All Things LGBTQ+ (11 Viewers)

[Farb]

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.

 

[SystemShock]

I have never made this claim. I don't know why you're asking me to support it.

So now we are going to play games...

You accused me of siding with the Bible every time I posted on this thread. I asked you what made you say that, and I asked four questions, the very first one was Because, based on human biology, I say a male/female of the species cannot transform into a female/male of the species? and you replied "yes".

Then I stated "If you truly believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species and/or vise versa, then you are lost to your ideology", and your reply was "it's your mirror, I am just holding it"

So I asked you again, to make sure I got it right: Do you really believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species, and vise versa? And now you tell me "I never made that claim", but you certainly implied it with your answers, and then try to avoid it by stating something about gender.

So I ask you, again, do you truly believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species and/or vise versa?
Don't tell me about genders, don't tell me you are holding a mirror, tell me that you either believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species and/or vise versa, or tell me a male of the species cannot transform into a female of the species and/or vise versa.

 

[brandon]

So now we are going to play games...

You accused me of siding with the Bible every time I posted on this thread. I asked you what made you say that, and I asked four questions, the very first one was Because, based on human biology, I say a male/female of the species cannot transform into a female/male of the species? and you replied "yes".

Then I stated "If you truly believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species and/or vise versa, then you are lost to your ideology", and your reply was "it's your mirror, I am just holding it"

So I asked you again, to make sure I got it right: Do you really believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species, and vise versa? And now you tell me "I never made that claim", but you certainly implied it with your answers, and then try to avoid it by stating something about gender.

So I ask you, again, do you truly believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species and/or vise versa?
Don't tell me about genders, don't tell me you are holding a mirror, tell me that you either believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species and/or vise versa, or tell me a male of the species cannot transform into a female of the species and/or vise versa.

Sorry, I didn't read your post to which I replied "yes" very thoroughly, so it looks like I should have answered that question in more detail.

However, I cannot simply just answer your question with a "no, I don't believe a female human can become a male human" because while that answers your question, that question isn't relevant to the topic at hand. Thus, I provided you a more nuanced answer, which better fits the discussion of transgender people. That you do not wish to separate sex from gender is irrelevant. They are separate. We are not talking about transsexual people. We are talking about transgender people. Thus, gender is the topic of discussion, whether you like it or not. And of course, all of this ignores intersex people, which do, in fact, exist.

More importantly, all of this was a deflection from the fact that while you typically have progressive views about things on this board, your thoughts on transgender people are extremely conservative, to the point that they very obviously align with the particular conservative beliefs you believe the Bible to espouse. You took issue with my more progressive interpretation of the Bible, but then refused to acknowledge that your interpretation of the Bible (of which, you never actually cited a verse) largely aligns with the way you view the world as it relates to LGBTQ issues, even if you don't believe the Bible itself.

I'm not even sure why you got so defensive about it.

 

[coldseat]

So now we are going to play games...

You accused me of siding with the Bible every time I posted on this thread. I asked you what made you say that, and I asked four questions, the very first one was Because, based on human biology, I say a male/female of the species cannot transform into a female/male of the species? and you replied "yes".

Then I stated "If you truly believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species and/or vise versa, then you are lost to your ideology", and your reply was "it's your mirror, I am just holding it"

So I asked you again, to make sure I got it right: Do you really believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species, and vise versa? And now you tell me "I never made that claim", but you certainly implied it with your answers, and then try to avoid it by stating something about gender.

So I ask you, again, do you truly believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species and/or vise versa?
Don't tell me about genders, don't tell me you are holding a mirror, tell me that you either believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species and/or vise versa, or tell me a male of the species cannot transform into a female of the species and/or vise versa.

Do you believe transgendered people are mentally ill? Do you believe they're defective in some way?

I curious how you believe transgendered people come to be? Do you think they're just confused kids who grow up to be confused adults? Do you think it's LGBTQ advocacy or movement that made them transgendered because of gender ideology?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Is Dylan Mulvaney authentically trans, or a successful performance artist? Or both, maybe?



I believe this is performance art. I strongly disagree with the woman in the above video. I believe that Mulvaney knows exactly what reality is, and in reality, this particular act is probably pretty lucrative. Not for Anheuser-Busch, maybe, but certainly for Dylan.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I believe this is performance art. I strongly disagree with the woman in the above video. I believe that Mulvaney knows exactly what reality is, and in reality, this particular act is probably pretty lucrative. Not for Anheuser-Busch, maybe, but certainly for Dylan.

