Trump and LGBT+ Voting

[Sunscreeneveryday]

I was looking at the Sky news breakdown of the US Exit polls, showing how different groups voted.

According to the data from Sky, those who voted Yes to the question "Are you gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender?" overwhelmingly voted for Trump (76%).

It's early and I haven't slept much, can anyone explain this? My brain really hasn't woken up yet.

It's understandable that Cubans in Florida are apprehensive about any drift to the far left by the Democrats having escaped the Communist regime in Cuba.

@LadyWithLapdog

Pro-trans is pro-equality agenda and I don’t see how that’s a bad thing. Get over it.

In what way are trans people not fully equal to the rest of the population? Seriously, please spell it out.

They are fully protected when it comes to employment, housing, services — so many things that until relatively recently the LGB community weren't, and for which we had to fight.

What’s disappointing is that the majority of threads get turned into this endless discussion about toilets.

? This is a specific discussion about Trump & LGBT. Trump's actions in this area have focused on the access of transwomen to women's single-sex spaces. Why would you be surprised about that in this context?

@Shedbuilder

They are fully protected when it comes to employment, housing, services — so many things that until relatively recently the LGB community weren't, and for which we had to fight.

No they aren't. Non binary people have no formal protection in law and neither do any other trans people who do not meet the threshold of gender reassignment. As many often point out, gender identity is not a protected characteristic.

Trans people gained some formal rights with the Sex Discrimination Gender Reassignment regulations in 1999 however these only applied to the workplace and those who had begun medical transition. LGB people gained similar rights in 2003. Both groups had these rights extended to prohibit discrimination in the supply of goods and services in 2007. However it was not until the 2010 Equality Act that trans people who had not begun medical transition were protected. So at best you could argue that LGB and Trans rights have pretty much progressed hand in hand, although many trans people do not have formal protection. But your statement as it stands is far from the true picture.

Non binary people have no formal protection in law

Why do non binary people need formal protection? From what? Surely this is unworkable as literally anyone can identify as NB and can change their mind the next day. With such an unstable 'category' it's hard to know what protections you could technically give. Luckily though, they continue to have their human rights and protections, no matter how they identify.

I also don't get what rights trans people don't have or what it is they aren't protected from?

@queenofknives

Non binary people have no formal protection in law

Why do non binary people need formal protection? From what? Surely this is unworkable as literally anyone can identify as NB and can change their mind the next day. With such an unstable 'category' it's hard to know what protections you could technically give. Luckily though, they continue to have their human rights and protections, no matter how they identify.

I also don't get what rights trans people don't have or what it is they aren't protected from?

Whilst the recent Jaguar verdict siggests the court may draw the definition of gender reassignment more broadly than thought it would in theory be legal to refuse to employ someone or rent a flat to them because they were openly gender fluid or vocally identified as non-binary. Depending on the circumstances protection based on sex might come into play but it's all very grey, there is no specific protection for those who are gender nonconforming, non binary or gender fluid.

Just like other women, trans women should have the right to walk down the street at night without worried about being attacked, or to get a minicab on their own without worrying about sexual abuse. Trans people should have the right to evidenced based healthcare when they need it, not three or four years down the line after endless waitinglists and gatekeeping. Trans people should have the right to use toilets and changing rooms safely and with dignity no matter what non trans people ultimately decide we should do - many many trans people currently avoid toilets and changing rooms altogether. Trans survivors should have the right to a place of safety, in a male free space if necessary, should they face domestic abuse, and the right to adequate services and support if they are victims of sexual violence. Trans people in prison have the right be housed safely and humanely without an additional punishment tacked on just for being trans such as being left in solitary or moved to a trans wing hundreds of miles from where family can visit. So there's a few to be getting started with.

Back on topic, NYT says 28% of LGBT people voted Trump, which is still a bit troubling, but not quite so much. There's quite an interesting breakdown of the exit polls here: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html

jj1968, anyone who says they are transgender is protected under the Equality Act when it comes to employment, housing and so on, even if they don't have a GRC and even if they do nothing to pursue a GRC. That's the Equality Act 2010. The same act that protects women as a sex class.

Please define non-binary because heaven knows, the people I've known declare themselves non-binary don't seem to be able to agree what it is and switch identities every time the wind changes.

Just like other women, trans women should have the right to walk down the street at night without worried about being attacked
Well, in theory we DO have that right. It's illegal to attack someone in the street. Women of course know that being able to exercise our right to walk about freely isn't a given. And of course how much we worry about it is a different matter altogether. Young males are most likely to be attacked in the street but the level and type of concern about that is quite different.

Again, with the others on the list you mention, those rights already exist for TW. In the case of 'male free spaces' for domestic abuse survivors, that right has been taken away from women by TRAs so it's a bit rich to demand that TW should have a right that has been denied to women. But having said that, I do support TW to have safe spaces to recover from violence and abuse - just not with women. I support TW to create those spaces for TW and would donate money to such causes.

Trans people in prison have the right be housed safely and humanely without an additional punishment tacked on just for being trans such as being left in solitary or moved to a trans wing hundreds of miles from where family can visit.
Yes, I agree with that. I think the trans wings are fine, tbh. Lots of prisoners are housed far from family, and it's not ideal for anyone, but it certainly isn't a particular punishment for trans people. I don't think it's okay to put trans people in solitary 'for their own protection' - but then I guess the prison service is having to balance out safety and protection, and that might be the best option for an individual in the circumstances.

To be honest I really struggle to see non binary people as remotely oppressed or discriminated against in any way. How would a landlord or a potential employer even know that's how you identified in order to discriminate against you.

To be honest I really struggle to see non binary people as remotely oppressed or discriminated against in any way. How would a landlord or a potential employer even know that's how you identified in order to discriminate against you.

Well they might know you, or you might put it on an application form, or they might decide just from the way you look. There's all kinds of ways a potential employer or service provider might decide you were gender fluid, or nonconforming, and if you didn't have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, that is you had no plans to permanently reassign your gdner, then you would not have protection.

But having said that, I do support TW to have safe spaces to recover from violence and abuse - just not with women. I support TW to create those spaces for TW and would donate money to such causes.

Well I'm glad you agree. The thing is the VAWG doesn't want separation, I suspect because they have so few trans users that they don't want to see funding and skilled workers diverted for half a dozen people a year which they are confident they can safely manage in the existing system - which is now quite often shared flats, or even self contained units. The refuge sector desperately needs more funding, not funding diverted to be spent on half empty trans refuges.

Whilst the recent Jaguar verdict siggests the court may draw the definition of gender reassignment more broadly than thought

possibly. This decision does appear to be wrong; the Equality Act was drawn up by Parliament to protect males who wished to live as females, or vice versa, not those who claimed to be neither.

However Taylor claims to be a transwoman on Twitter twitter.com/roseengineer

so it is not clear what is non-binary

It seems that Taylor would have had the relevant protected characteristic, simply by claiming to be 'a transwoman'.

The non-binary bit looks to have been targeted by activist lawyers eager to expand the boundaries of the law.

They claimed gender assignment 'concerns a personal journey of moving a gender away from birth sex' was stated by the Solicitor-General, as support for this.

www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2008-09/Equality_Bill/07-0_2009-06-16a.4.0#g4.6

However this does not seem to be the case.

With context:

Clause 7
"A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

I would like the Minister to elucidate on the situation in which someone is not considering living in another gender, but the external manifestation leaves them looking indeterminate. How would they get protection if they were to be discriminated against for being unable to be identified as male or female?

A:

It would depend upon the definition in clause 7. If she feels that such people are neglected, I should point out that nothing in the amendment would help them. We are talking about an amendment changing the definition of when someone triggers this particular protection, not extending the definition within clause 7, so we can focus on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Daventry.

As I have said already, if we thought the hon. Gentleman’s proposals would help, we would consider them further. However, we do not, for the reason I have outlined, which is that there has to be a practical way to trigger protection against discrimination. Let us remember the perception element. If people manifest what is thought to be a tendency to move towards the opposite sex—away from their sex identity—they might be perceived to be within the definition under the provision. They will therefore have protection when they make those manifestations on the basis of perception. Any behaviour that may be a precursor to an individual proposing to undergo gender reassignment may be covered by perception, so anyone who has gender diaspora and experiments with transvestitism before starting the process of living full-time or even from time to time in what they see as becoming their acquired gender will be protected.

There does not seem to be a problem about people who are considering reassigning their gender. We have covered the territory directly under the definition and through perception to cover those who are making manifestations or who may be misperceived to be in the process of gender reassignment. We have to cope with the fact that the public are probably not massively well informed and will make relatively simple judgments about people. The individual who is misperceived to be on a journey, when, in fact, they are manifesting something that is not part of a journey, will be protected. We have deliberately cast the definition widely to cover all those who need protection against discrimination. We have no evidence that there is a need for anything wider.

---

So it seems to me that 'non-binary' is a load of rubbish here - since gender is not an objective thing in any case, and there is no difference between non-binary and transwoman other than you telling everyone that you are non-binary, then the person is protected because they claim to be a transwoman, and everything else is just legal point-scoring.

The problem of course is that the next step is Pips/Philip asserting a right to use different toilets each day, which is ludicrous, whereas 'Ms Taylor' (why Ms if non-binary) was bullied for wearing women's clothes etc., which is just a straightforward claim which could be won, as in the US, under sex discrimination law, as found by Trump-apointee Neil Gorsuch in the Aimee Stephens case.

There wasn't even a need to go to 'transgender discrimation' let alone have a debate about 'non-binary', since being bullied for wearing women's clothes to work because of your sex is a case that stands up as sex discrimination, which we've had laws about in the UK since 1975.

I know this will not come over well but really once you are in prison for a crime you don't get to bleat about where you want to be placed. This is not some kind of holiday - its punishment / keeping you away from the rest of the general population for their protection. And if anyone can come up with a clear definiation of non binary which isn't some kind of teenage whining I await with interest. Now going to write to my elected representatives.

whereas 'Ms Taylor' (why Ms if non-binary) was bullied for wearing women's clothes etc., which is just a straightforward claim which could be won, as in the US, under sex discrimination law, as found by Trump-apointee Neil Gorsuch in the Aimee Stephens case.

