|
Reminder that the first TERFs were people who got real mad when trans people dumped them. There were feminists who didn't like trans people before that of course, but the TERF movement of people who were actively against them started with a bunch of feminists who got dumped.
|
#
¿
May 22, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Sharkie posted:
Janice Raymond was an activist for transgender rights before her partner transitioned (ftm) and left her because he didn't feel like he could be in a lesbian relationship anymore, at which point she immediately flipped and wrote The Transsexual Empire and started lobbying against things like medicare/medicaid covering anything to do with transpeople. Several other feminists of that time period had similar things happened and joined up with Janice Raymond.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:I think if you look at a map of US states it's about the same percentage actually, at least for state-level non-driver ID stuff. The federal stuff here is pretty good now though. (I'm not including Russia because... lol yeah.) It's more complicated than that, because in some there's standing precedent that say, getting a boob job in either direction also counts, or it's just "proper medical treatment" that was clearly intended to mean surgery but a doctor can easily make hormone therapy sound correct for that. And so on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Given the proximity of PTHC to Philly Dyke March, I'm surprised you didn't get TERFs picketing it like they did to the last Dyke March that happened in London two years ago. They'd have a hell of a time managing that with the weather we had throughout the conference. Let alone the convention center security.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The tests are also not infallible. Unless you can't find alternative donors it makes sense to avoid using blood that is at elevated risk of being dangerous for the patient receiving it. The thing is that the questionnaire has no way to prove you lied about being gay or really any of the other things on there, when you go to donate blood. I don't understand why people insist on thinking the ban on the donations is self-enforcing. OwlFancier posted:You can and I would. Donor blood needs to be as close to 100% safe as possible, both for the benefit of those in receipt of it and for the welfare of the concept itself. If people don't believe the blood supply is safe then they may refuse treatment, which in turn may cause more deaths. So even a vanishingly small probability may still pose a disproportionate risk. But again, dudes who just had gay sex or injected drugs or anything else the night before are already donating blood and have been donating blood for years. They don't have a gay test they can use on you at the Red Cross office to detect that you lied about having sex with dudes. So given that we know people have been flouting the rules and the blood supply's remained safe anyway, it's obvious we should start formally lowering those restrictions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:People may conceivably lie about any of the screening questions but that doesn't mean we should do away with the screening altogether. That people want it to be changed suggests that it is, in part, self enforcing. Which is better than nothing. Deterring at-risk donations and screening all donations are both facets of ensuring the supply is safe for use. It actually does mean we should do away with screening we know is garbage, such as "if you're a man who's ever had sex with a man, you can never donate". Like, multiple countries have switched to things like only 6 month deferrals and have seen no increased rate of HIV or other nasty things in the blood that gets used for transfusion. In fact there are many countries where there is no restriction at all on gay men donating blood: Argentina, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, Latvia, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russia, San Marino, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Thailand and Uruguay These countries haven't experienced any uptick in contaminated blood reaching transfusion patients since switching to having no deferral period or no indefinite deferral period. The ban on gay men donating blood is utterly unneccesary with modern screening. Yes, this stuff was needed in the past. That was because we had way worse testing of blood, when there was any at all. But it's 30 years later and technology has changed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I still see little reason to change it unless having gay men donate is going to make a significant difference to the blood supply's availability. But at least 19 countries have absolutely no ban on gay men donating blood, and they do not have less safe blood supply as a result. Seriously, what don't you understand about that? If the donation bans really were effective, there'd be problems showing up in all 19 of the countries I listed which have had gay men freely allowed to donate blood for various periods of time. But none of them have the problem!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I have no aversion to excessive caution where it can be afforded. Buddy, look, there is absolutely no benefit to anyone from having the bans for people who've had sex with men who had sex with men in place, whether they be indefinite ones or time based. It's already been proven in multiple countries, all using modern testing, that allowing gay people to donate blood freely does nothing to harm the blood supply. Why are you so insistent on pretending like nothing's changed in blood testing since the 80s?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because the question seems like a red herring as far as the state of blood availability goes, and utterly irrelevant as far as LGBT rights goes. It's not a red herring, we know that the bans on gay blood donation are no longer needed. Hence it's part of LGBT rights that they should be removed now that they are no longer needed. At the very least, keeping the ban is unfairly depriving LGBT people of various incentives that blood drives often offer, which range from free haircuts to straight up getting $20 depending on the promotion.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Yes, and? And 19 countries have proved that not having any restriction on gays donating hasn't affect the integrity of the blood supply.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
It's worth remembering the Clinton's platform in 1992 had been to remove restrictions on gay people in the military completely, but conservative democrats had teamed up with the republicans to block it. They were threatening to reaffirm the existing investigate and dishonorable discharge status quo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Cocks Cable posted:Uhhh, so hi thread. When is Germany going to get gay married? It feels like they are very behind the western progress curve in this regard when you look at the West as a whole. If I didn't misread the translations from German, it seems their current problem is there's a pissing match going between parties not in government that have serious proposals to legalize it, and the parties in government that want to block it mostly to spite those other parties at this point. One presumes that if the coalition of those out of power and pushing the marriage bill win enough seats next election to be government, they'll do it as one of their first actions. But they're hardly alone among the west in terms of not having gay marriage already, shockingly few places have it:  Dark blue means same sex marriage is legal. The goldish color indicates that laws have been passed legalizing it but they haven't taken effect yet - I believe both countries and the other minor areas in that color right now are doing it in 2017. Light blue is civil unions only. The teal blue color indicates that you can't get same sex married in that place, but if you get same-sex married somewhere else it's considered legal and valid. Notice especially that Australia has refused to legalize despite NZ doing it a bit ago. It totals to about 19 countries where it's fully legal, a few more where it's mostly legal (like Mexico, or how some segments of the total United Kingdom don't have it quite yet), and then 2 or so countries where it's guarenteed to be legal soon. Out of 196 countries.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Not exactly. Basically, the current ruling coalition consists of the moderately conservative CDU and the moderately progressive SPD. The other two parties currently in parliament are the fairly progressive Greens and Left. SPD, Greens and Left are all pretty outspokenly in favour of opening the marriage, whereas the CDU is somewhat split on the issue, to the tune of about a 50-50 to 60-40 split of their members being against/for. So if you were to just throw an appropriate proposal into parliament tomorrow and let everyone vote on it how they feel like, chances are good it would actually pass. The reason why no real headway has been made yet despite all this is because the coalition agreement between SPD and CDU included a part about not going for full marriage equality. So the SPD can't make a proper push for it without risking their coalition. Thank you for that. Like I said, I was only able to go through auto-translated german news articles and a few english ones, and it was all rather unclear.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Hermetic posted:I'm sorry if that's how I came across. It was more "I can see why they're not in a rush to fix it immediately, despite being fairly progressive", not "This never needs to be fixed, separate but equal is awesome!". There is absolutely no good reason to abolish state marriage, a concept which is older than religious marriage by far.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'd agree with that. The word comes with a whole lot of baggage of transferring virgin daughters as chattel from their fathers to their husbands and all that poo poo for my liking. No it really doesn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:A friend of mine is worried about what brexit means for LGBT protections in the UK. Does anyone have a better idea how much that's tied in with EU regulations vs UK law? As an American, I haven't the faintest idea myself as to whether there's anything to that Half the EU has 0 meaningful LGBT protections. Some members are even actively antagonistic. The UK happens to be a leader in LGBT rights within the union as it turns out. Of course the parties backing brexit aren't known for being LGBT friendly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Nope 19th was 1800s, definitely the big boom of MUH STATE RIGHTS. Also the early 20th to a lesser degree. The Articles of Confederation were about actual states' rights, and was in the 18th century.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Do It Once Right posted:There was a bombing in downtown Salem on tuesday. I had no idea until I was reading international news outlets using terms like IED and terrorist cell. Which Salem are you talking about?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:Oh gently caress you Assange, what the gently caress is going on over there. They're basically going full on white reactionary anti-globalist, and shedding any pretense of leftism. Their twitter account retweeted Coulter a few weeks ago, too, but that's beyond the pale. What do you expect from someone who fled a country to dodge a rape charge, and then ran to hide in an embassy for 5 years to avoid being sent back to face that rape charge?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
iospace posted:Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't both help equally? I mean, universal Pre-K (and child care) would help people take advantage of free college. The reason free college gets so much play is millennials are very vocal on social media, and thus it gets echo chambered until it bursts out like a laser. Pre-K and improved basic education in general would help far more people. Everyone goes to primary school, while even if college was free not everyone has a reason or the opportunity to go to it
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
iospace posted:Oh yeah, I know, but right now millennials are the "Big Prize" according to every pundit who has an opinion on the voting blocs this year. If you can swing them over to your side /and/ get them to vote, you win. The problem is right now they're waffling, because A. Bernie IS THE BEST, and B. The vast majority of millennials are already out of college. Only the very youngest are still in high school or college. So most millenials don't need to care about free college that much. If anything the biggest voting group that would like free college would be gen xers and boomers who are just about to or are int he middle of putting their kids through college.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:You're so incredibly full of poo poo starting with the first sentence of your post. You're just a liberal. Come to terms with that now so we can move on to correcting this idiotic strawman. Oh heavens I was gonna be a leftist but now I'm not so sure! Please. Unless you're a graduate of the OwlFancier Academy of Uh Let's Just Call It Idiosyncratic Marxism you don't have a loving clue what you're even disagreeing with. You would if you read my posts but you blatantly didn't. Like for real, a real leftist would understand that the only reasonable course of action in the present scenario of late capitalism is to attempt to use any means necessary to remove the levers of oppression by capital on the public that they can. Things like making gay marriage legal is part of that - as are general gay rights maneuvers. All the capitalists you pretend to hate would have an even stronger position if the things you poo poo on for not helping you like minority rights weren't as advanced as they are today. If you have a problem with that, maybe your real problem is you're a closet libertarian. fishmech fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Sep 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Anarchists were promoting gay rights back when Liberals were still complaining about pride rallies blocking their commute, and to state that you don't really care about the economic axis implies strongly that you can afford not to. Not every LGB person can afford that luxury, and proportionally a lot more trans people face material hardship. On the other hand, an actual anarchist polity has no way to enforce LGBT protections, so it doesn't much matter that they talk a big game about supporting the rights.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Mutua claims to have a partnership with Google to censor content. Because he's part of exactly who the conference is meant to be about. Specifically it's about Africa in general, and the three countries of Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa as particular targets. Since he's in charge of those sorts of things in Kenya...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Roy Moore's already been suspended from the bench before, in 2003 for something over the ten commandments. He still ended up back in a powerful judgeship. You can't blame people for feeling like doing a simple suspension again is just a slap on the wrist when he'll be allowed back into power after repeatedly defying federal rulings.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:I thought that is what Japan thinks a manly man is, as opposed to the US where we like 'em burly. That's grossly overstating things. Tons of Japanese culture is all about the burly dude as the manly man. Just as there's plenty of American culture where super buff men aren't the ideal. What is true is that American propaganda liked to accuse all Japanese men of being feminine (when they weren't be accused of basically being wild monkeys) during World War II, but that's hardly a reflection of what the Japanese actually were or wanted. That was just about racism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:None, the point is that it requires a conscious willingness to understand the needs of others which may differ from yours, those needs are not, or should not be obstructive to your own needs, but it still requires you to support people in their own pursuit of liberation when it may have no benefit to you. As any good political union should. Consider, for instance, how in certain time periods male homosexuality was criminal but female homosexuality wasn't. As a result, lesbians could choose to live pretty much unmolested by the law and ignore the problems gay men were having. That would of course be a very gently caress you got mine approach to life.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Really? So if we had full, comprehensive sex-ed in schools that covered bisexuals along with other queer identities and issues you don't think it would have a big effect on people understanding and accepting bisexuality within themselves and others? 'Political' doesn't just mean the legal code. It's anything the government has it's hands in and that includes education. Just saying but we had great sex ed at my school that did cover all of that and a bunch of my fellow classmates still post things on facebook et al like how they think bisexuals aren't really real.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Are you one of them? Because unless the whole class are a bunch of assholes, you can't say it was useless. You're the one claiming that just education is going to cause people to stop having dumb opinions. Frankly if that was true you'd at least have some states with significantly less dumb opinions, because they have the better schools. That's clearly not the case.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:They shouldn't need to prove their marriage regardless They only need to "prove" their marriage because dude's specifically looking to get citizenship now (or rather was then, 4 years ago). One really wonders why he's taken this long on that particular front, as they'd actually gotten married 10 years ago (as of when that article was written). Normally the process involved is that you establish legal permanent residency, which tends to take about 1-2 years, and then 5 years after that you can start to apply for naturalization as a citizen, a process which in itself usually takes 6 months to a year. So in the end you get citizenship by about 7-9 years after getting married. Perhaps he left the country for long enough early in his marriage that it reset some of the timing involved. Anyway, the dude is still living in Chicago just fine as of this year, 4 years later, so it seems it worked out. FYI: the specific accusation made against him, which was by a lawyer with a grudge, that he was "really" a gay guy who took a beard for citizenship, has been applied to a lot of immigrant husbands regardless of whether they were straight, bi, or actually a gay dude in a sham marriage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Nope. I'm not doing that, and I even directly countered that assumption in my follow up post. But I know you get some sort of erotic thrill from putting words into people's mouths and doubling down on what you claimed they said, so here's a freebee: Pretty interesting of you to apparently say that you didn't even claim anything at all? So you just wanted to say some words you didn't believe in? 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:How would this situation change if he were gay instead of bi? If he were actually gay, he couldn't have gotten married in Chicago back in 2001/2002, and so the whole situation wouldn't have been happening then because he couldn't have had the citizenship process going. If he were just gay, the earliest he could have had a legal marriage in Illinois was about 2014, 2 years after that article, and he couldn't be up for consideration for citizenship until about 2019 at the absolute earliest. So basically, the entire situation couldn't occur.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Sorry, dude. I'm not in helping you edge tonight. Maybe you could try having a position on things instead of running away the first time someone actually tries to discuss things with you?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Yeah, because we're both equally at fault here. I said something, Fishmech grossly misinterpreted it as usual, and now is whining that I won't defend words they shoved into my mouth. there wolf posted:Really? So if we had full, comprehensive sex-ed in schools that covered bisexuals along with other queer identities and issues you don't think it would have a big effect on people understanding and accepting bisexuality within themselves and others? 'Political' doesn't just mean the legal code. It's anything the government has it's hands in and that includes education. This is you saying that education is going to fix the existence of bad opinions on bisexuality et al. Why won't you defend that? If you don't agree with what you wrote, why don't you try writing something you actually agree with? Just teaching people that bisexuality exists is no way to guarantee that people take it seriously, yet getting people to take it seriously is the "poltical" goal you wanted to achieve.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Simply being gay doesn't prevent you from getting married, it's about who you marry - marriages of convenience between gay men and women have happened before. I'm talking more about if only the identity changed - not the actors. Oh you're asking if he actually did a sham marriage? That would in fact be grounds for getting booted from the country, or at the least having his citizenship application denied. Since his permanent residence and citizenship applications were both undertaken under pretense of being a valid marriage. It would require him to switch to trying to get permanent residency and citizenship through an alternate method, which in his case would probably need to involve employer sponsorship. Incidentally, if someone does manage to get citizenship under a sham marriage and get caught, they usually don't get that citizenship taken away. But there are other penalties: 8 U.S. Code § 1325 (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penaltiesAny alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of— (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed. (c) Marriage fraud Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both. (d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:Why did all the people she worked with who saw her violating OPSEC not do anything about it and not get punished? I thought you worked in the military? You should know exactly how that happened - soldiers are lazy with security all the time. If anyone even noticed she was moving data around they probably were like "oh they're trying to sneak some games at work!" or something like that. I doubt she was like wearing a big ol' hat with the text "FYI I'M STEALING SECRETS" on it. Leaks from the military and other classified information sources happen constantly. Even people doing it and sending it straight out into the public (as opposed to legit foreign spies/moles covertly sending stuff to their handlers) happens at least every couple years.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:This is what the Army gets for using Intel as its dumping ground for losers and retards for the last 20 years. I hope you meant that pun, because it's pretty great.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:I mean honestly depending on where you live, owning a pistol or something for self defense isn't a bad idea, just don't own it for crazy Pistols are mainly good for committing suicide, they're pretty useless for any common self-defense scenario. Nobody should buy one for that purpose and it's real bad advice. Taitale posted:Isn't that normal for non-US western countries? NZ is the same, pretty sure Australia is too. It's complicated, but in most western countries the boy and girl scouts will be separate organizations under one umbrella organization. And that umbrella organization ranges from just being vague cooperation and control of trademark ownership to really close working depending on country. Of course, the US Boy Scouts has several programs that are mixed gender, like the Venturing program which is for boys and girls 13-21 or Sea Scouting for boys and girls 14-21.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 17:22
|
|
reasons.
|
Liquid Communism posted:Shut up fishmech. You know as little about firearms as you know about anything else. Sorry buddy, pistols are only good for committing suicide, and that's why you should never recommend them to people especially for "self-defense". Especially to a demographic of people already much more likely to attempt suicide due to ongoing oppression and harassment from society.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Glazier posted:You never know, it's worth a try. Worse case scenario you can take yourself out before they get you. Check yourself into a mental hospital immediately.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 03:27
|
|