NOTE: This article is from 2014. From what I can tell, it appears that more intelligent heads prevailed, and Kansas House Bill 2453 never made it into the law books.* Though this thread has been locked due to the age of the information, now outdated, it is being left up for members to read the linked article if for no other reason than so we do not forget how bigoted and hateful too many people can be when it comes to the the TGLB community, that those bigots and haters are still out there, and they will probably continue to create and [try to] pass laws to keep us down. *Source(s): Kansas Senate leaders won’t pass religious freedom legislation this year Kansas House Bill 2453
Ya know, sometimes, the poor, improper or inappropriate wording of an article ticks me off just as badly as the issue being reported -- "The case is one of several involving Christian wedding vendors that have emerged in recent years amid a dramatic expansion of gay rights." --Sandyha Somashekhar, washingtonpost.com Gay rights... Have not. Been. "Expanded." AND, the rights that have been finally afforded gay people, aren't "gay" rights, but simply rights - rights that straight, cisgender people already enjoy/ed, liberally garnished with entitlement and impunity. Gay people are NOT getting any special treatment or any special rights - they are not being given something that others are not getting. It's the other way around - it's the straight/cis people who are getting what must be "special" rights. They must be special - 'cause we don't ALL get them. People who just happened to be gay WEREN'T getting what everyone else already had. Rights that should never have been denied to begin with. And of course, the same exists for trans people. Being different equates to getting less, and having what little you do have - taken away from you! You have the nerve to ask for what you deserve, and suddenly... those rights become "special." Wow. Just, WOW.
::: steps down off soapbox ::: Anyway - yay! Washington State Supreme Court. We can only hope for our gay brothers and sisters that the US Supreme Court will side with Washington if the case goes that far.
By Ralph Ellis, CNN | Updated 2:31 PM ET, Thu February 9, 2017 "The law also stops local governments from passing their own non-discrimination laws that would expand rights for LGBT people or allow them to use bathrooms and other public facilities that correspond to their gender preference." --cnn.com North Carolina legislation aims to repeal 'bathroom bill'
(... but it seems that politicians aren't listening. -DML) Nico Lang | Wednesday, Feb 8, 2017 03:00 AM -0700 "In a Thursday briefing, press secretary Sean Spicer claimed that the president would remain committed to the religious liberty issue. Spicer claimed that religious faith is being “pushed out in the name of political correctness” and further action will be taken by the government to reverse that trend." --salon.com Most Americans don’t want “religious freedom” laws that allow anti-LGBT discrimination
Naomi Goldberg | 02/06/2017 "At the core of this report is the critical role of state level laws in the fight for transgender rights and the patchwork of protections state-level progress has created. Just since January, legislators in 15 states have introduced nearly 40 anti-transgender bills that intend to restrict access to bathrooms, health care, and/or the ability to update identity documents." --huffingtonpost.com Despite Shocking Inequality, Policy Attacks On Transgender People Increase
Here's something else to consider...just as some states (like SC) have illegalized protections that any of their cities have adopted, and made it illegal for others to try to do the same, Drumpf could scrawl his signature onto some executive order illegalizing any protections that any state has adopted. Might not happen... but they might try. Just because he's backed off removing protections at the federal level [for now], doesn't mean it won't be revisited. And who's to say he and his cronies won't try to brainstorm for some legal way they can make a country-wide sweeping law that makes ANY protections - existing or future - illegal? For now they've got their hands full with that other issue about who can or can't enter the country, and the constitutionality of it all. After that's ironed out... that loose cannonball will be rolling all around again.
Whether it's banning people from a particular country, or banning people of a particular faith... transgender people are worried because Drumpf has an anti-gay and anti-transgender history. In the past, he has made some VERY derogatory statements about transgender women - check out this thread (hopefully any associated links are still good). Personally... I don't believe he's changed. Not to mention he has a vice-prez who's anti-TGLB stance is even more rabid than his own, AND he's surrounding himself with people notorious for their respective anti-TGLB attitudes. Therefore, no matter what this latest ban is really all about, the fact remains, he is doing whatever he can so far to over-ride, dilute, erase, erradicate, undo, unravel, or otherwise reverse many things accomplished or put into place in the last eight years. Considering the way he lies, twist facts and flip-flops on topics, we could wake up one morning and find everything that has been put in place to afford trans people what little we have - wiped out. So, is the fear logical? Maybe not. But it's certainly expected and understandable. From where we stand, it's harder to trust politicians than it is for the average, cisgender individual. Remember, they are the ones who feel it's perfectly alright to deny certain groups the same rights that others have. Marginalized people too often are forced to walk a narrow path, never knowing if the path will be widened, or if they'll just be pushed smooth off that path. And while I don't wanna push this topic too far out in left field, the media has not portrayed Drumpf as anything but what he is ...... -Mike
I hope this blind fear doesn't cause some to go out and do things in the direction of transition... such as getting their names changed... and outing themselves before they are ready. We might have to see a therapist before beginning hormones, but I think all barriers to getting one's name changed have been all but dropped. It would be bad for a person to change their name, especially if that name is one that is traditionally gender-specific, if they are not quite ready to go full head on. There is no doubt that this administration is causing discomfort for the TGLB community... and I think especially for those of us in the "T" part of the family with all the threats of un-doing everything that's been gained over the past eight years. -Mike
Archangel - I don't want to take this thread too far off topic... but there are a few things that need to be explained to you before we can get back on track with bathroom bills since you are here to learn and broaden your understanding of humans -- 1. TRANSGENDER is an umbrella term used to bring together crossdressers, gender fluid, transsexuals, gender outlaws, androgynous, a-gender, non-binary and in some circles, the intersex, all together as one big happy little family, and is intended to mean anyone who does not strictly identity along the male/female binary system, or does not identify as the gender they were assigned at birth, or does not identify as either gender. As far as crossdressers, it's just my opinion that ALL crossdressers are transsexual, just some don't want to admit it [yet], and could be why they are included under the transgender umbrella. But let's not digress ... 2. A person who identifies as the gender opposite of what they were labelled at birth based solely on genitalia, is uncomfortable with that genitalia, and needs to be seen as the opposite sex... is transsexual whether they medically transition or not a. Not everyone can go on HRT, or hormone replacement therapy b. Some do not wish to go on HRT, NOT because they are not transsexual or medically unable to, but some believe that it is not good for the body, dangerous, or a poison they can do without c. Some never transition, or delay transition because they feel there are obligations in their life and/or social pressures that prevent them from doing so - that does NOT make them any less transsexual, or real 3. That said, a transsexual does NOT have to be on HRT in order to legitimately transition. There are transsexuals who physically and socially transition, meaning they dress and act as the sex/gender they identify with, living full-time as that gender 4. People who cannot medically transition, and those who simply physically and socially transition are not just "playing" at being transsexual 5. Transsexual does NOT equate to "real" or "genuine." That one has physically, socially, medically and/or surgically transitioned does not make that person any more transsexual, "real" or "genuine" than one who has not, or can not. 6. Transgender does NOT equate to "fake," "disgenuine" or "playing games," but instead as I mentioned above, is simply an "umbrella term." Look at it this way: There are Russians, Brits, Americans, Africans, Japanese, etc., but they are ALL people. Different, each of them. None of them are "playing at" being people, being human. All different, with different cultures, but under the same big human "umbrella." 7. On this board, ALL members are to be accepted for however they identify, respected for the people they are, and addressed with the appropriate pronouns OR by the pronouns they prefer. -Michael
