Obama Supports Changing Civil Rights Act

Post Reply New Topic

This thread is about a proposal to amend the 1964 "civil rights act", so its about the government recognizing an individual's personal liberties, it's not about relationships between humans.


"Pedophile" is simply a sexual identity, not a molester.

Quoted: "Many in society are likely to equate Pedophilia with child molestation. They are not the same."
http://www.jaapl.org/content/42/4/404.full


Let's cool down.

First, throughout this thread, I have simply questioned why all sexual minorities are not protected.

You response is to say, "well its illegal". However, I have two problems with that response:

1. It is not illegal. As I have repeatedly stated, "pedophile" is simply a sexual identity, not a molester. So, your response does not make sense to me.

2. Every group of people has criminals. Hetero people, LGBT people, trans people all have criminals. And we intend to give them protections, so why are taboo/odd sexual identities excluded? Saying "there are criminals in that group" does not make sense to me, because all groups have criminals.

No, it is about the government recognizing that some (mostly conservative Christians) wish to be able to legally discriminate against those who are in same sex relationships - sexual or romantic. In most such cases, those who wish to discriminate simply reduce LGBT people to a single sexual attribute.


Uh, the article you linked to was written by Fred Berlin. He and John Money ran the clinic overseen by Paul McHugh that protected child molesters from legal prosecution and taught them how to protect themselves from law enforcement. Going so far as to testify that there was nothing wrong with a grown man and a child having a physical relationship (along with even more troubling statements concerning the treatment of said child).



We are not talking about "all sexual minorities"; we are talking specifically about LGBT people and whether they should be granted protections under the '64 CRA. Trying to bring in the "all sexual identities need protection" fallacy is not only false, it is like telling someone driving on the freeway who just had tire blow out that it's important to maintain proper air pressure on all four tires of a car. It's irrelevant and distracting, and not a valid argument as to whether something should be done about the tire that is rapidly going flat.

I'll ask one last time: Do you have any valid reasons specifically stating why LGBT people should not be granted inclusion to the CRA? Please note, we aren't talking about whether others should also be protected in your opinion; only whether LGBT people should be protected.

Meh. Looks like some people love to hear themselves argue regardless of what they are saying.

Either that, or psuedo-intelligence based upon unreliable data is rotting mankind to its very core.

I was a victim of pedophiles. Do all pedophiles act like my attackers? No. Should they be treated like humans if they choose to work with the cards they have been dealt and be decent members of society? Certainly. Should they be protected if they play the "we were born into this, so we are going to do what we want"? Nope.

Why is this even an argument? People who harm others deserve prosecution, while those who do not harm others do not deserve prosecution.

It really is that f*****g black and white.

Personal liberties to do what? Have relationships between humans. You're making an artificial distinction. Civil rights legislation, in this case, is about the act, not the mindset. It was always legal to have same-sex attractions to other adults. It was not legal to act on them. This isn't Minority Report. The government cannot police thought, only activity.


Honestly it doesn't matter whether we equate it or not, and whether pedophilia is an identity or not. The act is illegal. Acts that force other beings to have sex is a violation of their civil rights.


[quote= Edenthiel"]That's an extraordinary claim that requires statistical proof. It's also highly offensive and harmful. [/quote]
I'm waiting for the statistic on this one too. It is implied, though not stated, that transgender people generally pose a public safety hazard because "many" of them are serial killers. I'm sure you'll back away from this, but that is how it sounds. Many serial killers are heterosexual. I'll be generous and not call for a ban on straight people.


This is an example of a straw man argument. That was not my argument, and so far as I can tell, it wasn't anyone else's. Our actual objection is that sex with minors and animals is that violates the consent of beings unable to give consent, because of their lack of power, naiveté, or cognitive limitations. "Well it's illegal" is not an argument.


Since it's not our response, I can see why. The law, as I've said numerous times, is against nonconsensual acts, against molestation or rape, no matter the age or gender of the victim. Opponents of LGBT rights can give no better arguments than it's either against the Bible or because its against the common good because of lies about supposed antisocial behavior. "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is considerably more stupid as a justification.


Civil rights legislation does not give select groups protections from committing crimes, whether they be hetero, gay, or trans. If a person kills, rapes, or touches someone sexually against their will, it is a crime. Because it's the act that breaks the law, get it? The point of civil rights legislation also is to allow a person to live fully and openly in their identity, not just be celibate and in the closet, or isolated in a ghetto so they don't contaminate other groups. Identifying as a (celibate) gay or a celibate pedophile was never illegal, since no act has occurred. Being an open LGBT in certain states is asking to get one's head bashed in. The 1964 law was necessary because some states and counties refused to prosecute violent crimes against African Americans, used violence and poll taxes to prevent African Americans from voting, refused to sell houses to African American families, and refused to integrate schools and other facilities. Murder, rape, poll interference, and property crimes are typically state crimes, but it became necessary for the Feds to step in when police and judges refused to prosecute. All this talk about "rights for odd sexual groups" is looking like a smoke screen to me (and is still the slippery slope argument), leading away from the real question of why the 1964 act was necessary at all, and whether other groups like LGBTs are sufficiently persecuted and insufficiently protected to need inclusion.

