I never said it was anything to do with safety. It's a statement against an oppressive move from a government increasingly uninterested in the people it governs.
However - here's where safety comes in. As a queer/trans woman, I don't particularly feel safe (at all, really) in the southern states (California excluded, I guess?) - Florida and Texas, especially.
People are actively, regularly violent towards LGTBQ+ people down there. And, of course - it's not the ban - it's the attitude behind it - and the people behind it who are dangerous, and are often violent people with guns.
I've rejected a handful of paid business travel opportunities because they were either in Texas or Florida. It's not worth it on the chance I run into some psychotic anti-gay Christian and their gun, demanding I get the hell out of their city...again. (Yes, this has already actually happened to me...)
You seem to be referring to a general cultural attitude in the south ("violent toward LGBTQ+") than the particular laws which perhaps are a legislative expression of the southern population's animus? In which case you treat the south on the same spectrum as say Afganistan where the cultural and legislative environment is so hostile you would refrain from even visiting?
The laws are a direct result of these people existing and voting for them, and a symptom of the oppressive environment that awaits for LGTBQ+ folk who visit, or - worse - live, there.
And of course I would never visit Afghanistan, either!
> For a country that likes to jerk itself off about being the epitome of ‘freedom’, they sure do like to tell people what to do.
> The laws are a direct result of these people existing and voting for them.
I see these as contradictory statements. In reality independent legislatures are making laws along the lines of their constituency's prevailing ideology. Both sides of this cultural divide are increasingly unable or unwilling to even entertain each others' points of view in good faith debate.
* It harasses me about taxes every year as I constantly mess things up...
* It should definitely harass you if you break the law!
These laws in question "harass" (restrict) one population by disabling harassment perpetrated by another population.
For the sex-education ban it "harasses" (restricts) sex education to prevent teachers from "harassing" elementary aged children about sexual identity in schools. An abortion ban "harasses" mothers by restricting them from "harassing" their babies.
We're talking about a culture that values the one group's rights over the others' rights. Who wins depends on the prevailing culture in our system of government but one group will necessarily win at the others' expense.
Pre-pending an arbitrary question with "respectfully" does not automatically make it more respectful. In this case, it seems to actually do the opposite.
Apologies then, I'm trying to indicate that I'm curious about the reasoning behind this perspective and open to a good-faith discussion on it. Your decision to not engage with my question and instead criticize my articulation leads me to think this discussion won't happen.
The statement from GopherCon was about the alignment of values, and lostgame is expressing gratitude for moral support in a harsh social environment. Why do you frame your discussion in terms of safety when the thread is about the alignment of values and the support of people such as lostgame? Do you think your framing is a better one than what was provided in the thread so far?
Shall we talk more about conference security instead?
I think "protect the weak, engage/debate the strong" is worth way more than the reverse, for no reason, it is just an moral intuition.
Another way of thinking this is utilitarian: non-queer people will not be target of violence by armed (or even unarmed drunk) people in Nevada or California, while the LGBTQ community is at a greater risk of being the target of violence in TX or FL. So having the local governement pushing the "don't say gay" bill, and announcing it that strongly (only heard of it because of the Disney debacle) to me can only be a kind of "virtue signalling", the kind of virtue being: all against LGBTQ+ people.
[edit: forgot conclusion] thus for utilitatian purpose, it is better to have the convention in state where violences against marginalized communities present in tech are the lowest, or at least don't seems state-sanctioned.
> I think "protect the weak, engage/debate the strong" is worth way more than the reverse, for no reason, it is just an moral intuition.
Totally agree. Though you didn't answer my question, how do we figure out what our _community_ values are? Those are individual values. For example, I would say that a 16w fetus is weaker than the woman who carries it whereas you might say the 16w fetus's rights aren't important because it is unborn. How do we tell as a community which of these contradictory views wins out for the purposes of... location for a tech conference?
I agree that weakness usually poses a risk to rights. In theory the weakness of a community is irrelevant to their rights, their rights should be protected regardless, but I see your point. The problem is that the Florida bill is about elementary education restrictions on sex education, it isn't "against" LGBTQ people and can't be because they aren't referenced explicitly or implicitly in the bill [1].
However - here's where safety comes in. As a queer/trans woman, I don't particularly feel safe (at all, really) in the southern states (California excluded, I guess?) - Florida and Texas, especially.
People are actively, regularly violent towards LGTBQ+ people down there. And, of course - it's not the ban - it's the attitude behind it - and the people behind it who are dangerous, and are often violent people with guns.
I've rejected a handful of paid business travel opportunities because they were either in Texas or Florida. It's not worth it on the chance I run into some psychotic anti-gay Christian and their gun, demanding I get the hell out of their city...again. (Yes, this has already actually happened to me...)