# Trans Rights - Too much, too soon? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2019, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167 "2019-06-07T16:10:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2019, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/41 "2019-06-08T22:26:11Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > As was mentioned upthread, what are these “fundamental rights” that transsexuals are seeking that they do not already have? Marriage? That fight is over. What specific laws are being sought? The right to live as the gender they identify as without facing legal discrimination. They seek protected status under anti-discrimination laws. Are you serious? Do you need statute numbers? ---
**Author:** ![Ronald\_Raygun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c67d28/32.png) [@Ronald\_Raygun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ronald_Raygun)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2019, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/42 "2019-06-08T23:28:32Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > As was mentioned upthread, what are these “fundamental rights” that transsexuals are seeking that they do not already have? Marriage? That fight is over. What specific laws are being sought? Off the top of my head - Employment non-discrimination - Housing non-discrimination - Ban on conversion therapy for minors - Hate crimes protection - Ban on “trans panic” defense - Medicaid coverage for trans-related medication (many states explicitly ban it) - Medical treatment and protection in prisons - Title IX protection - The ability to change documentation without bottom surgery ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/43 "2019-06-09T00:12:03Z")
From Letter from a Birmingham Jail > [@](#): > > I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth of time. I received a letter this morning from a white brother in Texas which said, “All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but is it possible that you are in too great of a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity almost 2000 years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.” All that is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/44 "2019-06-09T03:02:26Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > In it, you’ll note that the US government was waaaaay ahead of the populace when it came to the question of interracial marriage, back before 1970. But in terms of gay marriage, the government trailed the populace by a few years. I’m a bit skeptical that the government was trailing behind the populace when it came to gay rights. In many states when the issue of gay marriage came to a vote by the people it was a no. Some states, like Vermont and Massachusetts, had a population that voted for same sex marriage or civil union but wasn’t gay marriage won in the courts in most states? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/45 "2019-06-09T03:13:47Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I’m a bit skeptical that the government was trailing behind the populace when it came to gay rights. In many states when the issue of gay marriage came to a vote by the people it was a no. Some states, like Vermont and Massachusetts, had a population that voted for same sex marriage or civil union but wasn’t gay marriage won in the courts in most states? Edited because I think I read the quoted post wrong… ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/46 "2019-06-09T13:43:28Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The right to live as the gender they identify as without facing legal discrimination. > > They seek protected status under anti-discrimination laws. > > Are you serious? Do you need statute numbers? How is it a fundamental right to have protection under anti-discrimination laws? If that was the case then everyone would always have protection under those laws. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/47 "2019-06-09T14:04:45Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > How is it a fundamental right to have protection under anti-discrimination laws? If that was the case then everyone would always have protection under those laws. Everyone does have protection under those laws. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/48 "2019-06-09T14:09:19Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > I would agree the backlash does probably stems in part from how abruptly transgender concerns have broken into the political mainstream. With black civil rights, people had a century to get used to the idea that free black people were a real thing, and they probably should have the same rights as others. > > I don’t think we should be listening to people who think they should get a 100 year grace period getting used to the idea that oppressed people should have rights. Heck, some people still don’t think women should have rights, and we’ve been around for a while. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/49 "2019-06-09T14:25:01Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Everyone does have protection under those laws. No they don’t. People who have the characteristics outlined in the laws are protected. Those who have the overwhelming majority of other characteristics that others find objectionable, but are not listed in the law, do not have any protections. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/50 "2019-06-09T15:21:08Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I’m a bit skeptical that the government was trailing behind the populace when it came to gay rights. In many states when the issue of gay marriage came to a vote by the people it was a no. Some states, like Vermont and Massachusetts, had a population that voted for same sex marriage or civil union but wasn’t gay marriage won in the courts in most states? Neither MA nor VT initiated same-sex marriage via public vote, although indirectly, the public supported it. (lagging the legislature in VT, but prior to implementation of the law in MA.) The Vermont legislature passed a civil union law, it wasn’t put to the popular vote. In MA, the original legalization of same-sex marriage was the result of a MA Supreme Court decision. In the next Vermont election (2000), supporters of civil unions lost ground in the polls, and there were some legislative efforts to undo the law. Two years later, it had become a non-issue, and four years later (2004) supporters of civil unions won a convincing majority. > **[Same-sex marriage in Vermont](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Vermont)** > > Recognized > Same-sex marriage has been legal in Vermont since September 1, 2009. The Senate passed same-sex marriage legislation on March 23, which the House of Representatives amended and approved by a 94–52 vote on April 3, 2009. Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the bill as promised on April 6. Both the House and the Senate successfully overrode Douglas' veto the following day. The law went into effect on September 1, making Vermont the fourth U.S. state, after Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iow... In MA, there was a move to amend the constitution to prevent same-sex marriage that was killed by the legislature. Then the state supreme court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Following that, there was another citizens petition to change the state constitution to overturn that ruling (or to weaken it to “civil union” instead of “marriage”.) MA has weird rules regarding how to get citizen petitions on the general ballot, and at least in this case, the rule required at least 1/4 of the MA legislators to approve the amendment two years in a row before it could go to the public. The first of those two times the amendment got enough votes. Then there was a general election, and to the surprise of many, every legislator who backed same-sex marriage won re-election, and some who backed the amendment lost their seats. Critically, the amendment would not have taken effect until AFTER same-sex marriage had been in place for a while. So it was recognized that it would be disruptive, not “maintain the status quo”. The amendment died in the next legislature. That was partly due to the election results, partly due to public polling that turned up a high degree of support, and partly due to heavy lobbying by MA businesses, who had already spent a lot of money to change their HR policies to recognize same-sex marriage, and didn’t want to go through all that expense again. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/51 "2019-06-09T15:25:06Z")
As for trans rights, I endorse this: > [@MandaJo](#): > > From Letter from a Birmingham Jail > > > [@MLK](#): > > > > I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth of time. I received a letter this morning from a white brother in Texas which said, “All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but is it possible that you are in too great of a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity almost 2000 years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.” All that is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/52 "2019-06-09T16:06:10Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > No they don’t. People who have the characteristics outlined in the laws are protected. Those who have the overwhelming majority of other characteristics that others find objectionable, but are not listed in the law, do not have any protections. Everyone has a race, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, etc. So yes, everyone is protected by those laws. You can’t be fired due to your race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/53 "2019-06-09T18:37:44Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > No they don’t. People who have the characteristics outlined in the laws are protected. Those who have the overwhelming majority of other characteristics that others find objectionable, but are not listed in the law, do not have any protections. You’d think a lawyer would know better than this bit of nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/54 "2019-06-09T21:24:26Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > No they don’t. People who have the characteristics outlined in the laws are protected. Those who have the overwhelming majority of other characteristics that others find objectionable, but are not listed in the law, do not have any protections. Reference to those laws as " anti-discrimination laws" is pretty vague. You’d have to be more specific to be meaningful. The fourteenth amendment however, is pretty straightforward in discussing equal protection. ---
**Author:** ![Ronald\_Raygun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c67d28/32.png) [@Ronald\_Raygun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ronald_Raygun)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/55 "2019-06-09T22:33:51Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > How is it a fundamental right to have protection under anti-discrimination laws? If that was the case then everyone would always have protection under those laws. Am I on an ignore list? Am I screaming at the ocean? Like, you asked what we wanted as a group, and I gave you a nice list. I don’t really care if they are “fundamental”. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/56 "2019-06-09T22:50:10Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I’m a bit skeptical that the government was trailing behind the populace when it came to gay rights. In many states when the issue of gay marriage came to a vote by the people it was a no. Some states, like Vermont and Massachusetts, had a population that voted for same sex marriage or civil union but wasn’t gay marriage won in the courts in most states? Not in Minnesota! We voted down a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting equal marriage rights, and then next spring, our Legislature & Governor passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage. It only took 40 years for elected officials to catch up – our Democratic-Farmer-Labor party had passed a platform plank supporting equal marriage rights iway back n 1972! ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/57 "2019-06-09T22:56:58Z")
> [@Esprise\_Me](#): > > A representative from an LGBT rights advocacy legal group came to speak to my law school in the wake of the US v. Windsor decision. Apparently there had been some real controversy among advocates as to how and when and with whom to challenge DOMA in the courts. Some, like the org this speaker represented, wanted to wait a little longer, both to allow more time for attitudes to evolve and to find the perfect sympathetic test case, in order to have the best shot at victory. Others, like Edie Windsor, didn’t want to wait. Actually, Edie wasn’t the one pushing this. It was the IRS demanding a third of million dollars tax on her inheritance from her spouse, which would have been tax exempt had the IRS recognized their marriage. (That was what the SCotUS actually ordered.) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2019, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/58 "2019-06-09T23:00:45Z")
No change will ever be so gradual that it won’t bother some people. There’s no point in trying to slow progress down enough to accommodate these people. All that you can do is move forward despite their protests and know that most of them will eventually realize that the change was a good thing and their concerns was baseless. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2019, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/59 "2019-06-10T03:58:42Z")
…or die. There’s people whose voiced concerns are real, true, genuine: those are likely to change their minds once they see the sky is, in fact, not falling down. But for others, the stated concerns are actually a smokescreen: they want to put Those People down, to keep Those People away, because if Those People get a chance, Those People will get the job / scholarship / whatever. It’s a defense mechanism for those who know they’re really not up to par. And those won’t change their minds; if they could, they wouldn’t need to keep the competition away by denying them access. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2019, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167/60 "2019-06-10T09:56:53Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Heck, some people still don’t think women should have rights, and we’ve been around for a while. I want to know who is telling John Oliver what I’m thinking of :looks suspiciously to both sides: While he puts his piece about [ERA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCBYJZ6QbUI) in terms of women’s rights because that’s how it began, it’s an issue which affects everybody. The problem isn’t “trans rights”, it’s “people rights”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trans-rights-too-much-too-soon/835167.md?page=4)