Trump Administration Plans To Define Gender As What You Are Born As, Rolling Back Obama-Era Policies

[Phantom Roxas]

Well it is a burden? Unless you're implying the only think that's painful to trans people is being called the wrong gender. And it's a burden on everyone else because we have to ignore our sensory information to falsely validate your emotions.

 

Being a tranny is an illness. Till the skeletons got a hold of it, even the DSM (which was always printed by a left leaning organization) found it to be so.

 

I mean there are thousands of other personal decisions one can choose, a different religion might be more emotionally charged for example. Hell you're downplaying my food preferences, don't you care about my emotions roxas? The simple answer is my views on the matter didn't meet your threshold for caring about them. Which is 100% fine.

 

No, I don't think that's the only painful thing for trans people to deal with, but it is kind of pathetic to think addressing people by their preferences is somehow a burden on you. Listening to people is using sensory information, and validating emotions is in no way false.

 

As with the spectrum of sexes, it's possible that the WHO and APA updated their classifications to reflect newer research. What sounds like a more rational argument to you: That the study of mental health has changed our understanding of whether something is an illness, or that Skeleton Warriors took control and are changing definitions to fit a left-leaning political agenda?

 

Downplaying your food preferences is not invalidating your emotions. I just don't believe it's particularly relevant to a discussion about gender identity. I also believe that my threshold for respecting someone's gender identity is absurdly low. I know there are plenty of issues that I would wish people could empathize with me on, so if someone is asking me to address them by their preferred pronouns, then doing so is the least I can do. It's not "changing my life" by any significant measure.

 

I realize I'm getting off-topic, so to get back on track, everything I've just said in this post applies towards why I cannot accept the administration doing this. To build on your point that "skeletons got a hold of the DSM", this is a similar issue, with the GOP trying to redefine gender. If you saw "skeletons" as trying to redefine transgender identity to fit their political agenda, then the administration's goals here are committing the same offense that you are accusing the DSM of.

[Tormented]

Can we stop the sheet-slinging please?

 

Have a healthy debate without resorting to comments that don't actually move a discussion further, thank you.

[Proto]

I really couldn't care less about you, what you have to say about me, or what you think about me. I was using you as an example of a troll that people just shouldn't get worked up about.

I love how you dismiss me informing you of things that you did in this very debate and explaining why I made the assumptions that I did as a "shitpost". I was simply listing facts, and honestly they don't care about your feelings.

 

Hell, you made a false claim again, name one time I've "trolled".

 

v1aine gets a post a little later.

 

Oh, yeah another issue about seeing transgenders as a mental illness, it leads to "alternative cures" which leads to conversion therapy. Which leads to good ol' shockin' which our VP is extremely in favor for that literally is so bad it drives people to suicide.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/politics/mike-pence-and-conversion-therapy-a-history.html

[Proto]

It removes the gender category as a whole, and with the way the word gender is headed (genderfluid, gender queer, gender binary, ect) that avoids a hell of a lot of future hassle. You're using discrimination like everybody and their mother is waiting to kick trans people off their healthcare plan. That's not the case. If it becomes the case post change, I'll retract that statement, but i have yet to see people doing it, or actually planning to do it. because the lawsuits alone (not to mention the edge it would give any competitors who don't) would destroy them outright. We'll see down the line where that goes though.

 

Not anymore. look up trans competitors in running, MMA, and various other ones that are attempting it elsewhere. They're attempting to get into opposite sex sports, and some actually have (many at the high school/college level). With the same exact results you'd expect.

 

 

It is somewhat relevant considering the place i work in, is actually in a retirement home.in new york state. I've got

As for new york, you do not get it. it is not that the law ignores passerby on the street, it is that the law attempts to control speech. If i don't want to call you ze/zir i should not have to, that's my choice. The new york law, forces exactly that, and that is the exact thing i'm against. It applies to workplaces, public facilities, and other such areas. (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-pronouns-fine-nyc/) Neither the state, nor the federal government, has any right to tell me what i can and cannot call you. end of story. and everything serious that you can get in trouble for, is already covered under existing laws.

I've linked the stats proving that trans discrimination is an issue, it's got more then what I've stated. Getting rid of protections when those stats exist is bad and wrong especially with a vice president that supports conversion therapy.

 

I don't keep a lot of attention on sports but I know that the Olympic standard is that it's based off sex. If that's not the case for a majority of sports I disagree with it but it has nothing to do with the law. These sort of rules change entirely based off the organization.

 

I'll concede the retirement home thing because I dont know enough about the field that 5 years of experience wont make due for.

 

Sure, do you believe that if I, a black man. Get employed by someone and they call me a jabroni every day but do nothing else, should I be able to sue him? If its really about being able to say whatever you want. Just every day instead of using my name, says jabroni even after I've corrected him.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I'd like to throw in some food for thought.

When my hair was longer I'd often be called ma'am and such especially by older people.

Should I not correct them? Am I forcing people to do something when asking them to call me male?

And how is that different from a trans person wanting to be called a certain gender?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Sports is determined by sex already. This is for practical reasons and no person is against that. Anything else that does not involve a person's actual biology to be in effect should not have a sex-based limiter on it. 

 

People have, of course, taken issue with categorization of athletes by sex, and to enough of an extent that whether an athlete is to play on a male or female team is already being determined not by sex but by gender identity in leagues, universities, and the Olympics. 

 

If it were a given that athletes should be categorized by sex, then why would it not be a given for people to be categorized by sex in any other context where physiological differences between males and females could prove relevant for, as you put it, "practical reasons"?

 

Indeed, there have been certain practicalities to sexism. The sexual dynamics between people of different sexes, whether it is a question of power, social capital, physical attraction (heterosexuality is indeed more common than homosexuality), et cetera, more often cause distractions and problems than the sexual dynamics between people of the same sex. This is perhaps especially the case in sport, but would it not make a difference and does it not make a difference, albeit in varying degrees, in every occupational field? 

 

Even owning a gun increases your likelihood of dying from gun violence/suicide by a massive amount.

 

This is not the case, as correlation does not imply causation. That more people who own guns die from gun violence/suicide is better attributed to the pressures that prompted them to buy the gun in the first place. If Larry the farmer who has no enemies or thoughts of suicide decides to buy himself a hunting rifle, it does not affect his chances of death by gun violence/suicide in the same way that it would for Gary the gang member who buys a gun for the express purpose of a shootout with a rival gang, or in the way it would for Jerry who is suicidal and buys a gun for the express purpose of shooting himself in the head. To tell Larry the farmer that buying a gun massively increases his chances of death by gun violence/suicide is by no means necessarily true. 

 

Oh, yeah another issue about seeing transgenders as a mental illness, it leads to "alternative cures" which leads to conversion therapy. Which leads to good ol' shockin' which our VP is extremely in favor for that literally is so bad it drives people to suicide.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/politics/mike-pence-and-conversion-therapy-a-history.html

 

Nowhere has your Vice President ever stated being in favour of electroconvulsive therapy, nor of conversion therapy of any kind. 

 

This is the statement that was made on Mike Pence's website: 

"Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior."

 

Changing one's sexual behavior is very different from changing one's sexual orientation. It is entirely possible for a person to be homosexual without regularly making a public event of their anus at a bathhouse, just not quite as fun. It is promiscuity, not homosexuality, that facilitates the spreading of STIs and it's something heterosexuals are capable of too. Why you or any number of the media outlets you follow would misattribute these statements to a zeal for "good ol' shockin'" is, I would speculate, a matter of political partisanship.

 

Which leads to good ol' shockin' which our VP is extremely in favor for that literally is so bad it drives people to suicide.

 

Suicide is a conscious choice and one that I do not sympathize with. 

 

Being a tranny is an illness. Till the SJWs got a hold of it, even the DSM (which was always printed by a left leaning organization) found it to be so.

 

The "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" in general is transparently unscientific with votes on what is and isn't a mental disorder swayed by the pharmaceutical industrial complex determining what goes in and what goes out so as best to push pills that do more harm than good. I can only hope that future generations laugh long and hard at the reigning pseudosciences of today. 

 

I'd like to throw in some food for thought.

When my hair was longer I'd often be called ma'am and such especially by older people.

Should I not correct them? Am I forcing people to do something when asking them to call me male?

 

In simply correcting them you would not be obligating them to call you male under the threat of prosecution. That is the difference and it is significant. I for my part take no issue in calling people whatever they would like to be called, but to make it a crime not to as is the case in my home province of Ontario is something I take no pride in.

[vla1ne]

I'd like to throw in some food for thought.

When my hair was longer I'd often be called ma'am and such especially by older people.

Should I not correct them? Am I forcing people to do something when asking them to call me male?

And how is that different from a trans person wanting to be called a certain gender?

If you want to, sure. If you request it, then that's fine, and that's well within your rights. If they say no, that's their choice, and well within their rights. In fact, as an anecdote, i went back in my statuses to find this gem: so... turns out half the residents at my job think i'm a female... make of that what you will.

 Oct 05 2015 10:47 PM · Delete · Lock

 I've dealt with the same thing, and while some people corrected themselves, others never have, and still to this day think i'm a girl. do i get upset about it? No, that's just how life is.

