Nikki Araguz Judgement Fallacy 2: God Dunnit #lgbt #transsexual #nbc #abc #cbs #hrc #tldef #glaad #equalitytex

The “legal” question that was “answered” in Littleton v Prange (which Judge Clapp’s decision is based upon) is:

The deeper philosophical (and now legal) question is: can a physician change the gender of a person with a scalpel, drugs and counseling, or is a person’s gender immutably fixed by our Creator at birth? – Chief Justice Phil Hardberger, Littleton v Prange, 1999

This is the legal underpinning that Judge Clapp used to arrive at his decision that Nikki is a dude. Trust a Republican to write his religion into case law. So, not only must we accept Logical Fallacy #1, but now people like me must live under Hardberger’s religious views. As aTheravada Buddhist, Hardberger’s “legal” question is a violation of my religious freedom. Hardberger has literally claimed in his legal decision that:
There is a Creator.
This Creator immutably fixes the sex of each and ever one of us.
This Creator sexes each one of us at the moment of birth.
My religion explicitly states the opposite. Not only is there no Creator in Theravada Buddhism, Buddhist scripture explicitly states that sex determination can and does sometimes happen later in life.  So, who’s religion is more important when considering my medical issues you might ask? Well, let me give you a clue: Buddhist religious views on the question of sex determination of trans people doesn’t count. Hardberger’s religious views are given more weight in the law than a Buddhist’s religious view.  Is that American? Nope. Is that Republican? Yup.
Did either Judge Hardberger or Judge Clapp offer any evidence to support the legal reality of a Creator? Nope.
Did either Judge Hardberger or Judge Clapp offer any evidence to support the legal reality that a Creator immutably fixes the sex of each and ever one of us? Nope.
Did either Judge Hardberger or Judge Clapp offer any evidence to support the legal reality that this Creator sexes each one of us at the moment of birth? Nope.
Did either Judge Hardberger or Judge Clapp address that linking a legal test of sex determination to a Creator who sexes each and every person at the moment of birth might conflict with other established religions? Nope.

Nikki Araguz Judgement Fallacy 2: God Dunnit #lgbt #transsexual #nbc #abc #cbs #hrc #tldef #glaad #equalitytex

The “legal” question that was “answered” in Littleton v Prange (which Judge Clapp’s decision is based upon) is:

The deeper philosophical (and now legal) question is: can a physician change the gender of a person with a scalpel, drugs and counseling, or is a person’s gender immutably fixed by our Creator at birth? – Chief Justice Phil Hardberger, Littleton v Prange, 1999

This is the legal underpinning that Judge Clapp used to arrive at his decision that Nikki is a dude. Trust a Republican to write his religion into case law. So, not only must we accept Logical Fallacy #1, but now people like me must live under Hardberger’s religious views. As aTheravada Buddhist, Hardberger’s “legal” question is a violation of my religious freedom. Hardberger has literally claimed in his legal decision that:

  1. There is a Creator.
  2. This Creator immutably fixes the sex of each and ever one of us.
  3. This Creator sexes each one of us at the moment of birth.

My religion explicitly states the opposite. Not only is there no Creator in Theravada Buddhism, Buddhist scripture explicitly states that sex determination can and does sometimes happen later in life.  So, who’s religion is more important when considering my medical issues you might ask? Well, let me give you a clue: Buddhist religious views on the question of sex determination of trans people doesn’t count. Hardberger’s religious views are given more weight in the law than a Buddhist’s religious view.  Is that American? Nope. Is that Republican? Yup.

Did either Judge Hardberger or Judge Clapp offer any evidence to support the legal reality of a Creator? Nope.

Did either Judge Hardberger or Judge Clapp offer any evidence to support the legal reality that a Creator immutably fixes the sex of each and ever one of us? Nope.

Did either Judge Hardberger or Judge Clapp offer any evidence to support the legal reality that this Creator sexes each one of us at the moment of birth? Nope.

Did either Judge Hardberger or Judge Clapp address that linking a legal test of sex determination to a Creator who sexes each and every person at the moment of birth might conflict with other established religions? Nope.