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.

 

U.S. Gives Sweeping Guidance to Schools on Transgender Students

page: 37
49
<< 34  35  36    38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Like a broken record.

We are not a Democracy. We are a Democratic Republic.

Majority DOES NOT rule.

Bill of Rights, 1 has the same clout as a million when it comes to Equal Treatment/Equal Rights.


And minority doesn't rule either. The right of an individual stops when that individual wants to impose his/her rights/will on others.
edit on 28-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.




posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

They have the right to use existing facilities.


But what if they don't want to? Why do you want to impose your views on them?
edit on 28-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Pyrrho

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: awareness10

I got a better idea. We should have a bathroom separate from the rest with a sign "Bigots only"... for the bigot crowd. NOW the problem is solved for everyone.


Gotta love when someone has to pull out the bigot/sexist/racist/etc line to stop any speech that doesn't agree with their opinion or agenda.

Nice tone you're setting for the future discussion the country needs to have about these issues.


What would you call those who use laws for discrimination?


So you want to abolish the 1st amendment? Got it.

Without conversation, we will get nowhere. And that is why we still have crippling race issues in this country.
edit on 5/28/2016 by Pyrrho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




But they don't want to. Why do you want to impose your views on them?

I'm not imposing my views on them. I'm saying that they are not in a position to require special accommodation. But it looks like they'll be fine at the airport.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyrrho

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Pyrrho

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: awareness10

I got a better idea. We should have a bathroom separate from the rest with a sign "Bigots only"... for the bigot crowd. NOW the problem is solved for everyone.


Gotta love when someone has to pull out the bigot/sexist/racist/etc line to stop any speech that doesn't agree with their opinion or agenda.

Nice tone you're setting for the future discussion the country needs to have about these issues.


What would you call those who use laws for discrimination?


So you want to abolish the 1st amendment? Got it.

Without conversation, we will get nowhere. And that is why we still have crippling race issues in this country.


Your point being what?

Does that change the definition of bigot?



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

I'm not imposing my views on them. I'm saying that they are not in a position to require special accommodation. But it looks like they'll be fine at the airport.



Why not? You are saying furry people, and other people with identity disorders don't have rights of their own?



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

They have the right to use existing facilities.


So, you only want people to conform to your own views. That's what you are saying.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Phage

I'm not imposing my views on them. I'm saying that they are not in a position to require special accommodation. But it looks like they'll be fine at the airport.



Why not? You are saying furry people, and other people with identity disorders don't have rights of their own?
I'm not sure Furries have identity disorders (any more than SCA members do) but, no, I'm not saying they don't have rights. I'm saying that they are not in a position to require special accommodations. If a restaurant wants to provide catboxes, they can.



So, you only want people to conform to your own views. That's what you are saying.
No. I'm saying that they are not in a position to require special accommodation. Transgenders do not require special accommodations.

edit on 5/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You are still saying that your views are more important than those of other people with completely different species identities.

BTW Phage...yes, many furry people do have identity disorders.

Furries and limits of 'species identity disorder'
edit on 28-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Phage

You are still saying that your views are more important than those of other people with completely different species identities.

No. My views are just as important as theirs are.

However, since they are not disabled, there is no requirement that they be provided with any particular accommodation. They are physically able to use existing facilities. As are transexuals.



BTW Phage...yes, many furry people do have identity disorders.
Your source says otherwise.

There are a myriad of reasons why furry participants at a furry conference might identify as “less than 100% human,” not the least having a hangover from furry drinks the night before. Shari Caudron quotes Mark, a furry, who says: “In so much of society, there are so many layers of bull#. It’s hard to be yourself. But the whole fursona thing is really cool. It strips away human reluctance in many forms” (Caudron, 2006, p. 190). Tigerden.com includes other voices on furry “lifestylers” who reflect critically on being “human.”

Significantly, Gerbasi et al. take the trouble to define what they mean by “furries” but not what they mean by “human,” and so phrases like “objectively human” and “100% human” remain a priori assumptions.

www.academia.edu...
Like SCA, it's a role play.


edit on 5/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
No. My views are just as important as theirs are.


That's what you claim you are saying, but it is not what you are actually saying.


originally posted by: Phage
However, since they are not disabled, there is no requirement that they be provided with any particular accommodation. They are physically able to use existing facilities.


So, in your view they have to be disabled in order to have rights?


Associate Professor, Biological Sciences, Kent State University, 44720, Stark, N. Canton, OH, USA
Society and Animals (Impact Factor: 0.7). 08/2008; 16(3):197-222. DOI: 10.1163/156853008X323376
ABSTRACT

This study explored the furry identity. Furries are humans interested in anthropomorphic art and cartoons. Some furries have zoomorphic tendencies. Furries often identify with, and/or assume, characteristics of a special/totem species of nonhuman animal. This research surveyed both fur-ries (n = 217) and non-furry individuals (n = 29) attending a furry convention and a comparison group of college students (n = 68). Furries commonly indicated dragons and various canine and feline species as their alternate-species identity; none reported a nonhuman-primate identity. Dichotomous responses ("yes" or "no") to two key furry-identity questions ("do you consider yourself to be less than 100% human" and "if you could become 0% human, would you") pro-duced a two-by-two furry typology. Th ese two independent dimensions are self-perception (undistorted versus distorted) and species identity (attained versus unattained). One-quarter of the furry sample answered "yes" to both questions, placing them in the "Distorted Unattained" quadrant. This type of furry has certain characteristics paralleling gender-identity disorder. To explore this parallel, the furry typology, and the proposed construct of "Species Identity Disorder" needs further research.

www.researchgate.net...

Identity disorder, or in this case "Species Identity Disorder" is a disability.



Getting Disability Benefits Because of a Dissociative Disorder
Social Security disability benefits are sometimes allowed for long-term dissociative disorder.
...

www.disabilitysecrets.com...



edit on 28-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

In case you didn't know Phage.


Species dysphoria

Species dysphoria is the experience of dysphoria, sometimes including Clinical lycanthropy (delusion or hallucination of one's self as an animal) and dysmorphia (excessive concern over one's body image), associated with the feeling that one's body is of the wrong species.[1] Earls and Lalumière (2009) describe it as "the sense of being in the wrong (species) body... a desire to be an animal".[2] Outside of psychological literature, the term is common within the otherkin and therian communities.[3] The phenomenon is sometimes experienced in the context of sexual arousal to the image of one's self as an animal.
...

en.wikipedia.org...



Gender dysphoria

Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the experience of dysphoria (distress) related to the sex and gender a person was assigned at birth. Evidence suggests that people who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth may do so not just due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics, the makeup of their brains,[1] or prenatal exposure to hormones.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

So, just one type of dysphoria have the right to impose their will on the rest of the population but others don't?

edit on 28-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

So, in your view they have to be disabled in order to have rights?



What? Can your arm reach any further?

Everyone pees. Facilities exist. You don't like the facilities, or need special accommodations - - bring your own litter box.

Disabled stalls exist for the practical reason you can't fit a wheelchair in regular stalls.


edit on 28-5-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




So, in your view they have to be disabled in order to have rights?

No. But if they are disabled they are entitled special accommodations.


Identity disorder, or in this case "Species Identity Disorder" is a disability.
And the first link you provided was a critique of the one you just did. The first link you posted says that comparing Furries to gender dysphoria is invalid.



So, just one type of dysphoria have the right to impose their will on the rest of the population but others don't?
Discrimination based on gender is unlawful.

edit on 5/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

What? Can you arm reach any further?

Everyone pees. Facilities exist. You don't like the facilities, or need special accommodations - - bring your own litter box.



So, they do have to conform to your views...



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

No. But if they are disabled they are entitled special accommodations.



Right.

Special because of the practical necessity to fit a wheelchair.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I just proved they are disabled Phage. Dissociative disorders are a mental disability.
edit on 28-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




I just proved they are disabled Phage

No. You didn't. You provided two contradictory articles regarding Furries and a wiki article about something quite different.

edit on 5/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

Right.

Special because of the practical necessity to fit a wheelchair.


So, just one type of disability is special, but others aren't?

What you are implying is that people with mental disabilities do not have rights like people with physical disabilities.
edit on 28-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
One requires special accommodations for access.

edit on 5/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
49
<< 34  35  36    38  39 >>

log in

join