Discussion on FL "Don't Say Gay" bill

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Using terminology like "bad stuff" as a substitute for anti-semitic and/or anti- LGBT measures is a cop out IMO and is an example of exactly the thought process that "led many people to view the Jews as “alien.” and view the LGBT community in a similar manner today. But that is from my article.

My quote is:

There's always a certain level of "bad stuff" ever present. So my 2- is an acknowledgement of that. You may not think it's 8+ but you certainly think it's worse than I do.

I was using it in the generic sense.

"Ever present" all/most of the time in everything. There's always/likely a certain level of "bad stuff" happening with/in/by Cops, Evangelism/Religion, BLM, Politicians, US troops, Chinese tourists, Illegal Immigrants, airline passengers, Dentists ... ad nauseum.

My gauge of 2 (or less) indicates I do believe there is "bad stuff" happening in our current discussion of anti-LGBTQ+ in the US. I didn't think to be more specific as to what "bad stuff" was (e.g. to your point anti-LGBTQ+) because I was using it in the generic, all encompassing sense.

[Edward64]

(Wordy stuff below. If you are not @miami_fan, don't bother reading. If you choose to read and/or respond, then it's on you. @miami_fan, if you don't wish to continue, no issues from me)

My article quote is Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Discussion on FL "Don't Say Gay" bill
Your post that I am responding to is Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Discussion on FL "Don't Say Gay" bill


Just a preface.

I do think our discussion has shifted some from DeSantis & Don't Say Gay to a broader discussion of comparing similarities/parallels between how LGBTQ+ are being treated today in the US vs how Jews were treated in the 1930s before WW2.

I have no problems continuing this particular line of discussion but don't want to be accused of shifting discussion goalposts unilaterally. I assume if you don't redirect me, you are okay with this tangential shift.

With that said ...

I believe the purpose of our "meeting" today (old habits die hard, I always recap purpose of meeting with project members) is:

To discuss the similarities (or not) of the treatment of LGBTQ+ today vs how Jews were treated in 1930s before WW2, in the US. A member believes there is a real chance of the US regressing to the point where Jews will be forcibly rounded up by Aug 2030 and another member used the word Holocaust.

I understand your summation to be: "to be clear, I still don't think the treatment of the LGBT community today in our country has reached the levels of the worst of the Nazi's treatment of the Jews in the 30's and 40's." but it is "terrifying" to you where we already are today

If this is wrong, feel free to correct me.

******


In a previous post, I said there were like 15 things my article listed. In response to your post, I am breaking them out individually to 14 things so we can explore each but substituting the "anti-Jew" with "anti-LGBTQ+"

I am also going to use the G-Y-R scale. I tried a 1-10 but wanted to try keep it simple. G-Y-R is easier to envision, if you disagree, feel free to provide you own scale. I admit my wording/description may not be accurate but hope you get the idea.

When I rated the below 14 items, I kept in mind scale & degree/severity.

G = there's always a level of "bad stuff" and wackos, but scale & degree/severity is not that significant as a whole
Y = definitely warning signs that "bad stuff" can escalate, and needs to be acted on to "get back to Green"
R = mass roundups, deportation, shutting down of businesses with explicit/implicit approval of US government. The US is out of control
Really R = Holocaust with capital H. and gas ovens (not realistic at all IMO but someone else mentioned it)

Preamble. Nazi anti-Jewish policy functioned on two primary levels: legal measures to expel the Jews from society and strip them of their rights and property while simultaneously engaging in campaigns of incitement, abuse, terror and violence of varying proportions.

#1. There was one goal: to make the Jews leave Germany.

Current rating = G
Future Likelihood rating = G

#2. On March 9, 1933, several weeks after Hitler assumed power, organized attacks on Jews broke out across Germany.

My rating = G
Future Likelihood rating = G

Your commentary

No one interested in an honest discussion would dispute that the LGBT community has been subject to legal measures to expel them from society and strip them of their rights and property what simultaneously facing campaigns of incitement, abuse, terror and violence of varying proportions. Organized attacks against LGBT communities have occurred all over the the country. Again I note, no one demanded that the Jews file lawsuit because everyone knew that Hitler had assumed power and appointed his followers in the courts. What was there to stop the Jews from filing lawsuits back then?

IIRC in my history books, these organized attacks were physical, forcibly removed from homes, the Star of David sewn on clothing etc. and widespread. My rating above is based on those criteria.

On your comment about why more lawsuits have not been filed. I will continue with my belief Occam's Razor is

IMO the Occam's Razor are lawsuits are in the works but not yet filed/publicized, or they've not found the valid grounds to contest (e.g. unequal treatment, unconstitutional or whatever). This is much more reasonable IMO than the ACLU, activist LGBTQ+ etc. groups fearing reprisals.

Question - do you have an article or link that supports your supposition its because there is fear of reprisals by organizations like ACLU, activist LGBTQ+ etc. groups

#3. Within a few months, democracy was obliterated in Germany, and the country became a centralized, single-party police state.

My rating = G
Future Likelihood rating = G

#4. On April 1, 1933, a general boycott against German Jews was declared, in which SA members stood outside Jewish-owned stores and businesses in order to prevent customers from entering.

My rating = G
Future Likelihood rating = G

Your commentary

Now you are absolutely correct. There has not been a call for a national boycott of LGBT businesses like there was on April 1, 1933 on Jewish businesses. But if you click on the link about the boycott in that article, you will find this nugget.

Hmm, maybe there are other ways to appease party members who demanded extreme economic steps against the LGBT community as promised in a major party's platform. Maybe there are other ways that can act as a a cue to harass LGBT community members- a legal precedent for discrimination that could only go downhill.

Specific to "a general boycott", I don't see it. I can easily see some calls to discriminate like the LGBTQ+ equivalent of CFA but #4 description indicates a much more widespread thing.

#5. Approximately one week later, a law concerning the rehabilitation of the professional civil service was passed. The purpose of the legislation was to purge the civil service of officials of Jewish origin and those deemed disloyal to the regime.

My rating = G
Future Likelihood rating = G

Your commentary

Again you are absolutely correct. There has not been specific legislation to purge the civil service of LGBT folks. There has been specific legislation to purge them from other areas though. There have been book burnings or book removals from public spaces. There has been highly visible efforts to exclude LGBT folks ousting their considerable contribution to the American press, literature, theater, music and other areas of society as well. I did not intend to go all the way to 1935 and the Nuremberg Laws because I did not think that was relevant but I mean...

The bolded section is interesting and I was not aware of this. I assume you mean "proposed legislation" (from wackos, no chance in passing) and not actually passed legislation. But if I'm wrong can you provide links? Unless this is widespread, I don't see it.

The others you listed is broken out further down.

#6. Ceremonial public book burnings took place throughout Germany. Many books were torched solely because their authors were Jews.

My rating = G
Future Likelihood rating = maybe Y (especially if DeSantis or like gets elected)

#7. The exclusion of Jews from German cultural life was highly visible, ousting their considerable contribution to the German press, literature, theater, and music.

My rating = G
Future Likelihood rating = maybe Y if DeSantis or like gets elected

#8. In September 1935 the “Nuremberg Laws” were passed, stripping the Jews of their citizenship

My rating = G
Future Likelihood rating = G

#9. and forbidding intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews.

My rating = G to Y
Future Likelihood rating = G to Y

I may be wrong here. I associate "marriage" as done with some religious group and there is definitely restrictions there because of the religious affiliation. I view "civil union" as the non-religious, secular compromise which I believe any LGBTQ can have. So I believe this to be G

However, I know at one time there where civil unions weren't treated the same (taxes, inheritance etc.). I have read progress has been made and many of the stuff is more "equal" but think not 100%. So I rate this a Y.

Note this has nothing to do with DeSantis and like. It's been this way and its getting better, just more work to be done.

#10. Jews were banned from universities;

My rating = G
Future Likelihood rating = G to Y

I will say the equivalent today probably includes "teaching of Jewish history, traditions" aka "LGBTQ+ classes". I know there is a FL proposal for something like this (now) and I can see it gaining some traction if DeSantis and like wins (future).

But straight out ban of LGBTQ+ students, other than some few private universities, nope

#11. Jewish actors were dismissed from theaters;

My rating = ?
Future Likelihood rating = ?

I don't know. I can easily believe some specialized groups discriminate. Heck, happens in my profession also. I don't know if this is a problem in theaters.

In expanding it to businesses as a whole, I proposed there is less overall discrimination against LGBTQ+ now than there was 20 years ago and certainly 40 years ago.

#12. Jewish authors’ works were rejected by publishers;

My rating = G
Future Likelihood rating = maybe Y if DeSantis or like gets elected

But the need for publishers is greatly diminished. See #13 below

#13. and Jewish journalists were hard-pressed to find newspapers that would publish their writings.

My rating = G
Future Likelihood rating = G

Maybe if DeSantis or like gets elected this could to Y but with self publishing, blogging, vlogging, social media etc. I'd say the odds are low

#14. Famous artists and scientists played an important role in this campaign of dispossession and party labeling of literature, art, and science.

My rating = G
Future Likelihood rating = maybe Y if DeSantis or like gets elected

More so for Science than Literature or Art

[Edward64]

@miami_fan

Thanks for your summation:

To be clear, I still don't think the treatment of the LGBT community today in our country has reached the levels of the worst of the Nazi's treatment of the Jews in the 30's and 40's. I am also not a person who has had to deal with those legal measures meant to expel the members of that community from society and strip them of their rights and property while simultaneously engaging in campaigns of incitement, abuse, terror and violence of varying proportions. It does not need to be that way and the insistence of some to want to follow the Nazi example in relation to this community is terrifying.

Here's mine:

I am optimistic about the future because the long term trend has been less discrimination and less hate against LGBTQ+ except for possibly Transgender whose acceptance is more tenuous at this time (e.g. participation in sports, use of bathrooms, proper way to address etc.) due to the newness (?) of the issues that have arisen in MSM.

But just as acceptance of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual has increased over the years, I am optimistic the country & society will work through that and become more accepting of Transgender also. There will be some compromise on both sides (e.g. sport participation is interesting and still being debated) but we'll get to a steady state eventually.

And demographics is on the side of LGBTQ+. As the Boomers age out (for good) in next 10-20 years, there'll be less resistance and more acceptance.

So in current day, is it to the scale, degree/severity of Nazi Germany in the 1930's. IMO No

In 2030, will it be to the scale, degree/severity of Nazi Germany in the 1930's. IMO No

Will (re)election of Trump, DeSantis or like make the US become Nazi Germany in the 1930's. IMO, it may move some stuff from Green to Yellow, but certainly not to Red. I believe the US is strong enough to withstand those challenges with her checks & balances (and ever vanishing boomers), which although not perfect, is good enough to preventing us falling into the abyss that was Nazi Germany circa 1930's.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Okay. Can you link to it just like I linked my answer to the question you thought I did not answer?

Page 144 of the Trump thread, perhaps concluding with post 7195.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Page 144 of the Trump thread, perhaps concluding with post 7195.

Weird. I looked but didn't see you posting anything on that page.

Oh well, no big deal I guess.

[flere-imsaho]

Page 144: If Trump Loses In November, What Do You Think Happens Next - Page 144 - Front Office Football Central

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Page 144: If Trump Loses In November, What Do You Think Happens Next - Page 144 - Front Office Football Central

Thanks. I actually did look in the Trump thread but not in the post-election Trump thread. I had a brain fart and should have looked at the other thread. My fault and thank you.

So for ease of reference if & when this discussion comes back.

Your rationale why the SSN gap (circa 2034) is not an imminent crisis.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's not a crisis. The program has been modified several times over its history to shore up its long-term financial health.

If it's 2030 and the actuarial projections still show depletion in 2034 and the GOP still has functional control over Congress then it will be a crisis.

But it is not a real crisis right now. It's a manufactured crisis, done so to allow the GOP to put forward proposals that will definitely result in its long-term demise. Which was the original point of this tangent.

Stop being so credulous when reading headlines, Edward.

And my rationale

The crisis is the bi-partisanship negotiations that will eventually happen, agree on, and the pain(s) some groups will have to feel. There is no solution(s) that have been proposed that will not have significant political fallout. And with political fallout, there is the natural tendency to kick the can down the road and special interests participating.

This will happen, there is not may or may not happen. And it won't be easy, hence "imminent" (going to happen soon) and "crisis" (lots of pain involved)

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

IIRC in my history books, these organized attacks were physical, forcibly removed from homes, the Star of David sewn on clothing etc. and widespread. My rating above is based on those criteria.

Drag queen events are increasingly targeted by right-wing demonstrators | PBS NewsHour

Armed protestors gather outside San Antonio's Aztec Theatre during Christmas-themed drag show | TPR

Club Q shooting, drag show attacks, groomer panic: Why increasing anti-lgbtq violence feels inevitable.

While this one is not about being forced to wear something like the Star of David, it is about the the waves of laws prohibiting LGBT folks from wearing a symbol.

Pride flag ban: LGBTQ symbol vanishes from more cities, schools

Question - do you have an article or link that supports your supposition its because there is fear of reprisals by organizations like ACLU, activist LGBTQ+ etc. groups

I’m a professor and the ‘stop woke’ act creates a climate of fear for Florida educators | Column

Further, both instructors and administrators are fearful of retaliation if they speak out against these changes. A problem highlighted by the fact that several colleagues who contributed to this article chose to remain anonymous to protect themselves and their families.

Florida Teachers Are Emptying Classroom Libraries to Avoid Going to Jail

“I had plans to remove access to my library on Monday,” a Florida teacher in Manatee County told Motherboard on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from their employer. “By 10 a.m. Monday morning, my library has been covered and made inaccessible to students as per the document.”

And yes, lawsuits are being filed because...

Florida Educators and Students File Lawsuit Challenging “Stop W.O.K.E.� Censorship Law | American Civil Liberties Union

This has led educators to change their course offerings or avoid leading discussions on topics around race and gender inequities in their classrooms out of fear of punishment and losing their jobs.

As per both our sources, Jews in Germany at that time also feared reprisals. So I ask again, would you have advised the Jews to flood the system with a bunch of lawsuits challenging the laws that were on the books and with the court system filled with supporters of the government as you do with the LGBT community. The actions back then were well within the law of the day. Do you believe the Jews felt they did not have valid grounds to contest?

Specific to "a general boycott", I don't see it. I can easily see some calls to discriminate like the LGBTQ+ equivalent of CFA but #4 description indicates a much more widespread thing.

Would you call refusing to provide services against LGBTQ+ folks and invoking religious freedom widespread? Do you think that may be described as extreme economic steps or serve as a cue to harass?

The bolded section is interesting and I was not aware of this. I assume you mean "proposed legislation" (from wackos, no chance in passing) and not actually passed legislation. But if I'm wrong can you provide links? Unless this is widespread, I don't see it.

Before I do so, I have a statement and I have a question because. First, don't forget that last part of #5. That is kind of important.

and those deemed disloyal to the regime.

Now the question. Do you believe that passing laws that made it illegal to practice the customs and traditions of a group of people in their public life amount to removing those people from the society? Not allowing them to practice behind closed doors or in hidden places. Practice in the same way that you and I are allowed to practice our customs and traditions in our public life. If you believe that, then I can provide you dozens of laws that have already been passed preventing LGBT folks from practicing their customs and traditions in a public way. To me, banning LGBT folks from being LGBT folks in the public eye is the same as the Nazis banning Jews from being Jewish in the public eye.

Are banning access to books really that much different to book burnings and excluding the books' authors or topics?

I may be wrong here. I associate "marriage" as done with some religious group and there is definitely restrictions there because of the religious affiliation. I view "civil union" as the non-religious, secular compromise which I believe any LGBTQ can have. So I believe this to be G

However, I know at one time there where civil unions weren't treated the same (taxes, inheritance etc.). I have read progress has been made and many of the stuff is more "equal" but think not 100%. So I rate this a Y.

I don't know if it has to be that complicated. The laws are what they are now. Any change in law that restricts who the LGBT folks can wed whether it is in accordance with any religion or under the law because they are is no different IMO.

And this may be the easiest one to address though not in law as of today.

#3. Within a few months, democracy was obliterated in Germany, and the country became a centralized, single-party police state.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...arty-rcna72917

“The Ultimate Cancel Act,” filed Tuesday by state Sen. Blaise Ingoglia, would require the state’s Division of Elections to “immediately cancel” the filings of any political party whose platform had “previously advocated for, or been in support of, slavery or involuntary servitude.”

So by my count, I have addressed more than half of your check points. As I said, I don't think we are there. I don't think we will ever getting there but the fact we turned down that street is shameful. The idea that we are not following the Nazis script word for word so it is not that bad is a troubling way to defend what is currently going on. The idea that we are intentionally doing the things we are doing but it's okay because we have not reached the yellow stage of on the Nazi Germany scale is weird. The idea that that LGBT folks should face what they are facing now in many ways because they somehow "strove to challenge the “correct” world" is disgusting IMO.

The saddest part is when the acceptance does come about, we all of a sudden will paint it as people were just uneducated "back then". We will say that people just misinterpreted the Word to mean something that it did not "back then". Finally, we will admit that the LGBT community should not have been treated in this way but we should not have to be held responsible for what those people did "back then" even if we were also around "back then".

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Drag queen events are increasingly targeted by right-wing demonstrators | PBS NewsHour

Armed protestors gather outside San Antonio's Aztec Theatre during Christmas-themed drag show | TPR

Club Q shooting, drag show attacks, groomer panic: Why increasing anti-lgbtq violence feels inevitable.

While this one is not about being forced to wear something like the Star of David, it is about the the waves of laws prohibiting LGBT folks from wearing a symbol.

Pride flag ban: LGBTQ symbol vanishes from more cities, schools

There are many incidents like you quoted. No doubt.

Question is do they rise to the scale and degree/severity of the Jews in the 1930's? Or put in another way, do you expect these incidents to eventually create a Kristallnacht climatic event (Hitler came to power in 1933 and Kristallnacht was 1938).

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/conte.../kristallnacht

Differences that I see:

1) There is not a US government implicit/explicit support for your examples vs Nazi Germany. You can bring up some MAGA politicians but do you believe, deep down, that our Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches will allow something like Kristallnacht to happen in current day?

2) As mentioned previously, there has been growing acceptance of LGBTQ+ (exception of T as that is still relatively new (?) issues brought forth with MSM) in the US. I think there are many polls/surveys show that although still not perfect, good progress has been made here.

I also want to address below specifically

I don't think we will ever getting there but the fact we turned down that street is shameful. The idea that we are not following the Nazis script word for word so it is not that bad is a troubling way to defend what is currently going on.

I am not defending what is currently going on in this discussion. I am stating that it does not rise near to the level (scale or degree/severity) of what the Jews faced in 1930's. I did not originate the comparison to Jews (or Holocaust) and yes, I do believe those comparisons are not valid.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I’m a professor and the ‘stop woke’ act creates a climate of fear for Florida educators | Column

My question was below. Your articles above were HB7 and the "Woke Act" and although I was not explicit in my prior post, the discussion was on the "Don't Say Gay" bill re: lack of lawsuits.

I will also say that I understand individual teachers may fear reprisals. I would think the ACLU and activist LGBTQ+ would be able to find some teachers willing to challenge "Don't Say Gay". And hence my comment below specifically about ACLU and activist LGBTQ+ groups.

Question - do you have an article or link that supports your supposition its because there is fear of reprisals by organizations like ACLU, activist LGBTQ+ etc. groups

And yes, lawsuits are being filed because...

Florida Educators and Students File Lawsuit Challenging “Stop W.O.K.E.� Censorship Law | American Civil Liberties Union

Specific to the link you found above re: ACLU challenging the "Woke Act". Good. I've not studied it thoroughly but I read enough to know there are some things I do not support.

And the courts are where to fight it out, fine tune, and remove any ambiguities.

As per both our sources, Jews in Germany at that time also feared reprisals. (A) So I ask again, would you have advised the Jews to flood the system with a bunch of lawsuits challenging the laws that were on the books and with the court system filled with supporters of the government as you do with the LGBT community. The actions back then were well within the law of the day. Do you believe the Jews felt they did not have valid grounds to contest?

I actually didn't think you asked that question A previously (if I'm wrong, let me know). You asked the below question B in a previous post. Your above question A was "would I advise the Jews to file lawsuits" back then. Your orig question B below was (my rewording) "would I advise LGBTQ+ to file lawsuits" now.

Unsurprisingly, no one questions why the Jews in Germany during this time did not file a lawsuit to get these policies reversed. (B) I am not sure why you would expect a ton of lawsuits from a community under similar attack now.

I answered your orig. question B with below. To be explicit, the answer is yes. In current day US, we are lawsuit happy. If my rights were violated or "Don't Say Gay" wasn't applied equally, I would speak to ACLU or LGBTQ+ group and get help.

And that's the point, the LGBTQ+ community is not under near similar attack (per my article). What's to stop ACLU, LGBTQ+ groups in California, New York etc. helping out? We are lawsuit happy in the US.

IMO the Occam's Razor are lawsuits are in the works but not yet filed/publicized, or they've not found the valid grounds to contest (e.g. unequal treatment, unconstitutional or whatever). This is much more reasonable IMO than the ACLU, activist LGBTQ+ etc. groups fearing reprisals.

Getting back to your question A, no I would not advise Jews back in the 1930s to file lawsuits. Instead, I would hope that I would have seen the writing on the wall and left the country sometime 1933-1938. (But we know hindsight is 20-20)

The environment then, with the Nazi Party, Germany's equivalent of our Exec/Judicial/Legislative branch (?), bent on prosecution of Jews seemed evident. Lost cause. Not so with current day US where we have our, imperfect as it is, still great checks & balances as a whole.

Would you call refusing to provide services against LGBTQ+ folks and invoking religious freedom widespread? Do you think that may be described as extreme economic steps or serve as a cue to harass?

Above was in reference to below statement. I'll organized my answer into 3 parts.

If it is a religious institution and their long stated beliefs are not to provide services (aka marry) LGBTQ+ couple, I'm okay with that.

If it's a small business (wedding cake for LGBTQ+ couple), I am unsure. I can see "both sides" of the issue.

If it's a big business, no services should be refused.

I am unsure what you mean by "extreme economic steps" or "cue to harass"?

Specific to "a general boycott", I don't see it. I can easily see some calls to discriminate like the LGBTQ+ equivalent of CFA but #4 description indicates a much more widespread thing.

Before I do so, I have a statement and I have a question because. First, don't forget that last part of #5. That is kind of important.

Now the question. C. Do you believe that passing laws that made it illegal to practice the customs and traditions of a group of people in their public life amount to removing those people from the society? D. Not allowing them to practice behind closed doors or in hidden places. Practice in the same way that you and I are allowed to practice our customs and traditions in our public life. If you believe that, then I can provide you dozens of laws that have already been passed preventing LGBT folks from practicing their customs and traditions in a public way. To me, banning LGBT folks from being LGBT folks in the public eye is the same as the Nazis banning Jews from being Jewish in the public eye.

Above was in reference to below quoted statement.

I tend to be a literal person. Your above question to my statement below re: purge civil service of Jews/LGBTQ+ folks is confusing with your "customs & traditions". I read it #5 as literally kicking out anyone that is a Jew/LGBTQ+ from government employment.

When you stated "from other areas", I was thinking like Healthcare industry, or Hospitality sector etc. So no, I do not believe your "customs & traditions" applies specifically to my #5.

There has not been specific legislation to purge the civil service of LGBT folks. There has been specific legislation to purge them from other areas though.

The bolded section is interesting and I was not aware of this. I assume you mean "proposed legislation" (from wackos, no chance in passing) and not actually passed legislation. But if I'm wrong can you provide links? Unless this is widespread, I don't see it.

However, your "customs & traditions" question is still valid. Let me try answer. I lettered C and D in your paragraph above.

For C, it depends on the specific "customs & traditions" being done/displayed in public life re: removing them from society. I started typing a couple examples and came to the conclusion its better for you to provide me specific examples. My examples are probably not what you were thinking.

For D, as long as it does not hurt, endanger anyone else, I think one can do whatever "customs & traditions" in private. I would add "not illegal" also but not in the context of sodomy being illegal (which I think still is "officially" in some books).

Are banning access to books really that much different to book burnings and excluding the books' authors or topics?

In general, it is the same. But I reserve the right to change this answer to your specific scenario as I know there are several versions of the "Woke Act", so link the one you wish to discuss. I do know there are book banning in specific situations (school libraries) but those books can still be bought on Amazon or B&N so I definitely do not put those on the same "scale or degree/severity" as what the Jews went through.

I don't know if it has to be that complicated. The laws are what they are now. Any change in law that restricts who the LGBT folks can wed whether it is in accordance with any religion or under the law because they are is no different IMO.

There may be some outliers but I believe LGBTQ+ can do civil unions pretty much anywhere. It may not be the same as a Catholic or Muslim "marriage" but I'm okay just as long as they both have the same privileges under US laws.

And this may be the easiest one to address though not in law as of today.

Access Denied

Easy enough for me. Let me know when you think there is enough votes to pass this bill. And then we'll see how SCOTUS rules. Until then, I file it under wackos with no threat to our US republic.

So by my count, I have addressed more than half of your check points. As I said, I don't think we are there. I don't think we will ever getting there but the fact we turned down that street is shameful. The idea that we are not following the Nazis script word for word so it is not that bad is a troubling way to defend what is currently going on.

I've address this in my prior post above.

The idea that we are intentionally doing the things we are doing but it's okay because we have not reached the yellow stage of on the Nazi Germany scale is weird.

If something is Green, I don't worry about it in my projects. Why worry about something until it gets to Yellow (or Red) or near Yellow?

Your point may be that we are getting near to Yellow. I'm more we are solidly in Green right now. Or in your words, you believe "we turned down that street" and I believe we haven't hit that corner to turn down that street yet.

The idea that that LGBT folks should face what they are facing now in many ways because they somehow "strove to challenge the “correct” world" is disgusting IMO.

The saddest part is when the acceptance does come about, we all of a sudden will paint it as people were just uneducated "back then". We will say that people just misinterpreted the Word to mean something that it did not "back then". Finally, we will admit that the LGBT community should not have been treated in this way but we should not have to be held responsible for what those people did "back then" even if we were also around "back then".

I'm not sure what you mean by "back then" and if it references something I said (which I don't think I did). I did say that I've seen great strides in acceptance for LGB vs 20 or 40 years ago.

Here are some questions for you.

#1. Do you believe that acceptance of LGB has increased significantly over the years and great progress has been made in most/all areas of society as compared to 20 or 40 years ago?

#2. Regarding Transgender, what is your take on transgender Lia Thomas swimming against non-trans women?

#3. For a small Wedding Cake business who has history of strong religious affiliation. Should that small business have to create a wedding cake for LGBTQ+ couple?

[Radii]

Thank you guys for fighting the good fight in this thread, it feels important.

I'd just like to point out that the last two pages aren't arguing whether the countless state legislature's attacks on LGBTQIA+ people in the US is like the beginnings or Nazi Germany or not, but rather we are arguing to what degree. That should be eye opening.

I don't know if it's come up in another thread, but I came to this one as the one to discuss the ongoing efforts of the republican party in the United States to complete a trans genocide. Have we discussed where a prominent right wing media personality (Michael Knowles) spoke at CPAC last week and said that "transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely" ??


I'm not exactly interested in a 1 to 10 scale of the current right wing party in the United States vs Nazi Germany, but make no mistake that it is not incorrect to call the many hundreds (or is it thousands?) of proposed laws circulating through state legislatures does unequivocally amount to an ongoing transgender genocide in the united states. Gay and Lesbian folks are next if we are too passive in allowing it to happen.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

There are many incidents like you quoted. No doubt.

Question is do they rise to the scale and degree/severity of the Jews in the 1930's? Or put in another way, do you expect these incidents to eventually create a Kristallnacht climatic event (Hitler came to power in 1933 and Kristallnacht was 1938).

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/conte.../kristallnacht

No they do not. They do rise to the scale and degree/severity of the attacks of the 1920's by the Nazi party as I showed earlier. That leads me nicely into answering your second question. IMO, the attacks of the 1920s and the public's response or lack thereof to those attacks set the stage for the attacks of the 1930's including those that happened prior to Hitler coming to power. Once Hitler did come to power, the country then had a leader that was sympathetic and even encouraging of those attacks and the general public did not and eventually could do anything about it. So if the current attacks continue both physically and legislatively, then the country elects a leader to power who is sympathetic and even encouraging of those attacks and the general public does not anything about it, I see no reason why we could not have our own version of Kristallnacht some five after that leader comes to power.

Differences that I see:

1) There is not a US government implicit/explicit support for your examples vs Nazi Germany. You can bring up some MAGA politicians but do you believe, deep down, that our Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches will allow something like Kristallnacht to happen in current day?

The Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches across many states are already providing support for my examples. That is why they are occurring. If the same people take over those branches at the federal level, why would they change?

2) As mentioned previously, there has been growing acceptance of LGBTQ+ (exception of T as that is still relatively new (?) issues brought forth with MSM) in the US. I think there are many polls/surveys show that although still not perfect, good progress has been made here.

And those examples were still allowed to happen and are justified. Rinse, repeat.

Pressing on to the next post

I will also say that I understand individual teachers may fear reprisals. I would think the ACLU and activist LGBTQ+ would be able to find some teachers willing to challenge "Don't Say Gay". And hence my comment below specifically about ACLU and activist LGBTQ+ groups.

Are you demanding the ACLU force teachers to subject themselves to reprisals to file lawsuits? If you understand why individual teachers may fear reprisals, I don't understand why you don't understand why the ACLU and activist LGBTQ+ groups may not be able to find teachers willing to expose themselves and their families to everything that would come with filing a lawsuit. This is especially the case when they have options similar to this one right here.

Instead, I would hope that I would have seen the writing on the wall and left the country sometime 1933-1938.

I admire anyone who takes up a cause that may make them a martyr. I refuse to demand such a thing of anyone.

The environment then, with the Nazi Party, Germany's equivalent of our Exec/Judicial/Legislative branch (?), bent on prosecution of Jews seemed evident. Lost cause. Not so with current day US where we have our, imperfect as it is, still great checks & balances as a whole.

You believe that despite everything that you have seen become law in the state level over the last two plus years?

EDIT: Submitted too fast.

I will ignore A. I am not educated enough on all religious doctrine to speak with any authority on A. Don't really see the difference between a big or small business. I do know about this one though.

If it's a small business (wedding cake for a believer and a non believer hetero couple), I am unsure. I can see "both sides" of the issue.

Do you still see both sides of the issue? All Christians on the board may correct me if I am wrong but I believe that is also forbidden.

I am unsure what you mean by "extreme economic steps" or "cue to harass"?

Members of the Nazi party wanted to the Jews to suffer economically. It was something that was written in the Nazi Party platform. The boycott is believed to be the first step to accomplishing that. "Cue To Harass" could be as simple as Jews are destroying our country and corrupting our children in the 1930 or LGTBQ are destroying our country and corrupting our children in 2023. Both seem to result in the same types of attacks IMO.

For C, it depends on the specific "customs & traditions" being done/displayed in public life re: removing them from society. I started typing a couple examples and came to the conclusion its better for you to provide me specific examples. My examples are probably not what you were thinking.

I am actually interested in what you come up with. It could be something as simple as the Star of David for the Jews and Pride symbols for the LGBTQ community being allowed publicly in a positive sense not as a mark of scorn as the Nazis intended.

I do know there are book banning in specific situations (school libraries) but those books can still be bought on Amazon or B&N so I definitely do not put those on the same "scale or degree/severity" as what the Jews went through.

