Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in the LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion Thread
.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:53:59 PM
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
Single-issue politicians who want to make a point or a stand, combined with a lot of horsetrading. Whoever insisted the law be about people sodomy probably helped the law's main sponsor at some point in the past, or is well-connected with the head of the relevant committee, and wanted to make it about people sodomy so that he could score points with the fundies back in their district. You have to appease different agendas, even if their agendas have no bearing on the issues you want to address.
It's like in that episode of The Simpsons where Krusty goes to kongress to reroute airplanes being sent over the Simpsons' neighborhood and had to get it passed as a rider on a "flags for orphans" bill.
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
Sometimes I wonder why this kind of politicians hasn't been pilloried by Christian fundamentalists yet. I mean no good God-fearing Christian should be this obsessed with sex.
Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.
They aren't outlawing buttsex, nor are they trying to. They are using what part of MCL 750.158 is still enforceable (outlawing bestiality) to add a restriction on animal ownership against those who are convicted of sexually abusing animals.
SB 219 as passed by the Senate, Ctrl-F for "Sec. 158" to find the relevant section.
And do your fucking research, people
HGW XX/7
BUT IDIOT REPULIKKKANS WHAT ABOUT MUH FLINT WATER?
Schild und Schwert der Partei
Mikon :3
I think at this point it's just sound practice to assume that when the Republicons are doing something, they're doing something monumentally stupid. Especially when non-cishets are involved.
A nice butterfly
Of all the things being edited there, why the hell would they leave in that bit?
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
The Mod with the Migraine
South Dakota state legislature officially punishing transgender students for being transgender.
The Senate voted 20-15 to send the bill to Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard, who initially responded positively to the measure but said last week he'd need to study it more before making a decision.
Advocates say the bill is meant to protect the privacy of students, but opponents say it discriminates against vulnerable adolescents. CBS affiliate KELO in Sioux Falls reports that those opposed say that in addition to the likelihood it will lead to bullying, they also question the constitutionality of the bill and fear it will cost the state millions in lawsuits.
Under the plan, schools would have to provide a "reasonable accommodation" for transgender students, such as a single-occupancy bathroom or the "controlled use" of a staff-designated restroom, locker room or shower room.
Republican Sen. David Omdahl urged other legislators Tuesday to support the bill to "preserve the innocence of our young people."
Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans unsuccessfully opposed the measure in the Senate.
The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota and Human Rights Campaign have been vocal in their opposition to the measure and have called on Daugaard to veto the legislation.
"History has never looked kindly upon those who attack the basic civil rights of their fellow Americans, and history will not treat kindly those who support this discriminatory measure," Chad Griffin, the president of the LGBT-rights organization Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement Tuesday.
Transgender advocates have also criticized comments made by some lawmakers, including Omdahl, about transgender people.
"I'm sorry if you're so twisted you don't know who you are," Omdahl said at a recent event when asked about the bill. "I'm telling you right now, it's about protecting the kids, and I don't even understand where our society is these days."
Several states have looked at addressing gender and public facilities in the past several years. Late last year, the city of Houston was recently home to a bitter public fight over nondiscrimination rights that focused on transgender people's use of bathrooms.
But South Dakota would be the first state in the nation to put such a measure into law, said Joellen Kralik, a research analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The Legislature's passage of the bill is "shocking," said Thomas Lewis, a transgender student in his senior year at Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, the state's most populous city.
"At this point, I'm hoping that the governor has a sense of humanity and the common sense not to write this bill into law," said Lewis, who is planning to attend college in Minnesota. "I am so glad to be leaving soon. I can escape the oppression that my home state wants to put on me."
Supporters say South Dakota's plan is a response to changes in the Obama administration's interpretation of the federal Title IX anti-discrimination law related to education. Federal officials have said that barring students from restrooms that match their gender identity is prohibited under Title IX.
Something piques my curiosity.
If a rule or law (e.g. males and females in a dorm are separated) is made for the purpose of preventing or reducing pregnancy, is it fair to put a transwoman (who's biologically male) in the male section of the dorm? Or a transman (who's biologically female) in the female section of the dorm?
Something tells me it's not fair, but I'm not sure since I've never heard anyone make that argument, let alone hear someone rebut that line of reasoning. As opposed to "omg a man's pretending to be an woman so that he can rape women!".
Maybe I don't understand sex/gender segregation at all. Why are toilets sex-segregated anyway? Is it so that females don't have to watch males pee at urinals? I'm utterly stupid, please make me less stupid.
edited 17th Feb '16 10:46:14 PM by hellomoto
World's Cutest Direwolf
Pregnancy specifically isn't the issue so much as (heterosexual) hanky-panky in general. For a value of hanky-panky that includes seeing the other gender's naughty bits (hence separate bathrooms, because those bits are going to have to be at least a little exposed so that matters can be taken care of). And pregnancy arguments don't come up because they'd just be a subset of the hanky-panky arguments that wicked men are claiming to be women to cross the barrier that prevents hanky-panky.
A procrastination in of itself
Yeah it's not about pregnancy, it's about about ensuring folks don't see the other sex's genetalia, that and simply denying that trans people are the gender they are.
As for bathrooms, some aren't, I belive you do get some unisex on continental Europe.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Well, since a bathroom without urinals will usually have only stalls, with doors and locks, it makes little sense to keep them separate by sex or gender: No one is supposed to see any naughty bits other than their own, the "common" area being only for washing hands.
Where it may make sense to separate would be in areas with high throughput, which would allow putting some urinals in the Men's room (since they take less room than a bathroom stall, it means you can put more of them).
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
A procrastination in of itself
Don't you have mixed sex bathrooms in France? I'm pretty sure that that's where I encountered one long ago, how are they set up?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
When there are, I hardly remark it, unless you're talking about a small restaurant with just one bathroom closet: One small room (like 3m² at most before accessibility laws kicked in) with a toilet seat, and a sink for washing hands either in the same room or in some sort of antechamber. An "accessible" bathroom will usually have both in the same room.
On a bigger scale, it's just a room with bathroom stalls (with doors and locks, preferably the "colorful" locks) on one side and sinks on the other side. Really, I have no idea how it would be any different from my mental picture of a female bathroom.
edited 18th Feb '16 1:34:39 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Nope, can't picture an unisex bathroom having any of those.
We kinda have mixed sex bathrooms at my uni in France. Our toilets in the library are all a bunch of rooms, some of which have urinals in, which I take to be the guy's rooms. What can happen is rushing into one room and not realizing until you hear a guy in the stall next to you that this is probably the guy's bathroom. And this is why I don't like using the toilets at my library 
edited 18th Feb '16 2:48:52 AM by chinese_peanut
'I'm trying not to get involved. I'm just here for the companionship' - Ayoade
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
Even with urinals, you can put them sort of recessed between dividers and then there's really no reason for anyone to see anything.
Most public bathrooms I've been in lack dividers. Which is a really stupid design choice by the way.
I dunno, it suggests "it's just a dick, get over it" was in the designer's mind, which is a healthy attitude to have, IMHO.
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
The people who are reasonably uncomfortable should have reasonable accommodations, all the more as we lurch towards a unisex future. I'm not a bigot or anything, but i'd rather not see dicks in the locker room or bathroom or have mine seen either, just a preference.
True, that probably was part of it too.
But there still needs to be an underlying thought that they're not strictly necessary.
No there shouldn't be. If people are uncomfortable with others possibly seeing their dick they should be given the ability to do their business in private. You could make the same argument against bathroom stalls but I don't think anybody would oppose those.
Why We Can't Have Nice Things
edited 10th Feb '16 9:51:05 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes