Transgender Bathrooms... Targets getting boycotted. (Your Opinions?)

"

SkyCore wrote:

I'm with Dr Manhattan on this subject (watch the watchmen movie).

After writing this post, youtube mysteriously is recommending videos about the watchmen.

.

As I understand it, there are two things at play here. The first is the obvious: the surface issue. But the second is an issue of Executive overreach v congressional legislation. (Click here for more.)

I heard something on NPR recently, where a governor lamented the lack of legal definition of gender at the federal level.

The thought was that if the federal government cannot or will not provide a legal definition of what constitutes gender, then it has no legs to stand on when it comes to anti-gender discrimination law, and shouldn't be reprimanding governors or states for trodding on the rights of a section of the population which is ambiguously categorized, legally.

Forgive me if I've gotten any of the facts wrong; I'm just relating what I've heard.

Seth meyer takes a strong stance on this issue. Dont disagree with anything he said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn0eIAyYByI

Personally, i think the whole segragation of men and women is a terrible idea altogether. The prejudice against any minority is terrible. The lack of rights of youths not yet of age 18 is terrible. The view that nudity is shameful or unacceptable is terrible. In general, any negativity directed at someone whom is not harming anyone is terrible.

There are a lot of terrible things in the current status quo.

"

bwam wrote:

As I understand it, there are two things at play here. The first is the obvious: the surface issue. But the second is an issue of Executive overreach v congressional legislation. (Click here for more.)

I heard something on NPR recently, where a governor lamented the lack of legal definition of gender at the federal level.

The thought was that if the federal government cannot or will not provide a legal definition of what constitutes gender, then it has no legs to stand on when it comes to anti-gender discrimination law, and shouldn't be reprimanding governors or states for trodding on the rights of a section of the population which is ambiguously categorized, legally.

Forgive me if I've gotten any of the facts wrong; I'm just relating what I've heard.

Your points are valid, and a good portion of citizen's individual rights were pried out of federal authority either by states fighting for state rights, or by corporations fighting against the federal government. A small group of citizens rarely has the finances, clout or staying ability to see an issue through when the federal government and all its mechanisms and squashing and delaying tactics are involved. Consider that an issue may take several lifetimes to resolve and it is clear that individuals are at a huge disadvantage vs the federal government. The difficulty of struggle becomes patently obvious when it is considered that the federal government has difficulty getting through its own bureaucracy.

Few people realize the origin of many of the "rights" that they see debated as new issues arise. The "equal protection clause" of the fourteenth amendment (which is the heart of the current topic and the sole support for the federal government's actions) really didn't have much impetus until the battles of the railroads, states and federal government came to a head.

If someone has the time and inclination, a good primer on how the fourteenth amendment got its teeth is

The Iron Horse and the Constitution
by Richard C. Cortner




I'd think most city libraries could get the book through an inter-library loan.

https://lexile.com/book/details/9780313285783/


TLDR: Transgender rights to use the bathroom are derived from Railroad rights. Read about it :-)
]

"

SkyCore wrote:

Seth meyer takes a strong stance on this issue. Dont disagree with anything he said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn0eIAyYByI

Does Seth Meyer consistently condemn all such bigotry? (I don't watch him, so I'm just asking)

"

SkyCore wrote:

Personally, i think the whole segragation of men and women is a terrible idea altogether. The prejudice against any minority is terrible.

I'd agree with you on that. I'm still waiting for the major progressive media outlets to make some noise on the latest affront to the LGBTQ community:

Muslim states block gay groups from U.N. AIDS meeting; U.S. protests

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36325578



People who want to know which media outlets are sort of bending and obfuscating the truth can track which of their news sources follow this story and which ones sweep it under the rug.

Surprisingly, after searching through dozens of pages, even lgbtqnation.com didn't have anything on it. I don't know if they just take a few days to get their news updated, but I'd think it would be something featured on their site.

If not, then I'd say they are disingenuous in their handling of the truth as well.

I guess we'll just see who really care about transgender rights, and who just likes wearing the SJW cape.

Update for anyone who is slightly interested, but not enough to want to spend 20 min or more checking:



The good news is that US Secretary of State John Kerry met with Egypt's President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, so we can expect that the attending reporters might raise the question (even though it would be indelicate of Kerry to raise the issue, as it would sidetrack negotiations)



So, how did they turn out for the news media?

"State Department officials said that once they learned reporters would be barred from the palace, they never even requested visas for us so we could, as is customary, follow Mr. Kerry into the capital for his two- to three-hour visit. Instead, those who made the long trip were stuck in a lounge at the airport."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/insider/egypt-john-kerry-abdel-fattah-el-sisi.html?ref=world

"

SkyCore wrote:

In general, any negativity directed at someone whom is not harming anyone is terrible.

If you meant "use of force" instead of "negativity" then maybe. But the idea of suppressing the genuine disapproval of some to preserve the overly delicate self-esteem of others is attempting to defend a zero; if someone cannot confront or accept criticism without losing their opinion of themselves, then they had no self-esteem to speak of.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

In general, any negativity directed at someone whom is not harming anyone is terrible.

If you meant "use of force" instead of "negativity" then maybe. But the idea of suppressing the genuine disapproval of some to preserve the overly delicate self-esteem of others is attempting to defend a zero; if someone cannot confront or accept criticism without losing their opinion of themselves, then they had no self-esteem to speak of.

I think this is THE key issue in morality and law, im glad you brought it up. Many people are comfortable with putting other people down on a daily basis. It is a common thing in modern society.

Where is the difference between between;
discussing the pros and cons of a specific behavior,
advocating a specific behavoir,
advocating the disapproval of a specific behavior,
calling someone a piece of shit behind their back,
telling someone to their face they are terrible,
barring them from purchasing goods (restricting their freedom/ welfare),
punching them (causing physcial pain without permanent damage),
tramatizing (semi-permanent psychological damage),
locking them in a cage (total restriction of freedom),
breaking their bones (temporary damage),
breaking their back (permanent damage),
killing them,
and killing their entire family and friends.

In my original post i dont think i clearly defined what i meant by negativity. On this list i would denote negativity as anything beyond item 3. The common theme of such negativity is that harm is being willfully and maliciously directed at individuals.

At one point in my life i would have said that such negativity has no place at all in society, but now that i fully understand how truly flawed humans are... i can accept limited harm so long as it prevents greater harm.

I think it's safe to assume an axiom: Condemning and punishing someone (physically /socially /or otherwise) who has not harmed another is morally wrong. If you dont agree with that axiom, i think the burden is on you to prove why.

Axiom 2: The use of force and the use of 'negativity' are equivalent. This one i expect most to not fully realize. But seems readily apparent to me. They are on completely different levels of abstraction, yes. But except for cases of permanent damage, they are extrodinarily similar with similar effects. Mankind has only recently been able to understand there is more to reality than the physical structures we can see with our eyes and touch with our hands. It is not an obvious thing. The world of information and abstractions is in many ways MORE important than the physical world. It is what seperates us above animals, and holds the promise of reaching beyond our planet and indefinitely extended lifespans. Granting us more power than any animal could possibly obtain.

Criticism of ones behavior is one thing. Condemnation and personal attacks is another.

Also i think i should mention what i feel the ultimate goal should be: The maximization of the future freedom of action for all entities capable of mutual cooperation. We need to strive towards empowering people with tools of the mind as well as of the physical world.

I dont think it should be allowed... its too risky imo

For example

Im a guy, i walk into target, i ask if its true, they say yes, i walk into the ladies bathroom, i see pretty girl

rape

easy as that.

"

Slayer_Tip wrote:

I dont think it should be allowed... its too risky imo

For example

Im a guy, i walk into target, i ask if its true, they say yes, i walk into the ladies bathroom, i see pretty girl

rape

easy as that.

You see a pretty girl in a bathroom and you have an uncontrollable urge to rape her? God damn dude lol. What about girls at the beach? Or a city pool?