Revoking Transgender Civil Rights

[lifeisfiction]

I'm not avoiding any issues, Stavros. I've stated how I feel. I am pro-rights for everyone; black, brown, gay, female, transgender, young, old, EVERYONE. I firmly believe that all these groups of people should have the exact same rights I have, up to and including the right to say, "Hey Bob!" when they get pulled over by a local police officer and most likely not get searched or even get a ticket because Bob knows they're a productive and law-abiding citizen; the right to walk into any local business establishment and get preferential treatment because everyone there knows they're going to buy something if they've gone to the trouble of going shopping; the right to have their mail delivered to the little space between their storm door and front door on rainy days because they leave the postman a hundred-dollar bill in the mailbox every Christmas; the right to be greeted with a wave and smile by everyone on the street because they've gone to the trouble of presenting a non-offensive appearance and established a reputation for being friendly; the right to be left alone to live in peace. And every other right that I have and other people don't have because...

Well there's the rub right there - the "because." I have un-infringed rights because of one thing only: how I behave. My rights have nothing to do with my race, my gender, my religion, or any other factors that people frequently cite as the underlying reason for their problems. My rights all derive from the fact that I am a good citizen who makes an effort to be an approachable, contributing member of the community. Nothing more than that.

When you get these marginalized minorities complaining about their lack of rights, I can tell you within a few seconds why they are having problems. Every time. "Gee, could it be you didn't get that job because you have what appears to be a fishing lure hanging out your nose and a huge tattoo on your neck? Oh, it's because you're a woman? Okay." Or "Wow, you got arrested and all you did was explain to the police officer why he has no jurisdiction over you while you refused to identify yourself? Shocking." Or the real shocker, "Oh dear, I can't believe that police officer shot that two-time ex-felon when all he did was refused to comply with a legal order while reaching into his pants. Must have been because he was black."

Fact is, we all have the same exact legal rights. Even Frances the transgender has the same rights under her legal name of Frank. Obviously that's something that needs to change, but that's not changing right now, so let's focus on the fact that FRANK does indeed have all of his legal rights intact, no matter what contortions FRANCES must suffer.

But legal rights are not the end-all of how we get treated by our fellow man, and that includes how we are treated by the authorities. You want to walk around looking like a freak? You're gonna be treated like a freak. You want to cop an attitude? You're gonna get treated like a person with no respect for the law. Want to live beyond your means? You're going to get treated like the deadbeat you are. Want to run down the USA? You're gonna get treated like the enemy.

There's a reason it's called "society." It's a social gathering of people with a common purpose. You want to set yourself up outside that common purpose, you're going to be treated like an outsider. Your rights will be ignored in favor of teaching you a valuable lesson about how to be an asset to your fellow man instead of a liability.

Anyone complaining about his/her rights is a non-conformist. And you might say, "But I have the right to be a non-conformist." Of course you do. And the rest of society has the right to put pressure on you to conform. This is what liberals perceive as a violation of their civil rights. In fact, it is society doing you a big favor, giving you some solid information that you should take to heart. If you don't, that's okay too - America's been dealing out misery to non-conformists for centuries, and they can keep pounding on you until you're beat into the ground like a railroad spike with no harm done to the larger purpose.

So yeah, you know, civil rights. I enjoy mine. I enjoy them enough to make a few minor sacrifices in the area of conforming to society in order to fully enjoy them. If you don't make those same sacrifices, then you shouldn't be unduly surprised when your disrespect toward your fellow citizens is brought to your attention the hard way.

Rights shouldn't be determined whether you look like a saint or you look like a bum. Nor should dress, or demeanor should invalidate a person's rights. If the determination of rights is based on perception then we would have a lot more trouble. The problem is people are grasping with the expansion of rights. In this country at it's creation not everyone had equal rights. Over the course of it's history, rights have been increased since we understand people come from all sorts of backgrounds. It has not always been a smooth transition, but nonetheless were have slowly going in the right direction. The question you raise is what does society look like and it looks like us. All of it, not a certain sector not a certain group. Not a person wearing a suit, or dressed in tatter clothes, or simply physical features should be limiting. If you can accept that then you realize that this community is not limited to certain, race, gender, ethnic....etc. It wasn't too long ago the doctrine of separate, but equal was normal. The problem I have with your arguments hear is determination of who should have rights or whose rights should be respected. That's not how it works. Inalienable rights, should not and is not easily disregarded regardless of who the person is or how they act.

Well this will be a long discussion.

[dirtrail]

Lol the electoral college does not need to be abolished. Whoever said US is a “democracy “ it’s a Constitutional republic. It never was meant to be a mob rule democracy. 🙄🙄

The electoral college was established to give slave states greater representation in Congress.

The electoral college is a non issue when it matches the popular vote.

When the popular vote and electoral college don't match, there's a problem.

Gore lost to Dubya in 2000 and still won the popular vote by over 500K.

That's not a democracy. The electoral college needs to be abolished, and Congress needs to pass a national holiday to vote during midterm and presidential elections to encourage more people to turn out.

There's truth in the belief that the GOP wins elections when fewer people vote.

No democracy in the world has an 'electoral college'. Think about that.

Our system is rigged for minority rule.

[Nick Danger]

Well this will be a long discussion.

Doesn't have to be, unless you're trying to convince me of something. I'll tell you the same thing I've always told Stavros - you're an idealist. Everyone starts life as an idealist. But at a certain point, those of us who have been successful have transitioned to reality over idealism.

That's not how it works.

Wrong. That's exactly how it works. How it SHOULD work is that all your inalienable rights will always be respected, no matter what you do or how you look. But how it EXACTLY works is, your rights will be respected as long as you yourself are respectful of everyone else, including their dearly-held beliefs and deep-seeded fears. There's an old saying, "You have to give respect to get respect." No truer words were ever spoken.

We could go back and forth about how things should be as opposed to how things are, Life. The disparity exemplifies the overriding difference between conservatism and liberalism. Now that IS a long conversation.

[lifeisfiction]

Doesn't have to be, unless you're trying to convince me of something. I'll tell you the same thing I've always told Stavros - you're an idealist. Everyone starts life as an idealist. But at a certain point, those of us who have been successful have transitioned to reality over idealism.



Wrong. That's exactly how it works. How it SHOULD work is that all your inalienable rights will always be respected, no matter what you do or how you look. But how it EXACTLY works is, your rights will be respected as long as you yourself are respectful of everyone else, including their dearly-held beliefs and deep-seeded fears. There's an old saying, "You have to give respect to get respect." No truer words were ever spoken.

We could go back and forth about how things should be as opposed to how things are, Life. The disparity exemplifies the overriding difference between conservatism and liberalism. Now that IS a long conversation.

It is not idealism or realism with regards to protecting and enforcing the rights of others. Rights on paper are only effective when we as society seek to enforce them. Saying "that's the way it is," is nothing more than an excuse to keep the prevailing system. The old saying Freedom isn't free, is true in that one must fight to remain free, not merely saying your free means you are free. We must as a society seek to ensure people have their rights. Who we are we expecting to enforce it? It's our responsibility and no one's else.

[giovanni_hotel]

Lol the electoral college does not need to be abolished. Whoever said US is a “democracy “ it’s a Constitutional republic. It never was meant to be a mob rule democracy. 

Have you ever voted before??

Every election in the USA is one person, one vote. Yes, we do elect representatives who go to Congress to advocate for our interests, but the principle is still the same.

So in fact, we were meant to be led by 'mob rule', i.e., democratic control.

Research the history of the electoral college. It was indeed intended to give slave states greater representation in Congress and has nothing at all to do with strengthening our democracy.

A state with 500 people should not be able to dictate policy to a state with 500K citizens.

That's just common sense.

Our entire political system is entirely upside down and ripe for an autocrat to take over.

Be careful of the totems you're hoisting, only the the super rich consider one person/one vote 'mob rule' and somehow un-democratic.

[smithken]

not to be rude but extra civil rights would you get? people are getting fired and banned for political views and religion and your shocked ?

[broncofan]

I think there is some confusion between processes that aren't democratic in order to further federalist principles and those that are not democratic to protect against "mob rule". I could be wrong, but I believe that we have a bicameral legislature in part as a concession to our federalist structure which divides power between states and the federal government. In the house citizens' votes matter and in the senate the states are represented. This bicameral structure is a bit of a compromise even though states are helping elect federal representatives for our legislature.

In general, when people talk about the design of anti-majoritarian institutions they tend to think of them as a bulwark against the "tyranny of the majority". The Judiciary does this because they can strike down laws that violate certain Constitutional principles no matter how popular they are and Judges are appointed rather than elected. The structure of the Senate does not really protect against a tyranny of the majority but does ensure that less populous states can have a bit more influence in our legislative process.

