Most people are familiar with common distinctions between physical manifestations of gender and sexual orientation and gender identity. But most do not yet realize that modern brian science, medicine and gender clinics now recognize at least six dimensions of gender distinction.
Male or female genotype (XX, XY, XXY, etc) male, female or inter-sexed phenotype (penis, vagina, both, neither, partial etc), sexual identity (mascaline, feminine, both, neither, other, and varying degrees of combination), sexual orientation (same sex, opposite sex, both, neither, and various combinations), sexual affectation (masculine, feminine, both, neither, other), and sexual expression. Even this is a vast oversimplification that can be offensive to some. I only mention these as a wake up call for those who may think watching Birdcage with their gay friends represents the pinnacle of diversity acceptance
If you don't know folks from the 725 possible major combinations here, you really need to get out more. And maybe you might discover you yourself are more interesting than you think. LOL
Wouldn't it be cool to discover that even you, as strange as you are, are actually someones "dreamdoll?" LOL I find this thougth to be encouraging and inspirings. A message of hope and possibility. As my grandmother used to say, "for every kettle, there is a lid."
You also really must read HoundDog's diary The Right To Privacy: Why it is Important, and Why This Right Should Be Enumerated which has so much good stuff in it, some of things everyone in the GLBTIQ communities should know almost get lost.
Please read his whole diary, but I can't resist the temptation to quote a few provocative paragraphs that really speak to me, about why we can not wait any longer for full equality and Constitutional Rights all of God's children in all of our wonderful diversity.
And we all need to know why social conservatives are so insistent that the consitutional does not contain a Right of Privacy and why are they trying to reverse Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas? And why must progressives and other believers in democracy defend these foundational Supreme Court decisions in the upcoming Alito nomination hearings?
I didn't know that 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas struck down out all remaining sodomy laws that were being used to keep homosexuality illegal. Apparantly
Articles 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights, are more important than I realized. I agree with HoundDog when he says"
I believe a majority of Americans will support the need for specific enumerations protecting a woman's right to choose, full rights of citizenship, marriage and all other equal rights and protections for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender, and Intersexed communities, as well as support of our civil liberties against of the abrogations implicit in the Patriot Act.
That means it (the government) has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has steadily been moving in the direction of using the Right to Privacy to grant full citizenship rights to all citizens, HoundDog says"
The constitution of the US of America is for all people, no matter what color, race, gender, age, national origin, religion, moral philosophy, sexual orientation, sexual identification, sexual affectation, or any other arbitrary criteria. We are no longer going to tolerate the absurd and un-American practice of forcing one minority group after another with the burden of proof that they should have to prove that they should be citizens with constitutional rights.
Rather, the burden of proof shall henceforth be on anyone who wishes to deny constitutional rights to broad classes of people on some abstract criteria. The only such criteria that is legitimate is for those classes of behaviors that are illegal and unconstitutional because they infringe or harm the rights of others.
This is easy folks. Active pedophiles, murderers, rapists, terrorists and any and all people who commit violence against the innocent can be legislated without any problem.
It is a completely bogus read herring to deny good worthy citizens full equality for the bogus fears the right-wing is trying to use to manipulate and terrify the American people. We do not need the bible or divine revelation to provide a sound moral and legal foundation for our society. Our constitution was intentionally designed to provide a secular humanist foundation which has been working well.
Right-Wing Extremist Try To Undermine Rights To Privacy
As the Supreme Court repeatedly reinforces full constitutional rights for woman, people of color and this interpretation of the rights to privacy in Roe v. Wade, the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, and the 2003 case of Lawrence v. striking down all remaining sodomy laws (that were the basis for making homosexuality illegal), right wing extremists are in a panic to find some way to restore the totally false notion that their most extreme interpretations of the Bible are, in fact, somehow the foundation of morality and law in America.
But the constitution is unambiguous and powerful. It reserve all right not specifically enumerated to the government to the people.
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to dengy or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Please go read and recommend HoundDogs diary. My intention is not to steal his thunder. I just fell that some of his points are so good and important for all of us, that they are getting lost in his pages and pages of documentation. It's such a same to see such great work getting only five comments and 2 recommendations.
One last HoundDog quote:
Given the current punitive and restrictive attitudes and expectable social retribution if not criminal prosecutions: homosexuals, casual drug users, including the 60 million
We are all more free, safe and strong, to the extent we hold to a barest minimum, the list of people who we wish to exclude from our citizenship based on "moral principals."
So for me, I agree with the words and intent of the founding fathers when they wrote in the US constitution. Any rights not specifically granted to the government is reserved to the people. And I would rather reserve of vast police power and powers of the state to infringe on true terrorists, violent criminals, or those who would deny our basic human rights to others, than to unjustly and unwisely persecute adulterers, homosexuals, lesbian, bisexuals, the trans-gendered, inter-sexed, husbands and wives with kinky sex practices, marijuana users, prostitutes, sinners and amoral folks of all kind. Let's deal with these folks with our free choice of association. Please feel free even to denounce them in your churches, if you must.
But let' reserve the vast powers of the domestic police and intelligence forces for protecting our physical safety. And leave our moral fiber to the free choice of all American protected by our US constitution and Articles 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights.
And knowing that we will soon loose this moment of clarity and focus. Let's ask a bi-partisan group of our political leaders and true statesmen to codify this in legislation or additional amendments to the constitution specifically enumerating these most precious and American Rights To Privacy.
HoundDog, these are encouraging and inspiring words to those of us in the various "diversity" communities that are still the victims of discrimination and nasty, cruel, and un-Christian, (non-Buddhist, non-consistent with any major religion) attacks from these divisive Right-Wing fundamentalists who which to drive us back into the dark ages of discrimination.
The funny thing is, when you add up all the minorities protected in the US constitution correctly, we are in the vast majority.
I, for one, am tired of being told to sit back and gratefully accept the "tolerance" of second class citizenship and token scraps of liberty. Unless someone wants to make a much better argument than has been made so far, I am going to now agree with HoundDog. Let the Burden of Proof be on those who wish to deny some class of citizens full equality and Constitutional Protections.
Otherwise, let's assume we are all full, good, and true Americans entitled to full constitutional protections and equality. It's the American Way!
Go HoundDog. Go EveryOne! Liberty Equality, and Truth!