I treat it like religion. I'm not religious, and i don't subscribe to theistic beliefs. If somebody else does, then i will not rag on them for it, but i also don't want them trying to make me call them some strange ass pronoun. I'm liable to go along with it for a bit if it's basic "he" and "she" swapping, i don't always mind playing along, since i to do something similar for dementia and Alzheimer patients on a regular basis, but when it goes from he and she to zim zier and all the other reindeer, that's when i'm more likely to treat it like preaching and just walk off quietly. 

 

 

I've linked the stats proving that trans discrimination is an issue, it's got more then what I've stated. Getting rid of protections when those stats exist is bad and wrong especially with a vice president that supports conversion therapy.

 

I don't keep a lot of attention on sports but I know that the Olympic standard is that it's based off sex. If that's not the case for a majority of sports I disagree with it but it has nothing to do with the law. These sort of rules change entirely based off the organization.

 

I'll concede the retirement home thing because I dont know enough about the field that 5 years of experience wont make due for.

 

Sure, do you believe that if I, a black man. Get employed by someone and they call me a jabroni every day but do nothing else, should I be able to sue him? If its really about being able to say whatever you want. Just every day instead of using my name, says jabroni even after I've corrected him.

supporting it and enforcing it are two different things, and while discrimination is a thing, it does not negate the statement i made. every single race, gender, sexual preference, ect. can be, (and most have been) discriminated against. doesn't make it any less illegal, or any less liable for lawsuits.

 

Personally, while i don't condone it, I can't say i don't find it hilarious.

 

jabroni's not a biological sex. I have white friends who call me jabroni cause we know each other well enough to joke about that. If they don't know you though and they're calling you jabroni, then that's just weird. and more than likely racist. Can you sue them? Probably, but overall "that jabroni's over there" is a vastly different context than just saying "he's over there" one is a blatant exception to the standard rule, the other is applying the standard rule to somebody who doesn't want the rule applied to them. The two really don't correlate. Personally, i wouldn't sue them, i'd just roast the sheet out of them on sight, but you do you it's a reasonable enough option.

 

 

 

Nothing you have said suggests you're fine with what people call themselves. You called their preferences bullshit, position yourself as more correct, and when you tell them "No", you are presenting your disagreement with their gender identity as though you were speaking fact. That is exactly what it means to obligate people to deal with your feelings. If you didn't care, you wouldn't insist on "correcting" them and telling them "No, I'm going to call you this." You want them to just deal with you outright ignoring their preferences. How does that make you in any way better than them?

Quote even one time that I've said you cannot call yourself, whatever you like. The only thing I've said, is that you don't get to tell me what to call you. In fact, i don't even care what people call me. My stance from the beginning has been that the new ruling in question will neither dehumanize, nor disenfranchise trans people, and laws that force people to play nice with their words are little more than semi-thought policing that couldn't stand for 5 seconds under freedom of speech.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That's what I meant by threshold. You want to be called something, that I think you're not. And you haven't made a case well enough for me to willingly disregard the reality I can see with my two eyes. So, if you want, you can engage in your RP, but it's Orwellian to force me to embrace a false reality I don't see. There are cases where you can make a compelling case, but I've not seen it be made here. 

 

So far I've not seen the stats that a tranny bathroom or pronoun will substantially reduce trans-suicide rates. And even if it did, that's a pretty materialist thing to kill yourself over. All signs point to some kinda of mental shortcoming here

[Proto]

Oh boy now I have to make like a page long post because like three of you responded at the same time, woo haa.

 

People have, of course, taken issue with categorization of athletes by sex, and to enough of an extent that whether an athlete is to play on a male or female team is already being determined not by sex but by gender identity in leagues, universities, and the Olympics.

 

If it were a given that athletes should be categorized by sex, then why would it not be a given for people to be categorized by sex in any other context where physiological differences between males and females could prove relevant for, as you put it, "practical reasons"?

 

Indeed, there have been certain practicalities to sexism. The sexual dynamics between people of different sexes, whether it is a question of power, social capital, physical attraction (heterosexuality is indeed more common than homosexuality), et cetera, are more likely to cause distractions and problems than the sexual dynamics between people of the same sex. This is perhaps especially the case in sport, but would it not make a difference and does it not make a difference, albeit in varying degrees, in every occupational field?

I already stated, I don't follow or really care about sports so I'm not going to be on my "A-Game" regarding around the topic. I've stated before your claim that if they're pushing that, they shouldn't because the biological differences between a man and a woman matter competitively and I don't want there to be like a "trans woman league" to go with the woman league. I think that does more harm then good and am throughly against that policy. You've opened my eyes, woo.

 

Until we have a better blanket understanding or term of what trans is I believe the better option is to segregate by gender because testosterone is inherently something that increases your physical ability and thus having access to that in a female only sport is cheating. And I don't regard everyone as trans as having or currently taking hormone replacement therapy due to factors such as you not being able to afford it or the side effects being particularly nasty. More or less, it's practical for now because trans people are such a minority that are pretty much only getting the legal representation that they deserve now. If there is a definitive proof or test that they aren't "juicing" off of their biology then I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it in the future but I don't think that sort of thing exists yet.

 

It's entirely a false comparison to compare it to sexism just because I called it practical. There's a difference between being able to do a job competently for a wage and being able to compete at having the being able to run track at a fast time. It's a utterly false comparison to make, you're comparing being able to participate and compete against people in for what is for most people a leisure hobby versus being able to feed your family.

 

 

This is not the case, as correlation does not imply causation. That more people who own guns die from gun violence/suicide is better attributed to the pressures that prompted them to buy the gun in the first place. If Larry the farmer who has no enemies or thoughts of suicide decides to buy himself a hunting rifle, it does not affect his chances of death by gun violence/suicide in the same way that it would for Gary the gang member who buys a gun for the express purpose of a shootout with a rival gang, or in the way it would for Jerry who is suicidal and buys a gun for the express purpose of shooting himself in the head. To tell Larry the farmer that buying a gun massively increases his chances of death by gun violence/suicide is by no means necessarily true.

 

I don't care about this point because it has nothing to do with the message of what I had to say which is that republicans support a lot of things that aren't innately healthy in any sort of way and don't shame people for doing that.

 

 

Nowhere has your Vice President ever stated being in favour of electroconvulsive therapy, nor of conversion therapy of any kind.

 

This is the statement that was made on Mike Pence's website:
"Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior."

Got me on having false information via some right wing dude who was threatening me in the past. I never really questioned it because it was by someone who was a fervent Trump supporter anyways and well, a homophobe, but maybe he was lied to too. I'unno. Either way Pence has been wishwashy as hell towards gay rights in the first place and his personal attempt at damage control doesn't move me.

 

Pence has been known to be anti-gay in the past with his statements regarding such issues being. "Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage." And more egregiously: "Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexual's as a "discreet and insular minority" entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities." on his website as cited below. That and combined with his original statement makes his intent very clear on that statement not being about gay people's sexual habits but about the "gay condition" itself.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20010408125427/http://mikepence.com/issues.html

 

 

Suicide is a conscious choice and one that I do not sympathize with.

You do you. I'm pretty anti-driving people to suicide and I've suffered through periods of having to self harm in order to live with myself but I understand not everyone's like that. But if that's your belief I doubt it'll be one that's changed by a near anon poster on a yugioh forum.

 

NEXT EPISODE: VLA1NE

 

 

supporting it and enforcing it are two different things, and while discrimination is a thing, it does not negate the statement i made. every single race, gender, sexual preference, ect. can be, (and most have been) discriminated against. doesn't make it any less illegal, or any less liable for lawsuits.

 

Personally, while i don't condone it, I can't say i don't find it hilarious.

 

jabroni's not a biological sex. I have white friends who call me jabroni cause we know each other well enough to joke about that. If they don't know you though and they're calling you jabroni, then that's just weird. and more than likely racist. Can you sue them? Probably, but overall "that jabroni's over there" is a vastly different context than just saying "he's over there" one is a blatant exception to the standard rule, the other is applying the standard rule to somebody who doesn't want the rule applied to them. The two really don't correlate. Personally, i wouldn't sue them, i'd just roast the sheet out of them on sight, but you do you it's a reasonable enough option.

How is supporting it and enforcing it different things when you're a position of authority? He's the VP, he has massive pull. Also I'm not sure why people keep harping on the discrimination laws solely being innocuous misgendering, people lose their jobs over this sheet dog.

 

You dodged my question of "should I be able to pursue legal action if my boss calls me jabroni and refuses to stop?" pretty handidly in a paragraph. Good job. Answer it.

 

That took less time then I thought it would.

 

That's what I meant by threshold. You want to be called something, that I think you're not. And you haven't made a case well enough for me to willingly disregard the reality I can see with my two eyes. So, if you want, you can engage in your RP, but it's Orwellian to force me to embrace a false reality I don't see. There are cases where you can make a compelling case, but I've not seen it be made here.

 

So far I've not seen the stats that a tranny bathroom or pronoun will substantially reduce trans-suicide rates. And even if it did, that's a pretty materialist thing to kill yourself over. All signs point to some kinda of mental shortcoming here

Okay, so if my boss sees me as a jabroni and that's what he truly thinks should I value his thought process? Is it Orwellian to want a government that doesn't allow someone to parrot damaging, demeaning words in my ears just because I need to pay the bills? Are all beliefs equal in your mind?

