Page 62 of 62

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

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2025 2:11 pm
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.

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

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 10:09 pm
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.

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

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:03 pm
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?

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

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:46 pm
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.

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

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:48 pm
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).

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

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 10:14 am
by hepcat
When I'm watching porn, I know all I hear from the actors is "THIS ONE IS GONNA BE MALE!".

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

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:42 pm
by Punisher
If this is true then I guess we are all female now...

https://www.iflscience.com/trumps-execu ... male-77710

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

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:46 pm
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.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:49 pm
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?

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

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:58 pm
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.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 3:05 pm
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.