Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rockpond

Church statement on Equality Act

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Sec 1107 from the link CV provides:

That is rather all inclusive in language.  Is there any other reason/law that could be applied to provide a claim/defense/basis for a church university for example denying employment?  I can see how BYU might avoid it by requiring temple recommends ( going off memory here for professors, not sure about staff), but other Church schools that don't have such additional requirements that could be argued to be unattached to sexual orientation and instead focused on active membership?  What protection options do they have?

Given the Deseret Gym case (functionaries like janitors cannot be compelled to be temple recommend holders), I fear yBu would fail in its laudable goal.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I don't see this working either as trans people will feel discriminated against.

Meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Since transgender women are supposedly increasing their participation in sports today, then I'm not sure why you think the Equality Act will exacerbate this perceived problem. 

The reality we're dealing with is we live in a world that is increasingly egalitarian and that prejudice on the basis of sex and gender are rapidly being looked down upon, which I see as an amazingly good thing for society at large.  The challenges of how to handle competitive sports in a world with performance enhancing substances is a problem that crosses gender identity.  Also, how to fairly handle the participation of transgender individuals is also a question I don't think society has quite figured out yet.  

Its not a problem created by the Equality Act and its not going away irrespective of the passing of the Equality Act.  

While you are correct that identity politics has been proliferating for decades,  it has increasing gained a stronghold over government, and control in society, with the passage of each succeeding "equality" legislation. The EA is no exception.

The problem, as intimated earlier, and illustrated in my recent post, is that as things grow, particularly on the federal level, it is often at the expense of other things (individual liberties and state rights, etc.), including portions of itself. Obesity not only displaces external things, it is also deleterious to its own body. 

And, the more obese the government becomes in general, and the "equality" movements in particularly,  it is inevitable that the "equal rights" of one group will be at odds with the "equal rights" of another group. The example I gave is just one of several.  

So, not only isn't it going away, it will likely get worse.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by Wade Englund
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Valentinus said:

In another post above I admitted to not knowing how to deal with this issue. It is a concern needed to be addressed. I'd recommend, though stupidly I suppose, in creating trans sports. Then I'd likely be accused of ostracizing trans people from the gender they identify with. But what of the reversal? Trans female to male persons who wish to compete? I'm honestly lost on solutions.

I wonder if identity politics, itself, is inadvertently creating problems that have only really existed in the last several decades--problems that are increasingly unsolvable, in part because people are looking to the evermore bloating federal government for solutions, and don't have a functional grasp of "equality" and rights" ?

Another example of where the "equal rights" of one group is at odds with the "equal rights" of another group, has to do with the well-intended affirmative action programs in education and the workplace. Scholarships, enrollment and hiring practices, etc.  intended to expand educational and job opportunities for disadvantaged minorities like biological blacks and Indians,  are at risk of being usurped by so-called privileged biological white people who identify as black or Indian. The "equal rights" of biological blacks and Indians are at odds with the "equal rights" of biological whites who identify as black and Indian. And, this isn't even taking into account the "equal rights" of biological  blacks that are at odds with the "equal rights" of biological Asians.

And, there is more...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I just saw 3 separate friends on Social Media today post favorably about states banning Sharia Law and suggest that the entire country should pass laws banning Sharia. Each of these 3 friends are extremely conservative and each have written posts in the past few days about how freedom of religion is under attack in the US yet are thrilled with bans of Sharia Law.

Now, there is Sharia Law and then there is SHARIA LAW. For example, I would expect everyone here to agree that honor killings as a part of Sharia Law are bad. But Sharia is not interpreted by most Muslims as including Honor Killings. IOW- there is much in Sharia Law that is really just the free exercise of religion, even if it does seem harsh/incompatible to our sensibilities. So it seems hypocritical to me when I see friends bemoaning the supposed loss of their religious freedom while simultaneously calling for the loss of other groups religious freedom. Am I wrong about that?

Claims about the Equality Act strike me similarly. People are very afraid and up in arms about any perceived loss to their freedom whilst simultaneously supporting fewer freedoms for minority groups. Again, seems hypocritical to me.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

While you are correct that identity politics has been proliferating for decades,  it has increasing gained a stronghold over government and control in society with the passage of each succeeding "equality" legislation. The EA is no exception.

The problem, as intimated earlier, and illustrated in my recent post, is that as things grow, particularly on the federal level, it is often at the expense of other things (individual liberties and state rights, etc.), including portions of itself. Obesity not only displaces external things, it is also deleterious to its own body. 

And, the more obese the government in general, and the "equality" movement in particularly, becomes it is inevitable that the "equal rights" of one group will be at odds with the "equal rights" of another group. The example I gave is just one of several.  

So, not only isn't it going away, it will likely get worse.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I see things a little differently.  The transgender community is a very small and vulnerable segment of society, that are at very high risk for suicide and discrimination.  Its literally one of the most marginalized and ostracized groups in our modern day.  I feel like Christianity should be at the forefront of calling for inclusion and love towards groups like this, unfortunately, human nature and prejudice often trump the gospel message embodied through Jesus.  That people are fretting over the participation of transgender individuals in sports as a reason for opposing equality legislation, seems like a misprioritization of giant proportions.  

If you are concerned about individual liberties, then why not the liberties of the individuals (women) that this act is promoting fairness for?  It seems like sometimes people claim to support individual liberty when in reality they only support the liberty of certain individuals.  Can there be tension between the rights of groups, certainly, and there will be issues to continue to work out as there always have been.  Our society and our government are an ever evolving enterprise.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I just saw 3 separate friends on Social Media today post favorably about states banning Sharia Law and suggest that the entire country should pass laws banning Sharia. Each of these 3 friends are extremely conservative and each have written posts in the past few days about how freedom of religion is under attack in the US yet are thrilled with bans of Sharia Law.

Now, there is Sharia Law and then there is SHARIA LAW. For example, I would expect everyone here to agree that honor killings as a part of Sharia Law are bad. But Sharia is not interpreted by most Muslims as including Honor Killings. IOW- there is much in Sharia Law that is really just the free exercise of religion, even if it does seem harsh/incompatible to our sensibilities. So it seems hypocritical to me when I see friends bemoaning the supposed loss of their religious freedom while simultaneously calling for the loss of other groups religious freedom. Am I wrong about that?

Claims about the Equality Act strike me similarly. People are very afraid and up in arms about any perceived loss to their freedom whilst simultaneously supporting fewer freedoms for minority groups. Again, seems hypocritical to me.

I have seen the same from some family and friends.  Mormons ought to be extra sensitive about things like this.  Our tradition honestly has a lot in common with Islam if you think about our history with polygamy and the WoW and very conservative orthodox practices.  We should be championing the religious freedom of other groups as well.  This kind of bigotry towards a different religious group is very sad to see and its extremely narrow minded.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

I wonder if identity politics, itself, is inadvertently creating problems that have only really existed in the last several decades--problems that are increasingly unsolvable, in part because people are looking to the evermore bloating federal government for solutions, and don't have a functional grasp of "equality" and rights" ?

Another example of where the "equal rights" of one group is at odds with the "equal rights" of another group, has to do with the well-intended affirmative action programs in education and the workplace. Scholarships, enrollment and hiring practices, etc.  intended to expand educational and job opportunities for disadvantaged minorities like biological blacks and Indians,  are at risk of being usurped by so-called privileged biological white people who identify as black or Indian. The "equal rights" of biological blacks and Indians are at odds with the "equal rights" of biological whites who identify as black and Indian. And, this isn't even taking into account the "equal rights" of biological  blacks that are at odds with the "equal rights" of biological Asians.

And, there is more...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You raise important points, Wade. Again, I don't see a way to resolve the issues.

Per education, socializing it in the same way western European countries have can eliminate the competition for financial aid as well as eliminate lifelong student debt. Opportunity should always be equally distributed alongside individual talent. With that said, I'm not interested or concerned with the talking points and populism of conservatives. An example of this would be FOX Business commentator Trish Regan and her debunked claims concerning socialism in Denmark by Denmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I just saw 3 separate friends on Social Media today post favorably about states banning Sharia Law and suggest that the entire country should pass laws banning Sharia. Each of these 3 friends are extremely conservative and each have written posts in the past few days about how freedom of religion is under attack in the US yet are thrilled with bans of Sharia Law.

Now, there is Sharia Law and then there is SHARIA LAW. For example, I would expect everyone here to agree that honor killings as a part of Sharia Law are bad. But Sharia is not interpreted by most Muslims as including Honor Killings. IOW- there is much in Sharia Law that is really just the free exercise of religion, even if it does seem harsh/incompatible to our sensibilities. So it seems hypocritical to me when I see friends bemoaning the supposed loss of their religious freedom while simultaneously calling for the loss of other groups religious freedom. Am I wrong about that?

Claims about the Equality Act strike me similarly. People are very afraid and up in arms about any perceived loss to their freedom whilst simultaneously supporting fewer freedoms for minority groups. Again, seems hypocritical to me.

And this too seems hypocritical. Here the Sharia and SHARIA distinction is allowed, but no distinction between Protected Class and SECTION 1107, no siree!

"OVERKILL" on all counts!

Edited by CV75
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I see things a little differently.  The transgender community is a very small and vulnerable segment of society, that are at very high risk for suicide and discrimination.  Its literally one of the most marginalized and ostracized groups in our modern day.  I feel like Christianity should be at the forefront of calling for inclusion and love towards groups like this, unfortunately, human nature and prejudice often trump the gospel message embodied through Jesus.  That people are fretting over the participation of transgender individuals in sports as a reason for opposing equality legislation, seems like a misprioritization of giant proportions.  

If you are concerned about individual liberties, then why not the liberties of the individuals (women) that this act is promoting fairness for?  It seems like sometimes people claim to support individual liberty when in reality they only support the liberty of certain individuals.  Can there be tension between the rights of groups, certainly, and there will be issues to continue to work out as there always have been.  Our society and our government are an ever evolving enterprise.  

I suppose that "most marginalized and ostracized groups" is in the eye of the behold.  Certainly, contemporary proponents of intersectionality appear to agree with you..

Nevertheless,  I see where the argument is headed, to wit: the higher a group's ranking on the intersectionality victim scale, the more okay it is for that group to step on the  "equal rights" of groups lower on the victim scale. 

However, not only does this concede my point, but it inadvertently marginalizes groups that are ranked lower on the victim scale. In other words, unequal rankings are used to justify violating a groups "equal rights" all in the name of equality.  

This argument may feel okay on the surface, but it becomes dubious  the  more critical thought and consideration is given.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Valentinus said:

You raise important points, Wade. Again, I don't see a way to resolve the issues.

Per education, socializing it in the same way western European countries have can eliminate the competition for financial aid as well as eliminate lifelong student debt. Opportunity should always be equally distributed alongside individual talent. With that said, I'm not interested or concerned with the talking points and populism of conservatives. An example of this would be FOX Business commentator Trish Regan and her debunked claims concerning socialism in Denmark by Denmark.

I hear you.  And, I hope you can tell that I am trying hard to avoid the argument traps of political tribalism by focusing on pragmatically evaluating results.

Having thought a bit more on the clash of "equal rights" initiatives,  I was struck by the distinct probability that a substantial cause may be a function of language, and thus the solution may also be a function of language.

By this I mean that a common strategy among "equal rights" initiatives is the significant, if not near inverting, redefinition of various long-standing and long-functional terms--without which redefinition, there would be no sensible case for "equality.".

I am not just talking about the redefinition of "marriage,"  I also have in mind, among many other instances,  the redefinition of the word "woman."  Where once it only referred to biological female's, it has now been redefined to also include biological males.  Such a seemingly dysfunctional redefinition can't help but create  problems.

Take for instance, the "Women's March."  Without intending to, the display of hats in the shape of body parts of biological women, and speeches that glorified certain bodily function of biological women, all within the context of a march for and on behalf of women, turned out to be highly offensive to the biological male participants who identify as women. In other words,  A march in support of "equality for women," was stepped on by the "equal rights" of biological men who identify as women.

And, the problems resulting from redefining "women"  goes well beyond the "women's March."  You alluded earlier to women's reproductive rights. Can you see how this likewise can be stepped on by biological males identifying as women? 

None of this was an issue when the word "woman" was functionally restricted to biological women. 

The point of these cautionary tales, and the outcome of a pragmatic evaluation of results,  is that the seemingly unsolvable problem was caused by dysfunctionally redefining the term., and so the only viable solution appears to be returning the definition to its functional state.

What do you think?

By the way,  there are other ways that the transgender movement has marginalized biological women. Are you interested in hearing them?  And, it isn't just the transgenders who are doing the marginalizing, the homosexual movement has as well. Would you like to learn how?. 

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

 

Edited by Wade Englund
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Buffy said:

There are some in the feminist movement that see transgenderism as anti-female.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerAEROWManifesto.html

There is something offensive about a man claiming to know what it feels like to be a woman or putting on the external trappings and then claiming to be female. 

Brilliant!  

Taking it one step further, while I don't agree with the feminist "argument" that men can't speak to various women's issues (like abortion) because they aren't women,  the transgender movement puts paid to those who do agree with the "argument."

I am imagining a meme in which a transgender "female" is telling a biological male that he can't speak about women's reproductive rights since he is not a woman. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

I hear you.  And, I hope you can tell that I am trying hard to avoid the argument traps of political tribalism by focusing on pragmatically evaluating results.

Thank you and you are doing very well.

Having thought a bit more on the clash of "equal rights" initiatives,  I was struck by the distinct probability that a substantial cause may be a function of language, and thus the solution may also be a function of language.

I think I can agree with the direction you're going with and it seems logical to me.

By this I mean that a common strategy among "equal rights" initiatives is the significant, if not near inverting, redefinition of various long-standing and long-functional terms--without which redefinition, there would be no sensible case for "equality.".

Can equality be reached without redefinition that does no harm?

I am not just talking about the redefinition of "marriage,"  I also have in mind, among many other instances,  the redefinition of the word "woman."  Where once it only referred to biological female's, it has now been redefined to also include biological males.  Such a seemingly dysfunctional redefinition can't help but create  problems.

Take for instance, the "Women's March."  Without intending to, the display of hats in the shape of body parts of biological women, and speeches that glorified certain bodily function of biological women, all within the context of a march for and on behalf of women, turned out to be highly offensive to the biological male participants who identify as women. In other words,  A march in support of "equality for women," was stepped on by the "equal rights" of biological men who identify as women.

I'm not arguing against this but can you provide sources where a trans woman felt their rights were stepped on? I can't imagine a trans woman trying to establish a case of "no difference" between themselves and biological women. I'm not saying it can't happen. 

And, the problems resulting from redefining "women"  goes well beyond the "women's March."  You alluded earlier to women's reproductive rights. Can you see how this likewise can be stepped on by biological males identifying as women? 

I can't but I'm willing to hear you out.

None of this was an issue when the word "woman" was functionally restricted to biological women. 

The point of these cautionary tales, and the outcome of a pragmatic evaluation of results,  is that the seemingly unsolvable problem was caused by dysfunctionally redefining the term., and so the only viable solution appears to be returning the definition to its functional state.

What do you think?

Again, you raise a good point. I'm not as nuanced on this as you seem to be but as I said, I'm willing to hear you out. 

By the way,  there are other ways that the transgender movement has marginalized biological women. Are you interested in hearing them?  And, it isn't just the transgenders who are doing the marginalizing, the homosexual movement has as well. Would you like to learn how?

Yes. 

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

 

Thank you once again for your rational response and I appreciate your patience in helping me to understand where you're coming from.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the obvious (to me) compromise: keep the EA essentially intact for protected classes (with some language modification here and there so it is more focused and less militant (e.g. "To prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes" , "stereotype" and other stuff) and remove Section 1107. This really could have passed years ago.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 

If you are concerned about individual liberties, then why not the liberties of the individuals (women) that this act is promoting fairness for?  It seems like sometimes people claim to support individual liberty when in reality they only support the liberty of certain individuals.  Can there be tension between the rights of groups, certainly, and there will be issues to continue to work out as there always have been.  Our society and our government are an ever evolving enterprise.  

What is "fairness"? And where does ones liberties start and another's liberties end; especial when one feels their liberties are being trampled to promote the liberties of another?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Here is my prediction on the Equity Act and this whole issue in general

The Equality Act will not pass.

The SCOTUS will be deciding on 5 cases this year concerning these issues.

They will rule that you can not discriminate based on orientation when it comes to housing, employment and in the market place

They will also rule that religious institutions including churches, schools, adpotion agencies, camps, clubs, whatever can discriminate, but are not entitled to federal funding.  If they want to discriminate, they. have to do it on their own dime.

I think that is a fair compromise that most people except the extrreme in both groups can live with and is in keeping with the spirit of discrimination and religious laws that are currently in place.

But hey, it is an extreme right court right now, so who knows.

Well, wow-wee I largely agree with you here (I opined similarly above -- but I'm less inclined to predict --  Posted 1 hour ago ).

I think it would be shame to deny FBOs federal funding, which I think is / should be a separate discussion altogether, and I prefer to characterize their protections as "exemptions" than "discrimination".

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, provoman said:

What is "fairness"? And where does ones liberties start and another's liberties end; especial when one feels their liberties are being trampled to promote the liberties of another?

Good questions, these are the kinds of questions that are part of the social contract the the principles that our culture has been grappling with.  I'd like to think we're getting more fair and have increased liberties over time overall, at least the general arc of history has trended in that direction, but there certainly have been ups and downs along the way over the past 150 years in the developed western world.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, provoman said:

What is "fairness"? And where does ones liberties start and another's liberties end; especial when one feels their liberties are being trampled to promote the liberties of another?

 

My opinion is ones liberties start and another's liberties end when one actually encroaches on another's liberties in a real way and not a superficial infringement.  For example, forcing a church to hire a gay minister when the church has beliefs against someone being gay is encroaching.  Not so much for a baker claiming that he can't bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because it is an endorsement of gay marriage.  Baking a cake for a customer is baking a cake.   Does the baker have a problem baking a cake for a divorce celebration?  Or a bachelor party where a stripper might attend? Or a baby shower for a single mom?  You can't judge every customer that comes in your store to decide if they are worthy of your product.

I worked in a restaurant during high school and college. I served coffee, though it was against my religious beliefs.  Unless they were forcing me to drink it as a condition of employment,  I shouldn't and I didn't have a problem.  Should a Muslin refuse to ring up a customer buying ham?  If the store is not requiring them to eat ham as part of their employment, then not encroaching.  A painter refussing to sell a painting to a person because of their beliefs, superficial infringement.  A person forcing a painter to paint a certain image, encroachment.

Edited by california boy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

I suppose that "most marginalized and ostracized groups" is in the eye of the behold.  Certainly, contemporary proponents of intersectionality appear to agree with you..

Nevertheless,  I see where the argument is headed, to wit: the higher a group's ranking on the intersectionality victim scale, the more okay it is for that group to step on the  "equal rights" of groups lower on the victim scale. 

However, not only does this concede my point, but it inadvertently marginalizes groups that are ranked lower on the victim scale. In other words, unequal rankings are used to justify violating a groups "equal rights" all in the name of equality.  

This argument may feel okay on the surface, but it becomes dubious  the  more critical thought and consideration is given.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The statistics about suicide for transgender individuals are extremely alarming when compared to the general population, this is not "in the eye of the beholder" it is something that any thoughtful person should be worried about.  So I don't see these issues as purely academic when it comes to the lives of real people, especially people that I know and love.  

https://save.org/about-suicide/suicide-facts/

So much of your comments are infused with a seeming kind of code speech which I can only imagine is expressing a political angst towards certain positions on this topic, but unfortunately it is very unclear to me what position you are attempting to communicate.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, provoman said:

What is "fairness"? And where does ones liberties start and another's liberties end; especial when one feels their liberties are being trampled to promote the liberties of another?

