Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

[Sparhafoc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex_rights_in_the_United_States#Reparations

The case of M.C. v. Aaronson, advanced by interACT with the Southern Poverty Law Center was brought before the courts in 2013.[54][55][56][57] The child in the case was born in December 2004 with ovotestes, initially determined as male, but subsequently assigned female and placed in the care of South Carolina Department of Social Services in February 2005.[58] Physicians responsible for M.C. initially concluded that surgery was not urgent or necessary and M.C. had potential to identify as male or female, but, in April 2006, M.C. was subjected to feminizing medical interventions.[58] He was adopted in December 2006. Aged 8 at the time the case was taken, he now identifies as male. The Southern Poverty Law Center states: "In M.C.’s condition, there is no way to tell whether the child will ultimately identify as a boy or a girl. Instead, the doctors decided to assign M.C. female and change his body to fit their stereotype of how a girl should look."[55][59] The defendant in the case, Dr Ian Aaronson, had written in 2001 that "feminizing genitoplasty on an infant who might eventually identify herself as a boy would be catastrophic".[60][58]

Gads! Even the medical experts don't know how to assign gender in some cases.

They should come to Tree with his high-school knowledge of 'two anatomies' - he'll be sure to set them straight!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

Greetings,

Biological sex: male, female, intersex (born with genitalia of both sexes), and asexual (born without any discernible genitalia);

Actually it's just male and female. For someone decrying creationists for their childish pseudo-scientific rejection of evolution, you should know better about this kind of propaganda spread by SJWs out of an exaggerated sense of tolerance for intersex people.

SJWs are the new creationists. There's no 3rd sex or more, these are very rare genetic disorders (affecting people who would otherwise be healthy males or females) and the people with these disorders are often sterile. Human reproduction is sexual AND binary, just like the human hand has 5 fingers. How is a form of intersex a different sex when it's often not even viable for reproduction?

I doubt you would be okay if a biology textbook described the human hand as having "anywhere between 0 and 6 fingers" because someone's irrationally afraid to offend the rare number of people who for whatever reason (accident, birth defect) don't have exactly 5 fingers on a hand. That's just not an accurate representation of the normal, healthy human condition. If someone's offended for being told they have an illness, that's their problem, not mine.

I'd held off answering this due to the potential for the topic being split.

Firstly, my information doesn't come from SJWs - it comes from books ranging from medical textbooks through general science books. I had hoped to link the list of books I've bought over the years from The Book Depository but it only allows a link to one's wish-list.

To give an example of some of my sources, apart from Black's Medical Dictionary, and others of that nature, there's Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nurture, along with the more recent Wired For Culture, by Mark Pagel. Baron-Cohen's The Essential Difference, is also interesting. I have a plethora of books by Pinker, Kahnmann, et al. I have also read books by psychiatrists, and psychologists.

The more recent books mirror the point made by Sparhafoc - that the scientific understanding of human sexuality has shifted over the decades since the 1950s, from that of a binary to a continuum. Much as the argument over which is more important, Nature or nurture?

Your finger analogy is inapplicable as the issue is more fundamental - biological sex, rather than the number of digits on a hand (or foot, for that matter). People are not categorized based on the number of digits they have.

It should be noted that many who are intersex are unaware of this until later in life - or it's not even discovered until after their death, during an autopsy. Those who are labelled such by doctors whilst young are often done so on an arbitrary basis based on the individual doctor's opinion. In America, individuals who don't know they're intersex do get married - others, labelled as such, sometimes find that their state's laws prevent them from doing so. Some can reproduce, others cannot.

I did do a search for intersex online, and - although there are a lot of sites giving info on it - I thought a US site might be more useful for you: Intersex Society of North America.

You may argue that it's "biased" but it does cover the various medical conditions comprising the intersex category very well, not to mention addressing the ethical and legal facets of this complex issue.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[MatthewLee]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex_rights_in_the_United_States#Reparations

The case of M.C. v. Aaronson, advanced by interACT with the Southern Poverty Law Center was brought before the courts in 2013.[54][55][56][57] The child in the case was born in December 2004 with ovotestes, initially determined as male, but subsequently assigned female and placed in the care of South Carolina Department of Social Services in February 2005.[58] Physicians responsible for M.C. initially concluded that surgery was not urgent or necessary and M.C. had potential to identify as male or female, but, in April 2006, M.C. was subjected to feminizing medical interventions.[58] He was adopted in December 2006. Aged 8 at the time the case was taken, he now identifies as male. The Southern Poverty Law Center states: "In M.C.’s condition, there is no way to tell whether the child will ultimately identify as a boy or a girl. Instead, the doctors decided to assign M.C. female and change his body to fit their stereotype of how a girl should look."[55][59] The defendant in the case, Dr Ian Aaronson, had written in 2001 that "feminizing genitoplasty on an infant who might eventually identify herself as a boy would be catastrophic".[60][58]

Gads! Even the medical experts don't know how to assign gender in some cases.

They should come to Tree with his high-school knowledge of 'two anatomies' - he'll be sure to set them straight!

I know this question may betray my ignorance... I guess that what questions are supposed to do, right? I have looked into this to try and make sense of this beyond my own biases and I think I get this. Maybe you can illuminate for me. I’m sorry if I am wrong on this or the question is offensive but...

So third sex is a repository term for all identifiable configurations and identities that don’t necessarily fall into clear male or female?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

That's correct, Matthew - or, "intersex", to use the technical term.

I should also correct myself in my earlier post: I was, perhaps, being pedantic in separating asexual from intersex as it's actually included in the latter as one form of it.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[MatthewLee]

Greetings,

That's correct, Matthew - or, "intersex", to use the technical term.

I should also correct myself in my earlier post: I was, perhaps, being pedantic in separating asexual from intersex as it's actually included in the latter as one form of it.

Kindest regards,

James

Thank you. This actually makes sense now. From that perspective I can agree there is a third sex.

 

[MatthewLee]

From experience, I often tend to disagree with people who assert "Selling product X to person Y violates my religious freedom".

This isn't just concerning homosexuals, the issue is a concern with many characteristics where there will be an outgroup. So certainly sexual orientation but gender, ethnicity, religion (or lack of), political belief, etc.

So the issue before the supreme court should have nothing to do with religious freedom because religious belief can be used as the motivation for any kind of action and normally, religious freedom rights should end where another person's right begins, such as the right to life, freedom, in this case to equally participate in the marketplace, etc.

So rather the issue would be about "compelled speech" where the issue discussed is "is food a message"? "Is custom decorations a message"? etc.

Yup. Real equality is 'provide the service for everyone, or provide it for no one' - absolutely no person on this planet is obliging the baker to do anything other than be a baker, and he's not even obliged to do that if he can't navigate the job without coming into conflict with his religious convictions.

As already discussed though: this is indeed a litmus test as to whether the US is going to fall prey to theocratic tyranny.

It is a slippery slope fallacy to say that this case will lead to theocracy. I remind you that he in fact did sell them a cake. He gave them service. He let them in his shop, he didn't shame them and he provided them 'A' service but rather not an artistic expression. This is his argument and we will see how the courts feel. It's still contentious even to them. He refused to use his artistic talent to send a message he didn't want to convey. Originally, Sparhafoc asked me about where the Bible says not to sell LGBT people a cake...
Let me respectfully approach this as honestly as I can.

Being an LGBT person is not sinful. Having feelings, having desires and orientations is not inherently sinful. Actions are sinful. To a Christian sin is action... you commit a sin... it is not about who you are but rather what you do. He did not deny them service because of who they are.. rather they were doing something he did not want to lend his artistic talents too (Romans 1:26-32). He did not want to support an action that is considered morally wrong by his faith conviction. It doesn't matter if it is wrong in your view... opinions on morality vary. On his faith conviction the act of homosexual relations and love between men expressed physically is a deep sin. Notice the phrase 'expressed physically." A choice, an action, not a preference.
The Bible is very clear on this matter. Not just that it is a sin is clear... but that teaching others that sin is ok is a big problem...

Matthew 18 "At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you [c]are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it [d]would be better for him to have a [e]heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes! 8 “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than [f]to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. 9 If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than [g]to have two eyes and be cast into the [h]fiery hell."

Remember that causing others to sin is a pretty big deal. And to say that anything Christ says is evil and by extension attribute evil to the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin (Mark 3:28,29). To ask a Christian to support and by making art EXPRESS SUPPORT for something that is sin is to ask them to court eternal damnation. It is Constitutionally protected to have a religion and to practice it. Religions include codes of ethics and those codes are often contrary to common morality. He didn't want to refuse them service... he didn't want to support their marriage.

if you make an Imam marry two men in a mosque you are asking him to bless that marriage. You are asking him to ask his God to support and bless that marriage and all the things it entails. You are literally asking him to renounce his faith in this action because he cannot follow the law and serve Allah. Muslims are fine with dying to defend this belief.

