Political Discussion from the Scheduling Thread?

[xubrew]

Teams are saying they won't go to N. Carolina, Mississippi or Tenn. due to the LBGT thing. Maybe Mario can call UNC, NC State and Memphis for games @ Cintas.

I'd be in favor!!

I consider myself a strong supporter of LGBT rights. Having said that, I think boycotting those states is kind of like Harper Lee boytcotting the deep south by refusing to appear there or to let To Kill A Mockingbird be sold there. Had Tommie Smith and John Carlos boycotted the 1968 Olympics, or had Jessie Owens boycotted the Berlin Olympics, it would have had virtually no impact. I'm not trying to compare this to that. I'm just saying that I think most boycotts are passive aggressive and virtually ineffective. Boycotting something isn't hard. Actually going there and working toward changing it is what's hard. Seriously, it's my experience that an overwhelming number of college athletes in those states support LGBT rights. So, what does refusing to go and play those athletes who are on your side really accomplish??

[DoubleD86]

I'd be in favor!!

I consider myself a strong supporter of LGBT rights. Having said that, I think boycotting those states is kind of like Harper Lee boytcotting the deep south by refusing to appear there or to let To Kill A Mockingbird be sold there. Had Tommie Smith and John Carlos boycotted the 1968 Olympics, or had Jessie Owens boycotted the Berlin Olympics, it would have had virtually no impact. I'm not trying to compare this to that. I'm just saying that I think most boycotts are passive aggressive and virtually ineffective. Boycotting something isn't hard. Actually going there and working toward changing it is what's hard. Seriously, it's my experience that an overwhelming number of college athletes in those states support LGBT rights. So, what does refusing to go and play those athletes who are on your side really accomplish??

Generally, I agree with your point but I believe the purpose of this boycott is that businesses and organizations that would generally lead to money being made in the state boycotting, thus leading to a lack of funding in those states and a tangible affect of the boycott. For those who are aware, it is similar to when RFRA was passed in Indiana and then many huge companies threatened to leave Indiana as a result. RFRA was repealed pretty quickly.

That being said, these "one off" event boycotts don't have that much of a tangible affect (I don't think, I could be wrong) and are more about the show so your point still holds.

[MuskieCinci]

Generally, I agree with your point but I believe the purpose of this boycott is that businesses and organizations that would generally lead to money being made in the state boycotting, thus leading to a lack of funding in those states and a tangible affect of the boycott. For those who are aware, it is similar to when RFRA was passed in Indiana and then many huge companies threatened to leave Indiana as a result. RFRA was repealed pretty quickly.

That being said, these "one off" event boycotts don't have that much of a tangible affect (I don't think, I could be wrong) and are more about the show so your point still holds.

I took it that the purpose of the boycott was to encourage the organizations affected by the boycott to more actively pursue a change in the law. So while NC State or whoever may not be in favor of the law, if they are being negatively affected now by the outcomes of it they will reach out to alumni and other people who have influence on NC policy to try to get things changed.

[X-band '01]

I think it's also an election year for the governor and most state-level races in North Carolina; I wouldn't be shocked to see a blue-wave election in that state this year.

[xubrew]

I took it that the purpose of the boycott was to encourage the organizations affected by the boycott to more actively pursue a change in the law. So while NC State or whoever may not be in favor of the law, if they are being negatively affected now by the outcomes of it they will reach out to alumni and other people who have influence on NC policy to try to get things changed.

I get what you're saying, but consider this. Which would be more impactful??

1. Playing a game where both teams show some sort of solidary and support for the LGBT community by having a patch on the uniform, or a sign in the dugout, or issuing a joint statement before the game, or something like that.

or

2. Just not playing the game at all??

The idea that refusing to play Ole Miss's softball team, or Memphis's softball team, or UNC's baseball team, or any number of div2 and div3 baseball and softball teams in those states is going to be a strong show of support for the LGBT community and result in the law being changed is kind of asinine. Most of the faculty and students at those colleges support the LGBT community. It's my experience that the vast majority of student athletes, especially baseball and softball players in those three states, support the LGBT community. So, why in the WORLD are you boycotting THEM??

College baseball and softball games would be played by players who support LGBT rights, and would be attended by fans who also largely support LGBT rights, and would be played on campuses who largely support LGBT rights. It makes no sense to not have these events. The people who want the boycott shouldn't show their support for the LGBT community by refusing to go and refusing to play. They should show their support by going there and playing. Sports played a big role in the fight against segregation, and it wasn't because of individuals or teams who boycotted games and refused to play. It was because of the teams and individuals who DID play.

[LA Muskie]

I get what you're saying, but consider this. Which would be more impactful??

1. Playing a game where both teams show some sort of solidary and support for the LGBT community by having a patch on the uniform, or a sign in the dugout, or issuing a joint statement before the game, or something like that.

or

2. Just not playing the game at all??

The idea that refusing to play Ole Miss's softball team, or Memphis's softball team, or UNC's baseball team, or any number of div2 and div3 baseball and softball teams in those states is going to be a strong show of support for the LGBT community and result in the law being changed is kind of asinine. Most of the faculty and students at those colleges support the LGBT community. It's my experience that the vast majority of student athletes, especially baseball and softball players in those three states, support the LGBT community. So, why in the WORLD are you boycotting THEM??

College baseball and softball games would be played by players who support LGBT rights, and would be attended by fans who also largely support LGBT rights, and would be played on campuses who largely support LGBT rights. It makes no sense to not have these events. The people who want the boycott shouldn't show their support for the LGBT community by refusing to go and refusing to play. They should show their support by going there and playing. Sports played a big role in the fight against segregation, and it wasn't because of individuals or teams who boycotted games and refused to play. It was because of the teams and individuals who DID play.

$$$. Money talks. The theory is that you hit them where it hurts. You can't change their bigotry. But you can appeal to their self-interest to undue unjust laws.

[xubrew]

$$$. Money talks. The theory is that you hit them where it hurts. You can't change their bigotry. But you can appeal to their self-interest to undue unjust laws.

How much money is are the div1, div2, and div3 softball tournaments really making for those states and lawmakers? Even if it was a money making proposition, which it really isn't, it's not like someone else isn't going to play.

I honestly think it's just political posturing from people who are trying to make it look like they're taking a stand, but in reality aren't doing anything that will result in any sort of real impact. Maybe they genuinely care and maybe they don't, but they sure as hell care about wanting to look like they care, even though what they're doing amounts to virtually nothing.

[LA Muskie]

The games themselves may not make much money. But when teams come to town they spend money there. Hotels. Restaurants. Stores. It may not be huge. But it adds up. And no politician wants to be the reason any of those businesses are complaining. Especially since the vast majority of those business owners could not care less about who uses which of their bathrooms.

On your latter point, I agree that they want to look like they care. But that doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing (although it can be). When you are a public figure or entity, your voice and opinion can be a strong weapon for change.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drew]

I think most importantly it just embarrasses them. Everytime an organization boycotts the state it is a news article highlighting their bigotry.

[xubrew]

The games themselves may not make much money. But when teams come to town they spend money there. Hotels. Restaurants. Stores. It may not be huge. But it adds up. And no politician wants to be the reason any of those businesses are complaining. Especially since the vast majority of those business owners could not care less about who uses which of their bathrooms.

On your latter point, I agree that they want to look like they care. But that doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing (although it can be). When you are a public figure or entity, your voice and opinion can be a strong weapon for change.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The businesses won't be complaining that div2 and div3 baseball and softball teams from Minnesota aren't coming to North Carolina to play in the tournament, or that a few select schools refuse to play football and basketball games there. It's not like the tournaments will be cancelled, or that North Carolina, Memphis, Ole Miss, Tennessee, and NC State can't find other teams to play. Other teams will go in their place. It's not like the 1936 Olympics would have been cancelled had Jessie Owens decided not to go.

Now, the one exception is the NCAA pulling the men's basketball tournament out of North Carolina. That could have somewhat of an impact, but even then I don't think we're talking about enough money to change the minds of anyone who has the power to change these laws.

Call it a hunch, but I don't think the LGBT community in those states, who this action is supposedly supporting, see this as being supportive in any sort of meaningful way.

[Juice]

The businesses won't be complaining that div2 and div3 baseball and softball teams from Minnesota aren't coming to North Carolina to play in the tournament, or that a few select schools refuse to play football and basketball games there. It's not like the tournaments will be cancelled, or that North Carolina, Memphis, Ole Miss, Tennessee, and NC State can't find other teams to play. Other teams will go in their place. It's not like the 1936 Olympics would have been cancelled had Jessie Owens decided not to go.

Now, the one exception is the NCAA pulling the men's basketball tournament out of North Carolina. That could have somewhat of an impact, but even then I don't think we're talking about enough money to change the minds of anyone who has the power to change these laws.

Call it a hunch, but I don't think the LGBT community in those states, who this action is supposedly supporting, see this as being supportive in any sort of meaningful way.

Let's see if the NBA does anything about next year's all star game.

[waggy]

"North Carolina will not stand by and let our locker rooms and high school showers be used for social experimentation at the expense of the privacy and protection of our young boys and girls. I do not think it is appropriate for teenage boys and girls to share the same bathroom. I don't think it appropriate for teenage boys and girls to shower next to each other. I don't think it is appropriate for male coaches and male teachers to have access to girls' locker rooms and showers while the young girls are naked and exposed. I feel confident, the vast majority of North Carolina parents feel the same.

The President needs a reminder that the United States Constitution grants education decision authority to the states and localities not to the President of the United States. Our current state policy protects our children by maintaining bathrooms and restrooms consistent with the biological sex of the child and already gives schools, should special circumstances arise, the freedom to grant private single stall - single shower bathroom accommodations to individuals who might not otherwise be comfortable using the bathroom of their biological sex or a bathroom shared with other people. This is the only reasonable response to the situation that exists today. Opening all showers and all restrooms to all sexes at all times as the President is suggesting, is not a reasonable solution, but an invitation for violations of privacy and personal safety.

North Carolina public schools in receipt of the President's letter are reminded that there is a binding state law on the books governing bathroom policy and the President's non-binding directive is merely his attempt to push his version of a social policy on our state with no Constitutional authority to do so. It should be rejected as a matter of principle and policy."

- N Carolina Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest

[Juice]

"North Carolina will not stand by and let our locker rooms and high school showers be used for social experimentation at the expense of the privacy and protection of our young boys and girls. I do not think it is appropriate for teenage boys and girls to share the same bathroom. I don't think it appropriate for teenage boys and girls to shower next to each other. I don't think it is appropriate for male coaches and male teachers to have access to girls' locker rooms and showers while the young girls are naked and exposed. I feel confident, the vast majority of North Carolina parents feel the same.

The President needs a reminder that the United States Constitution grants education decision authority to the states and localities not to the President of the United States. Our current state policy protects our children by maintaining bathrooms and restrooms consistent with the biological sex of the child and already gives schools, should special circumstances arise, the freedom to grant private single stall - single shower bathroom accommodations to individuals who might not otherwise be comfortable using the bathroom of their biological sex or a bathroom shared with other people. This is the only reasonable response to the situation that exists today. Opening all showers and all restrooms to all sexes at all times as the President is suggesting, is not a reasonable solution, but an invitation for violations of privacy and personal safety.

North Carolina public schools in receipt of the President's letter are reminded that there is a binding state law on the books governing bathroom policy and the President's non-binding directive is merely his attempt to push his version of a social policy on our state with no Constitutional authority to do so. It should be rejected as a matter of principle and policy."

- N Carolina Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest

This is the same argument used by people years ago against gay people. That somehow all people that aren't heterosexual are somehow pedophiles.

[XU 87]

I think most importantly it just embarrasses them. Everytime an organization boycotts the state it is a news article highlighting their bigotry.

So think it is bigotry to not want boys dressed as girls to enter girls' bathrooms?

[XUFan09]

So think it is bigotry to not want boys dressed as girls to enter girls' bathrooms?
You're mixing up transvestites and transsexuals.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Juice]

So think it is bigotry to not want boys dressed as girls to enter girls' bathrooms?

If a pedophile wanted to do this they could do it right now. I could do it right now. It doesn't matter if I'm straight, trans, a pedophile, whatever.

[waggy]

This is the same argument used by people years ago against gay people. That somehow all people that aren't heterosexual are somehow pedophiles.

Yeah, go ahead and lump the homos in this. Might as well because that's exactly where this is going apparently. Bruce Jenner needs to use the ladies room...

At your daughters middle school.

[TUclutch]

I get what you're saying, but consider this. Which would be more impactful??

1. Playing a game where both teams show some sort of solidary and support for the LGBT community by having a patch on the uniform, or a sign in the dugout, or issuing a joint statement before the game, or something like that.

or

2. Just not playing the game at all??

The idea that refusing to play Ole Miss's softball team, or Memphis's softball team, or UNC's baseball team, or any number of div2 and div3 baseball and softball teams in those states is going to be a strong show of support for the LGBT community and result in the law being changed is kind of asinine. Most of the faculty and students at those colleges support the LGBT community. It's my experience that the vast majority of student athletes, especially baseball and softball players in those three states, support the LGBT community. So, why in the WORLD are you boycotting THEM??

College baseball and softball games would be played by players who support LGBT rights, and would be attended by fans who also largely support LGBT rights, and would be played on campuses who largely support LGBT rights. It makes no sense to not have these events. The people who want the boycott shouldn't show their support for the LGBT community by refusing to go and refusing to play. They should show their support by going there and playing. Sports played a big role in the fight against segregation, and it wasn't because of individuals or teams who boycotted games and refused to play. It was because of the teams and individuals who DID play.

Or play the game and don't acknowledge it. Shouldn't be an issue that is tied to a basketball game. Was just as idiotic when the Heat wore shirts for Trayvon Martin

[STL_XUfan]

Yeah, go ahead and lump the homos in this. Might as well because that's exactly where this is going apparently. Bruce Jenner needs to use the ladies room...

At your daughters middle school.

Wouldnt you be just as disturbed if Bruce Jenner, or any other non teacher adult, was using the men's room at your daughters middle school?

[GoMuskies]

I'm pretty certain the bathrooms at my daughter's middle school have stalls with doors. So I'm not too concerned.

[waggy]

And your probably okay with Jerry Sandusky "using" the boys room.

[casualfan]

And your probably okay with Jerry Sandusky "using" the boys room.

You're*

[AviatorX]

And your probably okay with Jerry Sandusky "using" the boys room.

Fantastic trolling here.

[xubrew]

And your probably okay with Jerry Sandusky "using" the boys room.

It was never against the law for him to do so. Well, what he did in the boys room was illegal, but his simply being in there was not. He wasn't transgendered. It was a pedophile. There is no connection at all between the two.

Everyone reading this has been in a public restroom with a transgendered person. It's just that you didn't realize it. In order to notice it, then you'd have to actively seek it out, and the idea of someone checking to make sure I'm allowed to be in the men's room is a lot more unsettling than being in the men's room with a transgendered person that I don't even realize is transgendered. Everyone is up in arms over nothing. Unless you have a bathroom monitor who insists that everyone drop trow before entering, the law is virtually unenforceable. Transgendered people will continue to use whatever bathroom they want to use just like they always have, and almost no one will care because no one will really notice unless they're actively checking, which I don't think anyone really wants.

[XU 87]

Why stop at bathrooms? Obama should mandate that transgenders also be allowed to use whatever locker room they choose.

[Juice]

And your probably okay with Jerry Sandusky "using" the boys room.

He's a PEDOPHILE and a criminal. He wasn't gay, he wasn't trans, he's nothing like the people you are talking about.

[paulxu]

He's a PEDOPHILE and a criminal. He wasn't gay, he wasn't trans, he's nothing like the people you are talking about.

Stop confusing my out of conference thread with facts.

[XU 87]

He's a PEDOPHILE and a criminal. He wasn't gay, he wasn't trans, he's nothing like the people you are talking about.

He was having sex with members of the same sex. He's gay.

[Juice]

He was having sex with members of the same sex. He's gay.

I'm pretty sure you're trolling right because you can't be dumb enough to not know the difference between someone who is gay and someone who is a pedophile.

[xubrew]

He was having sex with members of the same sex. He's gay.

I think that it's safe to say that you don't work for the APA.

[xu82]

Stop confusing my out of conference thread with facts.

Bruce Jenner is out of my conference. Sandusky is in the same conference with Hitler and Osama Bin Laden.

[XU 87]

I'm pretty sure you're trolling right because you can't be dumb enough to not know the difference between someone who is gay and someone who is a pedophile.

I am aware of the excuse making of "He's a pedophile. He's not gay." to protect the gay agenda.

If you are a male who is sexually attracted and likes having sex with other males, that makes you gay. Sandusky was a gay pedophile.

Now before you get even more upset, I'm not saying all gays are pedophiles or that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.

Sometimes it's ok to admit the obvious, regardless of your political agenda.

[LadyMuskie]

Clinically speaking, there's no such thing as a gay pedophile or lesbian pedophile. Homosexuality, contrary to what small-minded people believe, is not a psychiatric problem. Pedophilia is. You wouldn't call someone with the urge to have intercourse with animals gay because he chose a male horse. So, Sandusky isn't a gay pedophile. He's just a pedophile aka monster.

[XU 87]

I'm sure that there is no clinical diagnosis such as "Penn State former defensive coordinator who is a pedophile", but that would accurately describe Sandusky. He could also accurately be described as a homosexual.

I never said that homosexuality is a psychiatric problem. What I did say is that it's ok to admit the obvious- a male that likes to have sex with other males is homosexual.

Finally, I note your reference to "closed minded people" who don't agree with you.

[Juice]

I'm sure that there is no clinical diagnosis such as "Penn State former defensive coordinator who is a pedophile", but that would accurately describe Sandusky. He could also accurately be described as a homosexual.

I never said that homosexuality is a psychiatric problem. What I did say is that it's ok to admit the obvious- a male that likes to have sex with other males is homosexual.

Finally, I note your reference to "closed minded people" who don't agree with you.

Sandusky wasn't having sex with adult males, just kids.

[XU 87]

Sandusky wasn't having sex with adult males, just kids.

That is true. However, they were all males. If he was only having sex with young females, I would then describe him as being a "heterosexual pedophile".

No one answered my previous question re: transgender. Should we permit transgenders to choose which locker room they want to use?

[XUFan09]

Transgender people have been choosing their locker room already, and there has not been an issue (other than their own experience as victims of violence). Concerning questions like that, you are either being willfully ignorant or you are trolling.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[xubrew]

I'm sure that there is no clinical diagnosis such as "Penn State former defensive coordinator who is a pedophile", but that would accurately describe Sandusky. He could also accurately be described as a homosexual.

I never said that homosexuality is a psychiatric problem. What I did say is that it's ok to admit the obvious- a male that likes to have sex with other males is homosexual.

Finally, I note your reference to "closed minded people" who don't agree with you.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric problem. Like Lady said, there is no such thing as a gay or lesbian pedophile. Like I said, you clearly don't work for the APA if you think being sexually attracted to children who haven't gone through puberty is the same thing as being attracted to someone of the same sex after they've gone through it.

Look, I'm not saying this to insult you, but just because I want you to realize it. You sound incredibly ignorant when you call someone a gay pedophile. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder where people are sexually attracted to children, are oftentimes not sexually attracted to adults, and have generally convinced themselves that they are helping the children and that the children enjoy it. That's not gay. That's a psychiatric condition if for no other reason than consensual sex between gay adults is just that. It's consented to and presumably enjoyed by two individuals who are fully sexually developed. Children cannot consent, and do not like molested, but pedophiles often think of them as enjoying it and it being good for them.

[xu82]

As much as I love the off-season, I wonder how the climate is doing?

[XU 87]

Pedophilia is a psychiatric problem. Like Lady said, there is no such thing as a gay or lesbian pedophile. Like I said, you clearly don't work for the APA if you think being sexually attracted to children who haven't gone through puberty is the same thing as being attracted to someone of the same sex after they've gone through it.

Look, I'm not saying this to insult you, but just because I want you to realize it. You sound incredibly ignorant when you call someone a gay pedophile. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder where people are sexually attracted to children, are oftentimes not sexually attracted to adults, and have generally convinced themselves that they are helping the children and that the children enjoy it. That's not gay. That's a psychiatric condition if for no other reason than consensual sex between gay adults is just that. It's consented to and presumably enjoyed by two individuals who are fully sexually developed. Children cannot consent, and do not like molested, but pedophiles often think of them as enjoying it and it being good for them.

Once again, I'm not talking about psychiatric diagnoses. Being gay is not a psychiatric disorder. But you can also be gay and also be a pedophile, or is that impossible? If an adult male is having sex with young boys, as opposed to young girls, that is homosexual behavior. What is clear is that you and others don't want to and refuse to refer to someone to as being both "gay" and a "pedophile" in the same sentence.

[XU 87]

Transgender people have been choosing their locker room already, and there has not been an issue (other than their own experience as victims of violence). Concerning questions like that, you are either being willfully ignorant or you are trolling.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

You have declared this has been going and there have "been no issues". Why didn't you say so at the start of all this? Argument over.

Back to my original question- So you're ok then with a transgender girl at a coed college deciding that she is going to shower in the men's locker room showers, even if said showers are open showers?

[XUFan09]

You have declared this has been going and there have "been no issues". Why didn't you say so at the start of all this? Argument over.

Back to my original question- So you're ok then with a transgender girl at a coed college deciding that she is going to shower in the men's locker room showers, even if said showers are open showers?

If a person identifies as a boy, he's a boy, not a girl as you label him. It's not like these choices are made lightly. No one actively strives to be a member of possibly the most victimized group in America.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[xubrew]

Once again, I'm not talking about psychiatric diagnoses. Being gay is not a psychiatric disorder. But you can also be gay and also be a pedophile, or is that impossible? If an adult male is having sex with young boys, as opposed to young girls, that is homosexual behavior. What is clear is that you and others don't want to and refuse to refer to someone to as being both "gay" and a "pedophile" in the same sentence.

Any psychiatrist would tell you that a person is not both even if it's a male who only has sex with young boys. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to people that are not sexually developed (ie children). They are typically not sexually attracted to someone of the same sex who is fully sexually developed like a homosexual is. That is a distinct difference.

Yes, it is certainly clear that me and others don't want to and refuse to refer to someone as being both gay and a pedophile. Yunno, "others," like anyone that has ever been to medical school.

[Juice]

Any psychiatrist would tell you that a person is not both. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to people that are not sexually developed (ie children). They are typically not sexually attracted to someone of the same sex who is fully sexually developed like a homosexual is. That is a distinct difference.

Yes, it is certainly clear that me and others don't want to and refuse to refer to someone as being both gay and a pedophile. Yunno, "others," like anyone that has ever been to medical school.

Or has seen an episode or two of Law & Order: SVU

[xubrew]

Or has seen an episode or two of Law & Order: SVU

Must've missed that one. Good show, though.

Anyway, if he were gay he would have been attracted to the fully sexually developed football players that he was coaching, not the children. Yet, I haven't seen anything alleging that he was, or any evidence that showed that he was.

[Juice]

Must've missed that one. Good show, though.

Anyway, if he were gay he would have been attracted to the fully sexually developed football players that he was coaching, not the children. Yet, I haven't seen anything alleging that he was, or any evidence that showed that he was.

Just a joke. I've seen an episode or two where they talk about the differences between pedophilia and homosexuality.

[bigdiggins]

Honest ignorant question, do any transgendered females identify as males and wish to transition to a man? All I have ever seen discussed is men who identify as women.

[xubrew]

Honest ignorant question, do any transgendered females identify as males and wish to transition to a man? All I have ever seen discussed is men who identify as women.

Yes, they do.

[waggy]

Yeah, they're called bulldykes. ..That's for you younguns with your hi-falutin' pyschiatric law and order television degrees.