US Elections: If you experience a painful election...

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You are talking about gender neutral bathrooms not the ability of trans-people to use the gender segregated bathroom that fits their gender identity. And gender neutral bathrooms mean cis-gender men can legally use the same bathroom as young girls. And I do agree that is a fair concern for parents (not just mothers). Unfortunately the debate did to some degree revolve around how trans-people are depraved and deviant and shouldn't be let near our "normal" children in public rest-rooms. Because the only reason to have gender neutral bathrooms is to allow trans-people to use the bathroom that they fell comfortable using.

But rather than trying to address the legitimate concern of cis-male sexual predators in developing a policy, that concern was dismissed as being a smoke screen for prejudice against trans-people. Maybe some of it was, but some of the concern over male sexual predators is legit.

 

Yes.  Thank you for clarifying my point more eloquently than I did.

 

56 minutes ago, mormont said:

Make up your mind. If it's your point I'm making, own it, don't deny you were ever talking about it.

I have literally no idea what you are talking about here. 

 

23 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Doesn't Trump himself not care about the stupid bathroom objection thing?

I believe that is the case.

21 minutes ago, felice said:

How do they feel about their son going into a public restroom with a grown adult who has a penis? And how do they feel about the dad going into a public restroom with other people's sons? There are a hell of a lot more adults with penises in men's restrooms, and the overwhelming majority of dangerous ones don't identify as female. And statistically, dads are a far greater threat to their daughters than adult strangers with penises who identify as female.

None of these statistics make a parents concern about their child's safety from sexual predators bigoted, and none of it changes my original point, which is that if progressives want to start winning, then they may want to consider altering their strategy, which seems to me to to be to call a bunch of people stupid, angry, bigots/racists/sexists for reasons that are spurious, and then still somehow expect to get their support at the voting booth.  

 

 

[The guy from the Vale]

15 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Oh? Do XXY, XYY, etc, define genderqueer/genderfluid?

No. They are some forms of intersexuality, something you claimed didn't exist because everybody was born with either XX or XY. There are other forms, mentioned by others in this thread, where the gender phenotype doesn't match the expected gender genotype (i.e., male XX and female XY variants)

 

Genderqueer and genderfluid are different concepts. I had a hard time wrapping my head around those for some time, but at some point it occurred to me that I had no business telling anybody which (if any) gender they felt they belonged to. The objection to the transgender bathroom bills is to people being forced into the gender that was foisted on them at birth, not the one they chose - and as I see it as none of my business what your plumbig currently is or even once was, as long as you only display said plumbing in the toilet booth or the bedroom, only.

[Chaircat Meow]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, this is going on:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/californians-suggest-‘calexit’-in-wake-of-donald-trump-win/ar-AAk5RSN?OCID=ansmsnnews11

If a sizable majority of Californians want out, let the state go.  

This is just sore losers blowing off on twitter.

[PetyrPunkinhead]

22 minutes ago, mormont said:

You understand that isn't actually true, right? That intersex people and nonconforming gender identities have been and are part of many, many cultures and societies?

Really, if you genuinely believe the above it's because you've been told that the way society was ordered when you grew up is the One True Way, that prejudices are facts. And that's sad.

ps 'fear of rape' has a long, unpleasant history of being used to justify racism. Transphobia and racism are not as different as you think.

I'd concede that the "dawn of time" bit as slightly hyperbolic if you've got some links to scientific anthropological studies that show "many, many cultures" that believed a person born with XY chromosomes and not XX chromosomes really was a "fluke" and should have never been born with that Y chromosome based solely on how the person felt they identified as more "feminine" (whatever that is) as opposed to more "masculine" (whatever that is) or vice versa.

But you conveniently neglected the statement that preceded it--the one about Western civilization. If you genuinely believe someone is a bigot in America in 2016 based on the single fact they adhere to beliefs about basic concepts of gender that span centuries of collected cultures then that's the sad thing. I'm not saying those beliefs are right, but they're steadfast and proven over time and cultures. It's how we do things in Western cultures--especially in America. For a very few remaining things there is separation of XX & XY (I'm loathe to use gender or male/female as those words have been appropriated and convoluted.) For various reasons we've come to acknowledge and accept as a society it's okay segregate XX & XY for things such as certain athletic teams and sports, degrees of public nudity (controversial), and restrooms (very recently controversial). That's about it, right? It's been a long day, so I'm probably missing a thing or two there, but I think I got the major three, no? 

