Straight People and the LGBT Community getting along.

I know this is old stuff but I did the reading and I figured out the hyperlink. Remember this blog is actually an advertisement to drum up business for a San Diego law firm http://www.boertjelaw.com/ (specializing in defending both criminal and misdemeanors. There are several sections of the Gender Recognition Act. First the blog summarizes the bill in entirety with the sections of statute that will be changed . The hyperlinked section deals specifically with one part of the bill (Chapter 853) that describes new standards to get a registration for a gender change on your birth certificate and subsequently other legal documents in California including drivers licenses including an affadavit. and those are discussed as changes to the code of civil procedure. It does not discuss any changes to statutes involving 'hate crimes' or discrimination or elder care, hospitals, memory care, nursing homes etc outside of 853.
Soo when they recreate this new registration form and describe the affadavit that goes with it, they also cite provisions in California law dealing with the fraudulant practices and perjury. Here is a direct quote from the California legislative counsel's ( the legal staff that worked for the committee considering the language) summary supplied to the members of the legislature of what this bill does. " By requiring the affidavit to be attested to under penalty of perjury, the bill would create a crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program." Now unless these employees using 'He' instead of the requested 'she' are altering a registration form, or lying in a signed affadavit about such alteration that new 'crime' is not applicable.

Now considering this law office is trying to drum up readership in its blog to the public with this 'newsletter', you can be sure it was in its interest to get readers who may worry about this 'pronoun issue' excited enough in the headline to pick this advertisement up. Iff this was the best they could do for reader titillation come up with a scary crime...

Nobody needs to worry except the nursing homes, hospitals etc who may get fined if they do not comply with the sections outside the scope of this 853 chapter. Namely they will need to enforce compliance as it is now a resident and patient right to have their preferred name and pronouns respected.. Part of taking care of these residents is respecting their dignity and choices. And employers who can't manage to ensure that happens consistent with transgender related choices will be seeing CPS fines. Thats what this bill really is designed to do.

 

Let’s do a DNA test.

 

This is almost a perfect example of what is being said. For the longest time, there was a conflation of age and maturity, that at certain calendar/physical ages, you were mature enough to do certain things. We now know that they are two different things. And yes, from this moment in history we've known that for a while, but it wasn't always known. We are now at that same discovery point for sex/gender. We are finding out that they are not the same and that there are variations from the statistical norm, just as there are variations from the statistical norm of what maturity occurs at what age.

Nor is it any less, which is how it is being treated by many and that is what is being fought against. Women and blacks are not any more special than whites or men, but they were (and still are in some areas) treated as less, or from the other side men and/or whites treated as more special.

Outside of a few legal aspects, what difference is physical age really making? Even in your example, if the 15 YO can show to a judge that they have the maturity of a 21 YO, they can get the legal exception (emancipation) to be treated as their "inner age", for lack of a better term.

 

In his example, he did note (for the example's sake I am guessing) that he did have black ancestry. So how much is necessary before claiming it? Off topic I know, and I don't want to dive too deep into it, but the question does pose itself.

 

In all fairness, the goal of transitioning is the alleviation of any GD caused by being transgender. That can be accomplished in some trans individuals through simple presentation, i.e. changing how you look.

And as point of order, he was specifically noting that hormones do not alter DNA, using that as his evidence that a male stays a male. Furthermore, while there are some who are transgender because their DNA and their physical genitals are opposite, not all or even most are. So a typical FtM is not transitioning to more closely conform their DNA.

 

Is that how you always determine a man or woman you meet on the street, or at your job?

 

So you are going to do a DNA test on every person before you refer to their gender? That seems as reasonable as your position.

 

I think we are too stuck on the most obvious characteristics of that DNA ( the XY /XX chromosome genotype that we can see and document. Science still has a lot to learn about what 'conforming to one's DNA' might fully entail in young girls who have these symptoms. I think its likely there are subtle nuanced distinctions that account for GD inducing dysphoric symptoms that we are not aware of, and are not measuring. Its all pretty new and heady stuff we are researching.

 

If someone is decent and courteous to me I treat them with respect. If they insist I have to acknowledge their abnormal life choices I’ll treat them with disdain.

 

Eh?
I live in the UK and am unaware that there are thought crimes in relation to Islam.
Please provide evidence.

 

I see such acknowledgement as part of that respect. Someone can be decent and courteous to me while they insist I aknowledge their gender identity. One does not preclude the other. Its not up to me to decide their gender, their gender identity or the sexual orientation. I leave all of that to them. I sure as hell don't spend any worry-time on which lifechoices are abnormal or normal. My time on this planet is just too limited to waste on that silliness.

 

Oppps. I missed the part about him having black ancestry. But he is trying to claim that anyone can claim to be black

 

Thank you for that insight

 

So if someone is courteous to you and asks you refer to them by their transitioned pronouns does that become them “insisting”?

Do you make the same distinction for all unnatural positions, for instance believe in supernatural beings?

 

No. I don’t mind calling someone by their preferred pronoun if they’re polite about asking. I just don’t respond positively to demands.

 

Given that there have been cis women who have been mistaken as trans women, how do you know a given individual is making "abnormal life choices"? This is before we look at the fact that women owning businesses and being preachers and voting were once considered"abnormal life choices".

 

Still didn't answer the question. Not that this video means anything given the number of "Karens" and violent Christians out there, not to mention violent atheists and pretty much any other group. You can pretty much attach this behavior to most groups.

Or maybe you are saying that this type of behavior is "abnormal life choices"? To which I would have to agree. And it would then logically follow that anyone not engaged in this type of behavior, cis, trans, straight gay, whatever, is not making any "abnormal Life choices".

 

I’m saying this is, in an extreme case of course, the type of thing I consider demanding affirmation. This person could have simply responded “Actually, I’m a woman” there would have been no need for confrontation. It’s when people take that kind of confrontational, demanding attitude that I would tell HIM “F*ck off.”

 

I agree with him that we shouldn't be compelled to agree with somebody's claimed gender identity, much in the same way that we shouldn't be compelled to agree that somebody has a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ".

We should never be compelled to state agreement with either of those if we don't see these claims as reality. We should be free to see these people as delusional, and even to say so when asked.

But we shouldn't run into a church screaming "Your God is faaaaaaaaake!" and we shouldn't scream at a transwoman "you are a maaaaan!".

Harassment should be the issue here, and not forced statements of agreement on identities.

 

Neither.