kengr: (Default)
Pakistan has issued its first passport with an X gender marker. Washington, DC has followed Oregon in allowing an X gender marker on IDs and reportedly, both California and New York state are in the process of allowing it.

I'm fairly sure I'd heard of at least one other country allowing an X marker on passports.

DC should be interesting, as if there's any sort of legal challenges it goes straight from the local court system to the US Supreme Cort (that's how a couple of 2nd Amendment issues that the FEDS had been studiously avoiding for three quarters of a century wound up before the Supreme Court).

And with California and New York, that's a big chunk of population and *votes* that will be behind this.

There's also a case in Colorado involving an intersex person who is trying to get a US passport that doesn't have an M or F on it.

The State Department's replies to letters from doctors certifying that the plaintiff is intersexed are ludicruous. They are saying:
“The Department is unaware of generally accepted medical standards for diagnosing and evaluating a transition to any sex other than male or female,” reads a US State Department refusal letter dated 1 May 2017. “Thus, the Department does not accept a medical certification that specifies transition to a sex other than male or female as evidence for the issuance of a passport.”


Yep, they think the person is *transitioning" to a non-binary gender. Sorry guys, this person was *born* non-binary.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/27/federal-court-allows-intersex-person-to-reopen-lawsuit-over-gender-neutral-passport/
kengr: (gender discrimination)
Ok, as some folks know, someone here in Oregon sued for the right to list their gender on their ID as "other". and they won.

Back in May or June it was announced that Oregon DMV was going to change the process and forms to allow anyone to do that.

I grabbed a copy of the "Change your Gender Designation" form back in June, but it hadn't been updated. eventually I'm going to upload it to my website as historical document.

Old Oregon DMV form for change of gender designation

It's got two parts. The first is filled out by the person requesting the change. It has the usual "I'm not doing this to commit fraud, blah,blah" stuff.

The second part had to be filled out by a shrink, social worker or the like and they had to attest that in *their* opinion, the change was necessary.

Fairly normal for such stuff.

Here's the new page:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/Pages/driverid/chg_gender_designation.aspx

Yep, it links to the same application you fill out to renew or replace your drivers license or state ID. Only change from the old form for *that* is changing the option in the "sex" box from M & F to M, F, and X.

No more gate keeping, just fill out the same form everyone else does and pay your money.

Since I've never been fond of my middle name (don't ask), I'm thinking of changing it to Brooke, the name I use when I'm presenting en femme. That way I can get some debit cards as Brooke [last name] as well as ones in my current name.

I'd looked into doing it using a DBA (doing business as), but you have to refile that every so often. Getting one with my middle name shouldn't require anything but a bit of talking.

I'll probably wait until I do that to change the gender marker on my ID.

This is going to be lots of fun though. Everyone in Oregon is going to have to change their databases to add that X. Ditto for lots of businesses and agencies outside Oregon. Which will provide some much needed shaking up.

Why do I say they'll have to? Because while *I* wouldn't spend the money on suing them if they don't, other people *will*.

Also, I can't wait for the "head explodes" incidents as folks with a X marker present their *legal* IDs to various inflexible folks in Oregon and nearby states, to say nothing of states far away.

First few Federal applications for things are gonna be fun too.

Do note that several other countries allow an "other" marker already, up to and including their passports. so it's not like it wasn't going to become a problem anyway.
kengr: (Male to female)
Oregon is going to be the first US state to have a third gender available on state ID.

Several countries have this, usually as an "O". Oregon, for whatever reason is going with X.

Anyway, It'll be available starting in July.

When my license comes up for renewal in a few years I may get it changed from M to X.
kengr: (Default)
I've been reading a story that had a character abducted and raped.

Today, when the subject came up in a chapter, I had an interesting thought.

"She was asking for it." should be considered evidence of non-consent.

Contrast it with "she asked me to".

Anything short of an explicit verbal request isn't consent.
kengr: (Default)
About that Mississippi "religious protection" bill. This section is going to give some lawyers *lots* of fun.

that “male” and “female” refer to someone’s “immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

Ah yes, ignorance of biology strikes again.

Sex is *subjectively* determined by doctors at time of birth. There are "standards" for making the determination, but they aren't always followed.

And even when they are followed they are pretty damned arbitrary. Stuff like length of penis/clitoris.

Genetic testing is rarely done on newborns. When it is, it's because genetic problems are suspected *or* because doctors are having trouble figuring out what sex the baby is.

So a lot of intersex babies *don't* get IDed at birth. Anybody with AIS/CAIS for example. Or guevedoces.

There aren't just two sexes even if the public (and most doctors) would like to believe there are.

And gender is even *more* complicated.

Some day we are going to have to get laws put in place recognizing the *spectrums* of sex & gender. Because that's what it's going to take to end this sort of nonsense.
kengr: (Default)
[livejournal.com profile] alex_antonin's post here got me thinking.

As I pointed out to him, getting people to agree on what constitutes "proper" sex education is going to be quite a trick.

But themn something struck me. One of the big arguments is that the parents should be teaching it, not the schools. And that's when my evil side took over.

Go ahead and make sed ed mandatory. And require that it be *passed*.

Parents feel that they should teach it, not the schools? Fine. Then their kid has to pass the final exam for the course (and the exam will be changed every term so you can't just copy answers, you have to actually *know* them.

I can hear the screams now.

Heck, lets do the same with the various "controversial" science courses. Their kids don't have to teach that "horrible" class that teaches evolution. Just as long as they can pass the exam. And again, the exams need to be randomized enough that rote memorization won't work, you have to demonstrate that you *understand* the material.

And in both cases, I'm quite willing, in fact I'll *insist* that the questions don't require you to *agree* with things. Just that they are the answers that lots of research and expertise have come up with.

If you want to believe in abstinence only, or in creationism, fine by me. But you'll damn well demonstrate that you *understand* the arguments and evidence for the other side.

What I'd *really* like to do is require classes in logic, "rhetoric" and how to evaluate arguments. (ie how to think and draw conclusions). Alas, they tried that back in the 50s with the intent of teaching kids to spot and reject communist propoganda. Unfortunately, they spotted and questioned *oour* propoganda too. even the stuff most don't realize *is* propoganda.

So the idea was dropped in a hurry. Can't have people questioning *our* inviolate assumptions now can we?

Besides horrifying politicians who pretty much *depend on the public not knowing how to spot BS and rhetorical tricks, the advertising industry would be up in arms as well.
kengr: (antenna girl)
The Pope's comments about public officials having the right to be conscientious objectors on religious grounds has been used to defend Kim Davis and others (though not by him).

People seem to forget something. Conscientious objectors to military service have a choice of going to jail, or being put in a job that doesn't have them doing the things they object to.

It does *not* get the rules of the military or their job changed to suit them.

Kim Davis claims that status, but doesn't think she should go to jail, and she wants the duties of her job changed.

Sorry, those aren't the choices.

The ones she *actually* has, under the law are:

1. let her office issue licenses that use the same *unaltered* form as the rest of Kentucky, with her name in the blanks where it belongs.
2. step down from her office, she can go back to just being one of the deputy clerks (with the cut in pay and authority) and she can then not issue licenses as long as she doesn't stop the *other* clerks from issuing them.
3. quit
4. go to jail (again) for contempt of court.

My stance on religious freedom is that you have an absolute right to practice your faith. Right up to the point where you are trying to make *others* behave the way your faith dictates. At that point you are violating *their* religious freedom.

I can only hope that some day the Supreme Court can declare something similar rather than dancing around the issue. Hobby Lobby was a bad decision.

BTW, they are in trouble again...

Trans woman wins decision against Hobby Lobby

They haven't complied with the decision yet, either.
kengr: (Default)
Sat, 03:31: Photo: devastyle: farbeyondabnormal: devastyle: 1drunkardnoir: + The Terrifying True Story Of How Future’s... http://t.co/xxuYCVAvUn

Lesson one: when you visit another country you are subject to their laws. You do *not* have the rights you have in America, just the ones that local laws give you.

Lesson two: Never *ever* go to another country without doing a lot of checking as to what is illegal to bring into the country. Also check warnings about things that are illegal to *do* that you might not be aware of.

tip: Also check what it's illegal to take *out* of both the country you are in and the one(s) you are visiting. Just because you can buy or have it ion the country, it may not be legal to take it *out* of the country.

Most notorious example was the old USSR. It wasn't legal to bring in foreign currency. You had to convert it to (internal) rubles at customs. And you couldn't take (internal) rubles out of the country, you had to convert them to something else when you left.

I specified "internal" because they had *four* different kinds of rubles. One kind was only for use inside the USSR, and another was only for use in foreign trade (I forget what the other two were).

