NBA pulls ASG from Charlotte over anti-LGBTQ law (Woj says it's New Orleans-bound?)

[The Flying Gent]

The stench of moral relativism is so alarming in here lol. This is something I'd thought only Americans deal with many years ago. But it's sadly a part of Canadian politics too, nice reminder this is. Reminds me of hijab politics. "Oh it only affects that one person, therefore, her freedoms are irrelevant." Nah.

I've never seen so many Canadians gather in one place and proclaim that Canada, or America in this case, should be alright with a group of people having their freedoms trampled upon, because Xi Jinping is a dolt. The new fashionable excuse not to be empathetic to citizens in our own country: but look at China!

Again, it's not unjust descrimination if the concerns aren't based on irrational prejudice. If we suddenly denied all Asians from driving because of the prejudice view that they can't see properly, then that's an obvious case of unjust descrimination. If, however, there are laws that don't allow 10 year olds to drive on our public roads, that's not unjust descrimination because the reasons for not allowing them to drive isn't based on an irrational prejudice of 10 year olds.

The fact alone you are bringing in a topic of "asian drivers" into this conversation... oh dear, that is a very interesting, and limited, perspective of race and now gender politics

And even age-ism over driving age limits? Hahahaha! Oh my, you're falling into the same trap of "protecting our children"

We descriminate men from entering women's restrooms not because we lack empathy for transgendered individuals, but because we understand the obvious risks of not doing so. Once again, even if you think the risks aren't as high as others believe, that doesn't make them hateful, it would simply mean that they've overestimated the risk factor. Besides, the law allows commonsense accommodations for those who struggle with gender identity, permitting them access to private bathrooms.

You do realize that the men who want to use the men's washroom are for all intents and purposes by definition *not* transgendered, and men have a designated washroom that matches their personal gender identity in almost every public space, right?

You really have a lot of work to do on your thought process here if you think men, who gender identify as men, not going into women's washrooms, is an example of discrimination.

BTW, have you heard of the man here in Ontario who was allowed into a women's shelter because he claimed to be transgendered? He sexually assaulted two women, one of them deaf. There's a very good reason why we don't allow men to enter these shelters, and it's got nothing to do with "transphobia."

Right, because those 1 in a thousand cases should preclude all other transgender people from practicing in life with their personal gender identity. That's not the same fallacy that the Republicans are using at all... of course not.

This ISN'T about bathrooms.

Shhh, don't tell anyone that. That's not how the dog-whistling works!

I really don't care what people do, I live my life how I want to and am okay with people born male choosing to be transgender. It doesn't affect me, however, I do believe these individuals need to understand the environment they are in and just because they choose to identify with another gender, that they think they should be treated 100 percent female. They aren't 100 percent female. There was a case of a transgender (born male) athlete playing in womens golf events, and driving the ball 50 - 100 yards further than every female in the tournament and crying foul that anyone should think their is a problem with her being there. That is absolutely ridiculous. It is more of an advantage than maxing yourself out on PED's. Just as the MMA example above, it is unfair. I am about what is best for the greater good, and accomodating transgender where it is not logical and putting them before everyone else because every one wants to claim to care so much about human rights, maybe we should lay ground rules that are firm like this washroom rule and then let people decide full well knowing the treatment they will get.

If you want my 100 percent opinion, I believe anyone that becomes transgender most definitely has a mental illness. I understand mental illness, but cannot fully relate. I've dealt with stints of anxiety and depression but nothing that kept me down for an extended period of time. Just as people with schizophrenia and bi-polarism should be treated respectfully an given the chance to live their life as happily as possible with the government and healthcare systems helping as much as possible, so should transgender people. I just don't think we should be encouraging it as much as we seem to now a days, by calling someone like Richard Jenner inspirational, when there were way more inspirational stories that year than a famous person having a sex change; people do that every day. In essence, I don't think we should give born males who identify with the opposite gender the exact same treatment as someone that was born female. It is not the same thing, and I don't really care if anyone thinks I am ignorant or living in the stone age. I am for transgender tolerance, but I understand the logic of decisions like these. Personally, I don't have very many negative experiences with transgenders, just a few that were cracked out and don't think I would have made the decision based on what I know to ban them from washrooms, just because I am unaware of incidents that have gone wrong in a public washroom involving transgenders; however, maybe if I was a a governor I would have much more access to complaints of women, bad experiences, etc. Common sense can't go out the window to support a trendy minority.

