(07-11-2014 02:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:05 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:49 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Tom, we tend to shorten names. Examples:

San Francisco 49ers = 9ers
Redskins = 'Skins
British = Brits
California = Cali
Washington DC = DC
Chicago = Chi Town
Las Vegas = Vegas
Los Angeles International Airport = LAX


The list is endless.

Yea but the short form is Trans. Tranny is a perjorative, used only to demean or insult someone.

Oh brother, you people are so damn sensitive. Nobody is forcing you to call them a tranny so if you don't like it, just don't say it.

I've only known two words to be really offensive in use: the n-word and the c-word. That's it. Everything else moves and changes based on time and who is complaining.

IMO, most of us think it's a lifestyle choice. So, to us, we really don't care about the rules you create to garner acceptance of your choices. I also don't care to know what polygamists, drag queens, lovers of bestiality, those involved in incest, pornographers, and prostitutes believe are insensitive or whatever.

You have a right to speak like you came out of Westboro Baptist Church, but I was just trying to help some of you guys not sound like you did. Feel free to be ignorant if you will. Celebrate it as 'not being politically correct'. But know that using terms like that will make you sound like some ignorant rube or a hater of the Fred Phelps/Matt Barber variety.

Wow. I am not a member of the Westboro Church nor am I a baptist. In fact, I don't think they actually follow the same things that most Baptists do anyways. But anyway, I bet you'd call me racists, if you could. It is so predicable with you man....Just because someone thinks the committing of homosexual acts will send you to hell and really don't care to sugarcoat your deviant activity, they are now a hateful person and a member of the Westboro Baptist Church....really?

I love all of God's creations, no matter what crime you commit or what sexual deviance you suffer from or choose to participate in (or whatever you call it). I just don't have time to care about people's feelings when it comes to the actions that they take. You want people to sugarcoat what it is that these folks do so it is more acceptable...I disagree. If you want to dress up like a schoolgirl and get your butt spanked by someone in a gimp outfit, that's your choice and if you it behind closed doors, it's none of my business. But, don't ask me to be kind in how I characterize that scenario. It is what it is. It doesn't mean I don't like you or I hate you. I'm just not going to be as mindful about silliness and nonsense.

(07-11-2014 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why the fixation on the private parts? Why are falsies allowed in pictures? Why is dyed hair okay? How about a wig?

Where did I say anything about private parts?

What about falsies or hair dyes or wigs changes the appearance of facial features??

Did you even read what I wrote?

Quote:The WV policy, as applied, is directed at one group and one group only. Transgendered persons.

Not true. First, it only applies to those in transition who also need a new ID. It applies to stupid people who think it would be funny AND most importantly, people who are trying to disguise their Identity.

Quote:The solution is to allow a doctor certified by the state to certify that this person is transitioning.

Perfect. That takes the exposure away from the person not trained to know the difference between someone in transition and someone trying to be stupid or hide themselves.

Quote:How much you want to bet that the religious right and the GOP are vehemently opposed to that solution?

How much you want to bet that you're just ranting here rather than presenting facts.

Can you show that such a proposal was put forth by the left and rejected? If they haven't proposed it, why not?

Seriously, Tom... God forbid that 'the right' hasn't anticipated all of the possible needs for transgendered people, when the left obviously hasn't either.

ETA... Apparently even ultra-liberal California only recently came up with this solution themselves.... as in last month...

Are you going to argue that the GOP and religious groups in California ALSO put a similar law on the books and were ALSO keeping that solution off the ballot??

(07-11-2014 02:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:44 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'll just say okay since that's what you think. There is no rational discussion to be had.

I agree. There is no rational point of forcing people to have ID's that bear no visual similarity to what they look like.

HoD is completely correct. Let's put aside politics and religion for second and just see the thing for what it is. I'm not going to rehash things, but HoD is right about what an ID is created to do. The state does have a compelling interest in knowing what you look like behind all of the stuff used to change your appearance. Otherwise, what would be the point of an ID.

Put differently, your ID should be similar to your picture if you were arrested and put in jail. When you are booked, they take your wig, makeup, piercings, etc off. That way, they can get a photo of you without all of the temporary changes to your appearance. The state wants to know what you actually look like. This rule applies whether you are a man trying to look like a woman, a circus performer that has faked the dogboy look, or if you are a lucha libre performer. The rule is neutral in both its creation and application.

Ok, then lets make all FEMALES take off all their makeup, hairextentions and wigs to take their ID too. That would make it fair. And no dentures for anyone either. Got falsies? Then you get a gap toothed state ID. Oh and no hair dye either. Gotta be your natural hair color too.

So when your grandmother has to present as her ID a picture showing her with missing hair and six teeth, then you can claim this is fair.

In on way I don't think what you're saying is a bad idea, but women, and sometimes men, change their hair styles or get hair cuts. The purpose of an ID is to identify. If a trans ran out in the middle of the night without the required accessories that make him a trans and he tried to use his credit card and the clerk asked for ID, then what? His driver's license would show a pic of a woman and he'd be presenting the image of a man and now the clerk is in a pickle. And what if that trans, like some of us tend to do, go haywire and go off on a loony binge. The ID photo the news uses for the public to call in with might not look anything like the person they're looking for.

An ID card is not a social wish list, it's to identify you not just in bars but at hospitals and morgues. Can you imagine if a house is burning and they find the body of a trans man and firemen risk their lives going back into the house looking for a woman thought to be living there when there isn't one?

And what about passports? Do we even want to go there?

BTW, out of respect for "you" I removed the word trannies from the thread title even though I really don't see anything wrong with it. For better or worse people get nicknamed - does Obamacare ring a bell?

Passports. There's an idea. I wonder if Obama can order the passport bureau to simply accept medical letters stating the person is transitioning. Its a legal ID. That could be a partial solution. Not perfect, but good.

I'm not trans, but we have a situation similar down here in Texas. In Texas if you want to change your name to match that of your partner in a Federally recognized same sex marriage you cannot do so in Texas. So you have to go to another state, get an ID there, then use that state ID to change your Social Security ID, then take the Social Security ID back to the same hateful GOP judge that denied the name change request in the first place, who then will be forced to change the name for Texas law. Its expensive and time consuming.

Don't change the term tranny to trans for my benefit. Consider doing it for your own benefit/credibility. "Tranny" is a no-no word. Sure its legal to say it, but why would you use it? I get that people might not be aware of these issues so I'm not offended when I see it, but simply wanted to point out how that word is perceived for y'all's benefit.

(07-11-2014 02:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I think you're reach here Tom. There currently is an avenue available to deal with the situation being discussed. If a court order is needed for the M->F photo ID, why not get it? The article stated that medical action was needed in 'most', not all cases. I imagine these individuals are on some form of hormone therapy, which surely falls into the category of medical action.

Everyone is stereotyped and profiled in various ways that are superior nor inferior in a relative sense. There exists no legal protection from the feelings 'offense' and 'uncomfortableness'. It is impossible to create such a world.

You can't get a court order from a WV court unless you have already transitioned. And it takes 75k to get that surgery. And either way, you can't have the surgery unless you live 100% as the new gender for at least 2 full years.

----

Lets apply the same scrutiny to your grandmother. Lets say she got some missing hair, its really grey, and she has some missing teeth. It happens as we age. But she wears dentures, has a wig/dyes her hair. How do you think it would make her feel if everytime she voted, drove a car, bought alcohol, went on a plane, entered a courthouse, etc., she would have to present this picture that is hideously unflattering and then explain 'yea all my teeth rotted out' and 'im older than I look'.

Its no different for transgendered persons under the WV regime. Its humiliating. Needlessly. But that's the whole point of it. To humiliate. Because the same concept isn't applied to anyone else.

Let's not and just say we did, because I think you're purposefully misconstruing all of the contra positions. You believe that this is some grand conspiracy on the part of the religious right despite that fact that WV of all places does indeed have a protocol for people who have transitioned.

Its just an oversight and considering that WV probably didn't create their current transgender policy without some input from some LBGT advocacy group, one that they failed to imagine as well. As you stated uptread, this is easily correctable by having a court order from a licensed medical professional from the state.

(07-11-2014 02:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:44 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Please, the entire point of this is to humiliate transpeople. Besides if the ID is to bear no resemblance whatsoever to the person depicted in it, then why even bother with a picture on the ID?

I get that the religious right wishes to force transgendered persons to not be that way, and to humiliate them if they don't comply with their demands, but medical science has a different view of this.

Again, so why should a transperson be forced to explain themselves when they use this 'humiliation ID' to vote as required by law to some GOP Poll Watcher who will probably treat them with disrespect? How can a transperson vote without being humiliated in WV? And yes, making a transitioning person wear clothes related to their non-chosen gender is humiliating.

The whole point of this can't be identification, because the picture would be useless for that purpose. And if you're argument is correct, then I suggest we make every female remove their wigs, makeup, hair extensions etc. for their photo too. Why just limit it to transgendered persons?

I'll just say okay since that's what you think. There is no rational discussion to be had.

I agree. There is no rational point of forcing people to have ID's that bear no visual similarity to what they look like.

HoD is completely correct. Let's put aside politics and religion for second and just see the thing for what it is. I'm not going to rehash things, but HoD is right about what an ID is created to do. The state does have a compelling interest in knowing what you look like behind all of the stuff used to change your appearance. Otherwise, what would be the point of an ID.