You ask a Christian to support two men normalizing physical relations with one another and you are asking him to blaspheme his own Scripture and to teach others that this is ok. This man is not just a cake baker. A cake baker can make cakes at the supermarket.. they are generic.. they are not really expression. Food is not necessarily expression. A hot dog is not an expression. This mans cakes are art... they are handcrafted art from his soul like a painting. Would you force a painter to paint a portrait of two men kissing one another even if he was a Christian and didn't want to? That's the problem here... this aren't just box cakes from the ACME. These are specialized artistic expressions from a master baker.

http://masterpiececakes.com/wedding-cakes/

This man didn't want to not serve them... he didn't want to be forced to create an artistic expression which went against his beliefs. We have to keep this on target as far as the argument. If you refuse to serve a gay man a steak... you are breaking the law. If you refuse to offer a gay couple a room for the night then you are breaking the law.

This man had a unique skill which the general public does not have. The majority of the public couldn't create anything like what he creates because he has a unique skill and a unique talent that isn't about just food. If it was, they could have gotten a cake anywhere. They wanted his specific skill in expression and it is really, really hard to make good art for something you don't believe in. In fact, it's painful. They could have found any number of other bakers who would have loved to make this cake. This isn't about religious tyranny... it's about tyranny on religion.

 

[MatthewLee]

HWIN wrote

“To just throw one thing out, since this thread is supposed to be Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion, but poverty is a huge factor in that as well. There are systemic reasons and were systematic reasons for that as well. If you really want to discuss this, I suggest opening up a new thread. However, I feel you will find that we will not actually disagree on much. To address the point of it being in hiding, that is why people need to do investigation. Nothing is above being investigated.”

The point I am making is a metaphor about the topic of the thread. It’s about forcing ideas on people about what is and is not ethical vis a vis sexuality and gender. One cannot force their ideas on another but at the same time this goes both ways and to do otherwise is to court disaster.

HWIN wrote:
“It went away in that they are not owned. Their children are not owned. They cannot be beaten because that would be "cruel and unusual". Plus, once they serve their time, they are free to go and are not owned for life. Now, if we could reform the criminal justice system, I feel a lot of the problems with this would go away over night.”

First of all… they are as good as property and the law is clear… they ARE property according to the constitutional amendment number 13. Second, even if their free to go… their voting rights are compromised. It’s a great way to make sure the African American vote is seriously schewed.
https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286
the prejudice is there… it’s just hidden.

HWIN wrote:
“Yet what finally got rid of poll taxes? The state What got rid of literacy test before voting? Again, the state. You are once again proving my point. Yeah, the state does not get it right on the first try a lot of times, eventually, the arc bends because we hold the government accountable.”

Sure… then they lost their right to vote as convicts, parolees, or those on probation. It didn’t go away, they just found another way around the laws. Law can’t change people’s minds about prejudice. You can’t keep just making laws against the new way to express prejudice.

HWIN wrote:
“Did you not look at my source? Support for marriage equality is over 50%. That is a majority.”

Did you look at their polling method? Your source was a poll of only 2500 people randomly and there were 200 more democrats then republicans and a 5% error in the sample permitted. It was a 2500 person sample meant to represent the opinion of over 300 million people which was clearly represented by a true majority of their votes less than ten years earlier. It was meant to mislead. You should look at their methodology.
http://www.people-press.org/2017/06/26/support-for-same-sex-marriage-grows-even-among-groups-that-had-been-skeptical/2/

HWIN “I am one of the people that would say let the South go. They suck up so much Federal money, that it would be a net positive for the rest of the Union. Beyond that, as you said, the Civil War started at the mere thought of the South having to free their slaves. They saw a whole group of people as less than human and would fight for that right. They are scum plain and simple. Now, I know the South still regrets the War of Southern Stupidity (which is why I love wearing my General Sherman shirt whenever I am there), but remember that they are pining for a time when it was okay to own other humans. That is a disgusting thought. Now, beyond that, I am all for changing minds through dialog (hence the membership here), but I will not coddle anyone. Pining for a time when it was okay to own other people is reprehensible.”

"On this day in 1861, Congress enacted a resolution declaring that the Civil War was being fought to preserve the Union, not to abolish the South's "peculiar institution" of slavery. The resolution was named for Rep. John Crittenden of Kentucky (1786-1863) and Sen. Andrew Johnson of Tennessee (1808-1875), who became president upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865."

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/congress-declares-civil-wars-aims-july-25-1861-005095

Secession started because the North infringed on the rights of the south again and again.. slavery question notwithstanding at all. The Tariff of Abominations had nothing to do with slavery. The North declared war on the south for seceding. The south didn't declare war... they no longer wanted the north making decisions for them. The north ignored them until they left the union then killed them into submission. Who is the aggressor in reality and was it really about anything so noble as stopping slavery or was it about a dispute in labor practice? You ever hear of the Triangle Factory Fire?
The North didn't care any more about people than the south evidence by the fact that they didn't mind killing everyone in the south for their own profit.
You make it sound like the North was a white knight moral avenger... they were scum for entirely different reasons. Slavery was not even at issue in the declaration of war by the Union and Lincoln didn’t care about it. He wanted the union to stay together.

This will sound contentious… I mean it with respect but I am expressing it with a bit of cheek so please don’t be offended, I mean no offense.
By this logic of Sherman… do you advocate invading North Korea? North Korea has no LGBT rights AT ALL. They keep people as property and torture people and it is proven. Libya actually has a proper slave trade right now. Should we burn our way through there because they are obviously plain scum?

http://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/

Read this:
https://islamqa.info/en/12562

and realize that Islam allows RIGHT NOW for the slave trade and for the taking of women as concubines… sex slaves… and killing their husbands in front of them… this is why ISIS is doing it. ISIS is the modern Caliphate which purports to derive their authority directly from the Prophet himself. Do you advocate we go into each Islamic country which believes in the Quran which supports slavery and force them to believe as we do or is it possible another solution may be more expedient then forcing each person on Earth we deem to be “plain” scum at gunpoint and burning our way through their country?

 

[MarsCydonia]

There's a load to unpack here but I want to address what I believe needs to be addressed.

Being an LGBT person is not sinful. Having feelings, having desires and orientations is not inherently sinful. Actions are sinful. To a Christian sin is action... you commit a sin... it is not about who you are but rather what you do.

This isn't exact depending which flavor of Christiniaty you adhere to. There are denominations that
- Consider man, wether homosexual or not, to be inherently sinful.
- Consider feelings and thoughts, even those not acted upon to be sinful. Based on Matthew 5:27-28 and the likes which you certainly do not ignore as you quoted from Matthew
27 You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Which also reminds me of Matthew 5:32
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, brings adultery upon her. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

We should expect the baker in the case of Masterpiece cakes, be consistent, to refuse to sell a cake to any couples which have not demonstrated their past history to show they are divorced, no?
Is he not courting eternal damnation by not doing so?

Moving on...

He did not deny them service because of who they are.. rather they were doing something he did not want to lend his artistic talents too (Romans 1:26-32). He did not want to support an action that is considered morally wrong by his faith conviction... He did not want to support an action that is considered morally wrong by his faith conviction.

Can't we not agree that he did deny them a service? He does offer his artistic talents as a service, that is, his artistic talent as a custom-cake creator. He is hirable for exactly that, he offers his talent in exchange of money.

So I would bring this back to point I raised earlier:
This baker would thus have the right to refuse to sell a wedding cake to any marriage he finds objectionable. If this includes the marriage of an homosexual couple, it would also apply to the marriage of a jewish couple, of an african-american couple, of a liberal couple, etc.

He would not "deny them service because of who they are..." but rather their actions to whom he would not want to lend his artistic talents too.

This man is not just a cake baker. A cake baker can make cakes at the supermarket.. they are generic.. they are not really expression. Food is not necessarily expression. A hot dog is not an expression. This mans cakes are art... they are handcrafted art from his soul like a painting. Would you force a painter to paint a portrait of two men kissing one another even if he was a Christian and didn't want to? That's the problem here... this aren't just box cakes from the ACME. These are specialized artistic expressions from a master baker.

And that is the issue being discussed in court. His cake are art but an hot dog isn't, why?
What defines the barrier that crosses an item from being regular food or service to being art?

If a restaurant chef refuses to cater a jewish wedding, why could not he cite "freedom of speech, my food is art"?

How should we judges if food or a wooden cabinet or any other item are made or not from the "soul" of his maker (which is certainly is a weird term to use since their existence have not been demonstrated).

This man had a unique skill which the general public does not have. The majority of the public couldn't create anything like what he creates because he has a unique skill and a unique talent that isn't about just food. If it was, they could have gotten a cake anywhere. They wanted his specific skill in expression and it is really, really hard to make good art for something you don't believe in.

Except... Do we actually know if the "uniquess of his talent" played any part? From my understanding, he creates custom-cakes as discussed with his customers.

His customers in this instance could have requested something quite usual of his talent or the talent of wedding cake bakers in general but my understanding of the case is that they never got to discussing the particular design of the cake.

He refused them, not because of any particular decorations they demanded be put on the cake as they didn't get to that but because they, an homosexual couple, demanded it.

This isn't about religious tyranny... it's about tyranny on religion.

Tyranny on religion?

So it isn't religious tyranny when person cites their religious belief to deprive others of their right?

But it is tyranny on religion when the privilege a religious person expects is denied and they are treated or must treat everyone equally under the law?

