LGBTQ news

I'm not ignoring it.

 

Woohoo! It's Pride month. Happy times for those celebrating.

 

When I was at school gay meant happy and jolly.

 

It still means that. Words mean more than one thing sometimes.

 

Gotta go grab me a... cigarette? Let me pull it right out of my... belt pack?

 

Like this?

 

Given the law is supposed to force fines on any establishment which doesn't have the sign, how is it different (to have such signs everywhere) to not having any signs anywhere?

(or is the law only forcing a sign to those establishments which for their own reason wish to have such baths? In that case, I agree of course)

 

The law is forcing places that wish to let transpeople use the bathroom of their gender to display those signs.

 

I think that MtF is hugely more acceptable (and also common) than FtM, as long as one means actualy transition-taking drugs (hence the beard). But I also think that if a person has a beard, but still identifies as female (?), then it is a different (non-transitioning and non-tied to actual looks; tied to feeling strictly) type of MtF.

I sense that MtF (either using transitional drugs or not) is a lot more common and apparently a lot more acceptable by now, going by how many subcategories of MtF have reached popular culture. Only famous case of FtM I know is Elliot Page, which case uses drugs to transition (as well as, apparently, top-half surgery).

 

Everyone, but most men dont care who is sharing the bathroom.

Maybe I'm remembering the scene differently but I thought it was a whites only sign because she had to walk so far for the colored bathroom. But by removing the sign wasn't he declaring the bathroom open to black and white alike? What if he had a sign with that message handy and replaced the Jim Crow sign with it? Thats a step forward, right? Why is a sign letting everyone use the bathroom comparable to Jim Crow where signs segregated people into different facilities?

I dont think a law should require a sign, but I do believe the sign furthers trans rights by making visible an injustice that stays hidden because trans people avoid public bathrooms. The sign is both a legal protection and furthers trans rights, well, thats redundant. Yes, people will see the sign and think about it...about their privilege. If you saw a unisex sign as you walk into a bathroom what is your reaction? A return to Jim Crow or its about time?

I didn't say I didn't hear any slurs, I said gay and bi were not slurs and I spent the late 60s and 70s growing up in San Francisco. Gay and bi were the terms used by gay and bi people to describe themselves, I cant post the slurs I heard. And that was a multicultural city so I heard slurs from around the world. Hell, I lived and went to school within a mile or 2 of Castro St, that was one of the places we regularly went to buy beer w/o an ID.

I'm surprised by that, I spent over a decade in woke central during the push for gay rights. Black Panthers, SLA, Patty Hearst etc. The bigots weren't shouting gay or bi at people as insults. What non slur word was used for gay people in your school if gay was a slur?

If you fear using a bathroom now, how would you feel when the big chain stores post signs permitting use of theirs? Jim Crow signs discriminated against black people, this sign discriminates against no one. All are welcome... move toward the light. As for the goal, I imagine lawmakers have different motives. Some may be bigots, some want a sign instructing people which bathrooms are available, and some may see this as a way to protect and include the trans community. That will be the end result.

I thought we agreed transpeople fear using public bathrooms, that is suffering and the sign acknowledges it and protects them. The civil rights movement was built on showing suffering. This sign is like posting a Jim Crow era warning that everyone is invited. In that analogy Jim Crow is the current situation where transpeople simply avoid public bathrooms. How do we get to the point where they dont have to worry about it? A sign welcoming them to use the bathroom is a good start. Hopefully the lgbtq community recognizes that before removing the welcome mat.

Everyone exists to make sure we continue as a species. I think people need to see their suffering, the alternative is hiding it and we're doing that now without signs.

A sign permitting everyone to use the bathroom is the opposite of clarity?

You said lgbtq were slurs adopted by the various communities to 'own' them. That isn't true for lgb. I'm talking 50-60 years ago, thats about when gays adopted gay as their word. I dont know why that word was chosen but I do know bigots have other words they throw around when pissed off. It wasn't a slur when I was a kid, but I lived near a large gay community so I heard the word many times but not in vain or anger, the f word was the common slur for gays, still is.

 

Generally if you have "X" (say male), "Y" (female) and "not (X or Y)" (this would mean neither male nor female), the "not" signifies that there are other types apart from X and Y. Two examples: if you have a collection of two objects, an apple and an orange, the collection can be said to also include an empty position (empty=nothing there). But the empty position isn't just a "neither apple nor orange", since it is literally nothing at all. Another example, with some difference from the first: Say you have an unknown number of fruit, and they include only one apple, one orange, and the rest are neither apples nor oranges. Then the "neither apple nor orange" is not empty, but is more objects.
In the second case (which is what would matter if we have legislation for "male, female, non-binary"), there are some more things to note:
-If being male, female, or non-binary, makes no legal difference at all, then the collection "male, female, non-binary" would also be written as a collection of just Z (x=y=non binary= Z) from a legal standpoint. Thus all genders are cancelled and we all are the same gender legally.
-But if there is legal difference, in some contexts (like it exists now; eg with child bearing paid leave), then X is different from Y legally, and "non-binary" implicitly inherits such a difference under some circumstances.
So effectively "non-binary" is actually only partly a negation of binary, since it can in cases depend on traits of the specific binary.

I think that, furthermore, anyone who wishes to identify with another gender, implicitly identifies some traits/elements/lifestyle etc as particular to that gender; otherwise they could just keep identifying with the gender they are automatically accepted as and merely argue that this gender can also include the same elements. And - of course - the latter is also done, by a number of people, and breaks up to various subcategories itself. An interesting question, which has apparent backing in some such subcategory cases, is whether for a number of people what they identify with is not really the other gender, but specific elements which are attributed to it (even biologically). A main example of this case would be identifying with some (and not all) elements of female looks; a few MtF subcategory people clearly do that, while others identify with the totality.

 

Thats the situation now though. Wouldn't you be better off if you could go to stores with the sign?

The places putting up the signs are doing so because they believe the trans community should have access to public restrooms. Why would they want to offend that community with garish signs? The sign will say 'trans people are welcome here' or something to that effect. They gotta be welcome somewhere before they become welcome elsewhere. The sign begs the question of other businesses without it: why are you discriminating?

That isn't the sign's fault and I agree, they shouldn't be putting business owners in the position of kicking people out of their bathrooms or face a fine for having no sign in place. But that problem will either be nonexistent or moot in the near future as businesses post signs. I dont really see the bill sending cops around to make sure businesses with no signs are discriminating. That could be one of the weak links in the bill when it goes to court. Punishing people for not discriminating does sound Jim Crowish.

 

Berzerker, The Tennesse law states the top third of the sign needs to have yellow lettering on a red background.

Also, the bottom third must contain, in bold, "Warning..." edit: ok. The word 'Warning' isn't actually a requirement, but the color scheme for the top 'Notice' is the worst color combo they could have used.

The law is designed, to make the signs look like trans people are a bio hazard danger. That is anything but welcoming.

 

Has anyone provided a link to the actual text of the Tennessee law, so we can read it and form our own opinions?

 

HB 1182, google it. Third link (for me), has the pdf with the full text of the law. (tn.gov site).

I'm on phone, so copy/paste is a pita.

 

This appears to be the bill as signed. It's only like a page long.

 

"We're gonna go based on biology, not based on ideology when we're doing sports."

That quote made me curious about Florida's state policy regarding teaching of evolutionary theory in school science classes. So I googled ("florida school policy science class evolution"). The following news articles were all on the first page of my results:

From 2008:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/science-jan-june08-evolution_02-22

From 2017 (not paywalled, but I had to accept all cookies to get in):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nt-challenge-whats-taught-in-science-classes/

From 2019:
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article225190045.html

(I didn't get any links to actual legislation on the front page, but I didn't feel like trawling through all ~35 million hits, sorry!)

But the above strongly suggests that the Florida GOP are really only interested in "go[ing] based on biology [in schools]" when it suits them. And also that they have a poor understanding of "biology" to begin with.

It's probably also a pretty good bet that the Floridian biology curriculum excludes any discussion of non-cishet (human) sexuality/sexual development...

 

"Everyone"?? That's mendacious... You said:

You said "women". I asked very directly if by "women" you meant trans women or not... and rather than just answer the question, you deflected with perfidy... as usual.

Of course you're remembering the scene "differently", ... "differently", meaning wrong, making the rest of your argument irrelevant. You're remembering the scene wrong, because it serves your argument to do so. This is a pattern with you. You "remember" facts wrong, in a self-serving way, to suit whatever incorrect, misguided argument you're making. In any case, here is the scene in question for you to refresh your recollection:



Along with an image: