Sword legion : "Those who have no right to force anyone to do something else now CAN force bakers, and companies and website programmers TO cater to the small and trivial things that people want."

Um, look, while you're right in the case of programmers being forced to cater to trivial matters, that doesn't extend (at least, most of the time) to bakers and companies. The issue there (at least for bakers) had been that they were asserting religion as a means to deny paid service to gays, transexual people, etc., not that they wouldn't treat them with some sort of protective, special care. I'm not denying that it happens sometimes, but that was not the intent of legislation on this matter. The intent was as follows: if you happen to distribute paid services or goods, you have to extend that distribution to EVERYONE, and not only to straight white males.

And yes, I know the movements of extreme feminists, social justice warriors, etc. I do not condone any of those claims to extra "equality" rights, that would force others to cater to small and trivial needs (just look at the whole "triggering" idea, in which no one should say anything that might "trigger" someone, including mentioning tall heights because it could "trigger acrophobes" (fyi, I'm an acrophobe, and don't ever get "triggered" for my phobia)). However, as a whole, this isn't really relevant to take this and generalize everyone to wanting to do the same. It's similar to claiming that all Christians want to suppress and enslave non-straight or trans individuals, or go back to the pre-Civil War slavery days. Are there people who are Christian that believe that? Absolutely there are. Are they the majority? Absolutely not.

I honestly agree with most of what you said, though, despite me going off on a rant about one barely noticeable detail of your post.

A user of this : Not going to go into the discussion on wheter gender options should be changed, but wanted to correct  a common misconception. You're confusing sex and gender. Sex is what you are eg what reproductive parts you have while gender is a mental construct, and is what you identify as and how you act like the traditional gender roles and isn't dependant on your sex. Your gender very much is who you are.

SWTerra :

I'm actually going to have to defend that right to deny services to anyone for. . . any reason really. I mean. . . you bought the place. You made the goods. . . why should anyone be able to walk in and purchase it. Isn't it your choice who you do business with for any reason?

I understand the concern for discrimination. But does the Government have a right to so much power? And is it possible that it may be missued?

Christian dentists in the 80s were able to keep their patients from contracting aids by refusing service to those carrying the disease- and passing it on thanks to immoral sexual activity. There are more reasons than just religions ones that people discriminate against homosexuals. I think that is something those in opposition to it should be aware of.

Zlinqx :

Maybe a larger number of people would like to define it that way, but there are still those who don't. I could not help but correct the authority with which you make this statement. Because a group of people views the word gender differently than another group, does not mean that all people accept this definition within a group. I myself still use the word in the same manner User does- you gender is very much not who you are. . . but rather what you are. By my definition, and the definition still used by most Americans in spite of efforts to change the common perspective on the word.

Sword legion : Well, that's why we are a Free Enterprise, not a Free Market, country. And yes, I realize that's a very slippery slope. However, I would still like to disagree with that point. Especially since we are a Free Enterprise, there is some authority for the government to go in and rectify matters economically. This is the same reason why potential monopolies can be controlled.

Is it possible that it could be misused? Absolutely it is, and I don't deny that (and I'm certain there are examples). But I don't think that leaving everything as completely free is any better a solution. We humans have a way of being greedy and prejudiced towards, well, everyone. Leaving economic matters to ourselves can be very dangerous. Could I be wrong? Absolutely, but what do I know about how exactly it'll work out?

I actually do know of most of the other reasons for discrimination against homosexuals. However, if I also recall, many of these thoughts and reasons are slowly being debunked. I understand when we were uncertain of matters, but not every homosexual has AIDS, or even participates actively in sexual activity. There are many romantic relationships in which there is no intimate activity. I digress, though.

Honestly, I think there's one thing we'd have to focus on before the concern of the distribution of paid goods, and that's avoiding more public discrimination all together, and this isn't only talking about minorities (I'm looking at you, extremist social justice warriors), although they clearly should have a little more priority in those movements than majorities.

It's not that difficult to understand, imo...

Someone who is born with characteristics of both genders is called an intersex person. And some people are born transgendered. These situations are all well-documented by medical science and accepted by the scientific and medical community. It's real. Not much else can be argued. lol

I'm going to close this thread now. I believe the answer has been sufficiently given as to why Vizzed has only 2 genders available. No need to have a debate about it further in general chat.