Tyranny on religion will be when christians are denied service for the sole reason of being christians. Has that happened? Certainly not as often as the opposite, Christians denying service.

 

[MatthewLee]

Being an LGBT person is not sinful. Having feelings, having desires and orientations is not inherently sinful. Actions are sinful. To a Christian sin is action... you commit a sin... it is not about who you are but rather what you do.

This isn't exact depending which flavor of Christiniaty you adhere to. There are denominations that
- Consider man, wether homosexual or not, to be inherently sinful.
- Consider feelings and thoughts, even those not acted upon to be sinful. Based on Matthew 5:27-28 and the likes which you certainly do not ignore as you quoted from Matthew
27 You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Which also reminds me of Matthew 5:32
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, brings adultery upon her. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

We should expect the baker in the case of Masterpiece cakes, be consistent, to refuse to sell a cake to any couples which have not demonstrated their past history to show they are divorced, no?
Is he not courting eternal damnation by not doing so?

"First, Jack is a cake artist, something that’s become more famous since reality television shows like “Cake Wars.” He doesn’t just bake cakes; he custom designs master cakes. However, from the beginning Jack has seen his business as an expression of his faith (hence the name), and that has led him to reject business throughout his career. For example, he’s refused to make custom cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, and he’s turned down requests for lewd cakes for bachelor and bachelorette parties.

Back in 2012, two men asked Jack to design a cake for their same-sex wedding. Now mind you, back in 2012, the state of Colorado didn’t even recognize same-sex weddings. Jack told them that he would gladly sell them any item in the store—including cakes—but that he could not, due to his religious convictions, use his cake-design talents to participate in the celebration of their ceremony."

http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/11/breakpoint-get-facts-jack-phillips/

Moving on...

He did not deny them service because of who they are.. rather they were doing something he did not want to lend his artistic talents too (Romans 1:26-32). He did not want to support an action that is considered morally wrong by his faith conviction... He did not want to support an action that is considered morally wrong by his faith conviction.

Can't we not agree that he did deny them a service? He does offer his artistic talents as a service, that is, his artistic talent as a custom-cake creator. He is hirable for exactly that, he offers his talent in exchange of money.

He did not deny them service. He denied them a custom artistic expression but offered them anything else in the store. He SOLD (or gave) THEM A CAKE THAT THEY TOOK HOME. That's by definition providing a service.

So I would bring this back to point I raised earlier:
This baker would thus have the right to refuse to sell a wedding cake to any marriage he finds objectionable. If this includes the marriage of an homosexual couple, it would also apply to the marriage of a jewish couple, of an african-american couple, of a liberal couple, etc.

He would not "deny them service because of who they are..." but rather their actions to whom he would not want to lend his artistic talents too.

He didn't deny them service... They took a cake home. They were served. On the other hand they could not force him to make a custom cake for their wedding because that would be compelled speech... by his assertion... and that violates his first amendment rights.

This man is not just a cake baker. A cake baker can make cakes at the supermarket.. they are generic.. they are not really expression. Food is not necessarily expression. A hot dog is not an expression. This mans cakes are art... they are handcrafted art from his soul like a painting. Would you force a painter to paint a portrait of two men kissing one another even if he was a Christian and didn't want to? That's the problem here... this aren't just box cakes from the ACME. These are specialized artistic expressions from a master baker.

And that is the issue being discussed in court. His cake are art but an hot dog isn't, why?
What defines the barrier that crosses an item from being regular food or service to being art?

If a restaurant chef refuses to cater a jewish wedding, why could not he cite "freedom of speech, my food is art"?

How should we judges if food or a wooden cabinet or any other item are made or not from the "soul" of his maker (which is certainly is a weird term to use since their existence have not been demonstrated).

If you disallow all religious perspectives on whether or not they can prove the existence of God then religion is illegal tomorrow. Faith is by definition beyond the realm of empiricism and naturalism. This is why the first amendment exists, to keep people who don't have religion or have a different religion from taking it away from those who don't agree with them because religion is actually important for reasons those disciplines don't cover... The first amendment is to protect atheists the same as Islam. More than that... I linked the definition of what speech is. Could a restaurant chef consider his food and accommodations speech under the posted legal definition? The court is arguing this. Read the briefs... they answer this eloquently for both cases. The briefs are available.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-111-tsac-USA.pdf

for example

This man had a unique skill which the general public does not have. The majority of the public couldn't create anything like what he creates because he has a unique skill and a unique talent that isn't about just food. If it was, they could have gotten a cake anywhere. They wanted his specific skill in expression and it is really, really hard to make good art for something you don't believe in.

Except... Do we actually know if the "uniquess of his talent" played any part? From my understanding, he creates custom-cakes as discussed with his customers.

His customers in this instance could have requested something quite usual of his talent or the talent of wedding cake bakers in general but my understanding of the case is that they never got to discussing the particular design of the cake.

He refused them, not because of any particular decorations they demanded be put on the cake as they didn't get to that but because they, an homosexual couple, demanded it.

Again, it wasn't the 'who' it was the 'what'. He agreed to sell them a cake... he wouldn't make one to support the ACTION. It was an ACTION he disagreed with. He wouldn't support their wedding with his custom art. The disctinction you will not acknowledge because it is essential. He didn't discriminate against the people but their actions. How can we not see the difference between a person, their desires, and THEIR ACTIONS!

This isn't about religious tyranny... it's about tyranny on religion.

Tyranny on religion?

So it isn't religious tyranny when person cites their religious belief to deprive others of their right?

But it is tyranny on religion when the privilege a religious person expects is denied and they are treated or must treat everyone equally under the law?

Tyranny on religion will be when christians are denied service for the sole reason of being christians. Has that happened? Certainly not as often as the opposite, Christians denying service.

[/quote]

I'm sorry is a custom wedding cake a right?

 

[Sparhafoc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex_rights_in_the_United_States#Reparations

*snip*

Gads! Even the medical experts don't know how to assign gender in some cases.

They should come to Tree with his high-school knowledge of 'two anatomies' - he'll be sure to set them straight!

I know this question may betray my ignorance... I guess that what questions are supposed to do, right? I have looked into this to try and make sense of this beyond my own biases and I think I get this. Maybe you can illuminate for me. I’m sorry if I am wrong on this or the question is offensive but...

So third sex is a repository term for all identifiable configurations and identities that don’t necessarily fall into clear male or female?

The repository term would be 'intersex', and it's specifically to do with genetics and anatomy than about identity. However, in the case of someone arguing that human genders are binary and doing so by lazily appealing to 2 sets of reproductive organs, these facts present a whole range of functional disproofs to such a contention. The term 'intersex' is a catch-all, a singular, but really it represents many, many different ways of being.

For those of us with typical male morphology and chromosomes, I think it's pretty hard ever to imagine what it feels like to be a woman... and vice-versa. So I really think trying to dictate what people feel who have a range of anatomy or mosaic sex chromosomes is firmly outside of our scope.

Whatever the case is, they are no less human just because they are not the norm, and we should be extending protections for them.

 

[Sparhafoc]

It is a slippery slope fallacy to say that this case will lead to theocracy.

Aye, well I didn't say it would lead to theocracy, I said it would be theocracy.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Tyranny on religion: when you don't get to impose your religious convictions on everyone else.

Again, this is just theocracy in the language of privilege.

 

[MatthewLee]

It is a slippery slope fallacy to say that this case will lead to theocracy.

Aye, well I didn't say it would lead to theocracy, I said it would be theocracy.

Ok let’s compare Sharia to the denial of a custom wedding cake to a same-sex couple by a Christian baker. Isn’t a declaration of absolute theocracy a bit of hyperbole in this case? I mean, it’s not throwing people off buildings, right?


https://islamqa.info/en/38622

 

[Sparhafoc]

Ok let’s compare Sharia to the denial of a custom wedding cake to a same-sex couple by a Christian baker.

But why?

Sharia is not the only way for theocracy to exist.

The denial of a provision to a same-sex couple by a Christian is not the actual point of theocracy, but rather when (if) the laws of the land confirm that privilege.

Isn’t a declaration of absolute theocracy a bit of hyperbole in this case?

I don't think it is. I think that's exactly what it would mean if the dominant religious group were privileged above others in terms of the application of law.

I mean, it’s not throwing people off buildings, right?

Well, I mean in exactly the same way, theocracy isn't defined as people being thrown off buildings.

Rather, a theocracy would be a society in which religious rules supersede or directly inform secular ones, and where the members of the state-sanctioned religion are respected disproportionately to citizens who are not members of that religion.

 

[MatthewLee]

Is there no way to reach a balance of respect between no religion and perception that a state religion has privilege? No one is mandating Christianity. The man doesn’t want to bake a cake. Is establishing the superiority of no religion to the detriment of any religion really a more apt interpretation of the first amendment?

Is there no way for Christians to simply not be asked to sacrifice their principles so someone else can have a cake? That’s what is about.. A Cake. This isn’t about murder, or the denial of the right to vote but the right of a difference of opinion about a cake. Do we really have such religious privilege? We can’t even say Merry Christmas anymore without censure... is that privilege?

 

[MatthewLee]

Tyranny on religion: when you don't get to impose your religious convictions on everyone else.

Again, this is just theocracy in the language of privilege.

Do you recall the graphic I posted earlier which showed that Christian majority countries are almost Exclusively where same sex marriage rights are legal and there are 0 Islamic nations which allow this? How can you say that Christianity has privilege when it almost universally allows other ideologies and say that Islam and atheism don’t have privilege when only Islamic and declared Atheistic governments entirely reject same sex marriage equality?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Is there no way to reach a balance of respect between no religion and perception that a state religion has privilege? No one is mandating Christianity. The man doesn’t want to bake a cake.

I feel I have answered this, at least as far as sense allows. If he wants to make a profit in society, then he needs to operate under the laws of that nation. He can't have special dispensation to deny service to people based on his religious convictions, even if it were justified in his religious doctrine, which it clearly isn't. So he can choose not to be a baker. He can choose a job which doesn't result in his religious convictions being challenged - no one is stopping him doing that. But I can see no reasonable way in which the laws of the nation have to navigate each and every individual's alleged religious beliefs.

Is establishing the superiority of no religion to the detriment of any religion really a more apt interpretation of the first amendment?

It's actually expressly not about 'no religion' and is rather expressly about protecting all forms of religious belief and none. No one can make you perform an activity that is part of another religion, or which goes against your conscience, but you also can't expect the laws of the land to privilege your religious convictions.

Analogies have already been provided which would illuminate this. If a Muslim refused service to a Jew because of their devout religious convictions, I very much doubt you'd support his privilege in doing so. At least part of that is because Muslims are not privileged in the USA not being a majority, but the most significant element is that you are not Muslim.

There was a case a few years back in the UK where a Muslim shop-worker refused to sell alcohol, as in, refused to swipe the barcode of the bottle because of her religious beliefs. I wholly support her right not to do anything she doesn't want to, but at the same time, she has no 'right' to be employed in a job where she refuses to perform the requisite tasks.

In reality, of course, just as with the baker, there is precisely bugger all religious justification - no supporting scripture - which even nominally justifies these behaviors. Nowhere does it say that a Christian should not provision a homosexual, and nowhere does it say that a Muslim cannot handle a bottle of alcohol.

Again, I have to point out the farce that the nation would become if everyone was entitled to refuse to perform some duty or service in society according to their unseen religious conscience.

Is there no way for Christians to simply not be asked to sacrifice their principles so someone else can have a cake?

Yes: get another job.

That’s what is about..

It is indeed about undeserved privilege.

A Cake. This isn’t about murder, or the denial of the right to vote but the right of a difference of opinion about a cake.

It's got fuck all to do with a difference of opinion, it's to do with the contemptible mistreatment of homosexuals by Christians because they believe that their religious conscience trumps others peoples' equality.

Do we really have such religious privilege?

I certainly hope not, otherwise I would say that USA is more screwed than they know.

We can’t even say Merry Christmas anymore without censure... is that privilege?

That's rubbish Matthew and you're far above this nonsense.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Tyranny on religion: when you don't get to impose your religious convictions on everyone else.

Again, this is just theocracy in the language of privilege.

Do you recall the graphic I posted earlier which showed that Christian majority countries are almost Exclusively where same sex marriage rights are legal...

Only if you recall me saying 'formerly Christian nations'.

The link isn't that they are Christian, but rather that the importance of Christianity diminished rapidly, and people in those nations stopped using their religious prejudices to limit others in society.

We can look at specifics if you like because you can bet your Bible that there's a direct negative correlation between those attending church and identifying as Christian and the nation's laws extending protection over groups which would have faced censure before. It's not a coincidence that these same-sex marriage laws have happened in recent decades, whereas Christianity's influence has plummeted in that same period.

and there are 0 Islamic nations which allow this?

As I said the last time you made this point: isn't this an argument AGAINST privileging Christian belief in the USA? By and large we don't hold the Muslim majority nations to be examples of stellar civil rights, they are often theocratic. To me, the notion that you want to be able to privilege Christian prejudice against homosexuals means you are essentially making a statement here of admiration for Muslim-majority nations.

So yeah, that's what a theocracy gets you - that's what privileging the religious convictions of believers arrives at.

How can you say that Christianity has privilege when it almost universally allows other ideologies...

Well, first and foremost because I don't recognize your rendition. Insofar as history is concerned, what I see is a direct relationship between Christianity as a majority treating people abhorrently; with nations ubiquitously following it providing little in the way of equality and human rights, and then we see a steady decline in the ardency of Christian belief, and a consequent improvement in the equitable treatment of sub-groups in those nations.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the USA, a nation which still possesses a very high number of ardent Christians, also happens to be one of the most acrimonious battle-grounds of religious conviction against marriage equality.

