One more nail

Trump Admin Rule Would Allow Homeless Shelters To Shut Out Transgender People

HUD Secretary Ben Carson’s department proposes weakening Equal Access Rule protections for transgender people established in 2012.
...
The Department of Housing and Urban Development proposal is focused on the Equal Access Rule, first published in 2012 to “ensure shelters and programs do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity,” the National Center for Transgender Equality said Wednesday in a press release calling attention to the proposal.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-transgender-homeless-shelter-equal-access_n_5ce56715e4b0547bd130a0db

Who are these people in my government who are so cavalier with people's well being, hopes and futures that they can simply take a pencil through whatever protection doesn't make their worldview?

My greatest fear is that somehow, sometime I will be out on the street.

Oh Miki!

OMG the USA is going down the pan as an upholder of human rights. They actually want to gradually extract non-discriminatory law?!!! That is alarming and just how far do they wish to go? Back to pre-Rosa Parks days? All Americans need to do something about this chipping away of rights, built up gradually and fought for, since the birth of the USA. It's been Alabama and abortion and so many other things, you are going backwards, fast!!!!!

Celia xx

Jim Crow is a set of laws meant to keep black slaves separate from the whites. Plessy v Ferguson was a case in 1896 that codified separate but equal as the law of the land.

The major court case to overturn Plessy was Brown v Board of Education in 1954 (a 9-0 decision). We have had a load of new judges before the Senate seeking nomination to our federal courts. Many have been asked if they would overturn:

• Brown - no comment
  
• Obergefell v. Hodges [gay marriage] no comment
  
• Roe v Wade [abortion rights] - no comment
  

There is a legal doctrine called Stare Decisis which means that prior Supreme Court decision MUST stand unless compelling events mean otherwise. Overturning Plessy was demanded by society.

The is a very real possibilty that Roe (5-4 decision) and Obergfell (another 5-4 decision) may be on the chopping block because the court has been stack with 5 conservative AND catholic judges.

Stay tuned.

Oh interesting,,,,

Firstly though, Jim Crow over here is a nickname for just that..... a Crow! I've never heard of it being applied to anything else, rather like 'Jenny' for a Wren. It's use in those 'laws' clearly is intended as derogatory, but Crow are in fact the most intelligent and advanced in taxonomic physiology of all birds. They actually are quite a fine looking bird too, so pooh to the racists that use/used the phrase in any context apart for the bird.

Well, such a loaded system is hard to break, for it would appear that there are many unflexible minds in the USA, that appear to hold sway of power. The nation can never move on under such circumstances and one does wonder what the future holds, for the rest of the 'west' as we discussed, is largely moving on towards societies being more inclusive.

Being optimistic always, I hope that things change.... but it is very hard, even for sunny side up liccle me, to imagine for why anyone wielding such power will relinquish it easily..... oh dear.

Celia xx

Jim crow was not a real person but it was a phrase "Jim Crow" has often been attributed to "Jump Jim Crow", a song-and-dance caricature of blacks performed by white actor Thomas D.Rice in blackface, which first surfaced in 1832 and was used to satirize Andrew Jackson's populist policies.

A better definition of Jim Crow:

Jim Crow laws were the state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. All were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures after the Reconstruction period. The laws were enforced until 1965. In practice, Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America and other states, starting in the 1870s and 1880s, and were upheld in 1896, by the U.S. Supreme Court's "separate but equal" legal doctrine for facilities for African Americans, established with the court's decision in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson. Moreover, public education had essentially been segregated since its establishment in most of the South, after the Civil War (1861–65).

My Father, in 1955, took our family including my Grandfather on a tour of the United States to visit his war buddies.

I remember we were in either Mississippi or Alabama and had stopped at a roadside cafe. I had to use the restroom which was across the road. I wandered over there and was confronted by two doors, one marked 'Colored'. An older black man was sitting by the building and waved his finger at me, a cautionary wave, as he understood my confusion, and pointed me to the 'white man's' door.

Some things just stay with you.

This and the other actions implemented or proposed by the Trump administration come nearly verbatim from the Family Research Council publication titled Understanding and Responding to the Transgender Movement:

This is an excerpt:

Part II: Public Policy Implications of the Transgender Movement

1) Should the government itself (local, state, and/or federal) accept and recognize so-called changes in someone's sex or "gender identity?"

Sex is a biological reality, and is immutable. In reality, a "sex change" is impossible. Biological sex is a more fundamental, more important, and more accurate measure of a person's intrinsic identity than the purely subjective and often shifting concept of "gender identity." Ideally, the law would forbid government recognition in any way (whether on birth certificates, driver's licenses, passports, or any other government-issued identification) of any change in an individual's biological sex as identified at birth.

In states where such recognition is too deeply entrenched in the law or in judicial precedent for policy-makers to have a serious hope of undoing it, such recognition should be limited to cases where gender reassignment surgery already has been performed. Policy-makers should strenuously resist efforts to legally recognize changes of sex or "gender identity" that are based only on personal choice, psychological feelings, or social experience, rather than on a physical change.

2) Should the government force other, private entities to accept and recognize so-called "sex changes" through the use of non-discrimination laws that include "gender identity" as a protected category?

This question relates to the efforts to pass laws or ordinances at the local, state, and federal level which would outlaw "discrimination" on the basis of so-called "gender identity" in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, and business transactions.

Some of the bills or laws that seek to protect "gender identity" acknowledge the importance of appearance, dress and grooming standards in the workplace. However, most ordinary Americans would consider dressing in ways that are culturally appropriate for one's biological sex to be the most fundamental "appearance, grooming, and dress standard" that could be conceived of.

"Bathroom Bill s"

The most extreme application of the principle of "non-discrimination" based on "gender identity" would be to the use of gender-separated restrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Even former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the homosexual Congressman who sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), acknowledged that what transgender activists want "is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women."

Here are some additional reasons to oppose laws purporting to outlaw "discrimination" based on "gender identity:"

   Such laws increase government interference in the free market.
   "Gender identity" is unlike other immutable characteristics protected in civil rights laws.
   Such laws would lead to costly lawsuits against employers.
   Such laws mandate the employment of "transgendered" individuals in inappropriate occupations, such as education.

3) Should the government pay for medical treatment designed to create the appearance one is other than the sex he or she was born?

One context in which taxpayers could be forced to pay for "gender reassignment" procedures is through the health insurance provided for public employees. Another avenue is government health insurance programs for the poor and the elderly (Medicaid and Medicare). On May 4, 2015, the federal courts decided a claim by a convicted murderer that the Massachusetts Department of Corrections should pay for his gender reassignment surgery--and that failure to do so was "cruel and unusual punishment." Fortunately, the court rejected that claim.

Government should not pay for gender reassignment (hormone treatments and surgery). Such treatments--involving, as they do, the amputation of healthy body parts--are, arguably, a violation of medical ethics. These are elective procedures rather than necessary health care--just like any other form of cosmetic or plastic surgery.

4) Should the government force other entities to pay for changes in sexual appearance?

The Affordable Care Act (also known as "Obamacare") has greatly expanded the role of the federal government in dictating to insurance companies (and those who purchase insurance policies, whether employers or individuals) what must be included in those policies. There is no explicit "sex change" mandate in Obamacare. However, some aspects of the law have increased the chances that insurance companies will offer such coverage. Late in 2014, the state of New York imposed a mandate upon insurance companies throughout the state to fund sex reassignment surgery (SRS).

5) Should the federal government permit "transgender" individuals to serve in the military as their preferred sex?

Historically, transgendered persons have not been permitted to serve in the U.S. military. Transgender status has been considered a disqualifying psychiatric condition, and having had gender reassignment surgery has been a disqualifying physical condition. However, transgender activists are pushing for a change to the policy.

The story of America's most famous transgender service member tends to reinforce concerns that such individuals are not fit for military service. Bradley Manning is the soldier convicted of espionage in 2013 for turning over confidential documents to the website Wikileaks. The day after Manning was sentenced to prison, he "came out" as transgendered.

The entire document is here: https://www.frc.org/transgender if you feel masochistic.  The FRC needs to be kicked out of the White House.

~ Liz

"Family Research Council"

Just a bullshit title to hide the truth. Religious fucking nonsense driven bullshit.

They talk and talk as if they are quoting science, and in reality, their religious beliefs rule their reality. They're fucking idiots. Not one thing in the document is worth considering for 1 second.

They don't like us, they consider us tools of their imaginary devil. They are all fucking bigots.

Not planning to paint this in any other fashion. Fuck them.

Oh Elizabeth, thank you for that, it is quite enlightening to see what the hell is going on over there. Thanks.

Hahahahahahaha! So right Lesley!!! And the title, Lesley....  Understanding and Responding to the Transgender Movement! As we say in England, what a load of rubbish!

Always beware any citation that relies upon a single case to outline a point too!

Any human with a honest brain cell would see what this is about, it's about them appearing oh so upright and forthright. I'll bet they are as bent as a Yuri Geller spoon. Wheadling ther way around and falsifying stuff. Making out they are whiter than white and wishing minorities would go way, building walls and all.

Yet I will bet, an Elephant against a flea's ear, that see them privately and they all would fuck a fuckable transgender woman at the drop of a hat.

I'll guarantee that every last one of them are hypocrites, and I would bet they have sexual foibles that will blow ya mind!!!!!

Celia xx

Elizabeth Lynn wrote:The most extreme application of the principle of "non-discrimination" based on "gender identity" would be to the use of gender-separated restrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Even former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the homosexual Congressman who sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), acknowledged that what transgender activists want "is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women."

FUCK BARNEY FRANK

He is one of the reasons I will forever use LGB...………………………………………..T.

They don't want us and we shouldn't need them. Our issues are different, much different.

Pretty much my thoughts Miki.

I've had no small number of transgender advocates hammer into me the fair-sounding, but largely unrealistic notion "some women have a penis". Yes, some transgender women do have a penis. I wonder, how many of them like having a penis though? How many would go under the knife in an instant if there was no cost? How many want to be like me, a woman who HAD a penis, but don't now?

I have a few transgender female friends who are pre-op, and might not mind being called non-op, because they are not really seeking to become post-op.
But how many of them have made that decision based on costs, health, age, circumstances like relationships?

How many of them really like having to tuck or in some way tolerate having a part that gets in the way of being female in a cliche fashion.

I recently fiiiiinally found a bikini. That actually fits, mostly (the bottoms do fit, but really, I look like a pregnant woman in denial too ). There's no fucking way in hell I'd wear it packing a penis in it. I wouldn't even go swimming at all prior to being post-op. Regardless of what I might be wearing.

I'm ok with some transgender women having a penis if they actually like the fucking thing.
But I'm soooo damned glad I can walk into the ladies room, change room, any where women want to be away from men, specifically ones with a penis, casually.

I like being able to stare a person in the face, and tell them, "I'm a fucking female, you dumb fucking tool." and not be at ANY risk of them claiming otherwise.

I dislike TERFs every bit as much as I dislike religious intolerance to transgender people.
I dislike gay men telling a transgender man, he's not a real man.
And these people are real.
The guy that runs or does a lot of the work for Lindsay's Pride in the Park, is a nice-seeming gay man who will tell my transgender male friend to their face he's not really a man. There's a really ugly lesbian in town, who is ok with me in the ladies room, but will freak out of my fiance uses the ladies room.

I simply don't need that shit.

There are people on YouTube, well enough known persons, who may or may not want to be called transgender (you tend to get doubts when they post videos talking about de-transitioning), who actually side with the TERF mindset. Frankly, I'll gladly tell, even a transgender woman, she can fuck off, if she's working for the enemy. And a TERF is the enemy. I don't give a flying fuck if they are in the acronym because of who they like to have sex with.

Discrimination isn't something only cisgendered assholes are guilty of.

Any time I find myself doing it, I get upset, because I don't like doing it.

I expect 100% acceptance from people for me. The price, I have to be willing to offer 100% acceptance.
I'll gladly savage any person guilty of being a judgemental swine.

I dislike seeing the statement "transwoman with a penis showering with women" batted around. Because it just reinforces that transwomen are not women and that there will be some huge wave of transwomen with penises demanding to shower naked with other women. I can only speak for myself but before my bottom surgery I literally hated anyone seeing that part of me. The thought of being seen like that by strangers was panic inducing as I am sure it is for many transwomen. I don't think a one of us wants to risk the potential assault or dehumanizing drama in what should be a safe space. Though hearing a young gender fluid person who was going to some support group for people with sex/love issues joke about being able to go to both gendered retreats made me angry. Mostly for the flippant obliviousness to others comfort in what should be a place to not be triggered for people who are struggling.

But I also appreciate any transgender person's desire to just not talk about or openly identify as such. So long as they are not hurtful to others who do.

I recognize I have an issue... One right now I need breathing room from. I can love people with a penis or use a packer as the gender they identify with. But I just can't be intimate with them and honestly find ecen early transwomen who just talk, act, or just use space in very masculine ways painful to be in active in person social contact with because it sets off my own self doubts and dysphoria. I recognize the all too lesbian drive to make okay transgender men by focusing too much on their past self as some way to make them okay but not cis-gender men. It doesn't mean I can't honor, love, and support them as they are. But romance is problematic. I was having a fun discussion with a friend about toys and intimacy and was showing her my favorite toys. When she asked about the one i hate. Here is this openly gay woman who was raped as a child by a male family member holding this object I can barely stand the sight of like it was nothing. And here I am and it makes my skin crawl and too much contact starts dredging up shadows of things worse. I know I have work to do... And this screws me up and is something I need to work on in time. But I just don't have the energy, the stability, or enough support to risk being totally non functional trying to deescalate something that I can avoid for the most part while I do find a stronger center and social support.

Carolyn

I have two hobbies, but of which I can neither afford, but one is astrophotography. There other one is woodworking and specifically I want to build a boat. This is thought of as a masculine trait, but not really.

I was discussing with my therapist what I have given up to become a woman and I mentioned woodworking and she just flatly said, "well, that is a bit sexist doncha think!". Well yes, it is sexist to think that woodworking is only for men.

I feel for you Carolyn, and a lot of your post resonates with me.

A gender fluid person making light of a transgender woman with a penis would be definitely out of line in my opinion as well. It's essentially insensitive.

Yep, I don't think there are many transgender pre-op or non-op women or men in a hurry to flash that truth around. Society implying we do doesn't get any love from me. Lesbian TERFs need to get their shit together and realize, we are less interested in flashing a penis at them than they are interested in seeing it.

Miki, yeah, I've had hobbies that have since fallen off the top slots of my priorities, all because my true gender makes me feel out of place now. I'm a wargamer, and so what if I can find some on BGG. I've never met another woman that wargames in person. I've never met another woman who likes models like me. So being told women can like making models, falls flat with me when I've never met one.

Lesley.. look in the mirror and you'll see one who like models... and war games.


I think the male-female 'activities' is over thought.  The cis females I know run the entire spectrum ... my current co-worker taught her boys (now grown adults) how to run a trap line, hunt, clean their kills, work on cars, ect and yet ... she can still do the 'girly' stuff.  Over the years (13-15) I have not noticed the males being any less attracted to her because of those things.

I dislike seeing the statement "transwoman with a penis showering with women" batted around. Because it just reinforces that transwomen are not women and that there will be some huge wave of transwomen with penises demanding to shower naked with other women. I can only speak for myself but before my bottom surgery I literally hated anyone seeing that part of me. The thought of being seen like that by strangers was panic inducing as I am sure it is for many transwomen. I don't think a one of us wants to risk the potential assault or dehumanizing drama in what should be a safe space.

All part of the fear mongering.  There are days I wish mine would go away and days I can ignore that aspect of my body but at no time would I care to leave myself that vulnerable to another person.

And in case anyone thinks, bottom surgery is some magical gateway to feeling comfortable with being in safe spaces where my likely will be potentially visible. Hahaha... Nope... It takes time and anxiety inducing effort to chip away at that.

It's given me far more comfort than I have ever known. And I am finally thinking about these things that I could never do before. But I can tell you that damn, even when I finally screwed up the courage to share my "results" with two cis women I truly trust and was flatly told they couldn't tell at all. One going as far as telling me I looked younger and better there than her even being a decade older. Did that help oh hell yes... Will I be a hot mess if I ever find a romantic relationship again or use the changing rooms in a gym... Yes..

As to hobbies... I have dropped a bunch of mine, and am obtuse with knowledge in others. Like gaming... I just don't have that desire to prove myself in that way anymore. And really maybe why you don't play with "the guys" isn't just that it feels like it outs you. But that you want more connection with the nerdy women you are far more like and would prefer to build ties with. I know working with my old male co-workers is tiring as they have this passive desire to keep things as they were. And my old female co-workers don't quite know where to socially place me. So to me new relationships are far better but sometimes require some finding a shared space.