LGBT+ Rights

[Schiff for Senate]

Does it make sense to support some LGBT+ rights but not others?

Personally, I support most gay rights. Gays should be allowed to marry, serve in the military and adopt children. (However, I do think businesses should be allowed to discriminate people based on sexual orientation or gender expression, and churches should be allowed to refuse to marry gay people; the government should respect people's personal beliefs as long as they are not being violent.) You can't control who you love, and it's not the government's business to interfere to limit that. I understand people who are uncomfortable with gay people, but that doesn't mean that the government should ban gay marriage just because some are uncomfortable with it.

However, transgender rights for me are a different matter. There should be strict limits on sex reassignment surgery and people should use the bathroom of their bioligical gender, not the gender they 'identify' with. Minors should be barred from doing sex reassignment surgery. Businesses should be allowed to deny transgenders jobs, at least if they have personal beliefs that are against transgenders. Because while you can't control who you fall in love with, you have one gender, the one given to you at birth, and any claims that you are actually from the other gender, or are "trapped" in the body of a male when you are female (or vice-versa), are completely false (and should be cause for concern), and you shouldn't be allowed to surgically change your gender. There's a clear line - you are born one gender, and you shouldn't try to change that gender; it should not at all be condoned by the government under any circumstances.

So does it make sense to support some letters in LGBT and not others, or is it an 'all or nothing' kind of situation where you either 'support all human rights or don't?'
Also, what is your position on LGBT+ rights? Do you support transgender rights or not, and which LGBT rights specifically do you favour?

[Indy Texas]

It's always seemed odd to me that transgender rights get lumped in with gay rights given that one is a matter of one's own gender identity and the other a matter of orientation in sexual/romantic attraction to other people. It ends up just being a grab bag of "everyone who is 'different' somehow."

There is also a tension that will probably surface more as time goes on with the more extreme and militant elements of the trans community that wish to go beyond nondiscrimination and argue that there is no difference between a transwoman and a ciswoman or between a transman and a cisman.

Once you go with that line of argument, you start arguing that biology and genitals are immaterial to sexual identity or sexual attraction. You end up telling a gay man that if he refuses to date and have sex with a transman who has female genitalia, then he is a hateful irredeemable bigot. You end up suggesting that a lesbian woman who does not conform 100% to typical gender roles (doesn't wear makeup, sometimes shops in the men's section) is not really a lesbian but is simply a transman who is either afraid to come out or in denial.

[Schiff for Senate]

It's always seemed odd to me that transgender rights get lumped in with gay rights given that one is a matter of one's own gender identity and the other a matter of orientation in sexual/romantic attraction to other people. It ends up just being a grab bag of "everyone who is 'different' somehow."

There is also a tension that will probably surface more as time goes on with the more extreme and militant elements of the trans community that wish to go beyond nondiscrimination and argue that there is no difference between a transwoman and a ciswoman or between a transman and a cisman.

Once you go with that line of argument, you start arguing that biology and genitals are immaterial to sexual identity or sexual attraction. You end up telling a gay man that if he refuses to date and have sex with a transman who has female genitalia, then he is a hateful irredeemable bigot. You end up suggesting that a lesbian woman who does not conform 100% to typical gender roles (doesn't wear makeup, sometimes shops in the men's section) is not really a lesbian but is simply a transman who is either afraid to come out or in denial.

I agree. I think that in the process of trying to form an equal, just, inclusive society, people have started becoming too easily prone to spotting perceived discrimination or prejudice. If there is a man who 'identifies' as female and you call him/her a "he" or "him," even accidentally, you get labelled as an insensitive bigot, and if you oppose someone who is bioligically male but who identifies as female using the women's bathroom, then you are a judgmental, hateful and oppose equal rights for everyone, to the point that even the most non-bigoted person can be accused of bigotry if they are even uncomfortable with a man using the women's bathroom or vice versa.

[Schiff for Senate]

It's always seemed odd to me that transgender rights get lumped in with gay rights given that one is a matter of one's own gender identity and the other a matter of orientation in sexual/romantic attraction to other people. It ends up just being a grab bag of "everyone who is 'different' somehow."

There is also a tension that will probably surface more as time goes on with the more extreme and militant elements of the trans community that wish to go beyond nondiscrimination and argue that there is no difference between a transwoman and a ciswoman or between a transman and a cisman.

