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 eventually I'm going to upload it to my website as historical document.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: (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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-Stonewall_LGBT_actions_in_the_United_States
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.

Bullying

Feb. 12th, 2017 06:51 pm
kengr: (Default)
Over on Facebook a friend shared a post that used this image:

A lot of folks agreed. But a lot disagreed, saying that it amounted to victim blaming.

My comments (plus more I didn't have room for)

The big problem with this sentiment is that it doesn't *work*. Attempting to defend myself from bullies in grade school got me in trouble with the teachers *and* with my mom when I got home. I was pyhsically incapable of outrunning the bullies. And even if I'd known some sort of self-defense 3 on one odds aren't beatable unless you are very good (or using tactics that would get you in *real* trouble.

Two memes that need to die:
"sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me"
Words can cause more lasting damage than a physical beating.

"it takes two to make a fight"
Guess what, if the bully wants a fight all refusing to fight will get you is a beating.

Being taught something about self-defense is good. But it can only help so much. And as noted, it's victim blaming.

Teachers need to quit with the "both parties are equally guilty" with regards to fights. They also need to be *paying attention* during recess so that it *isn't* a case of "we didn't see it so we can't take anyone's word about who started it".

They need to scrap the "I don't care what he said/did that's no justification for hitting him" And remember that what was said/done may not have been the proximate cause, but rather the most recent in an ongoing series of abuses that finally became intolerable.

Yeah, taking your eraser or calling you a name should be a reason to hit him. But if he's been doing that sort of thing several times a day for *weeks*? That's a very different story.

Oh yeah, forbid "keep away". It's not a game for the victim.

One person posted this picture in reponse:


It's better but it still has the "bullying will always be with us" idea. That may be true, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce it as much as possible.
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.
kengr: (seperation of church & hate)


Same goes for LGBTI folks. A (asexual folks) are pretty much covered by Christ's comments about eunuchs.

I'd also like to invite folks to re-read the story of the Good Samaritan. But keep in mind that Samaritans were socially the equivalent of blacks, pagans or gays now.

So you have this average guy getting beat up and robbed. Left by the side of the road looking like some homeless bum.

The fine upstanding folk like the pastor of his church, the sheriff, and other "good people" pass him by likely with comments along the line of "we have to do something about "'those' people." They can't even look past the dirt, blood and tattered clothing to realize that this is someone they *know*.

Then along comes this poor, black (or queer or trans or pagan or whatever) person. They see this injured person in rags and instead of walking by, they take him to their house, clean him up, bind his wounds, feed him and dig up some clothes for him.

That, btw, is *why* the parable is titled "The *Good* Samaritan". Because that wasn't how Jesus's listeners would have expected a Samaritan (for us, black, pagan, queer, etc) person to act towards a Jew.

BTW, if you check around, you'll find posts listing the public figures who have expressed sympathy for the victims. Along with their records on gay rights. An awful lot of hypocrites there.
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: (antenna girl)
Over on [livejournal.com profile] alex_antonin's tumblr, he reposted something from someone else.

https://t.co/qOQN93V2Sg

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)
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)
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/alabama-supreme-court-justice-tom-parker-state-courts-must-defy-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-
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.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/17/lawmakers-file-tennessee-natural-marriage-defense-act/32570645/

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)
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: (antenna girl)
Ok, the owners of that former bakery in Gresham OR got the final judgement for their refusal to serve a lesbian couple.

It's $130,000 or so.

A lot of folks including one annoying local radio/TV commentator keep making noises about how out of line this is compared with things like speeding tickets.

They miss the fact that it's not that the couple didn't get their wedding cake. It's that they didn't get it BECAUSE THEY WERE GAY.

The owners are vowing to appeal, and making comments about how it's a violation of their first amendment rights.

Sorry, this is another thing much like the civil disobedience bit I went into yesterday.

The first amendment says you have freedom of speech. It does *not* say that you can't get into trouble for what you say or do.

They are perfectly free to make comments about how they disapprove of "gay marriage". and they are free to claim it's part of their religion.

What they are *not* free to do is run a business and then discriminate against people for being gay.

Don't think that's right? What would you say if they'd refused to make a cake for an inter-racial couple. Or a black couple?

It's the *exact same thing*.

Also, they *could* have stayed in business and simply quit making wedding cakes for *anybody*.

As a person providing a service to the public, you are *not* allowed to refuse service because someone belongs to a group covered by anti-discrimination laws. Period.

Note: that doesn't mean you can't refuse service to a member of one of those groups. You just can do it *because* they belong to the group.

Refuse someone for being a woman, no. Refuse her because she's an arrogant pain-in-the-ass, no problem.

Also, just consider where allowing people to refuse service based on their religious beliefs goes. Christian Scientists (and members of some other churches, including one notorious local one) could refuse to sell medicine or to provide medical services.

Oh wait, some "Christians" do that already with regards to birth control, the morning after pill and other things. :-(

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Otherwise the libel & slander laws wouldn't exist. Not would "inciting to riot".

Freedom of religion isn't a get out of jail free card either. You are free to live your life according to your beliefs. You are *not* free to try to force others to conform to your beliefs. Which is what those business owners are doing.

If your beliefs preclude "assisting" with some things, then you'd best not have a job where that could come up.

ps. The owners closed the bakery a couple years ago but are apparently still selling stuff from their house. That's skirting things, but as long as they do it in a way that they aren't serving "the public" but can claim it's "friends" they should be ok.
kengr: (Default)
Seeing a lot of posts on social media from people whose reaction to the Supreme Court decision on 6/26/2015 is that they are going to move to Canada...

Apparently they aren't aware that same sex marriage has been legal in Canada for 10 years.

Also, if they think they can just immigrate to Canada with no problem, they'd better think again. There are some fairly strict rules...

If they try moving to the UK/British Isles, only Northern Ireland doesn't have marriage equality.

New Zealand? Nope. Legal there too.

Australia. Ok, the fight is still going on there.

So Only *two* English speaking countries left...
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!

July 2017

S M T W T F S
       1
23 45 6 78
9 1011 12 1314 15
1617 18 19 2021 22
23242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 25th, 2017 04:45 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios