Yeah, it sorta does. Like he said .. if someone identified as the Emporer of the West, would you accommodate that belief?
Its ok if you get the gender identity of a trans person wrong if it was an honest mistake and you had no way of knowing. Its on them to correct you. Once you have been corrected, then call them what they want to be called.
That person is either delusional (time to run), joking (don't take it seriously), or doing a power play (you shouldn't back down). In the case of trans people, they genuinely feel like a certain gender and want to be called that gender even if they aren't biologically that gender.
Sorry, no. The only civil way to deal with others in these cases is not demanding they pander to you. I've spent my entire life being called the wrong thing, and I do my level best not to correct people. I'm interested in their comfort, which must take precedence. I'm a grown up - I'm not 'hurt' by being called the wrong name. However, others would be embarrassed and discomforted where I to correct them.
Transgenders have plenty of supporters who are neither trans themselves, nor have any such in their family. And support is growing. So "packs" against them will and are failing.
Wanting to be called the pronoun they want to be called takes zero effort to do. When people call you the wrong name, I suggest you correct them the first time they make the mistake. They won't mind and it will prevent a lot of future awkwardness. It just feels better for you when you are interacting with people who are calling you the correct name/pronoun that you want to be called. Now you think trans people shouldn't ask people to call them the gender they have identified with their whole lives, fought with family members over, dressed to conform to, and maybe even had surgery for. But some people will still ask that they be called a certain name or pronoun, even when you don't think they should, because different people have different personalities and beliefs. And to get along with them, its best if you just call them what they want to be called and asked to be called.
You obviously MISSED my point ENTIRELY! This was the erroneous allegation that I was responding to; All of my points clearly established that morality HAD and DOES change AND that the Will of the People DOES have something to do with those changes in morality! I effectively REFUTED the erroneous allegations that "morals don't change" and that it is NOT a "constant standard" and that those changes DO have a lot to do with the Will of the People.
As opposed to how stupid the right's push is to try and force people to participate in their mental fantasies about not being allowed to marry the consenting adult of your choice or choose whether or not to have an abortion?
Ironic coming from those who want to impose their own fantasy about an invisible sky bully on our secular legal system.
Half of one percent of 300 million people is 15,000,000! Sure are a lot of those genetic mutations around for the extreme right to obsess about.
OK, let's go down the scientific route. Your sex is defined by your DNA and this is what you will always will be no matter how you feel or want to be identified as, case solved no pandering to delusion or personal fantasies. Let's apply this to religion, there no science that can prove God, all we have is a book written by some people a long time ago. So applying the same standards we should no longer pander to delusions of region and all exemptions and allowances should be removed. We should no longer call anyone reverend, Bishop etc. etc. all we are doing is enabling their fantasy in some mythical being with basis in fact or science. Great nice level playing field, so we can all move on.
What legal precedent? So far the only things you’ve talked about are all made up in your mind. You’re losing your mind over what if scenarios.
I think you missed mine. The law does not automatically reflect morality. If we take the assumption that morals don't change (an assumption I don't believe in, but for the point...), immoral people can still end up in charge and make laws reflecting their immorality. It doesn't mean that morals changed, just the law. I happen to agree with you that, collectively at least, morals do change. It may be that individually they don't but that's harder to show. It's obvious they are various and even subjective (one type of homicide is murder, another type is not). My point is that the law is not an automatic reflection of morality nor an automatic indicator of whether or not morality has change.
Like a troll trying to dominate someone else's thread. I got it. Thanks. I'm not up on the latest tech talk.