But there is race and there is gender, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I was intentionally being ridiculous with the example of my son.

The most curious case on the racial side of this issue is Rachel Dolezal. She clearly identified, worked in (African Studies instructor), and took steps to alter her appearance to become closer to those of true African heritage. These actions seem to 100% in line with the actions of those who feel (outside of the mixed genitalia etc) they were born wrong gender and decide to change.

What do you think about her situation legally? Is it more in line with transgendered court rulings?

---

Suffer Well.

Please elaborate. Not sure I buy this at face value.

---

Suffer Well.

The Dolezal case is a little different in that I do not recall her ever seeking to do something exclusively reserved for a certain race. Certainly she obtained the position with the NAACP chapter by claiming to be African-American. But, that was not a specific requirement to the post. It isn't like a transgendered person who is told you cannot use the bathroom of the gender with which you identify.

She can claim to identify as black, but she would not be entitled to affirmative action incentives for African-Americans b/c, affirmative action is based on the premise that one was historically discriminated against because of one's appearance. She does not fit that mold b/c she appeared white growing up and her white ancestors did not suffer the same racial inequities as those with minority ancestors.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Yes, you are correct it has sailed. And, as usual, courts and laws are catching up with society, rather than leading the way. The idea that marriage and raising children are some special combination is a societal idea that mostly seems fostered by folks who are married and have children, which is an ever-dwindling part of the American population. I can definitely see the argument that it's a good thing for society for kids to be raised in homes where 2 married folks of the opposite gender live together, but, as someone who married with no intention of having children, I find the idea that it is the primary purpose of marriage offensive.

There were more married couples with children in the United States in 1963 than there were in 2014, according to data published by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Fifty-two years ago, there were 24,321,000 married couples in this country who had at least one child under 18 living in their home, according the bureau's Table FM-1. Last year, despite a significantly larger national population, there were only 23,933,000.

The Census Bureau numbers dramatically demonstrate America's abandonment of the traditional family.

Back then, I'd be wiling to guess that you had fewer single parent homes, non-married couples with kids from previous marriages, etc.

I could be wrong

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

And non-married couples with kids from current relationship. These days it just makes me happy to see dads that stick around.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I apologise. It really wasn't worded that great. I was trying to establish whether he viewed gay and transgender in the same light on the basis that the desires of an individual are seemingly in contrast to those which Mother Nature may have implied they should otherwise have.

I'm the first to admit my understanding of such preferences is extremely limited, so even this current wording may not be great.

The other thing I would say is that heterosexual marriage should protect women who because of their biology are at a disadvantage in a relationship. But not sure how much that carries anymore what with many more women working. Not to mention people are much more apt to divorce these days. Anyways I'm not that interested in debating the whole marriage question I think that ship has sailed. I'm not sure if we will see polygamy but I don't have any argument against it given what we have allowed so far.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Actually I have two brothers who should get married. One has a disability and the other a good job. The one with the good job could share the benefits with the disabled one. They are both in their 40s and are confirmed bachelors.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

It's OK

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Sure. I guess it's a question of sincerity. I think both sides are creating a bit more drama than is necessary. Part of the strategy is to claim the other side is imposing some horrendous, traumatic burden on you. That's how the octagon works. There is some insincerity on both sides. In the past transgender used their biologically-aligned bathrooms without much complaint. And non-trans people had trans in their bathrooms for a long time, usually without even knowing it. Or if they did, there was no drama. The trans weren't trying to peak over the urinal divider at your johnson. People mostly just want to do their business and GTFO, mentally ill or not.

But if there's insincerity on both sides, I'll generally default to the class that is most vulnerable. And that's the trans. For example, people with Downs syndrome, are in, my experience, some of the nicest, most genuine people you could ever meet. I'm fine with carving out some ways to make their lives easier. Or the tons of war vets with PTSD or missing limbs. I'm fine mandating ways to make their lives easier that might occasionally burden me a little bit, e.g. subsidized housing, streets with mandated ramps at the corners, hand rails on public toilets, etc. For some reason, some people think that trans are a different kind of mentally ill...something unnatural and wrong. Some sort of life choice purposely taken to with the specific intent of undermining all that is good and correct. I don't see it that way.

Total side story, reminds me that what really annoys me in public bathrooms is when I walk up to a urinal - and I usually try to space it so I'm not going right next to another dude if there's an opportunity to space it out - and the dude at an adjacent urinal like starts angling away from me as I approach. Dude. I don't want to sneak a peak at your fucking johnson. And even if I did, so what. Afraid you're going to get a stiffy or something? Embarrassed by size? Get over yourself.