Gender questions...

[9jNYstarkOH]

4 minutes ago, Belo said:

source, because dress codes are 100% legal in NY and I think any state. This I can source. So if you show me a non-Qanon MSM source to this story I'll back down.

Not sure if this is the one he is talking about.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1249700

[Northcountryman]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I think that is YY males.  Males with XYY syndrome have 47 chromosomes because of the extra Y chromosome. This condition is also sometimes called Jacob's syndrome, XYY karyotype, or YY syndrome. According to the National Institutes of Health, XYY syndrome occurs in 1 out of every 1,000 boys.

No, not true, look it up :

Superman syndrome, also known as 47, XYY, is a condition classified as a chromosomal aneuploidy (which is an abnormality in chromosome structure and/or number) in which males have an additional Y chromosome.

 

[Grouse]

10 minutes ago, Belo said:

source, because dress codes are 100% legal in NY and I think any state. This I can source. So if you show me a non-Qanon MSM source to this story I'll back down.

Apologize.

https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/funeral-home-director-fired-being-transgender

https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2020/12/01/funeral-home-fired-aimee-stephens-must-pay-250k-estate-aclu

Edited February 18, 2021 by Grouse

[Five Seasons]

6 minutes ago, 9jNYstarkOH said:

Not sure if this is the one he is talking about.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1249700

A federal judge in 2016 dismissed the case. He held that while the EEOC had stated a viable sex discrimination claim, Harris was shielded from the lawsuit because its president is a devout Christian who fired Stephens because of his religious beliefs.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018 revived the case and said Stephens had been unlawfully terminated, finding that Harris had failed to show how employing Stephens would burden its owner's religious practice.

Nothing to do with him wearing a dress, the bigot just fired him because it bothered him instead of dealing with it in a professional matter. For example, I couldn't wear a wife beater, shorts and flip flops if this was my job either. You can professionally dress as a female.

oh and this gem about this Patriot lol

The company also agreed to pay $3,700 to 17 female employees to settle a separate claim that Harris engaged in sex bias by providing suits to men while requiring women to buy their own clothing for work.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Belo

[Five Seasons]

so go ahead grouse. tell me again how this impacts anyone outside of sports or medicine. 

[Grouse]

4 minutes ago, Belo said:

so go ahead grouse. tell me again how this impacts anyone outside of sports or medicine. 

I just did in my last post.  Are you simply in denial?

[Five Seasons]

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I just did in my last post.  Are you simply in denial?

Did you read the link yourself? He was fired for his sexual beliefs, not because he was wanting to wear a dress. Do you believe an employer should be able to fire someone because they're muslim, black, transgender or a homosexual? 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Belo

[maplehillfrm]

2 hours ago, rachunter said:

I saw the samething on a dentist form the other day.My first thought was this is crazy.I used to think to each there own, but this is so unnatural and most of them are just looking for attention.If two male bears meet in the woods they beat the crap out of each other and go on there way.Turkey send most of there time establishing a pecking order both male and female.

Seems where drifting back to a  wicked time like Sodom and Gomorrah. 

and if you read your bible you know what happened to them,, its only a matter of time,, we need to pray for the world and our nation to turn back  to God and repent,, it seems its coming soon, where are you going to spend your eternity and what will we have to answer for?? God help us. Evil is among us.

 

 

[Northcountryman]

Yeah, I have to agree with Belo and Chef  here, on this one, although I am ambivalent , no doubt, due to my own intrinsic biases--but I am working on controlling those!! Years ago, I used to oppose gay marriage, predicated simply upon the principle that the laws --at the time-- defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman exclsuively. But one day I got into a philopsophical discussion/argument with a liberal kid and he tore me to shreds because I couldnt justify my position !!  I knew then I had to back off and adjust my think ing because I was wrong. The law is not sacrosanct , immutable or infallible and CAN BE CHANGED OR ALTERED WHEN UNJUST.  And, knowing myself, I'm self aware enough to realize that although i'll never understand a dudes compulsion to get naked with another dude, IT IS ABSOLUTELY INHERENT TO THEIR MAKEUP AND NOT A CHOICE; so, it aint their fault their gay! I would apply the same kind of logic to transgenders and those who experience some form of gender dysphoria.  I dont think its their fault; its inherently the way they are and WHO they are, so  They should not be ridiculed.

[Grouse]

4 minutes ago, Belo said:

Did you read the link yourself? He was fired for his sexual beliefs, not because he was wanting to wear a dress. Do you believe an employer should be able to fire someone because they're muslim, black, transgender or a homosexual? 

