How far we've come

[Rhonda Jean]

Sitting here on a Saturday morning with gloriously nothing to do and surfing the net, I'm struck by how amazingly far we've come. I'm fully aware of the negatives, but, taking a glass more than half full approach, it's incredible! No doubt the internet can promote an exaggerated sense of scope, but take a moment to remember what the scope was 5 years ago, or 10, or 50!

Trans is everywhere in the media and popular entertainment and widely (positively) celebrated. Genetically male and female children of all ages being allowed and encouraged to choose and define their own gender identity. Genetically male, female identifying cheerleaders and homecoming queens, double gown weddings, trans parents... the list goes on. Powerful companies and elected officials strongly and openly taking the side of trans acceptance and inclusion, fighting discrimination on our behalf. Openly trans political leaders and media personalities.

It's so easy to focus on the negative, and I'm frequently guilty. It feels good to look at all the good, and imagine where we're headed! There is real hope that if I have a grandson who is like me that her life will be much better than mine. I'm no activist. I just don't have that kind of courage. But, I'm thankful for those who do. Just maybe, though, in my own small way, because of some of the things I've done and the way I've presented myself in public and the way I've (typically) presented myself and interacted with the people I've met who knew I was trans-something, I've left a positive impression. Surely that's been worth something.

[Allisa]

I agree, but sometimes I have to wonder what the ulterior motives might be such as votes as we are a demographic that is not going away only growing and there is a profit to be made from us. I believe our "popularity" in the media is a passing phase but yes in our everyday life we are the ambassadors for our way of life and I try my best to be a good example and educate when ever I can, for what it's worth, changing perceptions of what is misunderstood is a long and tedious process. We've come a long way but many more miles to travel before we are home. The future does look bright for those to come.

[Dana44]

I agree that it is getting better but there are some bigots out there making it a big deal and trying to stamp us out. But there are others fighting back. I just saw on a Facebook page that on well know news caster said that If you don't have a Vagina then don't try to make laws for us then. Smacking the bigots good.

[nikinylons]

I agree Rhonda, we have come so far. I'm not an activist either, but do champion those CD, Trans, who are out there in public representing us all.

Dana, just a thought here, but how can you label people who don't accept us as bigots? Growing up in that conservative culture myself, it has taken me years to accept it as OK, and I'm still conservative minded. We can't shove this down their throats and make them like it just like someone can't shove their religion down your throat and make you like it. Like it or not, it's a culture shock for most and is just going to take time for the ripple effect of acceptance to take hold and we hold that in our hands how we treat those who do not accept us yet. Most of my friends in my regular life would never ever accept something like this and that's ok with me, but that doesn't make them bigots, it makes them who they are. I've always believed that it's not what life throws at you but it's how you react to life. Maybe if the name calling from our side would stop, it would ease the transition for them. Just a thought.

[Tracy Irving]

Should we force people to accept cross dressing or is it enough to let them tolerate it? just wondering...

[Rachael Leigh]

I too am somewhat conservative and don't feel we should push ourselves on others, with that said I do feel just because we
like to dress as we do and in public we should not be made out to be some kind of second class citizen. We are human beings who enjoy this part of ourselves and just want to express it. I see way more strange things out there then a guy in a
dress and well I just move on.

[AllieSF]

Should we force people to accept cross dressing or is it enough to let them tolerate it? just wondering...

I don't we should or even can force people to accept. However, we can be out there enough to help more people see us and interact with us, so the strangeness of a man dress as a woman becomes a familiarity and then less of a threat to the world as they knew it. More exposure, more education and hopefully more interaction with us will go a long ways to help people understand, tolerate and even accept us for being us.

[Jane277]

Many of us are still struggling to accept who we are and what we like, so that raises the question, if we are having a hard time accepting ourselves, how can we expect others to accept us?

[jaimesilvertv]

Great question Jane...perhaps adds to the acceptance difficulty in society. Like the snake chasing its tail. Hope for more progress...

[dolovewell]

Should we force people to accept cross dressing or is it enough to let them tolerate it? just wondering...

No - this is where the LGBT and trans movements lose me. I believe people should be allowed to believe what they believe - its the price we pay for living in a free society. If someone wants to believe something or have a certain point of view, let them

I feel the LGBT community is a bit too sensitive. The idea of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" make me cringe. From my experience the LGBT community is more likely to support freedom stripping ideologies, like criminalizing "hate speech". No thanks. You can't legislate acceptance just like when it comes to religion you can't legislate morality.

[Lorileah]

:eek: Wow, Dolove, just wow. So you are in favor of hate speech? Ideologies like...I dunno racism? Sexism? Theocracy? You just contradict yourself. And to everyone here, WHO is forcing you to accept anything? Equality isn't forcing. Amazing. What you are saying is that it is "OK" to have different rules for different people. That transpeople should not have the same rights, in fact what you are implying is it is somehow ok to hate and discriminate based your theology, race, gender, ability, origin. No one is FORCING anything other than equality.


So let's run with your ideas. If your belief system says it is OK to fire someone for say the color of their eyes, that's cool huh? How about where they were born? So it's OK to have separate but equal lunch counters. Maybe we should keep people from jobs, education, marriage because your belief system says it is OK to do that. Now define "morality" Is being gay immoral? How about polyamory? Whose decision is it to judge? Yours? What is truth? Is mine the same as yours?

Amazing. So tell me, please....where do rules come from and who gets to choose who gets the short end of the stick? Evidently, it's anyone who isn't...you.


Best question of the night. What do YOU lose if someone gets the same rights you have? If your answer is you are losing something, you maybe should step back and reassess equality.

You can't legislate acceptance. You're right because in 150 years and an amendment hasn't worked in the US...yet. We still have hate.

[Dresser&SO]

I think what Dolove is getting at is it is not for our great government to give someone the right to sue and win
over something like baking a cake because it goes against the bakers beliefs and or religion. That being said they
are not letting the US citizens be free. I don't want it shoved down my throat as well. But I will also not judge anyone
who wants to do what they want because we are SUPPOSED to be FREE. Or so I thought.

[Jane277]

Lorileah- people need to understand every single American has the same exact right as we are all protected under the same bill of rights, these days people are not looking for "equal" rights nowadays people want "special" rights, as far as hate speech goes, you cannot say we have freedom of speech with the exception of this or that, either we have freedom of speech or not, hate crime is another thing that is wrong, sorry but any violent crime is a hate crime (why should someone who commits a crime against a member of the lbgt community or a different race, religion get more punishment then someone who commits a crime against a straight person or same race or religion, we are all humans we are all Equals all hate crime and hate speech laws do is tell people that people of this category are more important the people of that category, and that is not equality. Also to force someone to accept your beliefs, but you refuse to accept theirs is being a hypocrite. In closing people should not force someone to accept or like anyone, but should be forced to treat them as equals

[dolovewell]

Wow, Dolove, just wow. So you are in favor of hate speech? Ideologies like...I dunno racism? Sexism? Theocracy?

I am in favor of free speech. Who said I was in favor of hate speech. I believe in the 1st amendment as written - No law should prohibit the exercise of free speech. Hate speech and ideologies like racism are just part of the price we pay for freedom. If someone wants to say hateful things, or be racist or sexist, that is their right. Just because I believe they should be allowed to believe those things or say hateful things doesn't mean I agree with it or am in favor of it.

Besides say hate speech was criminalized, who gets to determine what hate speech is? That is a slippery slope that is very dangerous. The government becomes even more powerful than it already is because it now has the power to pick and choose what we can and can not say, as they can now define what exactly hate speech is. No doubt it would be abused.


Lorileah- people need to understand every single American has the same exact right as we are all protected under the same bill of rights, these days people are not looking for "equal" rights nowadays people want "special" rights

I agree with this completely - what rights are transpeople being denied these days? What rights do non transpeople have that transpeople don't have? This is another area where the LGBT movement loses me - we always hear about how they are being denied rights and have no rights and we need to fight for their rights - what exactly are they being denied? This leads me to believe its not about equal rights, but preferential treatment, or, in my opinion, just a way to energize the base for political clout.

[NicoleScott]

People have a right to think whatever they want, but not the right to DO whaever they want. Speech is one of those things people DO, and some restrictions are necessary (can't yell fire in a crowded theater, for example - unless there really is a fire).
Jane makes a good point that everyone equally should be afforded the same protections. Hate speech laws give special protections for certain classes of people. Displaying a sign saying "kill the gays" is hate speech but "kill the cops" is not because cops is not one of the protected groups under hate speech laws. Why shouldn't cops and the rest of us have the same protections?

[BettyMorgan]

I agree with this completely - what rights are transpeople being denied these days? What rights do non transpeople have that transpeople don't have? This is another area where the LGBT movement loses me - we always hear about how they are being denied rights and have no rights and we need to fight for their rights - what exactly are they being denied? This leads me to believe its not about equal rights, but preferential treatment, or, in my opinion, just a way to energize the base for political clout.

Are you serious? Wow.

Have you not heard there are those who want to deny transgender people the right to use a public washroom? Do you know any trans people who have been denied employment for being trans or been fired after coming out? I have. Have you heard about trans people being denied rental properties because they were trans? How about transgender women who have been murdered because they were transgender? How about a transgender teen who had her head smashed in and set on fire because she was transgender? I do, I knew her personally. Do you know any transgender people who have been threatened with death because they are advocating for EQUAL rights? I do. Do you know people who don't want lgbtq students to meet or create a club with straight students inside of public schools? I do. But, some people will still not see what rights are being denied.

Transgender people are not asking for special rights only equal rights.

The original op is correct - we have come a long way. There are places that do have legislation to protect gender rights and expression. They do have legislation against hate speech and acts. Will it eliminate hate? No, but at least we have something in place to protect citizens.

[VeronicaMoonlit]

Dana, just a thought here, but how can you label people who don't accept us as bigots?

Because, literally, that is what they are.


Growing up in that conservative culture myself, it has taken me years to accept it as OK, and I'm still conservative minded.

So perhaps your conservative culture is...wrong?


We can't shove this down their throats

You'll have to #define "shoving down their throats for me". Be specific and give examples.


Like it or not, it's a culture shock for most and is just going to take time for the ripple effect of acceptance to take hold and we hold that in our hands how we treat those who do not accept us yet.

culture shock? What kind of culture do you live in? Really, the first seminal work about various kinds of transgender folk was written over a century ago, in 1910! And I most certainly saw transfolk on Phil Donahue and Oprah back in the early and mid 80's. This thing of ours isn't new, it has been around forever and it is LONG past time people got used to it.


Most of my friends in my regular life would never ever accept something like this and that's ok with me, but that doesn't make them bigots,

Yes, it does, it is the very definition of it.


Maybe if the name calling from our side would stop, it would ease the transition for them. Just a thought.

It isn't name calling when you're telling someone what they actually are. And Why should WE make it easy on them, THEY are the ones who have it hard for US for so long.


Should we force people to accept cross dressing

#define "force" for me, give examples and be specific.


I too am somewhat conservative and don't feel we should push ourselves on others,

#define "push" for me, give examples and be specific.

Now for those I asked to #define things, well, we really don't have to do that, because that "push/force/shoving" rhetoric was used by bigots in the past. They considered desegregating lunch counters and bathrooms "pushing" Or wanting to be able to use the right to vote "forcing", or wanting to marry someone of a different race "shoving"

Basically those bigots thought the very acts of equality were "pushing/shoving/forcing" and you all damn well know it, so don't even TRY using that rhetoric in 2016.




I feel the LGBT community is a bit too sensitive. The idea of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" make me cringe.

You don't have the right to tell people how to feel, that is basically what you're doing. I'm going to quote Van Jones here:

“No, you don’t have the right to tell someone else how to deal with the pain that they’re going through,” Jones responded. “If you say, ‘You should have a thicker skin,’ if you say, ‘You have got to get over yourself, I’m gonna hear that as, ‘This person does not respect me, does not understand me, does not know what I’ve gone through.’”


From my experience the LGBT community is more likely to support freedom stripping ideologies, like criminalizing "hate speech". No thanks. You can't legislate acceptance just like when it comes to religion you can't legislate morality.

People who say hateful crap, and get away with it, are more likely to act on it. I'm in favor of hate speech laws because they set the baseline for behavior and let everyone know that being a bigot isn't acceptable.


I think what Dolove is getting at is it is not for our great government to give someone the right to sue and win
over something like baking a cake because it goes against the bakers beliefs and or religion.

Actually that's the governments job, to protect people from discrimination. Besides, there's nothing in the Bible about baking cakes for gay people. In fact, Jesus himself never mentions them and supposedly brought a "new covenant" that replaces the old testament. Course, haters have to go back to Deuteronomy...which according their their OWN rules doesn't apply. Besides, they're probably wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, are most certainly not following the dietary rules and don't have the proper huts for menstruating women and don't hand over animals to the priestly caste when menstruating women touch things.

Look, if those bakers refused to bake a cake for a mixed race couple on the grounds that their religious denomination was against mixing of the races...they'd be called out on bigotry. Refusing to do so for a gay couple is the same thing.


I don't want it shoved down my throat as well.

Don't want "what" shoved down your throat? What are you referring to? And you'll have to #define "shoving" for me.


these days people are not looking for "equal" rights nowadays people want "special" rights,

And where have I heard that phrase before? Oh yes, I read it was used by bigots during the Civil rights struggle. Because, you know...actually being able to live next to white people, vote, and not be lynched was such a "special right"


hate crime is another thing that is wrong, sorry but any violent crime is a hate crime

That's not what the law says, the law recognizes aggravating circumstances.


(why should someone who commits a crime against a member of the lbgt community or a different race, religion get more punishment then someone who commits a crime against a straight person or same race or religion,


That's easy, because GLBT are often targeted for assaults/murder BECAUSE they are GLBT. THAT is the aggravating difference.


all hate crime and hate speech laws do is tell people that people of this category are more important the people of that category,

No they don't. What they're doing is saying in no uncertain terms, that targeting someone specifically because of race or status is wrong, and aggravates the crime to a worse crime.


In closing people should not force someone to accept or like anyone, but should be forced to treat them as equals

Then what do we do about the people who DON'T treat people as equals.


If someone wants to say hateful things, or be racist or sexist, that is their right.

Saying things is their right...but you just used the word "be", and "be" implies action. And when you talk about people acting on racism or sexism, that crosses the line.


Just because I believe they should be allowed to believe those things or say hateful things doesn't mean I agree with it or am in favor of it.

Then if you don't agree with it or are in favor of it, then shouldn't we nip that sort of thing in the bud?


I agree with this completely - what rights are transpeople being denied these days? What rights do non transpeople have that transpeople don't have?

Employment, housing, medical care, adoption rights, the @#$@# bathroom and until relatively recently...marriage?


This is another area where the LGBT movement loses me - we always hear about how they are being denied rights and have no rights and we need to fight for their rights - what exactly are they being denied?

See above.


This leads me to believe its not about equal rights, but preferential treatment, or, in my opinion, just a way to energize the base for political clout.

I guess you don't believe in "privilege" either?


People have a right to think whatever they want, but not the right to DO whaever they want.

I'm glad we agree on that.


Hate speech laws give special protections for certain classes of people.

Yes, because members of those classes are often targeted for BEING members of that class.


Displaying a sign saying "kill the gays" is hate speech but "kill the cops" is not because cops is not one of the protected groups under hate speech laws. Why shouldn't cops and the rest of us have the same protections?

Again, aggravating circumstances... being gay is what some people are born as...being a cop isn't a natal identity, it is a job.

Besides, killing a law enforcement officer IS an aggravating circumstance in many jurisdictions.

Veronica

[dolovewell]

Have you not heard there are those who want to deny transgender people the right to use a public washroom?

The right to use a public "washroom"(I am assuming you are meaning bathroom) is not a right enshrined into the constitution. A lot of these "washrooms" exist on private property, therefore, it should be up to the property owners to decide who gets to use their facilities. I am libertarian when it comes to private property - the owner of the property, not the government, should be the one to decide how their property is used.


Do you know any trans people who have been denied employment for being trans or been fired after coming out?

A lot of states are right to work states, meaning, the employer is allowed to hire or fire for any reason they want to. They need to reason. This is not a case of transgender people being denied "rights" - its a case of employers exercising their rights to hire/fire at will. Another thing I am libertarian about. A business owner should be allowed to determine what labor he wants to hire and should not have to give any reason. It's his/her business - therefore, his/her choice. It's not the government's role to run a person's business for them. Yes, there are people who are trans who get fired for being trans - its rare, but it happens. There are also people who get fired for other stupid reasons. Should we demand they have rights as well? This has nothing to do with transpeople being denied rights, and more to do with right to work legislation. You want a change in this area, vote for politicians who oppose right to work.


Have you heard about trans people being denied rental properties because they were trans?

Nope. But again, a person who owns property should be allowed to decide how to use his property, and no one else. If someone who uses their property as a rental wants to deny a rental because they are trans, that is their right to do so, since its their property. The government should not dictate to a private citizen who owns private property how it is to be used. One person may deny transpeople a rental, another person may deny someone a rental because they don't like their handwriting on the rental application. So be it. Find someone who will rent to transpeople, or buy your own private property. The amount of people out there who would deny a rental to a transperson has to be very, very miniscule. Most tenants just care about one thing - will you pay your rent on time.


How about transgender women who have been murdered because they were transgender? How about a transgender teen who had her head smashed in and set on fire because she was transgender?

What do these have to do with denying transpeople rights? Last time I checked, murder is already illegal. What do you suggest be done? Make it illegal to murder transwomen? Murder is already illegal. People get murdered for cheating on their spouse - does that mean people who cheat are being denied rights? People get murdered for being in the wrong gang - are we demanding these gang members need rights? I also highly doubt people get murdered SPECIFICALLY because they are trans - at least in the US. It's not like there is a pack of roving marauders out there who find transwomen just to kill them for fun. Usually these murders have another underlying reason for them - not justifying the murders, its horrible - but you are exaggerating when you say transwomen are murdered only because they are trans.


Do you know any transgender people who have been threatened with death because they are advocating for EQUAL rights?

People get death threats for anything and everything. I got death threats when I left a certain presidential candidate's political rally a few months ago. What rights was I being denied? Should I demand that supporters of his candidacy be given equal rights because we got death threats? Again, death threats are already illegal. What do you suggest be done that isn't already being done? Make it extra illegal to send death threats to transwomen?


Do you know people who don't want lgbtq students to meet or create a club with straight students inside of public schools?

Of course. But guess what? They still get to make the clubs anyway. I went to a pubic high school in Abilene, TX, not exactly the most progressive city in the country - and we had an LGBT club at my school, and this was over 10 years ago. No one is being denied the right to make LGBT clubs at public schools anywhere.

[BettyMorgan]

This thread is a good lesson. It showing us really how far people have yet to go for equality.

[Rhonda Jean]

This thread is a good lesson. It showing us really how far people have yet to go for equality.

Yes. Let's just not forget how far we've come. Consequently, though, the real hardware of progress incites the real hardware of those against it.

A friend of mine transitioned on the job (as several on this board have). She works for a progressive company that has written protections within company policy. She will not lose her job for it, and certainly her job/company has been much more tolerable than it would have been without such policies. To a degree, tolerance was legislated. However, the old guard still exists there, as it does everywhere. Despite company policy, advancement in her career as well as her work environment will be effected. You can't make people accept it, much less like it, because there's a rule against discriminating against it. There are plenty of other reasons to deny a promotion without saying it's because someone transitions, and the old guard still make a lot of those decisions. Because of such a policy, though, she's there. It's less of a deal now than it was 3 years ago, and it'll be even less of a deal in 10. And it'll be easier for the next one, and the next. The civil rights movement occurred/is occurring within my lifetime. Things that were unthinkable 50 years ago are now commonplace and accepted. They didn't wipe out white supremacists with civil rights legislation, but they certainly reduced blatant discrimination.

I'd hoped we could talk about the positives for a change. We get so focused on the negative. I'm very far removed from what it's like in schools these days, but from what I've been told, openly gay students are a non-starter. Many of these students probably find more acceptance at school than they do at home, but at least they find it there. From what I've read, I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's at least one openly trans student in every big high school. Several in some. You cannot deny that that's incredible progress!

- - - Updated - - -


Way above-average thread here.

As a 68-year-old who lived full-time for eight years in the 1980s (and has since found a different route of compromise), my view is that Veronica sees the world as it is, including the power and right of our democratic government to ban all kinds of cruelty and denial of basic humanity to disfavored groups. Her point-by-point takedown of the reactionary argument is masterful. I saw and experienced it first-hand for most of a decade, after a closeted experience such as many here describe and prior to a different experience since that immersion. It's discouraging to hear arguments traditionally advanced by regressive haters set forth here to question our progress and assert a new marginalization as seeking special rights.

The conservative mindset and worldview is grounded in fear, fear of change, fear of difference. It's a short line from fear to hate to acting out, and American society, at least, has a long, ugly history of bigotry (the INTOLERANT attachment to one's own beliefs and opinions), of tribalistic oppression. It was only within my lifetime that public power affirmatively began to call out this behavior and do something about it. Fear of some kind of punishment is part of what keeps us from running red lights or stealing stuff. Fear of some kind of legal penalty has obviously deterred many, who might have been otherwise inclined to hateful acts, from actually harming others, even if only emotionally. There is a long-recognized legal theory of liability for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil rights laws are simply a statutory extension of that principle. And that hatred, once deterred, may subside into an acceptance of otherness that might otherwise never happen.