"Fairness for All"* is a political strategy based on the 2015 "Utah Compromise" which remains the only statewide SOGI law enacted over the last seven years.**

* https://world.wng.org/sites/default/files/assets/NAEBoardResolution_0.pdf

** https://world.wng.org/2018/12/boards_back_sogi_compromise

As shown in expressing her voice and support for the Utah Compromise, I think the Church's challenge to "wise policymakers to end this destructive conflict and protect the rights of all Americans" is most worthy of emulation. When her reasoning for this is harshly touted as extremist and ill-informed, when this SOGI so far has been the only successful "legislation that vigorously protects religious freedom while also protecting basic civil rights for LGBT persons," does not "encourage mutually respectful dialogue and outcomes." (quotes from the OP link to the newsroom article)

Cosmic fairness is something else altogether and stays out of politics! :)

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Snowflake just asked this question over at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71869-christian-mingle-must-let-lgbt-singles-after-losing-court-battle/?tab=comments#comment-1209906210 ,

Quote

"Spark Networks, which owns ChristianMingle, JDate, and LDSSingles.com ("the largest dating site by Mormons for Mormons"), first came under legal fire in 2013 after two gay men noticed that new members could only search for dates of the opposite sex."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/christian-mingle-same-sex-dating-lgbt-lawsuit-california-1.3663871

My question/comment is why don't the LGBT singles use LGBT dating sites and let the Christian groups (Spark Networks) run their business the way the would like to? 

Does this come under the purview of the Equality Act?

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"Fairness for All"* is a political strategy based on the 2015 "Utah Compromise" which remains the only statewide SOGI law enacted over the last seven years.**

* https://world.wng.org/sites/default/files/assets/NAEBoardResolution_0.pdf

** https://world.wng.org/2018/12/boards_back_sogi_compromise

As shown in expressing her voice and support for the Utah Compromise, I think the Church's challenge to "wise policymakers to end this destructive conflict and protect the rights of all Americans" is most worthy of emulation. When her reasoning for this is harshly touted as extremist and ill-informed, when this SOGI so far has been the only successful "legislation that vigorously protects religious freedom while also protecting basic civil rights for LGBT persons," does not "encourage mutually respectful dialogue and outcomes." (quotes from the OP link to the newsroom article)

Cosmic fairness is something else altogether and stays out of politics! :)

I think most people in Utah and the LGBTQ community were happy with the 2015 law that was passed because it represented a strong step in the right direction.  One step at a time, don't bite off more than you can chew, kind of approach.  Things are moving so quickly on these issues as people all around the country are getting more informed and perspectives are changing, so even though its only been four short years, you can see by looking at polls how attitudes towards LGBTQ individuals are evolving.  

The new Equality Act represents another step.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Thank you once again for your rational response and I appreciate your patience in helping me to understand where you're coming from.

You are amazing!  

You asked: Can equality be reached without redefinition that does no harm?

That is the irony. Equality actually existed prior to the redefining. The redefining was needed to create an inequality that  presumably required government intervention (thus growing the already obese government),  thereby creating the unintended consequence of a seemingly unsolvable pro problem.  Hence, the dysfunction. However, as indicated, the solution is to return to the traditional and functional definition. Equality will thereby be restored. If you like, I can walk you through the dysfunctional redefining of "marriage" to show how it played out as suggested..

You also asked for evidence that trans women had issues with the Women's March (2017).  Please see HERE and HERE. The 2018 March tried to be more "inclusive" of Trans women. (see HERE)

As for the issue that trans women may take with  discussions of women's reproductive rights, it is similar to their objections to the 2017 Women's March, in that because trans women lack the same reproductive plumbing as biological women, and can't get pregnant or get someone else pregnant after reconstructive surgery, they will feel "excluded," and "offended,"  two of the most serious discriminatory violation within identity politics and  "equality" movements. Once again,  biological men are stepping on the "equal rights" of biological women,  though all in the name of "equal rights.

For another example of how trans women step on the "equal rights" of biological women,  please see my response to Buffy above.

Also, one of the fundamental planks of the Women's Movement was to decrease, if not eliminate, sexual harassment of women by men, and this to the point that men can't compliment a woman on her looks or make a pass at her in the workplace and even at school. Yet, under the guise of "equal rights," biological males are welcomed into women's most private spaces, restrooms and locker rooms, all under.the guise of "equal rights."

transgender-bathroom.jpgWomens+Rights.jpg

For more on this, see HERE

Thanks, -Wade Englund.

Edited by Wade Englund

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...