Canuckistani

Yes. If they're doing it, having a sleepover isn't going to change it one way or another. If he's really a girl, and my daughter not a lesbian, then there's no worry. Well, not a worry if she is a lesbian either.

That skeleton is not the missing link, just another piece of the puzzle. But how somebody can look at the fossil record and not think some sort of evolution of species is going on is beyond me. But then if you think the earth is only 6000 years old, you can think all kinds of bs.

She walked into a store and asked to try on a dress. She was refused and left in tears. Guess the store should have a big sign "this store run by bigots." Or "we don't serve people who fit into our narrow gender definitions so get lost" or just "No weirdos."

She left the store and went to another where she was served no problem. But she's thinking of filing a HR complaint, and I think she should.

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/saskatoon-bridal-shop-refuses-let-transgender-woman-try-161320080.html

It's happened with bathrooms, where male appearing but female identifying people have won human rights cases, so I'm sure the bridal shop doesn't have a leg to stand on. Does the shop bar all males from coming in, or only from trying on dresses? If the latter, why?

Society has changed, as have our views on gender identity. No more little boxes.

Well, the OP is about a transgender woman going to a store to try on a dress. People took it in all sorts of silly directions because a male looking person trying on a dress in a store just isn't outrageous enough.

I've never been inside a changing room and seen a urinal. Guess I shop at the wrong stores, tho I would actually find that kind of disgusting. Oh, wait, this is more of that mixing up bathrooms and changerooms stuff, isn't it? Funny how a transgender who wants to try on a dress, ie put it on in a private dressing room where nobody can see her, and then come out fully dressed for her friends to see gets turned into discussions about bathrooms and what not. Guess because the original story is just about a shop owners bigotry and people trying to defend that.

I think Jesus (or the myth about him) was pretty much copacetic about that - do unto others and all, which he borrowed from Rabbi Hillel who wasn't the first to say it either. It's actually the basis of any sane religious ideology. JC was very mad with his followers, because the argued about who would get to sit on his right side in heaven. They just didn't get it, that they should worry about their actions in this life, and that heaven is within - ie a state of mind, not a place. I've got to say, the Christian idea of heaven just makes no sense - an eternity of bliss. If all you have is bliss, it won't seem like bliss, just boringly normal. You need suffering to set off the bliss so you can appreciate it. Heaven just sounds like a more medicated version of hell.

Much better question, and can't help but stand you in good stead if there is an afterlife.

Country of birth Population (2000) United States 250,314,015 Total foreign born 31,107,890 Mexico 9,177,485 Philippines 1,369,070 China 1,192,435 India 1,022,050 Vietnam 988,175 Cuba 872,715 Korea 864,125 Canada 820,770 El Salvador 817,335 Germany 706,705 Dominican Republic 687,675 United Kingdom 677,750 Jamaica 553,825 Colombia 509,870 Guatemala 480,665 Italy 473,340 Poland 466,740 Haiti 419,315 Japan 347,540 Russia 340,175 Taiwan 326,215 Ecuador 298,625 Iran 283,225 Honduras 282,850 Peru 278,185 Ukraine 275,155 Pakistan 223,475 Nicaragua 220,335 Brazil 212,430 Guyana 211,190 Laos 204,285 Portugal 203,120 Trinidad and Tobago 197,400 Thailand 169,800 Greece 165,750 Republic of Ireland 156,475 France 151,155 Cambodia 136,980 Romania 135,695 Nigeria 134,940 Argentina 125,220 Egypt 113,395 Israel 109,720 Venezuela 107,030 Lebanon 105,910 Panama 105,175 Bosnia and Herzegovina 98,756 Bangladesh 95,295 Netherlands 94,570 Hungary 92,015 Iraq 89,890 Czech Republic 83,080 Spain 82,860 Chile 80,805 Turkey 78,380 Indonesia 72,550 Costa Rica 71,870 Ethiopia 69,530 Ghana 65,570 Armenia 65,280 Austria 63,650 South Africa 63,560 Australia 60,965 Syria 54,560 Bolivia 53,280 Barbados 52,170

He doesn't have to feel anything, he could be a red blooded American hetero male. If he wants to buy a wedding gown, he should be served. You say the gowns are tried on in public - of course they are. Just as a man trying on pants might come out of the dressing room to get his wife's opinion. No genitals are exposed in this public showing, and it's a strange wedding gown that would expose genitalia while worn. This shop just needs to get over its bigotry. Imagine a tux shop refusing service to a woman.

Funny how everyone argues about showers and washrooms, to make it a black and white proposition, when this case is not. (And unisex washrooms are increasing all the time.) This is about a business that's open to the public. If I want to go in and buy and bridal gown, with my genetalia and everything, they should no more be able to refuse me than they would a person of color. These women aren't getting changed out in the open, they have dressing rooms, so I see no reason to refuse service except bigotry.

Actually US middle class prosperity and the US system were based on unionism. American unions fought hard and bloody battles to improve things for the American worker, which greatly increased people earning a middle class income and fueled the boom that came from all that disposable income buying American made products. Some people take the advances for workers made by unions for granted, but they are not and are steadily being eroded.

Small town Canada is not going to attract big box stores because the volume isn't there. If a big box decides the volume is there to put one up, the mom and pops are gone, no matter what wages they pay.

BS. LICO is determined by the line where people spend 20% more on basics than the average person/family. The average is nowhere near minimum wage. Min wages would be a very small part of cost of living, so raising the min wage would not raise LICO. I mean you seem to be claiming that when BC raised the min wage by $2.25 over the course of a year, the LICO in Vancouver should have shot up an equal amount. It did not.

The LICO is based on the cost of living - ie food, housing, etc. Seems a reasonable standard to set for min wage. In Vancouver it's under $12 for a single person. Current min wage is $10. 25. So not a huge increase, but certainly welcome by min wage workers, and it would keep rising with inflation, as it should. As I say, Australia seems to do very well with a $16 min wage. Seems a bit high to me, but it works for them.

Are you claiming a rise in the min wage is in 100% correlation to the rise in the LICO? Give your head a shake. Low end wages are a very small part of LICO. And yes, low end wages would rise with inflation, ie LICO, under this scheme. And you seem to be saying that reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument with your second paragraph. It's not.

No. Not a store. How does raising the min wage tilt the field towards the big box stores?

Min wage should be set to the LICO for a single person in the area. That means people would have a modest but sufficient income that rises with inflation. Australia has a min wage of $16. They're booming.

Small business taxes are already 0 in some provinces, so I don't know how much room there is to move there. BC just raised it's min wage from $8 to $10.25 over a year, and I see many fine small businesses doing just fine. If a small business can only survive by paying starvation wages, it should not be in business in the first place. Otherwise, why not just have no min wage law, and open the border to anybody that wants to come here and work for $5 an hour say. Business would be booming by that theory, Canada not so much.

25 employees - guess it was a larger small business. Paid well above minimum wage.

And, since low wage workers would earn more, they would have more money to spend, more sales for business. And more taxes going to the govt, less govt money going out to low wage workers in govt supports.