Total topics: 8
Do you tell or when is it appropriate to divulge your transgender identity to a person you've met, arranged a date meeting with ?
When do you think it's appropriate?
If we're moving towards a "phobic-less" society, should this be of concerned or should there be a worry of such things perpetuating the phobia?
Another interesting question. A man that is involved with a transgender woman , is that man a flaming f.......oh...I mean.... is that man gay?
Likewise with the woman. A woman that is involved with a transgender man , is that woman a di...correction, to communicate politically acceptable, is that woman a lesbian ?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
The transgender folks and whoever that makes their gender identity significant in this way emphasize the pronouns.
For instance a male may communicate that they're not to be addressed as him or himself.
Granted that male perceives themselves as wanting to be female.
Why do you think they request strictly to only be identified in third person as they and them?
What is the significance of that specifically?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
- "“Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” found that children who suddenly adopted transgender identities in adolescence skewed heavily female and frequently had preexisting mental health issues."
- "The paper found evidence that youth experiencing ROGD were involved in transgender social media groups and peer groups. It also found that youth with mental health problems were more likely to have socially and medically transitioned than those without."
- "Transgender gun owners, some of whom have armed themselves out of fear of a “genocide” of transgender people, have flocked to the 5,600-member r/transguns subreddit forum, sharing photos of themselves with rifles and tactical gear and discussing plans to defend themselves from “transphobia,”"
- "R/transguns users widely believe that transgender people are at a heightened risk of violent persecution and must be armed to defend themselves, according to the subreddit’s top posts. Their beliefs echo the rhetoric of trans activists, who frequently suggest transgender people are the victims of widespread violent persecution and are assaulted and killed because of their gender identity."
- "Seven months after the academic journal PLOS ONE indicated plans to seek further expert assessment on a study focused on “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” the journal has republished the research with a series of corrections and updates by the study’s author to address concerns raised in the journal’s reassessment."
- "The notice of republication from PLOS ONE states: “After publication of this article... questions were raised that prompted the journal to conduct a post-publication reassessment... involving senior members of the journal’s editorial team, two Academic Editors, a statistics reviewer, and an external expert reviewer."
- "A transgender psychologist who has helped hundreds of teens transition has warned that it has “gone too far” — and fears many are making life-changing decisions because it’s “trendy” and pushed on social media."
- "Anderson is so concerned, in fact, she said she is considering ending her own pioneering work helping teens transition.“I have these private thoughts: ‘This has gone too far. It’s going to get worse. I don’t want any part of it,’ ” she said."
- "A major scientific journal has retracted a study on the social contagion of transgenderism in young adults and adolescents after transgender activists demanded the outlet retract the article and fire the editor responsible."
- "On May 5, a group of five transgender activist groups, including the “Center for Applied Transgender Studies,” and many individuals published an open letter demanding the retraction of the study “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases” and calling for the firing of the journal’s editor, Dr. Kenneth Zucker."
- "A prestigious U.S. medical journal retracted a study that claimed that “gender reassignment” procedures brought mental health benefits. This happened after its authors admitted that the study found “no advantage to surgery” and that those who have had “gender reassignment” surgery “were more likely to be treated for anxiety disorders.”"
- "Springer Nature is doubling down on its decision to retract a controversial paper about trans-identifying teens and their parents. Despite nearly 2,000 researchers and academics signing a letter in support of the article, Springer nonetheless decided to retract the paper without disciplining its editor."
- "As punishment, activists flung every insult and accusation — no matter how baseless or horrifying — at Bailey that they thought might squash his book and its insights."
- "Although Walsh never arrives at a satisfactory answer on what a woman is, he does shed light on transgenderism, which is effectively a modern-day cult. Its adherents preach a false gospel of salvation to vulnerable people who lack the reasoning or emotional capacity to resist. As part of their conversion, these converts are drawn away from their communities and brainwashed to hate their former selves—making them even more vulnerable to manipulation. By the end, they are so thoroughly deluded that they distrust everything and everyone and ultimately give up their lives to the cult."
The Cracks in the Edifice of Transgender Totalitarianism - Public Discourse (thepublicdiscourse.com)
- "This is especially true in cases of so-called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, in which previously normal teenagers (usually girls) suddenly announce their desire to transition to the opposite sex. It is readily apparent how a teenager struggling with severe or even common adolescent angst could be lured into such a group."
- "Perhaps transgenderism is better described as a form of “social contagion.” This term refers to “the spread of ideas, feelings and, some think, neuroses through a community or group by suggestion, gossip, imitation, etc.” The explosion of cases of gender dysphoria, previously an exceedingly rare condition, over the last few years has coincided with a meteoric increase in sympathetic attention to the topic in regular and social media—thus suggesting social contagion. Parents whose children “come out” as transgender when their friends do certainly agree with this explanation.""
- "Knowles pretends to claim transgenderism and transgender people are two different things, and he was careful to use the “ism.” He said, “There can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism. It is all or nothing.”"
Michael Knowles is not wrong:
"The problem with transgenderism is that it isn't true. The problem with transgenderism is that it puts forward a delusional vision of human nature that denies the reality and importance of sexual difference and complementarity. The problem with transgenderism is that its acceptance at any level necessarily entails the complete destruction of women's bathrooms, women's sports, all of the specific rights and spaces that women currently enjoy.There can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism. It is all or nothing. If transgenderism is true, if men really can become women, then it's true for everybody of all ages. If transgenderism is false as it is, if men really can't become women as they cannot, then it's false for everybody too. And if it's false, then we should not indulge it. Especially since that indulgence requires taking away the rights and customs of so many people.If it is false, then for the good of society and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely. The whole preposterous ideology at every level."
Discuss.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
Ha ha ha!!!
Elon Musk predicted it and it has now become a reality!!!
Shareholders are suing Kellogg for sexualizing their products and damaging the brand, thereby kissing millions, if not billions away; thereby destroying their collective investments in the company.
“Love ya!!”
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
Will you have the courage to pinpoint say your stance?
There is one member of site leadership I have in mind that ought to speak. Is it time to have the debate?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I think theres no such thing as "transgenderism" and the "gay agenda." I think there are trans people (like myself) and gay people, and people in between. fight me.
also bonus round, for those of you who agree so far, I am actually Non-Binary. I think non-binary = trans. also fight me.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
BACKGROUND:
"Aimee Stephens was a funeral home employee who had presented herself as male up until 2013. On July 31, 2013, she wrote to her employer, the Harris Funeral Homes group, so that they could be prepared for her decision to undergo gender reassignment surgery, telling them that after a vacation, she planned to return dressed in female attire that otherwise followed the employee handbook. She was fired shortly after the letter was sent, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission helped to represent Stephens in court. The District Court ruled for the funeral homes, stating Title VII did not cover transgender people and that as a religious organization under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the company had a right to dismiss Stephens for non-conformity. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, concluding Title VII did include protection for transgender people, which Harris Funeral Homes petitioned the Supreme Court to review. About a month before the Supreme Court decision, Stephens died from health complications. Representation of her case continued through her estate.
The case was heard on October 8, 2019, alongside two other cases, Bostock v. Clayton County and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda which dealt with Title VII protection related to sexual orientation. The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision under Bostock but covering all three cases on June 15, 2020, that Title VII protection extends to gay and transgender people.[2]"
The case was heard on October 8, 2019, alongside two other cases, Bostock v. Clayton County and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda which dealt with Title VII protection related to sexual orientation. The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision under Bostock but covering all three cases on June 15, 2020, that Title VII protection extends to gay and transgender people.[2]"
PURPOSE OF RESEARCHING LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND INTENT:
"Legislative intent is the term that the courts have given to their analysis of the historical documents originally generated when the statute in question was under consideration in the Legislature—state or Federal. Whenever the interpretation of a legislative enactment becomes an issue in a case, the courts will commonly resort to the Rules of Statutory Construction to determine the proper application of the statutory language to the facts at hand. "
"The Court determines the Legislature’s intention by examining the problem faced by the Legislature when it considered the bill that enacted the language in question, the public policy issues that the problem raised and the drafting solutions that emerged during legislative consideration of the bill."
LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH:
The Supreme Court was founded in part to balance the executive and legislative branches of government, and it can help prevent the legislative branch from overstepping its legal obligations by measuring the laws they pass against the U.S. Constitution.
"For the Democrats, the courts have long been seen as a bulwark for liberal
causes. But this presumption also appears vulnerable. If the courts weaken legal
protections related to affirmative action, abortion, and civil liberties, the
judiciary’s liberal allies may become alienated as well.
In the context of this increased political pressure and scrutiny, being more
articulate and clear-thinking about the acceptable contours of judicial power
and the judiciary’s role, and the terms under which we can fairly criticize
judges and justices, seems essential. To the extent we value a neutral,
independent, and effective judiciary, further exploration of legislating from the
bench can help us to examine the preconditions and limits of this efficacy."
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM:
"The practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent."
TEXTUALIST JURISPRUDENCE:
"Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.[1]"
CASE INFORMATION VIA LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE:
ISSUES:
Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination against transgender individuals, either as a form of sex discrimination or as impermissible “sex stereotyping” under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins?
