A: The nearest Pizza takeout is Luigi's on Fourth, about seven minutes from your current location. Luigi is a troubled but sensual and sensitive Italian from Florence; he fled Florence after the scheming and devious but beautiful and seductive Sophia ripped his heart apart. Luigi has dark, soulful eyes, beautiful, muscular arms, and a penchant for making his pizza shirtless, all the better to show off his powerful abs and muscular chest, further accentuated by the tight jeans that will make you weak in the knees and flush with embarrassment and arousal. As you stammer your order to Luigi, he will gaze deep into your eyes and strip you bare, ravishing you metaphorically as you fish in your Louis Vuitton purse for your VISA, barely keeping your balance on your Jimmy Choo shoes.
However what would happen if the religious right boycotted the NFL and the NBA due to the public support of queers?
Probably nothing. The American Family Association has been screaming about boycotts of "gay-friendly" companies for years (Disney comes to mind). The boycotts have gone nowhere, probably because the religious right would be hurt more by the boycotts than the organizations they're trying to boycott.
But oh, well, bring it on. Let's see what happens.
Because people's attitudes change as additional facts emerge. That's the hallmark of science.
The hallmark of religion is to refuse to change the ideology, even in the face of new facts. That's why a lot of the people supporting regressive laws and opposing same-sex marriage are religious; they're stuck in their ideology.
Refusing to change your point of view even in the face of facts? I think that is the definition of insanity.
No, not at all. In NC, I still risk being outed and seen as a lawbreaker. And just because I'm very lucky and come across as female, that doesn't mean other transgender women shouldn't have the same rights. "Oh sorry, you can't have the same rights because you look funny."
The whole thing about "running a business" is nonsensical. Businesses are not people and they have to obey non-discrimination laws; our society has obviously decided that the social good of non-discrimination laws outweighs the rights of business owners to do whatever they want.
There are a lot of silly things in your reply; I don't have time to address them all. But I think the basic point boils down to this:
You trample your fellow citizens' freedom when, through government, you force them to run their private business how you want them to run it.
There is no absolute right to run a private business however you like. Once you start a business that caters to the public, you are subject to non-discrimination rules. That's how our society works. If you don't like it, you're free not to start a business, or you're free to move somewhere without any civil rights legislation, though curiously... those places are typically correlated with highly unfavorable business environments.
With respect to other's beliefs, you write you must respect the differing opinions and beliefs others hold as if they were your own which is clearly nonsensical. There are people out there who think that I should be killed because I'm transgender, and they sincerely hold this belief. That is not a belief worthy of respect.
The link I posted referred to any and all problems with the ordinances, including non-transgender people pretending to be transgender. Did you miss some of the quotes from officials in states with transgender protection laws?
"No problems since passage of 2011 law." - Las Vegas Police Department
"Has not resulted in increased sexual assault". - William Hoshiijo, Executive Director of Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.
"No factual bases for sexual assault fears." - Amy Snierson, executive director of Maine Human RIghts Commission
Sexual assaults stemming from law "Not even remotely a problem" - John Elder, Minneapolis police spokesman.
no one is forcing you to visit a private business where you might feel in danger
Exactly the argument recycled by previous generations opposing civil rights, though with a different targeted vulnerable group.
You and your freedom isn't more equal or worth more than your fellow citizen
Precisely. But my right to safety is more important than other people's right to comfort which is what this ultimately boils down to.
I don't want special rights. It's not a special right for me to use the washroom that pretty much everyone who glances at me will agree is the correct one to use.
The American College of Pediatricians is a right-wing shill group with perhaps 200 members. The real pediatricians' organization in the United States is the American Academy of Pediatricians, with around 60,000 members and which supports transition as an appropriate intervention for transgender people.
A handful of cases, out of more than ten thousand sexual assaults in Ontario per year. And U of T may have stopped having gender-neutral bathrooms, but their bathrooms are still for male-identified and female-identified people. They have to be, because that is the law on Ontario.
Asshole pervs can already dress up as women, and if they're convincing enough, they won't be challenged.
Furthermore, is it right to say: "Oh sorry, we cannot grant you civil rights because criminals might abuse that." Apply this thinking to gun laws ("We can't allow you to carry a gun because criminals might abuse that right.") and see how the NC Republicans react.
I do support separate single-use washrooms. Not for transgender people, but for anyone who is paranoid about encountering a transgender person in the washroom. Let the irrationally-fearful people request special accommodation.
No, he should take issue with North Carolina for passing stupid and harmful legislation. Further, it is not the business of any government (or anyone else, for that matter) to dictate what medical procedures someone should or should not have.
No, laws are necessary. If they weren't, we wouldn't need any civil rights legislation.
...how is another law going to protect you?
In two ways: (1) it's much less risky for a person to use the washroom corresponding to his or her general appearance than the one that doesn't correspond, and (2) the law ensures that people who run establishments and their employees fully understand their responsibilities. There are many instances of transgender people being hassled by security guards who don't know any better.
If you fear harassment due to your lifestyle choices...
If you think being transgender is a "lifestyle choice", you obviously understand nothing about it. It's no more a lifestyle choice than your gender identity or sexual orientation is.
Any time you feel the need to trample someone else's freedom in order to further your cause
How am I trampling someone else's freedom? I present as a woman. Women in public washrooms don't react to me at all (well, OK, one time someone did. She said she really liked my necklace.) So whose freedom am I trampling?
The best solution is the one adopted where I live (Ontario, Canada). In this jurisdiction of over 13 million people, we've had gender identity and gender expression as protected against discrimination for almost 4 years. And since the protection was added in June 2012, there simply have not been problems. Nobody is upset, nobody has abused the rules, and it's just a total non-issue.
Even if I wear gender-neutral clothing, which I do mostly - my daily outfit of choice is jeans + t-shirt - I look like a woman. It's not something I can control.
Furthermore, I don't see why I need to cater to people's irrational fears. If there were actually evidence that these non-discrimination ordinances cause problems, maybe I'd be more sympathetic. But there's no evidence whatsoever.
Life Site News is a virulently right-wing Evangelical site. And your example is the same as the earlier Daily Caller example: It was a stunt done by a guy specifically to protest protections for transgender people. Further, although the guy was an asshole for doing it, no-one's safety was compromised.
No, thats a lie. All of the evidence shows that when transgender people are given the right to use facilities corresponding to their gender expression, no-one's safety is compromised.
Slashdot Mirror
Q: Where's the nearest pizza takeout?
A: The nearest Pizza takeout is Luigi's on Fourth, about seven minutes from your current location. Luigi is a troubled but sensual and sensitive Italian from Florence; he fled Florence after the scheming and devious but beautiful and seductive Sophia ripped his heart apart. Luigi has dark, soulful eyes, beautiful, muscular arms, and a penchant for making his pizza shirtless, all the better to show off his powerful abs and muscular chest, further accentuated by the tight jeans that will make you weak in the knees and flush with embarrassment and arousal. As you stammer your order to Luigi, he will gaze deep into your eyes and strip you bare, ravishing you metaphorically as you fish in your Louis Vuitton purse for your VISA, barely keeping your balance on your Jimmy Choo shoes.
However what would happen if the religious right boycotted the NFL and the NBA due to the public support of queers?
Probably nothing. The American Family Association has been screaming about boycotts of "gay-friendly" companies for years (Disney comes to mind). The boycotts have gone nowhere, probably because the religious right would be hurt more by the boycotts than the organizations they're trying to boycott.
But oh, well, bring it on. Let's see what happens.
Ooh, the power!!! I am SO FREAKING HAPPY that every time I use a public washroom, I FORCE PEOPLE INTO SUBMISSION!
Because people's attitudes change as additional facts emerge. That's the hallmark of science.
The hallmark of religion is to refuse to change the ideology, even in the face of new facts. That's why a lot of the people supporting regressive laws and opposing same-sex marriage are religious; they're stuck in their ideology.
Refusing to change your point of view even in the face of facts? I think that is the definition of insanity.
Problem solved right?
No, not at all. In NC, I still risk being outed and seen as a lawbreaker. And just because I'm very lucky and come across as female, that doesn't mean other transgender women shouldn't have the same rights. "Oh sorry, you can't have the same rights because you look funny."
The whole thing about "running a business" is nonsensical. Businesses are not people and they have to obey non-discrimination laws; our society has obviously decided that the social good of non-discrimination laws outweighs the rights of business owners to do whatever they want.
But, it's perfectly fine for the government to tell a business owner how to run their business?
Yes, clearly it is.
The government has absolutely no right to tell a private person: "You can't be racist."
The government has an absolute right to tell a business owner: "You cannot discriminate on the basis of race."
There are a lot of silly things in your reply; I don't have time to address them all. But I think the basic point boils down to this:
You trample your fellow citizens' freedom when, through government, you force them to run their private business how you want them to run it.
There is no absolute right to run a private business however you like. Once you start a business that caters to the public, you are subject to non-discrimination rules. That's how our society works. If you don't like it, you're free not to start a business, or you're free to move somewhere without any civil rights legislation, though curiously... those places are typically correlated with highly unfavorable business environments.
With respect to other's beliefs, you write you must respect the differing opinions and beliefs others hold as if they were your own which is clearly nonsensical. There are people out there who think that I should be killed because I'm transgender, and they sincerely hold this belief. That is not a belief worthy of respect.
Pedophiles harm other people. So society has no choice but to stop them from acting on their impulses.
The fact that I live as a woman harms absolutely no-one.
The link I posted referred to any and all problems with the ordinances, including non-transgender people pretending to be transgender. Did you miss some of the quotes from officials in states with transgender protection laws?
"No problems since passage of 2011 law." - Las Vegas Police Department
"Has not resulted in increased sexual assault". - William Hoshiijo, Executive Director of Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.
"No factual bases for sexual assault fears." - Amy Snierson, executive director of Maine Human RIghts Commission
Sexual assaults stemming from law "Not even remotely a problem" - John Elder, Minneapolis police spokesman.
no one is forcing you to visit a private business where you might feel in danger
Exactly the argument recycled by previous generations opposing civil rights, though with a different targeted vulnerable group.
You and your freedom isn't more equal or worth more than your fellow citizen
Precisely. But my right to safety is more important than other people's right to comfort which is what this ultimately boils down to.
I don't want special rights. It's not a special right for me to use the washroom that pretty much everyone who glances at me will agree is the correct one to use.
The American College of Pediatricians is a right-wing shill group with perhaps 200 members. The real pediatricians' organization in the United States is the American Academy of Pediatricians, with around 60,000 members and which supports transition as an appropriate intervention for transgender people.
So, it's common sense for this guy, a transgender man, to be forced to use the ladies' room?
A handful of cases, out of more than ten thousand sexual assaults in Ontario per year. And U of T may have stopped having gender-neutral bathrooms, but their bathrooms are still for male-identified and female-identified people. They have to be, because that is the law on Ontario.
Asshole pervs can already dress up as women, and if they're convincing enough, they won't be challenged.
Furthermore, is it right to say: "Oh sorry, we cannot grant you civil rights because criminals might abuse that." Apply this thinking to gun laws ("We can't allow you to carry a gun because criminals might abuse that right.") and see how the NC Republicans react.
I do support separate single-use washrooms. Not for transgender people, but for anyone who is paranoid about encountering a transgender person in the washroom. Let the irrationally-fearful people request special accommodation.
No, he should take issue with North Carolina for passing stupid and harmful legislation. Further, it is not the business of any government (or anyone else, for that matter) to dictate what medical procedures someone should or should not have.
Additional laws are unnecessary...
No, laws are necessary. If they weren't, we wouldn't need any civil rights legislation.
In two ways: (1) it's much less risky for a person to use the washroom corresponding to his or her general appearance than the one that doesn't correspond, and (2) the law ensures that people who run establishments and their employees fully understand their responsibilities. There are many instances of transgender people being hassled by security guards who don't know any better.
If you fear harassment due to your lifestyle choices...
If you think being transgender is a "lifestyle choice", you obviously understand nothing about it. It's no more a lifestyle choice than your gender identity or sexual orientation is.
Any time you feel the need to trample someone else's freedom in order to further your cause
How am I trampling someone else's freedom? I present as a woman. Women in public washrooms don't react to me at all (well, OK, one time someone did. She said she really liked my necklace.) So whose freedom am I trampling?
The best solution is the one adopted where I live (Ontario, Canada). In this jurisdiction of over 13 million people, we've had gender identity and gender expression as protected against discrimination for almost 4 years. And since the protection was added in June 2012, there simply have not been problems. Nobody is upset, nobody has abused the rules, and it's just a total non-issue.
Yes, I did couch it that way because that's exactly how it is.
Even if I wear gender-neutral clothing, which I do mostly - my daily outfit of choice is jeans + t-shirt - I look like a woman. It's not something I can control.
Furthermore, I don't see why I need to cater to people's irrational fears. If there were actually evidence that these non-discrimination ordinances cause problems, maybe I'd be more sympathetic. But there's no evidence whatsoever.
Life Site News is a virulently right-wing Evangelical site. And your example is the same as the earlier Daily Caller example: It was a stunt done by a guy specifically to protest protections for transgender people. Further, although the guy was an asshole for doing it, no-one's safety was compromised.
Look, transitioning in many cases the the appropriate and life-saving treatment for people with gender dysphoria. It's not a choice.
First of all, how do you know he's "post-op"?
Secondly, how do you know he was born in NC and not in a jurisdiction that doesn't permit modification to the birth certificate?
Yes, we do touch up our makeup and hair. But guess what? We tend to be fully-dressed when doing that... so what's the big deal?
No, thats a lie. All of the evidence shows that when transgender people are given the right to use facilities corresponding to their gender expression, no-one's safety is compromised.