Obama And "Gender Identity Expression" (Cross Dressing etc)

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: yllus
None of them would ever be suspected to be anything but female

I've run into some incredibly smoking-hot trannies. If they had not been framed in the context of the situation, I would have gone for the digits.

I suspect that the OP has such vitriol for the gay (LGBTLOLWTFBBQ) because he fails to grasp the context of such situations and finds himself with a surprizingly sore bottom in the morning.

Butters, you need help. Get help. All this rage is not healthy for you. You'll end up with a heart-attack, or even worse, prematurely bald.

 

[alchemize]

So when are the following going to be protected classes?

Nudists?
Swingers (i mentioned previously)?
S&M-dressers?

Why don't they have the same rights as cross dressers and bi-sexuals?

(I ignore some of the more deviant behaviors, but personally I don't see why they are much different other than they tend to violate the rights of others. These I list are better apples-apples comparisons)

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So when are the following going to be protected classes?

Nudists?
Swingers (i mentioned previously)?
S&M-dressers?

Why don't they have the same rights as cross dressers and bi-sexuals?

(I ignore some of the more deviant behaviors, but personally I don't see why they are much different other than they tend to violate the rights of others. These I list are better apples-apples comparisons)

Please, enlighten us as to how nudists, swingers, and BDSM folks violate your rights? I'd love to hear an anecdote about your personal experience with the above-mentioned rights-violators.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: alchemize
So when are the following going to be protected classes?

Nudists?
Swingers (i mentioned previously)?
S&M-dressers?

Why don't they have the same rights as cross dressers and bi-sexuals?

(I ignore some of the more deviant behaviors, but personally I don't see why they are much different other than they tend to violate the rights of others. These I list are better apples-apples comparisons)

Please, enlighten us as to how nudists, swingers, and BDSM folks violate your rights? I'd love to hear an anecdote about your personal experience with the above-mentioned rights-violators.

This isn't about violating my personal rights. This is about creating more protected classes. And you didn't answer my question.

It does violate the rights of business owners.

If you want my anecdote, I worked with a trannie crossdresser at a large insurance company. Other than being an odd looking and very mannish trannie, (s)he didn't bother me. Of course (s)he could never be fired, because (s)he was in a protected class.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So when are the following going to be protected classes?

Nudists?
Swingers (i mentioned previously)?
S&M-dressers?

Why don't they have the same rights as cross dressers and bi-sexuals?

(I ignore some of the more deviant behaviors, but personally I don't see why they are much different other than they tend to violate the rights of others. These I list are better apples-apples comparisons)

I guess the difference is those are choices, not irreversible genetic conditions? (If we agree on homosexuality and gender identification as being a result of such, of course.) If you're genetically wired to think of yourself as a woman, I think that like we've become accepting of homosexuality, society should accept that.

That said, I guess you could make an argument that you feel a genetic urge to be nude. I actually can't think of a logical reason that nudists couldn't also be a protected class, since you could argue that transsexuals using a bathroom would make people uncomfortable in the same way a nudist would. I'm not at the peak of my mental facilities right now though, as I'm tired from a really long day at the office. I'll ponder this and get back to it later.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: yllus
None of them would ever be suspected to be anything but female

I've run into some incredibly smoking-hot trannies. If they had not been framed in the context of the situation, I would have gone for the digits.

I suspect that the OP has such vitriol for the gay (LGBTLOLWTFBBQ) because he fails to grasp the context of such situations and finds himself with a surprizingly sore bottom in the morning.

Butters, you need help. Get help. All this rage is not healthy for you. You'll end up with a heart-attack, or even worse, prematurely bald.

As easy as it is to make that joke, I think the real answer is even simpler...Butterbean is just one of those people who thinks that their preferences and behavior MUST define "normal", that his personal customs are the laws of nature.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: alchemize
So when are the following going to be protected classes?

Nudists?
Swingers (i mentioned previously)?
S&M-dressers?

Why don't they have the same rights as cross dressers and bi-sexuals?

