Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

LGBT protections: Trump memo seeks trans erasure

2456722

Posts

  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Dracil wrote: »
    Wasn't there an article about how I think Steve Bannon/his data company did some analysis and figured out transgender people were basically the weakest link in the liberal coalition, as they were a group that could be attacked and not garner a strong reaction of people coming to their defense and thus they were gonna prioritize them as one of the first targets? I think it was around the time when the anti-LGBT EO was supposed to have been signed and then disappeared.

    It's possible they think this, but data is massively overrated in politics, and these people also thought the same about their previous fights that blew up in their faces.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    NartwakLoisLane
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck the search for the means to put an end to things an end to speech is what enables the discourse to continue ~ * ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) excelsior * ~Registered User regular
    view that trans rights is a boutique issue that only loonie lefties care about is common in repub circles; doubly so in the bannon style because it is taken as sign of "degeneracy" and "decadence" that surely leads to downfall of western civ

    whether belief is data based or not is moot. that they think it's a joke is not a stretch

    obF2Wuw.png
    Crimson KingZilla360Panda4YouHakkekageElkicB557Sir LandsharkjoshofalltradesSo It GoesAuralynxTetraNitroCubanetynicMan in the MistsTofystedethBahamutZERO
  • StericaSterica Wow! That was shit.Registered User, Moderator mod
    Didn't Trump release an EO or memorandum about supporting LGBT rights? It didn't actually DO anything, but made Trump feel good, I imagine.

    Of course, he knows who's buttering his bread so I guess it's this shit for four years.

    YL9WnCY.png
    Zilla360
  • Zilla360Zilla360 21st Century. |She/Her| Surreal. Immersive. Earth.Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    Wakes up. Turns on televison. Cries. :bigfrown: :cry:

    70itlqgx3xi7.png
    Holy fuck I hate Trump right now, with the fire of a thousand suns. What a total, total fucking dickbag. :evil:

    Zilla360 on
    Skidzilla360.jpg | NH844lc.png | GACSALB.jpg My Blog | Gravatar | PSN | 72INGtl.jpg | HkSlskT.png
    Operative21Emerlmaster999tyrannusDesktop HippieSleepHakkekageFencingsaxshrykecB557joshofalltradesMrVyngaardnaengwenShadowfireMatevStabbity StyleArdolTetraNitroCubaneHacksawscherbchenAegeriMan in the MistsNecoSquigieHavelock2.0emp123Fallout2man
  • milskimilski Their Will comes, at last, to Earth, to the Neath, as a storm crosses the sea. Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    Dracil wrote: »
    Wasn't there an article about how I think Steve Bannon/his data company did some analysis and figured out transgender people were basically the weakest link in the liberal coalition, as they were a group that could be attacked and not garner a strong reaction of people coming to their defense and thus they were gonna prioritize them as one of the first targets? I think it was around the time when the anti-LGBT EO was supposed to have been signed and then disappeared.

    There was a long tweetchain where somebody assumed this and mass administrational competence as a premise, up to and including intentional data gathering effort buried in /pol/ trolling, and concluded that (as they assumed) Bannon was thinking this.

    I wasn't particularly convinced, and I never saw any actual articles on it. I could have missed it in the chaos, though.

    milski on
    High, cold, eternal, immobile, minuscule. You endure; you burn.
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Wyvern wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    I never really liked the Obama EO on this. They basically went hey, you know how any discussion of this issue involves acknowledging that sex and gender are separate things? Well, they aren't. And by aren't we mean, aren't solely for interpreting 1970s law that explicitly uses "sex" to actually mean gender so we have the power to enact these changes.

    Rule by EO fiat, die by EO fiat.
    Given the rates of suicide attempts among trans kids have always been super high even BEFORE their government was explicitly setting out to have them eradicated from public life, a whole lot of us are going to be LITERALLY dying by EO fiat over the coming years, so I would appreciate it if you would be less flippant about the subject.

    any EO-free approach entails acknowledging that a comfortable legislative plurality does not prioritize trans kids dying quietly somewhere over other political issues though

    what would you be willing to sell to a Republican Congress to obtain such sweeping legislative change circa peak Obamapanic - more tax cuts on the rich? healthcare? immigration? etc
    Is this directed at me or tinwhiskers? Because I don't really share the objection. I DON'T want to wait for a plurality of legislators to figure out all the intricacies of sex and gender because I know quite intimately what the intervening decades look like for those whose wellbeing is threatened. I'll take what I can get in the meantime; I don't have the luxury of sitting around saying "well the semantics of the executive order weren't quite perfect so meh".

    You are right, the Obama administration tactic of steadily expanding the presidents ability to legislate via EO has clearly set us up for a future full of rainbows and unicorns.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    Apothe0sis
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Wyvern wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    I never really liked the Obama EO on this. They basically went hey, you know how any discussion of this issue involves acknowledging that sex and gender are separate things? Well, they aren't. And by aren't we mean, aren't solely for interpreting 1970s law that explicitly uses "sex" to actually mean gender so we have the power to enact these changes.

    Rule by EO fiat, die by EO fiat.
    Given the rates of suicide attempts among trans kids have always been super high even BEFORE their government was explicitly setting out to have them eradicated from public life, a whole lot of us are going to be LITERALLY dying by EO fiat over the coming years, so I would appreciate it if you would be less flippant about the subject.

    any EO-free approach entails acknowledging that a comfortable legislative plurality does not prioritize trans kids dying quietly somewhere over other political issues though

    what would you be willing to sell to a Republican Congress to obtain such sweeping legislative change circa peak Obamapanic - more tax cuts on the rich? healthcare? immigration? etc
    Is this directed at me or tinwhiskers? Because I don't really share the objection. I DON'T want to wait for a plurality of legislators to figure out all the intricacies of sex and gender because I know quite intimately what the intervening decades look like for those whose wellbeing is threatened. I'll take what I can get in the meantime; I don't have the luxury of sitting around saying "well the semantics of the executive order weren't quite perfect so meh".

    You are right, the Obama administration tactic of steadily expanding the presidents ability to legislate via EO has clearly set us up for a future full of rainbows and unicorns.

    The alternative would have ended the situation, at best, where it is now, so this isn't a particularly convincing argument against the initial EO.

    milskiHakkekageiTunesIsEvilZampanovFencingsaxQuidEinzeljoshofalltradesJuliusGnome-InterruptusMatevkimeArdolHacksawNecoDracomicronSquigieemp123
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    Wyvern wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    I never really liked the Obama EO on this. They basically went hey, you know how any discussion of this issue involves acknowledging that sex and gender are separate things? Well, they aren't. And by aren't we mean, aren't solely for interpreting 1970s law that explicitly uses "sex" to actually mean gender so we have the power to enact these changes.

    Rule by EO fiat, die by EO fiat.
    Given the rates of suicide attempts among trans kids have always been super high even BEFORE their government was explicitly setting out to have them eradicated from public life, a whole lot of us are going to be LITERALLY dying by EO fiat over the coming years, so I would appreciate it if you would be less flippant about the subject.

    any EO-free approach entails acknowledging that a comfortable legislative plurality does not prioritize trans kids dying quietly somewhere over other political issues though

    what would you be willing to sell to a Republican Congress to obtain such sweeping legislative change circa peak Obamapanic - more tax cuts on the rich? healthcare? immigration? etc
    Is this directed at me or tinwhiskers? Because I don't really share the objection. I DON'T want to wait for a plurality of legislators to figure out all the intricacies of sex and gender because I know quite intimately what the intervening decades look like for those whose wellbeing is threatened. I'll take what I can get in the meantime; I don't have the luxury of sitting around saying "well the semantics of the executive order weren't quite perfect so meh".

    You are right, the Obama administration tactic of steadily expanding the presidents ability to legislate via EO has clearly set us up for a future full of rainbows and unicorns.

    Didn't he use less executive orders than both previous presidents?

    This seems like a thing we'd always have had to deal with and Obama's EOs just put it off till we could get better footing in the legislature. We just haven't.

    r4zgei8pcfod.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    Wyvern wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    I never really liked the Obama EO on this. They basically went hey, you know how any discussion of this issue involves acknowledging that sex and gender are separate things? Well, they aren't. And by aren't we mean, aren't solely for interpreting 1970s law that explicitly uses "sex" to actually mean gender so we have the power to enact these changes.

    Rule by EO fiat, die by EO fiat.
    Given the rates of suicide attempts among trans kids have always been super high even BEFORE their government was explicitly setting out to have them eradicated from public life, a whole lot of us are going to be LITERALLY dying by EO fiat over the coming years, so I would appreciate it if you would be less flippant about the subject.

    any EO-free approach entails acknowledging that a comfortable legislative plurality does not prioritize trans kids dying quietly somewhere over other political issues though

    what would you be willing to sell to a Republican Congress to obtain such sweeping legislative change circa peak Obamapanic - more tax cuts on the rich? healthcare? immigration? etc
    Is this directed at me or tinwhiskers? Because I don't really share the objection. I DON'T want to wait for a plurality of legislators to figure out all the intricacies of sex and gender because I know quite intimately what the intervening decades look like for those whose wellbeing is threatened. I'll take what I can get in the meantime; I don't have the luxury of sitting around saying "well the semantics of the executive order weren't quite perfect so meh".

    You are right, the Obama administration tactic of steadily expanding the presidents ability to legislate via EO has clearly set us up for a future full of rainbows and unicorns.

    This seems like a logical fallacy to me. Nothing Obama did made it easier for Trump to issue his executive orders. It was always within the powers of the President. The only way this argument would have merit would be if Obama signed an Executive Order, that made it easier for the President to issue Executive Orders, which he didn't.

    ZampanovmRahmanirockrngerFencingsaxArbitraryDescriptorshrykeDacJuliusVeagleRhesus PositiveGnome-InterruptuskimeStabbity StyleArdolHacksawMan in the MistsNarbusNecoDracomicronSquigieTofystedethemp123
  • cursedkingcursedking Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »


    I don't know what DeVos is doing here. Playing good cop?

    I think she's saying that the department is already under the mission to protect all students, so there's no need for an EO.

    It's the same argument that hate crimes shouldn't exist because crime is crime and it's all wrong. she's just full of shit.

    Fallout2man
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Blaming Obama for expanding the President's power is goddamned ridiculous when W. got us into two wars without congressional approval.

    Desktop HippiebowenSleepmilskiButtcleftJohnny ChopsockyEmerlmaster999FencingsaxZomroQuidZilla360joshofalltradesCalicaForarMrVyngaardVeagleTicaldfjamdavidsdurionsPaladinnaengwenShadowfireMatevkimeStabbity StyleArdolTetraNitroCubaneHacksawAntinumericMan in the MistsNarbusbrynhrtmnSquigieTofystedethHavelock2.0Just_Bri_Thanksemp123Fallout2man
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    cursedking wrote: »
    KetBra wrote: »


    I don't know what DeVos is doing here. Playing good cop?

    I think she's saying that the department is already under the mission to protect all students, so there's no need for an EO.

    It's the same argument that hate crimes shouldn't exist because crime is crime and it's all wrong. she's just full of shit.

    I took it as more of an abolishment of the VRA 'we don't need these extra protections because discrimination doesn't exist anymore' type deal.

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Blaming Obama for expanding the President's power is goddamned ridiculous when W. got us into two wars without congressional approval.

    Presidents have been expanding their power since George god-damned Washington. The point is tiring because GOP members use it as a way to act like fuckaroos.

    Ladies.
    SleepFencingsaxshrykeCalicadavidsdurionsPreacherMan in the MistsbrynhrtmnSquigieHavelock2.0emp123
  • cursedkingcursedking Registered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    cursedking wrote: »
    KetBra wrote: »


    I don't know what DeVos is doing here. Playing good cop?

    I think she's saying that the department is already under the mission to protect all students, so there's no need for an EO.

    It's the same argument that hate crimes shouldn't exist because crime is crime and it's all wrong. she's just full of shit.

    I took it as more of an abolishment of the VRA 'we don't need these extra protections because discrimination doesn't exist anymore' type deal.

    yes this is what i meant, sorry.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    I never really liked the Obama EO on this. They basically went hey, you know how any discussion of this issue involves acknowledging that sex and gender are separate things? Well, they aren't. And by aren't we mean, aren't solely for interpreting 1970s law that explicitly uses "sex" to actually mean gender so we have the power to enact these changes.

    Rule by EO fiat, die by EO fiat.

    Classifying trans discrimination as sex discrimination is not new and unusual. It has been applied to other areas like employment discrimination lawsuits and generally follows from a SCOTUS case treating discrimination based on gender as sex discrimination.

    HakkekageJoeUserZilla360joshofalltradesSo It GoesArdolMan in the MistsmonikerNecoemp123Fallout2man
  • WyvernWyvern Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    Dracil wrote: »
    Wasn't there an article about how I think Steve Bannon/his data company did some analysis and figured out transgender people were basically the weakest link in the liberal coalition, as they were a group that could be attacked and not garner a strong reaction of people coming to their defense and thus they were gonna prioritize them as one of the first targets? I think it was around the time when the anti-LGBT EO was supposed to have been signed and then disappeared.

    It's possible they think this, but data is massively overrated in politics, and these people also thought the same about their previous fights that blew up in their faces.
    Man, I don't even NEED data analysis to know that's largely true. Even the rest of the LGB movement has been known to kick us to the curb half of the time when we get too inconvenient for them. There has always been a lot of, "You're all just too weird for the public to accept, so you should wait your turn rather than weigh down a successful gay rights movement."

    I wish I could point to opposition to HB-2 as a strong counterexample, because it did surprise me, but that was largely fueled by economic factors that stop working when you move from state to national scale.

    Although the Trump administration is so cartoonishly evil that higher-than-expected numbers might oppose it out of sheer bloody-minded spite. And also because everyone knows damn well that the buck does not stop with us anymore. Nobody with sense has reason to believe that they'll be spared if they behave at this point.

    Switch: SW-2431-2728-9604 || 3DS: 0817-4948-1650
    Zilla360PsycohedNeco
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    I never really liked the Obama EO on this. They basically went hey, you know how any discussion of this issue involves acknowledging that sex and gender are separate things? Well, they aren't. And by aren't we mean, aren't solely for interpreting 1970s law that explicitly uses "sex" to actually mean gender so we have the power to enact these changes.

    Rule by EO fiat, die by EO fiat.

    Classifying trans discrimination as sex discrimination is not new and unusual. It has been applied to other areas like employment discrimination lawsuits and generally follows from a SCOTUS case treating discrimination based on gender as sex discrimination.

    Can you link the lawsuit? I'm curious about it.

    (It makes sense, though, since it seems trivially obvious to me that in most cases the discriminations can't be unwound - firing a man in a dress when you wouldn't fire a woman in a dress is clearly discriminating on sex, for example)

  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    I never really liked the Obama EO on this. They basically went hey, you know how any discussion of this issue involves acknowledging that sex and gender are separate things? Well, they aren't. And by aren't we mean, aren't solely for interpreting 1970s law that explicitly uses "sex" to actually mean gender so we have the power to enact these changes.

    Rule by EO fiat, die by EO fiat.
    Given the rates of suicide attempts among trans kids have always been super high even BEFORE their government was explicitly setting out to have them eradicated from public life, a whole lot of us are going to be LITERALLY dying by EO fiat over the coming years, so I would appreciate it if you would be less flippant about the subject.

    any EO-free approach entails acknowledging that a comfortable legislative plurality does not prioritize trans kids dying quietly somewhere over other political issues though

    what would you be willing to sell to a Republican Congress to obtain such sweeping legislative change circa peak Obamapanic - more tax cuts on the rich? healthcare? immigration? etc
    Is this directed at me or tinwhiskers? Because I don't really share the objection. I DON'T want to wait for a plurality of legislators to figure out all the intricacies of sex and gender because I know quite intimately what the intervening decades look like for those whose wellbeing is threatened. I'll take what I can get in the meantime; I don't have the luxury of sitting around saying "well the semantics of the executive order weren't quite perfect so meh".

    You are right, the Obama administration tactic of steadily expanding the presidents ability to legislate via EO has clearly set us up for a future full of rainbows and unicorns.

    The alternative would have ended the situation, at best, where it is now, so this isn't a particularly convincing argument against the initial EO.

    They are mutually exclusive only by choice, or temporary necessity. The intial guidance and interpretation of Title IX does not exclude future legislation. So, a future Democratic executive might reinstate the guidance and they should be expected to - but that should not be deemed satisfactory and any Democratic congress should be expected to legislate along the same or broader lines.

    Nothing wrong with a good EO or guidance, but they attract way too much praise that mostly ignores that they could be wiped away in seconds of political time.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    thatassemblyguyGnizmoGnome-Interruptusmonikeremp123
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Blaming Obama for expanding the President's power is goddamned ridiculous when W. got us into two wars without congressional approval.

    Presidents have been expanding their power since George god-damned Washington. The point is tiring because GOP members use it as a way to act like fuckaroos.

    I mean, sort of. But Ol'e George didn't even want the job and he created the concept of a peaceful transition of power in the US. Most of the earlier expansions of Presidential power came about because of unexpected events and such. Jackson is a bit of outlier in that regards when it comes to early America presidents.

    It really started to get out of hand with Nixon though. Therein lies the root of modern executive power and it's constant expansion.

    bowen
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Here is what I don't understand about this. It honestly seems that this should be an issue which is far more easily resolved within the framework of the constitution than say, rights for gay people. This is due to the existence of people who are literally biologically and physically intersex who will be affected unnavoidably by any ruling which says, "You must use the restroom corresponding to your gender" or "let the states decide". Prooving you are biologically intersex is not hard, like say proving that you really actually do love someone of the same gender and aren't just doing it because you are an evil sinner.

    1. People have a right to privacy.
    2. Laws must be enforceable and clearly describe how they apply to all situations so that people know if they are offering the law. You cannot make it illegal to fizzball and not tell people what that is.
    2. Some people are born intersex.
    3. Intersex people (XXY chromosomes, or those presenting with both male and female genitals) cannot be compelled to reveal this fact unless they want to.
    4. Intersex people cannot be assigned a biological gender of 'male or female'
    5. So intersex people make any law like this illegal due to it being improperly described and violating their right to privacy.
    6. Making laws based on the gender written on your birth certificate simply creates a whole new issue where there exist people whose birth certificate gender is wrong due to a doctor's error, or again, just simply cannot be assigned a biological gender because they are not male or female.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    Zilla360
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    I never really liked the Obama EO on this. They basically went hey, you know how any discussion of this issue involves acknowledging that sex and gender are separate things? Well, they aren't. And by aren't we mean, aren't solely for interpreting 1970s law that explicitly uses "sex" to actually mean gender so we have the power to enact these changes.

    Rule by EO fiat, die by EO fiat.
    Given the rates of suicide attempts among trans kids have always been super high even BEFORE their government was explicitly setting out to have them eradicated from public life, a whole lot of us are going to be LITERALLY dying by EO fiat over the coming years, so I would appreciate it if you would be less flippant about the subject.

    any EO-free approach entails acknowledging that a comfortable legislative plurality does not prioritize trans kids dying quietly somewhere over other political issues though

    what would you be willing to sell to a Republican Congress to obtain such sweeping legislative change circa peak Obamapanic - more tax cuts on the rich? healthcare? immigration? etc
    Is this directed at me or tinwhiskers? Because I don't really share the objection. I DON'T want to wait for a plurality of legislators to figure out all the intricacies of sex and gender because I know quite intimately what the intervening decades look like for those whose wellbeing is threatened. I'll take what I can get in the meantime; I don't have the luxury of sitting around saying "well the semantics of the executive order weren't quite perfect so meh".

    You are right, the Obama administration tactic of steadily expanding the presidents ability to legislate via EO has clearly set us up for a future full of rainbows and unicorns.

    The alternative would have ended the situation, at best, where it is now, so this isn't a particularly convincing argument against the initial EO.

    They are mutually exclusive only by choice, or temporary necessity. The intial guidance and interpretation of Title IX does not exclude future legislation. So, a future Democratic executive might reinstate the guidance and they should be expected to - but that should not be deemed satisfactory and any Democratic congress should be expected to legislate along the same or broader lines.

    Nothing wrong with a good EO or guidance, but they attract way too much praise that mostly ignores that they could be wiped away in seconds of political time.

    I can't tell if we're agreeing, but I think we are?

    I am mostly saying that, especially with previous congresses, there was no chance of any legislation ANYWAY, so the starting of raising this issues by non-permanent means does not constitute an error that has delayed progress or anything.

  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    I never really liked the Obama EO on this. They basically went hey, you know how any discussion of this issue involves acknowledging that sex and gender are separate things? Well, they aren't. And by aren't we mean, aren't solely for interpreting 1970s law that explicitly uses "sex" to actually mean gender so we have the power to enact these changes.

    Rule by EO fiat, die by EO fiat.
    Given the rates of suicide attempts among trans kids have always been super high even BEFORE their government was explicitly setting out to have them eradicated from public life, a whole lot of us are going to be LITERALLY dying by EO fiat over the coming years, so I would appreciate it if you would be less flippant about the subject.

    any EO-free approach entails acknowledging that a comfortable legislative plurality does not prioritize trans kids dying quietly somewhere over other political issues though

    what would you be willing to sell to a Republican Congress to obtain such sweeping legislative change circa peak Obamapanic - more tax cuts on the rich? healthcare? immigration? etc
    Is this directed at me or tinwhiskers? Because I don't really share the objection. I DON'T want to wait for a plurality of legislators to figure out all the intricacies of sex and gender because I know quite intimately what the intervening decades look like for those whose wellbeing is threatened. I'll take what I can get in the meantime; I don't have the luxury of sitting around saying "well the semantics of the executive order weren't quite perfect so meh".

    You are right, the Obama administration tactic of steadily expanding the presidents ability to legislate via EO has clearly set us up for a future full of rainbows and unicorns.

    The alternative would have ended the situation, at best, where it is now, so this isn't a particularly convincing argument against the initial EO.

    They are mutually exclusive only by choice, or temporary necessity. The intial guidance and interpretation of Title IX does not exclude future legislation. So, a future Democratic executive might reinstate the guidance and they should be expected to - but that should not be deemed satisfactory and any Democratic congress should be expected to legislate along the same or broader lines.

    Nothing wrong with a good EO or guidance, but they attract way too much praise that mostly ignores that they could be wiped away in seconds of political time.

    I can't tell if we're agreeing, but I think we are?

    I am mostly saying that, especially with previous congresses, there was no chance of any legislation ANYWAY, so the starting of raising this issues by non-permanent means does not constitute an error that has delayed progress or anything.

    I'm agreeing and using your post as a jump off.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    Shivahn
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    I never really liked the Obama EO on this. They basically went hey, you know how any discussion of this issue involves acknowledging that sex and gender are separate things? Well, they aren't. And by aren't we mean, aren't solely for interpreting 1970s law that explicitly uses "sex" to actually mean gender so we have the power to enact these changes.

    Rule by EO fiat, die by EO fiat.
    Given the rates of suicide attempts among trans kids have always been super high even BEFORE their government was explicitly setting out to have them eradicated from public life, a whole lot of us are going to be LITERALLY dying by EO fiat over the coming years, so I would appreciate it if you would be less flippant about the subject.

    any EO-free approach entails acknowledging that a comfortable legislative plurality does not prioritize trans kids dying quietly somewhere over other political issues though

    what would you be willing to sell to a Republican Congress to obtain such sweeping legislative change circa peak Obamapanic - more tax cuts on the rich? healthcare? immigration? etc
    Is this directed at me or tinwhiskers? Because I don't really share the objection. I DON'T want to wait for a plurality of legislators to figure out all the intricacies of sex and gender because I know quite intimately what the intervening decades look like for those whose wellbeing is threatened. I'll take what I can get in the meantime; I don't have the luxury of sitting around saying "well the semantics of the executive order weren't quite perfect so meh".

    You are right, the Obama administration tactic of steadily expanding the presidents ability to legislate via EO has clearly set us up for a future full of rainbows and unicorns.

    The alternative would have ended the situation, at best, where it is now, so this isn't a particularly convincing argument against the initial EO.

    They are mutually exclusive only by choice, or temporary necessity. The intial guidance and interpretation of Title IX does not exclude future legislation. So, a future Democratic executive might reinstate the guidance and they should be expected to - but that should not be deemed satisfactory and any Democratic congress should be expected to legislate along the same or broader lines.

    Nothing wrong with a good EO or guidance, but they attract way too much praise that mostly ignores that they could be wiped away in seconds of political time.

    I can't tell if we're agreeing, but I think we are?

    I am mostly saying that, especially with previous congresses, there was no chance of any legislation ANYWAY, so the starting of raising this issues by non-permanent means does not constitute an error that has delayed progress or anything.

    I'm agreeing and using your post as a jump off.

    Oh, yes. Um, sure showed you!

    (Yeah, I think people ignore the temporary aspect... but that also is only relevant every four to eight years, so it's easy for people to forget. Hopefully this doesn't happen so much when Democrats control everything at some point.)

    ElkithatassemblyguyElvenshaeJoeUserZilla360Ardol
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    I would like to encourage everyone, including the media, our politicians, and even those of us here, to respond to arguments that such protections being the purview of the States' control is the natural and best fit for such legislation with expanding this line of questioning to include race, sexuality, gender, age, and religion.

    Not that I think our Republican politicians would have a problem with removing existing federal protections for those, sadly, but we do need to get them on record as saying such.


    Meanwhile, considering the AG (Ken Paxton) for my own state is the one who sued to block the original transgender protections, and has responded to this recent news with this comment:
    Our fight over the bathroom directive has always been about former President Obama's attempt to bypass Congress and rewrite the laws to fit his political agenda for radical social change.

    . . . I find myself unwilling to live in this state any longer than I have to. I will be moving as soon as I am able.

    Zilla360EinzelVishNubPanda4YouHacksawMan in the MistsNecoDracomicronFallout2man
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    I would like to encourage everyone, including the media, our politicians, and even those of us here, to respond to arguments that such protections being the purview of the States' control is the natural and best fit for such legislation with expanding this line of questioning to include race, sexuality, gender, age, and religion.

    Not that I think our Republican politicians would have a problem with removing existing federal protections for those, sadly, but we do need to get them on record as saying such.


    Meanwhile, considering the AG (Ken Paxton) for my own state is the one who sued to block the original transgender protections, and has responded to this recent news with this comment:
    Our fight over the bathroom directive has always been about former President Obama's attempt to bypass Congress and rewrite the laws to fit his political agenda for radical social change.

    . . . I find myself unwilling to live in this state any longer than I have to. I will be moving as soon as I am able.

    I have, actually. The common line that is drawn by the opposition to kill the argument is always: "I'm against discrimination, but this isn't discrimination, it's <insert here>" with the most popular being religious freedom or protection of women and children.

    FencingsaxHakkekageZilla360AngelHedgiejoshofalltradesMrVyngaardMan in the Mists
  • WyvernWyvern Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    Atomika wrote: »
    I would like to encourage everyone, including the media, our politicians, and even those of us here, to respond to arguments that such protections being the purview of the States' control is the natural and best fit for such legislation with expanding this line of questioning to include race, sexuality, gender, age, and religion.

    Not that I think our Republican politicians would have a problem with removing existing federal protections for those, sadly, but we do need to get them on record as saying such.
    ...Are they not already on that record? The fight to grant states the right to discriminate against women has been fought very loudly in the form of abortion restrictions, gays in the form of opposition to Obergefell, non-whites in the form of voter ID laws and police powers, and that's just off the top of my head. Granting red states the power to discriminate without restriction has been the right's political endgame for years and they haven't been subtle about it.

    Wyvern on
    Switch: SW-2431-2728-9604 || 3DS: 0817-4948-1650
    SleepFencingsaxZilla360Knight_LabelMan in the Mistsemp123
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    I would like to encourage everyone, including the media, our politicians, and even those of us here, to respond to arguments that such protections being the purview of the States' control is the natural and best fit for such legislation with expanding this line of questioning to include race, sexuality, gender, age, and religion.

    Not that I think our Republican politicians would have a problem with removing existing federal protections for those, sadly, but we do need to get them on record as saying such.


    Meanwhile, considering the AG (Ken Paxton) for my own state is the one who sued to block the original transgender protections, and has responded to this recent news with this comment:
    Our fight over the bathroom directive has always been about former President Obama's attempt to bypass Congress and rewrite the laws to fit his political agenda for radical social change.

    . . . I find myself unwilling to live in this state any longer than I have to. I will be moving as soon as I am able.

    I have, actually. The common line that is drawn by the opposition to kill the argument is always: "I'm against discrimination, but this isn't discrimination, it's <insert here>" with the most popular being religious freedom or protection of women and children.

    of course, as usual


    some good talking points:

    - religious freedom doesn't give anyone the right to discriminate (yet, anyway) against other citizens
    - no one is entitled to restrict the rights of others because they make them uncomfortable
    - women and children have always been as safe around transgender people as anyone else (or safer)


    not that I expect many opponents to LGBT rights to be swayed

    NecoHakkekagecB557DarkPrimusMrVyngaardPanda4YouArdolMan in the MistsSquigie
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    I never really liked the Obama EO on this. They basically went hey, you know how any discussion of this issue involves acknowledging that sex and gender are separate things? Well, they aren't. And by aren't we mean, aren't solely for interpreting 1970s law that explicitly uses "sex" to actually mean gender so we have the power to enact these changes.

    Rule by EO fiat, die by EO fiat.

    Classifying trans discrimination as sex discrimination is not new and unusual. It has been applied to other areas like employment discrimination lawsuits and generally follows from a SCOTUS case treating discrimination based on gender as sex discrimination.

    Can you link the lawsuit? I'm curious about it.

    (It makes sense, though, since it seems trivially obvious to me that in most cases the discriminations can't be unwound - firing a man in a dress when you wouldn't fire a woman in a dress is clearly discriminating on sex, for example)
    Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins is the case usually cited.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/228/case.html
    In saying that gender played a motivating part in an employment decision, we mean that, if we asked the employer at the moment of the decision what its reasons were and if we received a truthful response, one of those reasons would be that the applicant or employee was a woman. [Footnote 13] In the specific context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender.

    Although the parties do not overtly dispute this last proposition, the placement by Price Waterhouse of "sex stereotyping" in quotation marks throughout its brief seems to us an insinuation either that such stereotyping was not present in this case or that it lacks legal relevance. We reject both possibilities.

    As to the existence of sex stereotyping in this case, we are not inclined to quarrel with the District Court's conclusion that a number of the partners' comments showed sex stereotyping at work. See infra at 490 U. S. 255-256. As for the legal relevance of sex stereotyping, we are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group, for,

    "'in forbidding employers to discriminate against individuals because of their sex, Congress intended to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes.'"

    The argument usually used is that even if discrimination against trans people is not per se discrimination because of sex, they are still being discriminated against based on failure to conform to traditional gender stereotypes.

    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/10-14833/201014833-2011-12-06.html
    A person is defined as transgender precisely because of the perception that his or her behavior transgresses gender stereotypes. “[T]he very acts that define transgender people as transgender are those that contradict stereotypes of gender appropriate appearance and behavior.” Ilona M. Turner, Sex Stereotyping Per Se: Transgender Employees and Title VII, 95 Cal. L. Rev. 561, 563 (2007); see also Taylor Flinn, Transforming the Debate: Why We Need to Include Transgender Rights in the Struggles for Sex and Sexual Orientation Equality, 101 Colum. L. Rev. 392, 392 (2001) (defining Transgender persons as those whose “appearance, behavior, or other personal characteristics differ from traditional gender norms”). There is thus a congruence between discriminating against transgender and transsexual individuals and discrimination on the basis of gender-based behavioral norms.

    Accordingly, discrimination against a transgender individual because of her gender non-conformity is sex discrimination, whether it’s described as being on the basis of sex or gender.

    ShivahnHakkekageZilla360CalicaDarkPrimusGnome-InterruptusArdolSquigieTofystedethKamaremp123
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    I never really liked the Obama EO on this. They basically went hey, you know how any discussion of this issue involves acknowledging that sex and gender are separate things? Well, they aren't. And by aren't we mean, aren't solely for interpreting 1970s law that explicitly uses "sex" to actually mean gender so we have the power to enact these changes.

    Rule by EO fiat, die by EO fiat.

    Old laws that say man originally meant only white land owning men. I have no problem with the government reinterpreting laws for the benefit of society.

    shryke
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Dracil wrote: »
    Wasn't there an article about how I think Steve Bannon/his data company did some analysis and figured out transgender people were basically the weakest link in the liberal coalition, as they were a group that could be attacked and not garner a strong reaction of people coming to their defense and thus they were gonna prioritize them as one of the first targets? I think it was around the time when the anti-LGBT EO was supposed to have been signed and then disappeared.

    It's possible they think this, but data is massively overrated in politics, and these people also thought the same about their previous fights that blew up in their faces.
    Man, I don't even NEED data analysis to know that's largely true. Even the rest of the LGB movement has been known to kick us to the curb half of the time when we get too inconvenient for them. There has always been a lot of, "You're all just too weird for the public to accept, so you should wait your turn rather than weigh down a successful gay rights movement."

    I wish I could point to opposition to HB-2 as a strong counterexample, because it did surprise me, but that was largely fueled by economic factors that stop working when you move from state to national scale.

    Although the Trump administration is so cartoonishly evil that higher-than-expected numbers might oppose it out of sheer bloody-minded spite. And also because everyone knows damn well that the buck does not stop with us anymore. Nobody with sense has reason to believe that they'll be spared if they behave at this point.

    I should clarify with what I meant with "data is massively overrated," because it's a bit too vague. I mean there is a tendency to follow data (data say X guess that's what we need to do) rather simply to inform you about where you stand with regard to goals you want to achieve. Basing your politics around data is in the long term a road to nowhere, even though it offers the attraction of basing your politics around seemingly concrete things. So does the data say that transgender people are the weakest link in the liberal coalition? If it does, I don't give a shit. The data snapshot in time of whenever it was recorded, what happens after and now is all about organizing and activism, and maybe some luck.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    Zilla360moniker
  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Wyvern wrote: »
    I never really liked the Obama EO on this. They basically went hey, you know how any discussion of this issue involves acknowledging that sex and gender are separate things? Well, they aren't. And by aren't we mean, aren't solely for interpreting 1970s law that explicitly uses "sex" to actually mean gender so we have the power to enact these changes.

    Rule by EO fiat, die by EO fiat.
    Given the rates of suicide attempts among trans kids have always been super high even BEFORE their government was explicitly setting out to have them eradicated from public life, a whole lot of us are going to be LITERALLY dying by EO fiat over the coming years, so I would appreciate it if you would be less flippant about the subject.

    any EO-free approach entails acknowledging that a comfortable legislative plurality does not prioritize trans kids dying quietly somewhere over other political issues though

    what would you be willing to sell to a Republican Congress to obtain such sweeping legislative change circa peak Obamapanic - more tax cuts on the rich? healthcare? immigration? etc
    Is this directed at me or tinwhiskers? Because I don't really share the objection. I DON'T want to wait for a plurality of legislators to figure out all the intricacies of sex and gender because I know quite intimately what the intervening decades look like for those whose wellbeing is threatened. I'll take what I can get in the meantime; I don't have the luxury of sitting around saying "well the semantics of the executive order weren't quite perfect so meh".

    You are right, the Obama administration tactic of steadily expanding the presidents ability to legislate via EO has clearly set us up for a future full of rainbows and unicorns.

    Didn't he use less executive orders than both previous presidents?

    This seems like a thing we'd always have had to deal with and Obama's EOs just put it off till we could get better footing in the legislature. We just haven't.

    this isn't to make the argument, but the argument would be it's not how many but the scope and reach of the EOs that matter

    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
    AspectVoid
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    oh of course the Nazis think this doesn't go too far enough (warning: Breitbart, don't click)

    the oozing contempt these people have for others have writ into their "journalism" never fails to appall me

    Neco
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    I would like to encourage everyone, including the media, our politicians, and even those of us here, to respond to arguments that such protections being the purview of the States' control is the natural and best fit for such legislation with expanding this line of questioning to include race, sexuality, gender, age, and religion.

    Not that I think our Republican politicians would have a problem with removing existing federal protections for those, sadly, but we do need to get them on record as saying such.


    Meanwhile, considering the AG (Ken Paxton) for my own state is the one who sued to block the original transgender protections, and has responded to this recent news with this comment:
    Our fight over the bathroom directive has always been about former President Obama's attempt to bypass Congress and rewrite the laws to fit his political agenda for radical social change.

    . . . I find myself unwilling to live in this state any longer than I have to. I will be moving as soon as I am able.

    I feel bad for the people in bullshit states who are going to suffer increasing brain drain as professionals who are impacted by bullshit or just don't want to be in such an environment flee for more progressive areas.

    HakkekageshrykeSquigie
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    oh of course the Nazis think this doesn't go too far enough (warning: Breitbart, don't click)

    the oozing contempt these people have for others have writ into their "journalism" never fails to appall me

    If we're not going to give Breitbart traffic, can we have a summary?

    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    joshofalltradesZilla360PLAHakkekageDracilElvenshaeMrVyngaardGnome-InterruptusEdith UpwardsQuidSpoitStabbity StyleArdolHacksawAstaerethtynicMan in the MistsSquigieTofystedethKamaremp123
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    I would like to encourage everyone, including the media, our politicians, and even those of us here, to respond to arguments that such protections being the purview of the States' control is the natural and best fit for such legislation with expanding this line of questioning to include race, sexuality, gender, age, and religion.

    Not that I think our Republican politicians would have a problem with removing existing federal protections for those, sadly, but we do need to get them on record as saying such.


    Meanwhile, considering the AG (Ken Paxton) for my own state is the one who sued to block the original transgender protections, and has responded to this recent news with this comment:
    Our fight over the bathroom directive has always been about former President Obama's attempt to bypass Congress and rewrite the laws to fit his political agenda for radical social change.

    . . . I find myself unwilling to live in this state any longer than I have to. I will be moving as soon as I am able.

    Ken Paxton is a turd in a suit. I'm so sorry that he is making you leave before we ever got a chance to hang out.

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    AtomikaBigJoeMAstaereth
  • JoeUserJoeUser Registered User regular
    So now it's just up to the states? Apparently
    Calica wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    oh of course the Nazis think this doesn't go too far enough (warning: Breitbart, don't click)

    the oozing contempt these people have for others have writ into their "journalism" never fails to appall me

    If we're not going to give Breitbart traffic, can we have a summary?

    Here's the key complaint:
    But the new policy does not reaffirm federal support for the long-standing civic and legal practice of defining men and women by their biology. Instead, it is silent on the revolutionary claim by gay and transgender activists that each person’s legal sex should be defined by their adopted “gender identity,” not by their biology.

    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Here is what I don't understand about this. It honestly seems that this should be an issue which is far more easily resolved within the framework of the constitution than say, rights for gay people. This is due to the existence of people who are literally biologically and physically intersex who will be affected unnavoidably by any ruling which says, "You must use the restroom corresponding to your gender" or "let the states decide". Prooving you are biologically intersex is not hard, like say proving that you really actually do love someone of the same gender and aren't just doing it because you are an evil sinner.

    1. People have a right to privacy.
    2. Laws must be enforceable and clearly describe how they apply to all situations so that people know if they are offering the law. You cannot make it illegal to fizzball and not tell people what that is.
    2. Some people are born intersex.
    3. Intersex people (XXY chromosomes, or those presenting with both male and female genitals) cannot be compelled to reveal this fact unless they want to.
    4. Intersex people cannot be assigned a biological gender of 'male or female'
    5. So intersex people make any law like this illegal due to it being improperly described and violating their right to privacy.
    6. Making laws based on the gender written on your birth certificate simply creates a whole new issue where there exist people whose birth certificate gender is wrong due to a doctor's error, or again, just simply cannot be assigned a biological gender because they are not male or female.

    Bathroom-rules are largely arbitrary from the start. Ostensibly, the goal is a sense of privacy despite public access, a perception of restricted entry. But not every visitor will share the same discomforts.
    Perceived sexual interest is a usual factor, and the impression of sexes play into that as a heuristic. It's not a very accurate heuristic as such, but that it matches the perception of the common visitor makes it effective for the purpose of reassuring that visitor.

    tynicFallout2man
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    There is a case involving transgender rights before SCOTUS right now, so hopefully all this bluster is going to be rendered moot as the Supreme Court lays down exactly why transgender folks are protected under our laws the same as everyone else.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    AtomikaZilla360Gnome-InterruptusEdith UpwardsSpoitscherbchenFallout2man
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Calica wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    oh of course the Nazis think this doesn't go too far enough (warning: Breitbart, don't click)

    the oozing contempt these people have for others have writ into their "journalism" never fails to appall me

    If we're not going to give Breitbart traffic, can we have a summary?
    President Donald Trump’s new policy on sex and gender is a big defeat for the campaign by progressives and transgender activists to eliminate any civic or legal distinctions between biological females and biological males.
    But the new policy does not reaffirm federal support for the long-standing civic and legal practice of defining men and women by their biology. Instead, it is silent on the revolutionary claim by gay and transgender activists that each person’s legal sex should be defined by their adopted “gender identity,” not by their biology.

    That partial win for transgender groups was hidden behind shrieks of protest. Trump “is going after our kids. It doesn’t get any clearer than that,” claimed Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, according to TheDaily Beast.com, who headline read “Trump Lets States Bully Trans Kids.”

    Mainstream and conservative groups welcomed Trump’s compromise statement. “We applaud President Trump’s administration for undoing the prior administration’s nonsensical ‘bathroom mandate,'” said Autumn Leva, policy director with Family Policy Alliance. She continued:

    The privacy and safety of our students should always come first. The Trump Administration’s move demonstrates that it will not put any political agenda before our children.

    The new Trump policy discards President Barack Obama’s policy, which required school officials to enforce claims by children and teenagers who say they have the “gender identity” of the opposite sex. In practice, this meant that school principals forced teenage girls to share bathrooms, locker rooms, athletic teams with young males, and require them to speak to the males as if they are females.

    Advocates for gay groups are using the Obama directive to push the “gender identity” claim nationwide via the courts and state legislatures. In North Carolina, Virginia and elsewhere, the gay advocacy group have asking the courts to force all single-sex civic society groups and institutions — such as bathrooms — to admit people of both sexes, providing they claim to have a male or female “gender identity.”

    A recent poll shows that this policy has the support of fewer than one-quarter of Americans. Nationwide, fewer than 1 in 2400 adults have changed their names from one sex to the other sex, according to a study of the 2010 census.

    Trump Administration Reverses Obama Policies On Transgender Bathrooms; Audio Excerpt

    Trump’s policy discards Obama’s policy, but it does not formally reject the transgender ideology of gender over biology. According to the document,

    In these [legally contested] circumstances, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice have decided to withdraw and rescind the above-referenced [Obama] guidance documents in order to further and more completely consider the legal issues involved …

    … withdrawal of these [Obama] guidance documents does not leave students without protections from discrimination, bullying, or harassment. All schools must ensure that all students, including LGBT [T is for “transgender”] students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment. The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights will continue its duty under law to hear all claims of discrimination and will explore every appropriate opportunity to protect all students and to encourage civility in our classrooms. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice are committed to the application of Title IX and other federal laws to ensure such protection.

    This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law.

    Those comments suggest that career officials at the Department of Justice and the Department of Education — both of which include many holdovers from the Obama administration — want to help transgender groups establish the “gender identity” claim.

    A statement from Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education, strongly suggests she wishes to create legal protections for people who say they are transgender.
    We have a responsibility to protect every student in America and ensure that they have the freedom to learn and thrive in a safe and trusted environment. This is not merely a federal mandate, but a moral obligation no individual, school, district or state can abdicate. At my direction, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights remains committed to investigating all claims of discrimination, bullying and harassment against those who are most vulnerable in our schools…

    This is an issue best solved at the state and local level. Schools, communities, and families can find – and in many cases have found – solutions that protect all students.

    I have dedicated my career to advocating for and fighting on behalf of students, and as Secretary of Education, I consider protecting all students, including LGBTQ students, not only a key priority for the Department, but for every school in America.

    We owe all students a commitment to ensure they have access to a learning environment that is free of discrimination, bullying and harassment.

    Reportedly, DeVos opposed changes to Obama’s pro-transgender policy, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions persuaded Trump to drop support for Obama’s push to establish “gender identity.”

    The administration’s silence about the underline issue — how to define sex — put the issue back in Congress, which passed the underlying laws barring sex discrimination which gay advocacy groups now seek to convert into pro-transgender laws.

    However, most GOP member of Congress are not eager to protect current laws on sexual discrimination or to protect single-sex institutions. Instead, the GOP leadership is downplaying disputes over civic society as they try to forge compromises with Democrats over business issues, such as tax cuts.

    In contrast to the administration’s silence, the gay and progressive groups stepping up the volume of their push for “gender identity.”
    “What could possibly motivate a blind and cruel attack on young children like this?” said a statement from Chad Griffin, the president of the gay advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign. He continued:

    These transgender students simply want to go to school in the morning without fear of discrimination or harassment. The consequences of this decision will no doubt be heartbreaking. This isn’t a ‘states rights’ issue, it’s a civil rights issue. Children deserve protection from bullying no matter what state they live in. Period. The policies included in the rescinded guidance have existed in cities, states, and school districts — from Minneapolis to Fort Worth — for years, seamlessly and successfully affirming and welcoming transgender students in thousands of classrooms throughout the country. Every transgender student should know that, no matter what Donald Trump does or says, there are millions of people who will fight to stand up for them. We are proud to be among them.

    The push to define a person’s legal sex by their “gender identity” instead of their biological sex continues in various states and courthouses. In North Carolina, for example, Democrats are looking to wipe out the HB2 law, in which the legislature defined sex via biology. For example, the law rejects the “gender identity” claim but says males and female can change their legal sex after undergoing surgery.

    The Supreme Court is expected to hear a case on the issue, which is prompting mainstream conservative groups to ally with radical feminists groups who support the nation’s policy of using biology to distinguish between male and female. For example, the Family Policy Alliance joined with a radical feminist group, Women’s Liberation Front, to write an amicus brief to the Supreme Court.

    NecoFallout2man
  • cursedkingcursedking Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    I for real and not as a one liner do not even understand the bathroom thing from even a basic level. I use public restrooms all the time, and the amount of time I spend

    A) thinking about who is in there
    B) looking at the people in there

    is roughly 0%. Who is monitoring this activity? Who is giving a shit on more than a hypothetical social level? You go in, you pee, you wash your hands, you fucking get out because it's a gross bathroom.

    The amount of hand wringing over letting people go where they are most comfortable in a place that I think we can all agree is somewhere we don't want to spend too much time in is mind blowing.

    cursedking on
    ForarjoshofalltradesKnight_MagellZilla360FencingsaxcB557PsycohedGnome-InterruptusEdith UpwardsSpoitMrVyngaardBolthornArdolHacksawmRahmaniCptKemzikLabelMan in the MistsSquigieTofystedethKonphujunKamaremp123Fallout2man
Sign In or Register to comment.