Florida ‘effectively’ bans Advanced Placement Psychology course due to curriculum's discussion of gender and sexual orientation

[rjs330]

Riiiight.


Just because a study shows a bias or has a small sample size, that doesn't make every conclusion drawn from that study automatically wrong in all respects. Your bias is showing here.


Again, flawed doesn't equal wrong. Questionable, yes. Debatable, sure. Inconclusive, absolutely. But flawed studies aren't sufficient cause to throw out the entire practice wholeheartedly. It simply means further research is necessary.

As I've been saying all along.


No, I just don't share your preconceptions.


I never said your point of view wasn't valid. I simply disagree with your conclusions.

What's the problem with that?


Yeah, so? It's a valid opinion. You're free to agree, just as others are free to disagree.

Still not seeing a problem.


Actually, I said you didn't provide proof. You've made a few very specific claims that lack documentation to support them.

You have provided evidence about flaws in some of the studies done in the field, and that's fine. I acknowledge that the research is inconclusive, and that's one of the reasons why more research is needed. However, when you call the research into affirmative care "garbage," that's just your opinion. There are flaws in the research, no question, but I simply don't agree we should throw it all out. I think we can learn from it, so long as we acknowledge its flaws, and I also think more research, with better methodologies, is definitely called for.


Just because I recognize an opinion as valid, that doesn't mean I agree with it, or the conclusions drawn from it.


Therapy should be required. I've said that from the start, and never wavered from that.

And, just because a specific medical facility doesn't offer therapy as part of its service, that doesn't mean patients don't get therapy on their own beforehand. Most people who have gender identity issues seek help in a variety of ways, including therapy, before they ever get to a medical facility to undergo treatment for gender reassignment. If you want to claim that this never happens, that's a claim you'll have to document somehow.

Good luck!


So, you're saying that some patients don't want the advised form of care, and prefer to make their own decisions regarding their medical care.

Shocking!


So, what you're saying here is some people prefer to make their own medical decisions.

Um....yeah. People do that. Sometimes, it works, sometimes it doesn't. Not sure what you want me to do about that.

Your solution seems to be to throw out the entire field because of some bad outcomes, and ignore the positive outcomes entirely. I disagree.

Are you saying that therapy should be a requirement? I agree.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what point you're going for here. Earlier, you claimed that affirmative care "doesn't ask questions and doesn't take into consideration other comorbitiies." Here, you outline the questions.

-- A2SG, nothing more I need do here.....

Let's boil this down to something very simple. You say gender is completely separate for sex.

If a man identifies as a woman, what it he identifying as?

 

[rjs330]

Your solution seems to be to throw out the entire field because of some bad outcomes, and ignore the positive outcomes entirely. I disagree.

I don't believe I said any such thing.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what point you're going for here. Earlier, you claimed that affirmative care "doesn't ask questions and doesn't take into consideration other comorbitiies." Here, you outline the questions.

It doesn't. Those questions in the DSM are basically:
Do you have a strong desire to be the opposite sex?
Have you felt this way for 6 months?
Do you like to play with opposite sex toys?
Do you like to wear opposite sex clothes?
So you prefer to hang around the opposite sex?
Do you dislike your genitals?

Congrats your transgender and now we will totally celebrate that and give you drugs and surgeries.

Where's the therapy? Where's the digging into the other comorbitiies that might lead you to start thinking this way? What's happened in your life? Have you been in the internet researching all of this and due to that have you been unduly influenced by it all?

There are ZERO recommendations regarding therapy. In fact none is being required in most places anymore as I've documented and proven to you.

Are you claiming that a great deal of therapy IS being done prior to transitioning? Ive already proven to you through the articles and videos that it's not. Are still claiming it is?

 

[rjs330]

, what you're saying here is some people prefer to make their own medical decisions.

Um....yeah. People do that. Sometimes, it works, sometimes it doesn't. Not sure what you want me to do about that.

Your solution seems to be to throw out the entire field because of some bad outcomes, and ignore the positive outcomes entirely. I disagree.

I don't believe I said any such thing. I've been clear that serious therapy (not affirming) be done before medical intervention. Particularly for children. And I've already said adults can do what they want. But they need to understand that the consequences of such actions should not be pushed on everyone else to carry.

Yes this applies religion too. Everyone should not be forced to believe in God or say Merry Christmas. Nobody should be forced to go to church or worship at a particular church. You should not be forced to read the Bible at school or claim "Jesus is Lord."

By the same token no one should be forced to call a man a woman. It be forced to use certain pronouns. Women shouldn't be forced to share locker rooms and showers with men. Parents shouldn't be forced to allow their kids to transition or face loosing their child to the state. Schools shouldn't be allowed to transition kids without parental knowledge or consent.

 

[A2SG]

Let's boil this down to something very simple. You say gender is completely separate for sex.

No, I did not say that. I've said that gender and sex aren't the same thing, but that doesn't mean they're not related. For most of us, the two agree...but for some, they do not.

If a man identifies as a woman, what it he identifying as?

As you said, a woman.

-- A2SG, not sure what's unclear about that, exactly....

 

[A2SG]

I don't believe I said any such thing.

Then what are you saying?

