Said Ben Carson, quoted in "As Democrats call for his resignation, HUD Secretary Ben Carson defends his controversial comments about transgender people" (WaPo). From the article:
As HUD secretary, he has also repeatedly mocked transgender people in internal meetings in Washington, according to a government official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations in which the person was involved....Read that carefully. It doesn't say federally funded shelters are now forced to house transgender women with men. It says federally funded shelters are not forced to house transgender women with women. The shelters are freed to make their own call.
In early 2017, shortly after Carson took charge of the agency, the HUD website removed links to documents that guided emergency shelters on how best to comply with agency regulations and serve transgender people facing homelessness. It also withdrew proposals that would have required HUD-funded emergency shelters to post notices informing people of LGTBQ rights and protections.
In May, the agency introduced a proposal that would allow federally funded shelters to deny people admission on religious grounds or force transgender women to share bathrooms and sleeping quarters with men....
Carson continued to defend his position Friday during an appearance on Fox New’s Tucker Carlson Tonight by claiming he’s being “persecuted” for “sticking to Biblical principles.”...The feeling-Chinese analogy is straight out of Dave Chappelle's latest show (and the funniest and uncoincidentally most offensive thing in it):
“If someone decides to change his or her gender, does that mean that that person’s gender automatically changes?” Carlson asked Carson, a retired neurosurgeon. “In order words, if I say I’m a woman, am I?”
“Obviously it doesn’t,” Carson responded. “You know, if I wake up tomorrow and I feel like I’m Chinese, it doesn’t necessarily make me Chinese.”
ADDED: I could not understand the part about "sticking to Biblical principles." It looks to me as though Carson's main principles were: 1. Decentralized, context-specific decisionmaking is better than a clear federal rule, 2. The fears and safety of women in shelters deserve consideration.
Googling, I found the relevant text at The Daily Caller. Tucker Carlson asked Carson, "What’s that like being dismissed as a bigot?" Carson answered:
You know, they have already made up their mind that I hate transgender people, which is completely untrue. You know, the Bible tells us that we have to love everybody and that Jesus died for everybody. And you truly believe that, but it also tells you that if you stick to Biblical principles you will be persecuted, so I am not surprised at that either. But it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t always continue to try to do what is right and let the chips fall where they may.It's not perfectly clear that Carson was only talking about how he personally, in his own mind, copes with criticism. That was the question and it was at least the beginning of the answer. But the line "if you stick to Biblical principles you will be persecuted" introduces the possibility that he thinks withholding special protections for transgender people is something the Bible is telling him to do.
Posts
135 comments:
This is truly where the ridiculousness comes in. Obviously this is a real problem, not theoretical and not easily solved by screaming social justice dogma. There are real issues here, and our laws are creating some of them. When I worked at a yoga studio, we were trained that we had to allow people to use whichever locker room they chose. If that made others in the locker room, we had to find accommodation for the uncomfortable person. When you apply that policy/law to living quarters, is that truly the safest environment we can create for women and children?
I bet you would have to look pretty long and hard if you were outside of certain liberals enclaves to find anybody who found his position “controversial”. This is just like the BIden Trump thing. they figure the best defense is a good offense, or as Bill Clinton supposedly said, “It’s hard for your opponent to badmouth you when you have your fist in his mouth.” They must know that they are defending an absurd position.
A wise man (from Kentucky, but he lived for a while in DC) asked;
If you call your dog's tail, a leg.... How many legs does he have?
Things were different back then
Women getting thrown under the bus for men.
Maybee points out...
When I worked at a yoga studio, we were trained that we had to allow people to use whichever locker room they chose.
WHEN will people REALIZE, that the 99% EXIST to serve the whims of the 1%?
If showering with a chick with a dick makes You uncomfortable, that is YOUR problem.
The ONLY people that Matter; are the small minority
It would serve them right if the “first women president” was a trans man.
"Women getting thrown under the bus for men."
As Dave Chappelle might say: White men are driving the bus.
"We know these roads. In fact, we built these roads."
"Women getting thrown under the bus for men."
Not at all. Men aren't making this policy, leftists are.
The feminist hypothesis is whatever happens is happening for the benefit of men.
So: Something happened. Test it out: If you had to argue this is for the benefit of men, what would you say? To be uncrazy, then, check whether your idea is too far-fetched.
Carson sounds sane. I won't attempt a mind reading by micro-parsing his words, but these days sanity is persecuted.
The fact that left-wingers want one thing and right-wingers want another does not affect the feminist hypothesis. People have different ideas about what will be to their advantage and different rhetoric. They may build quite different structures, but the idea is that it is still, as ever, to serve the interests of men.
It’s disgusting. Progressives. The party of hate. You can’t scream all men are rapists then let them in the women’s bathroom, locker room or shelter because they decide to wear a dress.
My daughter had a 6 foot bearded guy follow her into the women’s bathroom in college. Don’t care if he’s confused.
How come it’s always one side that has to change? Why don’t those who are confused realize and accept until they make the change, a LOT of people will be skittish?
What happened to common courtesy?
It is a sign of modern degeneracy that Dr. Carson's comments are "controversial." It is fine that we try to help the mentally ill, including transgender people, but to upend society to cater to their depraved personal whims is not compassionate.
I like my rule, until you have the parts, stay on your physical side.
Men selectively pretending to be women helps men because they gain access to safer, cleaner and better living facilities meant for actual women.
regardless of what their manifested physical characteristics appeared to be.
Boy, that is some fancy stupid-tawkin' for "no matter what they look like".
I guess the conclusion is: there's no legal need for womanface.
"The feminist hypothesis is whatever happens is happening for the benefit of men. ”
Thank you for that. I was wondering if feminist analysis had any traceable theoretical foundation. I do think that it is kind of amazing how easily trans women (men) have manipulated women into giving up their sports but then, at bottom women don’t care as deeply about sports as men do.
Why don’t they play men’s sports? Because they would always lose, so they need to play women’s sports, so that they can always win! Obviously, the needs of the man come first! Men who were unable to manipulate women generally fell out of the gene pool.
My suggestion for golf, which actually has accommodations for mixed sex competition, is that trans women play from the ladies’ tees in men's tournaments, thus giving the men one more obstacle to overcome in their “hero’s journey.”
“The fact that left-wingers want one thing and right-wingers want another does not affect the feminist hypothesis.”
Just the conclusions, as Bill Clinton has shown us.
"The feminist hypothesis is whatever happens is happening for the benefit of men.”
Pretty close to my "Somewhere, somehow, some way it is some damn man's fault."
In May, the agency introduced a proposal that would allow federally funded shelters to deny people admission on religious grounds or force transgender women to share bathrooms and sleeping quarters with men....
AA: Read that carefully.
I tried reading carefully and here's what I got:
"The agency introduced a proposal that would allow federally funded shelters to ...force transgender women to share bathrooms and sleeping quarters with men...."
That's quite different from the Althouse interpretation. I suspect the Althouse interpretation is correct, but you can't get there by reading carefully.
"Controversial"
When reality challenges their world view, Democratics demand reality be changed.
It's a no-win situation. If women in shelters are made uncomfortable by men in dresses in their midst, then something should be done to reduce their discomfort. If men in shelters are made uncomfortable by men in dresses in their midst, they can just get with the program and STFU.
Which of these solutions benefit men, again?
"The feminist hypothesis is whatever happens is happening for the benefit of men.”
The feminist hypothesis is men should be able to do anything as long as they help keep abortion legal.
AA, I can't read past the word "or". The shelters can now do X *or* Y? Which are unrelated policies?
But the line "if you stick to Biblical principles you will be persecuted" introduces the possibility that he thinks withholding special protections for transgender people is something the Bible is telling him to do.
Loving everyone is the Biblical principle.
In the parts of society where you define yourself by who you hate, this cannot be tolerated.
"Women getting thrown under the bus for men."
IOW, "transgender women" are actually men. I agree.
Not at all. Men aren't making this policy, leftists are.
Heh.
I was wondering if feminist analysis had any traceable theoretical foundation.
And that foundation is irrational bigotry against men. Surprise!
“It's a no-win situation. If women in shelters are made uncomfortable by men in dresses in their midst”
There’s no requirement for a dress, or even a nod to actually identifying as a woman. Just say, “I am a woman” and suddenly you are in the women’s shelter, even if you are prancing around displaying an erection hoping for a hookup.
The fact that it never seems to enter into your head that plain old men would see this as a loophole to get into a far more pleasant situation is kind of weird. It’s a kind of doublethink.
In my small town in New Jersey two different men have been arrested for exposing themselves or taking pictures of women in a Target store. Target's policy is too let you choose whatever bathroom you want. This is happening everywhere...but Trans people have rights?? What about everybody elses rights????
“Blogger Birkel said...
"Controversial"
When reality challenges their world view, Democratics demand reality be changed.”
Precisely. It’s the same thing when their climate model predictions don’t match real world conditions, they still demand we follow their models. Here’s a clue: if your model doesn’t match the real world, it isn’t the real world that’s wrong. And when your social justice pronouncements don’t match reality, it isn’t reality that’s wrong.
Skylark, I used "men in dresses" as shorthand for "pre- and post-operative men with gender dysphoria, and men pretending to be in order to gain access to women's shelters."
I assure you, I have no double-think in this area; just a certain imprecision in my wording.
I hope this becomes an election issue in 2020. A woman tried to ask Trudeau about his policy of placing men who identify as women in women's prison, and was physically removed.
Thanks for the feminist exegesis, Althouse. I’m with Freud on this: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
A man who thinks he is a woman has mental issues. The local shelter has to decide how to best fulfill it’s mission. Direction from DC is not germane or helpful.
Also, the feminist critique was born in academia and should die there.
As I consider this controversy and your explanation of the “issues” here from the feminist point of view, I realize how many mental and social pathologies are at work here: monomania, megalomania, paranoia, misanthropia, misogyny, misandry, gender dysphoria, Christophobia, etc.
Feminism is a petrie dish of social pathologies and mental illness.
Good work, girls.
Its not it’s
Yipes.
I read a bunch of the comments on the WaPo article. Some are saying that Carson is espousing common sense. But the majority were saying that he is a crazed, ignorant religious bigot who hates gay and transgender people.
A possible compromise for women's shelters and other women only spaces...let the women vote on whether any particular "trans woman" should be allowed there.
