Fallout for North Carolina's LGBT law

DancingMaenid · Apr 18, 2016

ErezMA said:
I certainly hope not. If I am, it would be in ways irrelevant to this issue. I don't believe that this law is allowing people to be racist. If they were racist a day before this law was set in motion, they're racist today. If they weren't, a piece of paper isn't changing anything. The protests are apparent, and great in number. I personally support the law that allows people to stick to their beliefs, and the response that that tells people how wrong their beliefs are.

The trouble is that before anti-discrimination laws became more of a thing, discrimination was a very serious hurdle for minorities seeking economic prosperity. Housing discrimination laws are important, for example, because it used to be common for African Americans to be denied housing in "white" neighborhoods.

I think a lot of people see this as an issue of being turned away when trying to buy a wedding cake, which is admittedly not a huge burden. But then you have people like Kim Davis, who take logic like this to an extreme that it's actually impossible for people to exercise a legal right (in that case, obtaining a marriage license).

And I definitely feel you. I may not have experienced it the way you may have, but I feel you. I do have questions, though. Do you think you can trust a doctor who you know is forced to accept you as a patient because of a law? If [religious deity of your choosing] forbid you have something happen medically and you need to see a doctor - out of all the doctors, would you choose the one who doesn't care to serve you, to do the best of their ability to make sure you're well? Please keep in mind that there is the Hippocratic Oath as well as other universal medical practices that would require a doctor to help someone if that person is on the ground experiencing a heart attack.

As for your family, this law doesn't apply to this. As for your friends, this law doesn't apply to this.[/quote]

I'm not saying that I would want to see a homophobic doctor, or that the law can take care of my homophobic relatives. What I'm saying is that there's a tendency for people to minimize the effect of "small" systematic prejudice because it could always be worse. If women complain about sexism, they're told they should be grateful they don't live in the Middle East, for example. Yes, I think it would be worse if I lived in a country where me being physically attacked or put to death were significant risks. I certainly have a privilege in that I do live in a country where these problems are not as endemic. But it's not like this makes up for the discrimination that I do have to worry about.

As for the doctor thing, though, this is actually a very real concern for LGBTQ people in emergencies. I wouldn't choose a homophobic/transphobic doctor for routine care. But if I was seriously ill, yes, I would prefer to be treated by a bigoted doctor than be cast out on the street to die. I've read some very frightening stories of trans people being sent away from hospitals when they were dangerously ill. I don't think that happens as much as it used to, and I don't present in a manly enough fashion for there to be a huge shock when a doctor sees me naked, but it's something that I've worried about at times.

I've also asked this before, but I don't think I got an answer to it. I'll ask you now: If you're worried that the McDonald's down the street will reject you (let's pretend you like to eat at McDonald's), why do you think they would know if you're LGBTQ or not? They ask for your order, not your sexual preference. I mean no offense, but what subtle clue do you think will allow them to figure out that you wouldn't be straight?

Probably the same way they'd get clued in to the possibility that I might be straight--if I was with a partner and we were holding hands or even just talking about typical married-couple stuff.

They might also figure out if I'm wearing my rainbow jewelry or one of my LGBTQ-themed t-shirts. Whenever I leave a Pride event, it's always kind of weird to go from enjoying the celebratory mood to thinking that I should probably remove any sign of where I just came from, just to be safe.

So there exists a conflict between religious freedom and personal feelings.

Not really. Framing it as "religious freedom" is disingenuous, I think. Homophobia is not inherently religious and having the right to practice your religious beliefs is not the same thing as having the right to break laws that exist for reasons other than restricting religious practice. For example, if a state tried to ban hijabs, that could run afoul of religious freedom because there's little justification for that. But just because someone might not believe in using modern medicine doesn't make them exempt from responsibility if they kill their child by denying medical care.

If someone is unable to participate in society because of their religious beliefs, then they need to join a group like the Amish or the Hasidic who remove themselves from secular society. You can't really expect to participate in society but not follow the law.

I don't think that rape can even hold a candle to a company not allowing homosexuals to patronize a store. Rape is a forced invasion of another. Not allowing homosexuals to patronize their store is telling them they can use a different choice. I don't see any force there at all. Unless you're going to suggest that it's the equivalent of me saying that because I allow people from the neighborhood into my house that I should allow everyone.

Though rape isn't a great comparison, neither is comparing your house to a public business. Public buildings/businesses are held to a different standard, legally, than private residences.