Once you go with that line of argument, you start arguing that biology and genitals are immaterial to sexual identity or sexual attraction. You end up telling a gay man that if he refuses to date and have sex with a transman who has female genitalia, then he is a hateful irredeemable bigot. You end up suggesting that a lesbian woman who does not conform 100% to typical gender roles (doesn't wear makeup, sometimes shops in the men's section) is not really a lesbian but is simply a transman who is either afraid to come out or in denial.

I agree. I think that in the process of trying to form an equal, just, inclusive society, people have started becoming too easily prone to spotting perceived discrimination or prejudice. If there is a man who 'identifies' as female and you call him/her a "he" or "him," even accidentally, you get labelled as an insensitive bigot, and if you oppose someone who is bioligically male but who identifies as female using the women's bathroom, then you are a judgmental, hateful and oppose equal rights for everyone, to the point that even the most non-bigoted person can be accused of bigotry if they are even uncomfortable with a man using the women's bathroom or vice versa.

Lol imagine a Texas DEMOCRAT and California REPUBLICAN actually agreeing on something.

[If my soul was made of stone]

It's far too common for people to be completely on board with "LGB" but get cold feet around the "T". With societal acceptance for the former three increasing rapidly over the past twenty-odd years, much of the animus once reserved for them has been transferred to trans people, and with them the resultant moral-panic legislation and ignorant takes like these. You seem determined to believe that the existence of trans people, or "transgenders" as you insultingly say, is a personal affront to you and to other people who may object to our existence for whatever reason. What, pray tell, is so offensive about someone identifying with a schema that they weren't born into? Why is it so much harder to conceive than homosexuality? There are countless warmed-over right-wing canards that fail to adequately answer these questions, and are far too common. This has been a more accepting online space than many to me as a trans person, but having to justify the most basic parameters of my existence is inevitable in any space. Transitioning on its own is difficult enough, but having it compounded with external hatred is what leads to the endemic struggles with mental illness among my people. (No, identifying with another gender is not itself mental illness, before you ask, as any look in the DSM will tell you.)

I agree that reassignment surgery shouldn't be performed on minors, but supporting that is fairly fringe. Most people worth their salt won't throw a fit about someone using the wrong pronouns if it's clear that it was accidental and not intended in bad faith, as opposed to someone like Ben Shapiro who makes a performative mess out of misgendering folk.

Lol imagine a Texas DEMOCRAT and California REPUBLICAN actually agreeing on something.

It's easy for most people to agree on low-hanging culture war fruit, unfortunately. We exist in a flourishing moment for transphobia, compared to many points in the recent past as well as ancient eras in which gender non-conformity was also recognized. Learning about these issues beyond what inane mainstream offers is the first step towards transcending hate.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

And now for something completely different:

However, transgender rights for me are a different matter. There should be strict limits on sex reassignment surgery

I'm curious to hear what limits you'd place on SRS. Assuming you don't mean a blanket ban like you later say, of course.

and people should use the bathroom of their bioligical gender, not the gender they 'identify' with.

And what about trans people who've already gotten bottom surgery and thus nominally have bodies that conform more to their experienced gender than the one they were assigned at birth?

Minors should be barred from doing sex reassignment surgery.

I agree, actually. Doogie Howser is, like, the last person I want to give me bottom surgery. Oh, you meant having? I still agree, but it doesn't actually happen unless your name is Jazz Jennings.

Businesses should be allowed to deny transgenders jobs, at least if they have personal beliefs that are against transgenders.

Because while you can't control who you fall in love with, you have one gender,

The human gender!

the one given to you at birth,

Aw.

and any claims that you are actually from the other gender,

Yeah, trans people aren't "from the other gender", trans women were always women, and trans men were always men (even if it took them a while to get with the program)!

or are "trapped" in the body of a male when you are female (or vice-versa), are completely false (and should be cause for concern),

Aw. You wanna know what should be cause for concern? Your close mindedness.

and you shouldn't be allowed to surgically change your gender.

I thought there were supposed to be strict limits rather than a blanket ban!

There's a clear line - you are born one gender, and you shouldn't try to change that gender; it should not at all be condoned by the government under any circumstances.

Hey, if something makes someone happy and isn't hurting anybody (or, if you view "coming back as yourself", as George W. Bush called it, as harmful, hurting anybody else), who are you to judge?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I support gay rights. I don't support trans surgeries, hormone treatments or puberty blockers of any kind. You are correct, they have nothing to do with each other.

