What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBT+ Thread (4 Viewers)

BladeRunner said:
Yeah, that's what the American flag is for.  It already encompasses everyone.

If we're going to favor one group over the others with flags, that's clearly discrimination.  We probably should then be flying a flag for every minority group that exists or has ever existed. Do we have a pole that's 20 miles high?

I thought we're all supposed to be equals? Well, "equality" means no one group is favored over the other.  Whether that's in legislation or flying stupid flags.
Click to expand...


I don't know if it qualifies quite as deep as discrimination, but Blade Runner is right here.

The American embassies around the world function for state business and as a safe haven for US citizens abroad. It's not state business to care who you sleep with at night. It's not a function of international diplomacy nor national security. Rights for LBGT around the world can be human rights issues but embassies operate as "guests" in other nations. You don't broker human rights discussions by making overt displays on someone else's soil. You broker human rights discussions in the way and manner that nations have always leveraged each other throughout human history - threat of military might and fear of economic sanction. It would be more effective and more tactical in nature to use finance as a stranglehold on other nations that America feels has humans rights abuses. Then if that doesn't work, you send in the Marines.

You can fly a flag, but it's poor political strategy and it's poor tactics to achieve actual changes to real public policy, by at home and abroad.

What does it serve as? Virtue signaling to endear oneself to a specific voter block. That motive becomes one that uses actual LBGT rights and human rights as a cheap bargaining chip. It's not progressive, it's undignified. It's undignified to virtue signal to pander for votes and specific media narratives when real people are hurt and are suffering. I do not support the woke cancel culture at all. However there are 14 year old kids out there who are confused, without guidance and support and might not understand why they are different, and might believe the only answer is to cut their wrists open. That actual pain and tragedy and fear and hopelessness was not meant to be sold like a two dollar whore at closing time for a thinly veiled political talking point for 20 seconds in a news broadcast people will forget mere minutes later.

Virtue signaling is not dignity. It's the exact opposite of dignity.

It means more if that 14 year old realizes they are not alone, they should not be ashamed and wants to hold that flag up for themselves. That's what that flag actually represents and was meant to symbolize.

Someone's real pain is NOT a low cost high yield mother ####### marketing strategy.  How repugnant does someone's ethics have to be to try to weaponize that to highball their approval rating.

 
squistion said:
Biden reversed the military ban. But the Republican war on trans Americans is just getting started. GOP lawmakers have introduced more than a dozen state bills restricting trans youth’s access to health care and barring them from school sports.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/01/biden-reversed-the-military-ban-but-the-republican-war-on-trans-americans-is-just-getting-started/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=naytev&utm_medium=social
Click to expand...
They should have the same access to health care.

 
FairWarning said:
They should have the same access to health care.
Click to expand...
What does the health care entail (hint: it's probably non-parentally approved sex reassignment before the age of eighteen) and barring trans girls from playing girls' sports is hardly new or a "war." This is Mother Jones's tweet, which is probably left of Lenin.

 
squistion said:
Unconfirmed complete list from Twitter:

Hawley

Blackburn

Rubio

Tim Scott

Rick Scott

Marshall

Tuberville

Shelby

Cassidy

Cruz

Cotton

Hagerty

Lankford
Click to expand...
Guessing that is new TN Senator Hagerty.  Yeah...we now have two that are basically just Trump disciples for this state.  I don't know as much about him...Blackburn though, I have many non-excellent things to say about her.  She isn't MTG level nuts...but if she thought it would give her more power, she would probably try and outcrazy MTG.

 
rockaction said:
What does the health care entail (hint: it's probably non-parentally approved sex reassignment before the age of eighteen) and barring trans girls from playing girls' sports is hardly new or a "war." This is Mother Jones's tweet, which is probably left of Lenin.
Click to expand...
I doubt that.  :lol:

And in what states does health care currently cover non-parentally approved sex reassignment surgery before the age of eighteen?

 
squistion said:
I doubt that.  :lol:
Click to expand...
It's extremely likely that he's right.  Access to puberty blockers and similar treatments is the main (only?) politically contentious issue that falls under the general umbrella of "trans youth's access to health care."  Nobody's questioning whether trans kids should get flu shots, have broken bones reset, or whatever.

It's a difficult issue that I'm undecided on -- both sides have good arguments.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
It's extremely likely that he's right.  Access to puberty blockers and similar treatments is the main (only?) politically contentious issue that falls under the general umbrella of "trans youth's access to health care."  Nobody's questioning whether trans kids should get flu shots, have broken bones reset, or whatever.

It's a difficult issue that I'm undecided on -- both sides have good arguments.
Click to expand...
No, he's not. He specifically mentioned "non-parentally approved sex reassignment before the age of eighteen."

 
squistion said:
No, he's not. He specifically mentioned "non-parentally approved sex reassignment before the age of eighteen."
Click to expand...
Yes, and it's extremely likely that he's right.  Kids having access to hormones and puberty blockers without parental consent is a serious issue.  Under normal circumstances, it's easy to say to "no" to elective medical treatment for minors -- they can always just make their own decisions when they turn 18.  What makes this issue challenging is that if you wait until the kid is 18, the opportunity to block puberty has come and gone.  There's no way to avoid to making a permanent decision about puberty while the kid is a kid.

Edit: It's contentious with parental consent too, of course, for many of the same reasons.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Yes, and it's extremely likely that he's right.  Kids having access to hormones and puberty blockers without parental consent is a serious issue.  Under normal circumstances, it's easy to say to "no" to elective medical treatment for minors -- they can always just make their own decisions when they turn 18.  What makes this issue challenging is that if you wait until the kid is 18, the opportunity to block puberty has come and gone.  There's no way to avoid to making a permanent decision about puberty while the kid is a kid.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't extremely likely - having access to hormones and puberty blockers is not "non-parentally approved sex reassignment before the age of eighteen" and I don't know of one state that has a health care system that covers it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Sometimes it's worth banging your head against the wall just as a reminder that it's still a wall.
Click to expand...
I was reading this and the first thought that went through my head was "Why is IK even bothering?" I appreciate that you see the likelihood of it the way I do, though, and glad I'm not out on too far a limb on this one. And @fatguyinalittlecoatis as right as @fatguyinalittlecoat2, if we all really cared, we'd investigate the bills. I, for one, admittedly didn't and likely do not care. It was more a comment about the source than the actual bills - I can just read a tweet from Mother Jones, think of the most cynical way in which their language is framed, and that's likely the right answer. In a way, I'm saying squistion and his acolytes are sad in the way they approach news and current issues. That was the main thrust of what I was getting at because I specifically didn't want to get into it with "The Wall."

Speaking of which, Johnny Cash had a great song called "The Wall." Seems about appropriate. It's probably the best song ever about free will and destiny, and is rather moving. I picked it for Genrepalooza this time around. 

 
rockaction said:
I was reading this and the first thought that went through my head was "Why is IK even bothering?" I appreciate that you see the likelihood of it the way I do, though, and glad I'm not out on too far a limb on this one. And @fatguyinalittlecoatis as right as @fatguyinalittlecoat2, if we all really cared, we'd investigate the bills. I, for one, admittedly didn't and likely do not care. It was more a comment about the source than the actual bills - I can just read a tweet from Mother Jones, think of the most cynical way in which their language is framed, and that's likely the right answer. In a way, I'm saying squistion and his acolytes are sad in the way they approach news and current issues. That was the main thrust of what I was getting at because I specifically didn't want to get into it with "The Wall."

Speaking of which, Johnny Cash had a great song called "The Wall." Seems about appropriate. It's probably the best song ever about free will and destiny, and is rather moving. I picked it for Genrepalooza this time around. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, the issue is the inflamatory and misleading rhetoric implying the proposed restrictions are far more reaching than they are.   No one is proposing Trans should not have access to health care and sports, but certain specific issues on is it fair to other girls or  do children have the mental understanding to make life-altering biological medical descisions on their own.  To totally misframe the arguement is to intentionally create hatred between groups.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
 To totally misframe the arguement is to intentionally create hatred between groups.   
Click to expand...
Considering the issue is likely (still haven't checked) sex reassignment either without parental consent after puberty or with parental consent before it, it is not framed well by that tweet, which does intentionally create hatred between groups by implying that people somehow want to deny others basic access to care. If the GOP weren't so crazy these days, I wouldn't be saying it's "likely the issue," but the GOP is that crazy, so who knows?

(Unless you click on fatguy's ACLU thing. But my point also includes the way in which a hardened cynic can interpret a tweet like that and likely be correct about it, so I'm still not clicking. My point is about bad faith framing, which is exactly what you're getting at.)

 
squistion said:
I doubt that.  :lol:

And in what states does health care currently cover non-parentally approved sex reassignment surgery before the age of eighteen?
Click to expand...
I don’t know about insurance coverage, but endocrine society guidelines recommend delaying gender reassignment surgery until age 18 or later.

Puberty suppressing agents and hormone treatment can be given to trans minors, but only after screening, including mental health evaluation.

I’m not sure if @rockaction was referring only to surgery in his post, but IK clearly included drug treatments potentially involved in the transitioning process. 

While the term “gender reassignment” usually refers to surgery, can we agree that gender-affirming care encompasses non-surgical treatment as well, including some that may be objectionable based on perceived risks to the trans minor?

 
Terminalxylem said:
I don’t know about insurance coverage, but endocrine society guidelines recommend delaying gender reassignment surgery until age 18 or later.

Puberty suppressing agents and hormone treatment can be given to trans minors, but only after screening, including mental health evaluation.

I’m not sure if @rockaction was referring only to surgery in his post, but IK clearly included drug treatments potentially involved in the transitioning process. 

While the term “gender reassignment” usually refers to surgery, can we agree that gender-affirming care encompasses non-surgical treatment as well, including some that may be objectionable based on perceived risks to the trans minor?
Click to expand...
I won't speak for squistion. I'll let him answer for himself. But I think you're going to get an answer straight out of what one would consider the activist playbook. Be forewarned.

 
Terminalxylem said:
I’m not sure if @rockaction was referring only to surgery in his post, but IK clearly included drug treatments potentially involved in the transitioning process.
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to only surgery. While glancing sideways at this issue (it's never been in the forefront of my mind) I have been concerned about two things: non-parental consent for surgery and giving drugs to pre-pubescents to stop the encroachment of puberty on what appears to be a trans youth. One scares me because, well, teenagers don't necessarily know themselves yet. The other scares me because as much as we think the parents will have the child's best interest at heart, the child is wildly young and may yet outgrow his youthful predilection toward the other gender. And there doesn't seem like there's going back once you block hormones and start reassigning. And the child can't really consent to it at that age. It's a lot like the male circumcision debate that still rages over the internet and in other walks of like. Can the parents really decide for that child what his or her best interest is at such a young age? There is a big difference between circumcision and reassignment, though, and it makes this even tougher. Getting to it (the beginning of reassignment) too late is a problem, unlike circumcision. So it's not a perfect analogy, but it's the best I can come up with off of the top of my head.

I'd also imagine that there are serious general health concerns that the endocrinologists are assessing when they talk about these things, but I'll leave that to you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of facilities probably won’t work on gender reassignment stuff without parental consent because of the huge legal storm that would surely descend on them. Not to say some wouldn’t do it anyway, but that’s inviting trouble that most would rather avoid.

 
The first bill whose text I checked was about blocking and reassignment. Should I read further or is that enough to confirm exactly what I thought? This board sometimes. Why on earth is squistion tweeting this out and then doubting Ockham? Why aren't you reading what you're tweeting about, squistion? Instead of laughing and saying "I doubt it," why not bother to read the bills in question?

This was a ####### pointless hour of my time. Never again with this guy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Yeah, the issue is the inflamatory and misleading rhetoric implying the proposed restrictions are far more reaching than they are.   No one is proposing Trans should not have access to health care and sports, but certain specific issues on is it fair to other girls or  do children have the mental understanding to make life-altering biological medical descisions on their own.  To totally misframe the arguement is to intentionally create hatred between groups.   
Click to expand...
Well, I peeked at a few of the proposed laws and at least some of them don't even allow trans kids to get gender affirming medical care even WITH parental consent.  I also saw one that wasn't about trans kids at all, it was about trans inmates, which have their own distinct set of issues that are very different.  So it feels like maybe we could all be better about framing. 

 
Kal El said:
A lot of facilities probably won’t work on gender reassignment stuff without parental consent because of the huge legal storm that would surely descend on them. Not to say some wouldn’t do it anyway, but that’s inviting trouble that most would rather avoid.
Click to expand...
I haven't looked into this exhaustively, but I think in every state there are hoops to jump through involving doctors, mental health providers and judges before a kid can get gender affirming medical treatment.  I'm pretty sure the idea that some kid is just walking in to a doctor's office off the street and getting shot up with hormones is a myth.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I haven't looked into this exhaustively, but I think in every state there are hoops to jump through involving doctors, mental health providers and judges before a kid can get gender affirming medical treatment.  I'm pretty sure the idea that some kid is just walking in to a doctor's office off the street and getting shot up with hormones is a myth.
Click to expand...
I agree, it’s likely hard to accomplish because of the perceived permanence of said procedure as well.

 
What's the difference in the acronyms in the thread title?

Doesn't LGBTQ encompass LGBT?  Why is there a + on the last one but not a Q?  Wouldn't a single LGBTQ+ cover everyone or am I missing something?

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
What's the difference in the acronyms in the thread title?

Doesn't LGBTQ encompass LGBT?  Why is there a + on the last one but not a Q?  Wouldn't a single LGBTQ+ cover everyone or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
There has never been agreement as to what the Q actually stands for, some say it is for "questioning" and while other say it stands for "queer" (which may be used ironically here but is offensive to some in this minority community).

The use of the + came after the alphabet soup of letters had been added to LGBT and is to encompass all additional letters including Q (and is an accepted inclusive shorthand).

 
rockaction said:
I was reading this and the first thought that went through my head was "Why is IK even bothering?" I appreciate that you see the likelihood of it the way I do, though, and glad I'm not out on too far a limb on this one. And @fatguyinalittlecoatis as right as @fatguyinalittlecoat2, if we all really cared, we'd investigate the bills. I, for one, admittedly didn't and likely do not care. It was more a comment about the source than the actual bills - I can just read a tweet from Mother Jones, think of the most cynical way in which their language is framed, and that's likely the right answer. In a way, I'm saying squistion and his acolytes are sad in the way they approach news and current issues. That was the main thrust of what I was getting at because I specifically didn't want to get into it with "The Wall."

Speaking of which, Johnny Cash had a great song called "The Wall." Seems about appropriate. It's probably the best song ever about free will and destiny, and is rather moving. I picked it for Genrepalooza this time around. 
Click to expand...
So then you agree...sourcing is important.  Good to know.

 
sho nuff said:
So then you agree...sourcing is important.  Good to know.
Click to expand...
No, I don't agree. Like I said, when you -- yes, you -- ask for a source, it's generally to give someone a hard time even if the facts are plain as day. That thread got personal with respect to you, and rightfully so. It doesn't matter that tim said you were right, it's about you, personalized. As it should be when someone acts consistently in bad faith and then expects repeat behavior by others to let him act in bad faith.

 
rockaction said:
No, I don't agree. Like I said, when you -- yes, you -- ask for a source, it's generally to give someone a hard time even if the facts are plain as day. That thread got personal with respect to you, and rightfully so. It doesn't matter that tim said you were right, it's about you, personalized. As it should be when someone acts consistently in bad faith and then expects repeat behavior by others to let him act in bad faith.
Click to expand...
Yet...you commented about the source...seems interesting to me.

And no...you can claim that I am trying to give someone a hard time...but that is not why I ask for a soruce.  I ask for a source because I think it is important.  I think getting things right is important and where we get information is important.  I think we have seen over the last at least 5 years the growth of complete misinformation and how it has shaped the landscape.  I think being lazy with sourcing is a big reason we got there.

To call that bad faith...yet support the use of lazy sources without really trying to see if there is a better source...that is bad faith.  To complain about places like NYT and WashPo yet constantly post from pjmedia, gateway pundit...that is bad faith.  To post something as fact...then get bent out of shape when someone asks you where you got the information...and refuse to supply a source...that is bad faith.

Expecting people to be able to back up there claims should be simple...and not be seen as bad faith.

 
sho nuff said:
Yet...you commented about the source...seems interesting to me.

And no...you can claim that I am trying to give someone a hard time...but that is not why I ask for a soruce.  I ask for a source because I think it is important.  I think getting things right is important and where we get information is important.  I think we have seen over the last at least 5 years the growth of complete misinformation and how it has shaped the landscape.  I think being lazy with sourcing is a big reason we got there.

To call that bad faith...yet support the use of lazy sources without really trying to see if there is a better source...that is bad faith.  To complain about places like NYT and WashPo yet constantly post from pjmedia, gateway pundit...that is bad faith.  To post something as fact...then get bent out of shape when someone asks you where you got the information...and refuse to supply a source...that is bad faith.

Expecting people to be able to back up there claims should be simple...and not be seen as bad faith.
Click to expand...
So any random tweet should suffice right?

 
BladeRunner said:
What rights don't they have?  I'm unsure of why this is even needed other than to virtue signal.
Click to expand...
Are you that ignorant or uninformed that you are not aware that discrimination still exists in this country against LGBT+ folks, particularly those who are transgender?

In many states, LGBT+ people can still be fired, evicted, or denied services because of who they are or who they love. This legislation would change that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Are you that ignorant or uninformed that you are not aware that discrimination still exists in this country against LGBT+ folks, particularly those who are transgender?

In many states, LGBT+ people can still be fired, evicted, or denied services because of who they are or who they love. This legislation would change that.
Click to expand...
So you probably are a big supporter of the #BoycottCoke movement as well.

 
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/07/business/burger-king-chick-fil-a-lgbt/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=2021-06-08T13%3A00%3A11&utm_source=twCNN&utm_term=link

Burger King trolls Chick-fil-A with LGBTQ+ donations

New York (CNN Business)Burger King is making a statement during pride month: It's trying to get a leg up in the chicken sandwich wars by taking a not-so-subtle dig at rival Chick-fil-A's fraught history with the LGBTQ+ community.

The fast-food chain tweeted last week that it would donate 40 cents to the Human Rights Campaign for every Ch'King chicken sandwich sold in June. The Human Rights Campaign is America's largest LGBTQ civil rights organization.

Burger King added it will make those donations "even on Sunday," tweeting the eyes emoji. Chick-fil-A, because of its devout Christian ownership, closes its restaurants on Sundays.

https://twitter.com/BurgerKing/status/1400618810571362305

[...]

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Henry Ford
An Older, Conservative Man's Viewpoint After A Semester Of First Hand Experience In An Ivy League School
Replies
12
Views
1K
timschochet
timschochet
adonis
High school paper has compelling interview with Defense Secretary Mattis
Replies
26
Views
1K
Da Guru
Da Guru
BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
6K
El Floppo
El Floppo

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top