying now. May be you just don’t like hearing things that you don’t like just like those sobs you were talking about and say that you will never understand why they are so intolerant. Ignoring what people say and getting narkie is not going to solve things for you I reckon.

Sonofason

Indeed, it is very tolerant to allow confused men to play women's sports.

excon

Sonofason said:

Indeed, it is very tolerant to allow confused men to play women's sports.

Hello Son:

You're conflating two separate issues..  To wit:

Issue 1:  In this great nation of ours, confused men, as you call them, are FREE to be as confused as they choose to be..  As long as their choice doesn't interfere with my choices, they are deserving of tolerance.

That has NOTHING whatsoever to do with issue 2, which is pandering politicians passing laws that allow these men to compete in women's athletics.  That DOES interfere with my choices, and slimy politicians are NOT deserving of tolerance. 

excon

Sonofason

excon said:

Sonofason said:

Indeed, it is very tolerant to allow confused men to play women's sports.

Hello Son:

You're conflating two separate issues..  To wit:

Issue 1:  In this great nation of ours, confused men, as you call them, are FREE to be as confused as they choose to be..  As long as their choice doesn't interfere with my choices, they are deserving of tolerance.

That has NOTHING whatsoever to do with issue 2, which is pandering politicians passing laws that allow these men to compete in women's athletics.  That DOES interfere with my choices, and slimy politicians are NOT deserving of tolerance. 

excon

So you are suggesting that there are no confused men attempting to enter the arena of "women's sports"?

excon

Sonofason said:

So you are suggesting that there are no confused men attempting to enter the arena of "women's sports"?

Hello S:

I'm sure there are..  However, are they to be BLAMED for laws that ALLOW them to compete and garner countless millions over a lifetime???  Not to my way of thinking..  I take advantage of laws.  You do too.

In fact, I don't have any problems with people obeying the law.  I have problems with the politicians who allowed it to happen..

excon

Sonofason

excon said:

Sonofason said:

So you are suggesting that there are no confused men attempting to enter the arena of "women's sports"?

Hello S:

I'm sure there are..  However, are they to be BLAMED for laws that ALLOW them to compete and garner countless millions over a lifetime???  Not to my way of thinking..  I take advantage of laws.  You do too.

In fact, I don't have any problems with people obeying the law.  I have problems with the politicians who allowed it to happen..

excon

I blame the confused men and the politicians, and anyone else who would even contemplate the idea of permitting confused men into the arena of women's sports.
I have a problem with people shielding themselves by permission of the law when the result is harmful to others.  It is immoral and selfish.

SkepticalOne

@excon

I'm sure there are..  However, are they to be BLAMED for laws that ALLOW them to compete and garner countless millions over a lifetime???

Are you suggesting trans folks are making millions off of their athletic abilities?

Sonofason

SkepticalOne said:

@excon

I'm sure there are..  However, are they to be BLAMED for laws that ALLOW them to compete and garner countless millions over a lifetime???

Are you suggesting trans folks are making millions off of their athletic abilities?

I'm saying they have an unfair advantage because of their strength as MEN over women, and they should not only be castrated physically, but castrated from society.

John_C_87

@excon

Look at it this way it is crime for a homosexual man who has had a sex reassignment to tell a man yes to a question of marriage, it is not a crime tell a man yes to Binvir. All men are created equal by their creator.

Look at it this way it is crime for a lesbian woman who has had a sex reassignment to tell a woman yes to a question of marriage, it is not a crime to tell a woman yes to UnosMulier. All women are created equal by their creator.

Interesting fact about self-evident truth when it is held in line with legislation by constitutional principle.

Barnardot

That DOES interfere with my choices, and slimy politicians are NOT deserving of tolerance.  @excon

Do you reckon that any thing is deserving of tolerance.

MayCaesar

SkepticalOne said:

What choices did you have in mind? Someone 'choosing' to be gay or straight? That's not a choice. Or 'choosing" gender identity? Again, not a choice. 

When I talk about disagreeing with someone's humanity, I mean objecting to all or part of another person's nature. It is certainly possible to 'disagree' with someone's natural eye color, but it doesn't make much sense because eye color isn't a choice. 

An identity is a choice, by definition. You can be a man attracted to men, but saying "I identify as homosexual" is an expression of a choice. The facts that your identity is derived from, of course, are not a choice: you do not choose facts. But you do choose what identity to assume based on those facts.