Put differently, your ID should be similar to your picture if you were arrested and put in jail. When you are booked, they take your wig, makeup, piercings, etc off. That way, they can get a photo of you without all of the temporary changes to your appearance. The state wants to know what you actually look like. This rule applies whether you are a man trying to look like a woman, a circus performer that has faked the dogboy look, or if you are a lucha libre performer. The rule is neutral in both its creation and application.

Ok, then lets make all FEMALES take off all their makeup, hairextentions and wigs to take their ID too. That would make it fair. And no dentures for anyone either. Got falsies? Then you get a gap toothed state ID. Oh and no hair dye either. Gotta be your natural hair color too.

So when your grandmother has to present as her ID a picture showing her with missing hair and six teeth, then you can claim this is fair. Deal? I didn't think so.

The policy isn't based upon any rational interest. Just the fact that people don't like transgendered persons and that certain interest groups give favor to state actors using the state to humiliate them for no purpose.

Really? The DMV will not permit you to wear a wig that is over the top as a female either. But, the other things you speak of merely go to minor alterations of appearance, which can be clearly and easily identified as such. What these guys wanted to is to present themselves as something contrary to the information on their government documents. I would be more sympathetic if they had long hair and dyed it or something like that. But, they tried to synthetically alter many aspects of their appearance to appear significantly different than they actually are.

(07-11-2014 02:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:44 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I agree. There is no rational point of forcing people to have ID's that bear no visual similarity to what they look like.

HoD is completely correct. Let's put aside politics and religion for second and just see the thing for what it is. I'm not going to rehash things, but HoD is right about what an ID is created to do. The state does have a compelling interest in knowing what you look like behind all of the stuff used to change your appearance. Otherwise, what would be the point of an ID.

Put differently, your ID should be similar to your picture if you were arrested and put in jail. When you are booked, they take your wig, makeup, piercings, etc off. That way, they can get a photo of you without all of the temporary changes to your appearance. The state wants to know what you actually look like. This rule applies whether you are a man trying to look like a woman, a circus performer that has faked the dogboy look, or if you are a lucha libre performer. The rule is neutral in both its creation and application.

Ok, then lets make all FEMALES take off all their makeup, hairextentions and wigs to take their ID too. That would make it fair. And no dentures for anyone either. Got falsies? Then you get a gap toothed state ID. Oh and no hair dye either. Gotta be your natural hair color too.

So when your grandmother has to present as her ID a picture showing her with missing hair and six teeth, then you can claim this is fair.

In on way I don't think what you're saying is a bad idea, but women, and sometimes men, change their hair styles or get hair cuts. The purpose of an ID is to identify. If a trans ran out in the middle of the night without the required accessories that make him a trans and he tried to use his credit card and the clerk asked for ID, then what? His driver's license would show a pic of a woman and he'd be presenting the image of a man and now the clerk is in a pickle. And what if that trans, like some of us tend to do, go haywire and go off on a loony binge. The ID photo the news uses for the public to call in with might not look anything like the person they're looking for.

An ID card is not a social wish list, it's to identify you not just in bars but at hospitals and morgues. Can you imagine if a house is burning and they find the body of a trans man and firemen risk their lives going back into the house looking for a woman thought to be living there when there isn't one?

And what about passports? Do we even want to go there?

BTW, out of respect for "you" I removed the word trannies from the thread title even though I really don't see anything wrong with it. For better or worse people get nicknamed - does Obamacare ring a bell?

Passports. There's an idea. I wonder if Obama can order the passport bureau to simply accept medical letters stating the person is transitioning. Its a legal ID. That could be a partial solution. Not perfect, but good.

I'm not trans, but we have a situation similar down here in Texas. In Texas if you want to change your name to match that of your partner in a Federally recognized same sex marriage you cannot do so in Texas. So you have to go to another state, get an ID there, then use that state ID to change your Social Security ID, then take the Social Security ID back to the same hateful GOP judge that denied the name change request in the first place, who then will be forced to change the name for Texas law. Its expensive and time consuming.

Don't change the term tranny to trans for my benefit. Consider doing it for your own benefit/credibility. "Tranny" is a no-no word. Sure its legal to say it, but why would you use it? I get that people might not be aware of these issues so I'm not offended when I see it, but simply wanted to point out how that word is perceived for y'all's benefit.

Tom, I never thought you were a trans, only that you advocate for them. And should people take as an insult something that's not intended to be? There's a debate in that one.

As for the passports, I wasn't referring to using them as an ID in this country, but other countries. A guy walks into a country that's not as progressive as this one, the security wants to take a closer look, his passport says he's a woman but he's got man parts. I see all kinds of problems in that scenario.

