Gender/Transgender In The Military & In General

[Making Chimichangas]

Dear Everyone,

 

I have changed my avatar from Deadpool to an actual picture of myself.  Yes, that is actually me.  I used a picture of myself as my avatar because I want people, especially the "anti-trans" haters to see me.  And NOT in a ridiculous, selfish, look at me, instagram way.  I want people, especially those who are "anti-trans" to see that:

 

• I am a human being
• I am NOT some bearded "man" in a dress
• I am NOT out to assault women or your daughters in a public restroom
• I am NOT seeking to destroy America and everything you hold dear
• I am NOT a satanist and there is NO evil, global, transgender agenda to force you, or anyone you know, to be trans or gay
• I DO NOT hate America
• My only "political agenda" is to have the same rights and protections under the law that a white, hetero, Christian male takes for granted 

 

And with respect to my picture, please don't be an a**hole and misuse it just so you can get a few laughs, or something worse...  

 

Sincerely,

 

Marci

Edited April 15, 2018 by Making Chimichangas

[NM11046]

Winston Churchill said, "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak - courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."

 

Appreciate the courage of your posts on this topic Marci.  

[Making Chimichangas]

1 hour ago, NM11046 said:

Winston Churchill said, "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak - courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."

 

Appreciate the courage of your posts on this topic Marci.  

 

I'm not sure if it is courage or idiocy tbh...maybe a bit of both. 

[funhusker]

2 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

I'm not sure if it is courage or idiocy tbh...maybe a bit of both. 

It's idiocy to show a real picture of yourself on the internet for the whole world to see (generally speaking),

 

It is also extremely courageous to do it for a purpose!!

 

Good for you, and thank you for contributing something that (I presume) nobody else can to this forum.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

Quote

 

Stoking Fear 

 

Facing such political headwinds, Christian-right activists desperately needed a fresh strategy. Provoking fear of infringement on religious liberty would likely only gain traction among fellow believers. They soon found an alternative in Shackelford's home state, whose largest city was, at the time, led by a lesbian Democratic mayor. There, in Houston, a small band of well-connected far-right activists was resurrecting an approach from the oldest anti-LGBTQ playbook: to transform the civic debate about homosexuality into a panic about predators.

 

 

 

 Facts Not Fear 

 

Mainly, I want people to know the facts about how T-Androgen blockers, combined with estrogen, affect trans women.  To calm any fear about the safety of your wife or daughter sharing a bathroom with a trans woman.

 

Basically HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy) equates to going through puberty again.

 

Once you understand how these hormones affects us, you'll begin to truly understand why we are no threat whatsoever.

 

[TGHusker]

On 3/26/2018 at 9:34 PM, Making Chimichangas said:

 

It was actually pretty cathartic to make that post.  Just to get a bunch of those things off my mind and into a forum where they can be discussed.  I've also made an effort to reel in some of my opinions that tended to paint a little too broadly.  But yeah, I can definitely see how knowing some of my background gives some context to things I've said.  So hopefully you'll remember what you wanted to say when you're sober.

Thanks Chimi for directing me to this thread.  I have a better understanding of your path and your story.  I've worked with G & L people in different jobs but not any transgender  ... that I knew of.  In my small farming community in SD we were pretty isolated from this lifestyle - however there were 2 gay teachers in my HS (science and music) and one gay student.  They were of course the brunt of jokes.  I became the brunt of jokes when the science teacher gave me the science award my senior year.  I should have internalize it at that time and open up my mind to others who are different than I.  Unfortunately, there are too many politicians and religious leaders who use this ignorance to separate people and to create enemies to campaign against. 

I'll PM you - as I have some more personal questions to ask to increase my understanding.

 

 

[TGHusker]

I found this interesting  - and related to the topic.
 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/wait-this-wasnt-supposed-to-happen-vp-mike-pence-swears-in-gay-ambassador-rick-grenell-with-his-partner-by-his-side/

[Moiraine]

14 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I found this interesting  - and related to the topic.
 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/wait-this-wasnt-supposed-to-happen-vp-mike-pence-swears-in-gay-ambassador-rick-grenell-with-his-partner-by-his-side/

 

 

That "article" was horrid.

 

He's swearing him in because it's his job. He's not going to stab gay people in the face when he sees them.

[TGHusker]

43 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

That "article" was horrid.

 

He's swearing him in because it's his job. He's not going to stab gay people in the face when he sees them.

I was just wondering what he was thinking when he was doing so.   My hope is (and it may be a false hope) is that in that position the VP has to be the VP of all Americans and not just a few in Indiana where he came from.  Maybe as he rubs shoulders with those that are different, that he would become more tolerant in how he views the world. 

