Support NeoGAF

[perfectchaos007]

then why are you still a republican? the party platform is full of bigotry and ignorance. do you not support it?

I definitely don't support the bigots WITHIN the Republican party, but they aren't all bigots. I'm hoping that once Trump gets inevitably demolished in the election that the party actually undergoes a real reform. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Poltergust]

Looking through google 2013, most of the laws I see are for transgendered people not against and the media pushing it as an issue and then the right reacting.

Transgender people, not "transgendered people". You can also shorten it to trans people.

Anyways, these anti-trans laws are all really recent (like 2016 recent), so there'd be nothing in 2013 about them. It didn't become an issue until after gay marriage became legal for pretty easy-to-see reasons.

 

[aeolist]

You're making a circular argument irrelevant tot he point I'm making now, I never once mentioned covering news on republican reactions, the reasons it's a big deal is because of the media and the obama administration making it a big one. whether or not the right is extending it being a big deal is a different conversation.

My other main point is that Obama abruptly threatening states funding doesn't make any sense, and it should have been obvious it would cause a big reaction.

so your position is that north carolina passed a discriminatory law because the media covers anti-trans discrimination? and that the obama administration should pass money to state governments with no restrictions whatsoever on how it is to be used?

 

[Freddy Barry]

If states don't want to follow federal guidelines, they don't get federal funding. Not sure why Republicans only care about the evil federal government when it comes to getting money from them. You'd think they'd be more than happy to get by on their own and be personally responsible.

And your post history is what makes you a Republican.

My post history doesn't imply anything about being a republican, in fact, my post history would imply I'm a bernie supporter which I am not. Making things up isn't cool.

Also you have a large amount of these "people" you are referring to, that control innoncent people. Obama abruptly threatening to cut funding, and then them getting cut is the same as saying people we should crash NC economy when there's likely a majority there that doesn't agree with the Gov.

Makes zero sense.

 

[Blader]

You're making a circular argument irrelevant tot he point I'm making now, I never once mentioned covering news on republican reactions, the reasons it's a big deal is because of the media and the obama administration making it a big one. whether or not the right is extending it being a big deal is a different conversation.

My other main point is that Obama abruptly threatening states funding doesn't make any sense, and it should have been obvious it would cause a big reaction.

The right made it a big deal by MAKING A LAW AGAINST IT.

 

[Link]

You're making a circular argument irrelevant tot he point I'm making now, I never once mentioned covering news on republican reactions, the reasons it's a big deal is because of the media and the obama administration making it a big one. whether or not the right is extending it being a big deal is a different conversation.

My other main point is that Obama abruptly threatening states funding doesn't make any sense, and it should have been obvious it would cause a big reaction.

You're blaming the media for reporting the news. FOH with that. Sorry that the North Carolina legislature got called out for passing HB2 and having the governor sign it all over the course of a day. Maybe the media should have just ignored it because you didn't think they were being fair.

 

[Freddy Barry]

so your position is that north carolina passed a discriminatory law because the media covers anti-trans discrimination? ?

Exact opposite of what I said, glad you decided not to read me actually address this statement and directly say that's not what I'm talking about.

 

[Tigress]

I'm sorry, know you can't deny that the media was instrumental in trying to push the issue to far and made it a bigger deal then it is, you can't deny that Obama THREATENED states funding, and tried to mandate a guideline, how can one even think that this was NOT done wrong?

Oh no, he mandated them respect a human's rights... it's his fault for actualy making a requirement. I guess then states fighting against your constitutional rights it is the federal government's fault for having consequences for ignoring the constitution. I mean... they didn't ask nicely enough, right? I'm sure that would go over well if liberal states started banning guns outright and then blamed conservatives for not asking nicely enough rather than just pointing out that is illegal and you can't do that.

(and how do you expect them to actually enforce any sort of law/guideline if they can't give consequences for not doing so? I mean, really?!)

 

[Nepenthe]

No, the reason why the transgender issue was brought up to become a bigger issue than it is was because of the media

Do you believe the media made up the stories about bathroom discrimination or merely perpetuated them after they happened?

If the latter, then you must recognize this must mean transgender individuals were initially harmed in such a way that news outlets were tipped off to the story by the people and local outlets involved. Had there been no initial discrimination, there wouldn't have been an issue.

Finally, who do you think was most likely to perpetrate that initial harm to affected transgender people- people who identify as socially conservative, or people who identify as socially progressive?

If people didn't want this to be a problem, conservatives shouldn't have made it a problem.

 

[aeolist]

Exact opposite of what I said, glad you decided not to read me actually address this statement and directly say that's not what I'm talking about.

i am honestly trying to understand your point and you're not making it easy. you said:

the reasons it's a big deal is because of the media and the obama administration making it a big one

trans rights became a big media subject only this year and mainly because of north carolina's HB2 law. i don't think that's really debatable but if you'd like to put forth an alternate perspective feel free.

if you think that the media and obama made this a big deal and republicans are only reacting to it then there must have been some pre-HB2 blowup that i somehow missed that resulted in the NC legislature passing a discriminatory law. now actual news coverage of the event would suggest that they passed the law specifically to stamp out charlotte's anti-discrimination law (that didn't get much national coverage at all).

so what i am saying is that your views here do not match the facts.

 

[Ekai]

Wow way to generalize. A lot of us republicans aren't bigots, despite how we're portrayed on heavily liberal leaning forums like this one.

I'd like to believe that but it's honestly hard for me to since so many Republicans I've met irl are often as they get characterized. I recognize many of the issues poor Republicans face in particular. I disagree with the scape-goating used to get them to vote for a party that doesn't actually help them economically. But I recognize their issues and how they've gone unnoticed and are suffering.

As for people I know who are Republican and I live in quite a conservative area: They can be perfectly normal and friendly people who are just like everyone else....until civil rights for racial, religious, women or LGBT minorities comes up. Then they tend to get pretty heated and violent. Again, it's just my experience so it's quite hard for me to view Republicans in any other manner.

The "nicest" Republican I've met has simply stated he's too old (and by old he means like 35) to care about what sexuality or gender someone is. Though he also proceeded to say that he would do what he can to prevent perverted men in dresses from using the restroom when a little girl does so he cares more than he likes to say he doesn't. In a situation like that however I'd like to believe he could be educated about how much bs that Republican-talking point is.

I definitely don't support the bigots WITHIN the Republican party, but they aren't all bigots. I'm hoping that once Drumpf gets inevitably demolished in the election that the party actually undergoes a real reform. We'll have to wait and see.

That would be nice to see. Personally I'd love to see the Republicans veer to the left somewhat. Not that I would support them if they did but it'd be nice to see them drop some of the stuff they support now.

No way to calculate that, but let's re-phrase: if they were in a bathroom with a person who is trans, they probably wouldn't know.

It's a non-issue in reality. Only in right wing hate world does it become one.

You are correct, yes. I admitted earlier that it's a number I have no proof for and is probably way to high. My point was more or less what you're arguing.

it blew up this year because north carolina passed a discriminatory law. should the media refuse to cover things like this?

That's what always rings weird with me. The media can't do it's job now?

It wasn't out of nowhere, they got their pet project of banning the gays from marrying overruled and needed to pick another bogeyman to prop up.

The timeline of this may not mesh with reality, but I like my version.

That really is what it most likely amounts to. In general Republican strategy has focused on scape-goating various people's in order to rally their base.

 

[AntChum]

Wow way to generalize. A lot of us republicans aren't bigots, despite how we're portrayed on heavily liberal leaning forums like this one.

Generalisation or not, it's a view reinforced not only by my time on GAF, but by just watching and reading the news. Face it, Republicans have a major PR problem, and that stems not from the 'Liberal media', but from your lots' abhorrent and selfish views. I'm sure most Republicans know how to say 'Please' and 'Thank you', but that doesn't mean they're not shit heads.

You don't want to be thrown on the pile with them, reassess your views and change Party. It's really that easy.

