All Things LGBTQ+ (3 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.

 

[brandon]

The 3/5th's Compromise, that's what you were referring to that the Founding Fathers passed through the Constitutional Convention in 1787-88, even though Thomas Jefferson and James Mason, were two main Va. delegates who argued that any nation that preserved and defended slavery was "bringing on the judgement of the Lord upon them".

You might to do some research on the 1804 Haitian Revolution led Toussaint L'Overture, a former Haitian slave turned revolutionary leader who was captured by Napoleon's French Grande Armee when they initially tried to recapture the island after losing it first after the game onset of the French Revolution in 1789. Toussaint was captured, imprisoned on a remote island off the northeastern coast of France near Calais region but his followers eventually won the conflict and there was a massive, bloody purge of white and even French Creole settlers and residents who fled after the French military authorities decided to limit their losses and that was essentially, the end of Napoleon's North American grand empire, and decided to sell the La. Territory and city of New Orleans to American representatives via Talleyrand, Napoleon's Foreign Minister.

Its not discussed too much in American history textbooks but many Southern antebellum plantation owners viewed the Haitian Revolution as a successful slave revolt and what figuratively could or would happen to them if such a large-scale revolt occured here? Thats when the Southern mentality of supporting the gradual abolition of slavery ended and along with Eli Whitney's cotton gin invention, spurred on and consolidated the rapid growth and expansion of slavery westward.
Before 1804, there was a sufficient degree of support for gradualism, the gradual abolition of slavery supported by early anti-slavery opponents Quakers, liberal Pentecostals, and urban intellectuals even in deep rural Southern states like North Carolina and Virginia, after the Haitian Revolution, the deepening fear of a large-scale regional slave revolt succeeding ala similar to Haiti made abolition of slavery more of a Northern movement in huge, industrialized cities and those schisms grew worse and more extreme over the next 60 years.

Ask yourself: Why didnt U.S. recognize Haiti as an independent, sovereign country until 1865? 61 years after they'd won independence and after severe, mass reparations payments were forced upon them by vindictive French colonial authorities? The year the Civil War ended is when we decided to realize the obvious. That right there should tell a lot of people something.

I don’t understand your point here.

It sounds an awful lot like you’re blaming slaves for the continuation of slavery.

 

[bird]

So is going way overboard with it and not teaching CRT responsibly. CRT is a sensitive, complex matter of discussing systemic racism, discrimination against minorities in this nation's founding, development, and growth. If you have HS and colleges hire undisciplined idealogues who use their positions as some semi-divine social crusader/salvation roles and their allowed mostly free hands, then eventually they become problems and not just in terms of bruising people's egos or feelings.

Ever heard of former Colorado professor Ward Churchill? He wrote a particularly infamous tract praising the 9/11 hijackers after Sept. 11 with an essay calling the businessmen/businesswomen who died in the Twin Towers "little Eichmann's". It took several years and pretty nasty local fight from his opponents who.also claimed he lied about his Native American heritage, even among prominent Native American activists.

Wow. So your assumption is that CRT will be taught automatically by some potentially “undisciplined ideologues” who will use their position as “semi-divine crusaders”? You then provide one example of one goofball as proof that this would happen on some large scale. One guy. Who was taken to task for his stupidity. And somehow this is a reason to not focus on actual accurate history of not merely the founding of the country but the growth of the colonies and the trans-Atlantic slave by White Europeans. This is the explanation of those who bleat that there is widespread voter fraud.

Those who control the past, control the future.

Why do you think Germany has done what it has done regarding the Nazi era? Why do you think that Israel and the Jewish people “never forget”? The fading of direct memory means that history becomes tenuous as distance in time occurs. Yet we can see that the racism and anti-semitism remains. “Jews will not replace us”, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”, what shall we call those who spout such nonsense but undisciplined ideologues. What is the counter to such belief structures but education. Tip-toeing around the fact that slavery could not have happened without white people believing that they were superior to black people including that black people were sub-human because the potential exists for some idiots to misuse their position is not merely intellectually dishonest, it is moral cowardice.

 

[MT15]

Since cancel culture was brought up as an exclusive thing from the left:

 

[Saintman2884]

Wow. So your assumption is that CRT will be taught automatically by some potentially “undisciplined ideologues” who will use their position as “semi-divine crusaders”? You then provide one example of one goofball as proof that this would happen on some large scale. One guy. Who was taken to task for his stupidity. And somehow this is a reason to not focus on actual accurate history of not merely the founding of the country but the growth of the colonies and the trans-Atlantic slave by White Europeans. This is the explanation of those who bleat that there is widespread voter fraud.

Those who control the past, control the future.

Why do you think Germany has done what it has done regarding the Nazi era? Why do you think that Israel and the Jewish people “never forget”? The fading of direct memory means that history becomes tenuous as distance in time occurs. Yet we can see that the racism and anti-semitism remains. “Jews will not replace us”, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”, what shall we call those who spout such nonsense but undisciplined ideologues. What is the counter to such belief structures but education. Tip-toeing around the fact that slavery could not have happened without white people believing that they were superior to black people including that black people were sub-human because the potential exists for some idiots to misuse their position is not merely intellectually dishonest, it is moral cowardice.

Ive spent some time in academia and I've noticed some "oddballs" frankly who get tenure and then suddenly believe their untouchable. Their mostly a fringe small minority, but they do exist and they have no forking business teaching complex, sensitive issues or topics like CRT to anyone or any class. As far as the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, I hope CRT does touch on where the origins and the ideas of race-based slavery began or the idea germinated and that was during the Mid-Crusades period of the 12th century when Arab sultanates, sheikhs began raiding North African villages, towns and kingdoms, forcibly converting their survivors to Islam or Christianity, and began using them as slavery. The very notion of using slaves from sub-Saharan regions began being seen as an option during the Crusader period by returning European knights, kings like German monarch Barbarossa, the Papacy and their was even a flourishing slave trade during the late Middle Ages in Europe.

Thats where the germ or the very beginning of the later Trans-Atlantic "Middle Passage" started, it had early begun in Europe centuries before there was the Age of Exploration or European discoveries of North and South America or increased maritime, mercantile shipping with China, and later Japan until the Tokugawa Shogunate banished all foreigners, Spanish and Portuguese Jesuit priests from the country, and set up a isolated feudal hierarchal society until 1853. Only the Dutch were allowed to trade in a small, cramped, isolated trading post inside Nagasaki harbor during this time period.


What really expedited the introduction of African slaves to Spanish and Portuguese was how native, pre-Columbian inhabitants were dying due to lack of resistance to European disease, starvation, overwork, malnutrition, and severe reprisals that a Portuguese Jesuit priest recommended to Spanish king Charles V, IIRC that based on Crusader and Arab accounts of African slaves supposedly adapting and surviving to hot, humid environments, they would be a better, more permanent substitute than the native indigenious populations of the former Aztec, Mayan, and Incan empires. This same Jesuit priest, by the time he died, had come to bitterly regret and despise his suggestions as he saw firsthand on many occasions how West African and sub-Saharan tribesmen, villagers, warriors, men, women, and children suffered just as much, if not moreso, than captive Native American populations or enslaved tribal members.

The problem with anti-Semitism is that it so old, Biblical one might say, and sinister, but clever and diabolical it can cloak itself in so many different forms, one doesn't always see it even when its staring them in their faces. Why is that, I ask you? Why is it Illam Omar and even AOC have been accused of using or inferring anti-Semitic tropes, references, slogans, "All About the Benjamins" remember? It can be clever-sounding slurs,. AOC and Omar hiring Congressional staff members, chiefs of staff etc that make anti-Isreali statements/comments, but just can't forking keep it just being about Isreali domestic policy. Why do I sense sometimes there's always something deeper and more rotten underneath those comments concerning what they really hate but they can't say it too loud just yet because they don't want to be labeled antisemitic.

 

[Saintman2884]

So you are just going to stick with your "bad if taken to extremes" line... ok, so what's your solution? Not to teach a subject because a zealot may use the opportunity to push an agenda or create chaos? If schools are going to stop teaching subjects because some zealot may use the teaching in some nefarious way, then we would have no schools.

Sensitive, complex issues like CRT deserve to be taught intelligently, responsibly, and soberly. I don't think most school systems or colleges/universities have a problem with zealous idealogues masquerading as academics indoctrinating kids like Fox News has insisted its a major wide-scale issue for over 25 years, because their mostly a fringe, tiny minority and like any tiny, fringe minority, they don't deserve to be given a sense and place of responsibility where their bitter, vindictive arses can rage against the system they feel has always held down their righteous ambitions and how their never seem to realize their there own worst enemies.

My point is to shine a light on their lonely existence and how they don't deserve a seat at the table.
If CRT is worthy of being taught, and it is, then lets do it responsibly and intelligently.

 

[Saintman2884]

Since cancel culture was brought up as an exclusive thing from the left:

I would argue then to not fall into their traps and if you suspect some students are idealistically hostile to you and don't want to learn and oppose your belief structure, don't give them ammunition to use it against you. Besides, this isn't anything new, these issues and problems existed 20 years ago when I first entered college, to secretly tape an unpopular professor and catch him off-guard and goad him subtly or confrontationally to "say something stupid" then report him and try to get him fired.

Most times back then, most teachers and professors didn't get fired or suspended because most department heads took into account there were hostile, unfriendly students who were riling him up, taunting and berating him into saying something controversial and these complaints were just from people who disagreed. If a professor says something hateful or bigoted or makes crass, vulgar generalizations irrespective of context, there's a good chance he gets fired.

Not from this type of crap, MT15. Teach your classes and the curriculum and be smarter then the collective herd mentality trying to stir you up and don't let them devolve your class into a partisan shouting match. Be smarter then that and thinking with your head instead of one's heart works better.

 

[Saintman2884]

I don’t understand your point here.

It sounds an awful lot like you’re blaming slaves for the continuation of slavery.

Don't put words in my mouth or summarize what I'm trying to say on assumptions. I was talking about how, from a historical perspective, the 1804 Haitian Revolution seemed to confirm the worst fears of many Southern plantation owners about a successful large-scale slave revolt and before that successful revolution, many early American historians have argued that gradual abolition of slavery might've taken further hold all across the country and perhaps led to the eventual phasing and elimination of slavery. Let me pose it this way to you, Brandon: if you're a mid-19th century American politician and like most ethical, moral human beings, you oppose the spread and practice of slavery, but if someone comes along with a great idea that proposes the gradual phasing out of the institution from all Southern states, and most of the venomous political rancor on both sides can be snuffed out, by ending slavery, for good, legislatively, without a violent, bloody Civil War which fundamentally alters this nation in ways we're still diagnosing 160 years later.

Do you take the deal? Is that a deal you could imagine supporting? Avoid a disastrous, bloody war and you achieve the ultimate moral high-ground of ending slavery, forever.


Many pre-Civil War American politicians, like Henry Clay, argued for a concentrated, phasing out of slavery in the South and western territories, even up until the 1850's. Most Americans, even today, probably wouldve agreed that a phased abolition of slavery wouldve been a better compromise to a horrendous, terrible institution like slavery than a full-on Civil War where hundreds of thousands of men died on both died, suffered indescribable psychological, mental and physical wounds long afterwards and the bumbling, incompetent Reconstruction process led by a middling, mediocre Andrew Johnson led to many Southern states creating a newer, more insidious type of bigotry and discrimination and periodic lynchings, many of these activities stayed legal well until the 20th century in many Deep South states. It wasn't until really the Roosevelt administration that anti lynching laws got some serious legal and political traction in Congress and EVEN THEN, it was bitterly opposed and filibustered by Southern Democrats, whose Congressional support FDR desperately need to supplement in trying to pass his New Deal economic recovery programs.

 

[brandon]

Don't put words in my mouth or summarize what I'm trying to say on assumptions. I was talking about how, from a historical perspective, the 1804 Haitian Revolution seemed to confirm the worst fears of many Southern plantation owners about a successful large-scale slave revolt and before that successful revolution, many early American historians have argued that gradual abolition of slavery might've taken further hold all across the country and perhaps led to the eventual phasing and elimination of slavery. Let me pose it this way to you, Brandon: if you're a mid-19th century American politician and like most ethical, moral human beings, you oppose the spread and practice of slavery, but if someone comes along with a great idea that proposes the gradual phasing out of the institution from all Southern states, and most of the venomous political rancor on both sides can be snuffed out, by ending slavery, for good, legislatively, without a violent, bloody Civil War which fundamentally alters this nation in ways we're still diagnosing 160 years later.