[Schiff for Senate]

It's far too common for people to be completely on board with "LGB" but get cold feet around the "T". With societal acceptance for the former three increasing rapidly over the past twenty-odd years, much of the animus once reserved for them has been transferred to trans people, and with them the resultant moral-panic legislation and ignorant takes like these. You seem determined to believe that the existence of trans people, or "transgenders" as you insultingly say, is a personal affront to you and to o ther people who may object to our existence for whatever reason. What, pray tell, is so offensive about someone identifying with a schema that they weren't born into? Why is it so much harder to conceive than homosexuality? There are countless warmed-over right-wing canards that fail to adequately answer these questions, and are far too common. This has been a more accepting online space than many to me as a trans person, but having to justify the most basic parameters of my existence is inevitable in any space. Transitioning on its own is difficult enough, but having it compounded with external hatred is what leads to the endemic struggles with mental illness among my people. (No, identifying with another gender is not itself mental illness, before you ask, as any look in the DSM will tell you.)

I agree that reassignment surgery shouldn't be performed on minors, but supporting that is fairly fringe. Most people worth their salt won't throw a fit about someone using the wrong pronouns if it's clear that it was accidental and not intended in bad faith, as opposed to someone like Ben Shapiro who makes a performative mess out of misgendering folk.

Lol imagine a Texas DEMOCRAT and California REPUBLICAN actually agreeing on something.

It's easy for most people to agree on low-hanging culture war fruit, unfortunately. We exist in a flourishing moment for transphobia, compared to many points in the recent past as well as ancient eras in which gender non-conformity was also recognized. Learning about these issues beyond what inane mainstream offers is the first step towards transcending hate.

I thought that 'transgender' was a generic term to refer to someone who believes they are from a different gender than they physically are; I didn't know it was an offensive or deragatory term, and I didn't mean any offense by using it. Sorry if it offended you - that wasn't the intention.

[If my soul was made of stone]

It's far too common for people to be completely on board with "LGB" but get cold feet around the "T". With societal acceptance for the former three increasing rapidly over the past twenty-odd years, much of the animus once reserved for them has been transferred to trans people, and with them the resultant moral-panic legislation and ignorant takes like these. You seem determined to believe that the existence of trans people, or "transgenders" as you insultingly say, is a personal affront to you and to o ther people who may object to our existence for whatever reason. What, pray tell, is so offensive about someone identifying with a schema that they weren't born into? Why is it so much harder to conceive than homosexuality? There are countless warmed-over right-wing canards that fail to adequately answer these questions, and are far too common. This has been a more accepting online space than many to me as a trans person, but having to justify the most basic parameters of my existence is inevitable in any space. Transitioning on its own is difficult enough, but having it compounded with external hatred is what leads to the endemic struggles with mental illness among my people. (No, identifying with another gender is not itself mental illness, before you ask, as any look in the DSM will tell you.)

I agree that reassignment surgery shouldn't be performed on minors, but supporting that is fairly fringe. Most people worth their salt won't throw a fit about someone using the wrong pronouns if it's clear that it was accidental and not intended in bad faith, as opposed to someone like Ben Shapiro who makes a performative mess out of misgendering folk.

Lol imagine a Texas DEMOCRAT and California REPUBLICAN actually agreeing on something.

It's easy for most people to agree on low-hanging culture war fruit, unfortunately. We exist in a flourishing moment for transphobia, compared to many points in the recent past as well as ancient eras in which gender non-conformity was also recognized. Learning about these issues beyond what inane mainstream offers is the first step towards transcending hate.

I thought that 'transgender' was a generic term to refer to someone who believes they are from a different gender than they physically are; I didn't know it was an offensive or deragatory term, and I didn't mean any offense by using it. Sorry if it offended you - that wasn't the intention.

It's an adjective, not a noun. Calling someone "a transgender man/woman" is fine, but "a transgender" is a bit like saying "the blacks".

[Schiff for Senate]

It's far too common for people to be completely on board with "LGB" but get cold feet around the "T". With societal acceptance for the former three increasing rapidly over the past twenty-odd years, much of the animus once reserved for them has been transferred to trans people, and with them the resultant moral-panic legislation and ignorant takes like these. You seem determined to believe that the existence of trans people, or "transgenders" as you insultingly say, is a personal affront to you and to o ther people who may object to our existence for whatever reason. What, pray tell, is so offensive about someone identifying with a schema that they weren't born into? Why is it so much harder to conceive than homosexuality? There are countless warmed-over right-wing canards that fail to adequately answer these questions, and are far too common. This has been a more accepting online space than many to me as a trans person, but having to justify the most basic parameters of my existence is inevitable in any space. Transitioning on its own is difficult enough, but having it compounded with external hatred is what leads to the endemic struggles with mental illness among my people. (No, identifying with another gender is not itself mental illness, before you ask, as any look in the DSM will tell you.)

