Trump Judge Rules It’s OK to Discriminate Against LGBTQ People. Why has the GOP come to oppose transgenders so vigorously?

[Lisa]

This was largely made an issue for political purposes. Interesting and no one seems to recall, Trump said he was fine with the teans using any bathroom they want in Trump Tower.

This was right after he came down his escalator in 2016.

If that is true then it should be dropped and the politicians pushing this pandering issue should be censured for civil rights violations of trans people

I call bullshit.

Many guys have penis issues and seem to not be able to use a urinal if they are being watched by a woman.

 

[noonereal]

If that is true

It is very true. He changed his "political" stance after Bannon made clear his target market did not like this kind of acceptance.

Many guys have penis issues and seem to not be able to use a urinal if they are being watched by a woman.

Why would a woman be watching.

 

[Lisa]

It is very true. He changed his "political" stance after Bannon made clear his target market did not like this kind of acceptance.

Why would a woman be watching.

Because a woman is in the male bathroom, the guys assume they are being watched and judged at the urinals.

Do you prefer a plastic, metal, or wooden spoon to stir with?

 

[StillBallin75]

Right wingers love pigeonholing people into manufactured gender roles, so they can control them.

If you're a sane person who doesn't get triggered over how people present themselves then trans folk won't bother you.

But anyone who challenges their paradigm is a threat, so they must be destroyed.

 

[CLAX1911]

Right wingers love pigeonholing people into manufactured gender roles, so they can control them.

Leftists love acting like everyone that doesn't agree and walk step with them when somehow a far right Nazi.

If you're a sane person who doesn't get triggered over how people present themselves then trans folk won't bother you.

I don't think anybody else bothered by trans folks. I think this is an oversimplification to justify not listening to people.

But anyone who challenges their paradigm is a threat, so they must be destroyed.

That's exactly how the left operates exactly to the T.

 

[noonereal]

Because a woman is in the male bathroom, the guys assume they are being watched and judged at the urinals.

Good God.

You belive this. You post some very strange things.

 

[CLAX1911]

Good God.

You belive this. You post some very strange things.

Yeah I wouldn't feel that way either.

 

[Ouroboros]

I know we were, the Trump's expediency is to become more intolerant, Obama's was to become more tolerant. You also need a little help with your memory, Obama expressed support for gay marriage in 2012, Obergefell was in 2015.

Only in your mind would the topic be "tolerance" rather than "political expedience." Otherwise, what's supposed to be the reason Obama didn't champion gay marriage the moment he got into the position of the most powerful politician in the land? What was he afraid of?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Obama didn't champion gay marriage until SCOTUS made it safe for him.

the reason Obama didn't champion gay marriage the moment he got into the position of the most powerful

Are you sure this time about when he did it? The timing seems to be tough for you to nail down and is the overriding point, the "when"....not what was the position, the conclusive decision. You are focused on the point in time. You already answered the "why", the reason, you said it was due to "expediency", I agreed both Barak and Don did it for politics. The timing of it could be again a matter of expediency, you don't seem interested in finding that out, I'm not here to help you along with that.
I'm much more interested in what was their final destination, were they for increasing freedoms and rights, or against that. If you find that not important, well there you are.

 

[bythoughts]

The truth is, the Democrats never stood up for the principle in the first place. I remember one of the first signs of failure was with the ENDA bill that was supposed to formally end discrimination (without relying on a court). You see, that bill was watered down into a defeatable form, because it changed anti-gender discrimination into special rights for transgender people. You might object to that - but I read the text of the bill! It said an employee could either be a man and suffer all the gender-specific rules for dressing and grooming the way they want men to, or else you could be a woman and suffer all the indignities they do in that regard to women. They _never_ stood up and said that "are women allowed to do that?" should not be a question. If they had -- if they had said that no, women don't have to put up with absurd, sexist demands that they "put their faces on" with disgusting PFAS-laden oily concoctions, and no, they don't have to say they are MEN to demand that right - then I think they would have found a groundswell of support from people who think fair is fair. But by making it a special right allowed only to trans men, they made it easy for the congress to desert the cause.

 

[Ouroboros]

Are you sure this time about when he did it? The timing seems to be tough for you to nail down and is the overriding point, the "when"....not what was the position, the conclusive decision. You are focused on the point in time. You already answered the "why", the reason, you said it was due to "expediency", I agreed both Barak and Don did it for politics. The timing of it could be again a matter of expediency, you don't seem interested in finding that out, I'm not here to help you along with that.
I'm much more interested in what was their final destination, were they for increasing freedoms and rights, or against that. If you find that not important, well there you are.

Oh, you want a timeline? Politifact provided one that I found in one minute. Here's their conclusion re: Obama's "evolution" (his word):

Obama, a consistent supporter of civil rights for gay couples, nevertheless said as early as 2004 and through 2008 that he didn’t support same-sex marriage. He had written that he believed "that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman." In 2010, he said he wasn’t prepared to reverse himself. This week, the president said he thinks same-sex couples should be able to get married. On the Flip-O-Meter, he earns a Full Flop.

President Barack Obama's shifting stance on gay marriage

ABC broke into its daytime lineup May 9, 2012, to announce a historic shift: the president of the United States declarin

www.politifact.com

 

[Ouroboros]

Okay, at last Gimmesometruth didn't depend on lies totally. I didn't check the date of Obama's declaration in my previous post. I wrote the following to correct said post but the system went down in mid-correction:

The timing of Obama's eventual "evolution," as he called it, was predicated on the ancestors of the Obergefell suit that began in January 2012, roughly four months before Obama reversed himself on gay marriage, as opposed to civil unions, during his campaign for a second term. I misstated the case in saying that Obama's flip-flop came after the SCOTUS decision, but the DeBoer case did precede his statement. Obama was not so much "evolving" as anticipating that change was in the wind, that DeBoer was likely to make it all the way to Scotus, and his political acumen was borne out by the decision of the district courts to rule discrimination in the case of state adoption law challenges.

What remains a fatuous lie is the notion that Obama wasn't practicing expedience with his dominant denial of the cause of gay marriage. He may have thought about reversing himself during his first term, but he didn't. He was practicing expedience as much as Trump was when he stated that trans-people-in-bathrooms was okay with him. I maintain that Trump changed his mind once he saw how much the Left was embracing the extremes of trans activism.

 

[CLAX1911]

The truth is, the Democrats never stood up for the principle in the first place. I remember one of the first signs of failure was with the ENDA bill that was supposed to formally end discrimination (without relying on a court). You see, that bill was watered down into a defeatable form, because it changed anti-gender discrimination into special rights for transgender people. You might object to that - but I read the text of the bill! It said an employee could either be a man and suffer all the gender-specific rules for dressing and grooming the way they want men to, or else you could be a woman and suffer all the indignities they do in that regard to women. They _never_ stood up and said that "are women allowed to do that?" should not be a question. If they had -- if they had said that no, women don't have to put up with absurd, sexist demands that they "put their faces on" with disgusting PFAS-laden oily concoctions, and no, they don't have to say they are MEN to demand that right - then I think they would have found a groundswell of support from people who think fair is fair. But by making it a special right allowed only to trans men, they made it easy for the congress to desert the cause.

Interesting thank you for reading it and sharing your thoughts.

It makes me wonder if they understand that such a bill is actually poison to their party because like it or not there's still a lot of people who aren't down with a trans thing on the Democrat side.