Brian Talbert, a member of “Gays for Trump,” submitted an application to Charlotte Pride, Charlotte’s Gay Pride parade, so they could have a float in this year’s event. His application was rejected, with this explanation:
Charlotte Pride reserves the right to decline participation at our events to groups or organizations which do not reflect the mission, vision and values of our organization, as is acknowledged in our parade rules and regulations by all groups at the time of their parade application. In the past, we have made similar decisions to decline participation from other organizations espousing anti-LGBTQ religious or public policy stances.
Charlotte Pride envisions a world in which LGBTQ people are affirmed, respected and included in the full social and civic life of their local communities, free from fear of any discrimination, rejection, and prejudice.
Charlotte Pride invites all individuals, groups, organizations and causes which share our values to join our community’s celebration of the LGBTQ community, history, arts and culture during the Charlotte Pride Festival and Parade, Aug. 26-27, 2017.
In other words, because Charlotte Pride does not support Talbert’s political views, he is being denied the opportunity to present a minority point of view. Constitutional Law prof Eugene Volokh explains why this is entirely legal:
“First, Charlotte and North Carolina do not ban discrimination by parade organizers based on political affiliation. Only a few jurisdictions include political affiliation on their lists of prohibited bases for discrimination.
Second, even if a public accommodation law did ban such discrimination, it couldn’t apply to parades organized by nongovernmental organizations. Such parade organizers have a First Amendment right to exclude groups from their parades based on the messages the groups convey about their members’ sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, race and whatever else to make sure that a parade conveys just the speech that parade organizers want to convey.”
The precedent Volokh cites for this principle? Why, it’s Supreme Court’s holding in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. (1995), declaring that the organizers of Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade had a First Amendment right to exclude the gay/lesbian/bisexual group.
It seems that many groups advocate diversity, tolerance and fairness until they achieve the power to do their own discrimination. That is, good bigotry. Discriminating against gays is bad. Gays discriminating against gays who support the President of the United States is good.
Sure it is. Golden Rule? What’s that? This is intolerance, bigotry, a failure of integrity, hypocrisy….and also bullying, as it aims to coerce group members to accept mandated political views that are not their own.
But it’s not illegal, so it’s all right!
For the record, the rationalizations involved are…
2 A. Sicilian Ethics, or “They had it coming”
4. Marion Barry’s Misdirection, or “If it isn’t illegal, it’s ethical.”
5. The Compliance Dodge.
13. The Saint’s Excuse: “It’s for a good cause”
14. Self-validating Virtue
24. Juror 3’s Stand (“It’s My Right!”)
28. The Revolutionary’s Excuse: “These are not ordinary times.”
29. The Altruistic Switcheroo: “It’s for his own good”
29A. The Gruber Variation, or “They are too stupid to know what’s good for them”
36. Victim Blindness, or “They/He/She/ You should have seen it coming.”
36 B. The Patsy’s Rebuke, or “It’s not my fault that you’re stupid!”
59. The Ironic Rationalization, or “It’s The Right Thing To Do”
But I understand, I really do. If your objective is to fracture the nation according to political beliefs, and make sure nobody has any friends that don’t believe as they do and never talk to anyone with a different view of life, this is the way to do it.
But Trump has notably not espoused antigay policy stances and has, in fact, resisted efforts to do so within his administration. So far, Trump is probably the most LGBT-friendly Republican president we’ve had.
…The Los Angeles pride parade and festival is this weekend, but apparently it’s no longer the same pride parade people are used to. It’s been transformed into an anti-Trump “resistance” march, under the odd and incorrect assumption that being part of the LGBT community inherently requires you to embrace of a host of political positions. New York, Austin, Seattle, and D.C. are joining them. L.A. Weekly quotes one of the march organizers:
“#ResistMarch was built around the concept of standing in solidarity for all human rights,” explains Brian Pendleton, a CSW board member. “The march is meant to be a celebration of humanity that is all part and parcel of the LGBTQ community. We are immigrants, we are women, we are seniors, we are communities of color, and on and on. Very few communities encompass so many different types of Americans.”
That’s true. But it also means the community encompasses Trump voters and other types of conservatives. …What Pendleton is promoting isn’t a celebration of humanity. It’s a policing of political values. It’s remarkable that parades that have revolved around an insistence that LGBT people should be allowed to participate in society and be public about who they are wants to excluding participant for their political affiliations.
This isn’t ultimately about Trump himself; it’s about the inability or unwillingness of people with highly different political interests to engage with each other. It’s easier to cast gay Trump voters out of the movement than to engage with them over the fundamental philosophical differences that divide them….There’s nothing about being gay or transgender that requires support of unrelated policy positions on everything from immigration to abortion, and I say this as somebody who identifies more frequently with the left on those two issues. Making the parades into anti-Trump rallies tells tens of thousands of LGBT people that this festival that’s supposed to be about them is actually deliberately excluding and opposing them.
Ethics Alarms 
Hmm.
Ever notice how the congressional black caucus excludes blacks who are Republican?
This is not new. Progressives hate our culture. They have to have something to be upset about, all the time. Gay marriage won? Time to ramp up trans issues! Always about anger, always against America and common Americans.
Perhaps I should shorten that to: Progressives Hate.
“Ever notice how the congressional black caucus excludes blacks who are Republican?”
They do not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus
I have fallen to rhetoric here. Allen West has been out there criticizing the CBC as if they would not accept him, when he was in congress.
I therefore retract that statement.
I stand by the rest of the post.
What do you mean by “accept?” He was a member of the CBC when he was in Congress, though he did not get along with the other members, and by many accounts was incredibly disrespectful to them:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/blogs/ticket/congressional-black-caucus-bids-farewell-allen-west-last-213654299–election.html
I can’t really argue with the rest of your comment, because there isn’t really much substance to it; you’re just engaging in the same tribalism and hatred you’re accusing Democrats of.
My stance, Chris, is based on observed behavior. I submit the past year as evidence. Always something to be angry about.
And Republicans aren’t? What was Trump’s campaign based on, if not anger?
Trump’s VOTES and Election were based on anger. Trump’s campaign was based on celebrity, unspecified and vague change, a rejection of illegal immigration and defiance of political correctness.
I was going to comment that anger had less to do with it than resentment. Jack hit the nail on the head.
Conservatives and normal Americans want to be left alone to live their lives. It takes a major event (this election, 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Obamacare’s failure, etc.) to make them pay attention to politics. We DON’T always stay angry. The left manufactures things to be upset about.
I don’t agree that the gay community is “manufacturing things to be upset about.”
Of course, he was referring to the Left in general. Not the gay community in general.
I did not say the ‘gay community,’ did I? I said ‘progressives’
‘the left’
not all who identify as ‘gay’ are progressives, aka ‘the left.’
Right, Mrs. Q?
It seemed like you were certainly using the gay community’s actions in this case as support for your statement that progressives are manufacturing things to be upset about; therefore, it’s rational to conclude you were saying the gay community is manufacturing things to be upset about. If that’s not what you meant, I apologize.
No worries, my good ‘comment of the day’ celebrity 🙂
They do exclude whites, however, making it a racist group, as well as an embarrassing one.
It’s essentially a pointless group.
1) The inclusion of non-blacks, specifically whites, to demonstrate it being a non-racist club, is what we would simply call “Congress”, and we already have one of those.
2) It appeals to an anti-democratic sentiment that people inherently must vote as groups. They do, but not because nature compels them to, but rather because nefarious political actors have convinced them to with various incentives through time.
” nefarious political actors”
You mean union leaders.
What a stupid move, by making it political, by engaging in the resistance they are working to reverse their gains and acceptance. They won’t be able to divorce themselves from it later. By excluding conservative gay voices they prove that it isn’t about gay rights but political affiliation, putting the movement back into question. Idiots
The L.A. march is also excluding principled opponents of the Honorable Donald J. Trump who nevertheless see that the Resistance has no moral core.
This cat has been out of the bag for a while now.
What is not apparent is if the organizers have a general policy excluding floats and/or groups in support or opposition of political candidates or elected officials.
Such a policy can be ethically justified.
Such a policy could, I suppose… But not in the face of the fact pattern we’re looking at. If the float was denied because the float was sponsored by a political organisation, then the organizers should have said so. Their reason was that the organisation was anti-LGBTUVWx1yz&f!. It can’t possibly be ethical to lie about your reasoning.
Is it a lie? Trump may not have done much to implement anti-gay policy as president, but he campaigned in part on appointing judges who would overturn the same sex marriage decision. He appointed one of the nation’s most anti-gay politicians as his VP. As president he has spoken to and praised anti-gay organizations like Focus on the Family. He has openly considered rolling back Obama-era protections for LGBT people. He routinely praises Putin, who is oppressing gays in his country, which Trump has said nothing about. The Reason article Jack cites ignores all of this.
I think that based on that fact pattern, it is completely fair to call Trump anti-gay. If not in ideology (because he has none), than in practicality; he has chosen to ally himself with anti-gay forces because they helped him get elected.
Pride has no ethical obligation to host a group that primarily exists to support an anti-gay politician.
I feel you are reaching, here, Chris.
You are ‘trumping’ up a narrative without actions, at least so far, it seems to me.
I could use your logic to say Obama hated Christians, for instance. You points apply, in spirit, to his words. Add to that he took actions as well to marginalize Christians.
Just food for thought.
When did Obama say he was going to appoint judges to take away Christians’ rights? When did he appoint a VP who believes Christians need to be cured? When did he praise dictators that made it illegal to be Christian? When did he praise leaders of groups who said that being Christian is a mental illness?
I think you’ve made a false equivalence here, slick.
But even though Obama was not by any measure anti-Christian in the way Trump is anti-gay, I would say a parade organized by Focus on the Family would have every right to exclude a float by a group called “Evangelicals for Obama,” and I wouldn’t call them unethical for doing so. Stupid, maybe, but not unethical.
You cannot be serious, Chris! I almost suspect gas lighting in addition to your progressive dirty tactic of being deliberately obtuse and going to a straw man.
Were you just not paying attention during Obama’s Admin? Given your age (28, I think? No need to confirm unless you wish to, thought I read that here) this is possible. For a progressive, all was right with the world as far as POTUS during those years, so I can understand not keeping up with the minutia of executive actions.
First, Obama DID anti Christian things. He appointed leftist judges (you know, those that legislate from the bench instead of following the law…) all the way up to the SCOTUS. These leftist rule against Christian routinely, as any attention to the news would make plain. He forced Catholics to go against their religion in Obamacare, and picked businesses with faith based foundations to sue, like Hobby Lobby. The Obama administration forgave student loans in exchange for public service, but announced it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion. I could go on, but do a little research.
Second, Obama SAID anti Christian things. “Bitter Clingers” ring a bell? Do a little research and you will find much more.
Third, Obama praised MANY leaders who oppress Christians. Castro? Putin? Chavez? Xi Jinping? Muslin countries too many to go into? Chinese DO define religion as a mental illness, same as the old USSR.
Now, having in detail proven the Obama marginalized Christians, I reassert that your logic applies to him as well as Trump. Trump, unlike Obama, simply has not acted on mere words.
Democrats get a pass on their words so often that we don’t even twig to them anymore. A progressive opponent can say the exact same thing that a progressive has said and get castigated. It has happened many time to Trump within the past year.
This was posted in response to your 6/15/17 10:16 am post
The 10:18 post I have no problem with. Ain’t life funny?
First, Obama DID anti Christian things. He appointed leftist judges (you know, those that legislate from the bench instead of following the law…) all the way up to the SCOTUS. These leftist rule against Christian routinely, as any attention to the news would make plain.
Simply “ruling against Christians” does not make one anti-Christian; it is possible that in the cases involved, the Christians simply had bad legal arguments. Give me specific examples of what you’re talking about, and I’ll evaluate them on their merits.
He forced Catholics to go against their religion in Obamacare,
He forced corporations to provide adequate health insurance. This requirement applied to Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, and Buddhists alike. Just because some Christians were the most vocal complainers in this affair does not make the rule itself anti-Christian. I understand the Supreme Court ruled that corporations do have religious rights, but I think the argument that they don’t is valid, and not based on anti-Christian animus; notably, one of the dissenting judges is Roman Catholic (and Obama is also a Christian).
and picked businesses with faith based foundations to sue, like Hobby Lobby.
This is not true. Hobby Lobby sued the Obama administration, not the other way around.
The Obama administration forgave student loans in exchange for public service, but announced it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion. I could go on, but do a little research.
OK, I did the research, and found no evidence of this. Can you provide a source for this?
Second, Obama SAID anti Christian things. “Bitter Clingers” ring a bell? Do a little research and you will find much more.
“Bitter clingers” was about a specific part of the country; at worst, it was regional bigotry, not religious bigotry. (Again, Obama is a Christian.)
Third, Obama praised MANY leaders who oppress Christians. Castro? Putin? Chavez? Xi Jinping? Muslin countries too many to go into? Chinese DO define religion as a mental illness, same as the old USSR.
Obama did not “praise” any of those leaders, and was in fact very harsh on Putin–Trump is now considering rolling back the sanctions Obama imposed on Russia, in exchange for literally nothing.
Now, having in detail proven the Obama marginalized Christians
You really haven’t. Several of your claims were false or unsupported.
Chris, you are exhausting at times… Here goes:
“Simply “ruling against Christians” does not make one anti-Christian”
This is not the usual progressive take, Chris. You may be in danger of losing your membership card! Ruling against a Muslim is ‘racist;’ speaking against a person who happens to be LBGT is ‘homophobic;’ voting against a woman is ‘sexist.’ Progressives cannot have this both ways.
Examples? Bakers forced to bake cakes. Flower shops and pizza joints forced to close down. This has been common the past 8 years, and you can do your own research.
“He forced corporations to provide adequate health insurance.”
Who got to determine what ‘adequate’ was? Progressives defined the language here. Obamacare forced men to pay for coverage of parts they do not own. Women the same. Forcing someone to pay for services they find against their religion is unethical. (Hey, the same applies for my income taxes… hmmmm) Christians are the majority religion in America, and thus were disparately impacted, to borrow a good progressive phrase.
Your assertion that Obama is a Christian is between him and God: his actions lead me to believe otherwise, but he might just be bad at it /snark
“Hobby Lobby sued the Obama administration, not the other way around.”
Fair enough. I fell for a poorly worded source, and have researched it a bit better. The government defends laws they made in court. It is up to the aggrieved to sue. Same with the student loan bit. My source was ‘out there.’
““Bitter clingers” was about a specific part of the country; at worst, it was regional bigotry, not religious bigotry. ”
We can agree to disagree. Know that this was a slur felt across the heartland: If he felt this way about rural Pennsylvania, what did he think about other regions. The tone deaf quote itself is the problem: it speaks of the religious (and, thus, Christians, who are the vast majority) as these pitiful small people who progressives should look down on. Obama did not CARE what these people thought of him, else he never would have said it.
“Obama did not “praise” any of those leaders, and was in fact very harsh on Putin–Trump is now considering rolling back the sanctions Obama imposed on Russia, in exchange for literally nothing.”
Geez, Chris.
“We know that this moment fills Cubans – in Cuba and in the United States – with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation,” Obama said in a statement. “History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.” Not calling this praise is parsing with extreme prejudice.
“Everybody’s been impressed by his [Xi Jinping]— you know, his — his clout inside of China after only a year and a half or two years,” Mr. Obama told business leaders in Washington. “He has consolidated power faster and more comprehensively than probably anybody since Deng Xiaoping [China’s leader from 1978 to 1992].” Note the ‘consolidating power’ part. Christians believe religion is a disease, and Christian ‘house churches’ are illegal.
