Saturday, December 1, 2018

Ryan T. Anderson - As dishonest as ever

“What Anderson is really saying is that any such laws must depend upon not protecting anyone and if they accidentally do offer some protections then they must not be enforceable.”
Ryan T. Anderson
According to Heritage staffer and Defender of the Faith, Ryan T. Anderson: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Laws Are Not Fairness for All. Anderson is primarily concerned with how nondiscrimination laws might affect the Catholic Church. He goes on to write (quite verbosely):
Current proposals to create sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) laws with varying types of religious exemptions would not result in fairness for all. Instead, they would penalize many Americans who believe that we are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other. They would violate the privacy and safety of women and girls, the conscience rights of doctors and other medical professionals, and the free speech and religious liberty rights of countless professionals. Establishing bad public policy and then exempting select religious institutions is not acting for the common good — and is certainly not fair for all.
None of the above is remotely true. Nondiscrimination laws have nothing to do with what people “believe.” Rather than beliefs, they are about conduct. Anderson is spreading the unsupported myth that transgender accommodations create safety concerns for women and girls. Bathrooms are just a proxy for bigotry. Trans people have been peeing in gender-appropriate public facilities forever and there doesn't seem to be a trail of assaults.

There has been the idea that doctors could be forced into providing transgender care. The only doctors who provide transgender care are specialists in that area. They have already opted in. “Free speech and religious liberty” are code for a presumptive right to discriminate. Anderson doesn't even attempt to provide evidence to support the last statement in that paragraph about inherent fairness.
The diatribe continues:
SOGI laws ban disagreement on LGBT issues by enforcing a sexual orthodoxy. Of course, those are not the exact words used, but when “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are elevated to protected classes in antidiscrimination law, that is the effect the government policy has. But not every disagreement is discrimination, and our laws should not presume otherwise.
Just more BS. “Disagreement?” No Mr. Anderson, they ban discrimination in public accommodations and, hopefully, employment. They are the same protections that you already have as a fundamentalist Catholic. Yours is a choice. No one chooses to be LGBT. You are claiming that people require the ability to discriminate. That is as un-American as ISIS.
Heritage Foundation experts have long opposed the expansion of antidiscrimination laws to elevate “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes. Where enacted, SOGI laws are frequently used as swords to persecute people with unpopular beliefs, rather than as shields to protect people from unjust discrimination.
Heritage Foundation is a conservative Christian pressure group. What there so-called experts believe is irrelevant.

I should program a hotkey to yield “bullshit.” No one gives a good goddamn about anyone's beliefs — unpopular or not. Nondiscrimination laws respond to conduct not beliefs. Persecution? Real persecution is experienced by LGBT people when they are discriminated against.
SOGI laws treat reasonable actions as if discriminatory. So, for example, if a baker creates custom wedding cakes for marriages, but will not design or create them for same-sex unions, that is considered “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation.” If a Catholic adoption agency works to find permanent homes for orphans where they will be raised by a married mom and dad, but will not place children with two moms and no dad, or two dads and no mom, that is considered “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation.”
That's right. Anderson and discriminatory bakers are bigots. The bakers are subject to the same nondiscrimination laws as anyone else. They have to serve everyone. It is sheer self-absorption to believe that baking a cake has religious duties associated with it. One might believe that same-sex marriage is a sin but baking a cake for a same-sex marriage (something that one disapproves of) is not sinful. In fact, if one believes in Jesus' teachings, the sin is not complying with the law: Render unto Caesar … and so on.
Of course, business owners should respect the intrinsic dignity of all of their employees and customers — but this is not what laws on sexual orientation and gender identity entail. Their threats to our freedoms unite civil libertarians concerned about free speech and religious liberty, free-market proponents concerned about freedom of contract and governmental overregulation, and social conservatives concerned about marriage and culture.
Anderson always spouts this crap about dignity or compassion which is then followed by an expression of bigotry. He is trying to say: “I am not a bigot. Even when I say that gays are disordered I am not a bigot because I have compassion for gay people. I want those sinners to get the help that they need. … But we are all sinners.” The simple fact of the matter is that the holier-than-thou set feels compelled to demonstrate their disapproval of LGBT people. That is not respect.
Trampling Civil Liberties. America is dedicated to protecting the freedoms guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution, while respecting citizens’ equality before the law. None of these freedoms is absolute. Compelling governmental interests can at times trump fundamental civil liberties, but sexual orientation and gender identity laws do not pass this test.
The freedom that Anderson is speaking of is the free exercise of religion. For well over a century American jurisprudence has held that free exercise means beliefs — not conduct (Reynolds v. United States, 1879). I do not know what “test” Anderson is referring to.

