The issue is that they don’t feel comfortable
[RD] LGBTQ news
- Thread starter bernie14
- Start date
The issue is that they don’t feel comfortable
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,852
Who? The business owners? Skill issue.
Business owners, and people in general, shouldn't be allowed discriminate against trans people on religious grounds or because they don't "feel comfortable".
You’re just making stuff up now. This is a news thread, not unhinged bullfeathers rants thread.
It’s a constant tug of war, yes. They take an inch, you take an inch. So it goes.
It sounds like they have been using that impact:
Accusations of editorial bias and subsequent boycott
In May 2023, an open letter, signed by a hundred researchers who had previously published in the Archives of Sexual behavior, accused the journal of editorial bias against the LGBTQ community. The letter also garnered support from five professional groups specializing in the study of LGBTQ people.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,677
And of the accord? How do we reconcile explicit state-granted status that awards preferential power and influence with self-declaration? "A bad apple spoils the bunch," if I read back far enough, I think it went? As it pertained to enforcement of the accord.
Eventually, it will be gone. And then nobody gets money. May as well collect while you can. It really isn’t like you’re taking it from people who need it more. I am not being sarcastic.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,852
Sorry I'm not following - what do you mean by the accord?
For the record I genuinely don't think that the benefits for lying for benefits (i.e fraudulently claiming eligibility to affirmative action) outweigh the enormous risk one would be taking if caught. Not many people have attempted what Dozeal did, with good reason.
None of this is correct, for blackness. It may be applicable to transness and I won't presume to say what the applicable criteria for transness are since I'm not trans. The criterion for blackness and transness don't need to be consistent and its self defeating to try and insist them to be so.
Last edited:
I would ask you explain your position because I think insistence on the idea this is an inseparable gulf is dangerous and will ultimately be disproven.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Is this genuinely how you think trans people identify, as an opt in that can be revoked at any second, rather than a continuous, gradual process of self identification, with all that entails?
I understand that cis people might (and do) struggle with the concept of your birth sex not being compatible with your internal identity, but it honestly feels like a large (but not inseparable) gulf of understanding exists, similar to that of sexual orientation and whilst that might be the case, it does feel disingenuous to imply it's something that can be arbitrarily switched on and off for personal gain.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,677
No, it's not. But we're about people who are inclined, or desperate enough, to abuse the system. They exist. And they exist in a world where some people also exist in bona fide fluid terms. At least if I'm listening to the choir and not just the directors. The easier to understand people are easier, the harder harder, and then malice and self-serving confuses everything together. At least some of the time.
I think we're going to get very bogged down on the concept that blackness and ethnicity can be self-identified even as Crezth's point that the only reason Rachel Donegal isn't being considered black is she got "caught" seems exactly right. Being black, and all the legislation that comes with, seems a largely external imposition upon the individual. Since there are socially enforced rules, that very much impact status and money, around that imposition - society will fight to keep the keys to that in its hands, not the individuals it applies to. No? Which is why we're back to the "nobleman's testicles" comparison up above. I may be wrong about those last few sentences. I was trying to ask more than say, and I'm uncomfortable with how long this post is getting, but I did want to answer the questions posed to me.
I think we're going to get very bogged down on the concept that blackness and ethnicity can be self-identified even as Crezth's point that the only reason Rachel Donegal isn't being considered black is she got "caught" seems exactly right. Being black, and all the legislation that comes with, seems a largely external imposition upon the individual. Since there are socially enforced rules, that very much impact status and money, around that imposition - society will fight to keep the keys to that in its hands, not the individuals it applies to. No? Which is why we're back to the "nobleman's testicles" comparison up above. I may be wrong about those last few sentences. I was trying to ask more than say, and I'm uncomfortable with how long this post is getting, but I did want to answer the questions posed to me.
Just take it as the social fabric. The manners and norms that uphold the moral foundation of fairness, helping to keep large and unfamiliar great apes interacting cooperatively instead of violently with each other. You know, the deal. It has internal and external components.
Last edited:
Again, I'm not contesting or disputing any of your reasoning or positions as they relate to transness. All I'm saying is that it does not line up one-to-one with blackness, and it doesn't need to. If you are concerned that viewpoint is dangerous, I would be interested to hear why, particularly from the perspective of transness. I'm also trying to keep in mind that this tread isn't about blackness or Black issues.
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
Exclusive: Democrats reintroduce federal Trans Bill of Rights as GOP tries to advance restrictions
The reintroduced Trans Bill of Rights declares that the federal government has a duty to protect trans and nonbinary people.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,852
This is good but where was this bill three years ago? It frustrates me that the Democrats have done jack all until the eleventh hour, when all their efforts will likely be blocked or overturned by President Trump and his pack of goons. That's when they're not actively working against LGBT rights.Exclusive: Democrats reintroduce federal Trans Bill of Rights as GOP tries to advance restrictions
The reintroduced Trans Bill of Rights declares that the federal government has a duty to protect trans and nonbinary people.19thnews.org
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,852
Speaking of Biden actively working against LGBT rights:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoni...-flags-at-us-embassies-in-spending-bill-deal/
Cowardly behaviour. I genuinely don't know why Biden expects queer people to vote for him. He is doing nothing for us and he is actively aiding and abetting a genocide.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoni...-flags-at-us-embassies-in-spending-bill-deal/
Cowardly behaviour. I genuinely don't know why Biden expects queer people to vote for him. He is doing nothing for us and he is actively aiding and abetting a genocide.
Lexicus
Deity
I kind of fudged this, I saw that article pop up in my news thingy, so I assumed it was current, but it's actually from about a year ago (so much for the Google Chrome news algorithm I guess). It looks like the bill had been introduced in '22 as well but died in committee, which isn't a great sign.
Even ignoring all the *******s in Congress, SCOTUS would be a big problem for efforts to use federal preemption to stop discrimination against trans people.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,018
What probably brought into your feed is that we're again approaching the day of Transgender Visibility that served as the occasion for introducing the bill the last two times. For all one knows, that same group of Ds might try it again this year. The effort is not so much belated, then, as futile-in-an-ongoing-way. Until Ds gain the House and Presidency and 60+ seats in the Senate (i.e. never), this won't advance. And, yes, the present SCOTUS would find some way to scuttle it even then.
All of which goes back to the vicious cycle we discussed previously. Democrats' voters will #AbandonBiden them if their one main issue doesn't advance/happen, while Republican voters stay faithful through thick and thin, in the hope that someday, somehow, the stars will align and their team will deliver on one big issue... that's how we end up with Roe overturned, the Voting Rights Act gutted, affirmative action banned, etc... and that's how we are going to end up with Obergefell overturned, another Muslim ban, the return of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire, a second Partition in Israel instead of India, not to mention what is going to happen with climate change.
It's disheartening, but what can you do... I fully understand the reasons folks are declaring that they refuse to vote for Biden, based on one or two issues that are really important to them.
It's disheartening, but what can you do... I fully understand the reasons folks are declaring that they refuse to vote for Biden, based on one or two issues that are really important to them.
Klaus Hergersheimer
Prince
Only allowing the American flag and other official flags to fly at U.S. embassies and other State Department facilities,
oh the horror
Similar threads