 

[Lesath]

Wow way to generalize. A lot of us republicans aren't bigots, despite how we're portrayed on heavily liberal leaning forums like this one.

Uh, the other maybe-not-a-Republican in this very thread suggested that transgender individuals are not natural. And even you made the assumption that "one can change gender" (which implies choice, and is contrary to current scientific understanding - I'll assume that the misunderstanding is not malicious).

Either we just weeded out the sane ones, you just accept that a lot more of people who identify as Republican are either misinformed or bigots.

 

[BoosterDuck]

I definitely don't support the bigots WITHIN the Republican party, but they aren't all bigots. I'm hoping that once Trump gets inevitably demolished in the election that the party actually undergoes a real reform. We'll have to wait and see.

How about we just get rid of the shitty two-party system and work on a more transparent form of government. Don't you agree?

 

[LizardKing]

Exact opposite of what I said, glad you decided not to read me actually address this statement and directly say that's not what I'm talking about.

Honestly what you are saying isn't making sense because it wasn't a big deal in the media or anywhere until the conservatives passed a bill discriminating against trans people (in retaliation to liberals passing anti-discrimination bill which received just normal coverage). THEN it blew up in the media and THEN Obama came out with his guidelines.

 

[lightskintwin]

Honestly what you are saying isn't making sense because it wasn't a big deal until the conservatives passed a bill discriminating against trans people. THEN it blew up in the media and THEN Obama came out with his guidelines.

This.

 

[Freddy Barry]

Well anyway, let me just put my opinion here as a conclusion to remove any confusion and leave it at that.

First of all advocating for Obama to threaten and cut funding of states is like those who say we should crash NC economy. There are innocent people, in fact, in NC, I think there's a majority of people that don't agree with the gov. if I recall a recent article I read, why should those people suffer for one guy? Sames with the other states, I don't think threatening to cut funding is the solution. It doesn't make sense.

Secondly regarding the thread, and the accusations of compulsory, and what not, and the fact he's threatening the states, I feel it may backfire and the administration will likely lose the case.

I know people won't agree but I think he could have found a different and better way to handle this situation. But he went for a risk and went all in to try and mandate equality, which I understand, a lot of people think that's the solution, but with how our government works and are rules, I don't think you can just up and do that without really looking at all the loop holes and such.

I think Obama just went in and now he a lawsuit involving multiple states. I feel he should have looked before leaping more. I appreciate what he was trying to do, but I don't think he was really prepared when he did it.

ALso to note the media and the administration has been doing such actions like this before makig this issue bigger than it should, the right reacted with laws later on as a result, and I think some blame goes to them as well even though it is the right "currently" carrying this issue forward.

For those saying "let them be cut" again, you have large numbers of people in those states, counties, and cities. I don't think it's fair to have them crash down with everyone else.

Anyway hope this makes sense and you see where I am coming from.

 

[aeolist]

I definitely don't support the bigots WITHIN the Republican party, but they aren't all bigots. I'm hoping that once Trump gets inevitably demolished in the election that the party actually undergoes a real reform. We'll have to wait and see.

well this year there was actually a gay republican on the convention's platform committee.

unfortunately every time she tried to introduce gay friendly (or even neutral) language to the party platform she was overwhelmingly voted down, and the final document is possibly the most socially regressive one they've ever released. the republican party now explicitly supports gay conversion therapy which is torture.

 

[aeolist]

Well anyway, let me just put my opinion here as a conclusion to remove any confusion and leave it at that.

First of all advocating for Obama to threaten and cut funding of states is like those who say we should crash NC economy. There are innocent people, in fact, in NC, I think there's a majority of people that don't agree with the gov. if I recall a recent article I read, why should those people suffer for one guy? Sames with the other states, I don't think threatening to cut funding is the solution. It doesn't make sense.

Secondly regarding the thread, and the accusations of compulsory, and what not, and the fact he's threatening the states, I feel it may backfire and the administration will likely lose the case.

I know people won't agree but I think he could have found a different and better way to handle this situation. But he went for a risk and went all in to try and mandate equality, which I understand, a lot of people think that's the solution, but with how our government works and are rules, I don't think you can just up and do that without really looking at all the loop holes and such.

I think Obama just went in and now he a lawsuit involving multiple states. I feel he should have looked before leaping more. I appreciate what he was trying to do, but I don't think he was really prepared when he did it.

ALso to note the media and the administration has been doing such actions like this before makig this issue bigger than it should, the right reacted with laws later on as a result, and I think some blame goes to them as well even though it is the right "currently" carrying this issue forward.

For those saying "let them be cut" again, you have large numbers of people in those states, counties, and cities. I don't think it's fair to have them crash down with everyone else.

Anyway hope this makes sense and you see where I am coming from.

what do you think obama should have done instead? please keep in mind that literally everything he's tried to do for the last 8 years, no matter how conciliatory it is to republicans, has been obstructed as much as possible and sued at every turn.

 

[Ponn]

Well anyway, let me just put my opinion here as a conclusion to remove any confusion and leave it at that.

First of all advocating for Obama to threaten and cut funding of states is like those who say we should crash NC economy. There are innocent people, in fact, in NC, I think there's a majority of people that don't agree with the gov. if I recall a recent article I read, why should those people suffer for one guy? Sames with the other states, I don't think threatening to cut funding is the solution. It doesn't make sense.

Secondly regarding the thread, and the accusations of compulsory, and what not, and the fact he's threatening the states, I feel it may backfire and the administration will likely lose the case.

I know people won't agree but I think he could have found a different and better way to handle this situation. But he went for a risk and went all in to try and mandate equality, which I understand, a lot of people think that's the solution, but with how our government works and are rules, I don't think you can just up and do that without really looking at all the loop holes and such.

I think Obama just went in and now he a lawsuit involving multiple states. I feel he should have looked before leaping more. I appreciate what he was trying to do, but I don't think he was really prepared when he did it.

For those saying "let them be cut" again, you have large numbers of people in those states, counties, and cities. I don't think it's fair to have them crash down with everyone else.

Anyway hope this makes sense and you see where I am coming from.

So you got called out with the NC law blowing your hypothesis, have no defense for that and are running from a debate ignoring that. How conservative of you.

 

[Freddy Barry]

what do you think obama should have done instead? please keep in mind that literally everything he's tried to do for the last 8 years, no matter how conciliatory it is to republicans, has been obstructed as much as possible and sued at every turn.

He had a majority when he entered.

 

[Blader]

Well anyway, let me just put my opinion here as a conclusion to remove any confusion and leave it at that.

First of all advocating for Obama to threaten and cut funding of states is like those who say we should crash NC economy. There are innocent people, in fact, in NC, I think there's a majority of people that don't agree with the gov. if I recall a recent article I read, why should those people suffer for one guy? Sames with the other states, I don't think threatening to cut funding is the solution. It doesn't make sense.

Secondly regarding the thread, and the accusations of compulsory, and what not, and the fact he's threatening the states, I feel it may backfire and the administration will likely lose the case.

I know people won't agree but I think he could have found a different and better way to handle this situation. But he went for a risk and went all in to try and mandate equality, which I understand, a lot of people think that's the solution, but with how our government works and are rules, I don't think you can just up and do that without really looking at all the loop holes and such.

I think Obama just went in and now he a lawsuit involving multiple states. I feel he should have looked before leaping more. I appreciate what he was trying to do, but I don't think he was really prepared when he did it.

For those saying "let them be cut" again, you have large numbers of people in those states, counties, and cities. I don't think it's fair to have them crash down with everyone else.

Anyway hope this makes sense and you see where I am coming from.

If a business is represented by bigoted views at the top level and a consumer chooses not to spend money there any more, a move that inevitably hurts the non-bigoted employees who work there, it's not the consumer's fault for refusing to shop; it's the bigoted CEO's fault for putting their bigotry out there. And it's on them to win those consumers back, not on the consumers to financially support a bigoted enterprise just for the sake of its non-bigoted employees.