(I ignore some of the more deviant behaviors, but personally I don't see why they are much different other than they tend to violate the rights of others. These I list are better apples-apples comparisons)

I guess the difference is those are choices, not irreversible genetic conditions? (If we agree on homosexuality and gender identification as being a result of such, of course.) If you're genetically wired to think of yourself as a woman, I think that like we've become accepting of homosexuality, society should accept that.

That said, I guess you could make an argument that you feel a genetic urge to be nude. I actually can't think of a logical reason that nudists couldn't also be a protected class, since you could argue that transsexuals using a bathroom would make people uncomfortable in the same way a nudist would. I'm not at the peak of my mental facilities right now though, as I'm tired from a really long day at the office. I'll ponder this and get back to it later.

How is cross dressing and bixexuality possibly considered genetic?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: alchemize
So when are the following going to be protected classes?

Nudists?
Swingers (i mentioned previously)?
S&M-dressers?

Why don't they have the same rights as cross dressers and bi-sexuals?

(I ignore some of the more deviant behaviors, but personally I don't see why they are much different other than they tend to violate the rights of others. These I list are better apples-apples comparisons)

I guess the difference is those are choices, not irreversible genetic conditions? (If we agree on homosexuality and gender identification as being a result of such, of course.) If you're genetically wired to think of yourself as a woman, I think that like we've become accepting of homosexuality, society should accept that.

That said, I guess you could make an argument that you feel a genetic urge to be nude. I actually can't think of a logical reason that nudists couldn't also be a protected class, since you could argue that transsexuals using a bathroom would make people uncomfortable in the same way a nudist would. I'm not at the peak of my mental facilities right now though, as I'm tired from a really long day at the office. I'll ponder this and get back to it later.

How is cross dressing and bixexuality possibly considered genetic?

I don't know about those two, I was talking about transsexuals - though at least for bisexuality I bet you could make an argument about it being a genetic condition.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: alchemize
So when are the following going to be protected classes?

Nudists?
Swingers (i mentioned previously)?
S&M-dressers?

Why don't they have the same rights as cross dressers and bi-sexuals?

(I ignore some of the more deviant behaviors, but personally I don't see why they are much different other than they tend to violate the rights of others. These I list are better apples-apples comparisons)

Please, enlighten us as to how nudists, swingers, and BDSM folks violate your rights? I'd love to hear an anecdote about your personal experience with the above-mentioned rights-violators.

This isn't about violating my personal rights. This is about creating more protected classes. And you didn't answer my question.

It does violate the rights of business owners.

If you want my anecdote, I worked with a trannie crossdresser at a large insurance company. Other than being an odd looking and very mannish trannie, (s)he didn't bother me. Of course (s)he could never be fired, because (s)he was in a protected class.

We wouldn't NEED more protected classes if "straight, white, Christian man" wasn't the most protected class of all. Until being a human being, no matter what skin deep differences you have, gives you the same rights as everyone else, we will continue to have to call out SPECIFIC groups we reserve that right for. I would love it if we could have catch-all legislation for this kind of thing, but people would go apeshit if the law was written that way.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: alchemize
So when are the following going to be protected classes?

Nudists?
Swingers (i mentioned previously)?
S&M-dressers?

Why don't they have the same rights as cross dressers and bi-sexuals?

(I ignore some of the more deviant behaviors, but personally I don't see why they are much different other than they tend to violate the rights of others. These I list are better apples-apples comparisons)

I guess the difference is those are choices, not irreversible genetic conditions? (If we agree on homosexuality and gender identification as being a result of such, of course.) If you're genetically wired to think of yourself as a woman, I think that like we've become accepting of homosexuality, society should accept that.

That said, I guess you could make an argument that you feel a genetic urge to be nude. I actually can't think of a logical reason that nudists couldn't also be a protected class, since you could argue that transsexuals using a bathroom would make people uncomfortable in the same way a nudist would. I'm not at the peak of my mental facilities right now though, as I'm tired from a really long day at the office. I'll ponder this and get back to it later.

How is cross dressing and bixexuality possibly considered genetic?

Yes, clearly only YOUR sexual behavior is genetically defined :roll:

Or maybe I'm wrong, did you sit down one day and DECIDE to only like women?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: alchemize
So when are the following going to be protected classes?

Nudists?
Swingers (i mentioned previously)?
S&M-dressers?

