kengr: (Default)

See comments on second cartoon. But please, don't pile on, from previous experience it'll take careful arguing to *possibly* make a change in his position. Pushing hard will translate int "I'm being persecuted" which helps nobody.

Ok, let's start out simple. People *do* have the legal right to wear whatever they want subject to laws regarding indecent exposure/public indecency.

So. Women can legally wear "mens" clothing. That's been established for most of a century.

Men can legally wear "womens" clothing. that hasn't been established quite as long in some places, but it's still been legal for decades.

This is *settled* law. Not something that is likely to change no matter how loud folks protest.

Now consider the question of bathrooms. Under the law people *do* have the right to use public bathrooms (and that includes the non-employee bathrooms in businesses and schools, etc). Again, very much settled law.

So, If you have someone cross-dressed (be it a woman in mens clothes, a Female-to-Male transsexual,, a male cross-dresser, or a Male-to-Female transsexual) which bathroom do they use?
Read more... )
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.
kengr: (Default)
Police raid Stonewall Inn, 01:20 am EDT, June 28, 1969 (10:20 PM June 27 PDT)

Not the first times trans folks fought back (that was the Compton's Cafeteria Riot). But the first time it really stuck.

And yes, it was trans folks, and POC at that that did much of the fighting over then days that followed.

Here's some more info on what was going on before Stonewall:
kengr: (he is us)
44 years ago...
Dec 14, 1972. At 2:54 pm PST, the last humans departed from the lunar surface.

And the only folks who look likely to try again soon are the Chinese.
kengr: (idiot-free)
Ok, in the last two days a couple of Southern governors have demonstrated that they need to go back to law school. Or take some classes in logic.

First, we have the Governor of Texas responding to the US Supreme Court declaring Texas's latest anti-abortion law to be unconstitutional..

His comment was along the lines "so the court is making themselves the medical board for all of the US".

Sorry, but that's what your state legislators (and those of far too many other states) were trying to do by passing laws that don't really have a medical justification, but are just dodges to restrict abortions even more.

Next we have the governor of Mississippi ranting about a federal court overturning part of a law that would (among a bunch of other things) let county clerks recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

He claimed it was a violation of the first amendment and violated the religious freedom of Mississippians.

Sorry, but freedom to practice your religion does *not* include being able to impose *your* religious beliefs on other people.

Your religious beliefs don't allow gay marriage? then don't marry someone of the same sex. Don't believe in divorce? Don't get one. But neither means you are allowed to fail to do your job.
kengr: (seperation of church & hate)
What exactly needs to happen in this country for the systematic targeting of minorities to stop? How far does it need to go?

These are not rhetorical questions…

We need to get rid of the idea that "different" is *wrong*. To paraphrase a certain wrinkled Jedi:

different is wrong
wrong is evil
evil must be destroyed

Another phrase I encountered somewhere bears consideration as well: "they have mistaken your fortune for your fault"

That is, they think that something that happened to you by chance (or some other mechanism you have no control over) is your "fault" (ie the result of something you deliberately did or chose).

That btw, is why bigots keep claiming homosexuality, being TG etc are *choices*.

They couldn't do that with race, which is why there were folks claiming that blacks were the "children of Cain" and other nonsense.

Oh yeah, this also fits the way bigots will point at how the people they are bigoted against are poor, sick, have bad relationships, die young, etc. Claiming that as justification. When in many cases those things are *due* to the very prejudice they are preaching!

Different is just different. Any wrongness depends on how the difference affects others.
kengr: (I'm one of them)
I came across this post today
Getting Straight To The Point

TL;DR: guy worried about gays hitting on him, instructors asks hopw many girls have hit on him

This demonstrates an all too common problem. Men are afraid of "gays" hitting on them.

I'd have been tempted to ask the guy "Do you hit on girls?" And (assuming he said yes) "So what do you do if they say no?"

*That* is what most of these guys are actually afraid of. That gay men would treat them the way they treat women.

Pointing that out might just help them to treat women better.

On Weapons

Jun. 13th, 2016 11:47 am
kengr: (Default)
A friend has posted yet another rant about guns. Given the Orlando shooting, I can't blame him too much.

But he, as usual, is letting his prejudices and assumptions suggest measures that aren't workable in the real world.

Just for the heck of it, let's consider the "perfect" defensive weapon. The ubiquitous "stunner" from many a science fiction novel.

Basic characteristics seem to be: you point it at the target, fire, and they pass out. Some have off center hits "putting to sleep" the affected portion of the body.

Side effects are none, or maybe a bad headache when you wake up. It's not dangerous to use on kids or elderly/infirm people.

Sounds great, right? You can shoot first and ask questions later. "Stun 'em all. We'll sort them out at the station." etc.


Picture a rapist or mugger with one. How about a burgler.

Now picture someone stunning the driver of a car? A semi. Or the pilot of a plane?

Or Stun someone you hate and cut their throat. Etc.

So much for "safe" and "non-lethal".

In short, it is not *possible* to have a weapon that can't be misused. Ditto for any *tool*.

Read more... )
kengr: (Default)
Oh. My. God.

It finally happened.

This could have "interesting" repercussions. a lot of cities have laws that forbid facilities being used by recognized hate groups. Just imagine the fun if such laws got invoked against the republicans.

Of course, the odds are that city officials would choke at that prospect, but I'm sure there are folks whop'd cheerully sue said cities for ignoring the lawes.

Oh yes, the cat is among the pigeons for sure.

Unlike some folks, I'm not going to predict the imminent demise of the GOP.

But I do have to wonder what we'd get as a second party if they do go under. If we *don't* get some sort of replacement, things could get kinda wonky because the Democrats are far from saints and having no viable counterbalance could get ugly.
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.

No Fly List

Dec. 6th, 2015 05:26 pm
kengr: (Default)
Ok, first it was Hillary Clinton, and now it's President Obama calling to deny gun sales to people on the No Fly list.

It may *sound* like a good idea. Unfortunately, unless things have changed recently, the No Fly list is *notorious* for having major errors. People with the same name as suspects, people who got put on it for stupid reasons or because prejudice.

Then add in the fact that getting your name off the list is practically impossible, because there's *no* established means for getting your inclusion reviewed and corrected.

If they want to make it a "can't buy" list, then the legislation should also set forth the requirement that you be able to challenge your inclusion on the list in court. And establish better guidelines for adding people to it. Including penalties for the people who put people on it who shouldn't be on it.

If they don't put in these *needed* reforms in the list, then they've got no business extending the things that it can be used to deny people. (mind you they shouldn't be using it *now* due to these same defects)
kengr: (antenna girl)
Over on [ profile] alex_antonin's tumblr, he reposted something from someone else.

It's about a image being posted by Autism Canada.

It may look fine at first glance.

But when you stop and think about it, it's an example of an all too common with campaigns "for" people with various disabilities.

It's not actually about the people with the disability. It's about the *non*-disabled.

In this case, it's holding them up as an "inspiration". It's about *us* felling good" for "helping" *them*.

Other examples are all the comments about how "brave" people with disabilities are, or how hard their lives are.

They disabled aren't being treated as real people with real problems, but as props for getting an effect.

Thus the phrase "inspiration porn".

In this particular case, it's doubly bad in that by using the phrase "how good we can be" it encourages the people without the disability to "be good" to the people with it.

Why is that bad? Because it encourages people to use their own judgment as to what is "good" for the disabled person.

This almost never goes well. Most blind people have horror stories about people offering unasked-for "help". I know a couple who have been *injured* when some idiot grabbed them to try to steer them away from a hazard they were well aware of (in one case, the attempt to "help" him avoid falling into an excavation next to the sidewalk actually resulted in him falling into it).

With autistics, consider that many of the attempts to "help" them use methods that the ASPCA won't allow to be used in training *animals*. But because it's professional psychologists trying to make them "act norrmal" most non-autistics shrug it off as "they know what they are doing" or "they need to learn to 'act normal'".

Here's an example that may get thru to some people. I've got asthma. As such, I *could* do most of the stuff in PE. But things like running distances were very difficult What was easy of merely "a bit difficult" for non-asthmatics was very, very hard for me, if not impossible.

Using the "logic" used in treating "low functioning" autistics, the PE teachers should have used electric shocks, or withholding food, etc as means to get me to be a better runner.
kengr: (antenna girl)
able bodied people are so inspirational. y’all just. go for long walks in the park. and wear pants all day long. and do the dishes all at once. i just. i don’t know how y’all do it. i’m tearing up just thinking about it. y’all are so brave.
For those who don't get the sarcasm, this is the sort of thing disabled folks hear from the able *every damn day*.
kengr: (antenna girl)
An item on the local news the other night caught my attention. Seems we had 145 shootings in Portland this year.

And most weren't gang related or while committing a crime (other than the shooting itself being a crime). And almost all were by young men in their teens and twenties.

What was the reason? According to the expert they interviewed it's because these young men have no skills in conflict resolution. They get upset with someone, and if they have a weapon, that's their idea of a solution.

This fits *so* well with a lot of stuff. Because if you think about it, guys that don't have guns will resort to some other weapon. To their fists if that's all they have.
Read more... )
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: (antenna girl)
After making the case that the Obergefell decision does not even apply to Alabama, Parker absurdly asserted that the Supreme Court had no grounds upon which to issue the decision in the first place because gays are not being denied equal treatment under the law since everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Gee, one of the big arguments made in Loving v Virginia was that blacks weren't being discriminated against because everyone had the right to marry someone of the same race.

That's what's so amazing about these people.

If you check the records, you'll see pretty much the same arguments that were used against blacks have been used against gays. And not just about marriage.

Back when they were integrating the military you got the same arguments that were used against letting gays be in the military. I mean *word for word*. Just swap a few phrase from being about race to being about homosexuality.

Ditto for more general civil rights for blacks. I don't think anybody said being black was a sin (except maybe for the Mormons before that revelation that changed their doctrine about admitting blacks) But there were a lot of people who said it was God's will to keep the races separate.

In my not-so-humble opinion, this is symptomatic of a xenophobic mindset and/or a certain sort of narrow mindedness.

It'd never fly, but just imagine the time we'd save in the courts if we listed those sort of arguments in "fill in the blank" form and passed a law (probably need to be a constitutional amendment) saying that such argument were not legally admissible.

Or at the very least, that they required *strong* proof in their favor.

Of course, these sorts of people would complain that they were being discriminated against.

To which my reply is "it is not, nor should it be, illegal to discriminate against stupidity, ignorant prejudices and the like"
kengr: (antenna girl)
The Tennessse state legislature is really reaching.

This is a ploy that's been tried before on other issues. Congress has even tried it a time or two.

I'm not aware of any of the attempts actually getting passed into law though.

What makes this *really* stupid is that these are the exact same people who try to claim that the Supreme Court's decision in favor of same-sex marriage is the court usurping legislative authority.

This is a blatant attempt for the legislative branch to usurp judicial authority.

The way thing work is that legislative branch makes laws.

The executive branch "executes" the laws.

The judicial branch rules on whether they are valid and in case of dispute, on what they mean. Not that "valid" explicitly includes the authority to decide if a law (or the way it is being enforced) violates the constitution.

If the courts rule that a law is unconstitutional, or for that matter, that it *is* constitutional, that's it. Game over Only way that'll change is if (somewhere years down that road) a new case cause the judicial branch to reconsider things.

But legislators (including Congress) far too often refuse to admit this, and try passing new laws that are worded differently, but do essentially the same thing. For example all the attempts over the last 40 years to restrict what adults can access online in the name of "protecting children".

I almost hope this *does* pass. Just so the Supreme Court can make a ruling stating that legislature (and Congress) do not have the power too say that the courts can't rule on things.

Me, I'd like to see a law making trying to pass a law that is unconstitutional grounds for removal from office. It'd have to be worded carefully, because sometimes there *are* genuine disagreements. But far too often, legislators *know* that what they are trying to do is unconstitutional, and are hoping the courts won't get around to it.
kengr: (Default)
Sat, 03:31: Photo: devastyle: farbeyondabnormal: devastyle: 1drunkardnoir: + The Terrifying True Story Of How Future’s...

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.
kengr: (Default)
The news has been coveruing this bit about the Portland Business Alliance putting up an online petition asking the city to do something about all the homeless (including comments about trying harder to enforce laws against camping and other things (ie "get them out of sight"))

The mayor(?) responded asking just where they were supposed to get the money?

The PBA response "we're not experts in fund raising"

I call bullshit.

That's not a response, that's an attempt to dodge the issue.

September 2017

     1 2
101112 1314 15 16
1718 192021 2223


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