It doesn't. Those questions in the DSM are basically:
Do you have a strong desire to be the opposite sex?
Have you felt this way for 6 months?
Do you like to play with opposite sex toys?
Do you like to wear opposite sex clothes?
So you prefer to hang around the opposite sex?
Do you dislike your genitals?

Congrats your transgender and now we will totally celebrate that and give you drugs and surgeries.

Where's the therapy? Where's the digging into the other comorbitiies that might lead you to start thinking this way? What's happened in your life? Have you been in the internet researching all of this and due to that have you been unduly influenced by it all?

There are ZERO recommendations regarding therapy. In fact none is being required in most places anymore as I've documented and proven to you.

Are you claiming that a great deal of therapy IS being done prior to transitioning? Ive already proven to you through the articles and videos that it's not. Are still claiming it is?

Just because many medical clinics don't require it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. In many cases, patients come to medical facilities through referrals from therapists or other care givers, especially when those medical facilities don't specifically have trained therapists on staff. Therapy is still recommended, however, even where it isn't specifically required.

Though, I would agree that it should be more strongly emphasized, possibly even to the point of being a requirement, if that's your objection.

-- A2SG, have spoken in favor of therapy more than once...not sure why that hasn't been sufficient to this point, though.....

 

[A2SG]

I don't believe I said any such thing. I've been clear that serious therapy (not affirming) be done before medical intervention.

And I've offered no objection to therapy. That said, I'm curious what you mean by "serious" therapy. What makes it serious, and what makes it not?

Particularly for children. And I've already said adults can do what they want. But they need to understand that the consequences of such actions should not be pushed on everyone else to carry.

Why not? Can't they advocate for better treatment from others if they feel they're not getting it? Everyone else can, whether they are treated differently due to race, religion or any other characteristic?

Granted, they may not get it...but why can't they try?

Yes this applies religion too. Everyone should not be forced to believe in God or say Merry Christmas. Nobody should be forced to go to church or worship at a particular church. You should not be forced to read the Bible at school or claim "Jesus is Lord."

No one is, per the first amendment. But that doesn't stop some from trying. If they get to, why can't transgender people try?

By the same token no one should be forced to call a man a woman.

No one is.

It be forced to use certain pronouns.

No one is.

Women shouldn't be forced to share locker rooms and showers with men.

So it's okay after she's transitioned, just not before?

Parents shouldn't be forced to allow their kids to transition or face loosing their child to the state.

They aren't.

Schools shouldn't be allowed to transition kids without parental knowledge or consent.

They're not.

None of these things are widespread problems. You might be able to find a specific instance here and there for one or the other, but those generally involve mitigating circumstances, usually involving legal intervention and/or a judge's ruling.

I don't see these as problems in most cases.

-- A2SG, but if you want to talk specifics, you'll have to provide the specific details, and the specific problem in that exact case.....

 

[rjs330]

As you said, a woman.

What is a woman?

 

[rjs330]

No, I did not say that. I've said that gender and sex aren't the same thing, but that doesn't mean they're not related. For most of us, the two agree...but for some, they do not.

You don't get it both ways. Either gender is a reference to biological sex or it's not. Which is it?

 

[rjs330]

Then what are you saying?

I told you what I was saying.

Though, I would agree that it should be more strongly emphasized, possibly even to the point of being a requirement, if that's your objection.

-- A2SG, have spoken in favor of therapy more than once...not sure why that hasn't been sufficient to this point, though.....

I think a requirement would be good. As long as it was done before medically transitioning. Especially for children. Particularly until they are an adult.

 

[rjs330]

And I've offered no objection to therapy. That said, I'm curious what you mean by "serious" therapy. What makes it serious, and what makes it not?

Affirmative therapy is not serious therapy. The clinicians I've linked to tell us what the therapy would look like. Particularly for kids. Those are the ones that explain it.

Why not? Can't they advocate for better treatment from others if they feel they're not getting it? Everyone else can, whether they are treated differently due to race, religion or any other characteristic?

I think I explained it well enough. You mentioned religion as a choice. And it is. Do you believe that the religious should advocate that everyone say "Jesus is Lord"? And advocate for required attendance in schools for Bible reading?

No one is, per the first amendment. But that doesn't stop some from trying. If they get to, why can't transgender people try?

It's okay to try? You find it's okay to try and get the government to pass laws stating everyone must attend a certain church? It's okay to try and get laws passed that everyone has to say Jesus is Lord?

No one is.

Not true. People are being forced to do it. Teachers have been suspended over it. Employees have been fired over it. Female athletes are forced to compete with the men in women's sports, that's calling a man a woman, and women are being forced to share women's locker rooms with men. That calling a man a woman and force is being used. Thomas's teammates were told they had to accept Thomas as a woman in their sport and locker room or they would face serious consequences.

So it's okay after she's transitioned, just not before?

If no knows and can't tell, who's going to say anything? If you've gone through the entire process, had all the surgeries and look just a woman, who's going to know?

If you are a dude in a dress and a beard and penis stay out of women's spaces. You are obviously not a woman.

They aren't.

Yes they are.

How a dad lost custody of son after questioning his transgender identity

Ted was deeply skeptical that the boy he’d coached in little league was actually a young woman, but he tried to keep an open mind.

nypost.com

https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=62304

State-coerced child gender ‘transitioning’ is here. Parents are horrified - LifeSite

Activists are getting Child Protection Services involved when parents oppose a child's transition, threatening removal for 'medical neglect'

www.lifesitenews.com

None of these things are widespread problems. You might be able to find a specific instance here and there for one or the other, but those generally involve mitigating circumstances, usually involving legal intervention and/or a judge's ruling.

I don't see these as problems in most cases.

First you claim these are not happening and then you say they are but not many. So yes they have happened.

Parents sue school officials for helping their kids transition without their knowledge

Florida mom filing suit after child transitioned at school without her consent: 'Happening all over' US

CA Teachers “Transition” Student Without Parental Knowledge - California Family Council

Mother loses custody of daughter for failing to ‘affirm’ her trans identity

I don't need to discuss every case. I justed wanted you to know that these things are happening.

 

[A2SG]

What is a woman?

The female of the species, human in this case.

You don't get it both ways. Either gender is a reference to biological sex or it's not. Which is it?

Gender refers to identity. Sex refers to biology.

This is the distinction I've followed all along.

I told you what I was saying.

I think a requirement would be good. As long as it was done before medically transitioning. Especially for children. Particularly until they are an adult.

I have no objection to therapy being a requirement. I do have an objection to that therapy being used as a deterrent, though, so we need to have training for therapists in this field.

Affirmative therapy is not serious therapy. The clinicians I've linked to tell us what the therapy would look like. Particularly for kids. Those are the ones that explain it.

See, here's where it gets tricky. Therapists should not have an agenda. Therapists should help patients find the path that works best for them, not push them in one direction or the other. You claim "affirmative therapy" is not serious therapy...based on, so far as I can tell, nothing more than an acceptance of the patient's mental state. That alone doesn't suggest an agenda on the part of the therapist, just a starting point for discussion.

I will agree that a therapist shouldn't push a patient toward transitioning, any more than they should push them away from it. But simply acknowledging the patients state of mind at the outset isn't pushing an outcome.

I think I explained it well enough. You mentioned religion as a choice. And it is. Do you believe that the religious should advocate that everyone say "Jesus is Lord"? And advocate for required attendance in schools for Bible reading?

Nope.

It's okay to try?

Many have, and still do. There is nothing illegal in that.

You find it's okay to try and get the government to pass laws stating everyone must attend a certain church? It's okay to try and get laws passed that everyone has to say Jesus is Lord?

What I find is irrelevant. The First Amendment says that this isn't allowed. It also says that we have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. So if someone wants to try to propose such a law, they have that right. But the government doesn't have the right to pass it.

Not true. People are being forced to do it.

Not by the government, they're not.

Teachers have been suspended over it. Employees have been fired over it.

If someone can't do the job their employer pays them for, employers have the right to take action. If they can't do their job within the rules their employer requires, they probably should find other employment anyway.

Female athletes are forced to compete with the men in women's sports, that's calling a man a woman, and women are being forced to share women's locker rooms with men.

You don't offer any specific details, so I can only speak in generalities here....but most sports have ruling bodies that define who may qualify under specific guidelines. A man wearing a dress alone most likely does not pass any of these qualifications, so we're talking about individuals who have undergone some form of medical treatment toward transitioning to a different sex. Whether or not that medical treatment is sufficient to qualify under that sports' ruling body is for them to decide.

So it seems it isn't men in women's locker rooms, it's women who have transitioned.

That calling a man a woman and force is being used.

If the ruling body for that sport has decided that the individual meets their criteria as a woman, they are considered to be a woman within that competition. If another participant wishes to call that person a man instead, I don't know if the ruling body has the authority to demand otherwise. That'd be up to the ruling body, and the participant is under whatever obligations they agree to if they want to participate in the sport.

Thomas's teammates were told they had to accept Thomas as a woman in their sport and locker room or they would face serious consequences.

If you're talking about the swimmer Lia Thomas, she qualifies as a woman under NCAA guidelines. If you disagree with those guidelines, or how they enforce them, take it up with the NCAA. I'm not on that board, nor do I speak for them.

If no knows and can't tell, who's going to say anything? If you've gone through the entire process, had all the surgeries and look just a woman, who's going to know?

Yeah, that's kinda the point.

If you are a dude in a dress and a beard and penis stay out of women's spaces. You are obviously not a woman.

I seriously doubt that's happening. Certainly, not enough to be a real problem.

Yes they are.

How a dad lost custody of son after questioning his transgender identity

Ted was deeply skeptical that the boy he’d coached in little league was actually a young woman, but he tried to keep an open mind.

nypost.com

Pakistani Immigrant Family Forced to Flee Washington to Avoid State 'Transitioning Their Autistic Son Into Their Daughter'

State-coerced child gender ‘transitioning’ is here. Parents are horrified - LifeSite

Activists are getting Child Protection Services involved when parents oppose a child's transition, threatening removal for 'medical neglect'

www.lifesitenews.com

First you claim these are not happening and then you say they are but not many. So yes they have happened.

What I said was: "None of these things are widespread problems. You might be able to find a specific instance here and there for one or the other, but those generally involve mitigating circumstances, usually involving legal intervention and/or a judge's ruling."