Why don't they have the same rights as cross dressers and bi-sexuals?

(I ignore some of the more deviant behaviors, but personally I don't see why they are much different other than they tend to violate the rights of others. These I list are better apples-apples comparisons)

Please, enlighten us as to how nudists, swingers, and BDSM folks violate your rights? I'd love to hear an anecdote about your personal experience with the above-mentioned rights-violators.

This isn't about violating my personal rights. This is about creating more protected classes. And you didn't answer my question.

It does violate the rights of business owners.

If you want my anecdote, I worked with a trannie crossdresser at a large insurance company. Other than being an odd looking and very mannish trannie, (s)he didn't bother me. Of course (s)he could never be fired, because (s)he was in a protected class.

We wouldn't NEED more protected classes if "straight, white, Christian man" wasn't the most protected class of all. Until being a human being, no matter what skin deep differences you have, gives you the same rights as everyone else, we will continue to have to call out SPECIFIC groups we reserve that right for. I would love it if we could have catch-all legislation for this kind of thing, but people would go apeshit if the law was written that way.

Straight, white men (under 40, non-military, without a disability) are about the only people you can fire without HR and legal representation. That's laughable, and a perversion of the system.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: alchemize
So when are the following going to be protected classes?

Nudists?
Swingers (i mentioned previously)?
S&M-dressers?

Why don't they have the same rights as cross dressers and bi-sexuals?

(I ignore some of the more deviant behaviors, but personally I don't see why they are much different other than they tend to violate the rights of others. These I list are better apples-apples comparisons)

I guess the difference is those are choices, not irreversible genetic conditions? (If we agree on homosexuality and gender identification as being a result of such, of course.) If you're genetically wired to think of yourself as a woman, I think that like we've become accepting of homosexuality, society should accept that.

That said, I guess you could make an argument that you feel a genetic urge to be nude. I actually can't think of a logical reason that nudists couldn't also be a protected class, since you could argue that transsexuals using a bathroom would make people uncomfortable in the same way a nudist would. I'm not at the peak of my mental facilities right now though, as I'm tired from a really long day at the office. I'll ponder this and get back to it later.

How is cross dressing and bixexuality possibly considered genetic?

Yes, clearly only YOUR sexual behavior is genetically defined :roll:

Or maybe I'm wrong, did you sit down one day and DECIDE to only like women?

That's a non-answer. I've seen semi-conclusive genetic studies on homosexuality and very clear genetic studies on gender confusion. So where are the ones on bisexuality and cross-dressing?

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: alchemize

This isn't about violating my personal rights. This is about creating more protected classes. And you didn't answer my question.

It does violate the rights of business owners.

If you want my anecdote, I worked with a trannie crossdresser at a large insurance company. Other than being an odd looking and very mannish trannie, (s)he didn't bother me. Of course (s)he could never be fired, because (s)he was in a protected class.

I see your point. I agree that this creates more of a hassle for employers, especially in the US due to the ready-to-litigate mentality.

In my opinion, creating more "protected" classes only fosters victim mentality, and is counter-productive to our culture as a whole. However, the fact that sick people like Butterbean may be in the position to hire and fire based solely on their paranoid delusions, laws addressing the "issue" are needed to maintain a semblance of equality. I think that we're far from the day when there is a law that requires business owners to maintain a 5% tranny employee roster.

What this is about is whether these people, the non-Maury Povich drama queen types, can actually have security in their employment based on their performance rather than their choice of lifestyle. Legislation saying that you can't hire a dude who likes to wear panties under his suit is not legislation that guarantees that creepy dude life-time employment. There are courts for settling such disputes, and it would be hard to argue that a shitty employee was fired wrongfully if they were indeed shitty, and not just kinky.

As to your (s)he thing, I feel your pain. I politically-incorrectly and jokingly refer to such developments as "It," and my girlfriends tend to elbow me in the ribs just about every time.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: alchemize
So when are the following going to be protected classes?

Nudists?
Swingers (i mentioned previously)?
S&M-dressers?

Why don't they have the same rights as cross dressers and bi-sexuals?

