Lauren Boebert Threatens Disney’s ‘Mickey Mouse Trademark’ Extension, Which Isn’t A Thing
from the mouse-in-the-house dept
This seems to be becoming a thing here in America, this desire by those in power to punish private companies for their stances and speech on controversial topics. Mike recently wrote about how this effort to exert legislative influence on private actors is one of the few bits of bi-partisanship we have these days. And, of course, how it’s absolutely the morally wrong thing to do when either of side of the aisle engages in this sort of thing. Still, I won’t pretend that it isn’t a spotlight of hypocrisy when one particular side crusades against “cancel culture” only to literally attempt to cancel specific forms of culture merely over speech their side of the political spectrum doesn’t like.
Disney has found itself in the crosshairs in this manner recently, due to its vocal opposition to Florida’s new law that governs what some teachers can teach. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis pounded many tables and shook many fists over the company deciding it had an opinion on the matter. Marsha Blackburn did likewise, making some unfortunate noises about how Disney would be punished if it tried to “interfere” in Florida, a state in which the company has many employees and assets.
And, like a deranged moth to a flame of controversy, Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert decided to weigh in herself in a manner that was unintentionally illuminating.
If you can’t read that, it says:
Next year, the woke Disney lobbyists will ask Congress to extend Micky Mouse’s trademark.
I think not.
So much to unpack in such a small tweet. The replies to her did most of the work, frankly, but three points that should be made. First, it’s “Mickey”, not “Micky”. There’s, like, an entire famous intro song for Mr. Mouse that literally spells out the name. Right, Jedi Master Luke Skywalker?
Right. Second, and this is really Techdirt territory, trademark and copyright are two massively different things. Different laws, with different purposes, that apply to different assets in different ways. It gets quite frustrating when the general public, or business leaders, don’t bother understanding the difference between the two. But Boebert is a lawmaker talking about laws of which she appears to have zero understanding. This is a threat levied by a lawmaker to not “extend” Disney’s trademark, which is not something Congress has any control over. Instead, she’s probably talking about refusing to extend copyright terms, something that Disney very much has wanted Congress to do in the past (though has shown no inclination to do again this time around).
And on that topic, thirdly, Congress should not extend copyright terms further… but not because Disney, the company, has an opinion and engages in speech about a law in a state in which it operates, has employees, and does business. That sort of thing has a name: fascism. Fascism is the authoritarian control by a limited number of powerful members of the State in a manner that suppresses opposition, criticism, and speech, including by private industry. That is what Boebert is advocating for, openly and nakedly.
So by all means, don’t extend copyright terms past their current absurd levels. But not as punishment for Disney refusing to be bigoted asshats.
Filed Under: copyright, florida, lauren boebert, mickey mouse, trademark
Companies: disney
Comments on “Lauren Boebert Threatens Disney’s ‘Mickey Mouse Trademark’ Extension, Which Isn’t A Thing”
I’ll be honest – if the end result of complete morons being elected is that Disney are forced to stop fighting the public domain and have to fight the concept of trademarks that last beyond a set period, I’m OK with that. A shame that such hatred is used as the excuse and it exposes so much stupidity in the process, but go ahead.
“So by all means, don’t extend copyright terms past their current absurd levels”
I don’t think there’s any extension that would not translate to “infinite” in reality, so I sure as hell hope not.
Re:
Not worth it.
Perhaps, when the consensus of opinion is that you are an unqualified,ignorant disaster as a member of congress.
You should not,regularly go out of your way to make their point for them. This is generally considered counterproductive by everyone,except yourself apparently.
Re:
No it isn’t.
There are 435 congressional districts. A given member of the House has to care about what people think in 1 of them.
Re: Re:
When you’re a national embarrassment, local constituents are all the “EVERYONE” you need to worry about.
Still, even if they can’t vote for you they may influence someone who can.
It’s a fair cop.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Sounds like you totally agree with Lauren Boebert!
Nice to know someone is sane at techdirt.
Re:
We can think Disney’s control over IP law is a shitty thing without agreeing with a toilet bowl of a person who has no business being a lawmaker.
Re: Re:
Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. (Gee, now I want to rewrite Mississippi Squirrel Revival and set it in congress…)
Let’s not forget that Disney gave money to the politicians that eventually passed the bigoted bill. Disney wanted kickbacks and favors for its theme park and the money went toward the politicians who are rolling back LGBTQ+ rights. This, and Disney works behind the scenes to keep queer representation in its shows and movies to the barest minimum. Pixar folks have said as much, and the way that The Owl House was cut short because the main character, Luz, is bi and she has a girlfriend, was fucking insidious.
Disney is only an LGBTQ+ ally inasmuch as they can wring money out of surface-level support of queer causes and easily-removeable-for-China queer characters. Really, this shitstorm they’re in is them reaping what they’ve sewn.
Re:
Disney learned the hard way that if you try to play both sides, you rarely end up winning one of them.
Re: Re:
They don’t really care about the politics, but they certainly want to be able to market to every human bean on the planet. And the Florida law puts at risk their theme park events for LGBTQ communities by raising the possibility of a state boycott.
Supporting money? Acceptable. Disagreeing words? Horrible
What I’m seeing are several politicians who are absolutely against any industry donations to their campaigns, since I struggle to think of a way to shift how a state is run more than working to influence who gets elected.
Given that I’m sure they’ll show their dedication to such a principle and refuse any and all corporate donations since to do otherwise would be a grossly hypocritical move and make clear that they only want companies chiming in(financially or otherwise) when it’s in support of them and in this case their bigotry.
