Gender is binary. Sex is a verb.

Homosexuality has no affect on one's gender. One's gender has no affect on their Sexuality.
Gender is genetic. Sex is as sex does.

 

You are not answering the question. What law fulfills this assertion?

We're not worried about that ability to not give a reason. We are attempting to determine the validity of that one specific statement.

 

There are reasons that make discrimination illegal like for race, religion or sexual, so technically one cannot discriminate for "any" reason. However, those laws are moot because there is no law compelling anyone to disclose their reasons.

 

Maybe this is just a wording issue. The way we are reading this, there is a claim that there are laws against discrimination based on hair color as well as laws against discrimination based on race. Is that differ than what you are saying?

 

This is correct.

This is incorrect. Sex is both a verb and noun, and as a noun is ascribed to both the distinct features of the human body between the two most common types as well as the activity of sexual intercourse. Gender is not solely genetic as gender can also apply to non human aspects as well, such as male plugs and female outlet or bolts and nuts respectively, not to mention a large number of words in other languages. As to human gender, it is unknown if it is strictly genetic or not. Sex however is.

 

"Hair color"? Am I missing something? I'm not up on the latest. Is that a joke?

 

No one should be defined by what they do sexually. Sex is as sex does.

Gender is quite clear. Gender is defined by the presence or the absence of a Y-chromosome. It does not matter in the least what one does sexually, feels sexually or thinks sexually, there gender is set in genetic stone. Gender is genetic. Sex is as sex does.

 

I'll give you another example of using the wrong words.

Healthcare. Healthcare is comprised of diet, exercise and rest. Why do we call healthcare's exact opposite - medical care-
healthcare? Medical care is not healthcare. No one needs medical care unless health fails. I personally know people who have sacrificed their healthcare so to do what they needed to do to maintain medical insurance. When the inevitable decline in their health then comes, they think themselves prescient for having made the sacrifice.

Using the correct words often sorts things out all on their own.

 

Alex, Google "Target changing room voyeur" and see how many porn sites pop up. The voyeurs know that Target is a soft target (as it were) because it espouses the same policies you espouse. How many thousands of women are victimized because you want to be nice to transsexual perverts?

 

You said "any". Hair color would fall under any. Choice of clothes would fall under any. You claimed the law did not allow for discrimination for any reason.

 

Nor are they, at least by most. By what they are attracted to, however, is what orientation is. And it makes for ease of communication, again for.the most part. No one should be judged for what they do sexually. However, in that my sexual attraction is for only women, by noting I am straight/heterosexual, I indicate that I am not sexually attracted to men.

If by sex is as sex does, you mean that a man is as man does, or woman as the case maybe, and that there is no actual rules to the behavior of men or women, I can agree with you there. If by the line you mean that sex as a word is only a verb, then you have been repeatedly proven wrong.

Earlier you admitted that even one with an XX chromosome pair can be male if the SRY gene had attached itself to one or both of the X chromosomes. That said, the word used to denote the physical, chromosomal and/or genetic make of a person is, and has been for many centuries, sex. Gender originally was not, but then was rendered into a synonym, and now is being evolved again. Your attempt to redefine the word, is not congruent with over word use. This is not to say that language will not evolve to such. Only that it is currently not there.

 

Legally, one cannot discriminate for certain reasons, so technically, one cannot discriminate for "any" reason, but those laws have no power because there is no law that requires anyone to disclose their reasons.

 

You're thinking of someone else. There are oddities, deformities and anomalies, but those are not descriptive of the healthy function of the human genome. Gender is determined by the presence or the absence of a Y-chromosome.
Sex is what sex does.

 

My apologies. I looked back and it was TheImmortal who had responded, and Levent I originally responded to. That said.

The SRY gene is the actual gene that is responsible for male physical development. Commonly found on the Y chromosome, it can sometimes detach, as well as attach to an X chromosome. So is it your assertion, that a person who possess a Y chromosome lacking the SRY gene, who should be born with a vagina, is still a male, while a person with an X chromosome holding an SRY gene, who would be born with a penis, is still a female. Ultimately in the first case the person is chromosomally male, but genetically female (since they lack the actual male gene). Likewise, the later case is chromosomally female, but genetically male (possessing the actual male gene).

 

As I wrote above, there are genetic oddities, deformities and anomalies, however, they are a vanishingly insignificant percentage of the population. What's more, at some point, we need to let natural selection kick in.

 

Are they? Let's think about this. If an XX person who has gained an SRY gene is born with a penis and thought male, short of some other potential genetic medical issue, why would anyone look at their genes? The same for an XY person who has no SRY gene. Born with a vagina, and thought female by all, why would they look at the genes? Genetic testing is not really often done for the majority of people.

 

You framed a context to suit a pretext to support a subtext. I can do that with anything. Anything. Go ahead, give me something, and I'll use you post as a template. All I'll do is change the words. In fact, your post is classic. It is concise, succinct and very well put. It is also a good example of the folly of the hypothetical.

 

Doesn't alter one's sex either.

 

What you say is possible has nothing to do with what is really happening in the world. in 2010, for instance, 73 per cent of black children were born out of wedlock. Here's the left's own Don LeMoan reporting the number.

And all... ALL.. teenage pregnancy is bad whether or not a child has the sense to say they should not have a child. Are you aware that both black and hispanic teens are twice as likely to have a child as a teenager? It never ceases to amaze me just how little the liberals on the left actually care about minorities.

From the second link:

Teenage pregnancies almost always lead to single parent homes.

From https://www.liveabout.com/fatherless-children-in-america-statistics-1270392

 

I'm not supposed to be liking posts from liberals but some conservatives almost force it on me.

 

And yet NYC, along with other cities, have actually banned discrimination based on hair style.

 

So? People live as they live and the ways they live change. Most people from fatherless families actually get along fairly well

 

You made a claim of rarity, but how do you actually support it, when that which you are claiming is rare is not actually tested for, and is not readily visible? Additionally, that which we once thought was rare, sometimes turns out not to be so. For example, at one point miscarriages were thought to be rare. Now medical science believes that they happen a lot more frequently, but often prior to the woman discovering they are pregnant, i.e. early in the first trimester. Now we can break it up in the trimesters and see how relatively rare they are in the later trimesters because we are tracking the pregnancy. But how do you determine the rarity of something if it is not tracked?

 

If you are liking my post you still aren't liking liberal posts. I'm libertarian. Liberals think I'm conservative and conservatives think I'm liberals.

 

Link? I have not heard of such. Not sure that would stand in court if challenged