State level anti-trans bills

[Confused1]

It has already happened in Arkansas, except the age is 18. Proud to say Dr. Ho is one of my therapists:

 

https://www.5newsonline.com/article/news/local/local-doctor-reacts-after-arkansas-lawmakers-override-transgender-bill-veto/527-3095baa5-f8e2-4668-873e-2f96b8cd9800?fbclid=IwAR0u_Jhoe40l4qY_6SxT_YmEavmwZzI37f4Fkzw-tD_8I2fSZZxCiRbXOQ0

 

[Ivy]

It is nice to see that everyone is not behind this sh1+.

 

Here in NC our bill looks pretty grim.  I don't really understand the 21yr old part (not that the rest of it doesn't suck).  I mean you can vote at 18, get drafted at 18, it's the age of consent in most places.  This particular part is directed all all transgender people in reality.  These people want to go back to the day when you could be arrested for just cross-dressing.  It's just friggin cruelty.

 

"Under S.B. 514, any state employee who knows someone under 21 who “has exhibited symptoms of gender dysphoria, gender nonconformity, or otherwise demonstrates a desire to be treated in a manner incongruent with the [their] sex” would have to tell the person’s parents, which could put transgender and gender non-conforming people up to age 20 in danger by outing them."

 

And then there is the hypocrisy factor - which is not anything unique:

"This part of the bill has the title “Protection of parental rights,” even though most of the bill is about banning parents from making decisions about their children’s health."

 

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/04/north-carolina-republicans-propose-ban-gender-affirming-care-young-adults-age-21/

 

[VickySGV]

The problem with the bills that tell state employees (including teachers and school counselors primarily I guess) is that it is overly broad and there goes half of the school football players and all of the female athletes in those schools.  All young people exhibit crossgender behaviors at one  time or another.  I am sure some teachers are thrilled about this, and may use it to get a child out of their class even if the child is wholly cis gender.  Other teachers are going to find themselves unable to do effective teaching at all because the students do not have confidence in them.  A parent told this about their child may also be taking excessive time of the school administration by complaining that other children are not being reported to their parents.  It assumes there are NO supportive parents which is a big slap at parents in general who if not supportive per se are not going to be violent.  The list of problems for this goes on and on.  The Legislators are not the mythical rulers of a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta like the Mikado who by saying something make it so in a more complex world.

[Ivy]

Student and professional athletes joined LGBTQ advocates Friday to ask the National Collegiate Athletic Association to take action against states passing bills to exclude transgender women from women’s sports teams.

 

http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2021/04/10/student-professional-athletes-push-for-ncaa-to-pull-events-over-transgender-athlete-bans/#sthash.XZbYpRqm.dpbs

[Ivy]

The assaults continue:

 

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/04/another-anti-trans-bill-arkansas-allows-people-share-bathrooms-trans-people-sue/

 

"This bill gives a person the right to sue if, while in restrooms at schools, offices, or government-ran facilities, they encounter someone that was assigned to a different sex at birth than them."

[VickySGV]

President Biden did speak in support of Trans People at an event put on by the National Center for Transgender Equality the other night and this is push-back against the Federal moves to grant us equality, it is a "State's Rights" issue that they hope the current SCOTUS will find in their favor against the Federal Government and nationwide determination of a wide variety of rights, Women's rights, Racial equality, and equality of all faith beliefs which they think will lessen their rights.  It will lessen their imagined "power" which so far is a negative thing.  I want freedom but not the false sense an assault weapon provides.

[Marcie Jensen]

"I want freedom but not the false sense an assault weapon provides."

 

This hits close to home in a number of ways. As a retired veteran (U.S. Army infantry), I've always been a pro second amendment gal, but after my daughter sent me photos of herself yesterday holding a tricked out AR15 to her shoulder with a magazine in well, he finger on the trigger and my 4 year old grandson present, I'm beginning to rethink my position a bit. 

 

I have several reasons for this. First, my daughter was taught was taught proper gun safety and knows better than to use a gun, any gun, as a toy; particularly with a child present. Next, she knows to treat all guns as loaded and to never stick your finger in the trigger guard unless you're going to shoot. Third, while an AR 15, or any of its clones, is no more or less dangerous than any other firearm, the perception is that they look scary and have become a symbol of violence.