Have you ever had any kind of a personal relationship with someone who perceives themselves as transgender?

Or do you just hurl judgements and insults at them from afar without ever actually getting to know any of them on a personal, one on one level?

 

[SystemShock]

Sorry, I didn't read your post to which I replied "yes" very thoroughly, so it looks like I should have answered that question in more detail.

However, I cannot simply just answer your question with a "no, I don't believe a female human can become a male human" because while that answers your question, that question isn't relevant to the topic at hand. Thus, I provided you a more nuanced answer, which better fits the discussion of transgender people. That you do not wish to separate sex from gender is irrelevant. They are separate. We are not talking about transsexual people. We are talking about transgender people. Thus, gender is the topic of discussion, whether you like it or not. And of course, all of this ignores intersex people, which do, in fact, exist.

So you refuse to say a male/female of the species cannot transform into a female/male of the species, even though it is a fact.

The statement does not ignore intersex people, which do, in fact, exist. Intersex people don't transform either.

More importantly, all of this was a deflection from the fact that while you typically have progressive views about things on this board, your thoughts on transgender people are extremely conservative,

They are not. You associate them with extremely conservative views. But biological facts are neither liberal nor conservative.

to the point that they very obviously align with the particular conservative beliefs you believe the Bible to espouse.

No, it does not. It aligns with biology/physiology.

You took issue with my more progressive interpretation of the Bible,

I take an issue with anything Bible.

but then refused to acknowledge that your interpretation of the Bible (of which, you never actually cited a verse) largely aligns with the way you view the world as it relates to LGBTQ issues, even if you don't believe the Bible itself.

Don't give me the "worldview" crap. As for Bible verses, you don't know Genesis? Ok. Genesis 1:27-28: So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply," So God didn't create transgenders. or queers, or whathaveyou. God created males and females who can procreate. Nothing in the Bible refers to "gender". The word doesn't exist in ancient Hebrew. They didn't even have a word for homosexual or lesbian, or even bestiality; they had to describe the activity, asas demonstrated by Leviticus 20;13-16: If a man lies with another man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guilt shall be upon them. If a man lies with a woman and also her mother, it is wickedness. Both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there is no wickedness among you. If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal.

Now, I am just telling you what the Bible says. If you are a Christian and interpret the Bible and Christianity as being accepting of anything other than male/female of the species, you are in fact engaging in apologetics. But again, I am just telling you what the Bible says.

I'm not even sure why you got so defensive about it.

When someone accuses me of aligning with the bigotry of the Bible, yeah...

 

[SystemShock]

Do you believe transgendered people are mentally ill?

I m going to first give you the short answer: no, I don't think transgendered people are mentally ill. I don't think sexual dysphoria is mental illness.

Now, there is a discussion to be had, not about mental illness, but the psyche of a person who makes the decision to transition genders and/or decides to align to a gender, beyond sexual dysphoria. I don't know that I want to get much into that discussion here, though. You are obviously more involved in the LBGBTQ+ community that I am, so I'm sure you have a better view and understanding of the psyche of the people in the LGBTQ+ community, and I am going to go further and venture to say that you are aware that there is more than sexual dysphoria to the trans community.

But whatever you decide you want to be, have sex with, or call yourself, hey, you only live once; I am a firm believer in what Thomas Jefferson and Benito Juarez said: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness while respecting the rights of others.

On a much lighter note, and related to previous discussions, a top notch drag/trans bar just opened one block from my house, La Inventada. I missed the tribute to Beyonce, but I may go check the tribute to Madonna this Friday

 

[brandon]

So you refuse to say a male/female of the species cannot transform into a female/male of the species, even though it is a fact.

No, I freely admit that human males cannot transform into human females and vice versa. What I said was that this question is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. No one is making this argument. It's a straw man.

They are not. You associate them with extremely conservative views. But biological facts are neither liberal nor conservative.

It is a biological fact that gender in humans is a spectrum, and humans may be a different gender than their birth-assigned biological sex. This is the thing you keep ignoring.

I take an issue with anything Bible.

It seems like you agree on this particular issue. Maybe not to the degree of "abomination," but your views align with typical American conservative/Christian views on transgenderism, no matter how much you stamp your feet in disagreement.

