|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 17 2021 20:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 17 2021 12:37 cLutZ wrote:On April 17 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 16 2021 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
The cop says to stop and show him his hands, the kid does what the cop ordered, the cop kills him. Yup, it's literally that simple, sadly. The body cam footage clearly shows that 13-year-old Adam Toledo was not holding a gun when he put his hands up in surrender to the police officer who then shot and killed him. Unsurprisingly, Sean Hannity vaguely gaslights the situation by calling Adam a "man", rather than a barely-teenage, middle school boy... a literal child. On April 16 2021 14:36 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On April 16 2021 13:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 16 2021 13:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 16 2021 08:28 BlackJack wrote:
I'll start from scratch and reiterate my argument one more time since it still may not be clear:
Humans are not infallible and are prone to errors. If you work at McDonalds it probably doesn't matter if you mess up somebody's order very much. But if you are a Doctor that pushes a wrong medication, an engineer that designs a faulty bridge, an airline pilot that makes a bad mistake, sometimes your mistakes can kill people. It's even more true for police that are constantly put in the most dangerous situations in our society and who have:
Fun fact: Being a cop in the U.S. isn't even in the top 10 most deadly professions. I'm sure that's only because they're gunning down 13-year old children who turn around and put their hands up as requested, then lying and claiming they had guns in their hands. Otherwise they would be in way more danger. Calling these errors or accidents is sickening. I can't imagine their training didn't cover "don't shoot people immediately after you demand they surrender unless a firearm is clearly visible." Not for nothing, but he did have a gun. I watched the video, it's clearly visible and in his hand before turning around, he drops/tosses it when he faces the cop, and is shot technically unarmed. It's all rather unfortunate, but it's a bit disingenuous to frame it like that. He was unarmed for less than a second, and in that instant he was shot. When he was shot and killed, he was not holding a weapon. Whether or not a weapon was thrown away previously or hidden somewhere, the cop clearly wasn't justified in shooting at the apparently-unarmed child in that moment. The boy's hands were up, holding nothing. The cop didn't see Adam wielding a gun when the cop shot at Adam. How quickly should a cop be able to update his priors based on visual evidence at night? Based on people doing frame by frame breakdowns of the kid turning around the officer had between .3 and .8 seconds of evidence that he was unarmed, after some minutes of evidence he was armed (plus the call he was responding to that said many shots had been fired seemingly at random). I'm not saying he should get off for sure, but I do think we are on the edge of demanding superhuman reactions in this case, which makes me uncomfortable. Your point about the cop not having enough time to mentally process / update what was happening is interesting to me. If the child went from armed-and-potentially-dangerous to unarmed-and-compliant-with-his-hands-up-in-surrender, then the child became less of a threat, not more of a threat. Even if the cop didn't realize that the boy had become less of a threat, the cop still chose to shoot him, which means the cop thought that the threat level was greater than, or equal to, what the level was before the kid surrendered and turned around. Elaborating on those two options, we have this: Case 1 (threat level supposedly increases): The cop had time to update his perception of the situation, but incorrectly updated it - he thought that the child had become more dangerous than before, which means that now the cop felt justified in shooting the child, whereas before, the cop didn't feel justified; or Case 2 (threat level supposedly stays the same): The cop didn't have time to update his perception of the situation (or did, but incorrectly updated it again), which means the cop was still feeling the same threat level as before... but if the perception of the threat level didn't change, and the cop felt justified in ultimately shooting the kid, then the cop would have felt justified in shooting the kid earlier too... so why not just do that, since an equal threat level would imply that the cop feared for his life even before the kid became unarmed and surrendered? For what it's worth, I think putting one's hands up and complying with the officer should have earned the victim more than one second of time for the officer to figure out what was happening. Also, I don't think that responding to a call about hearing gun shots necessarily implies that Adam had fired the shots and/or that Adam would have shot at a cop. I think he made the decision to shoot the kid when the kid pulled out the gun and the kid was already shot by the time he realized the kid had pulled out the gun in order to ditch it. I'm not sure what you mean by "why didn't he shoot the kid earlier." It's like 1 second between pulling out the gun and when the kid is shot, when you say earlier do you mean like a tenth of a second earlier?
