I guess in some books, “uniting” looks a lot like “give in to the bigoted assholes who want the freedom to hate and oppress others.”
how bout just do stuff that people in our country want done or work to it, instead of deal with transgenders, who are what, like 1 in 1000 people?? Or at least not act like the opponents of transgender ideology don’t exist.
And liberals need to stop looking for The New Civil Rights movements. Its like they’d rather not win battles. LGB rights already won, as did racial civil rights, which is good! There are no equivalent ones to fight today, except ones they make up.
And what is the minimum ratio required before a group is granted equal rights?
Out of curiosity, when the state of North Carolina went way out of their way to pass HR-2, overturning Charlotte’s bathroom ordinance, that was divisive, and they should have focused on stuff that the people of NC wanted done instead, right?
Of course, this is exactly what the state of North Carolina did to the city of Charlottesville.
From here.
How fucking two-faced of them.
First, it’s Charlotte, not Charlottesville, which is in Virginia. Secondly, are you disagreeing with me about something? Your point is unclear.
No, just adding the fact that the State is doing to the City the same thing they complain about when the Federal does it to them.
Some of the articles have the cities crossed.
Yeah, I agree. How about you, DerekMichaels00?
There is the fact that the constitution makes the states the units of legislation, not cities or counties, but, yeah, it’s still hypocritical in nature. It’s really hard to admire, “Let us alone to enjoy our rights to tell other people what they must and must not do.”
Right. It’s a legalistic argument, which fails for its own reasons. Just as our federal system gives states the right to run roughshod over their cities, it also grants Congress the power to fund local schools, and to withhold that funding if states discriminate against their own citizens, and most jurists believe Congress has done so in passing Title IX.
None rhetorical. I think there is an implicit assumption in the OP that a wedge issue can only be pinned on the folks who are on the “wrong side” of that issue. However, something becomes a wedge issue when one side or the other decides to politicize it. And I find the Obama administration’s timing here more than a little suspicious. That’s all.
Concerning the legalities, I also think there is a difference between adults and minors when it comes to transgender issues. AFAIK, minors do not receive gender-reassignment surgery, and the talk we hear is that anyone should be able to use the bathroom they “feel most comfortable with”-- no medical diagnosis necessary. Is it really clear that Title IX is that broad? If I’m reading things correctly, this applies to elementary schools as well, not just high schools, right?
One thing I’ve been wondering lately:
When was the last time a segment of the government wanted to pass laws restricting the rights of a subsection of the citizenry? How’d that go?
Well, technically speaking, it happens with any restrictive law. The minimum wage “restricts the rights” of employers to pay their employees ten cents an hour.
There’s currently a debate regarding Voter ID laws, and how they may (in some cases) be designed to restrict the right of some groups of people to vote.
Abortion rights are constantly being infringed upon by restrictions, such as the (preposterous) requirement of a clinic to have hospital admittance authority.
So, even without my nitpick (which is unworthy and may be disregarded) it happens all the doggone time.
A “think of the children” argument won’t fly. This is a complete non-issue to children these days. To children, if you say you’re a girl, then OK, you’re a girl, no further fuss necessary.
Transgender also applies to those who still have the original equipment but identify with the other sex. You don’t have to have sex-change surgery to be transgender.
Also, according to Politifact:
I agree with the premise that it’s perfectly possible for “right” side to make something a wedge issue. I disagree that the timing is suspicious here. Again, what immediately precipitated this was North Carolina. Additionally, we know that the calls from schools for guidance from the feds had increased exponentially.
Vanita Gupta (who is a bad-ass) has her fingerprints all over this one. She has been in charge of DOJ Civil Rights for less than two years. If you need some trigger beyond the general gestalt and the events in North Carolina, I suspect putting her in charge might be it.
More than that, I think it would be a pretty risky move to select this as a national wedge issue. Do you really think it is good politics in Ohio? Florida? Virginia? North Carolina? I doubt it. Not clearly so, at least.
I don’t see why. A person might (reasonably but incorrectly, in my view) believe that taking HRT or getting surgery proves the sincerity of one’s gender identity, but the flipside is there’s not that high a chance of a fourth grader malingering as to gender dysphoria. If anything, I would think getting this right when our kids are young is the most important time to get it right–before the trauma and damage accumulates.
It applies to elementary schools. And as I said above, it’s not new to observe that it covers gender identity. That’s been implicit since the 90s and explicit since at least 2000.
My instinct is that the right is more united on this issue than the left, although I’d certainly be happy to be proven wrong. And I also feel like there’s more passion on the right than the left. That is, the people who (stupidly, imho) think that this will lead to their children being molested are a lot more passionate about it than people who think that it’s the right thing to do. Even for people who intellectually believe that the trans folks deserve full equal rights, I think there’s still a bit of a discomfort factor. I think this issue is a lot harder for people on the left to be passionate about than gay marriage, because almost everyone has a friend or relative who is gay, while a far smaller percentage of the population is close to someone transgenered.
Courts making new law is not a shining example of representative democracy.
Whether it’s been done for 20, 40, or 60 years is entirely irrelevant.
If you, or the majority of the SDMB, or the President, want to expand Title IX to include gender identity, then go to Congress and get a new law passed.
Courts overruling unconstitutional laws is a necessity of a constitutional democracy.
(And a runaway court isn’t possible, because they lack the ability to enforce their rulings. Division of powers is also necessary for a constitutional democracy.)
Hint to legislators: stop writing unconstitutional laws.