CHRISTIAN DAYCARE WORKERS FIRED FOR REFUSING TO CALL A LITTLE GIRL A BOY

[createdtoworship]

Businesses don't fire people over religious reason. Businesses fire people if they fail t meet their standards. Because businesses care about money, not you the employee. If you aren't benefiting the business you are no longer needed.

edit: does anybody know if Texas an at-will state?

I understand but sometimes the business must adhere to no discrimination policy as per federal guidlines.

a business may not feel they are discriminiting, but the governement may sue and win because the out ward appearance is that there is discrimniation.

 

[createdtoworship]

This is not a transgender child. She's gender fluid from what I've read and My daughter who is Gender Fluid switched from playing with dolls to Tonya trucks and I remember her coming to me and asking me why she was a girl around the time she was in 1st grade.

I would research things further than what you have heard before condemning these people for doing anything other than not being you.

no such thing as gender fluid, or even transvestite.

it is simply confusion.

and peer review indicates this.

now I recommend getting hormone tests done, if the daughter has more estrogen, then she is rightly a daughter, and more testosterone, then she is male.

or a he.

both are provided at conception and the body chooses as per DNA instruction which hormone to supply.

it is the best scientific thing to do with gender confusion.

don't start hacking and chopping off organs simply because of a confusion.

this is why john's hopkins stopped doing the surgery.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I understand but sometimes the business must adhere to no discrimination policy as per federal guidlines.

a business may not feel they are discriminiting, but the governement may sue and win because the out ward appearance is that there is discrimniation.

Businesses should be allowed to fire you for any reason they chose or you agreed they are allowed to in your contract.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

no such thing as gender fluid, or even transvestite.

it is simply confusion.

and peer review indicates this.

now I recommend getting hormone tests done, if the daughter has more estrogen, then she is rightly a daughter, and more testosterone, then she is male.

or a he.

both are provided at conception and the body chooses as per DNA instruction which hormone to supply.

it is the best scientific thing to do with gender confusion.

don't start hacking and chopping off organs simply because of a confusion.

this is why john's hopkins stopped doing the surgery.

Dude you don't even know what peer review is and my link refutes averything your links have said.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I have learned simple rules for quoting sources.

my first tier of reference is someone with a phd in related field.

by second tier is a peer reviewed or referreed journal citation.

my third tier is a peer reviewed from a phd in related field.

ultimately anything other than the third tier has weaknesses as far as being authoritative.

as far as Intelligent design and evolution, that too applies the same way.

I have personally over a dozen referreed journals regarding intelligent design.

there is one called

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian

Respiration

a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:

Peer-

Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Article Endorses Irreducible Complexity - Evolution News & Views

again the same quality of citation I give, I require from others.

if you don't have scientific explainations for your views, then it really is not science.

science relies on observation on a fundamental level.

if you don't have observation it canot be called a hard science, or emprical science.

hard truth, or fact.

the rest that is not hard science or fact relies on non science or faith.

so if you do not have any citations for your view, then I can argue that you simply have faith in your perspective.

sort of like how someone has faith in an unseen God.

(which I would agree to)

You haven't given any citations. You've given links to articles. You really aught to learn what you are talking about before you try and post this stuff. It really is annoying.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

very well, I will keep posting my science and you can debate about things that interest you, which obviously is not (science).

You haven't posted anything scientific.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I quoted several authorities, one of which I believe wrote dozens of peer review and was quite influential at johns' hopkins university, the first university to attempt sex reassignment.

I will not do your homework, you will have to search for them.

I posted them at least 2 times, maybe three.

so please do your own homework regarding this matter before again posting assumption.

because unless you have an advanced degree in the area of study, you nor I are an authority, and all else is oppinion.

(as far as your link, I will check it out)

Name your sources if you have and put links to them instead of posting that you have.

And this study at Johns Hopkins has been refuted so It Is no longer valid.

 

[Cute Tink]

no such thing as gender fluid, or even transvestite.

Transvestite is a cross dresser. I think you'll have a hard time proving they don't exist.

Also has nothing to do with being transgender.

it is simply confusion.

and peer review indicates this.

Peer review says the opposite too. Have you read all the studies?

now I recommend getting hormone tests done, if the daughter has more estrogen, then she is rightly a daughter, and more testosterone, then she is male.

Bad way to go about it.

both are provided at conception and the body chooses as per DNA instruction which hormone to supply.

Except for those who are intersex.

it is the best scientific thing to do with gender confusion.

don't start hacking and chopping off organs simply because of a confusion.

this is why john's hopkins stopped doing the surgery.

Not confusion.

Not why they stopped doing the surgery.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

yes, it is.

what if I said you were illiterate?

and therefore we should wait for you to learn to read before you go on the major things of science.

would that not be an attack on you character?

it would be an ad hominem attack, on a minor level, but the major issue would in fact not be ad hominem but a straw man.

they are two legs of a bait and switch tactic, I see it nearly every day in one form or another.

when I am doing debates full time.

(note: I am not saying you are illiterate, it was an illustration)

You've just been reported for insulting members here. You can not write well and that is a fact. If you can't accept that after three people have kindly told you then I don't know what to say.

No one has attacked you in any way. You simply refuse to take corrective criticism at face value.

 

[Cute Tink]

now homosexuals and transvestites try to shock their system by artificially changing these figures. But many times the body will simply correct, sometimes it may take years but eventually it will auto correct. if you just let it do it's thing.

Homosexuals don't take cross sex hormones.

Transvestites (or cross dressers) don't take hormones either.

That you list those two in this topic shows a lack of understanding on the issue.

 

[KitKatMatt]

edit: does anybody know if Texas an at-will state?

It is, yes.

 

[loveofourlord]

Yeah, seriously! You seem to want some lines blurred and seem so tolerant of someone wanting something, but you don't seem to accept the fact that once a line is crossed, then other demands can be made. First, people want to say they're the opposite sex. Second, they want everyone else to identify them as the opposite sex. Third, they want everyone else to allow them to do whatever they please, even if it violates the law. So then they want laws changed, even if it makes people in society uncomfortable for the sake of their own comfort.

This is just stupid, we would no more accept a boy dressing up as Elsa and doing that, then we would a GIRL doing that why does allowing a boy to identify as a girl suddenly mean that we would treat her differently then we would a physical girl wanting the same things? Bad behaviour is bad behaviour wether it's a boy identifying as a girl doing it, or a girl identifying as a girl doing it, this is just nothing but projection.

 

[bhsmte]

Businesses don't fire people over religious reason. Businesses fire people if they fail t meet their standards. Because businesses care about money, not you the employee. If you aren't benefiting the business you are no longer needed.

edit: does anybody know if Texas an at-will state?

Most states are "at will" and Texas is as well.

In regards to a person's religion getting in the way of doing their job, if the company can not make a "reasonable accommodation" to their religion, the employee can be fired.

A reasonable accommodation would mean, the accommodation does not interfere with critical elements of the job and or business.

For example, there was two muslims that recently won an EEOC claim, because they did not want to deliver alcohol, because it was against their religious beliefs and they were fired. It was found, the company could have made a reasonable accommodation by having other drivers make the deliveries, without it negatively impacting the business.

Now, if this company didn't have a lot of other trucks and or drivers to make the deliveries, the accommodation may not have been reasonable and the firing would have been legit.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Most states are "at will" and Texas is as well.

In regards to a person's religion getting in the way of doing their job, if the company can not make a "reasonable accommodation" to their religion, the employee can be fired.

A reasonable accommodation would mean, the accommodation does not interfere with critical elements of the job and or business.

For example, there was two muslims that recently won an EEOC claim, because they did not want to deliver alcohol, because it was against their religious beliefs and they were fired. It was found, the company could have made a reasonable accommodation by having other drivers make the deliveries, without it negatively impacting the business.

