Yes, there have been some tough cases out regarding LGBTQ rights, but that does not make it the norm.
Considering the small percentage of Americans that are LGBTQ, accommodations are not crippling. Again, these are cultural issue that will take time to absorb.
It wasn’t much more than a generation or two back that a black man could get killed talking to a white woman, never mind marrying one.
And we all know that activists on both sides of many social issues can get too wrapped up in causes to see the bigger picture or have concern for consequence to others.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
RE: “Considering the small percentage of Americans that are LGBTQ, accommodations are not crippling.”
By the same token, LGBTQ accomodations are not compelling, either.
Williams makes the point that sex is objectively a matter of biology. It is frankly insane to pretend otherwise.
LikeLike
“… sex is objectively a matter of biology. It is frankly insane to pretend otherwise.”
As we are learning, sexual orientation is not necessarily just about X’s and Y’s.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “As we are learning, sexual orientation is not necessarily just about X’s and Y’s.”
I’m sure that’s true in the sense that abnormalities can emerge from complex causes.
I’m in favor of social tolerance for abnormal people, but I’m not in favor of lying about them or to ourselves regarding their condition.
LikeLike
“ I’m in favor of social tolerance for abnormal people…”
Tolerance or acceptance?
Do you accept those born congenitally blind, deaf, lame? Or just tolerate them. We have a pretty good idea why people are born with physical abnormalities that are obvious. It is the gray areas we find hard to define. Blindness is clear cut. Poor vision? Need glasses at a young age? Abnormal based on numbers in a population?
Food and sex are two of the strongest drivers of behavior. That some are born with attraction to same or both sexes is still a work in progress. Various civilizations have accepted, tolerated or destroyed those who might not fit the norms. Without science to counteract superstition, the fates of the “abnormal” were a crapshoot.
We are a much more accepting culture now than earlier in our history. And also when compared to other cultures around the world, particularly the theocratic ones.
Medicine has allowed same sex marriages to bear children. Laws allow adoption. Science can transform an external body to either sex. The same science allows survival of fetuses and newborns with incredibly debilitating abnormalities. To me the jury is out on the positives of that. But we don’t shun those efforts to save those who would surely have died but for science’s intervention. Intervention to save and alter what nature did not get “right” in the first place.
Yet, we are so conflicted on correcting what may be a sexual orientation at odds with chromosomal structure.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Tolerance or acceptance?”
It’s hard to tell what your point might be. Are you trying to dispute that a person is either male or female?
LikeLike
My points:
Are you tolerating or accepting those who are different?
My dissent is that X and Y chromosomes are only the physical birth designation, not the actual sexual orientation.
In addition, even XY or XX is sometimes not enough:
“…it is the SRY gene located on the Y chromosome that is of importance to male differentiation. Variations to the sex gene karyotype could include rare disorders such as XX males (often due to translocation of the SRY gene to the X chromosome) or XY gonadal dysgenesis in people who are externally female (due to mutations in the SRY gene). In addition, other rare genetic variations such as Turners (XO) and Klinefelters (XXY) are seen as well.” Wikipedia
In the natural world, there is ample evidence of same sex interactions.
Besides this however, consider that we, through medical science, have managed to have people survive birth and live long lives that absent the treatments would certainly have perished in the wild. Is it fair then to still enforce cultural norms on those whose orientations or physical capabilities are not in the majority? In past history, congenitally deformed babies were not allowed to live, or at least did not survive for natural reasons. Yet they do survive now and we make accommodations so that we can accept them into society as fellow citizens.
It is like having the proverbial cake and eating it also.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Is it fair then to still enforce cultural norms on those whose orientations or physical capabilities are not in the majority?”
Is it fair for the minority to enforce its “cultural norms” on the majority? I sure don’t think so.
Also, I dispute that non-binary sexual characteristics are “normal” in any meaningful sense. I would point out, too, that science cannot account for them. Thus, the social theorists who wish to “normalize” what is observably abnormal have no basis in science for doing so.