(I ignore some of the more deviant behaviors, but personally I don't see why they are much different other than they tend to violate the rights of others. These I list are better apples-apples comparisons)

I guess the difference is those are choices, not irreversible genetic conditions? (If we agree on homosexuality and gender identification as being a result of such, of course.) If you're genetically wired to think of yourself as a woman, I think that like we've become accepting of homosexuality, society should accept that.

That said, I guess you could make an argument that you feel a genetic urge to be nude. I actually can't think of a logical reason that nudists couldn't also be a protected class, since you could argue that transsexuals using a bathroom would make people uncomfortable in the same way a nudist would. I'm not at the peak of my mental facilities right now though, as I'm tired from a really long day at the office. I'll ponder this and get back to it later.

How is cross dressing and bixexuality possibly considered genetic?

Yes, clearly only YOUR sexual behavior is genetically defined :roll:

Or maybe I'm wrong, did you sit down one day and DECIDE to only like women?

That's a non-answer. I've seen semi-conclusive genetic studies on homosexuality and very clear genetic studies on gender confusion. So where are the ones on bisexuality and cross-dressing?

Homosexuality and gender "confusion" may very well be genetically/physiologically derived.

Cross-dressing is purely a kink, hence the very clear distinction between trans-gendered and trans-sexual if you bother to ask any psychiatrist worth his salt.

Trans-gendered folks "live" in the context of their opposite gender, while trans-sexuals merely like to play dress-up. One is a surgically treated condition, the other is not.

My guess is that any laws protecting trans-gendered people will overlap with "that salesman from the dealership who dresses up to pick up hookers on Saturday night" very little.

 

[sportage]

Hey buterbean... nice flats.
Anyone that throws a fuss is suspect to me.
Dont worry, we dont care what gender underware your wearing under that suit. :Q

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: sportage
Hey buterbean... nice flats.
Anyone that throws a fuss is suspect to me.
Dont worry, we dont care what gender underware your wearing under that suit. :Q

I'm guessing it's tighty-whiteys, three sizes too small.

 

[Vic]

The best part about Butterbean's posts is that he always exposes the far right wing for the paranoid authoritarians they really are. That's why I initially thought he was just somebody's troll/parody account.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Gay rights, Minority rights, Women rights etc are BS. You have your rights for being an AMERICAN not because of race or gender!

That's a nice sentiment, but it's not true...which is why "special protection" laws exist in the first place. Traditional interpretation of the law gives special rights to the majority, so those laws need to be changed to specifically mention the minority, or else they don't get any rights. Were your idealistic second sentence actually true, there would be no gay marriage debate, gays would have ALREADY been able to marry by whatever legal logic allows straight people to marry.

The problem is that people aren't (or weren't) recognized as just American. The black population was treated as slaves, women treated as second class etc. Now we have laws enabling them to be what they already are, American citizens. It wasn't that they didn't have the same rights as others, its that some didn't recognize those rights. Instead of making another class of American, why not punish those who treat others with less dignity (or rights)? Why do they have to be "classed" and get "special" rights?

The problem with gay marriage is the fact that government has decided they decide who can and who cannot marry. This is not the place of government IMO. You should be able to marry whomever you so choose without governmental say so.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: yllus
Well, I read up the gender identity expression issue on Senator Obama's site and I think it's a noble idea.

Three years of living right next to the gay village here in Toronto let me get to know a few transgendered people and I commiserate with some of the issues they have to deal with. All of the ones I knew weren't loud-and-proud, they simply wanted to go about their lives as a female and never have anybody notice. None of them would ever be suspected to be anything but female, so I guess a lot of this stuff wouldn't be relevant to them anyways.

It's a real shame that the DSM still lists this as a disorder - though I'm sure that like in the case of homosexuality, that too will one day change.

"It?s time to live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. Let?s enact federal civil rights legislation to outlaw hate crimes and protect workers against discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity or expression."

Absolutely.

I admit I am less comfortable with the idea than I am with the idea that some people are attracted to their own gender, but unlike Butterbean et all, I realize that this is MY problem, not theirs. The rights of my fellow Americans should not be determined by how comfortable I am with their lifestyle.

Make the effort to meet some of them. See if there's a 'PFLAG' chapter near you. It's normal to be a bit freaked out by the idea, and to get over that when you meet them.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Make the effort to meet some of them. See if there's a 'PFLAG' chapter near you. It's normal to be a bit freaked out by the idea, and to get over that when you meet them.

Is there a petting-zoo section?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Gay rights, Minority rights, Women rights etc are BS. You have your rights for being an AMERICAN not because of race or gender!

That's a nice sentiment, but it's not true...which is why "special protection" laws exist in the first place. Traditional interpretation of the law gives special rights to the majority, so those laws need to be changed to specifically mention the minority, or else they don't get any rights. Were your idealistic second sentence actually true, there would be no gay marriage debate, gays would have ALREADY been able to marry by whatever legal logic allows straight people to marry.

The problem is that people aren't (or weren't) recognized as just American. The black population was treated as slaves, women treated as second class etc. Now we have laws enabling them to be what they already are, American citizens. It wasn't that they didn't have the same rights as others, its that some didn't recognize those rights. Instead of making another class of American, why not punish those who treat others with less dignity (or rights)? Why do they have to be "classed" and get "special" rights?

The problem with gay marriage is the fact that government has decided they decide who can and who cannot marry. This is not the place of government IMO. You should be able to marry whomever you so choose without governmental say so.

If there were no bigots, there would be no need for protected classes. This problem begins with the Tories like Butterbean. The liberals might be (usually are) overzealous in their opposition to these bigots who wrap themselves in the Constitution just so they can use it as diaper, but that doesn't change where the fault lies.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: fallout man
Homosexuality and gender "confusion" may very well be genetically/physiologically derived.

Cross-dressing is purely a kink, hence the very clear distinction between trans-gendered and trans-sexual if you bother to ask any psychiatrist worth his salt.

Trans-gendered folks "live" in the context of their opposite gender, while trans-sexuals merely like to play dress-up. One is a surgically treated condition, the other is not.

My guess is that any laws protecting trans-gendered people will overlap with "that salesman from the dealership who dresses up to pick up hookers on Saturday night" very little.

Not to thread necro, but you've got your definitions mixed up. Transgender refers to anyone who feels that their gender identity is not necessarily aligned with the presumed gender identity corresponding to the sex they were born. Transsexuals are people who wish to be identified as the opposite sex than that which they were born and undergo physical alterations (including surgery and hormone replacement therapy) to change their sex. So all transsexuals are transgender, though not all transgendered people are transsexuals. To say that transsexuals are merely playing dress-up is completely backwards; you're thinking of transvestites (which include drag queens and drag kings).

Wiki

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Straight, white men (under 40, non-military, without a disability) are about the only people you can fire without HR and legal representation. That's laughable, and a perversion of the system.

Straight, white men are also the only group of people NOT being fired solely for belonging to the "class" they're in. They don't need protection.

The reason a protected class is established is that there's a history of discrimination against members of the class, discrimination based solely on the fact they're a member of the class.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: manowar821
Here's the key moment, butterfuck. Ask yourself, does this hurt anyone? Or is it just a matter of whether or not to deny THEM rights? Them meaning cross-dressers.

Chill out, the name calling thing in such terms is against p/n rules.

Butterbean is a stupid fucking wise and beautiful woman, he's eroding this forum with his drivel that carries traces of his KKK upbringing and quotes from Stormfront.

Excuse me but his posts are only allowed to make fun of and to tell him how stupid he is.

Fucking retarded white trash piece of shit is what he is.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: alchemize

Straight, white men (under 40, non-military, without a disability) are about the only people you can fire without HR and legal representation. That's laughable, and a perversion of the system.

Straight, white men are also the only group of people NOT being fired solely for belonging to the "class" they're in. They don't need protection.

The reason a protected class is established is that there's a history of discrimination against members of the class, discrimination based solely on the fact they're a member of the class.

No shit? Minorities need protection for discrimination by the majority... such a fucking novel idea, not like this was instituted under EQUAL PROTECTION or something like that, nah, no way.

Racists and bigots rarely think they are racists or bigots, but they are just the same.


Fortunantly there are laws in most every country that makes them the rulers of justice based on their fucked up opinions.