Do you take the deal? Is that a deal you could imagine supporting? Avoid a disastrous, bloody war and you achieve the ultimate moral high-ground of ending slavery, forever.


Many pre-Civil War American politicians, like Henry Clay, argued for a concentrated, phasing out of slavery in the South and western territories, even up until the 1850's. Most Americans, even today, probably wouldve agreed that a phased abolition of slavery wouldve been a better compromise to a horrendous, terrible institution like slavery than a full-on Civil War where hundreds of thousands of men died on both died, suffered indescribable psychological, mental and physical wounds long afterwards and the bumbling, incompetent Reconstruction process led by a middling, mediocre Andrew Johnson led to many Southern states creating a newer, more insidious type of bigotry and discrimination and periodic lynchings, many of these activities stayed legal well until the 20th century in many Deep South states. It wasn't until really the Roosevelt administration that anti lynching laws got some serious legal and political traction in Congress and EVEN THEN, it was bitterly opposed and filibustered by Southern Democrats, whose Congressional support FDR desperately need to supplement in trying to pass his New Deal economic recovery programs.

No I don’t take the deal, because you don’t gradually phase out an atrocity. You stop that shirt immediately.

Would you gradually phase out the holocaust?

No, you tell them to stop it now or we’ll stop it for you.

 

[MT15]

I would argue then to not fall into their traps and if you suspect some students are idealistically hostile to you and don't want to learn and oppose your belief structure, don't give them ammunition to use it against you. Besides, this isn't anything new, these issues and problems existed 20 years ago when I first entered college, to secretly tape an unpopular professor and catch him off-guard and goad him subtly or confrontationally to "say something stupid" then report him and try to get him fired.

Most times back then, most teachers and professors didn't get fired or suspended because most department heads took into account there were hostile, unfriendly students who were riling him up, taunting and berating him into saying something controversial and these complaints were just from people who disagreed. If a professor says something hateful or bigoted or makes crass, vulgar generalizations irrespective of context, there's a good chance he gets fired.

Not from this type of crap, MT15. Teach your classes and the curriculum and be smarter then the collective herd mentality trying to stir you up and don't let them devolve your class into a partisan shouting match. Be smarter then that and thinking with your head instead of one's heart works better.

Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what your point is. I don’t mean any disrespect here, truly.

So you railed against what you call ”cancel culture” by the left, but when shown an example of the right using manipulative tactics to try to cancel those on the left, your response is “don’t fall into their traps”? You even seem to excuse it, saying it’s been done for 20 years.

Sincerely, how are you not doing exactly what you accuse us of doing? Ignoring it when conservatives do it, but getting outraged when it is done by those you oppose ideologically?

If you recall when you first went off on cancel culture, I told you that it happens everywhere, not just on the left, and in fact it seems to be equally prevalent to me on both sides. The only real difference to me is that the left will turn it on even their own folks, not just the right. The right tends to not object to anything done by their own right now, which is a real problem when they have a whole lot of folks pushing dangerous, seditious lies.

 

[Saintman2884]

Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what your point is. I don’t mean any disrespect here, truly.

So you railed against what you call ”cancel culture” by the left, but when shown an example of the right using manipulative tactics to try to cancel those on the left, your response is “don’t fall into their traps”? You even seem to excuse it, saying it’s been done for 20 years.

Sincerely, how are you not doing exactly what you accuse us of doing? Ignoring it when conservatives do it, but getting outraged when it is done by those you oppose ideologically?

If you recall when you first went off on cancel culture, I told you that it happens everywhere, not just on the left, and in fact it seems to be equally prevalent to me on both sides. The only real difference to me is that the left will turn it on even their own folks, not just the right. The right tends to not object to anything done by their own right now, which is a real problem when they have a whole lot of folks pushing dangerous, seditious lies.