 

This leads to her behavior--it's clear that Alison, my daughter, has forgotten everything she has ever learned about handling a weapon and needs some serious training before ever picking up a gun. Frankly, I want to take the rifle away from her and paddle her behind for her behavior, but that isn't possible or practical. Training ought to be a pre-requisite for anyone before purchasing a firearm. Too many people treat guns as toys/props or think that owning one is "cool;" particularly is it has all the gadgets on it, such as optics, a vertical foregrip and so on. These things don't make the gun any more deadly, and in fact can impair performance in the hands of an unskilled user. So maybe its time to bring this into the discussion.

 

I also believe that it's time to start educating folks about firearms; particularly our politicians and members of the media who don't seem to understand just what they're talking about. Similarly, it's time to educate the gun rights advocates about most people's legitimate fears regarding firearms and the terminology in use.  For example, the acronym "AR" doesn't stand for Assault Rifle. Rather, it stands for Armalite Rifle, the name of the firm that first produced it in the 1950s as a ranch rifle, or varmint gun for use in hunting (yes, hunting) small game. it's fully automatic/selective fire cousin, the M16 family was developed by the Air Force in the early 1960s as a replacement for the WW2 era M1 and M2 carbines. Other things that need to be understood include the difference between a magazine and a clip, semi-auto and fully automatic, just what constitutes an assault weapon to begin with as well as why it is that the average civilian doesn't need a fully automatic weapon for self defense or that simply brandishing a scary looking weapon will not in and of itself defend one's home or loved ones. 

 

What is clear in this argument is that both sides are talking past each other without understanding the other side at all, or desiring to learn. In 1793, when the constitution was ratified, the dominant firearm used by both civilians and the military was a single shot, muzzle loading, .75 caliber, smooth bore musket with a bayonet lug. Times have changed. Period. Also, the writers of the constitution had just gone through an 8 year war for their independence and were very concerned about something similar happening again. 

 

While I could go on for much longer about this topic, the salient points are that gun violence is too high in this country (Mostly committed with pistols), there needs to be something done about it and both sides need to listen to and learn from each other.

Sorry for the rant, but this touches a nerve. By the way, just what is an "assault weapon?" I know most people picture an AR15 or AK47. But, does a WW2 era M2 carbine fit the definition (30 round magazine, selective fire and intermediate cartridge)? What about the Henry or Winchester model 1873 (cowboy rifles) with its 17 round magazine and lever action? 

 

Are there any answers?

 

 

[Jackie C.]

1 hour ago, Marcie Jensen said:

Are there any answers?

 

My understanding is that if your firearm has a full-auto mayhem setting where you can turn a large number of bullets into a large number of active projectiles by pulling and holding the trigger, you have an assault weapon. That's what I think of anyway.

 

I do not own a firearm. I have no problem with people who do, but I think the laws for ownership need to be stricter, especially in the cases of weapons like the one above that can turn a crowd into a collection of corpses in a matter of seconds. I'm of the opinion the requirements for owning and operating a firearm should be at least as strict as those for owning and operating a motor vehicle with regular assessment tests to demonstrate competency and safety knowledge.

 

Hugs!

[ValerieRun]

I wish there was a recurring test to operate motor vehicle, especially after global events like pandemic. Amount of people who completely lost the skill to properly navigate their car on a highway after a year-long isolation is downright depressing.

[Marcie Jensen]

Hi Jackie,

 

I completely agree with you about the requirements for owning a firearm; particularly the assessment portion. That said, here are a couple of things you should know regarding firearms. This isn't a lecture or intended to be anything like that. It's just that we all need to be informed about current laws, etc.

 

It's illegal to own a fully automatic firearm in this country (ie: submachinegun, machinegun and assault rifle) without extensive background checks, prohibitive transfer taxes (in the thousands of dollars) and a specific federal permit/license.  The same holds true for suppressors. Personally, I don't see the need to own a machinegun or understand why anyone wants to own one, but that's just me.

 

Now, the military's definition of an assault rifle, which seems to be a pretty good one as its internationally used is: "A selective fire, magazine fed intermediate cartridge, direct fire shoulder weapon." Military issue examples of this include the M16 family the AK family, the St4eyr AUG, the UK's L85 family and so on.  All of these are characterized by being able to fire multiple rounds as long as the trigger is depressed--like a machine gun. The civilian AR15 doesn't have this capability; the rifle fires only one round when the trigger is depressed.  You have to release the trigger, and depress it again to fire another round. That's a significant difference. An intermediate cartridge is defined as being of smaller caliber than a full size rifle round (5.56mm v. 7.62mm, for example) but larger than a pistol cartridge (9mm for example). And yes, this is all technical, but it's important in terms of effective range, stopping power and ballistics.  I bring these factors up because the WW2 era M2 carbine, classified as an antique and not a firearm, BTW, is selective fire (semi and fully automatic), fires an intermediate cartridge and fits all the criteria of an assault rifle but is never mentioned when discussing assault weapons. The reason is pretty simple--it doesn't look scary.  

 

Here's the dirty little secret of the M2 carbine--it's smaller, as accurate and can more quickly dump rounds down range than a civilian AR15! Also, its older brother, the M1 carbine can be converted into an M2 in about 30 minutes by virtually anyone with a couple of screwdrivers and the right parts. 

 

So, my point here is this--we all need to get educated about what is and what isn't an assault weapon, and your definition is pretty spot--and we need to agree on the terminology. (They were developed to put a lot of rounds down range very quickly with better range, accuracy and stopping power than a submachinegun.) 

 

And for full disclosure, I do own some firearms. I have a couple of Taurus P11G3 pistols and a 12 gauge shotgun for home defense. I load the shotgun with #4 birdshot because because while it will stop an intruder, it won't go through interior stud walls, which prevents unintentional damage.  I also practice weekly with the guns because if I don't I will not be able to accuratelyand safely use them, which would be reckless, irresponsible and dangerous.

[Ivy]

Hi Marcie.

This kinda seems like a subject for another thread.

Having said that: I'm an army veteran myself, and actually do have a couple of firearms - although not any of the "assault weapon" variety.  One is a small pistol that I could easily slip into my purse if I felt the need, but I don't.

One thing that bothers me a lot is the way some people are carrying them openly (it seems) to intimidate their political opponents.  That's certainly not self defense.

Anyhow, perhaps a new thread devoted to this subject would be a good idea?

 

[MelanieTamara]

On 4/8/2021 at 9:48 AM, VickySGV said:

The Legislators are not the mythical rulers of a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta like the Mikado who by saying something make it so in a more complex world.

 

This is another shining example of the government overreaching into the private lives of citizens. Now they are in our bodies. Soon to come, they'll be in our homes. The NC bill literally says that if under 21, you are not an adult. But of course the politicians have no problem sticking a gun in an 18 year old's hands to protect their fat asses.

[Maid In Bedlam]

3 hours ago, MelanieTamara said:

 

This is another shining example of the government overreaching into the private lives of citizens. Now they are in our bodies. Soon to come, they'll be in our homes.

 

I know nothing of what this bill is all about and it has no meaning to my circumstances. But what i will say is. The government is already in our homes. You have a web cam? you have listening devises? Such as computers, Alexa etc 99% of us carry them around with us in the form of a phone. We all know how easy it is to hack these things. I assume you have seen 1984. We are in reality a step away but just dont relise it and have done it to ourselves by being becoming reliant and a slave to these devises. I will give you another example. take for instance the pokemon go app for your phone? Have you ever seen the terms and conditions and to make it work you have to give it permissions to access everything on your phone. I mean everything. Just a game? really? You may wanna catch em all. But in catching them all the goverments can catch all you do.

 

Conspiracy theory? I dont really subscribe to many of them. But does seem a little strange sometimes. Its not just that app either. I use the fitbit app and that wont synch unless you have everything turned on. Its only a step away for knowing everything there is to know about the how when and wherefore of your day.

 

Anyway Back on topic

 

 

[Ivy]

It's turning into a rough year.

 

Texas Senate Bill 1646 would brand the parents of trans children as “child abusers” if they support their kids.

 

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/04/texas-bill-brand-parents-trans-children-child-abusers-support-kids/

 

"This bill in Texas, SB1646, would remove trans kids from their homes if a parent affirms their gender. Truly barbaric."

 

I guess simply supporting trans folks will be aa crime.

[Ivy]

Today, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum signed House Bill 1503 into law — legislation that allows student groups at colleges, universities, and high schools to discriminate against LGBTQ students.

 

https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/north-dakota-gov-doug-burgum-signs-anti-lgbtq-house-bill-1503-into-laww

[Carolyn Marie]

2 hours ago, Jandi said:

Today, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum signed House Bill 1503 into law — legislation that allows student groups at colleges, universities, and high schools to discriminate against LGBTQ students.

 

https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/north-dakota-gov-doug-burgum-signs-anti-lgbtq-house-bill-1503-into-laww

 

    

 

I believe this is the offending portion of the legislation:

 

An institution may not discriminate against a student organization with respect toa benefit available to any other student organization based on a requirement of the organization that leaders or voting members of the organization:(1)Adhere to the organization's viewpoints or sincerely held beliefs; or(2) Be committed to furthering the organization's beliefs or religious missions.

 

Off to the Courts we go...

 

Carolyn Marie

[MelanieTamara]

9 hours ago, Carolyn Marie said:

(2) Be committed to furthering the organization's beliefs or religious missions.

So the Deuteronomy Bible Club, whose bylaws include strict adherence to the principles outlined in the book of Deuteronomy, can deny access to Transgendered students simply because denying them access furthers the organizations beliefs and / or religious mission?  And because they are furthering their religious mission, the Deuteronomy Bible Club can still receive university funding at the same level as other organizations within the university?

 

Do I have that right? 

 

If so, Geezus Effin Christ.

 

[VickySGV]

I have had training in law, in fact a law degree, and that stuff I am reading is confusing and open to so much interpretation, that it is driving me completely nutz.  I think it is like what the Mad Hatter meant when (I think it was him) said "It means what YOU want to mean and nothing else." 

[Ivy]

 

Kansas governor signals she will veto bill banning transgender girls from school sports

 

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/04/kansas-governor-signals-will-veto-bill-banning-transgender-girls-school-sports/

 

Whether it is for the right reasons or not…

“We didn’t bring in a record amount of capital investment to Kansas by antagonizing businesses,” Kelly said. “I’m going to support bills that bring jobs to Kansas and oppose bills that drive businesses away.”

 

Vicky- wasn't that Humpty Dumpty?

 

[Ivy]

Ah, yes.   A classic indeed!

 

When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

[Marcie Jensen]

Hi all, 

Just a quick note on the whole Deuteronomy thing, And for the record, I have a Masters of Divinity, so comparative theology is something I know a little bit about. I don't claim to have a window into God's mind nor am I condemning any religion.

 

The prohibition in Deuteronomy is often cited by small minded self proclaimed theologians who are misinterpreting Scripture. 'Nuff said. Also, the anti-LGBTQ agenda is not limited to Christians. Islam, for example, has even more stringent and strident prohibitions as do some sects of Judaism and other religions. Additionally, speaking as a Christian, it seems to me that any group that would ban membership to any marginalized group or person is acting contrary to the example se4t by Jesus. Remember, he was always sitting with the tax collectors, lepers, prostitutes and so on. So, how can we, as Christians do less?

 

Finally, I have searched Scripture many times and nowhere have I found any condemnation of anyone for their sexuality/gender. In short, any group that would deny memberships based on gender issues is, imho, dead wrong. It also seems to me that this bill is in violation of the first amendment, but I will leave that in the hands of constitutional scholars.

 

In summary, these are bad laws written for the bigoted, by the ignorant.  Alice in Wonderland was quoted; I will leave you with another which applies to these legislative bodies; every last one of them.

"Judge not lest ye be judged," (Matthew 7:1)

 

Hugs,

Marcie

[Marcie Jensen]

It occurred to me after I posted that my quotation from John may have been unclear. I'm sorry. It was intended for the state legislatures, not anyone else. They are the ones being highly judgemental.

Again, my apologies.

[MelanieTamara]

8 hours ago, Jandi said:

“I’m going to support bills that bring jobs to Kansas and oppose bills that drive businesses away

Wow, so essentially, Transgender rights is a function of economics? This is slippery slope.

 

I'm so just waiting for a politician to say that Transgendered individuals have a 1st amendment right, a human right, to present as they want to present and anyone who doesn't agree can just STFU.

[Ivy]

4 hours ago, MelanieTamara said:

I'm so just waiting for a politician to say that Transgendered individuals have a 1st amendment right, a human right, to present as they want to present…

I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Ivy]

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/04/4th-grader-shamed-texas-republicans-attacking-rights-now-getting-death-threats/
 

Sending kids death threats