Learning more about SOGIE Bill

[xXmartoXx]

Hindi daw about biological gender pero ang transwoman, woman na pag nagpaputol, ang transman, man na daw pag nagpalagay ng fake lawit hahahah

Social construct daw ang gender pero ang lesbian UMAAKTONG STEREOTYPE na LALAKI and bakla UMAAKTONG STEREOTYPE NA BABAE....sino po pinagloko mo

At yan tinutukoy mo SEXUALIZED PERSONALITY TYPES po yan na HINIJACK ng mga KAKULTO MO

May problema sya sa utak jessica.
Kita mo yung argument nya wala na sa hulog ang daming sablay.

Bumabase na sya ngayon sa SOGO na syang saligan na ng katotohanan.

Pati anatomy hindi na relevant at hindi na rin pinakikinggan.

Bastat kung ano na lang magustuhan nila dapat yun lang ang tama.

Yan ang resulta kapag may saltik.

Confused na ang utak sa kung ano ang tama sa mali, ang fake sa hindi fake.

 

[jessicalanye]

actually kahit nag modify sila ng katawan hindi pa din siya addition to anatomical gender since nauna muna siya mag "choose" before nagpa-modify ng katawan, anatomical genders are those genders that are not "chosen" so kahit kailan hindi pa din makiki-alam ang sogie sa anatomical genders

you only insist on "hijack" kasi anatomical ang tinutukoy mo which is not being protected by sogie

Gender at s3x pareho lang po yan bago HINIJACK ng mga KAKULTO mo para mas madali makapanlinlang ng mga kagaya mo pong timang

 

[plhbg1]

May problema sya sa utak jessica.
Kita mo yung argument nyaveala na sa hulog ang daming sablay.

Bumabase na sya ngayon sa SOGO na syang saligan na ng katotohanan.

Pati anatomy hindi na relevant at hindi na rin pinakikinggan.

Bastat kung ano na lang magustuhan nila dapat yun lang ang tama.

Yan ang resulta kapag may saltik.

Confused na ang utak sa kung ano ang tama sa mali, ang fake sa hindi fake.

yes definitely sogie is not protecting those genders that are not "chosen"

it only protects the identities that a person "choose"

Gender at s3x pareho lang po yan bago HINIJACK ng mga KAKULTO mo para mas madali makapanlinlang ng mga kagaya mo pong timang

nope, magkaiba yun, anatomical genders cannot be "chosen"

until now there is no amount of technology that could allow us to "choose" an anatomical gender

on the other hand, a person can "choose" whether he continues to identify himself same as his anatomical gender or he drops it and "choose" another one and this is the one that sogie protects

 

[jessicalanye]

yes definitely sogie is not protecting those genders that are not "chosen"

it only protects the identities that a person "choose"

nope, magkaiba yun, anatomical genders cannot be "chosen"

until now there is no amount of technology that could allow us to "choose" an anatomical gender

on the other hand, a person can "choose" whether he continues to identify himself same as his anatomical gender or he drops it and "choose" another one and this is the one that sogie protects

Hindi ka po pala aware sa nurture vs nature saka recent addition lang po yan gender originally used to refer sa *** na hinijack ng mga KAKULTO mo.

In the journals of the American Physiological Society, gender was first introduced into a title in 1982, whereas *** had been used since the early 1920s. It was not until the mid-1990s that use of the term gender began to exceed use of the term *** in APS titles, and today gender more the doubles that of *** (Table 1). The term gender appears to have undergone appropriation by some scientists as a politically correct way to talk about ***. This may be because some scientists are sensitive to the verity that discussing *** often means discussing difference and gender may be construed as a less loaded term.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

ang bo̾bo naman ng interviewer, madi-discriminate daw yung mag-a-accept ng new genders

about faking a gender, di naman talaga problema kasi yung violence against women still applies to all genders so makukulong pa din yung fake transgender if he/she abuse or harass a women

Look, the interviewer is representing the people who asks these questions. And yes, discriminated sila dahil they are compelled to change their belief with the threat of being criminilized for their opinion.