Another example of stuff that can get you into a world of trouble. Over the counter meds in one country can be prescription drugs or even *illegal* in another. (For example, you can buy vicodin over the counter in Canada, but it's prescription only in the US. If you get caught coming into the US, you could be in real trouble if you have too many)

And prescription drugs? First rule: always carry them in the original container that the druggist gave them to you in. *And* have a copy of your doctor's prescriptions packed in with your passport.
kengr: (Default)
A lot of talk is going around about people's religious beliefs being denied by various laws.

I'm sorry, but in none of these cases are their beliefs or their right to express them being denied.

Instead, their right to *inflict* those beliefs on other people in the course of their job is being denied. That's a very different thing.

Kim Davis (the county clerk in Rowan county, Kentucky who just got jailed)? She took an oath to carry out the duties of her office. When those duties conflicted with her beliefs, she wanted to be able to keep the job and at the sdame time *not* do the duties she disagreed with.

Sorry, doesn't work that way. She could have issued the licenses, but that conflicts with her beliefs. Fine

She could have resigned the job and protested the issuing of licenses by whoever replaced her.

But she chose to keep the job (and the $80,000 a year salary) and *not* carry out a duty of the job. Even after a federal judge ordered her to. So now she is in jail. That's the way it works.

You either follow the law, or you do your time. As I've commented in the past, many people these days seem to forget that civil disobedience *is* breaking the law and that you should be prepared to take the consequences. You don't get to say you shouldn't *have* consequences.

Same goes for all the other folks trying to play games with marriage equality.

The businesses that don't want to serve gay customers in places where that's a violation of antidiscrimination laws. They can either serve everyone equally, or they can close the business. Or they can deal with the legal penalties. Those are the choices.

And it's *not* discrimination against their beliefs. Again, it's that we have these laws for a reason, and it's so you can't treat certain types of people as second class citizens. You are free to *nelieve* that they are inferior, sinful, or whatever. And to talk about your beliefs. But you are required to treat them like anybody else if that's your job or your business.

sex work

Aug. 2nd, 2015 09:39 pm
kengr: (antenna girl)
A post about sex worker's rights over on [livejournal.com profile] fayanora's tumblr sent my mind down an "interesting" path.

I think it was because I used the phrase "getting paid to have sex shouldn't be illegal."

My mind suddenly threw up this vision of what some employment contracts might look like is getting paid for sex as legal (and if we weren't big hypocrites about sex).

Some people's "executive assistant" postings would definitely include it if it was legal and wouldn't get them in trouble otherwise.

I daresay it might make the jobs easier to fill long term, because it'd have that sort of thing up front. It'd definitely eliminate a lot of candidates because they'd know in advance that they didn't want the job.

Doesn't mean that there wouldn't be people desperate for a job that'd hold their nose and take it in spite of not really wanting to do "that". But at least it'd be out in the open.

And just as having prostitution legal makes it a lot easier to go after clients who go too far, I suspect that even with "sex with the boss" as part of the "duties" listed, there'd be "he went too far" cases.
kengr: (Default)
As of Midnight, recreational pot use is legal. *Getting* it is the tricky part.

Untiil y=the OLCC works out rules (many months down the road) there's no place to *buy* it.

So the only legal way to get it is to have someone giove it to you or to grow it yourself.

To celebrate legalization and mke a gesture at solving the "how to get it" Problem NORML was giving away pot at midnight. Supposedly. pot & seeds.

Silly me, I figured that if I left home at 10:30, I'd be ok.

I got to the Burnside bridge at 11. The giveaway was at the west end. When I realized I was riding past a *line*, I had to backtrack until I was three-quarters of the way to the *east* end.

There was a long, long wait. Eventually around onethings started moving faster. Which turned out to be because they were out of pot.

A guy with a bullhorn was saying to go to a medical marijuana dispensary near the Hawthorne bridge and they'd have pot to give out. He said "right now".

Well, there wasn't anybody there. Finally, at 10 to 2, someone arrived and said they'd be giving free pot to folks with medical marijuana cards.

I gave up and left. In part because I'd mostly been interested in the seeds.

So I headed home. I swung by Voodoo donuts, as it being after midnight I had money in my account and could spend some on a luxury. :-)

When I got home I texted Fay and she got her pick of the donuts as a birthday present. She picked a bacon maple bar.

That left another for me, plus two apple fritters and a mango tango (I'd been worrtied she'd want that, I'd wanted to get two but they only had one)

I shall be crashing soon. The ride, combine with all the standing in line has tired me out.

stats
total distance: 12.6 miles
max speed: 17.2 mph
moving time 2hr 15 min
moving average: 5.5 mph
kengr: (idiot-free)
I'm *highly* irritated afte reading all the BS coming from the anti marriage equality folks.

First off all the stuff about marriage being designed or set up by God.

Sorry, that is a tenet of your religion and as such *cannot* be a factor in *any* secular legal decision.

Second, there are *two* very different things referred to as "marriage. One is a something often down by a priest or other religious official and is often consided a sacrament by Christians.

Today's decision has *no* effect on that because it wasn't even *about* that.

Let me remind some folks that "gay marriages" were being performed by some *christian churcjhes 40 years ago. I attended a couple in the 1970s.

Their *church* considered them to be nmarried by *legally* they were not.

And that brings us to the *second* thing called "marriage". It's *legal* status. And has absolutely nothing to do with the religious kind of marriage. Yes, there's considerable overlap between the folks who are religiously married and those who are legally married. But that doesn't mean that one depends on the other.

The courts have *no* authoprity over the religious kind of marriage. But they are the *only* authoprity over the civil (lkegal) sort. Religions and religious tuypes need not apply.

Now, the next set of arguments are variously phrased as "judicial activism", "defying the will of the people", or "denying the democratic process".

These all depend on completely (and usually *deliberately) misunderstanding who the courts and legal system work.

The whole *point* of the Constitution (and amendments) is to set up things that are *not* subject to politics nor to "the will of the people". That's because the founders had lots of examples going clear back to the anmcient Greeks of what happens if you *don't say that there are things not subject to popular vote.

So unless you can amend the Constitution to sauy otherwise (and that's really hard *on purpose). If the Supreme Court rules on it, that's the end of it. And it is *not* denying voters rights. Because the decision is saying that the voters do not *have* the right to vote on this subject.

BTW, one of the things that pretty much guarantees a decision *against* you is if it is obvious that the law the SC is being asked to look at is based upon aniums with little or no other justification.

Reading the justifications for the "gay marriage" bans, and the arguments when thety were overturned (and especvialy the ranting today) makes it very clear that this *is* what's going on.

And the whole point of things like the Bill of Rights is to say that the majority can't vote to withold things from a minority just because they don't like them.
So a lot of folks ned to grow up and realize that you *don't* get to pass laws making your religious beliefs into legal restrictions.

And now the next phase in the war...

There have been a number of "religious freedom" arguments. And laws that claim to be for that.

Sorry, but your right to exercise your religion *ends* at the point you attempt to make someone else comply with your beliefs.

don't want to issue marriage licenses to gays? Don't get a job that involves marriage licenses.

Don't want to hand out birth control (or "morning after" pills)? Don't get a job as a pharmacist.

And BTW, there's actually evidence of organized efforts yo *get* people who are against those sorts of things into those sorts opf jobs specifically so they *could* deny various services to people.

And this "you can decide not to do your job if doing so violates your religious beliefs" is a *major* can of worms. Because *none* of these bills restrict it "gays".

Want a Christian Scientist caseworker deciding not to process your medical claims? It's *legal* under those laws!
kengr: (seperation of church & hate)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Of course states like Alabama, Kansas andf others will still try to wiggle around it, but they are running out of wiggle room fast.
kengr: (Default)
Something got me thinking about high school sports and the mess they are in so many places. Football is the worst, I understand, but other sports can be pretty bad as well.

One of the biggies is the "sports players can get away with anything" attitude.

I started out thinking about eligibility requirements, such as minimum GPA. And it occured to me that if you could find people with the gumption to actually *do* it, you could shut down the parents (who are the ones putting on muchof the pressure) with one simple statement:

"You *do* realize that you are asking use to lie on official documents. That's a felony. And you are therefore soliting a felony. You want to reconsider what you just said? Ort shall I just call the police now?"

But similar things apply to all the *other* stuff that the parents want swept under the rug.
kengr: (Demons of stupidity)
Thinking about all the news items regarding spread of diseases and low vaccination rates, I have a siuggestion.

Unlike some folks I know, I *do* believe that to some extent we realy *do* have to allow actual religious exemptions. Those existed for a long time and *weren't* a problem until the laws got changed to allow "personal belief" exemptions. Because *in practice* those turn into "I don't like the idea".

And, of course, there are medical exemptions. Some people have conditions that don't allow them to be vaccinated (compromised immune systems for one)

So, my proposal.

