The Gender Charade Facing the Supreme Court

It was announced this week that the U.S. Supreme Court would be considering a lower court decision that redefined the word "sex" to mean "gender identity."

The case — R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC — stems from a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. It found that the federal government could force a funeral home to allow a male employee who identifies as a woman to wear women's clothing when meeting with the deceased person's grieving family.

In order to do this, the 6th Circuit Court had to redefine "sex" in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to conflict with the meaning it has held since Title VII was passed in 1964.

There are a lot of legal issues involved in a case like this, but there is another more fundamental problem: The very people who tell us that sex and gender are two completely different things are the ones cheering the federal government's attempt to equate them.

One of the rigid dogmas of modern gender ideology — a dogma that one disagrees with at the peril of being ostracized in polite society — is that sex and gender are two entirely different concepts.

This idea has worked its way into the American public's subconscious, not because it is self-evident (it's not), nor because anyone has ever made a rational case for the distinction (no one has). The idea that sex and gender are two different concepts has become accepted through the constant repetition employed by the cultural propaganda organs of colleges, universities, and mainstream media.

You know an idea has reached critical mass in our culture when it is enshrined in a Wikipedia article. Here is Wikipedia's explanation:

The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person's biological sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics) from that person's gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).

The rest here...

Geez, these radleftists are looney.

(04-24-2019 03:35 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Geez, these radleftists are looney.

Yes they are. They expect the rest of us to accept them as they are when the only reason they are as they are is they couldn't accept themselves. The irony in both what the article concerns and their own inability to accept themselves as God and nature intended is completely lost on them.

Hopefully SCOTUS restores sanity in one simple move.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

We are dooooooomed

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Perception and reality are two different things. You can perceive that dick in your hand is a vag... but it aint.

(04-25-2019 07:25 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Perception and reality are two different things. You can perceive that dick in your hand is a vag... but it aint.

Mangina?

(04-24-2019 04:13 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  They expect the rest of us to accept them as they are when the only reason they are as they are is they couldn't accept themselves.

Brilliant! That's the best, most succinct explanation of this disorder that I've read yet. +3

(04-24-2019 07:45 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  Hopefully SCOTUS restores sanity in one simple move.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Its pretty obvious they didn't pass those laws with gays and trans-genders in mind. A court ruling that they did is simply becoming an unelected dictatorship.