And Putin… what does ‘Tell Putin I’ll be able to do more after the election’ mean to you? “I am aware of not only the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people in your previous role as prime minis-, uh, as president, but in your current role as prime minister”
“Now, having in detail proven the Obama marginalized Christians… You really haven’t. Several of your claims were false or unsupported.”
Hope this rectifies your concerns, Chris. I suspect we will agree to disagree, not having enough of the other’s life experience and point of view to view the facts the same way.
In that spirit, I am letting this go. It has taken too much of my time already, as we will not agree. If you must reply, then do so, and claim ‘you won’ if you wish.
I have quite a few points of disagreement, but as you’re done with this conversation, I’ll leave yours as the last word.
Then I’ll accept your kind offer of the last word…
(this was too rich to pass up: I really am done)
“Your assertion that Obama is a Christian is between him and God: his actions lead me to believe otherwise, but he might just be bad at it /snark”
A few months ago, I heard an audio montage comprised of statements by Obama that Islam is his faith. Up until then, I thought the whole “Obama is a Muslim” thing was based on a single slip-up and displays of deference to Muslim nations and, thus, weak to meritless.
The audio went on for about 15 minutes, and had about 3 dozen statements indicating he is a muslim.
“A few months ago, I heard an audio montage comprised of statements by Obama that Islam is his faith.”
No, you didn’t, because he has never said that. You may have heard a montage of selectively edited, out of context statements meant to fool idiots who can’t Google, and you believed it because…well.
First of all, bite me for suggesting I’m an idiot, jackass. You have no idea what I listened to, and what it contained. These were not short snippets of audio creatively spliced together, but lengthly passages that provided more than enough context. No other conclusion could be arrived at. This wasn’t confirmation bias at work.
You Obamites get awfully touchy when you think your Lord and Savior is being attacked.
““We know that this moment fills Cubans – in Cuba and in the United States – with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation,” Obama said in a statement. “History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.” Not calling this praise is parsing with extreme prejudice.”
To be fair, Strictly speaking, these words could be used to describe Hitler or Stalin or Mao too in a neutral tone, though I don’t doubt he intended them as a compliment.
“Is it a lie?”
I think it is.
“Trump may not have done much to implement anti-gay policy as president,”
May not? Much? I can’t think of anything. Can you?
“but he campaigned in part on appointing judges who would overturn the same sex marriage decision.”
Which hour of which day? Trump says a lot of things, and while that’s criticism in and of itself… I don’t think it’s realistic or fair to cherry pick only the times he said things that fit your argument and pretend that’s the entire record. It’s why I think that you have to look at his actions, because either Trumps an idiot or he obfuscates by design… But actions ARE. He said mean things about gay people? I can’t think of many instances… Especially not in comparison to a whole lot of other people that LGBT people held their noses for and voted in anyway, at least historically.
“He appointed one of the nation’s most anti-gay politicians as his VP.”
Trump doesn’t appoint the VP… But I take your meaning. The VP is irrelevant. Biden was a serial molester, no one cared. The VP over the last four administrations seems, to an especially jaded observer, to be insurance… They’re so awful that no one wants to assassinate the president because Oh God Look At That Bullshit: ManBearPig, Darth Cheney, Mr. What’s-Personal-Space?, and Electro.
“As president he has spoken to and praised anti-gay organizations like Focus on the Family. He has openly considered rolling back Obama-era protections for LGBT people.”
He also carried a gay flag into a rally in Colorado, said that trans people should be able to pee wherever they want, and what he actually said about Obergefell v. Hodges was: “I would have preferred states, you know, making the decision and I let that be known. But they made the decision. … So, at a certain point you have to be realistic about it.”
“He routinely praises Putin, who is oppressing gays in his country, which Trump has said nothing about.”
If presidents were estopped from praising any heads of state from nations they had single issue problems with, or even multiple issue problems with that didn’t reach to a certain point,l no head of state would ever receive praise. This was one of my bones to pick with Hillary, she was amazingly hostile to Russia (Which is why if it turns out that Russian state agencies actaully were behind the leaks, I wouldn’t be horribly surprised.) And what good does that do other than virtue signal? The left is pissing itself trying to make the case that governments should stay out of the business of other governments… Apparently unless it’s in the cause of one of their pet projects.
Upon being elected, Trump unequivocally stated that while he didn’t favor same-sex marriage (you know, like Hillary, Bill and Obama until it became politically expedient to flip-flop) it was the law of the land now and he wasn’t going to try to change it.
But all that aside, the lie was that “You are being refused because of your political leaning” as opposed to “We don’t allow political floats of any kind.” in ME’s example.
Ah, I missed that. I thought you were saying the lie was that Trump is anti-gay. Your comment makes more sense now.
I was reluctant to comment on this post because it hits very close to home.
Just days ago my sister in-law sent pics of my niece & nephew at a Pride rally. She donned the kids in rainbows & breathlessly shared her excitement (keep in mind she was married to a woman & is now married to my wife’s brother).
When I said I appreciated the kid photos but was not allied with LGBT politics/parades she immediately responded the she & her husband believed in equality & she just wanted to send cute kid pics. I said ok & left it at that.
What bothered me was the assumption that because of whom I’m married to, that means I automatically support the current phase the “movement” is in. The “we believe in equality” line was another way of saying “yeah you may be kinda gay but I believe in this cause out of some moral superiority” was another annoyance.
Being able to travel freely in this country w/out fear of not being able to make health decisions for each other in the event of a medical crisis (and not having to pay more in taxes & fill out tax forms 3 times in April as domestic partners) was what my wife & I cared about. We cared about families being able to be fully functional. Now this country has that.
Our concerns now are for the gays/lesbians in countries where they are being killed – not about which bathroom people who identify their gender as “emoji pizza unicorn” should use.
My wife & I have watched over the last 25 years as LGBTQ rhetoric has kept gay rural men enslaved to sex addiction, bodies of growing young healthy adults corrupted from hormones, and focus on ideology via an ever expanding list of identities that are increasingly connected to transhumanism. These aspects & more is why we don’t believe in the version of “equality” the Human Rights Campaign & other groups espouse today. The cause now is about keeping the money flowing & ideology towards socialism & big Pharma.
It’s high time family oriented and conservative LGBT’s leave the movement & live our own lives. Doing so gives hope to those who may only think being queer is only about what the causes are selling and being obsessed over what others think about you.
I’ll take my freedom & sanity over a bunch of corporate sponsored rainbows any day.
Being able to travel freely in this country w/out fear of not being able to make health decisions for each other in the event of a medical crisis (and not having to pay more in taxes & fill out tax forms 3 times in April as domestic partners) was what my wife & I cared about. We cared about families being able to be fully functional. Now this country has that.
I’m having trouble reading this as saying anything other than “I got mine, now screw the rest of you.”
Our concerns now are for the gays/lesbians in countries where they are being killed – not about which bathroom people who identify their gender as “emoji pizza unicorn” should use.
No one identifies that way–you are constructing a strawman to make trans people look ridiculous, which strikes me as strange–you seem to already think trans people are ridiculous enough just for being trans, so why do you feel the need to do this?
Believe it or not, using a public restroom while visibly trans can be dangerous. The bathroom issue has become a thing largely because of conservative efforts to force trans people to use the restroom that matches their gender assigned at birth–meaning Laverne Cox would have to use the men’s restroom. Who, exactly, does that protect?
People are killed in this country for being trans. Why can’t you care about that and people in other countries being killed for being gay? And if you can’t…why broadcast that lack of caring to the world? There are plenty of causes I don’t really give much thought to…I should probably care more about prostate cancer than I do, but I just don’t think about it. But if someone sent me a picture of themselves at a benefit for this cause, I wouldn’t complain about it.
My wife & I have watched over the last 25 years as LGBTQ rhetoric has kept gay rural men enslaved to sex addiction,
Oh, that’s bullshit. Anti-gay rhetoric and lack of marriage as a viable option has kept gay rural men enslaved to sex addiction. The fact that gay youth are much more likely to be homeless due to parental rejection has kept gay rural men enslaved to sex addiction. LGBTQ rhetoric is NOT the cause of this.