Its probably more accurate to say I hate to see it, period and it annoys me personally whenever it occurs, regardless of which side does it. Until relatively recently, the left tended to be a bit more self-righteous and sanctimonious in their attitudes towards it, but the right, particularly the far-right has become terribly shameless and despicable in their actions and seditious, treasonous grandstanding that's accelerated since Trump entered the GOP's political orbit in 2015.

 

[MT15]

Thanks for the clarification. It helped a lot.

 

[Farb]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...x?shareToken=39e5a443224b3e22017d5cf811e0ba99

Female prisoners in Scottish jails have told how transgender inmates serving sentences alongside them switched back to their male birth gender after being released.

The disclosure — in a study published in the British Journal of Criminology — has raised fresh concerns about self-identification of gender posing a risk to women’s safety as first minister Nicola Sturgeon prepares to press ahead with gender recognition legislation this year.

In England and Wales there have been a small number of incidents of violence and sexual violence involving female prisoners being attacked by trans prisoners.

I doubt this is caught anyone by surprise since we have had sexual assaults in our school systems because of the same nonsense.

I guess some people will lie about 'living their truth'?

 

[Port City JJ]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...x?shareToken=39e5a443224b3e22017d5cf811e0ba99

Female prisoners in Scottish jails have told how transgender inmates serving sentences alongside them switched back to their male birth gender after being released.

The disclosure — in a study published in the British Journal of Criminology — has raised fresh concerns about self-identification of gender posing a risk to women’s safety as first minister Nicola Sturgeon prepares to press ahead with gender recognition legislation this year.

In England and Wales there have been a small number of incidents of violence and sexual violence involving female prisoners being attacked by trans prisoners.

I doubt this is caught anyone by surprise since we have had sexual assaults in our school systems because of the same nonsense.

I guess some people will lie about 'living their truth'?

I highlighted some key terms that are important. Some people will lie about anything. I can find lots of people who claim to be Christians out there molesting kids. Or even church leaders doing so. So what is the point of your "living their truth" comment other than to mock and belittle trans people?

 

[Port City JJ]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...x?shareToken=39e5a443224b3e22017d5cf811e0ba99

Female prisoners in Scottish jails have told how transgender inmates serving sentences alongside them switched back to their male birth gender after being released.

The disclosure — in a study published in the British Journal of Criminology — has raised fresh concerns about self-identification of gender posing a risk to women’s safety as first minister Nicola Sturgeon prepares to press ahead with gender recognition legislation this year.

In England and Wales there have been a small number of incidents of violence and sexual violence involving female prisoners being attacked by trans prisoners.

I doubt this is caught anyone by surprise since we have had sexual assaults in our school systems because of the same nonsense.

I guess some people will lie about 'living their truth'?

The funny part is the bottom of your article says this:

The study by Dr Matthew Maycock of Dundee University’s school of education and social work turned up no such disturbing behaviour in Scotland, with only some discomfort about very limited consensual sexual activity.


One Scottish Prison Service (SPS) source said: “There have been incidents, but very minor. No one can say for certain that nothing significant has happened, but if it has none has been reported.”

This doesn't "prove" anything except your confirmation bias game is strong.

 

[Farb]

I highlighted some key terms that are important. Some people will lie about anything. I can find lots of people who claim to be Christians out there molesting kids. Or even church leaders doing so. So what is the point of your "living their truth" comment other than to mock and belittle trans people?

Trans people or predators impersonating a trans person. 2 very different things.

 

[Farb]

The funny part is the bottom of your article says this:



This doesn't "prove" anything except your confirmation bias game is strong.

My game is strong. One study finds it, one study says if it did happen it wasn't that bad. That is funny.

 

[Port City JJ]

My game is strong. One study finds it, one study says if it did happen it wasn't that bad. That is funny.

I don't think you understand the difference between what a "study" is and what people just saying things is.

 

[Farb]

I don't think you understand the difference between what a "study" is and what people just saying things is.

I admit, maybe I am confused and you can help. What does this quote from the linked article mean?:

The disclosure — in a study published in the British Journal of Criminology — has raised fresh concerns about self-identification of gender posing a risk to women’s safety as first minister Nicola Sturgeon prepares to press ahead with gender recognition legislation this year.