Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: What is and isn't a human right (Score 1) 164

>North Carolina allows amending the birth certificate of a post-op trans person born in North Carolina [].

Well that's great if you are post-op and was born there... but that's one very risky, very expensive op - so a great many trans people do not get the option to go for it, and even those that do not until later in life. According to Google only 33% of trans people have undergone any surgery at all - and only 14% went whole-hog sex-change. Lets be generous and assume the NC bill would apply for partial gender confirmation surgeries (like breast enhancements only) - that only one-third who have the option, but now it's further narrowed by the requirement that you be born in the state - which is will reduce the number of eligible folks (all adults - the people harmed the least by these laws). Sure, if you're from another state it may be possible (depending which state) to get that state to alter it but that would likely require an expensive trip back to a place you no longer live -and may not have lived for decades. So even if we are generous and assume less than full sex-changes would qualify - we're probably only talking about say 20% of the people affected having an out. That's probably still being too generous - that 33% was a national figure - I'm willing to wager that in a conservative community like NC the figure is significantly lower (not least because access to doctors willing to do it is harder) - and most of that 33% are living in liberal cities on the coast.

If it's the 14% who had a full sex change... well that reduces the number of people who have this option to what ? Maybe 5% ?

Comment Re: What is and isn't a human right (Score 1) 164

All that said though - my use of the example wasn't really intended to trigger a debate about which side is right here (I did state clearly which side I'm on but that's it) - I was merely using it as one of many examples where cities and states have had differing views on a topic and I think it's overreach for the state to force the city to change, especially since conservative/liberal attitudes very frequently get bordered by city-lines. Cities have a tendency to attract and foster liberal attitudes.

Right now, the federal government has not done it's job and determined if it is, in fact, a human right for people to be a gender other than the one commonly associated with their sex (to my mind - it's impossible to deny that without also denying basic freedom of expression and freedom of thought) - so in the meantime, at least allow citizens to decide for themselves, even if states and cities disagree on the outcome - it would be better than having states take away the few cities where government is NOT being obsessed with people's genitals.

I'll never understand how 'small government' republicans who always talk about keeping government out of people's lives are so happy to invite it into people's pants.

Comment Re: What is and isn't a human right (Score 1) 164

>Every licensed driver, as a valid driver's license is a proxy for a birth certificate for this purpose.

That's fewer people than you think, and not all trans people are old enough to have one, and a drivers license can be changed if you legally change sex. They chose 'birth certificate' on purpose - exactly because, unlike a drivers license, it cannot be changed.

>Many of these bills exempt a single-digit-year-old child accompanied by his or her parent of the opposite sex
Not all of them though - but at least some of them must have heard this common complaint I guess. That said - these bills remain a nightmare for enforcement anyway. There's already been a bunch of people who were falsely accused of using a bathroom not matching their biological sex - by people who just thought they didn't look feminine/masculine enough to be a women/man. The irony is that trans people try very hard to be indistinguishable - it's the only way to survive - and frankly a trans-women will usually present and appear more feminine than average - which means a great many women look less feminine than a trans-women does (and vice versa).

The biggest clencher of all of course... is that the people who write these bills always forget about trans-men, and seem oblivious to the fact that they just sent a bunch of ultra-masculine, muscled 6-foot-four dudes with beards into the ladies room because they happen to have a vulva.

And of course, most of them never think to add an exclusion for intersex people -if your genitals are ambiguous, you don't get to pee at all ?

Comment Re:Failure is always an option (Score 1) 200

Double happens to be the law where I live. That's where it comes from. But it's probably a decent basic standard for law.

The problem with 'let workers negotiate' is it works perfectly for people with rare skills - and it leaves the people who need protection the most, have the least freedom to change jobs with nothing. They don't get to negotiate - they get to put up or shut up, obey or starve. The low-end workers, the ones who are cheap and easy to replace - they end up screwed. And they happen to be the vast majority of people.
Like it or not, most people are too stupid to get the kind of skills and education that will put them above that point. Now I know that slashdot libertarians like to mock them and live in the secure belief that stupid people deserve to be poor. Trouble is - they are also the majority - and the economy exists to serve them as much as it does us. It's a system to distribute resources to the people - NOTHING else matters, how it does it - not important, all that matters is how WELL it does it. The more resources the people can access, and the more people can access it - the more successful an economy is at the ONLY measure that actually matters because it's the measure based on the whole reason we bother with all the complexity of having one in the first place.

An economy where the majority get almost nothing - is a failed economy in and off itself. It has not distributed resources to the people. It's not inarguable that, that very failure and the hope of changing the system so stacked against them is what just put a deranged moron in the white house. That's the trouble when you think the little people don't matter - it turns out they may be stupid, but they are very, very powerful - and they tend not to use that power wisely. They use it to elect a conman to the highest office in the land because they lack the capacity to recognize a con. You can delay their wrath by getting them to blame OTHER poor people for their misery - just as Trump did, and by pretending not to be one of the elites they have come to hate - just as Trump did, but history says such delaying tactics only work for a little while. They may not be very intelligent or wise or educated - but they aren't THAT dumb either. Eventually - they learn better. When that happens - you end up with a fucking revolution on your hands.

At no step in the process is the outcome good. Sadly - even the revolution never works because, inevitably it just puts another bunch of exploitative bastards in charge - only now they tend to be more openly brutal.

The one thing that DOES work - is having people in charge who make a genuine efffort to improve things for the people who don't have much to offer in the libertarian parlance. Who build solid social-security networks, who put in place good labour laws, who protect unions, who believe the governments job is to be the great ENEMY of big business (like both Rooseveldts did) - which, ironically, is the ONLY way to make government a friend to SMALL business. You cannot be acting friendly to both because what helps one inevitably harms the other. Small businesses are competition for big businesses - promoting them hurts teh big corporations, and vice versa.
The kind of neoliberal/neoconservative (the name varies depending on where you are) ideology which has ruled politics since the 1980s have only promoted big business and consistently screwed over the rest of humanity. In 2008 they stole a full third of all the wealth ever created - plunging the world into chaos - and instead of throwing the bastards in jail, we fucking bailed them out - we gave them money for stealing our money. The last great horror of the Bush administration.
This is not a sustainable way to run the world - it MUST lead to revolution. Brexit and Trump was only the start.

Now notice how Geert Wilders suffered a humiliating defeat in the Netherlands - despite being a Trumpian candidate in this era. Why did the Dutch ultimate turn out in the highest numbers in decades to go vote against the man who had led the polls for a year, and was promising the same kind of things that Trump was ? Why did the rhetoric fail there? Because the Dutch take care of their people.

Comment Re: What is and isn't a human right (Score 2) 164

Its simpler than that though: either the government has the right to inspect and question everybody's genitalia, or the do not have the right to inspect or question anybody's genitalia.
The moment you are proposing a law that subjects some citizens to a government scrutiny and not others - you have a violation of a basic human right: the right to equality before the law.
The bathroom bills are just the noisy frontline. What this really is, is government claiming the right to question whether your genitals match your outfit - or did not match it a long time ago. The 'birth certificate' is based on the only proxy for gender available with a newborn: genitals and any claims about this that pretends it is not an attempt to reduce people to nothing more than genitals is therefore a flagrant and obvious lie.

And seriously ... who the fuck carries their birth certificate around everywhere ? If some douchenozzle accuses you of not being feminine/masculimr enough for the bathroom you are in how the hell do you prove its the one the law forces you to use ?

It gets sillier... imagine this conversation.
My 3yr old: daddy I have to go.
Me: sorry my love, mommy is not here, you are not old enough that I can send you to a public bathroom alone, I cannot legally go with you and you cannot legally come with me.
My daughter: but daddy I really have to go !
Me: you know what: piss on the floor right here my love. I want to see the judge who will convict us for it when its actually illegal for you to use the potty.

Plenty of moms are gonna have the same problem with their sons too.

Comment Re:Jumping ship before the bottom falls out. (Score 1) 200

Actually - yes, quite often.

Without minimum wage, in fact, what you tend to end up with is islands - areas with well to do people who are consumers and workers who live in poverty and gain no benefit whatsoever because the 'reduced prices' never quite reduce enough to allow them to become customers.

In the last few decades we've basically seen that switch from a national phenomenon to a global one. With 'worker countries' that consume very little, and 'consumption' countries that do. But that's not sustainable - the more the process goes on, the fewer people in the consumption countries can be consumers - because more and more of their jobs are going to the worker countries - but the worker countries rarely become consumer countries because their entire economy is BUILT on making labour cheaper than the people who consume things. We're busy causing that to happen right now.

Of course it's not an instant process - your middle class generally keeps consumption going for quite some time, it takes a while before the race-to-the-bottom starts hitting THEM - and generally that process is slow enough that, by the time THEY become poor - you've been able to outsource either working or buying to somewhere else.
But you can't do that forever. The world is only getting smaller.

Comment Re:Is it overreach both ways? (Score 1) 164

Actually, yes it would be.

Though, that being said, trans rights are a debate about human rights. Either transgender people are people, and thus deserver full and equal rights, or they aren't and don't (a position I personally will not entertain). But debates like THAT belong at NEITHER the state nor municipal level -they belong at the federal level. Basic human rights are a federal matter because NOBODY should be denied them. If these are human rights - it's congress' job to protect them - and the states are NOT empowered to decide otherwise, nor should they be.

Comment Re: Don't worry we won't miss it (Score 1) 297

>The CBO has published a lot of terrible shit with respect to Obamacare. Its role is throw out propaganda studies at a time when no one else has studied the problem.

Funny how, when the CBO contained a clause you could spin as a bad thing - republicans loved it, now they pretend it's meaningless because it's dissing trumpkill.

>That's why we don't see significant differences IMHO between states with private prisons and those without. It's not just the private businesses that profit from a high incarceration rate.
And yet EVERY SINGLE ONE of those corruption cases I cited happened in a state with a private prison to pay the bribes. In fact you're just plain wrong - a public prison has every incentive to make their fixed budget stretch as far as possible, that means as few people inside as possible.

Slashdot Top Deals

Did you know that for the price of a 280-Z you can buy two Z-80's? -- P.J. Plauger