Trump War Against Trans Americans Continues as CDC Replaces LGBTQ References with LGB

[Anarchist Mae]

There's currently a movement on the right to try and divide the TQ+ from LGBTQ+, this has been going on since they lost the fight against gay marriage, with endless arguments about what bathroom trans and enby people should be allowed to use, because they recognise that when we stand together we are stronger. You'll see this kind of messaging coming from all sorts of places, from famous shitheads like Ricky Gervais, to nobody alt-right YouTubers, to the Twitter feed of the fucking President of the USA.

Some of them even pretend to be feminists, crying that trans women (never seems to be trans men for some reason) are ruining womens spaces, or sports, or are predators lurking in womens bathrooms. These people are known generally as Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs, but seeing as they tend to have conservative Christian values, that's a little bit of a misnomer, and many now call them Feminist Appropriating Reactionary Transphobes or FARTs instead.

Trump War Against Trans Americans Continues as CDC Replaces LGBTQ References with LGB

In the ongoing war on transgender and non-binary Americans, the Trump administration has scrubbed the official website of the Center for…

medium.com

In the ongoing war on transgender and non-binary Americans, the Trump administration has scrubbed the official website of the Center for Disease Control of all references to transgender and non-binary identities on specific pages related to queer youth, while also deleting transgender statistics from the 2015 and 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Surveys.

This comes on the one year anniversary of the United States Health Department and the Office of Civil Rights removing all language applying to Transgender identities which led the Trump administration to inevitably challenge the inclusion of all LGBT people within the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That case is currently being deliberated in the US Supreme Court and a decision is expected in June. It would mark the first time in modern history that the legal system has been weaponized to further disenfranchise a minority and make them vulnerable to discrimination with no recourse.

The fast and furious act of legislating transgender people out of existence has been ongoing since the first days of Donald Trump’s 2016 election. So far, transgender people have been banned from serving in the military, access to healthcare for members of the LGBT community has been compromised by the newly formed Division of Religious Freedom and Moral Conscience which allows medical caregivers to legally refuse treatment to LGBT individuals if they are suspected of being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

Just yesterday, the Trump administration stripped all policies for transgender prison inmates that protected them from rape and abuse.

LGBT people will also not be counted in the 2020 United States census.

The prevention of trans and non-binary folks from being recognized by government agencies leaves us in immediate and long term danger. These decisions by the Trump administration effectively block the availability of research material, statistic information and healthcare resources intended to assist and identify the most significant needs of our community. According to Fast Company: The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity removed a number of explanations and resources about discrimination against LGBT people and HIV-positive people, meaning that people facing housing discrimination cannot access information about their rights and current laws on those pages.

So far, The Department of Education has rolled back protection for trans student which protected them in schools and on campus.

The Department of Health and Human Services, beyond implementing the new division of Religious Freedom and Moral Conscience, also has largely abandoned identity language, with a 40% dip in use of the term “transgender” and a 25% dip in “gender,” in favor of religious-freedom terminology.

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is actively seeking to remove protections for trans people which once prevented them from being evicted on the basis of their gender identity. They have already exchanged the word “Gender” with “Sex” in their policies.

The Center for Disease Control which is the department responsible for gathering and compiling statistical data such as violence against transgender people, the rate of suicide directly affecting this community and the disproportionate number of homicides impacting mostly black trans women, are no longer addressing these issues and have removed historical data referencing them.

The Office of Personnel Management which oversees all federal employees, removed its “Gender Identity Guidance” page, and replaced it with language that eliminates the references to trans and non-binary identities. The US Supreme Court upheld a decision for the state of Texas to refuse benefits to spouses of LGBT Federal employees.

The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell has promised to destroy the Equality Act written by Democrats in the House of Representatives, dubbing himself “The Grim Reaper.” McConnell and Senate Republicans whose support is required to make it a law hold mostly anti-LGBT views. This means no bills passed to Senate that can improve the quality of life for LGBT Americans will survive to become law- however, these same Republicans are rushing to implement as many anti-LGBT policies as possible, rolling back all Obama era protections and weaponizing Religion to directly harm LGBT people.

The Trump Administration currently has a 90% approval rating among Republicans and Evangelicals. This has only increased during the recent impeachment inquiry leading many political experts to predict that Donald Trump will win his re-election bid in 2020.

*Edited to clarify which CDC Pages had been altered to replace LGBTQ with LGB according to the Web Integrity Project.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Thanks for the info. I always found the trans exclusionary feminism a bit odd, but I didn't know it was as much of a schism (I thought it was more "we're focused, we view transgender issues as a separate identity of its own that has its own unique challenges" and less antagonistic). That's a bit of a shame, but sadly not that surprising to find out.

 

[pmv]

TERF makes a bit of sense as a term, to me, because some of the most prominent critics of trans-activists are well known radical feminists (or political lesbians) like Julie Bindel, and there is clearly a direct conflict between the ideology of radical feminism (which tends towards separatism and a certain level of absolute distrust of all men, along with an ideological stance that gender identity has nothing to do with biology, it's all socially-constructed all the way down) and that of the trans-rights movement. Radical feminism partly came out of the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist group, famous back in the day for reprinting Valerie Solanus's SCUM Manifesto. Very odd to hear them being denounced as 'not feminists', when back in my youth they were the scary extreme feminists who 'hated men' (SCUM = society for cutting up men).

But on the other hand, many of those taking the anti-trans side are not really radical feminists (which is a very particular ideology and 'tribe') but just generic 'feminists', and some aren't feminists at all. Such as those Christians the OP refers to - that seems to me more a US thing...and it sounds as if this move is much more down to them...but I guess they are saying 'we'll take the LGB, but not the T' because they are hoping to exploit the existing divisions.

One thing that strikes me is that just as with Brexit, there's an obvious generational divide. All the pro-trans feminists I've known have been younger than me, all the ones with a more negative view have been my age or older.

 

[pmv]

I suspect that generational divide reflects differing experiences - the older ones had their views formed growing up in a more explicitly sexist society, where there was an obvious tendency to see things as an polarised struggle between women and men, with no quarter given. That's going to make it hard to accept the idea of anyone changing 'teams'. While younger feminists grew up in a less polarised era, where men didn't seem quite as irredeemable, where there's more scope for a more idealistic inclusive stance.

 

[Jaskalas]

I suspect that generational divide reflects differing experiences - the older ones had their views formed growing up in a more explicitly sexist society, where there was an obvious tendency to see things as an polarised struggle between women and men, with no quarter given. That's going to make it hard to accept the idea of anyone changing 'teams'. While younger feminists grew up in a less polarised era, where men didn't seem quite as irredeemable, where there's more scope for a more idealistic inclusive stance.

People raised to understand that Gender = Sex, and there is no separation or distinction. There is no social construct involved. No options, no choices. Just mental illness. (We) cannot comprehend or support idea that people should the taught to take harsh drugs and undergo surgery to mutilate the body, rather than being taught to love their body.

If Gender is a social construct, then there is no biological mandate or necessity to act out contrary your own Sex. If one can choose to be male or female, then one can also choose to simply be what they already are. And the contrary choice is deemed a mental illness given the obvious harm, dysfunction, and dissatisfaction involved. Ours would be a message of "be who you are", that is... who you were already born as. And to try and help people find comfort in that. Rather than endorsing people going to the extremes to oppose and alter their bodies. Especially given the trend of involving young children in these life altering choices.

It is a simple matter of denying the choice. That it exists, or that it should be promoted. And to believe that self love can be found without it.

 

[dank69]

People raised to understand that Gender = Sex, and there is no separation or distinction. There is no social construct involved. No options, no choices. Just mental illness. (We) cannot comprehend or support idea that people should the taught to take harsh drugs and undergo surgery to mutilate the body, rather than being taught to love their body.