President Obama proposes to reduce to reduce LGBT down to a single sexual attribute:

- a single group qualifier of "sexual orientation" for LGB
- and a single group qualifier of "gender identity" for "T"

He is trying to protect people from discrimination, not use it for discrimination.


OK.

However, his point stands that not all members of odd/taboo sexual identity groups are criminals or molesters.


It is meaningful to discuss all people.

It seems like you saying to these people "you aren't good enough" or "your condition isn't as real" for anti-discrimination inclusion.


I never said LGBT should not be granted anti-discrimination rights.

I actually argued the opposite throughout this whole thread.

I am living up to my name of "lovenothate" - to love all these sexual minorities:

-protect LGBT
-protect furries (people with gender identity of animals)
-protect pedophiles (people with a sexual identity of "children-chaser")
-protect tranny-chasers
-protect granny-chasers
-protect chubby-chasers
-protect necrophiliacs
-protect cross-dressers
-protect nudists
....

Hypothetically you are protected under the same legal argument as atheists. Which really isn't saying much except in very specific situations. To change that image takes a concerted *social* effort, mostly likely it would be have to be done by friends and family of the type of people in question (of which I too am one, btw) as they have greater social privilege...

This discussion is about anti-discrimination civil rights.



Just search google "transgender serial killer" and you can spend all day reading about them.

For example, there are a few WP threads on the UNABOMBER e,g, who sought a sex-change, ended up a serial killer.

There are a few WP threads on the the convicted murderer transsexual who won the battle to have prison pay for her sex-change.

In that thread, I found an interesting link to a prison website that catalogs transsexual serial killers. It was interesting to read about the ones from the 60s who basically went berserk and killed women because they didn't understand their condition.



If a "animal-chaser" viewed naked animals at work, a civil rights law would protect the person from being fired simply because they are an "animal-chaser".

This is not about "violating others". This is about whether law abiding people should have anti-discrimination rights for their sexual identity or not.

No, it is about whether LGBT people *specifically* should have protections under the CRA. You keep trying to widen the scope with a false equivalency.

And by the way, I found one actual transsexual/transgender serial killer, Donna Perry. And page after page of *fictional* ones. Interestingly, if you do a quick study, it seems all of those had their literary origin in Norman Bates, who in turn was based on Ed Gein. Who, I might add, was not transsexual/transgender despite *later* sensationalized media representations of him being everything from a space alien to a transsexual.

And from Theodore Kazinski's psychological evaluation, circa 1998:

"He said he recalled setting up an appointment at the University of Michigan's health center after weeks of fantasizing about becoming a female. By the time of his consultation, however, he lost his nerve and lied to the psychiatrist."

That's it, the only mention. But again the media ran with it to further sensationalize the story. What he was diagnosed with in his early 20's was paranoid schizophrenia. Not transsexualism. Oh, based on modern evaluations of his assessments he was also very likely an Aspie.

Really, if you are going to go on the attack like this against trans people, start a new thread. But do your research first, and that means actually tracing what you find back to their sources. Otherwise, please stick to discussing the CRA and LGBT people. This is getting tiresome and a waste of everyone's time.

Unless this thread gets back on topic, I'm done.

"Silence of the lambs" was a movie.

And yeah as was said - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

1. I was quoted out of context. This was an analogy to others who generalized that all pedophiles were molesters. I was showing how it's wrong to generalize for a group (unless it's a group of protons, since they are all identical).

2. However, if you are thinking that a 10 year old can't type "transgender serial killer" into google, and find many transgender serial killer/sociopaths -- just as I stated --- then I think you need to do some explaining.

3. I don't expect you to know this , however, most trans people alive never had access to support, so their condition ravished them. I have worked several jobs where "trans women" go to work as men, yet everyone knows they are really women.

Can you imagine the anger, and madness they must have endured to still be alive?

They made it to adulthood with a suppressed personality. I had a boss that would tell trans people that they have "swiss cheese" brains, because of the binding of male/female traits.

So, I'm not surprised when I hear some become murderers or serial killers. I think of the quote from X-Men, "when you cage the beast, sometimes the beast gets angry".

You ability to search is being called into question. I found this in 2 seconds.

"Kaczynski wanted to be a woman, report says"
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Kacz ... 070496.php

This is coming from the gov. psychiatrist who did the eval for the gov. after his capture.

"Kaczynski, while a graduate student at the University of Michigan in the early 1960s, visited a counselor there about his desire but was too embarrassed to discuss it and left the office "feeling rage, shame and humiliation over this attempt to seek an evaluation," the report said.


