Trump administration to revoke federal protections for transgender students

[AtorBoltox]

MOST LGBT FRIENDLY REPUBLICAN EVER!!

[MarkD]

If Democrats want Transgender protections, then they need to fight for them to be directly legislated, not through Arcane Interpretations of a law (Title IX) that clearly doesn't address transgenderism. Enough Said. Glad this "guidance" is being rescinded.

i'm not "glad" about this but you're probably right, to be honest.

I am glad that the law will be interpreted the way it was meant to be, and this time we didn't even need a court of law to make the right decision. I thought that, last year, at least one court had already ruled against the administration.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

MOST LGBT FRIENDLY REPUBLICAN EVER!!

Donald Trump is more liberal on LGBT issues than Obama in 2009.

[SteveRogers]

If Democrats want Transgender protections, then they need to fight for them to be directly legislated, not through Arcane Interpretations of a law (Title IX) that clearly doesn't address transgenderism. Enough Said. Glad this "guidance" is being rescinded.

i'm not "glad" about this but you're probably right, to be honest.

I am glad that the law will be interpreted the way it was meant to be, and this time we didn't even need a court of law to make the right decision. I thought that, last year, at least one court had already ruled against the administration.

Actually, the 4th Circuit upheld the applicability of Title IX to discrimination against transgender students in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board. The court held that the statute was ambiguous enough that the governments interpretation should be given controlling weight under Chevron deference. Granted, under that reasoning the federal government is within its rights to switch its position as to the correct interpretation of Title IX. That doesn't make Trump's decision to do so any less deplorable.

Look, was Title IX intended to cover discrimination against transgender people? No, probably not. But like most civil rights legislation, Title IX was intentionally written broadly enough to cover new forms of invidious discrimination that the drafters might not have been able to foresee at the time it was passed. If you believe that civil rights laws are forward-looking tools, then there's nothing "undemocratic" about using an existing act of congress to combat new and inventive forms of discrimination as they arise.

[Hollywood]

Plain and Simple: This is a controversial issue.

Republicans fear-mongering that adult men in women's clothes will have an opportunity to harass/abuse young girls is over the top, and probably only represents 0.001% of confrontations.  

Democrats covering their ears and yelling "discrimination" are probably over-stepping.  Anyone, left or right, could put together a list of reasons to disallow transgender individuals from picking and choosing the bathroom they feel most comfortable corresponding to their gender.  

Honestly, I couldn't care and I hope both sides can find a solution to the issue.

However, this LGBT bathroom policy doesn't feel like fairness or equality.  I feel like we are accommodating individuals with physical/mental/psychological disabilities in the same way we accommodate for people who need handicapped stalls in bathrooms or extra time on a test because they're learning disabled/dyslexic.  Obviously, transgendered individuals should be diagnosed with some sort of disorder, as it clearly effects an individuals ability to live a normal life.  But then again, we took things like that out of the DSM because it carried with it a social stigma.  

[MarkD]

If Democrats want Transgender protections, then they need to fight for them to be directly legislated, not through Arcane Interpretations of a law (Title IX) that clearly doesn't address transgenderism. Enough Said. Glad this "guidance" is being rescinded.

i'm not "glad" about this but you're probably right, to be honest.

I am glad that the law will be interpreted the way it was meant to be, and this time we didn't even need a court of law to make the right decision. I thought that, last year, at least one court had already ruled against the administration.

Actually, the 4th Circuit upheld the applicability of Title IX to discrimination against transgender students in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board. The court held that the statute was ambiguous enough that the governments interpretation should be given controlling weight under Chevron deference. Granted, under that reasoning the federal government is within its rights to switch its position as to the correct interpretation of Title IX. That doesn't make Trump's decision to do so any less deplorable.

Look, was Title IX intended to cover discrimination against transgender people? No, probably not. But like most civil rights legislation, Title IX was intentionally written broadly enough to cover new forms of invidious discrimination that the drafters might not have been able to foresee at the time it was passed. If you believe that civil rights laws are forward-looking tools, then there's nothing "undemocratic" about using an existing act of congress to combat new and inventive forms of discrimination as they arise.

Here is a fascinating essay by the great Judge Learned Hand.
http://mtweb.mtsu.edu/cewillis/Hermeneutics/Hand%20How%20Free%20is%20a%20Judge.pdf
"But the judge must remember that he should go no further than he is sure the government [i.e., the legislature] would have gone, had it been faced with the case before him. If he is in doubt, he must stop, for he cannot tell that the conflicting interests in the society for which he speaks would have come to a just result, even though he is sure that he knows what the just result should be. He is not to substitute his juster will for theirs; otherwise it will not be the common will which prevails, and to that extent the people would not govern."

[Lief 🗽]

MOST LGBT FRIENDLY REPUBLICAN EVER!!

Donald Trump is more liberal on LGBT issues than Obama in 2009.

Uh... no?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Now let's revoke federal protections for illegal immigrant children. It's only fair, and a campaign promise.

I thought one of Trump's campaign promises was that Caitlyn Jenner could use the bathroom of her choice... I guess not if she plans to go back to school...

-Nowhere did Trump say that he'd prosecute places that enforce strict gender standards for bathrooms. Don't make stuff up. Trump isn't planning to prosecute locations that don't enforce strict gender standards for bathrooms, either.

[SteveRogers]

If Democrats want Transgender protections, then they need to fight for them to be directly legislated, not through Arcane Interpretations of a law (Title IX) that clearly doesn't address transgenderism. Enough Said. Glad this "guidance" is being rescinded.

i'm not "glad" about this but you're probably right, to be honest.

I am glad that the law will be interpreted the way it was meant to be, and this time we didn't even need a court of law to make the right decision. I thought that, last year, at least one court had already ruled against the administration.

Actually, the 4th Circuit upheld the applicability of Title IX to discrimination against transgender students in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board. The court held that the statute was ambiguous enough that the governments interpretation should be given controlling weight under Chevron deference. Granted, under that reasoning the federal government is within its rights to switch its position as to the correct interpretation of Title IX. That doesn't make Trump's decision to do so any less deplorable.

Look, was Title IX intended to cover discrimination against transgender people? No, probably not. But like most civil rights legislation, Title IX was intentionally written broadly enough to cover new forms of invidious discrimination that the drafters might not have been able to foresee at the time it was passed. If you believe that civil rights laws are forward-looking tools, then there's nothing "undemocratic" about using an existing act of congress to combat new and inventive forms of discrimination as they arise.

Here is a fascinating essay by the great Judge Learned Hand.
http://mtweb.mtsu.edu/cewillis/Hermeneutics/Hand%20How%20Free%20is%20a%20Judge.pdf
"But the judge must remember that he should go no further than he is sure the government [i.e., the legislature] would have gone, had it been faced with the case before him. If he is in doubt, he must stop, for he cannot tell that the conflicting interests in the society for which he speaks would have come to a just result, even though he is sure that he knows what the just result should be. He is not to substitute his juster will for theirs; otherwise it will not be the common will which prevails, and to that extent the people would not govern."

That's a nice maxim, and I respect many of the contributions of Learned Hand to the legal field, but as I said here we are dealing with a statute that is intentionally written to be broad and flexible and forward looking. The legislature didn't enumerate all the types of sex discrimination that it wished to discourage because the legislature knew that humans will always eventually devise new and increasingly creative ways to inflict cruelty upon one another. So instead, the legislature wrote, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." That text gives enough wiggle room for the federal government to punish a broad range of conduct that falls under the umbrella of sex discrimination.