 

[Ekai]

well this year there was actually a gay republican on the convention's platform committee.

unfortunately every time she tried to introduce gay friendly (or even neutral) language to the party platform she was overwhelmingly voted down, and the final document is possibly the most socially regressive one they've ever released. the republican party now explicitly supports gay conversion therapy which is torture.

Afaik they actually ended up not putting conversion therapy in the platform. However they did heavily consider including it and it was very very close to being in there. Preibus even had to release a statement that they ultimately didn't put it in the platform. Which isn't a very good look at all.

That said, Pence is a huge proponent of it and Trump has said he wants his VP to do all things foreign and domestic. So I'm not going to rest easy on that not ending up being a part of their goals if they were to get into power.

How about we just get rid of the shitty two-party system and work on a more transparent form of government. Don't you agree?

I hate the two-party system so much. It actively silences minority voices. But it doesn't really pertain to the topic at hand.

i am honestly trying to understand your point and you're not making it easy. you said:

trans rights became a big media subject only this year and mainly because of north carolina's HB2 law. i don't think that's really debatable but if you'd like to put forth an alternate perspective feel free.

if you think that the media and obama made this a big deal and republicans are only reacting to it then there must have been some pre-HB2 blowup that i somehow missed that resulted in the NC legislature passing a discriminatory law. now actual news coverage of the event would suggest that they passed the law specifically to stamp out charlotte's anti-discrimination law (that didn't get much national coverage at all).

so what i am saying is that your views here do not match the facts.

No, I'm 99.9% sure you have the timeline right here. The "left-wing media"/"MSM" only made it a big deal after there was push-back against trans-rights.

 

[TheLetdown]

My post history doesn't imply anything about being a republican, in fact, my post history would imply I'm a bernie supporter which I am not. Making things up isn't cool.

Also you have a large amount of these "people" you are referring to, that control innoncent people. Obama abruptly threatening to cut funding, and then them getting cut is the same as saying people we should crash NC economy when there's likely a majority there that doesn't agree with the Gov.

Makes zero sense.

1) Obama didn't do anything. The Attorney General and Education's Secretary were the ones that issued the statement.

2) It's not a threat. It's an interpretation of an existing Amendment, which the Department is well within its right to do. To not follow the guidelines of the Department of Education is to run the risk of losing funding.

But, as someone put it in the first page, the Administrative Procedures Act has some extremely cut and dry requirements. If Education (sorry, Obama himself, right?) really didn't follow the process, this definitely hurts the credibility of the interpretation of Title IX provided.

The argument, I think, will be in whether this interpretation is technically defined as rule, and thus subject to the rulemaking process that they allegedly didn't follow. I don't think Education will win that argument.

 

[Freddy Barry]

So you got called out with the NC law blowing your hypothesis, have no defense for that and are running from a debate ignoring that. How conservative of you.

I was talking about the NC law I was always talking about before it and the long post you quoted basically says that, thanks for not reading.

Anyway, I left the long post for those to see where I am coming from for those who read it. Disagree or not I just put my views there. Have a good one.

 

[Blader]

He had a majority when he entered.

1. Obama did not have a supermajority in Congress in 2008.

2. HB2 was passed in 2016, not in 2008.

I'm not sure what your point here is or what it has to do with transgender bathroom rights (or trans rights in general).

 

[Poltergust]

Well anyway, let me just put my opinion here as a conclusion to remove any confusion and leave it at that.

First of all advocating for Obama to threaten and cut funding of states is like those who say we should crash NC economy. There are innocent people, in fact, in NC, I think there's a majority of people that don't agree with the gov. if I recall a recent article I read, why should those people suffer for one guy? Sames with the other states, I don't think threatening to cut funding is the solution. It doesn't make sense.

Secondly regarding the thread, and the accusations of compulsory, and what not, and the fact he's threatening the states, I feel it may backfire and the administration will likely lose the case.

I know people won't agree but I think he could have found a different and better way to handle this situation. But he went for a risk and went all in to try and mandate equality, which I understand, a lot of people think that's the solution, but with how our government works and are rules, I don't think you can just up and do that without really looking at all the loop holes and such.

I think Obama just went in and now he a lawsuit involving multiple states. I feel he should have looked before leaping more. I appreciate what he was trying to do, but I don't think he was really prepared when he did it.

ALso to note the media and the administration has been doing such actions like this before makig this issue bigger than it should, the right reacted with laws later on as a result, and I think some blame goes to them as well even though it is the right "currently" carrying this issue forward.

For those saying "let them be cut" again, you have large numbers of people in those states, counties, and cities. I don't think it's fair to have them crash down with everyone else.

Anyway hope this makes sense and you see where I am coming from.

If the majority of people in these states don't agree with the anti-trans laws, they should organize themselves to convince their elected officials to rescind it.

If states don't follow federal guidelines, they don't receive federal funding. It's really that simple.

 

[aeolist]

He had a majority when he entered.

he didn't have a supermajority in the senate after ted kennedy died and was replaced by a republican, which basically meant he couldn't do anything.

and even in that oh so brief time when he did have both houses of congress the republicans still obstructed as much as possible.

 

[Grakl]

He had a majority when he entered.

OK but what should Obama do instead because you say a lot he should do something else

 

[Ponn]

I was talking about the NC law I was always talking about before it and the long post you quoted basically says that, thanks for not reading.

You mention your opinion on it but you willfully (but not as slyly as you think) have ignored the posts calling your bullshit about media being to blame for making transgender bathrooms an issue came first. Once you actually respond to those posts that brought that up and reconcile those two items then you can make an attempt to try and act like I didn't read your post.

 

[Freddy Barry]

You mention your opinion on it but you willfully (but not as slyly as you think) have ignored the posts calling your bullshit about media being to blame for making transgender bathrooms an issue came first. Once you actually respond to those posts that brought that up and reconcile those two items then you came make an attempt to try and act like I didn't read your post.

Nobodu called out anything, they all went back to 2015/2016. The time frame has the transgenderd subject being a big push by the media in 2013, and it was then later from that the republicans reacted. There's nothing to call out, use google. Thank you.

OK but what should Obama do instead because you say a lot he should do something else

One more thing, this is a flawed comment. It doesn't make sense. It's very clear this solution DID NOT WORK as we can clearly see by the lawsuits and the situation in the OP. So saying "what he should have done" the answer it's clear, NOT WHAT HE DID.

I understand where you're coming from, but this doesn't really seems like the right question to ask imo. It should be rather, a discussion on an alternate to what he did amongst us posters.

Anyway have a good one.

 

[Brakke]

the republican party now explicitly supports gay conversion therapy which is torture.

I see this sometimes but I have no idea what it means. Surely they don't think they're going to pass some law enforcing conversion therapy on people? What does the "support" specifically consist of?

 

[Poltergust]

One more thing, this is a flawed comment. It doesn't make sense. It's very clear this solution DID NOT WORK as we can clearly see by the lawsuits and the situation in the OP. So saying "what he should have done" the answer it's clear, NOT WHAT HE DID.

I understand where you're coming from, but this doesn't really seems like the right question to ask imo. It should be rather, a discussion on an alternate to what he did amongst us posters.

Anyway have a good one.

We do not know if what he did worked or not. The lawsuit has not concluded yet.

I see this sometimes but I have no idea what it means. Surely they don't think they're going to pass some law enforcing conversion therapy on people? What does the "support" specifically consist of?

Federal funding of it. It's disgusting and should not receive a penny from taxpayers.

 

[Zoe]

If a business is represented by bigoted views at the top level and a consumer chooses not to spend money there any more, a move that inevitably hurts the non-bigoted employees who work there, it's not the consumer's fault for refusing to shop; it's the bigoted CEO's fault for putting their bigotry out there. And it's on them to win those consumers back, not on the consumers to financially support a bigoted enterprise just for the sake of its non-bigoted employees.

Many "consumers" don't have the ability to just up and move away from those providing their public services.

