LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by El Guapo »

ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:30 am The idea that people will "game the system" seems like a bit of a red herring to me. I'm sure there will be instances of it on the outliers, but it seems hard to imagine, for example, a flood of male students faking being females for four years to get one of the partial scholarships that are the norm for the non-money sports in college.
Well, maybe in a wacky 80s comedy.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43495
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Blackhawk »

Bosom Buddies 2?
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Archinerd
Posts: 6837
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Shikaakwa

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Archinerd »

Here's an idea; Maybe "pre-professional" sports and higher education shouldn't have anything to do with each other?
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19321
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Jaymann »

El Guapo wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:31 am
ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:30 am The idea that people will "game the system" seems like a bit of a red herring to me. I'm sure there will be instances of it on the outliers, but it seems hard to imagine, for example, a flood of male students faking being females for four years to get one of the partial scholarships that are the norm for the non-money sports in college.
Well, maybe in a wacky 80s comedy.
Track star by day, beer bro by night. Starring Andy Kaufman. Writes itself.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 29816
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by stessier »

El Guapo wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:31 am
ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:30 am The idea that people will "game the system" seems like a bit of a red herring to me. I'm sure there will be instances of it on the outliers, but it seems hard to imagine, for example, a flood of male students faking being females for four years to get one of the partial scholarships that are the norm for the non-money sports in college.
Well, maybe in a wacky 80s comedy.
There were a surprising number of these around this topic, weren't there. Never really thought about it before.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

Archinerd wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:18 am Here's an idea; Maybe "pre-professional" sports and higher education shouldn't have anything to do with each other?
I am 100% with you on this one. As someone at the lowest rung of higher education, the "sports machine" drives so many decisions - all related to money.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Holman »

There was a generational period (maybe from about 1976 to 2006) when *overt* racism and opposition to equality was largely dropped from the conservative playbook. It was possible to call yourself a Republican and make noises in support of racial equality even while you opposed affirmative action and other means of economic redress.

But it was during that period that homosexuality became the new battleground for identity politics, and prominent conservatives who spoke approvingly of MLK Jr could still attack gays as enemies of God and God's Nature all through the Bush/Clinton/Bush years while society at large was becoming more broad-minded.

During the Obama and Trump eras, sexuality issues expanded to include a wider variety of debates, including trans and nonbinary identities. But there has really never been a period when conservatives loudly rejected (even just cosmetically) Straight supremacy the way they pretended to reject White supremacy. The conservative movement has never accepted LGBTQ identities as legitimate beyond grudging acknowledgement of a certain kind of straight-performing closeted gay self-erasure.

The way I look at it, opposition to LGBTQ acceptance has become not only a hill for today's conservatives to die on but a slope down which to slide all the way back towards overt white supremacy. If it were possible to honestly survey current conservatives who have once again become openly racist (or even just racism-curious), I feel sure that most of them would admit that their opposition to racial equality developed out of a kind of baseline homophobia.

tl;dr: Marjorie Taylor Greene
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by noxiousdog »

malchior wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:10 pm
Zarathud wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:47 pm We resolved mens vs womens sports teams. We can add trans teams if necessary.
This was discussed in some circles. It is seen as exclusionary. If they identify as women then they are women. This inherent conflict is what is weaponized by people like Greene. They seize on a legitimate disagreement, drive it to an absolute end, and use it to demonize these people. And that is just another front in an already wide identify politics battlefield. It's a real mess.
Sex and gender are different. I don't know why we can't embrace that in sports.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by hepcat »

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:53 pm
Archinerd wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:18 am Here's an idea; Maybe "pre-professional" sports and higher education shouldn't have anything to do with each other?
I am 100% with you on this one. As someone at the lowest rung of higher education, the "sports machine" drives so many decisions - all related to money.
I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but it also gives some students who otherwise wouldn’t have the means to attend a college a chance at an education.

But I do agree it’s out of hand in many more ways.
Covfefe!
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43495
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Blackhawk »

Archinerd wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:18 am Here's an idea; Maybe "pre-professional" sports and higher education shouldn't have anything to do with each other?
Why limit it to higher education?
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
UsulofDoom
Posts: 1580
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:55 am

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by UsulofDoom »

There are very few deceptive people that would do this. They instead would take the safe way of bribing university recruitment personnel.

Its's not how everyone labels me but how I label myself now.
If I make a grammar or spelling mistake, PM me. I will correct it. It’s better than you being an asshole!

No one knows the truth, only hypothesis, assumptions, conjectures, speculations, presumptions, guesses and theories.