Also this appears to indicate the belief that Disney,specifically, has had their “trademark” (copyrights) extended, as opposed to all copyright.
When they tell you who they are, believe them.
I thank god my enemies are idiots
-some guy
Re: Thanking Gawd...
I did not say that, but I should have…
Also, I’d appreciate it if you would kindly spell my name correctly. if you please. Thanks.
Re: Re: Not you
I was talking about her lol
Dibsney's view of creative works
If Dibsney creates it: “It’s ours, and we’ll sue you if you so much as look at it!”
If fans create it: “It’s ours; our ToS that we’re trying to lock you into whether or not you have an account on our website say it is.”
If it’s in the Public Domain: “It’s ours, and we’ll trademark the original if we can’t have a copyright on it to stop you using it!”
If it was created by another company, especially a foreign one: “We like that so much we’ll use it without even seeking permission. Saves time for everyone, right?”
No wonder Lauren Boebert wants to shut them down. Just a shame that she seems to be as ignorant as they are.
Re:
Cribbing from Stephen if that was why she wanted to go after them you might have a point, but it’s not so you don’t.
Re: Re:
Naughty Autie said: “Just a shame that [Lauren Boebert] seems to be as ignorant as [Dibsney] are.”
You were saying? It seems to be you who has no point.
Re: Re: Re:
Autie implied that Boebert is attacking Disney over IP law. Boebert is actually attacking Disney over its (begrudging) support for queer people. Ergo, Autie has no point.
Re: Re: Re:2
Which I didn’t know because that’s not mentioned in the article and the Reason article linked to is inaccessible on small devices. I have to wait until I go to the library next week to read it.
I miss the old advice y’all used live by.
It is better to remain silent and appear stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Its only cancel culture if the lefties do it.
We can do the exact same things, and we’re defending morality!
Teh Gays have been around since the beginning of time, yet these motherfuckers keep pretending its not true & erase us.
Its a pity humans aren’t smart enough to learn from their history & to deal with actual issues rather than invented crisis meant to keep people stupid and afraid.
Time to modify yet another useful phrase…
Stop electing stupid people.
Re:
Lauren Boebert: freshman congresswoman
Marjorie Taylor Greene: freshman congresswoman
Madison Cawthorn: freshman congressman
Sometimes, you have to let them show their true colors before you can gauge the depths of their stupidity.
Re: Re:
Just to clarify another one of the problems here:
Boebert: violated campaign finance and ethics laws in order to be elected.
MTG: Ran essentially unopposed after her Democratic opponent dropped out of the race following harassment and death threats from MTG’s supporters (he still got 25% of the vote despite not running, which suggests a lot of people .
Cawthorn: lied about everything from his supposed acceptance to West Point and various colleges to the circumstances of the accident that left him paralysed, and has expressed explicitly white supremacist views.
The problem isn’t mere stupidity, although that takes the main headlines. It’s the fact that they are extraordinary poor examples of humanity.
Re: Re: Re:
But exceedingly good representations of their supporters?
Re: Re: Re:2
Sadly. The problem seems to be that due to gerrymandering and other tricks already mentioned, they have a wildly out of proportion amount of power. I have no problem with idiots representing idiots, it’s the fact that they seem to have a greater voice than other people who outnumbers them. Sure, “tyranny of the majority” is real and also an issue, but things seem to be way overcompensated toward the minorities right now.
Re: Re:
Not always…
I mean was I the only one who knew Trump being elected would be a shitshow because he doesn’t understand the government, the position of president, or how reality works.
These people were carried in on a tide of idiocy & wyhpipo believing that they are the truly oppressed people in this country.
If you think these 3 are a shitshow, wait until you see who is going to decide what your kids are going to be taught as the faithful are running to take over school to “save” the children from ever possibly feeling bad or finding out there are gasp gay people in the world who aren’t pedophiles out to get them.
They have banned George Takei’s autobiography about being in an interment camp, because…. it MIGHT make white children feel bad about themselves. From the great minds who spent years saying “Fuck your feelings” they now want to make sure all children more stunted than they are.
We have statements being recorded on the record & coming on offical letterhead repeating Q conspiracies… and the system has no way to deal with this or no desire to touch it.
We can’t dispel the lies now, because magically the deep state will just hide the truth.
They are entitled to their opinions, but we need to stop allowing them to have their own realities & attempting to force all of us to join them there.
Re: Re: Re:
“I mean was I the only one who knew Trump being elected would be a shitshow because he doesn’t understand the government, the position of president, or how reality works”
Of course not. In fact, he lost the popular vote by a wide margin, so it’s recorded that despite the vagaries of the electoral college most people agreed with you. As evidenced by the fact that when people were motived to kick him out they did so. The trick now is to keep the people who did so motived enough to again vote against him and his supporters, rather than fall into the usual trap of not voting in mid terms than blaming the Democrat for not being perfect while McConnell and his cartel block any meaningful improvement.
I just hope enough of you remember this to make a meaningful vote in the face of the voter suppression being attempted, rather than let apathy allow the minority to write the rules again.
“If you think these 3 are a shitshow, wait until you see who is going to decide what your kids are going to be taught”
Not being American and not living in places where there’s so much crossover between church and state despite promises to separate them, I have no such worries. What I’m concerned about is that people who think like that have power over world economic and military actions, and we all have to suffer the consequences when they make the wrong decisions.
“magically the deep state will just hide the truth”
One of the most depressing things I’ve read recently is the stuff about Ginnie Thomas’s texts. She apparently went straight into the QAnon wormhole and started whining about “elites”. She’s married to a Supreme Court Justice and was messaging the Chief Of Staff about how to overturn the election if she didn’t like the result. If that is’t “deep state”, I don’t know what is, but apparently she thought she was on the side of the people.
Re: Re: Re:2
A lot of foreigners don’t fully comprehend the US.
The country is not consistently populated and there are balance aspects not practiced by any other democracy in the world. The size of the country… the largest of (actual) European countries if picked up and twisted a bit could fit in one of our two largest states.
The only comparison size wise is China and Russia. Neither have working democracies.
There are three population types in the US.
The vast majority of the population lives in large urban areas separated by great distances, making up more than half the population of the whole.
This is the complete opposite of rural life that makes up som 80+% of our land. With minimal population. Farms and fields that grow food. And Forestry dependent on hunting and logging. Medicinal research.
The second largest population is “sub urban” mega rings around urban centres. A mix of medium sized housing and low cost apartments. A blend of tech and industrial and farm.
What works well for one group often fails for the other two.
Balance and compromise is needed. This is a nation where a near empty one house rural farm property costs $20,000 once for 20 acres and an urban 3 bedroom apartment costs $20k per year.
$10 an hour is urban poverty but beyond middle class rural life.
And the problem here is we have had no option for leadership, for governance, in many decades that fully understands the three aspects can not be approached equally in all matters.
M*I*C*K*Y ??
A Mickey-Mouse threat from a Mickey-Mouse politician. Once again, Boebert removes all doubt…
Citizens United
Remember when Democrats were complaining about how the Citizens United decision weakened campaign finance laws and gives too much power to PACs and corporations, and how that would be a huge advantage for Republicans.
Turns out that cuts both ways. When your party is too wacko for corporations to tolerate, and suddenly the financial power of big companies is aligned against you, free speech and free association become so much more inconvenient.
Can I change my vote in the Legal Misunderstanding March Madness?
Re:
Maybe next year.
Congressperson Boebert was not trying, never tries, to be analytically accurate about policy. She was tryng to lash out at Disney as part of the culture wars. It’s pretty funny to us policy types that she confuses copyright for trademark, and to many people that she can’t spell Mickey. But it is irrelevant to her purposes. And perhaps she, better than we, half recalls that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was widely lampooned as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.
A broken clock may be right twice a day, but you should still either fix or replace it.
It’s not even “stances on controversial topics” it’s straight up “Speech we don’t like or agree with.”
Re:
And isn’t it also censorship under the technical definition of the word. Is the POTUS like the British Queen, with no power to stop these censorious shenanigans?
Re: Re:
It’s unclear what shenanigans you’re referring to, but generally not. POTUS has no authority over statutes such as copyright law, other than to veto or approve bills. They have no authority over the actions of states, generally. And they have no authority to punish a congressional representative.
Funny
Why does nobody ever mention what the law actually states?
They hid behind the tent Democrats invented “don’t say gay”. They talk about the “rights” of teachers to not stick to the state educational programs. They ignore the age group the law represents.
Is it because many in both parties would have a problem with teaching psychological and philosophical variations in human behaviour methods to 2nd graders. Not to even discuss some of the graphic pro sex activities often recorded and reported being discussed.
I’m not for or against the bill. I don’t live in Florida and it’s none of my business what happens in another state.
But:
People who want to disagree with the he bill should state why they have a problem with the actual content of the bill. Not some grandiose ideology that the bill has only the slightest affect on.
Re:
Lots of people mention it. You can read it right here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF
No, most people did not. They reasonably called out the problematic provisions, namely: the prohibition on “classroom instruction… on sexual orientation or gender identity… in a manner that is not age-appropriate…”
The issue is that the bill enables parents to challenge anything and claim it’s not age appropriate (and this goes beyond 2nd graders. The bill has a ban on discussing sexual orientation or gender identity between kindergarten and third grade, but the prohibition on material that is “not age-appropriate” is not limited to that age range.
And then this allows a parent to effectively hold a school hostage over material they think is inappropriate. Given the vague wording, and the empowering of parents, this creates a MASSIVE chilling effect for teachers.
I’ll tell you a personal story: when I was in 10th grade, I took AP Biology, and one the mother of one of my closest friends called my mother to ask if she would join in protesting the bio text book we used, because it showed nude human bodies in chapters about human biology. My mom said she felt it was appropriate and hung up.
Under this bill, that mother would have effectively been able to veto the use of that book in school.
That’s a massive problem. Schools should not be held up from teaching things based on a parental veto. If a parent doesn’t like what the school is teaching, they’re free to take their kid out of that school.
That’s not what this bill is about. And if you believe it is, the only one who has been duped by propaganda is you, dude.
I did.
Re: Re: Thanks
And I respect you for doing so.
Nobody with a brain will walk away from a reading of the text thinking “good job”.
The law is shite. Zero doubt. But way too much dem propaganda pleads “don’t say gay” and republicans have no idea what the issue is about beyond teaching pan-sexual thoughts to kids not old enough to get a hard on or a wet slot
No, that language is completely appropriate. I had my first makeout time in 3rd grade. My first actual inside by 5th. I knew I didn’t care about scientific gender by 7th grade. A hole is a hole and putting things in holes is fun.
Here’s my own story. In order to duck a friends cunt, in 7th grade, I let her stick her fingers in my arse. Again and again. The experience was fun, enjoyable, and eye opening.
My concerns about “grooming” and the like… appropriate teaching…
Kids need to find stuff out on their own! Not through some narrow guided book or teacher.
