Trump Administration Removes Health Care Protections for Transgender Persons

[find91]

8 hours ago, neg4charged said:

I'm hoping that the recent SCOTUS decision makes these efforts effectively neutered.  

You mean the bill being passed that lgbtq cannot be terminated due to their sexual orientation??

If it's that, I doubt it. Companies will just make up another reason to fire you or just bully you out of your job. Also it seems to me Trans individuals are fucked no matter, because they may be able to keep their job but will still be discriminated by insurance companies. Which fundamentally they may still loose their job because of health complications ( both mental and physical) due to the fact that they cannot access proper health services because they can't be insured.

[BootmanLA]

17 hours ago, neg4charged said:

I'm hoping that the recent SCOTUS decision makes these efforts effectively neutered.  

In the long run, it almost certainly will. Any discrimination protection that protects on the basis of sex, without any other limiting language, would almost certainly be found to cover gay/trans people by the same logic.

One problem is that US anti-discrimination laws are fragmented, meaning separate laws with potentially different wording protecting in cases of employment, public accommodations, housing, voting, and so forth. As a result, such provisions may not uniformly protect us if they lack the same wording. Remember that the decision turned on the explicit ban on discrimination "on account of sex", which is what got 2 of the conservative justices on our side. 

[cumslutfuckpig]

On 6/17/2020 at 7:37 AM, find91 said:

You mean the bill being passed that lgbtq cannot be terminated due to their sexual orientation??

If it's that, I doubt it. Companies will just make up another reason to fire you or just bully you out of your job. Also it seems to me Trans individuals are fucked no matter, because they may be able to keep their job but will still be discriminated by insurance companies. Which fundamentally they may still loose their job because of health complications ( both mental and physical) due to the fact that they cannot access proper health services because they can't be insured.

No I meant the SCOTUS ruling on LGBT employment.  Critically it’s predicated on Title VII of the Cuvil Rights Act (on the basis of sex) - not cases like Roe v Wade that introduced the quasi-constitutional right to privacy.  That means it’s anchored in law, not stare decisus (previous court rulings) so it’s less vulnerable to challenge *and*, being separated from the abortion ruling, it’s not a juicier target for right wingers.  But what’s true for employment will be found to be true for access to housing, public accommodation... including health care.  Not only that, there’s a real question whether the courts will defer to the administration even for military coverage, although they do tend to give the executive wide leeway as CIC.  

[drscorpio]

It's important because there is an official SCOTUS precedent stating that discrimination against LGBTQ+ people is de facto discrimination on the basis of sex. That means that any law that forbids sex discrimination provides protections for LGBTQ+ persons, but the cases will have to be litigated for that to have force. And like @BootmanLA said, if there is any difference in wording, the precedent might not hold. 

It's a big step forward, but it isn't an automatic end to all our problems. 

[gwmxyz]

Sorry if I'm offending anyone, but Trump's made me realise how good most politicians are and how decent.  

And good luck with the courts.  As Michael Foot said "If the freedom of the people in this country had been left to the good sense and fair-mindedness of the judges, we would have had few freedoms in this country at all."

Hope I'm wrong

[BootmanLA]

On 6/26/2020 at 5:30 AM, gwmxyz said:

Sorry if I'm offending anyone, but Trump's made me realise how good most politicians are and how decent.  

And good luck with the courts.  As Michael Foot said "If the freedom of the people in this country had been left to the good sense and fair-mindedness of the judges, we would have had few freedoms in this country at all."

Hope I'm wrong

Foot was British, speaking about the British court system, so bringing him up with respect to American politics is rather pointless. In this country, we have a long history in which all three branches of government - legislative, executive, judicial - have at one time or another both pushed forward on civil rights and pushed back against them. For the latter third of the 20th century and well into the 21st, virtually all advances in Americans' freedoms and rights have come from the courts. That's simply a fact.

I agree that in contrast to Trump, almost any politician might (at first glance) seem good or decent. That's a mirage. You need only look to how closely the members of his party in Congress support everything he does to realize that a decent person wouldn't. A decent person would speak out and tell their president when he's wrong. But the Republicans in Congress live in fear that if they cross Trump, he'll not only attack them on Twitter (thus riling up his base against them) but encourage an even farther-right-wing challenger to try to defeat them in the primary races. The only way to get rid of Trump is to also get rid of enough of his supporters in Congress that legislatively, no one like him can ever try so much garbage again.

[BootmanLA]

On 7/4/2020 at 2:00 PM, BootmanLA said:

The only way to get rid of Trump is to also get rid of enough of his supporters in Congress that legislatively, no one like him can ever try so much garbage again.

Put another way: we need to take the General Sherman and his March to the Sea approach with respect to the Republican party as it currently stands. Burn the fucking GOP to the ground.

We certainly could use a conservative (actually conservative, instead of the radical/populist/anti-intellectual/Christianist mess that defines the current Republican party). But we won't get that as long as any marginally significant number of Trumpeadors continue to serve in Congress. Maybe when they learn that throwing all-in with a racist demagogue who thinks it's more important to protect his buddy Putin than to confront the man paying bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers is a really bad career move, we can purge the remnants of Trumpism from DC.