 

There's the study I linked to Vla1ne a while back that I'll relink here that has to do with discrimination from work or school connecting itself to their suicide rates:

 

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/suicide-attempts-among-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-adults/#sthash.sVXS26qv.dpuf

 

Also really? You genuinely don't believe that improving someone's perceived quality of life will lessen suicide rates? Or are you just looking for an excuse to be a bully and throw around a slur again?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No? But it's also completely his right to think you're a jabroni. It's not his right to force you to call yourself a jabroni, nor is fair for you to force him to call you a jabroni if he doesn't want to. Your rights end with you. 

I'm actually not a fan of labor laws at all. If trannies are truly = to cis people in all regards, then a competitive market would punish people who uneconomically discriminate by creating niche opening and underproductivity 

[vla1ne]

How is supporting it and enforcing it different things when you're a position of authority? He's the VP, he has massive pull. Also I'm not sure why people keep harping on the discrimination laws solely being innocuous misgendering, people lose their jobs over this sheet dog. 

 

You dodged my question of "should I be able to pursue legal action if my boss calls me jabroni and refuses to stop?" pretty handidly in a paragraph. Good job. Answer it.

 

That took less time then I thought it would.

 

even if pence believed shock therapy worked, and supported the practice, he would not actually be enforcing it unless he were trying to make it into a law. which he is not trying to do, and he's had 2 years and a super majority in congress giving him every chance to try. One is a stance, the other is an action.

 

" Can you sue them? Probably, but overall "that jabroni's over there" is a vastly different context than just saying "he's over there" one is a blatant exception to the standard rule, the other is applying the standard rule to somebody who doesn't want the rule applied to them. The two really don't correlate. Personally, i wouldn't sue them, i'd just roast the sheet out of them on sight, but you do you it's a reasonable enough option." I provided a clarification before and after my response, because i absolutely had to point out that the two examples are not equivalent before going any further. I really didn't want to risk a misunderstanding down the line because of a mistaken equivocal. You may have missed the response, You can sue them. it's a legal possibility. You asked should you sue them. So i granted my answer in the form of advice. I wouldn't, You can if you want to. You do you. So in summary, if the question is can you, then yes. If the question is should you, then my answer is I wouldn't, but you can if you think you should.

[Proto]

@ because vla1ne ninjaed me.

 

Alright then, so you're pro free-speech regarding everything and pro free-market. I think that there are problems with that ideology but it doesn't have anything to do with trans people. I personally don't agree with it but that's another thread which would be more "why I disagree with your ideology" so to speak. You can go home until the inevitable "Capitalism vs Socialism" thread.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

@ because vla1ne ninjaed me.

 

Alright then, so you're pro free-speech regarding everything and pro free-market. I think that there are problems with that ideology but it doesn't have anything to do with trans people. I personally don't agree with it but that's another thread which would be more "why I disagree with your ideology" so to speak. You can go home until the inevitable "Capitalism vs Socialism" thread.

Uh...I'm like the most economically left leaning person on this forum. Like a straight up communist in many regards. I was merely talking about the market structure as it exists, not endorsing it. Free Speech absolutist, yes.

 

Sure it does, if you're right, and they're =, they'll find a niche to thrive in, if they're inferior, they'll get crushed out

[Proto]

even if pence believed shock therapy worked, and supported the practice, he would not actually be enforcing it unless he were trying to make it into a law. which he is not trying to do, and he's had 2 years and a super majority in congress giving him every chance to try. One is a stance, the other is an action.

 

" Can you sue them? Probably, but overall "that jabroni's over there" is a vastly different context than just saying "he's over there" one is a blatant exception to the standard rule, the other is applying the standard rule to somebody who doesn't want the rule applied to them. The two really don't correlate. Personally, i wouldn't sue them, i'd just roast the sheet out of them on sight, but you do you it's a reasonable enough option." I provided a clarification before and after my response, because i absolutely had to point out that the two examples are not equivalent before going any further. I really didn't want to risk a misunderstanding down the line because of a mistaken equivocal. You may have missed the response, You can sue them. it's a legal possibility. You asked should you sue them. So i granted my answer in the form of advice. I wouldn't, You can if you want to. You do you. So in summary, if the question is can you, then yes. If the question is should you, then my answer is I wouldn't, but you can.if you think you should.

One could argue that this very law could be the first step in such a procedure. Since you kinda need to make it so those pesky definitions don't get in the way if you wanna support alternative methods to dealing with gender dysphoria.

 

Okay but this has nothing to do with your ideology as a whole which I'm trying to get at, you shouldn't try to weasel it with words. We're talking about policy. I'm not asking for personal advice. If you were in the position of power and you had the jurisdiction to determine this law on whether someone who has to deal with someone using a racist/sexist word repeatedly in their face and using their power in that manner to dehumanize them but did not act in any other manner, would you allow legal action against the employer or not?

 

 

 

Uh...I'm like the most economically left leaning person on this forum. Like a straight up communist in many regards. I was merely talking about the market structure as it exists, not endorsing it. Free Speech absolutist, yes.

 

Sure it does, if you're right, and they're =, they'll find a niche to thrive in, if they're inferior, they'll get crushed out

Sure, what do you have to say to free speech that encourages violence against other people?

 

So what are you endorsing like, the "crushing out" of people? Should they not live because they happen to be born in a way that's less optimal then others? It's weird to hear someone who's a communist be against labor laws. But again, I'm not going to question you on that in this thread because it'll lead to us getting off-topic. (We're already horrendously offtopic)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well, no one is getting crushed out if your central hypothesis of trans equality of ability stands 

 

If I'm correct, they're simply unfit for certain jobs that require emotional stability 

[vla1ne]

One could argue that this very law could be the first step in such a procedure. Since you kinda need to make it so those pesky definitions don't get in the way if you wanna support alternative methods to dealing with gender dysphoria.

 

Okay but this has nothing to do with your ideology as a whole which I'm trying to get at, you shouldn't try to weasel it with words. We're talking about policy. I'm not asking for personal advice. If you were in the position of power and you had the jurisdiction to determine this law on whether someone who has to deal with someone using a racist/sexist word repeatedly in their face and using their power in that manner to dehumanize them but did not act in any other manner, would you allow legal action against the employer or not?

 

This law would do nothing of the sort. there's dozens of things you would have to fly past the people to get even 10% closer to such a thing as shock therapy being valid and legal (if he even supports that), especially on the unwilling or the young.

 

 

You can already do so. You can sue them into oblivion if you like if they keep calling you jabroni. This is why i made thste statements of my past two posts. I've explained it twice, calling somebody jabroni is absolutely different than calling somebody he or she. One is clearly an abnormal title reserved for either jokes or prejudice, the other one is arguably one of the most normal thing you can say in regards to a person. You will use or hear the words he or she dozens if not thousands of times a day. The word jabroni on the other hand, will not pop up in regular conversation unless you are attempting to either be derogatory towards a group, among a group of friends who use the word as if it were the same as he or she, or if you're making jokes regarding a group of people. In two cases, the word is used in abnormal fashion, and in the case closest to any normalcy, it is merely a substitute for the already existing he/she pronoun. They are not the same at all, thus the comparison is invalid. So once more, you can already sue them for jabroni, but whether or not you should, is up to you.

[Proto]

You can already do so. You can sue them into oblivion if you like if they keep calling you jabroni. This is why i made thste statements of my past two posts. I've explained it twice, calling somebody jabroni is absolutely different than calling somebody he or she. One is clearly an abnormal title reserved for either jokes or prejudice, the other one is arguably one of the most normal thing you can say in regards to a person. You will use or hear the words he or she dozens if not thousands of times a day. The word jabroni on the other hand, will not pop up in regular conversation unless you are attempting to either be derogatory towards a group, among a group of friends who use the word as if it were the same as he or she, or if you're making jokes regarding a group of people. In two cases, the word is used in abnormal fashion, and in the case closest to any normalcy, it is merely a substitute for the already existing he/she pronoun. They are not the same at all, thus the comparison is invalid. So once more, you can already sue them for jabroni, but whether or not you should, is up to you.

I. Am. Not. Talking. About. Current. Policies. I. Am. Trying. To. Understand. Your. Belief. System.

 

Alright, so jabroni isn't used commonly. How about monkey? How about instead of my preferred name they just say "oh, get that monkey to do that" "Come over here monkey" "Monkey, get in gear".

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I. Am. Not. Talking. About. Current. Policies. I. Am. Trying. To. Understand. Your. Belief. System.

 

Alright, so jabroni isn't used commonly. How about monkey? How about instead of my preferred name they just say "oh, get that monkey to do that" "Come over here monkey" "Monkey, get in gear".

Then they're an jabroni. And it sucks. Is the job worth more to you or is it your dignity? Weigh matters and move out or stay put. Also it's somewhat different. Calling a human a monkey is the same position the trannies are in right now in forcing people to call them something they're not.

[Proto]

Then they're an jabroni. And it sucks. Is the job worth more to you or is it your dignity? Weigh matters and move out or stay put. Also it's somewhat different. Calling a human a monkey is the same position the trannies are in right now in forcing people to call them something they're not.

