So it seems that the en vogue minority of the day are transgenders. The American corporate media machine has gone to great lengths in recent times to promote transgender issues to the masses. Transgenders even got their own South Park episode. Transgender issues must be an important part of the public discourse apparently. Studies have been done in America that show that transgender Americans face staggering rates of poverty. Two recent reports - 'Understanding Issues Facing Transgender Americans' and 'Paying an Unfair Price - The Financial Penalty for Being Transgender in America' detail the problems facing transgender America. Apparently American transgenders are being left vulnerable because of two primary failures of law - Pervasive discrimination and a lack of legal protections mean that transgender people struggle to find work and safe housing, make less on the job, and have higher medical costs than their non-transgender peers. Failure to adequately protect transgender students means that transgender people and their families often face a hostile, unsafe, or unwelcoming school environments. Harassment, bullying, and violence make it difficult, if not impossible, for transgender students to obtain the skills and education they need to succeed. As a result, they are ill-prepared to compete for good jobs and see reduced earnings and fewer opportunities for successful jobs and careers. - ( MAP ) Movement Advancement Program Now the problem with this American transgender propaganda is that these reports claim that transgenders suffer due to discrimination but do not offer any evidence of discrimination and a link to performance/results. Like all Affirmative Action propaganda they will give statistics showing the minority does not achieve in whatever area, be it health, education or wealth, and the claim is that it must be society that is to blame. This equality propaganda nonsense makes the claim that we are all equal and that if we do not all achieve equal results then society must have caused it. This is ridiculous. Transgender people are poor because of society? That is ridiculous. Could it be that the majority of individuals that decide that they are transgender were already poor and unhappy to begin with? Could it be that their lives would be just as full of suffering regardless of their sexuality. Could it be that poor white people are becoming transgender to give themselves an excuse by becoming a member of a minority? Because nobody cares at all about poor white people. Society will tell poor white people that they are privileged. No affirmative action for poor white people. No excuses for them. Unless they decide to join a minority like the transgender movement. Transgenders make me think of Meatloafs character in Fight Club. Remember Edward Nortons character joins all of those sympathy leach groups/programs? - Meatloaf Could it be that most transgenders just need a hug? For someone to care about them? Because nobody does. Apparently American transgenders need legal protections. And you know what that will mean. Imperialist America will soon be running about the world telling us all that we must change our laws to protect transgenders and also pay for transgender affirmative action programs. We will have to have quotas in every type of jobs so that transgenders are represented. Transgenders will want quotas for company boards. Transgenders will want free education. Transgenders will want free healthcare. Transgenders 'pay equality'. We have seen it all before with affirmative action for Americas other favourite minorities - blacks, females and gays. Now we can add transgender to the American affirmative action darling minority list. So if you are poor and white and you would like some affirmative action and for society to give a damn about you then you may like to consider declaring yourself to be transgender on the next census. Less than 2% of American men are gay and also less than 2% of American females are gay. And look how much time and money the world spends on gays. In my opinion many of the 2% of Americans that self identify as being gay are in fact not gay at all but are seeking an identity and for someone to care about them. So anyway, if less than two percent of America is gay then how many Americans are transgender? Almost none. But apparently this is a big important thing for America. The only reason transgenders are important to the American corporate machine is because they can be used as an American tool of imperialism. Would you believe that being transgender makes you poor? [video=youtube;_cnPZSM85j8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cnPZSM85j8[/video]
Granny says, "Dat's right - he oughta be able to choose his bathroom - after his operation... U.S. Supreme Court to hear transgender bathroom case next year Sunday 30th October, 2016 | WASHINGTON, U.S. - For the first time, the United States Supreme Court has decided to listen to the other party and will rule in the case of a Virginia school board which prevented a transgender teenager from using boys bathroom at his school. The Supreme Court will hear the appeal from the Gloucester County school board in April and will rule in June next year.
I put the person on ignore after they stated that 13 year old girls should be able to consent to sexual intercourse. - - - Updated - - - I put the person on ignore after they stated that 13 year old girls should be able to consent to sexual intercourse.
It is very fortunate for everyone else in this country that your opinion is not what is used to define our society. As with every American you are free to believe and express whatever you wish as long as it does not adversely effect others physically. We however, as your fellow Americans are free to do the same and might hold opinions quite different than yours and consider you to be less than pleasant or intellectually evolved. Basically, you come off as a closed minded curmudgeon and barely manage to be entertaining.
Yeah I'm not a big fan of putting poeple on ignore but this character seems to be excuciatingly immature. He's basically attempting to challenge my manhood. I find that rather ironic when he made a thread about his problem with trans people. There isn't a problem they present, there is only personal problems with them. And the personal problems are due to personal insecurity. Perhaps this is why he seeks to challenge people's "manhood." Psychoanalysis aside, I find this behavior puerile and immature. I also find his posts tedious as he repeats himself several times in a single post. And he tends to meander and interject his feelings into his points far too much. So I don't take him seriously as a debator. I find it entertaining to rile him up and watch him freak out.
We didn't introduce civil rights laws to solve a problem for blacks. Being black isn't a problem. The problem we were trying to solve is some people's reaction to others being black and their resulting actions that divided all of our society. The "no blacks allowed" sign attacked this nation as a whole and tried to slice off parts of it for the people who hung those signs and the folks they choose to let live, work and eat in their part of the country. Chopping off chunks for 'non-gay' or 'non-transgender' American's may have similar impact on the country. Not 2% of the country, but all of it. And yea, I worry some of these 'safe-zone' folks are insisting on may be exactly the same problem. Personally, I think a lot of the potential problem can be solved by going Ally McBeal on new bathrooms. *shrug*
It is all so ridiculously pointless to argue and fight over bathroom use when the answer is obvious. Then there is the talking point that Sexual predators will lurk by certain bathrooms and commit crimes already ILLEGAL by law ! Or that homeless vagrants will take over and inhabit or make a home in Unisex bathrooms. The Bathroom issue of use is easily resolved for the benefit of EVERYONE HUMAN, that needs to use a Bathroom, preferably clean and stocked with the necessary items. They have experimented with automatic self cleaning bathrooms, these are of course locking and individual use. A simple configuration change is all that is required and the problem is solved without any Political science.
This is old. And you are not entertained? I think you need a hug dont you buddy. [video=youtube;ymPu2PdLW3I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymPu2PdLW3I[/video]
There is no bathroom issue. If you look enough like a lady use the lady's room. Don't go waving your wiener around and nobody will care. Mens room... go for it.
I am not worried about 'civil rights'. You can have civilized laws that protect everyone. What I am against is affirmative action. Minorities should not have special treatment - welfare should be colour-blind and gender-blind and so should the law. I do not understand your Ally McBeal reference. I hate Ally McBeal. I think she is ugly. Ally McBeal had unisex bathrooms. Yuck. So you think that male and female teenagers should shower together after gym at school too? I cant believe this is what USA spends time on. It is no wonder most nations hate you. You turning the world into a liberal hell hole. So you are against all-female gyms like Curves are you? You want me to pretend to be a transgender and join an all female gym to annoy people dont you. This stuff is bulllcrap. All this minority bullcrap is designed to divide society and cause problems - not promote unity.
Well what are you doing in my thread then? I watched the 1997 Lolita the other day. I liked it but I hated the ending. I like the Kubrick Lolita ending a lot better. Which is funny because I hate how Kubrick makes movies of books and changes the it - often the ending - in a way that changes the point of the book. Kubrick seemed to do that with every movie he made based on a book - and often the authors of those books were upset about it. I have not read Lolita but I would bet that Kubrick %$%$ed with it in some way. But I liked his ending. In the Kubrick Lolita ending the Clare Quilty character is very overman. He does not give Humbert any satisfaction. He does not beg. The 1997 ending is basically the opposite of the Kubrick Lolita ending. I get the feeling that Kubrick kind of liked and identified with Quilty - but the guy that made the 1997 Lolita does not seem to get it. [video=youtube;hkvGgI0k-t0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkvGgI0k-t0[/video]
You may be confusing the U.S. with France. I don't care if you hate someone. Affirmative action has been poorly implemented and widely misunderstood (often because of poor implementation). The original mandate from Kennedy and current implementations do not (or should not) give special treatment to anyone. Affirmative action means to not simply fail to discriminate unfairly, but to make a positive (affirmative) effort (action) to remove unfair discrimination in projects paid for by the nation as a whole (government employment and government contracted efforts). I am not suggesting anyone share a toilet or a shower head. I think it is a bad idea to lump naked teenagers under a shared shower head regardless of their gender. The university I attended has shower stalls instead, in their unisex bathrooms. Seems like a good solution to current concerns. I'm fine with a private gym discriminating, same with a private golf course or private church. You can also date only women or hire only Italian plumbers. Folks have a right of free association. But that right looses when it impacts the society as a whole (for example large scale housing, public accommodations, big business or government work). Good law would be blind to gender and to color. But not blind to systematic or large scale mistreatment of folks that skews our shared society according to some arbitrary preference in gender or color.
Ha. Americans. You are fine with a private institution discriminating are you? You are utterly ridiculous.
It's like talking to somebody that has been on Mars for the past five decades with no understanding of how English is used.
Private institutions are not above the law. You are worried about "no blacks allowed" signs are you? Well how about a 'private' gym putting up a 'no blacks allowed' sign? How about a private golf course putting up a 'no blacks allowed' sign? How about a private church putting up a 'no blacks allowed' sign? Just what kind of private 'club' are you a part of anyway? The Klan? Private institutions are not above the law.
No, I am not worried about that sign. The private golf club is the classic example of a private club that has legally hung out a "no blacks allowed" sign. That example is precisely why I mentioned private golf courses. Another is a church that only serves Catholics. They may not hang a "no blacks allowed" sign, but they can legally refuse service to people who are not Catholic. Their discrimination is so well understood and expected, they don't even bother with a "no non-Catholics sign." You still don't get it. Our laws don't require you to like, give equal treatment to, or even associate with blacks, women, Jews... with anyone. Joining the Klan or Curves is not illegal (many people are members). You can have a private golf course that serves only white people, a church that serves only Catholics, or a gym that serves only men. You are free to discriminate in many ways for or against people based on race, religion or gender. For example, you can choose to invite only white people to stay in your home, date only women, or administer last rights only to Catholics. That doesn't make you above the law. The law doesn't care that you do. The law gets involved when your preferences damage or skew society as a whole. When your discrimination has an impact on more that just you and the person you don't want to associate with. For example, small companies can hang out a sign saying they will only hire whites. But when the company get's larger (usually more than eight people) most communities have decided that's too big an impact to tolerate. It skews the labor force for that area, so that's where we've decided to draw the line. That's where the law kicks in. Larger companies can't legally hang that same sign. You can choose not to tutor black and white people in the same room, but states and counties can't have a similar policy for their public schools. You can choose not to serve blacks in your kitchen, but if you offer a public accommodationif you hang out a shingle on main street offering to cook meals for the communityyou may have trouble putting that same sign on your lunch counter. You can be a bigot. It's legal. We just don't allow your bigotry to skew the nation we all own together.
Of course discrimination against others for irrelevant reasons (appearance via accident of birth) is ridiculous. Discrimination against those who BEHAVE in ways that are in opposition to broadly accepted social norms is not. This kind of discrimination is precisely the glue that holds societies together, and keeps things cohesive. If we didn't exercise this kind of discrimination, we would see social decay and considerable chaos. It was broadly accepted mores, exercised consistently over a long period of time, which made America 'great'.
