It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Curt schilling fired over anti transgender post.

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

read my link. it explains Gender and sex quite well if you read it. and there are soem hell a mannish women out there who are natural so its not always so easy to tell i sit?




posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: KTemplar

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: KTemplar
Live and let live is usually my motto - my only concern with the bathroom thing is how long before serial killers and rapist take advantage of an opportunity like this?


There's been 3 Republicans arrested for bathroom misconduct.

Zero trans.

The law is targeting the wrong people.

For the record I have nothing against transgendered - I only fear the wrongdoers posing as one to get closer to children - BTK posed as a utility worker, Ted Bundy feigned broken arms to manipulate his victims. Hopefully, companies will eventually add a new restroom for transgenders level of comfort as well!


This law is mostly meant to target students. You know, kids K-12.

That's who's been making headlines. Transgender students and their parents wanting to be inclusive, not excluded or made to feel different.

That's what this is about.

Would your school allow a utility worker in the kids bathroom if kids were in there?

This is about the schools. Not the malls

I was not aware of that!



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: jlafleur02

This is just ESPN trying to keep backlash to a minimum.

Because in America we shout down dissenting opinion so hard we get people fired over it.



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: KTemplar

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: KTemplar

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: KTemplar
Live and let live is usually my motto - my only concern with the bathroom thing is how long before serial killers and rapist take advantage of an opportunity like this?


There's been 3 Republicans arrested for bathroom misconduct.

Zero trans.

The law is targeting the wrong people.

For the record I have nothing against transgendered - I only fear the wrongdoers posing as one to get closer to children - BTK posed as a utility worker, Ted Bundy feigned broken arms to manipulate his victims. Hopefully, companies will eventually add a new restroom for transgenders level of comfort as well!


This law is mostly meant to target students. You know, kids K-12.

That's who's been making headlines. Transgender students and their parents wanting to be inclusive, not excluded or made to feel different.

That's what this is about.

Would your school allow a utility worker in the kids bathroom if kids were in there?

This is about the schools. Not the malls

I was not aware of that! Everything I read on the Curt Schilling incident referred to "Men's rooms and Woman's rooms".



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: KTemplar

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: KTemplar

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: KTemplar
Live and let live is usually my motto - my only concern with the bathroom thing is how long before serial killers and rapist take advantage of an opportunity like this?


There's been 3 Republicans arrested for bathroom misconduct.

Zero trans.

The law is targeting the wrong people.

For the record I have nothing against transgendered - I only fear the wrongdoers posing as one to get closer to children - BTK posed as a utility worker, Ted Bundy feigned broken arms to manipulate his victims. Hopefully, companies will eventually add a new restroom for transgenders level of comfort as well!


This law is mostly meant to target students. You know, kids K-12.

That's who's been making headlines. Transgender students and their parents wanting to be inclusive, not excluded or made to feel different.

That's what this is about.

Would your school allow a utility worker in the kids bathroom if kids were in there?

This is about the schools. Not the malls

I was not aware of that!


They're not gonna come straight out and say they are targeting kids and schools.

Transgenders have been using public restrooms all along with no issue. When's the last time, prior to this, you heard anything about a transgender using the restroom? Never?

And remember a cross dresser is not a transgender. Men like Schilling posted wearing women style clothing are not transgender. They're cross dressers and mostly heterosexuals.

Over the last few years there have been several high school transgender kids fight for their right to use the restroom they identify with. There's also been a few grade school kids who's parents went public about their child using the restroom they identify with.

Prior to these kids (and parents) standing up for themselves - - - you never heard anything about transgenders and restrooms.

Then you get uptight parents who can't have their little angels (in school) sharing the same space as a transgender student. And go all Mob Rule on the school district, and any other government official.

So, Obama makes a Federal Ruling protecting trans students. NC says it doesn't apply because Federal can't tell the state what to do.

But, in a case of a teen trans student suing his school, he gets this ruling:


In a landmark ruling, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held on Tuesday that federal law bars public schools from denying trans students access to the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. The 2–1 decision afforded deference to the federal government’s interpretation of existing law to protect trans students from discrimination. Under that interpretation, the court held, public schools cannot exclude trans students from the bathroom. The ruling puts North Carolina’s new bathroom restrictions in direct conflict with federal law and clear judicial precedent. www.slate.com...


So soon all public school students will be protected by this Federal Law (over state law) - - - - and you'll probably never hear any incident of a transgender person in a restroom again.

But, you probably will hear of some butch lesbians getting harassed.


edit on 22-4-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AnneeThank you for that clarification!



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: StoutBroux

read my link. it explains Gender and sex quite well if you read it. and there are soem hell a mannish women out there who are natural so its not always so easy to tell i sit?


Exactly. Which is why I posted what I did. Transgender has nothing to do with how one looks but how one self-identifies. So if say a man who looks and dresses like a man but identifies as a woman, uses a women's bathroom, it should be legal because transgender has nothing to do with appearance. So a masculine man could use a women's bathroom if they identify with being female. Got it? How a transgender looks is not the issue with being transgender. But it may be an issue for others using the same facilities.


Transgender is a less clinical term, referring more to gender identity and gender expression than to sexual orientation or physical sex characteristics. It is also a more general and inclusive term: a transgender person may be gay, transsexual, transvestite, or even genderqueer.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: StoutBroux
So if say a man who looks and dresses like a man but identifies as a woman, uses a women's bathroom, . .


Is that something you would do?

Dress like a man and use the women's bathroom?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I wasn't really aware of that either. I feel like kids are a different issue. That to me just seems like uptight nonsense.

Showering is a different matter, but do kids and teens even shower at school anymore? Way back in 7th grade when I started playing football the majority of us just went home to do it. Just seemed easier and the water pressure was bad at school.

I'm all for converting everything to unisex, would help you ladies out with your lines if you got a few extra toilets per establishment, the opposite sexes could hopefully shame each other into being cleanlier, and it would save us guys from having some weirdo sidle up next to us when there's another urinal open farther away.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Annee

I wasn't really aware of that either. I feel like kids are a different issue. That to me just seems like uptight nonsense.


If kids are raised right they're going to accept the differences in people. Parents are the problem on this issue.

In my school there were 2 private showers. They had to be assigned by the gym teacher. Kids with disabilities used them. No one cared.

I'd say if there was ever going to be an issue, it would be some jerk invading the transgenders space out of curiosity, not the other way around.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee




I'd say if there was ever going to be an issue, it would be some jerk invading the transgenders space out of curiosity, not the other way around.


Yeah that seems about right. I actually remember hearing about a few incidents of girls being sexually inappropriate with other girls and the same with boys (stories from friends). Being transgender doesn't make you an asshole.

Kids are smarter in a lot of ways than they get credit for. He or she showers in a different place, but treat them like anyone else. Shoot you could probably explain the whole thing after a certain age without having a bunch of bullying or nastiness. Things have changed a lot. Regardless of my stance on giving kids hormones and when to accept they are transgender and not being weird kids (I pretended I was a dog a lot when I was little), children should be treated well and not subject to all the nonsense and anger. They're kids.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1

. . . giving kids hormones . .
.

You mean hormone blockers? All they do is give the kid a few extra years til they become of legal age to make their own decision. They've been used for a while, showing no sign of damage or lasting effect when stopped.


. . . when to accept they are transgender and not being weird kids (I pretended I was a dog a lot when I was little), children should be treated well and not subject to all the nonsense and anger. They're kids.


What can it hurt to let them be who they think they are? Or actually are?

The kids are not medicated.

Hormone blockers only come into play to off set puberty - - to give the kid a enough time to become of legal age and make their own decision. Some do know earlier and from what I've read can choose surgery before 18. But, only if they've been in a required program and the doctors agree.
edit on 23-4-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

BTW - I'm helping raise my grandchildren.

One is a 15 year old girl (looks very much like Dakota Fanning, but with light olive coloring, and big green eyes).

And 8 year old grandson.

Beach area Los Angeles. If these bikini bottoms get any smaller . . .


edit on 23-4-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss
It is typical ignorant bigotry!
A toxic disease that needs to be eradicated!

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

news.yahoo.com...

"There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy...."

There is no causation or correlation between low intelligence and those who happen to be racist/bigoted/prejudiced. There are "dumb" people in all walks of life just as there are smart people in all walks of life.

The agenda behind studies like the one you linked is to associate words like "racism and bigotry" with "stupid and ignorant" so strongly, that any time somebody argues a point in a debate that is non-PC they will be accused of racism (low intelligence) or being dumb (racist) and back off with their argument.

If racism/prejudice/bigotry were really correlated with low intelligence, why were so many historical figures accused of possessing these attributes so intelligent?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: jlafleur02
ESPN has the right to fire him but is it really bigotry, or just the truth? I like the guy but he can be a jerk at times.


How is it the truth?
Show me one example of this happening.
Show me one example of anyone being threatened, sexually harassed, assaulted, by someone like the guy he claims would be in there.
You can't, and why? Because it HAS NOT HAPPENED.
What has happened is that several REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS have been arrested and charged for sexual crimes in rest rooms, but no transgender person has, ever, there's no record of that that anyone can find.

