Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Sinnlos
Sep 5, 2011

Ask me about believing in magical rainbow gold

Higsian posted:

Um, why would gender dysphoria be classified as a disability? As someone without much knowledge of American laws, it seems to me that it would fall under the same category as race and sexuality, and so should presumably be added to whatever protections cover those. To me it seems like adding it to the ADA would be like adding minority races to the ADA.

Gender dysphoria is a medical condition for which treatment exists. The same cannot be said about sexual orientation or race.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Sharkie
Feb 4, 2013

by Fluffdaddy

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

So what's the next "Grand Cause" for people to focus on after marriage equality. There are still a ton of LGBT issues (especially T issues), but I feel like a lot of them, especially the ones noted in the OP, are too complicated or don't have enough mass appeal to become the new marriage equality campaign. Maybe bundling together employment and housing protections would have the best shot at picking up steam, but if we couldn't pass the ERA for women, what are the odds of passing one focusing on LBGT issues?

That's a large part of why I created this thread. The Equality Act would help a lot; though I'm not super optimistic about the odds of it passing. Which is why I think it's naive when people act like marriage equality is the be-all end-all of gay rights, or that legal equality is due any week now. That being said, this might end up playing out at the local and state level, which is very good news for some people (San Antonio for example), but leaves many other behind, and as we've seen with gay marriage, that's not necessarily a successful strategy, at least when you're looking at the legislature. State-level judicial rulings may end up being vitally important here, too. Especially a case that ends up reaching the Supreme Court would be nice, but who knows what or when that will be.

Futuresight
Oct 11, 2012

IT'S ALL TURNED TO SHIT!

Sinnlos posted:

Gender dysphoria is a medical condition for which treatment exists. The same cannot be said about sexual orientation or race.

Yeah but the discrimination doesn't come from the condition itself. It comes from how particular treatments clash with established gender norms.

Actually, I wrote that above and then figured out my problem with it, I was thinking purely of transformation and not the specific mental condition. It's okay to add gender dysphoria to the ADA as a mental disability because I imagine you could be discriminated against purely because of the condition even without physically or legally changing your gender. But I think trans also needs to be added to/there needs to be some sort of "don't discriminate against people who are different from you/social norms" kind of law because adding gender dysphoria to the ADA doesn't cover things like hermaphroditism, effeminate men, masculine women, etc which are all similar kinds of problems.

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth

Higsian posted:

Yeah but the discrimination doesn't come from the condition itself. It comes from how particular treatments clash with established gender norms.

Actually, I wrote that above and then figured out my problem with it, I was thinking purely of transformation and not the specific mental condition. It's okay to add gender dysphoria to the ADA as a mental disability because I imagine you could be discriminated against purely because of the condition even without physically or legally changing your gender. But I think trans also needs to be added to/there needs to be some sort of "don't discriminate against people who are different from you/social norms" kind of law because adding gender dysphoria to the ADA doesn't cover things like hermaphroditism, effeminate men, masculine women, etc which are all similar kinds of problems.

Being an effeminate man doesn't cause me to have legitimate dysphoria regarding my identity, though? Like, it's called gender dysphoria for a reason, people with it experience extreme discomfort with the gender they were born as so, say, telling a trans woman she can't wear a female uniform at the workplace can trigger that and cause them actual problems. Calling me a sissy pussbaby because I tear up at sad movies is a dick move and yea if I was somehow fired for crying like a little bitch at Hachi: A Dog’s Tale that probably shouldn't fly, but that's a super different situation. I'm not facing the possibility of being impeded in my daily life by that.


Spacewolf posted:

But is it so surprising?

Answer me this, all of you:

What's the rate of participation in the labor force for civilian Americans over 16? 30% of Americans without a disability between 16 and 64 are classified as "Not in the Labor Force"

What's the rate of participation in the labor force for people of the same age group with disabilities? 15% are unemployed as of February 2009 (Yes, I know it's old, the statistics are only recently being collected), 79% are "Not in the labor force" and not counted as unemployed because they aren't looking for work.

Bluntly put...It's not remotely a fair fight. Most people with gender dysphoria have jobs. Can get jobs. Maybe not the jobs they'd like. Maybe not the jobs they can qualify for. But jobs.

(My source for the employment data is here)

Meanwhile, they're risking the lives of folks who often enough can't get jobs, or can't work period. Which is what you would do by loading the ADA with this. You would risk the lives and livelihoods of people with no other option. Because every time you add something, you make the definition of disability (and from that, the entire ADA) that much easier to attack.