As I mentioned in my post above, "all the big fuss and hullabaloo is ALWAYS about a "man in a dress" going into a women's restroom." The man in the picture is Michael C. Hughes. He is a transgender MAN. The very type of person that these politicians don't think about. Now...I'm playing devil's advocate here. I don't know the details of Hughes' transition - for all I know he could be transitioned up to and including "bottom surgery," or gender confirming surgery. He may also possess an amended birth certificate, or perhaps was issued a new BC with the proper sex marker. But there are many trans men who look like any other man, who have not had bottom surgery (GCS), and it is those men I wanted to bring to your attention, and the kind of man that needs to be brought to the attention of lawmakers, too. The reason the men need to be considered - there are a few states that will not make ANY changes to a person's BC. In such states, I'm sure it's difficult to get the sex marker on other legal documents and ID changed. In some states that do/will change a person's BC, a requirement is that the person has to have had GCS, and provide proof that they have. So if a guy is unlucky enough to have been born in a state that either will not change the marker on his BC, or will not change the marker unless he's had bottom surgery, laws like those in NC, and like the one that was just flushed down the crapper in VA, would REQUIRE that HE use the WOMEN'S restroom. Here are a few possibilities if a trans guy, looking like Hughes was to go into a women's room: 1. All hell would break loose in that bathroom 2. There will surely be one woman seek out authorities, or 3. Some woman, who's husband is waiting for her just around the corner, will run to him to tell him some guy is in the women's room - he might blow a fuse and decide to play the Knight in Shining Armour and run to the rescue of the women 4. He could potentially be dragged out of that bathroom by men in the area who believe they need to protect the women-folk and children, and hold him until authorities arrive, or 5. believe they have the right to beat him into the cracks in the floor ...and other possible scenarios - I think perhaps (I hope) you get the picture. And as is obvious, by your own reply above, "I would challenge him," you never considered the mayhem that could ensue, because all anyone is EVER concerned with is a trans woman... or as the fear-mongers call her, "a man in a dress," or a "pervert" out to take advantage of women and children. Now that I've pointed out what could happen to a trans man who looks like any other man, think of what a trans woman would endure, if she were forced into the men's bathroom (something else the lawmakers are not able to wrap their tiny little heads around), looking like ANY OTHER WOMAN. Just wanted to offer you food for thought And a little more understanding of the situation, too. -Mike Note: The reason you see Hughes with a camera, it was a campaign of sorts, to bring this very thing to the attention of the public - the fanatical fear-mongers are so busy labelling trans women as perverts looking to do harm, and not thinking about what would happen if trans men were forced into women's spaces. The camera was to record the event, and everyone present at the time was advised as to what was going on.
1. As far as I know, there's never been a case of a "legit crossdresser" going into a women's space to harrass, molest, attack, rape, etc 2. If a man dressed in men's clothing has it in him to do harm to a woman or a male or female child, he's gonna do it... and chances are, he's gonna do it in some place secluded, and usually on his own turf - not in a public place where the chances of getting caught are very good 3. If a trans woman is going to go into a women's space, chances are, she is NOT going to be wearing men's clothing. Now... all the big fuss and hullabaloo is ALWAYS about a "man in a dress" going into a women's restroom. What would you think if you saw this guy go into a women's restroom? >>>
Hi Sara - LTNS. Yep.. that's exactly what has happened to me on several occasions. I have found that sometimes simply reloading the page solves the issue. I have yet to apply any rhyme or reason to why or when it happens. It neither happens everytime, nor does refreshing page work each time I come up with a blank. Chances are, this is something that Lori may have to have tech support look into since it seems to have happened at the same time as the failed upgrade. She was having problems even then getting help out of tech support. -Michael
"This in fact makes it legal to use facilities based on that M or F on your I.D.. It may circumvent HB2 even if that piece of legislation stays on the books for a little while longer. Just a thought." - Erica It may make it legal in NY, and perhaps in other places. But if I understand that HB2 correctly, nothing trumps what is recorded on one's legal BC. As far as NC is concerned, you are what you were labelled at birth... and that's it. Though they apparently will allow one to get a BC changed/amended (not sure which), it sounds as if the only way to get that accomplished is after GCS. I have no doubt that NC officials would be more than happy to toss one's buttage in the pokey if that person was found using (or found to have used) a bathroom intended for the alleged "opposite sex."