[SissySwallows]

The rollback is just taking away the "gender identity" thing which really isnt thst big a deal. Im well aware that any doctor i go to has my entire history so I'm not going to have a meltdown if he misgenders me or what ever. I have better healthcare thanks to this administration so really that's good enough for me. 

Employment though... it depends on the transwomen and employer. Some hard working transsexual women have either gotten laid off or been denied a promotion because theyre transsexual. Transgenders on the other hand may or may not deserve getting fired. I totally understand the "gender identity" thing being an issue in this case.

I'm not into politics so don't get all upset at me for not advancing the lgbt agenda. Why would I?  A rollback is nothing compared to telling little boys they could go into the girls locker room if they identify as one. 

[BootmanLA]

14 hours ago, SissySwallows said:

I'm not into politics so don't get all upset at me for not advancing the lgbt agenda. Why would I?  A rollback is nothing compared to telling little boys they could go into the girls locker room if they identify as one. 

NOTHING in the "lgbt agenda" calls for "telling little boys they could go into the girls locker room" for any purpose whatsoever. You clearly pay SOME attention to politics, contrary to your statement, because you're parroting right-wing nutcase nonsense here. For starters, how many "little boys" are going to be willing to go on the record claiming to be a girl - something they'll have to attest to, in some fashion, before school administrators - thinking they'll get into a girl's locker room? Anyone who's young enough to be called a "little boy" is certainly going to need parental permission and support to identify to the school as female, and that's going to stop about 99.999% of the fraudulent/pervert cases. 

14 hours ago, SissySwallows said:

The rollback is just taking away the "gender identity" thing which really isnt thst big a deal. Im well aware that any doctor i go to has my entire history so I'm not going to have a meltdown if he misgenders me or what ever. I have better healthcare thanks to this administration so really that's good enough for me. 

The problem isn't doctors "misgendering" you. Based on your profile, it seems you identify as a transvestite (a male who dresses up in women's clothing). That's a very different thing from someone who's transgender (aka "gender identity") - when someone identifies as a particular gender although they were identified at birth as the opposite gender. The "rollback" wouldn't affect you, since you're not transgender at all; however, medical professionals no longer being required to treat transgender patients with respect and as their identified gender IS  a huge rollback. It's not just calling them by the wrong name or pronoun. It can make differences in treatment plans or result in a misdiagnosis because the health care provider didn't consider all the relevant information.

 

14 hours ago, SissySwallows said:

Employment though... it depends on the transwomen and employer. Some hard working transsexual women have either gotten laid off or been denied a promotion because theyre transsexual. Transgenders on the other hand may or may not deserve getting fired. I totally understand the "gender identity" thing being an issue in this case.

It's not just transwomen; it's trans men, as well. And while I'm sure what you MEANT to say is that some employees (regardless of gender or gender identity) deserve to get fired, the point is that many trans people (and for that matter, gay and bi people) have been fired simply because they're trans, gay, or bi. That, at least, is no longer legal thanks to a surprising ruling from the Supreme Court.

[120DaysofSodom]

On 6/13/2020 at 9:42 AM, hungandmean said:

White cis gat dudes do not give a flying fuck about trans people. 

 

 

 

 

 

I care.

[drscorpio]

5 hours ago, TwinkFoot said:

I care.

Me too

[Nah]

On 11/7/2020 at 6:53 PM, TwinkFoot said:

I care.

You cherry-picked what he said and left off the important few words before: “the majority of.” I’ve seen so much transphobia in the community, and the most transphobic I’ve seen is generally the cis white gay men. I know it’s anecdotal, and transphobia is everywhere outside of that group, but it’sa trend that a lot of people have noticed. Leaving out the context provided in the original post is deceitful, even if that wasn’t your intent.

[120DaysofSodom]

10 hours ago, TC1127 said:

You cherry-picked what he said and left off the important few words before: “the majority of.” I’ve seen so much transphobia in the community, and the most transphobic I’ve seen is generally the cis white gay men. I know it’s anecdotal, and transphobia is everywhere outside of that group, but it’sa trend that a lot of people have noticed. Leaving out the context provided in the original post is deceitful, even if that wasn’t your intent.

Oh look, someone that wants to complain at me for the sake of complaining. Bye.

Edited November 21, 2020 by TwinkFoot

[Nah]

7 minutes ago, TwinkFoot said:

Oh look, someone that wants to complain at me for the sake of complaining. Bye.

 Imagine getting mad when someone points out your cherry-picking for being misleading. Also, this isn’t an airport, there’s no need to announce your departure.

[120DaysofSodom]

34 minutes ago, TC1127 said:

 Imagine getting mad when someone points out your cherry-picking for being misleading. Also, this isn’t an airport, there’s no need to announce your departure.

Imagine being the kind of person that finds something wrong with someone posting, "I care" 🤡🤡🤡🤡

Since youre so original you regurgitate internet memes heres one for you: "Just fishing for attention".