Recent attacks on Trans Americans by the Trump admin

[BmorePat87]

This first one was months in the making, but the Office for Civil Rights for the Dept of Education has decided that CT allowing trans athletes to compete is a violation of Title IX as it prevents girls from having equal access to sports. The lawsuit was supported by an extremist anti-LGBT group. The Dept of Ed has warned CT to abandon its policy or lose federal funding.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/12/opinion/title-ix-transgender-athletes/

The other story involves the Office for Civil Rights for HHS whose notoriously anti-LGBT chief Roger Severino finalized a rule that would remove protection against discrimination on the basis on gender identity from the ACA.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/12/868073068/transgender-health-protections-reversed-by-trump-administration

[BmorePat87]

With the GOP carrying over their 2016 platform, the official GOP platform will also include opposition to gay marriage, support for conversion therapy, and support for businesses wishing to discriminate against the LGBT community.

[Millhouse]

The only thing I agree on with all that is mentioned above is not allowing females born with the anatomy of a natural male body to compete against females born with a natural female body. Mainly in sports that rely on timed and distance finishes ie. track & field events and swimming for example.

Everything else though I pretty much disagree with them on.

[*Nately120*]

(06-12-2020, 10:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: With the GOP carrying over their 2016 platform, the official GOP platform will also include opposition to gay marriage, support for conversion therapy, and support for businesses wishing to discriminate against the LGBT community.

America has too much freedom, it's essential we follow the path taken by what we like to call "shithole" countries.  

[Belsnickel]

Can we also take a moment to recognize this happened on the anniversary of the Pulse massacre? Take that in combination with the campaign rally on Juneteenth in Tulsa, a city with one of the largest race massacres in our history, and his RNC speech taking place on the anniversary of another racist massacre in the city which the convention is being held.

Bigotry on full display.

[BmorePat87]

(06-13-2020, 11:25 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Can we also take a moment to recognize this happened on the anniversary of the Pulse massacre? Take that in combination with the campaign rally on Juneteenth in Tulsa, a city with one of the largest race massacres in our history, and his RNC speech taking place on the anniversary of another racist massacre in the city which the convention is being held.

Bigotry on full display.

Cherry on top is Stephen Miller said to be writing his speech on race...

[*Nately120*]

(06-13-2020, 11:25 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Can we also take a moment to recognize this happened on the anniversary of the Pulse massacre? Take that in combination with the campaign rally on Juneteenth in Tulsa, a city with one of the largest race massacres in our history, and his RNC speech taking place on the anniversary of another racist massacre in the city which the convention is being held.

Bigotry on full display.

Add in Trump quoting George Wallace in a tweet, but if you think the guy is a bigot then you're just resorting to calling him names because that's all you libs got.  People can love their Trump all they want, but it's the acting like the guy is unfairly maligned is a joke.

Neo-con - I love Trump because he's an asshole!
Lib - Trump is an asshole.
Neo-con - Pfft...petty insults, that's all you have!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

This reminds me of the Denny Green “they are who we thought they are” press conference.

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2020, 10:39 PM)Millhouse Wrote: The only thing I agree on with all that is mentioned above is not allowing females born with the anatomy of a natural male body to compete against females born with a natural female body. Mainly in sports that rely on timed and distance finishes ie. track & field events and swimming for example.

Everything else though I pretty much disagree with them on.

I have a transgender son, so I support all equal rights for transgender people.

But even I see the problem with allowing transgender females to compete against biological females.  It just is not fair to biological females.

I wanto to give the LGBTQ community as many rights as possible and treat themn as equally as possible, but it is a very complicated issue and people have to be honest and fair when discussing the specific limited issue of sports.

I don't think guys will starting "faking" transgender status just to dominate female sports.  So there will be some transgender females who suffer if they are not allowed to compete on female teams, but you can't make things unfair for biological females just to try and make things fair for transgender females.

[BmorePat87]

(06-15-2020, 11:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I have a transgender son, so I support all equal rights for transgender people.

But even I see the problem with allowing transgender females to compete against biological females.  It just is not fair to biological females.

I wanto to give the LGBTQ community as many rights as possible and treat themn as equally as possible, but it is a very complicated issue and people have to be honest and fair when discussing the specific limited issue of sports.

I don't think guys will starting "faking" transgender status just to dominate female sports.  So there will be some transgender females who suffer if they are not allowed to compete on female teams, but you can't make things unfair for biological females just to try and make things fair for transgender females.

Some people here know that my dad is trans, so this is also a personal issue for me. It's why I pushed back when Lucie was allowed to constantly post slurs and brag about how he would stalk a trans grocery worker in his town.

NCAA requires something like 2 years of hormone treatment before you can compete, which seems like a good policy. I also do not see this as being a problem because how many trans student athletes are there really out there? As you said, no one is going out and faking being trans. No one wants the discrimination that comes with it just to win some athletic competitions.

[Belsnickel]

In related news, SCOTUS confirms civil rights protections for LGBTQ employees included in the CRA of 1964. https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/17-1618_hfci.pdf

From SCOTUS Blog: "In Bostock v. Clayton v. County, Georgia, the justices held 6-3 that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

[GMDino]

(06-15-2020, 11:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: In related news, SCOTUS confirms civil rights protections for LGBTQ employees included in the CRA of 1964. https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/17-1618_hfci.pdf

From SCOTUS Blog: "In Bostock v. Clayton v. County, Georgia, the justices held 6-3 that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Conservatives on Twitter are a bit upset.



