Well, it's obvious that the majority here are liberal on this matter. Instead of arguing the details, I can one-up that and debase the foundation and root of your arguments.
Since you've argued no details whatsoever, I'm not surprised you're avoiding them here. It's easier to be broad and vague. There's no accountability in that tactic, which seems to be right in your wheelhouse.
The easy route (often traversed by the weak minds) in a liberal vs conservative debate is to automatically call the conservative the bigot, ignorant, intolerant, and discriminatory. Why? Because the conservative seems to be the one that is holding back the tides of change, whereas the liberal is the one championing on that change. And anything against that change (whether the topic be transsexualism, affirmative action, drug use, abortion) would be discriminating against the target group in question.
Wrong. The reason you have been called a bigot, ignorant, intolerant, and discriminatory is because your opinions are based on ignorance and baseless prejudices. It isn't even that your position has no merit, because one could be wrong without being ignorant or bigoted; it's that you don't seem to
care that you're wrong, and you press on in spite of that, seemingly because expressing your disgust is more important than being right. You'll promote your ideology even if you look like a fool in doing so.
That's what makes you an ignorant bigot.
It has nothing to do with change, either; transsexualism isn't illegal, and people are free to have the operation as they please, so you're not standing in the way of liberal progress. It's already done. The only change being promoted is by you, in fact, which is the proposition that we shouldn't do the surgery as it "promotes" transsexualism.
Well, YES, by definition withholding change to the status quo WOULD be intolerance to that change. But are all changes good? And then, would all intolerance to change be bad?
These are obvious questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. No one who disagrees with you (namely me) has ever said that they disagree with you because you are against change. Likewise, no one has argued that all change is good. It's this straw manning that makes you such a pain in the ass to converse with. It's as if pathologically incapable of being honest about this subject. Why haven't you addressed my questions? I asked you what your alternative would be to allowing sex-change operations. I've asked you what makes transsexualism perverse. I've asked you to define the vague terms in your arguments, and you've ignored all of it. Why? Oh, right, because ignoring those questions allows you to re-state your bigoted, ignorant opinion without having to face the possibility that you're wrong.
I gladly claim the right to them all. I claim the right to be intolerant of certain changes, and do not feel sorry for it at all.
No one has argued you don't have that right.
There was once a time that being traditional and orthodox was seen as something good and of worth in this country. That being conservative was to uphold those traditional values was good. But now, the script is flipped and anyone OPPOSING change to those values would be seen as a bigot.
Neither of those claims are true. Liberalism has always existed in one form or another, and there has always been opposition to the status quo. The righteousness of any position has always been relative to the person holding it.
The reason we call some change in legislation or social mores "progress" is because it reflects our new understanding of a given issue. Homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder, a disease, or a deviance. It was even thought to be
contagious. In some circles (guess which ones?) those views are still held to one degree or another, but as we've learned more about the subject, those old beliefs have largely fallen away. Now most people simply accept that homosexuality is either an inborn trait, or of no consequence to society as a whole and therefore no concern of theirs. This is called progress because it is a change in thinking based on new and better information. What you're proposing is that society reverts to a behavior indicative of a time when transsexualism was likewise considered a perversion, for what seems to be no other purpose than allowing you to dehumanize transsexuals guilt-free. (I can only assume that's your motivation, since you haven't articulated any legitimate reason for this desire)
You shouldn't have any trouble seeing why you would be opposed in this endeavor, and why your thinking would be considered bigoted and ignorant. It's not because you have an opposing view, but because you knowingly promote an outdated and meanspirited worldview simply because you're grossed out by these kinds of people.
In a debate, there is two sides, so by default there are two opposing views. To oppose liberal views would be a bigot, to oppose conservative views would not? Now that I've shown your petty accusations in the true light, I'll move further.
I'll expect you to publicly retract this statement in your reply.
Not all groups claim equal rights. If I started a new sect called "Horsianity" that worshipped horses as their Gods, should my followers and I be able to automatically claim the right to become a recognized religion? No, not all sects become a recognized religion in a country. I would need to prove substantial claim that I should become a recognized religion before I am able to benefit from the rights of a recognized religion. The burden is not the other side who has to disprove that my religion isn't a recognized religion.
This is a mess. First, no one has the right to the legal benefits of founding an organized religion unless they meet certain criteria. (Or file enough lawsuits, as was the case with Scientology) Meanwhile, citizens
do have the right to be treated equally, and it is up to the discriminator to explain why it is their discrimination was valid. The reason some classes are protected while others aren't is because the protected classes are more likely to suffer discrimination, not because Jews, say, are a "more legitimate" class of person than people with blue eyes. So if you want to take away the right of transsexuals to have gender-reassignment surgery, you need to make a case as to why. And guess what? It can't be because you disagree with transsexualism. That is not a valid reason.
Also, this analogy doesn't apply at all to the topic. Trannsexuals are already a protected class in many places, and no one has denied them the right to the surgery so far as I'm aware. You're acting, again, as if the world has no idea what this phenomenon is. You seem to live in a bygone age, my friend. It's time to educate yourself.
In the same vein, for any groups that aren't currently recognized to hold rights and benefits as recognized marriage or status, it is their job to prove their claim.
Incorrect, from both a legal and moral standpoint. Just because something is agreed upon doesn't mean it's immune to scrutiny. The gay marriage argument, for example. The main question is not "Why do they deserve rights," but "Do we have the right to refuse them?" No one has to tell you that gays are humans just like everyone else. No one is even arguing that homosexuality is inborn, because it isn't relevant.
Why should I have to explain myself that transsexualism isn't a perversion of humanity and a deviation from the norm?
You don't have to argue that it's a deviation from the norm. That goes without saying. You
do have to explain why it's a perversion, however, because perversion does not simply mean "different." It means something is different
and wrong, usually with a moral connotation. And yes, the claim that transsexualism is morally wrong requires some explaining. It isn't self-evidently true.
It is your job to prove that it isn't.
Incorrect. You make the claim that it is morally wrong, you support the claim.
And while I think that mutilating your own body, destroying your genitalia in replacement of some distorted fake construction of another genitalia, IS a perversion of humanity -- I don't need to say it.
Again, to call it a perversion is to say that it is wrong, and that argument requires some qualification. So yes, you do need to say it, and then you need to support it.
if you are the one bringing on the change to the status quo, you are the one with the burden to justify that change.
You've once more trapped yourself. Earlier you argued that not all change is good--and, by extension, that not all tradition or accepted behavior is good--and went on to say that any arguments based solely on the criteria that something inhibits change are "petty." Yet here you are arguing that transsexualism is wrong solely because it is a change to the status quo. I shouldn't be surprised that you've contradicted yourself, but to do so this quickly is a bit stunning.
Do yourself a favor and really think about what I've said, and provide a thoughtful response. None of this "Forget all the details" BS again, okay? If you don't have the integrity to argue this point honestly, then just go away. I'd rather you didn't respond at all than respond with another post like this one.