LGBTQ+ Rights and America

Also, bear in note that while Kentucky has a Democratic governor, the veto in this state can be overwritten by a simple majority. Noting that the legislature in Kentucky is a GOP majority, it's very likely that many of the draconian anti-trans laws will be passed and override the governor's veto, as I'm expecting many of the GOP state senators and state House of Representatives will vote in party lines in regards to the anti-trans bill.

That is if the bill is passed in the legislature.

Edited by DarkPaladinX on Jan 29th 2020 at 5:00:09 AM

Continuing the discussion from the US politics thread, that bill in South Dakota that would outlaw most supportive therapy for transgender youth under the age of 16 has passed the state House and is now pending debate in the state Senate.

Since someone asked about who the governor is, their name is Kristi Noem.

In better news, Iowa’s governor has said he won’t sign an upcoming transphobic bill which would exclude us from the civil rights act.

So if I’m understanding this correctly, trans rights are being challenged at the state level in different states and depending on which one it is, it’s good or bad news for the community?

I mean, all of it is bad news, but at least some of it is being blocked.

And speaking of that, South Dakota is continuing its cruel trend by introducing a bill that, among other things, would prohibit enforcing the ruling allowing gay marriage.

No, seriously. It would also ban anti-discrimination ordinances, ban attempts to stop conversion therapy, and conflates being gay or trans with bestiality and polygamy.

In case anyone was wondering if the Republican Party would stop at hurting Trans folks or at the bill they just passed. No, they'll keep on going and going, making life as difficult for LGBTQ folks as they possibly can.

Edited by AzurePaladin on Jan 30th 2020 at 12:13:53 PM

Not that the Log Cabin group will listen.

I never really knew that South Dakota was some ultra-conservative bible thumping state, it's never been much of a stereotype as far as l'm aware.

It's got a reputation for being highly rural and undeveloped. More Y'All Qaeda conservative than Bible Belt conservative.

This is the page that tracks the progress of that law.

The last time South Dakota voted Democrat for president was 1964. That's over half a century ago.

Edited by speedyboris on Jan 31st 2020 at 6:21:35 AM

As someone who has family up in South Dakota, it very much is a state with a large number of farmers or farming related industries, and maybe my view is overtly narrow, but my dad's side of the family are all Catholics. All of them. Well, except for me of course.

Also, only one city in the state is over 100 thousand people in population, with that exception being Sioux Falls, and that one is not even over 200 thousand.

Edited by tclittle on Jan 31st 2020 at 9:15:38 AM

So this is something I found out a little while ago: Apparently LG youth are very likely to use dating apps which are not necessarily meant to be used by minors. This sometimes ends very badly. Is this an actual tendency?

I can give observed anecdotal evidence to that, but it makes sense. An LG kid is more likely to be isolated from other kids with a compatible orientation, put on top of that the fact that LG kids are more likely to be bullied and isolated and it makes sense that they’d look online for people and thus be in a position of greater risk.

@AzurePaladin If South Dakota goes to the extent prohibiting the extent of upholding gay marriage, it's very likely that South Dakota may try to criminalize transgender identity. I wouldn't be surprised that South Dakota will end up being the first state that may criminalize transgender identity and set a definition of gender of basis of biological sex if the Harris Funeral Homes case have the SCOTUS make a ruling favoring the funeral home and saying that gender identity isn't covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The South Dakota law that is passed in the state House already criminialize gender identity for trans youth by denying them medical care and their gender identity (which denying medical care for transgender youth leads to high risk of suicide and depression), and it's very likely that the GOP controlled state Senate will pass it as well. But if this were to happen, ACLU and various LGBT civil rights groups will try to take to the SCOTUS to dispute this.

EDIT: Also, I REALLY have to question a lot of LGBT folks who support the Republican Party (i.e. Log Cabin Republicans). Their agenda clearly states that they oppose civil rights for LGBT Americans (gay marriage, child adoptation, transgender identity, etc.) and advocate very draconian laws against LGBT Americans (even to the extent to trying to have a conservative SCOTUS that will overturn Lawrence vs. Texas and Obergefell vs. Hodges). And besides, a lot of the GOP political, social, and economic policies are pretty hostile to LGBT people anyways (i.e. unrestricted gun ownership that will allow Right-Wing Militia Fanatic to murder them, privatized health care system to deny them health care, free-market capitalism that makes LGBT American second class citizens, and various voting restrictions like ID laws and such).

Edited by DarkPaladinX on Jan 31st 2020 at 3:19:01 AM

Also, good news, The bill that would have criminalized trans health care in South Dakota is effectively dead in the legislature.

The answer is obviously "Screw them, got mine."

New research has come out on How Americans View Transgender Issues and it's very encouraging.

More than 60% of Americans say that they have become more supportive towards transgender rights since five years ago. Ideologically 76% of Democrats say that their support has increased, 64% of Independents, and 40% of Republicans say. Republicans are, unsurprisingly, the outlier but I'd say it's encouraging how many of them support trans people considering how reactionary their party is.

Age also determines the increase, Americans 18-29 report a 69% change in favor of trans rights vs Seniors age 65 and up who report a 56% shift.

For support of trans people in the military Republicans have actually substantially increased, from 37% in 2017 and 47% today. Democrats have surprisingly decreased from 83% in 2017 to 78%, but that is not statistically significant and thus should not be taken as a sign of dropping Democratic support for trans rights.

There is more data and for the most part, it's quite encouraging. It seems like there has been an explosion of support for trans people, it's still quite imperfect (only 50% of people being comfortable with having a trans child, yikes) but it's definitely a step in the right direction

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 21st 2020 at 6:32:19 AM

Does that include enbies? It feels like most people are still awkward at best when it comes to most non-binary genders.

The survey just asked about transgender people in general. Which yeah could mask higher discomfort with non-binary trans people.

What's an "enby"?

A Non-Binary person.

[upl] It's easier to use than just saying "non-binary person/people" all the time. Enby = nb = non-binary.

That said, I don't think the lack of specification is necessarily the biggest problem. Logically people who are warming on trans rights would be more likely to care about the less conventional trans people and those who aren't wouldn't.

While we are at the discussion about the deterioration of LGBT rights in America, SCOTUS have recently up a cause whether or not foster homes can use religious liberty to refuse services to same-sex couples. If the SCOTUS sides with the foster care agency (which they would most likely will), then it would greatly nullify any LGBT anti-discrimination laws on the basis of "religious liberty."

Also, in regards to your post about public acceptance of transgender people, just because American society is more tolerant towards LGBT folks doesn't mean the government will establish policies that is friendly towards LGBT Americans. In fact, the current president (which BTW, Trump is considered to be the most anti-LGBT president in the entire U.S. history), the Senate, and SCOTUS, are currently controlled by conservatives and the GOP who are slowly chipping away civil rights for LGBT Americans as we speak. There are actually many times in U.S. history where the public supports a particular policy while the government made measures that opposes it (for example, the Paris Climate Agreement where Americans supported it while Trump unilaterally pulled out from the Paris Agreement).

That being said, looking the current LGBT related civil rights cases (the recent case involving a foster care, and the funeral home case involving a transgedner woman), should SCOTUS make any ruling that would chip away civil rights for LGBT Americans (which they will likely will), we can expect public discontent and protests/demostrations. But many of the LGBT public protests on any SCOTUS ruling against them will most likely will be met with police violence (since the police in America has a history of hostility towards LGBT people). That being said, if there any viral clips and videos of police brutality against LGBT protesters in situations like this, this would greatly change the public opinion on LGBT rights and LGBT Americans to be even more supportive (like how television played a major role in shifting public opinion on the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement during the 1960s; so I can expect the Internet and social media like Facebook and Twitter playing a major role in shifting public opinion on LGBT rights globally like the previous decade).

Edited by DarkPaladinX on Feb 24th 2020 at 11:26:45 AM

It doesn't mean that yes, but it does mean that pushing anti-trans legislation will become increasingly unpopular and thus electorally risky. There's a reason that you don't see major Republican politicians talking about opposing gay marriage anymore, the costs become too great and it was normalized so they reluctantly backed off.

Obviously, the current Republican governments are hostile to trans people, but this data is encouraging despite that.

Indeed, and public opinion very much matters to the Supreme Court because its power lies in the Court's legitimacy. I don't think Roberts is interested in flagrantly throwing it away.

That doesn't mean that there is no risk but it does mean that changing public opinion will effect it for the better.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 24th 2020 at 11:35:49 AM