“People are killed in this country for being trans. Why can’t you care about that and people in other countries being killed for being gay?”
There is a material difference between individuals in our country acting against the law to murder trans people (however often that happens) and individuals in other countries who merely being trans will get them killed by the government or killed by their fellow citizens because those citizens will not be punished for murder.
You’ll be forced to attribute some malice to Mrs Q because, the flaw in your logic revealed, you now have to assume that she doesn’t care about murder victims — which I reasonably assume she does. Or, you can back track the equivalency you’ve made.
“I’m having trouble reading this as saying anything other than “I got mine, now screw the rest of you.”
Then you should re-read it. What “rest of you” are excluded from legally recognized marriages now?
There is a material difference between individuals in our country acting against the law to murder trans people (however often that happens) and individuals in other countries who merely being trans will get them killed by the government or killed by their fellow citizens because those citizens will not be punished for murder.
Certainly. But I read her as saying she doesn’t care about trans issues at all, and finds their concerns petty. I brought up this issue to show that they actually do have valid concerns that she is dismissing.
Then you should re-read it. What “rest of you” are excluded from legally recognized marriages now?
Again, it seems clear to me that she is dismissing trans issues as a whole, so your question isn’t really responsive to that.
https://alterconf.com/talks/my-gender-emoji-pizza-unicorn-how-i-shipped-expanded-gender-options-pinterest
Oh Chris, always trying to pick a fight with me rather than give any of my words actual thoughtful consideration or researching anything I’ve mentioned. That’s okay I like ya anyway.
My very butch wife every day encounters weird looks in the bathroom. She deals with it. Trans folks can too. Danger? Try being a woman trapped in the bathroom with a dude in a dress. It sucks. We all just have to learn to deal with unsafe bathrooms now & shut up about it.
I’m sorry your wife has had that experience. A culture which accepted trans people would likely also be more accepting of your wife.
Danger? Try being a woman trapped in the bathroom with a dude in a dress. It sucks.
Well, what do you mean by a “dude in a dress?” Do you mean a trans woman? If so, why does that suck? Or do you actually mean a cis man attempting to passing as a trans woman? If so, have you actually had that experience? How did you know that person was not a woman? As far as I’m aware there are no documented instances of cis men impersonating trans women in order to creep around women’s bathrooms. Certainly, this is much rarer than actual instances of trans people using the restroom of the gender they identify as.
We all just have to learn to deal with unsafe bathrooms now & shut up about it.
No, you don’t. If there is someone making a restroom unsafe, you should absolutely report them. But trans people are not inherently unsafe, and their presence in a bathroom doesn’t make anyone unsafe.
Hi again Chris. My wife is strong and not someone who needs people around her to approve of her or give her safety. She doesn’t need people with penises & testes to go to bat for her in the bathrooms. Butch lesbians have been dealing with it for years just fine. But you know us terrible TERF’s and our cotton ceilings be damned, we just needed someone born with male genitals to help us right?
Yes Chris I HAVE been a women’s bathroom a few times with people who were clearly men (five o’clock shadow anyone) in dresses because I live in Portlandia where socialist wet dreams come alive. I have been stared at by guys like that and it’s why as a family we decided that I needed to take a self defense class & buy mace. A female friend had a trans dude look at her over a stall but she didn’t want to say anything for “the cause.”
At my wife’s work teens come in, in rainbow outfits and complain to her that there is NO WHERE to go potty. If they are simply men or women regardless of their genitals then why are people complaining that they have no bathroom? No I don’t hate, but I do wish some of these folks would find a new hobby.
At the end of the day I’m not going to wait & report someone being unsafe Chris, I’m going to protect myself regardless of who is in the loo.
You are correct Chris, trans folks are not more inherently dangerous, unless their name is Martine Rothblatt.
Emoji Pizza Unicorn may not be too far off after all. Just ask the trans-racials, trans-animals, and trans-species. Oh wait, that’s not something people are identifying as…or are they?
Hi again Chris. My wife is strong and not someone who needs people around her to approve of her or give her safety.
Everyone needs approval to some extent; you made it sound like having people stare at her in the bathroom was an unpleasant experience for her. I don’t doubt her ability to “deal with it,” but wouldn’t things be better if she didn’t have to? Wouldn’t it be better if people who thought she was deficient because she looks different from them taught to “deal with it,” or better yet, were taught not to think that way in the first place?
She doesn’t need people with penises & testes to go to bat for her in the bathrooms.
What about people who used to have penises and testes, but no longer do?
And how on earth is she to know whether people in the restroom have penises and testes? People don’t usually pull those out in a public bathroom. How does she know that people have never made that assumption about her? Maybe that’s why people stare; has she ever been mistaken for trans?
Yes Chris I HAVE been a women’s bathroom a few times with people who were clearly men (five o’clock shadow anyone) in dresses because I live in Portlandia where socialist wet dreams come alive.
That wasn’t my question; transwomen can have five o’clock shadows. I asked if you were certain that these were cis men posing as transwomen, which seemed to be your concern.
I have been stared at by guys like that and it’s why as a family we decided that I needed to take a self defense class & buy mace. A female friend had a trans dude look at her over a stall but she didn’t want to say anything for “the cause.”
Well, that’s stupid. No one should ever look over at anyone in an adjacent stall. I would assume most trans people don’t do that, though.
At my wife’s work teens come in, in rainbow outfits and complain to her that there is NO WHERE to go potty. If they are simply men or women regardless of their genitals then why are people complaining that they have no bathroom? No I don’t hate, but I do wish some of these folks would find a new hobby.
I’d need more context to understand this situation.
At the end of the day I’m not going to wait & report someone being unsafe Chris, I’m going to protect myself regardless of who is in the loo.
I’m not opposed to self-defense.
You are correct Chris, trans folks are not more inherently dangerous, unless their name is Martine Rothblatt.
I had to Google this person…she has some strange beliefs, but I don’t know why you think she is “dangerous.” And we were talking about the specific danger of someone being inappropriate in a public restroom, and there’s no reason to believe Rothblatt poses that kind of danger.
“As far as I’m aware there are no documented instances of cis men impersonating trans women in order to creep around women’s bathrooms.”
Let me enlighten you:
1. A Seattle man, citing transgender bathrooms laws, was able to gain access to a women’s locker-room at a public recreational center while little girls were changing for swim practice.
2. A Toronto man claiming to be transgender was arrested and sentenced to jail for sexually assaulting several women in a women’s shelter after he gained access to the shelter and its shower facilitates as “Jessica.”
3. A Virginia man was caught and arrested for peeping on and filming two women and a 5-year-old child in a women’s restroom after receiving entry by dressing in drag.
4. A Los Angeles man dressed in drag, entered a Macy’s department store bathroom and videotaped women under bathroom stalls.
5. Two male students were caught at the University of Toronto exploiting “gender-neutral” facilities to peep on women in the shower with their cellphone cameras.
Source: http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/5-times-transgender-men-abused-women-and-children-amanda-prestigiacomo#
This is not new:
WPRI: Man Charged With Voyeurism in Target Bathroom (January 17, 2017) Lincoln, R.I. A man was charged with video voyeurism after he placed a camera in a Target bathroom.
Fox News: Man Used Cellphone to Record Woman Undressing at Target in Dallas, Tex. (September 15, 2016)
ABC 7: Man Seen Recording Women in Target Changing Room (September 12, 2016) Brick, N.J. A man was observed reaching under the stalls of a unisex dressing room with a cellphone in a Target store to record women.
FOX 4: Man Accused of Taking Photos in Target Dressing Room (September 7, 2016) Dallas, Tex. Police were seeking a man who is accused of pointing a cellphone camera at a woman in a Target changing room.
Post Register: Transgender woman arrested for voyeurism at Target (July 12, 2016)
Bedford Police: Man Arrested for Recording Juvenile Girls in Target Dressing Room (June 24, 2016)
WDAY 6: Man Caught Placing Cellphone Under Dressing Room Door in Target (June 16, 2016)
FOX 25: Man Caught Looking over Changing Room Wall in Target (June 14, 2016)
The Daily Caller: Security Guard Arrested for Removing Man from Women’s Bathroom (May 19, 2016)
Fox News: Man Used Cellphone to Record Woman Undressing at Target in Frisco, Tex. (May 2016)
CBS DFW: Shopper Upset Man Allowed to use Women’s Dressing Room in Ross (May 17, 2016)
Mass Resistance: Female Office Worker Encounters Man Urinating in Ladies’ Room Exposed (February 21, 2016)
NY Daily News: Seattle Man Undresses in Women’s Locker Room at Local Pool to Test New Transgender Bathroom Rule (February 17, 2016)
NBC Washington: Man Dressed as Woman Arrested for Spying into Mall Bathroom Stall, Police Say (November 17, 2015)
KTLA5: DA: Cross-Dressing Man Secretly Taped Women at Macy’s (May 14, 2013)
Oregon Live: Cross-Dressing Sex Predator Sentenced for Clackamas Aquatic Park Crimes (October 27, 2011)
Abc7news.com: Police: Calif. Locker Room Suspect Used Disguise (October 22, 2010)
WSBTV: Police: Man Undresses in Front of Children in Walmart Restroom (March 24, 2010)
The Mercury News: San Jose Sex Offender Wearing Fake Breasts, Wig Arrested for Loitering in Women’s Restroom (January 26, 2009)
Purdue University: Purdue Police Investigate Report of Man Taking Photographs in Women’s Restroom (March 31, 2008)
St. Petersburg Times: Cross-Dressing Man Sentenced for Battery (September 25, 1999)
– See more at: http://www.trunews.com/article/transgender-bathrooms-anybody-talking-about-the-assaults#sthash.bpYpdjAE.dpuf
Just sayin’
Thanks, slick. I withdraw my claim.
Interestingly, many of those incidents occurred prior to this issue becoming a legislative one. I still don’t see much evidence that simply allowing trans people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with would increase the likelihood of men doing this.
And that is not what I am talking about. Men have acted this way since Cain and Able were babies… and a certain percentage will be predators, given the opportunity. Trans likely lowers the likelihood, IMHO. They do not WANT to be noticed. This is about giving predators cover to predate.
Good conversation, Chris. 🙂
“No one identifies that way–you are constructing a strawman to make trans people look ridiculous”
Chris, why no reply, apology, or retraction regarding the proof that Mrs. G served that, indeed, there is someone who identifies as Pizza Face Unicorn whatever. The fact that YOU took her comment, and assumed that it was an off the wall, snarky, extremist statement designed to mock others, when there are others who identify EXACTLY as that, says something. Like, maybe, at some point, the “I can identify as whatever I want and you have to honor it even if that thing is patently absurd” mindset CAN go too far.
Also, “As far as I’m aware there are no documented instances of cis men impersonating trans women in order to creep around women’s bathrooms.”…seriously? I do not make this accusation lightly (and KNOW that I, as well as many others on this site, can start to get outside our partisan bubble more), but if you’ve honestly never heard of examples of this, not only have you clearly made 0 attempt to find examples (as you should have before dismissing the claim), I’d damn near say that you’re actively looking the other direction. I’ve come across news reports of this more than a dozen times in the last year without actively looking for them. Maybe it’s b/c the news sites I frequent are drastically different than yours, but nevertheless, these stories are not hard to find. And understanding the validity of your opponents’ positions, so as to strengthen your own, is kind of an important thing.
I’d assume that you’ve heard of this (dude? little girl? woman?) before, but considering you’d never heard of straight men pretending to be cis, here’s another example of someone taking the “I identify as I want and you must honor it” too far: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3356084/I-ve-gone-child-Husband-father-seven-52-leaves-wife-kids-live-transgender-SIX-YEAR-OLD-girl-named-Stefonknee.html. Now, is the gender part of his transformation valid, but the age not? Why/why not? What if he were transitioning to a 6 year old black girl?
And another question: When you talk of trans women vs “a cis man attempting to passing as a trans woman”, what, really, is the material difference? How do you, an outsider, judge the sincerity, commitment, and personal feelings of another, when determining whether they’re a “real” transgender, vs a “fake” one? Forget judging, how sincere/committed/heartfelt must one be, to be considered “real”? Or, better yet, why is anyone required to meet yours, the LGBTQ community’s, or anyone elses standard of commitment?
This is not snark, and Im not trying to lead you down a path where I can then back you into a corner, honest. Why can a “real” trans person take any path they want to becoming a member of the opposite sex, including waking up one morning and deciding to just go for it, but a less sincere person, who wants to utilize ladies night discounts, can’t wake up one day and do the same? B/c person B goes back to being a dude whenever they want? So, if person A transitions back, then they were a fraud as well?
Who has the right to judge another person’s sincerity, or even set a sincerity bar, in these matters?
Damn it. Not Mrs. G…Mrs. Q. My apologies.
I had 1 letter to remember; 1 letter!
… and she is mostly conservative.
If not, I officially claim Lady Q for OUR side! Red Rover, Red Rover, Let Mrs. Q come over!
🙂
“No one identifies that way–you are constructing a strawman to make trans people look ridiculous”
Chris, why no reply, apology, or retraction regarding the proof that Mrs. G served that, indeed, there is someone who identifies as Pizza Face Unicorn whatever.
Because I didn’t see it. I don’t typically click links without context.
But now that I have, I don’t think I owe her an apology; that is one rather extreme person, and Mrs. Q’s remark was clearly suggesting that this is a common occurrence. When someone takes on extreme example to represent what they are claiming to be a widespread phenomenon, I think “strawman” is a fair characterization even if it more closely resembles another fallacy.
As for the difference between a genuine trans person and a fraud…there are real brain differences between men and women, and science is finding that trans people tend to have brains more closely matching the gender they identify with then the one they were assigned at birth. While a few people might do things like claim to be trans to get certain benefits, I imagine this is quite rare. Being trans still comes with many disdvantages and lots of social stigma that most people would prefer to avoid if possible. There were similar arguments made that if we legalize same-sex marriage, same-sex friends would get married just for the benefits. I didn’t find that argument convincing then, and I don’t find it convincing now.
There is no evidence that allowing an adult to live as a child can be psychologically valuable in the same way that allowing someone born a man to transition into a woman can be psychologically valuable, so that example is easy to dismiss.
“science is finding that trans people tend to have brains more closely matching the gender they identify with ”
I doubt that, as this is being funded to prove a predetermined policy position. Like Climate Change. I will not ask for sources, as I doubt we will agree as to their validity, and would waste both our times. Agree to disagree?
“While a few people might do things like claim to be trans to get certain benefits, I imagine this is quite rare.
Actually, in High School and College this is the opposite. Direct observations by my family, from many teachers and administrators: kids who want attention (for various reasons) tend to come out as trans. The past 15 years or so, this type of student would have come out as gay. Gay is no longer special, so in the past two years it is now ‘Trans.’
Many of the ‘gay’ former students who graduated (several or more years ago,) and after finding that society no longer views them as special, have settled back into traditional sexuality (note there are exceptions, but a surprising chunk of this demographic now have kids sired in a traditional role)
Some of those identifying as trans seem to come out, find that the world is not rosier, and go back. Some keep switching back and forth. And, admittedly, a few switch and stick with it, moving forward into society in their chosen gender role.
But the sheer number who come out lead me to believe this is less about brain chemistry and more about a cry for attention and help; they seem to need something they are not getting in their lives.
As far as I could find, the conclusion of Scientific American’s January 2016 article, “Is There Something Unique About the Transgender Brain,” speaks to the results of the all the legitimate studies that have been done to date: . . . given the variety of transgender people and the variation in the brains of men and women generally, it will be a long time, if ever, before a doctor can do a brain scan on a child and say, “Yes, this child is trans.”
So far, Slick, so good. Nothing is proven either way as far as brain differentiation is concerned. But your personal observations are not at that level of science; they are your unsupported (and insupportable) opinions. The problem with that kind of observation is that it can easily be turned on its head, as with “Direct observations by my family, from many teachers and administrators: kids who want attention (for various reasons) tend to come out as trans.”
It’s rather: “Kids who are trans or gay tend to stand out and naturally attract attention.” What’s more, those who observe with knowledge can tell the difference easily.
What’s happening here is a common confusion between sexual orientation and gender identity. As simply as I can put it:
“Gay,” “Lesbian” and “Bisexual” refer to sexual orientation, in other words – who you are attracted to, namely, people of the same gender.
“Transgender” is a gender Identity: how you identify yourself in terms of maleness or femaleness. For a transgender person, the gender identity is one that is different from your biological sex. It can, in fact, have nothing whatsoever to do with whom you are attracted to.
Part of the confusion is that being queer (the word being back in vogue, stuck onto the LGBT as Q) designates one whose gender is known as fluid. In other words, the “stand outs” on the playground and even throughout their lives are those whose behavior is often that of the “opposite” gender. This occurs for two reasons: one is to be born with characteristics of another norm, the other is acquired as a copycat of society in general. What you don’t see, Slick, are those boys and girls, men and women, who are identical — naturally, biologically — with “straight” males or females… who can and do “pass”, as it were. Whether they look to you to be butch or femme, they are at home with their penis or vagina.
To get back to the question ‘What is the Difference between Gay and Transgender?’ – one has to do with sexual orientation (who you are attracted to sexually) and the other has to do with gender identity (who you feel yourself to be). Got it?
You are correct in thinking that transgender people, especially when in the (often difficult and painful) process of what is called coming out, used to identify as “gay,” because it was as close as they could come. But they had and have that one differentiation: the conviction and discomfort of being in the wrong gendered body. When a transgender person completes transition, he or she may turn out to have a straight orientation. Or not.
As far as your after finding that society no longer views them as special, have settled back into traditional sexuality goes, you display once again a conventional imagination in an attempt to dismiss both the reality of sexual orientation or gender identity and the complexity and difficulty of coming out against a society — a society that includes your own loved and needed ones — that hates, despises and rejects you. If you really believe this is an attention-getting pose, you are … ill-informed and unable to identify much less re-form your prejudices.
In short ‘What is the Difference between Gay and Transgender?”: One has to do with sexual orientation (who you are attracted to sexually) and the other has to do with gender identity (who you feel yourself to be).
An LBGT or Q person has rarely been “settled” in “traditional society.” They just learned, like you, to follow its customs, to date, even to marry and to raise children per standard. Throughout history, this has been a norm — to hide, to live a lie. (People sacrifice essential parts of themselves to live like this for many reasons when fitting in is deemed desirable or necessary enough.) Very often they are comfortable as Bi individuals in unconventional households. There are more than you know; they live a second life, usually undercover.
Speaking of personal observations, I recently met three people who came out in their 70s, retired, grandparents several times over. Two gay men, one lesbian. They have found a large support group of similar folks online who had felt obligated to be what their parents and/or church wanted.
And there are indeed some “exes,” a small minority. And among them are the rare but tragic cases who were exposed to unethical forms of persuasion that went against their natures. There are also those transgender folks who, in spite of their earnest desires, were incapable of going through the process of transition, particularly male to female. The hormone therapy alone can be torturous (it will be lifelong)… and to spare you the details, just know that the rest of it takes many years of many surgeries and and (again, often lifelong) psychological help. Many will spend a lifetime paying, literally, for it all.
By the way, “a surprising chunk of this demographic,” Slick — LBG and T — have sired or borne children in a variety of ways, including the Traditional Way, and they have been raising “normal” families since long before their marriages became legal.
In short, to deviate from a majority is not to be a “deviant.” Being transgender or any other variation of “queer” is not part of your invented and exceedingly stale stereotype. You present a simplistic, demeaning, and (to be polite) unknowing view of a population that is dispersed widely within what your think is Your World. No one is forcing you to or even asking you to accept it; just recognize its existence and leave it be unless, Heavens to Betsy, it tries to jump your bones.
Jack, if you have a chance — you may not even see this late entry — could you stop the italics at the end of the second paragraph: …tend to come out as trans
The type should then revert to normal uprightness until the fifth word of paragraph 10:
As far as your after etc.
Sorry about that.
Sure. It’s a pleasure having you correct your own typo!
I had to reread the whole thread just to get back into the discussion 🙂
“But your personal observations are not at that level of science; they are your unsupported (and insupportable) opinions. ”
So what? My personal observations are something I can comment on. And your precious ‘science’ is agenda driven drivel, 999 time out of 1000. Are eggs good or bad for you? Does a fetus feel pain and react to avoid it? “Cities will be under water by 2013, and Hurricanes will devastate the East coast.” The food pyramid will make you healthy (my favorite.) All of these things were ‘settled science’ created by progressive agenda driven studies that turned out to not be true. Spare me your appeals to authority that ain’t.
“What’s happening here is a common confusion between sexual orientation and gender identity.”
I am not confused, but you are. I never conflated these. Either you are avoiding my point in order to preach, or you really need to improve your reading skills. My observation was about a probable reason many chose to come out, and it had nothing to do with gender OR orientation. It was about a need for attention, wishing to feel special.
“To get back to the question ‘What is the Difference between Gay and Transgender?’ ”
I never asked the question, so this a straw man. I am quite informed, thanks anyway.
“…you display once again a conventional imagination in an attempt to dismiss both the reality of sexual orientation… hates, despises and rejects you.”
Conventional imagination, a.k.a. ‘common sense,’ is what applies to the human condition, which has not changed since Adam. Your little snide comment translates to “you are just to ignorant and unable to understand your betters.” This has been the progressive arrogance about modern art my entire life, that the masses are too ‘ignorant and unenlightened’ to understand what a cross in a jar of piss means. Really, your comments reek of arrogance and self righteousness.
“In short, to deviate from a majority is not to be a “deviant.”
Straw man: I never used that progressive code word, used by progressives to smear their opponents. I never even suggested that attitude. But feel free to think you are somehow more enlightened and superior by lecturing me.
“No one is forcing you to or even asking you to accept it…”
Utter Bull Shit. Progressives don’t want to simply be left alone, or for others to live and let live: they want EVERYONE to actively endorse their positions, in this area especially. Simply disagreeing with the ‘Gay Mafia’ can get you fired in some places. You are lying at best, and gas lighting at worst.
This post was not about my biases, whatever they may be: it was an observation and a hypothesis. You made it into a political dog whistle and virtue signalling on your part. You think you are moving society along to some utopia (the ‘stale stereotype’ and ‘simplistic, demeaning’ insults) while ignoring that human nature does not change. This is a typical progressive and socialist fallacy. Progressives are moving the goalposts continually, and then jeering when their opponents fall for it. Progressives cannot win on substance, so take other unethical routes.
So what? My personal observations are something I can comment on. And your precious ‘science’ is agenda driven drivel, 999 time out of 1000. Are eggs good or bad for you? Does a fetus feel pain and react to avoid it? “Cities will be under water by 2013, and Hurricanes will devastate the East coast.” The food pyramid will make you healthy (my favorite.) All of these things were ‘settled science’ created by progressive agenda driven studies that turned out to not be true.
No, none of these were ever considered “settled science,” slick. But I am very curious about what exactly eggs have to do with the progressive agenda; I never got my talking points on this one at the Evil Progressive Conspiracy meetings.
I am saddened that the forces in our country that have attempted to discredit science in the minds of our citizens have been so thoroughly effective with you.
Note that Pennagin’s comment was not political–they did not make this a right/left issue. Yet your comment sneers at “progressives” numerous times. If anyone is politicizing this conversation, it’s you.
Chris,
“But I am very curious about what exactly eggs have to do with the progressive agenda”
The ‘eggs’ comment is an example of ‘scientific’ assertions being presented to change what people eat, in ‘their own best interests,’ which were then debunked. No progressive agenda that I know of.
The others are examples of progressive agenda being furthered by pseudo-science, where the conclusion was determined before the study.
“I am saddened that the forces in our country that have attempted to discredit science in the minds of our citizens have been so thoroughly effective with you.”
I am saddened that science has been politicized and hijacked to fit an agenda. That the scientific method has been ignored to get to a false narrative. That scientists conspire to delete evidence of collusion, and do so because they need the money to operate, delivering false studies fitted to preconceived results mandated by government.
Chris, if science has been discredited, it is because scientists have sold it out with over publicized crap that is then disproved.
“Note that Pennagin’s comment was not political…”
It was every bit political. These are the progressive talking points being forced down the public throat. This is the progressive way to deal with dissenters, as proven out over the past decade, and especially since the progressives gave us Trump. (Now THAT was a troll comment!)
slickwilly: I know you’re fairly new to this blog so you haven’t read many of my posts (granted, there haven’t been any for a couple of months) If you had, you would know that “progressive” in the political sense, I am not. I write to the topic and expand on it as I deem necessary.
Your opinions are indeed your own. They are often interesting contributions, to the point, with a nice wit, a pleasure to read.
In this case, I couldn’t let stand your opinions without direct opposition and correction as they were based on imagination and prejudice (prejudice beyond bias), expressing a misunderstanding of terms and a lack of real or correct information that disparaged people to no purpose. Your opinions do damage to an already vulnerable population and are particularly poisonous to children.
Your opinions and your ignorance on this point are shared by a great many others. That does not make them valid or less dangerous to everyone: no one knows when someone he loves is or will become a throw-away in people’s minds because of opinions like yours. I don’t expect your opinions to be altered since they arise out of prejudice, not reason, but they demand to be countered and I have done my best to do so.
Phenomenal comment, Pennagin.
Thank you, Chris.
A Comment of the Day.
Ah, if only Stephen J. Pilling was still around, he’d be on this post like CNN on a Trump tweet. He could not be broken of using “deviant.”
Ya got me. Much of my response to slickwilly was leftover from bitter engagements with Mr. P — he should be inveigled back, but not without tgt! Isn’t that SMP, though. Am I thinking of the wrong person?
And thanks for fixing the run-on italics (no place to “Reply” under your comment). Hey, I always said you can’t proofread yourself. And besides, the blogger has the royal responsibility; commenters can be casual. ok, are. sloppy. ha.
” Isn’t that SMP, though. Am I thinking of the wrong person?”
Yes, I’m sure he’s referring to SMP.
We’ll put, Pennagain. Concur.
Whoops I accidentally hit send before I finished.
Of course I care about all people & I am about as anti-murder as you can get (pro-life & against death penalty). I’m not allied with the Trans cause nor do I support it, however I don’t want anyone hurt or killed for any reason. I treat every person I meet with respect even when I know the man in front of me in a dress believes in breaking through “cotton ceilings.” One can disagree with someone’s choices & not hate them. It’s not binary.
Let’s not forget a few years ago trans folks could get married, I couldn’t. You’re projecting on to me some kind of “I got mine” attitude says more about you than me Chris. I don’t insult you ever or assume the worst of you.
I spend a lot of time in rural communities (do you?) and can attest to the suffering I see my male friends cause themselves because no “allies” in the LGBT “movement” promote anything close to self preservation but instead drinking and sex. It’s a sad way to live and the gays that the LGBTQIA movement are forgetting appear to be the ones who are being told “I got my bathroom, kids on hormones, and state funded surgery, now screw the rest of you.”
“One can disagree with someone’s choices & not hate them. It’s not binary.”
That’s a level of nuance that has evaporated over the past some-odd years. Now, it’s all “You believe that? You’re a White Supremacist!”, “You voted against whom? You’re a Cuckservative”. You know it’s not binary, and I know that, and smart people know that….but the ignorants outnumber us, and for them, it’s politics as sport. When my team loses, your team wins. I can’t let that happen, so I will tear you down, and get more people to join my team, by any means necessary. And the easiest tool in the toolbox is slander.
By the way, I absolutely love reading your posts, and am glad you are a member of this community. We all know that as a conservative, I am supposed to hate you, because we are told that all conservatives hate everything and everyone that is different from them. But, I don’t toe the black line very well, so I might as well buck the trend politically as well. 😉
PS.- I can’t promise that I won’t tell you what to do with your body (you’re wearing THOSE heels? No, no, no…that won’t do), or mansplain towards you every once in awhile. It’s part of our DNA; we can’t control it.
Your mileage varied on that. Yes, they could marry in any state, as could you. Whether they could marry someone of the appropriate sex – as you could not – that a different matter. And such marriages were all open to later invalidation, as laws changed.
Example:
Littleton v. Prange (9 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 872 (2000)) the Texas court found that “a ceremonial “marriage” between a man and a transsexual born as a man, who was later surgically and chemically altered to have the physical characteristics of a woman, was not valid and thus void”.
From the court transcripts:
: “Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Tex., is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Tex., and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.”
Not long after those remarks, both Kentucky and Vermont changed their legal positions on the subject, so she’d be male not female in Kentucky, but female not male in Vermont. Thereby invalidating all existing marriages of Trans people in both states.
While Obergefell mooted most of the challenges to trans people’s marriages still working their way through the courts at the time, there’s still some, based on the contentious theory that transsexuality is by its very nature deceptive, so trans people are prohibited from contracting a marriage to either sex.
Bathroom? I had no idea gay men were ever excluded from public restrooms. As trans people are in NC, and are about to be in TX, and likely a dozen other states soon.
Kids on hormones? Feasible in the 3 states that have pediatric hospitals running such programs, if you mean “kids” to include “those 16 yrs old or older”, or alternately, “hormones” to mean puberty delaying medications that have been administered to non-trans kids as young as 7 in the last few decades.
State funded surgery? Not under either Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA. That was prohibited even before Trump was elected, on the grounds that, while there was overwhelming evidence of medical effectiveness in the general population, as surgery had been specifically prohibited under Medicare since 1980, there was insufficient evidence to warrant funding in the Medicare demographic.
While an oppression Olympics is a sterile exercise, gay men in rural areas are not going backwards. No one is threatening to dismiss from military service all open gays currently permitted to serve as a “domestic threat”. Openly gay men in rural areas can enlist too.
Trans people – were supposed to be permitted to too from July 1. That’s since been delayed, initially for 6 months, but may be overtaken by events, namely the mooted congressionally mandated purge of all trans people from the military being promoted by the FRC.
” Responding to host Tony Perkins’ … question about “social experimentation” in the military, Hartzler explained, “At a time when we should be focusing on the threats from North Korea, and Putin, and ISIS, we’re having to deal with a threat here at home — a domestic threat — of allowing transgenders [sic] in our service, which is a real problem because it impacts their readiness, and it’s a huge cost for our military.”
…
Hartzler also specified for the first time that if the military doesn’t block the new policy from being implemented, she will reintroduce her amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act on the House floor. It was supposed to take effect July 1, and though it may be delayed six months, there is no indication from anyone in the Armed Services that it won’t eventually be implemented. This means that she will condition funding for the entire military on banning transgender people from service — the first time such a ban will have ever been stipulated in a law.”
Post the text of the bill. that is quite a tall claim to claim that trtansgenders are excluded from public restrooms.
Being transgender is no reason to receive puberty-delaying medications. Only if puberty were life threatening, or was starting at too young an age, can interference with this normal biological process be justified.
as the military’s mission is national defense, the transgendered may only be ethically included if the benefits outweigh the coasts. This is a judgment call that we must trust to the political branches.
…the transgendered may only be ethically included if the benefits outweigh the costs. This is a judgment call that we must trust to the political branches.
