[RD] LGBTQ news

And you're genuinely unable to grasp that he was a bad faith actor

Just incredible naivety

It's like opinion or something. Anything specific or just tour usual rant when you don't get your way?

He's one guy opposed by all the GoP and not all the Democrats were onboard.

Any evidence for your claim link something I'll check it out.
 
It's like opinion or something. Anything specific or just tour usual rant when you don't get your way?

He's one guy opposed by all the GoP and not all the Democrats were onboard.

Any evidence for your claim link something I'll check it out.
This is quite off topic. I made a thread for this so that this thread wouldn’t get derailed by people simping for the Democrats every five minutes.
 
Naive is the only real word for someone who thinks a guy who wins elections is actually genuine.
 
Understand what?

"Browbeating"? "negative consequences"? I'm missing your point here. I've been very clear that I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to vote for Biden. Your response to me comes off like you think I want something from you and you're warning me that I'm not taking the right tone/approach to sweet talk you. I've not the slightest interest in sweet talking you or convincing you to vote for Biden or anyone else. Vote for whoever you, want. I'll take no responsibility for your voting decisions. You (the royal you) can't blame your vote on "Sommers was mean to me on the internet" GTFOH with that implication. Once again, all I am interested in, is probing what I regard as the logical fallacies, contradictions, etc., in the reasons folks give for voting, or not voting a particular way.

So miss me with "browbeating" and "negative consequences"... please describe to me specifically, what you want me to say or not say, so I can address that directly. @Farm Boy gets accused of being vague and enigmatic about the kind of criticism you're giving me here. What I'm offering, is to be very clear and direct with you in my responses but you have to actually take a position, rather than doing what you and other folks constantly accuse Farm Boy of... ie being vague and indirect.

Conventional wisdom was that overturning Roe was impossible. However, Republican voters didn't say... "Oh well they didn't get it done so I'm abandoning them." Republican voters kept voting Republican in the hopes that eventually, they would accomplish their goal. They stuck with it... for the long haul... decades and decades, again based solely on the promises and hopes that eventually, they would deliver, on the longshot, impossible promise, sometime in the future. That's what Democratic voters don't seem to be able to do, just based on the anecdotal comments on these threads.

Right, that was O'Donnell's point. Democratic politicians can't do what Republican politicians do... ie., set a seemingly impossible goal like say overturning Roe (or full acceptance of LGBTQ rights) and depend on their voters to keep voting for them, for decades, waiting patiently for the impossible to gradually be made possible. That's just not how the Democrats' voters are currently built. Democrats' voters don't get what they want, lose heart and #abandon... meanwhile the Republican voters stay committed to the long game... and slow and steady wins the race.

Republicans can go negative easier. Their supporters want them to gum up the works and carry on like they are.

Republicans need to fall in line, Democrats need to fall in love.

It's easier to destroy than create so mission accomplished I'd easier for GoP.

I'm not sure how things will go in November tbh.
 
...so back to news

On March 22nd, a press conference was held in Germany announcing new clinical guidelines for care for trans youth. 27 medical organizations, and 2 patient advocacy organizations were involved in the creation of the guidelines, and, once finalized, these will serve for practitioners in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The findings appear to conform with the general trend we have seen in care for trans youth beginning from the development of the Dutch model in the 90s, but the highlights are:

1) That trans youth are who they say they are, that regret and desistance rates are very low
2) That gender affirming care is extremely beneficial, and, crucially, that inaction and delaying treatment is not a neutral act, but rather, can be an extraordinarily harmful one.
3 (the imo interesting bit)) The guidelines set no age limits or hard rules for specific interventions, other than that puberty blockers should not be provisioned prior to puberty onset. Rather the guidelines specify taking a highly individualized approach for each patient based on where each is personally in development (i.e. "stages not ages"; a 12-year old who has been out for some time to parents, has been going to a gender clinic for a number of years, is socially transitioned at school and with family, etc. is very different from a 12-year old who has just arrived to the gender clinic presenting with distress from gender dysphoria but is unsure of anything beyond that, and they should be approached and handled differently)

The guidelines will enter a 4-week period of internal review, to be followed by publication

You can find a write-up (in German) of the press release here: https://archive.ph/20240322123401/h...e-geschlechtsdysphorie-hormone-nebenwirkungen
And the full transcript of the conference here: https://www.sciencemediacenter.de/f...tsdysphorie_SMC-Press-Briefing_2024-03-20.pdf
 
Last edited:
Is that a shift towards best practice for Germany or a reaffirmation of where they already were?
 
Last edited:
It's that a shift towards best practice for Germany or a reaffirmation of where they already were?

From what I can tell it's in continuity with what's been happening. It's more an update and reconsolidation of existing guidelines than it is a totally new set of rules. In this respect it's similar to WPATH's Standards of Care, which also omitted specific age limits for specific procedures when it updated its guidelines in 2022.
 
Thinking about the Institut fur Sexualwissenschaft.
 

PM backs JK Rowling's views on new hate crime law​

The prime minister has said people should not be criminalised "for stating simple facts on biology" in response to JK Rowling's criticism of Scotland's new hate crime law.

The author took to social media to hit out at the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act which came into effect on Monday.

The law creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" relating to protected characteristics.

Rishi Sunak said the UK had a proud tradition of free speech.

In a series of social media posts, Ms Rowling described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.

The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh but who is understood to currently be abroad, then invited police to arrest her if they believed she had committed an offence.

The prime minister would not be drawn on whether he supported her approach, saying that it was "not right for me to comment on police matters, individual matters".

But he added: "We should not be criminalising people saying common sense things about biological sex, clearly that isn’t right.

"We have a proud tradition of free speech."

Under the new law, "stirring up hatred" relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex is now classed as a criminal offence.

First Minister Humza Yousaf said the law was designed to deal with what he called a "rising tide of hatred" in society.

Writing on X, Ms Rowling said "freedom of speech and belief" was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.

Ms Rowling, who has long been a critic of some trans activism, raised concerns that the law did not protect women as a group from hatred.

The Scottish government is expected to include this later in a separate misogyny law.

The maximum penalty under the new act in Scotland is a jail sentence of seven years.

A person commits an offence if they communicate material, or behave in a manner, "that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive," with the intention of stirring up hatred based on protected characteristics.

Stirring up hatred based on race, sexual orientation and religion was already illegal in Great Britain under the Public Order Act 1986, but that will also now fall under the new act in Scotland.

The bar for this offence is lower than for the other protected characteristics, as it also includes "insulting" behaviour.

Football pundit Ally McCoist has also given his support to JK Rowling, calling the legislation "madness".

Speaking on TalkSport radio, he said he, along with thousands of football fans, will flout the rules during this weekend's Old Firm match between Rangers and Celtic.

The ex-Rangers player said: "I can guarantee you, next Sunday at Ibrox, I, along with 48,000 will be committing a breach of that hate bill in the particular Rangers Celtic game we are all going to."

Mr McCoist did not say which part of the Hate Crime Bill footballs fans were at risk of breaching.

Derogatory behaviour at football matches, including singing songs with sectarian connotations, are banned under the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012.

SNP ministers, who brought in the legislation have been asked whether Ms Rowling's comments, and acts such as mis-gendering would be classed as criminal under the new laws.

Speaking to BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme, cabinet secretary Neil Gray said he would not comment on individual circumstances but said the "bar is much higher".

He said offences had to include the use of "threatening or abusive language or behaviour".

He added that "the protection of freedom of expression" was included within the legislation.

Mr Gray said the new law was "merely" an extension of existing laws that had protected people from hate crimes on the basis of their race under the Public Order Act 1986.

He said he hoped it would help tackle the "hatred that has been permeating across these isles for far too long" and that there would be similar protection to that offered in relation to race for the past 40 years.

Humza Yousaf said racist graffiti, which appeared near his home, is a reminder of why Scotland must take a "zero-tolerance" approach to hatred.

On X, he said "I do my best to shield my children from the racism and Islamaphobia I face on a regular basis. That becomes increasingly difficult when racist graffiti targeting me appears near our family home."

The graffiti which featured a racial slur appeared on a wall near his Broughty Ferry home the same day the law was introduced.

Police Scotland confirmed it had been recorded as a hate crime under the new act.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmmqq4qv81qo
 
Oh, I thought Rowling's bit was an April Fool's thing. It seemed (even for JKR) too on-the-nose to say out loud for someone who (in various hateful ways) normally speaks around overt transphobia, but then if Sunak's on board with it it makes completely sense. The rich protect the rich, whatever the crime.
 
Last edited:
I somehow feel very certain that rich people will have their speech extremely protected, and other peoples speech about them very not protected.
Is that your attempt at being clever? If you're worried that a law against free speech would only serve to protect rich authors, it would be best to simply not have that law. Thankfully the USA resolved this issue quite early in its inception. Why the UK still has to wring its hands about things people say upsetting people (and it's not even an incitement to criminal act!), I don't know...
 
Is that your attempt at being clever? If you're worried that a law against free speech would only serve to protect rich authors, it would be best to simply not have that law. Thankfully the USA resolved this issue quite early in its inception. Why the UK still has to wring its hands about things people say upsetting people (and it's not even an incitement to criminal act!), I don't know...
Why do forums even have rules, right?
 
Is that your attempt at being clever? If you're worried that a law against free speech would only serve to protect rich authors, it would be best to simply not have that law. Thankfully the USA resolved this issue quite early in its inception. Why the UK still has to wring its hands about things people say upsetting people (and it's not even an incitement to criminal act!), I don't know...

No, no, its much simpler than that.

I'm saying that laws that require lawyers are law only rich people benefit from.
 
I mean she was rich before she sold a single book. She would be suing people over “Harry pothead” even in a reality where nobody cared.
Is that your attempt at being clever? If you're worried that a law against free speech would only serve to protect rich authors, it would be best to simply not have that law. Thankfully the USA resolved this issue quite early in its inception. Why the UK still has to wring its hands about things people say upsetting people (and it's not even an incitement to criminal act!), I don't know...
The issue obviously was not resolved on state inception or we wouldn’t have so many unanswered questions about what to do with Julian Assange, and busking painters would be allowed to draw SpongeBob on the back of a kid’s hand.
 

PM backs JK Rowling's views on new hate crime law​

The prime minister has said people should not be criminalised "for stating simple facts on biology" in response to JK Rowling's criticism of Scotland's new hate crime law.

The author took to social media to hit out at the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act which came into effect on Monday.

The law creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" relating to protected characteristics.

Rishi Sunak said the UK had a proud tradition of free speech.

In a series of social media posts, Ms Rowling described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.

The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh but who is understood to currently be abroad, then invited police to arrest her if they believed she had committed an offence.

The prime minister would not be drawn on whether he supported her approach, saying that it was "not right for me to comment on police matters, individual matters".

But he added: "We should not be criminalising people saying common sense things about biological sex, clearly that isn’t right.

"We have a proud tradition of free speech."

Under the new law, "stirring up hatred" relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex is now classed as a criminal offence.

First Minister Humza Yousaf said the law was designed to deal with what he called a "rising tide of hatred" in society.

Writing on X, Ms Rowling said "freedom of speech and belief" was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.

Ms Rowling, who has long been a critic of some trans activism, raised concerns that the law did not protect women as a group from hatred.

The Scottish government is expected to include this later in a separate misogyny law.

The maximum penalty under the new act in Scotland is a jail sentence of seven years.

A person commits an offence if they communicate material, or behave in a manner, "that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive," with the intention of stirring up hatred based on protected characteristics.

Stirring up hatred based on race, sexual orientation and religion was already illegal in Great Britain under the Public Order Act 1986, but that will also now fall under the new act in Scotland.

The bar for this offence is lower than for the other protected characteristics, as it also includes "insulting" behaviour.

Football pundit Ally McCoist has also given his support to JK Rowling, calling the legislation "madness".

Speaking on TalkSport radio, he said he, along with thousands of football fans, will flout the rules during this weekend's Old Firm match between Rangers and Celtic.

The ex-Rangers player said: "I can guarantee you, next Sunday at Ibrox, I, along with 48,000 will be committing a breach of that hate bill in the particular Rangers Celtic game we are all going to."

Mr McCoist did not say which part of the Hate Crime Bill footballs fans were at risk of breaching.

Derogatory behaviour at football matches, including singing songs with sectarian connotations, are banned under the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012.

SNP ministers, who brought in the legislation have been asked whether Ms Rowling's comments, and acts such as mis-gendering would be classed as criminal under the new laws.

Speaking to BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme, cabinet secretary Neil Gray said he would not comment on individual circumstances but said the "bar is much higher".

He said offences had to include the use of "threatening or abusive language or behaviour".

He added that "the protection of freedom of expression" was included within the legislation.

Mr Gray said the new law was "merely" an extension of existing laws that had protected people from hate crimes on the basis of their race under the Public Order Act 1986.

He said he hoped it would help tackle the "hatred that has been permeating across these isles for far too long" and that there would be similar protection to that offered in relation to race for the past 40 years.

Humza Yousaf said racist graffiti, which appeared near his home, is a reminder of why Scotland must take a "zero-tolerance" approach to hatred.

On X, he said "I do my best to shield my children from the racism and Islamaphobia I face on a regular basis. That becomes increasingly difficult when racist graffiti targeting me appears near our family home."

The graffiti which featured a racial slur appeared on a wall near his Broughty Ferry home the same day the law was introduced.

Police Scotland confirmed it had been recorded as a hate crime under the new act.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmmqq4qv81qo
I shared this new law in the UK politics thread. Not a positive development in my opinion. Whatever side of the debate you are on, better to have the debate than to create an environment where certain views are silenced (explicitly or indirectly).

You may or may not like JK Rowling, but she has had great courage to test the boundaries of this law (police confined today no action will be taken against her), and for that I commend her.

As others have pointed out however, many won’t have the resources or legal backing that she has and will likely self censor in future, creating a narrower discourse. And narrow discourse leads to stagnation and lack of ideas. A sad fate for the country that led the enlightenment.
 
Top Bottom