All Things LGBTQ+ (1 Viewer)

[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.

 

[RobF]

Rowling is a feminist. While this is obviously below the 'trans' level on the protected class hierarchy scale, it is still funny to me that people are shocked when a feminist says feminist things, but then what else would they get to virtue signal over on the internet?

To be clear, Rowling is saying bigoted, nonsensical things. Not feminist things.

Because recognising trans women as women - and trans men as men, something which Rowling and the like routinely ignore the existence of - obviously does not mean not recognising women as women, let alone making an argument against equality. Because, very, very, obviously, you can't recognise trans women as women without recognising women.

The only people who think otherwise are, frankly, the clueless, the disingenuous, and the ignorant, who think 'trans women' = 'men', which it plainly doesn't. I'm a man, and no-one is trying to define me as a woman.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

There are a lot of BLM supporting politicians in ALA-forking-bama. You would be surprised.

I would hope so. Alabama is what, 30% black?

 

[Farb]

To be clear, Rowling is saying bigoted, nonsensical things. Not feminist things.

Because recognising trans women as women - and trans men as men, something which Rowling and the like routinely ignore the existence of - obviously does not mean not recognising women as women, let alone making an argument against inequality. Because, very, very, obviously, you can't recognise trans women as women without recognising women.

The only people who think otherwise are, frankly, the clueless, the disingenuous, and the ignorant, who think 'trans women' = 'men', which it plainly doesn't. I'm a man, and no-one is trying to define me as a woman.

Not to be clear. In your mind maybe, but the vast majority of the world, she is speaking an absolute scientific truth.

So, what is a woman? In order to have this discussion, we have to take out the nonsensical things, correct?

That is the starting point. How can you claim anything is anything if you can define what 'anything' is?

 

[Farb]

I would hope so. Alabama is what, 30% black?

No idea.

 

[insidejob]

I thought this was pretty funny.

This too:

 

[RobF]

Not to be clear. In your mind maybe, but the vast majority of the world, she is speaking an absolute scientific truth.

So, what is a woman? In order to have this discussion, we have to take out the nonsensical things, correct?

That is the starting point. How can you claim anything is anything if you can define what 'anything' is?

I'm not sure you followed the point there. Rowling is claiming that people are not acknowledging the existence of women, i.e. that they "should not be named." But they're plainly not doing that. You can't say trans women are women without recognising the existence of women. It would make literally no sense to do so. That's what's nonsensical.

It would be a rational response to people saying, "Trans women aren't women, because women don't exist," if people were saying that. It's not a rational response to people saying that trans women are women, nor is it a rational response to someone recognising, correctly, that there exist different definitions of 'woman' and 'female', which, Rowling's inane reference to looking in the dictionary notwithstanding, anyone with access to a dictionary and the ability to read more than one thing can easily verify.

And Rowling has been doing similar things since she started this idiocy, when she complained about an article referring to "people who menstruate" in its headline, implying that the writers were avoiding the use of the term 'women', despite the article referring explicitly to women throughout. It didn't deny the existence of women at all, it just used a broader, more inclusive, term in its headline. Of course, bigots who want an excuse to be bigoted don't tend to read articles showing they're talking nonsense.

As for picking a single definition of 'woman', it's notable that Rowling isn't doing that, apart from vaguely referring to the dictionary. Probably because if she did, it would become quickly apparent that her definition either includes trans women or has no bearing on how we recognise women on a day-to-day basis. Because as I've said earlier, we routinely recognise individual women without knowing what their chromosomes are, or whether they have/had a uterus, and without inspecting their genitalia. If your definition depends on those, then how are you actually recognising women in practice? What's that definition?

I'd also add it's not terribly feminist to want to reduce what women are to their genitalia and reproductive capacity.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

No idea.

I'm not surprised.

 

[Farb]

I'm not sure you followed the point there. Rowling is claiming that people are not acknowledging the existence of women, i.e. that they "should not be named." But they're plainly not doing that. You can't say trans women are women without recognising the existence of women. It would make literally no sense to do so. That's what's nonsensical.

It would be a rational response to people saying, "Trans women aren't women, because women don't exist," if people were saying that. It's not a rational response to people saying that trans women are women, nor is it a rational response to someone recognising, correctly, that there exist different definitions of 'woman' and 'female', which, Rowling's inane reference to looking in the dictionary notwithstanding, anyone with access to a dictionary and the ability to read more than one thing can easily verify.

And Rowling has been doing similar things since she started this idiocy, when she complained about an article referring to "people who menstruate" in its headline, implying that the writers were avoiding the use of the term 'women', despite the article referring explicitly to women throughout. It didn't deny the existence of women at all, it just used a broader, more inclusive, term in its headline. Of course, bigots who want an excuse to be bigoted don't tend to read articles showing they're talking nonsense.