(07-11-2014 02:49 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:05 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:49 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Yea but the short form is Trans. Tranny is a perjorative, used only to demean or insult someone.

Oh brother, you people are so damn sensitive. Nobody is forcing you to call them a tranny so if you don't like it, just don't say it.

I've only known two words to be really offensive in use: the n-word and the c-word. That's it. Everything else moves and changes based on time and who is complaining.

IMO, most of us think it's a lifestyle choice. So, to us, we really don't care about the rules you create to garner acceptance of your choices. I also don't care to know what polygamists, drag queens, lovers of bestiality, those involved in incest, pornographers, and prostitutes believe are insensitive or whatever.

You have a right to speak like you came out of Westboro Baptist Church, but I was just trying to help some of you guys not sound like you did. Feel free to be ignorant if you will. Celebrate it as 'not being politically correct'. But know that using terms like that will make you sound like some ignorant rube or a hater of the Fred Phelps/Matt Barber variety.

Wow. I am not a member of the Westboro Church nor am I a baptist. In fact, I don't think they actually follow the same things that most Baptists do anyways. But anyway, I bet you'd call me racists, if you could. It so predicable with you man....Just because someone thinks the committing of homosexual acts will send you to hell and really don't care to sugarcoat your deviant activity, they are now a hateful person and a member of the Westboro Baptist Church....really?

I love all of God's creations, no matter what crime you commit or what sexual deviance you suffer from or choose to participate in (or whatever you call it). I just don't have time to care about people's feelings when it comes to the actions that they take. You want people to sugarcoat what it is that these folks do so it is more acceptable...I disagree. If you want to dress up like a schoolgirl and get your butt spanked by someone in a gimp outfit, that's your choice and if you it behind closed doors, it's none of my business. But, don't ask me to be kind in how I characterize that scenario. It is what it is. It doesn't mean I don't like you or I hate you. I'm just not going to be as mindful about silliness and nonsense.

Hey use words like "Trannies" and get lumped in with those that know that the word is offensive but still use it anyway.

Sexual deviance is another term that makes you seem like a hater.

Or comparing me to a criminal because I'm a Gay man, like you just did.

Hey, sound like Phelps and get called out on it. Where do you disagree with Phelps, theologically? You already called me a criminal, so I assume you, like Phelps believes in criminalization of being Gay. You use terms like deviance and presume things about my sex life for purposes of making me seem lurid, like Phelps does for Gays. You apparently have no concern about the tone or the content of your speech and choose to use the most offensive terms possible and appear to be proud of it.

(07-11-2014 02:59 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I think you're reach here Tom. There currently is an avenue available to deal with the situation being discussed. If a court order is needed for the M->F photo ID, why not get it? The article stated that medical action was needed in 'most', not all cases. I imagine these individuals are on some form of hormone therapy, which surely falls into the category of medical action.

Everyone is stereotyped and profiled in various ways that are superior nor inferior in a relative sense. There exists no legal protection from the feelings 'offense' and 'uncomfortableness'. It is impossible to create such a world.

You can't get a court order from a WV court unless you have already transitioned. And it takes 75k to get that surgery. And either way, you can't have the surgery unless you live 100% as the new gender for at least 2 full years.

----

Lets apply the same scrutiny to your grandmother. Lets say she got some missing hair, its really grey, and she has some missing teeth. It happens as we age. But she wears dentures, has a wig/dyes her hair. How do you think it would make her feel if everytime she voted, drove a car, bought alcohol, went on a plane, entered a courthouse, etc., she would have to present this picture that is hideously unflattering and then explain 'yea all my teeth rotted out' and 'im older than I look'.

Its no different for transgendered persons under the WV regime. Its humiliating. Needlessly. But that's the whole point of it. To humiliate. Because the same concept isn't applied to anyone else.

Let's not and just say we did, because I think you're purposefully misconstruing all of the contra positions. You believe that this is some grand conspiracy on the part of the religious right despite that fact that WV of all places does indeed have a protocol for people who have transitioned.

Its just an oversight and considering that WV probably didn't create their current transgender policy without some input from some LBGT advocacy group, one that they failed to imagine as well. As you stated uptread, this is easily correctable by having a court order from a licensed medical professional from the state.

The religious right is becoming very active in their hatred of transpersons. We're seeing a lot of that here in Houston. We've seen it in other places as well. The language they use is 1970's level crude homophobia. If you haven't seen it yet, you will very shortly. Its a growth industry for the religious right.

WV isn't interested in fixing the problem, as was shown in the article.

(07-11-2014 02:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Passports. There's an idea. I wonder if Obama can order the passport bureau to simply accept medical letters stating the person is transitioning. Its a legal ID. That could be a partial solution. Not perfect, but good.

