HB2, North Carolina mandate to hate homosexuals.

In trying to fully understand the legal side of this - - - came across this paragraph.

Bullying tactics. Everything going great, working with school, being open and informing administration - - - until ignorant parents use bullying tactics.

The high school had accommodated G.G. when, at the beginning of his sophomore year in August 2014, he informed school officials that he was transitioning, had gotten a legal name change, and would be expressing his male gender identity, by letting him use the boys’ restroom. After several weeks without serious incident, some parents alerted to the situation by their children objected and pushed the school board to adopt its resolution after two public meetings in which indignant parents threatened the board members with political retribution if they did not adopt the restrictive policy. G.G., now 16, has not undergone reassignment surgery, which is not available to minors under the prevailing medical standards for treating gender dysphoria, but has transitioned in all other respects and identifies fully as male. www.artleonardobservations.com...

originally posted by: Pinke
The fact that someone can dress up and look different and then get their ass kicked is more the problem.

If someone said to you ... you can go through the door on the left and get your ass kicked, or you can go through door number two and this police officer might arrest you ... you would probably think these are not so great options.

Belief / mental illness / majority / minority it doesn't really matter. You can think what you want about a person but unless they're a threat to someone's safety they gotta go.

Is bizarre that we're living at a time where things are fairly safe by historical comparison to the rest of history but we're putting more restrictions on everything every year.

This law doesn't allow anyone to assault anyone; it's about restroom use being decided at the state level, not locally. I don't think anyone wants people being beat up.

The real issue, as you describe it, is that some people have a mental problem that is causing them issues when in public. If the only options are to use the wrong restroom or risk assault, then a person needs some sort of treatment. And, yes, it does matter about the cause. If someone has a mental problem that places them in danger, that can be addressed. Their behavior, whether belief mental, whatever, is a danger. Being a danger to ones self is as big a problem as being a danger to others. Either thing can bring about mandatory treatment.

I don't believe we need laws that allow certain types of mental issues to be overlooked and condoned, instead of being treated. That isn't fair to the average person, or to the person with the problem. It's as unfair as tossing mentally ill people out of institutions to wander homeless, because they "aren't harmful" to others, when they aren't capable of functioning normally in society.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The real issue, as you describe it, is that some people have a mental problem that is causing them issues when in public. If the only options are to use the wrong restroom or risk assault, then a person needs some sort of treatment. And, yes, it does matter about the cause. If someone has a mental problem that places them in danger, that can be addressed. Their behavior, whether belief mental, whatever, is a danger. Being a danger to ones self is as big a problem as being a danger to others. Either thing can bring about mandatory treatment.

I don't believe we need laws that allow certain types of mental issues to be overlooked and condoned, instead of being treated.

Just because you are unaware or don't like it, which is obvious, the standards for treatment of gender dysphoria (transsexualism) have been accepted by every major medical association worldwide. What you don't seem to get is that these "mentally ill" people are being treated in the best way that science and medicine has to offer.

Maybe just shooting them would be a better option for you?

a reply to: Annee

Its called "mob rule"

a reply to: Freija

Some people believe you can pray the gay away, so I'm sure there are those who think you can pray the gender dysphoria away too. /sarc

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

Its called "mob rule"

Works in a Democracy - - - not a Republic.

I just signed some mortgage papers to purchase a home today and they had me listed as a white non-Hispanic, married male. That seemed to be a bit racist. I am a Norwegian American descended of Vikings. Why does color need to enter into it? They also listed my gender in my racial makeup section!

Then to add insult to injury they actually had two check boxes and only two for gender. One for male and one for female. Btw, they listed my gender twice just to rub my nose in it. Another time just for kicks I suppose! How passive aggressive is that?!

I feel so slighted, abused and dirty. I am thinking about suing for $185,000.00. That also happens to be the purchase price but don't infer anything there, that would be insensitive and may constitute me bringing a lawsuit against you.

They had better fix this whole gender and race thing I will tell you that. I can see a whole lot of us very sensitive snowflakes bringing the mortgage industry to its knees!

a reply to: RepealTheLaw

I actually support collective data.

But, you should be able to opt out.

a reply to: Annee

Collective data is fine but it needs to evolve day to day. My race and gender should not be boxed in. I am fluid and I evolve day to day. My gender may change tomorrow. My race may change tomorrow. Why don't people understand that!

originally posted by: RepealTheLaw
a reply to: Annee

Collective data is fine but it needs to evolve day to day. My race and gender should not be boxed in. I am fluid and I evolve day to day. My gender may change tomorrow. My race may change tomorrow. Why don't people understand that!

Statistics are helpful for many.

I personally support the effort to gather statistics.

Of course, it matters who is asking the question. If it's for marketing, I'm not so supportive.

If it's for college, demographics, health, etc ---- I am supportive.

However, you should be able to opt out if it makes you uncomfortable.

originally posted by: Freija

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The real issue, as you describe it, is that some people have a mental problem that is causing them issues when in public. If the only options are to use the wrong restroom or risk assault, then a person needs some sort of treatment. And, yes, it does matter about the cause. If someone has a mental problem that places them in danger, that can be addressed. Their behavior, whether belief mental, whatever, is a danger. Being a danger to ones self is as big a problem as being a danger to others. Either thing can bring about mandatory treatment.

I don't believe we need laws that allow certain types of mental issues to be overlooked and condoned, instead of being treated.

Just because you are unaware or don't like it, which is obvious, the standards for treatment of gender dysphoria (transsexualism) have been accepted by every major medical association worldwide. What you don't seem to get is that these "mentally ill" people are being treated in the best way that science and medicine has to offer.

Maybe just shooting them would be a better option for you?

I have no idea where you got that rant from what I wrote. Perhaps you should take a breath,a nd try reading it again. I stated that, if someone has a mental problem that causes a danger to themselves, they need treatment, not special bathroom laws. Where you get the idea that I'd rather see someone shot, I can''t imagine. Your issue, not mine.

originally posted by: Freija
but gender, in the sense of the psychological and emotional acknowledgement of a one owns feeling of being one or the other does not depend on DNA

Yeah I stopped there.

So if a man feels that he is a woman, and we accept the premise that he truly is a woman based on that feeling*, then why doesn't he understand the discomfort a woman feels at seeing a naked man in the woman's locker room or shower?

If we continue to accept that premise*, then doesn't that mean the man lacks all empathy for his fellow women... making him a sociopath?




*I don't accept the premise.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

I have no idea where you got that rant from what I wrote. Perhaps you should take a breath,a nd try reading it again. I stated that, if someone has a mental problem that causes a danger to themselves, they need treatment, not special bathroom laws. Where you get the idea that I'd rather see someone shot, I can''t imagine. Your issue, not mine.

Umm? Maybe I got that idea from it being perfectly clear who you were referring to as "some people".

People with a mental issue that makes them unable to accept the sex they were born with ar not a minority.

I ignored your earlier comments but did you think I wasn't paying attention? Do you really think anyone reading this thread doesn't know who you are talking about in you references to "mental Illness". I get it - you don't like trans people. Everyone else gets it too.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
So if a man feels that he is a woman, and we accept the premise that he truly is a woman based on that feeling*, then why doesn't he understand the discomfort a woman feels at seeing a naked man in the woman's locker room or shower?

If we continue to accept that premise*, then doesn't that mean the man lacks all empathy for his fellow women... making him a sociopath?

*I don't accept the premise.

Some people close their minds and completely ignore knowledge that has been provided to them.

originally posted by: Annee
Some people close their minds and completely ignore knowledge that has been provided to them.

Yes, like biology.

double

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Annee
Some people close their minds and completely ignore knowledge that has been provided to them.

Yes, like biology.

Ignorance is chosen.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
So if a man feels that he is a woman, and we accept the premise that he truly is a woman based on that feeling*, then why doesn't he understand the discomfort a woman feels at seeing a naked man in the woman's locker room or shower?

If we continue to accept that premise*, then doesn't that mean the man lacks all empathy for his fellow women... making him a sociopath?

Sociopath? Asshole anyway for sure but your resolute willful ignorance and close-mindedness about anything to do with this in the face of evidence contrary to your beliefs could also be considered sociopathic, if we're going to bandy such words about.

This may be surprising to some but I won't say I don't disagree with your statement. Look, if I thought there was any point in trying to explain where those seeking the right to do this sort of thing comes from or if I thought you would listen and learn, I would go into it and probably piss a whole lot of people off in the process so I won't in any depth. This very argument, which is quite TERF-like in nature but indeed does make a valid point, actually makes advocating for trans kids difficult because these behaviors are something trans kids aren't going to be doing or asking to do and they aren't issues for post-transsexual women either. The last thing on earth trans kids are going to do is anything that points out what makes them different and I'll bet dollars to donuts none of the kids I've posted pictures of or the kids like them would ever let themselves be seen completely unclothed.

The "Transgender Borg Collective" is a powerful force and one I'd rather not bring down on my head nor do I wish to totally align myself with the opposing "Transsexual Taliban" either and maintain some degree of neutrality but there are strong differences of opinion between these two groups with decidedly different political aspirations and needs. One group wants the world. The other group thinks some of these more unreasonable demands, like penises in the women's showers are are interfering with their legitimate needs for legal recognition and medical care. Mentioning these things brands even me as a hater or a traitor to some and although folks here may think I'm married to all of the transgender dogma and am on-board with it completely, I'm not blind nor an idiot to the fact that some of it is pure bunkum.

Do you 100% subscribe to every single talking point from your favored political candidate or are there some issues you don't agree with them on? Do you support them anyway? The nuances, complexities and different issues between trans children and post-transsexual women compared to others that fall under the transgender umbrella far exceed the comprehension level of most people that hate them all anyway so I won't go into it further. I've already stepped over the politically correct line and won't be surprised if I'm not admonished for it as I have been in the past.

Clearly, everyone needs to pee. Bathroom stalls have doors. Beyond that, things become a lot muddier and beyond the needs of trans children being treated inclusively (which does include locker rooms), I am not an advocate of proudly paraded penises in protected women's spaces solely based on someone's self-identification or how they are dressed. This would be extraordinary inconsiderate and something I myself don't understand or want to see. Regardless, I still think these transgender women that may have their natal parts more of a nuisance or social outliers than some predatory threat or danger.

Are all trans people the same? Clearly not. Do I think this whole thing is way more complicated than people can understand or want to understand? Absolutely, but I don't have all the answers nor the inclination to involve myself in the debate that some trans women are more trans than others or more "woman" than others. That goes downhill real fast and like the analogy of political affiliation I posted above, sometimes you have to go bigger picture to get to the smaller issues that matter to you.

Well, this has been a can of worms probably best left unopened but I think a valid if not common point has been made and while I'm still sure I'm beating my head against a wall, thought at least acknowledging it beyond the scope of Borg drone rhetoric or ignoring it completely might be the way to go? Or not and just a waste of my time that's only going to confuse people further and get me in trouble?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Annee
Some people close their minds and completely ignore knowledge that has been provided to them.

Yes, like biology.

Clownfish.
Seahorse.
Wrasses.
Moray Eeels.
Gobies.
Mushroom corals.
Various dioecious plants.
Chickens.

Don't be bringing up biology as a blanket excuse for your bigotry unless you can actually debate it properly.