Reality check, I fucked my teacher in 8th grade and will never reveal which one.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with sexuality if it’s completely consensual. Poke a box and lick a clit and suck a dick. Whatever makes you happy at any age if it’s fully consensual.
9 or 99 it’s your body and your choice.
What we don’t need is some text book or soap boxer talking about “beyond” male and female in 3rd grade, let alone kindergarten!
But [almost] nobody talks about the facts.
Re: Re:
And I applaud you doing so.
The vague wording of the bill is indeed quite problematic.
But in reality this isn’t about “gay” or anti lgbt!
It’s about age appropriate education.
You point out accurately some real issues in the bill. I don’t see mainstream coverage discussions on those aspects. The attacks all focus on “don’t say gay” nonsense.
Re: Re: Re:
C’mon. The reason people said “don’t say gay” is because they know (correctly) that parents are going to argue that books showing same-sex couples are “inappropriate” for their children to read. It’s not like it’s a secret.
So the use of that phrasing was perfectly reasonable.
Re: Re: Re:2
And again, that is not in the bill.
The problem is not what the bill prohibits, which I lean towards agreement it’s too early.
The problem is what the bill allows. Which I complete disagree with.
The ability to review and challenge materials is a must but should be done so up front. Not at random points whenever.
But let’s stop pretending it says something it does not. While ignoring what it actually targets. The limited aspect of the target.
Re: Re: Re:3
I literally explained to you exactly how it’s in the bill.
Re: Re: Re:4
And in case there are still any questions about that, here’s the pertinent text from the bill-made-law itself:
Now we can pick that apart.
Note that “instruction” could be interpreted to mean any talk by “school personnel or third parties” concerning the mere existence of gay or trans people. If a student asks a married gay male teacher if they have a wife, the teacher cannot legally answer that question without risking a violation of the law. To believe otherwise is to underestimate both parents and homophobia.
This here is the “fun” part of the law, because it never outlines what makes “instruction” on sexual orientation or gender identity “age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate”. Sure, it mentions “state standards”. But any parent could claim that any education on those topics beyond (or even including) “gay and trans people exist” violates those standards. Conservative lawmakers would have a field day tearing down those standards, given how they’re already turning back towards the bullshit “all queer people want to molest your children” argument.
This bill-turned-law was designed to chill any talk of queer people in schools—not just by teachers (queer or not), but by queer students who might now be reluctant to talk with teachers about such matters. Whether this law is dismantled is irrelevant; the fear it has created around any talk of queer people in schools will still exist even if the law dies.
Re: Re: Re:5
Again I do understand and agree with the concerns.
I did call the law crap and shite, mind you.
It’s the framing of the debate to fit a very narrow set of concern that I disagree with.
We need not be discussing sexuality with kindergarteners at all.
But again, as a member of that community, my bigger issue is the conflation of sex (M/F/H), science, with gender, philosophy. A toddler is hardly a target audience for the sexual id.
And as I mentioned in reply to Mike I’m very worried about legal feature creep.
Openly allowing a halting challenge on one subject will eventually expand to cover other topics. Eventually we are in the realm of discussion of 1+1 and it’s relevance to 11. So to speak.
The “don’t say gay” aspect is only one concern of many. Meant to rile a small population into action. There are much larger concerns overall in this law.
Re: Re: Re:6
But what is “sexuality”? If a teacher mentions that they’re married, is that discussing sexuality?
And who is conflating sex and gender? Might it be the people who insist that we must all stick with the biological sex we are born with?
Does a teacher run afoul of this law by referring to a student as a “boy” or a “girl”? That is discussing gender identity in the classroom after all. And before you claim that it’s just discussing sex and not gender, I hope these teachers aren’t pulling kids’ pants down to verify their sex organs. Rather, if a kid has been identified to the teacher as a male, they are referred to as a boy, and vice versa.
Re: Re: Re:7
To conservatives, who are often obsessed with what queer people do with their genitals behind closed doors? Yes. To everyone else? No.
That would likely depend on whether that student is transgender, at least in regards to the “don’t say gay” law.
Re: Re: Re:8
If I’m not mistaken the law does not specify anything about transgender. Just gender identity in the classroom. Which would ban any reference to any gender identity, whether trans or cis.
Re: Re: Re:9
Hit the nail.
Identity is a psychological.
Do we discuss the idea of self awareness with children? The differences among knowledge and comprehension and understanding?
Do we tell a explain that when looking at something we perceive is green is actually every colour except green because all we see is the colour reflected by the item?
How about explaining how humans are not actually a physical item but billions of different atoms working together in mutual disharmony?
Or how about the premise that our shared belief on existence may be nothing more than a single advanced fantasy in the mind of another?
Identity is what one perceives. Perception is not the same as actuality.
I used to joke with friends I was a bi-curious lesbian. But I still recognise I’m male no matter what my mind produces for sexuality.
The problem, in my view, is teaching advanced psychology and philosophy to a 7th grader.
More than half the country true believes in god. But it doesn’t make god real.
Re: Re: Re:10
Grr, I meant to say 7yr old.
Re: Re: Re:10
I used to joke with friends I was a bi-curious lesbian.
so you were an even bigger asshole than you are now?
Re: Re: Re:11
How is a pansexual that normally prefers women but is not exclusive to any sex or image defined as an “asshole”.
Given that joke has remained with us… nobody took offence. Especially given some of the terms that are playfully used in our circle, directed towards me.
So you’re straight and clueless. Or you’re one of the handful that thinks just because you think that way everyone in that “category” has to think that way.
Which is it?
Re: Re: Re:7
Not all all.
As for the other, this is a very difficult discussion.
I have my own personal opinions on someone who is born x and says that they are y despite that.
That’s neither here note there.
Should a penis be labelled a boy? Well, it’s accurate. Anything beyond that is psychological projection. Not scientific base.
And that’s were the problem comes from. Should we condone a counter psyche? I’m ok with that.
Should we say it is something it is not? I don’t believe so.
See, in later years close friends and I would joke: I’m a bi-curious lesbian trapped in a man’s body. But I recognise what that is and what that is not. At 16, 17 or so, maybe 15 when such playful psycho-social aspects of self come to the front…! But such discussions is intense and requires scientific understanding to comprehend.
No, I don’t think we should be doing such projection at 5, 6, 7.
So there. That’s where I come from. Is either one of us “right”? I’m sure we both think we are!
And honestly, fuck the religious fucks!
This is a discussion that should have and now must, start within the community. Because right now so much of the loudest voice is claiming to represent the whole.
And the great many of us are not in agreement. Even about how we live as adults. Let alone as children.
Re: Re: Re:8
How can you be so sure? I’m pretty confident discussions of gay marriage would very much risk a lawsuit from an irate parent.
Exactly right, I wasn’t asking about trans people. There’s no need to bring them up to expose the problems with this law. A child saying “I’m a boy” is expressing a gender identity. A teacher introducing themselves as “Mrs. Jones” is expressing a gender identity. Classroom instruction about gender identity is banned by this law.
Re: Re: Re:9
You’re probably correct. I’m sure they can find some mega church please to bankroll a lawsuit as some sort of “charity” case.
But as I pointed out it’s not what the law says. It’s all the things it doesn’t.
The “cause”, and it is a cause, created here focuses purely on a single thread designed to cause political turmoil..
much like the “censorship” show. Just say what is wrong with the law, not some example that would never get the far right to understand.
This law opened up challenging any and everything as being inappropriate for the age. That’s a far more cross-aisle approach.
A boy saying ‘I’m a boy’ is a statement of biological fact. A boy saying ‘I’m a girl’ is a an expression of psychological interpretation. One is based on reality and one is based on perception of current social norms.
A boy should first understand that they are a boy. The. Understand that being so doesn’t mean anything about your lifestyle or ability beyond some outdated stereotypes.
I’m sure it’s the 70s/80s sod off, loud and proud mentality that shapes my opinion here. But just admit what you are. Both in biology and in lifestyle.
Because joshing aside, our old HS joke is otherwise fitting for me. As I failed to clearly state above the joke was said to me, not by me. And it didn’t bother me one bit. Because it’s rather accurate.
Along with demon with tail on wrong side. Botched work in progress. Etc. Etc.
Ultimately, though I don’t delude myself into some fantasy. I am what I am. So be it that’s life.
Re: Re: Re:10
I’m concerned about what effect the law will have, not just the words on the page.
You’re wrong. “I have a penis” is a statement of biological fact. “I am a boy” is a statement of gender identity, regardless of biological sex. You’re making two ridiculous assertions here. One is that only trans people have a gender identity, which implies that you do not understand what gender identity is. The second is that you cannot tell if “I’m a boy” is a statement of sex or gender unless you can see the person’s genitals.
It sounds like what you’re saying is just conform to your biological sex no matter how you feel so conservatives don’t have to deal with the uncomfortable reality of trans people.
Re: Re: Re:11
You’ll have to forgive Lodos. He was purposely trained to not understand subtext and implication.
Considering how conservatives are obsessed with the genitals of queer people…well, even Lodos might see where this is headed.
Re: Re: Re:11
One is scientific fact. One is psycho-social perception.
I’m the first one to agree that a mentality the tends to the “trapped” premise is quite reasonable. What I don’t agree with it pretending that changes physical reality.
Gender and sex are the same. Identity is the variable. No rational person grounded in science will deny that femininity and masculinity are aspects of Id, of self, that transcend physical science.
But it is not rational to say that meta perception changes the physical.
Living as one gender does not change you to that gender.
We can argue that maybe science should change. Or maybe not. My dog (a rescue) of over a decade has every aspect and mannerism of a cat. Likely based on her earliest months to which I have know know knowledge.
If I didn’t know dogs were different I’d consider her (and generally do) my cat.
But that doesn’t make her a cat.
I’m not arguing against such understanding, nor acceptance.
But that fact must come first for proper understanding.
Re: Re: Re:12
Nope, they are not. And you will not be able to understand this bill until you understand the difference.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/difference-between-sex-and-gender
Re: Re: Re:13
Congratulations on finding that today. A psychological view that didn’t exist 30 years ago and was fringe, (and remains so over all) 10 years ago.
What has happened is the term has been modified in use when the majority of people who predate the modification are still around and using it. It will take a few generations for a term that’s hundreds of years old with the same meaning comes to have a different meaning.
Much like those of us who have lived with the pre-2018 use of the word censorship long predating any social media aspect of use are not as willing to simply turn a blind eye to our past in using the word, inside or outside of politics and social media.
Mandating a new use of a long standing word doesn’t change change overnight, the view that the previous use should be used. We gender birds. We gender reptiles.
Long known and long used medical practices.
Re: Re: Re:14
It was first conceptualized in the 40s, and started gaining more widespread traction in the 70s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
Re: Re: Re:15
“… only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s.[27]…”
You confuse gender role (above construct) with mouldable use of gender. The latter not being publicly popular (as in discussed) until the last 10-20 years.
Re: Re: Re:12
“Gender and sex are the same.”
So, why are there 2 different words to describe it?
“No rational person grounded in science will deny that femininity and masculinity are aspects of Id”
Nor would they deny that they are fluid. There exist “masculine” biological females and “feminine” biological males, even if you don’t start talking about trans persons.
“Living as one gender does not change you to that gender.”
Which, funnily enough is why people who identify as a different gender don’t get comfortable if society forces them to deny that.
“I’m not arguing against such understanding, nor acceptance.”
Yet, that’s the focus of your argument.
I’m yet to hear an argument against the existence of trans people that doesn’t focus on denying that they exist, forcing them to live a lie, or that isn’t suspiciously the focus of attacks from people who have been forced to accept that homosexuals exist and have equal rights to straight people. I understand if you don’t think that way or directly empathise with their struggle, but denying they exist due to something as wildly non-binary as biological gender is a losing argument if you take into account the many exceptions to that paradigm that exist.
Re: Re: Re:13
That would be because transphobia is reheated homophobia aimed at a less protected target. All the shit about trans people being “groomers” is the same “gay people are recruiting kids” shit from decades ago. The difference now is that conservative assholes are trying to separate trans people from the broader queer population—and they’re doing that to backdoor all the old homophobia into the here and now. Yhat includes going after the civil rights of queer people.
The attacks on (and possible overturning of) Roe v. Wade may seem unconnected to queer civil rights. But they’re also setting the stage for an attack on one of the decisions that allowed for Roe: Griswold v. Connecticut. Since Griswold is the foundation for several other major decisions—including Obergefell v. Hodges—toppling that domino would have a disastrous effect on the civil rights of queer people.
Anyone who is surprised by any of this should maybe listen to queer people who aren’t part of (or voting for) the Leopards Eat—I mean, the Republican Party.
Re: Re: Re:14
You make valid points as usual. Many I understand and agree with, Stephen.
The problem here is not the doing but the how.
Women fought long and hard for equality and equality with separation. The backlash to sports is more than anti trans.
Gays, lesbians, bis fought long and hard for their groups. And paved the way for people like me, bis and pans.
What is reaching inside backlash in the non-Hetero groups is the push for inclusion often comes across as erasing who we are.
It may, or may not, be intentionally. But I don’t want to be erased. I don’t want my identity erased for yours.
Does that not make sense. There’s a reason that even trans people are popping up publicly now against genderism. Because it has the appearance of saying someone who is this way is this group regardless of how that person feels about the grouping.
How often do people like Paul call me a Republican based on a single topic or two. I am not, was not, will not, ever be part of that.
All to often the enemy-mising of someone who isn’t in lockstep is the first choice.
I’m not against the gender redefinition. I’m against teaching and demanding the application without asking the person being classed.
Re: Re: Re:15
What do you mean by “being classed”? Isn’t the queer acceptance movement about letting people classify (or not classify) themselves?
Re: Re: Re:15
… ->
If a girl stands up and says “I’m a boy” because someone else said she’s a boy, that’s wrong.
If a girl stands up and says
This is good.
A side effect of this drive is that saying living as a man makes you this gender…
What of Those that adopt and accept and agree with “hurtful” stereotypes. I know many who self identify with those terms. Fem, f’g, butch, and are quite comfortable with them.
I have friends that refer to me as dy.e because I dress male, act male, look male and carry some femish aspects… and most people would ever know if they weren’t told, believing I was a straight standard male. I do not want to have my personal choice of identity erased to fit someone else’s.
Re: Re: Re:16
What are you talking about? Who is doing that? Is that a thing that’s actually happening in any significant numbers, or a hypothetical situation? If the former, where is your citation? If the latter, why did you bring it up?
Again, who is doing that?
Re: Re: Re:17
That’s a multi post trying to stay inbounds of the filter requirements.
Last part is missing (held?)
But my premise is clear from what IS posted.
The immediate jump to group people based on any single one aspect is common.
PaulT calls me a Republican based on three topics, one of which he doesn’t even correctly comprehend my position on (despite 4 other people explaining my view is different than he thinks).
I am not any of these modern terms that they wish to class me I . I am me.
What is being pushed is a very selective narrow range of ideology with no discussion of the hows and whys and history, to people too young to comprehend what is being discussed. In a manner that intentionally excludes others who fit such classes but deny or decline such terms.
You (generic, they them) are just as bad as the far right book people who refuse to recognise sexuality at all on the first place. You (as before) exclude us because we don’t conform to your (again) opinion.
You (ab) erase our input and thoughts and beliefs, our identity.
The oppressed becomes the oppressor!
There’s enough issues properly educating on civil rights, women’s rights, lgbt rights, to a 7yr old.
Now it’s shoved in, a sociological and psychological and philosophical element before most kids know who Plato is. In a manner that says that I am incorrect in my understanding my self. By erasing the distinction in gender as trinary many of us or now left defensive.
If a boy who likes boys can be a girl, are all boys that like boys girls? Or only the most recent ones? Or just the ones who agree with your idea.
So do gays and lesbians stop existing now. Since it’s gender that determines sexuality?
Are we tossing out L and G and B and T for A-Z QNA?
We have been through a fight for recognition we are not what they said.
Now we’re told we’re not really this but something else.
You (as in you) need to understand that such ways the “progressive” or “woke” or whatever term is pushing things at the moment many of us minority classes are feeling forced into conformance yet again.
I am definitely not alone. From Alt to Tattoo Today to Blend to Bizarre. While it’s letters, occasionally op-eds. heated debates on Reddit.
And this is being done not with teens and adults capable of understanding society today and then but with little ones!
Give people a chance to understand who they are, before discussing what they are!
Re: Re: Re:18
I again find myself asking, what are you talking about? Are you saying young children are being taught about transsexuality? If so, what ages? Where? What school districts? What is being taught? If not, what are you talking about?
I exclude you from what? What opinion? I (again, still) have no idea what you’re talking about.
I assume you’re not actually dumb enough to believe that, so what are you actually getting at?
It isn’t, and never has been.
Who is telling you that? What are they saying?
Such as what?
Re: Re: Re:19
Lodos appears to think transgender people are trying to enforce “gender ideology” on everyone. He appears to think trans people are trying to either make everyone trans or make everyone consider being trans—even (and especially) against their will.
Lodos is an idiot.
No one has proven that queer people trying to push queer identities on anyone—including children. The panic about queer people that drives these “don’t say gay” bills/laws is built on the kinds of fears about societal change that created the Satanic Panic. No one has tangible proof of anyone doing any of the shit these bills/laws mean to curtail. But so long as the fear persists, the bills/laws will as well.
No one in their right mind believes little children should be taught comprehensive sex education. But neither Lodos nor the people voting for these bills to become law have proven that is happening anywhere. What may be happening is little children are being told an exceptionally watered down version of “gay and trans people exist”. I fail to see how that would be equal to sex education. Then again, I’m not a lawmaker (or a conservative voter) who obsesses over queer people’s genitals, so…yeah…
Re: Re: Re:13
Homo, Herero, bi (both) pan/omni (any) all exist. The fact that I use pan regularly to self described should attest to recognition.
Separating ideology from biology doesn’t make me a conservative cupcake could people worshiper.
It simply says that I separate psychical and mental aspects and think both need to be recognised. What I don’t like is completely removing distinctions of fact. Male female. Boy girl. Have biological use.
And what I ultimately disagree with is the interruption of the biological time clock that allows for the awakening of sorts and experimentation simply because technology has advanced to the point that we could. Re steal a premise from a book, and film, about dinosaurs we’re so busy on the could we don’t stop to consider should.
The immediate focusing on now ignores the struggles of the then and drives right over the feelings of other “less desirable” persons and destroys their achievements
. It’s not so much as ‘don’t want you’ as it is don’t remove our identity to create your own. We should work towards coexistence, not brutal assimilation.
Re: Re: Re:7
I don’t think discussion of sexual identity (the gendering of the is) is appropriate before discussing the physical differences of male and female and hermaphroditism and non-gendered. I have a problem with someone being educated in the philosophical aspects of sexual relationships before they even know that there are legitimate multi-gendered people.
Re: Re: Re:8
Are you saying that the fact that there are boys and girls shouldn’t be mentioned in front of 7 year olds? Or that education on sex organs should be given to preschoolers so they’re ready to hear about boys and girls and men and women when they get to kindergarten?
Re: Re: Re:9
Neither one. I’m saying that discussion of personal mental states and psychological perception should come after learning factual biological truth.
Re: Re: Re:4
As politely as I can point this out, you did not.
What you explained was a method in which the bill’s text could be utilised to such an end.
And I pointed out to you how there’s a much bigger problem than one tiny idea that may or may not come to pass.
By focusing on something the bill could do the Republican populace is correct in saying that’s not what the bill says.
The real problem isn’t some “maybe”! It’s this could bring the system to a halt for ANYTHING!
Evolution. How the dinosaurs died out (or didn’t based on various bird theories). Round vs flat. Aliens… the colour of the sky. Anything!
Re: Re: Re:5
Now you’re just being obtuse. It’s not a good look.
Bending over backwards to pretend that the description is unfair because it doesn’t have the exact magic words you want is not a good look, dude.
Right. So I explained — and you admit you understand — how the bill was written in a manner where everyone, from backers to detractors — all know how it will be used, and what the issues with that usage are, and your response is that it’s okay because they framed it in a manner to pretend it wouldn’t be used that way, even though you admit it might be?
I mean, c’mon.
Re: Re: Re:6
He knows how the bills can and will be used by queerphobic parents. He just doesn’t care—probably because he thinks it’ll be good for children if queer people go back in the closet (and maybe hang themselves while they’re in there). See, Lodos thinks being one of The Good Queers™ will save him. He’s wrong, but it’s still his right to be deluded even as the leopards eat his face.
Re: Re: Re:7
It not about good queering. It a matter of be loud and proud of sexual orientation is replaced with I’m not this—so I’m not that.
If you have a penis your a biological male. If you have a vagina you’re female. If you have both you are a hermaphrodite, one sex gene set usually overpowers the other. And if you have neither your are legitimately asexual.
Anything beyond that is not science. It’s philosophy. There’s nothing wrong with feeling you ar more of one gender or another but that’s quite different than biological fact. You can not wish or will your biology.
And like I said I believe a lost of this idea is to bypass terms like homo and bi and pan.
Do we really think this is a program best discussing with kids? 5, 6, 7 years old? I don’t know when the right time is but kindergarten is not it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Commenting error?
There’s some bug in posting.
I type and hit post. It refreshes the page to the top and the post is recorded but doesn’t display
Re: Re: Re:7
Actually, it looks like the spam filter is doing its job just fine.
Re: Re: Re:6
Uh, no. I’m against the bill completely. It does nothing to address what I consider may be a problem, opens up a whole new one: and ultimately will lead to legal feature creep that destroys the ability to actually teach anything at all
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s also about silencing teachers who may themselves be queer. A gay teacher who might’ve mentioned their spouse offhandedly while talking with students might now feel compelled to avoid any mention of their spouse so they don’t get sued.
The whole point of the law is to equate any talk of gay people (even something as innocuous as admitting gay people exist) with talk of sex and therefore punish anyone who talks about gay people in any context. Conservatives (especially conservative Christians) tend to believe gay people doing anything is always some sort of sexual act—e.g., while a straight couple kissing for a brief moment isn’t sexual in the slightest, a gay couple kissing for a brief moment is always explicitly sexual.
But more to the point, the law is a buffer between The Now and The Future. In The Now, conservatives still have enough power to oppress all queer people (but trans people in particular). In The Future, that won’t be the case. The “don’t say gay” law (and others like it) are intended to preserve that power—that oppression of queer people—as long as possible.
Few things frighten conservatives than the thought of their children learning that queer people are people instead of monsters. The “don’t say gay” law means to help prevent even that minimal amount of education. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
Re: Re: Re:3 Limited application?
I generally agree with your thoughts. And support them.
However I don’t think we should be talking to kindergarteners about ANY aspect of attraction relationships and sexuality.
I also think discussion of social-psychological belief systems are best left for exploration in high school, not first grade.
Because saying that a man who likes men is gay vs saying man can be a woman despite having a penis, is a much different discussion.
Sex and gender are separate aspects of science. One is literal biology.
The other is an aspect of personal interpretation that falls into psychology. And unless you’re willing to also begin at that age the likes of Plato and Seth and Freud. Confucius and Tao Ti? And then we may as well add the teachings of the Dragon Rouge and LeVayism and Buddha.
Because all of these ‘schools of thought’ are more meta than actual.
Re: Re: Re:4
But how else are we going to get yuri schoolgirl anime for incels to creep out on?
Re: Re: Re:5
I’m, anime is drawings and has no real world equivalence. What does that have to do with teaching in schools?
Re: Re: Re:6 Damn you autocorrect: great blog and video series
I’m confused, anime … etc ad en
Re: Re: Re:4
“However I don’t think we should be talking to kindergarteners about ANY aspect of attraction relationships and sexuality.”
So, what should you do when one of the kids in the class has two parents of the same gender and a kid asks you why that’s different to other kids? What about when the reaction from some kids is to bully and violently attack the kid with those parents? I know it’s comforting to believe that things happen in a vacuum and shades of grey never occur, but the real world suggests otherwise.
“Sex and gender are separate aspects of science. One is literal biology.”
I’m sure that intersex individuals, hermaphrodites and other such people will be thrilled to learn the biology isn’t involved.
Re:
And yet out of their own mouths they have claimed that this bill is anti-grooming.
Because the tired tired trope that all gays are pedos is trendy again.
They are playing the “If you’re against this you’re for raping children” game. See also: SCOTUS nominee hearing.
The content of the bill is to “empower” parents to come in and Karen for everyone’s kids, turning education into a fucking minefield that can only teach things that 100 Karens can agree on.
CRT not part of the curriculum outside of college, but they pretend its taught in kindergarten to make lil white kids feel bad about themselves for being white.
Funny, that isn’t what its for, what it does, how it is taught when it is taught.
They believe that if you mention homo’s anywhere near kids you make them homo or summon the pedo homos to molest all the kids… funny there is a longer list of Republicans who have touched kids than gays.
They invented this outrage, sprinkled in just enough Q theory, & now people are all fired up about this… while ignoring we’re still losing people to covid, people are still losing their homes, and a host of other real problems that actually matter.
But then many of the Republican faithful have no problem with whats happening in Ukraine & are willing to lie claiming it was a secret Nazi hotbed with US Biological weapons that was a huge threat to a superpower. But then many of them won’t be happy until everyone is white, christian, & just like them… just like the Nazi’s wanted the world to be…
History keeps repeating, and none of you fucks can learn from it.
Re:
“Why does nobody ever mention what the law actually states?”
Because they do but it’s not the same thing as the news sources you consume pretend it says?
That elected a Jewish president by a landslide…… Something about Putin’s claims do not add up, and they can’t see it.
Re:
Or that Russia has already deNazified Ukraine by shelling the Azov Battalion HQ. Right after the Ukranians friendly fired the place.
Kinda hard to drum up political support after that sort of a display of military prowess. Especially when the grapevine says the Ukranians fucking cheered when the shells hit.
M I c k e y
I will say one thing in her defence. The only reason I remember the song is the ending of Full Metal Jacket. Which has nothing to do with the mouse.
Right click, delete
If what you say is completely true, and I hope it is, the. Democrats should say that.
Focusing on what the bill says and why it’s unnecessary.
Focusing it on slogans like “don’t say gay” but facts like how this would allow anything to be challenged at any time by any one.
You forget that the US only has two real stations that carry news and both fill the time period where the majority would watch with self-aggrandising commentary. Not news.
Re:
If that’s all you’ve heard about it, that says more about your news consumption than about any criticism of the bill.
Re: Re:
Probably.
My non-tech and non-entertainment consumption is minimal. Too much fighting and crying and bad-man-did-it and bad-man-made-me-do-it.
But I scan headlines and both sides have headline saying don’t say gay.
What’s funny is gender/sex/whatever is all either side is talking about. Just look here!
There’s a far larger problem than gender in this bill. A FAR bigger problem.