I think the electoral college does nothing to protect against a tyranny of the majority but does do something to re-distribute power from citizens in more populous states to those in less populous states. The action of a faithless elector could protect us against the will of the people but historically that has not been done, it is illegal in some states, and there are no standards for doing it (in my view Trump was a great test case; if not then when?).

It doesn't make great sense for a unitary executive for the federal government to be elected by anything other than the will of the citizens he or she represents. As Trish indicated on the previous page, who does the President represent?

[filghy2]

One might think. But the outcome might not be an accident either. We had someone on this forum who was on the fringes of the left a while ago who would post Russia Today articles before Trump supporters began trusting the outlet. He would frequently claim there was no difference in the political parties because he believed they were both beholden to establishment.

Yes, it's may be true that the political spectrum is more like a horseshoe, with the extremes being closer to each other than to the centre. Anti-immigrant and anti-globalist views have a long tradition on the left as well as the right. Still, it's odd to see a socialist cheering on people who are anti-government and anti-egalitarian.

[Nick Danger]

It is not idealism or realism with regards to protecting and enforcing the rights of others. Rights on paper are only effective when we as society seek to enforce them. Saying "that's the way it is," is nothing more than an excuse to keep the prevailing system. The old saying Freedom isn't free, is true in that one must fight to remain free, not merely saying your free means you are free. We must as a society seek to ensure people have their rights. Who we are we expecting to enforce it? It's our responsibility and no one's else.

Freedom = Money, Lifester, always has. Money makes you free. Free to travel, free to invent, free to seek romance, free to buy what you want and do as you will. It even, to some extent, makes you above the law - you can always take a chance on doing anything you're sure you can buy your way out of; which pretty much means any minor misdemeanor results in an hour in jail.

So young people should be securing funds. Period. If they can see the forest in front of them, all they have to do is stay on the path laid out clearly before them, stay clean, stay focused, take good counsel, and by the age of 30 you can quite easily be rich in this country, and free as a bird. But you have to earn it.

Plan B, of course, is to start doing whatever you want the second you leave your parents' house, party away your 20's, and find yourself deeply in debt and strangely lacking in job skills by age 30, weakly attaching yourself to any so-called "movement" that lets you blame your problems on circumstances beyond your control. The choice is yours, and everyone else's.

But make no mistake, the whiners and the malcontents, the poorly-adjusted and the neglected, the professional victims and the bleeding-heart pontificators, are all people who followed Plan B, AKA the Democratic Party.

[lifeisfiction]

Freedom = Money, Lifester, always has. Money makes you free. Free to travel, free to invent, free to seek romance, free to buy what you want and do as you will. It even, to some extent, makes you above the law - you can always take a chance on doing anything you're sure you can buy your way out of; which pretty much means any minor misdemeanor results in an hour in jail.

So young people should be securing funds. Period. If they can see the forest in front of them, all they have to do is stay on the path laid out clearly before them, stay clean, stay focused, take good counsel, and by the age of 30 you can quite easily be rich in this country, and free as a bird. But you have to earn it.

Plan B, of course, is to start doing whatever you want the second you leave your parents' house, party away your 20's, and find yourself deeply in debt and strangely lacking in job skills by age 30, weakly attaching yourself to any so-called "movement" that lets you blame your problems on circumstances beyond your control. The choice is yours, and everyone else's.

But make no mistake, the whiners and the malcontents, the poorly-adjusted and the neglected, the professional victims and the bleeding-heart pontificators, are all people who followed Plan B, AKA the Democratic Party.

Since there is no more response to my initial statements and this begs a different question I will briefly respond. This question you express money equals freedom is something I have had numerous discussions about with people all on the political spectrums. It tends to go mostly no where, but I will say this money while it appears to be freedom is not in of itself freedom. I use to argue with my father, what is better connections/power or wealth. I would state that wealth is important, but he kindly remind me that money can only go so far. Furthermore, it takes a few things for your wealth no matter how well planned to be eradicated or brought low. Political views are not be solely based on income. It always makes me laugh when people think Wall Street is mostly Republican, because there is a ton of very very powerful Democrats in Wall Street.

Again this really doesn't go to the issue of rights. This is more of side discussion and it does not address the main issue of rights. We are only strong when we protect the rights of the weak.