Until it becomes law.It's just a bill.
On capital hill.....
And it exemplifies what the right cares about (along with trying to steal elections, making voting harder, screwing the poor and so forth).
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Until it becomes law.It's just a bill.
On capital hill.....
Has the APA ever actually called anyone who didn't have a gender identity that doesn't conform to their AS a trans person?From the APA:
"Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth."
"Gender expression and behavior". So a guy who likes to wear makeup and feel pretty can be called " transgender" under that definition. Billy Porter is "transgender" under that definition.
I agree about warning about hazards.
I don't understand the question. Are you asking if the APA goes around declaring specific individuals as transgender? Because that's not how the APA works. That's just the definition of it that they use, and it's very vague like I said.Has the APA ever actually called anyone who didn't have a gender identity that doesn't conform to their AS a trans person?
I do see this kind of toxicity and angst about bathrooms more online than irl, ngl. But in saying that as a cis person, perhaps I’m blind to it. Like I didn’t notice any homophobia until it looked like Same Sex marriage was going to be legalised in my country (and thankfully came to fruition.) So I’m a bit more weary of underlying bigotry now.True. I never saw a problem in that. I don't think people care in general. I don't live in a too conservative area but that's not my fight. Not sure what else to add.
Sorry if I misunderstood. To reiterate, I think the important takeaway is:That isn't what I said. In fact it's pretty much the exact opposite what I just said.
And since the rest of your post proceeds from that misunderstanding, I don't see any reason to respond to it.
Feel free to try again.
I agree the definition seems wonky. It looks like a cover for the actual guidelines PDF, which further distinguishes transgender people from gender non-conforming people, stressing gender expression not being an inherent part of gender identity, and also separate from sexual expression and societal gender roles. So I doubt the APA actually uses that definition in practice?I don't understand the question. Are you asking if the APA goes around declaring specific individuals as transgender? Because that's not how the APA works. That's just the definition of it that they use, and it's very vague like I said.
I hope not. I've seen the same definition in other places, too, over the years and in discussions.I agree the definition seems wonky. It looks like a cover for the actual guidelines PDF, which further distinguishes transgender people from gender non-conforming people, stressing gender expression not being an inherent part of gender identity, and also separate from sexual expression and societal gender roles. So I doubt the APA actually uses that definition in practice?
Sorry if I misunderstood. To reiterate, I think the important takeaway is:
This isn't for cushioning the blow for people who were used to things the old way. This is to punish LGBT friendly businesses in LGBT hostile areas and encourage businesses to not allow trans people in the bathrooms of their gender identity. The same legislator who did this banned it in public schools for students and teachers just days before.
Secondarily: people are in the bathroom with trans people all the time, they just don't know it. For every trans person they clock I'm sure there's five they didn't clock. And we shouldn't acknowledge being scared of someone who looks different than our long-standing concepts of gender is an appropriate response,
even while acknowledging that change is sometimes difficult. '(x person demographic) is dangerous' is an inherently harmful stereotype,
so we shouldn't be warning people that that demographic exists in day to day life.
I personally think making bathrooms unisex is a better solution than this sign, but I'd just be happy if people kept their minds out of other people's pants.
It can be kind of hard to miss the Adams apple. Unless it's covered by a beard, which isnt unheard of
Granted I've spent most of the last 20 years of my life in college towns on the West Coast. People tend to flaunt their differences here.
The thing is, do you (people) eye the person down with the adams apple or go and do your business with a shrug. Can't imagine California. Virginia is a southern state with northern tendencies.
I think his record on transgender law speaks for itself. Part of that aforementioned banning trans from bathrooms in public schools including providing a provision for suing the school for 'emotional damages' by people who are exposed to trans in bathroom there. Literally threatening punishment to the schools for non-conformity.Which doesn't establish punishment as their motive.
Oh come on, are we doing the "trans women are men in drag" bit again?I'm pretty sure somebody's 80 year- old church- lady grandmother on her way into the bathroom to powder her nose is going to be freaked out by a 6 foot 4 transvestite with 5:00 shadow regardless of whether or not that's the "right" reaction to have.
I think his record on transgender law speaks for itself. Part of that aforementioned banning trans from bathrooms in public schools including providing a provision for suing the school for 'emotional damages' by people who are exposed to trans in bathroom there. Literally threatening punishment to the schools for non-conformity.
I
I don't think he could manage that with private businesses without the state getting hit with civil lawsuits, so instead he's making businesses which are pro-LGBT visible and targetable in a state that's very anti-LGBT. This isn't a type of awareness that's productive. It's more like a forced outing.[/quote,]
How? Are transgender people going to be made to identify themselves at the door?
If not I don't see how this is in any way a forced outing.
I
I agree that awareness needs to be had, but how that bridge is built should be on trans people's terms.
Why? You're asking for a one-sided, no compromise method I'll bring people together. How well does that ever work?
Doesnt sound like you're talking about building a bridge at all, sounds more like you want to span the gap by shooting everybody else out of a cannon.
I
Not government legislators. Especially not ones that have no intention of helping them.
So the people as a whole shouldn't be represented in any of these decisions?
@ADigitalArtistEven with that, you're assuming that punishment was the primary motive rather than a desire, as they saw it, to protect thier children.
It's an assumption, and it makes a weak case.
To carry that assumption over into
subsequent legislation is even weaker.
Even if I bought the 'think of the children' reasoning often used to demonize minorities, why would I also not draw the conclusion that one wants to punish those 'harming the children'? And why should I care? Nobody gets any respect points from me for holding onto fear that trans people are secret sex predators. **** 'em.Even with that, you're assuming that punishment was the primary motive rather than a desire, as they saw it, to protect thier children.
I'm sure a lot of people thought that when 'whites only' signs underwent forced removal.Why? You're asking for a one-sided, no compromise method I'll bring people together. How well does that ever work?
Doesnt sound like you're talking about building a bridge at all, sounds more like you want to span the gap by shooting everybody else out of a cannon.
That's a pretty egregious misinterpretation of what I wrote. But sure, 'the people as a whole' have a notoriously poor track record of handling civil rights in this country. The 'people as a whole' in Tennessee would rather not see transgender people operating out in the open at all.So the people as a whole shouldn't be represented in any of these decisions?
You know there are 6 ft 4 cis women with honest to god beards, right?I'm pretty sure somebody's 80 year- old church- lady grandmother on her way into the bathroom to powder her nose is going to be freaked out by a 6 foot 4 transvestite with 5:00 shadow regardless of whether or not that's the "right" reaction to have.
".
Even if I bought the 'think of the children' reasoning often used to demonize minorities, why would I also not draw the conclusion that one wants to punish those 'harming the children'?
And why should I care? Nobody gets any respect points from me for holding onto fear that trans people are secret sex predators. **** 'em.
I'm sure a lot of people thought that when 'whites only' signs underwent forced removal.
And in any case I offered a compromise several times, including changing bathrooms to unisex to avoid needing to bother with the sign at all.
That's a pretty egregious misinterpretation of what I wrote.
But sure, 'the people a whole' have a notoriously poor track record of handling civil rights in this country.
The 'people as a whole' in Tennessee would rather not see transgender people operating out in the open at all.
You know there are 6 ft 4 cis women with honest to god beards, right?