And it really isn't the same as race when it comes to things like XX vs XY. And the whole rape thing is a thing and it's legit. It's an XX thing and not a race thing. So all those XYs out there that don't want an XX to legally roll up on them legally in a small, secluded space while in a state of extreme vulnerability are justified to say the least in voicing concern. Calling them bigotted for that is ignorant and hypocritical. Again, if you really want change it's a conversation, a dialogue--not an ultimatum--that needs to happen.

[Maester Drew]

5 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

They are some forms of intersexuality, something you claimed didn't exist because everybody was born with either XX or XY.

I never claimed that. I said intersex wasn't it's own gender, not that it didn't exist. If I had said, "Apples aren't vegetables" would you have said I claimed apples didn't exist?

As for the bathroom bills, well there is some good news: McCrory lost (as far as I can tell). Maybe the new governor can overturn HB2.

[The Anti-Targ]

29 minutes ago, felice said:

How do they feel about their son going into a public restroom with a grown adult who has a penis? And how do they feel about the dad going into a public restroom with other people's sons? There are a hell of a lot more adults with penises in men's restrooms, and the overwhelming majority of dangerous ones don't identify as female. And statistically, dads are a far greater threat to their daughters than adult strangers with penises who identify as female.

I would say it's a risk they know they can't avoid, so they worry about it (or they accompany their child into the bathroom, which in the case of a mother with a young son normally means going to the women's bathroom) but there's nothing legally that can be done to eliminate the risk.

But then you are telling them that they must allow the introduction of a new risk, which is that now young daughters will be exposed to a risk which was previously perceived as limited only to young sons. It's not a convincing or compelling argument to fearful people. Statistics doesn't convince people who are afraid. Just look at people who will happily drive, but won't fly, or are very nervous about flying. You've got to address the fears, including irrational ones, in as non-judgemental and non-condescending way as possible. If you're just going to say "you're a fucking bigot, get over it." they won't, and the lives of the oppressed minority won't improve. Bigotry fuelled by fear can be overcome by removing the fear. Bigotry fuelled by hatred probably can't be overcome. To treat both as being the same is a mistake for those who are actually trying to achieve social justice for minorities. If the people who have fear can have their fears removed then the group you have to actually fight with to achieve social justice is much smaller, and much easier to overcome, because they can't use the fears of other people to promote their backwards views.

[SkynJay]

20 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

young people have always been liberal. And then they grow up, have families become taxpayers and become conservatives. Something about actually paying taxes tends to make people fiscal conservatives. crazy. 

 

A common refrain but shaky at best.  The parties themselves tend move around beliefs and party loyalty then digs in.  But we saw two more states pass substantial minimum wage hikes despite one going for Trump.   Most people still support Social Security and one of the larger rallying cries against Obamacare was that it would gut Medicare.

When polled people tend toward no new taxes but feeling their current ones are about right.  

As a new progressive cause takes root it becomes a conservative norm.  We heard very little talk about gay marriage this cycle.  Despite feeling there is deep seeded racism in the GOP it isn't my grandpas racism; more cultural than skin and I doubt there will be a lot of calls for forced segregation.  If the GOP really tried to touch social security the Boomers would defect in mass.

[Castel]

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, this is going on:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/californians-suggest-‘calexit’-in-wake-of-donald-trump-win/ar-AAk5RSN?OCID=ansmsnnews11

If a sizable majority of Californians want out, let the state go.  

1. That shit was dumb when Texas was doing it.

2. Once you join the party...now youse can't leave

[PetyrPunkinhead]

50 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Biologically speaking, Petyr is right. There are only two genders, male and female. As for intersex, that isn't a gender. And other gender identities? Well, anyone can identify however they want, but that doesn't change the fact they'll either have an XX chromosome or an XY.

Yeah, I made sure to clarify that as much as possible in my response to mormont. Something tells me though it won't make much difference because...

46 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

There are XXY, XYY, and all matter of other polysomies of the sex chromosomes around.

Yes, but chromosome anomalies in people like Klinefelter's syndrome are very rare. And that's not what we're really talking about here anyway, is it? And even if it is in your POV, then it's all about democracy and majority rule, and the majority of human beings are either XX or XY. Can that at least be agreed upon?

Spoiler

My guess would be no, but I gotta try.

 

[SkynJay]

California can't leave, we need them so damn bad.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Castel said:

1. That shit was dumb when Texas was doing it.

2. Once you join the party...now youse can't leave

The "Hotel California" theory of Federal Union?

[Castel]

I was going with A Bronx Tale but sure

[Ariadne23]

27 minutes ago, Altherion said:

There's a nice Wait But Why article titled It's Going to be Okay. This blog and its readers are strongly pro-Clinton (they actually measured this) so people who are upset about Trump may find it useful.

Some of this I agree with. But other parts...I mean, yeah, the civil war was not the end of America, but it still really, really sucked. The idea that it won't be worse than the Civil War isn't super-reassuring. Also, about Trump's incompetence as a world leader...I do not buy for a minute that Trump will surround himself with super competent people and do what they say. And anyway, for W, super competent meant Doug Feith. I think Trump *might* do better on the competent government thing than Bush, but I think he'll object to the idea that he can't fire appointees when they don't deliver and we'll have a constitutional crisis on our hands in no time.

On the other hand, he may actually rebuild our infrastructure. Even mentioned it in his acceptance speech.

It's just the part where he's a narcissistic demagogue that's troubling. In 4 years, it might look kind of like saying "people never mention the good things Hitler did," like job creation, solving the whole national debt crisis, improving manufacturing, rebuilding national pride, ya know.

I think we'd all better start brainstorming ways to fight for the preservation of our values. And liberals need to start making a case for why diversity is a good thing and not just take acceptance of that idea for granted anymore.

[Castel]

Just now, Ariadne23 said:

On the other hand, he may actually rebuild our infrastructure. Even mentioned it in his acceptance speech.

 

Didn't he plan on it being a give away to private business, and to privatize the whole thing?

[The guy from the Vale]

The majority are most probably either XY or XX, yes. But this is not only about democracy and majority rule (even less about majority rule, as Democrats got more votes for House and President but lost both). It's about those things too, but what you're ignoring in this is that minorities have rights, too, and it is the state's duty to protect the rights of minorities as well as those of the majority. If a majority of US citizens voted to abolish the 13th amendment, say, my reaction would be to consider them incredibly immoral, not to shrug and get on with my life because I'm unlikely to be affected.

[DunderMifflin]

2 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

11 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

 

As for the bathroom bills, well there is some good news: McCrory lost (as far as I can tell). Maybe the new governor can overturn HB2.

Cooper seems to have won by about 4,000 votes. A recount has been called for, hopefully we can get rid of this McCrory buffoon and get rid of this HB2 stain. 

Even homophobes need to support getting rid of it, it's costing us $$$$

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

On the other hand, he may actually rebuild our infrastructure. Even mentioned it in his acceptance speech.

And if he truly wants to be "The Jobs President" that would be a really good way to go about it. Worked really well back in the Depression Era.

[felice]

18 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

there's nothing legally that can be done to eliminate the risk.

Universal castration? That would end the threat of adults with penises once and for all, and as a bonus (for those who see it as a problem) would massively cut down on immigration

18 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You've got to address the fears, including irrational ones, in as non-judgemental and non-condescending way as possible.

Great in theory, but how do you actually do it, if they're not interested in the facts?

[SkynJay]

Hell even his wall would probably put people to work.

Strangley enough Trumps economic plans are about tenth on my list of worries if only because I don't see him as a 'do nothing' president.   He will want projects with his stamp on them.

[Jaxom 1974]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

And if he truly wants to be "The Jobs President" that would be a really good way to go about it. Worked really well back in the Depression Era.

I don't think, and I could be wrong, that FDR privatized that work and got kickbacks (as I'd theorize Trump would)...