Now you're trying to deflect.  You asked how the trans issue affects anyone.  I gave you an example.  The man was hired as a male and then demanded to be accepted as a female.  If you cannot see how this would dramatically affect a funeral home's business, you will never be able to understand how this issue affects employers, people in business, schools and even private individuals.  You are biased towards protected classes at the expense of everyone else. 

If someone is hired as a muslim, black, trans or homosexual, there is no issue.  If they lied on their application, there is an issue.

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

Yeah, I have to agree with Belo and Chef  here, on this one, although I am ambivalent , no doubt, due to my own intrinsic biases--but I am working on controlling those!! Years ago, I used to oppose gay marriage, predicated simply upon the principle that the laws --at the time-- defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman exclsuively. But one day I got into a philopsophical discussion/argument with a liberal kid and he tore me to shreds because I couldnt justify my position !!  I knew then I had to back off and adjust my think ing because I was wrong. The law is not sacrosanct , immutable or infallible and CAN BE CHANGED OR ALTERED WHEN UNJUST.  And, knowing myself, I'm self aware enough to realize that although i'll never understand a dudes compulsion to get naked with another dude, IT IS ABSOLUTELY INHERENT TO THEIR MAKEUP AND NOT A CHOICE; so, it aint their fault their gay! I would apply the same kind of logic to transgenders and those who experience some form of gender dysphoria.  I dont think its their fault; its inherently the way they are and WHO they are, so  They should not be ridiculed.

So how can you object to pedophilia being a sexual preference?  You weren't wrong.  You just weren't properly armed to defend your position.

[DoubleDose]

4 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

Yeah, I have to agree with Belo and Chef  here, on this one, although I am ambivalent , no doubt, due to my own intrinsic biases--but I am working on controlling those!! Years ago, I used to oppose gay marriage, predicated simply upon the principle that the laws --at the time-- defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman exclsuively. But one day I got into a philopsophical discussion/argument with a liberal kid and he tore me to shreds because I couldnt justify my position !!  I knew then I had to back off and adjust my think ing because I was wrong. The law is not sacrosanct , immutable or infallible and CAN BE CHANGED OR ALTERED WHEN UNJUST.  And, knowing myself, I'm self aware enough to realize that although i'll never understand a dudes compulsion to get naked with another dude, IT IS ABSOLUTELY INHERENT TO THEIR MAKEUP AND NOT A CHOICE; so, it aint their fault their gay! I would apply the same kind of logic to transgenders and those who experience some form of gender dysphoria.  I dont think its their fault; its inherently the way they are and WHO they are, so  They should not be ridiculed.

I couldn't agree more.  This is not a choice. If you believe it is then ask yourself the following two questions: 1) Why would someone chose this? and 2) When in life did you make your choice?

[Chef]

I couldn't agree more.  This is not a choice. If you believe it is then ask yourself the following two questions: 1) Why would someone chose this? and 2) When in life did you make your choice?

Maybe some of them made their choice watching homosexual adult films and they just can’t live with who they really are


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DoubleDose]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

So how can you object to pedophilia being a sexual preference?  You weren't wrong.  You just weren't properly armed to defend your position.

Simple objection.  It is illegal; because a child can not consent.  IMO, it is also a mental illness.  

[Grouse]

Nobody is saying you cannot choose it, or that's it's a choice at all.  The point is it should not be legally forced on the rest of the world to play along.  Do other people have to deny their freedom of choice to submit to someone else's?

[Grouse]

2 minutes ago, DoubleDose said:

Simple objection.  It is illegal; because a child can not consent.  IMO, it is also a mental illness.  

"The law is not sacrosanct , immutable or infallible and CAN BE CHANGED OR ALTERED WHEN UNJUST. "

Illegal for how long?  Marriage laws were changed.  These can change too if enough people adopt this mentality.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Grouse

[Five Seasons]

13 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Now you're trying to deflect.  You asked how the trans issue affects anyone.  I gave you an example.  The man was hired as a male and then demanded to be accepted as a female.  If you cannot see how this would dramatically affect a funeral home's business, you will never be able to understand how this issue affects employers, people in business, schools and even private individuals.  You are biased towards protected classes at the expense of everyone else. 

If someone is hired as a muslim, black, trans or homosexual, there is no issue.  If they lied on their application, there is an issue.

You didn't read your own link man. You're just wrong here, it's not an opinion. He/she worked in embalming and body prep, not a customer facing role. The owner was a bigot who was also sued by his female employees (are you ok with sexual discrimination too)?

And even if he/she was in a customer facing role, the owner can enforce a dress code. You're painting this picture of some hairy man in a cocktail dress and that's not the case here. 

For reference I have a large staff of over 70 direct reports across the globe and I don't give a flying flock what they look like. Heck during covid I've never even seen some of the new hires faces. And does that bother me? No, because it doesn't matter what someone looks like to me. I hire and promote based on actions. And everyone deserves a fair shot in life.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Belo

[Chef]

Illegal for how long?  Marriage laws were changed.  These can change too if enough people adopt this mentality.

The funny thing is historically this was the norm... at what point in society did wealthy nobles stop marrying girls as young as young as 12 and 13..... we have evolved to realize this is wrong..... may accepting homosexuals is right? Ever thought of that ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DoubleDose]

Here are some bigger libertarian questions.  1) What does any of this have to do with COVID19 vaccination eligibility? 2) Why is the government collecting this information? 3) How is it going to be used?

[Jeremy K]

1 minute ago, DoubleDose said:

Here are some bigger libertarian questions.  1) What does any of this have to do with COVID19 vaccination eligibility? 2) Why is the government collecting this information? 3) How is it going to be used?

Huh?

[Northcountryman]

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

So how can you object to pedophilia being a sexual preference?  You weren't wrong.  You just weren't properly armed to defend your position.

No ,theyre different issues and for different reasons; trust me, i used to use that argument too but its invalid.  A transgender person having surgery and deciding to "transition" to the opposite sex of their birth harms noone (except themselves, if you believe that it does). Therfore, because their hurting noone else, they should be allowed to without ridicule and scorn--same with gays.  Two guys getting naked doesnt hurt anyone else  (as long as theyre not flaunting it in public , which is unnnecessary and I hate it when they do that) so, why cant they be allowed to do whatever they want behind closed doors? Incontrast, pedophilia CAUSES DIRECT HARM TO A CHILD, albeit pleasure to the adult.  It is clearly documented that their are legion  deleterious impacts upon children--in terms of their emotional well being, among other effects--due to such practices; also, theyre not of a legal consenting age to engage in such practices so its statuatory rape anyway--clealr a different situation IMHO.   

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, Belo said:

You didn't read your own link man. You're just wrong here, it's not an opinion. He/she worked in embalming and body prep, not a customer facing role. The owner was a bigot who was also sued by his female employees (are you ok with sexual discrimination too)?

And even if he/she was in a customer facing role, the owner can enforce a dress code. You're painting this picture of some hairy man in a cocktail dress and that's not the case here. 

For reference I have a large staff of over 70 direct reports across the globe and I don't give a flying flock what they look like. Heck during covid I've never even seen some of the new hires faces. And does that bother me? No, because it doesn't matter what some looks like to me. I hire and promote based on actions. Again, dress codes are legal.

You're wrong.  The trans was also a director with direct customer contact.  The trans refused to accept the dress code for men and lied to the employer when he was hired.

I don't know what your current situation is so I cannot comment on how it affects your business.  But it has no relation to other businesses, because every one is unique. 

Bottom line here, the case destroyed the funeral home and put all the employees are out of work.  And the trans had a terminal illness and is dead.  Obviously the trans had nothing to lose and no concern for the welfare of those that would be affected by his choice.  His estate profited and his heirs were well taken care of.  That's a motive.

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

No ,theyre different issues and for different reasons; trust me, i used to use that argument too but its invalid.  A transgender person having surgery and deciding to "transition" to the opposite sex of their birth harms noone (except themselves, if you believe that it does). Therfore, because their hurting noone else, they should be allowed to without ridicule and scorn--same with gays.  Two guys getting naked doesnt hurt anyone else  (as long as theyre not flaunting it in public , which is unnnecessary and I hate it when they do that) so, why cant they be allowed to do whatever they want behind closed doors? Incontrast, pedophilia CAUSES DIRECT HARM TO A CHILD, albeit pleasure to the adult.  It is clearly documented that their are legion  deleterious impacts upon children--in terms of their emotional well being, among other effects--due to such practices; also, theyre not of a legal consenting age to engage in such practices so its statuatory rape anyway--clealr a different situation IMHO.   

Like you said, the law is not sacrosanct.

[Five Seasons]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

You're wrong.  The trans was also a director with direct customer contact.  The trans refused to accept the dress code for men and lied to the employer when he was hired.

 

This will be my last post on the subject. I read 2 links on the topic and neither mention what you claim. In fact, the only statement on dress code was about how he discriminated against females (a point I've brought up 3 times now that you haven't acknowledged).

 I've quoted and posted evidence to support my stance. You keep making statements without supporting them with facts.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts

[Grouse]

You obviously read the sources I supply with selectivity.  I have read many articles on this case and many would have to be sourced to you in order to know all the facts.

The best teacher is personal experience.  One day you may regret your ignorance when it comes for you.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Grouse