If Gender is a social construct, then there is no biological mandate or necessity to act out contrary your own Sex. If one can choose to be male or female, then one can also choose to simply be what they already are. And the contrary choice is deemed a mental illness given the obvious harm, dysfunction, and dissatisfaction involved. Ours would be a message of "be who you are", that is... who you were already born as. And to try and help people find comfort in that. Rather than endorsing people going to the extremes to oppose and alter their bodies. Especially given the trend of involving young children in these life altering choices.

It is a simple matter of denying the choice. That it exists, or that it should be promoted. And to believe that self love can be found without it.

It seems to me that there is a valid argument for boosting or blocking testosterone during puberty for people who know that they want to transition when they are old enough.

 

[pmv]

People raised to understand that Gender = Sex, and there is no separation or distinction. There is no social construct involved. No options, no choices. Just mental illness. (We) cannot comprehend or support idea that people should the taught to take harsh drugs and undergo surgery to mutilate the body, rather than being taught to love their body.

If Gender is a social construct, then there is no biological mandate or necessity to act out contrary your own Sex. If one can choose to be male or female, then one can also choose to simply be what they already are. And the contrary choice is deemed a mental illness given the obvious harm, dysfunction, and dissatisfaction involved. Ours would be a message of "be who you are", that is... who you were already born as. And to try and help people find comfort in that. Rather than endorsing people going to the extremes to oppose and alter their bodies. Especially given the trend of involving young children in these life altering choices.

It is a simple matter of denying the choice. That it exists, or that it should be promoted. And to believe that self love can be found without it.

That's a slightly different point to the one I was making, though. I'm just musing why there's this very marked difference I seem to encounter in the attitudes of older and younger women in particular. Older feminists seem to have a more, um, zero-sum-game, attitude. Younger ones seem more inclined to be idealistic about it all, being more amenable to include everyone in a rainbow coalition.

I don't feel I have any ground to stand on to take sides, as a born-male-and-still-male, to be honest. I very much tend to the 'gender as social construct' position, which is indeed very hard to reconcile with the idea of physically transitioning. Then I wonder if I feel like that because of my age (just as I think my rather moderate support for EU membership is down to my age as well - I'd be more enthusiastically pro-EU if I were a Millennial, more pro-Brexit if I were a baby-boomer)

But the thing about this is, while my ideological leanings (very much of the 'it's all socially-constructed all the way down' position) would imply doubt about the idea of trans-sexual identity, I believe that there's no conclusive proof either way.

It's one of those topics where we are forced to take a side, despite science not really having established the facts yet. In the end it's about people's internal experiences of themselves, and nobody outside has any direct access to that. It's similar to arguments about undiagnosable illnesses in that respect - just because we haven't yet found the clinical objective evidence, doesn't mean we can be sure people's internal experiences don't have real physical causes. We just don't know.

Mainly I'm inclined to "why can't we all just get along" (I mean, just build more bathrooms, if that's the big problem - we can always use more bathrooms, plus I think competitive sport is stupid and nonsensical anyway, just scrap the whole silly business and you won't need to worry about how to categorise competitors - it's never an equal playing field, there are any number of social and biological advantages some have over others, even aside from sex)

Edit - also the argument seems to get a bit confused as people conflate having physical surgery with just 'identifying' as 'non binary' or such like. The issues are different, especially for under-age people.

 

[Greenman]

It seems to me that there is a valid argument for boosting or blocking testosterone during puberty for people who know that they want to transition when they are old enough.

It seems as though that would have major consequences in how a child develops.

 

[dank69]

That's a slightly different point to the one I was making, though. I'm just musing why there's this very marked difference I seem to encounter in the attitudes of older and younger women in particular. Older feminists seem to have a more, um, zero-sum-game, attitude. Younger ones seem more inclined to be idealistic about it all, being more amenable to include everyone in a rainbow coalition.

I don't feel I have any ground to stand on to take sides, as a born-male-and-still-male, to be honest. I very much tend to the 'gender as social construct' position, which is indeed very hard to reconcile with the idea of physically transitioning. Then I wonder if I feel like that because of my age (just as I think my rather moderate support for EU membership is down to my age as well - I'd be more enthusiastically pro-EU if I were a Millennial, more pro-Brexit if I were a baby-boomer)

But the thing about this is, while my ideological leanings (very much of the 'it's all socially-constructed all the way down' position) would imply doubt about the idea of trans-sexual identity, I believe that there's no conclusive proof either way.

It's one of those topics where we are forced to take a side, despite science not really having established the facts yet. In the end it's about people's internal experiences of themselves, and nobody outside has any direct access to that. It's similar to arguments about undiagnosable illnesses in that respect - just because we haven't yet found the clinical objective evidence, doesn't mean we can be sure people's internal experiences don't have real physical causes. We just don't know.

Mainly I'm inclined to "why can't we all just get along" (I mean, just build more bathrooms, if that's the big problem - we can always use more bathrooms, plus I think competitive sport is stupid and nonsensical anyway, just scrap the whole silly business and you won't need to worry about how to categorise competitors - it's never an equal playing field, there are any number of social and biological advantages some have over others, even aside from sex)

Edit - also the argument seems to get a bit confused as people conflate having physical surgery with just 'identifying' as 'non binary' or such like. The issues are different, especially for under-age people.

There is a better "side": everyone gets to do whatever they want as long as they aren't violating other people's rights.

 

[dank69]

It seems as though that would have major consequences in how a child develops.

That is the idea.

 

[pmv]

There is a better "side": everyone gets to do whatever they want as long as they aren't violating other people's rights.

But that doesn't solve the problem - what does that say about, for example, a trans-woman being thrown out of a women-only feminist library?

(Something that actually happened to a friend-of-a-friend)

How about the status of trans-women in shelters for abused women? Or in women's prisons?

 

[dank69]

But that doesn't solve the problem - what does that say about, for example, a trans-woman being thrown out of a women-only feminist library?

Is a feminist library allowed or would that violate discrimination laws? Seems like it should be a violation of discrimination laws.

 

[Greenman]

That is the idea.

Chemically altering a child's development for vanity. How fucked up is that?

 

[brycejones]

Chemically altering a child's development for vanity. How fucked up is that?

Evidence it is for "vanity"?

 

[dank69]

Chemically altering a child's development for vanity. How fucked up is that?

First of all, calling a pre-teen a child is an appeal to emotion in this case. We are talking about kids that are entering puberty. Sure they aren't adults but they aren't exactly little snot factories either.

Second, please define chemically altering and/or what line you think is too far when chemically altering. Are multivitamins chemically altering? Is chemotherapy chemical altering? The person is going to be chemically altered during puberty whether we intervene or not. Tailoring that process to the best of our ability seems like a good idea to me.

Third, claiming it is only about vanity is dishonest at best.

 

[ondma]

That is the idea.

But how would a child who has not gone through puberty be fully aware of their gender orientation? Isnt puberty a time of confusion and trying to sort our one's sexuality ("genderality"?). Personally, overall, I feel like the poster who was arguing to accept one's self instead of going to extreme measures to change one's body. OTOH, it is not really my business, what one does with their body, so I am all for anti-discrimination laws to protect the LGBTQ community.

 

[pmv]

Is a feminist library allowed or would that violate discrimination laws? Seems like it should be a violation of discrimination laws.

"I am not a lawyer" but I think the legal status of single-sex spaces is still evolving. We've only recently started having rulings about all-male clubs (incuding the infamous golf-clubs, who seem to take their attitude to gender politics direct from the Taliban)

I remember a very long time ago going swimming regularly and finding my local-government-funded pool had women-only sessions 3 out of 5 days a week, the only days I could get there. Nearly turned me into an MRA, that did. Another time the local education class in 'creative writing' had two classes, one women-only, one mixed, and I turned up to the mixed one to encounter a woman classmate complaining to the tutor and everyone else about the inhibiting presence of males on their creative expression (they weren't able to get there at the time-slot of the women-only class, you see).

I dunno, but it seems a valid concern for things like domestic-violence shelters, for example.

 

[dank69]

But how would a child who has not gone through puberty be fully aware of their gender orientation? Isnt puberty a time of confusion and trying to sort our one's sexuality ("genderality"?). Personally, overall, I feel like the poster who was arguing to accept one's self instead of going to extreme measures to change one's body. OTOH, it is not really my business, what one does with their body, so I am all for anti-discrimination laws to protect the LGBTQ community.

Clearly this isn't a decision to take lightly, but surely you are aware of numerous stories of people who knew they were gay/lesbian or trapped in the wrong body from a very early age.

 

[Greenman]

Evidence it is for "vanity"?

What else could it be? A whim? A desire to fuck up your kid cause you don't like him/her? Some sort of punishment?
Why would anyone screw with a child's development in that way?

 

[ondma]

First of all, calling a pre-teen a child is an appeal to emotion in this case. We are talking about kids that are entering puberty. Sure they aren't adults but they aren't exactly little snot factories either.

Second, please define chemically altering and/or what line you think is too far when chemically altering. Are multivitamins chemically altering? Is chemotherapy chemical altering? The person is going to be chemically altered during puberty whether we intervene or not. Tailoring that process to the best of our ability seems like a good idea to me.

Third, claiming it is only about vanity is dishonest at best.

Yea, I took a multivitamin last night and today I am a woman. Come on, at least dont try to confuse the argument by totally distorting it. Taking supplements or chemotherapy has a totally different purpose than taking hormones to change ones gender. There is also a big difference in "chemical alteration" between what ones body is genetically programmed to perform and chemically altering it to the exact opposite.

 

[dank69]

"I am not a lawyer" but I think the legal status of single-sex spaces is still evolving. We've only recently started having rulings about all-male clubs (incuding the infamous golf-clubs, who seem to take their attitude to gender politics direct from the Taliban)

I remember a very long time ago going swimming regularly and finding my local-government-funded pool had women-only sessions 3 out of 5 days a week, the only days I could get there. Nearly turned me into an MRA, that did. Another time the local education class in 'creative writing' had two classes, one women-only, one mixed, and I turned up to the mixed one to encounter a woman classmate complaining to the tutor and everyone else about the inhibiting presence of males on their creative expression (they weren't able to get there at the time-slot of the women-only class, you see).

I dunno, but it seems a valid concern for things like domestic-violence shelters, for example.

I certainly don't have any of these answers but I expect they will all eventually get sorted out legally. I also suspect that all discrimination based on sex will be phased out. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but someday.

 

[dank69]

Yea, I took a multivitamin last night and today I am a woman. Come on, at least dont try to confuse the argument by totally distorting it. Taking supplements or chemotherapy has a totally different purpose than taking hormones to change ones gender. There is also a big difference in "chemical alteration" between what ones body is genetically programmed to perform and chemically altering it to the exact opposite.

There is a big difference, but the point is that you don't get to draw that line for me and I don't get to draw that line for you. Puberty is a chemical process and there are plenty of genetic problems so pretending that how we are "genetically programmed" is somehow a sacred thing not to be tampered with seems shortsighted.

 

[dank69]

What else could it be? A whim? A desire to fuck up your kid cause you don't like him/her? Some sort of punishment?
Why would anyone screw with a child's development in that way?

A desire to fuck up your kid. That statement tells us all we need to know about how capable you are of providing valuable input on this subject.

 

[brycejones]

What else could it be? A whim? A desire to fuck up your kid cause you don't like him/her? Some sort of punishment?
Why would anyone screw with a child's development in that way?

Since this appears to fall into the category of things Greenman has an emotional reaction to but has done zero research about why don't you look for some non nutter sources and see if you can get some answers to your questions?

By your own admission here on numerous topics you are frequently uninformed. Take some action to fix that problem.

 

[ch33zw1z]

What else could it be? A whim? A desire to fuck up your kid cause you don't like him/her? Some sort of punishment?
Why would anyone screw with a child's development in that way?

I'm curious what your take is on completely non scientific organizations that have been around for thousands of years "fucking up" their kids.