North Carolina Loses 400 Jobs as PayPal Pulls Facility over ‘Bathroom Bill’

I am writing this incredibly long and boring post to RedCairo and most of it only applies tangentially to the OP and topic of this thread but there have been questions asked and indication given of an openness or willingness to learn and understand some of the issues and terms involved in all this in more depth. I lack her ability to succinctly make a point in less than 5000 words but feel drawn to provide a more comprehensive reply to her queries as it seems that may be the level of discussion she's looking for or at least the level she has inspired me to provide?

originally posted by: RedCairo
The religious association with many of these people supporting the anti-LGBT (is that it? Should I add Q? O? Something else?) legislations is disturbing.

LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bi, trans, queer, intersex, advocates & allies + WTF ever) At least I think that is what is today? Let's just call them the alphabet people. I think just LGBT is fine most of the time? Whatever it is, it seems like some big monolithic entity to most folks with a cohesive agenda of evil sweeping across the country - oh wait? Maybe I was thinking about the RNC? Got my letters mixed up there for a bit. Sorry.

...But when the targeted people do NOT have that demonstrated history of dangerous behavior, then you have to ask what is motivating the hyperbolic fear that any second now they apparently will. ...where does that fear come from?

That is the question that has me really scratching my head? Trans people have been using the bathroom that's right for them since like forever and ever and nothing bad has happened (except maybe their victimization) and this has never been a problem in the past until someone decided to invent one out of thin air. Still waiting for all this evidence this is anything more than a made up republican wet dream.

I have written a thorough and in-depth answer to this question of why I think this fear mongering has suddenly all come about but have reconsidered and decided to withhold my own opinion. I have removed 1300+ words of my response after realizing it was too deep for most of the audience here and far too much information to post and that I talk too much. RedCairo, perhaps I'll revise and edit a bit more and send it to you privately?

[1] I don't want to call them 'trans' as that was noted to be derogatory, and I normally would not call them anything but people, but I need to specifically designate them in some way here, what word should I use?

Trans is fine. Transgender, not transgendered or transgenders. It is an adjective not a noun, as in transgender people, trans/transgender man/woman.

"Transgender" is a politically expedient umbrella term of such broad and nebulous definition and interpretation as to have lost any meaning. Language in this area of discussion has advanced rapidly and is still growing and changing and with humanity and culture's digital interface and access to like minded communities and subgroups like never before in history, it is moving at supersonic speeds.

What is offensive? "Tranny", which even the "transgender community" is divided about. Most find it very offensive, the n-word if you will, but others say they have reclaimed and owned it (which is bs) like gay people have reclaimed the word "queer". I might say if you aren't gay or trans, I wouldn't use either of these words although queer is really running up the charts in popularity and use. A gay man may call another gay man a fag as a term of endearment or group kinship but a straight man calling a gay man a fag or a transgender woman a tranny is probably not a way to win any friends.

Intentionally mis-gendering someone or using the wrong pronouns and dead naming such as calling Caitlyn Jenner "Bruce" or he are blatantly disrespectful and outing someone against their wishes a capital offense. (FYI, not personally too fond of C8)

[2] Is that a proper word for cross-dressing people who may or may not feel that gender? Should I use another? Are these grouped together normally or is that inappropriate?

Ugh! Such a simple question with a less than simple, precise answer. As transgender is an umbrella term, there are subgroups falling under it and subgroups falling under those and as such, some degree of cultural sensitivity or politeness has developed so nobody gets offended. The acceptable term for transvestite these days is cross-dresser. Transvestism was (or is) considered a sexual paraphilia but cross-dresser dissociates from that and doesn't sound as weird.

Men that wear women's clothing for kink or just because they like to or as a temporary gender relief know they are men and intend to stay that way. You are correct in saying this may or may not be a gender thing. Then there's also drag queen/female impersonator folks that seem to be usually gay but is also a way some express being transgender? There's also a lot of non-binary stuff along the spectrum of gendered expression and identities like gender queer, gender fluid, bi-gender, agender and the list goes on. Everyone needs a label and a box to fit into and the Millenials have come up with them fast enough to make your head spin which is pretty cool but kind of confusing.

I've said before if you don't know for sure what gender or sex someone is, don't worry about it unless you're planning to sleep with them. If it matters, ask them discretely what they prefer but consider it could be highly upsetting to ask someone if they are trans, especially if they aren't.

Differences in communication and understanding arise when someone uses the word transgender and visualizes a man that likes to dress up as a woman. If someone goes through the process of transitioning, whether it involves surgeries or not, and lives their life as a women, they obviously consider themselves with strong conviction to emotionally and psychologically be a woman and not a man and should be respected as such. They're not pervs or molesters or rapists or exhibitionists and if anything would likely be protective of any children in harm's way. Many transgender people are loving parents with their own children - shocking!

Shall we even need to mention they themselves are at risk of harassment and ridicule not to mention potential victims of violence and assault and now these laws, in some cases with risk of fines or imprisonment, want to put them in the even more hostile environment of the men's room. Hmm? Pee in the ladies room that is the most correct for who they are as people and face fines and jail? Pee in the men's room where it will probably never end up well or just pee on the sidewalk - that may be the lesser of two evils.

The use of the word transsexual is problematic for some and fallen from disfavor with the reasoning, again bowing to political correctness, that it has the word sex in it and somehow implies sex or sexuality or the sexual act and that transgender is more dissociative and more palatable. Scientific and medical research continues to use the term transsexual primarily in reference to those that have undergone sex reassignment surgery or in the process to but even this isn't consistent across the board.

--more --

P2

Others find this word more descriptive of their experience because they have trans'd/changed their sex through surgery and not trans'd their gender so much when their psychological and emotional gender identity was already pretty much fixed and unchanging. Transsexual people fall under the transgender umbrella but not all transgender people are transsexual. This doesn't even really get into gender dysphoria, the underlying cause of transsexualism. (Transgender isn't consider an ism)

PC Police says transgender and trans are acceptable. Best to see if you can figure out what term the person uses or ask them which one they prefer. I'll use the word transgender to refer to those that live their lives in the gender different than their one assigned at birth and use the word transsexual for those that do the same and entirely become the sex of that gender.

This use is contentious to some as it alludes to levels of transness. Transgender can be an identity. Transsexual can be something that someone did or went through as an experience. A lot of people of transsexual experience or medical history resent being lumped under the transgender banner. Most simply consider themselves just men and women.

Even someone like myself that discusses these issues often, seldom even treads into these waters because I'm always pissing off or offending someone. I will often refer specifically to both transgender and transsexual people in a sentence if I'm feeling the need to be particularly inclusive of all, however I'm often called out for elitism or being a divisive when doing so. Gah! It's hard to win sometimes. I've also used trans* in the past to indicate both yet still with some distinction between the groups but probably most often just use trans.

If you screw up and make an honest mistake, don't worry about it too much. Somebody (often me - ugh!) will kindly step in and try to help you (if not confound you further with too much information). I've got the language down pretty well but occasionally tread on shaky ground navigating the sensitivities of trans community politics that I'm still coming to identify and understand.

It would be nice if we were culturally evolved to the point where nobody would LET overt bias for stupid stuff go on around them and the issue would be minimal. Alas with a culture of people who are so often operating around age 10, you do get ridiculous prejudice.

I've heard many here express the sentiment that one day these old farts with their old ideas will die off and the world will be a better place but the problem with this reasoning is that these biases and prejudices seem to be passed down from generation to generation. We seem to vacillate every several decades between liberalism and conservatism but somehow we still manage to survive and trudge on.

I think more comparisons of "fundie law" -- sharia vs. alleged-christian -- ought to be made. It ought to be made clear that we're dealing with the same personality profiles here.

Enlightening observation and so true when you think about it that way. I've called all this the anti-transgender jihad without really making the connection between personality types but you are very right.

Sorry for all these words. I have removed a lot and probably should have taken out more but like I said in an earlier post, this is not a simple issue to discuss.

a reply to: Freija

The real question is why don't they call emergency sessions to fix roads, bridges, or schools? Why waste money on this?

Is it to destract from the fact they aren't doing there elected jobs?

Maybe it's a precursor to a change in ID's. They will now include a picture of your junk.

originally posted by: luthier
The real question is why don't they call emergency sessions to fix roads, bridges, or schools? Why waste money on this?

Is it to destract from the fact they aren't doing there elected jobs?

Partly because it is part of the official Republican National Committee Platform

Amid consideration in state legislatures of “papers to pee” bathroom bills aimed against transgender students, the Republican National Committee has approved a resolution endorsing the legislation.

The resolution, approved under the chairmanship of Reince Priebus, condemns as “governmental overreach” the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to prohibit discrimination against transgender students.

“The Republican National Committee calls on the Department of Education to rescind its interpretation of Title IX that wrongly includes facility use issues by transgender students,” the resolution says. The “whereas” portion of the resolution defines gender as “the physical condition of being male or female,” saying gender is identified at birth and can be confirmed with a DNA test — which is contrary to the experience of transgender people.

The resolution also specifies Congress never included the term “gender identity” under Title IX and identifies courts that have ruled the gender provisions under the law don’t apply to transgender students.

And because Obama hate.

And I was going to say because that Jesus dude too but it doesn't seem like he would be down with this crap or would be into treating people like this.

And because they're ignorant asswipes that fail to realize the consequences this will have on children or just don't care nor have they thought much through the financial impact this is going to have on them.

Maybe it's a precursor to a change in ID's. They will now include a picture of your junk.

That's pretty funny but you'd better be careful. Let's not give them any more bright ideas!

a reply to: Freija

Great I guess I have to vote for Hillary. I was going to sit this election crap show out.

In brighter news that commie Pope keeps making baby steps. Hopefully he doesn't have a "heart attack" soon. The hardliners are livid.

Every person regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided.” he wrote.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Freija

The real question is why don't they call emergency sessions to fix roads, bridges, or schools? Why waste money on this?

Is it to destract from the fact they aren't doing there elected jobs?

Maybe it's a precursor to a change in ID's. They will now include a picture of your junk.

In my opinion it's all about the religious right-wing becoming more and more desperate to maintain some control over society.

We're living in interesting times, where followers of faith are declining dramatically in our countries, where conservative politics of the traditionalist kind are being rejected, where more and more young people are choosing science over faith, and liberal ideas of freedom over conservative notions of authoritarian control.

They're so angry that they no longer control your genitals, no longer control the unions of free people, no longer have a hegemony on government policy and supposedly "moral guidance" that they're lashing out in any way they can to keep some semblance of authority over others.

Right now they're losing everything they had, and they're becoming increasingly desperate to stamp their feet down and stop the erosion of their power.

These laws are just another example of that desperation. It's the final howl of the dying Christian preacher, the last breath of the "do as I say my God says!" bunch who are finally being told by more and more free people to shove their ideas where the sun doesn't shine.

These laws will not last, and all that these people will have achieved is turning more people away from their religious and political ideas.

It's unstoppable, the population has evolved past this nonsense, it's rejecting religion, it's rejecting the traditional conservative beliefs of these dinosaurs, they simply cannot win.

a reply to: Rocker2013

This is exactly correct.

I mentioned it in the Chicago thread, but downward pressure on a population is typically met with a greater return force. It guarantees escalation.

Religion in America has a chance to be inclusive and provide guidance. instead, they choose to be petty, exclusive, and exert cronyism to legislate the echo chamber that humans just tend to enjoy.

This isn't every church. But as it ends up executed on our political leaders....that doesn't matter.

Hey now. I know that I'm not the greatest TSG because I keep tackling Conservatives objectively, but my beleifs of the two party system politics is that both are necessary. I believe that Republicans "Act", and that Democrats keep "Perspective" as the foundation and there is no functioning without then both. This is also why the Left never gets anything done, and the Right does it WRONG. It-takes-both. However being the Left without considering the Right, isn't Left at all. They built this country, but that being said, I totally blame their leaders. Not them. None of this Christian dying out crap is necessary and if WE want to be taken seriously, only diligent education guides the Right.

To be completely fair this comment addresses and educates.

I agree with that. If you want even a clue to how pc "unfriendly" this is though consider:

As a transgender, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of transvestites that are not transgender being in the women's room. That being said, this whole arguement is over me being indistinguishable from that. Ironic?

Open bathrooms is peanuts compared to the way trans want to be viewed- as women or men.

They're settling at best with all the shoebox arguements about the grey lines. They want to be in the lines.

Boom. How hard was that? Two simple definitions and a perspective difference. (No offence TVS, but you're getting thrown under the bus. We can do makeup with you and talk about it later.)

These are your friends, countrymen, and allies. Trust me, you couldn't ask for a better set of people. The Right is KNOWN for being behind the times, it's not your job to tell them they're WRONG, it's to help them out. Otherwise GOOD LUCK getting it done.

I know I slip through a lot because I only smooth them then out one at a time, but if other Lefty's could take a metaphorical Chill-Pill, this would be a lot more simple.

Just be objective. Similar to this in response to the "Mexican Remittance issue":

1. WU fees discourage remittance, they're extremely inconvenient for anyone other than single time use emergencies.
2. There are caps and limits to how much can be sent in a single transfer, and also in 30 days. This also discourages remittance.
3. Sending money abroad only increases our currency circulation and thus economy.
4. Currency exchange is beneficial for mostly the US not anyone else.
5. Inflation affects the spending power of dollars abroad, while injecting the money into OUR country. We just take it back.
6. WU pays corperate taxes on their revenue.
7. They legitimately worked for this money, at most likely a ripoff in labor cost, it's theirs to do as they please.
8. Not paying taxes in this country is f###ing impossible, they pay sales tax everyday. They also don't get a tax RETURN.
9. They're trying to feed starving families, not debase our economy OR benefit, simply avoiding death of loved ones.
10. Your entitlement to this tax money they don't pay is as Left sounding as it gets you big babies.

If you try any harder to make the parties seperate you're going to fall into the pit-trap that the truth is there's only one. And it's all of us. And they're called Republicans.



dem·o·crat:

ˈdeməˌkrat/
noun
1.
an advocate or supporter of democracy.

Freija, thank you for your thoughtful and informative response. And yes I'd be very interested in whatever else you might have to say on or even barely peripheral to the topic and will IM you.

*

Realistically I think our culture is literally falling apart -- bad nutrition, bad education, bad parenting, bad religion and now bad media all being part of that. I don't know how much better it was before, but the issues were likely less evident because larger forces of economic expansion and cultural change hid more of it.

The way I experienced it, social media introduced us all to what everyone-else-thinks and rather than bringing digital-multiculturalism it made most people either devolve to a fighting stance or crawl horrified back into their luddite caves.

A profound underlying fear results from the culture-shock nobody is admitting we've been in for a couple centuries but especially the last few decades.

On the left, it's a world of people who desperately want a safety net and to feel parental protection which becomes the government. If we were already socialist or deeper that might work but alas it's pretty disastrous for any capitalism-base. On the right, there's less of that as family and church already are those anchors, but it's a world of people who see their small secure world and culture eroding under their feet and under mass mainstream attack (a reverse discrimination for race, religion and more).

Just as a note, cultural norms *are* a great deal contributive to group survival, evolutionary biology drives these not just whim. This is without consideration for whether a given cultural norm is worth getting rid of or not.

I think there is a predictable and understandable element to all the fear at both polarities. It is simply making living in the middle of all these people rather trying.

When it gets too much I think of it like a forest. When you slightly shift the environment/climate, a lot of elements -- say, plant or moss or bug variants that have always been around but previously seemed less common or barely grew in the edges of light -- are able to become more aggressive and fight for survival in competition. To us it's a bunch of trees and weeds, but to them it's knees-and-elbows combat for a position that gets water and sun. Many of the local denizens are freaking out about the plants or growth habit around them, but really, what they are all reacting to is the larger shock-borne fear that comes from knowing that the larger environment of your world is changing underneath you. Our world IS changing underneath us, we ARE in culture shock and it's getting accruingly worse. (Not to even start on the array of toxins in energy, nukes, plastics, metals, and more affecting everyone.)

It seems apparent we do not have the cultural -- which translates mostly to personal -- integrity to bear the adaptation.

Yet. I hope that changes. Mankind is nothing if not innovative in its way of finding some offbeat probability of saving itself and pulling up by the bootstraps and making it through. Maybe psi, or other-life discovery, will be a surprising route of change.

I expect all the inter-cultural fights like with the LGBTQIA+ community (I am going to type that acronym without grinning at some point) are part of the battling-for-sun-and-light in the changing environment. Bit more personal when not analogy'd into the forest of course.

RC

originally posted by: RedCairo
... the LGBTQIA+ community (I am going to type that acronym without grinning at some point) are part of the battling-for-sun-and-light in the changing environment. Bit more personal when not analogy'd into the forest of course.
RC

Short on time but wanted to say thank you and acknowledge there is now more to say and more to come!

On that alphabet thing: Too bad it's not more musical or sounds like a little tune when you say it. I probably screwed up the "Q" too? I think it is supposed to be questioning?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
This isn't every church. But as it ends up executed on our political leaders....that doesn't matter.

I agree.
I imagine that in perhaps as little as 10 or 20 years most churches will be gone, but those which remain will have a more open and modern consideration for the society around it. Ultimately we'll see an evolution in a smaller Christian faith, one that truly works with the society around it and actually (perhaps) does some good.

I think this would be a good thing. Despite being entirely anti-religious, I don't want to see the death of Christianity as an idea, all religions bring something to society in some respects, predominantly a historical story which we can't just pretend never existed.

What I would love to see is the end of Christian authoritarianism, the notion that these people should have any say in the rights and freedoms of others is what enrages me. I don't have the right to make them second-class citizens because I think their beliefs are delusional, so why should they have any say in what rights and freedoms I have because they care so desperately about what I do with my penis?

Oh, and just seen an interesting piece a friend of mine wrote on his new blog about Springsteen cancelling his gig there for Sunday.

A lot of information in this one that I didn't know, looks like NC is getting a sh*t storm of boycotts and threats from corporations all across the US right now:

Bruce Springsteen cancels North Carolina show

a reply to: Rocker2013

Read a paper a couple of days ago linked here on ATS somewhere about how it only takes 10% of any population group to become "true believers" of an opinion to shift the entire population into sharing/supporting that opinion on a majority level.

10%.

Granted, the US is enormous, with several smaller regions making up the whole. And i'd suspect city centers to be the place that you see religion dissipate first, with this part of the world hanging on till the end along with Utah.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Rocker2013

Read a paper a couple of days ago linked here on ATS somewhere about how it only takes 10% of any population group to become "true believers" of an opinion to shift the entire population into sharing/supporting that opinion on a majority level.

I think that's plausible. Most people change their views when they are exposed to new cultures, new ideas, new individuals. This is why most bigotries are held by people whose circle of friends is all very closed and why attitudes are changed through exposure.

I've talked about it a lot, but it's another manifestation of the tribal brain, the instinctual need to be a part of a group of similar people. This division is seen in everything from sports to politics - people join teams and parties and reject all outsiders (sometimes violently) because of this tribalism.

It would seem logical that as the thinking of that tribe begins to change through outside influence, the entire tribe becomes more open and accepting of "outsiders".

All of this has been proven already, of course, through all kinds of sociology experiments. It's why I know that these people have already lost, the US is becoming more liberal, religious views are declining, the right-wing are collapsing under their own xenophobic ignorance

a reply to: dawnstar

Good post. Simply put, the bathroom law reinforces the "cultural adhesion" of the vast majority which any sensible person would consider healthy, while pushing against the status-quo of a small unconventional minority attempting to win legal status for their genetic abnormalities and tainted views of sexuality. And though I have very little use for religion overall, I do support the new bills in Tennessee and Mississippi allowing individuals the right deny services in businesses to LGBTs, based on deep rooted religious beliefs. It seems that LGBTs are finally at the threshold of their "genetic-dead-end" by using political correctness to redefine (or rewrite) the ageless values that have helped all of humanity survive and evolve as an Alpha race.

I have no doubt that this line of thought will offend some, but I say it without apology. Sometimes it is just better to stand up for what is right and just, than to sheepishly cower to one who speaks the loudest.

a reply to: Gianfar

"Alpha race"? Are you saying that gay people are inferior?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gianfar

"Alpha race"? Are you saying that gay people are inferior?

Like Alexander the Great, Michelangelo, Alan Turing, Leonardo da Vinci, Walt Whitman, George Washington Carver, . . . and more?

Bruce Springsteen cancels North Carolina concert over 'bathroom law'

The legendary musician announced Friday that his upcoming show in Greensboro, North Carolina, has been canceled in "solidarity" with those protesting the measure. Springsteen and his E Street Band were slated to perform at the Greensboro Coliseum this Sunday. The roughly 15,000 ticketholders will all be eligible for a refund.

NC is paying. That's alright as long as their willing to pay the price for their beliefs.

Next will be the NBA, NCAA and even their schools may have a hard time recruiting players

More states need to pass the legislation and call the company's bluffs. Seriously, how is this not considered extortion? I thought liberals didn't like businesses using money to influence politics.

a reply to: Gianfar

Right on, dude!

Now that we've managed to suppress and legally discriminate against them dang LGBTs, next we can do something about the blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Muslims, Jews and well... any body that isn't straight, white and Christian or anybody that thinks or looks differently than we do.

What we really need to focus on next is these damn heterosexual people that keep having these LGBT kids.