Some conservative lawmakers did finally get the message that it’s absurd to put trans men in women’s bathrooms, but their response has been simply to make both trans men and women use the men’s.
So, it’s necessary for anti-bathroom bill ads to spend at least as much time on trans women as trans men. Such messages should also:
Center a message of sympathy rather than fear
Demonstrate that most trans women are more feminine than presented in conservative propaganda
Show that society is willing to protect trans women as trans women, rather than only as an unseen subset of “the LGBT community”
Last year, it seemed like liberals were busier playing the “gotcha” that some trans people actually pass, than they spent on the message that trans women, even those who don’t always pass as cis, are as valuable and worthy of protection as anyone else. And that’s a very necessary, still seldomly-heard message in a world where only a few years ago many of these same liberals openly derided us.
I guess that following the governmental process really doesn’t count as long as Things We Like are at stake.
Obama’s DOE installed these “protections” by writing a letter.
Not by following normal fedgov rulemaking proceedings which requires publishing a draft regulation in the Federal Register, allowing for a public comment period, and then publishing a final version.
Now that process is bad enough, inasmuch as it effectively legislates by non-legislators, but for fifty states to be under the authority of a letter written by a presidential appointee is complete autocratic bullshit.
If Trump revokes “regulations” installed by writing a letter, and does not write any new letters of his own, I support that…
FWIW if any corporations want to put economic pressure on states to protect those states’ trans residents, I am 100 percent fine with it.
Well, with floor to ceiling stall walls, there’s less reason to be worried about a pervert. You know, someone like a prominent repub politician who happens to have a “wide stance”…
Last half century is a strange and very arbitrary timeframe. EOs were used far more heavily in the first half of the 20th c. than the last 50 years. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
So what part of the constitution do you feel it violates, or are you so drunk on state’s rights that federal protections being used appropriately should be revoked?
Civil rights are the defining modern and historical use of federal protections because infrastructure is boring as shit.
EDIT
Besides, the Obama EO was already on hold because of the federal judicial system. Trump’s EO literally did nothing.
The Emancipation Proclamation had no effect in states which remained part of the USA. It was mostly toothless.
You may be okay with the President ordering the country around as long as it’s a President who does so in the service of what you think is a Good Cause. No doubt Steve Bannon feels the exact same way.
LBJ at least got a congressional resolution before he led us off to war in Vietnam. So did Dubya with Iraq. Obama set the precedent that Trump is likely to use.
Okay, that’s a fair response. Even though this was not an executive order. It’s a two page letter signed by a presidential appointee.
Edit - And I do think there is a place for executive orders, although I would restrict their use to circumstances of “Yellowstone-caldera-eruption” magnitude.
One of these two issues is about what adults are allowed to do for personal enjoyment. The other is about whether certain people are allowed to EXIST in public spaces.