Basically Curryking, I don't think you should be calling people ignorant who oppose your view on this one. I don't think it is as cut and dry as you think it is, but I respect your opinion and I know it is something you believe in and believe is 100 percent right. I am a bit up in the air and can really appreciate the arguments from both sides. It's a grey area for sure.

Just real quick, what do bathrooms or NC laws or moving the AS game have to do with the outlier cases cited in this discussion? Or with the topic of transgender athletics in general?

I would say it certainly is ignorant to try and use one situation to justify another when they have no meaningful connection. Even If there are difficulties in dealing with such a complex issue as gender-identity on a societal scale, and there certainly are, that doesn't mean you throw the whole issue out the window and embrace discrimination as soon as you realize it's going to require some nuanced reasoning to straighten out.

[curryking3]

If you want my 100 percent opinion, I believe anyone that becomes transgender most definitely has a mental illness. I understand mental illness, but cannot fully relate. I've dealt with stints of anxiety and depression but nothing that kept me down for an extended period of time. Just as people with schizophrenia and bi-polarism should be treated respectfully an given the chance to live their life as happily as possible with the government and healthcare systems helping as much as possible, so should transgender people. I just don't think we should be encouraging it as much as we seem to now a days, by calling someone like Richard Jenner inspirational, when there were way more inspirational stories that year than a famous person having a sex change; people do that every day. In essence, I don't think we should give born males who identify with the opposite gender the exact same treatment as someone that was born female. It is not the same thing, and I don't really care if anyone thinks I am ignorant or living in the stone age.

If you want to dress up your discrimination around pretending like LGBT people are mentally ill, I shouldn't even have to tell you how ignorant you are being, but I guess I have to.

Beyond the few exceptions which do not represent the whole by any means, there is no grey area that you are suggesting that gives any room to imply that trangender people are mentally ill. That is not some label to cast upon people without a medical reason, and being transgender (or queer, or lesbian, or questioning, or anything of the sort) is not one of them.

We know medically that these are by and large biological constructs more to do with brain wiring, anatomy, and chemistry than anything else (that does not imply they need to be "fixed"), and that trangender and gay and lesbian and bisexual activities have existed among humans since the earliest civilizations. These are not new, and the LGBT community is not seeking to pressure people into become "more gay". That is classic fear-mongering.

Whoever And1'd this is foolish and needs to immediately address the misinformation and lack of knowledge on this subject, and so should the person who posted this. Really, really embarrassed to have to read these kind of foolish statements.

[icoholic]

Like I stated earlier, you are punishing and taking money out of the pockets of a lot of people that have no control over this law.

The constituents of North Carolina are not being "punished", a majority of them voted for the people that have made the bill a reality.

At the end of the day, a basketball game is completely trivial when compared to the rights of human beings.

Can you back that up that a majority of voters, 50 plus 1, supported this agenda?

Sure, let me Google that for you.

http://www.kmov.com/story/31652750/majority-in-new-poll-support-hb2-but-fear-it-could-hurt-ncs-image

Minds are now changing because of the economic impact.

[icoholic]

I can't believe what kind of bigoted nonsense I am reading in here.

Sadly, there are a lot of low end people on this board.

[Westside Gunn]

Curryking, these things were considered mental illnesses in the manual of the APA.

Whether they were included as illnesses and excluded later based on political pressure or scientific reasoning is another discussion.

It can be based on biological constructs, it could be based on life experiences and the environment around you.

[curryking3]

Curryking, these things were considered mental illnesses in the manual of the APA.

Whether they were included as illnesses and excluded later based on political pressure or scientific reasoning is another discussion.

It can be based on biological constructs, it could be based on life experiences and the environment around you.

Correct. Key word: were or was. There was absolutely no medical justification to consider them mental illnesses, however. Of course now, the DSM obviously do not include these as examples of mental illness.