I'm not trans, but we have a situation similar down here in Texas. In Texas if you want to change your name to match that of your partner in a Federally recognized same sex marriage you cannot do so in Texas. So you have to go to another state, get an ID there, then use that state ID to change your Social Security ID, then take the Social Security ID back to the same hateful GOP judge that denied the name change request in the first place, who then will be forced to change the name for Texas law. Its expensive and time consuming.

Don't change the term tranny to trans for my benefit. Consider doing it for your own benefit/credibility. "Tranny" is a no-no word. Sure its legal to say it, but why would you use it? I get that people might not be aware of these issues so I'm not offended when I see it, but simply wanted to point out how that word is perceived for y'all's benefit.

This describes people like you, Tom, to pinpointed accuracy.

(07-11-2014 03:02 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:44 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  HoD is completely correct. Let's put aside politics and religion for second and just see the thing for what it is. I'm not going to rehash things, but HoD is right about what an ID is created to do. The state does have a compelling interest in knowing what you look like behind all of the stuff used to change your appearance. Otherwise, what would be the point of an ID.

Put differently, your ID should be similar to your picture if you were arrested and put in jail. When you are booked, they take your wig, makeup, piercings, etc off. That way, they can get a photo of you without all of the temporary changes to your appearance. The state wants to know what you actually look like. This rule applies whether you are a man trying to look like a woman, a circus performer that has faked the dogboy look, or if you are a lucha libre performer. The rule is neutral in both its creation and application.

Ok, then lets make all FEMALES take off all their makeup, hairextentions and wigs to take their ID too. That would make it fair. And no dentures for anyone either. Got falsies? Then you get a gap toothed state ID. Oh and no hair dye either. Gotta be your natural hair color too.

So when your grandmother has to present as her ID a picture showing her with missing hair and six teeth, then you can claim this is fair.

In on way I don't think what you're saying is a bad idea, but women, and sometimes men, change their hair styles or get hair cuts. The purpose of an ID is to identify. If a trans ran out in the middle of the night without the required accessories that make him a trans and he tried to use his credit card and the clerk asked for ID, then what? His driver's license would show a pic of a woman and he'd be presenting the image of a man and now the clerk is in a pickle. And what if that trans, like some of us tend to do, go haywire and go off on a loony binge. The ID photo the news uses for the public to call in with might not look anything like the person they're looking for.

An ID card is not a social wish list, it's to identify you not just in bars but at hospitals and morgues. Can you imagine if a house is burning and they find the body of a trans man and firemen risk their lives going back into the house looking for a woman thought to be living there when there isn't one?

And what about passports? Do we even want to go there?

BTW, out of respect for "you" I removed the word trannies from the thread title even though I really don't see anything wrong with it. For better or worse people get nicknamed - does Obamacare ring a bell?

Passports. There's an idea. I wonder if Obama can order the passport bureau to simply accept medical letters stating the person is transitioning. Its a legal ID. That could be a partial solution. Not perfect, but good.

I'm not trans, but we have a situation similar down here in Texas. In Texas if you want to change your name to match that of your partner in a Federally recognized same sex marriage you cannot do so in Texas. So you have to go to another state, get an ID there, then use that state ID to change your Social Security ID, then take the Social Security ID back to the same hateful GOP judge that denied the name change request in the first place, who then will be forced to change the name for Texas law. Its expensive and time consuming.

Don't change the term tranny to trans for my benefit. Consider doing it for your own benefit/credibility. "Tranny" is a no-no word. Sure its legal to say it, but why would you use it? I get that people might not be aware of these issues so I'm not offended when I see it, but simply wanted to point out how that word is perceived for y'all's benefit.

Tom, I never thought you were a trans, only that you advocate for them. And should people take as an insult something that's not intended to be? There's a debate in that one.

As for the passports, I wasn't referring to using them as an ID in this country, but other countries. A guy walks into a country that's not as progressive as this one, the security wants to take a closer look, his passport says he's a woman but he's got man parts. I see all kinds of problems in that scenario.

Probably no more problems than Gay Americans have in the 78 countries where it is illegal for Gay persons to exist. Or the 34 countries that ban Gay persons from visiting there.

(07-11-2014 03:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Probably no more problems than Gay Americans have in the 78 countries where it is illegal for Gay persons to exist. Or the 34 countries that ban Gay persons from visiting there.

Yeah, and you think YOU'VE got it bad... What a selfish f*cking attitude.

Quote:WV isn't interested in fixing the problem, as was shown in the article.

WV doesn't have the problem.