MY ARGUMENT AGAINST THE RULING GIVEN BY GORSUCH:
Justice Gorsuch violated the intent and purpose of legislative history and likewise the rules of statutory construction when he evaluated the case of transgender Aimee Stephens. In effect, he legislated from the bench via judicial activism. He essentially created law where no law existed within the original crafting, intent and purpose of Title VII within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where gender identity and sex stereotypes are concerned.
The arguments presented by Stephens are patently illogical.
Stephens argued that Title VII "specifically" prohibited transgender discrimination [because] it barred employers from terminating their employees “because of [an] individual’s . . . sex.” Stephens further argued that by terminating someone because they are not conforming with their employer’s view of how that person’s “biological sex” ought to present itself, the employer is using that person’s “sex” as it was determined at birth in order to purposely discriminate against them.
When one looks at the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "specifically" Title VII, there is absolutely no language or debate involving transgender, gender identity and/or sexual orientation rights given the glaring fact that none were even an issue in 1964 where legal protections were concerned. Issues meaning neither was seen as apparent then as they theoretically are present-day where legal protections were necessarily needing addressed by said Act in 1964.
The origins of gender identity did not appear to take a foothold in law until the early 1970s, which had more to do with hermaphroditism and transsexualism than actual transgenderism.
The introduction of the dichotomy between anatomical sex and gender identity, then commonly referred to as the psychopathological condition of gender identity disorder, was not introduced into the APAs Diagnostic Statistical Manual until the Third version in 1980, 16 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As such, there is absolutely no measure by which Stephen's argument that Title VII "specifically" prohibits transgender discrimination in employment, or any other area of employment law either. And what one's perception is of what another's sex "ought" to present themselves as is legally irrelevant. To argue such is to also argue how one "ought" to behave when employed, take for example lawfully vs unlawfully; kind or unkind; professionally or unprofessionally. Each measure is a commonsense expectation of behavior, and for a biological man to present himself as a man for nearly two decades as a man, only to one day abruptly claim they are not what they were born as and wish to live their personal fantasy as the opposite sex is a shock to commonsense and the laws governing fraud.
You apply as a man, are hired as a man, work as a man, conduct yourself as a man and then inform your employer you will be coming to work as a woman in appearance and wish to be treated as a biological woman is fraud under the law. An employer is not obligated to facilitate your fraudulent behavior. The Funeral Home had every legal right to terminate employment with Stephens. For Justice Gorsuch to find legal justification for acceptance of transgenderism in Title VII flies in the face of both legislative intent and unquestionably demonstrates judicial activism.
Stephens then argues that should the Court exclude transgender discrimination from Title VII, it would add to the only codified exception to Title VII's protections. This exception being the bona fide occupational qualifications exception that HOOTERS prevailed in regarding being sued by male applicants denied employment as waiters. Hooters maintained it was on the right side of the law in asserting a “bona fide occupational qualification” based on the essence of its business model. Hooters states that the “Hooters Girl” is the foundation of its business. Which is precisely why Hooters is allowed to continue this business model. It is also another reason why we see no male centerfolds in Playboy, but rather that of Playgirl, and no female centerfolds in the latter magazine.
Stephens continues to argue, and with emphasizes, that it mattered not if Congress understood Title VII to encompass transgender discrimination during its 1964 enactment having no bearing on how the Court should determine the statute’s meaning and application present day of that case. This inherently flies in the intent and purpose of the Court to include legislative history in the laws intent and purpose behind its creating and passing in correcting wrongs that have subsequently been made illegal. Ignoring that history of legislative intent and making up terms, intent and meaning of a historical law to fit a present-day issue far removed from the historical law is nothing but judicial activism (i.e., legislating from the bench). And that is EXACTLY what Justice Gorsuch did.
This argument of Stephens is a patent false equivalency fallacy: "Stephens analogizes an employer’s decision to fire employees for their transgender status to the impermissible act of terminating employees because they changed religions." Religion is "specifically" referenced in Title VII, transgenderism is not. Therefore, there is no equal comparison, period.
Sex stereotypes do not come into legal argument in this case either, despite the arguments Stephens made employing it. Stephens was born a man. He applied as a man. He was hired as a man. He worked as a man until such day without warning he informed the Funeral Home he wanted to be employed as a woman when in fact he is/was not a woman. That is an act of fraud, but also a change in employment terms that an employee has no authority to make. Only the employer can change terms of employment conditions, not an employee. Therefore, the funeral home terminating Stephens had nothing to do with a sex stereotype as he was not being discriminated as a biological female employee, but rather that of the obvious: a biological male employee making unrealistic expectations upon his employer to change the terms of his employment with the employer for which he had no legal authority to affect or force upon the employer.
IMO, Justice Gorsuch legislated from the bench via judicial activism and read into Title VII that which was simply not there, nor supported by the legislative history, intent and purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Prove me wrong.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics