LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 56153
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by LawBeefaroni »

This is unruly-high-school-student-trying-to-get-one-over on-a-teacher level of pedantry and sophistication.

"Im gonna kick your ass" just means "I am confident I will be victorious if we sit down to a game of backgammon."

Etc.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 56447
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

And here's the official White House page on the anti-trans executive order:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7301 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. Across the country, ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex have increasingly used legal and other socially coercive means to permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women’s domestic abuse shelters to women’s workplace showers. This is wrong. Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being. The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system. Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.

...

Sec. 2. Policy and Definitions. It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality. Under my direction, the Executive Branch will enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality, and the following definitions shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy:

...

Sec. 3. Recognizing Women Are Biologically Distinct From Men. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide to the U.S. Government, external partners, and the public clear guidance expanding on the sex-based definitions set forth in this order.

...

Sec. 4. Privacy in Intimate Spaces. (a) The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that males are not detained in women’s prisons or housed in women’s detention centers, including through amendment, as necessary, of Part 115.41 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations and interpretation guidance regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act.

...

Sec. 5. Protecting Rights. The Attorney General shall issue guidance to ensure the freedom to express the binary nature of sex and the right to single-sex spaces in workplaces and federally funded entities covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In accordance with that guidance, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, the General Counsel and Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and each other agency head with enforcement responsibilities under the Civil Rights Act shall prioritize investigations and litigation to enforce the rights and freedoms identified.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Punisher
Posts: 4859
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:05 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Punisher »

I wonder if section 4 has a mistake or it was deliberate.

It specifically says no males/trans females in female prisons.
What females/trans males in male prisons?
All yourLightning Bolts are Belong to Us
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 15409
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Max Peck »

Punisher wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:03 pm I wonder if section 4 has a mistake or it was deliberate.

It specifically says no males/trans females in female prisons.
What females/trans males in male prisons?
The magat trans panic is all about transwomen, and they never even talk about transmen. I don't believe that they consider transmen to be anything other than really butch dykes, and lesbians clearly belong in lady jails, at least until they get around to building some concentration camps.
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 56447
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

Punisher wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:03 pm I wonder if section 4 has a mistake or it was deliberate.

It specifically says no males/trans females in female prisons.
What females/trans males in male prisons?
Deliberate. Remember the title of the EO:
DEFENDING WOMEN FROM GENDER IDEOLOGY EXTREMISM AND RESTORING BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
It's also pretty sneaky that they are trying to establish fetal personhood by declaring male or female is determined at conception (Sec 2, (D) and (E), respectively).
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 54621
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by hepcat »

When I'm watching porn, I know all I hear from the actors is "THIS ONE IS GONNA BE MALE!".
Master of his domain.
User avatar
Punisher
Posts: 4859
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:05 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Punisher »

If this is true then I guess we are all female now...

https://www.iflscience.com/trumps-execu ... male-77710
All yourLightning Bolts are Belong to Us
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 56447
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

If you ever get cornered by a MAGA disciple and need a way to throw a verbal smoke bomb and escape, ask them why men have nipples.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Punisher
Posts: 4859
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:05 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Punisher »

Smoove_B wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:46 pm If you ever get cornered by a MAGA disciple and need a way to throw a verbal smoke bomb and escape, ask them why men have nipples.
I mean, where else are they gonna put their nipple rings?
All yourLightning Bolts are Belong to Us
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 56447
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

Here's a line by line breakdown of the anti-trans executive order issued last night:
On Sunday, reports emerged that President Trump would unleash a series of sweeping executive orders upon taking office, with one of the most significant targeting transgender people. By Monday evening, that prediction became reality. President Trump signed an executive order titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” a comprehensive directive aimed squarely at dismantling legal and social recognition of transgender people across the United States.

This far-reaching order impacts nearly every aspect of transgender lives, from federal identification to education, healthcare, and workplace protections. Its scope and implications demand immediate attention—not just from transgender individuals, but also their allies, journalists covering LGBTQ+ issues, and policymakers representing vulnerable communities. Understanding the full extent of this order, its potential limitations, and how it fits into the broader anti-trans strategy sweeping the nation is essential.

This analysis will go section by section to make clearer what the order does and does not do.
End of analysis commentary (for those that don't want to read through):
Ultimately, while the executive order is undeniably sweeping in scope and potential impact, many of its provisions will not take immediate effect. Implementation will require time, navigating complex rulemaking processes, and will almost certainly face legal challenges that could delay enforcement for months or even years. However, the executive order package provides a clear blueprint for where the Trump administration intends to target transgender rights. Its ultimate effectiveness—or lack thereof—will hinge on the resistance it encounters, both in courts and from broader societal opposition.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 28404
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Unagi »

It's true. Can't let them 'fly for free' with just lift and thrust to define their vector. We need to act as the drag and weight to their designs and hope they can't clear the trees.
Post Reply