Originally posted by Robtard
What you do suspect will be on the burner next after they lose the LGBTQ fight?
The fight for LGBTQ equality is far from over.
It is perfectly legal in 28 states to discriminate against LGBT people in public accommodations, education, employment, hospitals, housing, and insurance.
This means that in more than half of the country, a person can be refused service, expelled from school, fired from his job, denied medical treatment, evicted from his home, and have his insurance policy cancelled, because he is LGBT.
It is also perfectly legal in 36 states to perform conversion therapy on LGBT minors, which often involves emotional abuse, physical beatings, extreme isolation, and forced labor.
LGBT people are also the second most-targeted group for bias-motivated violence in the United States, despite comprising only 10% of the population. Yet, LGBT people are not included in the Federal Hate Crimes law.
Meanwhile, conservatives are actively trying to reverse the marriage equality decision, and pass laws to permit religious discrimination against LGBT people in public accommodations.
They recognize they are not on the side of public opinion with regard to LGB people, which is why there is an increased focus on trans people in conservative media now.
Most people know someone who is LGB, so it is difficult to convince people to vote against their interests. But trans people represent less than one-half of one-percent of the population. Most people have not met, let alone not know a trans person, so it is far easier to make them into the new progressive boogeymen.
Not disagreeing or was saying the fight is over. I'm looking towards the future (maybe the far future?), I have a positive outlook that in time the majority of Americans will stop shitting on trans people and shitting on them will look as distasteful as say shitting on an interracial couple to more Americans than not.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is perfectly legal in 28 states to discriminate against LGBT people in public accommodations, education, employment, hospitals, housing, and insurance.
In private industry, you mean? I noticed you tried to sneak "public" in there to make it seem like it is government you are talking about. But you're really talking about private industry.
And the ability to discriminate based on anything for any reason should still be protected speech. Waiting for the freedom pendulum to swing back the other direction. 🙂
Originally posted by Surtur
Why do we even lump trannies in with gays and lesbians? It's not a sexuality.
LGB people are often discriminated against on the basis of gender, not sexuality. For example, a person who discriminates against a single gay man is not necessarily responding to his love of another man, because there is no other man, he is single. Said person is often responding to his gender presentation; he does not dress, or wear his hair, or walk, or talk, or carry himself the way a straight man does.
The discrimination directed at LGB and T people is the same, and is from the same people, for the same reasons. That is why it makes sense for them to organize together to fight that discrimination. There is strength in numbers.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
LGB people are often discriminated against on the basis of gender, not sexuality. For example, a person who discriminates against a single gay man is not necessarily responding to his love of another man, because there is no other man, he is single. Said person is often responding to his gender presentation; he does not dress, or wear his hair, or walk, or talk, or carry himself the way a straight man does.The discrimination directed at LGB and T people is the same, and is from the same people, for the same reasons. That is why it makes sense for them to organize together to fight that discrimination. There is strength in numbers.
Yeah, but when it comes to the law and what it says...it says sexuality. The person is not necessarily being discriminated against over sexuality or even gender. It actually comes down to clothes, doesn't it? How you look, how you shape yourself to the outside world.
Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, but when it comes to the law and what it says...it says sexuality. The person is not necessarily being discriminated against over sexuality or even gender. It actually comes down to clothes, doesn't it? How you look, how you shape yourself to the outside world.
Anti-discrimination laws are often worded "sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression."
When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, they did so on the basis that it was unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex.
Marriage is an individual right, not a right that belongs to a couple. Laws prohibiting a man from marrying a man, but allowing a woman to marry a man, discriminate against that man on the basis of his sex; denying him a right that is allowed to a woman.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Anti-discrimination laws are often worded "sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression."When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, they did so on the basis that it was unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex.
Marriage is an individual right, not a right that belongs to a couple. Laws prohibiting a man from marrying a man, but allowing a woman to marry a man, discriminate against that man on the basis of his sex; denying him a right that is allowed to a woman.
So how often are they not worded that way?
Originally posted by Surtur
Even then, would hormone therapy completely remove the advantage?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I defer to the medical experts.
Looks Adam_Poe is deferring to me, then. awesome
To answer your question, Surtur, no. They will maintain all of their advantages except for androgens. All of their physiological and biological advantages still remain intact which includes a greater number of cell-site receptors and greater sensitivity to androgens. They will also maintain greater strength and bone density even post-op and post-hormone therapy.
A similar disadvantage is in place for female to male athletes, as well. While they do get to use "steroids", they must still remain within the tolerance levels on testosterone levels to 5nmol/L* for "female" athletes. There are also ratios that test for doping and an unnatural athlete (female-to-male transitions are unnatural and would reflect so on doping tests unless they adjusted their injection regimen).
So it's great if you reached adulthood as a male and then transitioned to female. But doubly terrible if you were born a female and transitioned to male.
*New IOC rules. Caused a hubbub for a certain masculine female athlete.