I'm not going to try to speak for an entire population of a political philosophy and obviously, people will differ, but I imagine the general platform (no pun intended) is that there should be no restriction. It's an obvious benefit to a company to install wheelchair ramps and other accommodations for a multitude of reasons, such as...
1) Disabled people are potential customers too. If they can't enjoy the restrooms such as everyone else or enter the building, the chances of them making a purchase is slim.
2) It ruins the customer service aspect of the store. If you're not willing to treat your customers right, they'll go somewhere else.
3) There is a social more that calls for equality in the workplace. If the disabled are left behind, those who aren't won't be happy with your choices.
There are more, but these are most likely the largest reasons I thought of. I'd venture to say that libertarians would fight for not being forced to be ADA compliant, but they'd also advise against not making your building ADA compliant. I personally feel there's a corporate karma in play and I'd imagine companies that don't put up ramp and tell Vietnam vets without legs to "go screw themselves," to not be in business for long.

Though I think that disabled people should be able to do their shopping like everyone else, I think the bigger implications of the ADA are housing and employment equality. If a business is not accessible, they may not be able to hire someone who's in a wheelchair, for example, or provide accommodations for an employee who becomes disabled.

The office I work in is in an older building that doesn't have an elevator and doesn't have any sort of ramp leading up to the entrance. There's not a lot we can do about it, unfortunately. If something happened to me and I ended up in a wheelchair, I might not be able to keep working there, even though my job doesn't require standing or walking, really (though I'm sure they would do their best to accommodate me).

ErezMA · Apr 18, 2016

DancingMaenid said:
The trouble is that before anti-discrimination laws became more of a thing, discrimination was a very serious hurdle for minorities seeking economic prosperity. Housing discrimination laws are important, for example, because it used to be common for African Americans to be denied housing in "white" neighborhoods.

I think where there was correlation, you saw causation. There has been great change in how whites saw other races in the past fifty years. I'm glad the changes happen, fully knowing that we're nowhere near where we should be. However, it's not the law that did anything. You can't legislate people to like black people. I'm crediting the 'jump-start' for change to civil rights activists to people like MLK Jr., and Rosa Parks. It's people like them to stood up and said, "I'm a fucking human being." (To clarify, I'm sure they didn't say that quote. I'm just expressing the spirit of what their efforts were trying to accomplish.) I know that PoC and LGBTQ see legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Supreme Court decisions that allowed gays to marry as victories; it's a milestone that written into stone a victory for their interests. It's a tangible marker with the effect, "I was at A before. Now I'm at B."

I think a lot of people see this as an issue of being turned away when trying to buy a wedding cake, which is admittedly not a huge burden. But then you have people like Kim Davis, who take logic like this to an extreme that it's actually impossible for people to exercise a legal right (in that case, obtaining a marriage license).
The burden of a wedding cakes is nearly nothing. I was at wedding expos not too long ago and did you want to know how many bakers there were, shoving their delicious samples of sugar into my mouth? My tongue tasted diabetes. As for Kim Davis, and I've said this earlier, I agree with you, but that's because the government is the only one able to issue marriage licenses. The government, in many areas, is essentially a monopoly. As I've stated on another thread, I'd be very much in favor for government pretty much essentially out of marriages. In fact, Alabama is doing something like this already where they pretty much just review affidavits that both parties are of age, not related, and legally competent.

I'm not saying that I would want to see a homophobic doctor, or that the law can take care of my homophobic relatives.

Click to expand...

Not just that. Would you want to do business with anyone that doesn't want to do business with you? When I do business with someone, I want the quality that brings me there as opposed to their competitor. If I go to someone to do my taxes, I expect a large tax deduction. If I go to a masseuse, I want the knots in my back gone. If I want a puppy, I get the puppy that wants to kiss me for hours and spend time with me, not the guy who growls and hates my gut for no good reason. (No one told me it was his Alpo!) [Sorry, wasn't trying to make light of the situation.]

What I'm saying is that there's a tendency for people to minimize the effect of "small" systematic prejudice because it could always be worse. If women complain about sexism, they're told they should be grateful they don't live in the Middle East, for example. Yes, I think it would be worse if I lived in a country where me being physically attacked or put to death were significant risks. I certainly have a privilege in that I do live in a country where these problems are not as endemic. But it's not like this makes up for the discrimination that I do have to worry about.

Click to expand...

This is definitely something I agree with as well. I don't think it applies here, but I definitely think people shouldn't justify abuse to women because, "At least we aren't ISIS and not making them sex slaves!" Just because others have it worse doesn't mean we can't do better.

As for the doctor thing, though, this is actually a very real concern for LGBTQ people in emergencies. I wouldn't choose a homophobic/transphobic doctor for routine care. But if I was seriously ill, yes, I would prefer to be treated by a bigoted doctor than be cast out on the street to die. I've read some very frightening stories of trans people being sent away from hospitals when they were dangerously ill. I don't think that happens as much as it used to, and I don't present in a manly enough fashion for there to be a huge shock when a doctor sees me naked, but it's something that I've worried about at times.

Click to expand...

OK so I can understand doctors. They often need to know sexual activity because STIs/STDs can be a variable when you're having sex penetrating or being penetrated orally/vaginally/anally/etc. so some doctors are weirder than others. Not that I can really compare to the sufferings of a LGBTQ, but I'm switching PCPs partly because it really appears that she's uncomfortable around male genitalia (of course, for medical purposes) and I have no idea why. The thing is that we do have more than one doctor in most areas. Even if you're looking for specialists, there are typically options. As for during emergencies, I can't imagine this being such an issue. I have to imagine the questions are, "What's their blood pressure? How's their pulse? Oxygen levels?" I don't think I saw that episode of E.R. where the guy was being rushed in and the first questions the doctor asked were, "Has this man engaged in relations with another man before?"

Probably the same way they'd get clued in to the possibility that I might be straight--if I was with a partner and we were holding hands or even just talking about typical married-couple stuff.

They might also figure out if I'm wearing my rainbow jewelry or one of my LGBTQ-themed t-shirts. Whenever I leave a Pride event, it's always kind of weird to go from enjoying the celebratory mood to thinking that I should probably remove any sign of where I just came from, just to be safe.

Click to expand...

OK. I suppose I could see if you're holding another man's hand, but I also know many people who are allies, wear shirts that say so and are completely straight.
...but maybe that's just because I'm from MA.

Not really. Framing it as "religious freedom" is disingenuous, I think. Homophobia is not inherently religious

Click to expand...

I actually completely disagree with this. Not that I want to get into a religious discussion, but the torah and bible are clear on homosexuality. Judaism actually had punishments in place for those who practiced homosexuality. (A while back, I spoke with my brother who practiced orthodox Judaism and he told me that it's nearly impossible to lawfully kill someone now for breaking the torah because of the requirements needed for that.)

and having the right to practice your religious beliefs is not the same thing as having the right to break laws that exist for reasons other than restricting religious practice.

Click to expand...

I think I may be using the wrong terminology (please correct me if I am), but there's something called the Rule of Caesar (or something like that), where it forces people of faith to follow the laws of the land, unless it directly conflicts with the religious laws. That's why there are often religious exemptions to things such as the draft. I'm not so sure it conflicts with Christianity or Judaism because "Thou shalt not kill," is actually, "Thou shalt not murder," but I know the religion I'm reading up about (Taosim) is pretty opposed to military service.

If someone is unable to participate in society because of their religious beliefs, then they need to join a group like the Amish or the Hasidic who remove themselves from secular society. You can't really expect to participate in society but not follow the law.

Click to expand...

Hold on - Wasn't this the colonials' intentions for leaving England? We wanted to leave there because of religious freedom. Now that we're here, those who want to live freely have to drop everything and try to find somewhere else to go?

Though rape isn't a great comparison, neither is comparing your house to a public business. Public buildings/businesses are held to a different standard, legally, than private residences.

Click to expand...

I'm admittedly not great with comparisons. I still think the house was much better than comparing people who choose their customers to people who rape people. Would you like to juxtapose?

blacbird · Apr 18, 2016

ErezMA said:
Hold on - Wasn't this the colonials' intentions for leaving England? We wanted to leave there because of religious freedom

Not exactly. The various colonists who originally left England weren't entirely a homogenous lot, and they founded different colonies along the east coast of North America largely because they wanted to be left alone to practice their own particular forms of religious belief and custom, and they weren't particularly tolerant of others who believed differently. They wanted "religious freedom" for themselves, but not for others.

There still seems to be a strong impetus for that kind of "freedom of religion" among us USers to this very day.

caw

robeiae · Apr 18, 2016

To be fair, Virginia (and North/South Carolina, really) was settled by people via Crown charters who were looking to cash in, one way or another. Many could give two shits about religion. The religiosity of the South came after the Civil War. Many people like to imagine this is the way things have always been in the South, but it's just not true.

blacbird · Apr 18, 2016

robeiae said:
The religiosity of the South came after the Civil War. Many people like to imagine this is the way things have always been in the South, but it's just not true.

