PIERRE, S.D. - South Dakota would be the first state in the U.S. to approve a law requiring transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their sex at birth if the governor signs a bill passed Tuesday by the state Senate.
The Senate voted 20-15 to send the bill to Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard, who initially responded positively to the measure but said last week he'd need to study it more before making a decision.
Advocates say the bill is meant to protect the privacy of students, but opponents say it discriminates against vulnerable adolescents. CBS affiliate KELO in Sioux Falls reports that those opposed say that in addition to the likelihood it will lead to bullying, they also question the constitutionality of the bill and fear it will cost the state millions in lawsuits.
Under the plan, schools would have to provide a "reasonable accommodation" for transgender students, such as a single-occupancy bathroom or the "controlled use" of a staff-designated restroom, locker room or shower room.
Republican Sen. David Omdahl urged other legislators Tuesday to support the bill to "preserve the innocence of our young people."
Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans unsuccessfully opposed the measure in the Senate.
The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota and Human Rights Campaign have been vocal in their opposition to the measure and have called on Daugaard to veto the legislation.
"History has never looked kindly upon those who attack the basic civil rights of their fellow Americans, and history will not treat kindly those who support this discriminatory measure," Chad Griffin, the president of the LGBT-rights organization Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement Tuesday.
Transgender advocates have also criticized comments made by some lawmakers, including Omdahl, about transgender people.
"I'm sorry if you're so twisted you don't know who you are," Omdahl said at a recent event when asked about the bill. "I'm telling you right now, it's about protecting the kids, and I don't even understand where our society is these days."
Several states have looked at addressing gender and public facilities in the past several years. Late last year, the city of Houston was recently home to a bitter public fight over nondiscrimination rights that focused on transgender people's use of bathrooms.
But South Dakota would be the first state in the nation to put such a measure into law, said Joellen Kralik, a research analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The Legislature's passage of the bill is "shocking," said Thomas Lewis, a transgender student in his senior year at Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, the state's most populous city.
"At this point, I'm hoping that the governor has a sense of humanity and the common sense not to write this bill into law," said Lewis, who is planning to attend college in Minnesota. "I am so glad to be leaving soon. I can escape the oppression that my home state wants to put on me."
Supporters say South Dakota's plan is a response to changes in the Obama administration's interpretation of the federal Title IX anti-discrimination law related to education. Federal officials have said that barring students from restrooms that match their gender identity is prohibited under Title IX.
I completely fail to understand why bathrooms are gendered at all.Because men and women are different ask a silly question. There is no such thing
QuoteI completely fail to understand why bathrooms are gendered at all.
Because men and women are different ask a silly question.
There is no such thing
as a "transgender" anyway. You have the gender you're born with.
Well, I think each toilet should be separate and have a lockable door, this way a neccesary level of privacy is provided. I see no need to make whole separate "bathrooms" for different genders. I have no problem if a woman sees me washing my hands neither should a woman have a problem the other way round. Its not like people do not pull up their pants before steping out of the toilet and go wash their hands or am I wrong with that?
And if a place wants to give their customers more privacy they should make those toilets soundproof or install a separate sink inside each of the cells.
The biggest issue I see here is the elevated sexual assault risk from letting roosters in the henhouse--if bathrooms were made completely genderless. Bathrooms are pretty much ideal for predation, and if I were a woman who had to go into a bathroom alone at a highway rest stop I'd be scared silly by the thought of strange men in there.
Simply allowing transgenders to go wherever doesn't seem like a real risk, as they represent a pathetic fraction of the population.
I just don't know, man - a fair deal for everyone is the principal I try to apply to public policy issues, but this is bathrooms; I don't want anyone in the room while I go as it is.
Our society has yet to get its head thoroughly straitened out on plain ol' homersexuals -- pragmatically speaking, we're probably decades away from a fair deal for trans people in general, let alone bringing an uncomfortable situation like the pants-down room into it...
Women, as any woman can tell you, need more facilities than men do.
Trans people have crazy high levels of being assaulted, murdered and committing suicide.