In any case, I'm not arguing that a court should rule unequivocally rule that Title IX must be applied to prevent discrimination against transgender students. Rather, I think I probably agree with the 4th Circuit's reasoning that Chevron deference should apply. The point of Chevron is that when the text of the statute is ambiguous and reasonably capable of being read two different ways, the interpretation of the agencies responsible for enforcing the statute should serve as a sort of tie-breaker. Unfortunately, that means I can't really argue that Trump doesn't have the power to reverse the government's position on interpreting the statute. Rather, I am arguing that it is morally repugnant for Trump to do so when the law is flexible enough to give Trump the choice to continue protecting transgender school children from invidious discrimination.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

MOST LGBT FRIENDLY REPUBLICAN EVER!!

Donald Trump is more liberal on LGBT issues than Obama in 2009.

Uh... no?

Donald Trump supports gay marriage.

[SteveRogers]

MOST LGBT FRIENDLY REPUBLICAN EVER!!

Donald Trump is more liberal on LGBT issues than Obama in 2009.

Uh... no?

Donald Trump supports gay marriage.

[Citation Needed]
At various times Trump has bizarrely accused John Roberts of having "let us down" by allowing the Obergfell decision, said he'd "strongly consider" appointing justices who would reverse it, and at best said he was "fine" with the fact that the courts had settled the issue.

[SCNCmod]

DeVos fought for the protections??? Knowing where her family has put their money this is very shocking. I guess she very quietly isn't too anti-LGBT. But of course, she broke down and caved in. Far from a hero, but I can't believe she put up any fight on this issue.

My thought is either 1) she is trying to curve the uproar about her ... or 2) this was in essence a PR stunt from Trump's media savvy White House (let her get some good will... and she was free to play along since her opposition would have no influence on the decision)

[Beet]

How many times has this been reported on? It's a draft document. The WH M.O. is to leak draft documents that they never pull the trigger on, stonewall reporters' emails, and then come out and deny it after the fact so they can call "fake news" when it's reported about.

Spicer wasn't doing much to deny it in the briefing room today.

Every time I don't think he's going to actually go through with some horrible policy, he does it.

[Beet]

He had to cave on some issues important to his base.

I'll say this though... in the long run you all will see that despite Trump's many many many flaws, he is actually the best thing for the LGBTQ community because he effectively destroyed the left/right split on gay rights.  He is clearly the most gay friendly leading Republican ever.  He has delegitimized being anti-gay as a political thing.  Now the question is how far the needle goes on this issue, not whether it's ok to be pro or anti gay.  Basically when he runs for re-election in 2020 (if he does) the choice will be between a Republican that's moderately pro gay rights or a Democrat that is firmly pro gay rights.  There is no turning back on this issue.

I do not agree with revoking protections for transgender students, but if this is the worst thing he does on this issue (and I suspect it will be for the foreseeable future) then this is not a stinging blow to the cause. 

Appointing Gorsuch will be by far the worst thing he does on 'this issue' in the long run.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

He had to cave on some issues important to his base.

I'll say this though... in the long run you all will see that despite Trump's many many many flaws, he is actually the best thing for the LGBTQ community because he effectively destroyed the left/right split on gay rights.  He is clearly the most gay friendly leading Republican ever.  He has delegitimized being anti-gay as a political thing.  Now the question is how far the needle goes on this issue, not whether it's ok to be pro or anti gay.  Basically when he runs for re-election in 2020 (if he does) the choice will be between a Republican that's moderately pro gay rights or a Democrat that is firmly pro gay rights.  There is no turning back on this issue.

I do not agree with revoking protections for transgender students, but if this is the worst thing he does on this issue (and I suspect it will be for the foreseeable future) then this is not a stinging blow to the cause. 

Appointing Gorsuch will be by far the worst thing he does on 'this issue' in the long run.

You do realize that approving Gorsuch just puts the court back to the same 5-4 pro-gay majority it was at from 2011-2016, right? I get the concern about letting Trump replace Kennedy or Ginsburg, but letting him replace Scalia is honestly fairly harmless for liberals. They don't "gain" anything, but they don't really "lose" anything either.