Bryan Adams cancels Mississippi show, citing state's new law

[lostboy]

False equivalency that promotes discrimination against actual people, not beliefs. Clearly Jon Sweetens has the same superficial understanding of people's right to dignity that many on TVF do.

There is nothing dignified about this whole stupid toilet/locker room issue.

Forcing women to accept men in the toilet if the man pretends to be trans or pretends to "identify as female" is asinine.

Everyone knows women go there together for their secret women pow-wows or whatever. The Ladies Room is their safe space. I thought the Left was in full support of safe spaces?

People can pretend that it is some kind of civil right, human right, and anyone who opposes is a bigot, but that is all BS. There was a lesbian on the BBC speaking out against this so don't pretend that the LGBT community is united on the issue. The vast majority of women still don't want men in their toilets.

They can solve this issue by changing the signs on the doors. Instead of the image of a man or woman, just have a penis or vagina.

You and others continue with your minds in the toilet. By doing so, you purposefully trivialise the issue and contribute to the demonisation of LGBT people. The religious hate laws deny LGBT people access to public services, jeopardises their employment prospects and in some case their actual employment as they can be dismissed for their biological make up. Beating up the toilet diversion plays into the agenda of hate and discrimination that is expressed by the laws and the people behind the laws. Why bring in left and right into this issue? What do I now about lesbians on the BBC. All these distractions and diversions. Plays right into the hands of the bigots.

I will say one thing on the toilet issue Continued reference to men in women's toilets is either a sign of ignorance or a deliberate inflammation of the issue. Who is talking about men in women's bathrooms? We are discussing Trans people who identify as women using women's bathrooms. To suggest otherwise is just a blatant sop to promoting discrimination. You don't like LGBT people, fine but don't perpetuate discrimination that denies them equality under the law.

[Monomial]

I have spent most of the morning reading this thread, because I find the sociological implications of it fascinating. In last week's Archdruid Report, John Micheal Greer did a fascinating piece on the modern narrative of "The Rescue Game". If you don't know what this is, it would be instructive to first read that article over at thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.

In any case, it quite clearly maps directly onto this discussion, and it is easy to see who has cast themselves as Victims on this thread. Likewise, Michael Moore has clearly defined his role as that of a Rescuer (the Rescuer role usually, but not always, goes to the famous, wealthy and powerful). The problem, as always with any real implementation of The Rescue Game, is a lack of people willing to play the role of Persecutor. Thus, the Victims need to sue people in order to drag them kicking and screaming into the role of Persecutor, because otherwise The Rescue Game couldn't be played. It doesn't really matter what the state of Mississippi did or didn't do in the Rescue Game. It simply matters that a new Persecutor was identified. Likewise, it doesn't really matter what the baker did or why he did it, because he has now been deemed a Persecutor, and there is only one possible, acceptable outcome for his role in this game.

This is all fine and I have no issue with it. It is the way our society is. Other societies throughout history have had their own socially acceptable narratives they used to frame problems. The real problem starts when you get very well spoken people such as one in particular on this thread (and I intentionally won't identify him but everyone knows who that was), who wrote a very lengthy and well reasoned post attempting to speak outside the accepted narrative of "The Rescue Game". Sadly this won't work with those who are playing the game, and it just so happens that the only acceptable narrative in society right now under which the issue of homosexuality can be openly discussed is inside the The Rescue Game mythology.

I too refuse to accept a role in this narrative, and thus will be targeted for the role of Persecutor, despite having said absolutely nothing about the rights of homosexuals and heterosexuals in our society. Because for those playing the game, nobody is allowed to say "I don't want to play".

[mopar71]

There is nothing dignified about this whole stupid toilet/locker room issue.

Forcing women to accept men in the toilet if the man pretends to be trans or pretends to "identify as female" is asinine.

Everyone knows women go there together for their secret women pow-wows or whatever. The Ladies Room is their safe space. I thought the Left was in full support of safe spaces?

People can pretend that it is some kind of civil right, human right, and anyone who opposes is a bigot, but that is all BS. There was a lesbian on the BBC speaking out against this so don't pretend that the LGBT community is united on the issue. The vast majority of women still don't want men in their toilets.

They can solve this issue by changing the signs on the doors. Instead of the image of a man or woman, just have a penis or vagina.

You and others continue with your minds in the toilet. By doing so, you purposefully trivialise the issue and contribute to the demonisation of LGBT people. The religious hate laws deny LGBT people access to public services, jeopardises their employment prospects and in some case their actual employment as they can be dismissed for their biological make up. Beating up the toilet diversion plays into the agenda of hate and discrimination that is expressed by the laws and the people behind the laws. Why bring in left and right into this issue? What do I now about lesbians on the BBC. All these distractions and diversions. Plays right into the hands of the bigots.

I will say one thing on the toilet issue Continued reference to men in women's toilets is either a sign of ignorance or a deliberate inflammation of the issue. Who is talking about men in women's bathrooms? We are discussing Trans people who identify as women using women's bathrooms. To suggest otherwise is just a blatant sop to promoting discrimination. You don't like LGBT people, fine but don't perpetuate discrimination that denies them equality under the law.

1) Please stop bringing Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals into this issue. As we have been told here by members of the LGBT community, they are not the same, just political allies of trans people, nothing more. It is just like the anti-war movement has political allies in the pro-Palestine or Fee Mumia! movement (http://www.freemumia.com/). No one claims that Mumia was being hurt by invading Iraq. So please stop saying gays or bisexuals are being hurt by not wanting to let a man/teenage boy use the ladies/girls room/ocker room. You just give ammo to the anti-gay bigots out there.

By constantly including the LGB community, you are clouding the issue. Using a toilet or locker room IS NOT being denied service.

2) "Who is talking about men in women's bathrooms?" - - Thank you for asking. Reading this thread it is clear that people aren't comprehending the opposition to the toilet/ocker room laws. While I'm sure there are some true bigots out there, the majority of the opposition I read from are those who are concerned that the heterosexual sexual predators/deviants/perverts/rapists/pedophiles dressing up in drag in order to gain access to a woman's toilet for reasons other than powdering their nose.

By saying "who are we to judge what gender someone identifies themselves as" we are holding the door wide open to these sexual predators. So on this issue, I am sure that 100% of sexual predators/deviants are in favor of the open door policy. That should make reasonable people - gay or straight - feel a little concern.

3) anti-trans bigotry on TV...I would think that anyone having spent a lot of time in Thailand would be more accepting of trans people than the general population in their home country, wherever that might be.

[lostboy]

There is nothing dignified about this whole stupid toilet/locker room issue.

Forcing women to accept men in the toilet if the man pretends to be trans or pretends to "identify as female" is asinine.

Everyone knows women go there together for their secret women pow-wows or whatever. The Ladies Room is their safe space. I thought the Left was in full support of safe spaces?

People can pretend that it is some kind of civil right, human right, and anyone who opposes is a bigot, but that is all BS. There was a lesbian on the BBC speaking out against this so don't pretend that the LGBT community is united on the issue. The vast majority of women still don't want men in their toilets.

They can solve this issue by changing the signs on the doors. Instead of the image of a man or woman, just have a penis or vagina.

You and others continue with your minds in the toilet. By doing so, you purposefully trivialise the issue and contribute to the demonisation of LGBT people. The religious hate laws deny LGBT people access to public services, jeopardises their employment prospects and in some case their actual employment as they can be dismissed for their biological make up. Beating up the toilet diversion plays into the agenda of hate and discrimination that is expressed by the laws and the people behind the laws. Why bring in left and right into this issue? What do I now about lesbians on the BBC. All these distractions and diversions. Plays right into the hands of the bigots.

I will say one thing on the toilet issue Continued reference to men in women's toilets is either a sign of ignorance or a deliberate inflammation of the issue. Who is talking about men in women's bathrooms? We are discussing Trans people who identify as women using women's bathrooms. To suggest otherwise is just a blatant sop to promoting discrimination. You don't like LGBT people, fine but don't perpetuate discrimination that denies them equality under the law.

1) Please stop bringing Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals into this issue. As we have been told here by members of the LGBT community, they are not the same, just political allies of trans people, nothing more. It is just like the anti-war movement has political allies in the pro-Palestine or Fee Mumia! movement (http://www.freemumia.com/). No one claims that Mumia was being hurt by invading Iraq. So please stop saying gays or bisexuals are being hurt by not wanting to let a man/teenage boy use the ladies/girls room/ocker room. You just give ammo to the anti-gay bigots out there.

By constantly including the LGB community, you are clouding the issue. Using a toilet or locker room IS NOT being denied service.

2) "Who is talking about men in women's bathrooms?" - - Thank you for asking. Reading this thread it is clear that people aren't comprehending the opposition to the toilet/ocker room laws. While I'm sure there are some true bigots out there, the majority of the opposition I read from are those who are concerned that the heterosexual sexual predators/deviants/perverts/rapists/pedophiles dressing up in drag in order to gain access to a woman's toilet for reasons other than powdering their nose.

By saying "who are we to judge what gender someone identifies themselves as" we are holding the door wide open to these sexual predators. So on this issue, I am sure that 100% of sexual predators/deviants are in favor of the open door policy. That should make reasonable people - gay or straight - feel a little concern.

3) anti-trans bigotry on TV...I would think that anyone having spent a lot of time in Thailand would be more accepting of trans people than the general population in their home country, wherever that might be.

I enjoy Jingthing's posts on a number of issues. I do think that he would be surprised about the interpretation you have made of his information about the T in LGBT. It is not up to you to remove the T from LGBT. This has been a long standing and complex issue that your superficial assessment does nothing to move forward. In fact such superficiality moves the issue back significantly. Your references to Palestine and Mumia are similarly non sequiturs. I can see no relevance at all to the issues being discussed here.

Since this thread specifically mentions Mississippi, then I would have thought it sensible to make reference to HB1523 with this very descriptive title:

AN ACT TO CREATE THE "PROTECTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT"; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN PROTECTIONS REGARDING A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION FOR PERSONS, RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS; TO DEFINE A DISCRIMINATORY ACTION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACT; TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY ASSERT A VIOLATION OF THIS ACT AS A CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN REMEDIES; TO REQUIRE A PERSON BRINGING A CLAIM UNDER THIS ACT TO DO SO NOT LATER THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DISCRIMINATORY ACTION WAS TAKEN; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

Please excuse the CAPS. I copied it from the actual bill http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2016/pdf/history/HB/HB1523.xml and didn't really feel like retyping this ignorant BS again. Were you aware that this was the title of the Mississippi measure? Have you read the text of the Bill? If you had, then you need to stop doing two things; one is keeping your mind on toilets as this is most certainly not about male heterosexual sexual predators. I don't know how many people saying that how many times will get it through the heads of those people with their minds in the toilet. Earlier posters pushing that idea have somehow disappeared for a while. You can work out why. Secondly, your demand that LGB issues should not be brought into this discussion is completely and utterly destroyed by the fact that it is the LGBT minority against whom this measure has been passed.

Read the Bill.

The Columbia Law School did. Here is their assessment:

1. HB 1523 violates the Establishment Clause (of the US Constitution) by allowing Government Employees to discriminate against Mississippians who are LGBT or do not conform to religious sex and gender norms;
2. HB 1523 violates the Establishment Clause by allowing recipients of government grants and contracts to discriminate against Mississippians who are LGBT or do not conform to religious sex and gender norms;
3. HB 1523 violates the Establishment Clause by accommodation the religious preferences of private groups and individuals in a way that causes meaningful harm to other private citizens

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/files/memo_regarding_ms_hb1523.pdf

You will see that toilet is not mentioned once. Bathroom is mentioned under the 2nd issue relating to recipients of government grants and contracts.

We are not talking about men in bathrooms on these threads. People who have been talking about men in bathrooms are doing so deliberately to derail the topic and to incite hatred and discrimination against LGBT people. Incendiary words that they have used have been ruled unacceptable and some individuals ruled as trolls with the associated consequences. Saying this over and over again is getting to be extremely boring. Is not getting it some deliberate act of insolence or as the Moderator has already said 'you can't fix stupid'.

Until those posters stop using the Toilet Birther non-argument, then they really cannot be taken seriously and deserve to suffer the 'slings and arrows' not of outrageous fortune but of contempt.

Edited April 18, 2016 by lostboy

[chuckd]

So it's all about the wedding cakes after all.

[lostboy]

I am beginning to think that you are not arguing in good faith since you do not actually address the issues at hand. The issue is legislation that authorises the discrimination of minorities and the back lash. First you argue a moral equivalency of 'sincerely held' religious beliefs and the right to dignity of a minority that is defined by their biology. You now move to argue that protest against such anti LGBT legislation requires all protesters to protest all issues related to LGBT equality otherwise their protest can be dismissed and trivialised on the basis of hypocrisy.

Is Brian Adams protesting the Beverly Hills Hotel? I have no idea. Perhaps you can tell us. You might also find out about The Boss even though he is not part of this thread. Perhaps you might ask them if they knew about the issue with the Sultan of Brunei. Perhaps you might ask if they believe that putting energy into protesting religious bigotry in the US may have more impact than protesting the Ruler of a Sovereign State. You might also explain to them your expectation that they protest all issues with equal energy and vigour and demand an accounting of every issues that they have protested and at what level of intensity.

This circular argument that freedom of speech allows speech and actions that discriminate against a minority is easily countered by those who are subject to such discrimination also have the right to protest such discrimination can go on forever. It is clear to me that the rights of people to discriminate on the basis of their learned behaviours and received perceptions are less than the rights of those who are being discriminated against due to their biology.

People expressing support for LGBT equality need not be subject to ridiculous and insolent expectations that they fight all issues related to LGBT equality equally. This is just plainly irrational.

I enjoy and support a lot of what Bill Maher talks about. I particularly support what he says about Reagan and Religion (separately). His latest monologue on Real Time last Friday evening addressed the issue of religious discrimination. I think he has the correct solution.

I think that continued use of false equivalency would demonstrate bad faith in this discussion. Some have already judged it to be so. If any replies continue this line, then I guess we will know for sure.

My initial post was about the hypocrisy of Brian Adams to use his freedom to boycott (a group of) people to show and underscore his support to... Deny them the very same freedom he is using.

In a later post I explained why I support his freedom unconditionally by referring to the Non-Aggression-Principle (NAP) which is the foundation of my social behaviour. The NAP in a nutshell:

The NAP holds that “aggression against the person or property of others is always wrong, where aggression is defined narrowly in terms of the use or threat of initial physical violence.”

Btw: The freedom to boycott has absolutely nothing to do with the freedom of speech but with the freedom of association, to which I also refer in a later post.

Now, to make a long story short: To request the state to coerce people / companies to do business they would otherwise voluntarily decline (they forego an opportunity to earn money), is an aggressive, very dangerous path you choose.

It could go the same way as "feminism" is going right now in our Western culture:

If you bothered to watch the video, I hope you understand if I say: Be careful in your unconditional, aggressive request for "diversity" in our Western culture. At least don't blame the NAP for any unintended blowback! Which would me off very much, too.

I watched that moron when the VDO was posted last year on one of the anti-muslim, anti-immigration threads. I thought then about the idea that somehow people think that listening to people utter bigotry is different from reading the same bigotry in written form.

Whinging old Pom. Why would you think that the litany of hate that comes out of that old fool's mouth would have any bearing on anything?

Posting that VDO is a very lear sign that you are not a series interlocutor. If you are a Brit, then you will know what a 'wind up' is. I believe you are winding up those who protest religious hate legislation and I do not believe your NAP crap for a second.

Edited April 18, 2016 by lostboy

[lostboy]

So it's all about the wedding cakes after all.

Don't forget the flowers Charles. What's a good gay wedding without flowers.

Edited April 18, 2016 by lostboy

[chuckd]

So it's all about the wedding cakes after all.

Don't forget the flowers Charles. What's a good gay wedding without flowers.

Thanks for finally admitting the truth.

[Chicog]

Civil rights concern not being arrested for having gay sex and having equal employment rights. Gay people in the US pretty much already have that. Letting men use women's toilets is not civil rights. It is just silly stuff. People just laugh at this kind of nonsense.

Except for Republicans, who seethe and rush to make it illegal because they neither understand nor care about LGBT issues.

[Chicog]

I watched that moron when the VDO was posted last year on one of the anti-muslim, anti-immigration threads. I thought then about the idea that somehow people think that listening to people utter bigotry is different from reading the same bigotry in written form.

Whinging old Pom. Why would you think that the litany of hate that comes out of that old fool's mouth would have any bearing on anything?

Posting that VDO is a very lear sign that you are not a series interlocutor. If you are a Brit, then you will know what a 'wind up' is. I believe you are winding up those who protest religious hate legislation and I do not believe your NAP crap for a second.

That bloke is a de facto poster boy for the British National Front.

All he needs is a Swastika armband.

[Jingthing]

Yes, talking here about CIVIL RIGHTS movements for discriminated against MINORITY groups..

Civil rights concern not being arrested for having gay sex and having equal employment rights. Gay people in the US pretty much already have that. Letting men use women's toilets is not civil rights. It is just silly stuff. People just laugh at this kind of nonsense.

