Prejudiced and hysterical (Biden)

[GarethSouthgatesWaistcoat]

I'm appalled (but not surprised) that objecting to the erosion of women's rights and children's safeguarding is now classed as prejudiced and hysterical according to the US president:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12175401/amp/Biden-calls-critics-transgender-surgeries-care-hysterical-prejudiced.html

It makes no sense though, you're discriminating against women based on sex if you allow anyone who's male to self ID into their private spaces, because it will mean many women will have to self-exclude from public life. Which was the whole point of female only toilets etc in the first place.

I mean, I don't know why I'm at all surprised. This is a country where successive Democratic Presidents failed to ensure that the right to abortion was enshrined in law, relying on the very shaky (and known to be shaky) precedent from case law.

They said they'd do it, they didn't because women are second class citizens in the USA.

So are children. Why I'm surprised by the misogyny when they are apparently willing to accept child deaths from school shootings at a rate that don't occur anywhere else in the world as some kind of acceptable thing.

At the moment, employers and service providers cannot discriminate on the grounds of race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin. However, the legal environment around this is very different from the UK, because of the strong protections for the autonomy of States, and because of the First Amendment, which is much broader than what we think of as free speech.

Equality protections are pretty weak. For example, the outrageous gerrymandering of Congressional districts - by both sides but at the moment particularly by Republicans, trying to concentrate all black voters into a few districts - carries on, despite Supreme Court judgements that it is unconstitutional.

Ahem - Boris Johnson 😉

“(2) GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.
“(3) INCLUDING.—The term ‘including’ means including, but not limited to, consistent with the term's standard meaning in Federal law.
“(4) SEX.—The term ‘sex’ includes—
“(A) a sex stereotype;
“(B) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition;
“(C) sexual orientation or gender identity; and
“(D) sex characteristics, including intersex traits.

(My bold).

How the fuck is that a workable definition?

Prejudiced and hysterical describes Biden perfectly. It's a good job there aren't any important issues like women and girls being denied access to vital abortion care, the fentanyl epidemic and places like Skid Row because if there were he wouldn't have time to focus on the privileged luxury beliefs of his lobbyists.

no fan of Johnson, but to claim he was akin to trump is just mad I’m afraid.
‘furthermore, he is not on the menu anymore. The US in 24 is looking at the same terrible choices as in 20. That’s not a healthy place.

And the Dems did not act to enshrine the right to abortion, at the points when they were in a position to do so.

They pretend that no one ever thought Roe v Wade would be reversed, but that is absolute bollocks because RvW was always somewhat tenuous because of its reliance on the right to privacy and because it was arguably unconstitutional in how it constrained State law-making. There were always lawyers who warned it was vulnerable.

The truth is that the Dems benefitted - and continue to benefit - from the anti-abortion activism of Republicans, and so it was not in their interests to resolve the matter. They put political expediency before protecting women.

“The surgeons involved can't see the wood for the trees”

where ‘trees’=$$$$

As has been said many times: 'If God had meant the USA to have a President, He would have given them a candidate.'

Yes and have to say he is right. This is a private issue between the patient/parents and their medical staff who know this stuff rather than speculate and gesticulate and shout its mutilation.

Thank god for Biden. Some common sense around all the anti LGBT stuff.

Stops the onlooker ghouls posting pics and expressing their bigotry when time and time again the vast vast majority of trans peeps express satisfaction at their treatment.

trans peeps

The infantilisation around this topic is interesting. Is it because so many of them are children?

Sounds similar to some responses from leaders we’ve had here

It’s not far off ‘bigoted and shrill’

A la Drakeford

I was being slightly tongue in cheek. I agree Johnson isn't Trump but I don't agree we have necessarily seen the back of him (Johnson).

There are definite parallels in how both countries have had to choose between two bad options at critical times, though: Trump v Biden, Johnson v Corbyn.

And we get a very negative slant on US policy here - it's all about the negatives: Roe v Wade, the 2nd Amendment etc. But there are some features of the US that I would love to see here, notably the breadth of its Free Speech protections which, though they inevitably have downsides, are incredibly powerful in protecting the citizen from the over-reach of authority.

.lifeturnsonadime · Today 08:56
Well he's right that it is appalling that in the US gay people don't have employment rights.

Is he right? Many comments under the article bring up the point that under US law you cannot be fired for being gay or trans.

You imply by “private” that “it doesn’t affect you” Mishy. But it affects children/minors (ours and others) that need protection from immature decisions that could harm their bodies. It affects women’s sports/jails/changing rooms/wards. It may not affect you adversely but that doesn’t green light it for kids and women.

What first convinced you that the alteration of a child's body to match their 'gender identity', leaving them sterile with impaired sexual function and multiple health issues throughout their life, was the best way to help them?

So Biden met Dylan Mulvaney, has he met/listened to any detransitioners yet? If not, why not? Surely their stories are important too?

staff who know this stuff
There are US staff who certainly do “know this stuff”. Have you seen the gender surgeon and paediatrician on the “What is a Woman” video?

And then those promoting these surgeries and pharmaceuticals must also be very pleased with the $$$$$. The younger it begins the more there will be for them.

As for the parents, they are either being coerced or lied to and confused by trans ideology and said doctors, or transing their possibly gay, gender non-conforming child, or are transhausens by proxy.

"Hysterical" - a word with misogynist roots, that figures.

It depends on whether you mean protection by primary legislation.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawed discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, colour, national origin or religion. It did not include sexual orientation or gender identity (unsurprisingly) but, in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that sex should be taken to include gender identity and sexual orientation. So, on paper, that extends the protections to gay and trans people. But the problem is that SC judgements are often chipped away at, by subsequent cases - as happened with Roe v Wade, for example: its scope had been narrowed, years before it was overturned. And, as happened with Roe v Wade, a SC judgement can be completely overturned whereas, once a right is enshrined by primary legislation, it cannot usually be overturned without further primary legislation (at least in theory).

So I think it is reasonable to claim that gay and trans people currently have less secure employment rights than other protected groups, even though they do have the same rights at present.

This is all Federal law. In some states, State law gives protected groups additional employment protections - summary here

MissLucyEyelesbarrow · Today 14:18
Thank you very much for explaining the US law.

If I have understood you correctly, it seems Biden is wrong in someways, as there is protection under the law for gay and trans people, but he is right in that the legislation as it stands is not as secure as it could be: it could be overturned just as Roe vs. Wade was.

Yes. Note the double standard: the Dems never tried to protect the right to abortion through primary legislation, even though it was on more tenuous grounds than LGBT rights as it relied on a rather convoluted interpretation of the right to privacy. But Biden is eager to shore up LGBT rights.

I don't think anyone should face discrimination for being gay or trans, but I note the prioritisation and the weaponisation of abortion. Abortion is worth more to Dems as a stick to beat the Republicans with.

Misogynist bloke is misogynist.

If he wants to see prejudice, he needs to take a look at the TQ+ political lobby's feelings about women who say no. And then ask himself why he thinks it's a jolly good thing.