I'm sure that a lot of trans people are subject to abuse and discrimination but that doesn't make it OK for them to compete in sports or use the restroom for whichever gender they prefer if they are making non-trans people uncomfortable.
Carson's comments were not controversial for the majority of people who live in the real world. How can you tell the difference between a real "trans" person, and someone who is just pretending in order to gain access to spaces intended for a particular sex?
"The feminist hypothesis is whatever happens is happening for the benefit of men.”
It transformed into leftist hypothesis so slowly that feminists did not notice.
"The feminist hypothesis is whatever happens is happening for the benefit of men."
I don't know a single man who supports forcing women in shelters or anywhere else to accept men in their living spaces. I don't know a single person who is in a women's shelter, I'll never be housed in a women's shelter, and whether men are housed there can never affect me personally. So, how does this shelter policy apply to my benefit?
I don't know a single conservative who supports placing men or persons equipped with male genitilia in women's shelters, school showers or restrooms. This controversy is a completely leftist creation that has no apparent connection to traditional mores, hence conservative principles. Feminists are almost universally aligned with the Democrat party and other leftist organizations. You reap what you sow.
The current manifestation of feminism seems to be founded in paranoia and perpetrated by bigotry. It also seems to be an unhealthy philosophy to let influence one's life, but I am not here to judge. Just don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
"Women don't have penises" is something that is apparently now a controversial statement. How on earth did we get to this point?
White men are driving the bus.
White men invented the bus and learned how to drive it. Next!
But that's nonsense anyway, this tranny/woman stuff is Sailer's "KKKrazy Glue of the Coalition of the Fringes", phony "intersectionality" wherein the 'sections' really don't like each other and whose only common ideology is "heterosexual white men are bad", e.g the dopey bus comment.
Re: “But the line "if you stick to Biblical principles you will be persecuted" introduces the possibility that he thinks withholding special protections for transgender people is something the Bible is telling him to do.”
By golly I think you’re on the right track there Ann! That possibility is near 100%, in fact.
The Bible tells us lots of things that sustain us as a culture.
The important thing is that she can abort any babies that come from being raped in a shelter, not by trans whatevers, but by men pretending to be trans.
This is a club to beat Carson with. The feminists running this show want him and others like him in chains and dragged behind a car driven by Thelma and Louise, who, by the way, were a couple of real winners.
All you little birds better lock up tight,
Because there's a foul owl on the prowl tonight.
Hey, little lark, get outta the dark,
Foul owl on the prowl.
Hey little jay, stay out of his way,
Foul owl on the prowl.
You just might be the quail he'll tail,
Foul owl on the prowl.
You just might be the swallow he'll follow,
Foul owl on the prowl.
The version with the inbred Keith Richards
It is even worse in Canada http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-war-on-rape-shelters.html
IMO
If you want to be admitted to a WOMEN'S shelter as a man, you'd better be ready to prove that you have had your dick and balls removed.
Show your commitment to the transition :-)
In May, the agency introduced a proposal that would allow federally funded shelters to deny people admission on religious grounds or force transgender women to share bathrooms and sleeping quarters with men....
Read that carefully. It doesn't say federally funded shelters are now forced to house transgender women with men. It says federally funded shelters are not forced to house transgender women with women. The shelters are freed to make their own call.
If your strained interpretation were correct, then the "allow" would be superfluous. One doesn't need to allow another to do something they are already free to do.
Get back to me on that “everything is for the benefit of men” when company boards stop seeking more women. And small businesses stop getting special treatment from the government for being women- or minority-owned. And grad schools are not 60% female, and collee graduates nearly that.
And Silicon Valley and STEM programs are not obsessed about “more women in tech”.
Media coverage, pink NFL October, US women’s soccer team bullshit about inferior pay, on and on it goes.
You think people don’t notice all of this?
Feminist theory is indistinguishable from delusion. And all normal non-brainwashed people know it.
... “college” not “collee” DUH
About feminists --
The radical feminists view forcing trans ideology upon society as an attempt to erase women. If men can be women, they reason, then there is no such thing as "woman."
Biden wants male prisoners who identify as women to be housed in women’s prisons.
Wouldn’t that result in rape rape?
I mentioned this the other day that the most rational brief in the transgender case before the Supreme Court was filed by the Women's Liberation Front.
It's not perfectly clear that Carson was only talking about how he personally, in his own mind, copes with criticism.
Yes it is.
That was the question and it was at least the beginning of the answer.
Mealy-mouthed concession to reality.
But the line "if you stick to Biblical principles you will be persecuted" introduces the possibility that he thinks withholding special protections for transgender people is something the Bible is telling him to do.
No it doesn’t.
@Althouse, I understand that, as a feminist, you view yourself as being the intellectual equal of a man. How about if you put some effort into genuinely being the intellectual equal of the average man? You clearly have a good brain and advanced analytical skills, but to step up then you have to apply that brain and those skills even when you are uncomfortable with the direction your analysis takes you.
Back in the eighties, when tranny prostitutes got arrested, they were put in the woman's holding cells. The cops found that they were a disruptive presence when put in with the men. I don't think the cops of that era were especially enlightened as to transgender rights. It was just the easiest way to handle the situation........Homeless people have lots of problems beside being homeless. I expect that that goes double for homeless transgenders. I can understand why some women might be uncomfortable in the presence of a transgendered psycho. Are there all that many transgendered homeless women? Why not just arrange separate facilities for them?
If you want to be admitted to a WOMEN'S shelter as a man, you'd better be ready to prove that you have had your dick and balls removed.
Women should not have their sexual privacy invaded by a castrated/emasculated man any more than they should by a fully-equipped man.
From the leftist Women's Liberation Front --
Legally redefining “female” as anyone who claims to be female results in the erasure of female people as a class. If, as a matter of law, anyone can be a woman, then no one is a woman, and sex-based protections in the law have no meaning whatsoever. . . .
The decision below essentially . . . proclaims that women and girls are no longer recognized under federal law as a discrete category worthy of civil rights protection, but men and boys who claim to have a female “gender identity” are. If allowed to stand, it will mark a truly fundamental shift in American law and policy that strips women of their right to privacy, threatens their physical safety, undercuts the means by which women can achieve professional and educational equality, and ultimately works to erase women and girls under the law. . . .
A wise man (from Kentucky, but he lived for a while in DC) asked...
He was from Illinois. He was merely born in Kentucky.
"Our society is in danger when we pick one issue (such as gender identity) and say it does not matter how it impacts others because this one issue should override every other common-sense consideration."
This is the way I feel about the mentally ill who bring comfort animals into restaurants and airplanes. 95% women. 5% gay men.
Not sure how allowing this benefits hetero man or the 95% of gay men who dont pretend to need the Chihuahua everywhere they go.
Women should not have their sexual privacy invaded by a castrated/emasculated man
And here I thought that was the traditional solution to the problem.
A man doesn't cease to be a man simply because someone took a knife to him (or gave his some hormones or have indulged him in his fantasies).
Is it ever a story where the trans (fake) man causes a stir by joining the men in the locker room, or is this another "this is only a one-way street" gender issue.
How can it only be a one-way street if there is no difference between the genders?
Inquiring minds want to know.
The benefit to the man is that if he just shuts up about how stupid the woman is being, he might get laid.
Simple. The actual women in the nominal women’s shelter should declare themselves men and the shelter a men’s shelter
The above though is disallowed because it is really a statement of female power. The power of a pussy to make a man keep his mouth shut.
Mark: Women should not have their sexual privacy invaded by a castrated/emasculated man any more than they should by a fully-equipped man.
True. However, making the men who decide that they want to be women really really commit to the process might eliminate the obvious scammers and fakers.
So, come on ....Trannies....show your commitment!! Remove those nasty old man parts. Learn how to sit and pee!! Same thing for the women who think they are men. Chop off your boobs, remove your ovaries and grow a GD beard. Buy Gillette!!!
I guess I really need to use the /s tag more often :-)
If you substitute the phrase “men who identify as women” for “transgender women,” this all becomes a lot clearer.
Men selectively pretending to be women helps men because they gain access to safer, cleaner and better living facilities meant for actual women.
If everything were really done for the benefit of men, why are women's shelters so much nicer?
Gender dysphoria is the 21st century equivalent of the 80s Recovered Memories hysteria.
Both are examples of mild mental illness transformed into leftist causes.
Is it ever a story where the trans (fake) man causes a stir by joining the men in the locker room, or is this another "this is only a one-way street" gender issue.
The girl in a Virginia high school fairly recently who demanded to use the boy's locker room.
There was a feature in The Atlantic recently describing the parent writer's observation at his kids' school that left to their own devices, children in schools with genderless bathrooms (go anywhere you want) naturally defaulted back to the sex-designated bathrooms -- girls would go to the former girls bathroom and boys would go to the former boys bathroom.
Roughcoat said...
He was from Illinois. He was merely born in Kentucky.
Well, Down State Illinois*, and that practically IS Kentucky
Down State Illinois* Down State is defined as "Anything South of I-80" (i'm Not making this up!)
Peoria? Down State
Joliet? Down State
Springfield? It's what? 200 miles south of I-80?
Mark said...
Is it ever a story where the trans (fake) man causes a stir by joining the men in the locker room, or is this another "this is only a one-way street" gender issue.
The girl in a Virginia high school fairly recently who demanded to use the boy's locker room.
I hadn't heard about this one. From the Fourth Circuit opinion:
"Before beginning his sophomore year, G.G. and his mother told school officials that G.G. was a transgender boy. The
officials were supportive and took steps to ensure that he would be treated as a boy by teachers and staff. Later, at G.G.’s
request, school officials allowed G.G. to use the boys’ restroom.2 G.G. used this restroom without incident for about
seven weeks. G.G.’s use of the boys’ restroom, however, excited the interest of others in the community . . ."
So it wasn't even the high school boys who cared. It was community activists. Interesting.
Mark confusedly babbled...
If your strained interpretation were correct, then the "allow" would be superfluous. One doesn't need to allow another to do something they are already free to do.
They are free to do so NOW, they were Not allowed to do so under O'Bama
This is kinda the Whole Point of the article... Maybe you should have read it?
This article shows how conservative black men can be lynched by libtards, but those that stay on the plantation are safe from attack.
Biology alone determines gender; not psychology.
BTW, where is ST?
Urinaladie's room, dude!
Quasi-feminine, perhaps. Female, no. Perhaps they would settle for transgender/homosexual, or bisexual, if they can tolerate an impure disposition.
That said, there has been great progress targeting adolescent and prepubescent children through transgender conversion therapy (e.g. transsocial, medical corruption) in public schools, popular culture, etc. to normalize the transgender spectrum from homosexual to neosexual. It seems that the transgender/homosexuals (i.e. purity arguments), feminists, and other bitter clingers, pose the greatest obstacles to transgender/neosexuals progressing to realize their full faux-sexual status. #HateLovesAbortion #ForwardThinking #PoliticalCongruence
Biology alone determines gender; not psychology.
There has been great progress to conflate sex and gender. Sex is genetic, and immutable. Gender is a set of physical (e.g. breasts) and mental (e.g. sexual orientation) attributes, correlated with sex, is phenotypic and behavioral (e.g. choice), therefore corruptible (e.g. transgender conversion therapy, popular culture).
"Our society is in danger when we pick one issue (such as gender identity) and say it does not matter how it impacts others because this one issue should override every other common-sense consideration."
Too late. It is on feminist authority that we can define reality to suit our mood. In fact, the collateral damage of their leftism are unearthed, again, and again, and again. That said, I wonder what came first, the Social Antechamber or its progressive products.
And...LOL...the left keeps telling us that they are the party of "science". Except for hormones, evolution, chromosomes, physical sex characteristics, etc. What is the point of women's rights if anyone can claim to be a woman?
tommyesq said, "If everything were really done for the benefit of men, why are women's shelters so much nicer?" Because men are not as neat and clean as women in general. Go to a truck stop some time and check out both rest rooms. My husband drives a semi and he is totally disgusted by men pissing all over the floor and leaving "fecal matter" on the toilet seats.
Also more men are in "shelters" because of alcoholism, drug addiction, and mental illness, while women are often there because of domestic violence.
If you want to be admitted to a WOMEN'S shelter as a man, you'd better be ready to prove that you have had your dick and balls removed.
That is pretty much where I draw the line for any situation in which a transgender wants to compete with women. Guys who are not really committed the change are only playing around with their mental illness.
Things must be going quite well in the Western world if this largely mental illness issue, climate change and open borders is the hill that leftists want to fight on.
Why can't these homeless women understand a transgender revolution is not a dinner party?
Is there anything liberals touch that they won't make a complete cock up? This isn't rocket surgery. Society can't tip over 99% of society to cater to the 1%. It's never worked this way and surely won't in this case either. The fact democrats run away from this issue like its radioactive in areas they have to pretend to be normal candidates is the tell.
And then it becomes clear why the pronouns are sooo important.
If men make all the rules to benefit men, why are our prisons full of men and not women? Why are there so many male failures? Why were women given the right to vote by men? Why is polygamy illegal? Why are divorce proceedings stacked against men?
The feminist idea that we live in a patriarchy where men make all of the rules to benefit men is pretty stupid. This does not describe the real world, it describes a political position.
When common sense becomes anathema, society is doomed. I admire Carson's backbone.
A possible compromise for women's shelters and other women only spaces...let the women vote on whether any particular "trans woman" should be allowed there.
Yeah, all you bigots who are transphobic raise your hands.
When my wife transitioned (no NOT THAT transition) to retired life she decided to donate a ton of clothing appropriate for a business setting. Nice stuff. Certainly useful for someone trying to present a good first impression at an interview.
I called a local women's shelter and asked where I could deliver the clothing. In clear tones(suspicious tomes no less) I was told they would NEVER reveal their location as they housed battered women in hiding from the bastards that beat them.
Many on the left would say that if the batterer showed up and said,"I'm a woman in distress" the shelter would have to take "her" in.
Bottom line,for every actual transgender there are scores of sexual predators.
gilbar:
He identified as an Illinoisan, period. He was proud to be from Illinois. He rarely (never, so far as I know) identified in any way, shape, or form as a Kentuckian except to acknowledge that he was born in Kentucky. He practiced law all over the state. His son had a long and distinguished career as an attorney in Chicago.
Also: Springfield is geographically and culturally mid-state not downstate. The notion that downstate is anything south of I-80 is incorrect. True downstate Illinois is the region known as "Egypt", roughly the bottom quarter of the state.
IMO Carson shouldn't be mentioning his religion to justify policy IMO. Carson was not a professional politician or lawyer so he isn't always careful in how he expresses himself. He can be guided by his faith but using "religion" to justify official public policy is not necessary and it muddies the discussion, it weakens the common sense reasons for the policy. ("But the line 'if you stick to Biblical principles you will be persecuted' introduces the possibility that he thinks withholding special protections for transgender people is something the Bible is telling him to do." I don't think that is what he was doing.) Referring to religion by public officials also encourages the idea that religious groups should strive for political power in order to impose their religious beliefs and practices on others. That's not how the founders conceived how this country should operate. They thought the opposite.
Unfortunately for transgenders decisions in homeless shelters do come down to how feminine or masculine a person appears, not how a person feels inside. People do judge you by your appearance and gauge how comfortable they are with you by how you look, not who you are inside. In a temporary shelter there is little to no opportunity to get to know people, so protections for transgender women in particular might be less appropriate than they would be in employment or permanent housing situations.
True downstate Illinois is the region known as "Egypt", roughly the bottom quarter of the state.
One objection:
Downstate Illinois is the part that votes Republican. In other words, 90% of it.
Things must be going quite well in the Western world if this largely mental illness issue, climate change and open borders is the hill that leftists want to fight on.
Francisco, you may have seen this. It is from today's Tucson newspaper. A letter from a Democrat.
Trump paid off pornstars and models days before the election. Also he planned a hotel in Moscow. Don’t you feel the least bit defrauded?
You cling to your assault rifle, believing your second amendment rights allow you to own a weapon used only to kill humans.
Cruel Immigration policy benefits “For Profit Prisons.” Wall/ Waste of Money, harmful to environment.
“Energy Independence?” Opens up millions of acres of public land to his friends for extraction.
Judges? Really? They are all pro corporation, anti civil (human) rights.
No Complete Deals Anywhere, sold out farmers and us, with tariffs. He inherited the strong economy. 50 corporations paid no federal taxes 2017 due to cuts.
Strategy for Middle East is falling apart. Defense contractors love that he pushed NATO to spend more.
We’re at crossroad 2020 will decide, Oligarchy or Green New Deal.
Yet he’s still your man? For your “Wall” he waved environmental rules, and eminent domain. That permits a fracking rig in your front yard. That is what you voted for.
Larry Robinson
Now, I ask you. Who wants to fight on that hill?
You cling to your assault rifle, believing your second amendment rights allow you to own a weapon used only to kill humans.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What, exactly, does Larry Robinson (or, Beta O'Rourke) think a Militia for? Clay Pigeons?
Where you from Roughcoat? I lived in Cook County (heart of the beast) 1970-1980; and BELIEVE ME, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people in Illinois agree with me (and have NO IDEA What The HELL you're talking about? Cairo? that's in Egypt, isn't it?)
Fun Fact, People from New York (the state, not the city) have told me that West Point is considered Upstate New York)
ps.
That permits a fracking rig in your front yard. That is what you voted for.
I'll GLADLY sign the papers, if Anyone wants to put a fracking rig in my front yard. I could use the money
Downstate Illinois
to quote Rush Limbaugh: DON'T Doubt ME!
"It's not perfectly clear that Carson was only talking about how he personally, in his own mind, copes with criticism. That was the question and it was at least the beginning of the answer."
You know, people talk and lawyers start lawyering about their talking. It's compulsive but it's its deep down dumb even for a smart person and you need to stop doing it. Not attractive.
You cling to your assault rifle, believing your second amendment rights allow you to own a weapon used only to kill humans.
In self-defense. Contrast that with killing for social justice and elective abortion (i.e. denying due process, cruel and unusual punishment) innocent human lives for social progress.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right to keep and bear arms... legs, a head, and your life shall not be infringed. The founders recognized that the People will prepare in the course of their regular life (e.g. hunting, recreation, self-defense), and be viable to stand, not kneel, against threats to the Republic, the People, and our Posterity.
That letter, plus a few comments at the Wall Street Journal's facebook page which attracts nuts, suggest to me that there are a lot of Democrat voters who are batshit crazy. But not 50% of voters.
The present candidates will find very little help shifting to the middle after the convention.
That's why Buchanan's book is so interesting showing how they went after McGovern. It is a Trump playbook for 2020.
Downstate Illinois is the part that votes Republican. In other words, 90% of it.
All but three counties in Illinois vote Republican. Two of those counties are tiny, but one is not: Cook County. And therein lies the problem.
Illinois is a red state -- apart from Cook County. Unfortunately Cook County is NOT "apart" from Illinois.
We need a electoral college specifically for Illinois. Illinois is an object lesson in what would happen to this country if we didn't have the Electoral College system.
Gee, that’s too bad.
gilbar:
The definition given in the Wikipedia entry for Downstate Illinois is bizarre. I was born and raised in Illinois and have lived most of my life in Illinois and I am unfamiliar with this definition. I disagree with it, especially on cultural ground (and, surely, on geographical grounds) as well. But, okay, if you go by the Wikipedia definition, I see your point.
It seems to me that definition given on Wikipedia is politically oriented not culturally or geographically oriented. In that sense "Downstate Illinois" comprises that portion of the state that is politically red (Republican) in its voting patterns. And, in that sense, the Wikipedia definition (and yours) is acceptable.
But that does not change the fact that Mr. Lincoln was an Illinoisan through and through and deep in his bones -- and proudly so. But back in his time the state was overwhelmingly in his political camp and overwhelmingly abolitionist minded in its sentiments. That was also true of southern Illinois (Egypt) and, as well, parts of Kentucky and huge swathes of Tennessee, which were virtually no-go areas for Confederate forces and their sympathesizers.
“The feminist hypothesis is whatever happens is happening for the benefit of men.”
They may have a point. Tranny coddling, bike lanes, getting the missus out of the house and pulling her weight.
He rarely (never, so far as I know) identified in any way, shape, or form as a Kentuckian except to acknowledge that he was born in Kentucky.
You kidding? One of Lincoln's big campaign tactic was to push how he was a tough guy born in a log cabin in the backwoods of Kentucky.
Mark: You are indeed correct that he capitalized on his log-cabin origins as a campaign tactic.
However, when speechifying on rough-hewn bona fides he seems to have been referring mostly to his childhood years in Indiana, where his family moved when he was seven. As noted in the Wikipedia entry:
"Abraham spent his formative years, from the age of 7 to 21, on the family farm in Southern Indiana. . . . [His family] settled on land in an "unbroken forest" in Hurricane Township, Perry County, Indiana. . . . Abraham, who became skilled with an axe, helped his father clear their Indiana land. Recalling his boyhood in Indiana, Lincoln remarked that from the time of his arrival in 1816, he "was almost constantly handling that most useful instrument." Once the land had been cleared, the family raised hogs and corn on their farm, which was typical for Indiana settlers at that time."
At age 21 he moved with his family to Illinois. Shortly thereafter he set out on his own to make his way in the world.
Of note: "In 1860 Lincoln stated that the family's move to Indiana in 1816 was "partly on account of slavery; but chiefly on account of the difficulty in land titles in Kentucky." Historians support Lincoln's assertion that the two major reasons for the family's migration to Indiana were most likely due to the problem with securing land titles in Kentucky and the issue of slavery.
Lincoln began learning to read when he was six, but his childhood education -- when he famously would stay up late to read books by the light of the fireplace -- took place in his Indiana home.
What's important to grasp about Lincoln is that he identified so very strongly as an Illnoisan because of his opposition to slavery.
So ... everybody participating in this discussion has made good points.
And, yes, I wrong about him never mentioning his log-cabin origins in Kentucky. And I had forgotten about his formative years living on the Indiana frontier. It's interesting to note that both Indiana and Illinois were frontier regions. Indians were still a problematic and sometimes dangerous presence -- e.g., in 1832 Lincoln joined a volunteer unit taking part in the Black Hawk War.
It's obvious that women score lower on the woke-o-meter than transgendered people.
That and the women's sports thing.
One of Lincoln's big campaign tactic was to push how he was a tough guy born in a log cabin in the backwoods of Kentucky.
He didn't just talk about it. He was described as being the only man who could lift a heavy axe and hold it at arms' length.
He had Marfan's syndrome, which includes very long arms. Probably a 6 foot span.
Gee. if only there were a way to solve this.
Female penises don't get inside a women's shelter, so to speak.
solved.
We need a electoral college specifically for Illinois.
And New York. Upstate New York could be wealthy again (after losing Eastman Kodak) if fracking was not banned. Of course, that would make upstate a Trump territory and we can't have that.
Feminists played god with social constructs ("="), and now women and girls will benefit from their progress.
So to summarise, posters are now basically agreed that Lincoln was in favour of transgender log cabins?
I seem to remember an article from England where a trans "woman" in a female prison committed rape. British tabloid? I dunno, however in younger days I worked in a facility which housed an abused women's shelter. Stockholm syndrome was said to be the motive for women calling up their abusive partners, who were usually intercepted by police before anything "took place". One highly intoxicated fellow decided to draw down on a cop called to the building. The Browning HiPower had FMJ ammo, but the perp did bleed out. Security explained they had lots of women try to call outsiders, risking the whole set up.
roughcoat,
To address your actual point, Hell YES! Mister Lincoln thought of himself as a Illini
(i was just being snarky when i said he was from Kentucky, or that he lived a while in DC)
but, you say I was born and raised in Illinois and have lived most of my life in Illinois and I am unfamiliar with this definition
Wow! I don't know what to say about that! People in Cook county (the FIVE MILLION people) think that DuPage county is downstate. I've NEVER met anyone that didn't know that
Sounds like both of us need to get out more :)
The Land of Lincoln is 1/3 as long as the entire country (4th grade Illinois History class); so, it's not surprising (or fun) that Chicagoans think of Springfield as downstate; for that matter, Peoria is south of Most of Iowa.... But I've always found it humorous that Chicagoans literally think of Ottawa as being 'downstate' .
Anyway, I'm not saying that Springfield SHOULD be considered downstate, i'm just saying that about ten million Illini think of it that way.
ps
In 1980, i left to go back to Iowa (and go to Iowa State Univ). At a kegger that summer, Mary Alderman asked me where i was going to school?
I told her: "Iowa State"
and she said; "where's that?"
And i said: "In Iowa"
And she said (GOD'S Own Truth, you have my word as a gilbar): "Where's Iowa?"
And I said: "IT'S THE NEXT STATE OVER, YOU KNOW... OUT PAST ROCKFORD"
And she said: "Wow!"
@gilbar, there is -- thankfully! -- much more to Illinois than Chicago. For those who didn't get the sly reference in gilbar's comment above, Du Page county is due west of Chicago.
DuPage and Will are going blue.
Illinois is dead.
Big Mike said...
@gilbar, there is -- thankfully! -- much more to Illinois than Chicago
I'm Just Glad to have made through school (el-hi) and to have been able to return to The Land Between The Rivers. The fishing is MUCH better here! And Pork Chops are Really inexpensive!
in favour of transgender log cabins
Filled with spaghetti and meatballs, which may have a vegan character.
Many years ago, during my years in Madison, we would say that the East Coast starts in South Beloit.
If identity politics is what you believe in, you CANNOT look out for the rights of everyone because IP creates a hierarchy and insists that feelings trump everything. If someone "feels" that Trump is a racist, then so be it. If someone "feels" that they are a woman, then that trumps any women who freak out because they have a penis. This is the path that IP creates. "victims" on the IP hierarchy have absolute rights, even to force doctors to pretend that a XY "woman" needs a pap test.
You cling to your assault rifle, believing your second amendment rights allow you to own a weapon used only to kill humans.
My Second Amendment rights include the right to own a modern warship, fully crewed and equipped with modern military weapons. Why is why Congress has the power to grant me a letter of Marque and Reprisal.
Congress has the power to grant me a letter of Marque and Reprisal.
The issue of marque and reprisal was raised before Congress after the September 11 attacks[39] and again on July 21, 2007, by Congressman Ron Paul. The attacks were defined as acts of "air piracy" and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means.[40] On April 15, 2009, Paul also advocated the use of letters of marque to address the issue of Somali pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden.
You cling to your assault rifle, believing your second amendment rights allow you to own a weapon used only to kill humans.
Well, I don’t own an assault rifle, but hardly anyone does (outside of Mexican drug cartels and inner city gangs), given that by definition an assault rifle is one that is capable of select fire (i.e., changing between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire). But I believe that I, like you and like anyone else, has a natural right of self defense that is unalienable. That being true, I believe that one has a right to choose the means of self defense. Joe Biden favors a 12 gauge shotgun, even for Jill’s use. IMHO, that’s his call, though I think a shotgun is hard for most women to handle (Kim Rhode is a big exception). Other people like handguns. Their call, not Robert O’Rourke’s and not yours.
@BigMike - and then there was the case a week or two ago when three teenagers with handguns attacked a guy with an AR-15. They all died. From his picture, he appeared Black and it is likely that the three dead perps were also Black.
Long guns In general and AR-15s in particular are rarely used outside homes to commit crimes because they are hard to conceal but tend to e much enter for home defense. We were talking tonight whether to go next for magazine fed semiautomatic shotguns or pistol length AR-15s for home defense.
“You cling to your assault rifle, believing your second amendment rights allow you to own a weapon used only to kill humans.”
Of course, there are really few firearms used only to kill humans. Maybe machine guns (already heavily regulated since 1934). Pretty much every firearm from .50 BMG down has been used to kill non human animals. AR-15s are apparently the premier firearm for killing feral pigs (which have been found w/I 100 miles of us in NW MT, just north of us, across the Canadian border), which have become a significant environmental and agricultural menace throughout the south in this country, and esp in Texas. Also, preferred for wolves.
And, of course, the primary purposes of the 2nd Amdt was precisely for protecting weapons designed to kill people. Anything else, including hunting, is gravy. It is silly to argue anything to the contrary. The 2nd Amdt is historically tied closely to the battles of Lexington and Concord that started our Revolutionary War (fought on our side by the militias from the various towns in the area that came together in response to the warnings given by Paul Revere and a couple others, and ultimately able to rout the British force dispatched from Boston to destroy Colonial arsenals), as well as the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. The primary purpose of the 2nd Amdt was to preserve the right to engage in armed revolution, as it was in 1775. The second was the natural right of self defense.
People who have a common interest and shared goals often band together and try and seize political power. We call them "special interest groups". Those groups often try very hard to impose their beliefs on others. A religious group is no different than the Sierra Club, and it shouldn't be treated differently. We often hear "impose their beliefs on others" held up as a bad thing religious groups do, but what group has worked harder to "impose their beliefs on others" more than the LGBT community?
The reality that there are many women's shelters and few if any men's shelters in most communities shows the obvious: a recognition that women tend to be more vulnerable than men.
BUT if feminists were truly pro-equality and actually believed sex is just gender and all socially constructed then they would be outraged at the disparity. Or at least have an interest in creating equivalent facilities for men (however they present themselves) so as to have a place to sent those they don't really want in the women's shelters.
And so in some ways this TERF vs tansgender activists dispute looks to be a "Hitler vs. Stalin" war, one in which a bystander could only hope that both sides could lose.
Still don't understand why women aren't upset by RuPaulish drag: the blackface of sexism.
Still don't understand why women aren't upset by RuPaulish drag: the blackface of sexism.
Feminists are not upset. Transsocials are politically congruent ("="). That is to say, they can be leveraged. It's the same as superior exploitation (e.g. #MeToo). The same as human rights, when it serves their common cause. Anti-nativism, social justice adventures, diversity, and so on and so forth. The Chamber normalized a twilight faith, pro-choice religion, and liberal ideology with secular "benefits".
"Of course women matter! So long as they don't want something in conflict with what a man wants. Surely you wouldn't expect us to frustrate the desires of a man!"
"You can't seriously be suggesting that women's safety trumps a man's desire for self-actualization or even, merely, his desire to be around them? Stop being hysterical!"
"Men selectively pretending to be women helps men because they gain access to safer, cleaner and better living facilities meant for actual women."
As a former custodian, I can tell you've never been in a women's restroom.
3 years in a NYC HUD DHS HRA, etc.., shelter system. I'm the bad guy ?
Anyone have a battery bicycle to lend so I can continue working and feeding the other homeless ? 1 & 1/2 years suchs a hamster in a wheel to make a buck to pay taxes.....
" Home is where the heart iS ! "
~ Anonymous
3 years in a NYC shelter system.
Post a Comment