There are other amendments. Some require equal protection and due process. LGBT people are as entitled to civil liberties as anyone else.
Rather, they trample fundamental liberties and unnecessarily impinge on citizens’ right to run their local schools, charities, and businesses in ways consistent with their values. SOGI laws do not protect equality before the law; instead, they grant special privileges that are enforceable against private actors.
What this schmuck has just uttered is that LGBT equality is a special privilege.The very same people used to say the very same things about Jews; also based on religious disapproval. Even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 certain hotels were notorious for turning us away.
These laws would impose ruinous liability on innocent citizens for alleged “discrimination” based on subjective and unverifiable identities, not on objective traits. SOGI laws would further increase government interference in markets, potentially discouraging economic growth and job creation.
We have managed to enforce nondiscrimination laws in this country for well over a half-century with little confusion. Nondiscrimination applied to religion is subjective and unverifiable. “Today I feel like a Presbyterian. Perhaps tomorrow I will feel Jewish.” Isn't that the kind of logic that anti-LGBT people use?anti-LGBT discrimination is unambiguous.

What Anderson is trying to do is to claim that whether or not someone is gay or trans is a source of confusion. Mr. Anderson is again being dishonest.
By making “gender identity” a protected class, the government would force Americans to embrace transgender ideology in a variety of settings — with serious consequences for schools, locker rooms, hospitals, and workplace policies that undermine common sense.
The very fact that Anderson would use the term “transgender ideology“ is ample proof of Anderson's bigotry. Transgender ideology is Catholic-speak for sexuality that the Vatican does not approve of. Being transgender is not a doctrine or a philosophy. Again, no one cares about beliefs. This is about conduct. “Common sense?” Really? Is it common sense to believe that gay people are “objectively disordered” contrary to science? And to do so because of religious teachings? Is it common sense to confuse faith-based beliefs with evidence-based science? Is it common sense to believe that superstition prevails over science? Where the hell is the common sense?
In responding to the legitimate needs of people who identify as LGBT while also respecting the rights and interests of all, policymakers must first assess the nature and extent of the problem and then determine whether governmental intervention is required and, if it is, what the appropriate remedy should be. Advocates of SOGI laws must therefore provide evidence that they are facing material harms (in addition to dignitary harms) to show the need for a coercive governmental response — a requirement they have failed to meet.
Oh so now we have “legitimate needs.” Ask Anderson and I bet that he could not come up with something that is a legitimate need for LGBT people, let alone one that he supports. Obviously, Anderson does not think that being free of discrimination is a legitimate need. Then there is that oh-so-clever “identify as LGBT” BS. That is a religious construct. In defiance of science, Anderson is introducing choice into the equation. Mr. Anderson is again dishonest. Instead of “people who identify as LGBT,” the correct phrasing is: People who are LGBT.

Anderson's problem is that he does not see people as individuals who just happen to be gay or trans. When he sees gay or trans people that is how they are identified by Anderson. Nothing else matters to Anderson because he is part of the toxic cult of religious literalism. Every thought in this guy's head must conform to the catechism of the Catholic Church to be valid. That is no way to live. It stifles intellectual curiosity and destroys critical thinking which is why Anderson has no credibility except in conservative religious circles.
SOGI laws could also have serious unintended consequences. These laws tend to be vague and overly broad, lacking clear definitions of what discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” mean and what conduct can and cannot be penalized.
Vague? Really? Mr. Anderson might be confused about what sexual orientation and gender identity mean. If so, it is willful confusion. Most people know perfectly well what sexual orientation and gender identity mean.

Here are portions of the Miami-Dade nondiscrimination law:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of Miami-Dade County, in the exercise of its police power for the public safety, health and general welfare, to eliminate and prevent discrimination in employment, family leave, public accommodations, credit and financing practices, and housing accommodations because of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, marital status, familial status, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or actual or perceived status as a victim of domestic violence, dating violence or stalking.
Sec. 11A-2. - Definitions:
(12) Gender identity shall mean a person's innate, deeply felt psychological identification as a man, woman or some other gender, which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned to them at birth (e.g., the sex listed on their birth certificate).

(13) Gender expression shall mean all of the external characteristics and behaviors that are socially defined as either masculine or feminine, such as dress, grooming, mannerisms, speech patterns and social interactions. Social or cultural norms can vary widely and some characteristics that may be accepted as masculine, feminine or neutral in one culture may not be assessed similarly in another.
See? The laws define the protected classes for imbeciles who cannot figure it out on their own. If the problem is ambiguity of protected classes then there are easy fixes. If Mr. Anderson can improve on those definitions he has failed to demonstrate a method for doing so.

Confusion only exists for people who want confusion and ambiguity to exist as a means of protecting their manufactured right to discriminate.