The progressive worldview and mindset, on the other hand, is rooted in an appreciation of otherness as part of a social tapestry. I don't want to live in a tribe in which we all look and talk and dress and behave alike; that's stifling to something as potentially diverse as human beings. Every time you venture out as yourself, you do a little something to advance that progress. It might be something big, like a nice encounter with someone who thinks what you're doing is cool, or just the combination of relief and satisfaction that you moved through public spaces without incident or discomfort just one time.

We didn't ask to be this way, and it's only natural that everyday political and moral distinctions and arguments will find their way into our discussions here. But, with respect to all, I think Veronica hit it out of the park, and that dolovewell needs historical batting practice.

Well, dang it! You were posting this as I was typing my response. I would have never posted mine if this had been up.

To me, it has never been more eloquently or succinctly put than this. Thanks for saying it... better than I could.

[Lorileah]

My hed herts. Really.

OK lets start with the "constitution" and what it says or doesn't say. It is a living document that is ever being added to and defined. That is what Amendments are for along with rulings from the Judicial Branch. It is not written in stone

[dolovewell]

So perhaps your conservative culture is...wrong?

Just curious... who gets to decide what is right and wrong?


I'm in favor of hate speech laws because they set the baseline for behavior and let everyone know that being a bigot isn't acceptable.

Why do you think our founders even put the 1st amendment in the constitution? Was it because they were hateful bigots and wanted to make it perfectly OK to be able to say hateful and bigotted things without repercussion? Not quite. It's because they were smart enough to realize that a government that has the power to censor and control speech is nothing more than a tyrannical government. Try reading the articles of confederation and other founding documents to see them outline why freedom of speech, even when it comes to hate speech, is extremely important. The fact that anyone thinks its a good idea to ban hate speech baffles me. Who gets to decide what is considered hate speech? The government? So a government that can ban hate speech, can eventually shift the goalposts to ban speech they don't like. What if the government deciding what speech is OK and what isn't is a government you oppose? Not so in favor of speech censorship now, are you? That's why it's a slippery slope best avoided. You can't ban some speech. You either have to allow total freedom of speech, or you have tyranny, there is no in between. Just look at utopias like North Korea, Cuba, the USSR, and such where you have no free speech rights. In North Korea If your 3rd cousin criticizes the government you and the rest of your extended family get tossed into gulags.


Actually that's the governments job, to protect people from discrimination.

I look up and down the constitution and see nothing of the sort. Yes we have basic human rights protections like the 14th amendment - but as far as anti-discrimination legislation is concerned, that falls under the umbrella of the 10th amendment, which is how it should be. We have 50 different laboratories of government whose people can decide what works best for them, instead of a one sized fits all approach from the top.


Then if you don't agree with it or are in favor of it, then shouldn't we nip that sort of thing in the bud?


How do you suppose nipping it in the bud? I like the current system of the market deciding. If someone is hateful or bigotted, then they will end up having to pay by alienating friends, family, customers, investors, advertisers, etc. which is how it works now. Look at what happened to Donald Sterling - he was forced to sell the Clippers because of the market reaction to his racism. No government legislation was needed. Legislating and criminalizing hate speech doesn't work for reasons I already pointed out. A government with the power to ban hate speech has the power to ban any speech they deem necessary to ban. What if the pendelum swings the other way and(just an example) neo nazis gain foothold of the government? Would you want neo nazis with the power to ban speech? I sure wouldn't.


I guess you don't believe in "privilege" either?

Absolutely not. I think the concept of privilege, specifically white privilege, is silly. So because, I am a straight white male, I should be ashamed of myself and feel guilty for no other reason than the fact I was born a straight white male. No thanks, I am not going to feel any sort of guilt or shame whatsoever for being a straight white male. Just like gay people don't choose to be gay, I didn't choose to be a straight white male, so I am not going to participate in this silliness. To me, the whole concept of white privilege is just wrapping up reverse racism in another coat of paint and re-labelling it privilege so people are more likely to accept it instead of see it for what it is, reverse racism.


my view is that Veronica sees the world as it is, including the power and right of our democratic government to ban all kinds of cruelty and denial of basic humanity to disfavored groups. Her point-by-point takedown of the reactionary argument is masterful. I saw and experienced it first-hand for most of a decade, after a closeted experience such as many here describe and prior to a different experience since that immersion. It's discouraging to hear arguments traditionally advanced by regressive haters set forth here to question our progress and assert a new marginalization as seeking special rights.

It is the power and right of our democratic government to ensure basic human rights are protected, however, you can also not trample on the basic God Given rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, including Right #1, the right to free speech. If actually standing for the Bill of Rights makes me a "regressive hater" so be it.


But, with respect to all, I think Veronica hit it out of the park, and that dolovewell needs historical batting practice.

I minored in American History in college and have a deep knowledge of our country's founding and founding documents, so I don't think I need historical batting practice... Because I actually believe that the Bill of Rights actually means something, and that criminalizing hate speech is a really, really bad idea, means I need historical batting practice? :brolleyes:


OK lets start with the "constitution" and what it says or doesn't say. It is a living document that is ever being added to and defined. That is what Amendments are for along with rulings from the Judicial Branch. It is not written in stone

Correct, BUT, the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments are practically set in stone, as the Bill of Rights are different than the rest of the amendments. If you read our founding documents and writings and statements from our founding fathers... the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are not rights granted by government, but unalienable human rights given by the creator. Meaning, they can not be taken away by a government since they are rights not granted by the government. The constitution would never have been ratified if not for the Bill of Rights. That was the key bargaining chip to get all 13 states to sign on.

To ban hate speech, like posters in this thread advocate for, would mean that a constitutional convention would have to be convened, and 34 states would have to ratify the constitution to repeal the 1st amendment. This will never happen, and if it did, it would almost certainly lead to anarchy, secession and a civil war.

[Jane277]

I was at a homecoming for our local soldiers returning from Iraq, and outside there were protesters yelling hatful thing calling them baby killers, burning the flag and all sorts of other hateful stuff, and as the soldiers walked past them they were forced to listen to all of the hatred directed at them, and one soldiers was asked why don't you knock them out, and he said, "Me and my brothers fought, and some even died, to protect their rights, just as much as we fought and died to protect yours, that is why they are called equal rights".

[Lorileah]

OK, this has become a political debate. Back to the OP. Further discussion of anti-LGBT, esp the T part can be taken to the sticky on bathroom bills

[NicoleScott]

... a constitutional convention would have to be convened, and 34 states would have to ratify the constitution ....

Sorry to nitpick, but it takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress OR two-thirds of the states (34) to convene a Constitutionsl Convention, then three-fourths (38) of the states to ratify any amendments to the Constitution proposed by the Convention.

The most important point you make is that the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, PROTECTS our natural rights. A government that gives us rights can take them away. Brilliant move by the framers.

This [post] is about government, not politics.

[Rhonda Jean]

An impressive academic discussion! From a merely personal perspective...

When I started first grade in 1964 I had long hair. Below the shoulders long. On the first day I was sent home with a note for my mother that said my hair was in violation of the dress code and it had to be cut by a certain day for me to be allowed back in class. My mother met with the principle (who knew my stellar-student much older brother and sister) and basically said he wouldn't enforce it unless he got a complaint, then he'd have no choice. Another meeting to the same effect occurred in the third grade when we changed principles. The dress code may still exist today, for all I know. I was evidently the first, and was for a long time, but many have followed. I guess that over a period of time they've probably forgotten why they ever had such a rule in the first place.

I, of course, could not have fought that fight (if it was even a fight). My mother, someone with more authority, more clout, more respected, better able to stand up to it could and did. Mine is a tiny example of what is happening on a national scale, except it's not my mother. It's PayPal, the NCAA, it's forward thinking government officials and businesses.

I've stated previously on here that I'm more wary going out now than I've ever been. I'm not at all ignorant of the hate, vitriol, and violence. The similarities to the civil rights movement of the 60's are inescapable, still widely and unfortunately unresolved. So much better than it used to be. Still a long way to go.

[Julogden]

No - this is where the LGBT and trans movements lose me. I believe people should be allowed to believe what they believe - its the price we pay for living in a free society. If someone wants to believe something or have a certain point of view, let them

I feel the LGBT community is a bit too sensitive. The idea of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" make me cringe. From my experience the LGBT community is more likely to support freedom stripping ideologies, like criminalizing "hate speech". No thanks. You can't legislate acceptance just like when it comes to religion you can't legislate morality.
No one is trying to make anyone else believe anything. And acceptance IS required, as in non-LGBT people need to simply accept that we've always been here and always will, and that they have to treat us with the same respect that they would treat anyone. No one has to like anyone, but no one should be able to mistreat, harass or discriminate against them just because they don't like them.

What the LGBT community seeks is tolerance, the freedom to express who they are, freedom from having to fear violence caused by prejudice and ignorance, equal rights, equal access to the society and resources, and protection from discrimination for simply being different, all the things that everyone should have. The problem is that many people in the world, including the US, are trying to deny those rights to some groups of people simply for being a bit different, particularly the "T" part of the LGBT community.

[raeleen]

what an amazing thread. love the level of discourse, and relatively even-keeled discussion.

i wasn't planing to jump in, but I wanted to ask dolove about a couple of points they make. especially around notions of privilege and reverse racism. i'm one of those folks who believes very much that privilege exists within certain groups and identifications. males are absolutely more privileged than females because we exist in a society that was built primarily by men, has societal structures that benefit and preference men over women, and objectify women in a way that it would never be ok to view men in. White folks definitely have more privilege than people of color because again, this country was founded by white folks, and systems in place create structures that hold back people of color. And trans individuals don't have the same benefits that cis-gender people have. They are fired from jobs without reason. They are denied health benefits because of their gender identity. They are homeless and suicidal at a drastically higher rate than the rest of the population.

But this isn't about making someone feel shameful that they are privileged, or that they have benefits because of who they are. It doesn't mean that they should feel guilty about their wealth or status in society, or that they don't necessarily deserve what they have. It does mean though that if you believe in the basic principles of this country, that all people are equal, and deserve equal treatment, equal benefits, that we should all get the same shot at life, then I don't think you can honestly say that this is the case right now in our world. There is privilege. It's not equal, and if we want it to be, those who have privilege and power should be working to help equal the playing field.

I don't think we should deny all voices in our society, because our diversity and the lessons that these varying viewpoints teach us is important. A monolithic group of people quickly become narrow-minded and exclusionary and no longer treat people fairly. No matter which way they lean. But when does protecting ideology overshadow protecting lives? What do we value more?

I appreciate all your thoughts and I think this conversation is so important. No one should be forced to have to accept anything. But they shouldn't be allowed to hurt or injure another because they're different either. Trans folks, people of color, and lots of other groups are oppressed. They are beaten down. And no, they're not always angels or law-abiding, but even that has it's roots in our society that holds them down. Examining your own privilege and helping others to overcome barriers isn't such a bad thing, is it?

[barbara gordon]

[QUOTE=Rhonda Jean;4018604]"Sitting here on a Saturday morning with gloriously nothing to do and surfing the net, I'm struck by how amazingly far we've come
It feels good to look at all the good, and imagine where we're headed! There is real hope that if I have a grandson who is like me that her life will be....."


In the spirit of the original post, i agree that there is a lot of positive changes in recent years.

Even if there is still many things against open acceptance of people who like to express a different gender from their birth body gender, there is at least a new openness to discuss these issues . People are talking about it .
Imagine ten years ago when to most vanilla people the whole idea of transgender anything was only viewed as a weird curiosity .
There have always been gender variable people through history , but in most times and places it was a taboo.
I think that it is changing for the better

[CONSUELO]

Yes we have come a long way on the ACCEPTANCE FRONT but there is still a long way to go. I think we lag behind our gay brothers and sisters who are much more open than our community. We have gay people in entertainment who are open about their sexuality in a way we are not open about cross dressing. We shall achieve some equality when a transgender person becomes a public figure and not just an actor in an acclaimed series.

But there is another great change which I believe is very important and that is the way in which information about cross dressing and transgenderism has become much more available. As a teenager struggling to understand my transvestite feelings I could find almost no useful educational material. What a difference today. Thanks to such sites at this one, young cross dressers are able to learn a lot about themselves and the community. That is a massive change in just over 20 or so years.

So, we have come a long way on two fronts. The first is public understanding and acceptance while the second is self knowledge and self-understanding and acceptance. Both are important.

[Krisi]

This thread is a good lesson. It showing us really how far people have yet to go for equality.

No, it's showing us that everyone who straps on a pair of boobs and a wig does not think the same. We are no different than the "normal" people in that respect.

I do think a few people (names withheld) have made some pretty nasty personal attacks on others who may not believe the same as they do and that's a shame. They should know better.

The bottom line is, like every other Internet argument, in the end, nobody changes their mind. People just get mad and make enemies.