Today, the justices will hear oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, a case that may finally force the nation’s highest court to address transgender rights head-on
"Transgender rights"? Is that a neutral or a biased term? Is there such a thing? Shouldn't it be female rights, or perhaps you should say the court will address transgenderism.
It’s a good question. Transgender rights are treated in very much the same way as gay, lesbian and bisexual rights (they are included under the broad LGBTQ+ umbrella). Transgender rights are widely acknowledged, including by the ACLU, one of the primary advocacy groups opposing the Tennessee legislation:
Transgender is a completely nonsense term, whereas transsexual at least comported with the actual physicality. But the bottom line is that transition of sex- or even "gender" (a linguistic term hijacked by ideologues)- does not happen. We must stop speaking in the reality-concealing euphemisms foisted by propaganda upon our common lexicon, especially those birthed by extreme body modification fetishists looking to promote a permanent state of childhood for potential future victims, such as "transgender child." This includes the need to use biologically correct terms when discussing misclassified children in danger of medical mutilation by unwell adults.
The media outlets have been given explicit instructions by activist groups who police the language. Thus the term "transgender rights" - because who could argue with that?
Transgender rights essentially proclaims specific rights afforded to people suffering narcissistic delusions and mental disorders. Should you have a right to employment if your grasp on reality is tenuous at best? Should anyone be compelled to retain someone who cannot fathom fundamental truths such as the binary nature of gender. If it is not and it’s a social construct, then it is not discrimination on an immutable traits such as race, age, sex or ethnicity but more along the lines of viewpoint, ideology or religion.
Does a Christian charity have the right to refuse to hire a Nazi? Does the NAACP have the right to fire trans racialist, Rachel Dolezal? Can any employer refuse to hire someone who believes they’re something they’re not?
I'm reposting the same thing I replied in another comment thread just to express my agreement:
Transgender is a completely nonsense term, whereas transsexual at least comported with the actual physicality. But the bottom line is that transition of sex- or even "gender" (a linguistic term hijacked by ideologues)- does not happen. We must stop speaking in the reality-concealing euphemisms foisted by propaganda upon our
common lexicon, especialy those birthed by extreme body modification fetishists looking to promote a permanent state of childhood for potential future victims, such as "transgender child." This includes the need to use biologically correct terms when discussing misclassified children in danger of medical mutilation by unwell adults.
Bostok got it wrong - by extension, the above commentary as well. Lumping in gender identity with sexual preference is erroneous, if it is nothing less than binary and includes “transgender”. If gender is biologically bound, then dismissal based on it would be discriminating on immutable traits, like skin color. Which would be amoral.
But in the case of “transgender”, perceived gender is based on subjective not objective truths to the level of mental disorder or narcissistic delusion. To say this isn’t grounds for dismissal is a decision at an employer’s peril. Should anyone be compelled to retain an employee that identifies as an elephant or a white woman who claims she’s black? No. If you can’t trust someone with the most fundamental of truths, would you trust them with professional responsibility?
The ambiguous term trans rights still floats above the conversation, undefined and therefore attachable to anything no matter how surprising. Are parents sterilizing their children a trans right or a parental right? Is excluding girls from sports a trans right or a an elementary school administrative right? Are men exposing their genitals in private facilities a trans right? Is falsifying legal documents a trans right? Trespass? Housing male rapists with women?
The right to appearance and choice of names is enshrined in law. Marriage? Whomever you love. Healthcare? It’s in the ACA, even insurance covered.
But you can’t compel thought, you can’t compel religion, you cant deny freedom of association, you can’t break trespass laws protecting sex privacy, you can’t break laws relating to discrimination, and you can’t redefine sex upon wish, compulsion, or need.
My husband & I had threesomes in our 20s (back when I was a stripper & he was still chasing music contracts) & although we personally did not involve the state in OUR relationship, believing marriage should only involve a couple & their family/community/church, with the state merely providing for legal protections of each individual & any offspring via civil union, we could never understand why anyone should care whether the state allows gays to get married. But when the zeitgeist became utterly obsessed with LGBTQIA+, we both naturally ended up re-examining the topic & ended up concluding that marriage is actually a "supernatural" merging of one male with one female & therefore requires an opposite-sex couple to accomplish. We still believe same-sex couples should enjoy all the same legal protections as married couples, we just no longer believe what they are doing falls within the definition of marriage. So congratulations, Globohomo, you've succeeded in convincing these two formerly degenerate (sex n drugs n rock n roll gets old when you're no longer young😂) lifelong classical libertines that gays CANNOT be married no matter how many court-sanctioned pieces of paper say so.
My opinion is shaded by my experience with an adolescent female family member whose mind and body was overtaken by an overwhelming anxiety that she was the wrong shape. This was called an eating disorder.
She was not treated by affirming her image and desire to be gaunt and thin, nor by removing part of her stomach. She was treated for a mental disorder.