This is really bizarre. So many Americans have been convinced of a lie because they're too ignorant to be able to think for themselves, or logically.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: StoutBroux

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: StoutBroux

read my link. it explains Gender and sex quite well if you read it. and there are soem hell a mannish women out there who are natural so its not always so easy to tell i sit?


Exactly. Which is why I posted what I did. Transgender has nothing to do with how one looks but how one self-identifies. So if say a man who looks and dresses like a man but identifies as a woman, uses a women's bathroom, it should be legal because transgender has nothing to do with appearance. So a masculine man could use a women's bathroom if they identify with being female. Got it? How a transgender looks is not the issue with being transgender. But it may be an issue for others using the same facilities.


Transgender is a less clinical term, referring more to gender identity and gender expression than to sexual orientation or physical sex characteristics. It is also a more general and inclusive term: a transgender person may be gay, transsexual, transvestite, or even genderqueer.


Stout but youre missing the point here. We are talking about th eones who ACTUALLY LOOK FEMALE OR MALE not a CROSSDRESSER or some one who is not undergoing the process to change gender. Ill use myself as a example. Although my brain is wired up as female and im in a mans body I WILL NOT Go into a womans bathroom as I am OR even if i dressed up feminine with a cute skirt and a long red wig UNTIL I actually LOOK LIKE A FEMALE.

The government in NC,missisippi and others apparently dont get this either. But i hope i have explained it.

Caps for emphasis only ,thank you.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: jlafleur02

I don't care what a persons says, it's wrong to live in a society where your employer can fire you for what you write on your own social media account. I find the concept of a public image clause to be wrong. It's wrong to punish this man for being a conservative, it's wrong to punish a teacher for going to a club on the weekend, and it's wrong to punish anyone else for what they write on Facebook.

To me, when you hire a public persona, you're not just hiring a face in front of a camera but you're hiring the brand of that persons name. A persons private life in large part determines that brand, and hiring them means accepting that. Some people will take the good and the bad with that brand and be themselves. Others will try to meticulously sculpt an image. There's nothing wrong with either, but short of choosing to not renew a contract, once a broadcaster has signed the agreement they should be stuck with the person they picked. It's just a matter of equal rights. If ESPN came out in favor of a political decision Shilling disagree's with do you think he would get the option to just break his contract or to not be associated with his employers views?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: jlafleur02

I don't care what a persons says, it's wrong to live in a society where your employer can fire you for what you write on your own social media account.


No, its not.

If you reflect negatively on the company you work for - - - they have every right to fire you.

No matter what crappy job, you are still a representative of that company.

In Schilling's case - - - he probably signed a contract.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: jlafleur02

I don't care what a persons says, it's wrong to live in a society where your employer can fire you for what you write on your own social media account. I find the concept of a public image clause to be wrong. It's wrong to punish this man for being a conservative, it's wrong to punish a teacher for going to a club on the weekend, and it's wrong to punish anyone else for what they write on Facebook.

To me, when you hire a public persona, you're not just hiring a face in front of a camera but you're hiring the brand of that persons name. A persons private life in large part determines that brand, and hiring them means accepting that. Some people will take the good and the bad with that brand and be themselves. Others will try to meticulously sculpt an image. There's nothing wrong with either, but short of choosing to not renew a contract, once a broadcaster has signed the agreement they should be stuck with the person they picked. It's just a matter of equal rights. If ESPN came out in favor of a political decision Shilling disagree's with do you think he would get the option to just break his contract or to not be associated with his employers views?


Welcome to "right to work states" Where you can be fired for ANYTHING.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
No, its not.

If you reflect negatively on the company you work for - - - they have every right to fire you.

No matter what crappy job, you are still a representative of that company.

In Schilling's case - - - he probably signed a contract.


If the person reflects negatively on the company, you don't renew their contract. From what I've read he was professional on air. There's a big difference between being who you are on something you own like your facebook account, and being that way on company property. Like I said before, when you hire someone for a position I don't believe you're just hiring them to do a job, you're also hiring that persons personality. You can think of each person as being their own brand that you're associating your company with. Once you sign that contract, you should be bound to it. If a company doesn't want to be associated with a controversial person, then don't hire them in the first place or don't renew their contract if problems are developing.


originally posted by: yuppa
Welcome to "right to work states" Where you can be fired for ANYTHING.


I'm aware, and it's not a concept I agree with. Employers aren't lords, they shouldn't be allowed to fire a person on a whim. If there's a reason to fire a person for something job related that's fair game. A personal facebook account isn't job related though.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join