LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Rocopurr]

I just want to talk about it with someone who's trans.

:|
:|
Okay. I want to know about gender identities as well tho!

I can tell you once I figure it out, and you're always welcome to ask me stuff about it.

[Veceria]

:|
:|
Okay. I want to know about gender identities as well tho!

I can tell you once I figure it out, and you're always welcome to ask me stuff about it.

Oki doki mi amor~

[Kumuri]

Saint Petersburg just repealed their anti-gay "propaganda" law in fear that a Court decision against that piece would affect all of Russia in consequence.

[Revanchism]

Saint Petersburg just repealed their anti-gay "propaganda" law in fear that a Court decision against that piece would affect all of Russia in consequence.

Sometime on Father's Day, St. Petersburg
"Demien, didn't you hear that's it's Father's Day?"
"Oh shit, Timofeev, now I have to get two gifts!"

[Seriong]

The thing is, that doesn't necessarily have to be interpreted to mean that gay marriage must be legal.

As I've pointed out before:

Actually, Article 29, Article 28, Article 7, and Article 2 can be used to justify recognition of same sex marriage.

I didn't use the word "Cannot" I said "doesn't necessarily" so yes, the document can be interpreted to mean that, however it has not always been, and does not necessitate one doing so.

[Grenartia]

As I've pointed out before:

Actually, Article 29, Article 28, Article 7, and Article 2 can be used to justify recognition of same sex marriage.

1. I didn't use the word "Cannot" I said "doesn't necessarily" so yes, the document can be interpreted to mean that, 2. however it has not always been, 3. and does not necessitate one doing so.

1. I'm aware of what you said. I just fail to see what difference it makes.

2. As we're all aware.

3. On the contrary. The document specifically says that denying those rights on the basis of sex or other status is wrong. Therefore, not only can it be interpreted in that manner, it SHOULD and MUST be interpreted in that manner.

[Neutraligon]

:|
:|
Okay. I want to know about gender identities as well tho!

I can tell you once I figure it out, and you're always welcome to ask me stuff about it.

I'm trans* so if you want I can talk, however I am genderless, not mtf or ftm.

[Oneracon]

So apparently Nicholas Rule, a researcher at the University of Toronto Social Perception & Cognition Laboratory who has been studying the topic for about 10 years, will be giving a talk at WorldPride 2014... saying that gaydar actually exists, is approximately 65% accurate, and your gaydar "reading" happens in 1/10th of the time it takes for you to blink.

"“You only need to see a face for less than 40 milliseconds to judge sexual orientation with the same level of accuracy that you get if you take all the time in the world." [Rule said in an interview.]

“To put that in perspective, it takes 400 milliseconds to blink your eye.”

Facial “gaydar” is 65-per-cent accurate on average, according to Rule and his co-researchers at U of T’s Social Perception & Cognition Laboratory. These judgments can be reliably made based on the eyes alone, though facial shape and texture are also big factors.

“Conservatives are more accurate than liberals in making these judgments when they study a face, because conservatives are more likely to use stereotypes,” Rule said. “Of course, stereotypes are often wrong, but they do have what we call kernels of truth. Liberals tend to not want to use stereotypes in making judgments, and it impairs their accuracy.”

Rule’s aim is to examine how these judgments can unconsciously affect our decisions. For example, the research shows gay men are disadvantaged in applying for a stereotypically masculine job, such as an engineer.

“That’s not terribly surprising, but what’s interesting is that people are doing this without any idea that sexual orientation is involved,” Rule said. “With something like race, well, we know race is obvious and it’s hard to avoid stereotyping. It turns out sexual orientation is a lot more obvious than people think.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/06 ... cher.html#

[Trollzilla]

Just what I am looking for since I really don't want to create a new thread. Though I had to go a few pages back to find this thread.


But here you go.

http://time.com/2907989/bornperfect-gay ... tter-brief

This is good because gay conversion therapy often involves serious violations of civil rights.

[Lyttenburg]

Saint Petersburg just repealed their anti-gay "propaganda" law in fear that a Court decision against that piece would affect all of Russia in consequence.

This is, to put it in understandable of the teeming masses of "Mod-Sanctioned LGBT Rights & Issues Thread" language, a LIE. But seeing that some people here actually believed it:

Saint Petersburg just repealed their anti-gay "propaganda" law in fear that a Court decision against that piece would affect all of Russia in consequence.

There were local anti-gay "propaganda" laws too?

Saint Petersburg just repealed their anti-gay "propaganda" law in fear that a Court decision against that piece would affect all of Russia in consequence.

Sometime on Father's Day, St. Petersburg
"Demien, didn't you hear that's it's Father's Day?"
"Oh shit, Timofeev, now I have to get two gifts!"

I can assure you that repelling of Saint-Petersburg local legislation concerning the "gay propaganda" has nothing to do with the sudden and unexplainable desire of Saint-Pete City Duma deputies to legalize something faaabulous. This legislation is repelled 'cause after last year Federal Law (that cowers all the Russia Federation) it became redundant.

P.S. 1) Degenerate Heart of HetRio - Before reporting something faaabulous find links, check and re-check
2) Revanchism - your Russian impersonation was awful.

[Aequalitia]

So apparently Nicholas Rule, a researcher at the University of Toronto Social Perception & Cognition Laboratory who has been studying the topic for about 10 years, will be giving a talk at WorldPride 2014... saying that gaydar actually exists, is approximately 65% accurate, and your gaydar "reading" happens in 1/10th of the time it takes for you to blink.

"“You only need to see a face for less than 40 milliseconds to judge sexual orientation with the same level of accuracy that you get if you take all the time in the world." [Rule said in an interview.]

“To put that in perspective, it takes 400 milliseconds to blink your eye.”

Facial “gaydar” is 65-per-cent accurate on average, according to Rule and his co-researchers at U of T’s Social Perception & Cognition Laboratory. These judgments can be reliably made based on the eyes alone, though facial shape and texture are also big factors.

“Conservatives are more accurate than liberals in making these judgments when they study a face, because conservatives are more likely to use stereotypes,” Rule said. “Of course, stereotypes are often wrong, but they do have what we call kernels of truth. Liberals tend to not want to use stereotypes in making judgments, and it impairs their accuracy.”

Rule’s aim is to examine how these judgments can unconsciously affect our decisions. For example, the research shows gay men are disadvantaged in applying for a stereotypically masculine job, such as an engineer.

“That’s not terribly surprising, but what’s interesting is that people are doing this without any idea that sexual orientation is involved,” Rule said. “With something like race, well, we know race is obvious and it’s hard to avoid stereotyping. It turns out sexual orientation is a lot more obvious than people think.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/06 ... cher.html#

Sorry but be I serious the only one who hates such 'fun studies'? I mean, what even would help this besides new negative stereotypical ideas?

Its like how some people doing studies about skin colour and 'researching' things like a 'more heavy voice then...' or things like that. Its just nonsense, and you don't help something with such studies.

Can't there just use that money for the 'research' for a fund to protect/help gay males who got it not so fine instead of this 'funresearch yeaaaa' thing?

[Revanchism]

Sometime on Father's Day, St. Petersburg
"Demien, didn't you hear that's it's Father's Day?"
"Oh shit, Timofeev, now I have to get two gifts!"

I can assure you that repelling of Saint-Petersburg local legislation concerning the "gay propaganda" has nothing to do with the sudden and unexplainable desire of Saint-Pete City Duma deputies to legalize something faaabulous. This legislation is repelled 'cause after last year Federal Law (that cowers all the Russia Federation) it became redundant.

P.S. 1) Degenerate Heart of HetRio - Before reporting something faaabulous find links, check and re-check
2) Revanchism - your Russian impersonation was awful.

Maybe, just maybe, that may have been intentional.

[Seriong]

1. I didn't use the word "Cannot" I said "doesn't necessarily" so yes, the document can be interpreted to mean that, 2. however it has not always been, 3. and does not necessitate one doing so.

1. I'm aware of what you said. I just fail to see what difference it makes.

2. As we're all aware.

3. On the contrary. The document specifically says that denying those rights on the basis of sex or other status is wrong. [4]Therefore, not only can it be interpreted in that manner, it SHOULD and MUST be interpreted in that manner.

1) You don't see the difference between "This document cannot be used for X purpose" and "This document could be, but sometimes isn't used for such a purpose"
2) I don't think you see the implications of that statement
3) It states that denying the right to marriage, or distinguishing between people, in terms of granting that right, is illegal.
4) No, it mustn't. One can, as has always been done, argue that no one is denied a right to marry a legally eligible person to marry.

[Oneracon]

So apparently Nicholas Rule, a researcher at the University of Toronto Social Perception & Cognition Laboratory who has been studying the topic for about 10 years, will be giving a talk at WorldPride 2014... saying that gaydar actually exists, is approximately 65% accurate, and your gaydar "reading" happens in 1/10th of the time it takes for you to blink.

"“You only need to see a face for less than 40 milliseconds to judge sexual orientation with the same level of accuracy that you get if you take all the time in the world." [Rule said in an interview.]

“To put that in perspective, it takes 400 milliseconds to blink your eye.”

Facial “gaydar” is 65-per-cent accurate on average, according to Rule and his co-researchers at U of T’s Social Perception & Cognition Laboratory. These judgments can be reliably made based on the eyes alone, though facial shape and texture are also big factors.

“Conservatives are more accurate than liberals in making these judgments when they study a face, because conservatives are more likely to use stereotypes,” Rule said. “Of course, stereotypes are often wrong, but they do have what we call kernels of truth. Liberals tend to not want to use stereotypes in making judgments, and it impairs their accuracy.”

Rule’s aim is to examine how these judgments can unconsciously affect our decisions. For example, the research shows gay men are disadvantaged in applying for a stereotypically masculine job, such as an engineer.

“That’s not terribly surprising, but what’s interesting is that people are doing this without any idea that sexual orientation is involved,” Rule said. “With something like race, well, we know race is obvious and it’s hard to avoid stereotyping. It turns out sexual orientation is a lot more obvious than people think.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/06 ... cher.html#

Sorry but be I serious the only one who hates such 'fun studies'? I mean, what even would help this besides new negative stereotypical ideas?

Its like how some people doing studies about skin colour and 'researching' things like a 'more heavy voice then...' or things like that. Its just nonsense, and you don't help something with such studies.

Can't there just use that money for the 'research' for a fund to protect/help gay males who got it not so fine instead of this 'funresearch yeaaaa' thing?

I wouldn't really call this a "fun study" (which I assume by context to mean "not serious science"), he's an associate professor of social psychology and a Canada Research Chair that's publishing this as the culmination of years of research.

As for how it would help, it says right in the article that the study is related to how unconscious judgement affects people's decision-making. His research into understanding how people categorize others if they belong to a perceptually ambiguous group (i.e. something that is not immediately visible) provides opportunities for understanding how the mind engages in social categorization generally.

[Grenartia]

1. I'm aware of what you said. I just fail to see what difference it makes.

2. As we're all aware.

3. On the contrary. The document specifically says that denying those rights on the basis of sex or other status is wrong. [4]Therefore, not only can it be interpreted in that manner, it SHOULD and MUST be interpreted in that manner.

1) You don't see the difference between "This document cannot be used for X purpose" and "This document could be, but sometimes isn't used for such a purpose"
2) I don't think you see the implications of that statement
3) It states that denying the right to marriage, or distinguishing between people, in terms of granting that right, is illegal.
4) No, it mustn't. One can, as has always been done, argue that no one is denied a right to marry a legally eligible person to marry.

1. I do, actually. I just fail to see how it makes a difference in what I said.

2. Then tell me.

3. Please, remind me how that invalidates my statement, again?

4. And one who would do that would be trying to sell a load of bullshit to a cow farmer. Bob is legally eligible to marry. Tim is legally eligible to marry. Bob and Tim want to marry. However, Bob and Tim live in an area with sexist and homophobic laws that deprive them of their right to marry based purely on the fact that they both are men, men who are attracted to each other. A denial which clearly runs against the UDHR.

[Neutraligon]

We finally have a ruling at the appellate level. The 10th court of appeals has ruled that Utah cannot ban same sex marriage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

In addition Indiana has ruled that banning same sex unions is illegal
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... ah-indiana

[Cyrisnia]

We finally have a ruling at the appellate level. The 10th court of appeals has ruled that Utah cannot ban same sex marriage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

In addition Indiana has ruled that banning same sex unions is illegal
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... ah-indiana

Woo!

[Aequalitia]

Sorry but be I serious the only one who hates such 'fun studies'? I mean, what even would help this besides new negative stereotypical ideas?

Its like how some people doing studies about skin colour and 'researching' things like a 'more heavy voice then...' or things like that. Its just nonsense, and you don't help something with such studies.

Can't there just use that money for the 'research' for a fund to protect/help gay males who got it not so fine instead of this 'funresearch yeaaaa' thing?

I wouldn't really call this a "fun study" (which I assume by context to mean "not serious science"), he's an associate professor of social psychology and a Canada Research Chair that's publishing this as the culmination of years of research.

As for how it would help, it says right in the article that the study is related to how unconscious judgement affects people's decision-making. His research into understanding how people categorize others if they belong to a perceptually ambiguous group (i.e. something that is not immediately visible) provides opportunities for understanding how the mind engages in social categorization generally.

Yes and? Are we suddenly toys to be studied with? I don't think we should be.

This studies makes the hate only worse. Even with that argument like 'to understand categorization', then still you don't go win the battle with such studies.

You can only win this to battle against bigoty in society, make people aware how painful, damage, awful and stupid it is to make judges about someone already and to be a bigot.

But well, looks like we don't mind that here. No, lets go to eugenics and hate, so long only those privileged gays can living a dreamlife.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I can assure you that repelling of Saint-Petersburg local legislation concerning the "gay propaganda" has nothing to do with the sudden and unexplainable desire of Saint-Pete City Duma deputies to legalize something faaabulous. This legislation is repelled 'cause after last year Federal Law (that cowers all the Russia Federation) it became redundant.

There are plenty of redundant laws everywhere, I'm sure they did it because the city's bill went to be judged by the European Court of Human Rights and from there people would advocate inside Russia the taking down of the national law, while the ECHR saying the national law is violating its conventions and standards would be much more controversial and dangerous.

[Lyttenburg]

There are plenty of redundant laws everywhere, I'm sure they did it because the city's bill went to be judged by the European Court of Human Rights and from there people would advocate inside Russia the taking down of the national law, while the ECHR saying the national law is violating its conventions and standards would be much more controversial and dangerous.

Then you don't know Russia. At all. You may be sure of anything - this won't change the reality.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Then you don't know Russia. At all. You may be sure of anything - this won't change the reality.

Hey, it happened in Brazil, is happening in the United States and Mexico, and the Paraguayans are trying, in spite of all the violence, repression and chaos.

I believe in enlightenment for anybody in the 21st century with a touch of access to civilization.

[Distruzio]

We finally have a ruling at the appellate level. The 10th court of appeals has ruled that Utah cannot ban same sex marriage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

In addition Indiana has ruled that banning same sex unions is illegal
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... ah-indiana

Now if only Georgia would amend its constitution.

[Lyttenburg]

Hey, it happened in Brazil, is happening in the United States and Mexico, and the Paraguayans are trying, in spite of all the violence, repression and chaos.

I believe in enlightenment for anybody in the 21st century with a touch of access to civilization.

Then you are extremly naive. By the way - what do you mean "access to civilization"? Do you imply, that Russia is "uncivilised" country?

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Then you are extremly naive. By the way - what do you mean "access to civilization"? Do you imply, that Russia is "uncivilised" country?

No. That Russians - unlike, say, Burmese or North Koreans or a lost tribe - have access to factual accuracy through the internet, so that there's always hope that they can change before our eyes.

[Lyttenburg]

Then you are extremly naive. By the way - what do you mean "access to civilization"? Do you imply, that Russia is "uncivilised" country?

No. That Russians - unlike, say, Burmese or North Koreans or a lost tribe - have access to factual accuracy through the internet, so that there's always hope that they can change before our eyes.

So, now access to the Internet = civilisation. Because it was the word that you have actually used.