Another helping of unconfused confusion:
These laws would impose ruinous liability on innocent citizens for alleged “discrimination” based on subjective and unverifiable identities, not on objective traits. SOGI laws would further increase government interference in markets, potentially discouraging economic growth and job creation.
People who discriminate with indifference to applicable laws are not “innocent citizens.” The innocent citizens are LGBT people who are denied service or opportunity because someone doesn't approve of their sexuality; usually for religious reasons. There is a simple solution to “ruinous liability:” Don't discriminate!
SOGI laws threaten the freedom of citizens, individually and in associations, to affirm their religious or moral convictions — convictions such as that marriage is the union of one man and one woman …
Convictions, no matter how moronic, are theirs to hold. Service should not be based on approval of the customer. Just imagine the public outcry if gay-owned businesses started to pre-approve customers based upon their religious convictions or lack of same.

If Anderson wants confusion it is with religious nondiscrimination. What does Christian mean? There are people like Anderson. There are also people who are the direct antithesis of Anderson. Nearly 70% of our citizenry support marriage equality. There are a whole lot of Christians within that group. The same goes for Jews. There are people like me. Then there are ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jews.

Public accommodations are heavily subsidized. Everyone pays the taxes that pay for police and fire departments to protect the business. Everyone's taxes paid for roads that bring customers to the business and infrastructure that supports the business. In many municipalities taxes pay for sanitation and other vital services that businesses depend upon.
In short, SOGI laws seek to regulate decisions that are best handled by private actors without government interference. …
If that applies to LGBT nondiscrimination then let us also repeal the Civil Rights Act and cease all religious protections. It is an idiotic argument because it can be made about just about anything. Let's get the government out of issuing drivers licenses. Deciding who should be permitted to drive is best handled by private actors.

Nondiscrimination laws do not regulate decisions. They regulate conduct. It is the responsibility of those affected to understand what they can and cannot do.
Ryan T. Anderson's disapproval of transgender people:
“Gender Identity” as a Protected Class: Undermining the Common Good

By making “gender identity” a protected class, the government would force Americans to embrace transgender ideology in a variety of settings — with serious consequences for schools, locker rooms, hospitals, and workplace policies that undermine common sense.
Anderson is repeating himself. I will not follow suit except to say that Anderson is dishonest to the core.
Schools would have to redo their bathroom, locker room, and dorm room policies to allow students access based on their subjective identity, rather than their objective biology. Employers would have to do the same, force all employees to use “preferred pronouns,” and cover hormonal and surgical transition procedures on their health care plans. Hospitals would have to provide these procedures, and relevant physicians would have to perform them.
Dishonest? How could I say that? For starters, gender identity is not subjective. Nondiscrimination has nothing to do with an employer's decisions regarding insurance coverage and they do not impose an obligation on healthcare providers to provide gender-affirming services. It is just dishonest fear mongering.
Already the Department of Education is investigating a complaint from a five-year-old girl who says she was sexually assaulted by a male classmate who was allowed access to the girls’ bathroom. Last year, Melody Wood and I documented over 130 examples of men charged with using bathroom, locker room, and shower access to target women for voyeurism and sexual assault.
The school says that the girl's mother created the problem and the accused is a transgender girl of about the same age. Of those 130 examples, I will bet that none were transgender women. It is just more dishonest fear mongering.

I will skip over equally idiotic arguments and Anderson's repetitions. This entire polemic is about 2,500 words.

Anderson has little to personally worry about. He has never really worked for a living. He has never had to manage a payroll or a budget. I doubt that he has more than a couple of people reporting to him. Anderson's career amounts to nothing because he is not action-oriented and has no need to exhibit a sense of urgency. It is highly unlikely that he will ever own or be an executive for a for-profit business.

Don't get me wrong, there are many people in academic and nonprofit organizations who are proactive and accomplished. Anderson just doesn't happen to be one of them. More importantly, Anderson is profoundly dishonest. If he had legitimate concerns he could easily contact HRC and say, if we can work out the following issues I can support nondiscrimination laws. Anderson doesn't want Christians to be obliged to serve or employ people they disapprove of so he will never get there.

A critical thinker starts with the question: Do we need nondiscrimination laws? Anderson is not a critical thinker. He started with the premise that he does not like such laws and then the exercise became conjuring up as many reasons to oppose them as he could think of.
And his conclusion?
Any such laws must protect the privacy and safety of women and girls, the conscience rights of doctors and other medical professionals, and the free speech and religious liberty rights of countless professionals. This would leave all Americans — not just the lucky few who are sufficiently well-connected to be exempted from SOGI laws — free to act on those convictions. This would also protect diversity and promote tolerance; this would promote true fairness for all.
It is just more bullshit to obscure the simple fact that Anderson's conclusion was his overture. What Anderson is really saying is that any such laws must depend upon not protecting anyone and if they accidentally do offer some protections then they must not be enforceable.

Related content:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.