It started well before the Civil War. The early 1800s saw a massive anti-establishment Evangelical movement across the entirety of the new United States, including the southern ones, with itinerant preachers traveling and making fire-breathing sermonology to excited and adoring crowds, nationwide. It became one of the principal forms of entertainment for the day. From this movement came the Millerites and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, among others. The newly Evangelical Christianity was widely called upon to justify the subjugation of negroes in the southern states, and even among the anti-slavery abolitionists in the North, it was still widely held that black humans were biologically inferior according to the edicts of the Bible.

caw

DancingMaenid · Apr 18, 2016

ErezMA said:
I think where there was correlation, you saw causation. There has been great change in how whites saw other races in the past fifty years. I'm glad the changes happen, fully knowing that we're nowhere near where we should be. However, it's not the law that did anything. You can't legislate people to like black people. I'm crediting the 'jump-start' for change to civil rights activists to people like MLK Jr., and Rosa Parks. It's people like them to stood up and said, "I'm a fucking human being." (To clarify, I'm sure they didn't say that quote. I'm just expressing the spirit of what their efforts were trying to accomplish.) I know that PoC and LGBTQ see legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Supreme Court decisions that allowed gays to marry as victories; it's a milestone that written into stone a victory for their interests. It's a tangible marker with the effect, "I was at A before. Now I'm at B."

But this is a chicken and the egg scenario. How can people's minds change unless they see that integration is no big deal?

As for during emergencies, I can't imagine this being such an issue. I have to imagine the questions are, "What's their blood pressure? How's their pulse? Oxygen levels?" I don't think I saw that episode of E.R. where the guy was being rushed in and the first questions the doctor asked were, "Has this man engaged in relations with another man before?"

Unfortunately, it has happened, particularly with regards to trans patients, that doctors have become significantly less helpful once finding out that the patient has different genitalia than they expected to see.

In their book Trans Liberation: Beyond Pink or Blue, trans author Leslie Feinberg recounts an experience in 1995 where they went to the hospital suffering from a serious infection, only to be turned away by the doctor once the doctor realized that Feinberg's sex didn't match their gender presentation. According to Feinberg, the doctor said, "You have a fever because you are a very troubled person."

Of course, this is anecdotal. I don't know if Feinberg had any hard proof that this happened. But it represents a very real concern that people have (though I do think things have improved since 1995).

I actually completely disagree with this. Not that I want to get into a religious discussion, but the torah and bible are clear on homosexuality. Judaism actually had punishments in place for those who practiced homosexuality. (A while back, I spoke with my brother who practiced orthodox Judaism and he told me that it's nearly impossible to lawfully kill someone now for breaking the torah because of the requirements needed for that.)

A lot of Christians and Jews disagree with that interpretation of the Torah/Old Testament. It's definitely not black and white, and there are quite a few gay rabbis and Christian clergy (my rabbi is gay).

blacbird · Apr 18, 2016

ErezMA said:
OK. I suppose I could see if you're holding another man's hand, but I also know many people who are allies, wear shirts that say so and are completely straight.
...but maybe that's just because I'm from MA.

I the torah and bible are clear on homosexuality. Judaism actually had punishments in place for those who practiced homosexuality.

The Torah and the Bible (Old Testament, which are essentially the same thing) are equally clear about similar punishments for people who mix different kinds of fiber in their clothing.

caw

Roxxsmom · Apr 18, 2016

The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, and it banned private racial discrimination in housing, employment and access to privately owned businesses. It had an immediate and profound effect, not on how bigots felt necessarily, but on how they were allowed to behave. How laws change people's behavior and sense of morality is rather complex, but the greatest effect seems to be in the realms of social justice. Is compliance 100%? No, but there are potential repercussions for people who disobey the law. Numerous court cases have been fought over the years over various applications of this law.

There's also evidence that laws affect how people feel about certain things over the long term when . Integration affects the way people, both white and black, think about themselves and people of different races. And when people come of age in a society where bigotry and discrimination are illegal, they tend to have a different attitude about these things than people who come of age in a world where segregation and discrimination are legally protected rights.

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/...6143801jmnamdeirf0.9369623.html#axzz46F5d0iYc

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/courses/3615/Readings/the_effects_of_segregation.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/02/u...rican-political-landscape.html?pagewanted=all

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/impact.html

http://www.vahistorical.org/collect...r/civil-rights-movement-virginia/legacy-civil

A little bit of local history (I live in CA). A law passed by popular vote in 1964 called prop 14. It nullified the Rumford Fair Housing act and gave landlords and sellers of homes the legal right to discriminate based on race. It was overturned by both the CA supreme court and the US supreme court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(1964)

The idea that people have the legal right to private discriminate based on race has been thoroughly shot down by the courts (though racial discrimination is rearing its ugly head again, thanks to the law in Mississippi). The NC law also limits how people can claim discrimination for other reasons than orientation or gender identity, so cases of racial, religious, and gender discrimination may surface there as well.