(07-11-2014 03:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:59 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I think you're reach here Tom. There currently is an avenue available to deal with the situation being discussed. If a court order is needed for the M->F photo ID, why not get it? The article stated that medical action was needed in 'most', not all cases. I imagine these individuals are on some form of hormone therapy, which surely falls into the category of medical action.

Everyone is stereotyped and profiled in various ways that are superior nor inferior in a relative sense. There exists no legal protection from the feelings 'offense' and 'uncomfortableness'. It is impossible to create such a world.

You can't get a court order from a WV court unless you have already transitioned. And it takes 75k to get that surgery. And either way, you can't have the surgery unless you live 100% as the new gender for at least 2 full years.

----

Lets apply the same scrutiny to your grandmother. Lets say she got some missing hair, its really grey, and she has some missing teeth. It happens as we age. But she wears dentures, has a wig/dyes her hair. How do you think it would make her feel if everytime she voted, drove a car, bought alcohol, went on a plane, entered a courthouse, etc., she would have to present this picture that is hideously unflattering and then explain 'yea all my teeth rotted out' and 'im older than I look'.

Its no different for transgendered persons under the WV regime. Its humiliating. Needlessly. But that's the whole point of it. To humiliate. Because the same concept isn't applied to anyone else.

Let's not and just say we did, because I think you're purposefully misconstruing all of the contra positions. You believe that this is some grand conspiracy on the part of the religious right despite that fact that WV of all places does indeed have a protocol for people who have transitioned.

Its just an oversight and considering that WV probably didn't create their current transgender policy without some input from some LBGT advocacy group, one that they failed to imagine as well. As you stated uptread, this is easily correctable by having a court order from a licensed medical professional from the state.

The religious right is becoming very active in their hatred of transpersons. We're seeing a lot of that here in Houston. We've seen it in other places as well. The language they use is 1970's level crude homophobia. If you haven't seen it yet, you will very shortly. Its a growth industry for the religious right.

WV isn't interested in fixing the problem, as was shown in the article.

I'd be careful with such broad based stereotyping of persons who have a religious belief.

(07-11-2014 03:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Hey use words like "Trannies" and get lumped in with those that know that the word is offensive but still use it anyway.

Sexual deviance is another term that makes you seem like a hater.

Or comparing me to a criminal because I'm a Gay man, like you just did.

Hey, sound like Phelps and get called out on it. Where do you disagree with Phelps, theologically? You already called me a criminal, so I assume you, like Phelps believes in criminalization of being Gay. You use terms like deviance and presume things about my sex life for purposes of making me seem lurid, like Phelps does for Gays. You apparently have no concern about the tone or the content of your speech and choose to use the most offensive terms possible and appear to be proud of it.

OMG. Grow thicker skin...really. I never called you a criminal. Nor, did I say I hated you. I believe many activities are plain meaning deviant. I don't believe in the criminalization of homosexuality, for the record. Do whatever you want to do in the privacy of your own home as long as you aren't harming anyone and the person isn't underage. I just disagree with marriage that isn't between one man and one woman. I also disagree with having special laws for people based on how they choose to identify (and not just related to sexuality).

It is you that has the problem. Anyone that disagrees with any part of the homosexual/transsexual lifestyle is a hater and mean to you. Life is about more than labels and such. I am sure you see yourself as more than a "gay man". I am sure you don't walk up to people and say, "Hi, I am Tom the gay man.". Just as I don't go around unloading my Christian faith on people. My Christian faith is a big part of who I am as a person, just as being gay is a big part of who you are as a person. But, I don't see a rejection of my beliefs as a rejection of me. Tolerance does not mean I have to accept all things about all people. It means I have to accept you as a person, but maybe not all of your actions or everything you believe in.

I do believe that there are some terms that probably are more hurtful than others to certain people. But, you can't go around attacking people for using terms that are just innocuous in nature and calling them a hater if they choose to continue using them. You have to pick your battles and to go ballistic over someone using "trannies" is just too much P/C. There are many other names that people could use to be intentionally hurtful...but, they didn't because that wasn't the point.

I have known many people over the years that are gay or transsexual. I have been friends with many of them (and they know my Christian beliefs). There are things that I do that do not jive with their ethics or beliefs. But, we all look past that to things that we agree on and like, which are many.

Just as you want people to be understanding of you and the choices you make or the desires you are born with, you have to do the same regarding the beliefs of others. Not everyone is a mean, hateful, vile individual just because they disagree with you or don't want to be p/c.

(07-11-2014 03:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 03:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The religious right is becoming very active in their hatred of transpersons. We're seeing a lot of that here in Houston. We've seen it in other places as well. The language they use is 1970's level crude homophobia. If you haven't seen it yet, you will very shortly. Its a growth industry for the religious right.

WV isn't interested in fixing the problem, as was shown in the article.

I'd be careful with such broad based stereotyping of persons who have a religious belief.

ROTFLMAO! He really just said "transpersons" AND said that tranny is equivalent to 1970's level crudeness. Oh man, Tom can't be anything other than a troll. I bet he even annoys the shiit out of his own "community."

(07-11-2014 02:59 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:44 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'll just say okay since that's what you think. There is no rational discussion to be had.

I agree. There is no rational point of forcing people to have ID's that bear no visual similarity to what they look like.

HoD is completely correct. Let's put aside politics and religion for second and just see the thing for what it is. I'm not going to rehash things, but HoD is right about what an ID is created to do. The state does have a compelling interest in knowing what you look like behind all of the stuff used to change your appearance. Otherwise, what would be the point of an ID.

Put differently, your ID should be similar to your picture if you were arrested and put in jail. When you are booked, they take your wig, makeup, piercings, etc off. That way, they can get a photo of you without all of the temporary changes to your appearance. The state wants to know what you actually look like. This rule applies whether you are a man trying to look like a woman, a circus performer that has faked the dogboy look, or if you are a lucha libre performer. The rule is neutral in both its creation and application.

Ok, then lets make all FEMALES take off all their makeup, hairextentions and wigs to take their ID too. That would make it fair. And no dentures for anyone either. Got falsies? Then you get a gap toothed state ID. Oh and no hair dye either. Gotta be your natural hair color too.

So when your grandmother has to present as her ID a picture showing her with missing hair and six teeth, then you can claim this is fair. Deal? I didn't think so.

The policy isn't based upon any rational interest. Just the fact that people don't like transgendered persons and that certain interest groups give favor to state actors using the state to humiliate them for no purpose.

Really? The DMV will not permit you to wear a wig that is over the top as a female either. But, the other things you speak of merely go to minor alterations of appearance, which can be clearly and easily identified as such. What these guys wanted to is to present themselves as something contrary to the information on their government documents. I would be more sympathetic if they had long hair and dyed it or something like that. But, they tried to synthetically alter many aspects of their appearance to appear significantly different than they actually are.

I would be more sympathetic if this wasn't another instance of a purposeful set-up. Amazing that two isolated incidents, in two separate counties, encountered identical "mistreatment" and in each instance these two independent DMV employees used the identical language in calling them "it". Astounding, no?

Or, perhaps more likely, focused grouped, polled and determined what would be the most potent or most offensive name was identified. Don't simply mix up the he/she's when referring to them, that doesn't move the needle. BUT refer to them as "It" and most people say that's not right. So let's go send our plants and claim they were referred to in this way, then we follow with the "we are normalizing abnormal behavior" lawsuit.

Guess there were no bakers to target this couple of months...

(07-11-2014 03:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  WV isn't interested in fixing the problem, as was shown in the article.

Kindly show how they aren't interested in fixing the problem.

As I pointed out to you (and you characteristically ignored) even far left leaning California had a similar law that was only changes in June 2014...and rather than invalidate the law, it merely did as you suggested and made them provide a doctor's statement AND pay a $23 fee.

Where are the Constitutional arguments there, Tom? Charging a fee to transgendered people that isn't charged to anyone else? Making them have a physicians statement? OH THE HORRORS In California! THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS OUT OF CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA. Where are your complaints a year ago that California had this exact same law on the books?

(07-11-2014 03:37 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 03:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Hey use words like "Trannies" and get lumped in with those that know that the word is offensive but still use it anyway.

Sexual deviance is another term that makes you seem like a hater.

Or comparing me to a criminal because I'm a Gay man, like you just did.

Hey, sound like Phelps and get called out on it. Where do you disagree with Phelps, theologically? You already called me a criminal, so I assume you, like Phelps believes in criminalization of being Gay. You use terms like deviance and presume things about my sex life for purposes of making me seem lurid, like Phelps does for Gays. You apparently have no concern about the tone or the content of your speech and choose to use the most offensive terms possible and appear to be proud of it.

OMG. Grow thicker skin...really. I never called you a criminal. Nor, did I say I hated you. I believe many activities are plain meaning deviant. I don't believe in the criminalization of homosexuality, for the record. Do whatever you want to do in the privacy of your own home as long as you aren't harming anyone and the person isn't underage. I just disagree with marriage that isn't between one man and one woman. I also disagree with having special laws for people based on how they choose to identify (and not just related to sexuality).

It is you that has the problem. Anyone that disagrees with any part of the homosexual/transsexual lifestyle is a hater and mean to you. Life is about more than labels and such. I am sure you see yourself as more than a "gay man". I am sure you don't walk up to people and say, "Hi, I am Tom the gay man.". Just as I don't go around unloading my Christian faith on people. My Christian faith is a big part of who I am as a person, just as being gay is a big part of who you are as a person. But, I don't see a rejection of my beliefs as a rejection of me. Tolerance does not mean I have to accept all things about all people. It means I have to accept you as a person, but maybe not all of your actions or everything you believe in.