Thank you, Ms. Harris, for laying out the history and potential impacts of the Skrmetti case. The FAIR voice of reason, once again, seems so obvious and nuanced, yet not often the message heard in the mainstream. We continue to ask ourselves, “Where are the first gen feminists?”
To whom you are attracted sexually is purely subjective and therefore cannot reasonably be contested by an outside observer.
Where you decide to live your life on a spectrum of superficial, stereotypical male to female attributes (and we all do) is also purely subjective and similarly cannot be questioned.
However, your biological sex reflects an objective reality which cannot be changed by your subjective personal view and futile attempts to do so can result in serious health impacts to you as well as harms to members of the sex you are impersonating (primarily women).
Others who are grounded in objective reality should never be forced to accept your subjective version of your actual biological sex.
Finally, it's past time for the LGB community to separate themselves from the trans activists who are trying to take away the rights of women to fairness in sports and to privacy and safety in their restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. They also advocate for the chemical and surgical mutilation of children many of whom would grow up gay.
Their actions are evil and the
understandable negative reaction to the harm they are causing is spilling over to innocent people who are just going about their business, marrying and leading their lives.
An “ eleven year old transgender student”? An eleven year old is a CHILD! Period. What the hell kind of parents or guardians would advocate sexualizing, much less mutilating a child ? A pre-pubescent child. I couldn’t care less how one identifies . Gay, bi, straight, trans.. Their body, their choice. Sexuality is not completely understood. I do believe there are people who are born in the wrong bodies . Wired wrong through no fault of their own. But they’re minuscule in percentage and whatever they ultimately decide to undergo should never be done before they turn 18 and are legally adults.It is far different than being gay and even that isn’t a given until approximately 17-18 years of age and well past puberty . And if ifs a phase, their bodies are still intact.
"Gender-affirming care" is a misleading euphemism. It should be called "sex-masking treatment," because "gender" is ambiguous, whether it is actually "affirming" is dependent on what gender really means, and the treatment for many recipients proves to be the opposite of care; it makes things worse rather than better. "Sex-masking treatment" accurately reflects that the intention is to hide a person's actual sex.
"Transgender rights"? Is that a neutral or a biased term? Is there such a thing? Shouldn't it be female rights, or perhaps you should say the court will address transgenderism.
It’s a good question. Transgender rights are treated in very much the same way as gay, lesbian and bisexual rights (they are included under the broad LGBTQ+ umbrella). Transgender rights are widely acknowledged, including by the ACLU, one of the primary advocacy groups opposing the Tennessee legislation:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/lgbtq-rights/transgender-rights
Moreover, media outlets all along the political spectrum use the term:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/12/04/us/supreme-court-transgender-care?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
https://www.fox19.com/2024/12/04/transgender-rights-case-lands-supreme-court-amid-debate-over-ban-medical-treatments-minors/?outputType=amp
https://www.newsmax.com/amp/us/supreme-court-transgender-case/2024/12/04/id/1190289/
Transgender is a completely nonsense term, whereas transsexual at least comported with the actual physicality. But the bottom line is that transition of sex- or even "gender" (a linguistic term hijacked by ideologues)- does not happen. We must stop speaking in the reality-concealing euphemisms foisted by propaganda upon our common lexicon, especially those birthed by extreme body modification fetishists looking to promote a permanent state of childhood for potential future victims, such as "transgender child." This includes the need to use biologically correct terms when discussing misclassified children in danger of medical mutilation by unwell adults.
Yes, since it is a completely nonsense term, I believe this is how SCOTUS will skirt this issue. There is too much $$$ involved in "transgender" now.
The media outlets have been given explicit instructions by activist groups who police the language. Thus the term "transgender rights" - because who could argue with that?
Transgender rights essentially proclaims specific rights afforded to people suffering narcissistic delusions and mental disorders. Should you have a right to employment if your grasp on reality is tenuous at best? Should anyone be compelled to retain someone who cannot fathom fundamental truths such as the binary nature of gender. If it is not and it’s a social construct, then it is not discrimination on an immutable traits such as race, age, sex or ethnicity but more along the lines of viewpoint, ideology or religion.
Does a Christian charity have the right to refuse to hire a Nazi? Does the NAACP have the right to fire trans racialist, Rachel Dolezal? Can any employer refuse to hire someone who believes they’re something they’re not?
I'm reposting the same thing I replied in another comment thread just to express my agreement:
Transgender is a completely nonsense term, whereas transsexual at least comported with the actual physicality. But the bottom line is that transition of sex- or even "gender" (a linguistic term hijacked by ideologues)- does not happen. We must stop speaking in the reality-concealing euphemisms foisted by propaganda upon our
common lexicon, especialy those birthed by extreme body modification fetishists looking to promote a permanent state of childhood for potential future victims, such as "transgender child." This includes the need to use biologically correct terms when discussing misclassified children in danger of medical mutilation by unwell adults.
Bostok got it wrong - by extension, the above commentary as well. Lumping in gender identity with sexual preference is erroneous, if it is nothing less than binary and includes “transgender”. If gender is biologically bound, then dismissal based on it would be discriminating on immutable traits, like skin color. Which would be amoral.
But in the case of “transgender”, perceived gender is based on subjective not objective truths to the level of mental disorder or narcissistic delusion. To say this isn’t grounds for dismissal is a decision at an employer’s peril. Should anyone be compelled to retain an employee that identifies as an elephant or a white woman who claims she’s black? No. If you can’t trust someone with the most fundamental of truths, would you trust them with professional responsibility?
The ambiguous term trans rights still floats above the conversation, undefined and therefore attachable to anything no matter how surprising. Are parents sterilizing their children a trans right or a parental right? Is excluding girls from sports a trans right or a an elementary school administrative right? Are men exposing their genitals in private facilities a trans right? Is falsifying legal documents a trans right? Trespass? Housing male rapists with women?
The right to appearance and choice of names is enshrined in law. Marriage? Whomever you love. Healthcare? It’s in the ACA, even insurance covered.
But you can’t compel thought, you can’t compel religion, you cant deny freedom of association, you can’t break trespass laws protecting sex privacy, you can’t break laws relating to discrimination, and you can’t redefine sex upon wish, compulsion, or need.
My husband & I had threesomes in our 20s (back when I was a stripper & he was still chasing music contracts) & although we personally did not involve the state in OUR relationship, believing marriage should only involve a couple & their family/community/church, with the state merely providing for legal protections of each individual & any offspring via civil union, we could never understand why anyone should care whether the state allows gays to get married. But when the zeitgeist became utterly obsessed with LGBTQIA+, we both naturally ended up re-examining the topic & ended up concluding that marriage is actually a "supernatural" merging of one male with one female & therefore requires an opposite-sex couple to accomplish. We still believe same-sex couples should enjoy all the same legal protections as married couples, we just no longer believe what they are doing falls within the definition of marriage. So congratulations, Globohomo, you've succeeded in convincing these two formerly degenerate (sex n drugs n rock n roll gets old when you're no longer young😂) lifelong classical libertines that gays CANNOT be married no matter how many court-sanctioned pieces of paper say so.
?
My opinion is shaded by my experience with an adolescent female family member whose mind and body was overtaken by an overwhelming anxiety that she was the wrong shape. This was called an eating disorder.
She was not treated by affirming her image and desire to be gaunt and thin, nor by removing part of her stomach. She was treated for a mental disorder.
Thank you, Ms. Harris, for laying out the history and potential impacts of the Skrmetti case. The FAIR voice of reason, once again, seems so obvious and nuanced, yet not often the message heard in the mainstream. We continue to ask ourselves, “Where are the first gen feminists?”
Fingers crossed
You should not refer to this case as somehow relating to “transgender rights.”
The right of a trans person to not be fired from employment is a “transgender right.”
There is no “right” to mutilate children, and what is being decided by the Court is not related to “transgender rights” in any way.
To whom you are attracted sexually is purely subjective and therefore cannot reasonably be contested by an outside observer.
Where you decide to live your life on a spectrum of superficial, stereotypical male to female attributes (and we all do) is also purely subjective and similarly cannot be questioned.
However, your biological sex reflects an objective reality which cannot be changed by your subjective personal view and futile attempts to do so can result in serious health impacts to you as well as harms to members of the sex you are impersonating (primarily women).
Others who are grounded in objective reality should never be forced to accept your subjective version of your actual biological sex.
Finally, it's past time for the LGB community to separate themselves from the trans activists who are trying to take away the rights of women to fairness in sports and to privacy and safety in their restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. They also advocate for the chemical and surgical mutilation of children many of whom would grow up gay.
Their actions are evil and the
understandable negative reaction to the harm they are causing is spilling over to innocent people who are just going about their business, marrying and leading their lives.
An “ eleven year old transgender student”? An eleven year old is a CHILD! Period. What the hell kind of parents or guardians would advocate sexualizing, much less mutilating a child ? A pre-pubescent child. I couldn’t care less how one identifies . Gay, bi, straight, trans.. Their body, their choice. Sexuality is not completely understood. I do believe there are people who are born in the wrong bodies . Wired wrong through no fault of their own. But they’re minuscule in percentage and whatever they ultimately decide to undergo should never be done before they turn 18 and are legally adults.It is far different than being gay and even that isn’t a given until approximately 17-18 years of age and well past puberty . And if ifs a phase, their bodies are still intact.
These monsters should be strung up
"Gender-affirming care" is a misleading euphemism. It should be called "sex-masking treatment," because "gender" is ambiguous, whether it is actually "affirming" is dependent on what gender really means, and the treatment for many recipients proves to be the opposite of care; it makes things worse rather than better. "Sex-masking treatment" accurately reflects that the intention is to hide a person's actual sex.