The cases you cite do, in fact, involve legal intervention and a judge's ruling.

They don't just happen without that.

Which is exactly what I said.

Parents sue school officials for helping their kids transition without their knowledge

Florida mom filing suit after child transitioned at school without her consent: 'Happening all over' US

CA Teachers “Transition” Student Without Parental Knowledge - California Family Council

Mother loses custody of daughter for failing to ‘affirm’ her trans identity

I don't need to discuss every case. I justed wanted you to know that these things are happening.

Which clearly, based on what I said in the previous post, I knew.

In each case, whatever the specific arguments were, a judge decided in favor of the one whose arguments he felt were better, or more within the law. If you disagree, you'll have to take that up with the judge. I don't speak for judges either.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, though. Are you saying that this field has legal questions that haven't been adequately resolved yet? I can agree with that. I don't claim to have a solution for these problems, though, and don't recall ever saying I did.

So...what's your point, exactly?

-- A2SG, combining all the posts to one....too unwieldy otherwise.....

 

[rjs330]

The female of the species, human in this case.

So a biological female then.

Gender refers to identity. Sex refers to biology.

This is the distinction I've followed all along.

Yes that's what you say. But is it correct. When I asked you what they were identifying as you said woman. Then you defined woman as a female of the species that which is a reference to biological sex. So being that is true they are identifying as a biological woman. Which is an impossibility since they are not a biological woman and can never be a biological woman. Any more than I can be an African American man.

I have no objection to therapy being a requirement. I do have an objection to that therapy being used as a deterrent, though, so we need to have training for therapists in this field.

On this we agree.

You claim "affirmative therapy" is not serious therapy...based on, so far as I can tell, nothing more than an acceptance of the patient's mental state. That alone doesn't suggest an agenda on the part of the therapist, just a starting point for discussion.

Affirmative therapy is not just acceptance of a mental state. It's a celebration of a mental state and affirming that the person is indeed trans and ignores any other possibility.

Affirmative care is defined as an approach to health care delivery in which organizations, programs, and providers recognize, validate, and support the identity stated or expressed by the individuals served (1).

See, it recognizes, validates and supports the trans identity of the person. There is no therapy going on to address anything that might be going on with the person that might make them feel the way they do. It's simply an recognition not just if the mental state but a validation of that mental state, support of that mental state and a celebration of it.

So it's not a starting point. The therapists that I have linked to talk about this. Real therapy does not accept what the person says at face value. It asks the questions just like you did. Why do you feel that way? Let's dig deeper and see what is going on. Is the person autistic, is there depression, where did the person learn and get the idea they might be trans, was there trauma, is there internal guilt, unacceptance of being gay, social contagion. Many of a number of things. Things that can take months if not years to discover.

But don't listen to me. Listen to the therapists that offer real therapy who aren't on an agenda to affirm. Ones that aren't on an agenda but on a mission to really help them.

Many have, and still do. There is nothing illegal in that.

Oh when have they tried to make everyone say Jesus is Lord through power if Law? Many? Really? Who's doing that now? I haven't heard of that. Perhaps I missed out on it.

And never said it was illegal to try.

What I find is irrelevant. The First Amendment says that this isn't allowed. It also says that we have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. So if someone wants to try to propose such a law, they have that right. But the government doesn't have the right to pass it.

Trying to get the force of government on your side and force people to do what you want is a right. I've never denied that. What I have said it is wrong to do so in many circumstances. Just cause you can doesn't mean you should. Regardless of the reasoning behind it.

Not by the government, they're not.

Yes they are. I've pointed it out.

If someone can't do the job their employer pays them for, employers have the right to take action. If they can't do their job within the rules their employer requires, they probably should find other employment anyway.

So you admit it is happening. You said it wasn't.

So it seems it isn't men in women's locker rooms, it's women who have transitioned.

No they haven't. They are still men with a man's biological anatomy.

Trans Student Exposes Genitalia To Freshmen Girls In School Locker Room Shower

If you're talking about the swimmer Lia Thomas, she qualifies as a woman under NCAA guidelines. If you disagree with those guidelines, or how they enforce them, take it up with the NCAA. I'm not on that board, nor do I speak for them.

Once again you claimed it wasn't happening and now you admit it is.

If you're talking about the swimmer Lia Thomas, she qualifies as a woman under NCAA guidelines. If you disagree with those guidelines, or how they enforce them, take it up with the NCAA. I'm not on that board, nor do I speak for them.

You said it wasn't happening.

Yeah, that's kinda the point.

Yup, but that's not what's being done is it. Men who look like men and have all the men parts, characteristics and simply make a claim they are a woman are the ones gaining the access they shouldn't. They haven't transitioned. That's the real point.

seriously doubt that's happening. Certainly, not enough to be a real problem.

I've proven to you it is. You even admitted it here by bringing up where it is. So now you state it's happening but it's not a real problem. Tell me exactly when does it become a real problem? How many times does it have to happen before it's a problem? I bet if you asked those that had to deal with it they would call it a real problem.

My point is this stuff is happening. Do you somehow think every single instance this happens gets in the news?