Agree – if the judgment call is based on evidence and facts, and is not in direct contradiction to all the studies conducted at politicians’ behest.
If the judgment call is based on obvious absurdities on the other hand…
… Remarkably, she claimed that, in the first 10 years, it will cost the military $1.35 billion to cover transition-related surgeries for those new servicemembers.
…
. According to the RAND Corporation, the annual costs to accommodate trans servicemembers’ medical needs would only be between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually. At most, that amounts to a 0.13 percent increase in health care expenditures for active-duty military personnel. Hartzler’s estimate is 16 times bigger than even the highest estimate, according to RAND’s findings, and seems to be entirely unfounded.”
Or even claims that are not absurd, just plain factually incorrect …
” Rep. Niki Tsongas … reminded the committee that there was a “rigorous” year-long study that found there would be minimal impacts to military readiness — which is why the service chiefs signed off on the policy in the first place.
Rep. Donald McEachin… pointed out that there are already transgender people serving openly in the military and it hasn’t been a problem. He also debunked Hartzler’s claim that trans servicemembers depend on hormones that need to be refrigerated, limiting their ability to serve in the field. “You don’t refrigerate the testosterone, you switch over to a gel, which is what CENTCOM requires if you’re going to be deployed.”
Regarding the text of the bill –
I can do better. I can give examples of how such policies are actually interpreted in practice.
(I) was in a boys’ restroom, and someone saw that I went in there, and then complained to my counselor, who then said “Well, you can’t use the boys’ restroom, so you have to use the girls’ restroom.” And I was like “ok, fine, whatever.” But … there (were) then complaints that I was using the girls’ restroom. And I was told, “Well, you can use the nurse’s restroom.”
Now, … the nurse was on the complete opposite side of the entire building …. So if I was in the middle of class, I would have to leave, and I would be gone for 10-15 minutes, so of course my teachers didn’t like that. So I was told “You can’t use the nurse’s restroom …. There is a single-stall restroom in the special education area, which is near where your classroom(s) are, so you can use that one.” And I was like “fine, ok.” And I used that one for a bit and was then told that I couldn’t use that one….
At that (point)… I was told “Well, you don’t Have a full school schedule, so you can just hold It.” So yeah, for the last semester, at least, I just wasn’t allowed to use the restroom at the high school at all.
It could also be reasonably construed that forcing men to use women’s rooms, and women to use men’s rooms, with attendence dangers of arrest and violence, constitutes a de facto prohibition.
Just as it could be reasonably be construed that defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman constitutes a de facto prohibition on lesbians getting married. Requiring a trans man to use a female restroom if he is to use any public restroom is much the same as requiring a lesbian to marry a man if she is to marry, is it not?
Somehow I don’t regard my selection of bathrooms as life-central as who my legal life partner is going to be.
I really think,Sue, that the bathroom issue is more symbolic than real, and is more like Native Americans wanting to flex their political muscles by making the Redskins change their name to “the Washington McBoatfaces” or something. The idea is to get publicity for a neglected minority group, express outrage, pick an area that will annoy and inconvenience the majority and make them over-react and look silly, then move on from there. It’s pretty obvious, or I have always thought so. And as with the Redskins, it was a bad choice, promotes resentment rather than comprehension, and is likely to prompt a backlash.
When an establishment segregates restrooms onn the basis of sex, it applies equally to the Eagles fan and the Steelers fan.
It applies equally to black and white.
It applies equally to Mormon and Scientologist.
It applies equally to the Star Wars cosplayer and the Halo cosplayer.
How is it discriminatory against the trans?
It isn’t. As I have concluded, it’s with penis here, without there. Simple and fair. How one feels about said organ is irrelevant.
It isn’t. As I have concluded, it’s with penis here, without there.
Not so. Most of the conservative-backed bathroom bills have proposed that people must use the restroom of their birth sex. So a trans man with a penis would still be legally required to use the women’s bathroom under these laws.
If your next question is, “Well, who’s going to check whether he has a penis or not?” then thank you, you have correctly noted the pointlessness of anti-trans bathroom laws.
What do you mean, “Not so much”? I was stating my common sense, traditional and reasonable rule. I don’t care what stupid bills they are passing.
The current system is not “anti-trans.” Nobody should be arrested for using the wrong bathroom—this is the honor system, ethics, not law. Heck, I’ve used the wrong bathroom when I wasn’t paying attention. You k now, deep in thought about the great mysteries…
There is nothing unreasonable about wanting to engage in one’s toilet activities among one’s own gender only. What is unreasonable is a small minority demanding that everyone change a reasonable system to accommodate their comfort while making far more uncomfortable. Of course there’s a backlash. There should be. It’s cultural bullying.
Sorry, Jack, I thought you were describing actual rules that exist, not your own preferred policy.
I really think . . . that the bathroom issue is more symbolic than real,
My take on this issue is rather that it is more emotional than rational. And that this is a case — which I know you’ve pointed out before, though I can’t find one of the references right now — of a very small minority (transgender) being used by a larger (overall queer) minority who are, in turn, being patronized by the majority of the Trump-crazed Left to poke as many painful pricks into the skin of the Right as they can get away with.
This is a country populated with those who are accustomed to privacy, particularly separating those with penises from those without, in their bathrooms, even in their own homes, even among small children, right down to dads who are embarrassed to change their daughters’ diapers, and women who would rather die — literally, this happens! — than allow male EMTs to enter when they are seated on the toilet, bleeding their life out.
I’ve lived in other countries where any two people, including me when the need arose, who could occupy a single bathroom containing a stall with a seat toilet and a urinal. The first time was startling; the second, somewhat uncomfortable; after that, I had learned to politely ignore the other occupant, regardless of sex. When I mentioned this to a woman-friend some years ago, she said that was only because I had seen plenty of naked bodies and that she could never — never! — get used to it. To be fair, when the LBGTQ film festival, which alternates LGBT-themed films, ran its 11-day course in the past, either penises or vaginas overran both restrooms, to the angry complaints of whichever genitals were in the small group. So, as usual, In the spirit of complying with the Voice of the Fewest, this year’s festival declared all facilities officially open to anyone.
This was explained to the volunteers at their orientation — we were told to gesture in both directions when asked how to find the men’s (downstairs on the right) or ladies’ (ground level on the left) through a crush-crowded lobby. It only occurred to a few of us later to think that was rather unfair, since there are no urinals in the latter. I asked one of the staff who shrugged and said, “oh, they’ll work it out,” which prompted my friend to add, under his breath and a dozen steps away, “how about just asking them if they wanna pee or shit?”
That was worth a laugh at the time but as the days went on, it became apparent first, that a lot of the patrons were very unhappy with the situation and second, that Unhappy were a thoroughly mixed lot. The long, slow lines to the bathrooms (full up, the theater seats 1,500), which used to be full of chatter, the excited greetings of acquaintances from years past, and not a little lite cruising were quiet and nervous or over-loud. Yes, the lines did, as predicted, move faster than they had in the past, but only the foreign visitors were accustomed to the situation. It seemed as if the main grumble was “we should have been warned” — not “told” or “informed,” but “warned” as of danger. [this by contrast to other unpopular major changes the festival has made without prior announcement over the years].
And yes, I did pose the obvious question to two transwomen I know because I knew I was going to say something about it here in EA. The answer was the same we got from the staff at Orientation: (shrug) “They’ll get used to it.” No argument. Now, let’s talk about the amount of time necessary to “get used to” a change in intimate personal feelings … as imposed from outside.
The unethical rationalization of any progressive change seems to be that shrug and ‘they will get used to it.’ Higher taxes, less freedom, being forced to figure out new gender pronouns, whatever it is.
Conservatives reply with ‘we should not have to.’
Wrong.
The trans “man” is being treated exactly the same as all women, just like the Eagles fan is being treated the same as all women.
Or, they can avoid this trouble by dressing according to their real sex.
What a novel idea!