Psychiatric diagnoses are heavily influenced by societal norms, especially were in the past, and even continue to be today here, and in foreign countries.

In some societies in Africa it is considered a mental illness not to believe in God and/or be an athiest. Of course we would know looking from here that is also an example of a psychiatric diagnoses based more on cultural norms than any legitimate medical knowledge.

On the last part, don't underestimate how much of our biology hardwires our behaviour. Many transgendered, or gay or lesbian, or otherwise, know of their sexual preferences and identity at a very young age, even opposing the culturally enforced rules upon their biological sexual identity, and even quite far from exposure to sexual content in culture.

Read about INAH3 for example, something discovered many years ago now, which has been found generally to be larger in heterosexual males compared to homosexual males and heterosexual females.

Other researchers have studied correlations between INAH-3 volume and other aspects of sexual identity. A study of transsexual individuals by neuroanatomist Dick Swaab found male-to-female transsexuals to have a size and number of neurons of INAH-3 closer to a normal female range, and that female-to-male transsexuals have a size and number of INAH-3 neurons closer to a normal male range. This finding that the size of the INAH-3 more closely corresponded to the gender the subject identified with rather than their biological or chromosomal gender has since been repeated...

You seriously can't compare the APA to a witch doctor association in Africa.

On the basis of having in the past including gender identity as a mental illness, in the past, yes, that specific case was as bad. The APA was, flatly, wrong, and used cultural and societal norms over medical data and information to include this as part of their diagnoses. That is, factually, just as bad.

There is plenty in American medical history, not just in psychiatry, that is some of the worst of all moral dilemmas to come out of the Western medical community. You can start by reading about the Tuskegee Syphilis studies. What you will discover is that what happened in American medical history does not automatically mean it was justified on any reasonable basis, neither a medical basis.

Assuming that what they did before had merit, without requiring it to be medically justified (which it was not), is a circular pattern of reasoning that if followed again would lead the medical community to discriminate against a population over a social construct without any basis. It is absolutely no different than an African society labeling people mentally ill over atheism.

[Westside Gunn]

Curryking, these things were considered mental illnesses in the manual of the APA.

Whether they were included as illnesses and excluded later based on political pressure or scientific reasoning is another discussion.

It can be based on biological constructs, it could be based on life experiences and the environment around you.

Correct. Key word: were or was. There was absolutely no medical justification to consider them mental illnesses, however. Of course now, the DSM obviously do not include these as examples of mental illness.

Psychiatric diagnoses are heavily influenced by societal norms, especially were in the past, and even continue to be today here, and in foreign countries.

In some societies in Africa it is considered a mental illness not to believe in God and/or be an athiest. Of course we would know looking from here that is also an example of a psychiatric diagnoses based more on cultural norms than any legitimate medical knowledge.

On the last part, don't underestimate how much of our biology hardwires our behaviour. Many transgendered, or gay or lesbian, or otherwise, know of their sexual preferences and identity at a very young age, even opposing the culturally enforced rules upon their biological sexual identity, and even quite far from exposure to sexual content in culture.

Read about INAH3 for example, something discovered many years ago now, which has been found generally to be larger in heterosexual males compared to homosexual males and heterosexual females.

You seriously can't compare the APA to a witch doctor association in Africa.

[OAKLEY_2]

The constituents of North Carolina are not being "punished", a majority of them voted for the people that have made the bill a reality.

At the end of the day, a basketball game is completely trivial when compared to the rights of human beings.

Can you back that up that a majority of voters, 50 plus 1, supported this agenda?

Sure, let me Google that for you.

http://www.kmov.com/story/31652750/majority-in-new-poll-support-hb2-but-fear-it-could-hurt-ncs-image

Minds are now changing because of the economic impact.

Since civil rights are constitutional and therefore "national" I would say polling not only risks being inaccurate but doesn't represent the greater populace. State rights and legislators tried to enfore racial segregation and racial segregation in the 1960's might have proved locally popular. In the grander scheme segregation was defeated because of national support. States cannot cherry pick civil rights.

[OAKLEY_2]

So I guess if the State legislature sees fit to ramrod their doctrine on the city of Charlotte then cue their hypocritical indignity once the Federal government strikes these anti civil rights laws completely off the books.

[chargerxthirty]

I think that people should use the bathroom that is designated by their sex at birth. It's plain and simple. I don't think that makes me a bigot and I certainly don't think it means I'm against minorities. It's pretty simple, sex is directly related to the bathroom you use. It's scientific.

In terms of Transgender people. That's not a "sex" as it were. It's a made up sex. Everyone who is transgender is still actually male or female. Therefore, the male and female options for bathrooms offers a choice for everyone. Living in downtown Toronto I can tell you straight up that I've seen every imaginable type of man enter the washroom, including those who were dressed as and thought they were actually women, and it didn't bother me at all, because I knew they were men.

If that same man entered the Washroom with my wife, who is small in stature and easily intimidated.... I wouldn't be so cool with that going down considering there is a sexual assault epidemic. Nothing makes aggressive perpetrators more happy than a guise to hide behind while they move around like the shady bastards they are. Nobody is saying that "actual transgender" people without those intents would be harmful, they are saying that there are a plethora of weirdos out there who would pretend to be women in order to satisfy their disgusting predatory habits. It's called a "smokescreen" .... a term which is thrown around this board all too often.

You know, it's funny because there's people like Rachel Dolezal out there who "feels black" and "thinks she is black" even though we all know that she isn't. Why is it that we're allowed to vilify Rachel Dolezal for identifying herself as something that she feels that she is, and make fun of her and make an absolute mockery of her on the internet and this is ok? How is that different from a man thinking and feeling like a woman or a woman thinking and feeling like a man? At the end of the day they are still either male or female, and DNA will prove that there is no debate, yet we need to be sensitive to their false beliefs?

It's black and white... pun intended. You're either a male or a female, there's no gray area.... the same way that Rachel Dolezal is white as ****, no matter what she thinks... so let's be responsible about peoples feelings and not selectively decide what situations which parallel each other matter more. We're better than that, and it's hypocritical to think otherwise.

[OAKLEY_2]

I can't believe what kind of bigoted nonsense I am reading in here.

Sadly, there are a lot of low end people on this board.

Whose life experience must amount to living in narrowly defined communities.

[VinBaker6]

I think that people should use the bathroom that is designated by their sex at birth. It's plain and simple. I don't think that makes me a bigot and I certainly don't think it means I'm against minorities. It's pretty simple, sex is directly related to the bathroom you use. It's scientific.

In terms of Transgender people. That's not a "sex" as it were. It's a made up sex. Everyone who is transgender is still actually male or female. Therefore, the male and female options for bathrooms offers a choice for everyone. Living in downtown Toronto I can tell you straight up that I've seen every imaginable type of man enter the washroom, including those who were dressed as and thought they were actually women, and it didn't bother me at all, because I knew they were men.

If that same man entered the Washroom with my wife, who is small in stature and easily intimidated.... I wouldn't be so cool with that going down considering there is a sexual assault epidemic. Nothing makes aggressive perpetrators more happy than a guise to hide behind while they move around like the shady bastards they are. Nobody is saying that "actual transgender" people without those intents would be harmful, they are saying that there are a plethora of weirdos out there who would pretend to be women in order to satisfy their disgusting predatory habits. It's called a "smokescreen" .... a term which is thrown around this board all too often.

You know, it's funny because there's people like Rachel Dolezal out there who "feels black" and "thinks she is black" even though we all know that she isn't. Why is it that we're allowed to vilify Rachel Dolezal for identifying herself as something that she feels that she is, and make fun of her and make an absolute mockery of her on the internet and this is ok? How is that different from a man thinking and feeling like a woman or a woman thinking and feeling like a man? At the end of the day they are still either male or female, and DNA will prove that there is no debate, yet we need to be sensitive to their false beliefs?

It's black and white... pun intended. You're either a male or a female, there's no gray area.... the same way that Rachel Dolezal is white as ****, no matter what she thinks... so let's be responsible about peoples feelings and not selectively decide which matters which parallel each other exactly matter more. We're better than that, and it's hypocritical to think otherwise.