I do believe that there are some terms that probably are more hurtful than others to certain people. But, you can't go around attacking people for using terms that are just innocuous in nature and calling them a hater if they choose to continue using them. You have to pick your battles and to go ballistic over someone using "trannies" is just too much P/C. There are many other names that people could use to be intentionally hurtful...but, they didn't because that wasn't the point.

I have known many people over the years that are gay or transsexual. I have been friends with many of them (and they know my Christian beliefs). There are things that I do that do not jive with their ethics or beliefs. But, we all look past that to things that we agree on and like, which are many.

Just as you want people to be understanding of you and the choices you make or the desires you are born with, you have to do the same regarding the beliefs of others. Not everyone is a mean, hateful, vile individual just because they disagree with you or don't want to be p/c.

Within the context of discussion this issue, you referred to criminals, people who have sex with animals, etc. Look at your post. The comparison was implicit, but it was there. There was no reason to bring up beastiality, pedophilia, or criminal behavior other than to try to associate that with the subject at hand. Its annoying. Its also transparent.

And after being told that the term you were using was considered pejorative, your response was..."Don't care".

Look, if you'd like to not be subject to the stereotype of a 'Christian' who hates Gay/Trans persons and who insults and demeans them.....Then please consider not feeding that stereotype. Part of that is tone and part of that is language.

(07-11-2014 03:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 03:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:59 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I think you're reach here Tom. There currently is an avenue available to deal with the situation being discussed. If a court order is needed for the M->F photo ID, why not get it? The article stated that medical action was needed in 'most', not all cases. I imagine these individuals are on some form of hormone therapy, which surely falls into the category of medical action.

Everyone is stereotyped and profiled in various ways that are superior nor inferior in a relative sense. There exists no legal protection from the feelings 'offense' and 'uncomfortableness'. It is impossible to create such a world.

You can't get a court order from a WV court unless you have already transitioned. And it takes 75k to get that surgery. And either way, you can't have the surgery unless you live 100% as the new gender for at least 2 full years.

----

Lets apply the same scrutiny to your grandmother. Lets say she got some missing hair, its really grey, and she has some missing teeth. It happens as we age. But she wears dentures, has a wig/dyes her hair. How do you think it would make her feel if everytime she voted, drove a car, bought alcohol, went on a plane, entered a courthouse, etc., she would have to present this picture that is hideously unflattering and then explain 'yea all my teeth rotted out' and 'im older than I look'.

Its no different for transgendered persons under the WV regime. Its humiliating. Needlessly. But that's the whole point of it. To humiliate. Because the same concept isn't applied to anyone else.

Let's not and just say we did, because I think you're purposefully misconstruing all of the contra positions. You believe that this is some grand conspiracy on the part of the religious right despite that fact that WV of all places does indeed have a protocol for people who have transitioned.

Its just an oversight and considering that WV probably didn't create their current transgender policy without some input from some LBGT advocacy group, one that they failed to imagine as well. As you stated uptread, this is easily correctable by having a court order from a licensed medical professional from the state.

The religious right is becoming very active in their hatred of transpersons. We're seeing a lot of that here in Houston. We've seen it in other places as well. The language they use is 1970's level crude homophobia. If you haven't seen it yet, you will very shortly. Its a growth industry for the religious right.

WV isn't interested in fixing the problem, as was shown in the article.

I'd be careful with such broad based stereotyping of persons who have a religious belief.

Religious belief? No. Religious belief and opposing basic human rights for LGBT persons, including the right to follow doctors orders without being subjected to humiliation by agents of the state? Yes.

(07-11-2014 04:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 03:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  WV isn't interested in fixing the problem, as was shown in the article.

Kindly show how they aren't interested in fixing the problem.

As I pointed out to you (and you characteristically ignored) even far left leaning California had a similar law that was only changes in June 2014...and rather than invalidate the law, it merely did as you suggested and made them provide a doctor's statement AND pay a $23 fee.

Where are the Constitutional arguments there, Tom? Charging a fee to transgendered people that isn't charged to anyone else? Making them have a physicians statement? OH THE HORRORS In California! THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS OUT OF CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA. Where are your complaints a year ago that California had this exact same law on the books?

The transgendered community will take that fee and simply pay in any other state with little if any complaints. There were lots of complaints about the situation last year in California. Now we are complaining everywhere.

Its West Virginia. There isn't any elected official that is willing to introduce such a solution, much less vote for it in WV.