The focus of today's battles (and much of the motivation for passing these laws), however are are over the right to private discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. I've little doubt that the portions of the laws allowing racial and sexual discrimination will be found unconstitutional, and I think the burden of proof is on the people who think that discrimination against LGBTQ people is qualitatively different from other forms of discrimination and that it is less harmful than other forms.

robeiae · Apr 19, 2016

blacbird said:
It started well before the Civil War. The early 1800s saw a massive anti-establishment Evangelical movement across the entirety of the new United States, including the southern ones, with itinerant preachers traveling and making fire-breathing sermonology to excited and adoring crowds, nationwide. It became one of the principal forms of entertainment for the day. From this movement came the Millerites and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, among others. The newly Evangelical Christianity was widely called upon to justify the subjugation of negroes in the southern states, and even among the anti-slavery abolitionists in the North, it was still widely held that black humans were biologically inferior according to the edicts of the Bible.

caw

Nah. The Bible-clutching Southerner wasn't a thing before the Civil War. And part of the reason for this is that the Southern colonies didn't come into being for reasons of religious freedom in the least.

cmi0616 · Apr 23, 2016

Well, I sure didn't see this coming. But kudos to Trump, I guess?

(Sorry I revived an old thread, but I figured this comment didn't need it's own).

nighttimer · Apr 28, 2016

bunny-gypsy said:
It's "better" now, sure, but the bigotry situation is still bad for some folks in various parts of the country and the overall world.

Bigotry is still around, even if it's not as "widespread". People can still get beaten up or killed in some areas for being LGBT.

While the general public gives the appearance that LGBT is becoming more accepted, there is still violence being committed against LGBT to this day, especially trans-people. Violence is still occurring. Why else would some of us be scared to come out of the closet, even in this supposedly more "enlightened" age?

There is still some strong bigotry in this country, even if things are improving in some ways.

I feel that this bigotry should not be minimized or shrugged off, because it it's "not as bad or widespread as back in the day".

Sure, things are better now than back then, but it's still dangerous for marginalized people in certain parts of the country and even the world.

Society still has a ways to go. (And, yes, there are still people who feel that they can "pray the gay" away.)

There is no justification for bigotry and there never is. It is immoral to pass laws to defend and perpetuate bigotry. It's not only immoral, it's un-American.

It takes a while for some people to get the memo you can't treat LGBTQ Americans as though they're second-class citizens. It's embarrassing to still have to fight these battles. It's 2016! We're in a new century and we're still permitting ignorance, prejudice and homophobia to perpetuate legalized discrimination? It's insane, it's disgusting and this cannot be allowed to stand.

I heard some local homophobe on the radio today screaming, "I don't want some dude in a dress in a stall next to my wife and daughter." Please shut the fuck up! Your wife and daughter have already been in a restroom with "some dude in a dress," and you know what happened? NOTHING.

This is Corey Maison. She's 14 years old, beautiful and transgender. And in North Carolina she'd have to use the Men's room.

If that makes any sense to you, Corey doesn't have a problem, YOU do.

Perks · Apr 28, 2016

One of the local issues (that hit some of the bigger news outlets) that the HB2 backlash created was the void left at our local bookstore, Malaprop's, when Sherman Alexie pulled out of a ticketed event scheduled for May 18th in protest of the new law. So, our bookstore and the local community theatre, which was hosting the event, were going to have to eat what they'd invested and also lose out on the sales expected for the evening. That's hard on the small businesses. Still, I think the issue is bigger than this kind of setback.

In the end, the bookstore and theatre had an idea to help mitigate the loss and open up a forum to talk about HB2 and to raise money to fight it. And I've been invited to be part of the replacement event with some great authors - Sara Gruen, Charles Frazier, Wiley Cash, Joshilyn Jackson, and our own Kim Michele Richardson. Weird.

BenPanced · Apr 28, 2016

Most excellent!

ElaineA · Apr 28, 2016

Good for you, Perks. If you're half as articulate, informed and entertaining as you are here, the audience is in for a treat.