There was a man who became a woman and then became even more specific by identifying himself as a 6 year old girl, he even got people to play his "parents". This was a guy with a wife and kids too. I thought this was messed up and I commented that I thought this man was mentally ill and I got blasted for being a hateful bigot.

This is also an honest question I've always had: If gender is a social construct, then why do people who change their gender as transgender need to become super feminine/masculine (like wearing dresses, long hair, tons of makeup, etc). Why feel the need to change at all if gender is just a social construct (at least on the outside)? I'm just curious, I hope wondering that doesn't make me a bigot.

I still think this law is unnecessary.

[OAKLEY_2]

I think that people should use the bathroom that is designated by their sex at birth. It's plain and simple. I don't think that makes me a bigot and I certainly don't think it means I'm against minorities. It's pretty simple, sex is directly related to the bathroom you use. It's scientific.

In terms of Transgender people. That's not a "sex" as it were. It's a made up sex.

Ever gone to a restaurant and the bathrooms were unisex? One toilet, one sink, one door? I think we have a Victorian prudish standard when it comes to relieving ourselves. So because we live with segregated bathrooms in some places we have to pass laws so imagined creeps won't be masquerading their peeping Tom intentions as Transgenders? What a f'd up society. That solves problems like that. Just ask men to sit down to P and we are good. Make the stall like a bank vault and control access. Put working people in the washrooms to keep them clean functioning and orderly. Reinvent the public washroom and make it clean.

[sewerfrosh]

Male or female, theres nothing else, you are what you are DNA is the proof, whats between or not between your legs doesn't matter and how you dress yourself matters not either. Race is becoming less and less an issue as the mixing continues, the lady in question has more chance of being black then Bruce Jenner being a female but society turns a blind eye and puts Bruce on a pedestal. A mental issue, well I think we all have some sort of crossed wiring some where and we must live with that. I pity Charlotte as yes they lose a lot of money and a great event.

[jimross]

I think that people should use the bathroom that is designated by their sex at birth. It's plain and simple. I don't think that makes me a bigot and I certainly don't think it means I'm against minorities. It's pretty simple, sex is directly related to the bathroom you use. It's scientific.

In terms of Transgender people. That's not a "sex" as it were. It's a made up sex. Everyone who is transgender is still actually male or female. Therefore, the male and female options for bathrooms offers a choice for everyone. Living in downtown Toronto I can tell you straight up that I've seen every imaginable type of man enter the washroom, including those who were dressed as and thought they were actually women, and it didn't bother me at all, because I knew they were men.

If that same man entered the Washroom with my wife, who is small in stature and easily intimidated.... I wouldn't be so cool with that going down considering there is a sexual assault epidemic. Nothing makes aggressive perpetrators more happy than a guise to hide behind while they move around like the shady bastards they are. Nobody is saying that "actual transgender" people without those intents would be harmful, they are saying that there are a plethora of weirdos out there who would pretend to be women in order to satisfy their disgusting predatory habits. It's called a "smokescreen" .... a term which is thrown around this board all too often.

You know, it's funny because there's people like Rachel Dolezal out there who "feels black" and "thinks she is black" even though we all know that she isn't. Why is it that we're allowed to vilify Rachel Dolezal for identifying herself as something that she feels that she is, and make fun of her and make an absolute mockery of her on the internet and this is ok? How is that different from a man thinking and feeling like a woman or a woman thinking and feeling like a man? At the end of the day they are still either male or female, and DNA will prove that there is no debate, yet we need to be sensitive to their false beliefs?

It's black and white... pun intended. You're either a male or a female, there's no gray area.... the same way that Rachel Dolezal is white as ****, no matter what she thinks... so let's be responsible about peoples feelings and not selectively decide which matters which parallel each other exactly matter more. We're better than that, and it's hypocritical to think otherwise.

Great post. Agree with everything you said. That bolded part is something I've brought up time and time again. It's such a hypocrisy.