 

[partyphone]

I see this sometimes but I have no idea what it means. Surely they don't think they're going to pass some law enforcing conversion therapy on people? What does the "support" specifically consist of?

by keeping it legal so parents can force their children to go through it. it's fucking barbaric.

 

[Freddy Barry]

Many "consumers" don't have the ability to just up and move away from those providing their public services.

Thank you.

 

[Team Alucard]

I see this sometimes but I have no idea what it means. Surely they don't think they're going to pass some law enforcing conversion therapy on people? What does the "support" specifically consist of?

It's in response to state democratic legislation that bans conversion therapy on minors.

Basically, the Republicans feel that parents should have a legal right to force their children into conversion therapy.

There have also been attempts at the federal level to try and outright ban it for everyone, which I disagree with. If an adult wishes to undergo conversion therapy, it should be within their rights to do so. If I was even the slightest-bit religious, I would seriously consider trying it. But the fact that conversion therapy is near-universally faith-based (I'm an atheist) and has been thoroughly debunked by most legitimate psych research means that it would likely be a colossal waste of time and money for me.

 

[Poltergust]

Many "consumers" don't have the ability to just up and move away from those providing their public services.

But they have the ability to make their grievances known.

 

[Zoe]

But they have the ability to make their grievances known.

Sure, but their children would suffer in the meantime.

 

[aeolist]

I see this sometimes but I have no idea what it means. Surely they don't think they're going to pass some law enforcing conversion therapy on people? What does the "support" specifically consist of?

currently five states have banned conversion therapy and in my opinion it should be banned nationwide. if republicans win the white house i believe they would try to pass legislation explicitly legalizing it and possibly even allocating medicaid funds for it.

 

[Poltergust]

Sure, but their children would suffer in the meantime.

Even so, they brought it on themselves for allowing such people (people who are willing to defy federal guidelines) to come into power.

 

[Ekai]

I see this sometimes but I have no idea what it means. Surely they don't think they're going to pass some law enforcing conversion therapy on people? What does the "support" specifically consist of?

This is a good source on the matter. It's literally torture, point blank.

Yes, people are forced into these conversion therapy camps. Typically by parents or their Church or both. One doesn't choose to go to a place like this. They're generally forced into it.

And support is pretty simple really....it consists of them enacting these policies and believing it is necessary in our society. Pence was playing with it in Indiana and it's a thing elsewhere in the states as well. On top of that only 5 states period have banned it to my knowledge.

The Republicans heavily considered pushing it into their platform for this year which is quite telling of how far-right they've gone. Not to mention, again, Trump has stated in the past he wants his VP to do all things foreign and domestic. Which makes a Pence VP even more terrifying regardless of conversion therapy not ending up in the platform itself. It makes it that much more likely that conversion therapy would happen regardless.

 

[aeolist]

Sure, but their children would suffer in the meantime.

the point is that no state will actually turn down federal funds, it's just not possible for them to run schools and meet their legal obligations otherwise. if the states had lost this court case they would have followed the department of education guidance, there's no chance they would have just shut down.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Uh, the other maybe-not-a-Republican in this very thread suggested that transgender individuals are not natural. And even you made the assumption that "one can change gender" (which implies choice, and is contrary to current scientific understanding - I'll assume that the misunderstanding is not malicious).

Either we just weeded out the sane ones, you just accept that a lot more of people who identify as Republican are either misinformed or bigots.

Hmmm well that would certainly throw a wrench into the argument of people who claim to be "gender fluid". Are people who claim to be gender fluid just bullshitting?

How about we just get rid of the shitty two-party system and work on a more transparent form of government. Don't you agree?

Absolutely. I hate that there's only 2 party's to choose from in our first to the post voting.

 

[Ponn]

Nobodu called out anything, they all went back to 2015/2016. The time frame has the transgenderd subject being a big push by the media in 2013, and it was then later from that the republicans reacted. There's nothing to call out, use google. Thank you..