[RedDenver]

18 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I was just wondering what he was thinking when he was doing so.   My hope is (and it may be a false hope) is that in that position the VP has to be the VP of all Americans and not just a few in Indiana where he came from.  Maybe as he rubs shoulders with those that are different, that he would become more tolerant in how he views the world. 

It's a beautiful idea, and I hope with all my heart that it works, but I remain extremely skeptical that Pence would change.

[BigRedBuster]

Didn't know where else to put this.....so...here it is.

 

 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Didn't know where else to put this.....so...here it is.

 

 

 

When we allow, legally, anyone with a deeply-held religious belief to refuse service to someone because of that religion, we are opening up a whole can of worms that we don't want.

 

Christianity is not the only religion in America.  Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism... we're all going to have to adjust for the religious tenets of these faiths when we go to shops & stores based on this decision. 

 

Remember when there was this bizarro panic that we were going to have to abide by Sharia Law?  This ruling actually helps that happen (in part). 

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

When we allow, legally, anyone with a deeply-held religious belief to refuse service to someone because of that religion, we are opening up a whole can of worms that we don't want.

 

Christianity is not the only religion in America.  Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism... we're all going to have to adjust for the religious tenets of these faiths when we go to shops & stores based on this decision. 

 

Remember when there was this bizarro panic that we were going to have to abide by Sharia Law?  This ruling actually helps that happen (in part). 

 

Not sure I would go that far.  We have very specifically in the constitution, a freedom of Religion.  So, what this ruling does is make it easier if people want to practice Sharia Law themselves.  I don't see it making it now more likely that all of us will have to abide by Sharia Law.

 

This freedom is specifically stated and, as much as I support gay marriage...etc.  I actually think I would have had to vote in favor of this ruling if I were on the bench.  

 

The baker has a religious believe that he can not support gay marriage.  He's not going out and preventing the gay couple from getting married.  But, he should not be forced to be a part of it if his beliefs don't go along with it.

 

The court isn't in charge of making rulings with fear of what the implications are down the road with non-related cases or issues.  It's in charge of making rulings as it pertains to their interpretation of the constitution and that specific case.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Not sure I would go that far.  We have very specifically in the constitution, a freedom of Religion.  So, what this ruling does is make it easier if people want to practice Sharia Law themselves.  I don't see it making it now more likely that all of us will have to abide by Sharia Law.

 

This freedom is specifically stated and, as much as I support gay marriage...etc.  I actually think I would have had to vote in favor of this ruling if I were on the bench.  

 

The baker has a religious believe that he can not support gay marriage.  He's not going out and preventing the gay couple from getting married.  But, he should not be forced to be a part of it if his beliefs don't go along with it.

 

The court isn't in charge of making rulings with fear of what the implications are down the road with non-related cases or issues.  It's in charge of making rulings as it pertains to their interpretation of the constitution and that specific case.

So what if a baker has a religious belief that he cannot support gender equality? He can now refuse to serve women.

 

What if the religious belief is about formal religious attire? Now women not wearing a burka can refuse to be served.

 

Or women driving? Now women who drive cannot be served.

 

Or going more political: what if he has a religious belief that cannot support registered Republicans? Or cannot support the military? Or cannot support the rich or the poor?

 

This is a terrible ruling that will quickly get out of hand because it goes against the very nature of being a melting pot that facilitates the many, many cultural groups within our country getting along together.

[knapplc]

55 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Not sure I would go that far.  We have very specifically in the constitution, a freedom of Religion.  So, what this ruling does is make it easier if people want to practice Sharia Law themselves.  I don't see it making it now more likely that all of us will have to abide by Sharia Law.

 

This freedom is specifically stated and, as much as I support gay marriage...etc.  I actually think I would have had to vote in favor of this ruling if I were on the bench.  

 

The baker has a religious believe that he can not support gay marriage.  He's not going out and preventing the gay couple from getting married.  But, he should not be forced to be a part of it if his beliefs don't go along with it.

 

The court isn't in charge of making rulings with fear of what the implications are down the road with non-related cases or issues.  It's in charge of making rulings as it pertains to their interpretation of the constitution and that specific case.

 

That freedom is not all-inclusive.  For example, a business offering goods & services cannot refuse those services based on, among other things, a person's race, color, religion or national origin, per federal law.  State laws vary, but most states have public accommodations laws which have (mostly) similar scope, and some include other things like familial status, gender preference, etc. 

 

It looks like this ruling wasn't intended to have a broad scope, but was specifically and only about this particular case. Kind of interesting, that being the situation, that the Supremes even took this on.

 

Quote

 

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker

 

Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the narrowness of the opinion.

 

"The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people," Melling said in a statement.

 

Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Colorado commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns.

 

"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."

 

"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the case was narrow.

 

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," the opinion states.

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that "when a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding -- not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings -- and that is the service (the couple) were denied."