PDA

View Full Version : Barkley wants all-star game out of Charlotte



mrblisterdundee
04-09-2016, 11:51 AM
Charles Barkley wants the NBA all-star game out of Charlotte (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/charles-barkley-nba-move-star-game-due-anti/story?id=38229090) because of the state's anti-LGBT law.

"As a black person, Iím against any form of discrimination Ė against Whites, Hispanics, gays, lesbians, however you want to phrase it. Itís my job, with the position of power that Iím in and being able to be on television, Iím supposed to stand up for the people who canít stand up for themselves. So, I think the NBA should move the All-Star Game from Charlotte.Ē
- Barkley to CNN today

mrblisterdundee
04-09-2016, 11:53 AM
This thread will probably trigger some butt-hurt sports fans who think politics should be kept out of basketball, similar to the people who got pissed over Bruce Springsteen canceling a concert in Charlotte. But I like it when professional athletes and other public idols show a backbone and take a stand for what's right. If the people of North Carolina can allow such a discriminatory law to be passed, maybe they need some wake-up calls.

ewing
04-09-2016, 11:58 AM
This thread will probably trigger some butt-hurt sports fans who think politics should be kept out of basketball, similar to the people who got pissed over Bruce Springsteen canceling a concert in Charlotte. But I like it when professional athletes and other public idols show a backbone and take a stand for what's right. If the people of North Carolina can allow such a discriminatory law to be passed, maybe they need some wake-up calls.


I see nothing wrong with this. The NBA has every right to move the game and Bruce has every right not to play a concert. Honestly, good for them. What would be annoying is if they moved the game and then talked about NC on the broadcast the whole time

basketballkitty
04-09-2016, 12:22 PM
Barkley, like a lot of others need to get real here. There is nothing wrong or discriminatory about this Law. I think it is wrong and can be very uncomfortable for a person, whether or not they Identify with being the other sex...using a bathroom that is opposite of their born sex and current genitals is not right. And for Barkley to compare it to Race is stupid. I don't care if a Transgender uses the men's room just as long as they have HAD their surgery...and are legally a man, or vise versa. But, if he/she still has the genitals that they were born with...they SHOULD absolutely use the bathroom of their sex. And no matter what anyone tells you or tries to spin it, that is ALL this Law does.



And it is in no way a Discrimination Issue.

MaineManInGA
04-09-2016, 02:05 PM
Barkley, like a lot of others need to get real here. There is nothing wrong or discriminatory about this Law. I think it is wrong and can be very uncomfortable for a person, whether or not they Identify with being the other sex...using a bathroom that is opposite of their born sex and current genitals is not right. And for Barkley to compare it to Race is stupid. I don't care if a Transgender uses the men's room just as long as they have HAD their surgery...and are legally a man, or vise versa. But, if he/she still has the genitals that they were born with...they SHOULD absolutely use the bathroom of their sex. And no matter what anyone tells you or tries to spin it, that is ALL this Law does.



And it is in no way a Discrimination Issue.


Maybe you should take the time and read a little more about the NC law. Also, take some time to read about how the NC legislature pushed the bill through the voting and procedural process. The bill absolutely involves discrimination both directly and indirectly. It also changes the process by which parties suing for discrimination now have to sue through federal courts rather than state courts. Aggrieved parties are not just limited to the LBGT community but also to groups such as veterans. Employers can now hire and fire employees based on sexual orientation. Are you still going to say the bill does not involve discrimination? Why else was it passed? Please don't be so naive to think the sole purpose of this bill involves which bathroom individuals are allowed to use.

Applause to Barkley, The Boss, and PayPal and their efforts. I hope the great state of North Carolina comes to its senses.

basketballkitty
04-09-2016, 02:10 PM
Maybe you should take the time and read a little more about the NC law. Also, take some time to read about how the NC legislature pushed the bill through the voting and procedural process. The bill absolutely involves discrimination both directly and indirectly. It also changes the process by which parties suing for discrimination now have to sue through federal courts rather than state courts. Aggrieved parties are not just limited to the LBGT community but also to groups such as veterans. Employers can now hire and fire employees based on sexual orientation. Are you still going to say the bill does not involve discrimination? Why else was it passed? Please don't be so naive to think the sole purpose of this bill involves which bathroom individuals are allowed to use.

Applause to Barkley, The Boss, and PayPal and their efforts. I hope the great state of North Carolina comes to its senses.



Well dude what can I say...you're misguided. And that aside...I DON'T CARE!! Barkley doesn't CARE!! All anyone has sited as to why they want the game taken away IS the Transgenders right to NOT use the bathroom of what they FEEL that they are...NOT any of that other stuff that you THINK is in that Bill. So that is the ONLY aspect I am talking about. But Thanks for trying to play. :-)

chi-townlove1
04-09-2016, 02:20 PM
Cool Charles. You're a joke.. You're horrible on television. And who are you, to tell anyone that they are wrong, by thinking being gay is wrong.

mngopher35
04-09-2016, 03:00 PM
Good for Charles. I wouldn't mind more people/organizations showing their disapproval and looking it up it seems as though more than just the NBA has (Apple Twitter Paypal in the article I read, Springsteen has been mentioned too).

MaineManInGA
04-09-2016, 03:49 PM
Well dude what can I say...you're misguided. And that aside...I DON'T CARE!! Barkley doesn't CARE!! All anyone has sited as to why they want the game taken away IS the Transgenders right to NOT use the bathroom of what they FEEL that they are...NOT any of that other stuff that you THINK is in that Bill. So that is the ONLY aspect I am talking about. But Thanks for trying to play. :-)

LOL! I'm misguided! You "don't care" and "....all anyone has sited (cited)" clearly indicates that you know nothing of what you are talking about. As I said, try reading and possibly educate yourself before you spout dribble about something you know absolutely nothing about. But then again, you don't care.

ghettosean
04-09-2016, 04:26 PM
Barkley, like a lot of others need to get real here. There is nothing wrong or discriminatory about this Law. I think it is wrong and can be very uncomfortable for a person, whether or not they Identify with being the other sex...using a bathroom that is opposite of their born sex and current genitals is not right. And for Barkley to compare it to Race is stupid. I don't care if a Transgender uses the men's room just as long as they have HAD their surgery...and are legally a man, or vise versa. But, if he/she still has the genitals that they were born with...they SHOULD absolutely use the bathroom of their sex. And no matter what anyone tells you or tries to spin it, that is ALL this Law does.



And it is in no way a Discrimination Issue.

He never compared it to race he compared it to discrimination.

goingfor28
04-09-2016, 04:28 PM
Barkley, like a lot of others need to get real here. There is nothing wrong or discriminatory about this Law. I think it is wrong and can be very uncomfortable for a person, whether or not they Identify with being the other sex...using a bathroom that is opposite of their born sex and current genitals is not right. And for Barkley to compare it to Race is stupid. I don't care if a Transgender uses the men's room just as long as they have HAD their surgery...and are legally a man, or vise versa. But, if he/she still has the genitals that they were born with...they SHOULD absolutely use the bathroom of their sex. And no matter what anyone tells you or tries to spin it, that is ALL this Law does.



And it is in no way a Discrimination Issue.
This

beasted86
04-09-2016, 05:21 PM
Can somebody enlighten me how somebody can choose a gender? and even further claim discrimination on grounds of not being given a choice?

Serious question.

If I have dark skin and I bleach it for any reason (Vitiligo or not), am I now a white person or am I simply a person of color with pigment removed from my skin? Does this mean I've relinquished my rights to claims of color/race discrimination?

In a more lighthearted and comical suggestion, what if I wake up one morning, start wearing depends and dentures and believe I should be entitled to SSI and Medicare/Medicaid because I say I'm a 65 years old person?

To take things a step further in a little more realistic and feasible comparison so you can the direction I'm going. Let's say I live in Arizona as a person of any given nationality, I grow up around and begin to study the customs and culture and subsequently completely adapt my life towards that of an Apache of the Navajo native American tribe. Would I be able to file for the tax exceptions and other benefits given to tribe members? What if I applied to become a member of their tribe and they wouldn't let me? Am I allowed to sue someone based on civil rights violations against nationality or color?

I understand all of the examples above are not all the same or may not align as a sufficient analogy. Nonetheless, I don't think a person can legitimately choose certain things such as their gender, age, race, nationality or color as to how others are supposed to interact or view them or distribute civil liberty towards these features that are inherent.

They can internally believe they are whatever they want, maybe even convince others to go along with it up to and including employers or businesses wishing to keep them as patrons. But I don't believe someone can expect everyone else to outwardly accept their choice in this type of matter and claim discrimination or a violation of rights on these grounds.

IndyRealist
04-09-2016, 05:34 PM
Barkley, like a lot of others need to get real here. There is nothing wrong or discriminatory about this Law. I think it is wrong and can be very uncomfortable for a person, whether or not they Identify with being the other sex...using a bathroom that is opposite of their born sex and current genitals is not right. And for Barkley to compare it to Race is stupid. I don't care if a Transgender uses the men's room just as long as they have HAD their surgery...and are legally a man, or vise versa. But, if he/she still has the genitals that they were born with...they SHOULD absolutely use the bathroom of their sex. And no matter what anyone tells you or tries to spin it, that is ALL this Law does.



And it is in no way a Discrimination Issue.

It IS discrimination. Why? Because it targets ONE group and puts extra burdens on them, criminalizing perfectly normal things they do. Odds are you've shared a public bathroom with a transgender person and never knew, so WHY DOES IT MATTER? This is strictly a "we don't like who you are, so we're going to make life as hard as possible on you so you'll leave".

https://twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144

IndyRealist
04-09-2016, 05:38 PM
Can somebody enlighten me how somebody can choose a gender? and even further claim discrimination on grounds of not being given a choice?

Serious question.

If I have dark skin and I bleach it for any reason (Vitiligo or not), am I now a white person or am I simply a person of color with pigment removed from my skin? Does this mean I've relinquished my rights to claims of color/race discrimination?

In a more lighthearted and comical suggestion, what if I wake up one morning, start wearing depends and dentures and believe I should be entitled to SSI and Medicare/Medicaid because I say I'm a 65 years old person?

To take things a step further in a little more realistic and feasible comparison so you can the direction I'm going. Let's say I live in Arizona as a person of any given nationality, I grow up around and begin to study the customs and culture and subsequently completely adapt my life towards that of an Apache of the Navajo native American tribe. Would I be able to file for the tax exceptions and other benefits given to tribe members? What if I applied to become a member of their tribe and they wouldn't let me? Am I allowed to sue someone based on civil rights violations against nationality or color?

I understand all of the examples above are not all the same or may not align as a sufficient analogy. Nonetheless, I don't think a person can legitimately choose certain things such as their gender, age, race, nationality or color as to how others are supposed to interact or view them or distribute civil liberty towards these features that are inherent.

They can internally believe they are whatever they want, maybe even convince others to go along with it up to and including employers or businesses wishing to keep them as patrons. But I don't believe someone can expect everyone else to outwardly accept their choice in this type of matter and claim discrimination or a violation of rights on these grounds.

Gender and sex are not the same thing. Gender is a social construct, sex is determined biologically. Regular people use gender and sex interchangeably, but they are not.

beasted86
04-09-2016, 05:51 PM
Gender and sex are not the same thing. Gender is a social construct, sex is determined biologically. Regular people use gender and sex interchangeably, but they are not.

In all my studies related to human resources and managing diversity and cultural business operations and such, I've never heard what you're talking about.

Not saying you're right or wrong, but for the majority of us they are one in the same. I understand masculinity and femininity are separate discussions from male and female, but that's where it ends. If this is some new point of social consciousness, it's still in the startup stages with a long way to go.

I also don't understand how it would apply to the law which specifies sex as an inherent feature.

IndyRealist
04-09-2016, 07:00 PM
In all my studies related to human resources and managing diversity and cultural business operations and such, I've never heard what you're talking about.

Not saying you're right or wrong, but for the majority of us they are one in the same. I understand masculinity and femininity are separate discussions from male and female, but that's where it ends. If this is some new point of social consciousness, it's still in the startup stages with a long way to go.

I also don't understand how it would apply to the law which specifies sex as an inherent feature.


Sex refers to biological differences between males and females. For example, chromosomes (female XX, male XY), reproductive organs (ovaries, testes), hormones (oestrogen, testosterone). Gender refers to the cultural differences expected (by society / culture) of men and women according to their sex.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/gender-biology.html

Who does the law affect? It affects people who's gender and sex are not the same. Saying the law is just about the sex of the person is as disingenuous as saying that religious freedom laws are ONLY about the religion of the business owners. It's political double-talk for legalized discrimination.

The issue is that discrimination, in any form against any group, should not be codified in law and thus tacitly endorsed by the government. The Constitution guarantees equal treatment for all persons, and now that it has been generally accepted case law that you cannot discriminated against blacks, irish, japanese, native americans, women, and now gays, they are turning their efforts to codifying laws against muslims, hispanics, and trans people. This is quite literally the same "separate but equal" arguments that have been around for 50 years and get struck down in court over and over. When you have laws that only apply to one group, you're discriminating against them.

As you can see from the twitter post previously, this law simply makes no sense.

Jazzgear
04-09-2016, 07:48 PM
Charles Barkley wants the NBA all-star game out of Charlotte (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/charles-barkley-nba-move-star-game-due-anti/story?id=38229090) because of the state's anti-LGBT law.

SMH at the vagrancy of this world. There is absolutely 100% nothing discriminatory with this law. You are what God gave you as a sex. Hey my dog sometimes acts and thinks like he's human, I'm still not letting him use our bathroom, Sheesh!!!!!

Jazzgear
04-09-2016, 07:56 PM
Can somebody enlighten me how somebody can choose a gender? and even further claim discrimination on grounds of not being given a choice?

Serious question.

If I have dark skin and I bleach it for any reason (Vitiligo or not), am I now a white person or am I simply a person of color with pigment removed from my skin? Does this mean I've relinquished my rights to claims of color/race discrimination?

In a more lighthearted and comical suggestion, what if I wake up one morning, start wearing depends and dentures and believe I should be entitled to SSI and Medicare/Medicaid because I say I'm a 65 years old person?

To take things a step further in a little more realistic and feasible comparison so you can the direction I'm going. Let's say I live in Arizona as a person of any given nationality, I grow up around and begin to study the customs and culture and subsequently completely adapt my life towards that of an Apache of the Navajo native American tribe. Would I be able to file for the tax exceptions and other benefits given to tribe members? What if I applied to become a member of their tribe and they wouldn't let me? Am I allowed to sue someone based on civil rights violations against nationality or color?

I understand all of the examples above are not all the same or may not align as a sufficient analogy. Nonetheless, I don't think a person can legitimately choose certain things such as their gender, age, race, nationality or color as to how others are supposed to interact or view them or distribute civil liberty towards these features that are inherent.

They can internally believe they are whatever they want, maybe even convince others to go along with it up to and including employers or businesses wishing to keep them as patrons. But I don't believe someone can expect everyone else to outwardly accept their choice in this type of matter and claim discrimination or a violation of rights on these grounds.

Well said!!!!

Kush McDaniels
04-09-2016, 08:28 PM
that law sounds very unnecessary. why bother trying to pass **** like that?

Saddletramp
04-09-2016, 09:55 PM
that law sounds very unnecessary. why bother trying to pass **** like that?

Because people still want to discriminate but aren't allowed to mess with women, blacks, gays, Jews..........,,

beasted86
04-09-2016, 10:45 PM
http://www.simplypsychology.org/gender-biology.html

Who does the law affect? It affects people who's gender and sex are not the same. Saying the law is just about the sex of the person is as disingenuous as saying that religious freedom laws are ONLY about the religion of the business owners. It's political double-talk for legalized discrimination.

The issue is that discrimination, in any form against any group, should not be codified in law and thus tacitly endorsed by the government. The Constitution guarantees equal treatment for all persons, and now that it has been generally accepted case law that you cannot discriminated against blacks, irish, japanese, native americans, women, and now gays, they are turning their efforts to codifying laws against muslims, hispanics, and trans people. This is quite literally the same "separate but equal" arguments that have been around for 50 years and get struck down in court over and over. When you have laws that only apply to one group, you're discriminating against them.

As you can see from the twitter post previously, this law simply makes no sense.

The law is aligning sex and gender. Nothing else has changed. I don't understand how your 'separate but equal' argument applies. Civil rights liberties remain intact that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, etc.

What it boils down to, is it sounds like you believe sex and gender should not be aligned, and people should be allowed to choose their sex or gender based on who they identify as/with. And to that, the series of questions I asked earlier are still open for anyone to address. If I feel like an "old soul" can I claim age discrimination if not given certain rights? If I identify with a culture different than my outward appearance would suggest am I allowed to claim discrimination? If I physically change the pigment of my skin, does that change my race?

Ultimately, I feel this is a debate about choice, what do you think?

Kush McDaniels
04-09-2016, 10:50 PM
Because people still want to discriminate but aren't allowed to mess with women, blacks, gays, Jews..........,,

yeah I think they're running out of groups to alienate

rhino17
04-10-2016, 01:25 AM
Good job Chuck

pretty surprising considering the lack of intelligence that usually comes out of his mouth

Bu he is 100% spot on here

DODGERS&LAKERS
04-10-2016, 03:08 AM
I honestly feel empathy for trans people. It can't be easy going through life with everyone looking at you like you're a freak. I wish they could find the cause of it and fix it. If it comes from the brain, a hormonal/chemical imbalance, or from DNA, I wish these people could feel comfortable in thier own skin without being frowned upon and having to spend thousands of dollars to look how they feel inside.

DODGERS&LAKERS
04-10-2016, 03:16 AM
The law is aligning sex and gender. Nothing else has changed. I don't understand how your 'separate but equal' argument applies. Civil rights liberties remain intact that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, etc.

What it boils down to, is it sounds like you believe sex and gender should not be aligned, and people should be allowed to choose their sex or gender based on who they identify as/with. And to that, the series of questions I asked earlier are still open for anyone to address. If I feel like an "old soul" can I claim age discrimination if not given certain rights? If I identify with a culture different than my outward appearance would suggest am I allowed to claim discrimination? If I physically change the pigment of my skin, does that change my race?

Ultimately, I feel this is a debate about choice, what do you think?

I once saw a trans-species person say they were born with a human body but they identified as a dog. That to me is a mental illness. I don't know if that comes from the same place a transgender person gets the feeling that they are either make/female. But they attempted psychiatriry on that person. Not sure if it ever worked though.

Chronz
04-10-2016, 05:03 AM
SMH at the vagrancy of this world. There is absolutely 100% nothing discriminatory with this law. You are what God gave you as a sex. Hey my dog sometimes acts and thinks like he's human, I'm still not letting him use our bathroom, Sheesh!!!!!

If you have a dog that smart, you are doing his species a disservice, I would absolutely let my dog **** in my toilet if the ****er knew how to flush.

ewing
04-10-2016, 08:04 AM
I don't like sharing the bathroom with my wife. i think the government should get involved.

IndyRealist
04-10-2016, 09:00 AM
The law is aligning sex and gender. Nothing else has changed. I don't understand how your 'separate but equal' argument applies. Civil rights liberties remain intact that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, etc.

What it boils down to, is it sounds like you believe sex and gender should not be aligned, and people should be allowed to choose their sex or gender based on who they identify as/with. And to that, the series of questions I asked earlier are still open for anyone to address. If I feel like an "old soul" can I claim age discrimination if not given certain rights? If I identify with a culture different than my outward appearance would suggest am I allowed to claim discrimination? If I physically change the pigment of my skin, does that change my race?

Ultimately, I feel this is a debate about choice, what do you think?

The law is ignoring gender, which is defined by science and distinct and separate from sex. You're still equating them as one and the same, which is why you think changing the pigment of your skin is the same thing. Gender is not defined by the bits below your waist. You may not believe that, but that's the thing about science....

Psychology states that gender exists and it's distinct and separate from sex. Writing laws contrary to that is like writing laws saying evolution doesn't exist.

basketballkitty
04-10-2016, 09:19 AM
The law is ignoring gender, which is defined by science and distinct and separate from sex. You're still equating them as one and the same, which is why you think changing the pigment of your skin is the same thing. Gender is not defined by the bits below your waist. You may not believe that, but that's the thing about science....

Psychology states that gender exists and it's distinct and separate from sex. Writing laws contrary to that is like writing laws saying evolution doesn't exist.





Ahh actually is IS!! When SCIENCE does it's Ultra sounds...to DETERMINE the SEX of the child...last time I checked they are looking at the Fetus " WEENIE " or if it has NO Weenie to determine and tell the parents what their Childs SEX is...Not the Fetus....Mind!!

IndyRealist
04-10-2016, 09:42 AM
Ahh actually is IS!! When SCIENCE does it's Ultra sounds...to DETERMINE the SEX of the child...last time I checked they are looking at the Fetus " WEENIE " or if it has NO Weenie to determine and tell the parents what their Childs SEX is...Not the Fetus....Mind!!

Thanks for proving my point.

Saddletramp
04-10-2016, 11:38 AM
^****ing hilarious.

beasted86
04-10-2016, 12:19 PM
The law is ignoring gender, which is defined by science and distinct and separate from sex. You're still equating them as one and the same, which is why you think changing the pigment of your skin is the same thing. Gender is not defined by the bits below your waist. You may not believe that, but that's the thing about science....

Psychology states that gender exists and it's distinct and separate from sex. Writing laws contrary to that is like writing laws saying evolution doesn't exist.
I think you're running in circles to avoid directly answering those questions and analogous comparisons.

If you claim gender is defined by society, then society has already clearly decided what a male and female is. If you're suggesting gender norms such as long hair, thin and limber build, and a high pitched voice can simply determine a "female" without the aligning sex organs, you're rewriting things very different from how they actually are.

eDush
04-10-2016, 04:24 PM
Maybe you should take the time and read a little more about the NC law. Also, take some time to read about how the NC legislature pushed the bill through the voting and procedural process. The bill absolutely involves discrimination both directly and indirectly. It also changes the process by which parties suing for discrimination now have to sue through federal courts rather than state courts. Aggrieved parties are not just limited to the LBGT community but also to groups such as veterans. Employers can now hire and fire employees based on sexual orientation. Are you still going to say the bill does not involve discrimination? Why else was it passed? Please don't be so naive to think the sole purpose of this bill involves which bathroom individuals are allowed to use.

Applause to Barkley, The Boss, and PayPal and their efforts. I hope the great state of North Carolina comes to its senses.

+1 it is a civil discrimination and to have it pass statewide is just disgusting. I would not want to live in a state that advocates this type of hypocrisy.

eDush
04-10-2016, 04:27 PM
Well dude what can I say...you're misguided. And that aside...I DON'T CARE!! Barkley doesn't CARE!! All anyone has sited as to why they want the game taken away IS the Transgenders right to NOT use the bathroom of what they FEEL that they are...NOT any of that other stuff that you THINK is in that Bill. So that is the ONLY aspect I am talking about. But Thanks for trying to play. :-)

Barkley DOES care and knows more about right and wrong then you ever will so just sit in the :penalty: box and stay there until you get it.

Sportsguy9695
04-10-2016, 04:28 PM
I see nothing wrong with this. The NBA has every right to move the game and Bruce has every right not to play a concert. Honestly, good for them. What would be annoying is if they moved the game and then talked about NC on the broadcast the whole time

i agree with you 100 percent. they both have there own right to not play

IndyRealist
04-10-2016, 05:22 PM
I think you're running in circles to avoid directly answering those questions and analogous comparisons.

If you claim gender is defined by society, then society has already clearly decided what a male and female is. If you're suggesting gender norms such as long hair, thin and limber build, and a high pitched voice can simply determine a "female" without the aligning sex organs, you're rewriting things very different from how they actually are.

No, what I'm saying is that you're still equating gender with sex, despite that scientifically they are separate. Sex is which biological parts you have. Gender is what society proscribes to the roles traditionally associated with sex. Wearing dresses, homemaking, listening to Beyonce, etc. are female gender constructs. They actually have nothing to do with having a vagina. Athletic pursuits, construction work, watching sports, etc. are male gender constructs. They have nothing to do with having a penis. There is no reason female gender constructs HAVE to be assigned to women, except that people think it's icky to do otherwise. There is significant research to suggest that gender tendencies are hardwired into the brain separate from actual sexual anatomy.

If you're studying business management and cultural business operations and haven't even touched on gender diversity, I hope you're planning on working somewhere like Hobby Lobby or Chick-Fil-A. Fortune 500 companies don't turn away talent because they don't understand someone's lifestyle that has nothing to do with the business.

beasted86
04-10-2016, 07:34 PM
No, what I'm saying is that you're still equating gender with sex, despite that scientifically they are separate. Sex is which biological parts you have. Gender is what society proscribes to the roles traditionally associated with sex. Wearing dresses, homemaking, listening to Beyonce, etc. are female gender constructs. They actually have nothing to do with having a vagina. Athletic pursuits, construction work, watching sports, etc. are male gender constructs. They have nothing to do with having a penis. There is no reason female gender constructs HAVE to be assigned to women, except that people think it's icky to do otherwise. There is significant research to suggest that gender tendencies are hardwired into the brain separate from actual sexual anatomy.

If you're studying business management and cultural business operations and haven't even touched on gender diversity, I hope you're planning on working somewhere like Hobby Lobby or Chick-Fil-A. Fortune 500 companies don't turn away talent because they don't understand someone's lifestyle that has nothing to do with the business.

You're still dancing around the subject. It's clear I've boxed you into a corner and this is your way of dealing with that.

On one hand you say gender is a construct of society, and society thinks it's "icky" to reverse sex and gender..... In other words you yourself have clearly identified society's dictated gender norms.

But on the other hand you suggest gender 'should be a decision' given to individuals or in other words society should not have a norm.

I honestly can't understand what you're expecting. Like, you seem to understand the concepts of human sociology, but don't know how they are applied to the real world.

As to your last comment, standalone unit real estate management has nothing to do with any of this nonsense, thankfully. All that matters is following fair housing and equal opportunity laws which avoids this topic altogether as a non-protected class.

LA_Raiders
04-10-2016, 10:22 PM
Lol, the US is turning into a circus. Let's keep it simple and fair, male use men and female use women. If you don't like who you are, fine, but respect others beliefs and don't expect others to change because you don't like who you are. IMO

ISIAH_THOMAS
04-10-2016, 10:23 PM
There was a rumor that Atlanta was trying to get the game I Cha loses it

Saddletramp
04-11-2016, 01:39 AM
There was a rumor that Atlanta was trying to get the game I Cha loses it

I think Georgia was going to pass a similar law recently but Disney was going to stop making superhero movies there so they backed off real quick.

Bigotry only takes you so far without money. Money>morals to a lot of people.

IndyRealist
04-11-2016, 09:33 AM
You're still dancing around the subject. It's clear I've boxed you into a corner and this is your way of dealing with that.

On one hand you say gender is a construct of society, and society thinks it's "icky" to reverse sex and gender..... In other words you yourself have clearly identified society's dictated gender norms.

But on the other hand you suggest gender 'should be a decision' given to individuals or in other words society should not have a norm.

I honestly can't understand what you're expecting. Like, you seem to understand the concepts of human sociology, but don't know how they are applied to the real world.

As to your last comment, standalone unit real estate management has nothing to do with any of this nonsense, thankfully. All that matters is following fair housing and equal opportunity laws which avoids this topic altogether as a non-protected class.

I'm simply pointing out that science disagrees with you, which you ignore completely. Saying something is a "social construct" doesn't mean people vote on what it means, and i have no idea why you put "should be a decision" in quotes when i never said that. You're essentially strawmanning with what other people might have said.

As far as it being a non-protected class so people are still allowed to be ignorant, it probably won't be unprotected much longer. People passing obviously discriminatory laws forces court challenges that make their way to the Supreme Court. If there was no DOMA to begin with, there still wouldn't be gay marriage. In the end you'll have N. Carolina to thank for making transgender a protected class.

beasted86
04-11-2016, 11:59 AM
I'm simply pointing out that science disagrees with you, which you ignore completely. Saying something is a "social construct" doesn't mean people vote on what it means, and i have no idea why you put "should be a decision" in quotes when i never said that. You're essentially strawmanning with what other people might have said.

As far as it being a non-protected class so people are still allowed to be ignorant, it probably won't be unprotected much longer. People passing obviously discriminatory laws forces court challenges that make their way to the Supreme Court. If there was no DOMA to begin with, there still wouldn't be gay marriage. In the end you'll have N. Carolina to thank for making transgender a protected class.
What science? Human sociology has long ago already stated what male and female is. Is it beginning to change? Maybe. Doesn't change what is already in place. Again, you're going on some babbling tangent instead of answering my question.

Won't be around much longer? Did they not JUST put this law into place that contradicts your entire notion? You speak as if this is some archaic construct by which society has moved away from. As I said earlier you seem to speak as though you understand sociology but don't have the slightest clue how it actually applies in the real world. Your entire argument throughout this thread is very weak and you've done everything possible to avoid answering my direct questions. But it's been fun watching you squirm.

IndyRealist
04-11-2016, 12:17 PM
What science? Human sociology has long ago already stated what male and female is. Is it beginning to change? Maybe. Doesn't change what is already in place. Again, you're going on some babbling tangent instead of answering my question.

Won't be around much longer? Did they not JUST put this law into place that contradicts your entire notion? You speak as if this is some archaic construct by which society has moved away from. As I said earlier you seem to speak as though you understand sociology but don't have the slightest clue how it actually applies in the real world. Your entire argument throughout this thread is very weak and you've done everything possible to avoid answering my direct questions. But it's been fun watching you squirm.
Because, as I pointed out, your direct questions are meaningless. You've repeatedly tried and failed to frame the conversation in terms of anatomical structure when it's about societal constructs, which is what gender is and you choose to ignore. I really have no idea how you've convinced yourself your logical fallacies and incomprehension have proved your point, at all. You can cover your ears and sceam "la la la I can't hear you" until you're hoarse, doesn't change science.

Up until this point I've tried to have a civil discussion and ignored the baiting, meandering arguments, and general inability to logically argue a position, but gawd man, what dream world do you live in where you think you're winning?

Saddletramp
04-11-2016, 02:14 PM
Because, as I pointed out, your direct questions are meaningless. You've repeatedly tried and failed to frame the conversation in terms of anatomical structure when it's about societal constructs, which is what gender is and you choose to ignore. I really have no idea how you've convinced yourself your logical fallacies and incomprehension have proved your point, at all. You can cover your ears and sceam "la la la I can't hear you" until you're hoarse, doesn't change science.

Up until this point I've tried to have a civil discussion and ignored the baiting, meandering arguments, and general inability to logically argue a position, but gawd man, what dream world do you live in where you think you're winning?

Not in mine. Or any that contains Google, apparently. This/he is too silly to argue; let it go.

Scoots
04-11-2016, 02:26 PM
$$$ is voting, it is politics, it is leverage.

The NBA can win big by moving the event, or by bringing it to NC and getting a bad law changed first.

Nothing wrong with business or the people leveraging their money to get a change they want.

GoferKing_
04-11-2016, 04:17 PM
Taking an event from a team for political reasons? WTF? GTFO! Why penalize the fans?

Scoots
04-11-2016, 06:11 PM
Taking an event from a team for political reasons? WTF? GTFO! Why penalize the fans?

It's not taking an event from a team. It's not their event. It's a league event wherever it is. What Barkley is suggesting is that the NBA (a corporation) take the event away from the state of NC for their shortsighted ways. Just like some artists refused to play South Africa during apartheid and how the US trade with Cuba was restricted. Money makes politics as well as marketing. Barlkey and the NBA are smart to get on the more popular side of this argument where they stand to lose nothing and gain fans in the process. If Barkley and the NBA were to come out for the other side it would cost them a LOT more.

It's simple business.