... and say that Islam and atheism don’t have privilege when only Islamic and declared Atheistic governments entirely reject same sex marriage equality?

Of course, I never said anything at all about the latter, and it's a red herring. I don't know what an 'atheistic government' is, but I find it specious that you are not acknowledging the fact that all the nations which have extended marriage rights to homosexuals are SECULAR.

 

[Laurens]

To make a post that is actually on topic this time, I would like to say the following.

I am ignorant of the biological science behind why gender is non-binary, or if there are any alternate theories that explain all the facts. I tend to accept what mainstream science says when I don't have the time or inclination to research why they say it. For this reason, on this subject I am not really able to talk about the science, but I have no reason to doubt what others have been saying in this topic.

However the social issue perhaps I can comment on. I think people should be able to identify with which ever sex they feel most comfortable with, and not face prejudice in society. If they want to alternate and explore their identity they should have the liberty to do so. I'm really really in favour of gender neutral toilets (I can't tell you how much I hate urinals). However I think that because the spectrum of sexual expression and identity is so vast, we can't really afford legal protection for certain pronouns etc. Essentially you could divide it down to the individual and everyone might want a different set of pronouns if you are going to go that way. Everyone can express themselves however they wish, and ask people to refer to them using whichever language they exist, but I don't think this is something that should ever be compelled by law. By all means make it illegal to use derogatory terms against the trans community in the workplace and such, but I think pronouns etc should be left to the natural evolution of language. Compelled speech is an extremely bad road to go down.

For this reason I can kinda see both sides. I do completely support people's liberty to express themselves however they wish, however I do also see a push for legislature about how everyone else has to refer to their identity. This doesn't make any sense to me, because it will just result in smaller and smaller subsets demanding legislature that protects them and you could take it down to the level of the individual. For that reason that road, I think, should not be pursued. By all means prohibit discrimination against trans people, but I don't think we can class pronoun use unless it is overtly used to discriminate. If I use a pronoun to describe someone by how they appear to be expressing their gender identity and this offends them, too bad I'm afraid. I would not classify this as discrimination unless the intent to discriminate was there. By the way I'm not advocating against changing our language, but it does have to happen naturally through activism and debate.

 

[Sparhafoc]

To make a post that is actually on topic this time, I would like to say the following.

I am ignorant of the biological science behind why gender is non-binary, or if there are any alternate theories that explain all the facts. I tend to accept what mainstream science says when I don't have the time or inclination to research why they say it. For this reason, on this subject I am not really able to talk about the science, but I have no reason to doubt what others have been saying in this topic.

However the social issue perhaps I can comment on. I think people should be able to identify with which ever sex they feel most comfortable with, and not face prejudice in society. If they want to alternate and explore their identity they should have the liberty to do so. I'm really really in favour of gender neutral toilets (I can't tell you how much I hate urinals). However I think that because the spectrum of sexual expression and identity is so vast, we can't really afford legal protection for certain pronouns etc. Essentially you could divide it down to the individual and everyone might want a different set of pronouns if you are going to go that way. Everyone can express themselves however they wish, and ask people to refer to them using whichever language they exist, but I don't think this is something that should ever be compelled by law. By all means make it illegal to use derogatory terms against the trans community in the workplace and such, but I think pronouns etc should be left to the natural evolution of language. Compelled speech is an extremely bad road to go down.

For this reason I can kinda see both sides. I do completely support people's liberty to express themselves however they wish, however I do also see a push for legislature about how everyone else has to refer to their identity. This doesn't make any sense to me, because it will just result in smaller and smaller subsets demanding legislature that protects them and you could take it down to the level of the individual. For that reason that road, I think, should not be pursued. By all means prohibit discrimination against trans people, but I don't think we can class pronoun use unless it is overtly used to discriminate. If I use a pronoun to describe someone by how they appear to be expressing their gender identity and this offends them, too bad I'm afraid. I would not classify this as discrimination unless the intent to discriminate was there. By the way I'm not advocating against changing our language, but it does have to happen naturally through activism and debate.

My assumption is that there is either no real agenda to legally oblige people to use contrived pronouns, nor is there any way in which this could occur. We're not legally obliged to refer to males as 'he' or females as 'she', so I doubt very much that laws will be made compelling people to use other pronouns.

Personally, I am fond of the British 'they' to refer to someone whose gender is either unknown or irrelevant.

But if a person born a man decides to become a woman or vice-versa, I have absolutely no problem referring to them with a pronoun that suits their respective genders and I can't see why anyone would.