FYI when gays use(d) this logic to exclude gender identity from stuff like ENDA we were rightly called huge assholes for throwing people suffering just as bad, or worse, than us under the bus out of political cowardice. At least we had the excuse of 'well it's a similar fight of course we're gonna come back for you guys' when we did it, don't know how disabled people can spin it if this becomes A Thing!

Sharkie
Feb 4, 2013

by Fluffdaddy

Higsian posted:

Yeah but the discrimination doesn't come from the condition itself. It comes from how particular treatments clash with established gender norms.

Actually, I wrote that above and then figured out my problem with it, I was thinking purely of transformation and not the specific mental condition. It's okay to add gender dysphoria to the ADA as a mental disability because I imagine you could be discriminated against purely because of the condition even without physically or legally changing your gender. But I think trans also needs to be added to/there needs to be some sort of "don't discriminate against people who are different from you/social norms" kind of law because adding gender dysphoria to the ADA doesn't cover things like hermaphroditism, effeminate men, masculine women, etc which are all similar kinds of problems.

Keep in mind that Gender Dysphoria is an adaptation of the earlier DSM's "Gender Identity Disorder," not a new addition.

Title VII provides protection in some of these cases ("masculine women," etc):

quote:

http://www.franczek.com/frontcenter-EEOC_Transgender_Status_Gender_Identity.html
In Price Waterhouse, the Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of gender stereotype (e.g., a woman denied partnership in a company because she was too “macho” and not “feminine” enough) is sex-based discrimination prohibited under Title VII. Several United States Circuit Courts of Appeals have subsequently held that under this holding, Title VII bars “not just discrimination because of biological sex, but also gender stereotyping—failing to act and appear according to expectations defined by gender.” Following this approach, the Commission reasoned that when an employer discriminates against someone because the person is transgender, the disparate treatment is “related to the sex of the victim.” According to the Commission, this includes a person allegedly discriminated against for expressing his or her gender in a non-stereotypical fashion, and a person allegedly discriminated against because an employer is uncomfortable with or dislikes the fact that he or she has or is transitioning from one gender to another

A list of cases is available on the EEOC's website.

Now, as for why Title VII doesn't mean employment equality for gay and transgender Americans? Well, it's complicated. But basically courts are still able to selectively interpret it. See Eure v The Sage Corp.

quote:

http://transworkplace.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-court-gets-it-wrong-in-eure-v-sage.html
The Court also cited to the following statement in Schroer v. Billington:

"While I agreed with the Sixth Circuit that transsexuality is not a bar to a sex stereotyping claim, I took the position that `such a claim must actually arise from the employee's appearance or conduct and the employer's stereotypical perceptions.' In other words, `a Price Waterhouse claim could not be supported by facts showing that [an adverse employment action] resulted solely from [the plaintiff's] disclosure of her gender dysphoria'"

Sharkie fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Aug 26, 2015

Futuresight
Oct 11, 2012

IT'S ALL TURNED TO SHIT!

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Being an effeminate man doesn't cause me to have legitimate dysphoria regarding my identity, though? Like, it's called gender dysphoria for a reason, people with it experience extreme discomfort with the gender they were born as so, say, telling a trans woman she can't wear a female uniform at the workplace can trigger that and cause them actual problems. Calling me a sissy pussbaby because I tear up at sad movies is a dick move and yea if I was somehow fired for crying like a little bitch at Hachi: A Dog’s Tale that probably shouldn't fly, but that's a super different situation. I'm not facing the possibility of being impeded in my daily life by that.

I'm talking purely in terms of discrimination there. It comes from the same kind of thinking within the perpetrator.

Hollismason
Jun 30, 2007

Witchfinder General

The ADA is first and foremost a civil rights law. It is enforced in civil law by the Justice Department and litigators.The ADA does not address disabled persons, it addresses persons who have a disability. The idea that a disability has to make you less of a person in order to gain the protections of the ADA is a falsehood. It's also semantically incorrect to refer to someone as a disabled person.

I am a person with a disability, one that drastically impacts my life. I am also queer. The argument for not including persons who are transgender in the ADA falls flat on two specific reasons because of bad logic. The ADA has two functions defining legally what it's definitionof disability is and setting specific practices along with standards of accommodation.It's a false statement to say a person who is transgender is disabled. They are not "disabled" this is why we say person with a disability because saying it the other way is literally semantically incorrect. The meaning of disability is already defined in the ADA.

quote:



The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual




It is a true statement that persons who are transgender are also persons with a disability.

A person who is transgender does in fact have a medical condition called Gender Dysphoria. They also sometimes require medications and sometimes surgery.

The ADA directly states that only gender disorders that are a sexual in nature are excluded.

The ADA clearly defines what is excluded from the ADA and currently Gender Dysphoria is not classified as a disorder. It is also not a sexual behavior disorder.

quote:


(b) Certain conditions

Under this chapter, the term "disability" shall not include

(1) transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;

(2) compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania; or

(3) psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from current illegal use of drugs.

Again a person who is transgender is not suffering from a sexual behavior disorder. Gender is not related to sexual orientation.

This portion of the ADA is still operating under antiquated terms and definitions as well as a deep misunderstanding of transgenderism. Even as the ADA is written now currently persons who are diagnosed as being transgender should and do have the rights afforded to them in the ADA because they were diagnosed with a medical condition that is no a sexual behavior disorder and that requires medical treatment.

Hollismason fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Aug 26, 2015

BENGHAZI 2
Oct 13, 2007

by Cyrano4747

Higsian posted:

I'm talking purely in terms of discrimination there. It comes from the same kind of thinking within the perpetrator.

Gonna go out on a limb and say "that crazy man wants to chop off his peepee" and "what a baby crying at that movie" do not come from the same kind of thinking

Futuresight
Oct 11, 2012

IT'S ALL TURNED TO SHIT!
When I said effeminate I was talking mannerisms and vocal patterns. And I was referring to the "this aint right" reaction people have to things falling outside perceived gender norms.


EDIT: Also I don't mean anything by it. I'm not trying to diminish any side of the comparison. It's just a semantic argument for me at this point so I can drop it if you like.

Futuresight fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Aug 26, 2015

Effectronica
May 31, 2011
Fallen Rib
I think that the next big struggles will center around bullying/harassment on the LGB end, and getting included in federal civil rights laws on the T end. Not so much because the former is the worthiest, but because housing/employment discrimination will probably have a lot more tepid support from well-off LGB people.

MaxxBot
Oct 6, 2003

you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

So what's the next "Grand Cause" for people to focus on after marriage equality. There are still a ton of LGBT issues (especially T issues), but I feel like a lot of them, especially the ones noted in the OP, are too complicated or don't have enough mass appeal to become the new marriage equality campaign. Maybe bundling together employment and housing protections would have the best shot at picking up steam, but if we couldn't pass the ERA for women, what are the odds of passing one focusing on LBGT issues?

ERA was s constitutional amendment which is an entirely different story compared to something like ENDA. The votes for ENDA were most likely there last congress but Boehner simply refused to bring it up for a vote. It all comes down to convincing whatever GOP shithead is in leadership to allow it to go to the floor, as I don't see the Dems having both chambers and the presidency anytime soon.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Spacewolf posted:

OK, I fairly got attacked by a bunch of people, so I'm going to lay out my position a bit more.

The way I see it, disability protections are something that are only tolerated by people so far as they are limited.

Well stop right here, as "the way you see it" is wrong. Honestly that's more of a thing that applies to disabled protection BEFORE the ADA existed, when there was some minor social security stuff for people with severe disabilities, and some programs like free record players and records for the blind. After the ADA, which was honestly the biggest advancement for disabled people that any country had ever done at the point, and is still yards ahead of where many other developed countries go, it became a thing where whatever your disability is people can't legally get away with saying it ain't pure enough.

Badger of Basra posted:

Employment and housing are probably the "easiest" remaining ones (especially employment). I'm not sure if employment could be forced by the Supreme Court but it's definitely something I can see passing in a large amount of blue (and maybe even some purple) states.

And here's a set of maps of progress for that:




Klaus88
Jan 23, 2011

Violence has its own economy, therefore be thoughtful and precise in your investment
When large sections of the country can be defined as worst then Floria, you know something is hosed.

Also, What the Christ Idaho and Nebraska.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Klaus88 posted:

When large sections of the country can be defined as worst then Floria, you know something is hosed.

Also, What the Christ Idaho and Nebraska.

Do you mean "why do Idaho and Nebraska have any counties with LGBT protections?" Because the reason for that is that those are where their biggest cities are, or where major companies are that want to ensure they can attract nationwide talent by making sure they don't have to worry about them and their families being discriminated against.

Sharkie
Feb 4, 2013

by Fluffdaddy

Effectronica posted:

I think that the next big struggles will center around bullying/harassment on the LGB end, and getting included in federal civil rights laws on the T end. Not so much because the former is the worthiest, but because housing/employment discrimination will probably have a lot more tepid support from well-off LGB people.

Is there anything new trying to get done about lgbt bullying and harassment? And yeah, I think that for some lgb people, housing and employment discrimination isn't something that's on their radar as much as marriage has recently been, simply because they are in a position to not have to deal with it, or have more options available. Awareness is also an issue. I don't have the article on hand but it reported something over 60% of Americans were unaware that states legalize housing/employment discrimination.

Nintendo Kid posted:

Do you mean "why do Idaho and Nebraska have any counties with LGBT protections?" Because the reason for that is that those are where their biggest cities are, or where major companies are that want to ensure they can attract nationwide talent by making sure they don't have to worry about them and their families being discriminated against.

Thanks for those maps. The second one also reminds me of voting patterns broken down at the county level: little islands of blue in seas of red. Though in this case obviously they are fewer and farther between.

Hollismason
Jun 30, 2007

Witchfinder General

It would be nice to see a federal law disallowing conversion therapy. You could see it happen without a law being passed. Only 4 states disallow it and it is basically just torture mentally and sometimes physically. Lemme dig up a good map.

Took this from VOX

California, Oregon, Illinois, New Jersey, Washington D.C. bans it as well.



Hollismason fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Aug 27, 2015

Quorum
Sep 24, 2014

REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

Hollismason posted:

It would be nice to see a federal law disallowing conversion therapy. You could see it happen without a law being passed. Only 4 states disallow it and it is basically just torture mentally and sometimes physically. Lemme dig up a good map.

Took this from VOX

California, Oregon, Illinois, New Jersey, Washington D.C. bans it as well.





Last time this came up I think someone pointed out that there are several more states with regulatory, but not legislative, barriers to such therapy, so that it's functionally illegal. I don't know how many of such states there are, though.

Hollismason
Jun 30, 2007

Witchfinder General

Quorum posted:

Last time this came up I think someone pointed out that there are several more states with regulatory, but not legislative, barriers to such therapy, so that it's functionally illegal. I don't know how many of such states there are, though.

I'll have to check into that, I know it's completely legal in multiple states and in some states the organizations claim to be "betterment christian" camps but really it's just conversion therapy by another name.

Gyre
Feb 25, 2007

Hollismason posted:

They are not "disabled" this is why we say person with a disability because saying it the other way is literally semantically incorrect. The meaning of disability is already defined in the ADA.

We, in English, have produced an adjective for disability based on its related verb, "to disable". "Jeweled", "covered", and "gilded" form the same way as referring to objects are "with jewels/cover/gilding". In fact, disable is unusual in that it isn't an adjective, unlike "able" itself. I don't know why this is the case but it nonetheless is for now, because language can change. Regardless, disabled person is perfectly fine semantically and syntactically; it follows the rules of English that we acquire as children.

If you want to argue we should put people first when discussing them and that's why we should use "person with disability" that's fine. But your linguistic argument is wrong.

Hollismason
Jun 30, 2007

Witchfinder General

Gyre posted:

We, in English, have produced an adjective for disability based on its related verb, "to disable". "Jeweled", "covered", and "gilded" form the same way as referring to objects are "with jewels/cover/gilding". In fact, disable is unusual in that it isn't an adjective, unlike "able" itself. I don't know why this is the case but it nonetheless is for now, because language can change. Regardless, disabled person is perfectly fine semantically and syntactically; it follows the rules of English that we acquire as children.

If you want to argue we should put people first when discussing them and that's why we should use "person with disability" that's fine. But your linguistic argument is wrong.

Thank you internet person for speaking for the entire English speaking world. Seriously we?

Also , it is incorrect because the definition of disabled also means that something is not working. If you say disabled alarm, it means the alarm doesn't work. So yeah it's linguistically saying that the person doesn't work. Which is a negative connotation on the person and not the condition they have. It is also because we put the person first.

We think you should kindly go gently caress yourself.

Hollismason fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Aug 29, 2015

Quorum
Sep 24, 2014

REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?
Ok yeah but I don't think it's about logic, Rick, I-I think the word has become a symbolic issue for powerful groups that feel like they're doing the right thing.

(Which isn't to dismiss it; symbolic issues are important too.)

Quorum fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Aug 29, 2015

Gyre
Feb 25, 2007

Hollismason posted:

Thank you internet person for speaking for the entire English speaking world. Seriously we?

Also , it is incorrect because the definition of disabled also means that something is not working. If you say disabled alarm, it means the alarm doesn't work. So yeah it's linguistically saying that the person doesn't work. Which is a negative connotation on the person and not the condition they have. It is also because we put the person first.

We think you should kindly go gently caress yourself.

What I did was point out that something is semantically and syntactically perfectly fine from a linguistic point of view. Per the OED:

quote:

2. Of a person: having a physical or mental condition which limits activity, movement, sensation, etc. Also occas. of a part of the body. Cf. learning disabled adj. at learning n. Additions.

That means that in English, that is how it is used. Not how it should be used, not if it's bad or good, but the reality of the English language as it stands. This can change over time.

Now, you say (and rightly so) that semantically it has bad connotations because disabled also means:

quote:

1. gen. Rendered incapable of action or use; incapacitated; taken out of service

and that is a perfectly valid complaint. But semantically "disabled person" does not stop meaning "a person with a disability" regardless of any bad connotations. You have to understand that even the most terrible and horrible of words are semantically valid, as long as they mean what they mean. They don't stop being semantically valid even though people shouldn't say them.

I say this as a person with a disability pursuing a linguistics degree. I'm tired of people making wrong but well-intentioned linguistic arguments about the "validity" of phrases when there are plenty of good arguments that don't rely on bad linguistics: it makes people feel as though they're broken, it has bad connotations (a perfectly valid linguistic argument!), etc. I've heard similarly mistaken thoughts regarding the word "handicapped", with people disliking it based on false etymology rather than various other good reasons.

Personally, I'm fine with being a "disabled person" rather than a "person with a disability" because feels weird to discard the adjectival form, regardless of connotations, but that's only my thoughts and has nothing to do with my previous argument.

Hollismason
Jun 30, 2007

Witchfinder General

Gyre posted:

What I did was point out that something is semantically and syntactically perfectly fine from a linguistic point of view. Per the OED:


That means that in English, that is how it is used. Not how it should be used, not if it's bad or good, but the reality of the English language as it stands. This can change over time.

Now, you say (and rightly so) that semantically it has bad connotations because disabled also means:


and that is a perfectly valid complaint. But semantically "disabled person" does not stop meaning "a person with a disability" regardless of any bad connotations. You have to understand that even the most terrible and horrible of words are semantically valid, as long as they mean what they mean. They don't stop being semantically valid even though people shouldn't say them.

I say this as a person with a disability pursuing a linguistics degree. I'm tired of people making wrong but well-intentioned linguistic arguments about the "validity" of phrases when there are plenty of good arguments that don't rely on bad linguistics: it makes people feel as though they're broken, it has bad connotations (a perfectly valid linguistic argument!), etc. I've heard similarly mistaken thoughts regarding the word "handicapped", with people disliking it based on false etymology rather than various other good reasons.

Personally, I'm fine with being a "disabled person" rather than a "person with a disability" because feels weird to discard the adjectival form, regardless of connotations, but that's only my thoughts and has nothing to do with my previous argument.

Good then we are both in agreement that the phrase should not be used and what it can mean linguistically.

the moose
Nov 7, 2009

Type: Electric Swing

Sinnlos posted:

Gender dysphoria is a medical condition for which treatment exists. The same cannot be said about sexual orientation or race.

Yes but gender dysphoria by itself doesnt impair some one like blindness. Gender dysphoria should be treated and can cause problems but I would not consider it a disability. What else does the ADA cover besides ramps and parking spaces that trans people should be covered?

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

the moose posted:

What else does the ADA cover besides ramps and parking spaces that trans people should be covered?

Not being discriminated against.

mandatory lesbian
Dec 18, 2012

the moose posted:

Yes but gender dysphoria by itself doesnt impair some one like blindness. Gender dysphoria should be treated and can cause problems but I would not consider it a disability. What else does the ADA cover besides ramps and parking spaces that trans people should be covered?

So you've never interacted with a transperson huh

Sharkie
Feb 4, 2013

by Fluffdaddy

the moose posted:

Yes but gender dysphoria by itself doesnt impair some one like blindness. Gender dysphoria should be treated and can cause problems but I would not consider it a disability. What else does the ADA cover besides ramps and parking spaces that trans people should be covered?

In addition to what computer parts and mandatory lesbian said, remember that the only reason gender dysphoria isn't already covered by the ADA is that it was one of a few conditions explicitly excluded when the ADA passed congress. Specifically, congress excluded sexual disorders (which is what gender identity disorder, as it was then known, was at the time classified as) from the ADA.

Sharkie fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Aug 30, 2015

Hollismason
Jun 30, 2007

Witchfinder General

What the ADA does is establish persons with a disability as a protected class. The ADA is first and foremost a civil rights law. it protects persons with a disability from discrimination in the workplace, housing, employment, education, public transportation...

http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.ht

Sharkie posted:

In addition to what computer parts and mandatory lesbian said, remember that the only reason gender dysphoria isn't already covered by the ADA is that it was one of a few conditions explicitly excluded when the ADA passed congress. Specifically, congress excluded sexual disorders (which is what gender identity disorder, as it was then known, was at the time classified as) from the ADA.

I actually believe the ADA does in fact as written currently cover Gender Dysphoria because it has been changed to 1) not be a sexual disorder 2) is no longer a disorder 3) The ADA specifically refers to Gender Dysphoria disorders , which no longer exist according APA.

Sharkie
Feb 4, 2013

by Fluffdaddy
Here's a very good article about the intersection of transgender and undocumented migrant rights: http://interactive.fusion.net/trans/ (warning, there are some pretty bad stories about sexual assault in it): http://interactive.fusion.net/trans/



Hillary Clinton has been getting some pressure about trans rights in ICE detention and prison. So far her response has been....not resounding. But she has acknowledged it:

http://fusion.net/story/131166/hillary-clinton-makes-transgender-immigrants-a-campaign-issue/

quote:

“I think we have to do more to provide safe environments for vulnerable populations,” Clinton said in response to a question about transgender immigrants being detained in institutions that don’t correspond with their self-identified gender.

“I don’t think we should, you know, put children and vulnerable people into big detention facilities because I think they are at risk. I think their physical and mental health are at risk,” Clinton said in response to another question about trans asylum seekers. She also noted that she would be in favor of changing some detention processes.

Representatives of BlackLivesMatter disrupted a HRC campaign event to talk about violence against black trans women and were brushed off.

I'm hoping the same happens with Bernie Sanders, as I think it would give him an opportunity to talk about what he feels he can do w/r/t trans people of color.

Sharkie
Feb 4, 2013

by Fluffdaddy
Is your state fighting to restrict LGBT rights? There's a good chance it is!
http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/documents/2015_StateLegislation-Document_2.pdf

quote:

Seemingly the most popular form of bill so far in the 2015 legislative session, these RFRAs require the state government to have a “compelling interest” before it can “substantially burden” personal religious practice. This sounds nice on paper, but who decides what counts as a burden? These bills are often incredibly vague and light on details — usually intentionally. In practice, most of these bills could allow individuals to use religion to challenge or opt out of state and local laws, including local laws that protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination. The evangelical owner of a business providing a secular service could sue claiming that their personal faith empowers them to refuse to hire Jews, divorcees, or LGBT people. A landlord could claim the right to refuse to rent an apartment to a Muslim or a transgender person.

By passing a state RFRA, the state puts the power to decide what constitutes religious discrimination in the hands of the state Supreme Court. Given the fact that state Supreme
Courts tend to reflect the leanings of the state as a whole, this places a gay couple in Mississippi at much greater risk than a gay couple in Rhode Island.

In addition, OK is fighting to protect conversion therapy, 10 states are fighting to restrict trans people's rights, TX, WV, AR, and MS are trying to, or have already, overrule local LGBT ordinances

Once again, education is a very important part of fighting these kinds of restrictions. Most Americans don't know that in many states, employment and housing discrimination is legal.

Mr Ice Cream Glove
Apr 22, 2007

Good way to become angry/depressed


https://mobile.twitter.com/shadipetosky

Read the last 100 tweets about how this woman was held at TSA because of "an anomaly"

Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Sep 22, 2015

Quorum
Sep 24, 2014

REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

This map is pretty upsetting but it would be more useful if it made distinctions between bills filed by rogue angry hyper-conservative legislators with no chance of ever passing and bills that are going to be swept into law upon a tide of bigot tears. Legislators can file literally any sort of bill they want; if a state legislator wished he could file a bill to outlaw Obama and provide for mandatory babies for all women.

I mean, I know its main purpose is fundraising so they can fight these things but I'd like to know which of these states has a chance of actually ending up with one of these things.

Edmund Lava
Sep 8, 2004

Hey, I'm from Brooklyn. I'm going to call myself Mr. Friendly.

In incredibly local news, my favorite religion and sex Ed teacher from high school is dead today. After almost 40 years of teaching she was unjustly fired for coming out as her true gender. RIP Marla
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/marla-krolikowskii-transgender-teacher_n_3903603.html

The MUMPSorceress
Jan 6, 2012


^SHTPSTS

Gary’s Answer

Gyre posted:

What I did was point out that something is semantically and syntactically perfectly fine from a linguistic point of view. Per the OED:


That means that in English, that is how it is used. Not how it should be used, not if it's bad or good, but the reality of the English language as it stands. This can change over time.

Now, you say (and rightly so) that semantically it has bad connotations because disabled also means:


and that is a perfectly valid complaint. But semantically "disabled person" does not stop meaning "a person with a disability" regardless of any bad connotations. You have to understand that even the most terrible and horrible of words are semantically valid, as long as they mean what they mean. They don't stop being semantically valid even though people shouldn't say them.

I say this as a person with a disability pursuing a linguistics degree. I'm tired of people making wrong but well-intentioned linguistic arguments about the "validity" of phrases when there are plenty of good arguments that don't rely on bad linguistics: it makes people feel as though they're broken, it has bad connotations (a perfectly valid linguistic argument!), etc. I've heard similarly mistaken thoughts regarding the word "handicapped", with people disliking it based on false etymology rather than various other good reasons.

Personally, I'm fine with being a "disabled person" rather than a "person with a disability" because feels weird to discard the adjectival form, regardless of connotations, but that's only my thoughts and has nothing to do with my previous argument.

How does it feel to have made this post in a thread where even fishmech has made good and useful contributions?

Hollismason
Jun 30, 2007

Witchfinder General

It kind of get's a bit glossed over as I know abortion rights are not a "key issue" among gay men, but the defunding of plan parenthood is a big deal. Specifically in places like New Orleans and the southern states they have great HIV teaching outreach programs where you don't usually find a LGBT center that fills that role

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

E-Tank
Aug 4, 2011

You know, the poo poo you're saying sounds an awful lot like the poo poo we've seen on FReep. "NO MORE GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS" and in the same breath "KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE!"

You're getting help. That's awesome! Now we want to get other people he- Wait what? No? You don't want people, sometimes people even worse off than you, to get help? Because presumably there'll be less for you?

41% of transgender people attempt suicide. A lot of them happen because transitioning is expensive because it's considered a 'cosmetic' surgery so they just can't do it. The alternative: Living in a body that they don't feel comfortable in, that they actively feel makes them ugly, or they hate and disgust. Imagine waking up every morning and catching a glimpse of yourself in the mirror, and thinking you're the ugliest piece of poo poo. Knowing that so many people think you're sick and twisted. Or that you're a rapist. Or that you molest kids because if you're transgender you're just a monster in every sense of the word.

So you're saying that since you're set and happy and safe, you don't want others to get any help because oh god it *might*. *MIGHT* impact you in some way. I mean christ, if you at least admitted that you just hate transgender people I might have a bit more respect for your willingness to speak the truth, but to hide behind 'I'm terrified of losing my own disability help' when there's basically no way anyone would ever try and vote to destroy ADA without committing political suicide, I mean unless they're tea partiers but the chances of them succeeding are slim to nil.


the moose posted:

Yes but gender dysphoria by itself doesnt impair some one like blindness. Gender dysphoria should be treated and can cause problems but I would not consider it a disability. What else does the ADA cover besides ramps and parking spaces that trans people should be covered?

Lets see, they could help cover surgeries and treatments to help them not suffer quite as much Gender dysphoria. They could ensure workplaces have to allow them to go into their chosen gender's bathroom. They could create more awareness that Transgenderism is a thing and not insulted simply because someone is different. They could help set up group therapy with other transgender people to share stories and offer support. They could do a lot of loving things. It's not just ramps and parking spaces or making sure urinals are just the right distance from the floor like loving rear end in a top hat libertarians think.

  • Locked thread