You said you seriously doubt these things are happening. In the previous posts you said they weren't. Then moved to away well they are but aren't happening very often. Give me a break. So you seriously need me to scout the internet and post every single instance that the news reports it happening?

How many do you need exactly? Now you are just closing your eyes and ears.

I think we can end this whole conversation. Every single time you make an assertion I've proven you wrong. From research to instances where things are occuring even though you stated flat out it wasn't. Then later after being shown it is try and cover your tracks with, "well it is happening after all but not very much."

I'm not going to waste my time anymore trying to prove any more of your assertions wrong. I've done it enough.

 

[A2SG]

So a biological female then.

Not always. Sometimes, one's identity doesn't match their biology.

Yes that's what you say. But is it correct.

It's become the accepted distinction. At least, I've accepted it...and if you want to understand what I'm saying, that's the distinction I've been making.

When I asked you what they were identifying as you said woman.

Actually, you said that: "If a man identifies as a woman, what it he identifying as?"

I simply accepted your premise. As stated, the person you referred to identifies as a woman.

Then you defined woman as a female of the species that which is a reference to biological sex.

It can also reference female as an identity as well. I never specified biology. This is why I make the distinction between identity and biology, even if you prefer to conflate the two.

So being that is true they are identifying as a biological woman.

You never said a word about that person's biology. You said he "identifies" as a woman. To me, that indicates identity, not biology.

If you meant to refer to the person's biology, you should have specified that.

Which is an impossibility since they are not a biological woman and can never be a biological woman. Any more than I can be an African American man.

It's possible to transition to a different sex. It isn't possible to alter your ethnicity or, so far as I know, permanently change your skin color.

On this we agree.

I have no idea what your ethnicity is, or your skin color.

Affirmative therapy is not just acceptance of a mental state. It's a celebration of a mental state and affirming that the person is indeed trans and ignores any other possibility.

Affirmative care is defined as an approach to health care delivery in which organizations, programs, and providers recognize, validate, and support the identity stated or expressed by the individuals served (1).

See, it recognizes, validates and supports the trans identity of the person. There is no therapy going on to address anything that might be going on with the person that might make them feel the way they do. It's simply an recognition not just if the mental state but a validation of that mental state, support of that mental state and a celebration of it.

So it's not a starting point. The therapists that I have linked to talk about this. Real therapy does not accept what the person says at face value. It asks the questions just like you did. Why do you feel that way? Let's dig deeper and see what is going on. Is the person autistic, is there depression, where did the person learn and get the idea they might be trans, was there trauma, is there internal guilt, unacceptance of being gay, social contagion. Many of a number of things. Things that can take months if not years to discover.

But don't listen to me. Listen to the therapists that offer real therapy who aren't on an agenda to affirm. Ones that aren't on an agenda but on a mission to really help them.

I've said that I don't think therapists should have an agenda, either way. I stand by that.

Oh when have they tried to make everyone say Jesus is Lord through power if Law? Many? Really? Who's doing that now? I haven't heard of that. Perhaps I missed out on it.

Ever hear of christian nationalism? There are people out there who want the US to become a christian nation, and have laws based on biblical principles.

And never said it was illegal to try.

Trying to get the force of government on your side and force people to do what you want is a right. I've never denied that. What I have said it is wrong to do so in many circumstances. Just cause you can doesn't mean you should. Regardless of the reasoning behind it.

And you're free to hold that opinion. Not sure what else I can say about that.

Yes they are. I've pointed it out.

Still no. But feel free to show me any law on the books in any state that requires you to do what you claim.

So you admit it is happening. You said it wasn't.

No, I specifically said: "None of these things are widespread problems. You might be able to find a specific instance here and there for one or the other, but those generally involve mitigating circumstances, usually involving legal intervention and/or a judge's ruling."

Then you found a few specific instances, and they did involve mitigating circumstances, legal intervention and judges' rulings. Just as I said.

No they haven't. They are still men with a man's biological anatomy.

Trans Student Exposes Genitalia To Freshmen Girls In School Locker Room Shower

Okay. Sounds like that particular school needs to reexamine their rules. They probably will after parents complain.

Once again you claimed it wasn't happening and now you admit it is.

Read what I wrote earlier, and quoted a couple of times since.

You said it wasn't happening.

Nope.

Yup, but that's not what's being done is it. Men who look like men and have all the men parts, characteristics and simply make a claim they are a woman are the ones gaining the access they shouldn't. They haven't transitioned. That's the real point.

You've given a few specific instances, most of which involved mitigating circumstances, legal intervention or a judge's ruling. I'm still not seeing this as a widespread problem.

As to Lia Thomas specifically, she has transitioned, sufficient to meet NCAA guidelines. Your disagreement seems to be with the NCAA and their guidelines, so take it up with them. I don't speak for them.

I've proven to you it is.

Well, you've claimed it is. I'm still not seeing it. A few specific instances, especially those that were due to a judge's ruling, do not make a widespread problem.

You even admitted it here by bringing up where it is. So now you state it's happening but it's not a real problem. Tell me exactly when does it become a real problem? How many times does it have to happen before it's a problem? I bet if you asked those that had to deal with it they would call it a real problem.

I suppose when it's more than a few isolated instances, beyond those that were a result of a judge's ruling.

But...if you see this as a serious, widespread problem...what's your solution? What do you suggest we do about it?

My point is this stuff is happening. Do you somehow think every single instance this happens gets in the news?

Local news, maybe. Doubt many make the national news. Probably because not everyone thinks this is as widespread a problem as you do.

You said you seriously doubt these things are happening. In the previous posts you said they weren't. Then moved to away well they are but aren't happening very often. Give me a break. So you seriously need me to scout the internet and post every single instance that the news reports it happening?

"None of these things are widespread problems. You might be able to find a specific instance here and there for one or the other, but those generally involve mitigating circumstances, usually involving legal intervention and/or a judge's ruling."

How many do you need exactly? Now you are just closing your eyes and ears.

I think we can end this whole conversation. Every single time you make an assertion I've proven you wrong. From research to instances where things are occuring even though you stated flat out it wasn't.

Well, some things you claimed were happening aren't. Like when you said people were "forced to call a man a woman." or "forced to use certain pronouns." There is no law on the books in any state that requires anything like that.

The examples you provided involved people whose job required them to perform certain duties, which they were unwilling to do. This is only a problem for those who choose not to do the job they're paid to do.

Look, I have a job, too. That job requires me to report to a certain place, at a certain time, and perform certain duties. I'm not forced to do these things, I choose to do them willingly, because I derive a benefit from them: specifically, I get paid. And, as with every other job, if I am unwilling to perform these duties, my employer is well within his rights to not continue to employ me, or pay me.

No force involved.

Otherwise, you have unearthed a few examples mostly involving locker rooms, but, as I've pointed out, those usually involve ruling bodies who make their own rules within their jurisdiction, or involve legal intervention and a judge's ruling. Which is exactly what I said was the case.

Then later after being shown it is try and cover your tracks with, "well it is happening after all but not very much."

I'm not going to waste my time anymore trying to prove any more of your assertions wrong. I've done it enough.

At this point, as Pommer said, we're just two stubborn people going on and on anyway. If you want to quit and pretend you've won, go right ahead.

-- A2SG, have a nice day, my friend....

 

[rjs330]

, some things you claimed were happening aren't. Like when you said people were "forced to call a man a woman." or "forced to use certain pronouns." There is no law on the books in any state that requires anything like that.

Except I provided you examples of it happening.

There is no law on the books in any state that requires anything like that.

Never said there were any laws forcing people to use certain pronouns. That would be a violation of free speech.

The examples you provided involved people whose job required them to perform certain duties, which they were unwilling to do. This is only a problem for those who choose not to do the job they're paid to do.

What job were they hired to do?

Otherwise, you have unearthed a few examples mostly involving locker rooms, but, as I've pointed out, those usually involve ruling bodies who make their own rules within their jurisdiction, or involve legal intervention and a judge's ruling. Which is exactly what I said was the case.

Yes and those bodies forced people to do the things I said. Once again I proved my point that force is involved. Do you think somehow that force only involves government laws?

You've made it very clear that identity to you takes priority over biology but only where gender is involved. It's very hypocritical position to take. To not be hypocritical you would have to support white people identifying as African Americans and American Indians.

 

[A2SG]

Except I provided you examples of it happening.

You never posted a single law on the books in any state that required that. You mentioned a few people who were required to acknowledge someone's transition by their employer, but that's hardly the same thing. If they can't do the job their employer requires, they don't have to work there.

Never said there were any laws forcing people to use certain pronouns. That would be a violation of free speech.

So who's forcing it, then? What's the method of force being used? The only examples you've given so far are coming from employers, and no one is forced to stay at a job they are unwilling to do; or the ruling bodies of sports, of which the participants are free to not participate in if they're unwilling to follow those rules.

What job were they hired to do?

Check back in the examples you posted, that's probably mentioned in there somewhere.

Yes and those bodies forced people to do the things I said.

Nope. They agreed to follow the organization's rules when they chose to participate. No one forced them to participate.

Once again I proved my point that force is involved. Do you think somehow that force only involves government laws?

The only "force" you've shown is people agreeing to follow certain rules within a sport, or perform certain duties for an employer, who then decide they are unwilling to do so. No one's being forced to work there, or participate in that sport.

You've made it very clear that identity to you takes priority over biology but only where gender is involved.

I've never said anything even remotely close to that.

What I have said, repeatedly, is that identity and biology are not the same thing. I never ranked them in any order of importance whatsoever.

It's very hypocritical position to take. To not be hypocritical you would have to support white people identifying as African Americans and American Indians.

I see no hypocrisy, I see only that you continue to misunderstand what I've been saying all along.

But hey, if you haven't listened to what I've said to this point, I see no reason why you'll listen now, so I'll just stand by what I've already said.

-- A2SG, you don't have to agree, and I don't have to be concerned one way or the other.....

 

[rjs330]

So who's forcing it, then? What's the method of force being used? The only examples you've given so far are coming from employers, and no one is forced to stay at a job they are unwilling to do; or the ruling bodies of sports, of which the participants are free to not participate in if they're unwilling to follow those rules.

