Transgender health protections rolled back in the States

[Outer Sparta]

He knows he won't be elected, he's trying to f*ck up America as much as possible before he goes. This is sickening.

He still has his base and wants to solidify his holdings with the evangelical voting bloc with this decision, which are key facets to his reelection.

[Cekoviu]

He will. There's no "if."

Cheery today, are we?

I'm just a realist sweaty

[The Crownless]

I hate to say this, but imagine if; after all this, he somehow still gets elected.

He will. There's no "if."

Nah... it's not set in stone at all. He's still relatively unpopular and flailing, and Republicans have lost a lot of contests since 2016. It's a real danger, but like, by no means a lock. I'd even put him under 50%, but any chance is too high, yes.

If you think it's 100%, though, go in the prediction markets and buy as much as you can at like 43 cents to the dollar.

[-Astoria]

Cheery today, are we?

I'm just a realist sweaty

ONE of US!

[Agarntrop]

Cheery today, are we?

I'm just a realist sweaty

Mark my words, Biden cannot and will not win.

[Necroghastia]

This is good. It means the elective surgeries and services that LGBT people want will need to be paid out of pocket instead of money from cisgender people going to causes they might not approve of. This will enable the insurance costs to be lowered than if insurance companies have to cover such things.

No, it means that there will be more tragic cases like Robert Eads, where bigoted doctors can refuse treatment and leave people to die.

[Valrifell]

Cheery today, are we?

I'm just a realist sweaty

A realist would talk in chances and not in absolutes, hunty. You've betrayed your innate pessisim by claiming there is no "if". There's always an if.

[The Republic of Fore]

Source

The Trump administration on Friday finalized a rule that would remove nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people when it comes to health care and health insurance.

"HHS respects the dignity of every human being, and as we have shown in our response to the pandemic, we vigorously protect and enforce the civil rights of all to the fullest extent permitted by our laws as passed by Congress," said Roger Severino, who directs the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services, in a written statement announcing that the HHS rule had become final. The rule is set to go into effect by mid-August.

It is one of many rules and regulations put forward by the Trump administration that defines "sex discrimination" as only applying when someone faces discrimination for being male or female, and does not protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Supporters of the new rule said this is a necessary reversal of Obama-era executive overreach and will reduce confusion about the legal meaning of "sex discrimination." Critics argue the rule could further harm an already vulnerable group — transgender people — in the midst of a pandemic and historic unrest spurred by the killing of George Floyd at the hands of police in Minneapolis.

"I can't help but wonder if the timing [of this rule] is by design so that this is something that people won't pay attention to," said Tia Sherèe Gaynor, a political science professor at the University of Cincinnati.

This is quite literally the most reprehensible thing that I have witnessed today: to see protections for trans people get rolled back, especially on the fourth anniversary of the Pulse shooting is just sickening. My blood is boiling with rage, and I vehemently oppose this measure, particularly as according to Lindsey Dawson, "[u]nder the new rule, a transgender person could, for example, be refused care for a checkup at a doctor's office," which can be used by doctors to discriminate against trans people.

What are your thoughts on this reprehensible document?

I hate to break it to you but the "protections"" weren't doing anything. If a doctor didn't want to see a trans patient, all he has to do is make up something about not taking their insurance. Or that he's not accepting new patients. Boom, protections did nothing.

[The Crownless]

I'm just a realist sweaty

Mark my words, Biden cannot and will not win.

Sure he can, he's a mediocre candidate but mediocre candidates win all the time, a large percentage of the vote isn't that candidate-dependent anyway, and he doesn't provoke strong feelings in people but the thought of Trump does. There's nothing magical required to win a presidential election, we attribute a lot of power, traits, etc. to people who win by circumstances mostly outside their own doing. It's like if you said "Trent Dilfer cannot and will not win a Super Bowl" or "Argo cannot and will not win an Oscar." He's more than capable of winning by default, even if he's not capable of much at all. Even Trump won a lot by default on the anti-Hillary vote (and electoral college luck), it wasn't like he had a particularly strong showing, we just love to form inevitability narratives by nature.

[Sundiata]

*obligatory "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" meme*
In all seriousness, the Catholic Church teaches to treat LGBT people with respect and dignity.

I mean, I know many Catholics are decent on LGBT issues, it's just that Sundiata has historically not been one of those

I often say that we should not condemn people who have homosexual inclinations and gender dysphoria in the Christian discussion thread.

[Cekoviu]

I mean, I know many Catholics are decent on LGBT issues, it's just that Sundiata has historically not been one of those

I often say that we should not condemn people who have homosexual inclinations and gender dysphoria in the Christian discussion thread.

well, i don't read the CDT because it's basically just a catholic circlejerk, also you should put your money where your mouth is and not advocate for homophobic and transphobic ideas

[Sundiata]

See?

I think that we as Christians need to show more solidarity with people who struggle with same-sex attraction. It saddens me to see homophobia and judgemental comments from my fellow Christians with respect to this.

We need to show this community that we're serious about our love for them.

[The Crownless]

Source



This is quite literally the most reprehensible thing that I have witnessed today: to see protections for trans people get rolled back, especially on the fourth anniversary of the Pulse shooting is just sickening. My blood is boiling with rage, and I vehemently oppose this measure, particularly as according to Lindsey Dawson, "[u]nder the new rule, a transgender person could, for example, be refused care for a checkup at a doctor's office," which can be used by doctors to discriminate against trans people.

What are your thoughts on this reprehensible document?

I hate to break it to you but the "protections"" weren't doing anything. If a doctor didn't want to see a trans patient, all he has to do is make up something about not taking their insurance. Or that he's not accepting new patients. Boom, protections did nothing.

I see what you mean, and the enforcement should have been enhanced, but there's a difference between there being an exploited loophole and an open sanction of discrimination. Both morally, and practically, it does deter some, and provides a basis for a lawsuit.

[Cekoviu]

See?

I think that we as Christians need to show more solidarity with people who struggle with same-sex attraction. It saddens me to see homophobia and judgemental comments from my fellow Christians with respect to this.

We need to show this community that we're serious about our love for them.

"struggle with same-sex attraction"
the only person who's struggling with it is you tbqh

[The Crownless]

See?

"struggle with same-sex attraction"
the only person who's struggling with it is you tbqh

Yeah, without the religious imposition of saying it's something to "struggle" against it's just joyful and true.

[Sundiata]

I often say that we should not condemn people who have homosexual inclinations and gender dysphoria in the Christian discussion thread.

well, i don't read the CDT because it's basically just a catholic circlejerk, also you should put your money where your mouth is and not advocate for homophobic and transphobic ideas

I'm sincerely trying. To reference Aquinas, if you aren't happy, I won't be happy.

[Crockerland]

They had to move out. The logs got dry rot.

Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Trump in 2016 ... well duh, they are Republicans ... but maybe they won't endorse anyone this year.

That's not even true. And it was a big source of controversy, rightly so, since Trump was supportive of marriage equality and thus far more pro-gay than all the presidential nominees the Log Cabin Republicans had endorsed (Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney).

[The Republic of Fore]

I hate to break it to you but the "protections"" weren't doing anything. If a doctor didn't want to see a trans patient, all he has to do is make up something about not taking their insurance. Or that he's not accepting new patients. Boom, protections did nothing.

I see what you mean, and the enforcement should have been enhanced, but there's a difference between there being an exploited loophole and an open sanction of discrimination. Both morally, and practically, it does deter some, and provides a basis for a lawsuit.

Eh, personally I've never been one for useless gestures. There's already enough lawsuits in our society. I'm pretty sure trans people will survive finding a new doctor.

[Necroghastia]

Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Trump in 2016 ... well duh, they are Republicans ... but maybe they won't endorse anyone this year.

That's not even true. And it was a big source of controversy, rightly so, since Trump was supportive of marriage equality and thus far more pro-gay than all the presidential nominees the Log Cabin Republicans had endorsed (Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney).

*looks at who trump chose for vp*
yeah keep telling yourself that

[Crockerland]

That's not even true. And it was a big source of controversy, rightly so, since Trump was supportive of marriage equality and thus far more pro-gay than all the presidential nominees the Log Cabin Republicans had endorsed (Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney).

*looks at who trump chose for vp*
yeah keep telling yourself that

Are you unironically suggesting he's worse than Paul Ryan? I think that speaks for itself.

[The Crownless]

I see what you mean, and the enforcement should have been enhanced, but there's a difference between there being an exploited loophole and an open sanction of discrimination. Both morally, and practically, it does deter some, and provides a basis for a lawsuit.

Eh, personally I've never been one for useless gestures. There's already enough lawsuits in our society. I'm pretty sure trans people will survive finding a new doctor.

A law on the books isn't a "useless gesture," it's enforceable in courts, creates an effect in practice, and provides the legal foundation for even better protections. This isn't painting a street or running an ad.

None of the trans people I know seem as flippant about "I'm sure I'll survive finding a new doctor" either, and the cis LGBQ people I know are worried about this too.

[Sundiata]

See?

"struggle with same-sex attraction"
the only person who's struggling with it is you tbqh

I practice celibacy.

Anyway, people who experience same-sex attraction should be protected under the law. No to discrimination.

[The Crownless]

"struggle with same-sex attraction"
the only person who's struggling with it is you tbqh

I practice celibacy.

Okay, so heterosexuality and homosexuality seem equally removed, do you talk about heterosexual people as "struggling with opposite-sex attraction"?

[Cekoviu]

"struggle with same-sex attraction"
the only person who's struggling with it is you tbqh

I practice celibacy.

Anyway, people who experience same-sex attraction should be protected under the law. No to discrimination.

er, i'm not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding or if you just missed the semantic flip
my point is that you have issues with people being gay, gay people are not the problem

[Vassenor]

Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Trump in 2016 ... well duh, they are Republicans ... but maybe they won't endorse anyone this year.

That's not even true. And it was a big source of controversy, rightly so, since Trump was supportive of marriage equality and thus far more pro-gay than all the presidential nominees the Log Cabin Republicans had endorsed (Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney).

>keeps calling for overturning Obergefell and re-instituting marriage bans

>chooses Mike Pence and his history of homophobic policy positions as a running mate

>supportive of marriage equality

One of these things is not like the others