Transgender Birth Certificates

#51
#51
Roustabout said:
You’ve got it completely backwards. It’s the media and academia that have amended the definition over the past 50 years.
Not as they are used NOW. Did you look up the etymology? Did you reference dictionaries from 30 years ago? The word meaning had been changed. In fact, you quote an article that does that very thing.
Click to expand...
I stated that the MSM got it wrong. Point is the terms are "not" synonymous
 
Last edited:
#52
#52
Wafflestomper said:
You'll note that I didn't respond to your question given the conspicuous lack of a question mark at the end of the comment I did respond to. Where are you going with this question though? Typically when people talk about discrimination they mean some kind of actions or policies taken against some socially salient group based on their membership or perceived membership in said group. Or something like that.
Click to expand...
I think you need to go back and read the thread. I most certainly asked that question before the quote you responded to.

Where I’m going?
You said the government shouldn’t create laws with the purpose is discrimination, so I was wanting a specific example. I assume you are referring to the OP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#53
#53
K-town Vol Fan said:
If someone told me wife was born with a penis I wouldn't care. Its not there now, I can tell you that.
Click to expand...

jJmiG2h.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO, 615vols, Matt2496 and 6 others
#58
#58
Rasputin_Vol said:
Don't you think you guys have pushed this way too far now? I mean, we're talking about not putting the baby's gender on birth certificates. Don't you think this is ridiculous?
Click to expand...
It’s absurd. One, the left wants to blur these terms and rob them of any meaning and then out of the other side of their mouth claim that they have meaning.

“Gender is fluid and ambiguous, but my birth certificate ought not be.”

Two, look at a Tennessee birth certificate. It doesn’t denote gender as the left is using it. It denotes sex. It categorized the newborn based on biological facts, observed and recorded by a medical expert.

Now, let’s suppose this person who was biological male at birth goes to an OB and demands to be put on meds to get pregnant. The doctor refuses and is sued: think it won’t happe? It will. I can think of a number of examples where this nonsense could infringe on the rights of others.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rjd970, NEO, BigOrangeGirl and 4 others
#60
#60
Roustabout said:
I think you need to go back and read the thread. I most certainly asked that question before the quote you responded to.
Click to expand...

You accused me of responding to your question with another question, which wasn't the case.

Roustabout said:
Where I’m going?
You said the government shouldn’t create laws with the purpose is discrimination, so I was wanting a specific example. I assume you are referring to the OP.
Click to expand...

Well, the article posted in the OP contained complaints from affected persons. The judge for the case found that the justifications provided for the subject law were "nothing more than thinly veiled post-hoc rationales to deflect from the discriminatory impact of their policy." What more are you wanting me to provide?
 
#63
#63
Wafflestomper said:
You accused me of responding to your question with another question, which wasn't the case.



Well, the article posted in the OP contained complaints from affected persons. The judge for the case found that the justifications provided for the subject law were "nothing more than thinly veiled post-hoc rationales to deflect from the discriminatory impact of their policy." What more are you wanting me to provide?
Click to expand...
Actual discrimination. Or, proof that not being allowed to change a medical record (which is what a BC is) discriminatory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#68
#68
1972 Grad said:
There is a difference between spelling and grammar.
Click to expand...

LOL, yeah - but not in here. Pretty sure you've gleefully bent over backwards to point them both out.

If you can't spell grammar, you may want to refrain from calling out someone else's literary competence.
 
#69
#69
Septic said:
LOL, yeah - but not in here. Pretty sure you've gleefully bent over backwards to point them both out.

If you can't spell grammar, you may want to refrain from calling out someone else's literary competence.
Click to expand...
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
 
#73
#73
Roustabout said:
Actual discrimination. Or, proof that not being allowed to change a medical record (which is what a BC is) discriminatory.
Click to expand...

Being humiliated and threatened by your employer for being LGBT doesn't count as discrimination to you?

What medical use does your birth certificate serve? Does your doctor have a copy of yours? Also, Ohio enacted a law in 2016 to prevent you from changing your BC, so they should provide justification for the law rather than the other way around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#75
#75
Wafflestomper said:
Being humiliated and threatened by your employer for being LGBT doesn't count as discrimination to you?

What medical use does your birth certificate serve? Does your doctor have a copy of yours? Also, Ohio enacted a law in 2016 to prevent you from changing your BC, so they should provide justification for the law rather than the other way around.
Click to expand...
Being threatened by your employer is discrimination, period. Fat? Bald? Ugly? What other special classes are we going to enact? While you can provide an employer an BC, it is not required. A social security, card or passport will suffice. My employer doesn’t have my BC, so it seems a non sequitur. Changing your BC is changing a medical record and is what should require the burden of proof.

I didn’t say it provided a use and was careful in my example. I already provided an example. They enacted it because people were doing it. It was reactionary.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top