AlexJade posted:

They don't hate us, it's just their beliefs of how we should be treated... according to what I'm told by a co-worker every day in NC.

Aesop Poprock posted:

Not overly comforting considering that previous thing has been built up to by means of the latter thing throughout history. You're already seeing it with angry people assaulting and going after trans/percieved trans people because of this "moralistic" law and its broader effects on the nation

Keeshhound posted:

I can own that, but to clarify; the reason I asked is that people say that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder a lot, and I can see the reasons for that, but it never really felt right to me as a classification. The responses I've gotten so far confirm that; if it really is just a disorder, then like depression you'd expect to be able to alleviate it somewhat by treating an underlying cause. That people reject the idea of "antidysphoria" drugs implies to me that calling it a mental disorder is too shallow a reading of the problem, and that it probably gives people the wrong idea about trans issues as a whole.

CommieGIR posted:

Yes. I've had a couple as well, its as close to a modern Prison Camp complete with torture as you can get.

Badger of Basra posted:

Vote Trump, clearly.

I've seen some of my activist friends talking about how this is a demonstration of the fact that we were not meant to survive and that we don't belong here. I'm not quite sure what the next step is after abetting in your own otherization and exclusion but I'm sure it's really stupid.

Badger of Basra posted:

Too late, we're already getting some incredibly bad op-eds! http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/opinion/the-scope-of-the-orlando-carnage.html


Jesus Christ.

Hollismason posted:

We already screen blood for HIV.

http://www.cdc.gov/bloodsafety/basics.html

Like it's just kind of dumb at this point because we have methods to detect it. In the 80s and 90s those tests were very prohibitively expensive etc.. especially during the 80s when they didn't really have a test so it was a actual reasonable measure to take.

Keeshhound posted:

Yeah, but the same standards to which straight people are held to work for gays too;
"Have you had unprotected sex with a new partner in the last year?" "No."
"Have you had sex with anyone who is HIV positive in the last year?" "No."
"Ok, but was it anal sex with a man who isn't HIV positive?" "Yes." "I'm sorry, anal sex just spontaneously produces AIDS particles sometimes. We don't know how it happens, but we can't take your blood, sorry."

Hollismason posted:

There's actually more risk from white males who are not monogamous or people who are intravenous drug users. Several countries have removed the restriction. I agree that testing is neccessary ,but you can make the same arguments for Hep B , A , and C.

Keeshhound posted:

You're kind of conflating correlation with causation here. Yes, gay men and some other groups are at greater risk to be infected with HIV, but that's not a direct result of being gay, because again, being gay doesn't cause HIV to spotaneously appear in your blood.

Being gay does tend to correlate with behaviors and life conditions that do cause someone to be at risk for infection; i.e., being homeless which in turn correlates to needle sharing, or engaging in unprotected sex. That's why the pre-donation questionaire asks about those behaviors, too.

Keeshhound posted:

It will though? As I pointed out earlier, ARC and ABC are both constantly calling for donations, and pretty much every blood bank in the country reports being chronically understocked.

In light of that, what we have is a donor ban that everyone here seems to agree is of negligible benefit, and clearly harms collection efforts either by discouraging otherwise willing donors or by encouraging donors to lie about their sexuality, which then calls into question the truth of all the other answers they provide.

hackbunny posted:

a cartoon duck posted:

I think "but what about SINGLE MOMS?!" was popular for a while.

Hermetic posted:

There's a difference between loving my beau in the rear end after he's had a shower, and leaning up against a wall bathed in the stale poop particles of a thousand assholes.

Maybe that makes me germaphobic or finicky or whatever. Public restrooms are gross, I don't like having sex in gross places.

joat mon posted:

It originated in US Department of Agriculture v. Moreno in 1973, where Congress made it so 'hippies' and 'hippie communes' couldn't get food stamps.
The Supreme Court struck down the law, explaining that,

The concept of animus has expanded somewhat since then, but that's basically it.
Here's 47 pages on animus if you want the long answer.

Guavanaut posted:

If you want a palate cleanser, this was basically my internal monolog for most of the first half of part one. But the anarchist position is petty-bourgeois now apparently.

Guavanaut posted:

There are people even within the LGB community who are lovely on trans issues, so it wouldn't be surprising to find similar in their allies.

Hell, there are people within the LG community who aren't that great on bi issues, although much less than before.

But yeah, trans issues are often the first to be thrown under the bus by sexual-minority groups, like Stonewall with their "we started as a gay and lesbian rights group, should we really be representing hetero trans people?" poo poo a few years back (and giving an award to noted TERF and Jack the Ripper fan Julie Bindel).

BigRed0427 posted:

*sigh* someone help me out here. He's saying that big money interests push gay marriage as an issue to distract from the REAL issues plaguing the LGBT community, meanwhile no one cares about housing and employment discrimination?