 

[plhbg1]

Hindi ka po pala aware sa nurture vs nature saka recent addition lang po yan gender originally used to refer sa *** na hinijack ng mga KAKULTO mo.

In the journals of the American Physiological Society, gender was first introduced into a title in 1982, whereas * had been used since the early 1920s. It was not until the mid-1990s that use of the term gender began to exceed use of the term in APS titles, and today gender more the doubles that of (Table 1). The term gender appears to have undergone appropriation by some scientists as a politically correct way to talk about . This may be because some scientists are sensitive to the verity that discussing ** often means discussing difference and gender may be construed as a less loaded term.

ang sabi ko hindi mangyayaring magiging anatomical genders ang mga bagong nag labasang mga genders because these genders are "chosen"

maybe later if technology permits us to "choose" out anatomical genders then saka lang din ako mag-agree na additional na nga sila

Look, the interviewer is representing the people who asks these questions. And yes, discriminated sila dahil they are compelled to change their belief with the threat of being criminilized for their opinion.

opinion? or forced opinion just like harassment, kahit nag sabi na ang person how he wants to identify himself you still continue to force your opinion?

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

kaya nga meron provision for expansion of sogie law, pwede rin i-criminalize yung faking later on

i am supporting sogie and not the interviewee, in fact palpak siya mag defend, mas magaling pa ako mag defend sa kanya

Why not address the issues first with the bill bago ipasa as law? Why not be proactive with the possible issues rather than reactive? Kasi we are willingly exposing potential victims... at ang problema pa, just the idea of complaining against a LGBTQ can be criminalized, so complaints about the fake might get deterred.

 

[plhbg1]

Why not address the issues first with the bill bago ipasa as law? Why not be proactive with the possible issues rather than reactive? Kasi we are willingly exposing potential victims... at ang problema pa, just the idea of complaining against a LGBTQ can be criminalized, so complaints about the fake might get deterred.

yes ganyan din ang gusto kong mangyari na kahit magtagal pa siya sa pagiging bill as long as it is ratified into perfection walang problema

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

opinion? or forced opinion just like harassment, kahit nag sabi na ang person how he wants to identify himself you still continue to force your opinion?

Ironically, forced opinion is the one you are compelled to have due to negative consequences, which literally applies to the SOGIE Bill when it starts criminalizing incompliance to the belief.

 

[plhbg1]

Ironically, forced opinion is the one you are compelled to have due to negative consequences, which literally applies to the SOGIE Bill when it starts criminalizing incompliance to the belief.

actually there is no belief that gets modified or not complied here, sogie is only protecting against beliefs that are being enforced to others gaya ng example ko, nagsabi na yung person how he wants to be identified but you insist on imposing your belief/opinion to him, no one cares about you believe, just don't impose it to others

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

actually there is no belief that gets modified or not complied here, sogie is only protecting against beliefs that are being enforce to others gaya ng example ko, nagsabi na yung person how he wants to be identified but you insist on imposing your belief/opinion to him, no one cares about your beliefs, just don't impose it to others

In the case of "all-girls-school" kasi pinag-uusapan natin. When a boy trans tries to enter. Whatever reasoning the school has to their belief it is their right to believe that and that is already a law.
Now these scenario shows the possibility of siding with one belief versus the other, and it will tip the scales of the law to one specific class of people. That is why SoGIE is unfair. That is why SoGIE is rejected. It is not about the religious opinion of individuals.

 

[plhbg1]

In the case of "all-girls-school" kasi pinag-uusapan natin. When a boy trans tries to enter. Whatever reasoning the school has to their belief it is their right to believe that and that is already a law.
Now these scenario shows the possibility of siding with one belief versus the other, and it will tip the scales of the law to one specific class of people. That is why SoGIE is unfair. That is why SoGIE is rejected. It is not about the religious opinion of individuals.

actually i don't like new genders entering any institution that has religion, humanap dapat yung transgender ng school na walang religion, same goes with the cake maker, hanap din sila ng walang religion, yung napag usapan nilang gays na bumili ng cake they are idiots

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

actually i don't like new genders entering any institution that has religion, humanap dapat yung transgender ng school na walang religion, same goes with the cake maker, hanap din sila ng walang religion, yung napag usapan nilang gays na bumili ng cake they are idiots

Okay good, we are aligned in that matter. But, how will the SOGIE bill treat these scenarios. So in short, are you saying SoGIE will not compel a christian school to accept a trans? Trans people should only go to gendered school matching their biological sêx?

Why cant we apply the same logic to public restrooms then? Why is Gretchen not an idiot for insisting to go to a womens restroom?

 

[plhbg1]

are you saying SoGIE will not compel a christian school to accept a trans?

yes they should not be compelled since they are teaching more of religion than teaching the real education anyways

Trans people should only go to gendered school matching their biological sêx?

not necessarily since transgenders have no problem going with the rest of the genders, yung walang religion lang talaga but not kailangan transgender din lahat ng classmates niya, pwede ko din naman sila maging classmates, in fact meron ako workmates dito sa UP and i like the treatment of them in this university, they are freely expressing themselves and their competence are not blocked

Why cant we apply the same logic to public restrooms then? Why is Gretchen not an idiot for insisting to go to a womens restroom?

wag mo sabihin meron religion yung comfort room mismo hehe if sa simbahan ang comfort room na yun aba idiot talaga siya hehe

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

wag mo sabihin meron religion yung comfort room mismo hehe

I knew you were going to reply that way.

The idea is, Gretchen could have looked for a different restroom instead of forcing herself in the women's restroom to which she is not welcome. Kahit hindi religious reasons, we still have reasons that is why we separate men's and womens' restroom.

 

[plhbg1]

I knew you were going to reply that way.

The idea is, Gretchen could have looked for a different restroom instead of forcing herself in the women's restroom to which she is not welcome. Kahit hindi religious reasons, we still have reasons that is why we separate men's and womens' restroom.

nope, i still stick to the separation of religion from the state, so definitely religion lang yung factor ko diyan, if wala namang religion yung institution and the one attacking the transgender is not the management but only an idiot then bakit kailangan i-enforce ni idiot yung opinion niya doon sa trans when they are both just users of that comfort room anyways

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

bakit kailangan i-enforce ni idiot yung opinion niya doon sa trans when they are both just users of that comfort room anyways

For sure alam mo sagot dyan. You know why we separate restrooms by gender. To prevent Sexual harassment. And you also know that people can easily pretend to "identify" a certain gender. (At least these are the logic of their arguments.)

It is not about imposing their belief on Gretchen. The world does not revolve around Gretchen and her beliefs. Ironically it is Gretchen who "enforced" her belief on others with what she did. And you don't see anything wrong with that just because she is LGBTQ.

 

[plhbg1]

For sure alam mo sagot dyan. You know why we separate restrooms by gender. To prevent Sexual harassment. And you also know that people can easily pretend to "identify" a certain gender. (At least these are the logic of their arguments.)

It is not about imposing their belief on Gretchen. The world does not revolve around Gretchen and her beliefs. Ironically it is Gretchen who "enforced" her belief on others with what she did.

why would an idiot acts as a court judge when we actually have a law against harassment to which real court judge can act upon?

 

[plhbg1]

You're actually the idiot na gusto eenforce kaabnoyan mo sa iba

masaya ako dahil finally there's someone who is magaling na dumating at hindi random yung sinasabi hehe

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

why would an idiot acts as a court judge when we actually have a law against harassment to which real court judge can act upon?

Idiot's belief is equally as valid as Gretchen's belief. And they are in conflict. Are saying that this idiot should just yield his/her belief to Gretchen just because LGBTQ+ si Gretchen?