LGBTQ+ Rights and America

That's wonderful to read.

As a parent I am both intrigued and concerned with this. I would love to see more research into this.

One one side, if my son should decide he is my daughter, I don't want to deter him. While he is undergoing the psych side and being cleared that way, I'll be finding and securing him the best doctors to preform whatever operations he may need. Though on the other hand I am concerned that delaying puberty could have potential long term effects for the child that aren't advantageous.

Playing catchup could be a problem.

As a parent you are constantly trying to balance risk with rewards. Very rarely is there a clear win but if I have to choose between harming my son's body to give him time to decide if that body truly doesn't match, then I would have to be very, very confident.

As it stands, I could not allow my son to take any hormones or whatnot, nothing physically medical until he is over the age of 18. You can always change your clothes and change your name. But changing your body? That's harder to fix and more dangerous to touch.

Dunno. I was offered hormone therapy when I was about 11, as it was pretty obvious I was very short. We declined (it was a group thing). Considering that at the time, one of the common side effects was a form of psychosis, I don't particularly regret it.

But, sometimes, I wonder if I should have tried for those extra two inches. <_< As it was, I'd definitely stopped growing at 13, having peaked in early-12. It may have already been too late, as it was assumed I'd continue my spurt into 14 or 15.

These days, hormone manipulation for growth is a lot more stable in outcome than it was and it's pretty common. I don't see how this would be much "worse".

edited 17th Sep '14 1:43:57 AM by Euodiachloris

Well another concern would be a psychological affect.

Let's say we can give the body a safe pause button. Cool. Okay, if say, my son hit's puberty at 10, (just grabbing a random number) and needs say, 2 years, to figure this out. Well that isn't too bad because he'll be 12. But let's say at 12 he's still confused. The counselor agrees that he's not ready to confirm a decision, the doctors give him two more years. Then he's 14...If he really is confident in his decision as a girl, okay. He will be behind all the other girls a bit who are developing breasts and having periods, but he won't be too bad. However if he says, nope, I want to be a guy, That's the age of sports, locker rooms, sign ups, and all sorts of other masculine issues.

Of course, developing the sexual traits of a gender that isn't you can be just as dangerous, but again, I'm just trying to balance the risks and the rewards. I would have to be very careful with how to proceed.

I'm glad parents are being more accepting of open genders, but I've discussed this with a few of my friends who are in various stages of pre, post, and never wanting operations about how safe is it to start a child so young on the process of changing their body in such a heavy way. Every kid is different, but everyone I have talked to says that they are glad they waited until adulthood to figure out to what degree they wished transition if any and to also have the time to properly experiment with human relationships and consequences.

That is the one thing people who allow children under 10 to begin transitions and surgeries at 15 and 16 haven't really been able to answer for me: Is the child continuing on this path because they genuinely feel that way or is it because they've just been conditioned due to your well intentioned but possibly heavy handed support?

There's not a wrong answer I think, but there are distinctive wrong answers for individual children so more power to all the research possible to help parents make the best case by case decisions they can.

Domestic violence likely more frequent for same-sex couples

Stunning day in court for same sex couples

This whole article quotes the judge's who are just absolutely brilliant as they basically annihilated the lawyers trying to uphold the ban on same sex marriage.

Read it, it's beautiful!

I'm loving it!

Those state lawyers sound like they need to be hospitalized for the BURN they received, damn!

Oh, yeah. And, the judge that trumped them by burning holes in their provided statistics? "Your logical fallacies have just activated my trap card: Evidence-based Evisceration."

Considering the age of the video, you might have already seen this, but I wanted to share this anyway. A teen comes out of the closet to his mother, only to be surprised when she comes out herself:

The HuffPo story seems to be about the original decision that Achaemenid linked. It's authored by Judge Posner (the Reagan appointee), who is actually quite readable even for normal people.

My analysis (as a 1L who dropped out over ten years ago): He holds that sexual orientation is a "suspect classification," which means laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are subject to the highest level of scrutiny rather than the lowest, as formerly. The court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger said so too, but the appeals hinged on standing; this appears to be the first circuit court decision to make such a ruling.

The Supreme Court, if it hears the appeal, can do three things:

1. Uphold the Seventh Circuit ruling on the grounds that the law doesn't pass strict scrutiny
2. Hold that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification, but that the ban doesn't pass rational basis review.
3. Overturn the Seventh Circuit, either because
   • it's not a suspect classification and the law does have a rational basis, or
   • they find the ban is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means.

I am pretty sure the outcome is not going to be 3b; I don't think even this Court will find that a marriage ban passes strict scrutiny — it's not less friendly to LGBT equality than the court that decided Lawrence v Texas, after all.

A California woman who recently moved to Texas has been denied her drivers license due to her marriage to another woman.

Honey Boo Boo's gay uncle is engaged.

As much as I abhor pageants, especially for children, and redneck/white trash culture, I can't help but be grateful that she does have a gay uncle and the family is supportive of them getting married.

In a way, it's like the demographic that needs to grow up and respect homosexuality the most in many parts of America is being directly targeted with an example of progressive respect and dignity from one of their own. Hopefully, it'll at least change some minds to be nicer if nothing else.

edited 25th Sep '14 7:25:17 AM by Gabrael

If Honey Boo Boo can make one positive contribution to American culture, then that's something.

I think you made a little typo there.

Pennsylvania lawmaker comes out during pitch for LGBT hate crime bill, saying, "I'm gay. Get over it."

Documentary following a Transgendered male who doesn't want medical intervention.

edited 25th Sep '14 7:28:35 AM by Gabrael

What is the sexless counterpart to "sir" and "ma'am"?

"Hey you!"

S'am. Seriously, I think there is none.

edited 25th Sep '14 7:57:21 AM by Antiteilchen

Comrade.

I normally wait to see how other people are referring to them or they refer to themselves before I use a title or honorific.

Otherwise I just avoid using their name with a title.

Fellow Earthling.

edited 25th Sep '14 8:50:39 AM by Elfive

I prefer Terran myself, if human isn't acceptable. Earthling is lame.

Greetings, program!

Half of HIV positive gay men aren't getting proper treatment.

Gay and bisexual men are still the largest demographic in America affected by HIV, but they're not getting proper care even with the proper medication perscribed