"Pretty much" you say.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

There is a LOT more work to do in the U.S. GLBT civil rights movement.

I get the right wing game you're playing, trying to TRIVIALIZE this and acting like these issues aren't real and serious.

But they are.

Nearly 40% of all openly lesbian, gay, or bisexual employees say they've experienced discrimination or harassment at work, according to a 2011 study by the Williams Institute. And 9% say they've lost a job because they were openly gay.

Here are the states where you can still be fired for being gay because they don't have explicit laws that prevent discrimination against LGBT people in the workplace.

http://www.businessinsider.com/states-where-you-can-be-fired-for-being-gay-2013-4?op=1

[Jingthing]

I have spent most of the morning reading this thread, because I find the sociological implications of it fascinating. In last week's Archdruid Report, John Micheal Greer did a fascinating piece on the modern narrative of "The Rescue Game". If you don't know what this is, it would be instructive to first read that article over at thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.

In any case, it quite clearly maps directly onto this discussion, and it is easy to see who has cast themselves as Victims on this thread. Likewise, Michael Moore has clearly defined his role as that of a Rescuer (the Rescuer role usually, but not always, goes to the famous, wealthy and powerful). The problem, as always with any real implementation of The Rescue Game, is a lack of people willing to play the role of Persecutor. Thus, the Victims need to sue people in order to drag them kicking and screaming into the role of Persecutor, because otherwise The Rescue Game couldn't be played. It doesn't really matter what the state of Mississippi did or didn't do in the Rescue Game. It simply matters that a new Persecutor was identified. Likewise, it doesn't really matter what the baker did or why he did it, because he has now been deemed a Persecutor, and there is only one possible, acceptable outcome for his role in this game.

This is all fine and I have no issue with it. It is the way our society is. Other societies throughout history have had their own socially acceptable narratives they used to frame problems. The real problem starts when you get very well spoken people such as one in particular on this thread (and I intentionally won't identify him but everyone knows who that was), who wrote a very lengthy and well reasoned post attempting to speak outside the accepted narrative of "The Rescue Game". Sadly this won't work with those who are playing the game, and it just so happens that the only acceptable narrative in society right now under which the issue of homosexuality can be openly discussed is inside the The Rescue Game mythology.

I too refuse to accept a role in this narrative, and thus will be targeted for the role of Persecutor, despite having said absolutely nothing about the rights of homosexuals and heterosexuals in our society. Because for those playing the game, nobody is allowed to say "I don't want to play".

My take from your post is that you're all fired up from reading a book (congrats!) in the manner of an adolescent and now wish to proselytize to the world to look at every issue in the world from the SIMPLISTIC tunnel vision POV of that book. That is, until you read another book.

I'm not impressed.

I also do not believe your denial of taking a side,

Your post is clearly suggesting that GLBT Americans do not face real oppression in their lives.

That is 100 percent false.

Of course it varies by individual and region.

A GLBT person in Berkeley California is likely to have fewer (if any) issues than a GLBT person in a rural area of the deep south.

Some might say, well why don't all the GLBT move to the islands of tolerance in the U.S. that do exist?

Why should they have to do that and also of course that's not practical for a large portion of people.

To add, feeling strong pressure to be in the CLOSET for economic and social survival is also a form of being oppressed. Of course, racial minority groups don't even have that option (unless they can "pass" as something else) but believe me, the psychological pain of living a secret life is not a healthy way to live. Some GLBT people can't "pass" either so the closet isn't an option for those individuals either.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[pedro01]

False equivalency that promotes discrimination against actual people, not beliefs. Clearly Jon Sweetens has the same superficial understanding of people's right to dignity that many on TVF do.

There is nothing dignified about this whole stupid toilet/locker room issue.

Forcing women to accept men in the toilet if the man pretends to be trans or pretends to "identify as female" is asinine.

Everyone knows women go there together for their secret women pow-wows or whatever. The Ladies Room is their safe space. I thought the Left was in full support of safe spaces?

People can pretend that it is some kind of civil right, human right, and anyone who opposes is a bigot, but that is all BS. There was a lesbian on the BBC speaking out against this so don't pretend that the LGBT community is united on the issue. The vast majority of women still don't want men in their toilets.

They can solve this issue by changing the signs on the doors. Instead of the image of a man or woman, just have a penis or vagina.

You and others continue with your minds in the toilet. By doing so, you purposefully trivialise the issue and contribute to the demonisation of LGBT people. The religious hate laws deny LGBT people access to public services, jeopardises their employment prospects and in some case their actual employment as they can be dismissed for their biological make up. Beating up the toilet diversion plays into the agenda of hate and discrimination that is expressed by the laws and the people behind the laws. Why bring in left and right into this issue? What do I now about lesbians on the BBC. All these distractions and diversions. Plays right into the hands of the bigots.

I will say one thing on the toilet issue Continued reference to men in women's toilets is either a sign of ignorance or a deliberate inflammation of the issue. Who is talking about men in women's bathrooms? We are discussing Trans people who identify as women using women's bathrooms. To suggest otherwise is just a blatant sop to promoting discrimination. You don't like LGBT people, fine but don't perpetuate discrimination that denies them equality under the law.

In the case of men in womens bathrooms, we are talking about the trans men that would want access to womens bathrooms.

Now - this is not a question of equality. This is a question of letting people with a mental illness into bathrooms of the opposite sex.

And make no mistake, transgenders are suffering from a mental condition.

If you don't believe me - go look in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or even better, watch this video from 3:20 onwards were an M2F Transgender that is quite open about the fact that it IS a mental disorder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmgqeKqMcxg

40% of Transgenders that go through gender re-assignment go on to attempt suicide. The re-assignment is not the cure - because they still have an underlying mental disorder.

This isn't skin color, this isn't sexual preference. This is changing bathroom access to accommodate mental illness.

And then there's the pervs. People that want to give males access to female bathrooms because it will facilitate their activities.

In face, in North Carolina, the proposed "nondiscrimination ordinance" was being championed by a convicted child molester. You can read about this unsavory character here: http://www.dailywire.com/news/3995/convicted-sexual-predator-and-lgbt-activist-behind-robert-kraychik

Edited April 18, 2016 by pedro01

[Chicog]

40% of Transgenders that go through gender re-assignment go on to attempt suicide. The re-assignment is not the cure - because they still have an underlying mental disorder.

Probably from being persecuted and abused by narrow minded bigots their whole lives I would imagine.

[Pimay1]

I would have thought the feminist would come out against allowing men to go into women's bathrooms but I haven't seen anything from them. Maybe I missed it.

[Jingthing]

I would have thought the feminist would come out against allowing men to go into women's bathrooms but I haven't seen anything from them. Maybe I missed it.

There seems to be a lot of major misunderstandings about what is EXACTLY in the Miss. law (a misguided obsession with TOILETS). Each of these states passing anti-GLBT civil rights laws are about different laws.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippis-religious-freedom-bill-sweeping-anti-lgbt-law/story?id=38170420

What the Law's Provisions Specifically Allow

Those whose religious beliefs and moral convictions are protected by the law can decline a multitude of products and services to people -- mainly LGBTQ+ people -- whose lifestyles violate those beliefs and convictions without being penalized by the state of Mississippi.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[squarethecircle]

I have spent most of the morning reading this thread, because I find the sociological implications of it fascinating. In last week's Archdruid Report, John Micheal Greer did a fascinating piece on the modern narrative of "The Rescue Game". If you don't know what this is, it would be instructive to first read that article over at thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.

In any case, it quite clearly maps directly onto this discussion, and it is easy to see who has cast themselves as Victims on this thread. Likewise, Michael Moore has clearly defined his role as that of a Rescuer (the Rescuer role usually, but not always, goes to the famous, wealthy and powerful). The problem, as always with any real implementation of The Rescue Game, is a lack of people willing to play the role of Persecutor. Thus, the Victims need to sue people in order to drag them kicking and screaming into the role of Persecutor, because otherwise The Rescue Game couldn't be played. It doesn't really matter what the state of Mississippi did or didn't do in the Rescue Game. It simply matters that a new Persecutor was identified. Likewise, it doesn't really matter what the baker did or why he did it, because he has now been deemed a Persecutor, and there is only one possible, acceptable outcome for his role in this game.

This is all fine and I have no issue with it. It is the way our society is. Other societies throughout history have had their own socially acceptable narratives they used to frame problems. The real problem starts when you get very well spoken people such as one in particular on this thread (and I intentionally won't identify him but everyone knows who that was), who wrote a very lengthy and well reasoned post attempting to speak outside the accepted narrative of "The Rescue Game". Sadly this won't work with those who are playing the game, and it just so happens that the only acceptable narrative in society right now under which the issue of homosexuality can be openly discussed is inside the The Rescue Game mythology.

I too refuse to accept a role in this narrative, and thus will be targeted for the role of Persecutor, despite having said absolutely nothing about the rights of homosexuals and heterosexuals in our society. Because for those playing the game, nobody is allowed to say "I don't want to play".

My take from your post is that you're all fired up from reading a book (congrats!) in the manner of an adolescent and now wish to proselytize to the world to look at every issue in the world from the SIMPLISTIC tunnel vision POV of that book. That is, until you read another book.

I'm not impressed.

I also do not believe your denial of taking a side,

Your post is clearly suggesting that GLBT Americans do not face real oppression in their lives.

That is 100 percent false.

Of course it varies by individual and region.

A GLBT person in Berkeley California is likely to have fewer (if any) issues than a GLBT person in a rural area of the deep south.

Some might say, well why don't all the GLBT move to the islands of tolerance in the U.S. that do exist?

Why should they have to do that and also of course that's not practical for a large portion of people.

To add, feeling strong pressure to be in the CLOSET for economic and social survival is also a form of being oppressed. Of course, racial minority groups don't even have that option (unless they can "pass" as something else) but believe me, the psychological pain of living a secret life is not a healthy way to live. Some GLBT people can't "pass" either so the closet isn't an option for those individuals either.

What about the psychological pain experienced by children who get molested by these creeps?

[squarethecircle]

I have spent most of the morning reading this thread, because I find the sociological implications of it fascinating. In last week's Archdruid Report, John Micheal Greer did a fascinating piece on the modern narrative of "The Rescue Game". If you don't know what this is, it would be instructive to first read that article over at thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.

In any case, it quite clearly maps directly onto this discussion, and it is easy to see who has cast themselves as Victims on this thread. Likewise, Michael Moore has clearly defined his role as that of a Rescuer (the Rescuer role usually, but not always, goes to the famous, wealthy and powerful). The problem, as always with any real implementation of The Rescue Game, is a lack of people willing to play the role of Persecutor. Thus, the Victims need to sue people in order to drag them kicking and screaming into the role of Persecutor, because otherwise The Rescue Game couldn't be played. It doesn't really matter what the state of Mississippi did or didn't do in the Rescue Game. It simply matters that a new Persecutor was identified. Likewise, it doesn't really matter what the baker did or why he did it, because he has now been deemed a Persecutor, and there is only one possible, acceptable outcome for his role in this game.

This is all fine and I have no issue with it. It is the way our society is. Other societies throughout history have had their own socially acceptable narratives they used to frame problems. The real problem starts when you get very well spoken people such as one in particular on this thread (and I intentionally won't identify him but everyone knows who that was), who wrote a very lengthy and well reasoned post attempting to speak outside the accepted narrative of "The Rescue Game". Sadly this won't work with those who are playing the game, and it just so happens that the only acceptable narrative in society right now under which the issue of homosexuality can be openly discussed is inside the The Rescue Game mythology.

I too refuse to accept a role in this narrative, and thus will be targeted for the role of Persecutor, despite having said absolutely nothing about the rights of homosexuals and heterosexuals in our society. Because for those playing the game, nobody is allowed to say "I don't want to play".

My take from your post is that you're all fired up from reading a book (congrats!) in the manner of an adolescent and now wish to proselytize to the world to look at every issue in the world from the SIMPLISTIC tunnel vision POV of that book. That is, until you read another book.

I'm not impressed.

I also do not believe your denial of taking a side,

Your post is clearly suggesting that GLBT Americans do not face real oppression in their lives.

That is 100 percent false.

Of course it varies by individual and region.

A GLBT person in Berkeley California is likely to have fewer (if any) issues than a GLBT person in a rural area of the deep south.

Some might say, well why don't all the GLBT move to the islands of tolerance in the U.S. that do exist?

Why should they have to do that and also of course that's not practical for a large portion of people.

To add, feeling strong pressure to be in the CLOSET for economic and social survival is also a form of being oppressed. Of course, racial minority groups don't even have that option (unless they can "pass" as something else) but believe me, the psychological pain of living a secret life is not a healthy way to live. Some GLBT people can't "pass" either so the closet isn't an option for those individuals either.

What about the psychological pain experienced by teenagers or children who get molested by these creeps?

Edited April 18, 2016 by squarethecircle

[pedro01]

40% of Transgenders that go through gender re-assignment go on to attempt suicide. The re-assignment is not the cure - because they still have an underlying mental disorder.

Probably from being persecuted and abused by narrow minded bigots their whole lives I would imagine.

Well - that just shows what you will come up with when you make things up in your head.

On the contrary, the re-assignment doesn't really solve the underlying condition. So you are left with mutilated genitals and the same problem you had in the first place.

Imagine having a huge problem and seeing something very drastic as the cure only to be left in the same state of mind and a bucket full of regret.

More here: http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

[Chicog]

40% of Transgenders that go through gender re-assignment go on to attempt suicide. The re-assignment is not the cure - because they still have an underlying mental disorder.

Probably from being persecuted and abused by narrow minded bigots their whole lives I would imagine.

Well - that just shows what you will come up with when you make things up in your head.

On the contrary, the re-assignment doesn't really solve the underlying condition. So you are left with mutilated genitals and the same problem you had in the first place.

Imagine having a huge problem and seeing something very drastic as the cure only to be left in the same state of mind and a bucket full of regret.

More here: http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

Who is making things up in their head?

You're quoting from personal websites with a clear anti-LGBT agenda.

Try looking at some actual science.

The fact is that LGBT people experience a great deal of stress in their formative years and, if identifiable, with that can come isolation, bullying and family conflicts.

These are considered major factors in the LGBT suicide rate, which may be even higher than estimated because not everyone has come out.

You can find the references at the end of the page below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

Or you can keep quoting personal websites that satisfy your confirmation bias against the LGBT community, which pitifully clearly makes you think you can tar everyone with the same brush.

[lostboy]

False equivalency that promotes discrimination against actual people, not beliefs. Clearly Jon Sweetens has the same superficial understanding of people's right to dignity that many on TVF do.

There is nothing dignified about this whole stupid toilet/locker room issue.

Forcing women to accept men in the toilet if the man pretends to be trans or pretends to "identify as female" is asinine.

Everyone knows women go there together for their secret women pow-wows or whatever. The Ladies Room is their safe space. I thought the Left was in full support of safe spaces?

People can pretend that it is some kind of civil right, human right, and anyone who opposes is a bigot, but that is all BS. There was a lesbian on the BBC speaking out against this so don't pretend that the LGBT community is united on the issue. The vast majority of women still don't want men in their toilets.

They can solve this issue by changing the signs on the doors. Instead of the image of a man or woman, just have a penis or vagina.

You and others continue with your minds in the toilet. By doing so, you purposefully trivialise the issue and contribute to the demonisation of LGBT people. The religious hate laws deny LGBT people access to public services, jeopardises their employment prospects and in some case their actual employment as they can be dismissed for their biological make up. Beating up the toilet diversion plays into the agenda of hate and discrimination that is expressed by the laws and the people behind the laws. Why bring in left and right into this issue? What do I now about lesbians on the BBC. All these distractions and diversions. Plays right into the hands of the bigots.

I will say one thing on the toilet issue Continued reference to men in women's toilets is either a sign of ignorance or a deliberate inflammation of the issue. Who is talking about men in women's bathrooms? We are discussing Trans people who identify as women using women's bathrooms. To suggest otherwise is just a blatant sop to promoting discrimination. You don't like LGBT people, fine but don't perpetuate discrimination that denies them equality under the law.

In the case of men in womens bathrooms, we are talking about the trans men that would want access to womens bathrooms.

Now - this is not a question of equality. This is a question of letting people with a mental illness into bathrooms of the opposite sex.

And make no mistake, transgenders are suffering from a mental condition.

If you don't believe me - go look in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or even better, watch this video from 3:20 onwards were an M2F Transgender that is quite open about the fact that it IS a mental disorder.

40% of Transgenders that go through gender re-assignment go on to attempt suicide. The re-assignment is not the cure - because they still have an underlying mental disorder.

This isn't skin color, this isn't sexual preference. This is changing bathroom access to accommodate mental illness.

And then there's the pervs. People that want to give males access to female bathrooms because it will facilitate their activities.

In face, in North Carolina, the proposed "nondiscrimination ordinance" was being championed by a convicted child molester. You can read about this unsavory character here: http://www.dailywire.com/news/3995/convicted-sexual-predator-and-lgbt-activist-behind-robert-kraychik

According to your unreferenced and unsourced figure, 40% of Trans people having done re-assignment commit suicide. And so because of that we can't let them use the toilet. I think that the last person I would want to consult on Trans issues is you. Did you go away and get some post grad award in genetics since your last post on this thread? More likely you spent a few days playing google bingo and desperately trying to find data that fits your twisted agenda. How you must have delighted on discovering the mental health issues related to Trans people. And of course being the oh so sensitive soul that you are, you couldn't wait to pass around your latest piece of bigotry. That Trans people are 'nuts' so they shouldn't be allowed to use the toilets. Who knows what they will do in the depths of the depression and anguish in the toilet cubicle.

You have no business lecturing anyone on Trans issues. Your need to discriminate against them and comment on their behaviour is perverse. As is your retreat into the already established off topic issue of male sex offenders.

Keep up the feverish google bingo. Who knows, you might actually find a clue.

Edited April 18, 2016 by lostboy

[lostboy]

40% of Transgenders that go through gender re-assignment go on to attempt suicide. The re-assignment is not the cure - because they still have an underlying mental disorder.

Probably from being persecuted and abused by narrow minded bigots their whole lives I would imagine.

Well - that just shows what you will come up with when you make things up in your head.

On the contrary, the re-assignment doesn't really solve the underlying condition. So you are left with mutilated genitals and the same problem you had in the first place.

Imagine having a huge problem and seeing something very drastic as the cure only to be left in the same state of mind and a bucket full of regret.

More here: http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

The classification of Gender Dysphoria, which is defined as intense persistent gender incongruence in the International Classification of Diseases is under review. It is argued that:

"The diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated" http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

If you are going t try and sound smart, you should really do your homework first. Just throwing out a few bits of jargon does not hide your intent. Only wackos like Donald Trump make fund of mentally challenged for intellectually disabled people any more. And, of course, now you. You wish to perpetuate the stigma of mental health issues to promote discrimination against trans people. If you are not Trans, why not just leave them alone. If their existence threatens your perception of your manhood, or lack of it, then go consult someone in a professional capacity and just leave the minorities alone to deal with their issues.

You have zero business discussing any issue relating to the mental health of Trans people. And using this as an excuse to deny them the ability to take a piss is revolting.

[pedro01]

40% of Transgenders that go through gender re-assignment go on to attempt suicide. The re-assignment is not the cure - because they still have an underlying mental disorder.

Probably from being persecuted and abused by narrow minded bigots their whole lives I would imagine.

Well - that just shows what you will come up with when you make things up in your head.

On the contrary, the re-assignment doesn't really solve the underlying condition. So you are left with mutilated genitals and the same problem you had in the first place.

Imagine having a huge problem and seeing something very drastic as the cure only to be left in the same state of mind and a bucket full of regret.

More here: http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

Who is making things up in their head?

You're quoting from personal websites with a clear anti-LGBT agenda.

Try looking at some actual science.

The fact is that LGBT people experience a great deal of stress in their formative years and, if identifiable, with that can come isolation, bullying and family conflicts.

These are considered major factors in the LGBT suicide rate, which may be even higher than estimated because not everyone has come out.

You can find the references at the end of the page below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

Or you can keep quoting personal websites that satisfy your confirmation bias against the LGBT community, which pitifully clearly makes you think you can tar everyone with the same brush.

I stated that just over 40% of people that undergo sex change surgery end up attempting suicide. You then blamed that (with no evidence) on them being persecuted as opposed to the disappointment that the surgery does not do what they think.

As for a website has an "anti LGBT" agenda? "sexchangeregret" - it's a website by people that regret having a sex change. The guy in the video at the top of the home page had a sex change himself. Are you really claiming he is "anti LGBT"?

You will have to do better than continually accuse people of bigotry, especially when it's your only answer to facts.

[pedro01]

40% of Transgenders that go through gender re-assignment go on to attempt suicide. The re-assignment is not the cure - because they still have an underlying mental disorder.

Probably from being persecuted and abused by narrow minded bigots their whole lives I would imagine.

Well - that just shows what you will come up with when you make things up in your head.

On the contrary, the re-assignment doesn't really solve the underlying condition. So you are left with mutilated genitals and the same problem you had in the first place.

Imagine having a huge problem and seeing something very drastic as the cure only to be left in the same state of mind and a bucket full of regret.

More here: http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

The classification of Gender Dysphoria, which is defined as intense persistent gender incongruence in the International Classification of Diseases is under review. It is argued that:

"The diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated" http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

If you are going t try and sound smart, you should really do your homework first. Just throwing out a few bits of jargon does not hide your intent. Only wackos like Donald Trump make fund of mentally challenged for intellectually disabled people any more. And, of course, now you. You wish to perpetuate the stigma of mental health issues to promote discrimination against trans people. If you are not Trans, why not just leave them alone. If their existence threatens your perception of your manhood, or lack of it, then go consult someone in a professional capacity and just leave the minorities alone to deal with their issues.

You have zero business discussing any issue relating to the mental health of Trans people. And using this as an excuse to deny them the ability to take a piss is revolting.

This is a discussion forum, I know you are a regressive liberal - so how about we just take the following as read, so we can actually discuss the issues.

1 - You want to tell people what they can and cannot talk about, although you believe yourself to be a bastion of free speech.

2 - You believe anyone with a different opinion from your own is bigoted

3 - You will liberally use the report button to try to stifle opposing views.

In short - WE ALL GET IT. There is no need to repeat accusations of bigotry or tell people what they can and cannot say in every post. We gotcha there 100%.

So you claim that the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders is wrong and you are right.

As for "anti LGBT" websites - the site I posted "sex change regret" was created by a male to female transgender who went through reassignment. How is he anti LGBT? Contributors to that site are also disappointed gender re-assignees. I think their stories are well worth listening to. Your claim that the site is "anti LGBT" just because it doesn't fit your narrative is quite ludicrous.

The pioneers of gender reassignment surgery Johns Hopkins no longer carry out the procedure because they know it doesn't fix the problem, which is a mental issue.

And this isn't about where .01% of the population, suffering from a mental disorder "take a piss". It is about both the existing users and the aspiring users of those toilets and locker rooms. The safety and well being of both groups is important. Not one over the other.

[Jingthing]

Reminder. This thread relates to the MISSISSIPPI anti-GLBT law. As such, a specific focus on whether transgender people are mentally ill or not is not actually ON TOPIC to this thread.

Another reminder about what this law is actually about?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippis-religious-freedom-bill-sweeping-anti-lgbt-law/story?id=38170420

Edited April 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[pedro01]

From a doctor at Johns Hopkins and fomer psychiatrist at cheif there:

The larger issue is the meme itself. The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/

[pedro01]

Reminder. This thread relates to the MISSISSIPPI anti-GLBT law. As such, a specific focus on whether transgender people are mentally ill or not is not actually ON TOPIC to this thread. Cheers.

When people have discussions, they often go off on tangents.

Just relax and enjoy the conversation.

Or did you hit the report button already?

[bentfarang]

I have spent most of the morning reading this thread, because I find the sociological implications of it fascinating. In last week's Archdruid Report, John Micheal Greer did a fascinating piece on the modern narrative of "The Rescue Game". If you don't know what this is, it would be instructive to first read that article over at thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.

In any case, it quite clearly maps directly onto this discussion, and it is easy to see who has cast themselves as Victims on this thread. Likewise, Michael Moore has clearly defined his role as that of a Rescuer (the Rescuer role usually, but not always, goes to the famous, wealthy and powerful). The problem, as always with any real implementation of The Rescue Game, is a lack of people willing to play the role of Persecutor. Thus, the Victims need to sue people in order to drag them kicking and screaming into the role of Persecutor, because otherwise The Rescue Game couldn't be played. It doesn't really matter what the state of Mississippi did or didn't do in the Rescue Game. It simply matters that a new Persecutor was identified. Likewise, it doesn't really matter what the baker did or why he did it, because he has now been deemed a Persecutor, and there is only one possible, acceptable outcome for his role in this game.

This is all fine and I have no issue with it. It is the way our society is. Other societies throughout history have had their own socially acceptable narratives they used to frame problems. The real problem starts when you get very well spoken people such as one in particular on this thread (and I intentionally won't identify him but everyone knows who that was), who wrote a very lengthy and well reasoned post attempting to speak outside the accepted narrative of "The Rescue Game". Sadly this won't work with those who are playing the game, and it just so happens that the only acceptable narrative in society right now under which the issue of homosexuality can be openly discussed is inside the The Rescue Game mythology.

I too refuse to accept a role in this narrative, and thus will be targeted for the role of Persecutor, despite having said absolutely nothing about the rights of homosexuals and heterosexuals in our society. Because for those playing the game, nobody is allowed to say "I don't want to play".

My take from your post is that you're all fired up from reading a book (congrats!) in the manner of an adolescent and now wish to proselytize to the world to look at every issue in the world from the SIMPLISTIC tunnel vision POV of that book. That is, until you read another book.

I'm not impressed.

I also do not believe your denial of taking a side,

Your post is clearly suggesting that GLBT Americans do not face real oppression in their lives.

That is 100 percent false.

Of course it varies by individual and region.

A GLBT person in Berkeley California is likely to have fewer (if any) issues than a GLBT person in a rural area of the deep south.

Some might say, well why don't all the GLBT move to the islands of tolerance in the U.S. that do exist?

Why should they have to do that and also of course that's not practical for a large portion of people.

To add, feeling strong pressure to be in the CLOSET for economic and social survival is also a form of being oppressed. Of course, racial minority groups don't even have that option (unless they can "pass" as something else) but believe me, the psychological pain of living a secret life is not a healthy way to live. Some GLBT people can't "pass" either so the closet isn't an option for those individuals either.

Jingting, I agree with much of what you say, but you cannot say the poster is 100% false and then go one to say that there are islands of tolerance... that doesn't add to 100%.

I would say the same for the poster that you replied to, he is certainly not 100% right in his analysis. I think only a small but very vocal percentage are acting in the manner that he suggests.

[Jingthing]

I find your post ridiculous. You want to get anal and literal about 100 percent false. Hint: CONTEXT. I never said anything CLOSE to 100 percent of all GLBT Americans have been significantly oppressed. DUH! Please don't bother replying because I have no interest in such absurd conflicts over misunderstood semantics.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

I stated that just over 40% of people that undergo sex change surgery end up attempting suicide. You then blamed that (with no evidence) on them being persecuted as opposed to the disappointment that the surgery does not do what they think.

As for a website has an "anti LGBT" agenda? "sexchangeregret" - it's a website by people that regret having a sex change. The guy in the video at the top of the home page had a sex change himself. Are you really claiming he is "anti LGBT"?

You will have to do better than continually accuse people of bigotry, especially when it's your only answer to facts.

The website sexchangeregret is by one person who decided to revert to male and now advocates against sex change. it could not *be* more personal.

Furthermore, what you've done is said that LGBT are by definition "mentally ill" which presumably you've based on your own or others interpretation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (I'm assuming the latest version).

Well that same document actually called homosexuality a mental illness until 1973.

So if you stand by the science, you'll find that it eliminated the word "disorder" in 2012 in reference to Gender identity.

Further, in reference to the high suicide rate, the link I gave you has plenty of references at the bottom that show that many of the suicides were not in fact down to mental illness, and that there is plenty of statistical evidence that acceptance, especially among family, is a key factor in preventing not only transgender, but LGBT suicides.

The truth is that you have a downer on the LGBT community, but fortunately there are plenty of people out there who have better things to do in life than spend their time making life miserable for those of whom they disapprove.

I'll leave you to your views now, there are some people that simply aren't worth the waste of time.