That's force. Any rule that is established by an organization and that rule is enforced by discipline is force. In this case the rule should be challenged. To force an employee or participant to lie or be punished or be subjected to indecent exposure and unfair hostile work environment is unconscionable. I also gave you an example of government forcing a parent to trans their kid. So the parent had to flee the state. While it wasn't technically a law, it is by the fact the state gave the power by law to the agency to do that.

I've never said anything even remotely close to that.

What I have said, repeatedly, is that identity and biology are not the same thing. I never ranked them in any order of importance whatsoever.

Okay. Let's flesh this out. Tell me if an employee should be required to use preferred pronouns. Should women be required to compete against men in women's sports if they want to participate in women's sports? Should parents be forced to transition their kids by the government? Should women be required to have to put up with men undressing in their locker rooms in order to be able to use them?

I see no hypocrisy, I see only that you continue to misunderstand what I've been saying all along.

Of course you don't. You think identity is subjective. But then state it's not if I want to identify as an African American. In every case I mentioned you brought up the biological component as to why I couldn't. But then still claim gender identity is not subject to the same rules. That's hypocritical. Saying identity in one case is and in the other is not.

Let's flesh out the whole what is a woman thing.

you defined woman as a female of the species t

What does that mean exactly? What is a female? I'm guessing species is a reference to being a human. So what is a female?

 

[A2SG]

That's force. Any rule that is established by an organization and that rule is enforced by discipline is force.

But you agree to follow those rules when you join that organization, or participate in its activities. If you later change your mind and are unwilling to follow the rules, you are free to not participate any longer.

In this case the rule should be challenged.

That's between you and the organization in question. Since I don't speak for them (whichever one you're referring to), your beef isn't with me.

To force an employee or participant to lie or be punished or be subjected to indecent exposure and unfair hostile work environment is unconscionable.

If an employee isn't willing to do the job they're paid to do, they can always find other employment. But, more to the point, if an employee feels the work they're being expected to do is unfair or beyond the scope of their stated responsibilities, they have the right to pursue legal action.

I'm not the employer in question here, nor do I represent them, so this is another case where your beef isn't with me.

I also gave you an example of government forcing a parent to trans their kid. So the parent had to flee the state. While it wasn't technically a law, it is by the fact the state gave the power by law to the agency to do that.

Wait, was it a law, or wasn't it? I'm unclear on that. But, if I recall the incident from your previous post, wasn't there a judge's ruling involved? Seems your problem here is with the judge's decision.

I'm not the judge, so yet another case where your beef isn't with me.

Okay. Let's flesh this out. Tell me if an employee should be required to use preferred pronouns. Should women be required to compete against men in women's sports if they want to participate in women's sports? Should parents be forced to transition their kids by the government? Should women be required to have to put up with men undressing in their locker rooms in order to be able to use them?

I don't employ anyone, nor do I make the rules for any sporting activity, so this is yet another case where your beef isn't with me.

Of course you don't. You think identity is subjective.

What I think is irrelevant. Identity is subjective.

But then state it's not if I want to identify as an African American.

I never stated anything of the sort, a fact you'll confirm in your next post when you fail to quote me saying that.

In every case I mentioned you brought up the biological component as to why I couldn't.

Nope, never happened. You can identify as whatever you want to, and I never once said you couldn't.

But then still claim gender identity is not subject to the same rules.

Gender identity isn't subject to the same "rules" as biology, because identity isn't biology.

That's hypocritical. Saying identity in one case is and in the other is not.

I never said that. I said identity and biology aren't the same. If you think I said something else, I suggest you reread my posts, maybe this time you'll see where you erred.

Let's flesh out the whole what is a woman thing.

What does that mean exactly? What is a female? I'm guessing species is a reference to being a human. So what is a female?

We've been down this road before and my answers won't change, so feel free to reread them from before.

The point I think you're trying to make here is that a person with male genitalia can't possibly know what it means to be a female, so he can't possibly identify as one.

Since I'm not making this claim myself, this is yet another case where your beef isn't with me.

-- A2SG, I miss Clara Peller.....

 

[rjs330]

But you agree to follow those rules when you join that organization, or participate in its activities. If you later change your mind and are unwilling to follow the rules, you are free to not participate any longer.

I would agree that if you join a company who already has these rules in place you should abide by the rules or find somewhere else to work. But if a company changes it's rules later and tells you you must lie about something or lose your livelihood and ability to support your family that's force. Sure you can quit but force was used due to the consequences established by the use of force.

If an employee isn't willing to do the job they're paid to do, they can always find other employment. But, more to the point, if an employee feels the work they're being expected to do is unfair or beyond the scope of their stated responsibilities, they have the right to pursue legal action.

They weren't hired to lie and be subjected to indecent exposure.

Wait, was it a law, or wasn't it? I'm unclear on that. But, if I recall the incident from your previous post, wasn't there a judge's ruling involved? Seems your problem here is with the judge's decision.

Yes it was by law due to the fact that the state by law gave the authority to the agency to enforce state laws. The agency declared the child had to be transitioned or the father would face neglect charges and the child removed. The father left the state. You stated flat out that wasn't happening so once again I proved you wrong.

California just passed a bill that will be signed by the governor that a parent who does not affirm their child will lose custody of it. Right now it's based on divorced parents. But that still remains a law. California also has a law that strips parental rights from parents if the child comes to California for medical transitioning. Parents do not have any medical rights or parental rights in that case. That's law. Once again you are wrong.