Let's say the required vaccination level for maintaining "herd immunity" is 95%. So that means that for safety no more than 5% of the population can be unvaccinated.

Public schools (at least) would be required to have no more than *half* that percentage of unvaccinated students.

This would be handled be giving first choice to the kids who can't be vaccinated die to medical conditions. After that, they can admit kids who have religious exemptions, until they hit the maximum. If there are more kids in those categories than the allowable percentage, then priority goes to the ones who've been attending the school longest.

After that, if your kid isn't vaccinated, they can't go to that school. Parents can send their kid to another school that hasn't maxed out yet. But *they*, not the school district, are responsible for transportation.

I'd want private school strongly encouraged to follow the same rules.

I'd allow private schools to choose to not adhere to the limits. Heck, if there are enough unvaccinated kids in a district, the district could choose to set up separate schools for unvaccinated kids.

But schools that don't adhere to the limits aren't allowed to share events with schools that do adhere to them. That's to prevent spreading things to the schools that follow the rules.

This would annoy the heck out of the yuppies and the like who have bought into the anti-vax propaganda. But it'd let them have their way *without* endangering other kids.

I predict that if such a policy was put into effect, it wouldn't be vary many years before the epidemics of various disease sweeping thru the "low vaccination rate" schools would lead to a lot of parents changing their mind about vaccinating their kids.

Hard on the kids, but there's really no way that failing to vaccinate *isn't* apt to be hard on the kids. This just limits the hazards as much as practical to just those kids, not the rest of the population.
kengr: (Default)
There's yet another trial of parents whose child died because they wouldn't get a doctor but relied on prayer.

One thing that the talking heads keep bringing up is a new law that (due to this church's record of losing kids) removes religious beliefs as a defense for many sort of homicide cases.

Alas, both the talking heads and the state rep whose idea the law was keep making the same *fundamental* error.

They keep saying that it'll make these believers start taking their kids to the doctors.

Sorry. It won't. It'll just save a lot of time prosecuting them when the kids die.

You see, the state rep and the newscritters have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way laws *actually* work.

People rarely avoid doing something because of the law. In many cases, they don't think they'll get caught (that's usually the case with theft and some sorts of assaults)

In other cases, like these, it doesn't matter *what* the law says because these folk *believe* what they are doing is *right*. As such, they'll do what they believe is right, regardless of the law.

The laws *already* make failing to provide needed medical treatment illegal. And these folks have been ignoring that. Removing a defense of "religious belief" when they get tried for violating those laws isn't going to make a bit of difference.

After all, they've *never* won using it!


We *need* to get people, *especially* law makers, to understand that not everyone thinks they way they do. Or shares their beliefs. So laws that go against those beliefs are just a waste of time and resources.

It's "magical thinking" to act as if changing the laws will change those sorts of behaviors. This is one example. Many drug laws are another. And there are many, many more.
kengr: (Default)
A side note of a discussion over on the Traveller RPG mailing list got me thinking about stuff that's been going on for a few years.

As certain technology gets cheaper and more common, there are going to be *major* social changes.

Consider: Rodney King was far from the first person (black or white) to get an undeserved beat down by the police. But unlike previous occurrences, people with cheap video cameras were there to tape the beating.

Nowadays, most cell phones have cameras, and many have video capability. Likewise, some have audio recording. So a *lot* of TSA incidents are getting filmed/recorded by folks using their cell phones.

This sort of thing is already having effects.

Now add in the video surveillance gear that a lot of stores have (and *need). As wel as things like dash cams in police vehicles.

Pervasive video surveillance is heading towards "Big Brother". But pervasive presence of *personal* video recording is going to make it harder and harder for police and others to get away with misconduct.

And with storage getting cheaper and bandwidth doing so as well, I can see the point where you can "get an app" that has a legal service on call. Punch the button and the service gets the last X minutes of sound/video from your phone and can then activate the speaker on the phone so you can inform the cop/official that they are incorrect about the law. Or that there are a number of differing legal opinions, and that they could wind up in deep kimchee if they try to carry on with what they are doing.

Heck, picture the results of some of the more infamous no-knock searches in the US if the houses had webcams sending to a security service for offsite storage.
kengr: (he is us)
Not only is there the infamous case in Florida, but there's this in California.
kengr: (Default)
Oregon City parents guilty in son's faith-healing death

I'm sorry for the parents, but when your religion results in actual undeniable harm to your kids...

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     1 2
3456789
101112 1314 15 16
1718 192021 2223
24252627282930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 07:52 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios