Xray the Enforcer

LGBTQ+ 5 -- Now With More Gender Outlaws

238 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Keep fighting. What other option is there except to walk into the sea? But yeah, this administration can go get fucked. 

You got to see it before the page was removed from the Huffington Post website.   From what I understand, many people inside the transgender community were upset at its alarmist tone.  Turning this loose in a community that has far more than its fair share of people with anxiety and depression,  can be quite damaging.  They simply don't benefit from this kind of "the sky is falling" article.

I'd rather see articles available only to their target audience, to provide information on how to survive the bullshit that is likely to come their way.  And if we are to continue fighting, I'd point out that the French army failed miserably, against the Nazis, but the French resistance made a substantial impact.  If anyone thinks that visibility and education will change the minds of the dregs of humanity like the FRC, I think they are mistaken.

 

Anyway,  read it if you can handle the doomsday rhetoric that was in the article, before it was taken down.

 



 

Quote

 

Brynn Tannehill, ContributorBoard member of the Trans United Fund

The Purge Of Transgender People From American Life Has Begun

If ever the FRC was to have a chance to drive transgender people out of public life, this is it.

09/04/2017 12:32 pm ET Updated 35 minutes ago

Two years ago, the Family Research Council (FRC), an Evangelical Christian anti-LGBT hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), published a road map laying out a plan to morally legislate the transgender community in the U.S. out of existence. I wrote about the danger posed by this plan in January 2016 in an article titled, “And Then They Came for Transgender People,” deliberately echoing the words of Martin Niemöller.

Today, the FRC has unprecedented access to the White House, according to its president, Tony Perkins. Evangelical leaders associated and aligned with the FRC routinely pray in the Oval Office over President Trump, who keeps them as his closest allies. Five members of Trump’s evangelical executive advisory board, including the founder of the FRC James Dobson, signed the Nashville Statement. The Nashville Statement dictated that transgender people should not be tolerated in society and that anyone who tolerates them is not a Christian.

If ever the FRC was to have a chance to enact their plan for transgender people, this is it.

President Trump poses with Evangelical leaders, including representatives of the Family Research Council

The evidence shows they are taking advantage of this relationship, and it has resulted in an unprecedented regression of transgender rights. Heidi Beirich, the intelligence project director of the SPLC, described the situation: “If anybody is winning big-ly from Trump’s policies, its these folks, right? It’s the anti-LGBT hate groups and their various allies among conservatives.”

Thus, let’s take a look at the steps the White House has taken so far to enact the Family Research Council’s five-point plan to attack a small, vulnerable minority with already limited legal protections.

1. States and the federal government should not allow legal gender marker changes.

This is the area where the least has been done. The most important places for transgender people to change their gender markers at the federal level are on their passports (issued by the Department of State) and with the Social Security Administration.

President Trump has yet to nominate a permanent commissioner to the Social Security Administration, and the acting commissioner is a career civil servant. Should the administration nominate someone aligned with the FRC, the current lenient policy could be endangered.

The State Department is headed by Rex Tillerson, who, as CEO of Exxon-Mobile, steadfastly refused to implement corporate LGBT protections until it was mandated by an Obama Administration executive order. At the time, Exxon had the lowest corporate equality score in the history of the index. However, Tillerson’s State Department has reportedly struggled with dysfunctionunfilled positions and low morale. State has often been sidelined by a White House seemingly intent on conducting foreign policy on its own.

Thus, in an organization struggling to achieve many of its primary functions, minutiae such as policy governing changing gender markers on birth certificates seems to be a low priority. This could change, however, if Tillerson resigns (as has been rumored), and is replaced by someone more ideologically aligned with the FRC.

2. Transgender people should not have any legal protections against discrimination, nor should anyone be forced to respect their identity.

One of the first acts of the Trump Administration was the Departments of Justice and Education revoking Obama era protections for transgender students. The DOJ also dropped its lawsuit against North Carolina, despite the state passing a law there preventing all protections for LGBT people. The Trump / Session Department of Justice has additionally argued in court that sexual orientation is not protected by Title VII. This affects most transgender people, since they are usually seen as LGB either before or after transition.

In February the Trump administration leaked a draft executive order which would have granted sweeping religious exemptions to Obama Administration executive orders protecting LGBT federal employees and contractors. Substantial pushback ensued, and a much weaker version was issued several months later. There has been a continued push by the FRC to issue an executive order like the leaked first draft.

In the end, though, the protections for LGBT federal contractors have been effectively gutted. On March 27, Trump signed an executive order that nullified an Obama administration initiative to ensure that federal contractors complied with labor and civil rights laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Trump has installed people with long histories of anti-LGBT statements in many top appointed positions in the Federal government. This includes Sam Clovis at the USDA, Jeff Sessions at DOJ, Ben Carson at Housing and Urban Development, Sam Brownbackto the UN, John K. BushDamien Schiff, and Amy Coney Barret to the judiciary, Mike Pompeo at the CIA, Betsy DeVos at Education, Jim Bridenstine at NASA, and Tom Price , Roger SeverinoCharmaine YoestTeresa Manning (who was a legal counsel at FRC), Valerie Huber, and Katy Talento at Health and Human Services (HHS).

Additionally, Trump’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, appears to be innately hostile to the idea of inherent human rights for LGBT people unless specifically enumerated by law. In an unpublished opinion he concurred with the argument that letting transgender people use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity is a threat to public safety. He was also one of the judges in the 10th circuit in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, where he decided that companies should have the religious right to discriminate against classes of employees. At the Supreme Court, he has already argued that states have the right to discriminate against LGBT people, because they are not specifically protected by federal law.

Thus, a court with one more Trump appointee like Gorsuch is unlikely to halt whatever the federal government decides to do to transgender people.

And Justice Kennedy appears ready to retire in 2018.

3. Transgender people should not be legally allowed to use facilities in accordance with their gender identity.

The agency with the most power to do this at the Federal level is the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which regulates working conditions of federal workers, and to a lesser extent contractors. Currently, the OPM has a policy protecting transgender federal employees and contractors. The Trump administration nominated George Nesterczuk to the top position at OPM, but he withdrew his name from consideration on Aug. 2, 2017.

The withdrawal of support from transgender students by Education and Justice is the most direct attack to date on access to public facilities. However, if the Trump administration were to appoint someone affiliated with the FRC like Kay Cole James (who headed OPM under President George W. Bush), to run OPM, it would be a clear signal of intent to impose a more hostile policy.

4. Medical coverage related to transition should not be provided by the government or any other entity.

The Trump administration has done a great deal to ensure transgender people cannot access health care. They have appointed people who oppose all transition related care for religious reasons (Tom PriceRoger SeverinoCharmaine YoestTeresa ManningValerie Huber, and Katy Talento) to top positions at Health and Human Services. They have reversed the Department’s position on Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which was previously interpreted to prevent discrimination in health care against transgender patients (e.g., their organization now takes the position that there is nothing illegal about discriminating against transgender patients).

This has potentially devastating consequences including: a religious right to refuse care to patients, a right to verbally abuse them through misgendering, and subjecting them to conversion therapy. One in six hospitals in the U.S. are now Catholic owned, and in some states 40 percent of hospital beds are in Catholic hospitals.

Additionally, the Trump administration has ordered that new medical care for transgender service-members will cease. In 2015, OPM ordered that Federal Employee Health Benefit (FEHB) plans would no longer be allowed to exclude transition related health care for transgender federal employees. This could change quickly if the administration installs an anti-LGBT director at OPM.

5. Transgender people should not be allowed to serve in the military.

This is by far the most publicized attack by the administration on the transgender community. On July 26, 2017, President Trump tweeted that “transgenders” would no longer be allowed to serve the military “in any capacity.” A month later the White House issued a formal order to the Pentagon to end medical treatment, force out existing transgender service members, and forbid transgender people from joining the military. The DoD was not consulted, and Secretary of Defense Mattis had defended the policyallowing transgender people to serve. White House officials went on the record stating that this policy decision was purely political to score point with mid-Western voters.

The OPM is responsible for issuing most security clearances. If they were to refuse clearances to transgender federal employees and federal contractors, it would effectively complete a purge of the federal service of transgender people.

