|
A huge loss for transphobiaquote:SAN FRANCISCO – referendum to overturn a California law that gives transgender students protections including the right to use the public school restrooms of their choice will not appear on the November ballot after its backers failed to gather enough voter signatures to qualify the measure, the secretary of state said Monday. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...itics+-+Text%29
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Stupid question to address the arguments of opponents: if some cismale kid is being a dumbass and says, "Hurr, I want to hang out in the girls locker room because I feel like a girl!" does a principal basically say, "No, you don't actually identify as transgender and you're just being a little poo poo!"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
staticman posted:
Bosma actually sent the bill back to committee, essentially killing the amendment that would allow religious institutions to discriminate based on religion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Stupid question to address the arguments of opponents: if some cismale kid is being a dumbass and says, "Hurr, I want to hang out in the girls locker room because I feel like a girl!" does a principal basically say, "No, you don't actually identify as transgender and you're just being a little poo poo!"? Pretty sure they inform the kid that if they want to do that they have to be willing to show up to school as a girl for the remainder of their time there and all that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
quote:They submitted 619,381, but county election officers found just 487,484 of them to be valid. So did someone just sit down and write out over a hundred thousand fake names? I wonder how many dead people signed up!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:So did someone just sit down and write out over a hundred thousand fake names? I wonder how many dead people signed up! Personally, I blame ACORN.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:So did someone just sit down and write out over a hundred thousand fake names? I wonder how many dead people signed up! More likely, a lot of people signed twice. It's a natural consequence of passing a petition around heavily in small communities - people forget they signed the first time. I'd expect there would also be some "crisis pregnancy center effect" going on, too: "this is really really important so God says it's OK to lie!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:So did someone just sit down and write out over a hundred thousand fake names? I wonder how many dead people signed up! It is actually a fairly common problem when gathering petitions. In any case where signatures need to be gathered (might be for ballot initiatives or referendum, to start a re-call process for a law or candidate, or to get a candidate's name on a ballot in a primary or general election), those who take their job seriously typically gather 2-3x the amount required because they know going in so many will be disqualified. If you have to gather depending on Congressional district, for example, people's addresses might not match up or whatever. Some signatures might be deemed ineligible. Some maybe signed twice. Other times, politics is involved as well, usually involving third/minor/independent candidates getting ballot access but sometimes machine politics as well if it is a one party rule city/county/state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Stupid question to address the arguments of opponents: if some cismale kid is being a dumbass and says, "Hurr, I want to hang out in the girls locker room because I feel like a girl!" does a principal basically say, "No, you don't actually identify as transgender and you're just being a little poo poo!"? Find one example of that actually happening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
CNN is thinking a veto for AZ's newest flavor of terrible. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/25/politics/brewer-arizona-religious-freedom/index.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
SLOSifl posted:If you have to address an argument with stupid hypothetical questions then it's a stupid argument. Hope that helps. It's not really helpful to immediately attack people who are genuinely curious about something, and if you just dismiss conservative arguments with "that's stupid" they're going to think you're stupid because that's such a cop out response. I disagree with your assertion that hypotheticals aren't useful either, pretty much every argument out there against the "religious freedom" bills out there right now involve hypotheticals that probably wouldn't actually happen but potentially could if the law were passed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:It's not really helpful to immediately attack people who are genuinely curious about something, and if you just dismiss conservative arguments with "that's stupid" they're going to think you're stupid because that's such a cop out response. I agree that dismissing the hypothetical out of hand is unhelpful (as usual, I agree with Fishmech here), but I'm a little baffled by your comment about the 'religious freedom bills'. Are you suggesting that they most likely wouldn't be used to deny service to gays?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:I agree that dismissing the hypothetical out of hand is unhelpful (as usual, I agree with Fishmech here), but I'm a little baffled by your comment about the 'religious freedom bills'. Are you suggesting that they most likely wouldn't be used to deny service to gays? They would probably embolden already anti-gay people to discriminate but if they had two brain cells to rub together they would continue legally discriminating against gays in a discreet manner as they have been doing all these years due to the fact that none of these states have an ENDA law. I was thinking more along the lines of how people have used ridiculous hypotheticals about what people could claim as "religious freedom" under this law. In reality these hypotheticals won't happen because other than some crazy rogue judge you're not going to have judges for example allowing people to beat their kids under "religious freedom." The hypotheticals are useful because they are trying to highlight how these bills are a smokescreen to promote discrimination against gays. When these people are asked to define the limits of religious freedom or to provide examples of legitimate expression of religious freedom that these bills protect they choke up because this isn't all about "religious freedom" in the abstract but really all about gays. The hypotheticals are useful to point out badly written, overbroad laws that invite abuse even if in reality such abuses probably would rarely occur because the judicial system would have the burden of mitigating the harm of this clusterfuck of a law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Michigan's case starts tomorrow. This article has a live update stream from the reporter at the courthouse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:This article has a live update stream from the reporter at the courthouse. Nothing quite like a red sign screaming "traditional marriage" to make you look like an rear end in a top hat. Although I can't be mad at the person with the "I peacefully support biblical marriage" sign, it sounds like something I would see on my 90 year old grandmother's refrigerator. Thanks for the link, I will be following with bated breath. Just maybe we'll get some sense in this stupid state E. The judge seems pretty at ease for such a big case CuddleCryptid fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:CNN is thinking a veto for AZ's newest flavor of terrible. I believe it will get vetoed, Brewer may be ultra conservative but when you have GOP establishment coming out against it I feel somewhat hopeful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:It's not really helpful to immediately attack people who are genuinely curious about something, and if you just dismiss conservative arguments with "that's stupid" they're going to think you're stupid because that's such a cop out response. What if that decision is to just open up all locker rooms and bathrooms to all students, because it's no longer possible to stop kids from doing whatever they want? Or maybe she will force the kid to dress like a girl and go by a girl's name. The principal could also talk to the kid, or the parents, or both. Perhaps the guidance counselor could do that instead. Maybe the kid is actually seeking attention by acting out some deeper feelings about his own gender identity. Coming up with unlikely situations that detract from the actual people the law is supposed to help isn't very productive. Instead of asking about how to handle some horny kid who tries to get into the wrong locker room, how about asking how a teenager with gender identity problems is treated now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I believe it will get vetoed, Brewer may be ultra conservative but when you have GOP establishment coming out against it I feel somewhat hopeful. Even some of the state senators who voted 'yes' on it are now backing off. Both McCain and Flake have said she should veto it. I think, among other things, they're starting to worry about AZ losing the Super Bowl next year (which would be a repeat for the state. AZ lost one in the 90s shortly after the state voted 'no' on a referendum to recognize MLK Jr Day).
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
SLOSifl posted:Coming up with unlikely situations that detract from the actual people the law is supposed to help isn't very productive. Instead of asking about how to handle some horny kid who tries to get into the wrong locker room, how about asking how a teenager with gender identity problems is treated now? Well that law is actually law right now, the petition was for an attempt to remove that law. Under the provisions of the law in place, the school administration is to determine if the kid in question is willing to stick to living as another gender at school all the time, which would tend to include things like "you can't just say you are, wait 3 days to peek in the girl's lockers, and then say you changed your mind and go back to being treated as a dude". So to the question the person was actually asking, we're talking about a kid being willing to go to school and be treated as the opposite gender from what they really identify as, for at least the rest of the semester if not the rest of the school year at minimum, all for the sake of being able to sneak a peek into a locker room once. I'd say someone willing to go through with all that is either really dedicated, really stupid, or actually had some kind of gender issues they need to work through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:Even some of the state senators who voted 'yes' on it are now backing off. Both McCain and Flake have said she should veto it. I think, among other things, they're starting to worry about AZ losing the Super Bowl next year (which would be a repeat for the state. AZ lost one in the 90s shortly after the state voted 'no' on a referendum to recognize MLK Jr Day). Anyone unfamiliar with this should familiarize themselves with Evan Mecham, the guy was essentially a freeper as governor. He hated gays even more than he hated blacks and ironically enough a gay man ended up being partly responsible for getting his rear end booted out of office.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Anyone unfamiliar with this should familiarize themselves with Evan Mecham, the guy was essentially a freeper as governor. He hated gays even more than he hated blacks and ironically enough a gay man ended up being partly responsible for getting his rear end booted out of office. He's the subject of the Public Enemy song "By the time I get to Arizona", is he not? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrFOb_f7ubw
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Anyone unfamiliar with this should familiarize themselves with Evan Mecham, the guy was essentially a freeper as governor. He hated gays even more than he hated blacks and ironically enough a gay man ended up being partly responsible for getting his rear end booted out of office. FuzzySkinner posted:He's the subject of the Public Enemy song "By the time I get to Arizona", is he not? Also, Mecham wasn't responsible directly for Arizona losing the Super Bowl. Arizona voters were responsible for it, defeating a ballot initiative to recognize the holiday. What the gently caress, Arizona. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
A Ugandan paper post the names of 200 alleged "homos". Again.quote:The Red Pepper tabloid published the names — and some pictures — of alleged homosexuals in a front-page story under the headline: "EXPOSED!" The list included prominent Ugandan gay activists such as Pepe Julian Onziema, who has repeatedly warned that Uganda's new anti-gay law could spark violence against homosexuals. A popular Ugandan hip-hop star as well as a Catholic priest are also on the list. Few Ugandans identify themselves publicly as gay, and the tabloid's publication of alleged homosexuals recalled a similar list published in 2011 by a now-defunct tabloid that called for the execution of gays. A Ugandan judge later condemned the outing of homosexuals in a country where gays face severe discrimination, saying it amounted to an invasion of privacy. A prominent Ugandan gay activist, David Kato, was killed after that list came out, and activists said at the time that they believed he was targeted because of his work promoting gay rights in Uganda. "The media witch hunt is back," tweeted Jacqueline Kasha, a well-known Ugandan lesbian activist who is among those listed in the Red Pepper story. Last time this happened, David Kato was one of the names on the list, and was murdered shortly after. Literally EVERYONE knows how this is going to end. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
quote:A Ugandan newspaper published a list Tuesday of what it called the country's "200 top" homosexuals "Hey, I made the list for the country's Top 200 Homosexuals... that's good right?" 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
The Sexiest 200 Men we Want Dead as voted by People
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
But where am I going to find 200 bottoms?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 01:47
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:But where am I going to find 200 bottoms? Hanging from trees most likely. 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:Nothing quite like a red sign screaming "traditional marriage" to make you look like an rear end in a top hat. Although I can't be mad at the person with the "I peacefully support biblical marriage" sign, it sounds like something I would see on my 90 year old grandmother's refrigerator. A little off topic, but Marriage Equality (aka gay / same-sex marriage) and to a lesser extent Marijuana prohibition (Aka legalisation/decriminalisation/etc) has really made me look at how powerful words can be in discourse on these issues. Ten years ago we all said "Support gay/lesbian marriage" or "Support the right for gays to marry" - then it changed to "Same-Sex" Marriage - a bit less cumbersome, and not as 'othering' as saying "Gay" Marriage ("SAME" evoking that it's not that foreign). Then Marriage-Equality came around, and it's just so... it's the perfect phrase for it. Who is against equality? Why do any groups need to be othered? It naturalises the whole thing down so it's really only the true bigots opposing it. I don't know if this is a bit rambling and I might be overthinking it but I think phrasing and words can be really important in these battles and it's great to see discourse being controlled for good for once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
I had not known something was going down in FLquote:MIAMI, Florida – On behalf of a diverse coalition of citizen groups crossing racial, political, and religious lines, Liberty Counsel today filed a Motion to Intervene in Pareto v. Ruvin, the lawsuit initiated by homosexual activists seeking to declare Florida’s marriage laws unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I had not known something was going down in FL They, uh, they read Hollingsworth, right? Or... Oh, this is state court, isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
teacup posted:I don't know if this is a bit rambling and I might be overthinking it but I think phrasing and words can be really important in these battles and it's great to see discourse being controlled for good for once. Words have power, that's just how the language works. There's connotations layered into every grammar and word choice, which is why English is such a complex language. You are right, the inclusion of "equality" in the phrasing does give more stability to the movement, mostly because "gay-lesbian marriage" implies that the only people that would benefit from the passage of the bill would be gays and lesbians rather than the entire population. It makes it sound like a selfish bill that would only help a small portion of the population. "Equality", though, poo poo. Everyone likes equality. Unless you're Republican. Even the name that you apply to any of these trials makes a difference. Is it a trial to overturn a ban? Is it a trial for same-sex marriage? Is it a "human rights trial"? This stuff makes differences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:When these people are asked to define the limits of religious freedom or to provide examples of legitimate expression of religious freedom that these bills protect they choke up because this isn't all about "religious freedom" in the abstract but really all about gays. News from Georgia! One of the State Senators involved in our own version of the "turn away the gay" bill has tried to claim that he's really just trying to protect religious freedoms like Sikhs being allowed to work food service while wearing a turban. Which is a thing that can already be done, even if they have to put a plastic shower cap over it (which they don't always have to do, depending!). He's trying to claim that the current lack of "liberty to discriminate" cases, as someone else put it, under the Federal RFRA means that the bill can't and won't be used to protect businesses who discriminate against people. He's a lying sack of poo poo, in other words. He also keeps claiming that the Georgia bills are equal to the Federal RFRA, without even understanding what the major difference is (specifically, that the RFRA was about protection of religious expression, not about a business turning away customers because of the owners' religious views). He further claims that there's a "smear campaign" against him, after literally saying that the only people who oppose the bill are people trying to use the government as a tool to push militant atheism. Who's smearing whom? Between him and our shithead Governor Nathan "sell the school systems" Deal, I really hope my family and I can find a way to get out of this state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
If Brewer vetoes the bill, what are the chances of it being overridden? Do Republicans have a supermajority there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
katium posted:If Brewer vetoes the bill, what are the chances of it being overridden? Do Republicans have a supermajority there? Unlikely as the current partisan breakdown of the Arizona legislature is: quote:Senate: 17 Republicans, 13 Democrats
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
katium posted:If Brewer vetoes the bill, what are the chances of it being overridden? Do Republicans have a supermajority there? A bunch of the state senators who voted for it have been calling for Brewer to veto it, so it's not going to survive an override vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
If Brewer does nothing at all, the bill becomes law, correct? How much time does she have to act?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Ballz posted:If Brewer does nothing at all, the bill becomes law, correct? How much time does she have to act? 5 days to: Sign into law Not do anything (becomes law anyways) Veto it. e: she has until Saturday to make the decision one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
SLOSifl posted:If you have to address an argument with stupid hypothetical questions then it's a stupid argument. Hope that helps.  Install Windows posted:Well that law is actually law right now, the petition was for an attempt to remove that law. Under the provisions of the law in place, the school administration is to determine if the kid in question is willing to stick to living as another gender at school all the time, which would tend to include things like "you can't just say you are, wait 3 days to peek in the girl's lockers, and then say you changed your mind and go back to being treated as a dude".
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Minority Deport posted:A bunch of the state senators who voted for it have been calling for Brewer to veto it, so it's not going to survive an override vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
The Macaroni posted:It is a stupid argument, but it's the one that people opposed to the California trans rights bill usually trot out. Thanks for your great reply! That's exactly the kind of response that makes potentially sympathetic allies get turned off to supporters of issues like this. It's what the internet LGBT community does best!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 17:26
|
|
