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 6:51:29 PM
Whoops. It got passed off on my feeds as recent.
Jeremy Corbyn Demands Theresa May Put An End To Medical Tests For Trans People
...Basically calling for an update to the Gender Recognition Act to take some of the hoops out of getting transition legally recognised, if I'm reading it correctly.
edited 19th Jul '17 2:44:28 AM by Deadbeatloser22
"Yup. That tasted purple."
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Pretty much. It's basically saying "having to prove I'm crazy enough, but not too (or the wrong kind of) crazy just to get help for gender dysphoria is bonkers and out-dated". Because that's the assumption leaking to people having to fill the forms out and jump through the hoops: that at its root, it's merely a psychiatric condition, so you have to prove teh wrong-bad cray-cray, first. <_<
The whole system is stuck in the 1930s, even if the syntax on the forms has changed. Sure, you need to check if somebody has dysphoria. But, you don't have to make them feel like failed dirt to do it.
edited 19th Jul '17 4:00:41 AM by Euodiachloris
Considering I am looking at a two-year wait just to get to that part, yes the system is bollocks.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
I remember Laura Kate Dale talking about a three year wait, and if any kind of schedule conflict comes up whatsoever and you miss your appointment you get sent back to the end of the line and have to start the three years all over again. It's pretty ridiculous.
It depends on the clinic, but most discharge you if you miss two appointments and you have to be rereferred. At least one won't let you get referred to them again if you get kicked.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
Some points in our code, documentation and comments contain needless assumptions about the gender of a future reader, user, etc. Example: “When the user logs into his profile.”
Our Code of Conduct under “Be respectful and constructive” says:
Each of us has the right to enjoy our experience and participate without fear of harassment, discrimination, or condescension, whether blatant or subtle.
Emphasis is added: unnecessarily gendered code is discriminatory and condescending, and reading biased code isn't enjoyable.
Suggestions on how to keep code gender-neutral
These are only suggestions. You make the call.
Things to avoid:
Gendered pronouns: he / she / him / her / his / hers, etc.
Instances of the phrases “he or she”, “his/hers”, “(s)he”, etc. All of these still exclude those who don't identify with either gender, and implicitly (slightly) favor one gender via listing it first.
“Guys” as a gender-neutral term, which has male associations. Usually in comments it implies anthropomorphism of inanimate objects and should be replaced with a more precise technical term. If it does refer to people, consider using “everyone”, “folks”, “people”, “peeps”, “y'all”, etc.
Other gendered words: “brother”, “mother”, “man”, etc.
Cases that are likely fine to leave alone include:
References to a specific person (“Rachel is on leave; update this when she is back.”).
A name (“Guy” and “He” are both valid names).
A language code (“he” is the ISO 639-1 language code for Hebrew).
He as an abbreviation for “helium”.
The Spanish word “he”.
References to a specific fictional person (Alice, Bob, ...).
For new code/comments, consider using just ‘A’, ‘B’ as names.
Quotations and content of things like public-domain books.
Partner agreements and legal documents we can no longer edit.
Occurrences in randomly generated strings or base-64 encodings.
Content in a language other than English unless you are fluent in that language.
How to change the remaining awkward intrusions of gender:
Try rewording things to not involve a pronoun at all. In many cases this makes the documentation clearer. Example: “I tell him when I am all done.” → “I tell the owner when I am all done.” This saves the reader a tiny bit of mental pointer-dereferencing.
Try using singular they.
Try making hypothetical people plural. “When the user is done he'll probably...” → “When users complete this step, they probably...”. When referring to a non-person, “it” or “one” may be good alternatives (wikipedia link).
edited 7th Aug '17 6:56:57 AM by DrunkenNordmann
Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.
Australia is conducting a "non-binding, non-compulsory postal referendum on whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalised in Australia.
The "No" campaign have already made themselves look ridiculous
The reason for the whole rigamarole is that while Labor and the Greens want a straight up and down vote either along party lines or a formal conscience vote (the Greens have it as a formal party platform, the Labor party officially leaves it as a conscience vote to its members but will adopt a yes stance as part of the party platform in... 2018 I think. Either way whether on party lines or conscience vote both Greens and Labor are likely to delivering overwhelming "Yes" votes, as are Derren Hinch and Nick Xenophon in the senate... I think.). However the Liberal party (who are actually the larger of the two conservative parties) are badly divided. Malcolm Turnbull would probably just like to have the vote, say yes, put the issue behind him and take the credit. However a bunch of Liberal backbenchers, led by none other than the xenophobic, homophobic former Prime Minister and all round asshole Tony Abbott, are kicking up a stink. And given how narrowly Abbott was ousted, a concerted back-bench revolt could very well topple Turnbull's leadership of the party.
They want an actual referendum which is ridiculous for a couple of reasons. Referendums are generally only held to change the constitution and allowing same sex marriage doesn't require that, only an Act of Parliament. Secondly, and the reason that both Labor and the Greens are opposed to the referendum is that it would require the electoral commission to not only allow but actually provide funds for both sides. Labor and the Greens argue this would be nothing more than forcing the government to fund hate speech (and given the quality of the arguments being used from the no side in the postal referendum... they're not far wrong).
Edit: More nonsense from the No Campaign
This is mostly flyers and posters that aren't being distributed in my area so thankfully I don't have to see them.
edited 3rd Sep '17 12:04:39 AM by KnightofLsama
Apologies for the double post but it has been over two weeks
Well the postal survey forms are out. I got mine yesterday and posted it back today. Early results will be available from tomorrow but since the poll doesn't close until October it will be a while before final results are in.
The No campain continues to be hyperbolic and generally throwing a public temper trantrum
United Earth
Speaking of homophobes making themselves ridiculous:
.gif_100.jpeg){kind=avatar}
An unfortunate step backwards: Brazil decriminalizes gay conversion therapy.
Waldemar de Carvalho, a federal judge in the capital of Brasília, overruled a 1999 decision by the Federal Council of Psychology that forbade psychologists from offering widely discredited treatments which claims to “cure” gay people.
Coming a week after a bank cancelled an exhibition of gay art after protests from rightwing and evangelical Christian groups, the ruling has raised fears that progressive policies could be overturned.
Brazil has a growing population of evangelical Christians who have protested vociferously at plotlines in television soap operas featuring gay or transgender characters, and increasingly ally themselves with burgeoning rightwing groups.
In a 2009 interview with the Folha de S Paulo newspaper, Justino said she saw homosexuality as a “disease”, advised patients to seek religious guidance and said: “I feel directed by God to help people who are homosexual.” She did not respond to a request to comment.
“There is no way to cure what is not a disease,” Giannini told the Guardian. “It is not a serious, academic debate, it is a debate connected to religious or conservative positions.”
He noted that the ruling also said academic research into sexual conversion therapy should be allowed, which the council has never banned.
“We have no power over research,” he said. “The way it was put by the judge gave the impression that we prohibited research which is not true.”
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
What the hell!? Why do people think conversion therapy works, like at all? The suicide rate skyrockets, the rate of severe mental illness (like PTSD, if you're lucky) is extremely high and that's not even considering possible severe physical ramifications. It does matter what your opinion is, if the thing you do causes a sucide rate of over 50%, you are clearly in the wrong.
People under torture will agree to or say literally anything for it to stop. It's why torture doesn't work. And conversion therapy is absolutely torture.
I've said this before, but my opinion is that anyone who backs conversion therapy is either a monster or a moron. A monster because they know exactly what it is and back it anyway, or a moron because they back it, despite not having the slightest clue what it is.
edited 20th Sep '17 12:52:03 PM by Zendervai
Not Three Laws compliant.
He noted that the ruling also said academic research into sexual conversion therapy should be allowed, which the council has never banned.
Someone please spank that idiot.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
Considering that as far as I can tell, there have never been any scientific studies into conversion therapy, possibly because it, by its very nature, completely violates a bunch of major ethics rules. Best case scenario? Someone actually does the research and discovers that being LGBT doesn't innately cause any problems, the problems come from wholesale rejection (because very, very few adults are going to check themselves into conversion therapy, it's usually underage people being forced) and being literally tortured.
Not Three Laws compliant.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
There has been research. Nobody is ever converted and is generally just tortured into a mindset where they suppress it.
"Success cases" overwhelmingly result in the victim taking their own life after the event.
Oh really when?
It wouldn't be a bad thing if it was done in an unbiased manner (inevitably reaching the conclusion that conversion therapy doesn't really work) and influence the public to see the issue that way as well. But that is not how this will go...
edited 20th Sep '17 1:11:37 PM by Grafite
Life is unfair...
United Earth
Turn it off, like a light switch...
The law in the night
I'd say the legality of the action would be against the article 5 of the Brazilian constitution, but it was a judge that nullified the ruling, which sadly makes it constitutional by creating a precedent.
Unless another judge shuts down that ruling after a review by the superior justice court, that shit will be legal until someone there says it isn't again.
Inter arma enim silent leges
https://ph.yahoo.com/news/entry-ban-gays-tenuous-lawyers-015500296.html
Not surprising that the Malaysian Immigration Department is blocking a pro-gay party from going to KL.
Blapper of Water
Although the vote passed, America joined countries such as China, Iraq and Saudi Arabia in opposing the move.
And then there's this long quote from Heather Nauert, State Department spokesperson:
"The United States voted against this resolution because of broader concerns with the resolution's approach in condemning the death penalty in all circumstances and calling for its abolition.
"The United States unequivocally condemns the application of the death penalty for conduct such as homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery and apostasy. We do not consider such conduct appropriate for criminalisation and certainly not crimes for which the death penalty would be lawfully available as a matter of international law."
The countries that opposed the resolution were Botswana, Burundi, Egypt, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, China, India, Iraq, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates.
Here is a link to the text of the U.N. resolution.
United Earth
Not even Uganda voted against this one.
I'm so sorry your President is an asshole.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Well, I see a few points in the resolution that probably rankle the US, other than the one the headline suggests, like disproportionate use against racial minorities.
Maybe the UN should have just left the condemnation of the death penalty as a whole out of the resolution and more countries would have agreed to it (like the US), so they can't be blamed for this.
What surprises me here is Iran, a country with both disproportionate use of executions for every crime and harsh penalties for gay relationships, which then didn't oppose the bill.
Life is unfair...
Collector Of Fine Oddities
They abstained. S'pose they figured it'd bring less attention rather than openly opposing it.
Um, that's good but that article is from 2015.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.