Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Joe Biden's plans for LGBT+

133 replies

SunsetBeetch · 19/08/2020 10:32

Whilst there are lots of good thing in here (the reversing of the ban on trans people in the military, for example), there is also this:

"Guaranteeing transgender students have access to facilities based on their gender identity. On his first day in office, Biden will reinstate the Obama-Biden guidance revoked by the Trump-Pence Administration, which will restore transgender students’ access to sports, bathrooms, and locker rooms in accordance with their gender identity. He will direct his Department of Education to vigorously enforce and investigate violations of transgender students’ civil rights."

How he squares this with his pledges regarding women's rights, I do not know. I could scream!

joebiden.com/lgbtq-policy/

OP posts:
SocialMedea · 19/08/2020 10:38

He is handing votes to Tango.

Suffrajester · 19/08/2020 10:39

He's going to alienate a lot of voters. I remember on Twitter he was saying "trans rights are this era's civil rights movement", as if the civil rights movement were over and Black Americans have equality now. Utterly out of touch with the realities of working class life and the people he expects to vote for him.

MadamBatty · 19/08/2020 10:48

Utterly insulting to the Civil Rights movement too.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 19/08/2020 10:56

How out of touch must he be to think this will resonate with the voters he needs to win back from Trump?

teawamutu · 19/08/2020 11:08

So similar to Labour - don't think about appealing to the voters you need to get in to government, just preach to the converted.

highame · 19/08/2020 11:09

This could be a major error. I was going to vote Lib Dem at the last election. Never done that before, always voted Labour. However, suddenly their utterly stupid wokeness ended up with me spoiling my ballot and a lot of people I know did the same thing or voted Conservative.

Do political parties know anything about the electorate? Lots of voters in the US will be despairing of Trump but when it comes to their daughters, that's a different ball game. Women will re-think their votes. I just really, really don't get it. Trump will just use this to inflame division.

ThinEndoftheWedge · 19/08/2020 11:13

Does anyone think Trump will use this on his campaign? A bit of an open goal surely.

It doesn't matter how much the Democrats try to make out only right wing Christian evangelicals are against this - most normal people can see clearly that allowing males access to female only spaces/sport on the say so of the male is utterly insane.

Could it bring some welcome sunlight? (Yes - I am trying hard to find a chink of hope on this).

highame · 19/08/2020 11:24

Don't forget, Corbyn was so sure he was going to win, so were many others. Democrats are so far ahead in the polls that I doubt this could swing it but you never know. What I do know about the electorate is that they can give bloody noses if they think they're being ignored

fatblackcatspaw · 19/08/2020 11:58

a week is a long time in politics - November is 8 weeks away

Packingsoapandwater · 19/08/2020 12:10

@highame

This could be a major error. I was going to vote Lib Dem at the last election. Never done that before, always voted Labour. However, suddenly their utterly stupid wokeness ended up with me spoiling my ballot and a lot of people I know did the same thing or voted Conservative.

Do political parties know anything about the electorate? Lots of voters in the US will be despairing of Trump but when it comes to their daughters, that's a different ball game. Women will re-think their votes. I just really, really don't get it. Trump will just use this to inflame division.

I've been doing a lot of research and thinking about this issue because it is getting to the point, in the UK, where the schism between the electorate and the establishment is now so wide, it is going to have very far reaching political and cultural consequences.

I think one of the main problems in Britain is that a lot of political representatives, be they MPs or local councillors, don't have any ongoing exposure to the daily reality of their constituency or ward. They didn't grow up there or go to school there. They don't actually live there or, if they do, they haven't lived there long. They don't know the people very well.

So all they have is their surgeries and their postbag. Now there seems to be a perspective that the issues that are raised in their surgeries are "outlier issues", or specific to one particular case -- and that everyone else is perfectly fine.

Activists have figured this out and are using it to their advantage. So an MP or councillor might receive a hundred negative emails about, say, renovating a piece of parkland and then presumes the community is against it, when, in truth, everyone else wants the project to go ahead -- they just haven't contacted the MP or councillor to tell them so.

I think this is what leads to the odd priorities we are seeing. Coupled with Twitter silos, many MPs and councillors are now chasing policies that the vast majority of people find either bizarre or alarming, and they are not tackling issues that the majority of people in an area really find concerning.

It is one reason why I have real problems with parachuting candidates into constituencies or the idea of abolishing the local connection qualifier.

Ideally, I'd like to abolish party political candidates all together and have elections that elected an "independent" constituency representative based on prior community representative work that then, through a constituency referendum, sat in the chamber according to the results. So you don't elect the Labour candidate or Tory candidate, you elect a candidate and then tell him where to sit.

All Tory returns would mean a candidate joined the Conservative group. All Labour returns would mean a candidate joined the Labour group. 50/50 would mean a candidate joined a central group. And I'd quite like to get rid of whips, but that would mean the flow of legislation would slow down exponentially, but that might not be a bad thing considering the amount of bad and unexamined law that is being passed.

If things don't change, and fast, I can see the US fracturing and certain states ceding from the union. In the UK, if the LibDems and Labour continue down this road, I can see the necessity for a new political party.

Otherwise, you gonna end up with massive political, social and cultural discontent.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 19/08/2020 12:10

Do you think it’s associated with the democrats getting funding with strings attached from tech billionaires?

Goosefoot · 19/08/2020 12:16

Whilst there are lots of good thing in here (the reversing of the ban on trans people in the military, for example), there is also this:

This isn't even as straightforward as it seems. Having medicalised people in the military is a problem - generally they avoid having people who require regular medication or who have very specialist healthcare needs. If you send people out to a military base in the wilds of a foreign country, or they are off on a ship for six months, it's not like they have access to that care or can always be sure their medications will be available.

Goosefoot · 19/08/2020 12:19

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel

Do you think it’s associated with the democrats getting funding with strings attached from tech billionaires?
I think its associated with the fact that the Democrats are as committed to big business, banks, and globalism as the Republicans, and need some easy social causes to differentiate themselves as the nice guys. In fact these days, with Trump, they seem to be more attached to those things than the Republicans are.
DianasLasso · 19/08/2020 13:12

@Goosefoot

Whilst there are lots of good thing in here (the reversing of the ban on trans people in the military, for example), there is also this:

This isn't even as straightforward as it seems. Having medicalised people in the military is a problem - generally they avoid having people who require regular medication or who have very specialist healthcare needs. If you send people out to a military base in the wilds of a foreign country, or they are off on a ship for six months, it's not like they have access to that care or can always be sure their medications will be available.

Quite so - a young male relative of mine wanted to join the navy. He'd had childhood asthma, which ceased to be symptomatic at puberty, but had never got round to cancelling the repeat prescription for the inhaler.

Refused on medical grounds. He now has to wait (forget whether it's 3 or 5 years) and be able to demonstrate that he's been symptom free for this period.

Because the last thing you want is someone on a warship, 100s of miles off the coast, possibly while the ship's at action stations, needing medical attention.

Lisz · 19/08/2020 13:20

Interesting re Trump. This was 2016 when he was already very much running for Prez..

www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/trump-transgender-bathrooms-222257

"Leave it the way it is," he said, referring to companies that have canceled plans to move or expand businesses in the state as a result of the law, which bans transgender individuals from using a bathroom that does not match their gender at birth.

"There have been very few complaints the way it is... They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate," Trump said. "There has been so little trouble.. ". Matt Lauer then asked whether Trump has any transgender people working for his company. "I really don't know. I probably do. I really don't know," Trump said, answering that he would allow, say, transgender celebrity Caitlyn Jenner to use whatever bathroom she wanted at Trump Tower.

He added, "You know, there's a big move to create new bathrooms. Problem with that is for transgender, that would be—first of all, I think that would be discriminatory in a certain way. That would be unbelievably expensive for businesses in the country. Leave it the way it is."

I don't recall there being much fuss made at the time about it. He and Biden, not for the first time and certainly not the last i suspect, seem to feel the same way about it. They have to maybe say they think differently on the issue in public but that's where Google comes in handy.

ErrolTheDragon · 19/08/2020 13:22

@Goosefoot

Whilst there are lots of good thing in here (the reversing of the ban on trans people in the military, for example), there is also this:

This isn't even as straightforward as it seems. Having medicalised people in the military is a problem - generally they avoid having people who require regular medication or who have very specialist healthcare needs. If you send people out to a military base in the wilds of a foreign country, or they are off on a ship for six months, it's not like they have access to that care or can always be sure their medications will be available.

Presumably that could/should be covered by applying the usual rules re medications rather than having a blanket ban dependent on whether someone says they're trans or not?
highame · 19/08/2020 13:22

Ideally, I'd like to abolish party political candidates all together and have elections that elected an "independent" constituency representative based on prior community representative work that then, through a constituency referendum, sat in the chamber according to the results. So you don't elect the Labour candidate or Tory candidate, you elect a candidate and then tell him where to sit.

Past evidence says this isn't a great idea. Look at the Police & Crime Commissioners, you get one or two good and lots of bad. As an electorate, we tend to be lazy and not look at what we're voting for.

With the current system, at least a bit of vetting goes on before we are presented with our candidate and we know what to expect from them because of manifestos etc.

Local connections good and would like to get rid of career politicians.

happydappy2 · 19/08/2020 13:23

It is very dangerous, for a male to have a firearm, and because he 'identifies as a woman' be put in charge of supervising a group of women in a country far far away. This is just not a workable policy imho. Think of the cultural sensitivities.

Of course big Pharma benefit from this but women serving in the military certainly do not, if they are expected to share sleeping facilities with Tom who now identifies as Tanya.

Goosefoot · 19/08/2020 17:10

Presumably that could/should be covered by applying the usual rules re medications rather than having a blanket ban dependent on whether someone says they're trans or not?

Yes, though it may not simply be about medications. I don't know that a flat ban is really necessary, but there are a number f complications that could be relevant in a military context. Where is this person going to be housed when in group setting? Do they expect to be accommodated as the sex they identify as? As was suggested above, how do you manage safety and dignity issues in other cultural settings? What about military roles that are in some way restricted by sex (though these may be disappearing soon in the US?) What about the draft?

Goosefoot · 19/08/2020 17:12

Also - what about things like fitness testing, which often uses different standards for men and women soldiers?

RadicalFern · 19/08/2020 17:25

Last election the Democrats took a gamble that the votes they would win by playing identity politics would be greater than those they would lose through abandoning various sectors of the true-Blue working classes. They lost badly on this gamble, but seem to have utterly failed to learn from this experience despite having had four years to mull it over.

merrymouse · 19/08/2020 17:56

This is not at all like any recent UK election.

It would only be comparable if the Conservatives had included 'restrict abortion rights' in their manifesto.

Yes Labour and Lib Dems alienated voters by appearing out of touch, but they also weren't running against Trump/Pence.

FWRLurker · 19/08/2020 18:04

The correct approach to this issue is to Lobby and Letter write to the dems HARD. Not to vote for the rapist in chief and his homophobic, anti choice 2nd in command.

LaurieFairyCake · 19/08/2020 18:06

Why are people saying the Democrats are ahead in the polls Confused

Trump is going to win easily unfortunately (I really wish not Sad)

LaurieFairyCake · 19/08/2020 18:07

No ones ever won in the modern era with Bidens strategy

Running against an incumbent while running as part of a presidential establishment