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

[hepcat]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I admire my father's views on stuff like this. He's from a generation that doesn't understand some of the concepts behind gender identity. But when confronted with it, his response isn't to dig in his heels and fight for his right to hurt someone's feelings. No, he just says, "Oh, okay then." and realizes it takes not even a goddamn ounce of his effort or time to simply give that person the respect they desire/deserve.

Many of the people that are caught up in this supposed culture war fight back when asked to do the same, as if it's a personal attack on them when someone wants to live a life that makes them happy. Fuck you people. Hopefully your time in hell after you die will teach you some goddamn sympathy.

[LawBeefaroni]

I mean if you're not a McBride, be a Keating.

[Smoove_B]

Florida continues to lead the pack:

In his first week in office, Florida’s new attorney general was eager to score some headlines. So James Uthmeier announced he was suing Target for espousing LGBTQ-inclusive viewpoints.

It was a move short on legal acumen but big on shock value, scoring Uthmeier the Fox News attention he craved.

Well, now Florida is doubling down. In a follow-up action that was largely ignored, Politico reported that Uthmeier and Gov. Ron DeSantis decided last week to to set aside another $20 million in public money to sue more businesses that espouse values the two politicians dislike.

“Watch out, corporate America,” the news site reported. “Here comes Florida.”

What's the plan?

In this case, DeSantis and Uthmeier claim they aren’t suing companies simply over viewpoints the two men dislike (even though Uthmeier described Target’s commitment to inclusion as part of a “leftist agenda”). Instead, the two men say that, as leaders of the Florida Retirement System, which owns a lot of stock, they’re suing over stock value. Their tortured logic is that, if a company takes a social stance that prompts “backlash” and affects stock value, then Florida has a right to sue that company.

Enter a middle finger:

Well, the state of Florida has been heavily invested in Tesla, according to financial reports. And Tesla has lost way more value than Target. So where is Florida’s lawsuit against Elon Musk?

That’s what Jim Colbert wanted to know. Colbert hosts an afternoon radio show on WTKS that I’ve appeared on weekly for years. Colbert is conservative and has supported DeSantis many times.

But when Colbert heard that Florida was going after Target, supposedly for diminishing its own stock value, Colbert wanted to know if the state was also going after Tesla.

So he sent an email to Uthmeier’s office that said: “My question is simple: Does the state of Florida plan to bring a similar lawsuit against Tesla for losses being incurred because of the actions of Elon Musk? As of 2-26-2025, Tesla stock is down 25%, and if my research is accurate, Florida’s teachers’ pensions are also heavily invested in Tesla.”

Colbert was looking for consistency. He said he never got a response.

[Blackhawk]

I'd hate to be Target. The left boycotts them for not being inclusive, while the right sues them for being too inclusive. It's like they have a big bullseye on them.

[GreenGoo]

I'd hate to be Target. The left boycotts them for not being inclusive, while the right sues them for being too inclusive. It's like they have a big bullseye on them.

Boo!

[Smoove_B]

I think there's been other examples where companies try to play both sides and it ends up being more problematic for them. I also seem to remember Target waffling on LGBTQ+ merchandise in stores at some point - where they first were proud to set up displays, but after a religious terrorist threatened them, they immediately pulled everything and ended up burning any public support they'd had.

It's almost like...corporations shouldn't be amoral and psychotic. I'll need to workshop that.

[LawBeefaroni]

When is CalPERS going to sue? It's well.over twice the size of FPRS.


I'm also surprised to see Florida-based Carival flying under DeSantis's finely tuned gaydar.

In addition, to support the LGBT community, we are members of the International LGBTQ+ Travel Association whose mission is to provide information and resources for LGBTQ+ travelers and expand tourism globally by demonstrating its significant social and economic impact

How do their ships even float with all that DEI???!

[Isgrimnur]

Judge Forced to Pause Trial Because DOJ Lawyers Are so Unprepared

A federal judge stopped a hearing about Donald Trump’s ban on transgender military service members in its tracks Wednesday, calling for a recess from proceedings to invite the Department of Justice’s lawyer to actually read up on the policy they were defending.

U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes had criticized the department’s lawyer for not having read three reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cited in his policy banning transgender members of the military, according to Politico’s senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney, who posted several updates on the hearing on X.
...
Reyes claimed that Hegseth’s policy banning transgender service members had “egregiously misquoted” the three reports it cited, and she couldn’t believe that the Justice Department’s lawyer hadn’t bothered to actually read them.

Reyes requested that the court take a 30-minute break, and asked the department’s lawyer to review the reports and compare how they’d been misquoted by Hegseth in his policy. Then, they could tell her whether they believe she could reasonably rely on Hegseth’s interpretation of those reports.

When the court resumed, Reyes pointed out that one study Hegseth had relied on to demonstrate that transgender service members hurt troop readiness and weaken their unit, actually concluded the exact opposite. The study found that transgender service members were more deployable, and experienced fewer lapses in their service than those diagnosed with depression, who were not automatically excluded from service.

But that wasn’t all. As Reyes went through each of the findings cited in the ban, she found that “virtually every” one contradicted support for Hegseth’s policy, according to Cheney.

[Zarathud]

When a judge (or DM) asks you if you’ve read something and if you “really want to do that?” Then you need to stop and change course. Or something very bad will happen and you have been warned.

[Blackhawk]

I'm still casting fireball at that spider in the outhouse. It's the size of my thumbnail!

[LordMortis]

How activist do you think this SC would be after RvW was gutted?

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-pol ... rcna196202

BISMARCK, N.D. — North Dakota lawmakers are on the verge of making their state the first to tell the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its decade-old ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Similar efforts — which would not have any direct sway with the nation’s top courts — have been introduced in a handful of states this year. North Dakota’s resolution passed the Republican-led House in February but still requires Senate approval, which is not assured.

[IceBear]

I saw a meme today that the entire human race was flagged for DEI because we're Homo Sapiens. It was sad that many people were honestly wondering if it was satire or real with how things are going.

[Isgrimnur]

Judge blocks implementation of Trump’s transgender military ban

A federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely blocked implementation of President Trump’s executive order effectively barring transgender people from serving openly in the military, a stark blow to the administration’s efforts to curb transgender rights.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, an appointee of former President Biden, barred Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other military officials from implementing Trump’s order or otherwise putting new policy into place effectuating it. She also said the plaintiffs’ military statuses must remain unchanged until further order of the court.

The judge said her order intends to “maintain the status quo” of military policy regarding transgender service that existed before Trump signed the order titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.” She stayed her order until Friday to give the administration time to appeal.

[Enough]

Fantastic news, now let's please enforce all the recent rulings. Which by the way, are pretty equal across ideologies of the judges:

Modeling the outcomes with a logistic regression confirms that judicial ideology doesn't predict ruling outcomes. This isn't commonly the case—ideology is typically a moderate to strong predictor of case outcomes, making this ideological consensus particularly noteworthy.

[Smoove_B]

I just want to state officially as a nation we've collectively lost out goddamn minds:

A bill introduced by Republican lawmakers in Arkansas aims to intimidate anyone who supports or affirms young people’s social transition.

Earlier this month, Arkansas state Rep. Mary Bentley (R) introduced H.B. 1668, the “Vulnerable Youth Protection Act,” and Republican state Sen. Alan Clark introduced the Senate version. As the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas and local advocacy group Intransitive note, the anti-trans bill does not actually criminalize anything. Arkansas law banning gender-affirming care for minors was already struck down by a federal judge in 2023.

Instead, H.B. 1668 “weaponizes civil enforcement by permitting lawsuits against any person who supports trans young people by providing or helping to receive gender-affirming care or by affirming young people in their transition,” according to the ACLU of Arkansas. Minors or their parents can sue for minimum damages of $10,000 and up to $10 million in punitive damages for certain forms of medical care. The bill also allows Arkansas parents to sue people or medical providers outside of the state who help Arkansas youth access gender-affirming care.

...

The bill defines social transitioning as “any act by which a minor adopts or espouses a gender identity that differs from the minor’s biological sex … including without limitation changes in clothing, pronouns, hairstyle, and name.”

As the ACLU of Arkansas notes, if enacted, H.B. 1668 could lead to frivolous lawsuits against “hairdressers who cut a trans teen’s hair, teachers who use a student’s chosen name, and nonprofits that offer support.” Such lawsuits, the organization says, would be unlikely to hold up in court, as the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech and free expression.

However, the law is clearly meant to chill support for trans and gender-nonconforming young people with the threat of costly lawsuits. Describing the bill as “state-mandated bullying,” the ACLU of Arkansas writes that “H.B. 1668 fosters a climate of fear, where doctors, teachers, and even parents risk financial ruin simply for supporting transgender youth. It is a blatant overreach of government power, attempting to control private decisions and to circumvent our constitutional rights, including free speech, religious exercise, due process, and equal protection.”

I cannot imagine being a foreigner and wanting to come to America right now. We are a danger to ourselves and others.

[Blackhawk]

Does this have meaningful support, or is it just random grandstanding bill 'introduced' number 503,395?

[Smoove_B]

I can't claim to have my finger on the pulse of LGBTQ+ issues in Arkansas, but it does seem to be making news. From an outsider's perspective, it feels like it's pushback (in what is now a favorable environment) to the courts overturning their attempt at a state-level ban a few years back.

[Holman]

Teen Vogue continues to do better work on LGBTQ+ issues than anyone in the mainstream media:

Vivian Jenna Wilson on Being Elon Musk’s Estranged Daughter, Protecting Trans Youth and Taking on the Right Online.

[LawBeefaroni]

Kathy Webb, term limits, something. I don't have it in my and it's almost drinking time. It wasn't so long ago that Arkansas looked to be turning a corner but in 2021 they jumped full on the hate train.

[Holman]

[Smoove_B]

First to ban fluoride in drinking water, first to ban LGBTQ+ pride flags in government buildings and schools:

Utah became the first state to prohibit flying LGBTQ+ pride flags at schools and all government buildings after the Republican governor announced he was allowing a ban on unsanctioned flag displays to become law without his signature.

Gov. Spencer Cox, who made the announcement late Thursday night, said he continues to have serious concerns with the policy but chose not to reject it because his veto would likely be overridden by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

Starting May 7, state or local government buildings will be fined $500 a day for flying any flag other than the United States flag, the Utah state flag, military flags or a short list of others approved by lawmakers. Political flags supporting a certain candidate or party, such as President Donald Trump’s signature “Make America Great Again” flags, are not allowed.

[Holman]

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lm5vzwceql2d

Tommy Tuberville: "We have entire men's teams across this country now that are tuning trans. Women's teams are turning trans. That's gonna be a situation where it's gonna pick up speed because these woke globalists are pushing these kids."

Tuberville is surely the dumbest person in the Senate. Does he even know that he's just making shit up, or does saying it make him believe it?

[Isgrimnur]

Oh, and Tuberville can go fuck himself.

[Smoove_B]

Pretty sure there's still more measles cases in TX right now than trans athletes in all sports K-college nationwide, but sure let's make this an issue and get people to vote for politicians based on it.

[LawBeefaroni]

Pretty sure there's still more measles cases in TX right now than trans athletes in all sports K-college nationwide, but sure let's make this an issue and get people to vote for politicians based on it.

The number of measles deaths (currently 2) will probably surpass the number of NCAA transgender athletes (<10).

[Smoove_B]

What the hell, Massachusetts?

The Massachusetts House on Wednesday passed language that would ban public schools from allowing athletes to play on a team of the opposite sex, but only after the state is able to study the policy’s impact.

The Democrat-controlled House passed the provision without a recorded vote, tacking it onto a wider $1.3 billion spending bill that the chamber later passed Wednesday afternoon.

The bill doesn’t directly reference transgender athletes, whose participation in youth and high school sports has been at the center of heated national debate. Democrats’ changes to the language could also effectively block it from taking effect, should the state not do a required analysis.

[$iljanus]

What the hell, Massachusetts?

The Massachusetts House on Wednesday passed language that would ban public schools from allowing athletes to play on a team of the opposite sex, but only after the state is able to study the policy’s impact.

The Democrat-controlled House passed the provision without a recorded vote, tacking it onto a wider $1.3 billion spending bill that the chamber later passed Wednesday afternoon.

The bill doesn’t directly reference transgender athletes, whose participation in youth and high school sports has been at the center of heated national debate. Democrats’ changes to the language could also effectively block it from taking effect, should the state not do a required analysis.

An unrecorded vote provides so much cover. I don’t know why pass this now unless it pays dividends with the “boys are boys, girls are girls” crowd and don’t think they don’t exist in liberal Massachusetts. Probably didn’t want to be seen being against such a bill so not only do you have an unrecorded vote they threw in the requirement for a study to try and slow or sink it without having to make a principled stand.

[Blackhawk]

Sounds like they were making a compromise somewhere on something else that they needed done.

[$iljanus]

Sounds like they were making a compromise somewhere on something else that they needed done.

One would think that if our state legislature was evenly split between Dems and Rep members but it’s predominantly Democrat. So I’m curious as to why now? Forstalling threats from the Trump administration? Don’t want to alienate a voting bloc? As designed it’s a bill that can go nowhere if pass due to the requirement for a study. I am fascinated by the machinations of my legislators.

[Smoove_B]

I've learned that many people (and politicians) with a (D) after their name are vehemently against the idea of trans athletes, especially in grade and high school environments (where as we all know it's an overwhelming national crisis).

[$iljanus]

I've learned that many people (and politicians) with a (D) after their name are vehemently against the idea of trans athletes, especially in grade and high school environments (where as we all know it's an overwhelming national crisis).

Dem Congressman Seth Moulton-MA who is pretty liberal on things was one politician that voiced his “concern” about this nonexistent problem. There was a big backlash at the time but come election day I don't see a majority of voters not voting against him.

“I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that,” Moulton told the Times.

Yeah, that happens all the time…

[Blackhawk]

I've learned that many people (and politicians) with a (D) after their name are vehemently against the idea of trans athletes, especially in grade and high school environments (where as we all know it's an overwhelming national crisis).

And to be honest, in this particular war, it's the wrong battle for a last stand.

[YellowKing]

I've learned that many people (and politicians) with a (D) after their name are vehemently against the idea of trans athletes

I mean, I'm vehemently against people who don't return their shopping cart to the corral, but I don't waste time on it because it doesn't impact my life all that much. Of all the issues facing this country, the fact that this is what politicians choose to waste their time on is something every taxpayer should be absolutely outraged about.

[Blackhawk]

Disclaimer: This is about peoples' perceptions, not my personal views.

The right chose trans athlets because it's an issue that few people on either side understand. It's hard to wrap your mind around how a female (originally physically male) should be able to compete with females without bringing an unfair advantage. Many, many of the people who support LGBTQ+ rights are brought up short by this one, because it's a complex issue that goes beyond simple individual rights, and hits on something that Americans take very seriously (sports.)

Once the right picked it as a target, the left felt the need to go toe-to-toe on it, just like the right knew they would. And there was no way for the left to win that particular battle, as their own constituents don't understand the point that they're trying to make. It seems fair and rational that there should be some limits, and people on the left have a hard time getting past that. It creates a wedge in the left that the right can keep driving deeper, and that the left can't win. And in the fight to do so, they lose credibility, and they lose voters.

In other words, politicians weren't wasting their time on this, politicians were taking advantage of a powerful tool.

[ImLawBoy]

In this case, though, MA didn't apparently need to do anything on the issue. This isn't a scenario (as I understand it, anyway) where someone forced them to take a stance and they had to choose whether or not to die on this hill. They took this on themselves.

[$iljanus]

Disclaimer: This is about peoples' perceptions, not my personal views.

The right chose trans athlets because it's an issue that few people on either side understand. It's hard to wrap your mind around how a female (originally physically male) should be able to compete with females without bringing an unfair advantage. Many, many of the people who support LGBTQ+ rights are brought up short by this one, because it's a complex issue that goes beyond simple individual rights, and hits on something that Americans take very seriously (sports.)

Once the right picked it as a target, the left felt the need to go toe-to-toe on it, just like the right knew they would. And there was no way for the left to win that particular battle, as their own constituents don't understand the point that they're trying to make. It seems fair and rational that there should be some limits, and people on the left have a hard time getting past that. It creates a wedge in the left that the right can keep driving deeper, and that the left can't win. And in the fight to do so, they lose credibility, and they lose voters.

In other words, politicians weren't wasting their time on this, politicians were taking advantage of a powerful tool.

Winner winner chicken dinner! It’s a low hanging fruit of an issue that stirs up emotions and easily exploited. Like immigration which is more of an issue than trans athletes. There’s much we needed to do regarding immigration reform but it’s easier to just frame it as keeping out and deporting the drug dealers, rapists and murderers and call it a day. And Make America White Again of course.

[Smoove_B]

I don't thin you can't look at the athlete story in isolation though - because it's not just about whether or not they can compete. At the same time, the GOP (and their agents) are looking to allow conversion therapy, ban medical and mental health therapies to help people struggling with identity, criminalizing teachers using preferred pronouns and generally attacking/stripping the rights from trans people nationwide. So while it might seem "reasonable" to have a discussion about these things from a practical standpoint, there's an entire population of Americans under direct attack and this is just another thing being added to the assault.

And while I get that maybe it might make sense for the trans community to try and strategically pick their battles, I can also understand why they aren't - history has repeatedly proven that once you give an inch, they take a mile.

[Blackhawk]

I understand not giving an inch, but trying to take the entire mile all at once has set the cause back 40 years. I know that my views are hard to accept given that they deal with human rights, something we shouldn't have to compromise on, but looking only at today isn't doing anyone any favors. Think about where we want to be 30, 40, or 50 years and work hard for that reality, step by step. Pretending that we're already there and forcing it on the entirety of society all at once has been a failing strategy.

And yeah, I wish it weren't. I wish it were the reality now. But I'd rather see non-cis people have 100% rights in 40 years than 80% today, and 5% for the rest of the century.

[Smoove_B]

And again, this isn't new. It's not even my fight - I'm the whitest straightest dude there is but it's been ongoing since at least the 1970s here in American and it's been a nonstop battle of inches. I can totally appreciate the anger and frustration being vocalized by a population of people that's been fighting for recognition and social legitimacy for decades.

I get what you're saying - "it's too much; it's too fast" but it's been ongoing for 50+ years at this point and there are still people thinking they've been granted too many rights and privileges so it's time to send them back into hiding.

It's beyond frustrating that some of same people that stand up and give a full-throated "with liberty and justice for all" every time they salute the flag are the first to yell and scream about "all these transgender folks" ruining sports in America.

[Isgrimnur]