That was in the US. Under UK law gender or sex based dress codes could potentially be legal as long as the they have equal impact on men and women. So it may be legal to insist women wear a skirt and men wear trousers but not make up which takes time and money or heels which could be uncomfortable or cause physical problems. There's not much case law here but gender nonconformity has little protection in law.

Well they might know you, or you might put it on an application form, or they might decide just from the way you look. There's all kinds of ways a potential employer or service provider might decide you were gender fluid, or nonconforming, and if you didn't have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, that is you had no plans to permanently reassign your gdner, then you would not have protection.

No one can tell by the way you look if you identify as non binary and if you have no plans to "reassign your gender" then of course you can't be protected by the category of gender reassignment. This is a complete non-issue.

I don't know where you are from JJ but you would be hard pressed to find worries about Scotsmen in Kilts which are worn at work, at special occasions and every day. The only issue with kilts has been the Sgian-dubh a small knife worn in the sock. This is when knife crime laws came in. Gender non conformity is RIFE here. (Which makes the SNP's astonishing regressive stance on well EVERYTHING even more astonishing. ) And not only practised by teenagers.

The refuge sector desperately needs more funding, not funding diverted to be spent on half empty trans refuges.

Yes. TRAs should be working on funding and resourcing shelters for TW and I'm sure that existing women's orgs would be happy to share knowledge and expertise built up since we decided to fund and resource women's services. TW should not be in women's shelters or using women's services but of course there should be separately funded and resourced services for TW if there is a need for this. It shouldn't come from women's provisions as this is a completely different thing. Violence against males and TW is not something VAWG services are equipped to deal with and we shouldn't be expected to take on a whole new population with different needs and experiences. I wish TRAs would take on the task of setting up services for TW instead of trying to destroy women's provision.

@fatblackcatspaw

I know this will not come over well but really once you are in prison for a crime you don't get to bleat about where you want to be placed. This is not some kind of holiday - its punishment / keeping you away from the rest of the general population for their protection. And if anyone can come up with a clear definiation of non binary which isn't some kind of teenage whining I await with interest. Now going to write to my elected representatives.

If you spoke to any ex prisoners you'd know that being placed in a prison near to where people can come and visit is seen as a top priority. Lots of prisoners are from poor families, if someone is placed on the other end of the country then that could mean not seeing close relatives for months on end due to money or work commitments. It is not a trivial matter and was one of the main reasons there was considerable resistance to closing Holloway despite the prison's appalling track record.

Trans only prison wings would mean most trans people moved miles from their local area by default. This means trans people would not be treated equally in the prison system. One likelihood of that is judges recognising it and being more lenient in sentencing which I suspect many of you would not want.

Anyway this is way off topic now. Happy to chat about it on another thread sometime.

One likelihood of that is judges recognising it and being more lenient in sentencing which I suspect many of you would not want

I think this has already started happening with judges recognising that trans women would be at increased risk in the male estate but at the same time pose a risk to women in the female estate.

Personally I would rather see trans women who do not pose a serious risk to the public/women be given non-prison sentences/curfews/tagging etc. It is a better option than housing them with women whilst recognising that they may be at increased risk in the male estate.

trans women prisoners who do pose a risk to women/public (convictions for violence or sexual violence) should never be housed with women. It shouldn't even need risk assessing.

It's early and I haven't slept much, can anyone explain this? My brain really hasn't woken up yet

This thread might help. It seems that LGBT people vote for Trump pretty much for the same reason that non-LGBT people do :)

twitter.com/ArielleScarcell/status/1325541991388762116

Exit poll data is dodgy when it comes to extrapolating %s Trump's share of any population characteristics outside of "Republican." Many Dems posted their ballots in, while Trump specifically discouraged his voters from doing so. Covid incentivised Dems to vote early, GOPs turned up in the day to defy COVID. Exit polls are based on in-person voting, not postal votes - so the sample is skewed from the outset.

The question of why black, brown and LGBT conservatives feel happy voting for conservative policies is really interesting, but we're really not going to get an accurate sizing of how many there are from this year's polls.

Just like other women, trans women should have the right to walk down the street at night without worried about being attacked, or to get a minicab on their own without worrying about sexual abuse.

Agreed - apart from the usual TW are just like other women.

Woman is the sex class of human designed - if everything works - to produce eggs and bear human young.

That ain’t no TW.

One of the reasons the word woman and mother is being systematically erased, but man - well that’s just fine.

Really? To me the discussion is mostly focused on sport and spaces like prisons and shelters where women have little control over their privacy. Don’t see much about toilets.

@nauticant

Trump's success with Latin voters was down to this line being accepted uncritically by many:

"Biden is a socialist."

There are also some Latino voters who are traditional marxists, and also often Catholics, and they don't tend to have a natural candidate in either party these days. Some of that group voted for Trump the first time though I don't know if many carried on to do so this time.