Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


How Should I Vote on Ballot Question 3?
YES - supports upholding Senate Bill 2407, a bill to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in public places—such as hotels, restaurants, and stores. 42%  42%  [ 5 ]
NO - opposes SB 2407 and repeals the law designed to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in public places—such as hotels, restaurants, and stores. 58%  58%  [ 7 ]
NOT SURE 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 12

Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,221
Location: New England

30 Sep 2018, 1:42 pm


Massachusetts Question 3, Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum, is on the ballot in Massachusetts as a veto referendum on November 6, 2018.

A "yes" vote supports upholding Senate Bill 2407, a bill to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in public places—such as hotels, restaurants, and stores.

A "no" vote opposes SB 2407 and repeals the law designed to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in public places—such as hotels, restaurants, and stores.

What does Question 3 do?

A "yes" vote on Question 3 supports upholding a law that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in public places. The law requires access to areas segregated based on gender—such as bathrooms and locker rooms—to be allowed according to an individual's self-identified gender identity. The law, which went into effect in October 2016, includes some exceptions.

A "no" vote on this measure opposes this law and supports overturning it. This measure was put on the ballot through a signature petition drive by opponents of the 2016 law—SB 2407—which means the sponsors of the signature petition drive responsible for the measure are advocating for a "no" vote. Click here to read a list provided by the attorney general of places considered public accommodations for which the provisions of the measure would apply.[1]


https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Q ... ndum_(2018)


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


Arganger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Apr 2018
Age: 18
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,707
Location: Colorado

30 Sep 2018, 2:20 pm

I honestly don't care.


_________________
Diagnosed autistic level 2, ODD, anxiety, dyspraxic, essential tremors, depression (Doubted), CAPD, hyper mobility syndrome
Suspected; PTSD (Treated, as my counselor did notice), possible PCOS, PMDD, Learning disabilities (Sure of it, unknown what they are), possibly something wrong with immune system (Sick about as much as I'm not) Possible EDS- hyper mobility type (Will be getting tested, suggested by doctor) dysautonomia


Prometheus18
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Aug 2018
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,866

30 Sep 2018, 2:52 pm

I'd vote no, on civil rights grounds among others - the legislation, for one thing, will take away parents' right to educate their children in accordance with their conscience, by forcing transgender and feminist nonsense onto their children, even when this conflicts with the parents' religious, moral and philosophical convictions.



Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,411

30 Sep 2018, 3:58 pm

I'd say a firm no because it's self identified. So ridiculously easily exploitable.



Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,221
Location: New England

30 Sep 2018, 4:01 pm

For YES:

Kasey Suffredini, president of strategy at Freedom for All Americans said, "It’s a fight of tremendous local significance because it impacts the very basic ability of transgender people to just about their daily lives in public. It also has national significance because it is the first statewide vote on transgender non-discrimination protections in our country’s history, and the anti-transgender activist who put this question on the ballot have said if they are successful in Massachusetts, they will work to roll back LGBT protections across the country."[17]

For NO:

Keep MA Safe argued that Senate Bill 2407 should be repealed because it could negatively impact the safety of women and children in public areas.[25] Keep MA Safe made the following argument:[26]

What the citizens of Massachusetts weren’t told was that there were only a handful of allegations of such denial of access to public accommodations and that those claims were already covered under state law. What changed on October first of last year was access to bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and changing facilities. It is now a potential criminal civil rights violation for a woman or young girl to object when a biological male undresses next to her in a public facility. This is not progress for our Commonwealth. We should not require women to sacrifice their privacy for the sake of sexual charades.


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,221
Location: New England

30 Sep 2018, 8:05 pm

For YES:

MA is seen as a leader nationally on equal rights and standing up for the safety and dignity of all residents. Whether it’s Marriage Equality, bullying or standing up to outside hate groups – MA has earned the reputation on being on the right side of many important issues. If this anti-discrimination law is stripped here in MA outside groups will much more aggressive taking their agenda to other states in an effort to target minority groups for exclusion.

For NO:

Let me be clear: I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I am saying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens. Just Google Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler, for starters.


https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Q ... ndum_(2018)


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,417
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 Sep 2018, 10:48 pm

Definitely yes. Transgender Americans are just that - - Americans. They are a minority which has been discriminated against simply for who they are, and no Americans should have to endure that.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,411

01 Oct 2018, 8:08 am

You can tell it's a bad idea when you look at the yes and no arguments. Everything said for no is about the law in question. For yes, we've got them talking about their reputation and that a no result will embolden their opponents. They can't argue effectively for the law because it's a bad law.

This is all you have from the yes side from both posts about the law in question:

Quote:
It’s a fight of tremendous local significance because it impacts the very basic ability of transgender people to just about their daily lives in public.


The rest is completely irrelevant.

Now if you put that in with everything from the no side, I agree with all of it. You have to have a law which takes all of that into account, which means imo the trans person should have to have the backing of a doctor's diagnosis to drastically reduce the risk of abuse.

Of course, this is not necessary for any transpeople who can pass for the same sex as their gender. No one will know.



Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,221
Location: New England

01 Oct 2018, 11:28 pm

For YES:

Tim Foley, assistant division director at 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, said the following in a statement to Ballotpedia:[22] "As the most diverse labor union in the state and the country, the leadership and members of 1199SEIU vehemently oppose discrimination of any type – whether based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender. The current law, wisely passed by the state legislature, protects individuals and families all across Massachusetts. The law is working and ensuring transgender people are not harassed or discriminated against in public places. While the initial intent of the ballot question was to roll back these protections, voters have an opportunity this November to send a strong message that discrimination of any kind has no place in Massachusetts.[12]"

For NO:


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,221
Location: New England

30 Oct 2018, 7:20 pm

Last chance to advise me — I'm going to do the "early voting" thing tomorrow.


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,299

31 Oct 2018, 9:04 pm

Prometheus18 wrote:
I'd vote no, on civil rights grounds among others - the legislation, for one thing, will take away parents' right to educate their children in accordance with their conscience, by forcing transgender and feminist nonsense onto their children, even when this conflicts with the parents' religious, moral and philosophical convictions.

It specifically says "public places". And of course gender discrimination is just as bad as racial discrimination.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,107
Location: USA

31 Oct 2018, 11:16 pm

Darmok wrote:
A "yes" vote supports upholding Senate Bill 2407, a bill to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in public places—such as hotels, restaurants, and stores.

This seems absurd.

They will have to remove "MEN" and "WOMEN" above bathrooms as that is clear evidence of discrimination based on gender identity.

Lockerooms/Showers/Bathrooms will all become unisex.

Women-only gyms, like "Curves" will be in trouble, as they can no longer discriminate against men.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,502
Location: Reading, England

01 Nov 2018, 3:33 pm

Drake wrote:
You can tell it's a bad idea when you look at the yes and no arguments.


On the "yes" side:

- Voting "no" will stop trans people from being able to live their lives with dignity.
- Voting "no" will allow irrational discrimination.
- Voting "no" will encourage people to try and get their hateful views made into law across the world (the American far-right has been funding transphobic hate campaigns throughout Europe so it seems entirely reasonable that they wouldn't stick to MA).

On the "no" side:

- There isn't much discrimination right now, so it should be legal.
- Transphobic bigotry ("biological male")
- Men might go into women's bathrooms (which they can do anyway) so we should ban some women too.

This is fundamentally about values. Do you think the world should be a place where everyone has equal rights? If so, you should support "yes". If not, then vote "no".

Quote:
Now if you put that in with everything from the no side, I agree with all of it. You have to have a law which takes all of that into account, which means imo the trans person should have to have the backing of a doctor's diagnosis to drastically reduce the risk of abuse.

Of course, this is not necessary for any transpeople who can pass for the same sex as their gender. No one will know.

There's no way to reduce the risk of abuse. Sexual predators are sexual predators, regardless of whether they are men or women, cis or trans. Cis men can go into women's bathrooms or changing rooms and commit sexual assault just as easily as trans women. Cis women can do it even more easily!

What about cis people who don't pass as their gender? There have been cases recently of butch women being told they can't go in the women's. We don't ask for birth certificates when people go into the toilet and we shouldn't start. It would lead to a horrific Orwellian nightmare where everyone is forced to carry ID all the time.

I don't think the law should treat people better or worse because they can pass. It's one law for all, not one law for the pretty and another for the rest of us.



Prometheus18
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Aug 2018
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,866

07 Nov 2018, 11:41 am

How did it go?

AspE wrote:
Prometheus18 wrote:
I'd vote no, on civil rights grounds among others - the legislation, for one thing, will take away parents' right to educate their children in accordance with their conscience, by forcing transgender and feminist nonsense onto their children, even when this conflicts with the parents' religious, moral and philosophical convictions.

It specifically says "public places". And of course gender discrimination is just as bad as racial discrimination.


Is a school not a public place?



Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,221
Location: New England

07 Nov 2018, 11:48 am

Prometheus18 wrote:
How did it go?

This question passed in the affirmative.

You can see the results by scrolling down here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... tions.html


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!