There are lots of trans serial killers.

'Robert Durst' is the obvious one we might know , since he has an ASD also.

I don't want to turn this into transgender discussion either, so I will stop. However, it is a thing that men kill, and take a woman's clothes and dress in them. There are numerous instances of this cross-dressing-killer behavior, and cross-dressers are under the umbrella term "transgendered".

Actually, no, we don't. You are the one making the extraordinary claim, therefore you must be the one to do the research and back it up with links or quotes. I don't have to do your research for you. Otherwise it's just rubbish you cribbed from bad television.

I'm unclear on the hypothetical situation being described. If you are saying that the "animal chaser" is viewing sexually explicit content at work, then they are going to either get a severe reprimand or get fired. This would also be true if a heterosexual viewed heterosexual explicit content at work. Sexual harassment lawsuits have made it necessary for employers to state what kind of behavior is acceptable at work, and they've made it clear that sexually explicit material and talk belongs outside the workplace. The same would be true if someone discussed their sexual preferences (positions, role-playing, age, bondage, weight of partner, etc.). Workplace harassment rules are very clear on this, at least at my company. You've been describing sexual preferences when you talk about chubby chasers, etc., not sexual identities. Identities are fine, so long as we keep our bedroom activities to ourselves. Identities are what we show the outside world, in our daytime lives.

The whole LGBT rights thing, if we can steer the conversation back to that, is that the legislation is really addressing logistical concerns rather than than sexual ones. What we do in the bedroom is our business, but we still want to be able to have the same benefits as straight people: co-owning a house, adopting children, being visited in the hospital by our partner, and getting justice if some homophobe attacks us. For transsexuals, their problem includes all that with the chance of being attacked a great deal more. If they transition at work, there's a high likelihood of losing their job and being unable to get another anywhere near at the salary they had before. They can be denied housing if they are "read" (seen as transsexual). They can be denied medical care. I know, I was standing right there in an ER as a nurse abused my friend and accused her of being a drug addict. The nurse then threw me out of the ER and let my (dehydrated, not high) friend fall on the floor. And this is not the only time she has been denied medical care. They can be denied justice. That same friend was once a waitress, and was beat up in the middle of a dining room full of people. Her boss fired her when she asked for medical leave. The police waited five weeks to serve the warrant, until the man had time to leave his apartment. When we saw him six months later and took down his license plate, the police refused to even look it up. My friend contacted a lawyer, but he refused to take the case when he heard the reason. He just didn't think they could win.
Here are some statistics for you: http://www.advocate.com/crime/2015/06/09/anti-lgbt-violence-down-anti-trans-hate-crimes. It's probably very low, because many states (hello South!) don't have hate crime reporting requirements. Here's another story, of Tyra Hunter, who died a few miles from where I live: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyra_Hunter. Tyra got into a car accident. Paramedics showed up to treat her, but they refused to help her when they found she had male genitalia. They had to call another ambulance to get her to the hospital. The doctors at the hospital failed to provide adequate care that would have saved her life. Because she was a transsexual. I fear, every time, that when my friend leaves, it will be the last time I see her.

Please don't belittle the day-to-day struggles of these people by comparing them to people who will never experience discrimination if they don't brag about it to their coworkers. And don't pull up 2 or 3 bad trans stories out of the last several decades up in comparison to the thousands of people murdered, raped, beaten, fired, and denied healthcare coverage every year. And if you want to get that Google working, look for LGBT hate crimes. You will find a lot bigger numbers of those.

I don't mean to belittle the struggles of people who feel that they have the wrong 23rd pair of chromosomes.

I'm not going to tell people that they can't live the way they want to live.

It's a psychological disorder, potentially with biological triggers, that is probably always going to come with some stigma.

Some people get dealt a really crappy hand of cards.

And their rights should be protected.

But since there's probably never going to be a way to alter your 23rd pair of chromosomes, we should probably also look for a cure.

I know it's horrible to be "ableist" or whatever. So be it. I'm a horrible person for wishing people could feel comfortable in their own skin with their own genitals.

I see it a "hormonal disorder".

My dad confessed to me he is transgender. He told me wanted to be a girl when he is young.

He lived a ruined life. He molested a six year old girl,and pulverized my mom, because his hormones were wrong I think. He had uncontrolled rage.

Btw .. in real life I am transgendered too that is why we discussed this. We are both diagnosed with an ASD too.

We need "early prevention"/ "more information"/"more acceptance".

Bad outcomes like my dad are probably more likely than good outcomes.

As it is, for most of us the treatments currently available, to include hormones and surgeries, are good enough. What we want is to have you stop the stigma, discrimination, and lack of support. These things are very strongly associated with suicide and suicide attempts in transgender people:

viewtopic.php?t=298215