This may change, but until it does, the social theorists who shape public policy and law have nothing but guesswork and magical thinking to base their opinions on. That’s a fundamental problem, and ample reason for Williams to bring it up.
LikeLike
You have a point.
Like all cultural changes, it will take time.
At some point a society accepts the position that inclusivity is better than creating a second class status for a portion of its citizens.
Incredible benefits to a nation can come from surprising places. Alan Turing arguably save countless lives in WW2, yet was later ostracized for being gay. Opening up education and job opportunities for women and minorities has added to our intellectual storehouse by tapping an additional 50% and 12% respectively.
A question I have always pondered is that if we have had homosexuality for recorded history, in every culture, perhaps it is the norm to have a percentage of gays. And if so, why the fuss?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “A question I have always pondered is that if we have had homosexuality for recorded history, in every culture, perhaps it is the norm to have a percentage of gays. And if so, why the fuss?”
I have no idea, but it makes sense for culture to focus social attention on normalcy as opposed to abnormalcy. That alone would explain a lot, such as the development of marriage rituals and gender roles. In other words, the “fuss” may have more to do with preserving a known good investment than on preventing a potentially bad one.
LikeLike
Williams is a bigot, and rehashing the sexual orientation is a “choice” canard is in step with his limited perspective on most things.
Over-reach by a few in the LGBTQ community does not invalidate their right to “equal rights”…
LikeLiked by 1 person
If someone XY believes he is XX inside, OK. Live and let live.
As a matter of courtesy, it is simply decent to go along with it up to a point. But only to the point it imposes on the equally sincere sensibilities of others.
Have whatever fantasy you want, but you have no right to force others to participate in it.
LikeLike
“Have whatever fantasy you want, but you have no right to force others to participate in it.”
Isn’t that the idea behind Freedom of Religion, too? Ooooh, oooh, then how about the right to choose?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, the “right to choose” is about taking a life.
Creating protected groups based on gender identity would be more like compelling a Kosher deli to sell ham sandwiches or letting Muslims or Jews sue a restaurant for selling fired shrimp.
No one’s fantasies should have the force of law.
LikeLike
Pretty arrogant to decide when life begins, not shocked.
Your argument is another “false equivalency”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t say when life begins, I said that was what the debate is about, not a moral or lifestyle preference, but whether a life is being taken.
FWIW, I place life beginning at 4.5 to 5 months, not a religious belief but a science based belief stemming from observations that indicate rudimentary self awareness.
Cogito ergo sum.
LikeLike
@tabor
No.
The “right to choose” is about a woman (which I would assume you are not) having control over her body and well being.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Don
“Self awareness”.
My understanding is that actual self awareness occurs much later, as in months after birth.
Zoologists use a mirror test for animals to test for self awareness in higher mammals. Primates do well, dogs not so much.
I am not advocating infanticide, but I still think that abortion needs to be kept between doctor and mother until birth. Very few, if any, abortions are taken lightly in the third trimester. But if the abnormalities or health risks are extraordinary, then proceeding to birth is immoral in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not trying to drag the whole abortion debate into this thread, I’m just pointing out that it is not the same as forcing people to accommodate an delusion.
But by your proposed test, a blind man would not be self aware.
LikeLike
One man’s delusion is another PERSON’S reality. You really need to learn acceptance and tolerance. Jesus did.
LikeLike
“ But by your proposed test, a blind man would not be self aware.”
There are other tests. The mirror was just an example used with animals.
BTW human self-awareness is considered to be around 18-24 months.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Homosexual males are responsible for over 70% of new aids cases with intravenous drug injection casing most of the rest according to the CDC. While I think I have no say in these people killing each other with their behavior, I will never agree to refer to a male who dresses as a female or mutilates themselves to pretend to be one as a female or vice versa. Abnormalities are meant to be treated and to cede otherwise is absurd and absolutely ridiculous.
LikeLike