President Trump & the USA

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

 

 

 

have I misunderstood what civil rights are? Pretty sure there's no such thing as wrongfully having civil rights - has America seriously got an administration that thinks basic human rights aren't a universally applicable concept?

 

 

Also, genetic testing to determine who gets civil rights? I wonder where an administration that has the complete support of white supremacists might go with that...

The emphasis isn't on "wrongfully having" civil rights, it's on "wrongfully extending" them.

So that the process of extending them at the hands of the then-government wasn't entirely correct or not without controversy.

 

Again, what are "white supremacists" to you and how much of them are there really in the US? Is the fear real or is it just fear-mongering?

[The Doctor]

21 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

The emphasis isn't on "wrongfully having" civil rights, it's on "wrongfully extending" them.

So that the process of extending them at the hands of the then-government wasn't entirely correct or not without controversy.

 

Again, what are "white supremacists" to you and how much of them are there really in the US? Is the fear real or is it just fear-mongering?

There's no such thing as wrongfully extending basic rights to people - they qualify for the whole shebang from birth by dint of being born: that's how human rights work. The extension by the Obama administration was perfectly correct, and while it may have upset some utter twats, **** those people.

 

Should be obvious - the massive racists that literally everyone who pays even the slightest attention sees again and again. This "Proud Boys" lot at the moment, the Charlottesville lot last year and of course the fear is justified when they've already murdered someone...

[lifted*fox]

the fact we're living in a world where people still feel the need to marginalise and judge people based on their personal sexual preferences / feelings / gender-identity / race, etc. is ****ing abysmal, tbqh.

 

WHO CARES?

 

who cares if someone is born a boy but feels like a girl and wants to dress like a girl and re-align their gender as a girl? who cares if you're a girl who wants to be / dress like a boy? 

 

who cares if you're gay / bi? 

 

live and let-****ing live. 

 

these people just want to live their lives in peace without having to worry about persecution and judgement from society. is that really too much to ask in 2018? 

 

gay / straight / bi / black / white / asian / WHATEVER - we're all just ****ing human beings trying to make our way through our lives in peace and quiet.

 

why can't we all just love our neighbours for the quality of their being?

 

man, it's so depressing and ****ed up, it really is.

[MC Prussian]

53 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

There's no such thing as wrongfully extending basic rights to people - they qualify for the whole shebang from birth by dint of being born: that's how human rights work. The extension by the Obama administration was perfectly correct, and while it may have upset some utter twats, **** those people.

 

Should be obvious - the massive racists that literally everyone who pays even the slightest attention sees again and again. This "Proud Boys" lot at the moment, the Charlottesville lot last year and of course the fear is justified when they've already murdered someone...

I don't think the Trump administration would deny Transgender their human rights, they would simply like them to identify as either male or female in biological terms.

The confusion stems from the definition what "sex" means, no?

Is it the biological sex or "gender identity" the Dems are pushing?

One of the links in the NYT piece leads to this 2016 article:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/05/23/3-ways-conservative-lawmakers-should-fight-obamas-bathroom-directive/

 

The thing with "gender identity" is that it can go to extremes, anyone could be anything at any given time. Female at birth, male by identity, next day cis, then neutral, or just simply "fluid" from the get-go.

I think the law would have a hard time catching up with that development, and there need to be rules at some point for a society to work.

Unless you advocate anarchy.

 

Every human being deserves respect, I'm questioning the size of the moral outrage here displayed by the NYT when it's about a 1/327 or roughly 0,30% of the entire US population that identifies as Transgender.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5227946/

Edited 22 October 2018 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, The Doctor said:

 

 

 

have I misunderstood what civil rights are? Pretty sure there's no such thing as wrongfully having civil rights - has America seriously got an administration that thinks basic human rights aren't a universally applicable concept?

 

 

Also, genetic testing to determine who gets civil rights? I wonder where an administration that has the complete support of white supremacists might go with that...

 

 

Amazing that some folks haven't twigged on that yet. (Or at least if not the whole administration, at least parts of it.)

 

But, the economy is strong, jobs for everyone, and that's a lot more important than those civil rights issues, amirite? Why does it have to be so difficult for people to simply accept the identity they were born with and not want to change it? I mean, who wants that freedom anyway?

 

The one funny thing I might say about mandatory genetic testing would be the reactions of all the "pure" white folks when they get shown what their actual genetic ancestral makeup is.

 

22 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I don't think the Trump administration would deny Transgender their human rights, they would simply like them to identify as either male or female in biological terms.

The confusion stems from the definition what "sex" means, no?

Is it the biological sex or "gender identity" the Dems are pushing?

One of the links in the NYT piece leads to this 2016 article:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/05/23/3-ways-conservative-lawmakers-should-fight-obamas-bathroom-directive/

 

The thing with "gender identity" is that it can go to extremes, anyone could be anything at any given time. Female at birth, male by identity, next day cis, then neutral, or just simply "fluid" from the get-go.

I think the law would have a hard time catching up with that development, and there need to be rules at some point for a society to work.

Unless you advocate anarchy.

 

Every human being deserves respect, I'm questioning the size of the moral outrage here displayed by the NYT when it's about a 1/327 or roughly 0,0030% of the entire US population that identifies as Transgender.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5227946/

The article is pretty clear in stating this memo from the administration would deny trans folks the right to self-determine their gender identity at any time, on pain of losing a number of government-mandated benefits (and that may well be just the start of the penalties). Ever. Not changing like the wind, changing once and then back again as they please. No changing from the gender assigned at birth, at any time. Ever.

 

Whether one thinks that's a civil rights violation is up to the beholder, but let's not say this is about multiple changes of identity that might cause confusion here - it isn't.

 

Oh, and 1/327 is 0.305%, not 0.00305%. I'm assuming you made a typo with your calculations. In any case, I'll repeat what one of the comments in the article said - "No matter what your beliefs are regarding transgender [folks], remember that something that you consider integral to your nature as a person might be the next definition Trump decides he doesn't like".

Edited 22 October 2018 by leicsmac

[lifted*fox]

 

you know what it all comes down to? it's not down to laws - or difficulties with making laws for transgender people, etc. 

 

it's about people with power being scared. scared of what they don't know, what they don't understand - being scared of people who are different to them. perhaps being scared of people who are the same as them but they don't have the power within them to admit it. 

 

that's what it's all about.

 

it's not ok for a man to suck another man's dick because that scares some people. it's not ok for a person born a boy to feel like a girl and want to re-align because that scares some people. it doesn't suit their religious beliefs or it's a power-trip to make gay people or trans people feel less valuable. 

 

'I hope my daughter never brings a black man home' - because it scares some people. 

 

give it another 100 years - if we survive that long and people fight for that long - then maybe we'll see widespread acceptance of people of different race, gender, sexuality. 

 

these people filled with fear of people who are different to them - the same kind of guys that think if they socialise with a gay man he's always going to be eyeing them up, trying to touch them - it's their own inward issues - what if he does touch me and I like it? 

 

when we should be so lucky to just be friends / lovers / neighbours with people who have GOOD HEARTS and mean well. who cares if you like pussy, or dick, or both. who cares if you like men's clothes, women's clothes. none of it should matter any more. but it does matter - to people who can't get their tiny little noodle heads around the fact that everyone is different and everyone has the RIGHT to be different. 

 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

you know what it all comes down to? it's not down to laws - or difficulties with making laws for transgender people, etc. 

 

it's about people with power being scared. scared of what they don't know, what they don't understand - being scared of people who are different to them. perhaps being scared of people who are the same as them but they don't have the power within them to admit it. 

 

that's what it's all about.

 

it's not ok for a man to suck another man's dick because that scares some people. it's not ok for a person born a boy to feel like a girl and want to re-align because that scares some people. it doesn't suit their religious beliefs or it's a power-trip to make gay people or trans people feel less valuable. 

 

'I hope my daughter never brings a black man home' - because it scares some people. 

 

give it another 100 years - if we survive that long and people fight for that long - then maybe we'll see widespread acceptance of people of different race, gender, sexuality. 

 

these people filled with fear of people who are different to them - the same kind of guys that think if they socialise with a gay man he's always going to be eyeing them up, trying to touch them - it's their own inward issues - what if he does touch me and I like it? 

 

when we should be so lucky to just be friends / lovers / neighbours with people who have GOOD HEARTS and mean well. who cares if you like pussy, or dick, or both. who cares if you like men's clothes, women's clothes. none of it should matter any more. but it does matter - to people who can't get their tiny little noodle heads around the fact that everyone is different and everyone has the RIGHT to be different. 