I understand your point of view but it's silly and would warrant another thread entirely if it came to debunk it. If something sucks, then it's ideally the government's job to police that like, there isn't a zero sum game here and I don't understand preventing certain abuse cases like this being illegal, nobody is coming for your right to say the bad thing on your own time. They're asking you to not create situations that suck over people that you have power over and Obama added trans people of "there is a lot of shitty things you can do to these people when you're in a position of power, don't do it or else there will be consequences." Trump is removing that. I don't like that because civil rights are important if you don't want to make exploitative environments for people. I am against it because while we live in a capitalistic world I'd prefer as little people get sheet on as possible while we're there instead of waiting for the revolution.

 

Again, nobody is FORCING anyone. I'm not sure why you people keep asserting this language where there is one law in New York that doesn't prevent people from misgendering people, it just equates insulting and constantly berating someone with the fact that they are a woman, or gay, or black with the fact that they are trans as the same thing. Which is like, you wouldn't call a black person you didn't know a jabroni, you wouldn't call a random woman you didn't know a whore, you wouldn't call a gay person you didn't know a baka so why are you specifically drawing the line at "no I will not stand for this fringe minority being able to stifle my free speech" when it comes to trans rights? Why do you use tranny which has been basically a dehumanizing slur since forever?

 

It all really goes back to the fact that ya'll are bullies doesn't it?

 

Oh yeah @@vla1ne by the way if you're gonna throw out the possibility of hermaphordites being a thing, quit it with the zhi/zhir or dlc sheet because that is a thing that is hilariously uncommon to the point of absurdity. If they become more then a strawman on the verge of attack helicopters just used to make trans people look bad then sure, I'll consider it. But don't dismiss gender/sex being on a spectrum because of the possibility of your sex funking up as fringe incidents and then use something that I'm not even sure that 50 people out of the millions of the United States could ever identify as on the internet, let alone have the balls to try to demand rights for it online.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

You do you. I'm pretty anti-driving people to suicide and I've suffered through periods of having to self harm in order to live with myself but I understand not everyone's like that. But if that's your belief I doubt it'll be one that's changed by a near anon poster on a yugioh forum.

 

Suicide is a choice and it is one that I would neither encourage nor condone under any circumstances, nor do I wish to see suicide glorified, romanticized, or attributed to causes other than those who commit suicide themselves as I consider it important for the act of suicide itself to be rejected. If someone else truly causes the death, then it is murder or manslaughter. I disagree with the notion that people are driven by others to commit violent crimes as that deflects responsibility from the person who actually did the deed under their own conscience. Suicide is a violent crime that deprives the world of any good they may have wrought in later years, and woefully deprives any who might have loved them. Trust me I have been there. I have had suicidal thoughts. I have hurt and hospitalized myself. I have had growing pains, and I call them that because I have grown out of them. I look back upon myself in those times with disdain for being bent upon depriving myself of my potential and taking away the years I have lived since and the years ahead of me that I will live, and I look the same way at those who would harm themselves now. It is our duty to keep living and it is a duty to earn the years before us like badges. The years I have lived since have been happier and more fulfilling years and I am glad to have lived them and grateful to still be here. 

 

 

Pence has been known to be anti-gay in the past with his statements regarding such issues being. "Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage." And more egregiously: "Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexual's as a "discreet and insular minority" entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities." on his website as cited below. That and combined with his original statement makes his intent very clear on that statement not being about gay people's sexual habits but about the "gay condition" itself.

 

Would you have him renounce his religion? Decades ago such views were commonplace. Nowadays, not so much. These days it is easier politically to be a champion of gay rights, but he chooses not to be and for that I admire his conviction even if I disagree. Calling the homosexual equivalent of marriage a civil union and granting such unions the same legal rights as marriage is a fair compromise that preserves the religious definition of marriage while granting equal human rights. That said, I can see why he wouldn't want to encourage people to form un-Christian unions that cannot produce children for government aid and does not feel the need for government to intervene on the behalf of homosexuals for being homosexual.

[Proto]

Suicide is a choice and it is one that I would neither encourage nor condone under any circumstances, nor do I wish to see suicide glorified, romanticized, or attributed to causes other than those who commit suicide themselves as I consider it important for the act of suicide itself to be rejected. If someone else truly causes the death, then it is murder or manslaughter. I disagree with the notion that people are driven by others to commit violent crimes as that deflects responsibility from the person who actually did the deed under their own conscience. Suicide is a violent crime that deprives the world of any good they may have wrought in later years, and woefully deprives any who might have loved them. Trust me I have been there. I have had suicidal thoughts. I have hurt and hospitalized myself. I have had growing pains, and I call them that because I have grown out of them. I look back upon myself in those times with disdain for being bent upon depriving myself of my potential and taking away the years I have lived since and the years ahead of me that I will live, and I look the same way at those who would harm themselves now. It is our duty to keep living and it is a duty to earn the years before us like badges. The years I have lived since have been happier and more fulfilling years and I am glad to have lived them and grateful to still be here. 

 

 

 

Would you have him renounce his religion? Decades ago such views were commonplace. Nowadays, not so much. These days it is easier politically to be a champion of gay rights, but he chooses not to be and for that I admire his conviction even if I disagree. Calling the homosexual equivalent of marriage a civil union and granting such unions the same legal rights as marriage is a fair compromise that preserves the religious definition of marriage while granting equal human rights. That said, I can see why he wouldn't want to encourage people to form un-Christian unions that cannot produce children for government aid and does not feel the need for government to intervene on the behalf of homosexuals for being homosexual.

I'm not really glorifying them, I'm just saying, having a terrible, terrible environment that believes you to be something your not and won't even give you the basic respect of at least using the same courtesy as say a woman might have with you calling her Mrs. or that a gay person might have with you utterly insisting that they're straight so to speak increases your chance of suicide.

 

No, I'd rather him not play wordgames around it. Religious devotion should not be an excuse for policy that harms people for as long as Church remains separate from State.  I notice you care more about that gay marriage bit where I said the clearly more egregious one was not granting gays the anti-discrimination laws that extend to women and ethnic minorities to gay people. Now, he clearly isn't a fool and thinks that gays do not have a similar amount of discrimination against them as a christian man, so why would he permit people to abuse them and not offer the same shield he offers racial minorities and women unless he truly sees it as an abomination.

 

I'm not saying he should renounce his faith, I'm saying that if he can't keep his faith away from clouding his policy and not make one of his campaign goals literally to get congress to make gay people's lives worse then he should not hold office. I don't care about what you believe, but when you start enacting policy based off of that belief of marriage, sanctity when you stand under a President who's on his third wife and openly cheated on his current one during his marriage then I question that it's merely a man being devoted to his tome and the sacred nature of marriage and that it's a blatant disregard and hatred for taxpaying citizens of this nation just because of who they choose to sleep with.

[Dad]

Fyi, shock therapy is legal. It's used to treat depression. 80-90 % success rate.

[vla1ne]

Fyi, shock therapy is legal. It's used to treat depression. 80-90 % success rate.

Seriously? 80-90% success for depression? How long does it last? and does it maintain status better than regular exercise?

 

I. Am. Not. Talking. About. Current. Policies. I. Am. Trying. To. Understand. Your. Belief. System.

 

Alright, so jabroni isn't used commonly. How about monkey? How about instead of my preferred name they just say "oh, get that monkey to do that" "Come over here monkey" "Monkey, get in gear"

You can still sue them for harassment. Seriously. i have no idea what else you want me to say. In my eyes, it's really that simple of a question. Either sue them, be a dick back, or let it roll off your shoulders. bastards exist, how you deal with them depends on the situation and your personality. Do i condone being a dick for the sake of being a dick? Not quite, but i also don't support forcing people to play long with personal delusions. Except if it's something like working with an Alzheimer patient who literally cannot tell reality from fiction and cannot even tell that they're making you play along. 

 

 

By the way if you're gonna throw out the possibility of hermaphordites being a thing, quit it with the zhi/zhir or dlc sheet because that is a thing that is hilariously uncommon to the point of absurdity. If they become more then a strawman on the verge of attack helicopters just used to make trans people look bad then sure, I'll consider it. But don't dismiss gender/sex being on a spectrum because of the possibility of your sex funking up as fringe incidents and then use something that I'm not even sure that 50 people out of the millions of the United States could ever identify as on the internet, let alone have the balls to try to demand rights for it online.

Hermaphrodites are not a new third sex, they are both sexes at once via defect. That is not a third option, it's a malfunction on the level of a third arm or leg (albeit possibly more sexy than a third arm or leg). It applies to more than just zhi zir. I used them as examples, but the scope goes for anything. If you walk up to me, and try to make me use your worldview, I'll likely tell you get away from me. Doesn't matter if it's him, her, they, zhi, zhir, or any other pronoun. religious, social justice, doesn't matter. Flaunt it or not if all want, just don't expect me to play along. i might, i might not, but that's my decision to make.

[Dad]

Shock therapy has a high success rate but also a moderate rate of relapse. Something like 45% iirc.

[vla1ne]

Shock therapy has a high success rate but also a moderate rate of relapse. Something like 45% iirc.

Damn I thought you meant semi permanent treatment. A 45% relapse rate is really too high for the chance to be worth it. Especially if the method is as terrible as shocking yourself.