All Things LGBTQ+ (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
6,558
Reaction score
2,211
Age
49
Location
Mobile
Offline
Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

  • The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
  • Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.
 
is dominated by the other side of the spectrum, which really doesn't have a label, but to me is basically "you are 100% on this side or you are the phobic enemy"; look at the response from coldseat.

I find this rather comical. While I've certainly argued on the scientific part of this discussion, my interest in the topic is much more on the human side of it as far as how trans, nonbinary and people that don't fit into the gender binary are treated. I've never claimed to know 100% of anything. The scientific part of this discussion is secondary to me and to be honest, almost doesn't really matter as I don't believe that people who don't fit in the gender binary are lying, confused, mentally ill, or whatever other derogatory label is foisted on them.

That you're so obstinate in your own scientific beliefs on this topic, I think is telling. But whatever the reason for that is, I don't really care much either.
 
Last edited:
I allowed for that by stating that there are rare exceptions of extra chromosomes, but the vast majority of people are binary, and that was the point, so you're wrong.

You stated that if you have 2 X chromosomes then you're female. That is wrong. If you have 2 X chromosomes you are probably female, but not necessarily. Not to mention biologists don't define sex so rigidly as you do b/c of the exceptions I mentioned. They talk about chromosomal sex, genetic sex, phenotypical sex and hormonal sex. And all of those aren't super rigid.

It isn't quite a normal distribution in terms of a spectrum, the vast majority fall with in a pretty tight range with thin tales, but there is a range, and it is not binary.
 
You should do more reading — you’re bringing a sixth grade understanding of the science to a college level discussion. Sorry to be so blunt, but you are out of your depth here.

I don’t mean to be harsh Lapaz, I have a BS in Biology and I am out of my depth when UTJ starts talking.
You stated that if you have 2 X chromosomes then you're female. That is wrong. If you have 2 X chromosomes you are probably female, but not necessarily. Not to mention biologists don't define sex so rigidly as you do b/c of the exceptions I mentioned. They talk about chromosomal sex, genetic sex, phenotypical sex and hormonal sex. And all of those aren't super rigid.

It isn't quite a normal distribution in terms of a spectrum, the vast majority fall with in a pretty tight range with thin tales, but there is a range, and it is not binary.
I also said with rare exceptions. Again, with very rare exceptions, if you have 2 X chromosomes, you are female, and if you have a Y, you are male. For all intents and purposes, our genetic sex is binary. The rare exceptions don’t disprove that. You can complicate it with the rare exceptions, but many are complicating it way more than is justified. Extremely few people are non-binary.
 
I also said with rare exceptions. Again, with very rare exceptions, if you have 2 X chromosomes, you are female, and if you have a Y, you are male. For all intents and purposes, our genetic sex is binary. The rare exceptions don’t disprove that. You can complicate it with the rare exceptions, but many are complicating it way more than is justified. Extremely few people are non-binary.
We’re not complicating it. You are simplifying it and when you do that you are essentially denying the reality of the situation.

Humans are incredibly complex. It does a disservice to be so reductive.
 
I also said with rare exceptions. Again, with very rare exceptions, if you have 2 X chromosomes, you are female, and if you have a Y, you are male. For all intents and purposes, our genetic sex is binary. The rare exceptions don’t disprove that. You can complicate it with the rare exceptions, but many are complicating it way more than is justified. Extremely few people are non-binary.

Chromosomes are binary, except for rare genetic mutations which rarely survive. If you have 2 X chromosomes, you’re biologically a female.

I think it is that simple. Of course many genes come into play to determine how much of a hormone your body produces, but if you have 2 X chromosones, then you're a female. You may be a very masculine female, and you may believe that you should be a male, but you're still a female. Even if you have surgery to transition to a man, you're still genetically a female, because your 23rd chromosome has a matching chromosome, and vice versa. Until we develop gene therapy that would result in our chromosomes changing, we are genetically fixed.

You are being incredibly dismissive, FYI.
 
We’re not complicating it. You are simplifying it and when you do that you are essentially denying the reality of the situation.

Humans are incredibly complex. It does a disservice to be so reductive.
Even if it is 0.1% of the population, that’s over 350,000 people just in the US. I suspect it is more than that if you take all types of anomalies into account. We shouldn’t be dismissive of these people.

edit to add: I found this

“It is estimated that up to 1.7 percent of the population has an intersex trait and that approximately 0.5 percent of people have clinically identifiable sexual or reproductive variations.”

from the Center for American Progress.

About 0.02-0.05% of births are babies with ambiguous genitals. This means doctors cannot assign a gender by looking. That’s a couple of thousand every year just in the US.
 
Last edited:
You know what I love about living in the US? Freedom! You can choose between multiple overpriced insurance companies to provide you with healthcare, for example.

The healthcare companies, in turn, can seemingly charge you whatever they like for their services. If they want to charge you $1,500 (£1,200) for some toenail fungus cream, that is their prerogative. That’s freedom, baby.

As if this wasn’t glorious enough, the healthcare system in Florida has just had a new layer of freedom added to it.

On 1 July, a new law goes into effect that means a doctor can look a potential patient up and down, decide they are giving off homosexual vibes and refuse to treat them because interacting with gay people goes against their personal beliefs.

The doctor will not face any repercussions for denying care and has no obligation to refer the patient elsewhere.