I agree that reassignment surgery shouldn't be performed on minors, but supporting that is fairly fringe. Most people worth their salt won't throw a fit about someone using the wrong pronouns if it's clear that it was accidental and not intended in bad faith, as opposed to someone like Ben Shapiro who makes a performative mess out of misgendering folk.

Lol imagine a Texas DEMOCRAT and California REPUBLICAN actually agreeing on something.

It's easy for most people to agree on low-hanging culture war fruit, unfortunately. We exist in a flourishing moment for transphobia, compared to many points in the recent past as well as ancient eras in which gender non-conformity was also recognized. Learning about these issues beyond what inane mainstream offers is the first step towards transcending hate.

I thought that 'transgender' was a generic term to refer to someone who believes they are from a different gender than they physically are; I didn't know it was an offensive or deragatory term, and I didn't mean any offense by using it. Sorry if it offended you - that wasn't the intention.

It's an adjective, not a noun. Calling someone "a transgender man/woman" is fine, but "a transgender" is a bit like saying "the blacks".

Oh, okay. Thanks for letting me know, and I'll try to avoid using it incorrectly in the future.

[progressive85]

Trans is still very new in the world of rights advocacy.  The gay rights movement has had 50+ years at least nationally to develop itself, and I seriously doubt anyone who identified as a conservative in 1969 would have supported the gay rights that you support now.  

Gay rights in 1969 was considered extremely radical.  It was a direct challenge to all of the social and cultural values that conservatives at the time held.  Not even most liberals and Democrats supported the concept of it.

So it's expected that people are really hostile to the entire idea of trans people, especially now more than they were in the previous 10 years due to the huge increase in coverage that it has been getting nationally.

I very strongly believe it is a matter of science and that it has to do with the fetal development of the baby's brain.  I do not believe that these trans kids are any different than other kids - I feel they simply want to live in accordance with the sex of their brain, which should be a human right for these children.

Being "gay" is more about who you love.

Being "trans" is more about brain sex, and the science is slowly emerging about it.  It will take time for it to be explored the way that it needs to be.  Until then, I suggest to people to hold off of the barrage of judgments about it.

It makes perfect biological sense that there would be a small minority of babies that do not develop the way most other babies develop.

I believe about 0.5% of all childbirths are part of this community.

I feel conservatives are exaggerating the size of the trans community.  It is not nearly as large as the gay community, so it is much more vulnerable to attack.

[Del Tachi]

The primary reason the Western gay rights movement has been so successful was that it settled on marriage, an inherently conservative social institution, as it primary goal by the mid-1990s (which is, non-coincidently, when we start to see huge strides in representation/protection for gay and lesbian couples.)  It is not hard to imagine an alternative history where the post-Stonewall movement stays more true to the idea of sexual liberation for LGB people instead of co-opting them into heteronormative institutions like marriage; however, such a change probably results in gay and lesbian causes being seen as more radical and much less popular today.   

What totalizing, universally popular, conservative institution like marriage do trans activists have to latch onto?  Trans people can already marry whoever they want thanks to Obergefell and have employment protections thanks to Bostock.  What is the perpetual wrong that Middle America is going to be convinced it has to right for trans people? 

[If my soul was made of stone]

What totalizing, universally popular, conservative institution like marriage do trans activists have to latch onto?  Trans people can already marry whoever they want thanks to Obergefell and have employment protections thanks to Bostock.  What is the perpetual wrong that Middle America is going to be convinced it has to right for trans people? 

Making a dent in the frequency of hate crimes against LGBT people certainly comes to mind.

[darklordoftech]

1. How in the world would bathroom requirements be enforced?

2. Why should anyone care whether someone calls themselves a “woman” or a “man”?

[Hammy]

I appreciate long posts like these. I am here to argue, and there is quite a lot to pick apart.

people should use the bathroom of their bioligical gender, not the gender they 'identify' with.

This will do nothing but put transgender people at risk. Not to mention plays on an inaccurate stereotype that everyone in there is intending to commit sexual assault.

Minors should be barred from doing sex reassignment surgery.

Minors are already not allowed to have reassignment surgery. The claim that people push that they are is pushed purely to demonize them and create an enemy when people need one.

Businesses should be allowed to deny transgenders jobs, at least if they have personal beliefs that are against transgenders.

Okay then, people should be allowed to deny jobs to Christians or white men as well. Suppose I am Catholic and believe Protestantism is blasphemy, or believe white men are born racist, should I be allowed to deny them employment purely on those personal beliefs? That's how absurd any sort of employment discrimination sounds.

You shouldn't be allowed to surgically change your gender.

Unless you are opposed to all cosmetic surgery, this reasoning makes zero logical sense.

Because while you can't control who you fall in love with, you have one gender, the one given to you at birth, and any claims that you are actually from the other gender, or are "trapped" in the body of a male when you are female (or vice-versa), are completely false (and should be cause for concern)

First, sex and gender are two different matters--one is physical, one is chemical. Second, your brain, how you see yourself, how you identify, are no less biological than the parts you have, and if anything should be given more weight as who you are is in the brain, not the body. Third, people don't just one day decide on a whim they are a different gender. It is no less biological, no less borne into who you are at birth than who you are attracted to.

[Schiff for Senate]

Businesses should be allowed to deny transgenders jobs, at least if they have personal beliefs that are against transgenders.

Okay then, people should be allowed to deny jobs to Christians or white men as well. Suppose I am Catholic and believe Protestantism is blasphemy, or believe white men are born racist, should I be allowed to deny them employment purely on those personal beliefs? That's how absurd any sort of employment discrimination sounds.

Businesses should be allowed to discriminate against Protestants or white men as well. That's what I'm trying to say - that the government shouldn't force businesses to not discriminate. Because it's not the place of the government to intervene - the government shouldn't decide that discrimination based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or gender expression should be illegal. What the government should do is ensure that the government doesn't discriminate in giving jobs - but trying to force businesses to do so can be very futile. If someone is intent in their belief that, say, Catholic men don't work well, then the government forcing the business to not discriminate against Catholic men is futile. The business will find some loophole or another to avoid employing Catholic men, and if they have to, they will make sure that male Catholic employees are treated differently from the residue of employees. The government shouldn't come up with such regulations unless they can enforce them very well - which would be very costly (it would likely require a government agency monitoring all businesses on a long-term basis to ensure there's no discrimination). So, if there is a business that does actually have a problem employing Catholic men, the government shouldn't bother to force them to employ Catholic men - they cannot monitor discrimination completely by any means, and all they will be doing is creating a hostile workspace. What Catholic men should do in this case is apply for another job - I'm not saying it's easy, but it's likely better than working in an environment where your boss distrusts you. The case is different if someone against Catholic men decides the solution is to attack a Catholic man. Because there's a big difference between not wanting to employ someone and attacking them. In the former case, the government shouldn't intervene, it should just make sure that it isn't discriminating against anyone itself. But in the latter case, it should interefere. Similarly, if a business CEO simply does not trust transgender people, or feels uncomfortable around them, creating a law forcing him to is either symbolic or backfires - on one hand, the government can simply write the law and then not enforce it (in which case the law is more symbolic than meaningful, because it doesn't result in any action), and on the other hand, they can force a business to employ transgender people (but all this will do is backfire, by creating a hostile workplace for both employer and employee). Another side of it is the more philosophical argument (which is also more controversial). The government shouldn't stop people from discriminating when employing, because the business isn't hurting that particular person - it's simply refusing to employ it. It should be within a business' rights to decline services or employment to whomever they want. Because if a person has a belief that Catholic men don't work as well as other groups, then the governnment shouldn't force them to change their views - partly because they can't change someone's views by forcing them to do something that contradicts them, and partly because that's not within their powers. The solution in both cases is to allow businesses to do what they want. If they don't, rather than helping end discrimination/racism/sexism/transphobia/homophobia/Islamaphobia, they are only continuing and possibly fueling it, because the employer will likely feel even more animosity to the group they want to discriminate against than they would otherwise. If, on the other hand, the government allows businesses to discriminate in employing and providing service to a particular group, the business itself will likely realize it will be hurting itself - as far as employment goes, because they will be depriving themselves of potentially very talented employees, and as far as providing services go, because they will be losing themselves customers and money (first of all, the group they discriminate against will not visit, and secondly, if people find out a particular business is discriminating against a group, they may decide not to visit it anymore). In both cases, the formerly discriminated-against group is employed, but in the former case (where the government intervenes), the business is forced to do so, and it will likely not remove any distrust they feel for that group, while in the latter, they will have done so by choice (though it may take longer).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Businesses should be encouraged to discriminate against blowhards who don't know how to create paragraph breaks.