Don't give me the "worldview" crap. As for Bible verses, you don't know Genesis? Ok. Genesis 1:27-28: So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply," So God didn't create transgenders. or queers, or whathaveyou. God created males and females who can procreate. Nothing in the Bible refers to "gender". The word doesn't exist in ancient Hebrew. They didn't even have a word for homosexual or lesbian, or even bestiality; they had to describe the activity, asas demonstrated by Leviticus 20;13-16: If a man lies with another man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guilt shall be upon them. If a man lies with a woman and also her mother, it is wickedness. Both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there is no wickedness among you. If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal.

Now, I am just telling you what the Bible says. If you are a Christian and interpret the Bible and Christianity as being accepting of anything other than male/female of the species, you are in fact engaging in apologetics. But again, I am just telling you what the Bible says.

I'll give you some reading that generally shows that if someone is a Christian, there's room for interpretation on these subjects:

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/judeochristian/bible.on.same.gender.sexual.behavior-10.25.94

Clobbering "Biblical" Gay Bashing - Believe Out Loud

Unpacking the so-called Biblical basis of homophobia

www.believeoutloud.com

Obviously for someone who believes the Bible isn't worth believing, this really doesn't matter.

But, most important to this discussion, you don't have to believe the Bible to be a bigot.

When someone accuses me of aligning with the bigotry of the Bible, yeah...

Do you believe gender is a spectrum, and that someone can be a different gender than their birth-assigned biological sex?

Do you believe this is a completely natural part of human biology, and that these people should have the same rights, priveleges, and if necessary, accomodations, as everyone else?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Do you believe gender is a spectrum, and that someone can be a different gender than their birth-assigned biological sex?

I'll give a nuanced answer to that, if I may. For the purposes of discussion on this board, I accept that idea. In real life or on other boards, I take a different position. I would only ask that we be consistent that gender is different from biological sex.

Do you believe this is a completely natural part of human biology, and that these people should have the same rights, priveleges, and if necessary, accomodations, as everyone else?

I believe that it is a part of human psychology. It is natural in the sense that there is nothing supernatural about it.

I know that there are some very early preliminary studies or at least one study suggesting that there is a biological origin for transgenderism. I don't believe that even the strongest believer in the trans movement is ready to say yes we can reliably identify a "transgender brain."

Based on the definition that I just agreed to, I can say that a transgender woman should have all the rights of a CIS woman. But that does not mean she would have all the rights of a biological female.

Agreement on that would be the simple solution to the debate about biological males going into restrooms set aside for biological females and playing on teams set aside for biological females.

For example, a 16-year-old biological male who is trans can identify as an adult woman. They should have the right to dress as they please be called by the pronoun they choose, and by the name that they choose.

But, they would not be allowed to vote because they cannot simply identify as being 18 when they are only 16.

By the same token, they cannot simply identify as a biological female and therefore cannot use safe spaces for biological females, including sports teams, locker rooms, and bathrooms.

Allowing biological males to enter those safe spaces removes the right of biological females to have access to safe spaces.

 

[MT15]

This doesn’t seem right or proper:

 

[coldseat]

This doesn’t seem right or proper:

Isn't that covered by HIPPA? That's some seriously forked up shirt. And no Vanderbilt was not obligated, they chose to turn over the records. They could have fought it in court.

If I were a transgendered patient at Vanderbilt, I'd be suing both the state AG and the school for violating my rights and not seeking my consent first.

 

[Optimus Prime]

A federal judge in Arkansas has permanently struck down the state’s first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, finding that the law violates the constitutional rights of trans patients, their families and health providers.

The law – the first-such ban on affirming healthcare for trans youth in the US – is permanently enjoined following a weeks-long federal trial, marking the first such ruling in the country.

A decision from US District Judge Jay Moody, who was appointed to the federal judiciary by Barack Obama, joins a wave of legal victories in federal courts for transgender rights and the rights of trans youth to access medically recommended and potentially life-saving care……

Federal judge overturns nation’s first ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth

The first-in-the-nation ban on affirming healthcare for trans youth is permanently struck down

www.independent.co.uk

 

[SystemShock]

Isn't that covered by HIPPA? That's some seriously forked up shirt. And no Vanderbilt was not obligated, they chose to turn over the records. They could have fought it in court.

If I were a transgendered patient at Vanderbilt, I'd be suing both the state AG and the school for violating my rights and not seeking my consent first.

HIPPA is not as hermetic as people think. There is a fuzzy list of permitted instances of disclosures under "health operations". The Tennessee AG says they are investigating medical billing fraud by the hospital and providers; as such, they can present a warrant to obtain the records; I guess Vandy decided to cooperate, as there is no indication a warrant was presented (one has to wonder why the cooperation, given the subject).