On a side note, Sherman can turn his efforts to his home state. We just had an initiative with similar wording to NC's law come out of a court battle intact and get cleared for the ballot. Voters in WA will decide if discrimination laws can be set aside to allow bathroom assignment = gender at birth. We're pretty notoriously liberal out here, so this one caught me by surprise. I highly doubt it will pass, but the fact that it's making the ballot is a good reminder that even in places one thinks are progressive, it's not that easy.

Roxxsmom · Apr 28, 2016

ElaineA said:
On a side note, Sherman can turn his efforts to his home state. We just had an initiative with similar wording to NC's law come out of a court battle intact and get cleared for the ballot. Voters in WA will decide if discrimination laws can be set aside to allow bathroom assignment = gender at birth. We're pretty notoriously liberal out here, so this one caught me by surprise. I highly doubt it will pass, but the fact that it's making the ballot is a good reminder that even in places one thinks are progressive, it's not that easy.

Wouldn't be surprised to see something like that pop up here too. There's no court pre-clearance, as far as I know, for a prop in CA: just a requisite number of signatures. And some laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor have to be voted on too.

It wasn't so many years here that voters passed an anti-gay marriage proposition, and it only became legal here when SCOTUS overturned prop 8. California's social liberalism is rather overstated, so I'm surprised it hasn't been a big stink here already

It probably won't be until the next election, though, since it's late to gather signatures for June. And anti-transgender folks might be reluctant to push something during a November election year, since more young people turn out to vote then. If they want to get an anti transgender amendment through, an off-year (when hardly anyone who isn't middle-aged or older turns up to vote) is their best bet.

AW Admin · Apr 28, 2016

Perks said:
One of the local issues (that hit some of the bigger news outlets) that the HB2 backlash created was the void left at our local bookstore, Malaprop's, when Sherman Alexie pulled out of a ticketed event scheduled for May 18th in protest of the new law. So, our bookstore and the local community theatre, which was hosting the event, were going to have to eat what they'd invested and also lose out on the sales expected for the evening. That's hard on the small businesses. Still, I think the issue is bigger than this kind of setback.

In the end, the bookstore and theatre had an idea to help mitigate the loss and open up a forum to talk about HB2 and to raise money to fight it. And I've been invited to be part of the replacement event with some great authors - Sara Gruen, Charles Frazier, Wiley Cash, Joshilyn Jackson, and our own Kim Michele Richardson. Weird.

I want to note that this is a really super bookstore.

And that they have been supporters, in multiple ways, not least of which is stocking books in multiple locations*, of QUILTBAG/LGBT writer, for years.

*Multiple locations: So there's grudging support where a bookstore will stock a book, say, Armistead Maupin's Tales of the City in LGBT or Gay, but NOT in Contemporary or Literature. That's . . . well sure, it's great that they have a nicely segregated easy to find | easy to avoid queer books section, but . . .

This store stocks it in both places. That's huge.

AW Admin · Apr 28, 2016

ElaineA said:
Good for you, Perks. If you're half as articulate, informed and entertaining as you are here, the audience is in for a treat.

On a side note, Sherman can turn his efforts to his home state. We just had an initiative with similar wording to NC's law come out of a court battle intact and get cleared for the ballot. Voters in WA will decide if discrimination laws can be set aside to allow bathroom assignment = gender at birth. We're pretty notoriously liberal out here, so this one caught me by surprise. I highly doubt it will pass, but the fact that it's making the ballot is a good reminder that even in places one thinks are progressive, it's not that easy.

I'm going to be pretty vociferous locally on this one; because Washington, like California and a lot of states, is seriously bifurcated right down the middle of the Eastern / Washington.

And it's an entirely stupid law.

AW Admin · Apr 28, 2016

nighttimer said:
This is Corey Maison. She's 14 years old, beautiful and transgender. And in North Carolina she'd have to use the Men's room.

If that makes any sense to you, Corey doesn't have a problem, YOU do.

Meanwhile, they're defending Dennis Hastert.

Who is all about fucking their minor child without the child's consent. And then paying hush money.

Roxxsmom · Apr 28, 2016

AW Admin said:
Meanwhile, they're defending Dennis Hastert.

Who is all about fucking their minor child without the child's consent. And then paying hush money.

This is the kind of thing that makes my head want to explode. Do they ever listen to themselves?

Diana Hignutt · Apr 29, 2016

I've been dealing with trans issues for twenty years. The hate is growing to never before seen levels. I get emails from concerned trans folk all the time. They're so afraid of this climate of hate. I understand that Target boycott petition just passed a million signatures. Honestly...I just want to go to sleep and not wake up. Ever again. In fairness, it's not just this transhate business, my life sucks: trying to run a company, trying to single-handedly take care of my dad who's going down fast with dementia, paying my ex (who I still desparately love) every penny I make...but I think I could get past all that, if I didn't encounter giant blocks of hate on the internet, and more and more in the news. I wish I was dead. Hopefully, my COPD will take me out sooner than later. Sorry, but it's true.

I've been a highly visible trans spokesperson. I've been interviewed on hundreds of radio stations, newspapers and magazines. Been on the Montel Show, FOX News, and famously made Bill O'Reilly stutter. I did it because Denise LeClair of IFGE asked me to. And I've encouraged probably hundreds of trans people to come out, to embrace their true selves without shame. And I'm starting to feel guilty as hell about it. I've encouraged people to become targets for blind hate. I was so proud for a long time. Now, I'm just so tired and sad.

Thanks Humanity, for never failing to let me down. I'm ashamed to be human. I'd rather be dead. But, don't worry, my duty keeps me getting out of bed every goddamned day. I won't give up. But I want to.

There. That's how at least one transperson feels about NC's law and the can of worms it opened.

DancingMaenid · Apr 29, 2016

I think a lot of times, increased visibility both draws the attention of hateful people and makes people who previously had bigoted feelings but "tolerated" the minority group in question feel defensive.

Suddenly, this minority they might have sneered at sometimes but who never seemed like that big of a part of society is asking for stuff like rights and respect. They can't just be easily disregarded anymore.

It's the same thing with the "religious freedom" bills geared toward legalizing anti-gay legislation. Now that gay and lesbian people are more visible and have more legal rights, homophobic people feel threatened.

Trans visibility has come a long way over the past few years, but that's also led to some increase in hostility. And ironically, while visibility can help dispel ignorance, some people are getting an incomplete trans 101 lesson right now. I think a lot of people lack a basic understanding of trans identities, the difference between gender and sex, etc. For example, there's been a lot of increased visibility of non-binary trans identities and variations in how people transition, but I'm seeing a lot of people assuming that non-binary identities are an "internet thing" that have been made up. They know very little about the history of trans people.

Lyv · Apr 29, 2016

Perks said:
One of the local issues (that hit some of the bigger news outlets) that the HB2 backlash created was the void left at our local bookstore, Malaprop's, when Sherman Alexie pulled out of a ticketed event scheduled for May 18th in protest of the new law. So, our bookstore and the local community theatre, which was hosting the event, were going to have to eat what they'd invested and also lose out on the sales expected for the evening. That's hard on the small businesses. Still, I think the issue is bigger than this kind of setback.

In the end, the bookstore and theatre had an idea to help mitigate the loss and open up a forum to talk about HB2 and to raise money to fight it. And I've been invited to be part of the replacement event with some great authors - Sara Gruen, Charles Frazier, Wiley Cash, Joshilyn Jackson, and our own Kim Michele Richardson. Weird.

Wow, I'm reading about this on their website. What an event (at the optional pre-cocktail party, there will be a specialty cocktail. I want to know the name)! I have friends near Asheville and will spread the word. I'm also on the site looking at what I can do--maybe get local friend a gift card and tell the store it's to thank them for their support (their store logo t-shirts are adorable, too. I may need one). Thank you for letting us know. Enjoy and I hope you report back!

Perks · Apr 29, 2016

ElaineA said:
Good for you, Perks. If you're half as articulate, informed and entertaining as you are here, the audience is in for a treat.

On a side note, Sherman can turn his efforts to his home state. We just had an initiative with similar wording to NC's law come out of a court battle intact and get cleared for the ballot. Voters in WA will decide if discrimination laws can be set aside to allow bathroom assignment = gender at birth. We're pretty notoriously liberal out here, so this one caught me by surprise. I highly doubt it will pass, but the fact that it's making the ballot is a good reminder that even in places one thinks are progressive, it's not that easy.

Sherman Alexie kind of took it on the chin over his decision to cancel. He was ascribed all sorts of ulterior motives. I don't know that this was fair.

One of my favorite things about hateful shit of this sort is that it makes people creative in opposition to it. So, you get the beautiful gestures of people protecting others against the Westboro Baptist Church and then, on a different scale, our response here in Asheville to HB2. Everyone has their say in their own way.

Lyv said:
Wow, I'm reading about this on their website. What an event (at the optional pre-cocktail party, there will be a specialty cocktail. I want to know the name)! I have friends near Asheville and will spread the word. I'm also on the site looking at what I can do--maybe get local friend a gift card and tell the store it's to thank them for their support (their store logo t-shirts are adorable, too. I may need one). Thank you for letting us know. Enjoy and I hope you report back!

