metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You somehow missed the point.
As I've repeatedly posted, "sex" is not exclusively based on one's "equipment" as there's also the issue of "hormones" that also are intrinsic with human biology.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Banning ‘Woke’ Words in State Documents, Arkansas Governor Signs Executive Order
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
As I've repeatedly posted, "sex" is not exclusively based on one's "equipment" as there's also the issue of "hormones" that also are intrinsic with human biology.
Nope. No amount of surgeries will change the cellular, biological sex of a person. And in many medical situations that biological sex matters. I'll ask you the same questions: In situations where biological sex changes the course of medical treatment, are you suggesting that doctors should act based on the patient's gender identity?
Stop with the mind reading, I did not miss that point you arrogant authoritarian. Oh wait! Was that an ad hominem? I forgot, everyone but me is allowed to use them, so sorry!
Seriously dude - I'll give you $100 if you can find one example of me initiating a personal attack against you - will you make me the same offer? Why, on this topic, are you so quick to lose your manners?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You can believe that I am an "authoritarian" and am arrogant, so since this is the case, then there's nowhere to go on with this.
Goodbye.
don't let the door hit your *** on the way out
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Disagree. If this is all Republicans have (and it seems it is), it's pretty pathetic.
I must confess, it's quite odd to agree with Huckabee on anything. And it's probably the case that she's doing it only to score political points.
But this is a great example of what I've been saying: When the far left proposes crazy stuff, OF COURSE the right will make hay with it. So this crazy far left stuff is actually helping trump in his efforts to get re-elected - yikes !!
It isn't. This is:
This garbage order is what the thread is about. It's a blatantly bigoted piece of legislation that - aside from being an obvious first amendment violation - force state documents to use non-inclusive language which in effect disregards and erases the existence of, for example, pregnant persons who aren't women. It wouldn't be that gods damned hard for them to go "instead of pregnant people, say women and other pregnant people" to be inclusive.
It isn't. This is:
This garbage order is what the thread is about. It's a blatantly bigoted piece of legislation that - aside from being an obvious first amendment violation - force state documents to use non-inclusive language which in effect disregards and erases the existence of, for example, pregnant persons who aren't women. It wouldn't be that gods damned hard for them to go "instead of pregnant people, say women and other pregnant people" to be inclusive.
How is it bigoted? How is telling the truth bigoted?
It seems like you just contradicted yourself? Your first answer was that calling a trans woman a trans woman doesn't erase anyone. Good, we seem to be agreed on that point.
But then you said that this governer's order would "erase the existence of"...
So how would calling pregnant trans men, trans men erase their existence? Isn't it exactly the opposite? Doesn't calling such people "pregnant trans men" explicitly affirm their existence?
Did you read the executive order? Here, we can make it even easier, I'll just C&P it verbatim so you can see the specific examples of language they are censoring:
(2) In official government documents, the following exclusionary and sexist terms shall be replaced with accurate, female-affirming alternatives:
a. Rather than “pregnant people” or “pregnant person,” use “pregnant women” or “pregnant mom.”
b. Rather than “chestfeeding,” use “breastfeeding.”
c. Rather than “body fed” or “person fed,” use “breast fed.”
d. Rather than “human milk,” use “breast milk.”
e. Rather than “birthing person,” use “birth mom.”
f. Rather than “laboring person,” use “birth mom.”
g. Rather than “menstruating person” or “menstruating people,” use “woman” or “women.”
h. Rather than “birth-giver,” use “woman.”
i. Rather than “womxn” or “womyn,” use “woman.”
There you go.
Now make a rebuttal that addresses the language actually covered in the executive order. Explain to us how prohibiting the term "pregnant people" or "birthing person" in state documents isn't disregard for and erasure of pregnant people who aren't women (e.g., trans men) and the like. Bonus points if you can explain how this executive order doesn't blatantly violate freedom of speech.
You know what this crap reminds me of? It reminds me of a certain former president who pushed to eliminate the words "climate change" from government websites.
As "Climate Change" Fades from Government Sites, a Struggle to Archive Data | FRONTLINE
Nearly one year into the Trump presidency, a makeshift coalition is grappling with how to preserve mass amounts of federal climate information that many researchers fear is at risk.
www.pbs.org
Are you willing to first answer my questions in post #109? If you do that, then I will answer your questions in post #110.
Fair enough?
You're using a definition that just doesn't work in
the real world anymore. Surgery to convert a man
to a woman (& vice versa) changes their sex.
Eg, to call someone a "man" when she functions
as & look like a woman causes them harm.
Gender identity isn't the issue with medical treatment.
If you watch enuf TV, you see ads for drugs that take
into account the sex one is born with, rather than the
sex one currently has.
Let me ask you the same questions I've asked others in recent posts:
How does calling a trans woman a trans woman cause them harm? Others have claimed it denies their existence. If you agree with that, then how does calling a trans woman a trans woman deny their existence? Doesn't it in fact do the exact opposite? Doesn't it in fact explicitly confirm their existence?
When you say "functions like a woman", can you be more specific? I would say that's mostly untrue and only a little bit true?
Well I don't watch any TV
So perhaps they advertise drugs appropriate for the sex that was established at creation. But the sex established at creation cannot be changed. I understand that various medical interventions can change a handful of characteristics, but those interventions most assuredly do NOT change a person's sex. If an adult wants to identify with a gender that differs from their immutable biological sex, go for it. But changing those outward appearances to reflect gender identity (again, fine with me - for adults), does NOT change one's sex.
Nope. There's nothing to really answer. Find another dance partner.
1) It's an insult that deeply offends.
2) It could prevent using the appropriate lavatory.
3) It exposes one to violence if bigots are in earshot.
Those are just 3 that came to mind.
Asking a trans person would be more meaningful.
Do you disagree that there's harm?
If I'm in the presence of a trans woman
or man, I wouldn't use the prefix "trans".
That would be superfluous & rude.
You remind me of my father.
He believed that anything said, if true, is
not offensive. He would use this to justify
deeply offending people.
If you had a hunchback covered in boils,
I wouldn't say to you....
"You're a hideous disease ridden hunchback."
Lives as a woman.
Wears women's clothing.
Looks like a woman.
Well, you are a knuckle walking throwback,
not progressive as I am.
The point is that a fully engaged member ofWell I don't watch any TV
society is aware that medical treatment takes
into account the sex that one is born with.
Trans folk are different from cis folk in ways
immutable, ie, genetics.
"Creation", eh.
Are you get'n biblical?
It seems that you're locked into the idea that
what something starts as, it must always be.
I'm more accepting of change, eg, Democrats
no longer being the slave holding party.
What harm is there in treating a trans woman
as a woman, & a trans man as a man?
Do you call @Saint Frankenstein a woman,
& @Shadow Wolf a man?
It is good to know that we still have some intelligence being displayed.
My question is, “who used those other words in state documents in the first place”?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why assume that they were ever used. Once again, Huckabee has her own scandal that she is dealing with right now. This looks like a smokescreen to me.
We Never Know
No Slack
"So how would calling pregnant trans men, trans men erase their existence"
IMO it wouldn't erase their existence but it seems if they are pregnant they no longer want to be called transgender men.
They prefer “birth-giver,” “laboring person,” “birthing person"
Offensive is taken, not given.
We need to find a better solution for public restrooms, indeed. But increasing the risk for all women is not a good solution.
Bigots in earshot? Of what, our debate here on RF, or on a government document?
OTOH, forcibly attempting to control language IS a strategy that will create oodles of ill will.
Not just any old thing, but the biological sex of an individual IS immutable. It's baked into every cell of the body, not just one's genitalia.
We've been over this. You still haven't answered the ER question, that's one example.
Now in many situations it doesn't matter, and I have no issue. But sometimes biological sex DOES matter.