 

QFFT.

[MC Prussian]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

Amazing that some folks haven't twigged on that yet. (Or at least if not the whole administration, at least parts of it.)

 

But, the economy is strong, jobs for everyone, and that's a lot more important than those civil rights issues, amirite? Why does it have to be so difficult for people to simply accept the identity they were born with and not want to change it? I mean, who wants that freedom anyway?

 

The one funny thing I might say about mandatory genetic testing would be the reactions of all the "pure" white folks when they get shown what their actual genetic ancestral makeup is.

 

The article is pretty clear in stating this memo from the administration would deny trans folks the right to self-determine their gender identity at any time, on pain of losing a number of government-mandated benefits (and that may well be just the start of the penalties). Ever. Not changing like the wind, changing once and then back again as they please. No changing from the gender assigned at birth, at any time. Ever.

 

Whether one thinks that's a civil rights violation is up to the beholder, but let's not say this is about multiple changes of identity that might cause confusion here - it isn't.

 

Oh, and 1/327 is 0.305%, not 0.00305%. I'm assuming you made a typo with your calculations. In any case, I'll repeat what one of the comments in the article said - "No matter what your beliefs are regarding transgender [folks], remember that something that you consider integral to your nature as a person might be the next definition Trump decides he doesn't like".

You conflate "gender" with "identity".

I wonder where that Newspeak is coming from and what the reason behind it is.

Nobody denies people to have the right to identify as the gender they want, but the question is whether it should be the basis for legislation or not.

 

Just as with Transgender, White Supremacists make up an equally low percentage of the total population, they are on the very right or on the fringes of the very right of the political spectrum - not everyone who is "white" has "supremacist" tendencies or is "white supremacist". I agree with you insofar, as I see the whole DNA testing argument as void, it's a laughable stick to beat people with. I'd argue that pretty much everyone knows that due to historic reason, we all are a bit of everything from the start. Our genetic makeup is a mixture of all kinds of mass migration in the past (Moors in Spain, for instance - or the Romans, Celts and Vikings in the UK).

 

Besides, anybody who argues that "white" people "built" things or are superior should also acknowledge that the knowledge and skill of mankind in total is an amalgamate of different cultures that came before the Western World - the Arabs, the Greeks, the Romans, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Chinese (Ming), aso.

 

Percentage adjusted - my bad.

Edited 22 October 2018 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

26 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

You conflate "gender" with "identity".

I wonder where that Newspeak is coming from and what the reason behind it is.

Nobody denies people to have the right to identify as the gender they want, but the question is whether it should be the basis for legislation or not.

 

Just as with Transgender, White Supremacists make up an equally low percentage of the total population, they are on the very right or on the fringes of the very right of the political spectrum - not everyone who is "white" has "supremacist" tendencies or is "white supremacist". I agree with you insofar, as I see the whole DNA testing argument as void, it's a laughable stick to beat people with. I'd argue that pretty much everyone knows that due to historic reason, we all are a bit of everything from the start. Our genetic makeup is a mixture of all kinds of mass migration in the past (Moors in Spain, for instance - or the Romans, Celts and Vikings in the UK).

 

Besides, anybody who argues that "white" people "built" things or are superior should also acknowledge that the knowledge and skill of mankind in total is an amalgamate of different cultures that came before the Western World - the Arabs, the Greek, the Romans, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Chinese (Ming), aso.

 

Percentage adjusted - my bad.

I am conflating those terms because the content of this memo seems to do so also. It is extremely clear in limiting the choice of sex identity, gender identity, whatever identity, to whatever is assigned at birth, and that those who attempt to change any aspect of their identity will be unable to do so legally without consequences.

 

If having the civil right to self-determine comes with legislation that means it means nothing in the eyes of the legal and social system...exactly how much of a civil right is it?

 

Defo agree with the rest of the post though.

 

[Izzy]

40 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

you know what it all comes down to? it's not down to laws - or difficulties with making laws for transgender people, etc. 

 

it's about people with power being scared. scared of what they don't know, what they don't understand - being scared of people who are different to them. perhaps being scared of people who are the same as them but they don't have the power within them to admit it. 

 

that's what it's all about.

 

it's not ok for a man to suck another man's dick because that scares some people. it's not ok for a person born a boy to feel like a girl and want to re-align because that scares some people. it doesn't suit their religious beliefs or it's a power-trip to make gay people or trans people feel less valuable. 

 

'I hope my daughter never brings a black man home' - because it scares some people. 

 

give it another 100 years - if we survive that long and people fight for that long - then maybe we'll see widespread acceptance of people of different race, gender, sexuality. 

 

these people filled with fear of people who are different to them - the same kind of guys that think if they socialise with a gay man he's always going to be eyeing them up, trying to touch them - it's their own inward issues - what if he does touch me and I like it? 

 

when we should be so lucky to just be friends / lovers / neighbours with people who have GOOD HEARTS and mean well. who cares if you like pussy, or dick, or both. who cares if you like men's clothes, women's clothes. none of it should matter any more. but it does matter - to people who can't get their tiny little noodle heads around the fact that everyone is different and everyone has the RIGHT to be different. 

 

I'm sure most of us on here would agree with everything you've written Daz.

 

The thing is, our brains haven't really evolved that much as a species over the last 100,00 years, so I don't see much changing in the next 100.

 

I think the 'being scared' thing stems from people feeling threatened, and our brains are still hard-wired to deal with a perceived threat with a fight or flight response. It's just that the 'threat' today is different to the woolly mamouth or saber tooth tiger trying to eat us. Humans like control and they like certainty. If we perceive something/someone as 'different' to us, we still (mostly) see it as a threat. 

 

When people feel threatened (scared) they'll either hide/run away (flight) or meet it head on (fight) and we all have a natural tendency to favour one or the other when our cortisol or adrenaline kicks in.

 

I guess it's all about education so people understand that someone different to them doesn't mean they're a threat to them, and therefore they don't need to be scared.

 

Easier said than done though I reckon and I certainly don't envisage a Utopian world of tolerance and acceptance in my lifetime and probably not in my kids lifetime either sadly..

 

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

I don't think the Trump administration would deny Transgender their human rights, they would simply like them to identify as either male or female in biological terms.

The confusion stems from the definition what "sex" means, no?

Is it the biological sex or "gender identity" the Dems are pushing?

One of the links in the NYT piece leads to this 2016 article:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/05/23/3-ways-conservative-lawmakers-should-fight-obamas-bathroom-directive/

 

The thing with "gender identity" is that it can go to extremes, anyone could be anything at any given time. Female at birth, male by identity, next day cis, then neutral, or just simply "fluid" from the get-go.

I think the law would have a hard time catching up with that development, and there need to be rules at some point for a society to work.

Unless you advocate anarchy.

 

Every human being deserves respect, I'm questioning the size of the moral outrage here displayed by the NYT when it's about a 1/327 or roughly 0,30% of the entire US population that identifies as Transgender.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5227946/

I mean I do advocate anarchy, my politics aligns closest to anarcho-syndicalism but that's besides the point. This proposed definition isn't actually grounded in science (biology is a hell of a lot more complicated than the XX=Vagina=Woman and XY=Penis=Man from KS3 when we're just looking at physical sex, nevermind gender (which can be best understood as neurological and psychological sex)) and will throw intersex people under the bus as well - it's unworkable from a biological standpoint but beyond that it's looking at targeting people who've changed the markers on their documents, not just this image of genderfluidity, and the potential impact on same sex spaces is then problematic (given all the raging about men in the ladies room I doubt they'd be that comfortable with this guy in there: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/267/558/926.jpg)

 

As for the size of the outrage, are we supposed to not care about an attack on a groups civil rights so long as they're small? What size group should be targeted before people can be concerned against, and let's call it what it is, the creep of fascism? Also, I seem to remember an old poem about the silencing of minorities: "first they came for...".

Edited 22 October 2018 by The Doctor

[Guest MattP]

So much exaggeration over the last page or so.

 

I doubt this have any serious impact and starting again to compare it to fascists or claiming it will deny people healthcare is getting way ahead of everything. That wouldn't pass through the house anyway.

 

And people certainly shouldn't just be allowed to identity as anything on any given day, just look at the absurd case last week we had where a man decided to do that and ended up assaulting women in a prison. Of course there have to be checks on this to make sure it's legitimate.

[MC Prussian]

42 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

I mean I do advocate anarchy, my politics aligns closest to anarcho-syndicalism but that's besides the point. This proposed definition isn't actually grounded in science (biology is a hell of a lot more complicated than the XX=Vagina=Woman and XY=Penis=Man from KS3 when we're just looking at physical sex, nevermind gender (which can be best understood as neurological and psychological sex)) and will throw intersex people under the bus as well - it's unworkable from a biological standpoint but beyond that it's looking at targeting people who've changed the markers on their documents, not just this image of genderfluidity, and the potential impact on same sex spaces is then problematic (given all the raging about men in the ladies room I doubt they'd be that comfortable with this guy in there: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/267/558/926.jpg)

 

As for the size of the outrage, are we supposed to not care about an attack on a groups civil rights so long as they're small? What size group should be targeted before people can be concerned against, and let's call it what it is, the creep of fascism? Also, I seem to remember an old poem about the silencing of minorities: "first they came for...".

Oh, I think we should always be wary of extremism, be it on the left or on the right.

For all the "Proud Boys", I give you "Antifa".

 

So far, my fascism alarm for the US hasn't gone off as of yet. Some may see tendencies, the further on the left you are, the more, I guess.

But in the past one and a half years, the country's continued its upwards economic spiral (initiated by Obama, btw). No wars, unemployment further down.

It remains to be seen to what extent and for how long the trade protection policies of the Trump administration will work.

And I do hope the Republicans finally start investing in the US infrastructure and education - schools, historical buildings, bridges, roads, etc. That's what would make America "great again".

 

With regards to the current Transgender issue and US legislation, all I see is a proposal. That's also what I mean by "outrage". I think we need to calm down first and see what the GOP does in the end, how the proposal is articulated, whether and how Intersex people are affected and/or treated as part of its content. Then it should be challenged. The media have again a tendency of putting a story across according to their own needs, influenced by their own point of view (in this case, the NYT and their own political stance). Mid-term elections are also only a few weeks away, and the Democrats could regain some power.

Until then, all we have are assumptions and bits and pieces and one media outlet distorting the facts to a degree, but not the full picture.

 

Edited 22 October 2018 by MC Prussian

[fuchsntf]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The emphasis isn't on "wrongfully having" civil rights, it's on "wrongfully extending" them.

So that the process of extending them at the hands of the then-government wasn't entirely correct or not without controversy.

 

Again, what are "white supremacists" to you and how much of them are there really in the US? Is the fear real or is it just fear-mongering?

Travel through the USA....amazing what's under the cracks,sometimes arrogantly upfront!!!

it ain't no Fear-mongering,bigger than any outside terrorists....

it isnt confined to any singular area...

Edited 22 October 2018 by fuchsntf

[lifted*fox]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

So much exaggeration over the last page or so.

 

It's not exaggeration Matt but you'd never understand because you're a completely normal Joe who lives his life by the book and has never had to experience being marginalised or being told it's not OK to feel different. 

 

I'd love for you to have to live a few days in the life of someone who is somewhat 'different' so you could understand the daily shit people go through.

 

Everything with you is so black / white; I can probably still count on one hand the number of times you've showed compassion or any actual feelings on this forum. It's all about rules / laws / right / wrong - you seem to forget that people are living their lives in grey areas where 'the book' still doesn't fairly represent them. 

 

Not your fault at all mate and it's not a dig but you don't seem to have any real life experience of mixing in circles where being 'different' has caused you or your loved ones any issues. Well, either that or you've never expressed it. 

 

Trans people are clearly riled because of current issues because it's only in this very last decade that they've started to experience some acceptance - anything that potentially insinuates a backwards step is going to be a worrying prospect. 

[Guest MattP]

Sorry but you know absolutely nothing about what me or the people close to me have gone through in life and you certainly can't detect that from a forum - I haven't put 90% of what's happened in my life on here. Aside from the gambling issues I've never been one of tell others about my problems and you would have some of my close friends and family in stiches if you said to them I'd have lived it "by the book".

 

I'm not going to get in a huge debate on this until it actually becomes attempted legislation but do you really think people should just be allowed to identity whatever with a click of the fingers? Do you not feel any guilt for that from the people who would suffer?

Edited 22 October 2018 by MattP

[leicsmac]

31 minutes ago, MattP said:

So much exaggeration over the last page or so.

 

I doubt this have any serious impact and starting again to compare it to fascists or claiming it will deny people healthcare is getting way ahead of everything. That wouldn't pass through the house anyway.

 

And people certainly shouldn't just be allowed to identity as anything on any given day, just look at the absurd case last week we had where a man decided to do that and ended up assaulting women in a prison. Of course there have to be checks on this to make sure it's legitimate.

 

29 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Oh, I think we should always be wary of extremism, be it on the left or on the right.

For all the "Proud Boys", I give you "Antifa".

 

So far, my fascism alarm for the US hasn't gone off as of yet. Some may see tendencies, the further on the left you are, the more, I guess.

But in the past one and a half years, the country's continued its upwards economic spiral (initiated by Obama, btw). No wars, unemployment further down.

It remains to be seen to what extent and for how long the trade protection policies of the Trump administration will work.

And I do hope the Republicans finally start investing in the US infrastructure and education - schools, historical buildings, bridges, roads, etc. That's what would make America "great again".

 

With regards to the current Transgender issue and US legislation, all I see is a proposal. That's also what I mean by "outrage". I think we need to calm down first and see what the GOP does in the end, how the proposal is articulated, whether and how Intersex people are affected and/or treated as part of its content. Then it should be challenged. The media have again a tendency of putting a story across according to their own needs, influenced by their own point of view (in this case, the NYT and their own political stance). Mid-term elections are also only a few weeks away, and the Democrats could regain some power.

Until then, all we have are assumptions and bits and pieces and one media outlet distorting the facts to a degree, but not the full picture.

 

Please, do go and tell a trans person in the US right now that this is all going to be ok and why you think it will be.

 

Tell them that you are certain that it isn't going to become part of legislation and that you'll be against it if it does.

 

If you really believe that to be the case, and feel that it is of little concern, I'm sure your cogent arguments will be most reassuring.

 

NB. A reminder - this proposal eliminates the possibility of *any* change of identity at all that would be recognised in federal legislative circles, not multiple ones. Any. Changes. Whatsoever.

[MC Prussian]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Please, do go and tell a trans person in the US right now that this is all going to be ok and why you think it will be.

 

Tell them that you are certain that it isn't going to become part of legislation and that you'll be against it if it does.

 

If you really believe that to be the case, and feel that it is of little concern, I'm sure your cogent arguments will be most reassuring.

 

NB. A reminder - this proposal eliminates the possibility of *any* change of identity at all that would be recognised in federal legislative circles, not multiple ones. Any. Changes. Whatsoever.

You are getting ahead of yourself.

 

I repeat:

Let's see what the final draft looks like before we start condemning the GOP.

Until then, all we have are bits and pieces based on an article in one newspaper that has its own political stance.

 

I am not going to automatically buy into this media hype and subsequent frenzy stirred by Dems and their affiliates just because more gullible people like you want to make me "feel" like it.

And yes, "gender identity" should be thoroughly discussed, even though it affects just 0,3% of the US population.

So, we're definitely talking about minority and fringe politics here.

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Please, do go and tell a trans person in the US right now that this is all going to be ok and why you think it will be.

 

Tell them that you are certain that it isn't going to become part of legislation and that you'll be against it if it does.

 

If you really believe that to be the case, and feel that it is of little concern, I'm sure your cogent arguments will be most reassuring.

 

NB. A reminder - this proposal eliminates the possibility of *any* change of identity at all that would be recognised in federal legislative circles, not multiple ones. Any. Changes. Whatsoever.

As much as I appreciate this, if I had the money to fly somewhere and fight for equal rights - America would be pretty low on the list given the current state of the World.

 

I'm not "certain" of anything either

 

[lifted*fox]

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

And yes, "gender identity" should be thoroughly discussed, even though it affects just 0,3% of the US population.

So, we're definitely talking about minority and fringe politics here.

 

which is even more important to you if you're in that 0.3%.

 

you need the protection of the law / politicians because you are such a small minority and you get treated like shit on a daily basis.

 

0.3% is probably just the tip of the iceberg considering how many people keep their sexuality / gender-alignment to themselves because they're scared to come out. 

 

it's not politics to these people - it's their lives and the right to live their life in a safe environment. 

 

the message that the GOP sends out with actions like this is one that further marginalises these people. 

Edited 22 October 2018 by lifted*fox

[The Doctor]

46 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Oh, I think we should always be wary of extremism, be it on the left or on the right.

For all the "Proud Boys", I give you "Antifa".

 

So far, my fascism alarm for the US hasn't gone off as of yet. Some may see tendencies, the further on the left you are, the more, I guess.

 

That's some proper r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM material there...

 

If being further left means remembering more history and paying attention to parallels I suppose so. Let's remember the basic path of oppression through the Nazis. First you burn the research (the Nazi book burnings), then you burn the laws and protections (Jews being forced out of medical professions, schools, stripping citizenship), finally you burn the people. So, just on this under trumps administration we've seen reductions in research grants that lead to people applying trying to avoid using words like transgender or climate change to avoid being cut (creating a climate where researchers end up self censoring), then trans people were banned from serving in the military, now this. 

[Guest MattP]

Oh God more Nazi comparisons. Please stop.

[MC Prussian]

7 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

which is even more important to you if you're in that 0.3%.

 

you need the protection of the law / politicians because you are such a small minority and you get treated like shit on a daily basis.

 

0.3% is probably just the tip of the iceberg considering how many people keep their sexuality / gender-alignment to themselves because they're scared to come out. 

 

it's not politics to these people - it's their lives and the right to live their life in a safe environment. 

 

the message that the GOP sends out with actions like this is one that further marginalises these people. 

The 0,3% is already an assumed percentage, because there's a distinct lack of studies and governmental stats on that subject.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5227946/

And while this page recognizes the possibility that the number may be higher, it may also be lower.

No matter how you twist and turn it and how much leeway you'd want to give, it will never be a majority issue, and the variation in percentage will unlikely break two digits ever.

 

I see you mention "safe environment" - well, the extent to which Transgender people are in danger of living in an "unsafe environment" in the future should this proposition take on a life of its own remains to be seen.

I don't walk around claiming that I need to be living in a "safe environment", just because I belong to a global minority (I am a white male, so part of 11,5% of all human beings on this planet).

I'd rather have Transgender people speak on their own behalf and I'm curious to hear what they have to say about this issue.

[lifted*fox]

40 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

That's some proper r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM material there...

 

If being further left means remembering more history and paying attention to parallels I suppose so. Let's remember the basic path of oppression through the Nazis. First you burn the research (the Nazi book burnings), then you burn the laws and protections (Jews being forced out of medical professions, schools, stripping citizenship), finally you burn the people. So, just on this under trumps administration we've seen reductions in research grants that lead to people applying trying to avoid using words like transgender or climate change to avoid being cut (creating a climate where researchers end up self censoring), then trans people were banned from serving in the military, now this. 

 

I agree - there absolutely are parallels but on here you'll be met with counters of being OTT and comparing anything Trump does to Nazism as pure fantasy.

 

Fascism is being given a fresh voice, a new podium by people like Trump - yes, there's 'worse' things going on around the world but in the western world the way he is carrying on is NOT ok. He is legitimising and encouraging the marginalisation of minorities who already suffer daily persecution. He is making the media an enemy of the state and condoning violence against journalists who he doesn't like. America is a first world western country which shouldn't be going back in time in the way that it is.

 

Now, **** me for being a dirty liberal leftie but if we have to choose between acceptance and letting women who feel like men use the men's bathroom OR continuing down the path of enabling far-right groups persecute ethnic and gender minorities - I think I know which side of history I'd rather be on.

 

and right on time - there's Matt to dismiss any similarities. clearly not too well read-up on the history of the Third Reich post WW1 and the manipulation and methods they used to pretty much convince an entire nation to partake in systematic killing of minorities. I suggest picking up Ian Kershaw's 'Hitler' and the first third of that book might give you a better idea of how such atrocities begin - perhaps you'll be surprised by the similarities that you can't fathom yet. 

Edited 22 October 2018 by lifted*fox

[Guest MattP]

@lifted*fox you might be a "leftie" but you are certainly no liberal in the British sense or use of the word.

 

Liberalism is understandable, tolerance and acceptance - liberals don't post about wanting to stab Tory leaders, fire them into the sun etc just because they disagree with a political viewpoint.