I thought that the cop had established the kid could have had a gun on him before that final shooting happened, like during/before the actual chase, since this was supposedly related to the gun shots he was responding to? I don't think the one second before the cop shot Adam was the first time he realized that Adam could be armed.
|
On April 17 2021 21:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 20:54 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 17 2021 12:37 cLutZ wrote:On April 17 2021 06:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 16 2021 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
The cop says to stop and show him his hands, the kid does what the cop ordered, the cop kills him. Yup, it's literally that simple, sadly. The body cam footage clearly shows that 13-year-old Adam Toledo was not holding a gun when he put his hands up in surrender to the police officer who then shot and killed him. Unsurprisingly, Sean Hannity vaguely gaslights the situation by calling Adam a "man", rather than a barely-teenage, middle school boy... a literal child. On April 16 2021 14:36 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On April 16 2021 13:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 16 2021 13:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 16 2021 08:28 BlackJack wrote:
I'll start from scratch and reiterate my argument one more time since it still may not be clear:
Humans are not infallible and are prone to errors. If you work at McDonalds it probably doesn't matter if you mess up somebody's order very much. But if you are a Doctor that pushes a wrong medication, an engineer that designs a faulty bridge, an airline pilot that makes a bad mistake, sometimes your mistakes can kill people. It's even more true for police that are constantly put in the most dangerous situations in our society and who have:
Fun fact: Being a cop in the U.S. isn't even in the top 10 most deadly professions. I'm sure that's only because they're gunning down 13-year old children who turn around and put their hands up as requested, then lying and claiming they had guns in their hands. Otherwise they would be in way more danger. Calling these errors or accidents is sickening. I can't imagine their training didn't cover "don't shoot people immediately after you demand they surrender unless a firearm is clearly visible." Not for nothing, but he did have a gun. I watched the video, it's clearly visible and in his hand before turning around, he drops/tosses it when he faces the cop, and is shot technically unarmed. It's all rather unfortunate, but it's a bit disingenuous to frame it like that. He was unarmed for less than a second, and in that instant he was shot. When he was shot and killed, he was not holding a weapon. Whether or not a weapon was thrown away previously or hidden somewhere, the cop clearly wasn't justified in shooting at the apparently-unarmed child in that moment. The boy's hands were up, holding nothing. The cop didn't see Adam wielding a gun when the cop shot at Adam. How quickly should a cop be able to update his priors based on visual evidence at night? Based on people doing frame by frame breakdowns of the kid turning around the officer had between .3 and .8 seconds of evidence that he was unarmed, after some minutes of evidence he was armed (plus the call he was responding to that said many shots had been fired seemingly at random). I'm not saying he should get off for sure, but I do think we are on the edge of demanding superhuman reactions in this case, which makes me uncomfortable. Your point about the cop not having enough time to mentally process / update what was happening is interesting to me. If the child went from armed-and-potentially-dangerous to unarmed-and-compliant-with-his-hands-up-in-surrender, then the child became less of a threat, not more of a threat. Even if the cop didn't realize that the boy had become less of a threat, the cop still chose to shoot him, which means the cop thought that the threat level was greater than, or equal to, what the level was before the kid surrendered and turned around. Elaborating on those two options, we have this: Case 1 (threat level supposedly increases): The cop had time to update his perception of the situation, but incorrectly updated it - he thought that the child had become more dangerous than before, which means that now the cop felt justified in shooting the child, whereas before, the cop didn't feel justified; or Case 2 (threat level supposedly stays the same): The cop didn't have time to update his perception of the situation (or did, but incorrectly updated it again), which means the cop was still feeling the same threat level as before... but if the perception of the threat level didn't change, and the cop felt justified in ultimately shooting the kid, then the cop would have felt justified in shooting the kid earlier too... so why not just do that, since an equal threat level would imply that the cop feared for his life even before the kid became unarmed and surrendered? For what it's worth, I think putting one's hands up and complying with the officer should have earned the victim more than one second of time for the officer to figure out what was happening. Also, I don't think that responding to a call about hearing gun shots necessarily implies that Adam had fired the shots and/or that Adam would have shot at a cop. I think he made the decision to shoot the kid when the kid pulled out the gun and the kid was already shot by the time he realized the kid had pulled out the gun in order to ditch it. I'm not sure what you mean by "why didn't he shoot the kid earlier." It's like 1 second between pulling out the gun and when the kid is shot, when you say earlier do you mean like a tenth of a second earlier? I thought that the cop had established the kid could have had a gun on him before that final shooting happened, like during/before the actual chase, since this was supposedly related to the gun shots he was responding to? I don't think the one second before the cop shot Adam was the first time he realized that Adam could be armed.
Well suspecting that somebody could have a gun is a lot different from seeing them pull out a gun
|
On April 17 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 08:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If the previous debate with BJ has shown anything, he is pro killing if an officer is involved. Debating it any further is a waste of time for all involved. The cop is always in the right and the person who died did something to justify their death. I think it would be best to move along from discussing this topic with them. What is "pro killing" haha Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:
when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake.
Show nested quote +On April 16 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:
Because it actually does appear the kid was trying to ditch the gun and surrender instead of pull the gun and blow the cop away. Given that fact the cop obviously made the wrong decision to shoot the kid. I'm going to have to redact some of the posts I made in this thread about these shootings being mistakes and wrong decisions because it is seriously contradicting my "pro killing" stance.
Blackjack, you are not very clear in your posts and often include contradictory statements, so this makes it difficult to have a discussion with you.
From what I gather, you think the cop shouldn't have made the mistake, but because there are 'mitigating' circumstances, i.e. someone resisted arrest or the kid had a gun; we should be lenient on the cop and not hold them to a higher standard.
Is that the gist of it?
|
On April 17 2021 20:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 18:11 Jockmcplop wrote:
Welcome to Florida, where the trans panic has led to people not just allowing, but asking for a law which allows schools to demand 'genital inspections' of their students who are 'suspected of being trans'.
I'm trying to figure out the logic behind this. If we start with the premise that some schools don't want trans athletes playing sports for the "wrong" sex, then there needs to be a way to confirm whether or not someone is trans, by confirming an individual's biological sex. The defining characteristic they've decided to assess, in terms of one's biological sex, is the student-in-question's genitals, which means that the school has to inspect children's genitals. Would the schools be okay with this sexual harassment, simply because they'd assume that any non-trans kids wouldn't mind confirming their biological sex and any trans kids wouldn't go through with the inspection (because they'd get "caught")? How does one figure out which kids are "suspicious", and which kids to not bother checking (besides the obviously subjective, discriminatory, and misguided mindset like "oh that child looks/seems "normal" to me, but this child doesn't look/seem "normal" to me"? We know this messed up language of what/who is "normal" and the "right/wrong" sex is already destructive, and I get the feeling that schools are not going to require 100% of athletes to have genital check-ups before playing sports for equality's sake. The kids who get checked are going to be the kids who either perform well in a sport (e.g., the next Serena Williams), look/seem different, or are just being arbitrarily marginalized by other people because that's what high school and college is all about.
Do Americans not have some sort of birth certificate?
I just can't see how the ritual humiliation of students can ever be justified, especially when it is only sport.
The language of 'suspected of being trans' is probably the thing that immediately stood out to me.
|
On April 17 2021 21:00 farvacola wrote:
That's almost certainly a violation of the 4th Amendment, I just don't see how a "show us if you have dick" rule does not constitute an unreasonable search.
In American public schools, there are occasionally additional restrictions put on students that modify/waive traditional Constitutional rights, such as freedoms "guaranteed" by 1A or 4A.
Here's a link about the 4A situation in public schools, with the key topic sentence being "It’s true that the Fourth Amendment applies in the context of public schools, but students’ privacy rights are more limited than if they were adults dealing with law enforcement." https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/research/education-law/students-have-privacy-rights-under-the-fourth-amendment.html
|
On April 17 2021 21:05 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 20:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 17 2021 18:11 Jockmcplop wrote:Welcome to Florida, where the trans panic has led to people not just allowing, but asking for a law which allows schools to demand 'genital inspections' of their students who are ' suspected of being trans'. https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1383076029393174528 I'm trying to figure out the logic behind this. If we start with the premise that some schools don't want trans athletes playing sports for the "wrong" sex, then there needs to be a way to confirm whether or not someone is trans, by confirming an individual's biological sex. The defining characteristic they've decided to assess, in terms of one's biological sex, is the student-in-question's genitals, which means that the school has to inspect children's genitals. Would the schools be okay with this sexual harassment, simply because they'd assume that any non-trans kids wouldn't mind confirming their biological sex and any trans kids wouldn't go through with the inspection (because they'd get "caught")? How does one figure out which kids are "suspicious", and which kids to not bother checking (besides the obviously subjective, discriminatory, and misguided mindset like "oh that child looks/seems "normal" to me, but this child doesn't look/seem "normal" to me"? We know this messed up language of what/who is "normal" and the "right/wrong" sex is already destructive, and I get the feeling that schools are not going to require 100% of athletes to have genital check-ups before playing sports for equality's sake. The kids who get checked are going to be the kids who either perform well in a sport (e.g., the next Serena Williams), look/seem different, or are just being arbitrarily marginalized by other people because that's what high school and college is all about. Do Americans not have some sort of birth certificate? I just can't see how the ritual humiliation of students can ever be justified, especially when it is only sport. The language of 'suspected of being trans' is probably the thing that immediately stood out to me.
These are parents who literally didn't trust a president's birth certificate; they definitely won't trust the birth certificate of some random teenager who's more athletic than their poor child.
I will say this though: the phrase "especially when it is only sport" will not resonate with a good chunk of people, as playing sports is a way for students to gain scholarships, potentially make some money, or at least stay out of trouble, and so a lot of people - especially those who don't have access to other privileges like top academic programs - will often use athletics as a way to succeed during their teen years and early twenties, hence why it's so competitive.
|
On April 17 2021 18:11 Jockmcplop wrote:Welcome to Florida, where the trans panic has led to people not just allowing, but asking for a law which allows schools to demand 'genital inspections' of their students who are ' suspected of being trans'. https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1383076029393174528
This is insane.
|
On April 17 2021 21:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 21:00 farvacola wrote:
That's almost certainly a violation of the 4th Amendment, I just don't see how a "show us if you have dick" rule does not constitute an unreasonable search. In American public schools, there are occasionally additional restrictions put on students that modify/waive traditional Constitutional rights, such as freedoms "guaranteed" by 1A or 4A. Here's a link about the 4A situation in public schools, with the key topic sentence being "It’s true that the Fourth Amendment applies in the context of public schools, but students’ privacy rights are more limited than if they were adults dealing with law enforcement." https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/research/education-law/students-have-privacy-rights-under-the-fourth-amendment.html
I know, that doesn’t change the analysis, this is the step beyond the drug testing that’s still only questionably acceptable.
|
I'd wager that of everyone here that has posted on that Florida law not a single person has bothered to look up the law and read what it says. It's sad because it literally takes less than 5 minutes to do that. The reason I say that is because the law literally says nothing about anyone at a school inspecting anyone's genitals yet every post here seems to implying that school administrations are going to be looking at everyone's penises.
|
On April 17 2021 21:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 21:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 17 2021 20:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 17 2021 18:11 Jockmcplop wrote:Welcome to Florida, where the trans panic has led to people not just allowing, but asking for a law which allows schools to demand 'genital inspections' of their students who are ' suspected of being trans'. https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1383076029393174528 I'm trying to figure out the logic behind this. If we start with the premise that some schools don't want trans athletes playing sports for the "wrong" sex, then there needs to be a way to confirm whether or not someone is trans, by confirming an individual's biological sex. The defining characteristic they've decided to assess, in terms of one's biological sex, is the student-in-question's genitals, which means that the school has to inspect children's genitals. Would the schools be okay with this sexual harassment, simply because they'd assume that any non-trans kids wouldn't mind confirming their biological sex and any trans kids wouldn't go through with the inspection (because they'd get "caught")? How does one figure out which kids are "suspicious", and which kids to not bother checking (besides the obviously subjective, discriminatory, and misguided mindset like "oh that child looks/seems "normal" to me, but this child doesn't look/seem "normal" to me"? We know this messed up language of what/who is "normal" and the "right/wrong" sex is already destructive, and I get the feeling that schools are not going to require 100% of athletes to have genital check-ups before playing sports for equality's sake. The kids who get checked are going to be the kids who either perform well in a sport (e.g., the next Serena Williams), look/seem different, or are just being arbitrarily marginalized by other people because that's what high school and college is all about. Do Americans not have some sort of birth certificate? I just can't see how the ritual humiliation of students can ever be justified, especially when it is only sport. The language of 'suspected of being trans' is probably the thing that immediately stood out to me. These are parents who literally didn't trust a president's birth certificate; they definitely won't trust the birth certificate of some random teenager who's more athletic than their poor child. I will say this though: the phrase "especially when it is only sport" will not resonate with a good chunk of people, as playing sports is a way for students to gain scholarships, potentially make some money, or at least stay out of trouble, and so a lot of people - especially those who don't have access to other privileges like top academic programs - will often use athletics as a way to succeed during their teen years and early twenties, hence why it's so competitive.
I am generally opposed to sending people unrequested dick pics. But in this specific case, i think it is warranted to spam the people who made this law with as many dick pics as humanly possible. You can always justify it with "I just wanted to prove that i am not trans to you". I wonder after how many dick pics they get tired of seeing dicks all the time.
Though i guess that already happens whenever they look i a mirror.
|
On April 17 2021 21:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 21:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 17 2021 21:00 farvacola wrote:
That's almost certainly a violation of the 4th Amendment, I just don't see how a "show us if you have dick" rule does not constitute an unreasonable search. In American public schools, there are occasionally additional restrictions put on students that modify/waive traditional Constitutional rights, such as freedoms "guaranteed" by 1A or 4A. Here's a link about the 4A situation in public schools, with the key topic sentence being "It’s true that the Fourth Amendment applies in the context of public schools, but students’ privacy rights are more limited than if they were adults dealing with law enforcement." https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/research/education-law/students-have-privacy-rights-under-the-fourth-amendment.html I know, that doesn’t change the analysis, this is the step beyond the drug testing that’s still only questionably acceptable.
Yeah I agree. I hope this new school rule isn't able to be enforced.
On April 17 2021 21:32 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 21:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 17 2021 21:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 17 2021 20:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 17 2021 18:11 Jockmcplop wrote:Welcome to Florida, where the trans panic has led to people not just allowing, but asking for a law which allows schools to demand 'genital inspections' of their students who are ' suspected of being trans'. https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1383076029393174528 I'm trying to figure out the logic behind this. If we start with the premise that some schools don't want trans athletes playing sports for the "wrong" sex, then there needs to be a way to confirm whether or not someone is trans, by confirming an individual's biological sex. The defining characteristic they've decided to assess, in terms of one's biological sex, is the student-in-question's genitals, which means that the school has to inspect children's genitals. Would the schools be okay with this sexual harassment, simply because they'd assume that any non-trans kids wouldn't mind confirming their biological sex and any trans kids wouldn't go through with the inspection (because they'd get "caught")? How does one figure out which kids are "suspicious", and which kids to not bother checking (besides the obviously subjective, discriminatory, and misguided mindset like "oh that child looks/seems "normal" to me, but this child doesn't look/seem "normal" to me"? We know this messed up language of what/who is "normal" and the "right/wrong" sex is already destructive, and I get the feeling that schools are not going to require 100% of athletes to have genital check-ups before playing sports for equality's sake. The kids who get checked are going to be the kids who either perform well in a sport (e.g., the next Serena Williams), look/seem different, or are just being arbitrarily marginalized by other people because that's what high school and college is all about. Do Americans not have some sort of birth certificate? I just can't see how the ritual humiliation of students can ever be justified, especially when it is only sport. The language of 'suspected of being trans' is probably the thing that immediately stood out to me. These are parents who literally didn't trust a president's birth certificate; they definitely won't trust the birth certificate of some random teenager who's more athletic than their poor child. I will say this though: the phrase "especially when it is only sport" will not resonate with a good chunk of people, as playing sports is a way for students to gain scholarships, potentially make some money, or at least stay out of trouble, and so a lot of people - especially those who don't have access to other privileges like top academic programs - will often use athletics as a way to succeed during their teen years and early twenties, hence why it's so competitive. I am generally opposed to sending people unrequested dick pics. But in this specific case, i think it is warranted to spam the people who made this law with as many dick pics as humanly possible. You can always justify it with "I just wanted to prove that i am not trans to you". I wonder after how many dick pics they get tired of seeing dicks all the time.Though i guess that already happens whenever they look i a mirror.
This is amazing. I could see teenagers spamming stock dick pics / dick pics that aren't their own, in a very creative, non-violent, passive-aggressive, completely warranted form of protest.
|
On April 17 2021 21:31 BlackJack wrote:
I'd wager that of everyone here that has posted on that Florida law not a single person has bothered to look up the law and read what it says. It's sad because it literally takes less than 5 minutes to do that. The reason I say that is because the law literally says nothing about anyone at a school inspecting anyone's genitals yet every post here seems to implying that school administrations are going to be looking at everyone's penises.
Instead of being passive-aggressive, you could just state clearly what the law says and why you think it won't lead to trans kids having their genitals inspected
|
As passed, the bill appears to allow anyone to dispute the gender identity of a student which puts the burden on students to prove their identity in one of three ways, one of which is a physical inspection. The other are two, a genetic analysis or hormone test, are likely expensive enough to make physical exam the only real option for any poor student who has had their gender disputed.
Doesn’t change the analysis one bit imo. Only poor kids have to show their genitals doesn’t change things.
|
On April 17 2021 21:49 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 21:31 BlackJack wrote:
I'd wager that of everyone here that has posted on that Florida law not a single person has bothered to look up the law and read what it says. It's sad because it literally takes less than 5 minutes to do that. The reason I say that is because the law literally says nothing about anyone at a school inspecting anyone's genitals yet every post here seems to implying that school administrations are going to be looking at everyone's penises. Instead of being passive-aggressive, you could just state clearly what the law says and why you think it won't lead to trans kids having their genitals inspected
(c) A dispute regarding a student's sex shall be resolved
56 by the student's school or institution by requesting that the
57 student provide a health examination and consent form or other
58 statement signed by the student's personal health care provider
59 which must verify the student's biological sex. The health care
60 provider may verify the student's biological sex as part of a
61 routine sports physical examination by relying only on one or
62 more of the following:
63 1. The student's reproductive anatomy;
64 2. The student's genetic makeup; or
65 3. The student's normal endogenously produced testosterone
66 levels.
This is basically the relevant portion of the bill regarding "genital inspections." Genetic testing or a blood test are different options for qualifying for women's sports. But even if they opt for the 3rd route - I've had physicals by my primary care doctor before and it seems very bizarre to me to characterize it as sexual harassment or a 4th amendment violation. The fact that people are describing it in this way makes it obvious to me that they don't bother to fact check things they read on the internet and just kind of assume that the principal or gym teacher was going to make them whip their dick out.
|
Yeah, I’m sure it’ll be fine and routine when an intersex 15 year old that has an ingrown penis and a superficial vagina wants to play a sport and then some random general practitioner who does physicals out of an emergency care has to write up a report saying statutorily compliant things.
|
On April 17 2021 22:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 21:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 17 2021 21:31 BlackJack wrote:
I'd wager that of everyone here that has posted on that Florida law not a single person has bothered to look up the law and read what it says. It's sad because it literally takes less than 5 minutes to do that. The reason I say that is because the law literally says nothing about anyone at a school inspecting anyone's genitals yet every post here seems to implying that school administrations are going to be looking at everyone's penises. Instead of being passive-aggressive, you could just state clearly what the law says and why you think it won't lead to trans kids having their genitals inspected (c) A dispute regarding a student's sex shall be resolved 56 by the student's school or institution by requesting that the 57 student provide a health examination and consent form or other 58 statement signed by the student's personal health care provider 59 which must verify the student's biological sex. The health care 60 provider may verify the student's biological sex as part of a 61 routine sports physical examination by relying only on one or 62 more of the following: 63 1. The student's reproductive anatomy; 64 2. The student's genetic makeup; or 65 3. The student's normal endogenously produced testosterone 66 levels. This is basically the relevant portion of the bill regarding "genital inspections." Genetic testing or a blood test are different options for qualifying for women's sports. But even if they opt for the 3rd route - I've had physicals by my primary care doctor before and it seems very bizarre to me to characterize it as sexual harassment or a 4th amendment violation. The fact that people are describing it in this way makes it obvious to me that they don't bother to fact check things they read on the internet and just kind of assume that the principal or gym teacher was going to make them whip their dick out.
The law's writing doesn't change the issue at hand, and there's a difference between going for your routine physical and a student needing to prove their biological sex because the school they attend is interested in embarrassing them.
|
This is something unexpected. NPR ran a poll by party affiliation on whether or not states should make it illegal to provide transition-related medical care for minors and only 26% of Republicans support it
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-poll-shows-americans-overwhelmingly-oppose-anti-transgender-laws
On a personal note, I spoke to my very conservative grandparents about these bills and they cannot understand why the GOP is attacking us. They believe strongly in personal liberty and told me they wouldn't vote for anyone supporting these bills since they're not a true conservative. Even with minors, they said that it's between the kid, their family, and their medical team
|
On April 17 2021 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 22:07 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 21:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 17 2021 21:31 BlackJack wrote:
I'd wager that of everyone here that has posted on that Florida law not a single person has bothered to look up the law and read what it says. It's sad because it literally takes less than 5 minutes to do that. The reason I say that is because the law literally says nothing about anyone at a school inspecting anyone's genitals yet every post here seems to implying that school administrations are going to be looking at everyone's penises. Instead of being passive-aggressive, you could just state clearly what the law says and why you think it won't lead to trans kids having their genitals inspected (c) A dispute regarding a student's sex shall be resolved 56 by the student's school or institution by requesting that the 57 student provide a health examination and consent form or other 58 statement signed by the student's personal health care provider 59 which must verify the student's biological sex. The health care 60 provider may verify the student's biological sex as part of a 61 routine sports physical examination by relying only on one or 62 more of the following: 63 1. The student's reproductive anatomy; 64 2. The student's genetic makeup; or 65 3. The student's normal endogenously produced testosterone 66 levels. This is basically the relevant portion of the bill regarding "genital inspections." Genetic testing or a blood test are different options for qualifying for women's sports. But even if they opt for the 3rd route - I've had physicals by my primary care doctor before and it seems very bizarre to me to characterize it as sexual harassment or a 4th amendment violation. The fact that people are describing it in this way makes it obvious to me that they don't bother to fact check things they read on the internet and just kind of assume that the principal or gym teacher was going to make them whip their dick out. The law's writing doesn't change the issue at hand, and there's a difference between going for your routine physical and a student needing to prove their biological sex because the school they attend is interested in embarrassing them.
Relatedly, it’s plainly incorrect to consider the right to privacy with reference to typical situations or individuals. The constitutional ambit of laws of general applicability is usually tested against exceptions or unique scenarios, not shorthand personal anecdotes where one shows off how little they’ve considered what a rule does to people who are different.
|
On April 17 2021 22:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 21:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 17 2021 21:31 BlackJack wrote:
I'd wager that of everyone here that has posted on that Florida law not a single person has bothered to look up the law and read what it says. It's sad because it literally takes less than 5 minutes to do that. The reason I say that is because the law literally says nothing about anyone at a school inspecting anyone's genitals yet every post here seems to implying that school administrations are going to be looking at everyone's penises. Instead of being passive-aggressive, you could just state clearly what the law says and why you think it won't lead to trans kids having their genitals inspected (c) A dispute regarding a student's sex shall be resolved 56 by the student's school or institution by requesting that the 57 student provide a health examination and consent form or other 58 statement signed by the student's personal health care provider 59 which must verify the student's biological sex. The health care 60 provider may verify the student's biological sex as part of a 61 routine sports physical examination by relying only on one or 62 more of the following: 63 1. The student's reproductive anatomy; 64 2. The student's genetic makeup; or 65 3. The student's normal endogenously produced testosterone 66 levels. This is basically the relevant portion of the bill regarding "genital inspections." Genetic testing or a blood test are different options for qualifying for women's sports. But even if they opt for the 3rd route - I've had physicals by my primary care doctor before and it seems very bizarre to me to characterize it as sexual harassment or a 4th amendment violation. The fact that people are describing it in this way makes it obvious to me that they don't bother to fact check things they read on the internet and just kind of assume that the principal or gym teacher was going to make them whip their dick out.
that is mainly you inferring a lot sadly. I don't think anyone said you show it to your teacher. even if it is a (school) practitioner - why? they needed a ton of documentation to enroll me in the first place. why the additional scrutiny? what is the harm and cause for the additional jumping through hoops? I don't think you know what trans people go through generally, so I this time won't infer malice on your part.
that is why I ask again, what is the damage they can do and more importantly actually do - like in facts and stuff. and where is the evidence to make this whole ordeal worthwhile?
|
On April 17 2021 22:24 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 22:07 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 21:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 17 2021 21:31 BlackJack wrote:
I'd wager that of everyone here that has posted on that Florida law not a single person has bothered to look up the law and read what it says. It's sad because it literally takes less than 5 minutes to do that. The reason I say that is because the law literally says nothing about anyone at a school inspecting anyone's genitals yet every post here seems to implying that school administrations are going to be looking at everyone's penises. Instead of being passive-aggressive, you could just state clearly what the law says and why you think it won't lead to trans kids having their genitals inspected (c) A dispute regarding a student's sex shall be resolved 56 by the student's school or institution by requesting that the 57 student provide a health examination and consent form or other 58 statement signed by the student's personal health care provider 59 which must verify the student's biological sex. The health care 60 provider may verify the student's biological sex as part of a 61 routine sports physical examination by relying only on one or 62 more of the following: 63 1. The student's reproductive anatomy; 64 2. The student's genetic makeup; or 65 3. The student's normal endogenously produced testosterone 66 levels. This is basically the relevant portion of the bill regarding "genital inspections." Genetic testing or a blood test are different options for qualifying for women's sports. But even if they opt for the 3rd route - I've had physicals by my primary care doctor before and it seems very bizarre to me to characterize it as sexual harassment or a 4th amendment violation. The fact that people are describing it in this way makes it obvious to me that they don't bother to fact check things they read on the internet and just kind of assume that the principal or gym teacher was going to make them whip their dick out. that is mainly you inferring a lot sadly. I don't think anyone said you show it to your teacher. even if it is a (school) practitioner - why? they needed a ton of documentation to enroll me in the first place. why the additional scrutiny? what is the harm and cause for the additional jumping through hoops? I don't think you know what trans people go through generally, so I this time won't infer malice on your part. that is why I ask again, what is the damage they can do and more importantly actually do - like in facts and stuff. and where is the evidence to make this whole ordeal worthwhile?
Yes I was being a little snarky in that part you bolded.
I don't really have an opinion to share on the law/issue itself. It seems like a complex issue and I have not spent a lot of time looking into the issue. Maybe I will dive into it later today when I have some free time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
