North Carolina Passes "Anti-LGBT" Bill

[Valaran]

Yeah, NC itself is against, but nationally, the US is in favour. Also, most people seem to have an opinion (strength of those opinions cannot be determined), so not exactly 'masses wallowing in apathy'.

Finally, the decade trend has been for those in favour to grow considerably, with no sign of this being reversed.

To say nothing of the fact that human rights shouldn't be subject to the whims of popular opinion.

All for that (though in practice, it often is the majority view that matters for legislation and policy); for sake of framing the debate I was going off Nochov's dismissal of pro-LGBT people as 'fringe', which went against the general acceptance of same-sex marriage in the US.

Doubtless, Nochov and I would never agree on the morality of same-sex marriage, but popularity is a more measurable thing to discuss.

[Nochov]

Yeah, NC itself is against, but nationally, the US is in favour. Also, most people seem to have an opinion (strength of those opinions cannot be determined), so not exactly 'masses wallowing in apathy'.

Finally, the decade trend has been for those in favour to grow considerably, with no sign of this being reversed.

To say nothing of the fact that human rights shouldn't be subject to the whims of popular opinion.

I'd argue that in this case the humane thing to do would get these people the treatment they need to become healthy and productive members of society, rather than a pat on the back and letting them walk off in depression to commit suicide as such a large portion of them invariably do. The treatment of mental illness as something "natural" and "healthy" in modern society is just another sad trend.

[Val Halla]

To say nothing of the fact that human rights shouldn't be subject to the whims of popular opinion.

I'd argue that in this case the humane thing to do would get these people the treatment they need to become healthy and productive members of society, rather than a pat on the back and letting them walk off in depression to commit suicide as such a large portion of them invariably do. The treatment of mental illness as something "natural" and "healthy" in modern society is just another sad trend.

Wait are you trying to suggest LGBT people are mentally ill or am I misreading?

[Valaran]

Yeah, NC itself is against, but nationally, the US is in favour. Also, most people seem to have an opinion (strength of those opinions cannot be determined), so not exactly 'masses wallowing in apathy'.

Finally, the decade trend has been for those in favour to grow considerably, with no sign of this being reversed.

I don't agree that in this case the national result is disappointing, but if you just look at South Dakota and the states listed after it you'll see that enough of the nation is strongly enough against it that the federal legislation can't in any way be considered fair or in benefit to the people.

That's a normative statement. 'Strongly enough' is subjective, and not particularly well supported, given that most of the nation does support the federal legislation, and by a solid 15+% (much more than most presidential elections are decided on).

Barely 14 states have more against than for, compared to 36 with the opposite result. That's pretty weighted towards one side.

[Plus, I'd say that the multiple cases of ten to twenty percent apathetics in just this one poll is enough to justify calling them a wallowing mass of apathy, but then maybe I'm just a pessimist.

'A mass' does imply a significant proportion - 20% might qualify, but 10% probably doesn't. The national average of undecided people is 8%. That's not enough to swing the balance to against, and so I don't really think its a mass.

[Nochov]

I'd argue that in this case the humane thing to do would get these people the treatment they need to become healthy and productive members of society, rather than a pat on the back and letting them walk off in depression to commit suicide as such a large portion of them invariably do. The treatment of mental illness as something "natural" and "healthy" in modern society is just another sad trend.

Wait are you trying to suggest LGBT people are mentally ill or am I misreading?

Google "gay pride parade" and see if you can figure out where my opinion comes from.
EDIT: Whoops.

I don't agree that in this case the national result is disappointing, but if you just look at South Dakota and the states listed after it you'll see that enough of the nation is strongly enough against it that the federal legislation can't in any way be considered fair or in benefit to the people.

That's a normative statement. 'Strongly enough' is subjective, and not particularly well supported, given that most of the nation does support the federal legislation, and by a solid 15+% (much more than most presidential elections are decided on).

Barely 14 states have more against than for, compared to 36 with the opposite result. That's pretty weighted towards one side.

[Plus, I'd say that the multiple cases of ten to twenty percent apathetics in just this one poll is enough to justify calling them a wallowing mass of apathy, but then maybe I'm just a pessimist.

'A mass' does imply a significant proportion - 20% might qualify, but 10% probably doesn't. The national average of undecided people is 8%. That's not enough to swing the balance to against, and so I don't really think its a mass.

That's fair enough. I'd argue that 15% isn't nearly strong enough to institute a law either for or against, but then I go crazy for concepts like "justice" and "fairness".
Mm, I agree that 8% is on the lower end of "a mass". Bear in mind that this is just one poll and there are many out there where the undecided portion is significantly greater, and that we're talking about millions of people - those 8% become a significant crowd when you consider that.

[Val Halla]

Wait are you trying to suggest LGBT people are mentally ill or am I misreading?

Google "gay pride parade" and see if you can figure out where my opinion comes from.

I'm not seeing it. I don't know how pride parades prove anything, much less that LGBT people are mentally ill

[Valaran]

Wait are you trying to suggest LGBT people are mentally ill or am I misreading?

Google "gay pride parade" and see if you can figure out where my opinion comes from.

Don't be evasive. Its a straight question, and if you have views and are willing to discuss them on NSG, there's little point in obfuscating. Is homosexuality a mental illness, in your opinion, or not? Is it unhealthy, and how so? And does it lead to unproductivity, and again, how so?

[Vassenor]

To say nothing of the fact that human rights shouldn't be subject to the whims of popular opinion.

I'd argue that in this case the humane thing to do would get these people the treatment they need to become healthy and productive members of society, rather than a pat on the back and letting them walk off in depression to commit suicide as such a large portion of them invariably do. The treatment of mental illness as something "natural" and "healthy" in modern society is just another sad trend.

And what exactly do you consider "the treatment they need"?

[Nochov]

I'd argue that in this case the humane thing to do would get these people the treatment they need to become healthy and productive members of society, rather than a pat on the back and letting them walk off in depression to commit suicide as such a large portion of them invariably do. The treatment of mental illness as something "natural" and "healthy" in modern society is just another sad trend.

And what exactly do you consider "the treatment they need"?

Google "gay pride parade" and see if you can figure out where my opinion comes from.

Don't be evasive. Its a straight question, and if you have views and are willing to discuss them on NSG, there's little point in obfuscating. Is homosexuality a mental illness, in your opinion, or not? Is it unhealthy, and how so? And does it lead to unproductivity, and again, how so?

I would, but I don't actually want to get banned if I post my opinion on the matter here. Not that I think such a discussion would accomplish much beyond offending either or both of us. Consider me evasive if you must, I just don't think we would get anywhere.

[Valaran]

That's fair enough. I'd argue that 15% isn't nearly strong enough to institute a law either for or against, but then I go crazy for concepts like "justice" and "fairness".
Mm, I agree that 8% is on the lower end of "a mass". Bear in mind that this is just one poll and there are many out there where the undecided portion is significantly greater, and that we're talking about millions of people - those 8% become a significant crowd when you consider that.

We could arbitrarily set a suitable percentage of support needed, but in this, there's no reason to assume a clear majority isn't enough. Most governments are decided on much less, as is a lot of legislation. The number of undecided people would not take away the majority, implying there would need to be some tectonic shift in opinion from for to against - this goes against trend, and so is improbable.

Well, from what I know, most polls show a similar set of views. Millions of people is a lot, but then again, this is a nation of over 300 million people that we're discussing, so the definition of 'a lot' should probably scale accordingly.

Justice and fairness are neither here nor there when it comes to majority support. There are instances when such concepts (reflected in the legislative, executive and judiciary bodies) should lead the popular opinion, and when popular opinion should inform the former.

[Victoriala]

The comfort room is a place to remove bodily waste and wash hands smh it doesn't need to go to all this moral and political debate

You don't see two kinds of bathrooms in your house

Unless you're filthy rich and jaded enough to make two or more of those

tc;dr - a unisex bathroom is enough

[Valaran]

Not that I think such a discussion would accomplish much beyond offending either or both of us. Consider me evasive if you must, I just don't think we would get anywhere.

Quite - that was why I preferred to discuss polling. But clarity is also useful, and the question does change if we're talking about support for same-sex marriage, support for this bill, or whether homosexuality is a mental illness. Popular opinion on these topics also changes.

[Nochov]

That's fair enough. I'd argue that 15% isn't nearly strong enough to institute a law either for or against, but then I go crazy for concepts like "justice" and "fairness".
Mm, I agree that 8% is on the lower end of "a mass". Bear in mind that this is just one poll and there are many out there where the undecided portion is significantly greater, and that we're talking about millions of people - those 8% become a significant crowd when you consider that.

We could arbitrarily set a suitable percentage of support needed, but in this, there's no reason to assume a clear majority isn't enough. Most governments are decided on much less, as is a lot of legislation. The number of undecided people would not take away the majority, implying there would need to be some tectonic shift in opinion from for to against - this goes against trend, and so is improbable.

Well, from what I know, most polls show a similar set of views. Millions of people is a lot, but then again, this is a nation of over 300 million people that we're discussing, so the definition of 'a lot' should probably scale accordingly.

Justice and fairness are neither here nor there when it comes to majority support. There are instances when such concepts (reflected in the legislative, executive and judiciary bodies) should lead the popular opinion, and when popular opinion should inform the former.

This is a good way to look at the matter, but ultimately I still don't think a society ought to prioritise one million people over a single person. One for all, all for one, or any number of other such expressions.
In the end I suppose my opposition to governments issuing laws on the basis of a majority rather than actually the entire population agreeing on an issue comes down to my opposition to fundamental flaws with democracy to begin with. Namely, how can you let a population without education on an issue decide on that issue? Why does the opinion of someone who has never interacted with the economy beyond using his debit card to buy sausages with money he earned making sausages matter as much as, say, a professor of economy?
Better then to have a strong leader elected and informed by a council who attained their positions through the meritocracy. Sure, the general population might not agree, and knowing people, would disagree out of sheer principle, but an informed man is going to make more sensible decisions about his field than a sausage factory worker nine times out of ten, and when it became time to shape government policy regarding sausages, the sausage factory worker would have his say.

TLDR: I don't think 15% majority is enough in a democracy.

[Valaran]

We could arbitrarily set a suitable percentage of support needed, but in this, there's no reason to assume a clear majority isn't enough. Most governments are decided on much less, as is a lot of legislation. The number of undecided people would not take away the majority, implying there would need to be some tectonic shift in opinion from for to against - this goes against trend, and so is improbable.

Well, from what I know, most polls show a similar set of views. Millions of people is a lot, but then again, this is a nation of over 300 million people that we're discussing, so the definition of 'a lot' should probably scale accordingly.

Justice and fairness are neither here nor there when it comes to majority support. There are instances when such concepts (reflected in the legislative, executive and judiciary bodies) should lead the popular opinion, and when popular opinion should inform the former.

This is a good way to look at the matter, but ultimately I still don't think a society ought to prioritise one million people over a single person. One for all, all for one, or any number of other such expressions.

There has to be some metric of popular support for setting legalisation though. Not for morality's sake or so that the tyranny of the majority may count, but so that one can reach a consensus of national opinion. Setting up a law that nobody in that nation likes is a recipe for disaster; there has to be a minimum level of support, surely? The distinction lies in whether this support infringes on the legal rights of others, the law is only/primarily being set up due to popular opinion, or the laws pits segments of society against one another (y conferring/depriving benefits to/of one segment)
And I believe the intent of same-sex marriage was to ensure that society isn't being prioritized over a minority (ie, for the right to marry, with various benefits that this confers).

In the end I suppose my opposition to governments issuing laws on the basis of a majority rather than actually the entire population agreeing on an issue comes down to my opposition to fundamental flaws with democracy to begin with. Namely, how can you let a population without education on an issue decide on that issue? Why does the opinion of someone who has never interacted with the economy beyond using his debit card to buy sausages with money he earned making sausages matter as much as, say, a professor of economy?

I generally work on the basis that 'informed segments of the populace' aren't informed in every sector (that economics professor may not know anything about law, or foreign policy), and as there is no good metric of determining whether one is informed, and that to do so would deprive others of rights (a sapienocracy doesn't sound that great, tbh), its too hard to achieve in practice.

The flaws of democracy are evident, however, the least worst way of counteracting this is to both raise the education level of the general populace, and to have an informed 'elite' (so to speak), who are willing to disseminate information and policy options to the voting base, who in turn respond to that information and vote on said policies. Seems comparatively easier to achieve.

E: something of tangent.

Better then to have a strong leader elected and informed by a council who attained their positions through the meritocracy. Sure, the general population might not agree, and knowing people, would disagree out of sheer principle, but an informed man is going to make more sensible decisions about his field than a sausage factory worker nine times out of ten, and when it became time to shape government policy regarding sausages, the sausage factory worker would have his say.

If Obama had set the legislation, would that have been better? Whatever disagreements one may have about him, he is informed to some level, was elected, and does things people disagree with. That seems to fir the criteria other than strength, which he would have if there was no Congress to stop him.

[Nochov]

This is a good way to look at the matter, but ultimately I still don't think a society ought to prioritise one million people over a single person. One for all, all for one, or any number of other such expressions.

There has to be some metric of popular support for setting legalisation though. Not for morality's sake or so that the tyranny of the majority may count, but so that one can reach a consensus of national opinion. Setting up a law that nobody in that nation likes is a recipe for disaster; there has to be a minimum level of support, surely? The distinction lies in whether this support infringes on the legal rights of others, the law is only/primarily being set up due to popular opinion, or the laws pits segments of society against one another (y conferring/depriving benefits to/of one segment)
And I believe the intent of same-sex marriage was to ensure that society isn't being prioritized over a minority (ie, for the right to marry, with various benefits that this confers).

This comes down to us disagreeing on what's best for LGBT people. Popular opinion certainly matters when you set legislation, but beyond preventing outright rebellions, should it be allowed to?

In the end I suppose my opposition to governments issuing laws on the basis of a majority rather than actually the entire population agreeing on an issue comes down to my opposition to fundamental flaws with democracy to begin with. Namely, how can you let a population without education on an issue decide on that issue? Why does the opinion of someone who has never interacted with the economy beyond using his debit card to buy sausages with money he earned making sausages matter as much as, say, a professor of economy?

I generally work on the basis that 'informed segments of the populace' aren't informed in every sector (that economics professor may not know anything about law, or foreign policy), and as there is no good metric of determining whether one is informed, and that to do so would deprive others of rights (a sapienocracy doesn't sound that great, tbh), its too hard to achieve in practice.

The flaws of democracy are evident, however, the least worst way of counteracting this is to both raise the education level of the general populace, and to have an informed 'elite' (so to speak), who are willing to disseminate information and policy options to the voting base, who in turn respond to that information and vote on said policies. Seems comparatively easier to achieve.

E: something of tangent.

Apologies, I didn't make myself clear on that. I meant the professor and the sausage factory worker comparison in respect to legislation concerning the economy. On the subject of sausagemaking, the workers opinion would count above that of the economist, and on the subject of, say, judicial matters or diplomatic efforts, neither opinion should count beyond where sausages or the economy is concerned.

Better then to have a strong leader elected and informed by a council who attained their positions through the meritocracy. Sure, the general population might not agree, and knowing people, would disagree out of sheer principle, but an informed man is going to make more sensible decisions about his field than a sausage factory worker nine times out of ten, and when it became time to shape government policy regarding sausages, the sausage factory worker would have his say.

If Obama had set the legislation, would that have been better? Whatever disagreements one may have about him, he is informed to some level, was elected, and does things people disagree with. That seems to fir the criteria other than strength, which he would have if there was no Congress to stop him.

I think that would have been better to an extent, yes, but for a different reason. The US political system is stifled with the struggle between the President and the Congress, who will usually oppose him. It eventually means that what one president spent four years achieving, the next one spends four years undoing, and it all comes down to naught in the end, assuming the first one was even able to get his legislation through Congress to begin with. In this case I considering undoing Obama's work to be a good thing, but that's less to do with the political system and more to do with sheer politics. And that's even considering I actually think most of Obama's work was a move in the right direction, just with enough lean to a side I disagree with that I would rather undo it all than keep the good and the bad.
I want a powerful head of state, but I don't want an all-powerful head of state. If Obama had ministers and secretaries appointed based on merit rather than political clout, that would be ideal. I also find him too weak in person to set a proper example, but a perfect government with perfect leaders will never happen.

[The New Falkland Islands]

I'd argue that in this case the humane thing to do would get these people the treatment they need to become healthy and productive members of society, rather than a pat on the back and letting them walk off in depression to commit suicide as such a large portion of them invariably do. The treatment of mental illness as something "natural" and "healthy" in modern society is just another sad trend.

And what exactly do you consider "the treatment they need"?

I suspect counselling, or meds even if it's severe enough. Mental illness simply cannot be left untreated. And yes, medications and counselling work, a lot of the time.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

And what exactly do you consider "the treatment they need"?

I suspect counselling, or meds even if it's severe enough. Mental illness simply cannot be left untreated. And yes, medications and counselling work, a lot of the time.

For Gender Dysphoria?

No, actually, they almost never work.

[Nochov]

I suspect counselling, or meds even if it's severe enough. Mental illness simply cannot be left untreated. And yes, medications and counselling work, a lot of the time.

For Gender Dysphoria?

No, actually, they almost never work.

Which the surgery also almost never does. It's clear the medication needs to be developed further, but treating their condition as anything other than what it is is making that development nearly impossible to conduct. It's doing them an enormous disservice.

[Farnhamia]

For Gender Dysphoria?

No, actually, they almost never work.

Which the surgery also almost never does. It's clear the medication needs to be developed further, but treating their condition as anything other than what it is is making that development nearly impossible to conduct. It's doing them an enormous disservice.

Just so you know, the American Psychiatrist Association does not list gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. Please be careful how you characterize trans and gender dysphoric people when discussing this issue.

[Nochov]

Which the surgery also almost never does. It's clear the medication needs to be developed further, but treating their condition as anything other than what it is is making that development nearly impossible to conduct. It's doing them an enormous disservice.

Just so you know, the American Psychiatrist Association does not list gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. Please be careful how you characterize trans and gender dysphoric people when discussing this issue.

Which is a result of politics and not actual psychiatry. Until very recently they did list them as disorders, and other associations around the world still do. Please be careful how you characterize political organisations when discussing the issue.

[Khadgar]

Just so you know, the American Psychiatrist Association does not list gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. Please be careful how you characterize trans and gender dysphoric people when discussing this issue.

Which is a result of politics and not actual psychiatry. Until very recently they did list them as disorders, and other associations around the world still do. Please be careful how you characterize political organisations when discussing the issue.

Free advice. Do not backsass mods. Won't end in smiles for you.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

For Gender Dysphoria?

No, actually, they almost never work.

Which the surgery also almost never does. It's clear the medication needs to be developed further, but treating their condition as anything other than what it is is making that development nearly impossible to conduct. It's doing them an enormous disservice.

Actually, surgery has been found to greatly reduce gender dysphoria, considering, you know, the female's body now is female, and vice versa. Studies also show that transpeople have brains wired more like their gender than their birthsex. But I don't think you care about facts, considering your post is completely devoid of any.

Which the surgery also almost never does. It's clear the medication needs to be developed further, but treating their condition as anything other than what it is is making that development nearly impossible to conduct. It's doing them an enormous disservice.

Just so you know, the American Psychiatrist Association does not list gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. Please be careful how you characterize trans and gender dysphoric people when discussing this issue.

Correction: DSM-V lists "Gender Dysphoria" as a disorder, and lists HRT and SRS as suggested treatments. "Gender Identity Disorder," however, was removed.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Just so you know, the American Psychiatrist Association does not list gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. Please be careful how you characterize trans and gender dysphoric people when discussing this issue.

Which is a result of politics and not actual psychiatry. Until very recently they did list them as disorders, and other associations around the world still do. Please be careful how you characterize political organisations when discussing the issue.

Until Copernicus "scientists" thought the Earth was the center of the universe. Science progresses.

[Nochov]

Which is a result of politics and not actual psychiatry. Until very recently they did list them as disorders, and other associations around the world still do. Please be careful how you characterize political organisations when discussing the issue.

Free advice. Do not backsass mods. Won't end in smiles for you.

Thank you for that advice, I never would have guessed.

Which the surgery also almost never does. It's clear the medication needs to be developed further, but treating their condition as anything other than what it is is making that development nearly impossible to conduct. It's doing them an enormous disservice.

Actually, surgery has been found to greatly reduce gender dysphoria, considering, you know, the female's body now is female, and vice versa. Studies also show that transpeople have brains wired more like their gender than their birthsex. But I don't think you care about facts, considering your post is completely devoid of any.

Thank you for your opinion.

[Ifreann]

Just so you know, the American Psychiatrist Association does not list gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. Please be careful how you characterize trans and gender dysphoric people when discussing this issue.

Which is a result of politics and not actual psychiatry. Until very recently they did list them as disorders, and other associations around the world still do. Please be careful how you characterize political organisations when discussing the issue.

The entire field of psychiatry is just a tool of the liberal intelligentsia. We need to go back to phrenology.