We are not Gods, but nature. No more than one of many dominate species that will inhabit this planet for a short period of time, on its ever so long journey through the universe.
User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 13132
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Paingod »

UsulofDoom wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:13 pm Will this mean that Fire, police and military will use Female tests on those that want to take the female test? How will this affect recruitment for government employees number for hiring men vs women? I don't know how this will pan out for us. I do see abuse about to happen by many.
In these areas, being a woman simply changes the physical expectations. It doesn't put you in direct competition with other women. As long as you can pass, you pass. It doesn't matter if you do it better as long as you do it. I don't see how it could be abused unless fire departments only hired the "top 5%" of a class who could lift a simulated corpse. To my knowledge, that's not how it works.
malchior wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:10 pm
Zarathud wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:47 pm We resolved mens vs womens sports teams. We can add trans teams if necessary.
This was discussed in some circles. It is seen as exclusionary. If they identify as women then they are women. This inherent conflict is what is weaponized by people like Greene. They seize on a legitimate disagreement, drive it to an absolute end, and use it to demonize these people. And that is just another front in an already wide identify politics battlefield. It's a real mess.
It needs to be exclusionary. The reason we keep men and women's sports separate has nothing to do with tee-hee-ing about vaginas and penises or gender roles. Just because someone identifies as A, B, or C doesn't change their underlying physiology. You can identify as a canary, but you can't leap off a building and expect to fly. Unfortunately, being born with a set of XY chromosomes gives you a specific set of physical characteristics that may have nothing to do with how you see yourself. It still absolutely changes your physical capabilities.

It's not transphobic. It's fact. We have different leagues of sports for people of all various physical characteristics. Men, women, disabled, elderly, etc. We don't have these things because we don't want them mingling. We have these things because we want them to compete in fairness without advantage.
hepcat wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:39 pm I can’t even begin to figure out how to agree that it doesn’t seem fair without coming across as bigoted. Oof, I do not envy those who feel victimized on either side of the issue though. This is one argument that doesn’t really have any clear solution that doesn’t hurt someone.
I agree that it's a thorny issue and being honest can come across as being a bigot. It doesn't stop reality from being real, though. It just makes it sting. I don't have a good answer.
Black Lives Matter

2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by malchior »

Paingod wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:32 am
UsulofDoom wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:13 pm Will this mean that Fire, police and military will use Female tests on those that want to take the female test? How will this affect recruitment for government employees number for hiring men vs women? I don't know how this will pan out for us. I do see abuse about to happen by many.
In these areas, being a woman simply changes the physical expectations. It doesn't put you in direct competition with other women. As long as you can pass, you pass. It doesn't matter if you do it better as long as you do it. I don't see how it could be abused unless fire departments only hired the "top 5%" of a class who could lift a simulated corpse. To my knowledge, that's not how it works.
malchior wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:10 pm
Zarathud wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:47 pm We resolved mens vs womens sports teams. We can add trans teams if necessary.
This was discussed in some circles. It is seen as exclusionary. If they identify as women then they are women. This inherent conflict is what is weaponized by people like Greene. They seize on a legitimate disagreement, drive it to an absolute end, and use it to demonize these people. And that is just another front in an already wide identify politics battlefield. It's a real mess.
It needs to be exclusionary. The reason we keep men and women's sports separate has nothing to do with tee-hee-ing about vaginas and penises or gender roles. Just because someone identifies as A, B, or C doesn't change their underlying physiology. You can identify as a canary, but you can't leap off a building and expect to fly. Unfortunately, being born with a set of XY chromosomes gives you a specific set of physical characteristics that may have nothing to do with how you see yourself. It still absolutely changes your physical capabilities.

It's not transphobic. It's fact. We have different leagues of sports for people of all various physical characteristics. Men, women, disabled, elderly, etc. We don't have these things because we don't want them mingling. We have these things because we want them to compete in fairness without advantage.
This is where rubber meets road on this ideology. Inclusiveness is often being valued above all other factors. It is IMO short sighted but we'll see in time I suppose.
hepcat wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:39 pm I can’t even begin to figure out how to agree that it doesn’t seem fair without coming across as bigoted. Oof, I do not envy those who feel victimized on either side of the issue though. This is one argument that doesn’t really have any clear solution that doesn’t hurt someone.
I agree that it's a thorny issue and being honest can come across as being a bigot. It doesn't stop reality from being real, though. It just makes it sting. I don't have a good answer.
This is why the attack has been so successful. The kernel of truth - that inclusion above all things leads to different unfairness is the angle these monsters glom on to in their attacks. Greene or Trump don't give a fig about "fair competition". At least unless the contest is rigged in their favor. It is that age old canard about stirring hate for their own power.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30126
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by YellowKing »

It's just another boogeyman to keep the people who voted for them distracted from the fact that their policies don't help them in any way, shape, or form. Yeah I know you can't make ends meet or afford healthcare but OH MY GOD, TRANSGENDER WEIRDO IS MOLESTING YOUR KID IN A BATHROOM!
User avatar
gilraen
Posts: 4313
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:45 pm
Location: Broomfield, CO

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by gilraen »

Paingod wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:32 am It needs to be exclusionary. The reason we keep men and women's sports separate has nothing to do with tee-hee-ing about vaginas and penises or gender roles. Just because someone identifies as A, B, or C doesn't change their underlying physiology. You can identify as a canary, but you can't leap off a building and expect to fly. Unfortunately, being born with a set of XY chromosomes gives you a specific set of physical characteristics that may have nothing to do with how you see yourself. It still absolutely changes your physical capabilities.

It's not transphobic. It's fact. We have different leagues of sports for people of all various physical characteristics. Men, women, disabled, elderly, etc. We don't have these things because we don't want them mingling. We have these things because we want them to compete in fairness without advantage.
I totally agree with this, you phrased it better than I could. I'm all for LGBTQ rights, but this is truly unfair to cisgender women that are forced to compete with someone who has a male's physiology.
User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 13132
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Paingod »

There may be a time factor involved, too.

Some studies have shown that even two years after starting hormone therapy, trans folks still perform better than cis counterparts in some sports. The story, as far as I can see, doesn't say when the advantage completely drops off.
Their running times declined as well, but two years on, trans women were still 12 percent faster on the 1.5 mile-run than their cisgender peers.
Also notes
A transgender woman who transitions before or at puberty, “doesn't really have any advantage” when it comes to athletic performance, he said. “So that young lady should be allowed to compete with all the other people who are born women.”
So it gets even pricklier with trying to assess an athlete's capabilities vs. when they transitioned vs. hormone therapy duration.

Seems to be no good answer. You've got groups of elite female athletes petitioning to allow trans competition with them. You've got political groups looking to weaponize the subject. You've got folks who may compete without advantage because they transitioned before puberty, and you've got folks who may compete with advantage 2+ years out from hormone therapy as adults.

It's such a spaghetti mess in my head that it makes me wish for something simpler.
Black Lives Matter

2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by El Guapo »

All I know is that people are great at formulating nuanced policy positions in complex areas, particularly involving gender, sexuality, and inherent bias. I think we'll be fine.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Isgrimnur »

NPR
The Roman Catholic Church cannot bless same-sex marriages, no matter how stable or positive the couples' relationships are, the Vatican said on Monday. The message, approved by Pope Francis, came in response to questions about whether the church should reflect the increasing social and legal acceptance of same-sex unions.

"Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?" the question asked. "Negative," replied the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is responsible for defending Catholic doctrine.

The church says its answer regarding same-sex couples "declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such."
...
Bestowing a blessing on a same-sex couple's relationship would also be an "imitation" of the nuptial blessing, the Vatican said. God, the Vatican said, "does not and cannot bless sin."

Because of the Vatican's stance on marriage, critics have accused the church of treating LGBTQ people as lesser members of its congregation. In an apparent response to those concerns, the Vatican said on Monday that its declaration is not meant to be "unjust discrimination."
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by hepcat »

Sounds like there may be a few cardinals and bishops trying to avoid alimony by preventing gay marriages.
Covfefe!
User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 20969
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by coopasonic »

Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:15 am NPR
Because of the Vatican's stance on marriage, critics have accused the church of treating LGBTQ people as lesser members of its congregation. In an apparent response to those concerns, the Vatican said on Monday that its declaration is not meant to be "unjust discrimination."
So they are saying the discrimination is just. OK, cool. The bible is showing its age.
-Coop
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Honestly I couldn't GAF what the Church says on the matter, except that for some reason we base some of our laws on Church doctrine.

Yes, it sucks if you are LGBT member of the Church but leopards eating faces party and all that. It just may be that something is wrong with the religious doctrine, not you.

I have a friend (friend of mine, very close friend of my wife's) who is an openly gay Episcopalian minister. Like that's his job and career. There are option for the faithfull out there. The Roman Catholic Church is a dinosaur.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Holman »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:08 pm The Roman Catholic Church is a dinosaur.
Agreed. But there's a genuine culture war going on inside the Catholic church, and to abandon the debate is to quit on the possibility of progress. The majority of American and European Catholics are perfectly happy having differences with various official church positions, and they're the people most likely to change Christianity. (Given Christianity's cultural weight, ceding it entirely to the radical Right is a very bad idea.)

I know one openly gay Catholic priest personally and follow several others online. They're not going to disappear.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 16434
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Zarathud »

This rationale is ridiculous in a historical context. The Catholic Church MANY times expressly sanctioned sin in the form of indulgences. Its stance on capital punishment is much less radically one-sided.

There are reform Catholic groups pushing for change within Catholic doctrine. There is precedent.

But it comes down to the priesthood having stubbornly (and against American congregational input) drawn the line on sex and abortion after Vatican II. Changing the language of mass, the words of masses, etc. was ok but priests can’t get married and sex means babies must ensue. The faith is about more, even if the Pope refuses to agree.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Isgrimnur »

NPR
A Japanese court ruled on Wednesday that the government's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, a landmark decision that supporters hope will pave the way for marriage equality in the only G-7 nation to not fully recognize same-sex partnerships.

Article 24 of Japan's constitution defines marriage as based on the "mutual consent of both sexes," which is currently interpreted to mean it is legal only between a man and a woman.

But as The Associated Press reports, the Sapporo District Court found that banning same-sex marriages violates Article 14 of the Japanese constitution, which prohibits discrimination due to "race, creed, sex, social status or family origin." It said that because sexual orientation is not a choice, it is discriminatory not to afford marital benefits to same-sex couples.
...
Wednesday's ruling alone will not prompt any changes in government policy. A new law would be needed to legalize same-sex marriage, and NPR's Anthony Kuhn reports that Japan's legislature is not likely to take one up. Still, advocates hope Wednesday's ruling will provide some momentum.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19321
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Jaymann »

Andrew Solender
@AndrewSolender
NEW: Senate votes 52-48 to confirm Dr. Rachel Levine as assistant HHS secretary, making her the first openly transgender federal official confirmed by the Senate. Collins & Murkowski were the only Republicans who voted YES.
Biden: I got your diversity right here.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

Absolutely disgusting:
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbied against the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act, which would create a national suicide prevention hotline, in 2019 because it included LGBTQ+ resources.

According to the National Catholic Reporter, the bill allocated funding to LGBTQ+ suicide prevention programs in addition to creating a national, toll-free suicide hotline. The organization, an assembly of Catholic leadership in the US, opposed the legislation behind the scenes and attempted to prevent it from passing.

But it wasn't the first time the USCCB opposed legislation that expanded the rights of LGBTQ+ people.

LGBTQ Nation reported the USCCB used the same logic to oppose the 2013 Violence Against Women Act, which would provide more funding to prosecuting cases of violence against women.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

NJ residents, acting deplorable:
A vice principal at a Monmouth County school is under investigation after a social media post shows him angrily throwing a cup of beer at restaurant patrons in Atlantic County this past weekend.

The drink toss by Michael Smurro occurred after his wife argued with patrons over an apparent transgender woman using the women’s bathroom with her at the restaurant, Fred & Ethel’s Lantern Light and Tavern in Smithville, Galloway Township on Saturday.
The clincher:
Lisa Smurro doesn’t understand why the incident has attracted so much attention. “This is my business. We were out for a nice Saturday afternoon and we don’t appreciate being videotaped.”
Then stop acting like a-holes in a public venue. I do hope there are actual consequences for the both of them, regardless.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Isgrimnur »

How about you keep your eyes on your own work, there, Super Chief?
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

Could also be in the "Defining the 21st Century Republican" thread:


Ohio Republicans are pushing a bill to ban transgender girls from participating in women's high school athletics. Out of about 400,000 high school athletes in the state, this law would impact five.
Article.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by noxiousdog »

That's poor reporting. It wouldn't affect 5. It would affect those 5 girls plus all the ones they play with and against.

I don't know what the right answer is, but let's be honest there's implications.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by malchior »

noxiousdog wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:18 am That's poor reporting. It wouldn't affect 5. It would affect those 5 girls plus all the ones they play with and against.
Only 5 would be directly banned which is the point. You're expanding on their point to beg a different question.

This is especially important a distinction since Ohio had an existing system to deal with the wider impact. From the article:
Ohio High School Athletic Association policy, developed with experts from Nationwide Children’s Hospital, allows transgender girls to compete if they have either undergone a year of hormone therapy, or obtained special permission from the school athletic director who finds they harbor no distinct physical or physiological advantage over the other athletes.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by noxiousdog »

malchior wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:33 am
noxiousdog wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:18 am That's poor reporting. It wouldn't affect 5. It would affect those 5 girls plus all the ones they play with and against.
Only 5 would be directly banned which is the point. You're expanding on their point to beg a different question.

This is especially important a distinction since Ohio had an existing system to deal with the wider impact. From the article:
Ohio High School Athletic Association policy, developed with experts from Nationwide Children’s Hospital, allows transgender girls to compete if they have either undergone a year of hormone therapy, or obtained special permission from the school athletic director who finds they harbor no distinct physical or physiological advantage over the other athletes.
Fair enough. That's a very reasonable stance.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by malchior »

The Ohio bill as stated in the article is ugly, ugly, ugly stuff. I mean you have a program that wouldn't fly in a blue state where inclusivity is valued higher than competitiveness. And instead they go towards even more invasive remedies than hormone therapy though it looks like they're backing off it. I'm not too dialed in to this but I suspect that the existing system mostly worked though it was probably pretty inconsistent due to the rarity. The hot take that this is targeted at some folks to bully them in keeping with the mean streak in the GOP seems accurate to me.
As currently written, the bill would allow unspecified parties to “dispute” the sex of athletes. When this occurs, the athlete would need to present a signed physician’s statement indicating her sex based on “internal and external reproductive anatomy;” her “normal endogenously produced levels of testosterone;” and an “analysis of the participant’s genetic makeup.”

At Wednesday’s hearing, however, the bill’s sponsors indicated they’re working on an amendment to remove this section of the legislation.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

It's almost like there's a coordinated effort to be as deplorable as possible:
Willow Breshears knew she was different for as long as she can remember. Growing up in rural Arkansas, she said she often felt depressed, her discoveries about herself quashed by social norms and Baptist teachings.

Now 18 and living in Little Rock, the transgender activist testified before lawmakers as part of an effort to try to stop the passage of a proposed state law that, among other things, would ban doctors from providing gender-affirming care such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy to youths under 18. She and others protesting the measure were unsuccessful.

The mostly Republican Legislature overrode Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s veto last week to make Arkansas the first state to enact such a law. About 30 states are mulling similar legislation – a development advocates say endangers the lives of young transgender people, places ideology over science and disrupts the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship by preventing doctors from providing best-practice care.

“The only people who should have that say is that transgender person, their family and their doctors,” Breshears said. “This is not a place for legislators to step into.”
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

No more book learning in TN:
Tennessee’s governor has signed a bill into law requiring schools to give parents a 30-day notice about any lessons that deal with sexual orientation or gender identity and allow the parents to opt their children out of that instruction.

Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed Senate Bill 1229 into law Monday. It applies “regardless of whether the curriculum is offered as part of a family life program, sex education program, or other program,” according to the bill summary. Students will not be penalized for opting out.

The new law stands to interfere with literature and history courses, the Human Rights Campaign notes, as it could keep students from learning about the AIDS epidemic, the Stonewall riots, or even Supreme Court decisions. It “also disproportionately disadvantages LGBTQ youth who may not have supportive families and put children at greater risk of health consequences,” says an HRC press release.
And that's not even the end of it:
Several pieces of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation have been introduced in Tennessee this year, part of a trend around the nation. Lee has already signed a bill barring transgender students from playing on sports teams comporting with their gender identity. Legislators have sent three more anti-trans bills to Lee for his signature or veto.

One would require businesses and government buildings to post warning signs if they let trans people use the restrooms or changing rooms designated for their gender identity. Another would make it a cause for legal action if a student encounters a trans person in such facilities in schools. The third would ban gender-affirming medical care for trans minors.
I'd really like to start a non-profit that relocates people and families trying to get out of these areas.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Kurth »

Smoove_B wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:50 pm I'd really like to start a non-profit that relocates people and families trying to get out of these areas.
That’s a great idea, Smoove. Where do we donate?
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 20969
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by coopasonic »

I was going to respond that we need to educate people rather than relocate them, but I guess that's the problem...
-Coop
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Isgrimnur »

There's a Trail of Tears joke trying to form in my head, but I'm just going to walk away instead.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19321
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Jaymann »

If you relocate right-wingers they could leave a Trail of Beers.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Grifman »

How it started:

Image

How it ended:

Image
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Post Reply