?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

My tweets

Tags:

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
kengr
Jun. 29th, 2015 08:21 am (UTC)
Keep in mind, just because something was struck down by the Supreme Court does not make it legal, exactly

Actually, it does. Sodomy laws *are* unconstitutional. Period. The fact that they are still on the books in some states just means that if they try *enforcing* them, they'll *lose* in court.

The problem, of course, is that in the meantime you may have a few problems.

Mind you, in the end, the folks who arrested you and convicted you will have bigger problems. But in the short term...

That's part of why the legislators don't want to remove those sodomy laws. They are either hoping for the SC to change its mind (not gonna happen any time soon) or they want to keep them to give cops a way to threaten people who don't know better with them.

kengr
Jun. 29th, 2015 09:48 am (UTC)
Sun, 06:46: nonbinarygamzee: kataramaryam: ayumichan46: c-n-u: kimjongin: just remember that the reason your born is... http://t.co/uRFIBWW3Hf

Actually some "straight" couples may not be.

There's a documented case of a *weird* genetic condition. Not only does it make a person with XY chromosomes appear female, but said persons had a uterus and ovaries. And had children.

They tested and the original person with the condition was the child and grandchild of persons with it. In other words, it had carried on for at least 3 generations.

By "conventional" thinking, those were all "same sex" marriages. :-)

And yes, that condition is *much* weirder than the more common AIS and CAIS (which merely make an XY fetus develop mostly female. Folks with those conditions don't have a uterus and tend to have smaller breasts and hips than "normal" women.

kengr
Jun. 29th, 2015 11:11 am (UTC)
Re: autistics and "black & white" thinking

I think this is in reference to the tendency to have trouble generalizing rules.

That is, they either try to make the rule fit everything, or else, if the rules actually covers something but wasn't explicitly stated to include that, they'll assume it doesn't.

I know I've had trouble with that.

(edited)
After reading part 2, I think I see your problem. And oddly, it's an example of *you* using black & white thinking :-)

My autistic friend has this problem some times.

Rules have to apply *all* the time. They can't only apply sometimes or have exceptions.

And that's sort of what you are doing here.

Since you *know* that gender & orientation are spectrums, not either/or your not identifying in a binary manner is *not* any sort of proof that you don't have "black & white" thinking

Edited at 2015-06-29 11:36 am (UTC)
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

mourning
fayanora
The Djao'Mor'Terra Collective
Fayanora's Web Site

Latest Month

August 2019
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Taichi Kaminogoya