Trump's War on Trans Rights
Campin_Cat
Veteran
Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
Yes, I agree with this post----especially the bolded/underlined parts.
_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)
Campin_Cat
Veteran
Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
Before Trump was elected, I can hardly even imagine having this conversation with someone. Now we have people openly admitting that they approve of Jim Crow-style discrimination. It's a little disturbing, and has frightening implications for the future of our country.
Yes, I would defend a business' right to refuse service to black OR trans people----I wouldn't like it, but I would defend it.
Who's "we" and "our"? I thought you were British!!
_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)
And how would a business determine who is black or trans before deciding to not serve them? do they cast a discriminatory eye over the customer looking for "tell tale signs"? what if they were a chemist/pharmacy and the black or trans person needed first aid? do we go back to the "glorious days" when seriously injured or terminally ill blacks would die at the doorways of "whites only" hospitals
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Today at a restaurant.
'oh my daughters not feeling well in there, you may want to use the mens room' because the womans daughter was probably going to be a while. Just more proof that a lot of people don't care so much about who uses what bathroom...doesn't even occur to them that a woman using the mens room because the womens is busy would even be considered weird.
So yeah still don't get why people are so up in arms about the idea of trans people using the bathroom for the sex they identify as.
_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Before Trump was elected, I can hardly even imagine having this conversation with someone. Now we have people openly admitting that they approve of Jim Crow-style discrimination. It's a little disturbing, and has frightening implications for the future of our country.
Yes, I would defend a business' right to refuse service to black OR trans people----I wouldn't like it, but I would defend it.
Who's "we" and "our"? I thought you were British!!
I wouldn't because that is not actually a right they have, and not one they should have either. I would not defend it, but on the off chance anti-discrimination rules for buisinesses were undone...then I would boycott said buisinesses and encourage other people to do so as well.
_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Prejudiced people invent "reasons" to make their personal dislike look legitimate somehow. Like the freedom of speech crap...
Oh yes the trump republican theory that freedom of speech covers anything from friendly conversation to hate speech and running protesters over.
_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.
...A factual correction here - Blacks were in the U.S. military from the beginning IIRC, the main point was the end of official segregation
. Which happened by executive order under Harry Truman.
My father (I am white.) had some slight memories of how the seg system worked out on his WWII Navy ship.
Also, while I'm revising, I'll add that quite a few " respectable " Christian organizations quite explictly preached in favor of Jim Crow and seg in the pre- Civil Rights Movement years.
The story of Noah and his sons was pointed to as a justification, the narrative being that Noah's son Ham's sins meant that all of his descendants, at least all black persons, understood as descendants of Ham, were commanded by God to be under the command of other races. I do not get any sense of this as being stated, IIRC, in any Bible translation l've read. Kraich?
I might ask about the supposed Biblical disapproval of Jubal, father of all musicians, and his kin (All in Cain's descendants, which may be the supposed explanation
.) for insufficient fervor, as well
!
hroomPrincess"]
You realize you're using the exact same logic that was used to defend racist Jim Crow laws?
"It's my private property, I don't have to serve n****** if I don't want to!"
Discriminating against minorities, making them feel unwelcome in public spaces. Is that really a "right" you want to defend?
Yeah, I was gonna say something similar. Being able to serve in the military was a major milestone for black civil rights, as well as gay and trans rights. There's a lot of parallels here.[/quote]
_________________
Renal kidney failure, congestive heart failure, COPD. Can't really get up from a floor position unhelped anymore:-(.
One of the walking wounded ~ SMASHED DOWN by life and age, now prevented from even expressing myself! SOB.
" Oh, no! First you have to PROVE you deserve to go away to college! " ~ My mother, 1978 (the heyday of Andy Gibb and Player). I would still like to go.
My life destroyed by Thorazine and Mellaril - and rape - and the Psychiatric/Industrial Complex. SOB:-(! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York
Prejudiced people invent "reasons" to make their personal dislike look legitimate somehow. Like the freedom of speech crap...
Oh yes the trump republican theory that freedom of speech covers anything from friendly conversation to hate speech and running protesters over.
Free speech does not cover whatever the goverment says it should not cover. The arguments are about what should or should not be censored and by whom.
Of course friendly conversation should not be censored.
Hate speech is free speech in America as recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.
Running over protesters is censored by the goverment by making it a criminal offence as it should be.
What should be censored by private organizations is a matter of context.
There is a quickly becoming dated American saying
Now people seem to be looking for reasons to censor things under the guise of hate speech. The term "hate speech" similer to a lot of "isms" is getting watered down and expanded so much these terms are losing thier negative power. The way things are going now even friendly conversations are being self censored for fear of perceived unpopular thought getting out on social media.
The censorship trend is bad because it hides or miniminizes the truth. If the Nazis were not allowed to march most Americans would have remained under the delusion that such thinking was a thing of the past, if they know about the past at all but that is the topic for another post.
_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
How else would you call steering an argument in a direction that allows you to call people who don't agree with you "racist"?
The thread is nothing to do with racism so why is anyone discussing it at all? It's just been hijacked, no more no less.
Campin_Cat
Veteran
Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
Good point!! It could be considered a silver lining, by some of the glass-half-full people.
_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)
If a Trans person can fight as well as a non-Trans, and is otherwise a good soldier, why should this person be denied the right to fight for our country? We need good men (and women).
If a black person is denied service at a hospital, then dies because of that denial, the hospital should be found liable for his/her death.
If a person doesn't conduct his/her self well in a business establishment, the establishment has a right not to serve that person. I find it ridiculous that any person who conducts his/her self well in a store should be denied service for any reason. Moreover, it would be detrimental to the "bottom line" of the business.
Why would a woman be a good soldier just because she identifies as a man? The things that make men good soldiers are biological.
Trust me....I've known plenty of women who would be good soldiers. It takes smarts as well as brute strength---and some women do have the brute strength combined with the smarts.
Part of being a good soldier is the ability to "MacGyver" (fix things with minimal materials available at a moment's notice). I've known women who have a facility for that.
I would not have made a good soldier---but I don't care. I have other strengths.
Part of being a good soldier is the ability to "MacGyver" (fix things with minimal materials available at a moment's notice). I've known women who have a facility for that.
I would not have made a good soldier---but I don't care. I have other strengths.
That might wash outside of the military, but soldiers are relentlessly trained, put a man and a woman on the same training course and the man will reach a level the woman can't down to basic biology. Words and definitions aren't going to change that. It's not just physical strength, as I mentioned it's aggression and other factors too. Proof by example fallacies are going to be little comfort when your team mate can't drag you off the battle field because they lack the strength.
