Some of the right wing posts here truly frighten me and make me despair for the future of the country...

If those that have had to go through changing sex don't see the issues and how unfair and unsafe things are becoming for those not in the mainstream, as well as those who don't have a lot of money, how the deck is getting even more stacked against those, then what hope is there for enough sanity from those in the mainstream?

In terms of T*s, if these trends continue unchecked, we may be heading back to the times when stealth was very important to survival... and not all of us can be stealth, nor do all want to be.

The 1950's again  for us and other minorities, may be not be too far down the road...

- karen

QuoteThe primary function is to defend our freedoms. Should somebody in political office refuse to leave office when the time comes or should they turn the military on the civilian population, firearms are to be used by the population to regain control of the government.

How likely is that to happen?  We're no longer living in the time of despot monarchs, at least not in the western world.

I was a washout at boys' sports growing up, but I do remember vividly one piece of advice from my Little League coach:

"Keep Your Eye On The Ball!"

That's what I think we need to do in this thread.  It's quite obvious that gender identity issues and interests cut across the entire range of religious, political, social, and ethnic stretches of humanity.  We are not all the same type of people.  We certainly don't all think alike.

But everybody here does (or should) share a common interest in securing our rights to gender expression free of oppression and discrimination.  The HHS working paper outlines a government intent to roll back decades of progress on trans rights.  This is an existential threat to us.  We must act together and defeat this initiative, or we will ultimately find ourselves banished from life, afraid of our own shadows, timidly cross-dressing in attics and closets, and daydreaming about the way things could have been.

Susan made the right decision in lifting the ban on political discussion.  But we need to use that openness WISELY.  As my old Little League coach said: "Keep your eye on the ball!"

The important issue we face here TOGETHER as trans folks is this new government anti-trans initiative.  That's where our focus should be in this forum.

As we can all see from the preceding pages, folks here disagree vociferously about a host of issues.
About firearms and taxes.  About capitalism and socialism.  About immigration and deportation.  About religion and atheism  About right and left.  About healthcare.  About drugs.  About education.  About the police.  If we follow and debate all of those disagreements, we achieve nothing.  We simply tear ourselves to pieces and gain nothing.

News flash, folks!  We will NOT solve those issues here!

I respectfully suggest that we retire those issues from discussion here, as important as they all may be.

Keep Your Eye On The Ball!

Let's use this political opening Susan has authorized to address the political interest we have IN COMMON: the initiative developing in HHS to legally define issues about sex and gender in a way that poses a grave danger to our lives and well-being as trans people.

Quote from: AnneK on October 23, 2018, 09:18:30 PM
How likely is that to happen?  We're no longer living in the time of despot monarchs, at least not in the western world.

So you think. Several presidents considered extending their time in office beyond the two term limit. Fortunately they were wise enough not to attempt it. All it takes is one and who can tell what that would happen. The price of freedom is vigilance. It could be a Republican or a Democrat but we must take action if it happens regardless of the party.

Quote from: Dena on October 23, 2018, 08:45:33 PM
The primary function is to defend our freedoms. Should somebody in political office refuse to leave office when the time comes or should they turn the military on the civilian population, firearms are to be used by the population to regain control of the government.

The US military is so strong that it would not end well for even well armed civilians. A sizable chunk of the military would have to fight the other side.

QuoteSnipers are the most effective way to deal with a large force and sometimes it only takes one shell to solve the problem. Wining by force may not be possible however at the right time and place it may still be possible to win a conflict.

Like Nevada last year?  Or Sandyhook?  Or ...?

When I here about guns in the news, it's usually about criminal acts, including mass murder.

In Canada, we have a militia, which is part time soldiers working with the regular army.  Any "militia" not attached the the regular army, is more likely to be a liability than an asset.  They certainly wouldn't stand much of a chance against a foreign power.  I also don't recall reading much about a U.S. militia being much use after the Revolutionary War.  Even in the war of 1812, the militia was recognized as being not particularly effective.

Quote from: gingerViktorKay on October 23, 2018, 09:29:25 PM
The US military is so strong that it would not end well for even well armed civilians. A sizable chunk of the military would have to fight the other side.

We have forgot that freedom is costly. If your unwilling to give your life for it, you probably don't deserve it. Many of the founding father lost their fortune and risk their live in order to provide us the freedom we have today. We should do no less.

Quote from: AnneK on October 23, 2018, 09:31:33 PM
Like Nevada last year?  Or Sandyhook?  Or ...?

When I here about guns in the news, it's usually about criminal acts, including mass murder.

In Canada, we have a militia, which is part time soldiers working with the regular army.  Any "militia" not attached the the regular army, is more likely to be a liability than an asset.  They certainly wouldn't stand much of a chance against a foreign power.  I also don't recall reading much about a U.S. militia being much use after the Revolutionary War.  Even in the war of 1812, the militia was recognized as being not particularly effective.

Many  gun owners are former military and could be quite effective even with sporting weapons. Also consider what history would be like had one of the attempts on Hitler's life been effective.

QuoteSo you think. Several presidents considered extending their time in office beyond the two term limit. Fortunately they were wise enough not to attempt it.

There have also been several attempts, some successful, on presidents who were simply doing their job.  In my lifetime, Kennedy was assassinated and Reagan was shot.  Where were those with guns to protect them?

Again, I am not against guns, but what I see as a gun loving culture that I know does not represent the majority of Americans.  When the NRA takes legal action against Seattle for trying to enact a gun safety, not ownership, law, it's obvious where the problems is.  Why should the NRA have a problem with gun safety, when that was the reason they were formed?  Why shouldn't gun owners be required to go through gun safety training?  I did, even though it wasn't required.  Maybe then there wouldn't be so many kids killing someone.

BTW April, re keeping the eye on the ball, this is indirectly related in that many who try to take away rights tend to be the most vocal about gun ownership, as indicated in that article I mentioned about the Canadian militia and right wing extremists.

QuoteMany  gun owners are former military and could be quite effective even with sporting weapons. Also consider what history would be like had one of the attempts on Hitler's life been effective.

How effective would they be against a modern army equipped with modern technology.  A former soldier, with a sporting rifle wouldn't have much of a chance.  Back when Hitler was taking over, the British Lee-Enfield rifle was used in many parts of the world. It dates from 1895 and is now considered a good hunting rifle, but wouldn't be much of a match for modern weapons.  These days an effective army needs not only modern weapons, but all the support, such as communications, transport and more that stand alone "soldiers" wouldn't have.  The days of an individual soldier with his trusty hunting rifle are long gone.

Quote from: itsApril on October 23, 2018, 09:19:23 PM
I was a washout at boys' sports growing up, but I do remember vividly one piece of advice from my Little League coach:

"Keep Your Eye On The Ball!"

That's what I think we need to do in this thread.  It's quite obvious that gender identity issues and interests cut across the entire range of religious, political, social, and ethnic stretches of humanity.  We are not all the same type of people.  We certainly don't all think alike.

But everybody here does (or should) share a common interest in securing our rights to gender expression free of oppression and discrimination.  The HHS working paper outlines a government intent to roll back decades of progress on trans rights.  This is an existential threat to us.  We must act together and defeat this initiative, or we will ultimately find ourselves banished from life, afraid of our own shadows, timidly cross-dressing in attics and closets, and daydreaming about the way things could have been.

Susan made the right decision in lifting the ban on political discussion.  But we need to use that openness WISELY.  As my old Little League coach said: "Keep your eye on the ball!"

The important issue we face here TOGETHER as trans folks is this new government anti-trans initiative.  That's where our focus should be in this forum.

As we can all see from the preceding pages, folks here disagree vociferously about a host of issues.
About firearms and taxes.  About capitalism and socialism.  About immigration and deportation.  About religion and atheism  About right and left.  About healthcare.  About drugs.  About education.  About the police.  If we follow and debate all of those disagreements, we achieve nothing.  We simply tear ourselves to pieces and gain nothing.

News flash, folks!  We will NOT solve those issues here!

I respectfully suggest that we retire those issues from discussion here, as important as they all may be.

Keep Your Eye On The Ball!

Let's use this political opening Susan has authorized to address the political interest we have IN COMMON: the initiative developing in HHS to legally define issues about sex and gender in a way that poses a grave danger to our lives and well-being as trans people.

Thank you, as I've made a few posts asking for the same thing.

Unfortunately, I was private messaged earlier today lamenting that now that the genie is out of the bottle, it won't be recaptured.

Moderators, maybe it's time to lock down this thread?  I have different opinions on capitalism, immigration, privacy, etc.  However, as a woman, I'm threatened by the HHS proposal.  We've lost focus. 

In my career we have a saying:  'We can't boil the ocean!'  But if the estimate is accurate that we are 1.4 million voices strong, that is enough to garner some attention about the falsity of this proposal.  If we speak with a unified voice.

Has anybody got any experience in creating a change.org petition?

Kate


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote from: Dena on October 23, 2018, 09:32:42 PM
We have forgot that freedom is costly. If your unwilling to give your life for it, you probably don't deserve it. Many of the founding father lost their fortune and risk their live in order to provide us the freedom we have today. We should do no less.

I agree. I believe that it is silly to through away someones life or time. Working together with allies makes things much easier.

That is why all the non-binary population needs to stick together using common values and not differences. One person is not strong enough to do much of anything.

Quote from: AnneK on October 23, 2018, 09:49:43 PM
How effective would they be against a modern army equipped with modern technology.  A former soldier, with a sporting rifle wouldn't have much of a chance.  Back when Hitler was taking over, the British Lee-Enfield rifle was used in many parts of the world. It dates from 1895 and is now considered a good hunting rifle, but wouldn't be much of a match for modern weapons.  These days an effective army needs not only modern weapons, but all the support, such as communications, transport and more that stand alone "soldiers" wouldn't have.  The days of an individual soldier with his trusty hunting rifle are long gone.

I agree. It is all good until a drone that you can't see fires a shot. What is the term, "Dead before you know it."

Quote from: AnneK on October 23, 2018, 09:49:43 PM
How effective would they be against a modern army equipped with modern technology.  A former soldier, with a sporting rifle wouldn't have much of a chance.  Back when Hitler was taking over, the British Lee-Enfield rifle was used in many parts of the world. It dates from 1895 and is now considered a good hunting rifle, but wouldn't be much of a match for modern weapons.  These days an effective army needs not only modern weapons, but all the support, such as communications, transport and more that stand alone "soldiers" wouldn't have.  The days of an individual soldier with his trusty hunting rifle are long gone.

You ever had a Carcano? I have, worst gun I ever owned, yet it was good enough to kill a president. And I beg to differ on your "modern weapon" comment, you only need to look at the middle east, we still havn't defeated the ISIS and their using ww2 left overs look at the pictures, lots of German ww2 left overs and about any old thing they could get from Russia, even still using Enfields. Now consider this there are at least two hundred million gun owners, if something goes bad, that's the largest army in the world. You're also assuming the military would blindly follow orders. I'm guessing you've never heard of Oath Keepers. One person with a .22 rifle could take out power to a entire city if they know what their doing. And don't just assume tyranny can never happen in the United States, look up the Battle of Athens. I mean the thing I just don't understand though is you dem's have spent the last few years calling Trump Hitler, and you've been screaming for Hitler to take your guns away...... Back during the election my son came home telling me his teacher told him Pence wanted to stick him in a concentration camp (he's gay). I thought that was the most absurd thing I ever heard, now I'm not so sure it's off the table. So I mostly have gun's because I like to plink at old pop can's and target shoot with the occasional squirrel hunt, but most importantly to defend myself against that one person that "will kill those freaks if I ever catch them in the bathroom with my daughter" But I will gladly die fighting tyranny, we have a right to exist and I will defend it with my last breath.

I have to admit that I really do not like the turn the thread has taken. If transgendered people began to lash out irresponsibly the damage caused would be horrifying and possibly last for generations. Most importantly it would end horribly.

Quote from: gingerViktorKay on October 23, 2018, 11:13:22 PM
I have to admit that I really do not like the turn the thread has taken. If transgendered people began to lash out irresponsibly the damage caused would be horrifying and possibly last for generations. Most importantly it would end horribly.

Gandhi is the preferred approach. This means no rioting but instead presenting our argument in a rational manner. Violence is a last resort that will hopefully never be used. It was though that the United States would need to forcefully replace the government within a generation after the constitution was approved. Fortunately we have been able to resolve our differences nearing 250 years without overthrowing the government. Hopefully we can continue to do so.

Quote from: Dena on October 23, 2018, 11:23:25 PM
Gandhi is the preferred approach. This means no rioting but instead presenting our argument in a rational manner. Violence is a last resort that will hopefully never be used. It was though that the United States would need to forcefully replace the government within a generation after the constitution was approved. Fortunately we have been able to resolve our differences nearing 250 years without overthrowing the government. Hopefully we can continue to do so.

This.

And already signed and shared.

Quote from: jkredman on October 23, 2018, 10:28:22 PM
OK I THINK I FIGURED IT OUT

https://www.change.org/p/united-states-department-of-health-and-human-services-protect-the-human-rights-of-the-transgendered?recruiter=907516985&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

@jkredman

Thx and Signed!

Sonja.

Quote from: jkredman on October 23, 2018, 10:28:22 PM
OK I THINK I FIGURED IT OUT

https://www.change.org/p/united-states-department-of-health-and-human-services-protect-the-human-rights-of-the-transgendered?recruiter=907516985&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petitionBY CHANGE.ORG


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

signed

This thread is why we are where we are and is why we all will be damned if we don't unite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk