4 ms·

Firstly, no, that position isn't 'scientific'. The scientific portion of the equation comes from the separation of gender and sex along with the psychological a

Firstly, no, that position isn't 'scientific'. The scientific portion of the equation comes from the separation of gender and sex along with the psychological and sociological expectations of how someone conforms to a given gender role. I see this often that people take a disingenuous stance and then claim it's 'scientific' when its anything but. Secondly, that argument has a lot of baggage associated with it. Transgender people get banned from the military because they 'cannot change their sex' or 'transgender people lose their jobs because they don't conform'. It's an argument around taking away the rights of a certain group of people and it shouldn't be surprising that people don't want to associate with that.

agensaequivocum 6y ago
> It's an argument around taking away the rights of a certain group of people It's not a right to be in the military. You also don't have a right to my services. So if I don't want to make a cake because I don't agree with a homosexual lifestyle or maybe because I have issue with the Catholic faith that it well within my right.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  I mean, now we've established why you would end up getting banned from many subreddits. You're essentially arguing to treat one group of citizens as second-class citizens because you don't like them. A lot of things aren't 'rights' until they're codified in law, but that doesn't mean people don't deserve to be treated equally with others. I would never agree to take away rights from a Catholic, but it's disappointing to see a Catholic argue to take away rights from someone else using their faith as a bludgeon. Especially when I know many Catholics whom treat gay people the same as everyone else.
- all-fakes 6y ago
  Look, I agree. I shouldn't be forced to do something for someone who makes me uncomfortable, even if it's something that they can't change, and which doesn't materially impact me in any way. But at the same time, do you not see how this reinforces existing disparities in opportunity and social acceptance? If you have a better solution than mandating that businesses don't discriminate, I'm all ears. However, if you simply allow businesses to freely discriminate, then the world will only become more unfair over time.

agensaequivocum 6y ago

> It's an argument around taking away the rights of a certain group of people It's not a right to be in the military. You also don't have a right to my services. So if I don't want to make a cake because I don't agree with a homosexual lifestyle or maybe because I have issue with the Catholic faith that it well within my right.

fzeroracer 6y ago
I mean, now we've established why you would end up getting banned from many subreddits. You're essentially arguing to treat one group of citizens as second-class citizens because you don't like them. A lot of things aren't 'rights' until they're codified in law, but that doesn't mean people don't deserve to be treated equally with others. I would never agree to take away rights from a Catholic, but it's disappointing to see a Catholic argue to take away rights from someone else using their faith as a bludgeon. Especially when I know many Catholics whom treat gay people the same as everyone else.
all-fakes 6y ago
Look, I agree. I shouldn't be forced to do something for someone who makes me uncomfortable, even if it's something that they can't change, and which doesn't materially impact me in any way. But at the same time, do you not see how this reinforces existing disparities in opportunity and social acceptance? If you have a better solution than mandating that businesses don't discriminate, I'm all ears. However, if you simply allow businesses to freely discriminate, then the world will only become more unfair over time.