Genuinely not sure how gender-neutral bathrooms would mess up children,
I'll should admit that I've never known any trans people, and that I'd say this issue combines a facility everyone is a little uncomfortable about -at least most all the men- with a class of people most are uncomfortable about, to say the least...
QuoteGenuinely not sure how gender-neutral bathrooms would mess up children,
If you don't understand it I'm not sure there is any way to explain it to you.
You're talking about giving teenage boys free access to female students bathrooms.
You are simply incorrect. I won't try to argue this point with you, but I will provide a link to a guy who knows a lot more about the subject than either you or me. If you ever feel the need to challenge your beliefs, you can read it.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/gender-its-complicated/ (http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/gender-its-complicated/)
This article, too. http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943 (http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943)
Brief note, since I have to get ready for work: why would you need to sequence their DNA? Sex is a phenotype, not a genotype; you can tell a girl in boy's clothes pretty easily most of the time, or vice versa, the plots of fifteen thousand stage plays notwithstanding. The point of all these displays (clothes, makeup, jewelry, whatever) is to signal something about oneself, something objectively true, except in obscure cases of deformity. Being TG is like wearing a red, white and blue elephant t-shirt while espousing progressive views. People don't tolerate your self-definition, no--because your self-definition is a lie.
(a) There's no evidence Aristotle ever said that
Gender, as a rule, is profoundly fundamental to our identity and behavior in the ways you mention and more, absolutely; trans being a thing makes it confusing, no argument. The pronoun problem alone is enormously irritating, if you care about courtesy.
-But I'd submit that the proper Christian position is to view trans people, not to be condescending and certainly not insulting, as afflicted, and react with compassion. Sucks to be confused by a 'guy' in a dress? Sucks more for 'him'. 'He's' in the middle of it every second, and I don't think an argument that it screws things up socially for others gets any more laundry done than saying we ought to ostracize lepers because their disease is off-putting. -That wasn't exactly the position Jesus took when confronted with dusty leper feet.
---
Have I ever gone into my Gay Uncle Theory of why homosexuality doesn't breed itself out of the gene pool tout suite?
Gender, as a rule, is profoundly fundamental to our identity and behavior in the ways you mention and more, absolutely; trans being a thing makes it confusing, no argument. The pronoun problem alone is enormously irritating, if you care about courtesy.
-But I'd submit that the proper Christian position is to view trans people, not to be condescending and certainly not insulting, as afflicted, and react with compassion. Sucks to be confused by a 'guy' in a dress? Sucks more for 'him'. 'He's' in the middle of it every second, and I don't think an argument that it screws things up socially for others gets any more laundry done than saying we ought to ostracize lepers because their disease is off-putting. -That wasn't exactly the position Jesus took when confronted with dusty leper feet.
---
Have I ever gone into my Gay Uncle Theory of why homosexuality doesn't breed itself out of the gene pool tout suite?
As for the Gay Uncle, you're not the first to propose it. The difficulty is that homosexuality is tantamount to sterility, so the gay uncle advantage (and/or heterozygote advantage) would have to be positively enormous to offset. Gay uncled kids would need to be something like fifty percent more likely to survive for it to make sense. Which doesn't mean homosexuality doesn't have biological roots--it certainly seems to--but the jury is still out on why it's there or what it's for.Given modern reproductive technology, gay men can have biological offspring. All it takes is a clinic/hospital, an egg donor, and a woman willing to carry and give birth to the child. Custody arrangements should ideally be made with the help of a lawyer, to avoid messy situations where one or both adults change their minds.
As for the Gay Uncle, you're not the first to propose it. The difficulty is that homosexuality is tantamount to sterility, so the gay uncle advantage (and/or heterozygote advantage) would have to be positively enormous to offset. Gay uncled kids would need to be something like fifty percent more likely to survive for it to make sense. Which doesn't mean homosexuality doesn't have biological roots--it certainly seems to--but the jury is still out on why it's there or what it's for.Obviously, the name gives the drift away, but let's see if I can't defend this hill.
Charlotte, N.C., passes transgender rights bill: Will state let it stand?http://news.yahoo.com/charlotte-n-c-passes-transgender-rights-bill-state-145002610.html (http://news.yahoo.com/charlotte-n-c-passes-transgender-rights-bill-state-145002610.html;_ylt=AwrC1DE5qMxWXH4ACjDQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByNXM5bzY5BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--)
The controversial measure bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in housing and places of public accommodation.
Christian Science Monitor
By Bamzi Banchiri 3 hours ago
The city of Charlotte, N.C., leapt to the forefront of a national debate on LGBT rights on Monday with the passing of a law granting transgender people the right to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.
The law, passed by the Charlotte City Council in a 7-4 vote and set to take effect in April, bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in housing and places of public accommodation. The measure includes a controversial revision that allows transgender residents to choose to restrooms corresponding to the gender with which they identify.
Similar so-called bathroom bills have sparked heated debates in local and state governments around the United States in recent months. Supporters of such bills see the provision as a preservation of the dignity and safety of transgender individuals. Opponents say that the measure opens the door for sexual predators to gain access to bathrooms of the opposite sex.
The debate has become particularly contentious when it comes to restrooms and locker room facilities in public schools. Charlotte's law does not extend to public schools, but that has not removed contention from the debate, which has set the city's Democratic mayor to butt heads with the Republican governor.
"I'm pleased that Charlotte has sent a signal that we will treat people with dignity and respect, even when we disagree," Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts said moments after the vote.
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) has previously said that considers the provision allowing transgender people to select which bathroom they use to be a threat to public safety and has warned lawmakers that the state could step in to negate the vote.
"This action of allowing a person with male anatomy, for example, to use a female restroom or locker room will most likely cause immediate State legislative intervention which I would support as governor," Governor McCrory wrote in the email to two Council members.
More than 140 members of the public packed a council hearing before the vote. Some self-identified Christian conservatives, also expressed concerns that the nondiscrimination law would allow transgender people – and men posing as trans – to sexually assault women in restrooms.
Bathroom attacks has been a potent argument for blocking and repealing LGBT nondiscrimination laws, yet there are no, “documented cases in the 17 states and 225 other cities with such laws on the books of people using the policies for nefarious purposes,” according to Buzzfeed news.
Last year, concerns over such attacks torpedoed a similar nondiscrimination bill in Houston. Similar concerns prompted South Dakota legislators to pass a bill earlier this month requiring students to use bathrooms corresponding to their sex at birth. The governor has expressed support for the measure but also said that he will do more research before deciding to sign or veto the bill.
This is not the the first time the Charlotte City Council has introduced such a bill. A similar measure was narrowly defeated by the Charlotte City Council in March 2015, even after the removal of a provision that would have allowed bathroom use based on gender identity. Local officials later announced that transgender people could use the bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity in the city- and county-owned facilities.
Advocacy group Equality NC issued a statement criticizing McCrory for "perpetuating the same tired and debunked myths about transgender people and public safety."
Other opponents of the measure – including some clergy and business owners – have sent the City Council a letter saying businesses should have the right to refuse service based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
This report contains materials from The Associated Press.
there are no, “documented cases in the 17 states and 225 other cities with such laws on the books of people using the policies for nefarious purposes,” according to Buzzfeed news.
--- has anyone reading had nieces/nephews before having their own kids? I expect those parents can confirm that the sibling's kids got infinitely less cute allasudden...
Re gay uncles, I wasn't just speaking for myself there; I once read an extended blog post by an apparently secular evo bio type arguing that the gay uncle thing just won't work mathematically. A fifty percent offspring survival advantage really would be quite spectacular. Even if you toss in some HZ advantage, I have a hard time buying it. Really it's just a puzzle all around, and the simplest answer imo would be some mix of environmental factors inducing it in addition to a modest genetic component.Okay, a point I didn't quite make clear enough, or buried; the reason I came up with a Gay Uncle theory in the first place: trying to make evolutionary sense of why gay is a thing, and not terribly uncommon at all.
IF there's a hereditary genetic component to alternate sexual modes that tend to at least breed less, there has to be a distinct advantage inherent to keep them from disappearing, QED.-On the other hand, I actually know a girl who's the product of a gay father in a sham marriage (and believe me, the ramifications on that family and her are worth a thread of its own) and I DO wonder what the historical statistics on THAT are...
North Carolina attorney general won’t defend transgender law: It’s a ‘national embarrassment’https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ny-gov-cuomo-bans-travel-to-north-carolina-in-184327168.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ny-gov-cuomo-bans-travel-to-north-carolina-in-184327168.html)
Yahoo News
Michael Walsh Reporter March 29, 2016
One day after civil liberties groups filed suit to fight a controversial “bathroom bill” in North Carolina that they say discriminates against the LGBT community, state Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that he would not defend its constitutionality.
“We should not even be here today, but we are. We’re here because the governor has signed statewide legislation that puts discrimination into the law,” Cooper told reporters in Raleigh Tuesday.
According to Cooper, House Bill 2 (HB2) is in direct conflict with nondiscrimination policies at North Carolina’s justice department and treasurer’s office, as well as many of the state’s businesses. Though the LGBT community is targeted, he said, it could ultimately result in the discrimination of other groups as well.
“House Bill 2 is unconstitutional,” he said. “Therefore, our office will not represent the defendants in this lawsuit, nor future lawsuits involving the constitutionality of House Bill 2.”
Cooper called the new law a “national embarrassment” that will hurt North Carolina’s economy if not repealed. And there are already signs that he might be right.
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee banned nonessential publicly funded travel there in a show of opposition to the law on Friday. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Seattle Mayor Ed Murray followed suit on Monday.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/XFoaj8_.bOvVJj30e9.OHw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MzAwMDtoPTI0NTY7aWw9cGxhbmU-/http://41.media.tumblr.com/cb041bc63f74808a11ea74c3995b259d/tumblr_inline_o4tevsgqOc1td5k0c_1280.jpg)
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper speaks at a news conference in his state offices in Raleigh, N.C., on Tuesday. (Photo: Harry Lynch/The News & Observer via AP)
“In New York, we believe that all people — regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation — deserve the same rights and protections under the law,” Cuomo said in a statement. “From Stonewall to marriage equality, our state has been a beacon of hope and equality for the LGBT community, and we will not stand idly by as misguided legislation replicates the discrimination of the past.”
Cuomo, a Democrat, said his ban on travel to the Tar Heel State would last “as long as there is a law in North Carolina that creates the grounds for discrimination against LGBT people.”
In its most literal application, House Bill 2 requires people to use only bathrooms reserved for their biological sex, which the bill defines as “the physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person’s birth certificate.”
But the reach of this bill, which goes into effect on Friday, will go far beyond bathrooms: It also prohibits local governments from passing new ordinances that would ban discrimination against specific groups.
North Carolina lawmakers approved the bill last week in reaction to a February ordinance by the Charlotte City Council. That ordinance would have outlawed discriminating against gay and transgender people and affirmed that transgender people can use restrooms that match their gender identities.
Supporters of HB2 argued that the ordinance would have allowed men to enter women’s restrooms, showers and locker rooms in public buildings — placing women in danger. Opponents of HB2 argued that the lawmakers were playing on fears to legalize discrimination.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/z695r1nVtdsIFBXCk7X8Hg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MzEwNztoPTIxNjQ7aWw9cGxhbmU-/http://40.media.tumblr.com/77aefe83f6d5339652bb83331f1b758a/tumblr_inline_o4tcwiOnHe1td5k0c_1280.jpg)
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo leaves a minimum wage rally in Albany, N.Y., on March 15. (Photo: Mike Groll/AP)
“Charlotte had chosen to be a fair and welcoming city, to express its values in a local ordinance,” Tara Borelli, the senior attorney at Lambda Legal, said in an interview with Yahoo News. “And HB2 really runs roughshod over those values by passing this outrageous law. It really tarnishes the reputation of the state.”
The North Carolina Family Policy Council, a socially conservative nonprofit supporting HB2, argues that the council’s “radical and hazardous” ordinance undercuts the privacy, safety and dignity of women, children and the elderly.
“This is an appalling and inexcusable effort to supersede common sense laws in North Carolina and replace them with radical policies that are clearly out of touch with the values of the majority of North Carolinians,” organization president John L. Rustin said in a statement. “It is particularly disturbing that those who oppose HB 2 continue to misrepresent the law in outlandish ways and seek to put the safety of women, children, elderly, and others at risk to accommodate the desires of a few!”
Ross Murray, GLAAD’s programs director for the South, said the pro-HB2 arguments are based on “outdated and frankly horrific stereotypes” about transgender women as sexual predators and distract from the necessity of nondiscrimination ordinances to protect an already vulnerable population.
“Bills like this always get boiled down to talking about bathrooms, but it’s really important to understand that we are also talking about nondiscrimination in terms of employment and in terms of housing and being able to let people live their everyday lives,” Murray said to Yahoo News.
House Bill 2 is just one of many so-called bathroom bills in state legislatures throughout the United States. These include high-profile cases in Texas, Minnesota, Kansas and South Dakota.
LGBT rights groups have been fighting these bills, and North Carolina’s is no exception. On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of North Carolina, Lambda Legal and Equality North Carolina filed a lawsuit hoping to overturn HB2.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/HzCCXtoiZRziRl2WAg0wRg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTAyNDtoPTc1NDtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://40.media.tumblr.com/c6282d37b1b8b6ef9319148f42cb2d76/tumblr_inline_o4td10pbZ51td5k0c_1280.jpg)
People protest outside the North Carolina Executive Mansion in Raleigh, N.C., on March 24. (Photo: Emery P. Dalesio/AP)
The plaintiffs argue that the bill violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex and sexual orientation and is therefore unconstitutional. They also say the bill violates Title IX because it discriminates based on sex.
“We were extraordinarily disappointed. There were clear statements on record by the governor and lawmakers, but we really hoped that reason and fairness would prevail. This law, it’s just a travesty,” Lambda Legal attorney Borelli said.
North Carolina Senate Leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore, both Republicans, released a joint statement Monday in response to the lawsuit that accused the “far-left groups” behind the lawsuit of using the state as a pawn in their “extreme agenda.”
“This lawsuit takes this debate out of the hands of voters and instead attempts to argue with a straight face that there is a previously undiscovered ‘right’ in the U.S. Constitution for men to use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms — but we are confident the court will find the General Assembly acted properly in accordance with existing state and federal law,” the statement reads.
The lawsuit was filed against Republican North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, Attorney General Cooper and the University of North Carolina on behalf of transgender UNC employee Joaquín Carcano, transgender UNC student Payton McGarry and Angela Gilmore, a lesbian North Carolina Central University law professor.
A firestorm of outrage erupted on March 23 after McCrory signed the bill into law, accusing Charlotte’s mayor and city council of breaching basic privacy and etiquette by going far beyond their core responsibilities.
“The basic expectation of privacy in the most personal of settings, a restroom or locker room, for each gender was violated by government overreach and intrusion by the mayor and city council of Charlotte,” McCrory said in a statement. “This radical breach of trust and security under the false argument of equal access not only impacts the citizens of Charlotte but people who come to Charlotte to work, visit or play.”
Mike Meno, the communications director for the ACLU of North Carolina, said the “ugly and distorted rhetoric” of lawmakers to pass House Bill 2 is among the most harmful consequences of this controversy.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Noeuq_z3FXYHyHtrB65bVg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTAyNDtoPTY4MjtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://41.media.tumblr.com/75be9658373163b6d94692c9798cb215/tumblr_inline_o4tcyuOd361td5k0c_1280.jpg)
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory speaks at the Wake County Republican Party 2016 County Convention in Raleigh, N.C., on March 8. (Photo: Al Drago/CQ Roll Call)
“Transgender people face high rates of harassment and sometimes even assault in public accommodations. That is exactly what Charlotte’s ordinance was trying to protect people from,” Meno said to Yahoo News.
Sections 3.1 and 3.3 of House Bill 2 specifically protect people from discrimination based on race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap. In fact, “biological sex” is underlined in what was likely intended to distinguish it from gender identity.
Opponents of House Bill 2 say that the new law essentially legalizes discrimination against gay and transgender people.
“That’s something that flies in the face not only of American values but North Carolina’s values. And I think the outpouring of opposition from people across our state and across our country points to how out of step this extreme legislation is with our values,” Meno said.
In fact, on Monday, the LGBT community got other signs that the tide may be slowly turning in its favor. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest condemned HB2 as “mean-spirited.” And Republican Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal announced that he intends to veto a “religious liberty” bill that protects opponents of same-sex marriage, saying, “I do not think that we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia.”
Sorry, I was punchy this morning. Need sleep.I find it interesting that different personality traits appear while the body remains under stress.
Glad to see you back.
How is that weird autoimmune reaction, if so, not simply a mechanism for triggering gay uncles according to my theory? Seems to fit together fine, to me...
And I'd say there's something to that proxy war thing you say, but more of it's as simple as it looks - one side finds trans people weird and disturbing and challenging to perceptions of reality (and the name/pronoun problem if you care about courtesy is irritating) versus the left crowd going "it takes all kinds, respect difference, sucks to be them - let's cut 'em a break". That it's lining up along predictable lines is just the world we're stuck in currently; EVERYthing's a culture war these days.
Re: autoimmune, we're used to thinking of biology as "the way things are designed" or "the way the genes make things," but really a lot of it (as the hosts of other autoimmune disorders indicates) is that our bodies are absurdly complicated machines, and sometimes things go awry, and there isn't any particular constructive "reason" for it. We don't look for why evolution selected for some people to get lupus, or type 1 diabetes (though we do look into the causes of those things for the sake of curing them); the quest to know what causes homosexuality is all wrapped up in the desire to vindicate it as normal and healthy, and if it exists because having one recessive gay gene does something good, or what-have-you, that sounds better than if gays are just the equivalent of albinos.Elok, this is how evolution works. A mutation/variation pops up through something like the autoimmune problem, and most variations just make dead babies or mules - but if the 'mule' somehow reliably causes enough relatives to do enough better, evolution will select for it. Relatives doing better = more babies from the same family with the autoimmune thing.
...WTH, Elok? I bring theology into it and nothing to say? ;) ...
“I am guessing the amount of fees is going to be substantial, but I don’t have a specific number for you,” says Emily Chiang, legal director at ACLU of Washington.
“Litigation is a messy, expensive thing, which is why we typically urge people to settle cases,” she says.
A florist caught between faith and financial ruin
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0712/A-florist-caught-between-faith-and-financial-ruin (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0712/A-florist-caught-between-faith-and-financial-ruin)
Quite sympathetic to the florist - and gentlemen, it's a KKKake deal, only we don't have any dolts (besides Dale) here, so we can actually kick this around like adults...
I'm kind of exhausted by this argument, TBH. If you haven't seen what I'm getting at thus far, I don't see anything else I can say, beyond: requiring a business owner to provide a non-vital service contrary to conscience, with no measurable damages done by refusal, is in effect to say that the rights to freedom of belief and expression may be superseded if said expression causes nothing but unquantifiable emotional distress. This is the most trivial grounds for overruling possible, short of doing it arbitrarily for funsies. It is to say, first, that the state has the right to intervene selectively based on perceived merits of individual beliefs rather than the neutral weighting of the needs of society as a whole, and second that freedom of conscience exists at the pleasure of the state in general. This is a very bad precedent to set, especially over something as trivial as flowers and cake.
#GayUnclesDay (https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/gayunclesday?source=whfrt&position=3&trqid=6318820216915339350): Hashtag Campaign Encourages Making Aug. 14 a Day to Celebrate Gay Uncles
Having older brothers increases men's likelihood of being gay
By Jen Christensen, CNNUpdated 6:42 AM ET, Tue December 12, 2017
Story highlights
Scientists say mothers who have more than one boy had higher concentrations of a certain protein
Earlier studies have noticed that gay men often have older brothers
(CNN) — If you're a guy with an older brother, there's an increased chance you're gay.
Scientists have noticed this pattern in previous research, but now they think they have a biological explanation as to why, and it starts long before birth. The results were published in the journal PNAS on Monday.
The researchers say that if their findings can be replicated, we may know at least one of the biological reasons some men are gay.
Many factors may determine someone's sexual orientation, but in this case, researchers noticed a pattern that may be linked to something that happens in the womb. The phenomenon is related to a protein linked to the Y chromosome (which women do not have) that is important to male brain development.
Researchers think it's possible that when a woman gets pregnant with her first boy, this Y-linked protein gets into her bloodstream. The mother's body recognizes the protein as a foreign substance, and her immune system responds, creating antibodies. If enough of these antibodies build up in the woman's body and she gets pregnant with another a boy, they can cross the placental barrier and enter the brain of the second male fetus.
"That may alter the functions in the brain, changing the direction of how the male fetus may later develop their sense of attraction," said study author Anthony Bogaert, a Canadian psychologist and professor in the departments of psychology and community health sciences at Brock University.
Earlier research has shown that the more older brothers a boy has, the more of a chance that boy will be attracted to men. A 2006 study showed that with each brother, the chance that a man will be gay goes up by about a third, but the researchers didn't determine why that was.
Bogaert and his co-authors tested a small group of 142 women and 12 men ages 18 to 80 and found a higher concentration of antibodies to the protein, known as NLGN4Y, in blood samples from women than from men. They found the highest concentration of antibodies to the protein in women with gay younger sons who had older brothers, compared with women who had no sons or who had given birth to only heterosexual boys.
The study builds on research Bogaert and his co-authors have been exploring for more than 20 years. Since their initial research that noted the trend, other research -- although not all studies -- have detected the phenomenon, even across cultures. One found that a man's chances of being gay increased even if he was raised apart from his older brother.
Researchers did not see a similar pattern in families with adopted brothers, so scientists started to think there must be a maternal developmental explanation. The research does not give a biological explanation for why some men may be bisexual or may not be attracted to anyone at all, nor can it give a biological explanation for gay only children, gay oldest sons or women who are attracted to women.
J. Michael Bailey, a professor in the Department of Psychology at Northwestern University, thinks the latest research is important. "It is significant, and I believe science granting agencies should put a high priority into additional research to see if this is true," he said.
Bailey was not involved in the new study but has worked on studies that have found genetic factors that may explain some differences in sexual orientations.
Bailey's latest paper, published this month in the journal Nature Research (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15736-4), looked at people's genomes and found several regions with single-letter DNA changes that were more common among gay men than straight men and may be relevant to the development of sexual orientation. Bailey believes this new study may be even more significant than general genetic findings if the findings can be replicated.
"Our studies only show that there may be genes that matter in sexual orientation," he said. "It is not like this study, that shows there is a potential specific mechanism by which sexual orientation may have changed prenatally. This is important work and fascinating if it proves to be true."
And it is among the last places anybody would want to pick someone else up (unless they got some odd fetish).
And it is among the last places anybody would want to pick someone else up (unless they got some odd fetish).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottaging
Having older brothers increases men's likelihood of being gay
...Let me point out, though, that by any reasonable Christian standard, being married by a judge is not a real marriage - is it? Is it not tacit complicity in something against your beliefs to contribute to ANY wedding not before a preacher man of a denomination you don't find hopelessly blasphemous in its doctrine? Like, flowers arrangements for a Christian Science-officiated wedding is wrong for the nice church lady, according to her own lights if only she'd thought it through.Hey Elok - I think maybe I've given you reasonable time to cool off --- I'd really like a response to this point, leaving aside the issue it was embedded in...
I mean, marriage is a religious issue right? (A legal own-goal every time you shrill it out, social "conservatives") and that nice brown Hindu couple you know isn't really married, whether it's any of your business or not -and your uncle and his 'wife' who went before a judge are openly living in sin- or it's live and let live, and Mark and Steve's legal arrangement is really, REALLY none of your business. You can't pick and choose about what Jesus, who I don't recall ever discussing what marriage is, wants.