Now, if this company didn't have a lot of other trucks and or drivers to make the deliveries, the accommodation may not have been reasonable and the firing would have been legit.

that is stupid law I think. Businesses shouldn't have to bend over backwards for your conversion. You should just find another job that already accommodates you. Why put that sort of stress on the employer? You agreed to their policies. They have to change them for you? sounds selfish to me.

 

[createdtoworship]

Transition and being transgender have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Dr. Paul McHugh is not a good authority on gender dysphoria. Sorry to say, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association disagree with his assessment on the proper treatment.

John's Hopkins University stopped doing the surgery because of a poorly framed study designed to shut the program down because that's what Dr. McHugh wanted.

For the record, WPATH is staffed by people with degrees as well, so disregarding their documentation is inappropriate.

well we would need the links, and or studies to see if they are disqualified or not.

many times due to political pressures these associations will muddy the water and go into the grey zone,

the twighlight zone I call it,

because they don't wish to be one way or the other.

mainly based on fears of public oppinion.

stock markets are that way, they drive based on people fears and hopes, if they fear the world will end, they can literally end the US market by selling all their shares.

it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[createdtoworship]

You haven't given any citations. You've given links to articles. You really aught to learn what you are talking about before you try and post this stuff. It really is annoying.

I did give quotes of studies done on the peer review, at least twice.

 

[createdtoworship]

You haven't posted anything scientific.

here let me post it a third time, as you seem to be obviously dodging:

greg koukl of stand to reason ministries references this article by Wall Street Journal-

"

[P]olicy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right

in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention. This intensely felt

sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is

simply mistaken—it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.

The transgendered suffer a disorder of "assumption" like those in other disorders familiar to psychiatrists. With the

transgendered, the disordered assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature—namely one's maleness

or femaleness. Other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, where

the assumption that departs from physical reality is the belief by the dangerously thin that they are overweight….

Psychiatrists obviously must challenge the solipsistic concept that what is in the mind cannot be questioned. Disorders of

consciousness, after all, represent psychiatry's domain; declaring them off-limits would eliminate the field….

We at Johns Hopkins University—which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into "sex-reassignment

surgery"—launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the

outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as "satisfied" by the results, but their

subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped

doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a "satisfied" but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for

surgically amputating normal organs.

It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most

illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30

years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having

the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose

almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably

reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly

challenges the surgery prescription….

At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. "Sex change" is biologically impossible. People

who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or

masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with

and promote a mental disorder."

http://www.str.org/articles/should-we-ban-conversion-therapy

above quote from STR.org

original source quote from http://www.wsj.com

- author Paul Mchugh

 

[createdtoworship]

Dude you don't even know what peer review is and my link refutes averything your links have said.

what link?

there was two links posted, that were in reference to my post, one was off topic, the other was not scholarly enough.

the quotations I give are not from your typical blogger, but from someone who has numerous peer reviews.

 

[createdtoworship]

Name your sources if you have and put links to them instead of posting that you have.

And this study at Johns Hopkins has been refuted so It Is no longer valid.

sir, you need to post your refutation.

you cannot simply say "this is refuted" without posting your source for that info.

others too, have claimed it refuted, again, same goes for them.

as far as I have seen, no refutation has been given.

let me explain.

I post something,

you google it.

the blog that you land on shows my source as faulty,

so you post it.

but you didn't actually look at their sources.

so if you have a direct link to a professional society regarding my sources then go for it.

if not, then it is your viewpoint, not mine that does not hold water.

 

[createdtoworship]

Homosexuals don't take cross sex hormones.

Transvestites (or cross dressers) don't take hormones either.

That you list those two in this topic shows a lack of understanding on the issue.

hormones are ok to take as long as they suppliment what should be there.

look up "hormone treatment" for transvestites.

some male transvestites out there wish to look like a woman so they take hormones.

endocrine therapy I think it's called but not sure.

and no, insurance should not cover it, it's ridiculous.