As for picking a single definition of 'woman', it's notable that Rowling isn't doing that, apart from vaguely referring to the dictionary. Probably because if she did, it would become quickly apparent that her definition either includes trans women or has no bearing on how we recognise women on a day-to-day basis. Because as I've said earlier, we routinely recognise individual women without knowing what their chromosomes are, or whether they have/had a uterus, and without inspecting their genitalia. If your definition depends on those, then how are you actually recognising women in practice? What's that definition?

I'd also add it's not terribly feminist to want to reduce what women are to their genitalia and reproductive capacity.

I followed the point, you are just wrong.
Is that not how men are defined as well, by their plumbing and the part they play in reproduction?

Do you support trans women competing against women in sports?

 

[Farb]

I thought this was pretty funny.

This too:

Is this to prove a point? I don't get it. Is it illegal anywhere to say the word 'gay' or Luke just virtue signaling?

 

[Farb]

I'm not surprised.

Cool. If you know the racial make up of your state off the top of your head actually says more about you than those that don't, but continue to rock the racial ideology!

 

[SystemShock]

The crack, which references her own franchise, was prompted by a Twitter user who condemned Annalise Dodds, Chair of the Labour Party, for claiming she was unsure how to define the term woman.

I get where Dodds is coming from given Dodds' position and what she deals with, but you can't take any position or have any sort intellectual discussion that doesn't 100% comply without many shouting "TRANSPHOBIA!!!!".

 

[RobF]

I followed the point, you are just wrong.
Is that not how men are defined as well, by their plumbing and the part they play in reproduction?

Do you support trans women competing against women in sports?

Well, when you can say you followed the point and offer a response that isn't a non sequitur, then I'll take your assertion about it not being right seriously.

I won't hold my breath though.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I get where Dodds is coming from given Dodds' position and what she deals with, but you can't take any position or have any sort intellectual discussion that doesn't 100% comply without many shouting "TRANSPHOBIA!!!!".

Do you think what JK Rowling has been saying falls under the category of intellectual discussion?

 

[MT15]

At least there’s this:

Texas Court Halts Abuse Inquiries Into Parents of Transgender Children (Published 2022)

A judge said the governor’s order to consider medically accepted treatments for transgender youth as abuse had been improperly adopted and violated the State Constitution.

www.nytimes.com

I don’t know how this law could survive in what is supposed to be a free country, since it takes medically accepted treatments and classifies them as “abuse”.

“The injunction, issued by Judge Amy Clark Meachum in Travis County, stemmed from a legal challenge by the parents of a 16-year-old transgender girl. Her family was among the first to be investigated by the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services under Mr. Abbott’s order, which directed state officials to consider medically accepted treatments for transgender youth — including hormones and puberty-suppressing drugs — as abuse.

In issuing the ruling, which came after a day of testimony, Judge Meachum said the governor’s actions, and those of the agency, “violate separation of powers by impermissibly encroaching into the legislative domain.” She said there was a “substantial likelihood” that plaintiffs would prevail after a trial on the merits because the governor’s order was “unconstitutional.””

 

[MT15]

I get where Dodds is coming from given Dodds' position and what she deals with, but you can't take any position or have any sort intellectual discussion that doesn't 100% comply without many shouting "TRANSPHOBIA!!!!".

So, maintaining that a position is transphobic is not allowed to be part of any sort of discussion? That seems to be more rooted in wanting to be able to take a position and never be criticized for it than anything else.

I mean, there will be people who “shout” on any side of a discussion, right? They aren’t engaging civilly and should be ignored. But the fact remains that they just might have a nugget of a valid point. I don’t think anyone has been shouting in here on either side, really.

 

[SystemShock]

So, maintaining that a position is transphobic is not allowed to be part of any sort of discussion?

Who said that?

That seems to be more rooted in wanting to be able to take a position and never be criticized for it than anything else.

Who said that?

I mean, there will be people who “shout” on any side of a discussion, right? They aren’t engaging civilly and should be ignored. But the fact remains that they just might have a nugget of a valid point. I don’t think anyone has been shouting in here on either side, really.

I have been called transphobic on this very forum for my position on transgender sports on this very site.

 

[Farb]

Well, when you can say you followed the point and offer a response that isn't a non sequitur, then I'll take your assertion about it not being right seriously.

I won't hold my breath though.

Do you support trans women in female sport competitions? Simple questions. Yes or no

 

[SystemShock]

Do you think what JK Rowling has been saying falls under the category of intellectual discussion?

I have not paid too much attention to Rowling - don't care about Harry Potter either - but it seems she mostly does zingers and drive-by's without much discussion