I'm delighted to have been asked to participate. It's going to be not only fun and informative, but we'll get a chance to present our take on this. For my part, I think HB2 is nothing but retaliation for marriage equality. There's a segment of society that has to make sure we know they still don't approve of anything other than one "genetic man" + one "genetic woman" 'til death do they part, or until they themselves want to step outside this paradigm in some way.

Even the bigtime conservatives in the state house have had to admit that HB2 is a solution in search of a problem. There simply is no indication that trans people are creeping and assaulting in restrooms and locker rooms, or that "straight" predators are pretending to be trans in order to gain access to their victims-of-choice while they're having a dump or taking a piss. It's ridiculous.

I almost have to wonder, given the obviousness of the problems HB2 does create (namely the awkwardness of a "genetic man" who appears female, or a "genetic woman" who appears to be male walking into a restroom designated for the gender they don't match) isn't, in some dark hearts, exactly the point. So that "straight" people feeling comfortable with a spectrum of decent-people-being-decent is pushed farther away.

I'm pretty straight. I'm all cis-het and it's easy as pie. I freely admit that I have no idea what it would be like to feel out-of-place in my own body and in my own sexuality. I don't get it. But what happens when I employ my empathy is that I very quickly come to the conclusion that it must be very difficult and fraught in daily ways to have these worries, these judgments, and to want change that is at once expensive, arduous, and so far yet from being "acceptable".

It's not hard to be decent and friendly, even if you don't understand. It's okay to admit that it can be hard to understand. It's easy not be a roadblock or speedbump to other people's pursuit of happiness. Everyone benefits with the maximum number of people living positive, productive, and happy lives. Morality is facilitating this. Outside consent issues, it doesn't have anything to do with what happens at the juncture of someone's legs.

edutton · Apr 29, 2016

Perks said:
Sherman Alexie kind of took it on the chin over his decision to cancel. He was ascribed all sorts of ulterior motives. I don't know that this was fair... I'm delighted to have been asked to participate.

Now I wonder whether Bruce Springsteen got that same sort of grief about canceling his show. Somehow I doubt it...

I wish we could come up -- if it was on a weekend we probably would.

Perks said:
Even the bigtime conservatives in the state house have had to admit that HB2 is a solution in search of a problem...

And yet the asshats in Raleigh continue to double down, and the worse the situation gets the harder they dig in, even on the stuff that even McCrory has admitted is problematic, like the truly vicious discrimination-suit provisions. It's frankly stupid, and sickening to watch.

Perks said:
I almost have to wonder, given the obviousness of the problems HB2 does create (namely the awkwardness of a "genetic man" who appears female, or a "genetic woman" who appears to be male walking into a restroom designated for the gender they don't match) isn't, in some dark hearts, exactly the point. So that "straight" people feeling comfortable with a spectrum of decent-people-being-decent is pushed farther away.

My wife has said more than once that this is much more about appearance than reality, and I think she has a point. It sure seems to be a lot more about some people thinking trans* is "squicky" at a gut level, and searching for any stick they can find to keep pushing it away from them.

Scribhneoir · Apr 29, 2016

Roxxsmom said:
California's social liberalism is rather overstated, so I'm surprised it hasn't been a big stink here already It probably won't be until the next election, though, since it's late to gather signatures for June. And anti-transgender folks might be reluctant to push something during a November election year, since more young people turn out to vote then. If they want to get an anti transgender amendment through, an off-year (when hardly anyone who isn't middle-aged or older turns up to vote) is their best bet.

I was approached by signature gatherers for a trans bathroom/locker room proposition a couple of years ago. The fellow clearly didn't believe transgenderism is a real thing and he was trying pretty hard to whip up my outrage over the bathroom issue, especially in high schools. I never saw such a proposition reach a ballot, so I guess they didn't gather enough signatures. But they could still be working on it, I suppose. I'm not sure if there's a time limit or if they can keep gathering signatures for as long as it takes.

Fallout for North Carolina's LGBT law

New kid...seven years ago!

Touch and go

New kid...seven years ago!

Beastly Fido

Touch and go

No Gods No Masters

delicate #!&@*#! flower

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

All about that action, boss.

Beastly Fido

Beastly Fido

Very Tired

New kid...seven years ago!

I meant to do that.

delicate #!&@*#! flower

Ni. Peng. Neee-Wom.

Reinventing Myself