US Bill defining gender expression

[Dust]

...

Also in play -- and few actually realise this -- is that by and large the United States is largely post-constitutional at this point having morphed into an oligarchy in the 1980s a few minutes after the Soviet Union similarly came apart (and for the same reasons). Thus, the (in)famous "Bill of Rights" is largely null-and-void at this point with virtually all facets having been corrupted, misinterpreted, or simply ignored. To the best of my knowledge, the only one that hasn't been attacked is the one dealing with the billeting of soldiers in private homes.

...

Careful, Carl. I'm used to folks who talk about how far we've drifted from the Constitution getting labeled as "far-right extremists."

[Dust]

This bill seems designed to prevent males from being referred to as women in addition to keeping males out of women's spaces
Technically it would also keep females out of men's spaces, but I think we all know that nobody gives a damn about men's spaces.

This bill will NOT prevent men from wearing skirts.

Actually, not that long ago (and I doubt it has changed) New York had a law prohibiting makes from entering female restrooms, but not the reverse. I imagine most laws on the subject are written similarly. That means that if this bill (haven't read it yet) simply defines who is male/female, it would only stop biological males from entering women's restrooms, not the reverse.

It sounds like this bill would set the legal standard for whom the legal provisions of other laws apply. If archaic anti-crossdressing laws still on the books somewhere, there could be trouble for skirt wearing guys, but (to my knowledge) none of those have been enforced for a long time, and even combined with this law, I don't expect that to change.

[Dust]

Men have to be prepared to stand up and say "enough is enough" but no standing up for men has become a dirty word. You are going to find it hard to persuade me that men still need to take another beating to make things equal.
I'd like to think that the men standing up for men's rights will be wearing skirts.

This is how we got in this mess to begin with. Men not standing up for themselves and each other.

While standing up for others is a good thing, we have reached a point where men only stand up for women, to the detriment of themselves. Meanwhile, women have no problem standing up for themselves (or at least speaking up and urging men to do it for them).

Someone needs to stand up for men. I can't control other people's behavior (not even my wife's, despite what feminists claim), but I try to control my own. It may go against almost everything I've been taught, but I'll be doing my best to stand up for myself and other men. And yes, at least some of the time I'll be wearing a skirt.

[crfriend]

Careful, Carl. I'm used to folks who talk about how far we've drifted from the Constitution getting labeled as "far-right extremists."

I didn't label anyone in such a way. I was merely relating my observations on how the place in being run now.

[moonshadow]

Actually, not that long ago (and I doubt it has changed) New York had a law prohibiting makes from entering female restrooms, but not the reverse. I imagine most laws on the subject are written similarly. That means that if this bill (haven't read it yet) simply defines who is male/female, it would only stop biological males from entering women's restrooms, not the reverse.

And that's the part that bugs me about this whole thing. If they want males out of women's spaces... fine, but that rule should run both ways, otherwise we've just made "woman" a gender with special privileges.

No men in women's sports.... fine by me, then no women in men's sports either.

No men in women's colleges? Fine, the no women in men's colleges either.

I don't want to see females in the men's bathroom anymore. Simple as that.

No men in skirts...? Fine, I don't want to see women in pants.

I won't spend a dime of my money on any venue that allows women in men's spaces but not the other way around.

I'm good enough to look the other way when a woman enters my restroom, but if the men's room is occupied and I'm about to piss all over myself, I have to hold it...

...no it ain't right. Being a male does NOT MAKE ME LESS OF A HUMAN!

[moonshadow]

And as far as this stupid hack government with their stupid lopsided laws...

If they want to take a hard working tax payer off the streets, give me a number and lock me up for something as ridiculous as the clothes I wear, MAKE MY DAY.

If I have to live in a nation where I'm not even free to clad myself as I see fit, then I might as well be in prison anyway.

I'm not sitting here working 14 hour days, passing it on down the line to let some two bit hack government stocked with their low down, sleaze ball, slimy, money worshipping, soul rotting politicians, sit here and tell me how to live my life. They can kiss the biggest part of my ass. All they do is take your money and stick their snotty noses in your business. If wouldn't piss of any of them if they were on fire!

They can take their bill and shove it so far where the sun don't shine the ink will run down their nose!

[denimini]

Hmmm, you can take a gun into a women's rest room but you can not take a penis in there. I wonder what that says.

[MrSoapsud]

It is crucial to label people as male or female because it defines our function in our groups. Men are dustmen, scaffolders, firemen road diggers and soldiers.

Seriously? There are now women in all branches of the UK armed forces including soldiers and pilots. IIRC the head of the London Fire Brigade is a woman who's worked her way up through the ranks. There's a road surfacing company in north wales called "<Surname> and Daughters". In most cases these days dustbins are emptied by wheeling the wheelie bin onto the clamps at the back of the lorry and pressing a button. Apologies if I've missed some irony in your statement.

[Barleymower]

It is crucial to label people as male or female because it defines our function in our groups. Men are dustmen, scaffolders, firemen road diggers and soldiers.

Seriously? There are now women in all branches of the UK armed forces including soldiers and pilots. IIRC the head of the London Fire Brigade is a woman who's worked her way up through the ranks. There's a road surfacing company in north wales called "<Surname> and Daughters". In most cases these days dustbins are emptied by wheeling the wheelie bin onto the clamps at the back of the lorry and pressing a button. Apologies if I've missed some irony in your statement.

Yes seriously. There's no irony.
If you are going to quote then make sure you understand the context. When I said it is crucial to label people, it is because the majority of society cannot cope with the 'no labels' alternative. It's a big problem men in skirts because it throws people's labelling processes, by which people of limited ability are able to understand the world around them. Personally I want a world where we just let people be themselves without labels. Thank you for giving me the opportunity set the record straight.
I am not against women in any way. I work in design engineering and the female engineers in my team have fine analytical minds and are great to work with. My wife works in a stressful environment which I defie anyone to deal with on daily basis. My daughter is nonbinary and copes with bullying on a daily basis. There just as many female bullies as there are male bullies.
But when it comes to the male/female divide, men are still overwhelmingly carrying the burden. Just because there are some female refuse collectors out there or some females on surfacing gangs it does not mean there is equality. I work in road construction and females in the manual trades in road works is still a rarity.
Don't get me started on the gender pay gap and the family courts.

[moonshadow]

A funny thought occurred to me this morning when contemplating the hypothetical situation sitting in court, being brought up on charges of wearing a skirt in public...

The Judge, will likely be wearing a robe.....

Liz seemed to think that I might be letting this get to me. Make no mistake, my post above was not meant to be "ranty".

I've just resolved to try not to worry about this. I mean, the culture wars are about to go into overdrive, and the next several years are going suck badly for anyone who dares to be different. But it all really comes down to a simple question: "what are you going to do?". There's really not much you can do. The world is going to be what it's going to be. We are simply reminded (lest we might have forgotten), that under all of our fancy modern technology, books, and so called "enlightenment", we're all just a bunch of glorified beasts, bumping around in the dark, scratching and clawing at each other, beating each other over the head, just trying to survive.

When I listen to people talk, I'm amazed we have any rights at all. I guess we should all just be thankful we have what we have.

But again, honestly, I'm trying not to care.

[denimini]

The Judge, will likely be wearing a robe.....

..... and a wig.



Just have to be brave like Alexei Navalny and die rather than submit.

(funny .......... now I have to press the submit button)

[Elisabetta]

A funny thought occurred to me this morning when contemplating the hypothetical situation sitting in court, being brought up on charges of wearing a skirt in public...

The Judge, will likely be wearing a robe.....

Liz seemed to think that I might be letting this get to me. Make no mistake, my post above was not meant to be "ranty".

I've just resolved to try not to worry about this. I mean, the culture wars are about to go into overdrive, and the next several years are going suck badly for anyone who dares to be different. But it all really comes down to a simple question: "what are you going to do?". There's really not much you can do. The world is going to be what it's going to be. We are simply reminded (lest we might have forgotten), that under all of our fancy modern technology, books, and so called "enlightenment", we're all just a bunch of glorified beasts, bumping around in the dark, scratching and clawing at each other, beating each other over the head, just trying to survive.

When I listen to people talk, I'm amazed we have any rights at all. I guess we should all just be thankful we have what we have.

But again, honestly, I'm trying not to care.

Go to bed silly man.

[FranTastic444]

Now… couple that bill with a sumptuary law that says a man cannot express himself as a female (even though that’s not our goal, and never mind that it would be worded one way only) through appearance - such a law would likely would impact MIS. However, I just don’t care for “fear porn” and that’s what this kind of speculation is. “Oooh, that bad people are going to come for us”. No, we aren’t special and are invisible for most of the world.

I see this legislation (should it ever get passed) as a building block. A precursor to other laws that would stand on its shoulders. I think that having something like this in place would potentially make it easier to frame laws around bathroom use, sports participation etc. But could that then lead to other legislation such as making certain careers off-limits by sex? And I'm suspicious about the text that attempts to remove the differentiation between sex and gender. I could see this leading to situations in which gender neutral uniforms and work dress codes are out of the window.

Sumptuary! Thanks Coder - I've learned a new word today

[Dust]

Careful, Carl. I'm used to folks who talk about how far we've drifted from the Constitution getting labeled as "far-right extremists."

I didn't label anyone in such a way. I was merely relating my observations on how the place in being run now.

I was saying that you could get labeled as such, due to making those observations. Most who make those kinds of points, in my experience are on the "right," and not the "neocon" right, but the new, more libertarian right wing that gets labeled as "far-right extremists."

[crfriend]

I was saying that you could get labeled as such, due to making those observations. Most who make those kinds of points, in my experience are on the "right," and not the "neocon" right, but the new, more libertarian right wing that gets labeled as "far-right extremists."

That's an interesting observation, but my overall position hasn't changed a lick in close to a half-century. When I was a very young man, I was regarded as fiscally "conservative" and socially somewhat "liberal". Then the world lurched around me, and me, in "inertial space", remained constant and all of a sudden found myself cast as a "flaming liberal". How in Hades did that happen?

Challenged on matters now, I exhibit the same tendencies and, yes, they "date" me. However, I am steadfast with them because they provide me with grounding that allows me to track what's going on around me. Without that grounding, I'd be clueless as to what's going on -- and I do not like what's going on now.

I also apply modern thinking to things. When challenged about homosexual marriage one time -- in the company of a couple of lawyers -- my response stunned the onlookers. They were expecting me to defend it outright because of sexual orientation (most there did not know me at the time and I was wearing a skirt). I didn't; I reset the thinking into a matter of contract law (for that's what a marriage is) and compared it to the State telling me who I could contract as a plumber and who I could not. (Wrong assumptions were clearly made about my sexuality.) That got me a reputation as being a "free thinker" on the spot, and I retain that as I usually have interesting and novel solutions to the mess we're in now.

I also think the US tax codes need to be reset to where they were when Dwight Eisenhower was in office.

So, no, I am not "right wing" -- not even close. I am an old-school "conservative" who tends to "stay the course" unless there's clear need to alter it.