What "push" from the media in 2013? How exactly has the media pushed transgender bathroom rights since 2013 in a left leaning way? You're BS is some vague ass "I just listened to rhetoric from a conservative pundit radio talk show and i'm going to regurgitate it" feel. All the while COMPLETELY ignoring the fact these conservatives are attacking and trying to strip rights away from a group of people while trying to act like they are the victims in this that need to be coddled. If you do reply I hope you don't use the last part to deflect and ignore the first part that is still an outstanding question put forth to you that you have not answered.

 

[Brakke]

currently five states have banned conversion therapy and in my opinion it should be banned nationwide. if republicans win the white house i believe they would try to pass legislation explicitly legalizing it and possibly even allocating medicaid funds for it.

This is a good source on the matter. It's literally torture, point blank.

Yes, people are forced into these conversion therapy camps. Typically by parents or their Church or both. One doesn't choose to go to a place like this. They're generally forced into it.

And support is pretty simple really....it consists of them enacting these policies and believing it is necessary in our society. Pence was playing with it in Indiana and it's a thing elsewhere in the states as well. On top of that only 5 states period have banned it to my knowledge.

The Republicans heavily considered pushing it into their platform for this year which is quite telling of how far-right they've gone. Not to mention, again, Trump has stated in the past he wants his VP to do all things foreign and domestic. Which makes a Pence VP even more terrifying regardless of conversion therapy not ending up in the platform itself. It makes it that much more likely that conversion therapy would happen regardless.

Ahh thanks for these. I know what conversion "therapy" is but I didn't realize it had been banned in a few states. In hindsight, I should have realized that someone might try to spin it as a "medical" thing and try to fund it that way.

 

[Kaywee]

No, the reason why the transgender issue was brought up to become a bigger issue than it is was because of the media, resulting in Obama threatening states who don't follow guidelines, RESULTING in the states suing and passing these laws.

It wasn't done well. Obama should have used another strategy, as the media.

I thought North Carolina passing a transgender bathroom/anti-worker bill on the sly is what started all this mess. Obama did the right thing by stepping up and trying to protect the rights of trans people.

 

[Eusis]

Hmmm well that would certainly throw a wrench into the argument of people who claim to be "gender fluid". Are people who claim to be gender fluid just bullshitting?

Julia Serano brought up the idea of "subconscious sex" and IIRC that gender identity was the result of that intersecting with your gender expression. I'm inclined to agree with that, that people can't help what their subconcious sex is but they can choose how to handle that, whether it's to be full on identifying with that, to try to deny it, or to reach some middle ground. Nevermind that perhaps there's cases like not being STRONGLY male/female subconciously, but their personality, mannerisms, preferences, whatever follow with their assigned sex or pointedly don't, so they try to find how to best identify as.

 

[Lesath]

Hmmm well that would certainly throw a wrench into the argument of people who claim to be "gender fluid". Are people who claim to be gender fluid just bullshitting?

To my knowledge, gender dsyphoria is a studied condition, notsomuch "genderfluidity" - which seems to me a third category established by those who see gender as more of a spectrum than a binary categorization.

And while it could very well could be a truer representation of human sex and gender identity, it hasn't been as well-documented, and doesn't necessarily mean that it is the result of a conscious choice, rather than biological circumstance (someone more versed in this is free to correct me).

 

[Blader]

Many "consumers" don't have the ability to just up and move away from those providing their public services.

Either you're misunderstanding something or I didn't make something clear, but the "consumers" in my analogy aren't the people who live/work there, it's the people who refuse to do business with them. So in North Carolina's case, the Bruce Springsteens and All-Star Games of the world that refuse to play in the state because of HB2. It's not Bruce Springsteen or the NBA's fault for whatever economic impact that may have on the non-bigoted residents (or "employees") of North Carolina, it's the governor and state GOP's fault for allowing that to happen via discriminatory policymaking. And it's on the governor to win that business back.

If I refuse to eat at Subway because the company knowingly concealed and protected Jared Fogle, it's not my fault if that lack of business prompts Subway to close a store and lay a few people off; it's the company's fault for sheltering a child molester in the first place.