"Gender is psychological, sex is not. (BTW, brain is a biological organ. It's not separate from our body.)"
That you say gender is psychological and thus different from sex is itself a matter of opinion. It is why there are two irreconcilable views on this subject.
Yes - the brain is a biological organ but that does not mean the thoughts that arise from it are biological. The brain is the source of delusions; we don't accept delusions are "biological" because they reside in an organ - and nor do we accept delusions are true. By definition, they are not. A belief that one is a woman against all biological criteria may be such a delusion.
Your "Christian" analogy isn't appropriate. We may accept the sincerity of the Christians' beliefs but we reserve the right to question their truth. We may not agree with their belief there is a God. Or agree that a person who says they a "woman" is a woman simply because they believe themselves to be so. Trans gender individuals may be sincere in their belief about their gender identity but that doesn't make their belief true, that they are a "man" or a "woman" because they think they are, despite a different biological identity. To JK Rowling, gender identity isn't a personal choice, it is a fact of nature. It doesn't however require saying to the trans woman, for example, that their identity can only be male - they are trans, those biologically male who identify as female.
But JKR is saying a trans person is NOT sincere in her belief that she is a woman. That's different from saying "believing you are a woman does not make you a woman."
Life is painful. Some people cannot cope at all and descend into madness. Others have coping lies, normal people, heads filled with positive thoughts that are all false.
My wife is beautiful, it'll all work out in the end. That sort of thing.
Your "Christian" analogy isn't appropriate. We may accept the sincerity of the Christians' beliefs but we reserve the right to question their truth. We may not agree with their belief there is a God. Or agree that a person who says they a "woman" is a woman simply because they believe themselves to be so. Trans gender individuals may be sincere in their belief about their gender identity but that doesn't make their belief true, that they are a "man" or a "woman" because they think they are, despite a different biological identity. To JK Rowling, gender identity isn't a personal choice, it is a fact of nature. It doesn't however require saying to the trans woman, for example, that their identity can only be male - they are trans, those biologically male who identify as female.
Your "Christian" analogy isn't appropriate. We may accept the sincerity of the Christians' beliefs but we reserve the right to question their truth. We may not agree with their belief there is a God. Or agree that a person who says they a "woman" is a woman simply because they believe themselves to be so. Trans gender individuals may be sincere in their belief about their gender identity but that doesn't make their belief true, that they are a "man" or a "woman" because they think they are, despite a different biological identity. To JK Rowling, gender identity isn't a personal choice, it is a fact of nature. It doesn't however require saying to the trans woman, for example, that their identity can only be male - they are trans, those biologically male who identify as female.
😂
I deliberately put that typo there just for you so you would have something to respond to.
It’s not a big deal now, only trans people wanna think so
Masterpiece Cakeshop and web designer Lorie Smith would disagree with you.
This thread needs more issue-centric drama as it seems to be spinning into "I showed you my [blank] please respond territory!"
Masterpiece cake shop is a broadly misunderstood ruling. It did *not* give the cake shop the right to discriminate against homosexuals. It determined that Colorado's anti-discrimination ordinance was unconstitutional. Here is a bit of the reasoning from the ruling: if a devil-worshipper wanted a cake made that read "Hail Satan!" would a baker be justified in denying that request? (Let's stretch a little bit: how about "There is nothing wrong with consensual sexual relationships between adults and children!") The Supreme Court determined that the anti-discrimination ordinance was unconstitutional because it *compelled* speech that someone disagreed with (I might be mixing the two cases here, but that's the gist of it).
For the record, I agree with the logic, but not the ruling or how it was determined. Someone on reddit put it best: "If you are in business, you have a license from the government. That license should preclude you from saying, "I won't provide service to X, Y, or Z group."
But...there's an argument against the position I do agree with that I hope you or someone else will consider. Catholic hospitals do not perform vasectomy, based...on sincerely held religious belief. That can be viewed as a form of discrimination...but, so what? There are plenty of hospitals who don't filter that medical decision through religious principles. There are plenty of bakeries that don't care of their cakes celebrate same-sex weddings, transitioning, etc. Website developers, too.
The First Amendment allows you to call them "bigoted." So I'm more of the mind "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason" than I am "certain groups *must* be served no matter how backwards the average American would view refusal to serve.
Since there are really good historical examples from the Civil Rights Era, let me acknowledge them and suggest that the comparisons are inherently flawed. If black Americans could have been served at any number of lunch counters in Louisville, then Muhammad Ali's gesture of throwing his gold medal into the Ohio River would have had a tinge of folly to it.
We have posters here who think trans women are mentally ill. I'm sure that hurtful...but I'd like to offer something more than a dismissive "So what?" Being gay used to be considered a mental illness. Now it isn't. I see the same trajectory for being trans.
Masterpiece Cakeshop and web designer Lorie Smith would disagree with you.
This thread needs more issue-centric drama as it seems to be spinning into "I showed you my [blank] please respond territory!"
..
We have posters here who think trans women are mentally ill. I'm sure that hurtful...but I'd like to offer something more than a dismissive "So what?" Being gay used to be considered a mental illness. Now it isn't. I see the same trajectory for being trans.
We have many posters here who are mentally ill. They lack other sources of meaning and purpose in their lives, so they derive satisfaction crusading against things that transfolk want even though they make little difference to their own lives.
It’s kinda like whitechilds throwing a tantrum that they should be able to say n**ger.
Masterpiece Cakeshop and web designer Lorie Smith would disagree with you.
This thread needs more issue-centric drama as it seems to be spinning into "I showed you my [blank] please respond territory!"
..
We have posters here who think trans women are mentally ill. I'm sure that hurtful...but I'd like to offer something more than a dismissive "So what?" Being gay used to be considered a mental illness. Now it isn't. I see the same trajectory for being trans.
We have many posters here who are mentally ill. They lack other sources of meaning and purpose in their lives, so they derive satisfaction crusading against things that transfolk want even though they make little difference to their own lives.
It’s kinda like whitechilds throwing a tantrum that they should be able to say n**ger.
Masterpiece Cakeshop and web designer Lorie Smith would disagree with you.
This thread needs more issue-centric drama as it seems to be spinning into "I showed you my [blank] please respond territory!"
..
We have posters here who think trans women are mentally ill. I'm sure that hurtful...but I'd like to offer something more than a dismissive "So what?" Being gay used to be considered a mental illness. Now it isn't. I see the same trajectory for being trans.
We have many posters here who are mentally ill. They lack other sources of meaning and purpose in their lives, so they derive satisfaction crusading against things that transfolk want even though they make little difference to their own lives.
It’s kinda like whitechilds throwing a tantrum that they should be able to say n***er.
But...there's an argument against the position I do agree with that I hope you or someone else will consider. Catholic hospitals do not perform vasectomy, based...on sincerely held religious belief. That can be viewed as a form of discrimination...but, so what? There are plenty of hospitals who don't filter that medical decision through religious principles. There are plenty of bakeries that don't care of their cakes celebrate same-sex weddings, transitioning, etc. Website developers, too.
Okay, where would it stop? Is it okay for a landlord to refuse someone rental because there are many other landlords? (This has happened to me decades ago. The "vacant" apartment suddenly got occupied as soon as I told my name to the landlord over the phone. I didn't dwell on that, and called the next landlord on the list.)
How about a hotel or a restaurant? I have been to small towns with one hotel or one restaurant. Is it okay because because you can always search for hotels and restaurants in "neighboring" towns?
Is it okay to deny someone employment because there are other employers? That's assuming there are many other similar positions available. That's not always the case.
The position you are presenting makes the assumption of perfect competition in every market. But perfect competition rarely exists in real life. There are limited number of sellers or buyers, there is imperfect information, there is high transaction cost, etc. Market is almost always imperfect in real life.
So you need legal protection against discrimination just like you need antitrust policy. And this is not giving special protection for the marginalized groups. When discrimination based on sexual orientation is banned, straight people are also protected.
So you need legal protection against discrimination just like you need antitrust policy. And this is not giving special protection for the marginalized groups. When discrimination based on sexual orientation is banned, straight people are also protected.
No, straight people are persecuted, you don't have the right to force us to accept/celebrate/submit to your mentally ill denial of Biology 101. Either your crazy is banned as criminal speech, or every child grows up pedo groomed and living in fear of "lesbian" men prowling the ladies bathrooms with criminal speech codes against sanity/Biology 101.