The books were removed from public places. The Jews could have also bought the books from Jewish bookstores that were still open at the time as well, no? You are not saying that made the burning the books that were in a public space okay?

There may be some outliers but I believe LGBTQ+ can do civil unions pretty much anywhere. It may not be the same as a Catholic or Muslim "marriage" but I'm okay just as long as they both have the same privileges under US laws.

But they can marry now. The law say so now. Why are you restricting them to something other than marriage? If a religious entity is okay with them getting married, why do you get to overrule that entity. If the government allows an Elvis impersonator to MARRY two people and it be considered legal, why must anyone much less LGBTQ be limited to civil unions. If the laws changed that civil unions got all the same privileges, then we can let everyone have a civil union and let that be the binding agreement in the eyes of the government and if you want to get married, by all means find the religious institution that will marry you in the eyes of your spiritual entity. I fail to see the need to place a divide in a place that is not currently there and does not seem to bother anyone except those that want the divide?

I'm not sure what you mean by "back then" and if it references something I said (which I don't think I did). I did say that I've seen great strides in acceptance for LGB vs 20 or 40 years ago.

No, what I meant is that when we do reach that magical point of acceptance of the LGBT community, I mean when those that demand the divide now reach the magical point of acceptance, we are going to react as it is some sort of great break through and will say many of those things. You know kind of like we do when we accepted other groups that we've discriminated against in our history.

#1. Do you believe that acceptance of LGB has increased significantly over the years and great progress has been made in most/all areas of society as compared to 20 or 40 years ago?

Absolutely. But 2-3 years ago, teachers having rainbow flags in their classroom and students had access to books that represent them so we have made less progress in the last 2-3 years than we had in the previous 17-18 or the previous 37-38. I don't feel I should wait for 10 more years of regression before I say something. I am sure that Jews in Nazi Germany would have wanted their fellow citizens to do the same.

#2. Regarding Transgender, what is your take on transgender Lia Thomas swimming against non-trans women?

Kind of off topic but I guess we are here. You'll appreciate this. Depends on which definition of women we are working with. Let's consult good old Webster.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman

Here are the two definitions I think are relevant.

an adult female person

Adult? I assume 18 is the legal age of adulthood so check.
Female? That one is going to be a bit problematic, so let see how they defiine female

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

a) I don't know if she can produce eggs or not. Possible hysterectomy will complicate things more.
b) She is claiming a female identity
c) she seems to have all the characteristic of girls, women, or the female sex : exhibiting
d) I don't know if she has any qualities (such as small size or delicacy of sound) sometimes associated with the female sex. She definitely not small size.

Based on those definitions, I am going to say check on her being female.
Person? check

The second definition I think is relevant.

distinctively feminine nature

Yeah, no question, she is distinctively feminine nature. According to both of the definitions, she is a woman.

I jest of course but I think the exercise is fruitful. From what I understand the NCAA actually did say she was a woman based on whatever their definition is, so for that competition she is a woman. The easy solution IMO is to make the distinction between males and female competitors instead of men and women and competitors can declare whether they are male or female. Checks can be done at a similar time as they do the drug testing. That is not nearly as complicated as determining gender and more in line with what all of us are actually thinking when discussing this topic. If you have a male sex organ, you compete with the males and if you have a female sex organ, you compete with the females. The trans debate never comes up because the gender debate never comes up.

For a small Wedding Cake business who has history of strong religious affiliation. Should that small business have to create a wedding cake for LGBTQ+ couple?

What is the religious belief that prevent them from making the cake? As I addressed earlier, 2 Corinthians 6:14 says that a Christian should not marry a non-Christian. There was a time that people thought that Deuteronomy 7:1-6 which tells the Israelites to destroy all the inhabitants of the Canaan land and not to intermarry with them because they would "turn your sons away from following Me, that they may serve other gods." was proof that God disapproved of interracial marriage. That last one is the reason why someone did not go to my wedding. Would they be allowed to not create my wedding cake based on their beliefs in these passages? Can they have strong religious beliefs and be racists and/or homophobic? Does one supersede the other? I honestly don't know.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

No they do not. They do rise to the scale and degree/severity of the attacks of the 1920's by the Nazi party as I showed earlier. That leads me nicely into answering your second question. IMO, the attacks of the 1920s and the public's response or lack thereof to those attacks set the stage for the attacks of the 1930's including those that happened prior to Hitler coming to power. Once Hitler did come to power, the country then had a leader that was sympathetic and even encouraging of those attacks and the general public did not and eventually could do anything about it. So if the current attacks continue both physically and legislatively, then the country elects a leader to power who is sympathetic and even encouraging of those attacks and the general public does not anything about it, I see no reason why we could not have our own version of Kristallnacht some five after that leader comes to power.

Appreciate you pointing out 1920s as a better comparison. The 1920s was not on my radar as we, for one reason or another, was more focused on the 1930s. So had to google and better understand the situation.

I found some scholarly articles but my eyes glazed over because they didn't know how to use paragraphs & too many footnote numbering. I ended up with below as baseline of understanding. If you have another link, provide it.

Berlin: The Persecution of Jews and German Society - Humanity in Action

Let us first look at the significance of anti-Semitism. From the start of the 1920s onwards, there were several vociferous groups of radical anti-Semites which were also prepared to use violence to further their aims. However, up to the year 1933, these groups were not in a position to play any significant role. This was partly due to their violent propensities, which often led to riots and bouts of violence and which, at that time, aroused nothing more than indignation and rejection amongst most of the population, even amongst Nazi supporters.

What was of more significance though was a latent anti-Semitism, which was already quite widespread during the Keiserreich (Monarchical Empire), and gained further currency during the Weimar Republic, but still did not manifest itself in terms of open acts of aggression or street demonstrations. In fact, this kind of anti-Semitism was at pains to distance itself from its more “vulgar” bedfellows, or what it decried as hooligan and rabble rousing – ”Radau-Antisemitismus”; be that in provocative campaigns asserting that Jews were involved, for example, in ritual murders and the people trafficking of young women.

But even in 1933, there were still strong oppositional forces that not only objected to anti-Semitism but also directly resisted it – more than anywhere else in the labor movement and also amongst Catholic activists and liberals. In other words, regardless of how widespread anti-Semitism was before 1933–whether it reflected the views of 30, 40 or 50 per cent of the population–at that time it was still met with determined resistance.

There are some other pretty good quotes in the article.

From what I've read, there was an ever present, certain level, underlying antisemitism in the German society in the 1920s. Hitler sparked it up in 1933+ and we got the Holocaust (capital H with the gas ovens).

I can buy the argument we are in similar state now in the 1920s. But I will not concede the drift is towards a 1933 Hitler & Nazism as I believe we have progressed well into the other direction specifically for LGB in social, economic, political etc. acceptance. And unlike with Weimar Republic we have a functioning and mature democracy.

(However, admittedly we are now dealing with the issues surrounding T which I believe we will eventually work out)

Which leads into ...

The Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches across many states are already providing support for my examples. That is why they are occurring. If the same people take over those branches at the federal level, why would they change?

Because that is a big IF.

Let's use Trump as an example, not calling him a Hitler (10) but probably closest comparison (6 or 7?) we have in modern day US. At the peak of Trump's power & influence, did we come close to a Kristallnacht event for LGBTQ+? The answer is no because he and MAGA weren't really focused on LGBTQ+.

The closest equivalent I know of re: persecuted Jews is Illegal Immigrants. Did that come close to a Kristallnacht? No, because we had a pretty strong Democratic party (aka checks & balances).

There could be an interesting theoretical debate on what would happen if Trump won the 2nd term. But honestly, I still don't see it coming anywhere close to 1933 for Illegal Immigrants.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Are you demanding the ACLU force teachers to subject themselves to reprisals to file lawsuits? If you understand why individual teachers may fear reprisals, I don't understand why you don't understand why the ACLU and activist LGBTQ+ groups may not be able to find teachers willing to expose themselves and their families to everything that would come with filing a lawsuit. This is especially the case when they have options similar to this one right here.

There has been 2 unsuccessful (at time) lawsuits filed already which shows there are teachers willing to proceed?

So the question is not that ACLU and activist LGBTQ+ groups "may not be able to find teachers willing". They have already. The question is why hasn't there been more.

My proposed answer is:

IMO the Occam's Razor are lawsuits are in the works but not yet filed/publicized, or they've not found the valid grounds to contest (e.g. unequal treatment, unconstitutional or whatever). This is much more reasonable IMO than the ACLU, activist LGBTQ+ etc. groups fearing reprisals.

(I'm not sure what you meant by "options similar to this one right here")

You believe that despite everything that you have seen become law in the state level over the last two plus years?

Absolutely, see prior post on Hitler vs peak of Trump. Your above is in response to my quote below.

The environment then, with the Nazi Party, Germany's equivalent of our Exec/Judicial/Legislative branch (?), bent on prosecution of Jews seemed evident. Lost cause. Not so with current day US where we have our, imperfect as it is, still great checks & balances as a whole.

I will ignore A. I am not educated enough on all religious doctrine to speak with any authority on A. Don't really see the difference between a big or small business. I do know about this one though.

Do you still see both sides of the issue? All Christians on the board may correct me if I am wrong but I believe that is also forbidden.

Non practicing Catholic so I only know what I've been reading (and therefore may not be 100%).

The issue is more stringent Christians believe homosexuality (and like) is a big sin. Therefore this Christian cake maker would associate making a cake for LGBTQ+ couple as condoning the sin.

I think many would say, how about the other sins that this Christian has partake in (and therefore condoned). This is a good argument and shows the Christian is hypocritical (like most everyone else to a certain degree) but this Christian chose to make a stand on it. He considered this, right or wrong, as a higher priority issue than, let's say, him stealing or coveting neighbors wife.

I personally struggle with this one. I am unsure. I think recent cases like this has gone in favor of the cake maker.

I am actually interested in what you come up with. It could be something as simple as the Star of David for the Jews and Pride symbols for the LGBTQ community being allowed publicly in a positive sense not as a mark of scorn as the Nazis intended.

Okay, this will take more writing, so will break this out in another post.

The books were removed from public places. The Jews could have also bought the books from Jewish bookstores that were still open at the time as well, no?

I believe all objectionable booked were burned, banned or removed everywhere. I also assume if found on someone there would be severe repercussions. And therefore, Jewish bookstores were not opened after Kristallnacht or soon after. It was a total or near total ban. In this day an age, with social media = books, this won't happen. There will still be plenty of LGBTQ+ content out there.

Beginning on May 10, 1933, Nazi-dominated student groups carried out public burnings of books they claimed were “un-German.” The book burnings took place in 34 university towns and cities. Works of prominent Jewish, liberal, and leftist writers ended up in the bonfires. The book burnings stood as a powerful symbol of Nazi intolerance and censorship.

In the aftermath of the book burnings, the Nazi regime raided book stores, libraries, and publishers’ warehouses to confiscate materials it deemed dangerous or “un-German.”

You are not saying that made the burning the books that were in a public space okay?

Specific to burning books. If there is a group (let's say Proud Boys) that bought objectional books (to them) and decided to burn them, sure why not? The problem is if it was US government sanctioning it.

But they can marry now. The law say so now. Why are you restricting them to something other than marriage? If a religious entity is okay with them getting married, why do you get to overrule that entity.

If the government allows an Elvis impersonator to MARRY two people and it be considered legal, why must anyone much less LGBTQ be limited to civil unions. If the laws changed that civil unions got all the same privileges, then we can let everyone have a civil union and let that be the binding agreement in the eyes of the government and if you want to get married, by all means find the religious institution that will marry you in the eyes of your spiritual entity. I fail to see the need to place a divide in a place that is not currently there and does not seem to bother anyone except those that want the divide?

I believe there are some religious entitles that are okay with LGBTQ+ marriages. But then there are others that are not. Does the law say they can get married in a Church that do not do LGBTQ+ marriages? I don't think law forces a Church to do the marriage.

So I am not saying LGBTQ+ can't get "married". I am saying there are some religious groups that do not allow LGBTQ+ to get "married" in their Church. And the law, as far as I know, allow this restriction (assume due to religious freedom). And therefore, if one cannot get married in Church of their choice, they'll have to go to another more accepting Church or do Civil Union.

[Edward64]

This post is to discuss below.

For background:

Again you are absolutely correct. There has not been specific legislation to purge the civil service of LGBT folks. There has been specific legislation to purge them from other areas though. There have been book burnings or book removals from public spaces. There has been highly visible efforts to exclude LGBT folks ousting their considerable contribution to the American press, literature, theater, music and other areas of society as well. I did not intend to go all the way to 1935 and the Nuremberg Laws because I did not think that was relevant but I mean...

The bolded section is interesting and I was not aware of this. I assume you mean "proposed legislation" (from wackos, no chance in passing) and not actually passed legislation. But if I'm wrong can you provide links? Unless this is widespread, I don't see it.

Before I do so, I have a statement and I have a question because. First, don't forget that last part of #5. That is kind of important.

Now the question. C. Do you believe that passing laws that made it illegal to practice the customs and traditions of a group of people in their public life amount to removing those people from the society? D. Not allowing them to practice behind closed doors or in hidden places. Practice in the same way that you and I are allowed to practice our customs and traditions in our public life. If you believe that, then I can provide you dozens of laws that have already been passed preventing LGBT folks from practicing their customs and traditions in a public way. To me, banning LGBT folks from being LGBT folks in the public eye is the same as the Nazis banning Jews from being Jewish in the public eye.

For C, it depends on the specific "customs & traditions" being done/displayed in public life re: removing them from society. I started typing a couple examples and came to the conclusion its better for you to provide me specific examples. My examples are probably not what you were thinking.

For D, as long as it does not hurt, endanger anyone else, I think one can do whatever "customs & traditions" in private. I would add "not illegal" also but not in the context of sodomy being illegal (which I think still is "officially" in some books).

I am actually interested in what you come up with. It could be something as simple as the Star of David for the Jews and Pride symbols for the LGBTQ community being allowed publicly in a positive sense not as a mark of scorn as the Nazis intended.

In my answer C, I said it depends on the customs & traditions. Here's some off the top of my head examples. Please note, I did not do in-depth research so allow for some factual inaccuracies.

C. Do you believe that passing laws that made it illegal to practice the customs and traditions of a group of people in their public life amount to removing those people from the society?

1) Polygamy. A custom and tradition that was made illegal. The male pig in me says polygamy has been practiced and accepted throughout the ages (and still is in some places and religions), so why not? But the practical side says this is the law based on our current western (?) culture, so go with the flow.

So No, I do not believe making polygamy illegal has "removed those people from society".

2) Underage marriage. Still allowed and no minimum age for some US states, see Child marriage in the United States - Wikipedia.

If underage marriage was made illegal, no exceptions, I would not have any problems with it (I'm personally okay if there was some flex in 16 or 17 under some stringent requirements. But <15 is a yuck to me personally).

So No, I do not believe making underage marriage illegal has "removed those people from society"

3) Honor frakking killings. This one is a no brainer. But it is a custom & tradition and it is in their "public life" because often times the issue is discussed with and participated by immediate family, other relatives, and friends.

4) Circumcision (underage). I know there is religious implications here but personally, I think this should be made illegal to perform the procedure on babies. If the kid wants it done at 16-17-18+, I'm okay with it.

No, I do not believe making underage circumcision illegal will remove the parents or child "from society". Maybe from their religious group but definitely not society as a whole.

5) Native American customs circa 1800's (?). I remember reading that some Native American customs were banned, made illegal as they were being "assimilated".

Yes, although I don't think the banning "removed them from society" completely back then, it didn't help. But then, in current day, I don't believe there really are any restrictions on those customs & traditions.

In summation:

In thinking and writing out the examples, it does look that I believe there are more examples of making customs & traditions illegal is okay & does not remove those impacted people from society.

Or in other words, there's been good reason to make many customs & traditions illegal.

******

I look forward to you sharing the examples you had in mind.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Absolutely. But 2-3 years ago, teachers having rainbow flags in their classroom and students had access to books that represent them so we have made less progress in the last 2-3 years than we had in the previous 17-18 or the previous 37-38. I don't feel I should wait for 10 more years of regression before I say something. I am sure that Jews in Nazi Germany would have wanted their fellow citizens to do the same.

I'm actually okay with LGBTQ+ teachers not having rainbow flags in their HS classroom. I do not want teachers with crosses, religious books, wearing burqas, wearing size ZZ (?) prosthetics etc. and like in their classrooms either unless it is relevant to the instruction. If we want to ban those other items, I'm good with it.

In Universities, I'm pretty wide open.

FWIW, from what I've seen in US, acceptance of LGB now is like a 7-8 whereas back in 35+ years ago, it was a 2-3 (except in some more liberal cities back then). Room to grow to a 9 but it will never be a 10 (nothing achieves Nirvana or Elysium or Valhalla etc.). Acceptance of Transgender is probably more like a 5 right now.

Kind of off topic but I guess we are here. You'll appreciate this. Depends on which definition of women we are working with. Let's consult good old Webster.
:
I jest of course but I think the exercise is fruitful.

Hah, I said Trans vs Non-Trans which (I think) means definition of "woman" is not relevant for the distinction?

The easy solution IMO is to make the distinction between males and female competitors instead of men and women and competitors can declare whether they are male or female. Checks can be done at a similar time as they do the drug testing. That is not nearly as complicated as determining gender and more in line with what all of us are actually thinking when discussing this topic. If you have a male sex organ, you compete with the males and if you have a female sex organ, you compete with the females. The trans debate never comes up because the gender debate never comes up.

If I understand you correctly, essentially allow athletes to compete as "male or female" based on their current sex organ? I guess I can see that.

To take the discussion to an extreme use case, how about hermaphrodites who have male and female sex organs?

What is the religious belief that prevent them from making the cake? As I addressed earlier, 2 Corinthians 6:14 says that a Christian should not marry a non-Christian. There was a time that people thought that Deuteronomy 7:1-6 which tells the Israelites to destroy all the inhabitants of the Canaan land and not to intermarry with them because they would "turn your sons away from following Me, that they may serve other gods." was proof that God disapproved of interracial marriage. That last one is the reason why someone did not go to my wedding. Would they be allowed to not create my wedding cake based on their beliefs in these passages? Can they have strong religious beliefs and be racists and/or homophobic? Does one supersede the other? I honestly don't know.

I am not suggesting there is not a level of hypocrisy or pick-and-choose-what-is-convenient. There definitely is.

I'll copy and paste from my prior post

Non practicing Catholic so I only know what I've been reading (and therefore may not be 100%).

The issue is more stringent Christians believe homosexuality (and like) is a big sin. Therefore this Christian cake maker would associate making a cake for LGBTQ+ couple as condoning the sin.

I think many would say, how about the other sins that this Christian has partake in (and therefore condoned). This is a good argument and shows the Christian is hypocritical (like most everyone else to a certain degree) but this Christian chose to make a stand on it. He considered this, right or wrong, as a higher priority issue than, let's say, him stealing or coveting neighbors wife.

I personally struggle with this one. I am unsure. I think recent cases like this has gone in favor of the cake maker.

There is enough evidence (?) to suggest the court of laws agree with the cake maker(s) in at least a couple situations.

I believe you had said there should no difference between a big or small business (and therefore the cake maker should be forced to make cakes for LGBTQ+ couple). I don't know if I agree with you. I personally struggle with this and I don't know the answer.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Radii

I don't know if it's come up in another thread, but I came to this one as the one to discuss the ongoing efforts of the republican party in the United States to complete a trans genocide. Have we discussed where a prominent right wing media personality (Michael Knowles) spoke at CPAC last week and said that "transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely" ??

I saw a good quote yesterday that went along the lines of "you can make transgender children feel supported, or feel ostracized, but you can't make them cis".

Of course I suppose the counter-argument is to deny that transgenderism exists, which strikes me as something we'll eventually regard with the same derision as flat-earthers.

Originally Posted by Edward64

From what I've read, there was an ever present, certain level, underlying antisemitism in the German society in the 1920s. Hitler sparked it up in 1933+ and we got the Holocaust (capital H with the gas ovens).

Well, it's not just that, and it wasn't just Jews, all of which is important in seeking to understand what's going on here.

The German national psyche was devastated by the loss of WWI, and the crushing economic restrictions placed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles dramatically curbed quality of life. Germans were absolutely open to following someone who could promise a return to prosperity.

Hitler rose to power because he told Germans that it was "others" (e.g. Jews, gypsies, non-Germans living in Germany) who were the cause of their present predicament, and his rhetoric not only allowed him and the Nazi party to gain political power, but also, as a side effect, dramatically increased attacks on anyone considered an "other".

The parallels between this and how the GOP has been using hate of "others" to gain power are, IMO, pretty clear.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I can buy the argument we are in similar state now in the 1920s. But I will not concede the drift is towards a 1933 Hitler & Nazism as I believe we have progressed well into the other direction specifically for LGB in social, economic, political etc. acceptance. And unlike with Weimar Republic we have a functioning and mature democracy.

(However, admittedly we are now dealing with the issues surrounding T which I believe we will eventually work out)

Can we claim to have a functional and mature democracy if it only appears to be that way at the federal level? Because you seem to be hanging your hat on the federal government trampling all over "states' rights" to ensure that progress in the other direction continues. It has not happened so far.

The issue is more stringent Christians believe homosexuality (and like) is a big sin. Therefore this Christian cake maker would associate making a cake for LGBTQ+ couple as condoning the sin.

I think many would say, how about the other sins that this Christian has partake in (and therefore condoned). This is a good argument and shows the Christian is hypocritical (like most everyone else to a certain degree) but this Christian chose to make a stand on it. He considered this, right or wrong, as a higher priority issue than, let's say, him stealing or coveting neighbors wife.

I personally struggle with this one. I am unsure. I think recent cases like this has gone in favor of the cake maker.

As I said I can't argue which sin is a bigger sin than another sin in anyone's religion. For me, s long as everyone can discriminate based on whatever sin is within their religion or lack thereof, I am fine with that though I would disagree. When you tell me that one can discriminate against the LGBT community for example based on their religious beliefs, but a person of another religion or no religious affiliation cannot discriminate against the Christian community for example based on that first person's religious beliefs or lack thereof, seems to place more value on certain religion and less value on others.

Because that is a big IF.

Let's use Trump as an example, not calling him a Hitler (10) but probably closest comparison (6 or 7?) we have in modern day US. At the peak of Trump's power & influence, did we come close to a Kristallnacht event for LGBTQ+? The answer is no because he and MAGA weren't really focused on LGBTQ+.

The closest equivalent I know of re: persecuted Jews is Illegal Immigrants. Did that come close to a Kristallnacht? No, because we had a pretty strong Democratic party (aka checks & balances).

There could be an interesting theoretical debate on what would happen if Trump won the 2nd term. But honestly, I still don't see it coming anywhere close to 1933 for Illegal Immigrants.

By that logic, Kristallnacht would never have come close to happening if Hitler had not come to power and someone who was a 6 or 7 on the that scale and that person did not focus on persecuting Jews, right? Once again, where are those checks and balances at the state level? The residents of those states are citizens of the United States are they not? Are you voting in such a manner to ensure that checks and balances remain in place or will you voter in accordance with your own personal interest which may or may not include those checks and balances. I don't mean that as a shot or a dig and don't really need an answer. It is more of acknowledgement that those checks and balances are can be removed.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Can we claim to have a functional and mature democracy if it only appears to be that way at the federal level? Because you seem to be hanging your hat on the federal government trampling all over "states' rights" to ensure that progress in the other direction continues. It has not happened so far.

Absolutely can claim to have a functional and mature democracy (admittedly it can be dysfunctional at times). State is free to do as it wishes unless it is in conflict with Fed Law.

Fed law trumps State law when there is a dispute.

As I said I can't argue which sin is a bigger sin than another sin in anyone's religion. For me, s long as everyone can discriminate based on whatever sin is within their religion or lack thereof, I am fine with that though I would disagree. When you tell me that one can discriminate against the LGBT community for example based on their religious beliefs, but a person of another religion or no religious affiliation cannot discriminate against the Christian community for example based on that first person's religious beliefs or lack thereof, seems to place more value on certain religion and less value on others.

This is a good point in the bolded section. I am not familiar with an example though between different religions. If you know of a case, let me know. That would be an interesting read.

By that logic, Kristallnacht would never have come close to happening if Hitler had not come to power and someone who was a 6 or 7 on the that scale and that person did not focus on persecuting Jews, right? Once again, where are those checks and balances at the state level? The residents of those states are citizens of the United States are they not? Are you voting in such a manner to ensure that checks and balances remain in place or will you voter in accordance with your own personal interest which may or may not include those checks and balances. I don't mean that as a shot or a dig and don't really need an answer. It is more of acknowledgement that those checks and balances are can be removed.

Checks and balances on state level is good but in the big picture, irrelevant because Fed law trumps State law.

If, for whatever reason, our Exec, Legislative, and Judicial become really anti-LGBTQ+, then yes we will see another Kristallnacht equivalent. But IMO we are really far cry from that.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

[indent]1) Polygamy. A custom and tradition that was made illegal. The male pig in me says polygamy has been practiced and accepted throughout the ages (and still is in some places and religions), so why not? But the practical side says this is the law based on our current western (?) culture, so go with the flow.

So No, I do not believe making polygamy illegal has "removed those people from society".

Haven't most religions practiced in the US changed their doctrine to comply with the law? I honestly don't know. If so, wouldn't that mean that polygamy is no longer a custom/tradition of the religion? If not, what happened to all the people who want to practice polygamy but can't due to the law?

2) Underage marriage. Still allowed and no minimum age for some US states, see Child marriage in the United States - Wikipedia.

If underage marriage was made illegal, no exceptions, I would not have any problems with it (I'm personally okay if there was some flex in 16 or 17 under some stringent requirements. But <15 is a yuck to me personally).

3) Honor frakking killings. This one is a no brainer. But it is a custom & tradition and it is in their "public life" because often times the issue is discussed with and participated by immediate family, other relatives, and friends.

I am going to put both of these together. According to the link for child marriage and my knowledge of honor killings, the families are seeking to save face and maintain respect within the community. Without the option of these two, won't they become outcasts in the community? Again, I don't know the rules when it come to these two practices.

4) Circumcision (underage). I know there is religious implications here but personally, I think this should be made illegal to perform the procedure on babies. If the kid wants it done at 16-17-18+, I'm okay with it.

No, I do not believe making underage circumcision illegal will remove the parents or child "from society". Maybe from their religious group but definitely not society as a whole.

I considered a person's religious group a major part of the society. If you are making that distinction, that I can't say I disagree with the conclusion.

5) Native American customs circa 1800's (?). I remember reading that some Native American customs were banned, made illegal as they were being "assimilated".

Yes, although I don't think the banning "removed them from society" completely back then, it didn't help. But then, in current day, I don't believe there really are any restrictions on those customs & traditions.

Yeah I completely disagree with this and I believe Native American history see this completely different.

I noticed you consistently said that you did not see those communities as being removed from society. Mine is a simple one and has little to do with how I would view it and much more about those communities would view it.

Make any public display or discussion of religious nature illegal.

Now I am not advocating for such a law. I am fully aware of the constitutional impossibility of such a law. I generally don't have an issue with public display or discussion of a religious nature except those rare occasions when people demand I bow my head and close my eyes for prayer. But let's be honest, it would eliminate one of those third rails that we all say we don't discuss in public. It would probably help with the assimilation process in all environments (work, sports, etc.) if we eliminate those things If those customs and traditions that included religious public displays or religious public discussion were made illegal, it has been made perfectly clear by religious people on this board and in my personal life that it would definitely be considered as removing them from the society.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm actually okay with LGBTQ+ teachers not having rainbow flags in their HS classroom. I do not want teachers with crosses, religious books, wearing burqas, wearing size ZZ (?) prosthetics etc. and like in their classrooms either unless it is relevant to the instruction. If we want to ban those other items, I'm good with it.

So let's bring back the rainbows until that other bit happens.

Hah, I said Trans vs Non-Trans which (I think) means definition of "woman" is not relevant for the distinction?

Nope. The competition is a women's competition. Trans vs Cis are subsets of the gender.

To take the discussion to an extreme use case, how about hermaphrodites who have male and female sex organs?

Probably would have to make a separate competition. I am not sure whether the extra organ would give the competitor an unfair advantage and make it impossible for others to compete.

I am not suggesting there is not a level of hypocrisy or pick-and-choose-what-is-convenient. There definitely is.

There is enough evidence (?) to suggest the court of laws agree with the cake maker(s) in at least a couple situations.

I believe you had said there should no difference between a big or small business (and therefore the cake maker should be forced to make cakes for LGBTQ+ couple). I don't know if I agree with you. I personally struggle with this and I don't know the answer.

I am not talking specifically about Catholicism. I am talking about any religion and any business. If it is okay for one, it should be ok for all if that is the country we want to live in. IMO, the LGBTQ cake maker should not be able to refuse to bake the cake for the Catholic couple either.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Haven't most religions practiced in the US changed their doctrine to comply with the law? I honestly don't know. If so, wouldn't that mean that polygamy is no longer a custom/tradition of the religion? If not, what happened to all the people who want to practice polygamy but can't due to the law?

I actually started typing Mormon Polygamy but thought to just leave it neutral (e.g. Muslims in other countries are allowed).

I wasn't thinking you were limiting to present day. I thought you were asking for any examples of where culture & tradition changed and did that result in people removed from society.

Polygamy was outlawed, applied (theoretically) equally. Those people are still around (heck, they're even on reality TV shows). So to answer what happened to them ... they complied to the laws, and for the diehards, they found a way around it by not officially marrying multiple wives but still living together, or not getting married by a traditional church.

I am going to put both of these together. According to the link for child marriage and my knowledge of honor killings, the families are seeking to save face and maintain respect within the community. Without the option of these two, won't they become outcasts in the community? Again, I don't know the rules when it come to these two practices.

For underage marriage, if it was made illegal and applied equally/consistently to everyone else, why would anyone be called out? They would just go marry an 18+ year old.

Same for honor killings. If it was made illegal and (really, really) severely punished (and I mean by death for all accomplices vs sometimes buying off the victim's parents and being "forgiven") and applied equally/consistently, why would anyone be called out for not doing it? Admittedly, this will take a while to change though.

I considered a person's religious group a major part of the society. If you are making that distinction, that I can't say I disagree with the conclusion.

TBH when you said "removing those people from society", I thought you really meant "from society" and not a subset of it. I guess (hypothetically, worse case) being removed from the Jewish community is a significant thing but there is also another 300M Americans that you won't be removed from.

Yeah I completely disagree with this and I believe Native American history see this completely different.

Fair enough. More research and articles for the true impact. Definitely "bad" but did it rise to that level.

I noticed you consistently said that you did not see those communities as being removed from society. Mine is a simple one and has little to do with how I would view it and much more about those communities would view it.

Make any public display or discussion of religious nature illegal.

Now I am not advocating for such a law. I am fully aware of the constitutional impossibility of such a law. I generally don't have an issue with public display or discussion of a religious nature except those rare occasions when people demand I bow my head and close my eyes for prayer. But let's be honest, it would eliminate one of those third rails that we all say we don't discuss in public. It would probably help with the assimilation process in all environments (work, sports, etc.) if we eliminate those things

If those customs and traditions that included religious public displays or religious public discussion were made illegal, it has been made perfectly clear by religious people on this board and in my personal life that it would definitely be considered as removing them from the society.

If you are saying not being able to display a cross in public school or at work, I can buy that.

If you are saying not being able to display a cross around my neck as I walk around in a public park or taking a bus or going into grocery store, I think that would go too far. I am not imposing on anyone, and if I was, it is transitory enough not to matter.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

So let's bring back the rainbows until that other bit happens.

Not an expert, but lots of stuff out there. I think there is movement in that direction, see below. As always, subject to interpretation and also lawsuits & court rulings.

When I was thinking about wearing a cross, I know there were restrictions in France.

Page Not Found (404) | Learning for Justice.

While still contested in some areas, permanent displays of religious symbols on public school property violate current interpretations of the Establishment Clause. The Ten Commandments, for example, are unarguably religious in nature. Their permanent display in public schools communicates an endorsement for Christianity—just as hanging a Star of David in a classroom could make it appear that the school favors Judaism.

The Ten Commandments could, however, be temporarily displayed in a comparative literature classroom as an instructional aid in a lesson on the Bible as a literary source for other works. Instructional aids, in this context, are objects referenced during instruction to help students understand a particular religious heritage. Another example might be a Muslim prayer rug to illustrate the Islamic practice of Salah, or a poster about the Crusades in a history classroom depicting people holding crosses.

Probably would have to make a separate competition. I am not sure whether the extra organ would give the competitor an unfair advantage and make it impossible for others to compete.

Yeah, don't know either. I'd suspect possibility of more testosterone or estrogen but no idea.

I am not talking specifically about Catholicism. I am talking about any religion and any business. If it is okay for one, it should be ok for all if that is the country we want to live in. IMO, the LGBTQ cake maker should not be able to refuse to bake the cake for the Catholic couple either.

I doubt there will be a lot of angst there by the Catholic couple. They'll just go find someone else. But you're right, it's a slippery slope.

Right or wrong, sometimes there are exceptions to the rule because of "religious freedom" (and not "sexuality").

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I actually started typing Mormon Polygamy but thought to just leave it neutral (e.g. Muslims in other countries are allowed).

I wasn't thinking you were limiting to present day. I thought you were asking for any examples of where culture & tradition changed and did that result in people removed from society.

Polygamy was outlawed, applied (theoretically) equally. Those people are still around (heck, they're even on reality TV shows). So to answer what happened to them ... they complied to the laws, and for the diehards, they found a way around it by not officially marrying multiple wives but still living together, or not getting married by a traditional church.

So Polygamy outlawed so they removed it as a custom or tradition. But it is okay to live together without getting married which I thought was considered living in sin? Confusing but ok.

For underage marriage, if it was made illegal and applied equally/consistently to everyone else, why would anyone be called out? They would just go marry an 18+ year old.

Same for honor killings. If it was made illegal and (really, really) severely punished (and I mean by death for all accomplices vs sometimes buying off the victim's parents and being "forgiven") and applied equally/consistently, why would anyone be called out for not doing it? Admittedly, this will take a while to change though.

Have you seen those t-shirts that start off "1. God, 2. Country...."? That is why.

Statutory rape is already illegal. Killing people is already illegal. Underage marriages and honor killings are still happening so I assume that calling people out for not doing so is still happening. My assumption is that if making it right before God and that community was not an integral part of that faith, there would be no need to engage in underage marriage or honor killings to save face in front of God and that community. If that God and the community were understanding enough to wait until someone is 18+ or understanding enough to accept that there is no loss of honor if a family does not kill the family member who brought dishonor on the family despite the illegalities I mentioned above, why are underage marriage and honor killings still a thing?

TBH when you said "removing those people from society", I thought you really meant "from society" and not a subset of it. I guess (hypothetically, worse case) being removed from the Jewish community is a significant thing but there is also another 300M Americans that you won't be removed from.

You are much more amicable to such things than most of the religious people

If you are saying not being able to display a cross in public school or at work, I can buy that.

If you are saying not being able to display a cross around my neck as I walk around in a public park or taking a bus or going into grocery store, I think that would go too far. I am not imposing on anyone, and if I was, it is transitory enough not to matter.

Nope, I mean all of it. I am not picking and choosing. No displaying a cross in public school or at work. No crosses or kippot, no prayer circles after games, no invocations before games, no "John 3:16" signs. no mini Bible study at Starbucks. All displays and discussion are restricted to houses of worship. You may say that you are not imposing your beliefs on anyone but I heard that others have the right to protect themselves and their children from things that they believe are inappropriate and deserve to tell that story without your input or symbolism. You can engage in displays and discussion of a religious nature in the appropriate place of worship.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

So Polygamy outlawed so they removed it as a custom or tradition. But it is okay to live together without getting married which I thought was considered living in sin? Confusing but ok.

Specific to Mormon polygamy, I suspect there are plenty that toe the official & legal line but still don't consider it "living in sin" because they are married in the eyes of God but not necessarily in US law.

But you're asking for justification for the hypocrisy and you won't get it from me.

Statutory rape is already illegal. Killing people is already illegal. Underage marriages and honor killings are still happening so I assume that calling people out for not doing so is still happening. My assumption is that if making it right before God and that community was not an integral part of that faith, there would be no need to engage in underage marriage or honor killings to save face in front of God and that community. If that God and the community were understanding enough to wait until someone is 18+ or understanding enough to accept that there is no loss of honor if a family does not kill the family member who brought dishonor on the family despite the illegalities I mentioned above, why are underage marriage and honor killings still a thing?

Er, specific to underage marriage, I think its a bunch of horny bastards justifying it based on long ago societal tradition (when women were more like goods) and "hey, it was acceptable in the Bible/Koran".

Specific to honor killings, I don't think it has much to do with Hindu Gods. My guess is just frakked up societal pressure and frakking male insecurities.

In other words, I'm not sure you can blame the real origination on Religion. But admittedly, I could be wrong.

Nope, I mean all of it. I am not picking and choosing. No displaying a cross in public school or at work. No crosses or kippot, no prayer circles after games, no invocations before games, no "John 3:16" signs. no mini Bible study at Starbucks. All displays and discussion are restricted to houses of worship. You may say that you are not imposing your beliefs on anyone but I heard that others have the right to protect themselves and their children from things that they believe are inappropriate and deserve to tell that story without your input or symbolism. You can engage in displays and discussion of a religious nature in the appropriate place of worship.

I don't get this. I made a distinction between school/office and other public places like parks, bus, grocery stores (e.g. transitory).

As far as I know, there are no restrictions on LGBTQ+ walking around with LGBTQ+ T-Shirts (e.g. equivalent to lets say wearing a cross) in parks, bus, grocery stores or coffee shops. I haven't read much uproar about it? Now if there is an LGBTQ+ parade that is different than individuals quietly wearing a cross/LGBTQ+ t-shirt wandering about in a park. For a parade, get the right permits and if needed, police presence.

But yeah, there'll be some fringe elements being dicks about it. I certainly don't think the scale & degree/severity rises to the level of "no display whatsoever in any public places".

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't get this. I made a distinction between school/office and other public places like parks, bus, grocery stores (e.g. transitory).

As far as I know, there are no restrictions on LGBTQ+ walking around with LGBTQ+ T-Shirts (e.g. equivalent to lets say wearing a cross) in parks, bus, grocery stores or coffee shops. I haven't read much uproar about it? Now if there is an LGBTQ+ parade that is different than individuals quietly wearing a cross/LGBTQ+ t-shirt wandering about in a park. For a parade, get the right permits and if needed, police presence.

But yeah, there'll be some fringe elements being dicks about it. I certainly don't think the scale & degree/severity rises to the level of "no display whatsoever in any public places".

Sorry for the late response. Once again, I am not advocating for such a law to come about. I did it to prove my point.

I am not sure what you are not getting. All I did was move directly to what I believe is the stated end point that people advocating for bills like the Don't Say Gay bill, bills banning books and arts, the laws banning drag shows etc. would like to get to. The two differences from what they are doing and what I said are:

1) I specifically said the thing. I specifically went to the end goal. I could go ahead and piece meal it, dropping a bill like this here. drop another one in two or three months, and so on and so forth. All the while grabbing for the one or two extreme examples that I can use to shock and terrify people and convince them we need this bill right now to make sure "it" does not go any further. That also provides that added benefit of being my cue to harass so that even if I didn't outright ban it, I might be able to get display and discussion to stop organically if there is a risk of violence against those who break my law from people who I have motivated with fear mongering. People probably would not wear a religious symbol if they knew it may result in getting jumped on the bus or as they walk across the park. Finally, the word and concept of religion can be used so broadly that I can still slap it on anything as a catch all for anything I don't like. You have at the very least been o.k. with that sort of strategy throughout the thread.

2) I did not play favorites. I did not pick a specific religion. I picked all of
religions. I am not allowing any religious displays. I am not allowing any religious discussions. I intentionally did not choose Catholicism or Judaism or Islam. I know all of those have a history of being persecuted individually. Given the chance, all will definitely be persecuted again. I got rid of all of it. I declared all of it a danger despite the positives that might be there for some. And there is no denying that has been a danger associated with the the display and discussion of religion since the beginning of time. Everyone acknowledges that non LGBT displays and discussions are alive and well in all facets of the country.

I just thought of one more. I chose a cause and a community that it appears you have a closer association with than I do. I had to make it so it is no longer a discussion about "those people over there".

That is ultimately the point and why I posted the article about the general public's response in Nazi Germany. You have been o.k. with the baby steps that have been made in restricting the display and discussion of a historically persecuted community that you are not a part of for whatever your reasons. From what I can tell and correct me if I am wrong, each baby step is not that bad as far as you are concerned. You are telling the persecuted community they can have those displays and discussions somewhere else if it is important to them. However with each passing bill, the list of those places become shorter and shorter. You ask why they don't fight the restricting even though the judges of those fights actually are or are closely associated to the folks doing the restricting. Finally, despite historical evidence that the words of the fringe element from a few years ago ended up becoming the bills of today and the words from the fringe element from then and today are that they want to "eradicate" the persecuted community, you telling the persecuted community is not as bad as it could be and they should not be worried about reaching that "bad" level at some point even though it really is not that long ago when it was at that "bad" level. You are saying that the non fringe element at the federal level would not let it get to that point even though the non fringe element at the state level did. That even if it did reach that level at some point, the federal level would put it to an end at some point.

We are now eight months into this thread. A thread about not teaching third graders about pronouns. We are now in place where people shooting up night clubs, shooting out power stations, and creating and passing legislation all dedicated to preventing drag shows. We should probably do something now while things are closer to the way it was in the late 1920s/early 1930s before we reached the point where things are more comparable to the mid/late 1930s and definitely not the early to mid 1940s.

[PilotMan]

Can't wait until the FL book bannings over sexual content eliminate the Bible for it's various transgressions.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

You have been o.k. with the baby steps that have been made in restricting the display and discussion of a historically persecuted community that you are not a part of for whatever your reasons.

One can only hope it's extreme ignorance. Like, an actual insane level of ignorance. The only other two answers are troll, or fascist. You can guess where I'd put my money.

There is an active trans genocide taking place in the United States of America. I can forgive not being in full on agreement with that statement. But arguing for the side of those passing bills that drive marginalized kids to suicide is obviously and clearly unforgiveable. And that is actively where Edward stands in this thread, in his own pedantic, annoying way.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Can't wait until the FL book bannings over sexual content eliminate the Bible for it's various transgressions.

I get that this is a joke. But it gets to what makes this movement so disturbing. These are not bad laws that are going to be evenly applied to everyone.

Instead, what we have is worse. These are vague laws that will be enforced by political appointees in favor of one viewpoint. Stuff they like that violates the laws will be permitted. Stuff they don't like will be banned regardless of whether they violate the laws.

They are designed to drive people underground and to chill otherwise lawful behavior by threatening people with state action.

The Bible isn't in danger. And they know that the Bible isn't in danger.

[Radii]

Florida:

Senate Bill 254 - would give the state the ability to remove a child from a home if there is suspicion that the parents may be attempting to provide gender affirming care to a minor.

United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

"Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" <-- one of the physical signs of a genocide.


HB 1521 - requires use of bathroom of the sex assigned at birth, appears to require domestic abuse victims to use a shelter for the gender associated w/ the sex assigned at birth, appears to require administrators of these facilities to document their compliance w/ the above

SB 1674 - similar to HB 1521 in providing requirements for use of restrooms and changing facilities, making it a crime to not leave a restroom immediately if asked.


HB 1421 - prohibits changing of biological sex from being changed on a birth certificate (which among other things can cause voter ID/disenfranchisement though that is clearly not the direct attack here). Prohibits gender affirming care for minors. Prohibits health insurances from covering gender affirming care (presumably for minors tho the thing I'm reading doesn't directly say).


SB 254 - grants courts jurisdiction to make custody determination to "protect the childe from being subjected to" procedures IN ANOTHER STATE. One parent supportive of gender affirming care would now be cause to lose custody in Florida.

SB 266 - prohibits fields of study involving race and gender studies in florida public colleges. Prohibits spending on any activites in florida public colleges that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.


HB 999 - Appears to do the same for post-graduate education in florida.


SB 1320 - makes it illegal for an employee, contractor, or student at a public school to be required to refer to a person as anything other than the sex assigned at birth. Prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity. The Dept of Education must approve all sex ed materials.


HB 1223 - looks similar to the above. Requires reference to child based on sex at birth in K-12. Appears to have a list of prohibited actions related to pronouns (idk what that means, that's the summary). Updates requirements for instruction on gender identity in public schools.



So there are 9 bills currently in the state legislature of florida alone that attack marginalized groups, most of them attacking gender identity and gender affirming care, a couple of them DIRECTLY link to the "stages of genocide" that the UN and various holocaust museums document as a warning to humanity.

I'm trying to use summaries of these bills and may not have my interpretation exactly correct, but there is an open and obvious attack on those that need protecting the most.


This is just florida. In some states bills have been proposed to prevent gender affirming care as high as age 25 - we all know this isn't about "the children" right? It never was. This is an intentional step towards the genocide of all transgender individuals in America. Folks that sit around and argue definitions or pedantic bullshit or decide they're ok with a bunch of these laws in a vacuum are on the side of fascism and genocide. Full stop.


The ACLU has a site tracking state laws being proposed throughout the nation.

34 in Missouri.
26 in Tennessee, a number of them making the news lately and having already passed. Trans kids in Tennessee are being forced to de-transition. How many suicides do you think that would cause?
16 in South Carolina.
18 in Indiana (there was a protest in Fort Wayne over the weekend where I live)
And of course, everything's bigger in Texas, including the hate! 46 bills to attack the rights of marginalized groups have been proposed in the current legislative year.



(Please note I'm not trying to shit on anyone who engages with Edward or anyone else here, I did that for a long time too)

[Radii]

Mapping Attacks on LGBTQ Rights in U.S. State Legislatures | American Civil Liberties Union

This is the site I referenced. It lists 413 anti-LGBTQ bills on the books nationwide.

[Radii]

Looking at the way my current state of residence (indiana) is trying to kill trans people:

SB 487 - requires that the department of corrections assign offenders to a facility based on sex at birth, not gender identity.

HB 1346 - prohibits schools from the use of any pronoun not directly related to sex assigned at birth (unlike the florida bill, this doesn't say it's illegal to "require" use of pronouns, it's illegal to "promote or encourage" the use of a preferred pronoun). It would also make it illegal to use a name or nickname that is "inconsistent with the name on the student's birth certificate" - holy fucking shitballs


HB 1608 - a lot of weird as shit sex ed stuff, but also - "Requires a school to notify the parent of a certain student of a request made by the student to change the student's name, pronoun" - this directly kills trans kids.

SB 413 - lots of bullshit in here but what stands out the most is that if a school lets someone use a locker room in the gym of the gender they identify with - notice must be sent to all parents of the school that this is happening. You want to cause panic and kill trans kids? This is a GREAT way.


SB 386 - a general "anti-woke" bill that prohibits teachers from using materials to "promote certain concepts" regarding gender identity, sexual orientation, race, marital status, and others. A "don't say gay, also white people have never done anything wrong, and there are only two genders" all rolled into one!!!


HB 1589 - allows malpractice claims against doctors who provide gender affirming care for up to 15 years after the fact (???)


HB 1569 - prohibits the department of corrections from using any funds or "any state resources" to provide gender therapy


SB 480 - makes it a crime for a physician to provide gender affirming care to minors


HB 1525 - similar to the above, but also "affirm a minor's perception of the minor's own sexual attraction or sexual behavior" - MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR A DOCTOR TO AFFIRM A MINORS PERCEPTION OF THEIR OWN SEXUAL ATTRACTION - it doesn't specify if they're gay or trans. Is it going to be illegal to tell a straight kid his boner is normal too?


there are 7 or 8 more, Indiana had a lot.

Who wants to do their state!? This is painful and exhausting but the awareness seems important.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Radii

Who wants to do their state!? This is painful and exhausting but the awareness seems important.

I live in Texas. Just assume whatever stupid ass bill is being done elsewhere, it was piloted or will be adopted here shortly. There's not really a need to make an exhaustive catalog - it's not subtle, it's obvious on its face. It would be like making a list of why ice cream is awesome or why mosquitos are awful - only not as trivial. Sure, you could come up with a reason or two why those things are not wholly true, but you're basically just doing so to be contrarian.

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I get that this is a joke. But it gets to what makes this movement so disturbing. These are not bad laws that are going to be evenly applied to everyone.

Instead, what we have is worse. These are vague laws that will be enforced by political appointees in favor of one viewpoint. Stuff they like that violates the laws will be permitted. Stuff they don't like will be banned regardless of whether they violate the laws.

They are designed to drive people underground and to chill otherwise lawful behavior by threatening people with state action.

The Bible isn't in danger. And they know that the Bible isn't in danger.

Agreed. These laws will never be enforced equally. Kind of like the "In God We Trust" law in Texas.

https://abc7news.com/texas-in-god-we...igns/12180627/

They're just fascists and closet cases.

[cuervo72]

It's amazing how many stories about youth pastors being charged for molestation or kiddie porn pop up on Twitter as opposed to drag queens for the same.

[Flasch186]

But a teacher hasn’t been physically attacked by an extremist yet

They will

But not yet

They should just sue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flasch186]

Weird

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/22/polit...al-orientation

They move the goal posts almost like the things that they say and do should be able to be considered when thinking about why a piece of legislation is brought forth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Weird

DeSantis administration moves to extend prohibition on teaching sexual orientation and gender identity to all grades | CNN Politics

They move the goal posts almost like the things that they say and do should be able to be considered when thinking about why a piece of legislation is brought forth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The headline is:
DeSantis administration moves to extend prohibition on teaching sexual orientation and gender identity to all grades



Sort of brings the entire discussion about "what the administration wants to limit" in perspective.

The proposed rule change would ban lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity through high school “unless such instruction is either expressly required by state academic standards … or is part of a reproductive health course or health lesson for which a student’s parent has the option to have his or her student not attend.”

[albionmoonlight]

Tallahassee principal fired after parents complain Michelangelo statue of David is 'pornographic' | Daily Mail Online

47% of the country is in favor of this
47% of the country is against this
The 6% of the country who isn't paying attention are going to decide which side wins

What a scary time to be alive

[sterlingice]

I am shocked the picture of the school board president that forced her to resign looks like a cross between a slimy preacher and Colonel Sanders.

SI

[albionmoonlight]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md...itioning-poll/

Having gotten those sweet sweet fear and rage clicks for months with Trans Panic opinion pieces, the mainstream media is now sheepishly starting the "when you look at the actual facts, it is nothing like the fearmongering we've been peddling" correction.

[Ghost Econ]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Tallahassee principal fired after parents complain Michelangelo statue of David is 'pornographic' | Daily Mail Online

47% of the country is in favor of this
47% of the country is against this
The 6% of the country who isn't paying attention are going to decide which side wins

What a scary time to be alive

The Simpsons did it.

Springfield's CULTURAL RENAISSANCE | David Simpson for DoES - YouTube

[JPhillips]

'Parental rights are supreme, and that means protecting the interests of all parents, whether its one, 10, 20 or 50,' said school board president Barney Bishop.

This is absolutely insane and makes education impossible.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is absolutely insane and makes education impossible.

" . . . and makes education [of children whose parents cannot afford private school] impossible."

Feature, not a bug.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Tallahassee principal fired after parents complain Michelangelo statue of David is 'pornographic' | Daily Mail Online

47% of the country is in favor of this
47% of the country is against this
The 6% of the country who isn't paying attention are going to decide which side wins

What a scary time to be alive

This is the thing that killed me

Tallahassee Classical School, a private institution focused on “training the minds and improving the hearts of young people through a content-rich classical education in the liberal arts and sciences

[Mota]

What is a classical education? Do you learn about Bach and Mozart?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Mota

What is a classical education? Do you learn about Bach and Mozart?

They wore wigs, so no...

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Mota

What is a classical education? Do you learn about Bach and Mozart?

Platonic solids, the four humors, that sort of thing probably. You know real science.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mota

What is a classical education? Do you learn about Bach and Mozart?

All the science that's in the bible, presumably.

[PilotMan]

I think, after having homeschooled, and gone through some of the topics, it really just means, Reading, Writing and 'rithmatic. Just like you would have gotten in the farmhouse on the prairie with a decided religious focus and without all that black stuff in there. You know....classical.