Agreed.

I specified in the 1st sentence i was making the argument about cultural and social views. Of course my argument wouldn't work when applied to a more broad spectre of issues.
When it comes to the group of rights related to what this thread is about, values alone just don't provide a satisfactory basis for policy that works in a long run.
Specifically to transgender rights. It crossed my mind that before someone can be approved to forego the transition process they are evaluated by a specialist.
I think this means this is already understood enough to be able to inform the relevant rights policy. Whether a part of the population has a negative attitude towards them, just shouldn't be important.


Absolutely and i follow this when interacting with people in real life.
The issue is precisely that while they feel they are informed they really aren't. They can absolutely mean well and be generally great people that just occasionally let sleep out some really insensitive remark.
Some completely change their views when they actually meat someone who they were discriminating towards before. But you also have the kind who would disown their own child,convinced they are making the right choice, if they found out they are gay or trans which shouldn't ever happen.

There's another issue i have with the high ranking of religiously informed values when engaging in elections. These are the people who are taken advantage off the most. They are generally the most faithful voters that will side with a certain set of values, that doesn't pay much of a role in actual governing, but turning those values into talking points it's a highly effective PR move for a politician running for office. I personally find it cynical precisely because of the point you made, many (probably most) of these people really mean well but tend to side with the biggest assholes for all the wrong reasons.


I also wanted to bring to the discussion the extremely high attempted suicide rate among the transgender population, it's around 40% in the US, similar in Canada.

http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2

So North Carolina lawmakers last night decided to forbid any municipality from passing any anti-discrimination laws pertaining to gender identity or sexual orientation, and it all seems to be focused on the "bathroom issue." What say you, RM?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... otections/

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/north ... -bathrooms

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03 ... -rule.html

First off, to clarify ST's post -- the new NC laws are harmful for transgender people (I read the OP differently).

Anyway, with regard to the bathroom issue, it's going to take something akin to the Americans With Disabilities Act to make the sorts of changes required. Ideologically speaking, I can see both sides of the argument: Transgender people should be able to poop in a room in which they feel comfortable, while private building owners shouldn't have to take on the costs of add'l plumbing in every single instance. I've been learning a lot about the ADA as it relates to the bathroom requirements for my ice cream company -- a certain number of employees requires certain ADA-compliant infrastructure; there are similar situations with employee changing and break areas.

All this to say that it's going to take a lot of small skirmishes before there can be some sort of comprehensive idea of just what sorts of buildings should require transgender bathrooms.

As for the NC laws specifically -- it's fearful and exclusionary and takes power away from counties and cities, and consolidates a complex issue into the hands of a few stupid lawmakers.

Conservatives have gotten so ridiculously hypocritical with this recently. They can't stand federal interference of state laws, but have been more than willing to advocate for states to interfere with local laws.

they should be able to vote, at least.

I dont think hypocracy is the correct charge here. Theres a fundemental disagreement of rights and scope of goverment authority. Government banning subsidiary government from certain actions is a whole nother beast from feds dictating to individuals.

Also, this is a stupid fucking area to devote so many pages of laws to. If you replaced state fines on bakers and florists wih shitty yelp reviews, I think we could get to a more tolerant society faster than the current course. Expansive definitions of public accomodations and protected groups drives exactly this sort of pushback. If the stakes were social and economic instead of legal, I dont think you would see as much of this.

*Also, Caitlyn Jenner is gorgeous and brave, and such an inspiration*

Welcome to the last 4 years in North Carolina.

My wife's family is in Raleigh. Her folks are fiscally conservative, socially liberal -- they typically vote Republican, but then they have a gay son. And I think they are about at their whit's end with NC -- just feeling less in tune with the laws happening around them.

Oh don't worry, I've seen plenty of this here. The latest development was a state ban on local bans on plastic bags. How silly.

Did we also mention that the special EMERGENCY session of our General Assembly cost $84,000. This could not wait another 6 weeks, people!

Well, the laws in Charlotte were set to go into effect on April 1st, so there would've been like a 4-week window where someone would have had to explain to their ugly kid what a transgendered person is--perish the thought! [grabs at pearls]

NC Could Lose Funding Over Gay Rights Law:
http://nyti.ms/1VZDSDs

Ha, literally billions at stake, and it sounds like the various agencies are already working on their case.

The bottom line is that everyone - regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, etc. - should be treated equally and granted equal access. I'm happy to see folks turning on North Carolina and that's not just because I am rooting for the Cuse tonight.

A fucking embarrassment today to say I'm from Mississippi.

Great post.

Heh this appeared today at the bar I used to work at.

This seems like a dangerous message to convey to potentially beligerent drunks.

Bruce Springsteen cancelled his show this weekend in Greensboro. I'd appreciate it if no one mentions this to Pearl Jam.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=7604

I hope PJ realizes that the grand majority of the people attending their show are going to agree with their stance on this.