Hey, there! Log in / Register
Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly uphold trans rights
By adamg on Tue, 11/06/2018 - 9:50pm
With 20% of precincts reporting statewide, Question 3, which would uphold a state law guaranteeing the right of transgender people against discrimination in public places, is passing by a 2-1 margin. In Boston, it is passing by an even higher margin.
Question 1, which would have set minimum staffing levels for hospital nurses, is going down to defeat.
Question 2, which would set up a commission to draft an amendment to the US Constitution to limit or stop corporate involvement in elections, is winning.
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
So happy about 3!!!
So happy about 3!!!
This is great, but sad that 1
This is great, but sad that 1/3 of voters want to be able to discriminate against transgender people (and many other groups that arent being voted on, as its hard to understand how people could think it should be legal to discriminate against some people but not others.
Voters
I bet some of your friends voted against it, the PC thing to say was being pro-trans, but in the voting booth you can go the other way and vote no.
Yeah, not my friends
My friends are people who vocally and consistently stand up for the rights of marginalized folks, even when it means they lose out on something because someone doesn't like them rocking the boat. If you don't sincerely hold these beliefs in a way that really shows, you aren't my friend.
but, but...
I think a lot of "No's" come form the fear factor - say a non TG at all straight guy uses the womens locker room at the gym, and just 'says' he identified as a woman that day, but really wants to get cheap thrills... The fact that this scenario does not happen doesn't matter to those who worry about it.
(And yes, there is also a large group of people who just don't deal well with those who are different than they are...)
Theoretical vs practical
It seems most people felt that the theoretical arguments about what an imaginary person could do to get cheap thrills were overbalanced by the practical arguments about real people who need the compassion and support of others to live their lives safely.
No one actually believes in this scenario.
Its not a factual question. Its bullshit and they know it to be. What they are saying is that trans women are perverts, sexual deviants. It is a fascist line of thinking that ultimately leads not to trans people using the bathroom of their assigned gender but using none at all, and often quite quickly to none at all. The logical extension is wanting trans people out of society.
Are these hypothetical people also afraid...
Are these hypothetical people also afraid of pianos falling on their heads?
People need to worry about real problems and not oppress other people to assuage their imaginary fears.
As someone very well put it
As someone very well put it to me recently: You have the right to BE safe, not the right to FEEL safe.
Excellent
Well put - gonna remember that!
Or even if it were real
For arguendo, let's say that sometimes cis straight dudes dress up as trans women and come in the women's room to be pervs. And let's say that judges are totally ridiculous and accept this argument rather than telling the idiot to fuck off since he has no evidence that he lives his life as a trans woman, and telling the idiot that being trans or not trans or fake trans has nothing to do with him still being on the hook for the comments he made or photos he took or whatever.
If that were actually to be something that happens, you know what? I'd still be in favor of strong protections for transgender folks. The safety and humanity of real actual trans people who deal with the daily experiences of harassment, assault, poor medical care, unemployment, and such atrocities is much more important than my supposed freedom from weird straight guys in the women's room. (And for what it's worth, there's never been anything stopping them from coming in the women's room, yet they mostly don't).
Question 1
I hadn't been following polling on this issue, but I'm surprised there was such a definitive No result - everything I'd seen on it seemed more mixed. Is it just that people opted for the default given the confusion around the question?
There was a split among
There was a split among everyone you talk to, including nurses. If there's that much uncertainty, the safer bet is to keep the current system in place as is and let them come up with a better solution
What would that better solution be?
Just wondering, but the simplest and best solution would be for hospitals to hire more nurses.
You mean...
The hospitals that already cost more than virtually all other hospitals in the world and are still losing money?
How is that possible?
Maybe the hospitals could
Maybe the hospitals could have used some of the $18 million they spent on no-on-1 ads.
Estimates from the state's
Estimates from the state's independent Health Policy Commission are that this law would have cost an additional $676 to $949 million a year, so, apples-to-oranges really...
And yet can invest millions in ads against 1
yeah BS, the problem is not a lack of resources it is their distribution.
If you really believe that
You are not competent to be commenting on this board. Ditto the person above.
So...
...what part of the statement is false? Enlighten us, since you're the judge of who's competent to be commenting on this board.
See eherots comment
Hundreds of millions a year in extra costs every year compounding at the rate of mefical inflation.
Vs. 18 million to help defeat the bill. The ads cost me $3 in "the system". Passing that bill costs me about $3k - 4k over the rest of my life for something I have found perfectly adequate.
"let them come up with a better solution"
But "they" haven't. The legislature, that is. That's a lot of the argument for a yes vote on 3: the legislature, faced with a fait accompli, would get off their asses and actually legislate to solve the problem of inadequate staffing.
There have been bills in the Massachusetts legislature to address this issue FOR YEARS. And they always die in committee. Until we solve that structural problem, ballot questions are a valid tool for forcing legislative action. They don't have to be perfect to do so (ref. the ballot question to legalize marijuana).
Since when is 20 percent of precincts
reporting considered a majority? It's hardly a difficult concept to understand. - wait until ALL the ballots are tallied before announcing the results.
Or at least do the math to
Or at least do the math to prove the outcome is settled, considering the precincts reporting and the number of registered voters.
They are
which is why different stations report outcomes at different times, based on the math they're doing. I guess they could do a 15 minute explanation of how polling and statistics works for their models, but it's not really relevant for most people - if you don't trust their math, just don't tune into that station.
"That station" is Adam.
"That station" is Adam.
Without knowing the details of election statistics, if only 20% of precincts have reported, the outcome wasn't even close to settled yet.
True, and yet ...
When all the votes were counted, what was the result?