Holy fucking hell. I'm not surprised (and I quite expected) the end result of these bills to be people are going to have to show ID to use the restroom if there is any question about gender.
But holy fucking shit, there is no fucking reason why people should have to show ID to use a restroom!
Not even a little, actually! Sexual preference and gender identity have nothing to do with one another, nor do they impact where you pee or whether or not you're being a weirdo.
My birth certificate actually says female on it, though I am a trans woman.
I'm wondering how police would resolve that.
Probably in a way that I would not appreciate.
Not even a little, actually! Sexual preference and gender identity have nothing to do with one another, nor do they impact where you pee or whether or not you're being a weirdo.
I think they probably meant it was relevant to the cop
Not even a little, actually! Sexual preference and gender identity have nothing to do with one another, nor do they impact where you pee or whether or not you're being a weirdo.
I think they probably meant it was relevant to the cop
Which
Yeah maybe
Using it as a justification for bigotry doesn't make it "relevant" - it actually highlights why clarifying this distinction is really rather important
Though sexual orientation and gender identity have nothing to do with eachother, gay women historically have done a whole lot of gender nonconformity, and also tend to make straight dudes hella uncomfortable when they dont go along with gender norms. How dare this dyke not dress like a lady, etc. so i can see why its brought up in the context, as i suspect this will be used to harass a bunch of ladygays as well as trans women.
I used to think it was funny when i got momentary questioning looks from people in public bathrooms. Because you'd have to be a jackass to say anything.
Now its just scary. As a genderqueer, like, im just doomed to never pee in those states, i guess.
I'm prolly getting too punchy for my own good because of the avalanche of shit in the news today, so I'll take a breather - apologies if I've pressed the line on anyone a little too hard.
My life is full of a fuckton of being called every pronoun under the sun, and i love it. But now with the news, when someone looks vaguely uncomfortable or squirmy, its more like 'oh fuck are they gonna get mad and do something terrible?' Instead of 'hahaha yeesss let their brain sizzle while trying to come to terms with nonbinary gender presentation!'
Which i guess has given me a sliver of insight into what thats like for trans people who transition and empathy for that stuff, because really i have nooo idea what thats like and even feeling a tiny bit of 'ohfuck' is shit so yeah
Like
A whole lot of love for all the peeps in here and i hope this mess gets sorted out : (
The whole 'When cis people suffer we might get change' is bull anyhow, as the people targeted are not going to be the Barbie and Kens of the world but those who already buck tight gender conformity in their choice of clothes and personal grooming.
So I guess these laws are working as intended by those who created them.
Edit. I wear cargo pants, boots and shirts most of the time and have inch long haircut. Better frisk me for 'carrying' whilst in the ladies lav just to be safe.
Not even a little, actually! Sexual preference and gender identity have nothing to do with one another, nor do they impact where you pee or whether or not you're being a weirdo.
I think they probably meant it was relevant to the cop
Which
Yeah maybe
Using it as a justification for bigotry doesn't make it "relevant" - it actually highlights why clarifying this distinction is really rather important
Well yes. But it's giving bigots an opportunity to practice homophobia under the guise of transphobia. Which is horrifying on multiple levels, but that's what these laws are enabling.
Of course she COULD have been totally straight, but it wouldn't have mattered. The cop decided she "looked gay" so was therefore actually a man.
But I do agree that it was pointless to highlight. I guess people will start caring when a straight cis woman gets kicked out.
EDIT: good god Neco, proofread your posts before posting them!
Honestly, the way I see it, whatever it takes to get these laws repealed ASAP is fine, even for the wrong reasons. These laws are putting a lot of people in immediate physical danger, so I'm not sure the moral victory is as important right now.
Edit: like, I would be fucking ecstatic if it was a genuine public concern over trans rights that got them repealed, but, well...
I'm not ever going to stand up for the U.K.'s sometimes lacking ability to help trans people living there or its treatment of refugees, however this is a small victory that I'm glad this woman got
I'm especially happy with the quote from one of the judges:
“I find that the requirement of the appellant to essentially hide her gender and live as a man, even for two weeks a year, would be wholly unreasonable,”
+17
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
I wonder what ploy of imperialism all this unconstitutional bathroom and civil rights legislation is currently distracting us from
Well, I don't know if it counts as imperialism, there's the minimum-wage part of ordinance, which even if the rest of HB2 is overturned will stay in place.
Oh, and even if HB2 is overturned, the NC Congress will be able to say to the regressives in the state, "Hey, we're fighting for you! Send us money so we can try again!" And they'll get donations and votes and stay in power and keep trying.
If that's the case, now is the best time ever for identity thieves. Birth certificates are...not really a thing you should ever possibly bring to anywhere anyone could steal.
re: darkness before the dawn. The same thing happened with gay marriage. There was a wave of legal bans in the 90s, followed by a wave of constitutional bans in the 2000s and then it quite quickly turned around in the 2010s. ...after 30+ years.
So yeah, the banning only happened when it started to look like the was a chance of gay marriage being legalised. Which then meant 30 or so years of bans that made peoples' lives worse. I hope that this current attempt at discrimination goes away much faster.
What a complete surprise it is to find out that people and politicians who pride themselves on their opposition to the government, on their valiant resistence to attempts to ID citizens, by making lists of gun owners for example, suddenly don't mind requiring all of this and more for the most vulnerable in our population. They always worry about ID chips being implanted, but surely ID scanners would be a great way to stop their imaginary scourge and protect their bathroom-bound children? I'm just trying to take their initiatives to the logical conclusion, since trans people are so nefarious and pernicious, it's safest to test everyone and require ID proof from all. Even children, since children can be trans people too.
I wish hypocrisy was fatal sometimes.
Prohass on
+2
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
The country’s largest LGBT rights group on Thursday went to battle against a religious-based amendment tacked onto the annual defense policy bill that advocates say would strip away gay rights in federal contracting.
The Human Rights Campaign called it the first legislation to pass a congressional committee that would roll back expanded rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people at the federal level since the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry.
“We see this as social conservatives in the House trying to push what they view as a religious liberty exemption and use it as a sword rather than a shield,” David Stacy, the HRC’s director of government affairs, said in an interview.
Long story short: Obama's executive order in 2014 saying government contractors doing more than $10k business with the government can't discriminate against LGBT people? Now it doesn't apply when dealing with any religious organization.
Shadowen on
0
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
What kind of religious organisations would be government contractors?
What kind of religious organisations would be government contractors?
A lot of "Charities" get contracts from the government to provide shelter space and/or counseling and a lot of those are, at heart, religious organizations. We don't think about that because they're restricted from using those funds for those activities but it's still there.
This current legislative war on trans people in the US is basically about one thing: regressives need a new enemy, because they've given up on homosexuals.
While there is still some goat-like bleating from the Kim Davis type people, and regressives will still openly support people like that, there is no organised, mainstream movement among those people to try to fight against gay marriage. It is something the GOP establishment has given up on. The Overton Window is shifting even for them on the issue of homosexuals and even they recognise that.
But fully none of that is true for trans people. They're still acceptable targets for regressives, they can be boogeymanned openly and freely, and they make convenient avenue to pass anti-LGBT and other regressive legislation in general.
If you ask yourself "what is the current American conservative hatred of trans people really all about?", it's no more complicated than they need to use you as their scapegoat while they still can. These things go on an arc. As public consciousness shifts, as acceptance changes, these people see the winds change and go "oh no..."
They try to get the last gasp of what they can in while they can. A term that gets used for this in Canadian politics is "death rattle politics", latching onto an issue and seizing energy off it at the moment that issue is dying as a problem in society, as a play for power.
It's parasitic. Vampiric. These kinds of politicians are a cartel of human misery.
What kind of religious organisations would be government contractors?
A lot of "Charities" get contracts from the government to provide shelter space and/or counseling and a lot of those are, at heart, religious organizations. We don't think about that because they're restricted from using those funds for those activities but it's still there.
Also, Hobby Lobby basically made it so any corporation can claim to be a religious corporation and claim religious exceptions to laws.
Well not any no. One of the reasons Hobby Lobby was such BS is because it carved out a special and specific exemption for Hobby Lobby and Christianity.
A corporation with a Jehovah's Witness in charge can't use the ruling to keep from having to cover blood transfusions.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Well not any no. One of the reasons Hobby Lobby was such BS is because it carved out a special and specific exemption for Hobby Lobby and Christianity.
A corporation with a Jehovah's Witness in charge can't use the ruling to keep from having to cover blood transfusions.
I disagree, particularly because we are already seeing organizations citing Hobby Lobby in lawsuits asserting that secular laws don't apply to them because they conflict with their religious beliefs.
While yes, Hobby Lobby as a decision was specific exemption, and the Supreme Court said it was specific, that doesn't change the fact that the legal reasoning that was applied in Hobby Lobby isn't going to be cited every single time an issue like this comes up.
Well not any no. One of the reasons Hobby Lobby was such BS is because it carved out a special and specific exemption for Hobby Lobby and Christianity.
A corporation with a Jehovah's Witness in charge can't use the ruling to keep from having to cover blood transfusions.
I disagree, particularly because we are already seeing organizations citing Hobby Lobby in lawsuits asserting that secular laws don't apply to them because they conflict with their religious beliefs.
While yes, Hobby Lobby as a decision was specific exemption, and the Supreme Court said it was specific, that doesn't change the fact that the legal reasoning that was applied in Hobby Lobby isn't going to be cited every single time an issue like this comes up.
Yea, the reasoning for not including things like blood transfusions was flimsy and if the ruling is to stand would basically have to be expanded such it makes the restriction meaningless.
Remember, this was the ruling where it didn't matter if the birth controls were actually abortifacient at all, just that the plaintiffs believed they were.
Posts
But holy fucking shit, there is no fucking reason why people should have to show ID to use a restroom!
Not even a little, actually! Sexual preference and gender identity have nothing to do with one another, nor do they impact where you pee or whether or not you're being a weirdo.
A list of things, should you be of the gifting persuasion
I'm wondering how police would resolve that.
Probably in a way that I would not appreciate.
I think they probably meant it was relevant to the cop
Which
Yeah maybe
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Using it as a justification for bigotry doesn't make it "relevant" - it actually highlights why clarifying this distinction is really rather important
A list of things, should you be of the gifting persuasion
I used to think it was funny when i got momentary questioning looks from people in public bathrooms. Because you'd have to be a jackass to say anything.
Now its just scary. As a genderqueer, like, im just doomed to never pee in those states, i guess.
I'll leave with these for now.
This is a really important aspect of gender inclusiveness that often gets overlooked, and if safe spaces are important to you, I highly recommend reading it!
A good examination of how bathroom laws extend beyond the general "ugh just let people pee" problem - they actually harm individual safety, even when people are "following the rules"!
A list of things, should you be of the gifting persuasion
Which i guess has given me a sliver of insight into what thats like for trans people who transition and empathy for that stuff, because really i have nooo idea what thats like and even feeling a tiny bit of 'ohfuck' is shit so yeah
Like
A whole lot of love for all the peeps in here and i hope this mess gets sorted out : (
So I guess these laws are working as intended by those who created them.
Edit. I wear cargo pants, boots and shirts most of the time and have inch long haircut. Better frisk me for 'carrying' whilst in the ladies lav just to be safe.
Well yes. But it's giving bigots an opportunity to practice homophobia under the guise of transphobia. Which is horrifying on multiple levels, but that's what these laws are enabling.
Of course she COULD have been totally straight, but it wouldn't have mattered. The cop decided she "looked gay" so was therefore actually a man.
But I do agree that it was pointless to highlight. I guess people will start caring when a straight cis woman gets kicked out.
EDIT: good god Neco, proofread your posts before posting them!
Edit: like, I would be fucking ecstatic if it was a genuine public concern over trans rights that got them repealed, but, well...
There's just very little coverage for what's going on beyond the anecdotal bullshit that gets thrown around by politicians.
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Transgender woman facing military service as a man can stay in UK
I'm especially happy with the quote from one of the judges:
Well, I don't know if it counts as imperialism, there's the minimum-wage part of ordinance, which even if the rest of HB2 is overturned will stay in place.
Oh, and even if HB2 is overturned, the NC Congress will be able to say to the regressives in the state, "Hey, we're fighting for you! Send us money so we can try again!" And they'll get donations and votes and stay in power and keep trying.
World's First Modelling Agency with a Trans-Only Division
I want to believe that all this is the darkness before the dawn but it's getting really hard to believe that.
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09
Nah, just trans/NB people are going to get the shit beat out of them by cops and be suspected and mocked by their community.
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09
So yeah, the banning only happened when it started to look like the was a chance of gay marriage being legalised. Which then meant 30 or so years of bans that made peoples' lives worse. I hope that this current attempt at discrimination goes away much faster.
And the public knows this.
Which is why they're okay with it.
"Oh I would never use a public bathroom in Alabama anyway :b" fuck you Karen
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09
I wish hypocrisy was fatal sometimes.
fucking
dammit
Long story short: Obama's executive order in 2014 saying government contractors doing more than $10k business with the government can't discriminate against LGBT people? Now it doesn't apply when dealing with any religious organization.
A lot of "Charities" get contracts from the government to provide shelter space and/or counseling and a lot of those are, at heart, religious organizations. We don't think about that because they're restricted from using those funds for those activities but it's still there.
While there is still some goat-like bleating from the Kim Davis type people, and regressives will still openly support people like that, there is no organised, mainstream movement among those people to try to fight against gay marriage. It is something the GOP establishment has given up on. The Overton Window is shifting even for them on the issue of homosexuals and even they recognise that.
But fully none of that is true for trans people. They're still acceptable targets for regressives, they can be boogeymanned openly and freely, and they make convenient avenue to pass anti-LGBT and other regressive legislation in general.
If you ask yourself "what is the current American conservative hatred of trans people really all about?", it's no more complicated than they need to use you as their scapegoat while they still can. These things go on an arc. As public consciousness shifts, as acceptance changes, these people see the winds change and go "oh no..."
They try to get the last gasp of what they can in while they can. A term that gets used for this in Canadian politics is "death rattle politics", latching onto an issue and seizing energy off it at the moment that issue is dying as a problem in society, as a play for power.
It's parasitic. Vampiric. These kinds of politicians are a cartel of human misery.
Also, Hobby Lobby basically made it so any corporation can claim to be a religious corporation and claim religious exceptions to laws.
Yes it's fundamentally bullshit.
A corporation with a Jehovah's Witness in charge can't use the ruling to keep from having to cover blood transfusions.
I disagree, particularly because we are already seeing organizations citing Hobby Lobby in lawsuits asserting that secular laws don't apply to them because they conflict with their religious beliefs.
While yes, Hobby Lobby as a decision was specific exemption, and the Supreme Court said it was specific, that doesn't change the fact that the legal reasoning that was applied in Hobby Lobby isn't going to be cited every single time an issue like this comes up.
Yea, the reasoning for not including things like blood transfusions was flimsy and if the ruling is to stand would basically have to be expanded such it makes the restriction meaningless.
Remember, this was the ruling where it didn't matter if the birth controls were actually abortifacient at all, just that the plaintiffs believed they were.
What are we giving a while?
ineedmayo.com Eidolon Journal Updated
sorry, this
Ah, gotcha! Just checking, I got lost there.
ineedmayo.com Eidolon Journal Updated
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09