|
RagnarokAngel posted:The "tougher crimes" part seems like a common sense compromise but it's inherently admitting that Trans people are probably rapists SOMETIMES and perpuates the bullshit that made HB2 a thing to start with. I meant, how is it unfortunate that the democrats are in power in the states where they're not worthless?
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
Kfroog posted:I meant, how is it unfortunate that the democrats are in power in the states where they're not worthless? Oh I'm dumb. The point I was trying to make but didn't articulate well was that the states where they're needed the most they're not as strong at pushing the right agendas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
I don't know, maybe I'm overly optimistic but it seems like the Democrats are doing this to back Republicans into a corner. Republicans want to maintain the public fiction that they're just trying to protect against crime and why no we're not discriminating against trans people here how dare you, while privately keeping the religious fundies voting for them. The fiction is necessary because the broader public doesn't support nutball fundy poo poo. By acting like the public fiction is true and offering Republicans tougher bathroom crime laws without the anti-trans stuff, Republicans either have to go along with repeal because their alleged concerns are being addressed, or come right out and say that's not good enough we want to punish trans people and lose public support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't know, maybe I'm overly optimistic but it seems like the Democrats are doing this to back Republicans into a corner. Meanwhile when someone decides I'm definitely peeping because I'm 6'4" and they saw the top of my head over the stall harsher laws mean that I'm going to get hosed over harder until I can get a lawyer to sort it out in court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Meanwhile when someone decides I'm definitely peeping because I'm 6'4" and they saw the top of my head over the stall harsher laws mean that I'm going to get hosed over harder until I can get a lawyer to sort it out in court. Just another dog whistle. Like anti-"sodomy" laws magically only applying to homosexual men. It gives them a hammer to beat over the head of those they hate while providing plausible deniability when they choose to not use it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
In no surprise to anyone news https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-a7580201.html quote:The summons said: “Defendants-appellants hereby withdraw their pending November 23, 2016 motion for partial stay pending appeal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Yeah I think we're going to actually be in the reverse position of the argument similar to how the State didn't want to defend PROP 8 . Sessions isn't going to allow the DOJ to argue against any new " criminalized homosexual" laws and transgender plaintiff laws etc.. All those protections are going out the window. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner are apparently pretty liberal in their social views so I don't think we're going to get any EO orders that are super detrimental to the LGBT community , but Sessions is going to gently caress the community anyway he can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Yeah I think we're going to actually be in the reverse position of the argument similar to how the State didn't want to defend PROP 8 . Sessions isn't going to allow the DOJ to argue against any new " criminalized homosexual" laws and transgender plaintiff laws etc.. All those protections are going out the window. The title IX protections extended jointly by the DoE and DoJ were done simply in a policy statement that Sessions has voided. There are no more Title IX protections for trans students.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner are apparently pretty liberal in their social views so I don't think we're going to get any EO orders that are super detrimental to the LGBT community , but Sessions is going to gently caress the community anyway he can. Ivanka and Kushner have no impact on policy and even if they did, they only care about finance. They're not gonna help us. We're ruled by Sessions and Bannon now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Ivanka and Kushner have no impact on policy and even if they did, they only care about finance. They're not gonna help us. We're ruled by Sessions and Bannon now. Any LGBT friends they have are probably wealthy enough to weather the storm without explicit legal protections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Ivanka and Kushner have no impact on policy and even if they did, they only care about finance. They're not gonna help us. We're ruled by Sessions and Bannon now. Eh, I don't think that's true. Kushner, at least, is a big(bigly?) Influence on 45,
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:Eh, I don't think that's true. Sessions already pulled title IX protection for trans students.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Any LGBT friends they have are probably wealthy enough to weather the storm without explicit legal protections. "As I do not personally require these protections, obviously they are not really needed, thus no one should have them." - Wealthy gay men and straight white women.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:"As I do not personally require these protections, obviously they are not really needed, thus no one should have them." More like "I do not personally experience any hardships, therefore nobody does and if they claim that they do they are lying and scheming."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Sessions already pulled title IX protection for trans students. Oh, I'm keeping up to date on this stuff, I'm well aware.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Sessions already pulled title IX protection for trans students. Hey, a person in the trans discussion thread was wondering if the title IX case before the Supreme Court currently is affected by this, or if they could independently still decide to rule that trans people are protected by title IX?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Hey, a person in the trans discussion thread was wondering if the title IX case before the Supreme Court currently is affected by this, or if they could independently still decide to rule that trans people are protected by title IX? The legal question (how much weight does an executive agency's interpretation of the law have) would not be affected, and the Supreme Court could not independently dictate that trans people are protected by Title IX.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Hey, a person in the trans discussion thread was wondering if the title IX case before the Supreme Court currently is affected by this, or if they could independently still decide to rule that trans people are protected by title IX? I'm not familiar with the case so I can't speak to any specifics on it. I can say the court can absolutely still extend protections. It's kindof their job in civil rights cases. Sessions' actions could help or hurt the case depending on where it is at in the timeline. If they still haven't heard argument, then it could provide concrete examples of why these protections should be extended. What's the case name and I'll look and give you a better answer. e:f;b.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I'm not familiar with the case so I can't speak to any specifics on it. I can say the court can absolutely still extend protections. It's kindof their job in civil rights cases. Sessions' actions could help or hurt the case depending on where it is at in the timeline. If they still haven't heard argument, then it could provide concrete examples of why these protections should be extended. Looks like it's 16-273 GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD V. G.G. according to the poster who asked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Maher having Milo on was exactly as poo poo as everyone expected, and what a shock Bill agrees with him and all, but Larry Wilmore made some very good comments and thankfully the main takeaway has been mostly 'Milo looked like an idiot, Wilmore rules, and haha holy poo poo what's wrong with Bill Maher' http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/18/larry-wilmore-blasts-milo-yiannopoulos-on-real-time-go-f-ck-yourself.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Maher having Milo on was exactly as poo poo as everyone expected, and what a shock Bill agrees with him and all, but Larry Wilmore made some very good comments and thankfully the main takeaway has been mostly 'Milo looked like an idiot, Wilmore rules, and haha holy poo poo what's wrong with Bill Maher' Unless you're a white transphobe, in which case the takeaway is 'hmm, this Milo guy has some good ideas, shame about the angry black man on the show'
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Venomous posted:Unless you're a white transphobe, in which case the takeaway is 'hmm, this Milo guy has some good ideas, shame about the angry black man on the show' well yea but gently caress those folk
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:well yea but gently caress those folk But yeah, expect to see those made up numbers recycled in anti-trans propaganda, particularly if ballot initiatives get up. They're getting much more explicit about painting us as sex offenders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
There go protections for trans kids 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Coffee And Pie posted:There go protections for trans kids let's start a new charity, guns for trans kids.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:let's start a new charity, guns for trans kids. this is terrible, even as joke
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:this is terrible, even as joke when you are well-armed, everywhere is your bathroom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:this is terrible, even as joke empty quote, what the heck my dude
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:when you are well-armed, everywhere is your bathroom. with this addendum, I agree, but man did it look like you were going in a different direction at first
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:with this addendum, I agree, but man did it look like you were going in a different direction at first wait, did you think i was implying we should kill trans kids or something? i was making the standard "<x> wouldn't be a problem for <y> if they were armed". im trans my dude, i want to protect all the adorable trans kids.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
other way around
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:other way around i am not actually advocating that transgender children be armed and shoot their way into the bathroom. instead, i am playing upon the common theme of weapons being the solution to any problem someone might have. an absurd statement, if you will.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
i was more coming at it from the angle of population known to be prone to suicide + guns being an unfunny combination then some kind of trans child toilet liberation army i'm not, like, upset, just really put off
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
I read it more like an 'Arm The Homeless' thing. Like, I'm not sure that giving lots of guns to a population more likely to have undiagnosed mental health issues and less likely to have gun safes is a great idea, but that's not the sentiment behind the phrase.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:i was more coming at it from the angle of population known to be prone to suicide + guns being an unfunny combination then some kind of trans child toilet liberation army yeah, i didnt think of that angle but you're right that was kinda lovely. im sorry guys. this is why memes are bad i guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:yeah, i didnt think of that angle but you're right that was kinda lovely. im sorry guys. this is why memes are bad i guess. can't speak for anyone else, but we're cool
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Why does the "woke" left have such a hateboner for white gay men? I don't see this level of vitriol from these people aimed at any other subset of any minority group, white or not. https://twitter.com/elielcruz/status/834833893157195778
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
you can only see "no blacks no asians no latinos" so many times before you just assume all white gays are racist (the racist thing is because all white people are born in a white supremacist society and therefore we learn racism at an early age and need to learn how to not be racist, so it's a fair assumption to make; biphobic and transphobic idk tho seems kinda weird to pin that on gay dudes specifically, especially since historically speaking lesbian politics have been more about that poo poo)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Why does the "woke" left have such a hateboner for white gay men? I don't see this level of vitriol from these people aimed at any other subset of any minority group, white or not. Like all things online it gets echoed out of proportion, but white gay men still have white and male privilege. While they have some of the disadvantages that come with being queer in America, they are by far the most protected out of any of us both financially and socially, and this can frequently lead to them having blind spots about the struggles the rest of the community deal with. It can often feel like white gay men are strong allies right up until their issues are addressed and then they drop the rest of the community to sort their own poo poo out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
Yeah that's the part I find confusing, I recognize that racism is a serious issue that needs to be worked on and I've certainly meet white gays with terrible views but they're certainly not singularly bad in that regard. I don't see these same people attacking "white male Jews" or anything like that with such vitriol. I literally don't think I have ever seen one of these "woke" people go after white lesbians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 22:54
|
|