LGBT laws and drum corps?

[N.E. Brigand]

There have been several very attractive female teachers who made the national news with there activities with teen age boys.

I notice that no corps has ever played "Don't Stand So Close to Me".

[N.E. Brigand]

Why is civility valued over kindness? I still haven't recovered emotionally from some of the brutally mean things that were implied by comments made in a supposedly civil manner the last time you decided this was a good idea.

While I believe that civility and kindness are connected (to treat others civilly is generally to treat them with kindness), I suspect this tension relates to the debate about "political correctness" that has reemerged in the past few years, after having been a hot topic in the early 1990s. To the degree that they differ, I guess that civility allows for the possibility that you may be offended. In a free society, people should have the right to say things that others strongly disagree with (e.g. the U.S. Nazi party, with the support of the American Civil Liberties Union, won permission in court in 1978 to march in Skokie, where many Holocaust survivors lived), because the open exchange of ideas is more important to a functioning democratic society than protecting people from exposure to offensive words. Bad ideas are to be defeated by argument rather than by censorship.

This forum is of course a private enterprise and not subject to the laws governing free speech, but to the degree that this topic is relevant to drum corps, it appears that the owner/moderators are allowing this conversation to proceed in support of the same basic principles.

[BRASSO]

I believe this article I posted below does a pretty good job of illustrating that sometimes well intentioned laws to protect a minority community, when implemented can be fraught with inintended consequences that can actually potentially be counterprotective to what most people want, ie fairness to the rights of minorities, while simultaneously not usurping the long held rights of the majority. Nevertheless, 13 additional US states are now considering passing the similar law that North Carolina has just enacted for itself. If these dozen or more states adopt similar laws.... which at its core states that if you have a man's anatomy part, you must use a Men's bathroom, not a Women's bathroom... would make the notion of Corps boycotting over a dozen US states simply out of the question, as it would be tantamount to financial suicide for any DCI Corps to do so ( plus its not the role of DCI in the 1st place, imo )

This is an interesting article written by a Women.... quite balanced I believe in support of all of us not discriminating against transgenders, and to treat them with respect, that also sheds light on the practicality of implementing a law that on the surface ( to me anyway ) seems not as radical, nor as discriminatory, nor as harsh to the transgender minority community as some in the Country might have us believe. Anyway, heres the article from today:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/14/why_the_transgender_bathroom_wars_matter__130282.html

Edited April 14, 2016 by BRASSO

[HornTeacher]

With the exception of a few anatomically based efficiencies, it seems to me that rest rooms have always been grouped by gender for reasons largely related to orientation, reasons that never applied to Ls or Gs to begin with and couldn't apply to Bs If they tried. (That said, we somehow managed to survive, put a man on the moon (or was it a man?) and so forth.)

Yet another reason why I, personally, find your posts to be so refreshing and eagerly anticipated.

[Everyfan]

...but I certainly won't allow a perceived man walk into a restroom where my daughter is...Better safe than sorry.

Just curious. What would bother you more? A man who is transitioning (taking hormones, dresses and looks like a woman but has not had the surgery yet) or a woman in the same state of transition. Based on your statement, the one with a ##### is not allowed, even though they likely have no interest in your daughter. Even if they did like women, being LGBT does not make someone a pedophile (most are heterosexual, actually).

[N.E. Brigand]

I believe this article I posted below does a pretty good job of illustrating that sometimes well intentioned laws to protect a minority community, when implemented can be fraught with inintended consequences that can actually potentially be counterprotective to what most people want, ie fairness to the rights of minorities, while simultaneously not usurping the long held rights of the majority. Nevertheless, 13 additional US states are now considering passing the similar law that North Carolina has just enacted for itself. If these dozen or more states adopt similar laws.... which at its core states that if you have a man's anatomy part, you must use a Men's bathroom, not a Women's bathroom... would make the notion of Corps boycotting over a dozen US states simply out of the question, as it would be tantamount to financial suicide for any DCI Corps to do so ( plus its not the role of DCI in the 1st place, imo )

This is an interesting article written by a Women.... quite balanced I believe in support of all of us not discriminating against transgenders, and to treat them with respect, that also sheds light on the practicality of implementing a law that on the surface ( to me anyway ) seems not as radical, nor as discriminatory, nor as harsh to the transgender minority community as some in the Country might have us believe. Anyway, heres the article from today:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/14/why_the_transgender_bathroom_wars_matter__130282.html

To my tastes, that essay while not completely off the mark is too superficial and somewhat biased. Your own post summarizing the piece is actually better than the work itself.

[skevinp]

Just curious. What would bother you more? A man who is transitioning (taking hormones, dresses and looks like a woman but has not had the surgery yet) or a woman in the same state of transition. Based on your statement, the one with a ##### is not allowed, even though they likely have no interest in your daughter. Even if they did like women, being LGBT does not make someone a pedophile (most are heterosexual, actually).

I think he has already clarified that he is not concerned about the presence of actual LGBTs at all, but about a man who claims or pretends to be LGBT hiding behind an absence of any sort of rule that would prevent him from doing so and thus being able to go into the women's restroom where his little girl is, and where he can't be there to protect her. I suspect the focus is on pedophiles because children are not as able to protect themselves as adults in such a situation.

[Kamarag]

I think he has already clarified that he is not concerned about the presence of actual LGBTs at all, but about a man who claims or pretends to be LGBT hiding behind an absence of any sort of rule that would prevent him from doing so and thus being able to go into the women's restroom where his little girl is, and where he can't be there to protect her. I suspect the focus is on pedophiles because children are not as able to protect themselves as adults in such a situation.

If that's the case, this new law does absolutely nothing for him.

[BRASSO]

For the US military, they basically are far more tolerant now of " differentness " than the general US society at large. We all have in one respect or another some levels of " differentness " with others around us. Some people are religious, some agnostic, some urban, some rural, some white, some black, some mixed,.. , some gay, some straight, some Bi, some Mensa, some low I Q'ers... and on an on. When I was in the military I simply wanted 3 things of the person to the left and right of me.. A) Quickness B) Courage C) Competency . If these people in battle, were of " my kind " but did not have these 3 things, then they could get both themselves killed and me. So right from Basic Training, recruits that had " a problem " with not adapting to those recruits that were different from themselves, got weeded out rather quickly. Today, so long as the recruit can do his or her job, and not be a cause celebre or make waves about their " differentness ", the US military is very tolerant now of one's " differentness ". If you have the 3 things I just mentioned here, the military is fine with you.

Same in Drum Corps too. If you do your job, don't make waves, work well in a team setting, etc it matters not what your particular " differentness " might be. You'll be just fine, and will be accepted well. Transgenders.. Trust Funders, Trailer Parkers.... Anglicans,.. or Atheists etc.... no matter, you'll fit in ok in Drum Corps, as Drum Corps competition is all about what best makes us a strong and unified team in competition with others.

Edited April 14, 2016 by BRASSO

[skevinp]

While I believe that civility and kindness are connected (to treat others civilly is generally to treat them with kindness), I suspect this tension relates to the debate about "political correctness" that has reemerged in the past few years, after having been a hot topic in the early 1990s. To the degree that they differ, I guess that civility allows for the possibility that you may be offended. In a free society, people should have the right to say things that others strongly disagree with (e.g. the U.S. Nazi party, with the support of the American Civil Liberties Union, won permission in court in 1978 to march in Skokie, where many Holocaust survivors lived), because the open exchange of ideas is more important to a functioning democratic society than protecting people from exposure to offensive words. Bad ideas are to be defeated by argument rather than by censorship.

This forum is of course a private enterprise and not subject to the laws governing free speech, but to the degree that this topic is relevant to drum corps, it appears that the owner/moderators are allowing this conversation to proceed in support of the same basic principles.

That's not what I was saying. I am assuming civility is more about politeness, as seems to be the emphasis in the dictionary. Judging by the Indiana thread, it is possible (and apparently all the rage) to be polite and mean at the same time. People become quite skilled at encapsulating their vicious insults and brutal accusations within lofty professions of compassion. And since people including the mods continually called it civil, I don't believe their definitions of civility and kindness could be very similar at all.

I am all for free speech in society in general (and I completely agree with what you said about being free to say things others strongly disagree with) but, absent matters that clearly and directly impact drum corps in credibly specific ways, the introduction of politics into dcp discourse is a path to ruining the site. If that sounds drastic, just look at how much this one thread has dominated and distracted.

And notice what a small part of this thread has had anything to do with direct impact on drum corps in credibly specific ways. People will claim everything is relevant to drum corps and use that as an excuse to argue over general political issues, which will eat up all the mental bandwidth here and make it harder to sift out the topical substance that is what uniquely defines the site and what we (at least used to) come to discuss.

If merely 'relevant it drum corps' is the standard, every political issue can be argued to have some relevance to drum corps, and certainly no less than this one. Abortion, gun control, immigration, national security, economic policy, etc., etc. And by accepting one topic, the mods will either have to accept them all or will unavoidably have to impose their own political opinions about what topics are worthy.

Edited April 14, 2016 by skevinp