Nope, never happened. You can identify as whatever you want to, and I never once said you couldn't.

If I identify as an African American do I have all the minority rights and protections of an African American? And should I? Why or why not?

don't employ anyone, nor do I make the rules for any sporting activity, so this is yet another case where your beef isn't with me.

Yes it is because you support those things.

never said that. I said identity and biology aren't the same. If you think I said something else, I suggest you reread my posts, maybe this time you'll see where you erred.

Nope, that's what you claimed. You said genetics determined your race but not you identity. If I identify as a African American am I an African American? Yes or no. It's a simple question. Yes I understand you are not in the business of telling people what they can and cannot identify as. But it's a simple question.

We've been down this road before and my answers won't change, so feel free to reread them from before.

Nope you never defined female. So define it.

Since I'm not making this claim myself, this is yet another case where your beef isn't with me.

Sure it is because you support it and approve of it. And these things will never change as long as people like you support and approve. That's how it always works in a society. You don't live in a bubble.

 

[A2SG]

I would agree that if you join a company who already has these rules in place you should abide by the rules or find somewhere else to work. But if a company changes it's rules later and tells you you must lie about something or lose your livelihood and ability to support your family that's force. Sure you can quit but force was used due to the consequences established by the use of force.

Employment is still voluntary, so there's no real force involved, except that which you agree to follow. Further, if one has an objection to something new they're required to do for work, they can always complain to HR, or take legal action if necessary. So there are options.

They weren't hired to lie and be subjected to indecent exposure.

I have no idea what they were hired for, so I can't comment.

Yes it was by law due to the fact that the state by law gave the authority to the agency to enforce state laws. The agency declared the child had to be transitioned or the father would face neglect charges and the child removed. The father left the state. You stated flat out that wasn't happening so once again I proved you wrong.

Which case was this again? You don't provide enough details here to get a real picture of what's involved, and I can't say I specifically recall which instance you posted earlier. But, I do suspect there's a judge's ruling involved somewhere, or at least mitigating circumstances, so there may be issues that aren't being mentioned.

California just passed a bill that will be signed by the governor that a parent who does not affirm their child will lose custody of it. Right now it's based on divorced parents. But that still remains a law. California also has a law that strips parental rights from parents if the child comes to California for medical transitioning. Parents do not have any medical rights or parental rights in that case. That's law. Once again you are wrong.

So protest the law. You have that right, just like everyone else. But, I have a feeling there may be a detail or two missing from your description above, so I'll reserve further comment until more information is available.

If I identify as an African American do I have all the minority rights and protections of an African American? And should I? Why or why not?

What minority rights are you referring to? Last I heard, African Americans have the same rights of equal protection under the law as everyone else, regardless of skin color.

Yes it is because you support those things.

I don't support or oppose any of these things. As I've told you, I don't employ anyone, nor do I have a position on any sports ruling body, and I don't speak for anyone who does.

Nope, that's what you claimed.

My claim was that identity and biology aren't the same thing. If you're trying to refute this, I've yet to see evidence for it.

You said genetics determined your race but not you identity.

Well, ethnicity anyway, or at least skin color generally. Race really isn't a thing for humans, we're all the same race. But, as to what forms your identity, that's up to you. Your ethnicity or skin color may play a role, or it may not, it all comes down to your subjective experience. Neither your genetics nor your biology creates your identity, though, because identity and biology aren't the same thing.

If I identify as a African American am I an African American?

You can identify as whatever you want, but your ethnicity and skin color are a different matter. Again, identity and biology aren't the same thing.

Yes or no. It's a simple question. Yes I understand you are not in the business of telling people what they can and cannot identify as. But it's a simple question.

See above.

Nope you never defined female. So define it.

I did before, you didn't like it. I'd post the same thing again, but I suspect your response would be the same.

I have no idea what answer you're looking for, so maybe you should provide it yourself. Might save you some time.

Sure it is because you support it and approve of it.

I neither support nor approve of any other person's identity. It's not my place to, nor does anyone need me to.

I simply acknowledge that some people identify as a different gender than their genitalia. It's not my business to say they're wrong. I wouldn't even know how to make that claim, since I have no way of knowing whether or not their identity is what they claim.

And these things will never change as long as people like you support and approve. That's how it always works in a society. You don't live in a bubble.

I'm not a lawmaker, so my impact on the legal situation is pretty severely limited.

At best, if someone says to me, "I identify as a woman," I don't check their genitalia or say they're wrong, somehow. I generally say "Okay," and go about my life.

-- A2SG, if that simple acknowledgment is support and approval to you, that seems a pretty low bar to me. Flat on the ground, so far as I can tell....

 

[FireDragon76]

Ethnicity and biological genotype aren't synonymous. Serbs and Croats genetically are more or less the same, but ethnically, they are very different: Serbia is Orthodox and writes their language in Cyrillic; Croatia is Catholic and writes in Latin, and both groups have different customs as a result. Likewise, Pakistanis and northern Indians are more or less the same genetically, have the same languages in many cases (they even watch the same movies sometimes), but they don't see themselves as the same people or ethnicity due to religious differences.