Conclusion:

Where possible, the Trump administration is doing almost everything they can to implement the Family Research Council’s strategy. Where they are not, it appears to be because they have not put people in place to implement it yet.

Deciphering how far this goes will depend greatly on who the next Director at OPM is. OPM controls policy for recognizing gender changes, access to facilities, FEHB plans, and security clearances. Watch this nomination process carefully; it is likely to signal how far this administration is willing to go to appease a group bent on cultural genocide.

Also, watch for Kennedy’s retirement. There’s a high probability that his replacement will be ideologically indistinguishable from Gorsuch regarding transgender people, given ultra-conservative organizations are doing the vetting for the Administration. Thus, it’s unlikely that the courts will do anything to intervene after Kennedy retires. As a result, the Trump Administration, and the FRC, may wait until Kennedy has been replaced to implement the worst of their agenda (such as revoking passports and security clearances) against the transgender community.

Finally, keep an eye on Rex Tillerson. If he leaves and is replaced by a FRC-approved ideologue, passports are in danger. This is a red-line from a historical perspective. If the U.S. State Department revokes the passports of people who have changed their gender markers and demands that they be surrendered, it’s a sign that the government doesn’t want transgender people to escape what happens next.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They pulled the article? That's some craven bullshit. I see nothing alarmist about the text of the article, although the title was clickbaity AF and because we live in a post-literate world where people just read headlines I am sure a bunch of people didn't even bother with the actual text. Visibility might be a factor in people now trying to erase transgender individuals from public life. But here's the thing: bigots have been doing that shit to women and gay people and people of color for decades, so I guess my final takeaway is to say congratulations to my fellow gender outlaws -- we're now a big enough force in society that people have to confront us head-on with shitty policy moves at the federal level. Champagne for all!

Edited by Xray the Enforcer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2017 at 2:58 PM, WinterFox said:

:) Glad to hear you're being more open. 

Personally, I've told like 6 people since last week and went out totally girl'd up for the first time yesterday. I think I'm going to go full time now except for work, which I should be quitting within a month if I'm lucky. 

That's some happy news. How did go when you were out in public? Also, you can't leave us hanging like that -- what did you end up wearing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Visibility might be a factor in people now trying to erase transgender individuals from public life. 

I think that is pretty obvious.  People can't hate you if they don't know you are that which they hate.  In the late seventies and early eighties, when I was living in NYC, the only area I encountered problems was in Greenwich Village, where they knew we existed.  I lived in the borough of Queens, where I never encountered a problem, because they were clueless. Visibility may benefit some, but in 41 years, it has never benefited me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2017 at 6:31 AM, Xray the Enforcer said:

That's some happy news. How did go when you were out in public? Also, you can't leave us hanging like that -- what did you end up wearing? 

Just jeans and a tank top, nothing special. It went great too, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would help to know what kind of perspective you are after?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Anyone have any information about Ireland from an LGBTIQ point of view?

I know they had the referendum to make gay marriage legal, but not much more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Anyone have any information about Ireland from an LGBTIQ point of view?

Hard to answer without more context. Also, going to tag @Aoife because she might have some good perspective on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2017 at 3:47 PM, WinterFox said:

Just jeans and a tank top, nothing special. It went great too, thanks.

Best kind of outfit. Glad to hear it went well!!! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, karaddin said:

Would help to know what kind of perspective you are after?

We're looking into the feasibility of moving there.  Since my wife's mother was born in Ireland, she is a citizen of Ireland, and is in the process of obtaining an Irish passport.  My view is that by 2020, the US will have irrevocably changed, and that the Democrats will, again put party before country and fail to nominate a candidate that can defeat him.  That gives my wife a safe haven, even though the spouse of an Irish citizen is not guaranteed permanent residence status (I'm looking into how difficult a problem that is, for me).

I know what Irish law is, with regard to LGBTIQ matters, but am trying to get the lay of the land, as to what areas of the country to avoid, due to local hostility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought that may have been the thrust of the question and to be perfectly frank I would be following a similar thought process. I'm not an expert on Ireland but I do know that much like Spain its a Catholic country that's a lot better on LGBTQI matters than that would suggest. As I recall the one issue that's still particularly fought over is abortion.

