Jim Crow isn't dead

[Phatscotty]

How do you know the other softball teams don't have an issue with it? You are blabbing, because 'it', the boy playing on the girls team, has not happened yet. You can speculate none of the other teams have a problem with it, and I'll take that bet, that in fact at least one person or one coach does in fact have a problem with it.

I' m just going by the quotes in the article

Local high school softball coaches don’t seem too concerned about Cordova-Goff’s inclusion on the Azusa High softball team.

“There is no issue for me,” said West Covina softball coach Jesse Mendez said. “Could there be a competitive advantage? Sure, but softball is a pretty skillful game.”

The coach at Charter Oak High School, Scott Higuera, opined that rules are rules.

“I’m fine with it as long as it’s within the rules,” Higuera said. “The bottom line is, you have to play the game, and softball is very competitive.”

Considering it's pretty obvious from the article that the author has a major problem with this, that they would have found something from an opposition team to use against the player -

Did they get a response from all the coaches? Because I hope their league has more than 3 teams. Not to mention, some people are scared to speak up on the issue, for fear of retaliation and fear of being trolled, or a campaign to smear and label hateful any person or team that thinks it's okay to believe the boys team is for boys and the girls team is for girls. If nobody has a problem with it, then nobody has a problem with erasing the gender line altogether between boy teams and girl teams. amirite?

Tell ya what, let the season play out and we'll chat as it goes.

[Phatscotty]

One belief is that there is a difference between the sexes and a purpose for the sexes. Another belief is that there is no difference between the sexes and gender does not matter. That's what it all comes down to. If we say sex doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter for anything. Boys are going to be playing on girls junior high basketball teams, boys are going to be playing on girls high school hockey teams, men are going to be playing on women college volleyball teams. That's why the issue of marriage was so important. The redefinition dictated to everyone that sex does not matter. The people of Kansas say it does matter.

End of story

Actually, the House In Kansas wrote an ineffectual, irrelevant, and unnecessary law. I suppose they wrote it for symoblic reasons, but really, don't they have better things to spend their time on?

We are living in a country in a time and in this specific issue where an unelected, purely politically appointed judge can overturn a voter back Constitutional amendment with the stroke of a pen. I think it's more than symbolic. It's culture war.

Live and let live

So it's symbolic.

Anyway, to parse out what's wrong with your post.

(1) You have yet to address why this law was necessary apart from your first post (and Night Strike's first post), which I refuted.
(2) You fail to understand that the issue is not with a constitutional amendment, it's with current law (i.e. whether sexual orientation is a protected class in Kansas). So perhaps the reason for (1) is you don't understand the argument I made and the factual situation in Kansas (i.e. it's impossible for someone to sue a business due to sexual orientation discrimination).
(3) Since Kansas does not have a law noting sexual orientation as a protected class, there is no "culture war" in Kansas to which the bill proferred relates.

Even if I agree that gays should not be allowed to sue someone for denying services based on sexual orientation, IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE FUCKING LAW IN KANSAS!

This is me right now:



Don't worry, my computer is okay.

Hey, Phatscotty,

show

LMAO deal with what?? Greekdog's trap that nobody fell into? You still trying to help him spring it? I'm dealing with it just fine thanks, entertaining too. My favorite part was how he just makes shit up and then you guys all celebrate in a group over it. I wasn't talking about the bill from Kansas, never did, so in effect you guys are talking out your asses.

[Phatscotty]

One belief is that there is a difference between the sexes and a purpose for the sexes. Another belief is that there is no difference between the sexes and gender does not matter. That's what it all comes down to. If we say sex doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter for anything. Boys are going to be playing on girls junior high basketball teams, boys are going to be playing on girls high school hockey teams, men are going to be playing on women college volleyball teams. That's why the issue of marriage was so important. The redefinition dictated to everyone that sex does not matter. The people of Kansas say it does matter.

End of story

Actually, the House In Kansas wrote an ineffectual, irrelevant, and unnecessary law. I suppose they wrote it for symoblic reasons, but really, don't they have better things to spend their time on?

We are living in a country in a time and in this specific issue where an unelected, purely politically appointed judge can overturn a voter back Constitutional amendment with the stroke of a pen. I think it's more than symbolic. It's culture war.

Live and let live

My god you are a hypocrite.

nope. I've always been of the opinion live and let live, always, since the beginning, and for all time. I'd ask you to pay attention, but I know not paying attention and making meaningless posts is your thing. Carry on, it makes you look smart.

[notyou2]

One belief is that there is a difference between the sexes and a purpose for the sexes. Another belief is that there is no difference between the sexes and gender does not matter. That's what it all comes down to. If we say sex doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter for anything. Boys are going to be playing on girls junior high basketball teams, boys are going to be playing on girls high school hockey teams, men are going to be playing on women college volleyball teams. That's why the issue of marriage was so important. The redefinition dictated to everyone that sex does not matter. The people of Kansas say it does matter.

End of story

Actually, the House In Kansas wrote an ineffectual, irrelevant, and unnecessary law. I suppose they wrote it for symoblic reasons, but really, don't they have better things to spend their time on?

We are living in a country in a time and in this specific issue where an unelected, purely politically appointed judge can overturn a voter back Constitutional amendment with the stroke of a pen. I think it's more than symbolic. It's culture war.

Live and let live

My god you are a hypocrite.

nope. I've always been of the opinion live and let live, always, since the beginning, and for all time. I'd ask you to pay attention, but I know not paying attention and making meaningless posts is your thing. Carry on, it makes you look smart.

You rail against trolls, you continuously your change thread titles, you edit your posts repeatedly. You rant against anyone who has a differing opinion including issues of free speech, yet you profess that you are for free speech. You rant against the civil rights of others different than you, then you state "live and let live".

I submit that you sir are a hypocrite and the biggest troll in OT.

[Phatscotty]

I knew this thread had potential. It was a bit of a slow starter, but it's getting warmed up now!

Ovo is the man, I'll help out anyway I can! But really I'm not here just to help Ovo's thread be fun and informative, I'm here also to point out how wrong all the hypocrites were in the gay marriage threads from a year ago. Back then, boys playing on girls teams was irrational, homophobic, slippery slope, rhetoric, and jumping to conclusions. These guys are so intellectually invested when it comes to Phatscotty, they could never admit they were wrong as hell or that they understood nothing about what is actually going on, or give me credit for calling it spot on. Everything I said back then has come to pass; everything they laughed off has flown in their face so now their only option is to laugh harder or make up new shit. Can't be a comfortable position for them. Heck, the gimp in the box is probably more comfortable.

[Phatscotty]

One belief is that there is a difference between the sexes and a purpose for the sexes. Another belief is that there is no difference between the sexes and gender does not matter. That's what it all comes down to. If we say sex doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter for anything. Boys are going to be playing on girls junior high basketball teams, boys are going to be playing on girls high school hockey teams, men are going to be playing on women college volleyball teams. That's why the issue of marriage was so important. The redefinition dictated to everyone that sex does not matter. The people of Kansas say it does matter.

End of story

Actually, the House In Kansas wrote an ineffectual, irrelevant, and unnecessary law. I suppose they wrote it for symoblic reasons, but really, don't they have better things to spend their time on?

We are living in a country in a time and in this specific issue where an unelected, purely politically appointed judge can overturn a voter back Constitutional amendment with the stroke of a pen. I think it's more than symbolic. It's culture war.

Live and let live

My god you are a hypocrite.

nope. I've always been of the opinion live and let live, always, since the beginning, and for all time. I'd ask you to pay attention, but I know not paying attention and making meaningless posts is your thing. Carry on, it makes you look smart.

You rail against trolls, you continuously your change thread titles, you edit your posts repeatedly. You rant against anyone who has a differing opinion including issues of free speech, yet you profess that you are for free speech. You rant against the civil rights of others different than you, then you state "live and let live".

I submit that you sir are a hypocrite and the biggest troll in OT.

editing post and changing thread titles makes one a troll? LOL. I am for free speech, in ALL cases. Want me to prove you don't have a clue what you are talking about? Go ahead, try to find ONE example to back up your lies (9 people begin vigorously looking for you). I've never in my life tried to stop someone from speaking. Even the American Nazi's during WW2 had a right to speak. Good luck in your search that I know you won't do.

I submit you don't know what a hypocrite or a troll even is, and that you will not even try to find the example I asked you for, not a single example. You are the troll my friend, you never bring anything to the table when you post but negativity, name calling, misdirection and aggravation. Just read yourself sometime, and you'll notice your picture next to the definition of what a troll is. I don't call people names or try to hurt their feelings. I don't 'rant', I ask questions and make points and share information, ALWAYS on topic. It's you who rants against differing opinions, and there are no if's and or buts about it. You have been making negative responses to me for years, calling me names for years....you will never find me before this responding to you or your differing opinion with a rant or a rail, look at all your responses to me....hundreds of them, all the textbook definition of what you are trying to accuse me of. You are the guilty one, and the joke is entirely on you for trying to project your trollery onto me.

Go ahead, read what you just wrote, then go back and look at all your responses to my posts. They are perfect matches. You are hilarious mate.

All I've done around here is RAISE THE BAR! The trolling was getting way out of hand, so I took care of it. Look around here now, threads are hittin full throttle, and trolling has been cut 65%. I'm sure you've noticed your promotion, even if it's only because I actually finally responded to one of your insulting ignorant posts.

[Metsfanmax]

nope. I've always been of the opinion live and let live, always, since the beginning, and for all time.

Then what are you doing here trying to convince people to change their perspective? Stop interfering in my life.

[notyou2]

All I've done around here is RAISE THE BAR! The trolling was getting way out of hand, so I took care of it. Look around here now, threads are hittin full throttle, and trolling has been cut 65%. I'm sure you've noticed your promotion, even if it's only because I actually finally responded to one of your insulting ignorant posts.

Did I forget to mention that you are full of yourself?

[AndyDufresne]

All I've done around here is RAISE THE BAR! The trolling was getting way out of hand, so I took care of it. Look around here now, threads are hittin full throttle, and trolling has been cut 65%. I'm sure you've noticed your promotion, even if it's only because I actually finally responded to one of your insulting ignorant posts.

Did I forget to mention that you are full of yourself?

--Andy

[thegreekdog]

One belief is that there is a difference between the sexes and a purpose for the sexes. Another belief is that there is no difference between the sexes and gender does not matter. That's what it all comes down to. If we say sex doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter for anything. Boys are going to be playing on girls junior high basketball teams, boys are going to be playing on girls high school hockey teams, men are going to be playing on women college volleyball teams. That's why the issue of marriage was so important. The redefinition dictated to everyone that sex does not matter. The people of Kansas say it does matter.

End of story

Actually, the House In Kansas wrote an ineffectual, irrelevant, and unnecessary law. I suppose they wrote it for symoblic reasons, but really, don't they have better things to spend their time on?

We are living in a country in a time and in this specific issue where an unelected, purely politically appointed judge can overturn a voter back Constitutional amendment with the stroke of a pen. I think it's more than symbolic. It's culture war.

Live and let live

So it's symbolic.

Anyway, to parse out what's wrong with your post.

(1) You have yet to address why this law was necessary apart from your first post (and Night Strike's first post), which I refuted.
(2) You fail to understand that the issue is not with a constitutional amendment, it's with current law (i.e. whether sexual orientation is a protected class in Kansas). So perhaps the reason for (1) is you don't understand the argument I made and the factual situation in Kansas (i.e. it's impossible for someone to sue a business due to sexual orientation discrimination).
(3) Since Kansas does not have a law noting sexual orientation as a protected class, there is no "culture war" in Kansas to which the bill proferred relates.

Even if I agree that gays should not be allowed to sue someone for denying services based on sexual orientation, IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE FUCKING LAW IN KANSAS!

This is me right now:



Don't worry, my computer is okay.

That's drool, man. I don't give a crap about what was written on that piece of paper. I'm talking about the issue, and where the people of Kansas stand on it, not this one piece of paper you are trying to build your case on.

I'm not buying into your version because I didn't say anything was or wasn't part of Kansas law, and I was talking about what has happened in other states who 'used to have' similar laws as Kansas, but got overturned by a Federal judge.

The issue is that if someone wants to refuse doing business based on religious reasons, it will be acceptable under the law, in Kansas.

Basically, bakers and florists and choirs continue to not be forced to participate in gay weddings.

IT ALREADY FUCKING IS ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE LAW!!!!!!

Seriously. Like seriously seriously. I'm not certain what more I can do here to educate you about this. Do you not understand the point? Do you just not get it? Right now, in Kansas, the law is that a baker is allowed to refuse to serve someone for religious reasons. This is the law in Kansas. It is not disputable. The rank stupidity associated with maintaining this argument by you is disgusting. The sky is blue. The sun rises in the east. Kansas allows business owners to discriminate based on gayness. These are induspitable facts. And yet you want to pretend one is not a fact.

Here is a short play based on this thread:

oVo: Look at this law that the federal government tried to pass - a federal income tax on corporations.
thegreekdog: I know, stupid, right?
Phatscotty: There needs to be a U.S. federal income tax on corporations!
thegreekdog: There already is one.
Phatscotty: No, that's not the issue. The issue is that there needs to be a federal income tax on corporations.
thegreekdog: There already is one. This is a waste of time.
Phatscotty: No, the issue is that there needs to be a federal income tax on corporation.
thegreekdog: Are you fucking serious?

[notyou2]

Kansas needs new laws that are unnecessary. This is clearly job justification by the elected state government.

It becomes readily apparent to me that PS and NS et al, are not for smaller government at all. They are obviously for larger government.

[AndyDufresne]

IT ALREADY FUCKING IS ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE LAW!!!!!!

--Andy

[Phatscotty]

Basically, bakers and florists and choirs continue to not be forced to participate in gay weddings.

IT ALREADY FUCKING IS ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE LAW!!!!!!

Yeah, and what did you think the word "continue" was meant to imply? other than you still don't get it, and I'm convinced you don't want to get it. Wouldn't be the first time you went on tilt.

What I said had nothing to do with Kansas law proposal in the OP. I made a comment about the author in the OP (sullivan), sure, I made a statement about the people of Kansas, mm hmm, some stuff about boys playing on girls teams...check; the difference between the sexes, yup that was me, and how people from outside Kansas are trying to change Kansas(is that what you dispute?). I never said anything was unacceptable under any law, but some people are trying to make things unacceptable, like a religious businessperson being forced to attend something that directly violates their religion. Yes, that was already the law, that isn't the point, the point is people are trying to overturn (WHAT IS ALREADY LAW!!!!RARLULZRAR!!! so I don't know why you are yelling about it unless you are crazy person or you're just mad you couldn't hijack the conversation.

[thegreekdog]

Basically, bakers and florists and choirs continue to not be forced to participate in gay weddings.

IT ALREADY FUCKING IS ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE LAW!!!!!!

Yeah, and what did you think the word "continue" was meant to imply? other than you still don't get it, and I'm convinced you don't want to get it. Wouldn't be the first time you went on tilt.

What I said had nothing to do with Kansas law. I made a comment about the author in the OP (sullivan), sure, I made a statement about the people of Kansas, mm hmm, some stuff about boys playing on girls teams...check; the difference between the sexes, yup that was me, and how people from outside Kansas are trying to change Kansas(is that what you dispute?). I never said anything was unacceptable under any law, so I don't know why you are yelling about it unless you are crazy person or you're just mad you couldn't hijack the conversation.

I don't think you understand how laws or the legislative process work. Let's say this law (Law #1) was passed. It would have done nothing. If a legislature enacted a law giving gays standing as a protected class to sue business owners (let's call this Law #2), what do you think Law #2 would have said about Law #1, if anything? It would have invalidated Law #1, rendering it moot (a second time, if that's even possible).

I get the issue. I made a similar point about religious freedom and the Affordable Care Act, as you may recall. The difference between the point I made on the ACA and the alleged point you're making here is that my point dealt with a valid issue and your point deals with what could be a valid issue in the future. Further, even if the issue was valid in the future, the bill being contemplated here would not have done anything had the Kansas legislature passed a law making gays a protected class; the second law would have undone the first law. That's how legislation works.

Look, I know you're intelligent enough to understand that you've lost this argument. You simply cannot be that ignorant. You just have this deep-seeded need to be right about everything and therefore you don't like admitting you're wrong. If you don't reply to this post (with some innane comment about the "real issue"), I'll leave you to your discussion about girls playing male sports and boys playing girl sports. I have no interest in hijacking this thread. I do have an interest in making sure people that spew nonsense are corrected. So once you stop spewing nonsense, I don't have to visit this thread anymore and everyone's happy. Hell, you don't even have to admit that you're wrong; just don't reply to my post.

It pains me that you've devolved into accusing people of hijacking threads or conversations (or derailing threads or going crazy or whatever) when you're losing an argument. As someone who likes to engage in discussion and debate, it disgusts me that you've stooped to that level.

EDIT - No, I reread some of your posts and I really don't think you understand the bill that was trying to be passed. What you've done here is taken an issue that is applicable in other states (e.g. New Jersey) and made it applicable in Kansas even though it's really not. So this is kind of like how you cared about potential indoctrination in colleges and universities; you want there to be an issue, whether that be gays or indoctrination, in Kansas or colleges respectively, so that you can get the government to do something about it. It's really weird.

[Metsfanmax]

EDIT - No, I reread some of your posts and I really don't think you understand the bill that was trying to be passed. What you've done here is taken an issue that is applicable in other states (e.g. New Jersey) and made it applicable in Kansas even though it's really not. So this is kind of like how you cared about potential indoctrination in colleges and universities; you want there to be an issue, whether that be gays or indoctrination, in Kansas or colleges respectively, so that you can get the government to do something about it. It's really weird.

Personally I'm still confused about which part of this relates to government fiscal policy.

Kansas needs new laws that are unnecessary. This is clearly job justification by the elected state government.

It becomes readily apparent to me that PS and NS et al, are not for smaller government at all. They are obviously for larger government.

That's not necessarily true. If government weren't involved at all, then businesses could transact with whomever they pleased without fear of retribution from the government. You don't need to have a law explicitly affirming the right of businesses to discriminate, if that's your goal.

[BigBallinStalin]

IT ALREADY FUCKING IS ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE LAW!!!!!!

--Andy

[thegreekdog]

That's not necessarily true. If government weren't involved at all, then businesses could transact with whomever they pleased without fear of retribution from the government. You don't need to have a law explicitly affirming the right of businesses to discriminate, if that's your goal.

It's too bad it's not like that in Kansas right now... oh wait.

[mrswdk]

It's pretty inflammatory to blatantly refer to her as a male when they do not identify as such

He's quite obviously still a boy, and judging by the way you refrained from referring to him as 'she' you also recognise the gaping holes in his little social statement. He is a boy, tackle and all, and just because he has used some hippy California law to continue playing softball after being dropped from his school team does not mean he is suddenly a girl.

[radiojake]

It's pretty inflammatory to blatantly refer to her as a male when they do not identify as such

He's quite obviously still a boy, and judging by the way you refrained from referring to him as 'she' you also recognise the gaping holes in his little social statement. He is a boy, tackle and all, and just because he has used some hippy California law to continue playing softball after being dropped from his school team does not mean he is suddenly a girl.

I didn't refrain from using 'she' - I rather erroneously used the third party pronoun 'they' which happens quite often in informal speech.


You wouldn't know at all whether this was a cynical exercise on the student's part in order to play softball against the girls as a boy anymore than you would know whether or not she really does identify female (likewise myself) - I do know personally some friends who do not identify CIS and as a result I have little time for those who ridicule or dimiss the idea that gender identity goes way beyond the standard binary that we've been brought up with -

[Dukasaur]

It's pretty inflammatory to blatantly refer to her as a male when they do not identify as such

He's quite obviously still a boy, and judging by the way you refrained from referring to him as 'she' you also recognise the gaping holes in his little social statement. He is a boy, tackle and all, and just because he has used some hippy California law to continue playing softball after being dropped from his school team does not mean he is suddenly a girl.

I didn't refrain from using 'she' - I rather erroneously used the third party pronoun 'they' which happens quite often in informal speech.


You wouldn't know at all whether this was a cynical exercise on the student's part in order to play softball against the girls as a boy anymore than you would know whether or not she really does identify female (likewise myself) - I do know personally some friends who do not identify CIS and as a result I have little time for those who ridicule or dimiss the idea that gender identity goes way beyond the standard binary that we've been brought up with -

Except that one thing established beyond a doubt is that people's self-image is almost invariably wrong. Really catastrophically stupid people describe their intelligence as "average". Most sociopaths believe that their ethical standard is "typical". Most alcoholics describe themselves as "social drinkers." Then again, some social drinkers describe themselves as alcoholics. In test after test, people whose job performance is hopelessly incompetent, when asked to do a self-evaluation, rate themselves as "above average" in performance.

I could go on and on for hours. Bottom line: any relationship between what a person thinks they are and what they really are is purely coincidental.

For millennia we had a pretty simple and reliable test of what is boy and what is girl. Just look between their legs and report what you find. Then, we became more scientific. We could pull out a single cell and look at X and Y chromosomes. Now, we can go much further. We can isolate any gene in any chromosome and look at it.

Want to say that the situation is much more complex than just X and Y? Yes, I suspect you may be right. But if so, there will be objectively-provable genetic markers. We already know, objectively speaking, that there are hermaphrodites, and there are utterly asexual people. There is plenty of evidence that bisexuality is a genuinely distinct state that is neither heterosexual nor homosexual. Transexuality remains unproven, but I'm confident that it one day will be. But when all the intermediate states are proven, described, and correctly identified, it will still remain true that they will require objective laboratory testing, not someone's opinion of themselves, which will continue to be as unreliable in sexuality as it is in every other category of human performance.

[thegreekdog]

My caveat here is that I'm entirely ignorant on this matter. While I have gay and lesbian friends/associates, I do not know any transgender folks. That being said, wouldn't it be appropriate to refer to people by the pronoun the person would like to be called? In other words, maybe it's not a one-size-fits-all approach.

[BigBallinStalin]

Transexuality remains unproven, but I'm confident that it one day will be. But when all the intermediate states are proven, described, and correctly identified, it will still remain true that they will require objective laboratory testing, not someone's opinion of themselves, which will continue to be as unreliable in sexuality as it is in every other category of human performance.

So... if identity can't be 'scientifically' proven, then people don't have a particular identity...?

[mrswdk]

wouldn't it be appropriate to refer to people by the pronoun the person would like to be called?

Humoring your children is fair enough when they are 6 years old, but not when they are nearly old enough to leave home and live independently. Part of being a parent is to prepare your child for life in the big, bad world, not close them off from it. If the kid in the story started referring to himself as 'German' or 'black', what should the parents do?

[Phatscotty]

disclaimer; the poster is hereby aware this article has nothing to do with Kansas legislation. It has to do with the Jim Crow part. If you can handle this, please continue reading

GOP state Rep. David FitzSimmons became more than a conservative newbie last May when he secured passage of an amendment giving churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages sturdier legal protection (BUT THE LAW ALREADY SAYS THAT!!!!, TELL ME MOREZ ABOUT THIS 'STURDIER LEGAL PROTECTION' THINGYRARRR!!!), and then voted for the marriage-legalization bill. He became a good legislator.

We already have the 1st amendment too, that doesn't mean the same radical sex marriagers give a shit about it!!!! As I also said earlier, it's a fact they also don't give a shit about state Constitutional amendments, so I'm not going to pretend with you they give a shit about what is acceptable under Kansas law. They are going to continue to try to overturn the law in Kansas and states like Kansas, so articles like the OP are going to have to be constantly pointing out said states constantly giving sturdier legal protection and reinforcing current laws, and I'm sure they are well aware the laws they are trying to reinforce are laws that already exist.