What does it mean to be a "female?"

How is it Discrimination ??? or Horrific ??

I have had Albino friends and they considered themselves Black, just as some very light skinned people that could be either White or Black preferred to be considered Black.....

 

You must be a great Scientist and Biologist, because you seem to have made several great discoveries unknown to modern mainstream Science.

 

You can look it up for yourself.

 

I don't have to look up any politically based and biased tripe, I know what I have observed in real life, being that I am a man of infinite resource and sagacity.

And just for the record, I have plenty of medical clinical work under my belt, likely longer than you have been alive, so please, do not tell me what to do, thank you.

 

I don't know. I just know I am a woman. Even if I lost both both breasts and my uterus and ovaries to cancer, I'd still be a woman.

Its what I feel I am.

 

Or you could do two things: 1) Mind your own business and let people who are making legitimate use of the facilities do so in peace; and 2) Use the pronoun you think is correct, and if the person tells you they prefer something different, accommodate their request. It doesn't hurt you or anyone else in the least bit to do that.

As for predators, existing laws can deal with them, and preventing a transgender person from using a particular restroom does absolutely nothing to stop predators - they'll do what they're going to do regardless of what the law says, and their activities are not given cover by this.

 

Is it your assertion then that being transgender is not?

 

You openly oppose any and all gun laws and restrictions and tell people it's stupid to lock their houses and cars because there are existing laws that deal with ciminal conduct, right?

Your's is a stupid argument to be blunt. It's a stupid argument on any topic, not just this one. There are laws against anyone assaulting a transwoman using the men's restroom, so there are already laws that deal with this, despite there being no one ever who can point to that happening.

But go ahead and explain what law un-murders and un-rapes a child or woman, since you claim there are already laws to deal with this. What law is that?

 

Not in the slightest. A person should have an absolute inherent personal individual human and civil right to be transgender, transsexual, gay, bi, hetro or damn near anything else a person wants to be or is. Where the lines starting getting drawn is if practices of that right harms or endangers others.

Government creating laws requiring that men be allowed into public ladies restrooms is favoring the psychological sensibilities of a small minority at the expense of endangering over half the population, ie females.

Have you noticed there are liberals and feminists on this forum fully supportive of legitimate LGTB rights and equality who also greatly oppose men in ladies only bathrooms as a matter of priority and safety, haven't you?

 

And you also have every expertise too! Designing public buildings as an engineer and archetect, veteran legal scholar and now medical expert too.

There's the great movie that came out a couple years ago you'd enjoy. The title of the movie is Walter Mitty.

 

Nipples are female parts. Genetics aren't. And there is surgery to fix up the genitals to look female.

 

Yeah...even though I support Gay Rights I think adding the breasts and taking hormones is just going a step too far.

But that's just me.

AA

 

You have just lied through your teeth about me, I never made any claims to being an Engineer or working on public housing, I worked my summers in construction, and medical as a main career, never said I was a "Legal Scholar" either, however, Legal is well covered in medical and police work........

You sure enjoy your sadistic unwarranted attacks on folks.

Karma is pretty heavy, soon, it will rain......

 

Here's something about make and female plasma.

http://www.spectroscopynow.com/deta...have-different-protein-profile.html?tzcheck=1

- - - Updated - - -

No he's telling the truth. I believe he was a paramedic or something.

- - - Updated - - -

What about chromosomes? Aren't they apart of genetics?

 

You claimed expertise in designing how to convert collect public bathrooms into individual bathrooms and experience in doing - claiming there would be essentially no challenges or significant costs to do so, didn't you?

 

He claimed he was law enforcement and caught a male pervert in a female bathroom. He also claimed he has been involved in redesigning colective group bathrooms into individual bathrooms for which he has expertise knowledge in both the design challenges and costs - claiming both were miminal. Now he is claiming medical expertise. In short, when he takes a position on a topic he claims he has experience expertise for whic his opinion is more valuable and important than others. That was my point.

 

No, that is not a proven fact whatsoever and it is a very degrading claim to make as well. It also is contrary to what is known and that is that many people change their sexual practices across their life in regards to gender practice or preference.

 

YOU seem to obsess on morbid topics and like to personally attack people on the forum that have differing views, you are wrong, I do not consider my opinions more valuable or more important, however, I base my opinions on the consideration of others and peoples rights, not Googled content.

I took College courses in the various topics I speak on, and have over twenty years in medical study and work experience, however, in your haste to discredit me, you will likely ignore any facts.

BTW, I am 52 years old and have spent most of my life working and studying.

 

No, actually. I don't give a damn. If I'm in such a situation, all I want is to shower and get out.

I'm not even transgender, as far as saying that even makes sense when you don't regard the concept of gender as valid. I was designated male at birth and I haven't cared enough to contest that. You're making a good many assumptions there.

You sure put a lot of effort into addressing that argument that absolutely nobody made. I'm sure that strawman you were arguing against is impressed. Good job.

This post isn't about you making a point, you just want to be outraged because you get a high off of it. You aren't even participating in a conversation, you're just screaming and other people happen to be near you saying words in your general direction.

I never said that I'm gay. I'm bisexual. I typically self-describe as queer because it's a sort of tradition amongst LGBT anticapitalist activists.

 

Stop screaming at me!

- - - Updated - - -

What about prisons? If a male who is not SRS and not on any hormone therapy says "I identify as a woman" is he then put in with women in prison? Solititary confinement is cruel punishment.

 

I don't support the continued existence of the prison system. We need a rehabilitative justice system.

 

Great questions. a few additional thoughts follow

Freedom of Choice

Near and dear to the hearts of many Americans is the notion of equal protection under the laws. This sentiment is reinforced by the prospect of liberty and justice for all. This concept of equal justice is a foundation of our modern ethos. We can just look to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, we are aware that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give equal protection to those that took up arms against the United States. In fact, those leaders were prohibited from running for office in the United States. It is conceivable that certain portions of the amendment were to establish and maintain political power. Perhaps this was also motivation for the Fifteenth Amendment in some significant way.
Given this history, reasonable people may have cause to be suspicious of the intent of those that champion laws they claim are about civil rights. A cursory understanding of history may teach us that crusaders are not always transparent in their motives.

Moving along to the Civil rights act of 1964. This legislation outlawed discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title IX of the 1972 education amendments says specifically that;
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

This is the basis of the transgender accommodations recently ordained by the Obama administration for public schools. This new doctrine appears to be in line with the spirit if not the letter of previous civil rights protections. Certainly, we all agree that we are better off as a people without race and gender biases dominating our culture. Separate but equal was not a viable path towards integration and harmony.

Is the transgender issue a logical extension of race and gender equality? Let’s examine from the beginning of legal status. Keep in mind a fetus does not have legal status. Although the science seems conclusive that life begins at inception, at least more conclusive than man made climate change, the fetus has no rights of choice in whether they live or die. Given this, we can say that equal protection is sometimes a matter of convenience.
Back on subject now. A child does not choose their race, or gender, or country of birth. These choices are outside of their control and perhaps in the hands of their creator. Therefore, these can be considered endowments from their creator. Their religion on the other hand is a conscious choice. This choice to freely exercise their faith is not protected by civil rights legislation. in fact, prayer is prohibited in public schools. Many believe this a violation of the First Amendment which says the government shall not restrict the free exercise of religion.

Correction, prayer is not banned in public schools. Students are allowed to pray as long as it does not disrupt the school day or interfere with the rights of others. The Supreme court did however ban school led prayer in 1962 and reading from the bible in 1963. Some argue that students that were not part of the majority belief pattern felt persecuted or at least estranged. This is somewhat easy to understand as there is some incongruity between Catholicism and Judaism. Do we want those children that are not part of majority belief systems to feel excluded?

Could this be solved by all faiths having different versus of scripture read over the loudspeaker system? If the government promoted many faiths is that the same as establishing a religion, or is it respecting a variety of perspectives and promoting tolerance? Regardless of the chosen solution it is important to respect the rights of minority groups. But what if protecting minorities makes the majority uncomfortable? Does being in the majority mean that your feelings do not need to be considered because you agree with many of your peers? What if minority behavior makes the majority feel estranged? Is the majority entitled to equal protection?

Given this peculiar reality of civil rights legislation there seems to be an existing precedent. How does this impact gender identification? Well, one cannot choose their ethnicity so it is protected. One cannot choose their sexual category at birth or their place of birth so they are protected from discrimination. What about religion and gender identification? Apparently gender identity is a choice that allows one to choose a different biological identity. This may not be exactly the same as Cassius Clay becoming Muhammad Ali but it is a choice. Ironically a change in religion is enough to avoid going to war unless you are a Christian. If a child grows up in a strictly religious environment are his or her choices limited by their surroundings? In such a case some may say they are indoctrinated and do not have a choice. Of course, different people always have different points of view.

Who goes to what bathroom? This is now a civil rights issue. It is not a privacy issue. It is a right of a person to identify as they wish in case their creator made a mistake and gave them the wrong biological identity. Simple enough. If we do not let them choose, then they are forced to share facilities with people whom they may consider the opposite sex. That in itself is not something we would wish on our children. So why is it an issue?
What if a white person grew up in a black culture? Could they then claim they had a black identity and file to be a minority owned business? Say that a white male identified as a black female can he then be a minority and woman-owned business. Say that a black person grew up in a white environment and displayed white behavior is he now to be removed from the minority preferences we know as affirmative action. Given all the laws and preferences that have been established to move towards a more equal society. Which of the standards do we apply by given circumstances versus chosen circumstances?

What transformative procedures can a person who is deficient in melanin undergo to be perceived as an racially changed person. If a white person pretends to be black and work for the NAACP can they claim they understand racism and prejudice? Can a person born biologically different than their chosen identity actually change their DNA? Is the objective here really to say there are no absolutes and everything is open to interpretation? Let’s all join together in a spirit of cooperation and open mindedness? In this spirit, what is this whole issue really about?

We have restricted the use of religion to emphasize cultural norms in our public schools. Now we are moving towards the removal of the creator’s intent in terms of gender identity and are imposing humanist values on our children in school. The question we need to consider is what do the principles of humanism constitute in terms of religion?

Finally, as the secularists and humanists trumpet the virtues of diversity, is it not clearly time for school choice where parents can select the cultural norms and values their children are indoctrinated by. Or is it against the collective good for individuals to make choices that may be divergent from those imposed upon us?

 

That certainly is ducking the issue, isn't it?

 

The issue is irrelevant to my positions. I don't think that the prison system is the way to deal with crime.

 

The only way your response is not a non-response is if you 1.) advocate closing all prisons and jails entirely and 2.) are 100% convinced that is what is happening today.

Since, IN FACT, there are prisons and jails, THE FACT is then there is the question of which prison population is a man who says s/he is transgender put in.

So, do you have anything to show that no one is going to be put in prison or jail starting tomorrow?