I wish I was exaggerating but I’m not. Last week, Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, signed the Protections of Medical Conscience (pdf) bill, which lets medical professionals and health insurance companies deny patients care based on religious, moral or ethical beliefs.

While the new law doesn’t allow care to be withheld because of race, colour sex, or national origin, there are no protections for sexual orientation or gender identity.

The only bright spot is that hospitals must still abide by federal laws that require them to stabilise a patient with an emergency condition. In other words, you can’t let a patient die just because they’re wearing a Drag Race T-shirt.

At least, I don’t think you can: it is hard to say precisely what is allowed under this new law because, like a lot of regressive Republican legislation, the bill is deliberately vague.

It does not list which procedures are acceptable to refuse and it doesn’t clearly define what constitutes a “sincerely held religious, moral, or ethical belief”.

This lack of clarity is by design: Republicans love passing legislation with vague language because it creates confusion and is more difficult to challenge.

It is also a lot scarier for the people affected when you don’t have a clear idea what is allowed and what isn’t.

The journalist Mary C Curtis has called the tactic “intimidation by obfuscation”. The American Civil Liberties Union noted that the new law means “Floridians will have to fear discriminatory treatment from medical providers every time they meet a new provider, calling into question everyone’s trust in their medical care.”…….

 
I’m seeing that the DeSantis bill also greatly restricts ADULTS from receiving transgender care. It’s never been about the children, has it? It’s always been about controlling the out groups. Like any authoritarian state.

 
…….Many of the proposals, as introduced or passed, are identical or very similar to some model legislation, the AP found. Those ready-made bills have been used in statehouses for decades, often with criticisms of carpetbagging by out-of-state interests. In the case of restrictions on gender-affirming care for youths, they allow a handful of far-right groups to spread a false narrative based on distorted science, critics say.

“These are solutions from outside our state looking to solve nonexistent problems inside our state,” said Aaron Jennen. “For whatever reason, they have the ear of legislatures in states like Arkansas, and the legislators will generally defer to and only listen to those individuals.”

The AP obtained the texts of more than 130 bills in 40 state legislatures from Plural, a public policy software company, and analyzed them for similarities to model bills peddled by the conservative groups Do No Harm, which also criticizes efforts to diversify staffing in medicine, and the Family Research Council, which has long been involved in abortion restrictions.


One of the clearest examples is in Montana, where nearly all the language in at least one bill can be found in Do No Harm’s model. Publicly available emails from December show the Republican sponsor, Sen. John Fuller, tweaked the model before introducing it weeks later. Democrats criticized his efforts.

“This is not a Montana issue; it is an issue pushed by well-funded national groups,” Democratic Sen. Janet Ellis said during debate in February.

Republicans pushed back.


“Someone mentioned this is not a Montana solution. And I can tell you that I won my election on this issue,” said Republican Sen. Barry Usher, who ran unopposed in the general election after winning his contested primary.

The Montana bill passed in March with much of Do No Harm’s model language intact and has been signed into law.

Do No Harm’s model and the 2021 Arkansas billendorsed as a model by the Family Research Council also have many similarities, including the assertion — rebutted by major medical organizations — that the risks of gender-affirming care outweigh its benefits……..
 
Alumni are criticising a small New York Christian university for firing two employees who refused to remove gender pronouns from their email signatures.

In April, Raegan Zelaya and Shua Wilmot, residence hall directors at Houghton University, were fired from their positions, after they put “she/her” and “he/him” in their signatures.

In a widely circulated termination letter for Ms Zelaya, the school wrote it fired her shortly before the end of the semester “as a result of your refusal to remove pronouns in your email signature” and because she criticised the decision in the student newspaper.

Mr Wilmot said he was also accused of making a “threat” towards the general superintendent of the Wesleyan Church, Wayne Schmidt. Mr Wilmot had written what he called a “constructive letter” about the church’s views on gender identity and expression that he said are outdated and problematic, and he had requested that the message be forwarded…….

 
Alumni are criticising a small New York Christian university for firing two employees who refused to remove gender pronouns from their email signatures.

In April, Raegan Zelaya and Shua Wilmot, residence hall directors at Houghton University, were fired from their positions, after they put “she/her” and “he/him” in their signatures.

In a widely circulated termination letter for Ms Zelaya, the school wrote it fired her shortly before the end of the semester “as a result of your refusal to remove pronouns in your email signature” and because she criticised the decision in the student newspaper.

Mr Wilmot said he was also accused of making a “threat” towards the general superintendent of the Wesleyan Church, Wayne Schmidt. Mr Wilmot had written what he called a “constructive letter” about the church’s views on gender identity and expression that he said are outdated and problematic, and he had requested that the message be forwarded…….

LOL

They're not even transgender. They literally put their birth-assigned gender pronouns in their signatures, and that was enough to trigger the university.
 
Adidas next in the whole outrage machine
====================
An Adidas campaign for Pride 2023 has gained considerable backlash after featuring male-presenting models wearing women’s swimsuits. Now, many people have defended the brand, amidst a wave of anti-trans sentiment towards companies including transgender people in their advertising.

The sportswear brand unveiled its new collection for Pride 2023 on 15 May, titled “Let Love Be Your Legacy”……..

 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Back
Top Bottom