I fail to see how disagreeing with someone's natural eye color constitutes objection to all or part of their nature. One can have an absolutely reasonable disagreement on what that nature is in the first place. You say that your eyes are blue, but I look at them and say that they are teal. That is not "disagreeing with your humanity", that is disagreeing with the particular classification of your particular feature. Similarly, you can say "I am a woman", but I will look at you and say, "No, you are a man". It is not "disagreeing with your humanity"; it is disagreeing with your classification of yourself. Agreeing with your humanity does not imply agreeing with every label you choose to put on yourself.

Dee

                       

I will never understand why people are so intolerant of other people’s gender or sexual identity.

I will never understand why on entering a room people rise to their feet and applaud like demented seals awaiting fish when this apparition walks into a room , what’s more insane is the fact if one doesn’t agree that this freak was a worthy world woman of the year you are booed at , screeched at and threatened with violence by the rabid mob of teary eyed a-ss lickers……

I don’t need to know your gender , sexual identity , religion or politics for day to day interactions the only way I need to know these is if we are in some sort of deeper relationship , you tell me your name is John , Mary , Tom or Jasmine great I can interact and a conversation can take place , why do these things have to be so complicated ? Why do people like the ones below have to constantly tell us all how they feel inside and demand we constantly walk on eggshells around them? 

When this freak changed its appearance the money  started rolling in …..again ….. if this freak below came into a woman’s bathroom with small girls present they should be arrested …….

               I will never understand why people are so intolerant of other people’s           gender or sexual identity.

                          I will never understand why I have to pretend and play a game of catering to the needs of mentally ill individuals 
                          I refuse to abide by laws and rules that force me to be aware that the person in the room identifies as a cat, memaid , cow  and wants to be treated as one …….

This nut thinks she’s a …..CAT ….MEOW …….pay her in mice and watch her change her mind …..

These raging loons thinks they are COW’S ……… MOO……. Sell the house put them in a field bet they will change their minds …..






Then we have so called OTHERKINS which includes Mermaids /Merman ,Wolves , sheep , goats etc etc there is a community of Mermaids in Seattle ……

SkepticalOne

@MayCaesar

An identity is a choice, by definition.

This is incorrect. I identify as atheist - I didn't choose atheism. I identify as heterosexual - I didn't choose heterosexuality. The point is that we don't choose our identity - we recognize certain labels describe us better than others. 

You say that your eyes are blue, but I look at them and say that they are teal. That is not "disagreeing with your humanity", that is disagreeing with the particular classification of your particular feature.

Yes, I agree my example on eye color was flawed. It didn't go far enough. A more appropriate analogy would be denying another person has 'natural' eyes as people suggest of some sexual orientations. 'Disagreeing' with how humanity has manifested in another person is attacking their humanity. 

Dee

@SkepticalOne

. 'Disagreeing' with how humanity has manifested in another person is attacking their humanity. 

No it’s actually not , it’s refusing to play into this game where one has to agree with each and every label one applies to oneself or else you will be outed on social media , ostracized and possibly sacked from your job 

Actually by bullying people into accepting what way individuals prefer to addressed on a day to day basis ( gender fluid types / non binary ) is attacking how I and others think and attacking our humanity by not allowing us the right to think for ourselves without pandering to the rabid PC mob who insist on us using their labeling 

SkepticalOne

@Dee

Me: 'Disagreeing' with how humanity has manifested in another person is attacking their humanity. 

You: No it’s actually not

You are allowing humanity includes X naturally while disagreeing with X? This is incoherent. 

It seems you're disagreeing with what's naturally human. What are your credentials and what methodologies were used to arrive at this conclusion?

As for the tu quoque, criticizing (flawed) ideologies is not attacking a core component of humanity.  You as an atheist know beliefs can change and they are not the same thing as a person.

Dee

@SkepticalOne

You are allowing humanity includes X naturally while disagreeing with X? This is incoherent. 

But I’m allowing for  humanity as in humans can and do feel and think anything they wish , my objection is to the labels they use and indeed why everyone has to agree with the labeling 

It seems you're disagreeing with what's naturally human. 

Why what’s “naturally human “ about identifying as a non binary , gender fluid , an otherkin , mermaid , cow etc , etc can you talk me through it?

What are your credentials and what methodologies were used to arrive at this conclusion?

We are talking about humanity so therefore broadly speaking I’m addressing such 

As for the tu quoque, criticizing (flawed) ideologies is not attacking a core component of humanity

What I’m saying is that over the top PC driven individuals are indeed using your type of argumentation to demonise and ostracise others into agreeing with their position or suffer the backlash,  this is indeed an attack on their humanity 

.  You as an atheist know beliefs can change and they are not the same thing as a person.

Yet you say …. . 'Disagreeing' with how humanity has manifested in another person is attacking their humanity. 

If a person believes they are gender fluid that’s their belief right?  You’re now saying that’s not the same thing as the person , I agree it’s a preferred label for a mental condition they’re experiencing 

MayCaesar

SkepticalOne said:

@MayCaesar

An identity is a choice, by definition.

This is incorrect. I identify as atheist - I didn't choose atheism. I identify as heterosexual - I didn't choose heterosexuality. The point is that we don't choose our identity - we recognize certain labels describe us better than others. 

You say that your eyes are blue, but I look at them and say that they are teal. That is not "disagreeing with your humanity", that is disagreeing with the particular classification of your particular feature.

Yes, I agree my example on eye color was flawed. It didn't go far enough. A more appropriate analogy would be denying another person has 'natural' eyes as people suggest of some sexual orientations. 'Disagreeing' with how humanity has manifested in another person is attacking their humanity. 

"I identify as atheist" and "I am an atheist by definition" are different statements. You do choose your identify; you do not choose the facts that may cause you to choose the particular identity.
You can be empirically attracted only to the members of the opposite sex, yet still not put yourself into a box by saying "I am heterosexual". That is what I do, for example: I do not identify as any-sexual and keep an open mind, open to the possibility of liking a member of either gender. I could if I chose to, but I choose not to.

The color of people's eyes sometimes changes over the years. Which of the multiple shades of colors they go through is the "natural" one? I do not think that "natural" is a valid property here. Is it natural for someone to live to the age of 100? Yes, because people empirically do live to that age. No, because in the past, without the modern technology, no one did. So which one is it? Neither; the concept of "naturality" is flawed.

Someone can claim that they are a woman by nature. I can object, "No, I do not think so, because of X, Y and Z". This is not disagreeing with their humanity; this is disagreeing with their chosen characterization of themselves.
They are free to disagree with mine as well. When I say that I do not consider myself to be Russian, they can say, "No, you are Russian, because you are recognized by the Russian government as a citizen of Russia". Fair enough, argument accepted, the perspective is valid, even if it differs from mine.

The idea that someone disagreeing with a label you identify with equates disagreeing with your humanity and/or diminishing your value somehow is very bizarre.

SkepticalOne

@Dee @MayCaesar ;

If a person believes they are gender fluid that’s their belief right?  You’re now saying that’s not the same thing as the person , I agree it’s a preferred label for a mental condition they’re experiencing 

You are attempting to erase the distinction between knowledge (of self) and belief. They are not the same.

Dee

@SkepticalOne

You are attempting to erase the distinction between knowledge (of self) and belief.

That’s incorrect you’re neglecting to say how one feels at a given time which can and does change is not “knowledge” of self but only an awareness of how one is feeling . “Knowledge “of the self can and is incorrect in a lot of cases and informs beliefs , a man /woman who’s “knowledge “ of self is that they are a Merman or Mermaid believes such so it’s a belief , are we to assume they are what they claim? Or that their knowledge and belief in such are flawed?

What is knowledge when referring  to self? Are beliefs permanent or changeable ? 

MayCaesar

@SkepticalOne

Interesting claim. Most people do not know the most basic things about themselves, yet when it comes to politically sensitive things such as gender or sexuality, then suddenly everyone's claims are beyond questioning. "I am a man" is something you are supposed to accept automatically without any thought or hesitation, otherwise you are attacking the person's humanity.

How is it different from someone saying "I am god's child" and you responding with, "Well, I am not so sure"? At what point does attacking humanity stop and a genuine inquiry begins? At the point determined by the current political climate, right?

SkepticalOne

@MayCaesar

Most people do not know the most basic things about themselves, yet when it comes to politically sensitive things such as gender or sexuality, then suddenly everyone's claims are beyond questioning.

Are the claims of a cisgender heterosexual open for debate too? Most would not find this reasonable even though the justification is the same as any other orientation and gender. 

How is it different from someone saying "I am god's child" and you responding with, "Well, I am not so sure"? At what point does attacking humanity stop and a genuine inquiry begins? At the point determined by the current political climate, right?

Asking someone about their labels is not condemnation, and it certainly isn't legislation codifying discrimination against them (Florida 'Don't say gay'). Big difference. 

CYDdharta

SkepticalOne said:

Asking someone about their labels is not condemnation, and it certainly isn't legislation codifying discrimination against them (Florida 'Don't say gay'). Big difference. 

There is no Florida 'Don't say gay'

SkepticalOne

CYDdharta said:

SkepticalOne said:

Asking someone about their labels is not condemnation, and it certainly isn't legislation codifying discrimination against them (Florida 'Don't say gay'). Big difference. 

There is no Florida 'Don't say gay'

I think you know that's not true.
Link

CYDdharta

SkepticalOne said:

CYDdharta said:

SkepticalOne said:

Asking someone about their labels is not condemnation, and it certainly isn't legislation codifying discrimination against them (Florida 'Don't say gay'). Big difference. 

There is no Florida 'Don't say gay'

I think you know that's not true.
Link

Nah, we both know that's nothing but leftist spin considering the law never uses the word 'gay'.

SkepticalOne

CYDdharta said:

SkepticalOne said:

CYDdharta said:

SkepticalOne said:

Asking someone about their labels is not condemnation, and it certainly isn't legislation codifying discrimination against them (Florida 'Don't say gay'). Big difference. 

There is no Florida 'Don't say gay'

I think you know that's not true.
Link

Nah, we both know that's nothing but leftist spin considering the law never uses the word 'gay'.

The word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible. The word  'democracy' isn't in the Constitution. This objection is nothing but pedantry. 

CYDdharta

SkepticalOne said:

The word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible. The word  'democracy' isn't in the Constitution. This objection is nothing but pedantry. 

Do you have a point?  "Trinity" is a Catholic thing, not a Christian thing.  The Constitution did not establish a democracy.  Most importantly, there is nothing about not saying 'gay'in the 'don't say gay' law.  Just a suggestion, but try to be relevant when you reply.

Dee

@SkepticalOne


Are the claims of a cisgender heterosexual open for debate too? Most would not find this reasonable even though the justification is the same as any other orientation and gender. 

 Here is a prime example of forcing an unwanted term onto another by using the ridiculous term cisgender , this is the societal bullying that goes on constantly by users of these terms who want everyone to accept their preferred terminology 

You’re making poor comparisons tell me what are the claims of gender fluid individuals? They claim the change might be in expression but not in identity or in identity but not expression .Or both expression and identity might change together.

Their identity/ expression can change by the hour and all their really saying is their inner state is changing daily and the whole world must be made aware of this and not offend them in anyway at what they deem an offence 

If such an individual claims today they are feeling male today  and tomorrow they’re feeling female how can they tell what it feels like to be either ? Also some claim to feel a mix of the two genders on a daily basis  it’s  utter attention seeking nonsense and should be treated as a psychological disorder 

SkepticalOne

CYDdharta said:

SkepticalOne said:

The word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible. The word  'democracy' isn't in the Constitution. This objection is nothing but pedantry. 

Do you have a point?  "Trinity" is a Catholic thing, not a Christian thing.  The Constitution did not establish a democracy.  Most importantly, there is nothing about not saying 'gay'in the 'don't say gay' law.  Just a suggestion, but try to be relevant when you reply.

The bill prohibits the discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in Florida primary schools. "Don't say gay" seems accurate enough. 

SkepticalOne

@Dee

Cisgender = "societal bullying'?? 

I guess we could say 'not transgender' instead to keep from offending your delicate sensibilities. Let me know if you prefer that.

Cringe_Train

@excon

The way I see it, who cares if someone is gay? It's not really affecting you unless you make it your problem.

Cringe_Train

@excon

The way I see it, who cares if someone is gay? It's not really affecting you unless you make it your problem.

Cringe_Train

@excon

The way I see it, who cares if someone is gay? It's not really affecting you unless you make it an issue.

Cringe_Train

@excon

The way I see it, why does it matter if someone is gay? It's not really affecting you unless you make it an issue.

Cringe_Train

all4actt said:

Agreed except when it comes to girls or womens sports.

Well even there we have a gray area. You see, if someone is taking hormones as part of their sex change, it gives them the same advantage they would have had if they'd been born the other gender.
For example, if you have a girl transitioning to a boy, and they decide to start taking T (Testosterone) as part of their therapy. (A lost of transgender guys do this since it makes their voice deeper and gives then a more masculine build without having to go through surgery.) They are going to still have female organs, yeah. But their actual body is gonna look and act like a . They're gonna have more muscle and pretty much all physical advantages that come with being a .