I'll avoid trying to say anymore than that since I'm not speaking from sufficient knowledge, but I definitely think it would be better than the current location/trend. Compared to the US it's utterly tiny so there's not that many places to choose from :P I'd probably expect the areas around the bigger cities to be better. Dublin, Cork has a lot of IT, maybe Limerick and Galway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, karaddin said:

Thought that may have been the thrust of the question and to be perfectly frank I would be following a similar thought process. I'm not an expert on Ireland but I do know that much like Spain its a Catholic country that's a lot better on LGBTQI matters than that would suggest. As I recall the one issue that's still particularly fought over is abortion.

I'll avoid trying to say anymore than that since I'm not speaking from sufficient knowledge, but I definitely think it would be better than the current location/trend. Compared to the US it's utterly tiny so there's not that many places to choose from :P I'd probably expect the areas around the bigger cities to be better. Dublin, Cork has a lot of IT, maybe Limerick and Galway. 

There's no problem for my wife, since she is by law, an Irish citizen.  She's already applied to get certified copies of the documents needed to get an Irish passport.  I'm the problem.  For me to get permanent resident status, I'd have to prove I had 50,000 Euros/year in income.  There appears to be no provision for getting around this, even though I'm her spouse.  So this may not work.  Even so, we'll proceed with getting her passport.  She has relative in County Cork, so there is a safe haven for her, if she needs it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

There's no problem for my wife, since she is by law, an Irish citizen.  She's already applied to get certified copies of the documents needed to get an Irish passport.  I'm the problem.  For me to get permanent resident status, I'd have to prove I had 50,000 Euros/year in income.  There appears to be no provision for getting around this, even though I'm her spouse.  So this may not work.  Even so, we'll proceed with getting her passport.  She has relative in County Cork, so there is a safe haven for her, if she needs it.

There is no process just for spouse with no further requirements?! I'd never looked at Ireland, I didn't realise they were that harsh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

There's no problem for my wife, since she is by law, an Irish citizen.  She's already applied to get certified copies of the documents needed to get an Irish passport.  I'm the problem.  For me to get permanent resident status, I'd have to prove I had 50,000 Euros/year in income.  There appears to be no provision for getting around this, even though I'm her spouse.  So this may not work.  Even so, we'll proceed with getting her passport.  She has relative in County Cork, so there is a safe haven for her, if she needs it.

Have you looked into EU legislation on this? If she is an Irish citizen (and thus EU citizen) it should be somewhat easier for you to acquire the right to permanent residency:

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/documents-formalities/non-eu-family-members-residence-card/index_en.htm

Edit: fixed link. Qotsa will not help you with residency questions :P 

 

Edited by HelenaExMachina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, karaddin said:

There is no process just for spouse with no further requirements?! I'd never looked at Ireland, I didn't realise they were that harsh.

I think it's their reaction to things like the "eager Russian brides" websites.

5 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Have you looked into EU legislation on this? If she is an Irish citizen (and thus EU citizen) it should be somewhat easier for you to acquire the right to permanent residency:

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/documents-formalities/non-eu-family-members-residence-card/index_en.htm

Edit: fixed link. Qotsa will not help you with residency questions :P 

 

Thanks for that info.  I'm definitely going to look into it.  Recognize that this is long range planning.  Yesterday, we renewed our lease on our apartment for another year.  I'm not expecting to need to get out of Dodge, before then.  This may be a conservative state, but this area of Arizona seems to have a live and let live way of looking at things.  No one has hassled either of us, since we moved here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could probably easily be in another thread but it's queer stuff, so here is good.

I've found myself in romantic love with my two close friends.  They are a couple, though I don't have any reason to think they are non-monogamous.  They know I'm ace and non-monogamous and they know my ideal dream relationship is to just sort of live with best friends.  We all always talk about this ongoing plan/fantasy about buying a big house together and then raising all of our kids together, so maybe this is how my romantic attraction started and has grown.  I don't want to mention my feelings to them in case I ruin it all, but I also don't want to not mention it because we've become more serious about the actual planning of this house sharing goal.  But like, either way I need to deal with the feelings one way or another.  

This is all just so typical, queers becoming in love with their friends.  The community is too small sometimes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now