Those who Advocate For Wiping Out LGBTQ

One of the most compelling arguments against those who advocate for wiping out LGBTQ+ representation through media and enacting discriminatory laws is the importance of equality, human rights, and inclusivity as part and parcel of living in modern America. 

Now we have a POTUS-elect in convicted felon Donald Trump who is all in for disrupting much of what advances have been made (Trump on LGBTQ Rights: Rolling Back Protections and Criminalizing Gender Nonconformity). Has there been overreach by recent administrations on the side of "progressiveness"? A good word for humanitarians and those involved in societal advancements while decreasing abuses by the many upon the few, but a bad word to those on the right who just can't see that's a thing.

I agree there may have been some overreach but not to the degree being sold by the right. Part of their issue is not having been allowed to catch up, or some things feeling imposed upon them not only against their will, or awareness, but beliefs, culture, religion, and indeed, part of that is historical misperceptions, bigotry, and racism. Some of THAT is wrapped up in their history, culture, and politics.

There should have been more persuading, more educating, more awareness, and coaxing. But to be fair, many on the Right vehemently thwarted that, and some of that will never, ever work with some of those people and in those subcultures whose substance is built upon a rejection of certain lifestyles or ways of thinking. 

To some degree, that's fine. Except, this is America and they need to catch up to who we actually are, a country of acceptance even the Founding Fathers didn't fully realize the full impact of that. Some, they would go against many today on the right. Some could never come to terms with it because of the climate of the times they lived in. 

But it's up to us to realize how this is at odds with moving forward, and also how they, the Framers and many today stuck in their cemented anachronistic beliefs, need to either get with the program or be dragged kicking and screaming into the present.

Much of this is based in religion, the religious Right, Christian Nationalists, and others pushing what should remain private. Enjoy your beliefs, just leave others alone. We're not all theists or at your level of devotion. THAT's America!  So let's not be doing this and let's return to "your religion is private". Stop being so aggro. Got it? Okay, OK? 

Oklahoma attorney general says state schools superintendent cannot mandate students watch prayer video

This dovetails very well with my long-held overly reasonable belief that we need to stop with the "In God We Trust" nonsense everwhere, certainly as our American motto, and return to our original, "Out of Many, One" (E Pluribus Unum), for what is truly inclusive and doesn't lead to abuse of others. As we see today. As we see in these anti-"other people" movements by the Right. I don't want to get down against the religious. I want them to have their lives. Just as the rest of us want to.

Here are several key points one can make on these issues of being anti-LGBTQ+:

Diversity and Inclusion for LGBTQ+ individuals and workers are an integral part of society, and their diverse perspectives, talents, and contributions enrich our communities. Media representation and legal protections enable LGBTQ+ individuals to be recognized, respected, and included, fostering a more inclusive and accepting society for everyone.

1. Human Rights: LGBTQ+ rights are human rights. Every person deserves to be treated with dignity, equality, and fairness, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression. Discrimination and erasure based on these factors undermine the fundamental principles of human rights and deny LGBTQ+ individuals their inherent worth and value.
2. Mental Health and Well-being: LGBTQ+ individuals have historically faced higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidality, due to societal stigma and marginalization. Media representation and legal protections help reduce stigma and create a supportive environment, positively impacting the mental health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals.
3. Authentic Representation: Media plays a powerful role in shaping public perception and attitudes. By portraying diverse LGBTQ+ characters and storylines, media can challenge stereotypes, dispel myths, and promote empathy and understanding. Authentic representation allows LGBTQ+ individuals to see themselves reflected positively and helps foster greater acceptance and support within society.
4. Freedom and Autonomy: Everyone has the right to live their lives authentically, free from societal pressure and discrimination. Restricting LGBTQ+ representation and rights infringes upon their freedom of expression, personal autonomy, and the pursuit of happiness. Upholding these freedoms is crucial for a just and democratic society.
5. Social Progress: Over the years, societies worldwide have made significant progress in recognizing LGBTQ+ rights and equality. Rolling back these advancements would not only perpetuate injustice but also hinder societal progress as a whole. Inclusivity and acceptance lead to stronger and more vibrant communities where everyone can thrive.
6. Economic Benefits: Embracing diversity and inclusivity has economic benefits. Studies consistently demonstrate that LGBTQ+-friendly policies and environments attract and retain top talent, stimulate innovation, and contribute to economic growth. By embracing LGBTQ+ individuals, societies can harness their skills, talents, and purchasing power, resulting in a stronger and more prosperous nation.

It's essential to engage in respectful dialogue, providing well-reasoned arguments backed by evidence and personal stories to foster understanding and empathy in the face of opposition.

Cheers! Sláinte!

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Orlando's Pulse Massacre - Just Whose Thoughts Led to the Killings? Slabbies?

CNN news headline June 12, 2016: "A gay nightclub here was the scene early Sunday of the worst terror attack in U.S. history since 9/11." Omar Mateen of Ft. Pierce, Florida in a hate crime, murdered many people he didn't even know, all out of stupidity, of foolish beliefs, of disgust at what was unfamiliar to him and undesirable. As if he had any right to act on another's life. Washington Post reported on what the killer's wife had to say about him and her experiences with him.

My heart goes out to those killed or damaged in the massacre this morning at the Orlando night club, Pulse. However my mind and an intense sense of justice reaches out to all those who would wish to, or to do harm to others all because of their own delusional belief system. Be they themselves delusional or insane, or a miscreant jihadi following their misguided path. A path never laid down by their belief in their sense of a small, destructive prophet (little "p"), rather than a great Prophet professing a sense of positive worth and community among all people of the world.

Or be they one of our own nationalist bigots or their leaders, including their semi knowledgeable fool led by his jesters and running for office as yet another, albeit even worse example of a Republican president, all while we are seeing what that can lead to if allowed to propagate unchecked.

These death throes of stupid belief systems are always painful for those foolishly continuing to believe well beyond their usefulness. As well as for all those others of us who have to suffer their extended continuance and eventual demise along with them and theirs until they have once and for all been cauterized and sloughed off from the flesh of all humanity.

If all the weapons used in the Pulse killings were illegal, would this still have happened? Surely it could still happen at times and in places but far fewer I'm sure. Which really proves that case. But it's beside the point.

We might see more bombs being used then (and more bombers blowing themselves up accidentally at home). Or as in recent Asian cases in past years, knives or hatchets could be used instead. Some people originally thought seat belts were a government plot, but they saved lives. Maybe we shouldn't have more than bolt action rifles if we have to have guns. Whatever the solution, it is not in doing nothing. It is in doing something. Many somethings.

This is not about just Islam. This is not about just religion. This is not about bigotry. This is not just about mental health issues. It is about us, in general, people in general. It is about our culpability in allowing people to continue to think deffectively, to follow old, outdated beliefs, to act on ancient rights when they affect others especially in a negative fashion.

We have not taken up the call to see that everyone has healthcare as a right and mental healthcare even more so. Rather than demand these as our most important rights, we have allowed the issue to be subverted to where the concern about our most important right, the right of freedom, has become concern over the right to own and bear arms.

We have continued to give a wink and a nod to religion in general for far too long. We have allowed people questioning science over religion and people in power or in wont of power to lie in public and get away with it. We have allowed too many to push negative agendas on our country and others. We, have allowed.

All any of this means is that this is more about an attitude we need to change. Attitudes about people, about weapons, about fellow citizens, about fellow humans. Attitudes about the real, and not the unreal, or the unreal that appears as real to some.

There is no reason women cannot wear what they like or even walk around naked for that matter and not have to fear rape or abuse. There is no reason we cannot all have guns and yet not experience mass shootings. Though some common sense controls are reasonable and conscionable.

It is our national as well as overall international attitudes about certain things that needs to be changed. Not just possession or potential possession of implements of destruction. We need to grow up, we need to force those others to grow up, to stop acting like their ancients all now long dead along with their beliefs, which should in many cases have died along with them. Some of us need to stop thinking that destruction is good, that nihilism is God, that self is all important.

Any belief system that is found to be anti human needs to be dealt with. Bringing in beliefs from otherworldly issues into the physical realm that lead to negative actions against others, needs to be dealt with. I don't really have a problem with religion, other than I find it sad people cannot find a more up to date way to see the universe and live their lives. However we need to monitor and address religion or any belief system that starts to skew in a way that is against humanity.

If we cannot eradicate religious type belief from the world, we can at least try to control them. It could itself at least try to control itself enough to allow it to be a productive and beneficial force in the world, rather than ever have the opposite effects, ever again. If it were a true and proper thing.

We need to cry out openly against idiocies such as how we don't need to worry about the human or even non human elements of climate change merely because some believe that God will fix it all. Or how we should kill now for belief in issues of an afterlife later. We need to stop giving an open card to those who believe in nonsense.

Believe in your religion, just keep it to yourself, or at very least, do not use it to affect other's who do not see life as you do. Give them the good grace they give you in allowing you the freedom to practice your religion, as long as you keep it in your own garden. Just keep it out of ours, unless we invite you in.

But as I said, this isn't so much about religion as someone who was mentally unbalanced. Did religion lead him there so he could step out of its bounds into what it doesn't teach. Or does? It doesn't matter, really.

When conservatism or fundamentalism becomes reductionistic to a point that it goes backwards, it leads only and ever to the negative and destructive. If we are to have prejudice, it should be against those thoughts that lead people to their negative prejudices and destructive actions. We need to act over all in a way more productive than those who do so against us. Those on the sidelines too need to see and act.

Until that happens, we will continue to see life exemplified in this fashion, with guns, with bombs, with knives and with killings for the stupidest of reasons, with bigotry, ignorance and disgust, with the salaciousness of one's mind seen as a positive thing, rather than with a spirit of humanity and community, as it should be.

Freedom.

I keep hearing this from conservatives. It's all about freedom. Cuz we're 'Merikans! Obviously they do not understand freedom and how government is involved with protecting that and us.

What is freedom and how do we judge when to pull back from it? Total security is no freedom, total freedom is no security. It's a balance.

It is when human lives are too valuable to throw away on the pile of lives given to "freedom".

Did we lose the "right" to freedom in having no seat belts in our cars in order to save our lives? Anyone who has been in even a minor accident and whose life or limbs were saved by a seat belt has no qualms about the seat belt laws.

When we finally find that a "freedom" is too costly for us, that is when we pull back and therein find our level of freedom and balance with protection by our government. Government who really is in the end, us.

It is time we pull back here and now, too. Yes we also need to pay better attention and funding to mental health and inter agency communication to catch people like the Orlando shooter, but also have the laws to keep guns out of the hands of people like him. This evisceration of funding by so called conservatives for our mental health facilities is criminal, too.

The argument that we have a need for firearms to protect citizens from our government is really past. And quite foolish. Childish even in it's understanding of reality.

It's time for the adults we have put in place to govern and protect us to do their job and not just be shills of the NRA and corporations in their pursuits of the filthy lucre over that of human lives.

This is where all lives matter. Black, white, or all others; be they Gay, straight, Muslim or Christian, or all others. Here and in the final justification...Americans, and Human Beings.

Americans, over that of failed conservative ideologies toward money and killing machines.

Addendum, June 15, 2016:

I got up this morning considering the word, "Terrorist" and wondering, is this what we're seeing today? Now that I think about it, I've mentioned this before, in fact I think I've written entire blogs about this. I just looked and since I started this blog in 2010 I have, out of over 1,200+ blog articles, 83 on terrorism with more than a few mentioning this.

Should we use the word terrorist?
I mean, are YOU terrorized? I'm not.
i'm pissed off at how every cowardly little reprobate nobody loser can achieve fame and go out in their own perceived blaze of glory rushing toward their 72 grapes in a kind of Twilight Zone Muslim heaven (small "h" like in my book, Death of heaven, which frankly, fits their stupid childish beliefs in all this and is kind of the point of my book in the first place).

"Pissorist" maybe would be a more appropriate term as I'm only pissed off at cowards who indiscriminately kill people who have no bearing on anything related to any cause that might be claims as a reason for murder, and other than hatred.

But these aren't really Haterists. They conflate themselves and their cause and so want us to use terrorist.

That was when, in looking up the etymology of the word terrorist today, I found this article from after Charlie Hebdo...the author doesn't give us a proper alternative but nearly anything would be better than what we are in my view, incorrectly using now and to the murderer's benefit, to our detriment and to the benefit of the media in drawing our attention and making a buck on it (as always).

They are learning too, but all too slowly. Like the dumb person in the room. slowly coming to realize there are better ways to interact in social situations (like these cowardly murderers), Better ways to be a servant of the people, as they are and need to recognize they should be, rather than merely a subject of their masters in the board room and their own unrecognized ignoble lust for notoriety.

How about just, Snarky Little Bitches with Weapons?
SLBwWs,
SLaBwuhs.
Or just for short, SLaBs, for where they belong, dead, on a slab.
Of course I'd prefer to get them the mental health help they need before they decide to join that bitchy little Daesh organization. (and no offense meant to actual bitches here, sorry ya'll).
But I think I'm onto something. Stop labeling them as what they are going to or are doing and start labeling them for where they'll end up.
On a slab, so, slabbies. Something really uncool sounding, yes?

"Terrorist" as someone pointed out to me, is a term from the government. I'll be needing to talk to President Obama about this. Still, the media can call them whatever they want and they have even mentioned this before themselves. But they use what affects us the most and that is, terrorism.
Still, I say we call them "slabbies" from here on....

Today's Gender Roles - Marriage Equality now SCOTUS Supported

I am a phenomenologist. Truly. I have a degree in psychology and I studied phenomenology. I am here not to make judgement as much as I am to observe and describe what I see.

I was just talking with my daughter and her friends about transgender issues and modern gender issues in general. I'm pretty open minded, transcendental. But I am human and was born in a time where a certain paradigm was prominent even though I was usually ahead of change due to my love of science fiction since the early 1960s.

We had talked about Bruce Jenner, my daughter and her friends, and individuals we've all known, personally. We were talking about how one relates to a transgender person. How is that defined?

My daughter said it's all about how the individual wants to be defined. But I think there is more to it than that.

As I see it there are three versions of gender. How a person defines themselves. How the person's gender is defined legally (what's on your birth certificate). And how you are defined by your physicality.

It used to be easy. There was an order to that, it wasn't a concern or consideration. No one thought about it because there was nothing to think about. Or so it seemed.

You're born either male or female, you're male or female, respectively. Surely a small percentage are born without a physical and prominent distinction. One in 1,500 babies from one report. So more than one might think, or have thought at one time.

Then things like gender reassignment came up. We were defined by our physicality but eventually we were defined by the individual's beliefs more than their physicality.

So Bruce Jenner takes hormones, comes out to the world as a woman. He's a woman? But he said he will not go the full course and lose his penis so physically he will be a man with breasts and a feminine appearance. What's his gender then? Female? Male\female? Male? What's the defining factor?

My daughter said if someone dyes their hair from blond to green, isn't it green or will you say, "No, you're still a blond."

I said that wasn't how I saw it at all. It was more like they were blond, dyed their hair green and said it's red. If that is the case, do we accept then that it's red? Or is it blond. Or green? How do we define their hair color?

Still there would be the three ways to define that. Legal, physical, personal. But in this case the hair would physically be green, though called red, and fundamentally blond.

It occurred to me that part of the issue here is in those gender reassigned or partially reassigned individuals over-complicating the issue.

See, it's really a fairly simple issue.

But individuals need to feel, well, what they feel. In the old days, they'd have gotten therapy. Basically, that is what they do need IS therapy. But the therapy has gone from mental, to physical and therein lay the confusion. For everyone.

I've always been told I was over complicated. But as I saw it, I was merely able to see the complexity in things that most people couldn't see. In this issue it seems to me that these people are overcompensating things for their therapy. They are over complicating their gender issues (yes, gender issues are complicated, I'm not denying that, just bare with me), so they will feel normal.

Now look. I don't have a problem with people trying to feel normal. Up to a point. We all have limits, right?

I mean, if you're a serial murderer, or a pedophile, you need to kill or molest to feel normal. Well, I don't want you to feel normal in that case, I want you not to feel normal. However for most people I do want them to be able to feel normal. I don't have a problem with THAT. Not if it doesn't affect others (as in death I mean).

But there is more to life than a person simply needing to feel normal.

As I'd said you can call yourself a rocket ship even, if you like, but you are still going to have to be designated on legal documents as something discrete, a compartmentalized unit. Such as male, female, or even, let's call it, trans. I don't think we need legal definitions to go to the lengths of Facebook and allow fifty-six gender titles. We just need a general idea of what we all can agree that you are.

I mean, really Facebook, do we really need 56 genders? Well it's social networking so, sure why not? I do think that's going a bit far, though. Okay, perhaps not for social media, but certainly for legalities. Three should be enough, or six, but let's not get carried away.

Here's in part my point. Some will over complicate their gender or title because they need to in order to feel either special, or that is, normal. I'm more concerned about the special, but the normal can also be an issue.

When you over complicate your gender to the group, you are also asking them for something for you. Understanding, if nothing else. I mean you can call yourself anything in the privacy of your home but when you go out and expect others to relate to you in non normal (general, average, etc.) ways, you are entering a different realm. You are then asking the group to help you make you feel normal. That simplifies things for you but complicates them for the group. Whether or not they see it that way really doesn't matter, because it simply does what it does. And that's fine. To a point.

But it is more complicated than that, too. If I were to point that out then those who are over complicating the issue will rebel and say that I am over complicating their issue. So they are saying they want things to be simpler and I'm the one over complicating things on their agenda.

You can't have it both ways. It's either complicated, or simple.

Obviously we can just relate to someone as they wish to be related. But should we, really? If they aren't based in some form of reality? And what is reality but a definition of what is? What is which, physical, emotional, legit, intellectual? What? Where is the definition? What or which is more important? The individual? The group?

Basically the individual is expecting the group to take on part of their therapy. And that too is okay, up to a point. We all do that and the individuals who do it too much are labeled as troublesome, possibly to be avoided and at some point they are usually locked up.

Thankfully we don't do that anywhere as much as we used to. There are people walking around free today who at one point in time would have been locked up in a prison, or an asylum. Of course there are those in prison now who should be in a mental institution for help and are instead being brutalized in prison because we are too cheap as a country to pay for the proper care in the proper environment.

So someone gets gender reassignment and doesn't change their genitals. Male or female? Is it only their decision? Well, for the most part outside of legalities, sure, why not. However, when it gets into things like pronouns, how much can they require before it gets out of hand?

What if it carries over to their pets? Do you call their dog a "he", a "she", a "their"? Or some other form. When it gets to the point that when someone meets your pet for the first time and they have to ask, "Oh, what pronoun does "she" ("he?") like to be called?" Isn't that kind of over complicating things?

At what point does it become over complicated to the point that it is too complicated and unacceptable, or should be unacceptable?

Here's part of the consideration. It's easy to just be accepting and say, "Whatever an individual wants to be referred to as, is what I will refer to them as." It sounds pretty, it's feelgood. but when you consider a group of all non standard gender types, the consideration becomes something else; as I was indicating above about the hair dye.

Sure, on an individual basis you can refer to someone as however they prefer to be referred to. At some level, it's just good manners. We should try to be considerate and cater to our fellow human's identity of who they see themselves to be.

But you can also reach a point where it simply isn't reasonable, or where it isn't even good for the individual making the claims in calling for their desired designation.

For the most part I think, just refer to someone as they choose.

But when you start talking about it in the abstract as we are here and now, and as I was with my daughter and friends, it really grows into a bigger and more inclusive issue than just the consideration of a single individual as you initially wish it to. It quickly grows into a societal issue and not just a personal or subgroup issue.

That is where some of this can quickly become very emotional to discuss. Because you can get one person talking about it at an individual level, even though they are or may also be discussing it on a much larger scale. Many times debates run into that issue. It's why you see so many heated discussions or arguments on topics like this, not even going into the potential pathology of someone arguing about their own identity.

Bottom line I think is, just treat someone kindly and compassionately. Outside of that and in the larger sense, just give it a little more thought than you might normally have done. Life isn't simple anymore. We  have masses amounts of information to deal with, ways to behave are more sophisticated, people can more easily be hurt by way of inattention or ignorance, or a fear of the different.

Don't be one of those people. Be thoughtful and kind and try to understand. If you find yourself reacting negatively, then try to find a more productive way to deal with it. You may find that many times what you fear or hate, find distasteful or disgusting, is out of ignorance, or unfamiliarity. Consider if it's based in elements of what you have grown to see as reality and where any of that  might wrong, or if you are right but you can still treat others strange to you with compassion if not at least, common good manners.

To each their own. And maybe we can tall talk and get to know one another, regardless of how annoying they may be, or we may be, to them.

Speaking of which, SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States has just declared same sex marriage legal in all fifty states. It's nice to see sanity rule the day for a change. From them today on this..