Now, whether this is a legit investigation or an excuse to obtain a list of people who are undergoing trans care (or just simply harass them), knowing what we know of Tennessee, my money would be on the latter. What I read, it seems the AG is only "investigating" billing fraud as it relates to trans care.

 

[MT15]

HIPPA is not has hermetical as people think. There is a fuzzy list of permitted instances of disclosures under "health operations". The Tennessee AG says they are investigating medical billing fraud by the hospital and providers; as such, they can present a warrant to obtain the records; I guess Vandy decided to cooperate, as there is no indication a warrant was presented (one has to wonder why the cooperation, given the subject).

Now, whether this is a legit investigation or an excuse to obtain a list of people who are undergoing trans care (or just simply harrass them), knowing what we know of Tennessee, my money would be on the latter. What I read, it seems the AG is only "investigating" billing fraud as it relates to trans care.

Yeah, I’m extremely skeptical knowing what we know, like you said.

IMO they are threatening Vandy with medical fraud to make them roll over so easily. The corporate officers will betray the privacy of their patients if their bottom line is at risk.

Even if they are investigating fraudulent billing, they could redact individual patient identifiers. Vandy should have fought harder for their patients‘ privacy. If I’m in TN, I’m not going to Vandy now knowing they won’t try to protect my info.

 

[SystemShock]

Yeah, I’m extremely skeptical knowing what we know, like you said.

IMO they are threatening Vandy with medical fraud to make them roll over so easily. The corporate officers will betray the privacy of their patients if their bottom line is at risk.

Even if they are investigating fraudulent billing, they could redact individual patient identifiers. Vandy should have fought harder for their patients‘ privacy. If I’m in TN, I’m not going to Vandy now knowing they won’t try to protect my info.

We can speculate about the purpose of the investigation, but again, knowing what we know if TN, "legitimate investigation" would far down the list. I guess it is possible that they found legitimate billing discrepancies, but it is suspicious the invetigation is only around trans care.

 

[MT15]

This is a person who would be legally required in some states to use the women’s public restroom. No matter what you think about any other part of the trans issues, the bathroom panic is absolutely bonkers. Guarantee if this guy goes into the women’s restroom there’s going to be someone having issues with it.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Article on the movie trope
==================
Before the gay best friend could be phased out, he had to come out.

Today, those three short words tend to denote the most confining limitations to queer characters in film, a trope and archetype designed to keep homosexuality on the sidelines, adjacent to the more palatable lives and loves of straight people.

For a time, however, sassy support was about the best representation queer people could hope for on screen, even if it required some code-reading on the viewer’s part.

In Code-era Hollywood, ascribing a sexuality at all to the waspish single man commenting on, or even assisting in, the protagonists’ own entanglement would have been a detail too far. He had a name, a role, a handful of good lines. What more could he want – an identity?

Curated by the critic Michael Koresky, a mini-season of films on the Criterion Channel in June affords some depth and dignity to a character often demeaned as a patronising relic of now-outdated prejudices – even as it persists in film and TV today.

Koresky’s selection delves beyond the romantic comedy realm where the trope made its most enduring impression, and into the realist dramas, psycho-thrillers and unclassifiable art films (Irma Vep, most unexpectedly) through which the gay best friend has evolved from a type to a human being.

But a type was enough, in the 1930s and 1940s, to keep character actors like the superbly named Franklin Pangborn busy in romps like Stage Door and the Preston Sturges-written Easy Living, playing one variation after another of the same man: fastidious, fast-talking, archly knowing but otherwise sexless.

Edward Everett Horton and Grady Sutton, Pangborn’s contemporaries in the bracket of gay actors dubbed “Hollywood sissies”, extended the stereotype into bumbling or hayseed comic territory. (Once in a while they even got to play ostensibly straight characters, albeit never manly ones.)…….

Gay best friend: a history of Hollywood’s favourite queer character

What’s often been a patronising and reductive archetype is given depth in a new season of films in time for Pride month

www.theguardian.com

 

[SystemShock]

This is a person who would be legally required in some states to use the women’s public restroom. No matter what you think about any other part of the trans issues, the bathroom panic is absolutely bonkers. Guarantee if this guy goes into the women’s restroom there’s going to be someone having issues with it.

This, BTW is the other side of the sports issue, and individual who's allowed the use of PED's (steroids/male hormone) to be able to compete, whereas males are not.