Almost like they threw all their support behind a madman just to get the judges and then the judges didn't do what they wanted...a couple times.

Social conservatives coming to find out that the people who choose their judges mostly just care about corporate rights and squashing unions https://t.co/LNa1e0ysFF

— Shane (@shaneferro) June 15, 2020

 

[Belsnickel]

(06-15-2020, 12:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: Conservatives on Twitter are a bit upset.



Almost like they threw all their support behind a madman just to get the judges and then the judges didn't do what they wanted...a couple times.

Social conservatives coming to find out that the people who choose their judges mostly just care about corporate rights and squashing unions https://t.co/LNa1e0ysFF

— Shane (@shaneferro) June 15, 2020

 

Alito's dissent confused me. The opinion was textualist. His position is originalist. Those are different things.

[BmorePat87]

(06-15-2020, 11:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: In related news, SCOTUS confirms civil rights protections for LGBTQ employees included in the CRA of 1964. https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/17-1618_hfci.pdf

From SCOTUS Blog: "In Bostock v. Clayton v. County, Georgia, the justices held 6-3 that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Tremendous news. 

This stood out to me:

"A statutory violation occurs if an employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee. Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates Title VII.  There  is no  escaping  the  role  intent  plays:  Just  as  sex  is necessarily  a  but-for  cause when  an  employer  discriminates  against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decision making."

"An employer who intentionally  fires an  individual homosexual or transgender employee  in part because of that individual’s sex violates the law even if the employer is willing  to subject all male and female homosexual  or  transgender employees to the same rule.  Pp. 12–15. © The employers do not dispute that they fired their employees for being homosexual or transgender.  Rather, they contend that even intentional discrimination against employees based on their homosexual or transgender status  is not a basis  for Title VII  liability.  But their statutory  text arguments have already been rejected by  this Court’s precedents.  And none of their other contentions about what they think the law was meant to do, or should do, allow for ignoring the law as it is."

I hope we see a domino effect moving forward. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-15-2020, 01:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Tremendous news. 

This stood out to me:

"A statutory violation occurs if an employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee. Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates Title VII.  There  is no  escaping  the  role  intent  plays:  Just  as  sex  is necessarily  a  but-for  cause when  an  employer  discriminates  against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decision making."

"An employer who intentionally  fires an  individual homosexual or transgender employee  in part because of that individual’s sex violates the law even if the employer is willing  to subject all male and female homosexual  or  transgender employees to the same rule.  Pp. 12–15. © The employers do not dispute that they fired their employees for being homosexual or transgender.  Rather, they contend that even intentional discrimination against employees based on their homosexual or transgender status  is not a basis  for Title VII  liability.  But their statutory  text arguments have already been rejected by  this Court’s precedents.  And none of their other contentions about what they think the law was meant to do, or should do, allow for ignoring the law as it is."

I hope we see a domino effect moving forward. 

Same here. This should have implications for Title IX in education, as well. If there aren't lawyers prepping cases as we speak, they aren't doing their jobs.

[GMDino]

(06-15-2020, 12:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Alito's dissent confused me. The opinion was textualist. His position is originalist. Those are different things.

I assume you saw what popehat had to say about that.

Alito's dissent seems like something that's been roiling in him for a long time and just waiting to be put down. Reminds me of an opinion -- wish I could remember which one -- in a case that was related to baseball and the justice just went LET ME TELL YOU ALL ABOUT BASEBALL

— ListenHellboyHat (@Popehat) June 15, 2020

[treee]

It makes sense that discrimination based on sexual orientation is intrinsically tied to discrimination based on sex. Glad to see the LGTBQ+ community have some powerful legislation to protect them.

[6andcounting]

(06-15-2020, 11:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I have a transgender son, so I support all equal rights for transgender people.

But even I see the problem with allowing transgender females to compete against biological females.  It just is not fair to biological females.

I wanto to give the LGBTQ community as many rights as possible and treat themn as equally as possible, but it is a very complicated issue and people have to be honest and fair when discussing the specific limited issue of sports.

I don't think guys will starting "faking" transgender status just to dominate female sports.  So there will be some transgender females who suffer if they are not allowed to compete on female teams, but you can't make things unfair for biological females just to try and make things fair for transgender females.

A transgender person in the same locker room or bathroom as you doesn't affect you in any way. And if the argument is the person is acting inappropriate then it's their actions that are putting you at risk and not their gender. And someone of you exact same gender can act inappropriate as well. But going through puberty as a biological male is not something that can be undone regardless of how long you take feminine hormones. There's really nothing I can add as I agree with everyone one of your points. 

[masonbengals fan]

As do I.

[*bfine32*]

(06-15-2020, 11:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: In related news, SCOTUS confirms civil rights protections for LGBTQ employees included in the CRA of 1964. https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/17-1618_hfci.pdf

From SCOTUS Blog: "In Bostock v. Clayton v. County, Georgia, the justices held 6-3 that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Does the fact that a Trump appointee wrote the majority decision contradict the OP's title?