[jimross]

I think that people should use the bathroom that is designated by their sex at birth. It's plain and simple. I don't think that makes me a bigot and I certainly don't think it means I'm against minorities. It's pretty simple, sex is directly related to the bathroom you use. It's scientific.

In terms of Transgender people. That's not a "sex" as it were. It's a made up sex. Everyone who is transgender is still actually male or female. Therefore, the male and female options for bathrooms offers a choice for everyone. Living in downtown Toronto I can tell you straight up that I've seen every imaginable type of man enter the washroom, including those who were dressed as and thought they were actually women, and it didn't bother me at all, because I knew they were men.

If that same man entered the Washroom with my wife, who is small in stature and easily intimidated.... I wouldn't be so cool with that going down considering there is a sexual assault epidemic. Nothing makes aggressive perpetrators more happy than a guise to hide behind while they move around like the shady bastards they are. Nobody is saying that "actual transgender" people without those intents would be harmful, they are saying that there are a plethora of weirdos out there who would pretend to be women in order to satisfy their disgusting predatory habits. It's called a "smokescreen" .... a term which is thrown around this board all too often.

You know, it's funny because there's people like Rachel Dolezal out there who "feels black" and "thinks she is black" even though we all know that she isn't. Why is it that we're allowed to vilify Rachel Dolezal for identifying herself as something that she feels that she is, and make fun of her and make an absolute mockery of her on the internet and this is ok? How is that different from a man thinking and feeling like a woman or a woman thinking and feeling like a man? At the end of the day they are still either male or female, and DNA will prove that there is no debate, yet we need to be sensitive to their false beliefs?

It's black and white... pun intended. You're either a male or a female, there's no gray area.... the same way that Rachel Dolezal is white as ****, no matter what she thinks... so let's be responsible about peoples feelings and not selectively decide which matters which parallel each other exactly matter more. We're better than that, and it's hypocritical to think otherwise.

There was a man who became a woman and then became even more specific by identifying himself as a 6 year old girl, he even got people to play his "parents". This was a guy with a wife and kids too. I thought this was messed up and I commented that I thought this man was mentally ill and I got blasted for being a hateful bigot.

This is also an honest question I've always had: If gender is a social construct, then why do people who change their gender as transgender need to become super feminine/masculine (like wearing dresses, long hair, tons of makeup, etc). Why feel the need to change at all if gender is just a social construct (at least on the outside)? I'm just curious, I hope wondering that doesn't make me a bigot.

I still think this law is unnecessary.

All those people who blasted for thinking that are just these new age sjw idiots. Some of the most unhappy people I've ever met.

These same idiots who think gender is a social construct is even more mind boggling. There's even people who raise there kids as gender neutral and let the kids decide. It's so ****** up.

[shefcurry]

Curryking, these things were considered mental illnesses in the manual of the APA.

Whether they were included as illnesses and excluded later based on political pressure or scientific reasoning is another discussion.

It can be based on biological constructs, it could be based on life experiences and the environment around you.

Correct. Key word: were or was. There was absolutely no medical justification to consider them mental illnesses, however. Of course now, the DSM obviously do not include these as examples of mental illness.

Psychiatric diagnoses are heavily influenced by societal norms, especially were in the past, and even continue to be today here, and in foreign countries.

You're incorrect about this. The DSM still addresses it as a treatable illness. They changed the terminology from "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria" in order to prevent discrimination based on the term "disorder", but they still provide treatment if it is sought.

http://www.dsm5.org/documents/gender%20dysphoria%20fact%20sheet.pdf

[tsherkin]

So, I think it bears mention that referencing older "understanding" of conditions from previous periods in North American history which were defined by ruthless bigotry is probably not a sensible contribution to this conversation. We're not that far past race riots... and the Civil Rights Restoration Act in the US is like a quarter century old. Our appreciation and devotion to not being douchebags to women is far more recent, and less successful.

Referencing our past to discuss the present context reflects an embarrassing absence of context given the hate-filled rhetoric which has been perpetuated around non-standard sexuality (be it in orientation or gender association).

This thread needs to tread lightly. Very, very lightly.

[shefcurry]

Not asking.

[shefcurry]

Derailing - Take a breather